Today Sally Beatty wrote a Wall Street Journal article on: effectiveness. Yes, on the ability of donors to track the effectiveness of the charities they give to. Annie E. Casey, Edna McConnell Clark and Latin American Youth Center were all included as was Youth Villages.  We don’t need to editorialize it—just go read it. Accountability, measurability and effectiveness are beginning to enter the national dialogue. SS of the NYT also wrote today — on GiveWell. And, philanthrophy.com reports that the exec director of Charity Navigator is leaving. We link to Trent’s site so you can hear it straight from him.

Today Sally Beatty wrote a Wall Street Journal article on: effectiveness. Yes, on the ability of donors to track the effectiveness of the charities they give to. Annie E. Casey, Edna McConnell Clark and Latin American Youth Center were all included as was Youth Villages.  We don’t need to editorialize it—just go read it. Accountability, measurability and effectiveness are beginning to enter the national dialogue. SS of the NYT also wrote today — on GiveWell. And, philanthrophy.com reports that the exec director of Charity Navigator is leaving. We link to Trent’s site so you can hear it straight from him.

WEF is coming in January. And, direct from the horse’s mouth: “a closer examination of the international environment also reveals that leadership vacuums are beginning to emerge on a wide range of critical issues looming on the horizon. Moreover, a paradox has emerged in our networked world where knowledge is ubiquitous and change is rapid, but the absence of a common vision and agenda ensures that the status quo will be maintained with respect to major global challenges.” LINK There are five “pillars,” Business, Economics and Finance, Geopolitics, Science and Technology, Values and Society.

Leadership vacuums, ahem. We see a leadership vacuum of our own...as there is increasing debate about the delivery and value of “charity,” and the move to social investing, with all its baggage. We read articles EVERYWHERE that debate the status of foundations, evaluation, program effectiveness and more. From national articles calling for accountability, to regional articles that are basic tutorials on how not to get scammed, charity is in the news. The rise of volunteerism, charity watch groups and cynicism among potential donors is on the rise.

While we can’t host our own WEF, we can start to fight back. According to a recent post of Guy Kawasaki, it is word of mouth referrals that power decision makers, not necessarily “influencers.” Okay, this is related to online communications — and is advertising based.  However, there may be something to it for our space. How does the macro (WEF) trickle into the micro (our daily work). Think the Devil Wears Prada. (Miranda’s lecture on the evolution of the lumpy blue sweater). Or, for our community: how do we bubble UP.

Our community is head-down doing good work. Measuring it. Testing it. Changing its programs as needed. Take a moment to share your successes outside our community – tell a colleague. Tell a friend. Go viral. Why? Because we believe real anecdotes, successes and challenges are what will make a difference.

WEF is coming in January. And, direct from the horse’s mouth: “a closer examination of the international environment also reveals that leadership vacuums are beginning to emerge on a wide range of critical issues looming on the horizon. Moreover, a paradox has emerged in our networked world where knowledge is ubiquitous and change is rapid, but the absence of a common vision and agenda ensures that the status quo will be maintained with respect to major global challenges.” LINK There are five “pillars,” Business, Economics and Finance, Geopolitics, Science and Technology, Values and Society.

Leadership vacuums, ahem. We see a leadership vacuum of our own...as there is increasing debate about the delivery and value of “charity,” and the move to social investing, with all its baggage. We read articles EVERYWHERE that debate the status of foundations, evaluation, program effectiveness and more. From national articles calling for accountability, to regional articles that are basic tutorials on how not to get scammed, charity is in the news. The rise of volunteerism, charity watch groups and cynicism among potential donors is on the rise.

While we can’t host our own WEF, we can start to fight back. According to a recent post of Guy Kawasaki, it is word of mouth referrals that power decision makers, not necessarily “influencers.” Okay, this is related to online communications — and is advertising based.  However, there may be something to it for our space. How does the macro (WEF) trickle into the micro (our daily work). Think the Devil Wears Prada. (Miranda’s lecture on the evolution of the lumpy blue sweater). Or, for our community: how do we bubble UP.

Our community is head-down doing good work. Measuring it. Testing it. Changing its programs as needed. Take a moment to share your successes outside our community – tell a colleague. Tell a friend. Go viral. Why? Because we believe real anecdotes, successes and challenges are what will make a difference.

Good morning.

It's likely you've all heard of Give Well. And, if not, time to pull your head up out of the sand. Here is a primer. Young upstarts challenge the way funding is measured, because when they went to find the CNET of charities, it didn’t exist. And, as such, they’re taking on the traditional foundation model. They are looking for total transparency — and ran into the same problem many individual donors have. Charities have a hard time showing programs work, foundations don’t share the thinking behind their donations and there is no true measure of effectiveness. Thursday’s blog post on True Expert of Old Boys Club is worth reading. It is brash, insightful and challenging. 

