Essay by Aaron Horvath: “Foundations make grants conditional on demonstrable results. Charities tout the evidentiary basis of their work. And impact consultants play both sides: assisting funders in their pursuit of rational beneficence and helping grantees translate the jumble of reality into orderly, spreadsheet-ready metrics.
Measurable impact has crept into everyday understandings of charity as well. There’s the extensive (often fawning) news coverage of data-crazed billionaire philanthropists, so-called thought leaders exhorting followers to rethink their contributions to charity, and popular books counseling that intuition and sentiment are poor guides for making the world a better place. Putting ideas into action, charity evaluators promote research-backed listings of the most impactful nonprofits. Why give to your local food bank when there’s one in Somerville, Massachusetts, with a better rating?
Over the past thirty years, amid a larger crisis of civic engagement, social isolation, and political alienation, measurable impact has seeped into our civic imagination and become one of the guiding ideals for public-spirited beneficence. And while its proponents do not always agree on how best to achieve or measure the extent of that impact, they have collectively recast civic engagement as objective, pragmatic, and above the fray of politics—a triumph of the head over the heart. But how did we get here? And what happens to our capacity for meaningful collective action when we think of civic life in such depersonalized and quantified terms?…(More)”.