By Cleopatra Charles, Professor, Rutgers University, United States of America and Margaret F. Sloan, Director, School of Strategic Leadership Studies at James Madison University, United States of America
Evaluating the intangible value of the arts using FACE metrics
In teaching nonprofit management, especially for arts and culture nonprofits, few topics resonate more immediately with students than the challenge of proving value. Arts leaders often face a double bind: they are asked to quantify their impact in a world that insists on numbers, while the most meaningful outcomes of their work, like joy, meaning, and community transformation, are often intangible.
Chapter 9 of Financial Leadership for the Arts: Sustainable Strategies for Creative Organizations offers a rich teaching opportunity. It doesn’t simply rehearse why performance measurement matters; it gives instructors a set of pedagogic tools: stories, models, and frameworks to help students think critically about connecting mission with metrics. This post distills the chapter into a teaching-friendly format, highlighting how it can be used in classrooms to spark discussion, role-play exercises, and case analysis.
Why Performance Measurement Belongs in the Classroom
When students first encounter the concept of “performance measurement,” they often associate it narrowly with business or government. Yet in nonprofits, particularly arts nonprofits, the stakes are uniquely high. Donors want accountability, boards want evidence, and communities wish to prove that resources are well spent.
For teaching purposes, performance measurement connects to three pedagogic goals:
- Critical thinking about value. Students must grapple with the difference between counting tickets sold and assessing whether minds were changed.
- Practical skills. Students need tools (SMART goals, FACE framework, evaluation types) to translate broad missions into measurable results.
- Ethical reflection. Students should wrestle with what should be measured, not just what can be measured.
By framing measurement as both a technical exercise and a cultural one, the chapter encourages students to see evaluation not as bureaucratic drudgery but as storytelling with evidence.
The Performance Measurement Cycle: A Classroom Anchor
One of the most helpful teaching devices in the chapter is the Performance Measurement Cycle.
- Plan: Clarify mission, strategic priorities, and desired outcomes.
- Measure: Choose metrics aligned with goals.
- Communicate: Share findings with stakeholders to build legitimacy and support.
- Adapt: Feed results back into organizational learning and decision-making.
For classroom use, the cycle works well as a whiteboard exercise: start with a hypothetical organization (e.g., a community theater) and ask students to identify what each step would look like. Who are the stakeholders? What outcomes matter? How would results be shared?
This exercise demonstrates that measurement is not a one-off compliance task but a continuous loop of accountability and learning.
SMART Goals: From Theory to Practice
The SMART goal framework—Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound is familiar to many students, but the chapter grounds it in arts and cultural settings.
Teaching suggestion:
- Ask students to take a vague goal (“Increase community engagement”) and rewrite it as SMART.
- Compare drafts in class and discuss: which are realistic? Which risk overpromising? Which would resonate with funders?
This activity emphasizes that good measurement begins with clarity in goal setting.
The Four Types of Evaluation: Teaching with Multiple Lenses
The chapter outlines four evaluation types from Rossi, Lipsey, and Henry (2018):
- Process Evaluation – How are activities carried out? Who benefits? Are systems efficient?
- Program Theory Evaluation – Why does the program work (or not)? Does the theory of change hold?
- Program Impact Evaluation – What difference did the program make from what would have happened otherwise?
- Organizational Impact Evaluation – What is the long-term effect of the organization on mission-level goals and the community?
Pedagogically, these four types provide a perfect opportunity for role play:
- Assign each student group one evaluation type.
- Give them a case (e.g., a museum’s afterschool art program).
- Ask them to design an evaluation strategy from their assigned lens.
This helps students see that evaluation is not monolithic: different methods reveal different truths.
Outputs vs. Outcomes: The Critical Distinction
One of the most teachable contrasts in the chapter is between outputs and outcomes.
- Outputs: Easy-to-count activities (attendance, ticket sales, workshops delivered).
- Outcomes: Harder-to-measure changes (skills gained, perspectives shifted, community connections formed).
For a classroom demonstration, present two sets of data from a hypothetical arts council:
- Outputs: 5,000 attendees, 15 performances, $10,000 in concessions.
- Outcomes: 72% of attendees reported learning something new; 40% said they were more likely to attend future cultural events.
Then ask: Which better tells the story of impact? Which is more compelling to funders? This exercise highlights why arts organizations must move beyond satisfaction surveys toward measuring transformation.
The FACE Framework: A Pedagogic Gem
Perhaps the chapter’s most distinctive contribution is the FACE framework for performance metrics:
- Finance: Liquidity, solvency, profitability, and workforce satisfaction.
- Artistic Value: Innovation, quality, external recognition.
- Community: Long-term contributions to social and economic vitality.
