In the national conversation about United States’ education system and student academic performance, the U.S.’s standing on standardizing tests in core subjects relative to other industrialized countries seems to be a core evidence point highlighting our struggles.  But as with most measurement efforts, key performance indicators often raise more questions than they answer.  This is a good thing.  These questions shouldn’t only give us pause when considering the meaning of the performance itself, but also provide an opportunity to reflect on our definition of success.

“The business just doesn’t get what we’re trying to do here!” “The C-suite doesn’t have time to spend on this…it’s not at the top of their priority list.” “…We have a strategy.  We’re just looking for Marketing to help us with the tagline.” 

  CSR, nonprofit, and foundation professionals see the fall leaves turn and smell something in the air – conferences. The economy didn’t change the attendance numbers, energy, or engagement at this year’s Independent Sector Conference in Detroit, Michigan or the NetImpact Conference in Ithaca, New York. This particular thoughtscrap will focus on the highlights from the Independent Sector Conference in Detroit, Michigan.    The opening plenary by Melody Barnes, President Obama’s chief domestic policy advisor, was nothing short of insightful and inspirational. I’m glad she gets to play golf with President Obama.   

A recent article on Change.org addresses the commonly made assertion: There are too many nonprofits.  The author argues, rightly in my judgment, that the total number of nonprofits is irrelevant.  "What we need to be talking about," he asserts, "is how to get more good nonprofits, and fewer bad ones."

  For the last 15 years I have been focused on a single knotty question: how do you measure social impact?   Across the sector, billions have been spent on evaluations, millions have been spent on capacity building, thousands of studies have been published and hundreds of conference sessions have been held.  Yet no one seems to have come up with the answer.  How is it that we can measure the temperature on Mars, but we can’t measure what happens within the orbit of a nonprofit organization?  Why is measurement so confounding?  

  It has become common practice for nonprofits and corporations to partner in a variety of ways. One could involve a corporation sponsoring a nonprofit event. Another kind of partnership could involve co-creation of a product line specific to that partnership. According to Mark Kramer’s recent article, “Catalytic Philanthropy” in the Stanford Social Innovation Review (Fall 2009), it’s not only beneficial but absolutely necessary for the two sectors to collaborate, leveraging all available resources, in order to achieve the next generation of long-term social impact. 

With the proposed Investing in Innovation (i3) rules release, we have an even deeper insight into how much Secretary Duncan values data. As proposed, the amount of possible grant funding that an applicant may be awarded is tied directly to the strength of evidence supporting their application. What struck us as particularly interesting in this approach is that many innovative programs may, by their very nature, be short of deep evidence.