Evaluation and Evaluative Rigor in the Nonprofit Sector

Abstract

Nonprofit organizations are under more pressure than ever to provide “rigorous” evidence of program impact. However, as expectations for rigorous evidence rise, many nonprofits struggle with challenges that inhibit evaluation. Recognizing these trends and tensions, this study identifies catalysts and obstacles to evaluation activity and the correlates of evaluative rigor among US nonprofits based on a national survey of registered public charities (n = 311). Results reveal that the most important catalysts to evaluation include the desire to improve program effectiveness and legitimacy, while the most important obstacles include insufficient time and money. Moreover, regression analysis finds that evaluation appears to be most rigorous when (1) evaluation is a priority, (2) a supportive organizational culture exists, (3) management requires evaluation, (4) evaluation is not primarily motivated by personal interest, and (5) evaluation is likely to reveal success. Overall, intrinsically motivated evaluation appears to be more rigorous than externally mandated evaluation, suggesting that stakeholders should work to help capacitate receptive nonprofits to improve evaluative rigor instead of imposing external requirements.