Is Evaluation in the Nonprofit Sector Keeping Up With Collective Impact?

In recent discussions with funders and nonprofit leaders participating in collective impact initiatives, one thing has become clear: several traditional nonprofit management processes are quickly becoming dated. As collective impact emerges as a type of work in which more nonprofits are looking to engage, opening the floor for discussion about what changes are needed to help facilitate successful collaboration within the sector are becoming necessary.

The Problem: Measuring and Predicting Collaborative Outcomes

Collaboration in the nonprofit world is becoming more common; more organizational leaders are looking to work with their peers and across sectors as they realize that shared resources, knowledge and perspectives can drastically expand mission impact.

Successful collaboration requires a willingness to embrace the unknown and to partner knowing that the end result will look different than the original vision. The element of the unknown or the “emergent” is often what is holding nonprofits back from engaging, since there’s an inherent tension between this and the structure of how nonprofits are traditionally funded. This tension stems from the way nonprofits are typically asked to demonstrate impact, by predicting outcomes at the outset of an initiative and measure steady progress towards these outcomes. This approach asks leaders to hypothesize outcome and ignores one of the richest aspects of collective impact- that new solutions emerge from the process itself.

At Olive Grove, we’re asking nonprofit leaders to show up to collective impact without being married to a singular vision, to be open to innovation, to think outside the box and to embrace the unknown—yet we are not incentivizing this type of behavior with funding. We need to erase this disconnect between how funders measure good investments and what nonprofits are trying to accomplish by implementing a different method of approaching complex problems.

The Solution: New Methodologies of Evaluation

It has become clear that those working collaboratively need to find new ways to balance their need to embrace the unknown with funder’s needs to measure the impact of their investment. One new way being used to evaluate the effectiveness of collaborative work is developmental evaluation—a method designed to measure evolving and complex issues. This approach supports adaptation in dynamic environments by employing different measures of success as different outcomes emerge. It’s a process that aims to nurture learning, to balance creativity with critical thinking, to tolerate uncertainty and to reward teamwork and innovation in responding to new challenges. In collective impact, it seems the better available choice, but it doesn’t appeal to all funders. It doesn’t seem to satisfy enough of the traditional approach to measuring success that some of these funders want. So what then is the answer? Would a better solution be to merge the traditional approach with the developmental approach—to find some common ground that can satisfy both funders and those looking to practice more risky work? Or to scrap the traditional approach altogether in favor of something more malleable?

As a sector, we need to invest in the unpredictable and the risky because that’s what’s been shown to work in collective impact, but we cannot ignore the desire to measure the benefits of our investments. So the question still stands: what’s the right approach to evaluating these collaborations? We’re asking our partners in the field to join the discussion—how do you think the sector should evolve its evaluation processes to better reflect the nature of collective impact work?

About Mona Jones-Romansic

As Senior Consulting Director at Olive Grove, Mona is known as highly intuitive and insightful with a systems-focused approach that surfaces the fundamental obstacles facing her clients rather than simply addressing symptomatic issues. Her facilitation style creates a safe space for her clients to reflect, turn towards challenges honestly and openly, and leverage their unrealized strengths for greater impact.