Organizational Capacity 

Assessment Tool

AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation

October 2017
This tool was developed for the Corporation for National and 

Community Service (2020, DBA AmeriCorps) by ICF under 

contract #CNSHQ16T0073.

Contributing Authors:

Adrienne DiTommaso 

Bethany Slater

Joe Raymond 

Venessa Marks

Nanette Antwi-Donkor 

Trevor Hoffberger

Suggested citation: AmeriCorps. (2017). Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool. Washington, DC: 

Author.

AmeriCorps thanks the following people for serving on a technical working group and advising the 

authors in the development of this tool: Isaac Castillo, Robert Cox, Meghan Duffy, and Chukwuemeka 

Umeh. AmeriCorps would also like to thank the following staff for their contribution to the development 

of this tool: Jennifer Kerner, Lily Zandniapour, Anthony Nerino, Carla Ganiel, Molly Pelzer, and Rob Cox.

AmeriCorps also thanks the many organizations that participated in the pilot testing and validation of 

this tool.
Office of Research & Evaluation

1 

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 2

Key Domains of Organizational Capacity....................................................................... 3

Using This Tool ................................................................................................................ 4

Leadership Capacity .......................................................................................................... 6

Vision and Mission........................................................................................................... 7

Leadership and Governance ........................................................................................... 7

Strategy and Planning..................................................................................................... 8

Culture and Values .......................................................................................................... 8

Management and Operations Capacity ........................................................................10

Financial Management..................................................................................................11

Human Resources ..........................................................................................................11

Infrastructure and Information Technology..................................................................12

Community Engagement Capacity ................................................................................13

Fund Development........................................................................................................14

Communications and Advocacy ...................................................................................14

Volunteer Management ................................................................................................14

Community Partnerships ...............................................................................................15

Service Capacity...............................................................................................................17

Program Design.............................................................................................................18

Program Implementation ..............................................................................................18

Performance Management ...........................................................................................19

Evaluative Capacity..........................................................................................................21

Evaluation Planning .......................................................................................................22

Data Collection ..............................................................................................................22

Measuring Outcomes and Impact ................................................................................22

Learning and Continuous Improvement.......................................................................23

Appendix: Scoring Rubric ...............................................................................................25

References ........................................................................................................................28
Office of Research & Evaluation

2

Introduction

AmeriCorps, its State Service Commissions, and intermediaries work with thousands of direct 

service providers each year to improve the lives of American citizens. This tool was created for 

AmeriCorps grantees and the broader field to assess organizational capacity to deliver 

effective services. High-performing organizations typically have a strong understanding of 

their organization’s strengths and challenges. This tool provides a practical method of 

organizational self-assessment that can be used to acknowledge strengths, clarify different 

perceptions, and plan strategies to enhance capacity in identified areas. This introduction 

explains the intended use of this tool and highlights the five domains of organizational 

capacity assessed by the instrument. For each domain, we offer a brief synopsis of the 

research literature on effective practice followed by a series of capacity assessment questions. 

Each domain also includes suggested reading and research to build capacity in that area.

Defining key terms

• Organizational effectiveness: The ability of an organization to fulfill its mission 

through effective leadership and governance, sound management, and the alignment 

of measurable outcomes with strategies, services, resources, and partners.

• Organizational capacity: The wide range of capabilities, knowledge, and resources 

that organizations need to be effective.

• Capacity assessment: The use of a standardized process or formal instrument to 

assess facets of organizational capacity and identify areas of relative strength and 

weakness. Capacity building: Internal or external strategies that use resources or 

technical assistance to strengthen an organization’s capabilities to enhance 

organizational effectiveness.

Adapted from Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (2016). Strengthening nonprofit capacity: Core concepts 

in capacity building. Washington, DC: Author.

The goal of this tool is to provide AmeriCorps grantees and the broader field with a 

research-based instrument to promote organizational capacity self-assessment. State 

commissions and other intermediaries may find this tool particularly helpful in working with 

subrecipients to identify capacity strengths and areas for support. The tool is designed to be a 

conversation- starter within an organization and between organizations engaged in a technical 

assistance relationship.
Office of Research & Evaluation

3 

Key Domains of Organizational Capacity

To develop this tool, AmeriCorps commissioned an extensive review of the research literature 

on capacity assessment and analyzed leading and widely used assessment tools available in 

the marketplace. In developing the domains and subdomains, AmeriCorps aimed to take a 

straightforward, functional approach – using terms common in nonprofit management and 

organizing the domains based on typical job functions. AmeriCorps also considered domains 

and subdomains that may be particularly important for AmeriCorps-funded organizations, 

including volunteer management, community engagement, and evaluative capacity. Figure 1 

shows these domains relative to their internal versus external focus. Leadership and evaluative 

capacity are overarching domains that set the strategy for the organization and drive

organizational culture. Management and operations capacity includes more internal functions, 

while service and community engagement capacity are primarily externally facing. Each of 

these domains is described in greater detail in the following sections of this tool.

Figure: AmeriCorps Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool Domains
Office of Research & Evaluation

4

Using This Tool

This tool provides a practical approach to beginning or enhancing an organization’s 

understanding of its capacity strengths and areas where its capacity might be enhanced. 