On the same day, we pointed to the EMCF annual report on our blog.  While many foundations are struggling to verify expertise and rationale, EMCF is there. So, we’re giving them a shout out. Again. In the meantime, bookmark Give Well’s blog. If you’re NOT reading it, you’re missing some dynamic stuff.

Givewell, charities, donation, transparency, effectiveness, Old Boys Club, philanthropy, foundation,

Good morning.

It's likely you've all heard of Give Well. And, if not, time to pull your head up out of the sand. Here is a primer. Young upstarts challenge the way funding is measured, because when they went to find the CNET of charities, it didn’t exist. And, as such, they’re taking on the traditional foundation model. They are looking for total transparency — and ran into the same problem many individual donors have. Charities have a hard time showing programs work, foundations don’t share the thinking behind their donations and there is no true measure of effectiveness. Thursday’s blog post on True Expert of Old Boys Club is worth reading. It is brash, insightful and challenging. 

On the same day, we pointed to the EMCF annual report on our blog.  While many foundations are struggling to verify expertise and rationale, EMCF is there. So, we’re giving them a shout out. Again. In the meantime, bookmark Give Well’s blog. If you’re NOT reading it, you’re missing some dynamic stuff.

Givewell, charities, donation, transparency, effectiveness, Old Boys Club, philanthropy, foundation,

Q:    You started your career as a human services case worker. How’d you get here from there?

A:    I loved being a case worker. I got to help young men stay in school and out of jail by keeping them focused on the value of themselves and their education. That’s of course just one small corner of the human services world, where many skilled, compassionate people are working to make a difference in people’s lives. The dynamics of human services, however, can sometimes make organizations ineffective. People are passionate about their work, but don’t always have the tools and disciplines to do it well. Unfortunately, they end up feeling frustrated. Frankly, I got a little frustrated myself. There are so many good intentions paving roads to nowhere. When I had an opportunity to help make human services more effective, I made the move, even though it meant leaving an environment I love.

Q:    So you left human services to help make it better. Why not do that from inside?

A:    I tried, and unfortunately got stopped cold at several points. That’s when I realized I needed to work from the outside. We created ETO Software® (Efforts to Outcomes) and related processes as a turnkey tool for supporting the good work of human services organizations. Our solutions help organizations align their funders’ expectations, their mission, and the daily work they do by connecting these—through the daily work—to clearly articulated, tracked, and reported outcomes. It’s not rocket science, it’s really just good organizational discipline. But, sadly, it’s lacking in much of the nonprofit sector.

Q:    How’s it going?

A:    I feel like there’s good progress being made in general. Our software alone has been acquired by several thousand human services groups and other nonprofits. So we’re in a position to watch organizations complete their ETOlutions, to better connect their efforts to outcomes. They begin with a disciplined desire to help their constituents succeed, and that compassionate motivation drives their transformation. The great news is, once an organization has gone through an ETOlution, not only are they making a bigger difference in people’s lives, but they become a beacon for other groups. Everyone seems to want to learn how they’ve done it.

Q:    How does an organization get past the hurdles that would keep them from better connecting efforts to outcomes?

A:    They do it by caring enough to muscle through the changes needed to ensure greater effectiveness. It is a challenging transformation. But once people start down the path to ETOlution, they begin very quickly to see benefits. Case workers become energized as they get a clearer picture of the true impact of their efforts. Program managers find themselves with a much better understanding of what’s working well and what really needs their attention. Development people find themselves with a more compelling story to share with funders, a story that’s backed by solid, easy-to-retrieve data. It can be very motivational.

Q:    Is this concept of efforts to outcomes really going to make things better?

A:    Organizations are finding that once they can demonstrate success by tying efforts to outcomes, they better serve their constituents, and the scorched dialog with their funders turns into a celebratory discussion about what more can be done. Their mission statement becomes more alive as staff members live it out daily. So yes, to the extent people can focus on human needs instead of process issues and burdensome reporting, things will get better. When the value of a case worker’s efforts is unclear, it can be frustrating. There’s so much human need and so little time and resources to address it. I’ve been there; emotionally I never left. But we’re trying to give people reason to believe they can make more of a difference. And they can. It takes work, a little know-how, and some tools, but the results are very rewarding.

philanthropy, efforts to outcomes, ETOlution, funders, human services, nonprofit, solutions

Q:    You started your career as a human services case worker. How’d you get here from there?

