Research brief: Useful and non-burdensome impact measurement

At Common Approach, we know that social purpose organizations are driven by a desire to create meaningful change. We also know that measuring that change to better understand your impact is crucial. But here’s the thing: impact measurement can sometimes feel overwhelming, costly, and time-consuming. It’s a delicate balance between gaining valuable insights and not getting bogged down in the process. This paper dives into this challenge, identifying the core practices that lead to useful and non-burdensome impact measurement.

We’ve often heard that there isn’t a “one-size-fits-all” solution when it comes to measuring impact. Organizations will piece together different approaches, adapting tools and methods to fit their unique needs. This “bricolage” approach is smart, but it works best when you have clear guidance on the fundamental building blocks of measurement. This research study, using Common Approach data from the Pathfinder Pilot, set out to provide exactly that: a clear, concise set of practices that empower organizations to measure effectively without feeling overwhelmed.

Source: Akwetey, J. F., Ricci, L., Ruff, K., & Zaredorahi, F. (2025). Impact measurement among social purpose organizations: which practices are associated with useful, non-burdensome impact measurement. Social Enterprise Journal, 21(2), 270-293.

The authors used data from 80 social purpose organizations (SPOs) that participated in a Common Approach pilot program. These organizations had completed our Common Foundations self-assessment, which asks “yes/no” questions about each of the Common Foundations’ 21 subpractices. Participants had also shared their perspectives on how useful and burdensome they found their measurement efforts to be.

First, the authors tested whether the total number of “yes” answers correlated with useful, non-burdensome measurement. They found that engaging in these 21 practices did correlate with organizations finding their measurement useful.

Next, the authors used factor analysis to identify which practices were most associated with useful and non-burdensome measurement. They found that these ten sub-practices are highly correlated with useful and non-burdensome measurement.

The focus of this study was useful, non-burdensome impact measurement, but there is more that goes into good measurement. Good measurement involves ethical data collection, good data governance, stakeholder engagement and the fair interpretation and presentation of results. Many of the sub-practices that the study did not associate with useful and non-burdensome measurement are associated with ethics and good data governance. For example, sub-practice 3.5, “Act ethically in collecting data”, and 4.1, “Put a system in place to store and manage data.” These are important practices, and while they may add time and effort to impact measurement, some “burdens” are necessary.

The study’s findings give us confidence that the Common Foundations offer practical value for any social purpose organization, especially those with limited financial and human resources. We believe they offer a concise guide to help organizations create a manageable impact measurement practice that gives you the insights you need.

Common Foundations isn’t itself a method for measuring impact. Organizations still must choose the tools and methods that work best for them, and consult the Common Foundations to make sure the core practices are met. For example, whether you use a logic model or a theory of change, the crucial step is to “Clearly describe the change you want to achieve.” Similarly, whether you use standardized indicators or create your own indicators, the key is to “Identify indicators that show progress and change.” This framework provides the guardrails without being overly prescriptive, helping your organization establish the unique measurement approach that works best for you.