Organizational capacity is complex and fluid – it changes over time, and perceptions of 

capacity often differ within and across organizations. For this reason, AmeriCorps recommends 

that organizations invite multiple individuals within the organization to complete this 

assessment and then discuss results – including any differences of opinion. Team members 

well-positioned to provide insight on organizational capacity include the chief executive officer 

(CEO)/executive director, members of the board of directors (or comparable entity), 

leadership team members, and managers. External stakeholders – such as volunteers, 

partners, or service recipients – can also provide a valuable perspective on all or sections of 

this assessment tool. Diversity of opinion can indicate misunderstandings that can be easily 

addressed, or it could reveal areas where there is more work to be done. The tool might also 

reveal strong areas of capacity to acknowledge and to be sustained.

How to take this assessment:

Prepare

• Identify at least 2-3 individuals within your organization to independently take this 

assessment. This could include the CEO, members of the board of directors, 

leadership team members, or even well-informed external stakeholders.

• Set a deadline for respondents to complete the assessment and schedule a 

meeting to debrief your findings and conclusions. 

Assess

• Take the assessment. Check off any statements that are true for your organization 

from your perspective. Note any questions that are not applicable to your 

organization.

• Tally the number of checked statements at the end of each domain and the 

number of skipped questions if any were not applicable.

• Complete the scoring rubric in Appendix A. Identify the domains where your 

organization has the strongest capacity and domains that could benefit from 

capacity building.

Reflect

• Discuss your conclusions with the larger respondent team. Dig into any areas of 

disagreement, seeking to understand and address differences of opinion.

• Share your group’s key findings, conclusions, and any action items with the larger 

staff and board.
Office of Research & Evaluation

5 

Appendix A offers a scoring rubric to help you identify domains and subdomains of capacity 

that might particularly benefit from capacity-building efforts. To simplify and streamline 

scoring, all questions are framed negatively – requiring you to simply check off whether a 

specific capacity is a challenge or a gap for your organization.

This tool has been validated for use with a wide variety of organization types: national and 

local nonprofits; state, local and tribal governments; institutes of higher education; and 

funders and intermediary organizations. If a question is not appropriate for your organization, 

simply skip that question and note its exclusion in your scoring calculation.

The tool was also designed to help organizations assess changes to capacity over time. 

Consider taking and retaking this assessment on an annual or biannual basis to track how 

organizational capacity strengths and needs change over time.

Capacity building takes time and effort. This capacity tool can be a critical first step toward 

increasing basic understanding about capacity and prioritizing potential capacity-building 

efforts. The suggested resources at the end of each domain section provide a helpful starting 

place to learn more about effective practices for organizational development.
Office of Research & Evaluation

6

Leadership Capacity

This domain focuses on capacity functions that are typically the responsibility of senior 

leadership and executive board members (in the case of nonprofits) to guide or execute. 

Markers of effective organizational leaderships include:

Vision and Mission: An organization’s vision and mission statements articulate its sense 

of purpose and direction (McKinsey & Company, 2001). Effective vision and mission 

statements set parameters for what the organization will and will not do; inspire staff, 

volunteers, and donors; and set the basis for strategy (McKinsey & Company, 2001; 

Paynter & Berner, 2014; Smith, Howard, & Harrington, 2005).

Leadership and Governance: An organization’s governance model is a critical 

component for organizational functioning and sustainability (Liket & Mass, 2015). For 

nonprofits with executive boards, clear separation between the board and the 

organization’s leadership is important, as are documented roles and responsibilities 

(Liket & Mass, 2015). Research suggests that professional diversity, the ability to raise 

funds, and the size of the board can affect nonprofit effectiveness. Note: Organizations 

that do not have an executive board or suitable proxy should mark that question as not 

applicable (N/A).

Strategy and Planning: An organization’s vision and mission establish its aspirations, 

but its strategy articulates the means for achieving those goals (McKinsey & Company, 

2001). Research has shown that strategic planning – the process of mission review, 

stakeholder analysis, and visioning, coupled with the development of resource 

allocation strategies, boosts organizational capacity (Bryson, Gibbons, & Shaye, 2001; 

Paynter & Berner, 2014).

Culture and Values: An organization’s culture affects every aspect of its functioning – 

from how leaders interact with the board and staff to how staff members respond to 

external or internal challenges. Building a strong values-based culture is a strategic and 

often difficult process that must be led and modeled by organizational leadership. 

Organizational culture is typically divided into three interrelated components: core 

values, beliefs, and behavior norms (McKinsey & Company, 2001). Cultural 

competency, diversity, equity, and inclusion are critical components of a strong 

organizational culture.
Office of Research & Evaluation

7 

Vision and Mission

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Our vision statement does not describe the future our organization 

intends to achieve. 

Our mission statement does not clearly define what we want to achieve 

and for whom. 

Not all staff fully embrace or could clearly describe our vision and 

mission to individuals who have never heard of our organization. 

Organizational decisions are sometimes not reflective of the mission and 

vision of the organization and detract from its fulfillment. 

Leadership and Governance 

1.5 Our board does not have an adopted set of bylaws that defines its essential 

responsibilities and complies with federal and state statutes.

1.6 Our board does not adopt and regularly review an annual set of 

organizational strategic goals and measurable outcomes.

1.7 Our board does not adopt an annual budget aligned with its strategic goals 

and measurable outcomes.

1.8 Our board does not regularly update and adopt a set of policies to govern 

the organization in the areas of finance, human resources, fund 

development, and communications.

1.9 Our board does not evaluate the performance of its CEO on regular basis.

1.10 Our board does not evaluate its performance on a regular basis.

1.11 Our board does not have the right mix of skills and expertise to govern the 

organization and routinely consider diverse points of view from internal and 

external stakeholders.

