If you’re breathing you have certainly seen the WSJ section on philanthropy that ran yesterday. (We’d link, but the Journal content requires passwords.) Sally Beatty pays ample attention to the shortcomings of current measurement in the charitable space. She says, “Approaches that aren’t effective should stop soaking up dollars better spent elsewhere.” Of course. However, she goes on to say that there is “no system for measuring and reporting charity results.” Ahem. Try telling that to the very people who are measuring and reporting on efforts every day (i.e. ROCA, LAYC, Nurse-Family Partnership) and the funders who are requiring effective measurement (i.e. Annie E. Casey Foundation, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.)
 
Getting to the Point talks about the issue from a marketing perspective – and we’re glad to see that addressed. Philanthropy Today points to the article, and comments seem to circle on the ineffectiveness of measuring admin costs. Again, people are listening.
 
Stanford Social Innovation Review has been talking about self-critical behavior and its benefits, effective measurement, and so on. Our community knows the tide is shifting. Thus, it is critical to see this issue making its way into the popular press. But, contrary to the Journal’s assertion, it IS possible to figure out one group’s approach to solving a problem is better than another’s. There is a standard set of measurement criteria.
 
There is apathy, misinformation and a lack of transparency out there. And, there is also a powerful, dedicated group of individuals who are working every day to make their organizations stronger and more effective. We encourage each and every one of you to raise your voices and be heard.

Tags: Wall Street Journal, Philanthropy, ROCA, LAYC, Edna McConnell Clark, Annie E. Casey, Efforts, Outcomes Measurement, Funders