Program Accountability

It has many names, evaluation-outcomes-mission fulfillment, but whatever label is used, the point is that programs that ask for the public’s money—whether directly from the public in donations or indirectly from the public through government grants—to do something worthwhile, should be held accountable to have actually accomplished what it is they claim to have done.

VPP News has an excellent piece on this.

An excerpt.

“In my last column, “‘Social Outcomes’: Missing the Forest for the Trees?,” I wrote about my deep, nagging fear that many efforts to assess outcomes are woefully off track. I pointed to several wonderful beams of shining light in the field, from Youth Villages to the Cleveland Clinic. But my dominant message was that many efforts in our sector are causing more harm than good. That column hit a nerve, triggering a volume and intensity of responses far greater than I had expected.

“After struggling though literally 20 drafts, I wasn’t sure whether the piece was even coherent. Yet, it seemingly made some sense to a good number of thought leaders and practitioners I greatly respect—along with many others I don’t know who apparently care deeply about this issue as well.

“Of course, not everyone agreed with my analysis. In fact, I got hard pushback on some points, and a few commentators wondered why it had taken me so long to own up to my own limitations in my approach over the years to the topic of outcomes.

“The majority, however, agreed with the thesis that we’ve lost sight of the ends we’re trying to advance. In the wise words of David Hunter, Managing Partner of Hunter Consulting and former Director of Assessment for the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation: “It seems to me that the mess you describe indeed is enormous and very destructive—because few people involved in this work have thought deeply about managing towards outcomes and [they] have put the cart before the horse—focusing…on HOW to measure rather than on WHY measure…and WHAT to measure.”

“Sins of Commission, Sins of Omission
The feedback confirmed for me that nonprofit executives, staff, and boards; donors; and assessment experts are deeply frustrated with our sector’s work around outcomes.
• I heard a lot of anger at funders who don’t walk (or fund) their talk.
• I heard exasperation with nonprofits that are unwilling to embrace even basic methods of determining whether they’re doing what they say they do.
• I heard disappointment that outcomes assessment has become an exercise focused on cold numbers—the equivalent of Robert McNamara’s simplistic and terribly misleading Vietnam body counts—rather than an effort to help nonprofit leaders achieve lasting impact for those they serve.

“We must be intentional about surfacing these roiling frustrations that are rarely getting voiced. If we don’t, we’re going to continue to perpetrate sins of commission and omission that prevent us from making even the slightest dent in the failing status quo that defines education, healthcare, and social services in America.”