Evaluations are often seen as bureaucratic checkboxes or external audits for funders, but when done right, they can be tools for actionable change that drive improvements that truly matter to those engaging with services.
When we first began evaluating Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) programs in Whatcom County, Washington State as part of United States Programs we expected to hear from the traditional stakeholders: program implementers, community leaders, community members living and working near permanent supportive housing sites. But what truly stood out were the stories from tenants themselves — individuals who shared how housing gave them something far beyond shelter. One tenant spoke of reconnecting with family members and experiencing a deep sense of safety and hope they hadn’t felt for years. These powerful, human insights emerged only because we intentionally included tenants’ voices in our evaluation process.
This approach, where the people most impacted by a program shape how its success is measured, is at the heart of VillageReach’s evaluation approach.
Why Center Communities in Evaluations?
Including the voices of those most affected is non-negotiable for us. It’s essential for ensuring that programs serve people’s needs, build genuine trust and produce results people care about.
- Equity: By hearing from people living the experience, we understand varied perspectives and root solutions in real-life challenges.
- Engagement and Trust: When everyone involved – from service users to frontline staff to policymakers – has a seat at the table, it fosters shared ownership and buy-in.
- Actionable Results: When communities see themselves in the evaluation process, they are more motivated to use findings to advocate for improvements.
This leads us to a central question: How do you center the community in evaluation to spur meaningful action? At VillageReach, we follow three core strategies: making evaluations participatory, fostering deep collaboration and centering local contexts.
Strategy 1: Make Evaluations Participatory
Traditional evaluations often prioritize the perspectives of those in power: funders, policymakers and implementers, which can leave out the very people most impacted by programs. Our work with Whatcom County’s PSH programs demonstrates how different evaluation findings can be when tenant voices are included.
Many community members and leaders had concerns about PSH – concerns about safety and concerns about how the presence of the program may impact a neighborhood or business district. When we conducted interviews with the tenants, we saw a much more nuanced perspective on safety and impact. Tenants generally felt dramatically safer in PSH programs as compared to living outside or in other unstable environments. Their stories revealed the transformative impacts housing has had on their lives. This feedback provided more nuance to our findings and led to more meaningful and impactful results.
Strategy 2: Deep Collaboration to Align Stakeholders Around Shared Goals
Evaluations that happen in silos often fail to gain traction. That’s why collaboration across sectors and stakeholders is critical.
The Healthy Children’s Fund aims to support early childhood care and services by investing millions annually in programs like childcare expansion, expanding the early childhood education and mental health workforce, and providing parental support to those who need it most. We established an evaluation advisory group representing diverse organizations, from local providers to advocacy groups. This group shaped what the evaluation should focus on and what success would look like.
This group was essential in helping define the equity goals for the evaluation. The advisory group ensured the evaluation plan emphasized understanding whether Healthy Children’s Fund interventions are reaching and benefiting people living in rural areas, people of color, low-income families, people who speak languages other than English at home and children with disabilities and their families.
Another issue the advisory group tackled was the use of internal versus external evaluation. The group gave a lot of feedback on when they felt an external evaluator was essential for the trust and credibility of the results. By incorporating this into the plan, we believe results will be more trusted by the community partners.
Strategy 3: Center Context to Tailor Methods to Local Realities
Every community is unique, shaped by its history, culture and resources. Evaluations must be responsive to these nuances.
Our Jefferson County assessment illustrates this principle well. The health department wanted to build relationships and better understand community needs in an area they knew to be under-served. Using a “windshield survey” approach—driving through neighborhoods and observing community life—we immersed ourselves in the rhythms and stories of South Jefferson County. We toured with local leaders, attending neighborhood events and learning how everyday life intersects with health care access.This simple, low-cost method revealed surprising insights: community members’ lack of awareness about local health services, the critical role of informal spaces like fire stations for medical questions, and how residents come together to build what government funding hasn’t provided. Furthermore, during the windshield survey the health department met community leaders and community members, increasing their relationships in the area as part of the assessment. These observations led the public health department to pivot their plans beyond immunizations to include environmental and climate health considerations to meet community needs.
At VillageReach, we adapt our evaluation strategies to each context, from housing programs to immunization equity, ensuring we fully understand and respect local realities.
Why This Approach Matters
When evaluations are participatory, collaborative and tailored to local context, they become powerful catalysts for meaningful change, rather than just routine exercises or reports that gather dust on a shelf. Our evaluations help:
- Inform funding decisions that are based on community needs
- Improve program design by highlighting what really works
- Drive local policy changes that reflect communities lived experiences
When evaluations embrace community as a core principle, they can drive continuous learning and improvement; they can create a virtuous cycle where findings lead to action, which then informs future evaluation, ensuring programs stay effective over time.
When and Why Should You Conduct an Evaluation?
Evaluations are valuable at any stage of a program life-cycle. They can help you: learn more about your program and improve services, demonstrate program benefits and impact to your sponsors and peers, and respond to specific concerns or challenges. Even early in program design, evaluations can ensure you’re addressing the right issues with the right approach.
There’s no one-size-fits-all. We believe in the “right size” evaluation tailored to a program’s scale and goals. Whether that means a quick, focused assessment or a comprehensive mixed-methods study, your impact will be maximized through accessible, relevant and practical evaluation.
By fostering participation, aligning stakeholders around shared goals and centering community context, evaluations can be more than just another report—they can be catalysts for real, community-led change.
Let’s Talk
Whether you’re looking to comply with funder requirements, improve your services or deepen accountability to your community, we’re here to help.
Contact CommunityImpact@villagereach.org to start a conversation about how community-led evaluations can support your work.
– Updated September 19, 2025