Printable Version Email to a Friend

Goals, Objectives, Assessment, Evaluation: Which One and Why?

Nonprofits, for a variety of reasons, both want and need to be able to measure their advocacy potential and advocacy activities. This touches on elements including (but not limited to) organizational strengths and weakness; policy successes, and the ability to sustain and repeat them over a period of time; and even more intangible factors like an organization's reputation, relevancy, and standing in advocacy venues.

Organizations must be careful not to lose sight of their goals and objectives in their advocacy. Goals, the ends to which advocacy is focused, whether it is short-term or long-range, proactive or reactive, tactical or strategic, largely depend upon the perspectives of stakeholders directly or indirectly involved or affected by actions undertaken towards the end.

While an organization may seek to affect change, individuals within it may seek a successful advocacy activity as simply one step necessary to achieving further benefits to the cause? in short, an objective. Objectives are, simply, those steps achieved or performed en route to achieving a goal. Objectives usually are measured in terms of what is to be done, in what context or under what circumstances they are to be met, and to what standard performance - individually or collectively - is to be determined.

There are a variety of methods available for nonprofit to effectively measure their advocacy, but confusion often arises as to whether nonprofits are assessing or evaluating themselves.

Generally, assessment involves some preliminary measure of capacity or ability, based upon any available information or data on hand, as opposed to data generated through research and study. It is meant to lay out a groundwork for examining how or whether growth, change, or improvement might take place. Assessment also emphasizes collecting learning and experience over the course of activity. If behavior or actions desired do not occur, assessment provides the means for implementing new or different courses of action. It may take the form of organizational profiles, strengthens weakness opportunity potential (SWOP) analysis, or other similar gauges.

Evaluation, by contrast, generally entails a more detailed analysis, based upon observation. It is meant to present a measure, based upon a combination or aggregate of input and information, upon which decisions, reviews, or ratings are made. It takes into account purposes (such as need, allocation or utilization of resources, improvement or change, progress or impact); audiences (program staff, funders, management, decisionmakers, media, underserved); tasks performed, and types of information available and that will be generated through measurement (statistics, interviews, observations, anecdotes, test results, cost-benefits analysis, longitudinal or behavioral data).

Ultimately, the most successful assessment and evaluation takes into account a range of standard and informal measurements, procedural approaches, and tools. Some additional measurement approaches include:

• comparing current level of behavior or activity with an average level of behaviors by a select group of comparable groups (normative measures), through observation and performance measures. This is usually most useful if the measures used are relevant to an organization's goals and objectives, otherwise, one risks measuring a specific capacity or skill as an indicator of broader behavior.
• directly engaging stakeholders individually or in groups, through surveys or interviews, to determine priorities and identifying ways to gauge whether goals are met
• establishing individual or networks of discrete or overlapping feedback channels which provide input within a narrow or wide timeframe
• compiling narratives, especially experiential or journal approaches, to gauge more subjective input from variety of perspectives.

Whether an organization is looking to assess or evaluate its advocacy efforts, no measurement can be effective or useful unless an organization is:

1. clear as to its overall goals and objectives- whether overall or project-specific
2. able to set concrete items or points in time by which to gauge whether progress or success has been achieved with respect to those goals or objectives
3. consistent and certain as to the type of information it seeks to gather in its measures, and how, or to what ends(s) it is to be used

Assessment can be a useful means through which to conduct regular or periodic inquiries as to the strength and effectiveness of advocacy. Evaluation can be helpful to organizations looking to identify vital resources or crucial gaps in their advocacy capacity. Evaluation, moreover, can help with the identification or refinement of goals and objectives, change in strategy or tactics, overall project implementation or planning, stakeholder or obstacle analysis, and determining ultimately whether advocacy activity is successful.

Neither approach, however, should be considered a one-time occurrence conducted in detachment from all else an organization does. Indeed, once it is undertaken, it requires a commitment by all actors in order to yield the full range of potential benefits it holds for organizations and their advocacy.