<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Let&#8217;s Take a Step Back in the Outcomes Debate</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.socialvelocity.net/2010/01/lets-take-a-step-back-in-the-outcomes-debate/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.socialvelocity.net/2010/01/lets-take-a-step-back-in-the-outcomes-debate/</link>
	<description>Accelerating Social Innovation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:37:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: 4 Things Every Nonprofit Needs&#160;&#124;&#160;Texas Entrepreneur Networks</title>
		<link>http://www.socialvelocity.net/2010/01/lets-take-a-step-back-in-the-outcomes-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-3594</link>
		<dc:creator>4 Things Every Nonprofit Needs&#160;&#124;&#160;Texas Entrepreneur Networks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:50:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialvelocity.net/?p=1404#comment-3594</guid>
		<description>[...] bottom line as a barometer of success. Rather, a nonprofit must articulate what they exist to do. A theory of change, or logic model, allows a nonprofit to state (to internal board and staff, and to external funders, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] bottom line as a barometer of success. Rather, a nonprofit must articulate what they exist to do. A theory of change, or logic model, allows a nonprofit to state (to internal board and staff, and to external funders, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nell Edgington</title>
		<link>http://www.socialvelocity.net/2010/01/lets-take-a-step-back-in-the-outcomes-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-1126</link>
		<dc:creator>Nell Edgington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:43:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialvelocity.net/?p=1404#comment-1126</guid>
		<description>David,

I think you are absolutely correct, we need to figure out who will pay for assessment.  But, really, the bigger question is who will pay for infrastructure, capacity, R&amp;D, etc., all of those things that are routinely paid for in the for-profit sector, but very difficult to fund in the social impact space.  However, I see this trend changing as (mostly) foundations and individual major donors are realizing that they can get a much higher return on their investment when they invest in smart infrastructure, capacity, assessment, planning, etc.  I think the change here will be by example, not by some big entity stepping up and starting to fund these things.  But nonetheless, change is coming.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David,</p>
<p>I think you are absolutely correct, we need to figure out who will pay for assessment.  But, really, the bigger question is who will pay for infrastructure, capacity, R&#038;D, etc., all of those things that are routinely paid for in the for-profit sector, but very difficult to fund in the social impact space.  However, I see this trend changing as (mostly) foundations and individual major donors are realizing that they can get a much higher return on their investment when they invest in smart infrastructure, capacity, assessment, planning, etc.  I think the change here will be by example, not by some big entity stepping up and starting to fund these things.  But nonetheless, change is coming.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.socialvelocity.net/2010/01/lets-take-a-step-back-in-the-outcomes-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-1122</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:32:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialvelocity.net/?p=1404#comment-1122</guid>
		<description>Nell, again.  Excellent post.  However, it seems you&#039;ve glossed over an important question: who will or should pay for impact assessment? As you know this is a debate that was alive in well in the philanthropic sector about a decade ago.  I&#039;m actually shocked we don&#039;t see more references to this in the current dialogue on the topic.  The primary issue does not appear to be about capacity, but funding.  While foundation&#039;s have paid tremendous amounts of lip service to measuring impact over the years, very few have shown a willingness to fund these activities in a substantial manner. 