1.12 The composition of our board does not reflect the community we serve.

1.13 Board members do not have enough knowledge about our organization and 

current issues relevant to our organization to make effective policy decisions.

Not 

True N/A True 

Instructions: Read each statement and check the True box to the left if it is true or mostly 

true for your organization. If the statement does not apply to your organization (e.g., it 

refers to a governing board practice, and you are a school and do not have a traditional 

governing board or suitable proxy), check the N/A box to the right. If the statement is not 

true for your organization, check the Not True box and proceed to the next statement. 

Note that selecting all N/A boxes within a domain will produce a form error.
Office of Research & Evaluation

8

1.14 Few or none of the board members are effective at getting others in the 

community to invest time, money, or other resources in our organization.

Strategy and Planning 

1.15 Our organization does not have a written strategic plan1 that includes a 

clear, specific, and measurable set of goals2 and objectives3 to ensure 

success.

1.16 Our organization does not formally share progress on the strategic plan’s 

goals and objectives with board and staff members on a regular basis.

1.17 Our organization either did not solicit or did not use external stakeholder 

input as it developed its strategic plan.

1.18 Our board either has not reviewed or has not approved the existing 

strategic plan in the past 12 months.

1.19 Our organization has too many priorities, and our capacity is insufficient or 

stretched too thin to achieve all of our goals.

1.20 Implementation of the action steps in our strategic plan is significantly 

behind schedule.

1.21 Our overall strategy is not broadly known and has limited influence over dayto-day behavior.

1.22 There is a lack of clarity on how to make decisions when priorities come into 

conflict with each other.

1.23 Our organization has a history of failing to meet program or organizational 

goals and benchmarks.

Culture and Values 

1.24 Our organization does not have a common set of basic beliefs and values 

that are written, shared broadly, and held by all or the majority of staff.

1.25 Our organization does not provide regular opportunities for staff to express 

constructive feedback or concerns to leadership.

1.26 Many staff members are not culturally sensitive with respect to internal 

management or delivery of services.

1.27 Our organization invests little time or resources in reflection or learning.

1 A strategic plan is a documented framework that communicates an organization’s goals, sets priorities, 

and focuses energy on actions that accomplish those goals (Balanced Scorecard Institute, n.d.).

2 Strategic goals are the realistic and clearly defined outcomes that guide implementation of a program 

or intervention (The NCJA Center for Justice Planning, n.d.).

3 Strategic objectives are concrete explanations of how goals will be accomplished and the necessary 

steps to reach that end (The NCJA Center for Justice Planning, n.d.).
Office of Research & Evaluation

9 

1.28 Our organization does not openly embrace diversity of race, ethnicity, class, 

gender, sexuality, ability, and other facets of human identity.

1.29 The demographics of our staff do not represent the population it serves.

Domain Number N/A 

Leadership Capacity

Resources to build leadership capacity

• The strategic plan is dead. Long live strategy, by Dana O’Donovan and Noah Rimland

Flower. Stanford Social Innovation Review. January 10, 2013.

• Boards that make a difference: A new design for leadership in nonprofit and public

organizations, by John Carver. December 10, 2007.

• Trying hard is not good enough: How to produce measurable improvements for

customers and communities, by Mark Friedman. March 8, 2015.

Number of Not True Statements 
Office of Research & Evaluation

10

Management and Operations Capacity

This domain focuses on internal-facing capacities, including the capacity of an organization to 

manage its finances; recruit, develop, and retain talent; and maintain critical infrastructure and 

systems. 

Markers of effective management and operations include:

Financial Management: Financial capacity is more than just managing a budget; it is an 

organization’s ability to align its financial capital with its strategic plans and mission 

(Paynter & Berner, 2014, Misener & Doherty, 2009). Effectively managing resources is 

critical for mission fulfillment, yet many capacity assessment studies have revealed that 

direct service providers are frequently troubled by insufficient financial management 

capacity. An effective organization has the skills and systems necessary, relative to its 

size and revenue base, for financial planning, accounting, budgeting, and other activities 

to ensure financial health.

Human Resources: Human resource capacity is the ability to effectively recruit, manage, 

develop, and retain staff within an organization. Researchers have argued that this ability 

is the key element that directly affects all other organizational capacities, and it is often 

seen as a strength in nonprofit and voluntary organizations (Hall et al., 2003; Misener & 

Doherty, 2009). Staff structures and roles are often used to approximate organizational 

maturity, with more developed organizations having more specialized and defined staff 

functions (Schuh & Leviton, 2006). Effective organizations have policies and procedures 

for staff recruitment, management and supervision, development and training, 

succession planning and leadership development, compensation, and staff retention.

Infrastructure and Information Technology: Infrastructure refers to the tangible 

property or goods staff members need to do their jobs. Effective organizations have 

sufficient infrastructure to facilitate their day-to-day functions. As organizations become 

more dependent on technology to operate, many struggle to ensure that they have the 

right systems in place, that they can adequately maintain those systems, and that staff 

members have adequate training to use information technology (IT) systems such as 

databases, websites, hardware, and software.
Office of Research & Evaluation

11

Financial Management 

2.1 Our organization does not have an up-to-date fiscal policy and procedures 

manual.

2.2 Our organization does not compare actual with budgeted expenses each 

month.

2.3 Our operations plan and annual budget do not align with our current 

strategic plan.

2.4 Our organization rarely reforecasts year-end revenue and expenses to assist 

management decision-making.

