In my recent Q&A with Insight Labs, I explore why nonprofits must measure outcomes, not activities, if they want to survive.This excerpt that gets to the bottom of the current activity-focused mindset:

   

New York City is giving nonprofits a reprieve.  But will the City get any bang for its buck?

Donors want to help charitable organizations make a difference, yet they often struggle to find succinct, consistent information about their investment options. Most of today's nonprofit databases and rating agencies rely too much on financial metrics.  This frustrates donors who care about outcomes.  It also frustrates nonprofits who want to be evaluated based on their results, not just an overhead ratio.

In response to a blog post on Education Week this morning, "Conservative 'Mainfesto Blasts Shared Curriculum, Tests", commentar Daniel J. Fallon said: "It is the inability to calculate for profit that destroys the rationality of tax funded schooling."

On April 28, I had the good fortune of attending the Illinois STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) Education Reform update meeting entitled “Building Illinois STEM Pathways to College and Career Readiness.” The event was co-sponsored by the Illinois Business Roundtable and the State of Illinois and was held at the Museum of Science and Industry. The meeting provided the 200-plus attendees with an extensive update on the state’s STEM related work. I did not know exactly what to expect going in, but I must admit that I came away impressed with what I observed and filled with hope that the state is serious about making progress in this critical area of education.

In his recent New York Times Op-Ed, R. Barker Bausell posits a new way to "assess teachers" -- the amount of time a teacher spends on delivering relevant instruction.  The metric is perfectly reasonable; more relevant instruction results in more learning.  But Bausell glosses over a crucial piece of the measurement puzzle: how the data is used.

One of the most powerful tools that we use is the Success Equation.  We use this framework at the beginning of almost every client engagement and every workshop that we lead.  It encourages organizations to consider their impact as a simple regression equation:  A + B + C = D.   D is the ultimate impact you’re trying to achieve.  A, B, and C are the intermediate steps that lead to that impact.  They are the intermediate outcomes.  Your research and theory of change suggest that if you accomplish A, B, and C, then you will also accomplish D.  Only after the A, B, C, and D have been defined do we start talking about measurement. 

McCormick Place was teeming with fundraisers last week as development professionals from around the world came together in Chicago for the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) International Conference.   The lineup was impressive – and inspiring.  Blake Mycoskie of Tom’s Shoes opened the conference on Sunday, Queen Latifah kicked off Monday, and President Bill Clinton closed out the conference on Tuesday.  

There are a number of pressing world calamities in play right now. The aftermath of a major tsunami and earthquake, a clear and present nuclear meltdown threat, and military actions in the Middle East are sufficient for a reprisal of our favorite caped crusader. So, for planning purposes, let us assume that Superman is tied up and will not be able to help us with the current challenges we are facing in education, particularly the education of low-income, urban and rural public school students. Given his busy schedule, we figured we had better get things started in the area that is our wheelhouse – education data.