  
|
 |
Back to assessment directory
Nonprofit Organizational Assessment Tool
Outcome Measurement
by: Andrew Lewis*
University of Wisconsin Extension
Outcome measurement is the regular, systematic tracking of the extent to which program
participants experience the benefits or changes intended. It is a process for determining
whether or not an organization’s activities are making a difference in the lives of
the people they are serving. This assessment tool can help an organization guide and track
its progress in developing and implementing an outcome measurement system. Ideally, it
will be used as the basis for ongoing discussions among the organization’s outcome
measurement work group, board members, staff, volunteers, and service recipients as the
organization moves through the steps of outcome measurement implementation. However, it
also could be used by an individual within an organization who is simply interested in
assessing the organization’s readiness for outcome measurement.
This tool can be helpful whether an organization is just beginning to develop an
outcome measurement system, is somewhere in the process, or already has outcome
measurement in place. For those at the beginning, it is recommended that you complete only
the first section of the assessment to determine what additional preparation is needed.
Organizations that have an outcome measurement system in development can use other
sections as appropriate to review earlier steps and assess their current one.
Organizations that have implemented outcome measurement may want to focus on the section
titled "Using Outcome Measurement Findings" to determine if they are fully
utilizing the results from outcome measurement.
First, check the indicators that have been completed or accomplished. Next, indicate
the amount of improvement that you think is needed for that indicator (None or Not
Applicable, Some, or Much). This is your perception of the organization; there are no
right or wrong answers. If used with a group,
each individual should complete the assessment tool. After allowing adequate time, compare
responses and discuss any areas where there are different perceptions. As a final step,
identify the top two to three priorities where there is a high level of consensus that an
indicator needs "much" improvement. If you are doing this as a group, have each
individual select their top three priorities and then tally the "votes" for the
group to identify the top three. Next, develop and implement an action plan to address
each issue. After successfully implementing the action plans that address your top
priorities, revisit your assessment tool and develop action plans for other indicators
that need attention.
Each step in the process of developing and implementing an outcome measurement system
builds on previous steps. If an early step is not addressed adequately, it will likely
impact steps further along in the process. Thus, it would be wise to concentrate on the
steps needing additional attention in the order that they appear in this checklist.
This assessment tool is based on the steps and tasks presented in depth in United Way
of America’s outcome measurement manual (see Web Based Resources on page 34
of the participant guide). It
reflects the approach to outcome measurement presented during the educational satellite
program produced by the Learning Institute for Nonprofit Organizations and co-sponsored by
United Way of America.
*LI faculty contributor for this section: Margaret Plantz, Senior Director, Outcome
Measurement, United Way of America
Outcome Measurment Assessment Tool**
Getting Ready
| Indicator |
Done? |
Needs
Improvement ? |
| |
 |
None/
N.A. |
Some |
Much |
| 1. The executive director/president and
board of directors are committed to the process of outcome measurement. |
|
|
|
|
| 2. The executive director/president and board of directors
are committed to participating in whatever parts of the process relate to their
responsibilities. |
|
|
|
|
| 3. The organization has clearly stated why it is going to
measure outcomes. |
|
|
|
|
| 4. A plan has been developed to clearly communicate the
importance of outcome measurement to all important publics, including staff (volunteers
and paid staff). |
|
|
|
|
| 5. Adequate resources for planning and implementing outcome
measurement have been allocated. |
|
|
|
|
| 6. An outcome measurement manager has been designated and
adequate time from other responsibilities have been freed up. |
|
|
|
|
| 7. An outcome measurement work group has been formed. |
|
|
|
|
| 8. The outcome measurement work group has been provided
orientation on the outcome measurement process. |
|
|
|
|
| 9. A plan has been established for keeping the board of
directors and other stakeholders informed of progress being made on the outcome
measurement system. |
|
|
|
|
| 10. A decision has been made whether to apply outcome
measurement initially to all existing programs or only to one or a few programs. |
|
|
|
|
| 11. Programs identified for initial outcome measurement
represent a substantial portion of the organization’s activity. |
|
|
|
|
| 12. A timeline for major implementation steps has been
completed. |
|
|
|
|
| - The timeline takes into consideration existing organizational deadlines and events. |
|
|
|
|
| - The timeline takes into consideration the length of the typical course of service
(e.g., weekly meetings for one month; weekly activities for one year). |
|
|
|
|
| - The timeline takes into consideration the length of time after the start of the
program/service that you would expect to see at least initial outcomes. |
|
|
|
|
| - The timeline takes into consideration the time schedules of external resources that
you may need (volunteers, students, consultants, etc.). |
|
|
|
|
| 13. An outcome measurement plan with the elements mentioned
above is distributed to key players (all levels of paid staff, volunteers,
funders, board
members, and committee members that will have a role in outcome measurement. |
|
|
|
|
| 14. The organization has allowed adequate time for review and
modification of the outcome measurement plan. |
|
|
|
|
Choosing The Outcome You Want To Measure
