Nonprofit Research Methods

Big agencies hire consultants. Grassroots groups get left behind. This manual helps level the field. Here’s what you’ll find inside: Clear steps for every project phase  → From problem identification to final evaluation, this manual walks you through the entire cycle in plain language. Tools to assess community needs (without needing a statistician)  → Includes practical approaches for gathering local input, analysing root causes, and setting priorities based on real needs, not assumptions. Easy-to-follow templates  → Sample logframes, activity plans, and budgeting formats you can adapt to your own projects. Budgeting made simple  → Learn how to build a realistic, transparent budget that reflects your activities How to monitor progress and adjust without stress  → Includes tools to track outputs, outcomes, and unexpected changes, because flexibility is key in community work. Why it matters? Most Community based Organisations (CBOs) can’t afford consultants, but they can deliver results with the right tools. If you fund local organisations or you lead such an organisation, equip them to succeed. This manual does more than build capacity, it strengthens accountability, ownership, and impact. Enroll your grantees and team in this flexible, self-paced training, and watch their project design and reporting improve from day one. 👉 https://lnkd.in/e3ftMnT #PCM #ProjectCycleManagment #MonitoringAndEvaluationCourse

𝑫𝒐 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒅 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒆𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒄𝒂𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒚-𝒃𝒖𝒊𝒍𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔? This resource by Nigel Simister and Rachel Smith, is a real gem, it brings together a wealth of knowledge and shines a light on aspects that are often overlooked in practice. You might smile at how familiar some of the scenarios sound, and you will likely discover new perspectives that challenge the way you think about M&E. 𝑾𝒉𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔? #Monitoring and #evaluating capacity building is one of the most complex areas of M&E. The challenge lies in the very nature of “capacity”, a dynamic, evolving concept influenced by internal and external factors and in the difficulty of attributing observed changes to specific interventions. As Praxis Paper 23 points out, this is not impossible: when organisations have a clear #theory of #change and know why they are building capacity, it becomes easier to design a coherent M&E system that meets both learning and accountability needs. 𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒅𝒆: 🔹A clear explanation of key concepts: capacity, capacity development, and capacity building. 🔹A distinction between inside-out perspectives (self-assessment and learning) and outside-in perspectives (stakeholder satisfaction) and their implications for M&E design. 🔹The difference between technical capacity building (addressing a specific issue) and general capacity building (transforming an organisation’s ability to fulfil its mission). 🔹Practical tools such as OCAT, Logical Frameworks, Outcome Mapping, and Most Significant Change to measure and illustrate change. 🔹Innovative approaches such as the ripple model to understand short-, medium-, and long-term effects. 🔹A deep dive into common challenges (attribution, time lags, multiple actors) and good practices to overcome them. However, this paper does not promise a one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, it provides clear guidance, examples, and reflection questions to help organisations adapt monitoring and evaluation approaches to their unique contexts. In short, this guide is an essential companion for any M&E professional seeking to improve how capacity change is tracked while keeping systems light, meaningful, and focused on learning. Take a look, and if you find it useful, Download the document, and share it with others who care about making evidence count. #MonitoringAndEvaluation #ResultsBasedManagement #EvidenceBasedPolicy #Capacitybuilding #Capacitydevelopment INTRAC

If you’re a first-time nonprofit Executive Director, there might not be a formal evaluation process waiting for you. BoardSource says only about half of nonprofit organizations do. And that's a problem for you and your organization. It sets you up for huge and unnecessary risk. And puts you in a strange spot. You’re the one being evaluated, but you need to lead the process forward. Ugh. Especially as the newbie, this doesn't sound like something you'll love doing. 𝗗𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗽 𝗶𝘁. Talk with your Board Chair first, as you want an internal champion. It's important that this is a board-led effort. In a meeting with your Board Chair, say something like, “I know the board has a lot on its plate, but I’d like to talk about how we’ll evaluate my role this year. BoardSource data shows that only about half of EDs get a formal evaluation, so we're not alone in this. Yet a clear evaluation process is one of the most effective tools we have for risk mitigation. I took a first pass using my job description as a starting point. With a few focus areas like finances, team leadership, and board communication, along with some simple outcomes we can track. How does that sound?" And then share the evaluation you've developed this way: 1. 𝟭. 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗷𝗼𝗯 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. It’s already approved by the board, and it’s a great place to anchor your first-year expectations. Unless you have one of those all-you-can-eat buffet-type job descriptions. Then you'll need to really focus in. Look at the major responsibilities and group them into 3–4 focus areas like: • Financial health • Team leadership • Strategic progress • Board communication Now you’ve got the foundation for your evaluation, tied to what the board already agreed to. Then, work backward. 2. 𝟮. 𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗢𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀. For each of your responsibility themes, write OKR-style objectives. (Objectives & Key Results) • Strengthen board communication • Improve financial clarity • Build internal team alignment • Stabilize core operations    3. 𝟯. 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝟮–𝟯 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗢𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲. Not stretch goals, don't peg your board to those. Think progress markers. Otherwise, you'll get unreachable goals that will shred you, your team, and your board. 𝗘𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗢𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲: Improve financial clarity 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀: • Launch monthly budget-to-actual reports • Hold monthly reviews with the board treasurer • Establish a 3-month reserve target 4. 𝟰. 𝗦𝗲𝘁 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄. Suggest a mid-year check-in and a year-end review. That's it. You don’t need a fancy tool or lengthy surveys. You need shared expectations, a little structure, and a board-led process once the assessment is developed. Even if it feels awkward to start, do it anyway. It’s one of the smartest moves you’ll make in year one. You've got this!

