Comments on: The Mulago Foundation: How We Think About Impact

By: Florence Reed

Florence Reed — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:12:55 +0000

Thank you so much for this. As a nonprofit that has long tracked outputs of our work such as acres converted to sustainable farming practices, but is just now trying to start tracking the broader impact of our work on poverty alleviation and the environment, this is very helpful for getting our heads around the basic issues we need to consider.

By: Randy Newcomb

Randy Newcomb — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:55:11 +0000

Well done. So much of the discussion about measuring impact gets lost in its own vernacular. Congratulations Mulago!

By: Paul Botts

Paul Botts — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:15:06 +0000

I would rank the document’s plain language and its conciseness as it’s second and third most-positive attributes.

Those are important, and welcome, and all too rare in our sector. But the number one reason for the appeal of the piece is its actual content: it states a tightly-reasoned and specific case for impact assessment in both philanthropy specifically and in non-profit work generally. And then in the final paragraph it also has a clear strong statement of overall philosophy towards the subject.

That content would grab me even if it wasn’t so nicely put together, in other words.

By: Sean Stannard-Stockton

Sean Stannard-Stockton — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:37:33 +0000

Thanks for all the kind comments. I’ve made sure Mulago saw them. Paul, Mulago is a foundation with three staff members. As far as I know, this document is not in a distributable format. But you can always distribute this blog post!

I’m intrigued whether part of the reason why this post resonated with people is because of the informal language used to describe what is traditionally an academic subject. Since the four of you liked the post, would you let me know whether you think the fact is was just two pages and used informal language was part of its appeal?

By: Paul Brest

Paul Brest — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:56:29 +0000

This is excellent. Should be bottled and distributed.
Paul Brest

By: Tye Johnson

Tye Johnson — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:28:01 +0000

Excellent article. As a social scientist on the periphery of the non-profit sector, I’ve noticed that the evaluation of impact is frequently non-existent or violates basic methodological principles.

The issue of attribution is particularly problematic, and while it is true that an experimental methodology is the only hope of demonstrating “causation”, random assignment and variable manipulation is fraught with ethical issues that may not be able to be overcome.

“Natural” experimental methods may be appropriate in some venues, but solid methodologies short of experimental methods may be all that can be used.

I’m certainly available to consult on impact studies.

By: Phil Steinmeyer

Phil Steinmeyer — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:03:20 +0000

I agree. Excellent, concise, clear.

This method may be harder in practice than in theory, but as a goal, I commend it.

By: Paul Botts

Paul Botts — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:50:07 +0000

Wow, I really really really like that piece! Clear choices and conclusions expressed in plain common-sense language — so rare in our sector and so great!

The opening and closing paragraphs in particular fit squarely into the “WHAT HE SAID!” category for me. Hmm, what would be the foundation-sector version of shouting “DITTO!!!”….?

Where can I find (for purposes of sharing it with everyone I work with) that essay?