Similarly, with protecting seniors from abuse and scams, depending upon what initiatives made up the effort, it should be possible to ascertain whether a program contributed to a reduction in levels traditionally seen in past years.

As for measuring increased legislator awareness, while I admit that after 13 years of service in the NY State Senate I too wonder about how to really get through to elected officials, one barometer I might suggest would be such indirect indicators as mentions of an issue in legislators’ newsletters, mailings, comments and other forms of communications.

The point is that there are no “perfect” measures. Often indirect, secondary or proxy measures are all we have. But that should not stop nonprofits from working towards meaningful results and making the effort to measure, gauge or substantiate their impact.

Same with protecting seniors from abuse. You can measure your activities, but you have no way of measuring whether you PREVENTED something from happening. Do you have a questionnaire for a potential abuser with a checkbox for “Was going to abuse my grandfather till I took your seminar?”

I am totally not on board with this outcome measurement business. Social change and services does not take place with questionnaires. Find the right people, give them resources, let them learn and document their learning, help them implement what they’ve learned and continually improve it.

The bottom line is hiring the right people and then trusting them and working and communicating with them consistently. This obsessive measurement does not take the place of trust and communication.

Decades ago, Joseph Wholey and his colleagues realized that measuring the outcomes of many programs was difficult because those efforts had not been designed or managed to produce outcomes in the first place. While the language of outcomes has certainly permeated the nonprofit world in recent years, many organizations are still unclear about the difference between activity and outputs on the one hand, and outcomes on the other. Often too, being unaware of the characteristics of good, viable outcomes, more than a few nonprofits struggle to achieve goals that are imperfect for a variety of reasons.

Adding to this situation is an often evident lack of understanding among nonprofits regarding their capacity to achieve the goals they have set for themselves and their programs, “capacity” all too frequently viewed as merely a question of money or staff size.

Finally, although there are many very good outcome frameworks that can help nonprofits identify good outcomes, manage towards them, gauge their actual capacity, track their progress, make verification and reporting more useful, and help these organizations profit from their experience, many nonprofits are unaware of these models or of how to use them.

In many cases it is this lack of awareness, rather than any inherent difficulty or expense involved, which holds nonprofits back from incorporating outcome management and measurement into their work.

The vast majority of nonprofits want to be effective and do their absolute best on behalf of those they serve. Those who have developed and refined the many outcome-based tools available stand ready to help. But in the end, it is up to the investor community, the philanthropies, foundations and governmental agencies who underwrite the work of most nonprofits, to make this expertise available to their client, partner and grantee organizations.

Robert M. Penna, Ph.D.

Dr. Penna is an outcomes consultant and the lead author of Outcome Frameworks. His latest book, The Outcomes Toolbox is being published by The Rensselaerville Institute. He can be reached at rmpc52@aol.com.