Research brief: Useful and non-burdensome impact measurement
Research paper by John Akwetey, Lisa Ricci, Kate Ruff, and Farnaz Zaredorahi, published December 2024
Summary by Google Gemini with edits by Common Approach staff, June 2025
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.
SPOs that meet the Common Foundations are more likely to find measurement useful and non-burdensome
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.
Ten practices are most strongly associated with useful, non-burdensome measurement
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.
| 1. Describe your intended change |
| 1.1 Describe the change you want to achieve. Self-assessment question: We have identified the broad, long-term change that fulfills our mission (y/n) |
| 1.4 Describe the process of change. Self-assessment question: We have specified how and why our work achieves results by explaining the relationship between what we do and what will change as a result (y/n) |
| 2. Use indicators |
| 2.1 Think of how you will know that progress and change have happened. Self-assessment question: We have considered what information is needed in order to know if we have achieved these results and the change identified above (Y/N) |
| 2.2 Identify indicators that show progress and change. Self-Assessment question: We have identified relevant qualitative and/or quantitative indicators that reflect the progress and change we want to achieve (Y/N) |
| 3. Collect useful information |
| 3.3 Have a clear plan for data collection. Self-assessment question: We plan our data collection, including who collects the data, how we collect it, from whom and when (Y/N) |
| 3.4 Collect data in a routine and consistent way. Self-assessment question: We gather information at regular intervals, such as yearly or according to project and program cycles or reporting timelines (Y/N) |
| 4. Gauge impact and assess performance |
| 4.3 Analyze data. Self-assessment question: We analyze our data to understand if and how changes are occurring (Y/N) |
| 4.4 Review differences and draw conclusions. Self-assessment question: We [use] summaries and comparisons to draw some conclusions about what our data is saying (Y/N) |
| 5. Communicate and respond |
| 5.2 Choose reporting methods and communication styles targeted to the needs of different groups of people affected by your work. Self-assessment question: We create a few different reports (different lengths, details, reading levels and language) so that they are accessible to the groups affected by our work (Y/N) |
What these ten practices miss: ethics, data governance and stakeholder engagement
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.
Takeaways
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.
Published June 24, 2025
More like this
Tamarack letter: our response
Common Approach to Impact Measurement is proud to stand with the sector in signing the Tamarack Institute’s “Open Letter from Canada’s Nonprofits and Charities to Corporate and Philanthropic Funders.” As it states, “the time is now to advance trust-based community investment, not slide backwards.”
Steps for reviewing your ETL pipeline
Discussing the ETL pipeline, an often unaddressed step in the impact measurement process, and how reviewing and refining this pipeline can address many common hurdles & lead to efficient and reliable data.
Reflections and readiness: evolving our approach for the Social Finance Fund
Common Approach is continuing our work supporting the impact measurement approach of the Government of Canada’s Social Finance Fund. As we continue with this work, we want to share reflections on what we’ve learned and how we’re adjusting our strategy to better support the field.
