Problems and Purpose
One of the largest problems faced by organizations such as Centre , and a widespread issue among nonprofits alike, is the difficulty with measuring metrics of success and the systematic barriers associated with funding these programs. Issues arise particularly to the detriment of nonprofit managers attempting to seek investments and grants from external parties. Government officials, grant providers, and private investors may provide their frameworks for success metrics to which nonprofits must adhere. Yet, the inherent problem stems from the difficulty of measuring social impact outcomes. Success metrics are often unable to quantify the intersectionality of social, political, and economic barriers that make it difficult for nonprofits to provide investors with reports on growth or development of outcomes beyond traditional means. Thus, nonprofits often struggle to sustain programs that are essential to their communities while also attempting to provide traditional metrics to investors and grant providers of social impact.
Origins and Development
Quantifying inputs of nonprofit organizations is relatively simple, including financial statements and non-financial metrics such as number of volunteers or equipment . Furthermore, quantifying outputs is also straightforward in the form of the number of people served, including qualitative surveys to measure the quality of programs and the number of people served by the nonprofit program. However, outcomes are the most complex metric that a nonprofit attempts to measure. Measuring outcomes, specifically the community impact of social programs can be difficult, unstandardized, and sometimes impossible to quantify without considering the broader impact of intersectionality. For example, measuring the impact of arts-based community solutions to poverty reduction and unemployment reduction can be challenging to quantify beyond the employment statistics of its participants. There are unmeasurable outcomes of these solutions on mental health and health within quantitative terms, however they can be measured using qualitative data. In fact, private investors at times trust and are more confident in qualitative data than quantitative financial data as measurements of performance .
One of the primary benefits of data analytics tools is their ability to maximize impact and prove strategic operations. Data and analytics enable organizations to gain insights into financials and budgeting of target markets by clustering governmental data and differentiating the needs of communities. By analyzing data on everything from donor behaviour to program outcomes, non-profit organizations can make more informed decisions to identify new growth opportunities and outreach. Nonetheless, the humanitarian sector is complex due to different levels of data granularity .
Marketing firms such as Nexus Marketing and Big Leap offer services for mission-driven, community-focused organizations. Integrated within digital media, the software prioritizes search engine optimization, content marketing, and conversion rate optimization. By using data, firms increase traffic and generate leads for prospective clients. From a directorial perspective, these analytical tools improve impact assessment reports. Managers gain a deeper understanding of performance data and attitudes toward using data in their work with staff and stakeholders.
Yet, analytical trends within the nonprofit industry expose inaccuracies and delays that compromise the goal-setting and decision-making aspects of the organization . One study states the root of the issue arises from monitoring and evaluating non-profit organizations, extending to technical logistics such as data drift and fragmentation . Data may not be fully accurate, up-to-date, and may have limited funding or resources that can hinder decision-making processes. In addition, one study exposed the underlying issue that data must capture the dignity of the human being represented within the data .
An application of the development of community participatory action research (CPAR) is using this tool for evaluation in community-based participatory evaluation (CPBE). CPAR is a research methodology that originated during the 1960s and 1970s civil rights movement, developing to its use today to conduct qualitative research ethically and equitably. It involves community members in all aspects of the research process from identifying research questions and collecting data, to analyzing and interpreting findings. The goal of CPAR is to empower communities by involving them in research addressing social justice, equity, and community development issues.
On the other hand, CPBE is an evaluation methodology that involves community members in the evaluation process. This includes identifying evaluation questions and collecting data, interpreting findings, and making recommendations for program improvement. The goal of CBPE is to empower communities by involving them in the evaluation of programs and services that impact their lives.
While both CPAR and CBPE involve community members in research and evaluation, the main difference is in the approach's focus. CPAR focuses on addressing community issues through research and action, while CBPE focuses on evaluating programs and services to improve outcomes for communities. CPBE offers non-profit organizations service-learning partnerships where participants collaborate on collecting, analyzing, and understanding data. The pedagogical approach helps collect data ethically in accordance with social justice.