Effective project evaluation is a cornerstone of strategic management and decision-making for nonprofit organizations. The Project Evaluation Guide is designed to empower charitable and nonprofit organizations by providing a systematic approach to evaluate projects accurately and efficiently. This guide helps organizations optimize internal resources to implement evaluations that not only measure success but also foster continual improvement and accountability. This guide, developed by Imagine Canada, encapsulates years of collective experience and insights gained from a diverse range of community-based projects. Its structured methodology walks users through key steps, from crafting an evaluation plan and assembling a skilled evaluation group to analyzing data and communicating results. Importantly, the guide highlights the ethical dimensions of evaluation, ensuring that processes are transparent, inclusive, and aligned with organizational values. Whether evaluating short-term projects or multi-year initiatives, the guide provides practical tools and templates to simplify each stage of the evaluation process. It offers adaptable methods for both qualitative and quantitative data analysis, enabling organizations to tailor their evaluation strategies to meet specific goals and contexts. In doing so, it strengthens the organization’s capacity to demonstrate the impact of their work and improve outcomes for stakeholders.

A Compelling Fundraising Rationale, A Promising Philanthropic Construct The United Way of Greater Atlanta gets it. They know that serious donors want to make an impact. So do they. Here's what they've done which is so worthy of emulation, no matter the nonprofit mission. Define the impact zone: Greater Atlanta (14 counties) Adopt a singular objective: Improve child well-being in that impact zone Determine the means of measuring impact: Work with community leaders to identify a constellation of characteristics by which child well-being can be assessed Create a service baseline: Using the community-sourced criteria, systematically gather information in your service area to determine the varying rates of child well-being Create a coalition of nonprofit service providers to ensure the allocation and application of resources are as synergistic as possible Show don't tell: Develop an interactive map that allows donors to see the varying rates of child well-being, highlighting degrees of need, allowing donors to click within the map to learn more about specific communities and neighborhoods Create opportunities for donors to interact with service providers in neighborhoods and/or addressing the issues they care most about Demonstrate how levels of giving can mitigate need Use the index of criteria to measure and communicate annual progress Donors don't expect perfection, particularly if a nonprofit is dealing with systemic issues, but they do want philanthropy-seeking organizations to conduct intelligent experiments, from which we can all learn. Those require thoughtful, rigorous design, establishment of baseline evaluative criteria, scrupulous collection of data, expert observation of various practices at work, and objective evaluation of what worked best and least, and how those lessons can be applied, year over year, in pursuit of continuous improvement. Concern for child well-being is universal, larger than any ideological, geographic or cultural divide. Donors look for organizations that will show them how to make a difference. They gravitate to those that are transparent and explicit about what they are attempting to achieve and how they are applying the lessons of last year to this one so they might better serve. United Way is sometime perceived as being "old school" and criticized for constraining donor's ability to pinpoint giving. United Way of Greater Atlanta has developed a construct that allows all to see how it is allocating resources and why. Whatever it constrains in terms of donor designations, it seeks to compensate for in the demonstration of its focused, transparent, collaborative pursuit of impact. As one member of their advancement team said, "We don't decide, the data does."

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬? 𝐄𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 are more than accountability; they are a pathway to learning, improvement, and impact. This Evaluation Handbook by 𝐒𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 provides practical guidance on planning, conducting, and using evaluations in development and humanitarian contexts. The handbook covers essential topics including evaluation principles, approaches, methodologies, ethical standards, managing evaluation processes, and using findings for decision-making. Strong evaluations help organizations and partners measure what works, learn from what doesn’t, and make better decisions for children, communities, and societies. This resource is designed for M&E professionals, NGOs, donors, programme managers, and students who want to strengthen evaluation practice and ensure evidence drives meaningful change. #Evaluation #MonitoringAndEvaluation #Accountability #Learning #EvidenceBasedPolicy #Impact #CivilSociety #𝐒𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧

Your year-end results are in. Now comes the hard part. Being honest about what actually happened. Most nonprofit leaders will spin their results. To their board. To their staff. To themselves. Revenue was flat but "we maintained during a tough economy." Donor retention dropped but "we acquired a lot of new supporters." The gala underperformed but "awareness was great." Stop it. This isn't about beating yourself up. This is about loving your mission enough to do the deep work. If you raised less than last year, why? If donors lapsed, which ones and what happened? If your major gift pipeline dried up, when did you stop cultivating? The organizations that grow are the ones willing to look at their results without spin. Without defensiveness. Without excuses. Jim Collins calls this "autopsy without blame." You examine what happened honestly and thoroughly without anyone needing to defend their work or fear consequences. Your development director needs to be able to say "that appeal didn't work" without worrying about their job. Your CEO needs to admit "I avoided those donor meetings" without losing credibility. Your board needs to hear the real numbers, not the massaged version. This is hard. It requires psychological safety. It requires humility. It requires caring more about your mission than your ego. But here's the truth: You can't fix problems you won't acknowledge. You can't improve strategies you won't honestly evaluate. Love your mission enough to tell the truth about your results. Because in fundraising, honest evaluation isn't criticism. It's the foundation for growth.

