> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • Our Transition to a Nonprofit
Sign In
  • Latest Articles
  • Advice
  • Opinion
  • Webinars
  • Data & Research
  • Grants
  • Magazine
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
  • Latest Articles
  • Advice
  • Opinion
  • Webinars
  • Data & Research
  • Grants
  • Magazine
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
  • Latest Articles
  • Advice
  • Opinion
  • Webinars
  • Data & Research
  • Grants
  • Magazine
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
    • Featured Products
    • Data
    • Reports
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Webinars
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Advice
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Stop Measuring Activities and Start Measuring Outcomes

By  Jason Saul
May 28, 2014

In my 20-plus years working in the nonprofit world, one of the most common mistakes I’ve seen nonprofits make is measuring activities instead of outcomes. I understand why: Measuring activities is easier, and nonprofits have limited time to dedicate to measurement. But measuring activities isn’t going to help nonprofits demonstrate their value and secure more funds.

When groups measure program efforts—teaching, training, negotiating, feeding, researching, and so on—they’re measuring activities. Outcomes, on the other hand, are the results of those activities: changed awareness, behavior, condition, or status. There are outcomes that pertain to individuals (like increased graduation rates or improved literacy), organizational outcomes (like more revenue or a better reputation), and systemic outcomes (like changed policies or greater investment).

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from v144.philanthropy.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

In my 20-plus years working in the nonprofit world, one of the most common mistakes I’ve seen nonprofits make is measuring activities instead of outcomes. I understand why: Measuring activities is easier, and nonprofits have limited time to dedicate to measurement. But measuring activities isn’t going to help nonprofits demonstrate their value and secure more funds.

When groups measure program efforts—teaching, training, negotiating, feeding, researching, and so on—they’re measuring activities. Outcomes, on the other hand, are the results of those activities: changed awareness, behavior, condition, or status. There are outcomes that pertain to individuals (like increased graduation rates or improved literacy), organizational outcomes (like more revenue or a better reputation), and systemic outcomes (like changed policies or greater investment).

To illustrate the difference between outcomes and activities, I think of a story from advisory work I did with a community foundation that was trying to measure the impact of its grants. At one of our weekly grant-review meetings, a program officer suggested that her latest grant was pretty straightforward and didn’t require much discussion: The grantee had requested $25,000 to purchase a new van. The program officer insisted that “the grantee either bought the van or didn’t. It isn’t hard to measure.”

I pressed, wanting to know why the van was purchased. To deliver stereo equipment? To move stolen goods? To sell ice cream? Turns out, the program officer requested the van to transport elderly citizens from rural communities to hospitals to receive preventative care. The real outcome of the grant wasn’t buying the van but providing the elderly with increased access to health care.

When we start by identifying the outcome, we can consider the most efficient ways to achieve that outcome. In the case of increasing health-care access for the elderly, options like train passes, bus fares, or even setting up local clinics are valid alternatives to consider.

ADVERTISEMENT

As your organization works to make its impact, my advice for avoiding the trap of tracking activities is to remember the following principles :

Outcomes are abstract and complex. Since activities are tangible and countable, like the number of website page views, many organizations focus on counting those rather than measuring more meaningful change.

Outcomes are difficult to control and take time to produce. Activities can occur quickly and are easy to control: Either you bought a van or you didn’t. But outcomes are subject to external forces and can require years to be realized.

Outcomes speak to value. Activity tracking demonstrates accountability and compliance, while outcomes demonstrate the meaningful change your organization creates.

It is crucial for your organization to determine which outcomes it can produce and to measure your contribution toward those outcomes. This demonstration of value shows supporters how important your work is and can help you bring in more money so you can make an even greater impact.

ADVERTISEMENT

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Results and Reporting
Jason Saul
Jason Saul is executive director of the Center for Impact Sciences at the University of Chicago and co-founder of the Impact Genome Project.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Latest Articles
    • Get Newsletters
    • Advice
    • Webinars
    • Data & Research
    • Magazine
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Latest Articles
    • Get Newsletters
    • Advice
    • Webinars
    • Data & Research
    • Magazine
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Work at the Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Gift-Acceptance Policy
    • Site Map
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Work at the Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Gift-Acceptance Policy
    • Site Map
    • DEI Commitment Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Organizational Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Organizational Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Philanthropy
  • twitter
  • youtube
  • pinterest
  • facebook
  • linkedin