2.5 Our organization does not effectively manage its finances (e.g., it does not 

have balanced books, appropriate internal controls, on-time accounts 

payable, or an adequate reserve fund, or it has year-over-year deficits).

Human Resources 

2.6 Our organization does not have written human resource policies that have 

been approved by the board and explained to staff.

2.7 Staff members are not given constructive feedback from managers or 

supervisors on a regular basis.

2.8 Our organization does not routinely assess workloads to ensure adequate 

resources are available to meet performance objectives.

2.9 Our organization does not have an adequate total compensation system4, 

including salary standards, retirement benefits, health care benefits, and 

systems for bonuses, awards, or recognition of high performance, that is on 

par with similar organizations.

2.10 Our organization does not fill open positions with highly qualified applicants 

in a timely manner.

4 Total compensation is a holistic model of employee payment that incorporates both monetary 

compensation (such as base pay, performance-based pay, and bonuses) and nonmonetary 

compensation (such as health care benefits, trainings, and retirement benefits) (Sharpe, 2016).

Not 

True N/A True 

Instructions: Read each statement and check the True box to the left if it is true or mostly 

true for your organization. If the statement does not apply to your organization (e.g., it 

refers to a governing board practice, and you are a school and do not have a traditional 

governing board or suitable proxy), check the N/A box to the right. If the statement is not 

true for your organization, check the Not True box and proceed to the next statement. 

Note that selecting all N/A boxes within a domain will produce a form error.
Office of Research & Evaluation

12

Infrastructure and Information Technology

2.11 Our organization does not have the right facilities (e.g., space, equipment, 

 or office supplies) to implement our programs and achieve our mission. 

2.12 Our organization does not have sufficient expertise (on staff or through 

volunteers or consultants) to effectively and efficiently run and manage our 

technology systems.

2.13 Our staff members do not have the necessary hardware (e.g., computers) 

and software (e.g., word processing systems and database systems) to do 

their jobs consistently, efficiently, and effectively.

2.14 Important data and files are not backed up at least once a month.

Domain Number of Not True Statements Number N/A 

Management and 

Operations Capacity

Resources to build management and operations capacity

• Managing to change the world: The nonprofit manager’s guide to getting results, by

Alison Green and Jerry Hauser. 2012.

• An executive director’s guide to financial leadership, by Kate Barr and Jeanne Bell. The

Nonprofit Quarterly. Fall/Winter 2011.

• Financial management for human service administrators, by Lawrence Martin. May 5,

2016.
Office of Research & Evaluation

13

Community Engagement Capacity

This domain is primarily external facing, focusing on an organization’s capacity to draw on 

strategic relationships with funders, community partners, corporations, media, and individuals 

to access resources and expertise and to leverage time and in-kind contributions. 

Markers of effective community engagement include:

Fund Development: The lack of core, stable, long-term funding is often noted as the 

greatest challenge to the development of organizational capacity (Hall et al., 2003). 

Uncertainties about future funding and constraints on how funds can be used can have 

a significant impact on the ability of an organization to plan strategically – or to 

execute those plans (Misener & Doherty, 2009). Organizations that are mature in their 

fund development capacity have provisions for covering overhead costs and routine or 

formal fundraising activities (such as annual campaigns or events) and have a diverse or 

strategic array of funding sources (Schuh & Leviton, 2006).

Communications and Advocacy: Increasingly in the digital age, effective and 

transparent communications are considered essential to nonprofit effectiveness (Liket 

& Mass, 2015). Communications capacity includes marketing skill, online presence, 

media relations, and use of social media to raise awareness, advocate, and attract 

resources to the organization or issue (Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, 

2016b). Transparency is often judged by posting the organization’s strategic plan and 

annual and financial reports online and by providing a list of executive board members 

on the organization’s website (Liket & Mass, 2015).

Volunteer Management: Many small community-based nonprofits, as well as larger 

organizations, rely on volunteers to deliver services or cover other essential staff 

functions. For some small community-based organizations, the commitment of 

volunteers can be more important than other capacity areas, such as infrastructure 

(Paynter & Berner, 2014). Effective volunteer management requires the development 

and execution of effective recruitment, screening, training, and retention strategies.

Community Partnerships: Partnership capacity includes the skills and mindset to 

create and sustain relationships with peer organizations, government, corporations, 

and other key stakeholders to advance the organization’s mission (Grantmakers for 

Effective Organizations, 2016b). Many direct service providers rely on organizations 

with complementary services to meet the needs of their clients. Volunteer-based 

organizations often heavily rely on corporations or religious organizations to help 

recruit volunteers or provide in-kind donations.
Office of Research & Evaluation

14

Fund Development 

3.1 Our organization would shut down or dramatically reduce services if it lost 

1-2 key funders.

3.2 Our organization has difficulty identifying or cultivating new funders.

3.3 Our organization has insufficient discretionary funds independent of 

project-specific or restricted funds. 

3.4 Our organization does not have a viable fundraising plan that was 

developed within the past 12 months. 

Communications and Advocacy 

3.5 Our organization does not have an up-to-date external communications 

strategy5 that addresses crisis communications, marketing, and public 

relations.

3.6 Our organization has outdated communications tools and messages.

3.7 Our materials or website do not reflect the quality of our organization.

3.8 Our organization has limited or no social media presence.

3.9 Our organization leaders are rarely asked by other community or nonprofit 

leaders to provide leadership, knowledge, or advice on community-level 

issues.

Volunteer Management 

3.10 Our organization does not have a written volunteer recruitment and 

management plan.