With respect to social enterprises, who should bear the cost of impact assessment?  Companies, investors, clients/customers?  In light of the current challenges facing the social venture space, none of these potential actors seem to fit the bill. Would very much enjoy your thoughts on this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nell, again.  Excellent post.  However, it seems you&#8217;ve glossed over an important question: who will or should pay for impact assessment? As you know this is a debate that was alive in well in the philanthropic sector about a decade ago.  I&#8217;m actually shocked we don&#8217;t see more references to this in the current dialogue on the topic.  The primary issue does not appear to be about capacity, but funding.  While foundation&#8217;s have paid tremendous amounts of lip service to measuring impact over the years, very few have shown a willingness to fund these activities in a substantial manner. </p>
<p>With respect to social enterprises, who should bear the cost of impact assessment?  Companies, investors, clients/customers?  In light of the current challenges facing the social venture space, none of these potential actors seem to fit the bill. Would very much enjoy your thoughts on this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uberVU - social comments</title>
		<link>http://www.socialvelocity.net/2010/01/lets-take-a-step-back-in-the-outcomes-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-1115</link>
		<dc:creator>uberVU - social comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:54:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialvelocity.net/?p=1404#comment-1115</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Social comments and analytics for this post...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post was mentioned on Twitter by aaronsklar: Many nonprofits&#039; lack of theory of change is a major hindrance for social impact measurement! http://twurl.nl/kdvziy #socent RT @sc_seo...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by aaronsklar: Many nonprofits&#8217; lack of theory of change is a major hindrance for social impact measurement! <a href="http://twurl.nl/kdvziy" rel="nofollow">http://twurl.nl/kdvziy</a> #socent RT @sc_seo&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nell Edgington</title>
		<link>http://www.socialvelocity.net/2010/01/lets-take-a-step-back-in-the-outcomes-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-1090</link>
		<dc:creator>Nell Edgington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:19:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialvelocity.net/?p=1404#comment-1090</guid>
		<description>Gayle,

You variation on the logic model is interesting and definitely much deeper than the model I suggest.  I think it would be great if the average nonprofit organization could create a logic model like the one you describe, but I worry that it is too complex and has too many steps to work for the majority of nonprofits.  I wonder if it is better to at least start with a simpler version that gets to the core argument they are making in their organization (how they use resources to create outcomes), and then the more sophisticated nonprofits could delve deeper with a model like the one you suggest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gayle,</p>
<p>You variation on the logic model is interesting and definitely much deeper than the model I suggest.  I think it would be great if the average nonprofit organization could create a logic model like the one you describe, but I worry that it is too complex and has too many steps to work for the majority of nonprofits.  I wonder if it is better to at least start with a simpler version that gets to the core argument they are making in their organization (how they use resources to create outcomes), and then the more sophisticated nonprofits could delve deeper with a model like the one you suggest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gayle L. Gifford, ACFRE</title>
		<link>http://www.socialvelocity.net/2010/01/lets-take-a-step-back-in-the-outcomes-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-1088</link>
		<dc:creator>Gayle L. Gifford, ACFRE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:39:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialvelocity.net/?p=1404#comment-1088</guid>
		<description>Nell,
I agree completely that most nonprofits haven&#039;t articulated their theory of change. 
I am finding the theory of change missing, however, from the logic model that you are using. I would add a few columns at the beginning:
1. What is the problem/need, it&#039;s scope and root causes
2. What is the Theory of Change that will get from from the problem/need, given it&#039;s root causes, to the outcomes and impact that you desire? Theory of change includes not only evidence based practice, but also experimental models based on the root causes, and, something we forget to talk about, the mental models and political theory about how the world works... I haven&#039;t met an organization that is immune from that. Embedded in those mental models are also are values systems.
3. Once defined, then what is critical in completing the logic model, before you get to inputs, is the &quot;strategic&quot; part, or what can also be thought of as &quot;where is the leverage&quot; This is essential to defining the path your organization will follow as there are way more choices than there are resources available to any one nonprofit. 

Best, Gayle</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nell,<br />
I agree completely that most nonprofits haven&#8217;t articulated their theory of change.<br />
I am finding the theory of change missing, however, from the logic model that you are using. I would add a few columns at the beginning:<br />
1. What is the problem/need, it&#8217;s scope and root causes<br />
2. What is the Theory of Change that will get from from the problem/need, given it&#8217;s root causes, to the outcomes and impact that you desire? Theory of change includes not only evidence based practice, but also experimental models based on the root causes, and, something we forget to talk about, the mental models and political theory about how the world works&#8230; I haven&#8217;t met an organization that is immune from that. Embedded in those mental models are also are values systems.<br />
3. Once defined, then what is critical in completing the logic model, before you get to inputs, is the &#8220;strategic&#8221; part, or what can also be thought of as &#8220;where is the leverage&#8221; This is essential to defining the path your organization will follow as there are way more choices than there are resources available to any one nonprofit. </p>
<p>Best, Gayle</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jara Dean-Coffey</title>
		<link>http://www.socialvelocity.net/2010/01/lets-take-a-step-back-in-the-outcomes-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-1065</link>
		<dc:creator>Jara Dean-Coffey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:10:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialvelocity.net/?p=1404#comment-1065</guid>
		<description>Neil,