A:    I loved being a case worker. I got to help young men stay in school and out of jail by keeping them focused on the value of themselves and their education. That’s of course just one small corner of the human services world, where many skilled, compassionate people are working to make a difference in people’s lives. The dynamics of human services, however, can sometimes make organizations ineffective. People are passionate about their work, but don’t always have the tools and disciplines to do it well. Unfortunately, they end up feeling frustrated. Frankly, I got a little frustrated myself. There are so many good intentions paving roads to nowhere. When I had an opportunity to help make human services more effective, I made the move, even though it meant leaving an environment I love.

Q:    So you left human services to help make it better. Why not do that from inside?

A:    I tried, and unfortunately got stopped cold at several points. That’s when I realized I needed to work from the outside. We created ETO Software® (Efforts to Outcomes) and related processes as a turnkey tool for supporting the good work of human services organizations. Our solutions help organizations align their funders’ expectations, their mission, and the daily work they do by connecting these—through the daily work—to clearly articulated, tracked, and reported outcomes. It’s not rocket science, it’s really just good organizational discipline. But, sadly, it’s lacking in much of the nonprofit sector.

Q:    How’s it going?

A:    I feel like there’s good progress being made in general. Our software alone has been acquired by several thousand human services groups and other nonprofits. So we’re in a position to watch organizations complete their ETOlutions, to better connect their efforts to outcomes. They begin with a disciplined desire to help their constituents succeed, and that compassionate motivation drives their transformation. The great news is, once an organization has gone through an ETOlution, not only are they making a bigger difference in people’s lives, but they become a beacon for other groups. Everyone seems to want to learn how they’ve done it.

Q:    How does an organization get past the hurdles that would keep them from better connecting efforts to outcomes?

A:    They do it by caring enough to muscle through the changes needed to ensure greater effectiveness. It is a challenging transformation. But once people start down the path to ETOlution, they begin very quickly to see benefits. Case workers become energized as they get a clearer picture of the true impact of their efforts. Program managers find themselves with a much better understanding of what’s working well and what really needs their attention. Development people find themselves with a more compelling story to share with funders, a story that’s backed by solid, easy-to-retrieve data. It can be very motivational.

Q:    Is this concept of efforts to outcomes really going to make things better?

A:    Organizations are finding that once they can demonstrate success by tying efforts to outcomes, they better serve their constituents, and the scorched dialog with their funders turns into a celebratory discussion about what more can be done. Their mission statement becomes more alive as staff members live it out daily. So yes, to the extent people can focus on human needs instead of process issues and burdensome reporting, things will get better. When the value of a case worker’s efforts is unclear, it can be frustrating. There’s so much human need and so little time and resources to address it. I’ve been there; emotionally I never left. But we’re trying to give people reason to believe they can make more of a difference. And they can. It takes work, a little know-how, and some tools, but the results are very rewarding.

philanthropy, efforts to outcomes, ETOlution, funders, human services, nonprofit, solutions

We’d like to point to the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation’s annual report.  This is, to quote the Foundation, the first public report on the performance of the Foundation and its grantees, as well as future projections. Youth Villages, Nurse-Family Partnership, and others are each profiled within the report. Why is this significant? Because of the furor around reporting. Because it demonstrates that it is both possible — and reasonable—to report on progress. And, to think toward the future.

Philanthropy.com points to a new study that finds the largest gifts are going to colleges, hospitals and museums. The report was fielded by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research. And, the very biggest gifts, those worth $10 million or more — saw nearly eight of every $10 going to medical organizations or arts and culture institutions. Ouch.

Here Alliance Magazine has an article with the Hewlett Foundation on funding evaluation and outcomes. Which, brings us full circle to EMCF.

Have a good one.

Tags: Edna McConnell Clark, annual report, philanthropy, evaluation, outcomes, reporting

We’d like to point to the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation’s annual report.  This is, to quote the Foundation, the first public report on the performance of the Foundation and its grantees, as well as future projections. Youth Villages, Nurse-Family Partnership, and others are each profiled within the report. Why is this significant? Because of the furor around reporting. Because it demonstrates that it is both possible — and reasonable—to report on progress. And, to think toward the future.

Philanthropy.com points to a new study that finds the largest gifts are going to colleges, hospitals and museums. The report was fielded by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research. And, the very biggest gifts, those worth $10 million or more — saw nearly eight of every $10 going to medical organizations or arts and culture institutions. Ouch.

Here Alliance Magazine has an article with the Hewlett Foundation on funding evaluation and outcomes. Which, brings us full circle to EMCF.

Have a good one.

Tags: Edna McConnell Clark, annual report, philanthropy, evaluation, outcomes, reporting