How Community-Defined Evaluation Can Improve Nonprofit Impact Measurement

By Rebecca Silverman

Nonprofits increasingly design programs with input from the communities they intend to serve.  

Now that lived experience finally has a seat at the design table, what about on the evaluation team? Nonprofits are engaging communities to help create impactful programs, but without community members’ partnership in evaluating them, nonprofits may be missing critical feedback. 

Why Community Input Should Shape Evaluation 

This isn’t necessarily a new argument. A 2012 peer-reviewed study, “Methods for Linking Community  Views to Measurable Outcomes in a Youth Violence Prevention Program,” outlined the importance of integrating community engagement and participatory research to co-develop goals and indicators. 

Nonprofits cannot meaningfully help those they intend to serve without first understanding what meaningful service looks like from the community members’ perspectives. 

Four Ways to Bring Community Input Into Nonprofit Program Evaluation 

It’s easy to fall into the numbers trap. X number of participants will be served X number of times within X number of days, leading to an increase of X number of social service referrals. A plan may project that a certain number of participants will be served within a defined period, leading to an increased number of social service referrals. 

BetterEvaluation, a global evaluation knowledge platform, encourages practitioners to consider the full range of tasks involved in evaluation rather than focusing on only one part of the process. Its guidance on participatory evaluation also emphasizes involving stakeholders throughout the evaluation process — from design to data collection, analysis and reporting. 

Instead, nonprofits can expand evaluation activities in ways that invite participants to define, measure, interpret and adapt programs. That approach can help nonprofits create change with communities, not simply for them. 

1. Define SuccessWith the Community 

When was the last time your organization invited the community you serve to define success? More importantly, when was the last time your organization invited the community to define what the metrics of success should be? 

As nonprofits discuss what success looks like to communities, they should also design the activities intended to achieve it and determine how to measure progress together. 

2. Measure Progress Beyond Required Outcomes

Too often, evaluation plans are developed as part of a proposal, rather than as part of the program. 

That begs the question: What gets lost when we design the evaluation based on funder requirements rather than community-defined goals? 

Leaving the community out of metric-setting conversations can create a disconnect between intention and impact. 

A funder’s philanthropic goal may be to create stability in communities through increased closed-loop social services referrals. But that goal may not fully account for the conditions required to achieve it or the time it may take.  

Organizations need to create the conditions that enable the desired results. For example, a community member may need significant time to develop trust in a service provider. They may need to encounter an organization multiple times before feeling comfortable disclosing social needs. Another layer of trust may be needed to accept a referral. And still, additional rapport may be needed before sharing barriers to following through.  

To a funder, this may look like stalled progress. To staff listening to community members, progress may simply look different. 

3. Interpret What the Results Mean

When nonprofits co-evaluate programs with community members, they create space to interpret the results in ways staff alone may not understand. What may not stand out as an important factor to a nonprofit staff member may be significant to a community member. 

Partnering with community members can help nonprofits see what’s actually working, what isn’t and why. From there, staff can take more informed steps to improve the program. 

4. Use What You Learn to Adapt

Adapting could mean adjusting a program or incorporating different measures. 

Consider again a funder seeking increased closed-loop referrals. Without talking to the community, program staff may only see a success rate of 40% in the first reporting period of a grant. After speaking  with community members, staff may learn that people need a certain number of encounters with an organization before they’re comfortable sharing their needs and accepting a referral. 

That insight allows staff to reconsider assumptions and shift what they measure. With this knowledge, organizations can build more time to connect with the community before expecting to see a closed-loop referral. 

Organizations can adjust program activities while also reconsidering which measures will help capture meaningful progress along the way. Community input hasn’t replaced the funder’s desired outcome. It has helped nonprofits better understand how to achieve it. 

Participation Requires Power and Resources 

There’s a difference between representation and power. Without asking communities what matters, nonprofits may measure community members’ ability to meet outcomes defined without their input rather than success as they experience it. 

Yes, this requires time and resources. But it’s no different than the time and resources nonprofits ask of community members when they invite community members into partnerships. 

If lived experience is now accepted as expertise, nonprofits should ethically and actively treat it as such by compensating participation, reducing burden and using existing advisory structures. Close the feedback loop by listening, implementing and reporting back. 

Balance Funder Requirements With Community Need 

Funder-assigned measurement requirements are real and aren’t going away. 

The sector must take the time to approach this work mindfully and intentionally, from design through evaluation, rather than rushing to define metrics for an application deadline and then focusing on reporting the data instead of understanding what it means for people. 

The numbers are important, and the funders’ requirements are valid. But neither represents the entire picture of success.  

Nonprofits need to be intentional about program and evaluation design before approaching a funder. Otherwise, who are we serving — ourselves or the community? 

Nonprofits sit at the intersection between funders and the communities they set out to help. They have an opportunity to uplift community voices in ways that connect funder intent with community need. 

Community-defined evaluation can help nonprofits connect funder intent with community need — and may ultimately influence how funders themselves define success. 

The preceding content was provided by a contributor unaffiliated with NonProfit PRO. The views expressed within may not directly reflect the thoughts or opinions of the staff of NonProfit PRO.