The Sea Change in Nonprofit Human Services: A Critical Assessment of Outcomes Measurement

Abstract

Outcomes assessment or program evaluation has historically been an infrequent activity within nonprofit agencies. Directservice agencies have routinely focused on measures of output as indicators of impact rather than on measures related to outcomes and effectiveness. Funders of program services (e.g., United Way, foundations, government agencies) exercise substantial influence over the use of evaluation by recipient programs and agencies. The essential task of identifying outcomes and implementing the processes associated with the outcome measurement enterprise, however, fall squarely on the nonprofits themselves. This paper discusses and critiques the outcome measurement approach from the perspective of a direct service agency and suggests how the available methods can be adopted most successfully.

The devil is in the details: Implementing secular outcome measurement methods in faith‐based organizations

“…Fischer (2001) identified likely pitfalls that nonprofit agencies face in moving to outcomes measurement, and these issues apply equally well to FBOs Agency provides 1 director, 2 social workers, 1 job developer, 2 resident manager couples, and 1 assistant resident manager; 14 unit efficiency apartment facility and 7 bed maternity facility; state licensing; resources for day care, job training, family planning, and prenatal care.…”

Is Constituent Feedback Living up to Its Promise? Provider Perceptions of Feedback Practices in Nonprofit Human Service Organizations

“…These resources are not given freely; they are intended to lead to a meaningful result defined by a contract or grant agreement developed by an organization in collaboration with a donor. Fund accountability is about verifying that recipient organizations used the resources they were given to do what they said they would do and/or accomplish what they said they would accomplish (Benjamin, 2008;Carson, 2000;Coastal Enterprises, 2006;Easterling, 2000;Fischer, 2001;Hoefer, 2000;Jordan, 2005;Oxfam, 2008). This tradition provides the rationale for the United Way and other funders' emphasis on outcome measurement, as a means of documenting what happened as a result of a funder's investment in an organization.…”

Evaluating Area‐based Interventions: The Case of ‘Communities for Children’

“…A disadvantage of this simple ‘pre and post’ design is its vulnerability to bias from natural growth and change in individuals and communities. This strategy is thus argued to insufficiently attribute cause, as it simply documents changes occurring in the lives of clients, without supporting claims these were produced directly by programmes (Fischer, 2001, p. 566). Because of this weakness, the National Evaluation has prepared pre‐ and post‐questionnaires for service users to complete in order to provide evaluative information to service provider organisations.…”