3.11 Our organization often fails to recruit the volunteers it needs to provide 

essential services.

5 A communications strategy is a document that establishes the objectives, audiences, messages, 

resources, responsibilities, and measures for an organization’s outreach. The objectives in a 

communication strategy should be segmented by target audience (Hovland, 2005).

Not 

True N/A True 

Instructions: Read each statement and check the True box to the left if it is true or mostly 

true for your organization. If the statement does not apply to your organization (e.g., it 

refers to a governing board practice, and you are a school and do not have a traditional 

governing board or suitable proxy), check the N/A box to the right. If the statement is not 

true for your organization, check the Not True box and proceed to the next statement. 

Note that selecting all N/A boxes within a domain will produce a form error.
Office of Research & Evaluation

15

3.12 Our organization struggles to retain volunteers.

3.13 Volunteers often do not know who is managing them.

3.14 Volunteers often do not understand their role in the organization.

3.15 Volunteers do not always receive the resources, support, and training they 

need to do their jobs.

3.16 Our organization often struggles to recruit the right mix of volunteers (e.g., 

with the right skills, availability or with backgrounds that reflect the 

community).

Community Partnerships

3.17 Our organization spends insufficient time meeting, interacting, and 

collaborating with community members, program participants, and leaders 

for the purpose of learning about what is going on in the community.

3.18 Our organization has limited engagement in partnerships because of a lack 

of awareness or an inability to take advantage of real partnership 

opportunities.

3.19 Our organization has spent so much time on partnership work that it 

interferes with our ability to implement important goals.

3.20 Our organization has focused efforts on partnership work or networking that 

is not aligned with our mission.

3.21 Our organization has not assessed the results of key partnerships, alliances, 

or participation in networks.

Domain Number of Not True Statements Number N/A 

Community Engagement 

Capacity
Office of Research & Evaluation

16

Resources to build management and operations capacity

• Ten nonprofit funding models, by William Foster, Peter Kim, and Barbara Christiansen.

Stanford Social Innovation Review. Spring 2009.

• Twenty-first-century communications versus the illusion of control: An epic battle, by

Ruth McCambridge. Nonprofit Quarterly. August 27, 2014.

• Working better together: Building nonprofit collaborative capacity, by Grantmakers for

Effective Organizations. 2013.

• Management of human service programs, by Judith A. Lewis, Thomas R. Packard, and

Michael D. Lewis. August 15, 2011.
Office of Research & Evaluation

17

Service Capacity

This domain focuses on the capacity of the organization to design research-informed 

programs, monitor and support quality implementation, and make course corrections as 

needed. 

Markers of service effectiveness include:

Program Design: Programs are more likely to produce reliable, positive outcomes for 

their clients if they use evidence-based practices and have a clearly articulated logic 

model or theory of change (Easterling & Metz, 2016). A critical element in strong 

program design includes taking steps to understand and document relevant 

community and individual-level needs and assets.

Community needs assessment, asset mapping, and focus groups with potential clients 

and key stakeholders are all strategies that can assist organizations in designing (or 

refining) programs that are responsive to client needs and the larger community 

environment (Sharpe, Greaney, Lee, & Royce, 2000).

Program Implementation: Program implementation is more effective and sustainable 

if it is documented, monitored, and well-coordinated with other program or 

organizational functions. Policy and procedure manuals provide evidence of a 

structured, step-by-step approach to programming and are an essential knowledge 

and risk management tool (Paynter & Berner, 2014). Coordination across functional 

teams or other interagency programs can keep programs from operating in isolation 

and reduce inefficiencies. Finally, monitoring fidelity to policies and practices or to 

evidence-based programs (if applicable) is essential to ensure that programs provide 

the intended services (Easterling & Metz, 2016).

Performance Management: Similar to evaluative capacity, performance management 

capacity focuses on the organization’s ability to identify, collect, and monitor key 

performance indicators (KPIs) directly related to service provision. These KPIs are 

typically program activities and outputs that provide real-time input on program 

implementation and client participation (Parmenter, 2015).

Note: if your organization runs multiple programs, be sure to align with your colleagues also 

taking the assessment on which program(s) you are focusing on as you complete the 

questions.
Office of Research & Evaluation

18

Program Design

4.1 Our organization does not have a clear understanding of how our resources 

and strategies will result in our intended outcomes.

4.2 Our program design is not grounded in the best and most recent research 

literature available.

4.3 National service members or volunteers are not explicitly included as a 

component in our logic model or theory of change.

4.4 Our organization has minimal knowledge or understanding of other program 

models in our field.

4.5 Our organization’s clients or participants do not provide input or feedback 

on our program design or implementation.

4.6 Our organization does not conduct regular assessments of client needs.

4.7 Our new programs are created largely in response to funding availability 

rather than client needs or community service gaps.

Program Implementation

4.8 Policy and procedure6 documents are out-of-date or insufficient to provide 

staff guidance on current program practices.

4.9 Insufficient financial or staffing resources are allocated to ensure strong 

program implementation.

4.10 Not all of our program staff has the required knowledge, experience, or skills 

to implement our program in a manner that will achieve the greatest positive 

effect.

4.11 Staff members with different roles rarely have the time to meet and share 

their work, coordinate their work, or develop ideas for working together.

6 Policy and procedure documents define how an organization operates and provide guidance on 

program-specific practice (NCVO Knowhow Nonprofit, 2016).

