Outputs, Outcomes, Impact, and Effectiveness

I recently read an article (someday I will not start a blog post with that statement) entitled “Drowning in Data,” and took a minute to reflect on the Charity Navigator evaluations. Throughout this process, I have supported the addition of new evaluation criteria –building on the typical 990 information considered- but when I read the article a few questions arose. Should all nonprofits be required to collect information on outputs, outcomes, impact, and effectiveness in order to receive excellent CN ratings? What about the organizations whose mission does not align with the collection with one or more of these forms of data? Do we want organizations wasting time and money attempting to collect irrelevant information? It would make sense to say that if a food bank is created to feed the homeless, and its mission is to help the people who are homeless and hungry right now, at this very minute, that perhaps they should focus on outputs. Should they create impact measures and collect (most likely bogus) information that will in no way information their practices just to receive a positive evaluation? I would rather they spend that money on another meal, on feeding the 1, 10, or 100 people that they could not have served with impact metrics in place. Should organizations be allowed to choose appropriate metrics, so long as they can provide an honest, and strong, argument in support of their choices?

FYI: The article may also be of interest when you begin your final paper for this course!