If you have been in the nonprofit field for even a short length of time, you have probably had at least one grant turned down for "failure to provide sufficient outcome measurements". So what is different in reporting results today versus say, ten years ago?
There is considerably more emphasis being placed on verifiable results now. If the recession did nothing else, it made everyone aware that there isn't any money to waste. Grantors not only want to hear a good story, but they want to know they got the best possible results for their investment in your mission.
Let's do a hypothetical study of the difference between then and now, using a remedial tutoring program as an example. The "old" way of reporting program results was more about how many people you served than what long term gains were achieved by the participants. This is sometimes referred to as "head count" results.
The old way might have been to present some figures related to how many children in say grades three through six in a certain school system were not reading at grade level. This was the basis of the statement of need.
Two case studies of results reporting
The goal of the program might be stated like this. "The XYZ Reading Improvement program will teach 40 children how to read more effectively by incorporating phonics into a remedial reading program."
To "prove the results" the old way, the organization might say something like " In FY 20xx we presented the program to 40 children at risk of failing a class due to poor reading skills. By the end of the program the children reported that they enjoyed reading more and were able to sound out new words themselves without asking for assistance. Report cards showed improvement in reading comprehension by every student, and grade equivalency improved at least one grade level for all students." Sounds pretty good, right?
Wrong, at least when measured against today's standards for judging success.
Today, you need to be much more precise in documenting both the before and after results, and ideally you will do some sort of follow-up to see if the student improvement was maintained one, two or three years into the future.
Your new outcome-based success explanation might look like this.
Our program enrolled 40 fifth-grade students in January of 20xx. The children were selected through referrals from the (County) District case worker from county-wide fifth grade classes. Upon enrollment we tested the children's reading comprehension based on the (state) reading equivalency test as used by the (county) school district. The test was administered by Mrs Doe, who is a state-certified testing moderator.
Our initial results as shown in the accompanying table showed that 13 children were reading at a third-grade level, 22 were reading at a first semester fourth-grade level, and 5 were reading at a second-grade level. The children were divided into five eight-person groups with one group meeting on each weekday for one hour in the school library conference room.
In addition, we conducted interviews with each child separately and asked them to tell us what part of reading was the hardest for them. All of them commented that the words were hard, and they just skipped over the words they didn't know. When asked if they asked for help to pronounce the words 80% said they preferred not to ask so they wouldn't "look stupid". All of them said they hated to read out loud. The beginning test results are shown as Part One of Exhibit B.
During the ten-week session, we started with phonics, helping the children to understand how letters sound, why sometimes they sound different, and how to sound out the letters when they are combined into a word. Each week we tested the children with a list of ten words that they had never seen before(see representative sample). Every child had to read out loud at least five minutes a week.
In addition, all of the children showed poor comprehension levels, and this was confirmed by asking the parents to provide comments as shown on student report cards or during parent-teacher conferences. These were compared with the student's teacher evaluations for the purpose of understanding whether parents were able to understand the challenges the children faced. In short, because the children were skipping words they couldn't read, they did not understand what information was being presented.
Following the lesson plan (exhibit A) we tested the children again at the end of the ten weekly sessions. 37 had improved their reading skills by at least one grade level, and all of the children had improved their comprehension skills by 38 to 64 per cent, as shown by the graph in Exhibit B, Part 2.
Using interviews and class discussions, we asked the children to tell us whether reading was any easier for them now. Their collected responses are shown in Exhibit C.
In December of 20xx at the end of the first semester of the next school year, 36 out of the original 40 students were contacted (four children had left the county and could not be contacted) and retested to see if they had retained the material and techniques taught the previous year. All of the children were testing at their grade level, and all reported that they now either enjoyed reading or that reading wasn't as hard as before they took the class. See Exhibit D for the one-year test results.
The Obvious Differences
Example one is a general statement not backed up with facts. At best it presents anecdotal commentary, and basically says "we got paid to teach 40 children and we did that."
Example two presents a clear view of not only why the program was needed, but statistical evidence based on testing that can be used to both justify the need and prove that the program had a positive impact on the children not just during the program, but on into the next school year. The qualifications of the test administrator show that the tests were standardized, relative to the actual school environment, and not subject to being designed to make the nonprofit look good. Note the constant references to charts and graphs. While not absolutely necessary, presenting complex information in graphical formats makes it very easy for the grantor to see that they invested their money wisely, and that means this nonprofit may very well receive support again.
Does method two require a lot more investment of time and probably money? Absolutely. The problem has to better defined, the methods more detailed, and above all the results must show some degree of real ongoing change in a condition. Nonprofits that can't step up and embrace better outcome reporting are the ones that will be out of business very quickly.
Every program can have provable results. Think about what you want to accomplish, and then design a way to prove the results and preferably, show that the results provided some sort of ongoing improvement in the problem. No one wants to keep throwing good money after bad, and it's your job to show grantors that their money was not wasted.