In response to the allegations against Greg Mortenson, people are asking how the Central Asia Institute garnered top charity ratings. Some argue that our current evaluation systems are insufficient for nonprofits and foundations to communicate their impact and for the public to understand how we achieve results – my topic today.

The interest in showing impact is nothing new. Over the past decade, donors, sector leaders, and lawmakers have placed growing emphasis on measuring and communicating outcomes – distinct from outputs. The need to show results that made a difference and the effective strategies required to get there has grown in part due to a tight fiscal climate where many organizations compete for limited dollars.

Long gone are the days when passion for serving an important cause was reason enough to support it. Nowadays commitment – however admirable and well intentioned – is not enough. We must also must produce and communicate recognizable changes that benefit individuals, communities, and society at large. To that end, Independent Sector developed a tool that would help organizations assess their own impact, make sense to donors, board members, and other stakeholders; and offer a simple, elegant way to help organizations

• Define clearly what they were trying to accomplish
• Describe succinctly how they intended to get there; and
• Assess if they were making progress along the way.

We invited a team of exceptional professionals to help develop this instrument. We piloted it with about 40 organizations and refined it with the help of nearly 200 nonprofit and philanthropic leaders. We joined in partnership with two committee members, BBB Giving Wise Alliance and GuideStar USA, to launch “Charting Impact.” This framework involves five questions at the heart of any organization, regardless of mission or size:

1. What are we trying to accomplish?
2. What are our strategies for getting there?
3. What are our organization’s capabilities for doing this?
4. How will we know if we’re making progress?
5. What have and haven’t we accomplished so far?

Reading these seemingly “simple” questions belies how challenging they are to answer. I encourage you to ask question #4 or #5 at your next staff meeting. You’ll hear different answers from different people – not surprising since each person brings a different perspective to the table. What you might not expect is the lively debate that comes from prioritizing the answers and articulating them succinctly.

That’s what we found. I recall one participant who realized her answers to the five questions weren’t consolidated in any single document, but resided in 8 or so disparate papers. She and her staff resolved to use Charting Impact to create a single, concise, and compelling document to share with internal and external stakeholders.

Foundations have also been integral to the development of Charting Impact. We tested it with seven foundations in 2010 and hosted five strategy sessions with foundations this year. Many said they would find it useful to have standardized information about nonprofits so they could compare “apples to apples,” identify new investments, and collaborate with other funders more strategically. Some said they might use it to communicate their own impact. Others are exploring ways to integrate Charting Impact into their grantmaking processes and many see it as important capacity building for grantees. (Nonprofits said they are more likely to complete Charting Impact if foundations strongly encouraged or required it.)

Last month, we answered the 5 questions ourselves. We asked 8 IS staff-members to participate in a self-assessment, followed by board review. The process took over 2 days of work – and we found that it:

• Sparked our strategic thinking on several issues, such as how we need to better align intentions and evaluation; and
• Generated deep discussion on sharing with an external audience what IS has and has not accomplished – and, even more important, what kind of barriers exist to getting the results we seek and how to remove them. (Click here to read our full report.)

As more organizations use this framework, donors, public officials, academics, and others will have a better idea of how organizations are going about achieving their missions and assessing their own impact. Sharing a common approach means organizations can gain better insight from each other’s successes and challenges. That, in turn, should enable organizations to more readily identify collaborators and share resources. Because information will be collected in a standardized format, it will be easier to identify those doing good work and promote transparency. Charting Impact is no panacea, but it provides an industry-wide baseline against which organizations can assess themselves. It is one way we can become more open about progress toward our goals and the barriers in our way. It is also another vehicle to promote the learning that enables leaders to make changes that will benefit communities even more.

At its core, Charting Impact means understanding and articulating who you are; where you’re heading; how you’re going to get there; and when to make course corrections. I urge you join us on this journey. Log in to Charting Impact and join United Way Worldwide, Save The Children US, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and others using this framework to measure and articulate their progress – and keep their highest goals within reach.