Many nonprofits have found that they constantly juggle their funder’s requirements. For a lot of mid-sized nonprofits with more than 15-20 sources, juggling the funder’s requrements can be  difficult. The following article outlines how to bring funder requirements into the broder context of your agency’s mission and program goals. This allows you to maintain a cohesive framework.

The Situation and its Challenges

1.  Multiple Funding Sources – Multiple    Outcome Requirements

Most nonprofit agencies receive funding from multiple sources, including:

• Federal grants and/or contracts;
• State grants and/or contracts;
• Local government grants or contracts;
• Local foundation and United Way grants;
• National foundation grants

Each of these sources has reporting requirements.  With the growing concerns about accountability, government and foundation funders are now requiring more outcome evaluation reporting from grantees and contractors.

Some funders simply ask that agencies report using data they already collect, however that is becoming increasingly rare.  More funders today identify specific outcomes they require.  This is especially true for government funding sources in health and human services and for children and youth programs.

In the case of many health and human services grants, evaluation criteria are tied to practice standards set by accreditation agencies.

As a result of the growing emphasis on outcomes, many nonprofit agencies are now faced with a plethora of different outcome evaluation criteria.

*  Challenges with Prescriptive Outcomes

Prescriptive outcomes are usually developed by the funding agency apart from any dialogue with other, related funders.  This is especially true with government funding for grants and contracts on the state and local level.

In many cases, different outcomes are mandated by separate funding agencies within the same Department of Health or Department of Children’s Services.  As a result, the agency must deal with fragmented, overlapping outcome and data requirements.

In some cases in certain counties in Florida, the county funder mandated specific outcomes and provided the database to be used for reporting.  That database was a “closed system” and could not import or export data.

In New Mexico, a state funder mandated outcomes to be met by women’s shelters and provided the database to be used for reporting.

In some cases, agencies have struggled to create a database that would serve multiple funders.  However, without access to technology consulting, agencies found that they could not easily integrate separate elements into a coherent framework, and therefore operated with multiple, overlapping data requirements and databases.

One seasoned Executive Director said that their agency had staff coming in on Saturdays (unpaid) to handle the additional data entry required by multiple databases.  Staff could not easily import and export data between systems, so they re-entered demographic and some outcome data many times.  This Executive Director was on the verge of tears as she described the situation, and said “We just can’t take much more of this.  There’s no more we can give.”

*  Outcomes and the Database

In an ideal world, nonprofit agencies would develop an outcome framework that is driven by the programs.  Funder requirements would fit within that coherent outcome framework.  Agencies would collect outcome indicator data to measure progress on outcomes.

The database should be used as a program management tool to measure and track progress first for the agency and its programs, and also for funders.  However, when outcome requirements are mandated in silo fashion by different funders, it is much more difficult to create the integrated outcome framework and measure progress in a cohesive fashion.

However, many agencies can create an integrated framework that is program driven rather than funder driven –  even with multi-funder requirements.  However, developing the integrated outcome framework often takes the help of a consultant or seasoned peer.

1. Agency Responses

Agencies have responded to these outcome evaluation challenges in a number of ways.  When resources are available, agencies can develop an integrated database that is linked to a comprehensive picture of program goals, outcomes and indicators.

In many cases, agencies try to accommodate, but find themselves swamped by the minutia of reporting requirements – and remain caught in a fragmented outcome and data system.

Developing an integrated outcome evaluation system requires that agencies:

1. Understand the benefits of an integrated outcome and data system as a program management tool;
2. Have an internal commitment to outcome evaluation at the program level;
3. Have databases that can be adapted;
4. Can access technical assistance to develop their evaluation system;
5. Are able to upgrade computer systems and develop an effective database;
6. Receive ongoing funding and TA for evaluation work.

Larger agencies often have the capacity needed to develop their outcome framework and database into an integrated evaluation data system.  However, smaller and mid-sized agencies often find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide – falling increasingly behind in a data-driven evaluation environment.

C.  Challenges to Grantmakers and Government Funders

The grantmaking community can make a significant impact to improve outcome evaluation frameworks and reporting requirements through:

• Encouraging integrated approaches to outcomes, building on benchmarks and effective practices in the field and coordinating where possible on local and regional levels;
• Developing practical, streamlined approaches that focus on a few key outcomes, rather than many details – especially in today’s funding environment where foundations are reducing their levels of support;
• Influencing government grantmakers at local and state levels by promoting integrated approaches, involvement of nonprofits themselves in benchmarking and outcome development, and use of “open architecture” databases that can easily import and export data.