Thus, CBPE can be a useful tool in collecting qualitative data in implementing community programs to provide performance metrics to investors, government grant providers, and external parties. It effectively captures the intersectionality of the barriers faced by communities and the complexity of social impact that traditional metrics cannot achieve. It is a useful tool that goes beyond just providing metrics of success for nonprofit organizations' social impact performance, although can also be applied to improve the quality of their programs at the same time.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
The recruitment process can involve a general call for volunteers, approaching specific individuals committed to the project, or soliciting recommendations from community leaders or stakeholders. It is recommended to use communication channels that reach participants in nonprofit services or programs, making the message clear by using plain language and explaining the benefits of participation. It is important to encourage potential participants while being honest about the work required and providing support such as transportation. It should emphasize the need to put together a team that is a cross-section of the stakeholder population to get a true perspective of the thinking and perceptions of the group.
How it Works: Process, Interaction, and Decision-Making
The process typically begins with a planning phase in which evaluators and stakeholders identify the purpose and scope of the evaluation, the questions to be answered, the data collection methods to be used, and the roles as well as responsibilities of the participants. Data is then collected through the selected medium surveys, interviews, and focus groups, as stakeholders are actively involved in the data collection process.
The next phase involves analyzing the data and making sense of the results. The evaluators and stakeholders interpret the data, identify trends and patterns, and draw conclusions about the program or project. In this phase, stakeholders also have the opportunity to provide their insights and perspectives on the data.
Finally, the evaluators and stakeholders work together to make decisions based on the evaluation results. This may involve identifying areas for improvement, developing action plans, and making changes to the program or project. Throughout the process, stakeholders are actively involved in the decision-making process and have a voice in shaping the future direction of the program or project.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
CBPE can significantly influence the project or program being evaluated, as well as on the evaluation participants. The evaluation can result in a more comprehensive understanding of the project or program's impact by involving a diverse group of stakeholders, including those who may not have been traditionally included in the decision-making process. Furthermore, the process of CBPE can empower participants to take ownership of the evaluation process and feel a greater sense of investment in the project or program.
The outcomes of CBPE can vary depending on the goals of the evaluation and the specific project or program being evaluated. However, some common outcomes include increased community engagement, improved project or program design, and a more comprehensive understanding of the project or program's social impact. By involving a diverse group of stakeholders, CPBE can also result in greater buy-in and support for the project or program.
CBPE can have both short-term and long-term effects on the project or program being evaluated and on the evaluation participants. In the short term, CPBE can lead to changes in project or program design, increased community engagement, and a more comprehensive understanding of the project or program's impact. In the long term, it can result in sustained community engagement, support for the project or program, and increased capacity for community members to engage in evaluation and decision-making processes. CPBE can also foster relationships between community members and project or program staff, leading to greater collaboration and trust in the long term.
Analysis and Lessons Learned
Results from CPBE include the importance of involving stakeholders in the evaluation process from the outset, creating a shared understanding of the intervention being evaluated, and developing a feasible and relevant evaluation plan to the stakeholders. It provides comprehensive feedback at multiple steps of the nonprofit’s impact on community members, depending on its implementation.
CPBE can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of interventions, as well as the needs and perspectives of stakeholders. It can facilitate capacity building and empowerment among stakeholders as they become more involved in the evaluation process while gaining a deeper understanding of the evaluated intervention.
The CPBE process can be applied beyond the scope of just qualitative research and be used in nonprofit performance assessment to be shown to external parties. It begins to tackle the issue of being unable to capture the intersectionality and complexities of social impact by providing qualitative data in a structured manner. With the right approach and careful dedication of resources, it can be a useful tool for organizations that are challenged with assessing the impact of their social programs to provide for third parties.
 Larkin, R., Dunning, C., Suarez, C., Smukowski, A., Hiscox, H., Dang, C., & Sak, L. (2013, July 2). Using Outcomes to Measure Nonprofit Success - Non Profit News. Nonprofit Quarterly. Retrieved March 26, 2023, from https://nonprofitquarterly.org/using-outcomes-to-measure-nonprofit-success/
 Why Measure? (n.d.). Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved March 26, 2023, from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/why_measure#
 King, H., Nowicki, M., Noble, L., Palmer, D., & Saul, J. (n.d.). How impact data changes the way donors give (SSIR). How Impact Data Changes the Way Philanthropic Donors Give. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/how_impact_data_changes_the_way_donors_give
 Lenczner, P. (2022). Data-driven decisions. Lenczner Slaght. https://litigate.com/data-driven-decisions
 Tran, A.-T., Boone, A., Le Dantec, C. A., & DiSalvo, C. (2022). Careful data tinkering. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555532
 M. Barrow, J. (2022, September). Research ethics -. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459281/