‘Why measure?’ is a question that has been bandied about by social change agents —business people, nonprofit professionals, educators—for quite some time.  How we measure is also a source of debate.  From randomized testing to post-activity evaluation, there is no real consensus on how and why to measure.  But most people can agree that measurement is effective when it enables you to clarify desirable results, create a system to track progress, and communicate effectiveness.  However, this assumes that measurement is being used to highlight what’s working in real time, not to determine attribution after the fact.  The counterargument (often posited by practitioners), is that it’s possible to see what’s working when you’re on the ground.  So why expend limited resources?  

The answer, in one word, is scale.  If the goal is to create systems-level solutions to widespread social problems, the approach has to be both effective and replicable.  But how do we know if these criteria have been met?  That’s where measurement comes in.  Arguably, if we clarify desired outcomes and measure what works, we can discern problem-solving characteristics across interventions, actors, geographies, etc.  In other words, the systems-level result of measurement should be a series of blueprints that outline effective solutions to difficult problems.  Of course, the underlying logic has been greatly simplified here and one size rarely fits all.  (Nor is this thinking particularly new; it’s what brought Ashoka into existence.)  Nonetheless, measurement can help us discover solutions that are more effective and more easily replicated.

This has implications for the development of the “social capital” market as well.  Although it isn’t functional yet, seeds are being planted as the cry for results-oriented programming grows louder.  Why is this important?  Because without it, there’s no way to efficiently allocate resources to effective social interventions.  Not unlike the regular market, the social capital market should reflect how social goods and services are demanded and supplied according to “price signals.”  Many of the key elements are already in place: there are innumerable providers of social good (e.g. NGOs, schools, etc.); there are also consumers (e.g. those who need better health care or education).  What’s missing is the “price signal”, or a way to indicate how much social value is being produced.  Again, that’s where measurement comes in.  If we know what strategies drive social change, we can signal the value they create to the market.  That would enable funders to “purchase” the social impact they desire based on demonstrated effectiveness.  The end result would be a functional social market, i.e. one that would generate better solutions to help people in need, which would eventually result in less need.  Isn’t that we’re all working toward?