Not 

True N/A True 

Instructions: Read each statement and check the True box to the left if it is true or mostly 

true for your organization. If the statement does not apply to your organization (e.g., it 

refers to a governing board practice, and you are a school and do not have a traditional 

governing board or suitable proxy), check the N/A box to the right. If the statement is not 

true for your organization, check the Not True box and proceed to the next statement. 

Note that selecting all N/A boxes within a domain will produce a form error.
Office of Research & Evaluation

19

4.12 Program leadership does not regularly monitor fidelity to program design7or 

adaptations8 made to implementation.

4.13 Staff members do not have a clear understanding of the program logic 

model9 or the relationship between implementation and expected 

outcomes.

Performance Management 

4.14 Our program does not have clearly defined key performance indicators.10

4.15 Key performance indicators are not reviewed and discussed by 

organizational or program leadership at least biannually.

4.16 Internal performance data are rarely used to improve the program or 

organization.

4.17 Our organization rarely or never compares our program performance with 

comparable programs run by other organizations.

Domain Number of Not True Statements 

Service Capacity

7 Fidelity is the “extent to which delivery of an intervention adheres to the protocol or program model 

originally developed” (Mowbray, Holter, Teague, & Bybee, 2003). Providing consistent services is 

important for evaluating impact and making adjustments.

8 Program adaptations are data-driven changes to implementation to ensure sustainability and 

effectiveness (Center for Public Health Systems Science, n.d.).

9 A logic model is a visual and written depiction of the inputs and activities that will result in the desired 

outputs and outcomes (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). 10 A key performance indicator is a quantifiable performance measurement that indicates the 

effectiveness of a program or organization in achieving its goals (Jackson, 2015).

Number N/A 
Office of Research & Evaluation

20

Resources to build service capacity

• Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage, by Lisbeth B. Schorr. March 23,

2011. 

• Designing and managing programs: An effectiveness-based approach, by Peter Kettner,

Robert Moroney, and Lawrence Martin. January 20, 2016.
Office of Research & Evaluation

21

Evaluative Capacity

This domain focuses on the capacity of an organization to gather data, measure impact, and 

assess lessons learned to strengthen the organization’s work over time. 

Markers of evaluative capacity include:

Evaluation Planning: Organizations with strong evaluative capacity develop a 

systematic plan for evaluation activities with the full engagement and support of senior 

management (Bourgeois & Cousins, 2013). Execution of the evaluation plan can be the 

responsibility of internal evaluators and staff or external consultants.

Data Collection: The capacity to collect quality data is often indicated by clear data 

collection protocols that identify who is collecting what data, when, from whom, and 

for what purpose (Grantmakers for Effective Organizations, 2016b). Without highquality data collection, the value of the analysis is questionable.

Measuring Impact: Organizations are best positioned to measure their impact if they 

use validated or research-based outcome assessment tools that align with their service 

intervention and their short- and long-term intended outcomes (Grantmakers for 

Effective Organizations, 2016b). Programs that participate in quasi-experimental or 

randomized control trials will have a better understanding of the degree that client 

outcomes can be attributed to organization intervention.

Evaluation Use, Learning, and Continuous Improvement: Organizations that 

maximize their learning from evaluation activities and use that information to drive 

continuous improvement tend to share similar characteristics: (1) they openly and 

widely share evaluation findings with internal and external stakeholders, (2) they link 

the evaluation process to other organization decision-making processes, and (3) they 

recognize the value of empirical data in decision-making and problem-solving 

(Bourgeois & Cousins, 2013).
Office of Research & Evaluation

22

Evaluation Planning 

5.1 Within the past three years, our organization has not developed or not 

revisited a systematic plan that defines the purpose of our evaluation efforts 

and our methodology, outlines our evaluation activities, and establishes clear 

responsibilities.

5.2 Our senior leadership does not prioritize evaluation and does not routinely 

dedicate resources to it.

5.3 Our organization has not engaged an internal or external experienced 

evaluator to design or implement an evaluation plan.

5.4 Our organization dedicates insufficient resources for evaluation.

Data Collection

5.5 Our organization does not have clear protocols for data collection. 11

5.6 Our organization does not provide regular staff training on how to use data 

collection protocols.

5.7 Our organization does not have sufficient or effective data collection 

systems.12

Measuring Outcomes and Impact 

5.8 Our organization does not internally evaluate the effects of our programs.

5.9 The questions in our evaluation instruments are not clearly stated. 13

11 Data collection protocol is the systematic procedure through which individuals and organizations 

collect, maintain, secure, and use data. Protocols ensure that evaluations are effective and valid (Faculty 

Development, 2005).

12 Data collection systems, typically using computer-based software, aggregate and analyze sets of data 

in an efficient manner (Techopedia, n.d.).

13 An evaluation instrument is a questionnaire or survey that assesses knowledge gain or behavior 

change in a group of program participants (Rutgers University, n.d.).

Not 

True N/A True 

Instructions: Read each statement and check the True box to the left if it is true or mostly 

true for your organization. If the statement does not apply to your organization (e.g., it 

refers to a governing board practice, and you are a school and do not have a traditional 

governing board or suitable proxy), check the N/A box to the right. If the statement is not 

true for your organization, check the Not True box and proceed to the next statement. 

Note that selecting all N/A boxes within a domain will produce a form error.
Office of Research & Evaluation

23

5.10 The questions in our evaluation instruments are not in-line with our 

proposed methods of evaluation and program design.

5.11 Our organization has not participated in a high-quality external evaluation, 

such as a quasi-experimental study14 or a randomized control trial,15 to assess 

the degree that the results can be attributed16 to the program intervention.

