In his piece in The Evaulation Exchange, John Healy makes a point that I think gets right to the heart of how non-profit evaluation should work. He argues that non-profits should “create space and structure for learning.” It’s a simple point that implicitly acknowledges that evaluation may look really different depending on the size of the organization. The bottom line is that non-profits, beyond simply encouraging learning, need to be purposeful in creating regular forums and processes for evaluation.

Alnoor Ebrahim calls this type of systematic, process-oriented evaluation “adaptive learning.” In a small organizations, the space and structure for learning might take the form of an annual staff and/or board retreat. In larger organizations, there may be entire teams of staff dedicated to evaluating programs and impact. The key, Ebrahim argues, is that dialogue, debate and experimentation are encouraged and supported by leadership.

Program staff, senior leadership and the board should all play a role in evaluation. Staff should be primarily involved at the tactical level with carrying out the evaluation (collecting data, providing analysis, etc.). At the generative level, the board should ask how evaluation efforts and metrics relate back to the mission. At the strategic level, leadership should work to balance various evaluation efforts tied to funders with longer-term, mission-related evaluation.

As Twersky, Buchanan and Threlfall note, service beneficiaries should also play a role in evaluation to the extent possible and that resources allow. I make these qualifications because, as As Twersky, Buchanan and Threlfall also note, there can be significant financial, educational, cultural and internal barriers to involving beneficiaries in evaluation processes. Nevertheless, research shows that including beneficiaries can help improve program outcomes.