Should non-profits be forced to prove that their interventions actually work? All too often the strategies and programs employed by non-profits seemed haphazard and have no real basis in scientific research. That does not mean however, that proof should be required.

Proof is a tricky thing. For one, attaining scientific proof of something is very difficult, requiring lots of time, money, and people. Second, as discussed in this post from Tactical Philanthropy, proof seemingly declines over time. “For all the perceived precision of a large study “proving” that something is true, the fact remains that over time our understanding of facts and truths change.”

The post quotes a New Yorker article title The Truth Wears Off that is quite interesting.

“The test of replicability, as it’s known, is the foundation of modern research. Replicability is how the community enforces itself. It’s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that can influence the results they get. The premise of replicability is that the scientific community can correct for these flaws.

But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology.”

This is not to say however, that non-profits shouldn’t strive to understand the effect their interventions are having. All too often non-profits flee from facts and cling to anecdotes. They never step back and examine the impact they are having on the communities, people groups, or issues they are seeking to affect.

Scientific proof should not be the goal, but ignorance is unacceptable. A balance must be struck that seeks to understand affect without necessarily scientifically proving it.