Comments on: Philanthropy Evaluation: The Courtroom Approach http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/philanthropy-evaluation-the-courtroom-approach Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:27:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Sean Stannard-Stockton http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/philanthropy-evaluation-the-courtroom-approach/comment-page-1#comment-3875 Sean Stannard-Stockton Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:13:15 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/philanthropy-evaluation-the-courtroom-approach#comment-3875 Excellent advice, thanks Tony. Excellent advice, thanks Tony.

]]> By: Tony Pipa http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/philanthropy-evaluation-the-courtroom-approach/comment-page-1#comment-3874 Tony Pipa Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:10:29 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/philanthropy-evaluation-the-courtroom-approach#comment-3874 I like Steven's common-sense approach. It's a useful elaboration of the concept that Jim Collins presented in his monograph "Good to Great" for the nonprofit sector: "It doesn't really matter whether you can quantify your results. What matters is that you rigorously assemble evidence — quantitative or qualitative — to track your progress. If the evidence is primarily qualitative, think like a trial lawyer assembling the combined body of evidence. If the evidence is primarily quantitative, then think of yourself as a laboratory scientist assembling and assessing the data." I like Steven’s common-sense approach. It’s a useful elaboration of the concept that Jim Collins presented in his monograph “Good to Great” for the nonprofit sector: “It doesn’t really matter whether you can quantify your results. What matters is that you rigorously assemble evidence — quantitative or qualitative — to track your progress. If the evidence is primarily qualitative, think like a trial lawyer assembling the combined body of evidence. If the evidence is primarily quantitative, then think of yourself as a laboratory scientist assembling and assessing the data.”

]]> By: Sean Stannard-Stockton http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/philanthropy-evaluation-the-courtroom-approach/comment-page-1#comment-3860 Sean Stannard-Stockton Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:47:34 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/philanthropy-evaluation-the-courtroom-approach#comment-3860 Incredibly important point. Thanks for making it. Funders are not all knowing judges in this situation. And it is certainly not a one time decision. Incredibly important point. Thanks for making it. Funders are not all knowing judges in this situation. And it is certainly not a one time decision.

]]> By: young staffer http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/philanthropy-evaluation-the-courtroom-approach/comment-page-1#comment-3859 young staffer Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:24:41 +0000 http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2008/07/philanthropy-evaluation-the-courtroom-approach#comment-3859 I do think the framework captures a good deal of what seems valuable in evaluation to me -- kudos to Steven. The hardest point to get across in these discussions often seems to be the notion that evaluation involves considering varied types of evidence and wading through it with all of its contradictions, inadequacies, and ambiguities. I would make a slightly different point about where the analogy falls a bit flat for me (and, to be clear, it's not meant to contradict anything that's been said): court proceedings are intended to be one-time affairs, judging the past. As a funder, it's important to know that organizations are evaluating, learning, changing, responding to a new environment, and then reeevaluating on an ongoing basis. You don't want to just "rule" on whether the organization is good or bad at achieving its mission and leave it at that. You want to know whether it is dynamic and responsive to the enviroment or static and unchanging. How it is learning and planning is crucial, not just its past success or failure. I do think the framework captures a good deal of what seems valuable in evaluation to me — kudos to Steven. The hardest point to get across in these discussions often seems to be the notion that evaluation involves considering varied types of evidence and wading through it with all of its contradictions, inadequacies, and ambiguities.

I would make a slightly different point about where the analogy falls a bit flat for me (and, to be clear, it’s not meant to contradict anything that’s been said): court proceedings are intended to be one-time affairs, judging the past. As a funder, it’s important to know that organizations are evaluating, learning, changing, responding to a new environment, and then reeevaluating on an ongoing basis. You don’t want to just “rule” on whether the organization is good or bad at achieving its mission and leave it at that. You want to know whether it is dynamic and responsive to the enviroment or static and unchanging. How it is learning and planning is crucial, not just its past success or failure.

]]>