This is something we are always thinking and talking about in our work at the Sorenson Impact Institute - how can we measure and report impact in a meaningful way, so that organizations can take tangible action to change what they are doing and maximize the impact they are having. The point in the article - that funders need to demand meaningful impact measurement and reporting - is so important. What organizations will make the effort and take the reputational risk of reporting their impact if they can get the funding they need without it? Of course, some will because they want to understand and therefore grow their impact, but there's a lot less incentive...
Thanks Paul Ronalds for resurfacing this 2023 article. It's even more timely 12 months on as every sector is awash in impact reports with these "bogus metrics". Jo Barraket AM also has us reflecting on over-claiming attribution of impact, and failures to account for the "process" of creating change..acknowledging all the actors at play, in her recent posts. Quality impact reporting looks a lot less sexy, but a lot of what we see today is just marketing and soundbites. If every report looks like this, we're just kidding ourselves and contributing to the white noise. "Impact can be defined by what it is not. First and foremost, activities are not impact. Trainings, workshops, delivering programs—that’s not impact. Nor are bogus metrics like “lives touched” and “people reached.” Awareness and attitudes don’t matter if it doesn’t lead to action; action doesn’t matter if it doesn’t lead to change. What people know, what they say, and what they do may be necessary steps on the way to impact, but it’s the end result that matters." https://lnkd.in/evNmwbet