Finding What Works — and Then Paying For It

To the Editor:

Thomas J. Billitteri’s article entitled “Tracking the Effectiveness of Charities” (June 4) explored the dynamics of measuring the effectiveness of charitable programs well. I would like to suggest an implication of measuring program effectiveness that I am not convinced our society is ready to accept.

A purpose of measuring effectiveness is to provide feedback to service providers so they can continually improve the quality of their services. Because so many charities deal with clients whose conditions are caused by multiple factors — for example, people on welfare who are unemployed or unemployable because of a lack of job skills and day care — it is likely that effectiveness measures will document the need for strategies that require resources and funding far in excess of those presently available to charities.

The potential funding gap raises a question for donors who are interested in accountability: Are philanthropists, foundations, governmental agencies and others who fund charitable works willing to expand their investments if the charitable community can truly demonstrate what works?

Charitable giving, as a percentage of gross domestic product, has remained relatively constant over the last 30 years. I wonder whether we will have the moral willingness and financial wherewithal in the future to increase funding as we discover better methods and means of addressing human needs as a result of measuring the effectiveness of charities.

Donald Moore
Executive Director
Daughters of Charity Services of San Antonio
San Antonio

* * *

To the Editor:

“Tracking the Effectiveness of Charities” addressed performance evaluation from the perspective of program evaluation. The tradition of program evaluation allows funders and managers to ask the questions: How well did the program do? Did the program accomplish what it proposed? Did the program operate in an effective and efficient manner?

For the non-profit sector to fully realize the benefits of accountability measurement, however, it needs to build upon program evaluation and measure outcomes in terms of organizational responsiveness to people. In focus-group meetings throughout North America, people with disabilities voice much greater concern about the responsiveness of services to their needs than whether the program achieves its accountability goals.

The National Center for Outcomes Research (http://www.ncor.org), with support for the Administration on Developmental Disabilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is designing a national survey of people with disabilities to measure personal outcomes — independence, productivity, integration, inclusion, choice, and self-determination. This personal-outcome base-line information will enrich the dialogue about performance and accountability by placing the person with the disability at the center of the discussion about accountability.

James F. Gardner
President
Council on Quality and Leadership in Supports for People With Disabilities
Towson, Md.

* * *

To the Editor:

As a small, privately funded job-readiness program in New York City, we rely on our outcomes to evaluate our effectiveness, distinguish us from similar programs, and attract funders.

However, it is important to keep in mind that tracking outcomes is a very labor-intensive and costly activity, requiring many staff hours to compile and process data. Because an analysis of outcomes is only as good as the integrity of the statistical evaluation, the evaluator must be qualified in data collection and statistical analyses.

We are fortunate to have the services of a professional research consultant who is provided to us by one of our funders. If we had to pay for this service ourselves, we would have to make the difficult choice between cutting services or evaluating our effectiveness.

Barbara Edwards Delsman
Executive Director
The HOPE Program
Brooklyn, N.Y.

* * *

To the Editor:

Your article “Tracking the Effectiveness of Charities” was greatly appreciated by any organization concerned with this issue.

One popular gauge of a charity’s efficiency is to compare the percentage of resources spent on its program activities to those spent on administration and fund raising. Yet this overlooks an important point: It is not simply what you put into a charity that counts, but what its beneficiaries get out of it.

TechnoServe, an international business-development organization, regularly rates its performance by the cost-effectiveness and long-lasting benefits of our programs. We evaluate the return, so to speak, on our supporters’ investments. TechnoServe’s analyses compare the cost of our assistance with the financial and social benefits to the poor with whom we work. Our minimum goal is for each dollar spent on assisting a community to result in at least five dollars in benefits for the rural poor.

While gathering this data is not without its difficulties, organizations owe it to their donors to provide evidence of their results.

Peter A. Reiling
President
TechnoServe
Norwalk, Conn.