Subscribe

About Bob

Bob serves as President and CEO of GuideStar and serves on the boards of Vision TV, Grameen Foundation USA, and the AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy. More...

About GuideStar

GuideStar gathers and publicizes information about nonprofits. We advocate that nonprofits share information openly and completely. Any nonprofit we track can update its report for free. More...

Archives

Our focus on impact

It’s no secret that GuideStar has long been at the forefront of the discussion on nonprofit transparency and accountability, and now we’re taking a hard look at the issue of nonprofit impact. We partnered with Independent Sector and BBB Wise Giving Alliance on the Charting Impact initiative, which I’ve blogged about before.

And now, two sections of our new Quick View summary at the top of our nonprofit reports can help people determine a nonprofit’s impact. Check out my video about on our YouTube page: http://youtu.be/rLahr7qBShw.

How do you measure nonprofit impact?

 

Bookmark and Share

What it takes to be a successful nonprofit

Carla Javits, president of REDF

I spent some time at the Social Enterprise Alliance Annual Summit in Chicago and was fortunate to hear a keynote speech from Carla Javits, the president of REDF, The Roberts Enterprise Development Fund, a California-based venture philanthropy organization that invests in nonprofit-run businesses called “social enterprises.”

In her remarks, Carla reviewed her six characteristics of what it takes to be a successful organization – and I would add a high-performing one. I think they are very thought- provoking and I’d like to share them with you:

1. Clarity about the size and scope of the problem you are addressing. In other words, what are you trying to solve? This is a nice clear way to describe your work and I like the way she has added something about the market and the extent of the issue. In Charting Impact, we ask people to clearly and concisely state their organization’s ultimate goal for intended impact by answering the question “What is your organization aiming to accomplish?”

2. There must be an appetite for risk. High-performing organizations need be bold and make a difference. That’s not possible unless as leaders we are willing to go beyond our traditional safe borders and try new approaches to tackle persistent problems.

3. Development of Evidence. As we undertake our work, we need to demonstrate a willingness to measure results in order to improve our work. In Charting impact we ask people to describe their organization’s strategies for accomplishing their long-term goals by answering the questions “What are your strategies for making this happen?” and “What have and haven’t you accomplished so far?”

4. Network Effect. I liked this one – it’s not something we think enough about. To be successful we need to build partnerships, rather than go it alone, with funders, other nonprofit organizations and other stakeholders in our community.

5. Persistence. It takes years to succeed. At the same time, never settle – always be impatient. Our work is essential.

6. Communicate our Progress. Our communities, our funders, and the people we serve need to know how we are doing. As a sector, we need to do a better job of sharing our successes, failures and ambitions. That’s the only way to get people involved in our work.

Carla was also asked to share her metrics for measuring the effectiveness and impact of her work. She gave four:

1. Our clients. What happens to the people we serve as the result of our work? (Can they expect more jobs, less homelessness, etc.)

2. Organizations. What does it take to be a healthy nonprofit? What are the benchmarks for what it takes to be a viable, sustainable organization? (clients, revenues, etc.)

3. Enterprise. The big picture. What are our long-term objectives? (jobs created, profitability, etc.)

4. Impact on Society. As our result what can we tell society about the impact of our work? (fewer people going back to prison, saving tax dollars, more economic development, etc.

By the way, Carla thinks social enterprises offer a good antidote to the frustrations being expressed by movements like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. She points out that social enterprises have vision, ideals, and values for social good but balance those ideals with well-run institutions, with sound business models, a goal of self reliance and a focus on delivering evidence based results that create economic mobility. She thinks it is our moment to make a difference in a big way.

What do you think?

For more information about Charting Impact, please visit http://www.chartingimpact.org/.

Bookmark and Share

Three Cups of Tea – Part II

In my last blog post, I talked about the current controversy surrounding Three Cups of Tea author Greg Mortenson and his organization, the Central Asia Institute (CAI).   Is this a classic case of a charismatic founder engaging in hyperbole and not paying attention to the details of the organization or is there something worse going on? How do we as donors make judgments about nonprofit organizations?

We at GuideStar believe that donors come to the giving process with a distinct set of values, opinions, and priorities on what constitutes a good charity.  Our goal is to present as well rounded a picture of an organization as possible.

