







































Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 3(2), Winter 2022  

Kumar, Toward Building Evidence of Kingdom Impact  24 

 

Toward Building Evidence of Kingdom Impact 

Subodh Kumar
 

 

 

 
The mission of all Christ-Centered Organizations (CCOs) is to extend God’s kingdom on earth. 
CCOs, therefore, are in the business of inspiring, motivating, and engaging in mission to take 
the gospel to the whole world, a gospel that is holistic in nature. One of the main issues that 
arises in this kind of work is what kind of actual difference the CCO is making, a difference that 
can be labeled as “kingdom impact.” This article argues that seeking evidence of kingdom 
impact, in other words seeking to monitor, evaluate, and measure the impact of programs and 
projects from what can be called a “Kingdom Impact Measurement Framework” (KIMF), can 
be of great help in the work that CCOs do as part of submitting themselves completely to the 
Lordship of Christ. It starts out by reviewing the potential benefits of seeking to measure 
kingdom impact, suggests the possible theological underpinnings for how to put that into 
practice, presents the “Kingdom Impact Measurement Framework” and its elements, and 
concludes with the prayer that this might help CCOs differentiate their approaches from those 
used by secular counterparts. The hope and prayer is that what is shared here will be helpful 
for the range of CCOs that are in their incipient processes of prayerfully discerning whether 
and how to engage in this endeavor, as well as those that are far along their way on that 
journey. 

 

 
Introduction 

The mission of all Christ-Centered Organizations 

(CCOs) is to extend God’s kingdom on earth, which is 

manifested through individual and social 

transformation. Increasing love for God and neighbors 

is evidence of moving toward this kingdom goal. 

Individual transformation in Christian mission involves 

releasing the person from whatever bondage prevents 

him or her from realizing God-given potential for 

abundant living. Social transformation involves healing 

broken relationships to restore justice in all social 

institutions, while honoring gifts within the culture that 

promote life over death. The CCO’s mission may 

contain visible developmental objectives such as 

improving the health of children, improving education 

for children, increasing access to safe water, working 

toward food security, or less tangible developmental 

objectives, such as improved Biblical world views, 

increases in Samaritan love, or increased generative 

hope. Projects are God-given vehicles that achieve not 

only visible developmental objectives (transactional), 

but also intangible developmental objectives 

(transcendence). CCOs, therefore, are in the business 

of inspiring, motivating, and engaging in mission to take 

the holistic gospel to the whole world. In particular, 

their thinking and acting is grounded in the belief that 

spiritual realities are inseparably interwoven with day-

to-day “ordinary” living (Bradshaw 1993). 

Understanding the local dynamics of sin and grace is 

central to both planning and implementation of 

missional activities. The kingdom vision is at odds with 

worldly visions for a better future. For CCOs, 

measuring kingdom impact (success from a kingdom 

perspective) is not only a strategic imperative, but also a 

biblical mandate required by a steadfast faithfulness to 

God. It is acting out of biblical love in every aspect of 

living. That is the essence of the Kingdom Impact 

Measurement Framework (KIMF) presented in this 

paper. The KIMF can help CCOs submit themselves 

completely to the Lordship of Christ. 

The foundation for the conceptual construction of 

the KIMF presented in this paper is laid out in my 

doctoral dissertation (Kumar 2017). To a great extent, 

my thinking in developing the KIMF is influenced by 

the fourth-generation model of evaluation (Guba and 

Lincoln 1989). In the construction of KIMF, however, 

I have blended both the positivist and post-positivist 

paradigms with the fourth-generation evaluation model, 

and introduced reflexivism as a new paradigm into the 

framework. Reflexivism does not necessarily mean 

reflection. A relatively new practice in evaluation, 

reflexivism is about self-awareness, i.e., questioning our 

values, prejudice, thought processes, habitual actions 

and assumptions to strive to understand our complex 

roles in relations to others. Furthermore, there are two 

sets of essential features of fourth-generation evaluation 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 3(2), Winter 2022  

Kumar, Toward Building Evidence of Kingdom Impact  25 

that I have adapted in the KIMF. First, that the claims, 

concerns, and issues of stakeholders (mission staff, 

community members) serve as the basis for 

determining what should be measured (kingdom 

impact), which then becomes the basis of determining 

what data we should collect and what analytical insights 

we need. This is why the KIMF is transformational, 

because the goal for kingdom people is to seek 

evidence of kingdom impact – the state of shalom. 

