|June 6, 2017||Posted by M. P. under Behavorial Health, Children and Family, Evaluation, Federal Government, Policy||
Work in behavioral science suggests that small changes can move people to act on personal goals. To test this approach in the realm of human services, MRDC along with sponsoring federal agencies, launched the Behavioral Interventions to Advance Self Sufficiency (BIAS) program with a goal of improving both the efficiency and outcomes of programming. Small changes or “nudges” to a program that facilitate the experience for clients, for example, the simplification of an application process, personalization of correspondence, or prominently highlighting a deadline, have an influence on decisions made by current or potential program participants. These adjustments are not major design changes, rather they are low cost, easily implemented ways to change the complexities many lower income families face .
Randomized trials at participating state and local human service agencies introduced specific behavioral interventions based on a period of review and identification of “bottlenecks.” Results indicate that these small changes had a statistically significant impact on outcomes in childcare and work support (including increased attendance at meetings or appointments) and child support (including increased rate of payment).
If small changes make a difference, why are larger-scale programmatic changes (that could result in increased benefits) so difficult to negotiate and implement? Perhaps examining program design through the lens of behavioral economics, where both staff and participant benefit from improved outcomes, is the path toward innovation in the provision of human services. The full report on the BIAS project and additional information on the MRDC’s work with behavioral interventions is available on their website.
Report citation: Richburg-Hayes, Lashawn, Caitlin Anzelone, and Nadine Dechausay with Patrick Landers (2017). Nudging Change in Human Services: Final Report of the Behavioral Interventions to Advance Self-Sufficiency (BIAS) Project. OPRE Report 2017-23. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
|December 31, 2016||Posted by M. P. under Budget, Evaluation, Management, Philanthropy||
2016 was a year of flipping the script and changing up the status quo. Come tomorrow, it is time to push through our anxiety about what may lie ahead and plot a course to best navigate the unknown terrain of 2017.
But where to start? Some thoughts…
In December, I always look forward to Lucy Bernholtz’s data and philanthropy forecast for the upcoming year and the insights in Blueprint 2017 are as thought-provoking as those of its predecessors. It is available for download at the Foundation Center’s Grant Craft website.
Diversification of revenue is more important than ever, especially among donors as well as sources.
Show the impact of the work you do – the very change your program facilitates at both the client and community levels. It seems to be in fashion to downplay all measurement because quantifying impact can be challenging, what with small samples and scattered cohorts and bias (oh my!). Yes, it is. But demonstrating how a program meets expected and desired goals – the outcomes – is not a clinical trial, it is just good practice. As is using those data to inform and improve services.
In Pennsylvania, as this fiscal year’s budget shortfall grows, all signs point to a doozy of a 2017-18 negotiation process. Structural changes to the current human services system are also on the table, which may signal new opportunities for nonprofits. How can you best advocate for the sector and your organization?
Moving purposefully into the unknown may be less intimidating for a nonprofit when there is a verbal AND a financial commitment to cultivate leadership within the ranks.
On the topic of developing leaders, this is a perfect time to engage in a some formative assessment of a more personal nature. As an established or up-and-coming nonprofit leader, how do will you look back on 2016 and plan for 2017?
- Set aside some time to conduct your own career-centered end of year review.
- Use/create a rubric to determine where you are now and what you should focus on, add, or set aside in 2017. Rubrics consist of a descriptive set of items or elements and a related performance scale. List your goals or expectations for 2016, then rate each one on a numerical scale where each point is defined along a continuum of progress, for example, 0 = “No progress made” while 4 = “Achieved 100%.” Add as much or as little detail to each rating point as needed to accurately capture the situation.
- Last January, I worked with Emily Marco on a year-in-review that included a look back at professional and personal events and milestones of 2015 and planning for 2016. She also helped me clarify my goals and identify “action steps” to begin working toward them immediately. Emily is a visual problem solver who excels at helping people organize their thoughts and build a plan of action to achieve their goals. If you are interested in exploring a new way to digest the old and plan for the new you can learn more about her new online learning experience Relaunch 2017 or contact her for a goal setting session at Emilymarco.com.
Note: This post is not sponsored. I do not receive any compensation or services for mentions or links included in the post.
|August 26, 2016||Posted by M. P. under Evaluation, Management, Program Model||
This is an unexpected follow-up to my last post. I just heard about a nonprofit losing a hefty grant at renewal time due primarily to a lack of reported outcomes. There was measurement – lots of data on process and organizational performance metrics – but not much to demonstrate the difference the program made in the lives of participants. This kind of news is disheartening.
My first thought is – how did it get to that point? Were the grant terms a surprise sprung on an unsuspecting organization at the last moment? Was any mention of measuring program outcomes waved off by executives who preferred to discuss ways to scale up at the next funding cycle?
That said, I am pretty certain that…
- the funder/s made their reporting criteria and protocol clear;
- the program administration and staff were dedicated to their mission and conducted outreach and activities according to their model;
- people who experienced the program gained something from it;
- the nonprofit thought that they were collecting data that showed the impact they made on participants and in the community.