Learning and Continuous Improvement 

5.12 Staff members across the organization have low levels of knowledge about 

evaluation and its benefits.

5.13 Our organization does not openly and widely share evaluation findings with 

key stakeholders.17

5.14 Our organization makes limited use of internal evaluation data to make 

decisions regarding organization strategy or fiscal allocations.

5.15 Our organization makes limited use of external research to make decisions 

regarding organization strategy or fiscal allocations.

5.16 Our organization has no systematic evaluation recommendation follow-up 

process.

Domain Number of Not True Statements 

Evaluative Capacity

14 A quasi-experimental study compares outcomes for individuals receiving an intervention with 

outcomes for comparable individuals not receiving that intervention (Moore, 2008).

15 A randomized control trial randomly assigns individual participants to either a control or treatment 

group to measure the impact of an intervention on specific outcomes (Himmelfarb Health Sciences 

Library, n.d.).

16 For results to be attributed to program interventions, a causal relationship must exist between them, 

effectively ruling out other variables as the primary cause (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013). 17 Key stakeholders are individuals or organizations that share an interest in the program’s success. 

Stakeholders can be funders, partners, community members, participants, board members, or 

volunteers (The Denver Foundation, n.d.).

Number N/A 
Office of Research & Evaluation

24

Resources to build management and evaluative capacity

• The challenge of organizational learning, by Katie Smith Milway and Amy Saxton.

Stanford Social Innovation Review. Summer 2011.

• Building a strategic learning and evaluation system for your organization, by Hallie

Preskill and Katelyn Mack. 2013.

• Collective genius, by Linda Hill, Greg Brandeau, Emily Truelove, and Kant Lineback.

Harvard Business Review. June 2014.

• Building evaluation capacity: Activities for teaching and training, by Hallie Preskill and

Darlene Russ-Eft. September 15, 2015.
Office of Research & Evaluation

25

Appendix: Scoring Rubric

Once you have completed the assessment, use this scoring rubric to identify the areas within 

your organization of greatest strength (domains that return percentages closer to 100%) and 

need (domains that return percentages closer to 0%) within your organization. This rubric will 

allow you to reflect on the various aspects of your organization to drive capacity-building 

efforts. A copy of the domain diagram is included for reference. 

The table below displays each of the 5 domains examined through the assessment. If filling 

out a printed form, see scoring instructions below the table. 

Scoring Instructions: 

1. Tally the number of boxes marked

Not True within each domain and

record it in the Number of

Statements Marked Not True

column.

2. Tally the number of questions

marked N/A and record it in the

Number of Statements Marked

N/A column.

3. Subtract the Number of Statements

Marked N/A from the Total Number

of Statements column to determine

your Total Applicable Statements

count for each domain.

4. Divide the Number of Statements

Marked Not True by the Total

Applicable Statements.

5. Convert the answer into a

percentage and write that number in

the Percentage column.

Domain

Total 

Number of 

Statements

Number of 

Statements 

Marked N/A

Total

Applicable 

Statements

Percentage

Leadership Capacity 29

Management and 

Operations Capacity 14

Community 

Engagement Capacity 21

Service Capacity 17

Evaluative Capacity 16

Figure: AmeriCorps Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool Domains

%

%

%

%

%

Number of

Statements 

Marked 

Not True
Office of Research & Evaluation

26

After completing the table, briefly reflect on your results in the space provided. By identifying 

your strongest domains and the areas of greatest need, you will be better equipped to 

prioritize capacity building efforts.

Which domain(s) within your organization do you feel are strongest, based on your 

assessment results?

1. Domain:

2. Domain:

Which domain(s) show the greatest need for capacity building? These gaps can 

represent possible focal points for strategic planning, technical assistance, or staff 

training. The Resources to build capacity section at the end of each domain can 

support your exploration.

1. Domain:

2. Domain:
Office of Research & Evaluation

27

Be sure to discuss your initial conclusions with colleagues and board members who have also 

completed the assessment to explore areas of alignment and differences in perspective. The 

team should be prepared to summarize the group’s conclusions and share recommendations 

on next steps with the larger staff and board. If your organization is working with a technical 

assistance provider or consultant, share your findings and work together to identify capacity 

building priorities and next steps.

Using your assessment findings

• Acknowledge and celebrate capacity strengths.

• Explore and resolve differences of opinion on capacity needs across team members or

stakeholders.

• Discuss findings with your board, leadership, or management team.

• Gather additional information about your identified gaps in capacity.

• Invite an external resource into a board or staff meeting to discuss specific areas of

capacity building.

• Prioritize needs and develop plans to build capacity to address those needs.
Office of Research & Evaluation

28

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013, July 3). Correlation and causation. Retrieved from 

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/a3121120.nsf/home/statistical+language+correlation+and+

causation

Authenticity Consulting. (n.d.). Nonprofit organizational assessment. Retrieved from 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SVF38MM?sm=nqYAfItd5pCME8J7VJjBQpxt%2b7TXVQBxd

Zt6z7IiPZg%3d

Balanced Scorecard Institute. (n.d.). The basics of strategic planning, strategic management and 

strategy execution. Retrieved from http://www.balancedscorecard.org/Resources/StrategicPlanning-Basics

Bourgeois, I., & Cousins, J. B. (2013). Understanding dimensions of organizational evaluative capacity.

American Journal of Evaluation, 34(3), 299–319. doi:10.1177/1098214013477235

Bryson, J. M., Gibbons, M. J., & Shaye, G. (2001). Enterprise schemes for nonprofit survival, growth, and 

effectiveness. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(3), 271–288.

