For funders
You fund the programs. Can you tell which ones work ?
We can measure venture funding to the euro and platform usage to the person. We still can't say whether a community program produced belonging, retention, or resilience — or how it compares to the twenty others you fund. That's the gap we close.
Evaluations €15,000–50,000 · 6–10 weeks · fixed price before work starts
Built on data from programs run with and alongside
The problem
Impact reporting you can't actually compare
Most funders receive impact reports written by the programs they fund, in whatever shape each program chose, with no external reference point. The reports arrive. The question stays open.
Self-reported and unverified
The program grades its own homework. Nobody is checking the underlying participation data, because nobody else has it.
No peer set
A 62% completion rate is meaningless on its own. It only becomes information next to the median for comparable programs.
Every program counts differently
Jobs created, revenue growth, engagement — measured three ways in three reports, so the portfolio never adds up.
What you can commission
Three ways to work with us
Program evaluation
€15,000–50,000
per project · 6–10 weeks
An independent evaluation of one program or a portfolio, measured against comparable programs in our pool. Scoped to the questions your board, ministry, or funding body is actually asking.
- Participation, retention, and progression analysis
- Peer comparison against the benchmark pool
- SCALE-compliant reporting output
- Board- and ministry-ready written report
Research membership
€3,000–15,000
per year
An annual membership for funders, agencies, and corporates: continuous access to sector benchmarks, briefings on what the data is showing, and the convenings where the people running these programs compare notes.
- Full benchmark suite for your sector or region
- Policy and practice briefings
- Custom data cuts on request
- Invitations to closed convenings
Community-Health Index
Not yet priced
early access for evaluation clients
A network-based measure of community health — engagement centrality, retention curves, bridge density. Only a graph of real participation can produce it. We are validating it against program outcomes before we sell it as a score.
- Per-program health score and subscores
- Peer cuts by region, sector, and program type
- Currently in validation — not yet a published metric
- Early access included with evaluations
Prices are indicative. Evaluation scope drives cost: a single program over one cohort sits at the lower end; a multi-program portfolio with primary fieldwork sits at the upper end. We quote fixed price before any work starts.
How it works
From question to report in six to ten weeks
Scope the question
One call to establish what you need to answer and to whom. We come back with a fixed-price proposal and a timeline.
Connect the data
The program's existing records — attendance, cohort progression, forms, follow-up — are brought into one consistent shape. Under a data processing agreement, with the program's consent.
Measure against peers
Your program's participation and outcome data is analysed on its own and against comparable programs in the pool.
Deliver and defend
A written report, the underlying figures, and a session where we walk your board or committee through the findings — including what the data doesn't support.
What lands on your desk
Figures you can put in front of a ministry
The reporting standard is the one your own reporting obligations already use. We produce the evaluation; you own the output and the data behind it.
Revenue CAGR & ROTI
Jobs created & retained
Engagement & retention curves
Cohort progression analysis
Network & bridge density
Peer benchmark cuts
SCALE-compliant PDF export
The underlying dataset
Where the data comes from
The benchmark exists because programs chose to contribute
Community builders and program operators use our platform free of charge. In return, they can opt in to contribute de-identified data to the shared benchmark pool — and get back peer comparisons they could never build alone. That exchange is explicit, opt-in, and revocable. It is the reason the comparison set exists.
Opt-in, on the record
No program's data enters the pool without an explicit, recorded consent from that program. Consent can be withdrawn.
De-identified and aggregated
Personal data is stripped before anything reaches the benchmark. Comparison outputs are aggregate; no individual and no single program is identifiable in them.
Governed by agreement
Evaluations run under a data processing agreement with the program being evaluated, on a GDPR lawful basis established before any analysis begins.
Start with one program
Tell us which program you fund and what you need to answer. We'll come back with a scope, a timeline, and a fixed price.