Nonprofits are constantly asked to quantify their impact… But is this go-to metric of number served/reached, really the most important?

As with many things, when we measure impact, we need to capture complexity while distilling it into a simple framework.

This is the topic of a provocative article by @Mona Mourshed in the latest issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review.

She argues that “higher reach alone does not equate to impact. The unintended consequence of excessively or exclusively defining impact by reach is that “Nonprofit leaders can find themselves discussing how to serve more people through “lighter touch” models or debating ambiguous metrics like “reached” or “touched” to expand participant numbers” with potential implications on program quality.

For direct service organizations working to scale, she argues that you should look at three interrelated pillars simultaneously-- breadth, depth, and durability.

Not only do you look at the number of people you reach, but the depth of that reach in changing or affecting individuals’ lives, and the durability, how long after your work does that effect last.

While reach can be an important indicator of impact, it should not be at the expense of depth or durability.

📌Now You: Do you look at the depth of your impact as well as how many you reach?

#SSIR #nonprofits #nonprofitleadership #strategy #agilestrategy #agilefundraising #impact #impactmetrics #sucess #goals #accountability #reporting #funders #monamourshed #nonprofit #work #innovation #quality