Keeping measurements true to the mission

A recently published NPR study stated that millennials are the least entrepreneurial generation in history. No one wants to venture into starting their own companies, they are afraid of failing in the currently dismal economic climate.[1] This idea seems to ring true for social innovation entrepreneurs as well. However, social impact bonds might be a solution for those wary of losing money on the initial efforts of spreading an important service or idea. Many of the articles we read for this week, including “Social Impact Bonds: Phantom of the Nonprofit Sector” and “What Impact? A Framework for Measuring the Scale and Scope of Social Performance”[2] discuss the benefits of social sector leaders and founders offering investments into social innovations on the promise of return on impact. While these investors may not receive return on their investment, if a program is successful in its output and causes lasting impact, an investor will have the satisfaction of knowing that their money has improved society. In order to determine whether a program is causing lasting impact, performance measurement has become a tool commonly utilized. Theoretically, by standardizing performance measurements such as the effect to which an idea is impacting society or the scope to which services have been provided can be immensely helpful to entrepreneurs and investors alike.

However, it is important to avoid being too preoccupied with the measurement. It is easily possible for certain measurements to exaggerate the impact that an organization has. For example, at the organization where I previously worked, thousands of backpacks and school supplies were donated to elementary school children in low-income neighborhoods. However, there was never a follow-through to determine whether those school supplies helped to encourage them to attend school days, or that they were even able to get to school. Meanwhile, the activity was touted to donors and founders of the organization as a great example of the beneficial work they do.

Furthermore, in the program I was coordinating, there was great emphasis on metrics being taken during the program. I was in charge of implementing a financial coaching program in the low income areas of my organization’s region. Financial coaching is a service that is rapidly rising in the financial stability sector of social service organizations. During my program implementation, supervisors were more concerned with the amount of coach-client partnerships than they were with the quality of the experience for the client. No data was ever collected on clients’ experiences in their partnerships, the only information collected was quantitative, such as when they met and for how long. Data collection for the program was generally time consuming. Reading about the pitfalls of data collection, such as not knowing when or how to collect and not knowing how to measure impact as opposed to output resonated with me, as I struggled with these questions while implementing my own financial coaching program.

While data collection is imperative in order for investors to determine which ventures are worthwile investments, I agree with Ebrahim and Rangan that one of the most important steps an organization can take is to ensure that they have a strong, communicable idea of their purpose, mission ideas, and even organizational culture. These priorities, more than any other priority and organization can take, might be the best way to hold members of the organization accountable toward their own social goal. Maybe, if my organization had taken that into account, we may have been able to stay more closely committed to our clients’ success.

---

[1] http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495487260/millennials-want-to-be-entrepreneurs-but-a-tough-economy-stands-in-their-way?live=1&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160926

[2] http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/CMR5603_07_Ebrahim_e3316477-8965-4287-be95-04642982b638.pdf