Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes: Best Practices in Assessment and Accountability

Whether you are an executive at a not-for-profit or a grantor, at some point it is necessary or prudent to do program assessment. How well is the organization doing? Are its funds allocated in the best way to achieve desired results? Are managers performing well? Most organizations do some form of annual assessment, including formal goal and target setting, but many are failing to measure the right things, and thus do not provide the information they really need to properly evaluate programs. One of the most common problems is the failure to distinguish between inputs, outputs and outcomes.

An IT Director reports that his department exceeded its goal of installing 10 new workstations by 50%, installing 15 workstations.

The executive director of an eviction prevention coalition reports to her board that the number of client calls handled went up by 200% and they doubled the number of referrals over the previous year. They had to hire 2 new counselors just to handle the volume.

An admissions officer reports that he attended twice as many college fairs and applications are up 10%, more than the 7% target.

Are these success stories? Maybe. If the purpose of the organization is to buy workstations, maintain a database, make referrals, or have lots of applicants, then these would appear to be indicators of success. But it is likely that the purpose of the first two organizations is to provide some service to improve the lives of clients, and the third to educate a certain number and cohort of students. None of these reports tells us if the client population was served better or if the desired number and type of students enrolled. That is because all we know are the changes in inputs and outputs, not whether the outcome improved.

Assessing an organization is assessing its mission. Inputs and outputs are tools that the administration uses to help achieve the purpose of the organization, but they tell us little about how well the organization is doing to further its purpose. Inputs are the resources—such as people, money, equipment--that the organization puts into a project. Outputs are measures of what the inputs produced--such as how many calls were received, the increased capacity of a computer network. Neither measures how well the organization is achieving its mission. For this, one must measure outcomes.

Good assessments start with the organization's mission, and developing a series of goals that align with the overall mission, such as providing some type of service to a defined clientele. Each goal needs to be measured, so metrics, or indicators, must be defined that will measure whether the goal is being achieved. A baseline should be defined, and annual targets set.

Every department in an organization exists to further the mission, so each department’s resource allocations must be measured against how it achieves the overall goal(s). So if new workstations are being purchased because they will help increase the number of clients served, the expense is justified because it helps achieve that target. The target is some defined increase in clients served, not the number of workstations purchased. Unless more workstations equals more clients served, buying more workstations than originally planned is an indicator of waste, not over-achievement.

Is the number of client calls or referrals the goal, or is the number of evictions prevented the goal? Is the goal more applications, more admissions, or more enrollment of a certain type of student? Do the numbers reported (the inputs and outputs) tell you anything about the real goal?

Inputs and outputs that contribute to sought-after outcomes should be tracked of course, but the connection to the outcome must be clear. But the measure of the effectiveness of a manager, a department, or the organization as a whole is the outcome.

Why do organizations focus on inputs and outputs? The simple reason is that they are relatively easy to measure compared to outcomes. In fact, sometimes, organizations find it difficult to even define a measurable outcome. Sometimes, they are so difficult to measure directly, that one must find a proxy that is easier to measure. However, the proxy must a good substitute for the actual outcome.

It takes a great deal of planning to define the goals, develop indicators/metrics, determine baselines, set annual targets that are measurable and achievable, and then determine what inputs are needed to achieve the targets. Ideally, everyone needs to be involved, including board members, funders, management, and front line staff. It is a process that runs continuously throughout the year, undergoing refinement, interim assessments and annual evaluation.

While it is true that, as Albert Einstein said, “not everything that matters is measurable and not everything that is measurable matters,” outcomes-based assessment is a critical tool to measure an organization's success. Annual reporting of a well-formulated assessment creates transparency, accountability and confidence that the organization is well run and funds are being managed prudently to achieve the desired results.

If measuring your organization's success is a challenge you face, I can help you create a customized outcomes-based assessment tool.