Segment 7 | How change is measured
Metrics, sustainability and reflections
This segment looks at how nonprofits assess whether change works and how they capture what is learned along the way. The findings show that while many organizations value reflection, few apply systematic measurement. Evidence often lives in stories and individual experience rather than in structured evaluation.
Tracking change and results
Across the dataset, 47.5 percent of respondents say their organization uses metrics to track the success of change initiatives, while 46.1 percent do not and 6.4 percent are unsure.
The likelihood of using metrics varies modestly by size. Usage peaks among the smallest nonprofits, at 54.6 percent for those with 1–5 staff, and remains above 50 percent in organizations with more than 5,000 staff. It dips in the mid-range, with only 38.7 percent of those with 21–100 staff reporting the use of metrics — the lowest rate across all size bands.
These figures suggest that very small organizations rely on straightforward tracking while mid-sized ones may face greater structural or capacity barriers before formal measurement routines re-emerge at larger scales.
Among those that track change, metrics cluster into four main groups reflecting distinct measurement approaches and levels of maturity:
- Adoption and usage metrics are the most common, reported by about 40–45 percent of respondents. These include adoption rates of new systems or processes, participation in training, and measures of staff proficiency, engagement or retention.
- Outcome and benefit realization metrics follow, cited by roughly 30–35 percent of respondents. These link change to performance improvements such as program or service quality, beneficiary satisfaction and efficiency gains in time, cost or resource use.
- Implementation performance metrics are used by about 15–20 percent of organizations, focusing on timelines, milestone completion and adherence to project plans.
- Finally, about 10–15 percent report limited or immature measurement approaches, characterized by vague, inconsistent or unused metrics that indicate low measurement maturity.
Taken together, the data show that nonprofits track change primarily through operational and participation-based indicators. Measures of behavioral or cultural impact remain rare, suggesting that the effects of change on people and organizational culture often go unmeasured.
Evaluating impact on performance
Fewer than half of respondents say their organization evaluates whether change initiatives have had a positive impact on performance. Around one-quarter do not, and roughly the same share plan to introduce evaluation in the future.
Smaller and mid-sized organizations show the highest evaluation rates (around 55–58 percent), while the share drops below 30 percent in organizations with more than 1,000 staff. The pattern indicates growing awareness of the need to assess impact but limited capacity to do so consistently.
+
Pattern insight:
Measurement maturity in nonprofits follows a predictable curve. Operational tracking appears first, performance metrics emerge later, and behavioral outcomes are rarely measured at all. Progress depends less on size than on deliberate habits of reflection and follow-through.
Sustainability and follow-through
Across all respondents, 64.0 percent believe changes are implemented in ways that can be maintained over time; 20.9 percent disagree and 15.1 percent are unsure. Confidence is strongest in smaller nonprofits, reaching about 75 percent among those with fewer than 20 staff, and declines steadily with scale to below 40 percent among those with 1,001–5,000 staff.
In smaller organizations, sustainability is closely tied to leadership continuity and motivation, while larger ones more often cite competing priorities and limited post-implementation resources as reasons momentum fades.
Learning and reflection practices
A majority of respondents (59.4 percent) report that their organization reviews change initiatives to capture lessons learned; another fifth plan to do so. Reviews are often informal conversations or short team debriefs rather than structured evaluations.
Formal review processes are most common in programme or project management teams, leaving other departments outside the loop. This means valuable experience is retained locally but seldom consolidated across the organization.
Sharing and applying lessons
Across all organizations, 41.7 percent share lessons internally and 30.9 percent share them both internally and externally; only 3.6 percent share externally only. Sharing most often happens through staff meetings, reports or informal peer exchange rather than through formal knowledge systems.
Larger nonprofits display the widest range of practice: some maintain repositories or learning networks, while others rely entirely on informal discussion. This shows that the presence of structure, not size alone, determines how far lessons travel.
Segment 7 reflection
Nonprofits invest more energy in implementing change than in measuring or learning from it. While reflection is valued, systems for measurement, evaluation and knowledge transfer remain uneven. Even so, organizations that capture and share lessons—formally or informally—report greater alignment and readiness for future initiatives. The data point to a sector with deep experience but still-evolving habits of evidence and learning.