| Indicator |
Done? |
Needs
Improvement ? |
| |
|
None/
N.A. |
Some |
Much |
| 1. Ideas about your program outcomes have been collected from
a variety of sources. |
|
|
|
|
| 2. A logic model for your program has been constructed. |
|
|
|
|
| 3. The organization has selected the outcomes that are
important to measure. |
|
|
|
|
| 4. Feedback has been gathered on your logic model
and the
outcomes selected for measurement. |
|
|
|
|
Specifying Indicators For Your Outcomes
| Indicator |
Done? |
Needs
Improvement ? |
| |
|
None/
N.A. |
Some |
Much |
| 1. One or more indicators for each outcome have been
identified. |
|
|
|
|
| 2. Factors that could influence each outcome have been
determined. |
|
|
|
|
Preparing to Collect Data On Your Indicators
| Indicator |
Done? |
Needs
Improvement ? |
| |
|
None/
N.A. |
Some |
Much |
| 1. Data sources for your indicators have been identified. |
|
|
|
|
| 2. Data collection methods have been designed. |
|
|
|
|
| 3. Data collection instruments and procedures have been
pre-tested. |
|
|
|
|
Testing Your OUtcome Measurement System
| Indicator |
Done? |
Needs
Improvement ? |
| |
|
None/
N.A. |
Some |
Much |
| 1. A trial strategy has been developed (e.g., a trial at one
of many sites; with staff in one of many units; with one of many participant groups). |
|
|
|
|
| 2. Data collectors have been identified and prepared. |
|
|
|
|
| 3. Outcome data have been collected and tracked by assigned
persons. |
|
|
|
|
| 4. The outcome measurement process has been monitored. |
|
|
|
|
Analyzing and Reporting Your Findings
| Indicator |
Done? |
Needs
Improvement ? |
| |
|
None/
N.A. |
Some |
Much |
| 1. Collected data have been entered and checked for errors. |
|
|
|
|
| 2. The data have been tabulated. |
|
|
|
|
| 3. The data have been broken down into key characteristics
for analysis. |
|
|
|
|
| 4. Explanatory information has been developed for findings. |
|
|
|
|
| 5. The data have been presented in clear and understandable
form. |
|
|
|
|
Improvement of the Outcome Measurement System
| Indicator |
Done? |
Needs
Improvement ? |
| |
|
None/
N.A. |
Some |
Much |
| 1. The organization’s trial-run experience has been
reviewed and necessary adjustments have been made before starting full-scale
implementation. |
|
|
|
|
| 2. Following full-scale implementation, the outcome
measurement system is monitored and reviewed periodically by the outcome measurement work
group, executive director, and board. |
|
|
|
|
Using Outcome Measurement Findings
| Indicator |
Done? |
Needs
Improvement ? |
| |
|
None/
N.A. |
Some |
Much |
| 1. Findings are used to provide direction for staff. |
|
|
|
|
| 2. Findings are used to identify staff (paid and volunteer)
training and technical assistance needs. |
|
|
|
|
| 3. Findings are used to identify opportunities for program
improvement. |
|
|
|
|
| 4. Findings are used to identify effective practices. |
|
|
|
|
| 5. Findings are used to guide budgets and resource
allocations. |
|
|
|
|
| 6. Findings are used to support annual and long-range
planning. |
|
|
|
|
| 7. Findings are presented regularly to the board to help
board members focus on programmatic issues. |
|
|
|
|
| 8. Use of findings to suggest outcome targets has been
discussed. |
|
|
|
|
| 9. Findings are used to recruit talented staff and
volunteers. |
|
|
|
|
| 10. Findings are used to promote the program to potential
referral sources. |
|
|
|
|
| 11. Findings are used to promote programs to potential
participants. |
|
|
|
|
| 12. Findings are used to identify partners for collaboration. |
|
|
|
|
| 13. Findings are used to enhance the program’s public
image. |
|
|
|
|
| 14. Findings are used to communicate program results to
stakeholders. |
|
|
|
|
| 15. Findings are used to demonstrate accountability for
results to current and prospective donors. |
|
|
|
|
Sample Action Plans:
Use the following format to begin formulating an action plan that would improve your
organization's performance relative to a specific indicator listed above.
Indicator:
An outcome measurement work group
has been assembled.
Task |
Time Line |
Who |
Will Do What |
Evaluation Measure |
Task #1 |
14 days |
Jane, Executive Director |
Identify paid staff, volunteers, clients, board members and
others that could contribute to a work team in charge of implementing outcome measurement. |
List of names is representative of the different
perspectives and skills needed to successfully implement outcome measurement. |
| Task #2 |
30 days |
Jane, Executive Director |
Identify ways in which work responsibilities for each
individual could be reallocated to allow for participation in the work group. |
Alternative work assignments identified. |
| Task #3 |
45 days |
Jane, Executive Director in consultation with the board and
staff |
In consultation with the board and staff, Jane
identifies 4-5 members (from the longer list) for the outcome measurement work group |
4-5 qualified members are identified and willing to serve on
the work group. |
| Task #4 |
60 days |
Jane and work group members |
The work group in consultation with the director begin to
develop a meeting schedule to cover topics such as training, budgeting, planning and
development of an outcome measurement system. |
Meeting schedule is determined and the group begins meeting. |
**This is the ninth in a series of
organizational assessment tools developed by the Learning Institute for Nonprofit
Organizations. Eight earlier tools were developed for use with the Learning
Institute’s Certificate of Excellence in Nonprofit Leadership and Management series.
They address the following critical management issues within a nonprofit organization:
Strategic Planning, Resource Development, Board Governance, Marketing, Mission-Based
Management, Social Entrepreneurship, Volunteer Management, and Strategic Alliances. The
format of all tools in the series is based in part on two existing tools:
Community Organizational Assessment Tool, Bright, Robert D., University of
Wisconsin Extension, 1995 (Adapted from Citizens Involvement Training Program., University
of Massachusetts, Amherst).
Checklist of Nonprofit Indicators, United Way of Minneapolis Area, 1998.
|
|