Center for Public Health Systems Science, Washington University in St. Louis. (n.d.). Program 

sustainability assessment tool. Program adaptation. Retrieved from 

https://sustaintool.org/understand/program-adaptation

The Denver Foundation. (n.d.). Identifying internal and external stakeholders. Retrieved from 

http://www.nonprofitinclusiveness.org/identifying-internal-and-external-stakeholders

Easterling, D., & Metz, A. (2016). Getting real with strategy: Insights from implementation science. The 

Foundation Review, 8(2), 97–115.

Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center, Northern Illinois University. (2005). Data 

collection. Retrieved from 

https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/n_illinois_u/datamanagement/dctopic.html

Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (2016a). Shaping culture through key moments. Washington, 

DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.geofunders.org/resources/708

Grantmakers for Effective Organizations. (2016b). Strengthening nonprofit capacity: Core concepts in 

capacity building. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from 

https://www.geofunders.org/resources/710

Hall, M., Andrukow, A., Barr, C., Brock, K., de Wit, M., Embuldeniya, D., Vaillancourt, Y. (2003). The 

capacity to serve: A qualitative study of the challenges facing Canada’s nonprofit and voluntary 

organizations. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://www.vsiisbc.org/eng/knowledge/pdf/capacity_to_serve.pdf

Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library, George Washington University. (n.d.). Study design 101: 

Randomized controlled trial. Retrieved from 

https://himmelfarb.gwu.edu/tutorials/studydesign101/rcts.html

Hovland, I. (2005, January). Planning tools: How to write a communications strategy. Overseas 

Development Institute: Shaping policy for development. Retrieved from 

https://www.odi.org/publications/5186-planning-tools-how-write-communications-strategy

Jackson, T. (2015, March 5). 18 key performance indicator examples defined for managers. ClearPoint 

Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.clearpointstrategy.com/18-key-performance-indicators
Office of Research & Evaluation

29

Liket, K. C., & Mass, K. (2015). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Analysis of best practices.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 268–296. doi:10.1177/0899764013510064

McKinsey & Company. (2001). Effective capacity building in nonprofit organizations. Report for Venture 

Philanthropy Partners. Retrieved from 

https://www.neh.gov/files/divisions/fedstate/vppartnersfull_rpt_1.pdf

McKinsey & Company. (2016, April). Organizational capacity assessment tool (OCAT) 2.0. Retrieved 

from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/ocat/

Misener, K., & Doherty, K. (2009). A case study of organizational capacity in nonprofit community sport.

Journal of Sport Management, 23(4), 457–482. Retrieved from doi:10.1123/jsm.23.4.457

Moore, K. A. (2008). Quasi-experimental evaluations: Part 6. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Retrieved 

from https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/Child_Trends2008_01_16_Evaluation6.pdf

Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, 

measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 315–340. 

doi:10.1177/109821400302400303

The NCJA Center for Justice Planning. (n.d.). Goals and objectives. Retrieved from 

http://www.ncjp.org/strategic-planning/overview/where-do-we-want-be/goals-objectives

NCVO Knowhow Nonprofit. (2016, July 1). Employment policies and procedures. Retrieved from 

https://knowhownonprofit.org/people/employment-law-and-hr/law-and-hr-basics/policies

Parmenter, D. (2015). Key performance indicators: Developing, implementing, and using winning KPIs 

(3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Paynter, S., & Berner, M. (2014). Organizational capacity of nonprofit social service agencies. Journal of 

Health and Human Services Administration, 37(1), 111–145.

Rutgers University. (n.d.). Developing a survey instrument. Retrieved from 

http://njaes.rutgers.edu/evaluation/resources/survey-instrument.asp

Schuh, R. G., & Leviton, L. C. (2006). A framework to assess the development and capacity of non-profit 

agencies. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29(2), 171–179. 

doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2005.12.001

S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation. (2016, March). Resiliency guide 2.0. Retrieved from 

http://sdbjrfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ResiliencyGuide.pdf

Sharpe, B. (2016, January 26). How to define total compensation: A quick guide [blog]. Retrieved from 

https://hrsoft.com/blog/how-to-define-total-compensation-a-quick-guide

Sharpe, P. A., Greaney, M. L., Lee, P. R., & Royce, S. W. (2000). Assets-oriented community assessment.

Public Health Reports, 115(2–3), 205–211. Retrieved from 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10968755

Smith, W. J., Howard, J. T., & Harrington, K. V. (2005). Essential formal mentor characteristics and 

functions in governmental and non-governmental organizations from the program 

administrator’s and the mentor’s perspective. Personnel Administration, 34(1), 31–58. 

doi:10.1177/009102600503400103

Taylor-Ritzer, T., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Garcia-Iriarte, E., Henry, D. B., & Balcazar, F. E. (2013).

Understanding and measuring evaluation capacity: A model and instrument validation study. 

American Journal of Evaluation, 34(2), 190–206. doi:10.1177/1098214012471421
Office of Research & Evaluation

30

TCC Group. (n.d.). CCAT tool. Retrieved from http://www.tccccat.com

Techopedia. (n.d.). Definition – What does data collection system (DCS) mean? [blog]. Retrieved from 

https://www.techopedia.com/definition/11311/data-collection-system-dcs

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide: Using logic models to bring 

together planning, evaluation, and action. Battle Creek, MI: Author. Retrieved from 

https://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundation-logic-modeldevelopment-guide