I too think the tide is turning. I have always been challenged by the notion that things like strategy, program/implementation and evaluative thinking are separate rather than threads when woven together are the fabric of success.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neil,</p>
<p>I too think the tide is turning. I have always been challenged by the notion that things like strategy, program/implementation and evaluative thinking are separate rather than threads when woven together are the fabric of success.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nell Edgington</title>
		<link>http://www.socialvelocity.net/2010/01/lets-take-a-step-back-in-the-outcomes-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-1062</link>
		<dc:creator>Nell Edgington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:53:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialvelocity.net/?p=1404#comment-1062</guid>
		<description>Jara,

I completely agree that the process of modeling is really the key part.  If a nonprofit can come together and agree about what it is that they are trying to do, the impact they are trying to achieve, that is huge.  

And I also agree that funding the evaluation, or even the creation of the logic model, is a critical hurdle.  Most foundations and donors want their money to go to &quot;program&quot; as opposed to planning, strategy, infrastructure, etc.  But I think that is changing.  And so I believe that soon there will be more money for this type of planning and the resulting evaluation of the social impact nonprofits are working toward.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jara,</p>
<p>I completely agree that the process of modeling is really the key part.  If a nonprofit can come together and agree about what it is that they are trying to do, the impact they are trying to achieve, that is huge.  </p>
<p>And I also agree that funding the evaluation, or even the creation of the logic model, is a critical hurdle.  Most foundations and donors want their money to go to &#8220;program&#8221; as opposed to planning, strategy, infrastructure, etc.  But I think that is changing.  And so I believe that soon there will be more money for this type of planning and the resulting evaluation of the social impact nonprofits are working toward.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jara Dean-Coffey</title>
		<link>http://www.socialvelocity.net/2010/01/lets-take-a-step-back-in-the-outcomes-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-1059</link>
		<dc:creator>Jara Dean-Coffey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:22:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialvelocity.net/?p=1404#comment-1059</guid>
		<description>Before I start I will confess that I am big proponent of modeling be it program or theory. I have yet to meet a client, when engaged in this process fully, has not come out on the other side as clearer and more focused.  What however it most catalyzing for them is not the model itself but the process of modeling which we describe as the systematic articulation, reflection, critique and refinement of their intent including strategies and underlying principles. The &quot;model&quot; itself is just a bonus.

It is not a silver bullet for what ails the sectors but it can bring to light, and thus make more transparent, what we hope will be be achieved for our efforts.  After that, to be honest, the evaluative piece, which in our opinion is merely a focus on &quot;to what end&quot; is much easier to determine. Funding it however is another issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Before I start I will confess that I am big proponent of modeling be it program or theory. I have yet to meet a client, when engaged in this process fully, has not come out on the other side as clearer and more focused.  What however it most catalyzing for them is not the model itself but the process of modeling which we describe as the systematic articulation, reflection, critique and refinement of their intent including strategies and underlying principles. The &#8220;model&#8221; itself is just a bonus.</p>
<p>It is not a silver bullet for what ails the sectors but it can bring to light, and thus make more transparent, what we hope will be be achieved for our efforts.  After that, to be honest, the evaluative piece, which in our opinion is merely a focus on &#8220;to what end&#8221; is much easier to determine. Funding it however is another issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nell Edgington</title>
		<link>http://www.socialvelocity.net/2010/01/lets-take-a-step-back-in-the-outcomes-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-1054</link>
		<dc:creator>Nell Edgington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:28:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialvelocity.net/?p=1404#comment-1054</guid>
		<description>Paul,

Thanks for the list of tools.  This is very helpful.  It looks like you are doing great work.  Thanks for writing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul,</p>
<p>Thanks for the list of tools.  This is very helpful.  It looks like you are doing great work.  Thanks for writing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