Most nonprofits can tell you how many people they served last year, but have a much harder time telling you whether those people are better off. I've seen this pattern across the sector for years. Organizations collect a bunch of data, including intake numbers, service hours, referral counts, and demographic breakdowns, it gets reported to funders, and that's usually where it ends. When asking questions like did those services actually stabilize housing, reduce ER visits, or keep a family together, the data to answer them can't be found because everyone tracks their own piece, in their own system, with no way to connect it all. When I think about what a client's journey actually looks like... they might access employment support from one organization, transitional housing from another, and mental health services from a third. Each provider records its own outputs, but rarely can they see the full picture or tell you whether the combination of those services produced a lasting result. In the social sector, we are very good at counting activities, but have challenges measuring change. Moving from tracking transactions to tracking trajectories is important. Not just "we served this person," but "this person moved from crisis to stability over twelve months, and here's what that path looked like." That starts with integrated systems, shared outcome definitions across programs and services, and the analytical capacity to turn data into evidence. If boards, funders, and executive directors can work from the same understanding, then all of the data being collected can be used to really determine what's actually helping people and what isn't.

The most innovative thing a nonprofit can do right now isn't launch something new. It's ruthlessly evaluate what's already running. We celebrate launches. But the honest look at what's actually working doesn't get nearly as much airtime. Not because we don't care. Because it's uncomfortable. Because someone built that program. Because stopping feels like failing. But every program you keep running out of habit is taking capacity away from the work that actually deserves more of you. Start by pulling up your program list and running each one through three questions: Is it still serving the people it was designed for? Do we have the capacity to run it well, not just run it? If we were starting fresh today, would we build this? Then bring your team together and do a traffic light exercise. Print the program list, give everyone a green, yellow, and red marker, and have each person colour code independently before you discuss. Green means it's working and worth investing in. Yellow means something needs to change, whether that's the format, the frequency, or the resources behind it. Red means it's time to have the hard conversation about whether it still belongs on the list. Doing it independently first matters. It surfaces what people actually think before the room dynamics kick in. You don't need a formal evaluation process to have this conversation. You just need to make the time for it. If you want to go deeper, evaluation is something our team at Collective Results supports nonprofits with. Happy to chat if it's on your mind. The most focused orgs aren't doing the most things. They just know what deserves their full effort right now. 👏 🚦

One of the most rewarding things about LinkedIn is meeting people you genuinely wouldn't have crossed paths with otherwise. So when Ashley, a program evaluator at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, reached out about connecting virtually, I jumped at the chance. A little context: I'm wrapping up my last course in ASU's online graduate certificate in program evaluation. Two years ago, I had this gut feeling that grant writing as a profession was shifting right before my eyes and I knew I needed to upskill. The certificate program has been amazing. But I'm going to be honest -- I've had this nagging feeling that something was missing. After my chat with Ashley, I finally understood why: coursework in program evaluation doesn't fully prepare you for actual program evaluation in real life. Humans are messy (yours truly included). Organizations can be messy. So real-life program evaluation will always be messier than the academic version. When I asked Ashley about the biggest misconceptions she's encountered as a program evaluator, her answer stopped me in my tracks: "If you hire a program evaluator, you still have to have data for them to evaluate." Program evaluation starts so much earlier than most people think, Ashley said. It starts with investing in a data systems infrastructure, which many nonprofits overlook. Here are some questions organizations should be asking themselves as they build out data collection: ➡️ What is important to you as an organization? Answering this helps you determine your outcomes and what types of data you'll collect for each one. ➡️ Are frontline staff fully trained in the tools they're using? Do their current responsibilities actually allow them to record the data expected of them, or is it too time-consuming? ➡️ Is there a clear channel of communication between program evaluation staff and frontline staff for addressing common data problems like missing data, erroneous data, or irregular patterns? You have to be proactive when collecting data, Ashley said. Her observations reinforced my own experiences as a grants writer and manager. The nonprofits that have their grant reporting under control don't treat program evaluation as merely compliance. They treat it as something ongoing, putting policies and procedures in place to make sure expectations and reality stay aligned on an everyday basis. I really enjoyed my conversation with Ashley. While I'm not ready to be a self-proclaimed program evaluation expert anytime soon, it's good to understand where my grants reporting and management work fits in the bigger picture of program evaluation and how I can help nonprofits be more proactive in data collection. The best learning sometimes happens outside the classroom. It happens in conversations with people like Ashley, who are doing the work every day. ♻️ Share this to help others in your network. 👉 Follow Tram Ngo for grant writing and life hacks