- Engagement: Awareness, attendance, access, participation.
Teaching application:
- Have students map FACE onto an organization they know (a local museum, opera house, or cultural institution).
- Discuss: which FACE elements are easiest to measure? Which are most often neglected?
FACE is beneficial pedagogically because it moves evaluation out of narrow financial terms and reminds students that artistic and community value are measurable too.
Challenges: Time, Capacity, and Culture
The chapter’s opening vignette of the arts council spending half the year on gala preparation is a perfect classroom hook. It illustrates how limited capacity, fundraising pressures, and funder-driven reporting can crowd out meaningful evaluation.
Students can debate:
- Should funders pay for evaluation capacity?
- What tradeoffs exist between “keeping the lights on” and investing in measurement?
- How might evaluation become part of organizational culture rather than an external burden?
This leads to broader discussions about the nonprofit starvation cycle and the undervaluation of the arts.
Data Collection Without Overwhelm
The chapter also provides pragmatic teaching material on gathering data without driving staff crazy.
Pedagogic application:
- Create a classroom assignment where students design a low-cost data collection plan (e.g., post-event digital survey, focus groups, or social media analytics).
- Emphasize that measurement should be proportional: not every program needs a 40-page report.
This helps students think about right-sizing evaluation to fit organizational realities.
Communicating Results: Storytelling with Evidence
Performance measurement only matters if results are shared effectively. The chapter’s advice makes it savvy, simple, satisfying, and ripe for teaching.
Instructors might:
- Show examples of good and bad nonprofit annual reports.
- Ask students to redesign a data-heavy page into an infographic.
- Discuss how different stakeholders (funders, board members, community members) need different levels of detail.
This links measurement to marketing and fundraising, reinforcing that data is not just for compliance but for persuasion.
Key Pedagogic Exercises
Here are suggested teaching applications drawn directly from the chapter’s frameworks:
- Whiteboard Performance Cycle. Use a real or hypothetical nonprofit and walk through the cycle stages with student input.
- SMART Goal Rewrite. Transform vague mission statements into measurable goals.
- Evaluation Role Play. Groups design evaluations from one of the four Rossi types.
- Outputs vs. Outcomes Debate. Compare quantitative and qualitative data sets and ask which best proves the impact.
- FACE Mapping. Apply FACE categories to student organizations or local nonprofits.
- Low-Cost Data Plan. Students design an evaluation plan for a small nonprofit with limited resources.
- Infographic Redesign. Students turn raw data into a funder-friendly visual story.
These exercises teach content and build practical evaluation skills transferable to nonprofit careers.
Conclusion: Teaching Performance Measurement as Critical Practice
At its core, Chapter 9 reminds us that performance measurement is not a bureaucratic hoop but a practice of accountability, learning, and storytelling. For teaching, it offers multiple pedagogic advantages:
- Concrete frameworks (SMART, FACE, Performance Cycle) that are easy to grasp.
- Engaging contrasts (outputs vs. outcomes) that sharpen critical thinking.
- Practical exercises that simulate real-world nonprofit dilemmas.
- Ethical discussions about what should be measured, who defines success, and how to balance transparency with artistic risk.
Instructors can use the chapter not just as reading but as a live demonstration of how to integrate evaluation into organizational leadership training. Students understand that in the arts, and across civil society, measurement is about more than audience satisfaction. It is about sustaining mission, building trust, and ensuring that creativity and community can thrive.
References
CHARLES, C., and SLOAN, M. F. (2024). More Than Just Audience Satisfaction: Measuring Organizational Performance: In Financial Leadership for the Arts: Sustainable Strategies for Creative Organizations (pp. 145-161). Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press.
ROSSI, P. H., LIPSEY, M. W., and HENRY, G. T. (2018). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cleopatra Charles, Professor, Rutgers University, United States of America
Cleopatra Charles is an Associate Professor with expertise in nonprofit finance, philanthropy, and civic engagement in the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers University, where she has been since 2010. During 2019-2020 she was a Fulbright Visiting Scholar in the Department of Civil Society Studies at Charles University in the Czech Republic, and in 2021-2022 she was a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at the National University for Public Service in Hungary. Dr. Charles brings deep regional knowledge and longstanding academic and professional connections in Central Europe. Her work bridges theory and practice, focusing on how civil society organizations navigate post-communist transitions and democratic challenges.
Margaret F. Sloan, Director, School of Strategic Leadership Studies at James Madison University, United States of America
Margaret F. Sloan is the director and faculty member in the School of Strategic Leadership Studies at James Madison University and serves as the director of the National Center for Nonprofit Enterprise. Prior to teaching, she worked in the nonprofit sector for ten years in a variety of management roles with a focus on arts management, youth programs, and resource development.
