It Depends..... Insights at the End of the Semester

Being that this is the last post of the semester, I thought it might be prudent to share the development of my ideas concerning effectiveness this semester. Indeed, trying to peg down what constitutes nonprofit effectiveness has been a daily struggle. That is why my definition of nonprofit effectiveness, while more nuanced, is much the same as it was in the beginning of the semester. I really do not think that there is one, or even numerous, ways to determine the effectiveness of a nonprofit due to the diversity of such organizations.

However, there is one 'idea' that I DO think is demonstrative of an effective nonprofit organization. Based upon all the reading that we have done this semester, an effective nonprofit is one that is always seeking to develop, adapt, and improve itself in fulfilling its social mission. We have read that overhead ratios, program ratios, accountability, results reporting are all indicators of effective nonprofits, but, as per usual, all of these things cannot singularly explain nonprofit effectiveness. It largely depends on the organization, its environment, its size, and its mission.

Indeed, I believe that all the measures of effectiveness that we read about are important for future managers in that they provide us with the means to constantly adapt, evolve, and develop when we begin to work in a nonprofit. Being conscious of these indicators allows us to (1) be knowledgeable of environment we will enter; and (2) will provide a way "push the envelope" in both being "effective" and redefining it at the same time.

I guess we weren't far off in the beginning of the semester in our attempt to define nonprofit effectiveness:

It depends....

Innovation: How I Missed You

In the Crutchfield-Grant reading, the author distinguishes between two types of organizations in relation to their innovation/adaptation capacity. These two types were the "free spirits" and the "MBA's." Now considering we're are all pursuing a degree that is only one letter away from latter mentioned innovation/adaptation style, it would seem that we ARE being conditioned to accept a more structured or managerial way to foster or promote innovation. Indeed, our Charity Navigator Project and the multitude of articles that we have read in the past few weeks propagate the claim that innovative or adaptive strategies need to be measured, planned, and evaluated to be considered as "effective."

My concern with this MBA mentality is that it might stifle or discourage nonprofits from pursuing creative innovations or adaptations. Indeed, a theoretical means for measuring or planning might not exist for nonprofits who wish to pursue a 'true' innovation. I believe that a framework defining effectiveness is a necessity in today's society, but could such a framework also suppress an organization's willingness to innovate?

What do you guys think?

P.S. I have been attempting to read Ayn Rand recently, and might explain my post a bit.

More Effectiveness, But No More Resources?

One of the things that I found interesting about this weeks readings was that many nonprofits wished to analyze their own "effectiveness," but were not given extra resources or the permission to utilize resources towards such ends (a problem of restricted assets). This seems to be a major problem in seeking to improve metrics or evaluative tools for nonprofit effectiveness. Indeed, for-profit firms spend large amounts of money to measure their effectiveness in numerous ways. Without information or data concerning effectiveness, a nonprofit is likely to become static or complacent in its existence.

This article/blog goes into greater detail concerning nonprofits and their inability to allocate resources toward evaluation. What do you guys think?

What now?

Well what can I say that hasn't been said?

Its quite apparent that accountability measures do not always measure organizational effectiveness, or even sometimes, accountability. I wonder what kind of metrics can be used to both ensure accountability for funders and organizations. Or feedback that is more useful for organizational improvement at least? If organizations are not seeking to better themselves, then whats the point? There might come a time when a particular organization loses a prominent and reliable funder, and if they have spent their time only appeasing that funder's wishes and not becoming more effective, that same organization might go under. This theoretical scenario might become a reality for stagnant nonprofits that have become totally reliant upon government funds.

So, when it comes down to it, I think there is a real need for different evaluative tools that measure an organization's effectiveness in terms of mission, and not necessarily donors. I know this is not always possible due to scarce financial resources, but I think its worthwhile to come up with metrics to improve your organization, even if you are meeting accountability standards of funders.

For the most part, service beneficiaries are a currently untapped resource in evaluating both effectiveness and accountability in an efficient way.