So what went wrong in that story I heard? I’ll never know. No one accepts a grant award with the expectation of a giant hole in their final report, but if there are questions about program application, geographic distance between sites, and/or irregular communication, measurement can and will get lost in the shuffle. Here are some steps you can take to prevent a similar situation from happening to your organization.
- Update your data collection plan. The outcomes listed in a column on a chart in your program materials will not measure themselves. What are you currently collecting that may also fit as an indicator of your expected results? Can you create a measure to better capture a specific change expected in the program participants?
- Make expectations clear and follow up regularly. Keep staff up-to-date on data collection with a matrix that lays out indicators, data sources, person(s) responsible and timeline. Have a check-in call monthly to report on progress and address questions and other issues around the collection.
- Have patience. It will take a while to get used to a shift from collecting process metrics (still important – don’t stop doing that) to outcomes data, But, if you have a plan ready to go you can work out any knots early on in the funding period rather than panic at report time.
|July 31, 2016||Posted by M. P. under Evaluation, Management|
Outcomes measurement in the nonprofit sector needs a reboot. First off, the word “impact” should not cause stomachs, or any other body parts, to clench, shoulders to sag, or blood pressure to rise. Second, measurement should not be viewed as a zero sum game – as in program directors are terrified that the sum of their outcomes will result in zero funding. This kind of anxiety just creates extra obstacles, especially for the small-to-mid-size organizations that are trying to build capacity for program measurement and reporting. Let’s shake off those fears and shake up how you approach outcomes.
You, yes YOU, get to drive the outcomes bus.
Unlike the pigeon from the 2003 children’s story, I say we should LET nonprofits drive this bus. You are the experts when it comes to your work. As experts, you define program success and require a regular flow of relevant information to ensure programs are operating in a way that enables them to achieve that success. Outcomes are not just about looking backward; they help you plot a more informed course forward. I recommend David Grant’s The Social Profit Handbook as an excellent resource for mission-driven organizations struggling to assess their impact in accordance with more traditional sector standards. He brings a new perspective to assessment that includes nonprofits taking back the power to define what success looks like. Talk about shaking up the status quo!
Bottom line, if you do not measure your program, you are letting someone else do that for you. Don’t let the perceived value or understanding of your work be left solely up to other people’s business models, compliance checks, and anecdotes.
Your model matters.
Unless you are just in the start–up phase, you likely have a program model or logic model of some kind. I hope it isn’t sitting undisturbed exactly where it was placed upon completion. See, this document is the essence of your nonprofit. It should live, breathe, and change just as your nonprofit does. These models display the elements of your programs and services, the reality that your organization operates in, and how the programs are expected to address the problem(s) driving your work. At the most basic level, the model answers the questions: What’s the problem here? What are we going to do? With what? And how? What do we expect will happen? If any of the answers to those questions change over time, the model should be updated and reviewed for internal consistency.
“Oh please,” you think, how can we shake up the sector when you are using phrases like “internal consistency?” Well, here is where it gets a little bit radical. Not only do you define your success; you take the reins to design a measurement plan that will best fit your operations and resources. Take that model off the shelf and transform it* into a strategic data collection plan, where activities (what you do) link to outcomes (the intended result), and are documented by indicators (measure to determine if outcome is being achieved.) Add a timeline for the collection and reporting schedule, and BOOM – get measuring.
*Ok, this part gets technical, and it may be best to seek out training or technical assistance to take your group through this process. I’ve worked with clients who bring our team back in to monitor data collection and assist staff with reporting. Still, it often comes as a surprise to sector professionals that they already have exactly what is needed to develop a measurement plan that provides useful information for service and program planning, not just for funding reports. No need to start at square one.
You say social impact; I say long-term outcome.
I have to admit, one of my favorite topics of discussion with colleagues of late is how to navigate the veritable scrum of terms associated with assessing impact. The concept of measuring program outcomes has become mistaken for the idea of demonstrating sweeping social impact. While long-term outcomes do refer to a change in a condition or status brought about by program activities, that is not synonymous with causing a wave of change in their region for the typical nonprofit.
Andrew Harding of the London School of Economics and Political Science wrote a blog post on the difference between these two results in human welfare research to challenge this interchangeable use of terms. He describes an outcome as “a finite and often measurable change,” with a pre-defined reach and limited scope. Impact on the other hand, “refers to a much broader effect – perhaps the effect information and advice had on ability to make an informed choice, empowerment or wider life experiences. Impact can be conceptualized as the longer term effect of an outcome.”
I think much anxiety around outcomes can be attributed to this misconception; that long-term outcomes must be far-reaching and epic when in reality the change is only expected within the population that experienced your program. That said, leaders should absolutely challenge their organizations by setting ambitious long-term program goals. With a robust model, the condition-changing outcomes you aim to achieve will be in proportion to your program scope and the intensity of your resources. You cannot control every factor, but you must have the fortitude to regularly examine the results of what you are doing.
Reboot your expectations around measurement. Define success. Take ownership of your outcomes.