Using Evaluation Results for Program Improvement in Non-Profits
Author: Dr. Anna Neya Kazanskaia
Publisher: NEYA Global Publishing
Article | NEYA Global Journal of Non-Profit Studies
Year: 2025
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5669-1676
DOI: https://doi.org/10.64357/neya-gjnps-pr-ev-bt-pr-09
This material forms part of the NEYA Global knowledge architecture. Institutional, organizational, professional, training, consulting, curriculum, program design, or implementation use requires an active license from NEYA Global
Explore Architecture →
Module Overview →
Request Institutional Access →
About the Article
Evaluation findings reach their highest value when they are systematically applied to strengthen program design, implementation, and sustainability. This article explores how non-profits can translate evaluation evidence into actionable improvements through structured planning, prioritization of recommendations, and stakeholder engagement. It examines continuous improvement frameworks such as PDCA, Kaizen, and Six Sigma, showing how they support adaptive management and learning cultures. Case studies from health, education, and microfinance demonstrate how evaluation results have been successfully used to refine strategies, improve outcomes, and sustain impact. By embedding feedback loops, participatory approaches, and adaptive practices, non-profits can ensure that evaluation drives innovation, accountability, and long-term social transformation.
Key Topics
- From findings to actionable recommendations
- Structured improvement planning and monitoring
- Stakeholder engagement and feedback loops
- Adaptive management and continuous improvement frameworks
- Case studies from health, education, and microfinance
- Sustaining improvements through institutionalization
Suggested Citation
Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Using Evaluation Results for Program Improvement in Non-Profits. NEYA Global Publishing. https://doi.org/10.64357/neya-gjnps-pr-ev-bt-pr-09
References
| Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., & Mabry, L. (2012). RealWorld evaluation: Working under budget, time, data, and political constraints (2nd ed.). Sage. | ||||
| Berman, P., Bitran, R., & Sapelli, C. (2015). Health systems, health, wealth and societal well-being: Assessing the case for investing in health systems. World Development, 70, 55-62. | ||||
| Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The key to Japan's competitive success. McGraw-Hill. | ||||
| Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Program Evaluation: Frameworks and Best Practices. NEYA Global Publishing. | ||||
| Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Tools for Strategic Evaluation. NEYA Global Publishing. https://doi.org/10.64357/tools-evaluation-2025 | ||||
| Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Grant Reporting and Data Analysis. NEYA Global Publishing. https://doi.org/10.64357/grant-reporting-data-analysis-2025 | ||||
| Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Monitoring & Evaluation in International Development. NEYA Global Publishing. https://doi.org/10.64357/monitoring-evaluation-international-development-2025 | ||||
| Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Using Evaluation Results for Program Improvement in Non-Profit Organizations. NEYA Global Journal of Non-Profit Studies. https://doi.org/10.64357/neya-gjnps-pr-evl-fr-bst-pr-08 | ||||
| Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Measuring Program Outcomes: Indicators, Methods, and Applications in Non-Profit Evaluation. NEYA Global Journal of Non-Profit Studies. https://doi.org/10.64357/neya-gjnps-pr-ev-bt-pr-05 | ||||
| Karlan, D., & Valdivia, M. (2011). Teaching entrepreneurship: Impact of business training on microfinance clients and institutions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(2), 510-527. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00074 | ||||
| Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press. | ||||
| Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Sage. | ||||
| Preskill, H., & Catsambas, T. T. (2006). Reframing evaluation through appreciative inquiry. Sage. | ||||
| Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Sage. | ||||
| Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall. | ||||
