Dear Program Director or Nonprofit Leader,

I know you usually come to me when impact data is needed—often in response to a funder request or as part of a grant application. Rarely is it simply because your organization wants to pursue impact data for its own sake—and understandably so. Impact data is difficult to capture. It’s much easier to report on activities completed or numbers served. Getting to impact data requires more than a spreadsheet. It requires a thoughtful process: a review of your program, a clear understanding of its underlying theory, a mapping of activities to immediate results, and a connection between those results and longer-term outcomes—along with a plan for how, when, and by whom that data will be collected.

I’m writing this letter because I want you to know: this process is worth it.

Too often, organizations ask me to produce impact data from sources they already have. But here’s the truth—impact data can’t be retrofitted. It must be tied to intentional change, grounded in outcomes that are directly connected to the program’s activities. Without a clear theory of change, there’s no foundation for determining what success actually looks like. That’s why the starting point must be a logic model—a tool that operationalizes your theory of change and brings clarity to your efforts.

Ideally, this logic model would be created before program implementation, allowing for systematic data collection from day one. But more often than not, it’s developed after the fact. Why? Sometimes program developers don’t know about theories of change or logic models. Sometimes it seems like an unnecessary step, or one that takes resources away from “real” work. But if your program seeks meaningful or large-scale funding, a logic model is no longer optional. It’s required—explicitly or implicitly—as part of the evaluation expectations now standard in many grants.

My plea to you is this: don’t skip this step.

Investing the time to build a strong logic model gives you something invaluable: clarity. In program work, it’s easy to fall into “scope creep,” where additions accumulate until you’re doing a lot—but not necessarily achieving much. The logic model process forces you to step back and connect the dots. It helps identify and refine activities, often eliminating those that don’t meaningfully contribute to the change you’re trying to create.

This process becomes even more powerful when done with an external evaluator. Fresh eyes bring fresh perspective. I’ve often said, “If I can’t understand it, a funder won’t. And if a funder doesn’t understand it, they won’t fund it.” An external evaluator can identify gaps, challenge assumptions, and offer new ways of thinking about impact—often uncovering untapped opportunities for funding and growth. The collaborative nature of building the model between the evaluator and the program team fosters shared understanding among staff, strengthens strategy, and improves how you communicate your program to the outside world.

And it doesn’t stop there. A clear logic model doesn’t just increase your odds of getting funded—it also helps your team stay aligned, track real change over time, improve decision-making, and ultimately deliver stronger outcomes for the communities you serve.

Let me give you an example.

Recently, I worked with an international NGO. The work they contracted for was to create a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework; they said they already had a logic model. But as I reviewed their documents, including their model, I couldn’t make sense of what their project actually did. Activities were listed, but it was not clear how they worked together. Furthermore, there was no coherent chain of outcome change and no visible link between the activities and intended impact.

One of my first recommendations was to revise the logic model. They agreed. I began to piece together (from their documents) a greater understanding of the program itself and from that, I began to see potential outcomes that had never been articulated. I drafted a revised version. In my presentation of it to them, I began by zooming in on their activities—of course, I did not have the activities accurately depicted, but their comments were things like “I can see why that would be complicated, we don’t define that well,” “We do have a lot of inconsistent terms – not just terms but the ways of phrasing our work,” and “this tells us where we need to rethink our work.”  Together, we reworked the some of activities and noted where their team would need to address further items.

Then I zoomed out to focus on outcomes.

I had defined four levels of change I believed were embedded in their work. The director was stunned. He said, “I’ve been working on this for a few years now. I knew there was something that I wasn’t seeing. I knew it was there, but I couldn’t quite define it. But now I see it….” Over the next few weeks, we refined their logic model and developed outcome-based surveys, which would feed into an M&E framework that would generate relevant data and actionable insights.

At the end of our engagement, I asked him what the logic model experience was like. He said this:

“I kept trying to process it, to think, oh, no, that’s just not quite it. And why? Why is that? … And I just went round and round and round. It forced me to be, well to insist on clarity and consistency that then took me into getting very concrete and particular… the longer I worked on it, the more clarity I had…you said that you had discerned a [particular outcome] that we hadn’t actually been talking much about. That was a catalyst – that’s what then drove me, that’s what then forced me to think more carefully about the [activity] and [activity]. [It] was massively helpful.”

If any part of this resonates with you, I encourage you to take a moment and reflect on the clarity of your own program’s foundation. Are you confident that you are articulating your work as well as possible?  Are your activities directly aligned with the outcomes you seek?  Are you sure that you have not overlooked any key outcomes?  Is your impact actually measurable? If not—or if you’re unsure—I invite you to reach out. Clarity and alignment are closer than you think.

Sincerely,

Your Evaluator, a fresh set of eyes