As more development stakeholders ask for clear evidence of social and environmental impact, the terms Impact Measurement and Management (IMM) and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) are often used as if they mean the same thing. But is this really the case? Nasri Adam, Director, Impact & Communications (Pan-Africa) and Regional Director, East Africa, explains.
How does IMM differ from traditional M&E? Where do the concepts overlap, and where do they diverge, especially in practice?
Traditional M&E has been valuable for accountability and compliance, but it focuses on tracking project-level outputs after the fact. IMM looks ahead and takes a broader view, treating impact with the same rigour as financial risk and return. While M&E usually checks if a project has delivered on what was promised, IMM asks deeper questions: What outcomes are being achieved? Who is affected? How much change is happening and for how long? Is this change better than what would have happened anyway? What are the risks that things may not go as planned? For investors, IMM also considers how their involvement makes a difference. In short, IMM is about understanding, improving and managing impact at a portfolio level, not just reporting on it.
How does IMM encourage funders and implementers to move from proving impact to improving it?
For a long time, funders and implementers have faced pressure to ‘prove’ impact for donor reports, which often leads to box-ticking rather than genuine learning. IMM shifts the focus to learning and adapting, moving from simply proving impact to actually improving outcomes. It encourages organisations to use practical, ‘minimum viable’ measurement and to learn as they go, using feedback from those they serve. Tools like developmental evaluation and beneficiary feedback systems help organisations adapt and improve their work in real time.
The African Venture Philanthropy Alliance (AVPA) plays a leading role in connecting social investors across Africa. How do you see IMM supporting smarter capital allocation in the blended finance space?
Blended finance uses limited grant or concessional funding to unlock more private investment for social good. IMM provides a framework for making these funding decisions transparent and data-driven. This helps funders assess where their money can have the greatest impact and ensures that subsidies are allocated where they are needed most. Impact risk-adjusted performance metrics (IRAPMs) enable blended finance actors to align their goals and hold one another accountable for results.
Please provide an example of a funder successfully using IMM to measure and inform strategy, along with an explanation of their IMM practices.
The Sanergy Collaborative is tackling the global sanitation crisis. In Nairobi, where 66% of waste is not safely managed, Sanergy’s Fresh Life initiative collaborates with municipalities and residents to provide safe and affordable sanitation in densely populated, low-income areas. Its circular economy model covers containment, emptying, transport and treatment or reuse, transforming waste into organic fertiliser, insect-based protein and biomass fuel. Fresh Life serves over 260 000 people daily and removes more than 6 000 metric tons of waste each year. IMM is embedded through Results-Based Financing (RBF), which links funding to measurable outcomes, such as toilet installations and pit waste treatment. IMM helps drive funding and accountability, bridge donor and government financing and turn waste into value for health, jobs and the environment.
What are some of the challenges encountered when implementing IMM, and how can these be overcome? What resources are available to assist funders and implementers with IMM?
- IMM is still evolving, and challenges remain for practitioners – but there are remedies.
- Limited data and weak infrastructure: Instead of aiming for ‘perfect proof’ through counterfactuals, evaluators can use natural comparisons, focus on contribution rather than attribution analysis and employ outcome harvesting.
- Capacity gaps in local organisations: Shared measurement tools and training can help build necessary skills.
- Too many indicators: Prioritise using materiality filters and align with IRIS+ core metrics sets where possible.
- Debates about attribution vs contribution: Applying clear theories of change and accepted evaluation criteria can help resolve these debates.
- Resources: Draw on useful tools like IRIS+, the Impact Management Platform, Social Value International’s social return on investment (SROI) frameworks, the Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (DCED) standard and peer-learning platforms such as AVPA’s knowledge commons.
Some funders still see IMM as a ‘global north’ framework. How can we localise it meaningfully for African contexts, especially for African-led organisations or informal social enterprises?
IMM must avoid epistemic coloniality by embedding local knowledge systems and culturally relevant outcome measures. It should reflect local realities by involving communities, recognising informal economies and measuring what matters most to people, such as livelihoods, security, time savings, dignity and relational wellbeing. Using local languages, community-based monitoring and local data collectors can make IMM more relevant and cost-effective.
Many CSI actors in South Africa operate in environments with limited data, short funding and project cycles, and stretched capacity. What advice would you give them about starting an IMM journey without overcomplicating it?
Start small: use simple theories of change and practical indicators. Try feedback tools like WhatsApp or phone surveys. Build learning into your regular meetings. See IMM as a journey; start with basic monitoring, then move to tracking outcomes and learning what works.
Should nonprofits consider implementing IMM rather than just M&E? If so, how should they start?
It is not either/or decision. M&E remains essential for accountability, while IMM adds value by helping organisations learn and adapt. Nonprofits can start by linking learning questions to their strategy, using practical IRIS+-aligned indicators, and involving stakeholders in the monitoring process. Initial efforts should include lean data collection, real-time dashboards and stakeholder-inclusive governance. This approach cultivates a learning organisation ethos, embedding impact considerations into strategic and operational decision-making.
NASRI ADAM | Director, Impact & Communications (Pan-Africa) and Regional Director, East Africa | nadam@avpa.africa | www.avpa.africa/
