Copley Raff is working with several organizations that provide vital services to people facing behavioral health challenges, intellectual limitations, family dysfunction, educational needs, and other human issues.
When we draft cases for philanthropic support of their programs, we ask, “Do you have outcome data?” Typically, an expression of regret follows.
Outcome data on interventions and research on people are the most elusive of challenges. I received my master’s degree in public health and clinical nutrition during the dawn of diet research, only to find, a generation later, that much of the dietary dogma I relied on had been overturned or seriously questioned.
When it comes to measuring humans and the effects your behavioral health program has on your client, it cannot be measured, or it could take a decade, with intervening life variables, to measure.
How do museums or performing arts organizations demonstrate that their audiences and communities are better off because of their art? Even in higher education, they can measure graduation rates and postgraduate employment success. But can they say that the graduate is happier, healthier, and accomplishing personal goals?
This impact report from a native American school, one of our clients, is a good example of an “activity” report. We take it as an article of faith that these activities and genuinely valuable accomplishments have a positive “impact” on the school’s students and communities.
When it comes to raising funds for organizations that serve people, we can only take it as an article of faith that the programming they provide likely helps individuals and communities. Communities without the arts, human services, and educational opportunities are weaker for it.
And if it is an article of faith that these organizations need to articulate in their appeals, then I suggest that appeals and cases for philanthropic support lean more on how programs aspire to likely high-order outcomes for constituents and communities alike.
