מידות מבקשת לקדם אפקטיביות כאמת מידה עיקרית במערך שיקוליהם של משקיעים חברתיים ובניהול עמותות, וזאת באמצעות פיתוח כלים מתקדמים למדידה חברתית, פיתוח תווי תקן חברתיים, מיפויים חברתיים, מחקר יישומי, ייעוץ, כנסים והדרכות.
א א א

Measuring Midot's Success

Measuring Midot’s success over time
 
“Midot will be considered successful if, in a few years’ time, when people talk about NPOs and social investors, they ask whether they are effective, and what social outcomes they have achieved – things that are not talked about today” – Meir Shani, Member, Midot’s Board of Directors
 
1. Improvement among the NPOs that have been rated – An improvement over time in the measurements of effectiveness, social influence and organizational capabilities in organizations that have been rated by Midot (following repeated ratings).
  • Rationale: An improvement of this kind would show that the NPOs that go through Midot’s rating process become more effective over time, proving that we are successfully advancing our vision of a more effective third sector.
  • Disadvantages: First, the measurement says nothing about Midot’s influence on NPOs that were not rated, even though Midot seeks to influence them as well. Second, it could be that the NPOs’ improvement is unrelated to Midot. Third, this kind of change could take many years, and the fact that it may not be discernable after only a few years does not mean that the rating process had no impact on the NPOs.
 
2. Continuous growth in the number of NPOs seeking to be rated by Midot – Measured by the number of NPOs that sign agreements with Midot or ask to do so.
  • Rationale: Continuous growth would show that the market of social investors and donors has adopted the measurements of effectiveness that Midot seeks to advance.
  • Disadvantage: Demand is also dependent on Midot’s resources, which are naturally limited, and depend on the output that Midot expects to be able to meet.
 
3. NPOs rated by Midot are more successful fundraisers – Their Midot rating enables NPOs to raise more funds than NPOs that have not been rated, and NPOs who were rated as outstanding raise even more.
  • Rationale: This would show that social investors take Midot’s reports seriously and donate more to more effective organizations.
  • Disadvantage: It is hard to attribute better fundraising directly to the rating process. There are also measurement difficulties in that it is necessary to make comparisons with unrated NPOs.
 
4. Social investors seek proof of effectiveness – A change among the investors (private donors, corporate donors and the government) that would be measured by the adoption of criteria of effectiveness and influence in deciding whether to donate to an NPO (for instance, in the papers asking for contributions among professional donors), and by willingness to pay for the production of information regarding effectiveness and outcomes.
 
  • Rationale: This would show that investors were persuaded as to the importance of the criteria that Midot disseminates.
 
5. Growth in the number and quality of candidates for Midot’s Effectiveness Awards – Midot gives awards to effective NPOs and donors.
  • Rationale: Growth of this kind would show that the issue of effectiveness was gaining in importance among the relevant actors.
 
6. Growth in the number of NPOs that offer evidence of their success – Growth in the number of NPOs that know how to convey their influence and success and publically do so on their websites.
  • Rationale: Growth of this kind would show that NPOs believe donors and the public to be interested in this information.
 
7. More conferences and media coverage about effectiveness – Growth in the number of conferences, studies and media coverage about subjects related to the effectiveness and influence of NPOs and philanthropists.
 
 
 

נא להשאיר פרטים