Grantmakers, agencies and government leaders can contribute to greater program effectiveness by:

• Coordinating outcome planning within departments and between departments, thereby reducing the number of “silo requirements” made by government agencies;
• Involving agencies in the development of outcomes, benchmarks and “best practices;”
• Focusing on the practical and most important key outcomes, and minimizing the level and amount of detail;

• Ensuring that any databases provided as a requirement for reporting be “open architecture.”

If grantmakers and government leaders promote these principles in their planning for grants and contracts, many of the most difficult problems will be addressed and overcome.  The remaining problems can be addressed through technical assistance and sharing among peers.

D.  Technical Assistance Responses

Technical assistance providers can offer significant help to nonprofits as they design their evaluation frameworks and data reporting systems.  Effective counsel can also help grantmakers develop more integrated requirements.

Even if hardware and software are not available, consultants can help agencies to identify all evaluation requirements and develop an evaluation framework that will cluster specific indicators and data measures within outcome domains.

Technical assistance can make a significant difference in nonprofit capacity to respond to multi-funder demands.

An integrated system helps build program capacity and reduce multi-data requirement headaches!

Here are some of the steps I have used in this process:

1. Outline program goals and outcomes.

1. Discuss and list all outcome reporting requirements (indicators and data measures).

1. Discuss any accreditation measures or field standards to include.

1. Create an outcome measurement framework that is simple and practical.

1. “Fill in” any indicators and data measures already required by funding sources.

1. Add any final indicators or data measure needed not already being reported.

1. Review and revise the outcome measurement framework.

1. Collect data for key areas from program managers.

1. Analyze and consolidate data and make reports.

1. Use reports for ongoing program improvement (PI).

1. Examples of Outcomes and Funder Requirements

One health and human service agency provides housing for families at risk, especially those recovering from substance abuse.  The agency’s goals are to provide a range of resources to help families develop and maintain healthy lifestyles, and to become self-sufficient.  The agency provides a continuum of services, including:  screening and placement, temporary housing, life skills education, education referral, counseling, job skills training, and support for saving for first and last month’s rent for permanent housing.

Funded by a variety of sources, the agency receives support from:  federal HUD, state children and family contracts, state jobs funds for women in transition (TANF); and state substance abuse funds (DOH).  In addition, the agency receives funding from area foundations, the community foundation and United Way.

The agency’s outcomes for all clients that enter the program are:

Fig 1

A	Families receive support for immediate crisis and set goals.
B	Families develop and maintain employment.
C	Families build life skills.
D	Family becomes self-sufficient.

Each of the funders asks for a range of outcome indicators and data measures.  There is some overlap among different data measure requirements.  When listed by funding source, they can appear a bit overwhelming.

Fig 2

Multi-Funder Requirements Grid

Federal Housing State Human Services State Jobs State Substance Abuse Key Grantmakers Screening Data Screening Data Screening Data Screening Data Temp Housing Placement Family Goals Family Goals Job Goals Sobriety Goals Develop Greater Self Sufficiency w/ Housing & Job Job Placement Obtain & Progress w/ Job Job ReadinessJob Placement Obtain Job Job Maintenance Job Support/CoachingJob Maintenance Life Skills (Scores) Access Needed Resources Resources Available (Trans, Child Care) Sober Life Skills (Meetings, Maintaining Sobriety) Maintain HousingMaintain Sobriety Savings Permanent Housing (1 year) Self Sufficiency (Their Scale) Maintain Job for 6 Months Maintain Sobriety for 6 Months

1. Practical Evaluation Solutions: An Integrated Evaluation Framework

The agency described above took the different funder data requirements listed on the Multi-Funder Grid in Figure 2 and re-framed the material to fit within the agency’s four main goal and outcome areas (Fig 1).

Outcomes Indicators and Data Measures Families receive support for the immediate crisis and commit to goals Screening completed Family goals set Placement into temporary housing Referral and placement into other appropriate programs (job training, job placement, child care, transportation, recovery, life skills training) B.  Families obtain and maintain employment Parent/s obtain job Parent/s remain on job Families build life skills and support system Family uses needed resources (child care, transportation, school, life skills training, recovery, etc) Parent/s complete agency life skills training, and meet minimum score. Parent/s maintain savings program. Family becomes self sufficient Parent/s maintain job for at least 6 months. Parent/s save enough to move into own housing. (Parent/s maintain sobriety – if appropriate) Parent/s maintain housing on their own for 1 yr

By re-framing the requirements to fit within the goal and outcome areas, the agency created a more integrated outcome measurement framework that was program driven rather than funder driven.  All of the funder requirements are contained in the re-frame.