I went back today and looked at every piece of information GuideStar had on CAI and here is what I learned:

  1. It is a legitimate, IRS-approved tax exempt organization certified by our Charity Check product.
  2. We have copies of 990s for 12 years – from 1997 to 2009 – all filed by CAI under penalty of law with the IRS.
  3. There is extensive information about its mission, people and programs and an annual report, including the fact that it is generously supported by many public figures and receives widespread publicity.  Generally a good sign.
  4. There are 23 GreatNonProfit Reviews.  All of them done since this story broke and many of them positive. Our partner Give Well decided not to review CAI in July 2009 because it either did not a) “publish high-quality monitoring and evaluation reports”  or b)” it did not have sufficient financial information about program expenses.”
  5. There is an audited financial statement for the period ending September 30, 2009 that looks fairly normal. The statement does, however, includes this pregnant paragraph:  The Organization has an economic interest in a book written by the Executive Director, Greg Mortenson, which is written in regards to his journeys in Afghanistan and Pakistan while pursuing the Organization’s mission. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009, the Organization paid $1,729,542 for book-related expenses associated with outreach and education.

   6 .  The CAI was awarded the GuideStar Exchange Seal, our way of recognizing commitment to transparency and      accountability in July 2010, BUT we took it away in 2011, because the organization did not comply with our requirement that audited financial documents be less than 12 months old.

All in all, pretty thorough documentation on an organization.  It would be tough to detect any operational problems from this extensive list.

By far the biggest gap I see from the Mortensen story is a serious analysis of program goals and impact – not on finances.  I always urge donors to start by asking three big questions: 

  • What is this organization trying to do?
  • How do they do it (for example building schools in remote areas for boys and girls)
  • How are they doing?  One of Jon Krakauer’s charges is that many of the schools CAI takes credit for were not built or are not functioning.  CAI’s documents do not address this issue.

This undertaking is pretty difficult at the moment though.  There is no one central place where a donor can find information on how a charity is doing.  A donor might find that out from the charity itself, but not easily.  Each charity is different, with different goals and objectives, different impacts and a standard way of measuring how charities are meeting their own goals is a real challenge. 

A new approach we are launching with partners Independent Sector and BBB/Wise Giving Alliance is called Charting Impact.  We are asking nonprofits to address five important questions that measure an organizations impact, trying to help donors focus on what really matters.  Asking CAI to fill out the Charting Impact questionnaire may have helped the organization identify some of its weaknesses and may have given donors new insight.

Bookmark and Share

Taking the Long View on Nonprofit Evaluation

It’s that time of the year when we’re being flooded with phone calls from reporters asking about holiday giving and how donors can spend wisely.  Part of this activity is driven by skepticism – donors are increasingly wary of nonprofits and how they spend their money.  Many of the calls are motivated by a genuine concern for making a difference and a desire to direct hard earned contributions to where it will do the most good.

Still a third reason for these reporter calls is caused by the nonprofit sector itself.  Unfortunately too many nonprofit organizations continue to define themselves in terms of their overhead ratios – a short-sighted approach to evaluation.  They promote the so-called overhead ratios on their websites or otherwise publicize ratings they have received from watch dog organizations about overhead ratios.  How many mailings have you received this season from organizations promising that none of your contribution will go to overhead?  As long as we define nonprofit organizations in terms of expense boxes, we are painting ourselves into this corner.

Here at GuideStar we tend to take the long view about these questions.

Over ten years ago GuideStar led the movement to promote transparency and accountability among the philanthropic sector.  Today stakeholders can view the available IRS Form 990s on GuideStar.  Nearly 7,500 organizations will earn the prestigious GuideStar Exchange Seal this year signifying their commitment to transparency.  Donors expect an organization to freely provide information about their programs and finances and are suspicious when they aren’t readily available. 

We urge reporters researching what donors should do before giving to start by looking at the mission of the organization and asking three simple questions:

  1. What do they do?
  2. How do they do it?  What are their programs and activities?
  3. And how are they doing?  Is the organization having success in achieving its goals?

Currently we have a major test underway with our partners Independent Sector and the BBB/Wise Giving Alliance called Charting Impact.  The project is designed to help nonprofits better communicate with the public about how to evaluate nonprofit performance by answering five easy questions:

1.  What is your organization aiming to accomplish?

2. What are your strategies for making this happen?

3. What are your organization’s capabilities for doing this?

4. How will your organization know if you are making progress?

5. What have and haven’t you accomplished so far?

 The Money For Good study performed last year by Hope Consulting found that donors are very interested in learning about nonprofit organization performance but infrequently actually use data to make decisions.  At GuideStar we see that as a challenge to learn more about donor needs and to lead the next wave in making better decisions.

Bookmark and Share