Secondly, the methodological exercise is performed 

using constructivist and reflexive inquiry paradigms, 

involving the evaluators, evaluatees, and evaluands. 

That is why the KIMF is also transformative as it seeks 

to renew the minds (Rom.12:2, Col. 2:2-8) of all 

stakeholders involved. The aim of this methodology is 

to develop consensus among stakeholders who 

previously may have held different, perhaps conflicting, 

constructions of realities. If knowledge exists essentially 

in the form of human constructions, then a paradigm 

that recognizes and accepts that premise from the start 

is to be preferred. My hope and prayer is that these 

ideas will be helpful for all CCOs that are in the 

incipient processes of prayerfully discerning whether 

and how to engage in this endeavor, as well as those who 

are far along their way on this journey. 

 

Benefits of Measuring Kingdom Impact 
Christian mission has a long history, and has 

engaged CCOs, both independently and 

collaboratively, for centuries. By some estimates, global 

Faith-Based Organizations (FBOs), which include 

CCOs, provide over $100 billion of privately donated 

funds for their mission activities (The GIIN 2020). In 

the last several decades the issue around measuring the 

impact and effectiveness of non-profit organizations as 

a whole has risen more and more to the fore. 

Independent of these contextual pressures, there are at 

least five ways in which CCOs might benefit significantly 

from undertaking the measurement of their kingdom 

impact:   

 

1. Providing credible evidence of who we are and what 

we do: By definition, CCOs are influenced and 

motivated by the love of Christ to show the love of 

Christ through the programs they engage in. 

Generally, this involves seeking to design activities 

that meet physical needs as well as the needs of the 

mind, body, and spirit in a way that is holistic and 

sustainable (Offutt and Reynolds 2019). Our faith is 

an asset and an important ingredient in our work to 

end poverty, and collecting evidence that points to 

its holistic impact (the kingdom impact) helps us to 

better articulate who we are and what we do as 

disciples of Christ. 

 

 

2. Capitalizing on the opportunity to witness for Christ: 

It is our utmost duty to witness for Christ in all we 

do. As Jesus said to the disciples, "You will be my 

witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria and 

to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8). Measuring 

kingdom impact gives us additional opportunities to 

be such witnesses. Biblical narratives are not simply 

stories, but evidence-based testimony of reliable 

witnesses; likewise, not only does measuring 

kingdom impact provide us with data that point to 

tangible evidence that Christ continues to transform 

the world, but telling the story through discernible 

kingdom impact presents the face of Christ without 

preaching a word.  

 

3. Securing a seat at the table with our secular and non-

Christian counterparts: By gathering data of 

kingdom impact based on prayerful and clear-eyed 

strategies, CCOs that are not already in a position to 

learn from and share evaluation and learning tools 

and methods with our secular colleagues can join 

the community of CCOs who are already doing so. 

Increasingly, CCOs like Food for the Hungry, 

World Vision, and many others have become 

important partners for the World Bank and the 

United Nations (Haynes 2013). Other CCOs have 

joined networks like the Joint Learning Initiative on 

Faith and Local Communities (JLI) that are seeking 

to learn from each other and influence policy. This 

seat at the table gives CCOs increased access to 

resources of all kinds to expand their knowledge 

and programs, while also representing opportunities 

for additional witness as mentioned above. 

 

4. Build a common pool of knowledge of effective 

strategies for Christian mission: Closely related to 

#3, as CCOs build up their capacity to measure 

kingdom impact they will also benefit from and 

contribute to the pool of knowledge and learning 

among CCOs themselves, for example through 

established networks like the Accord Network and 

the Accord Research Alliance (ARA). Larger CCOs 

that invest in creating this common pool of 

knowledge also benefit smaller CCOs as they can 

leverage this knowledge of successful missional 

strategies to create kingdom impact. Not all CCOs 

have resources to invest in research and evaluations, 

but if large CCOs share their findings, small and 

often under-resourced CCOs can also make the 

most of their funds and people-power by investing 

in what works. Currently, most CCOs collect more 

data than they realize, from donor management 

systems to statistics about who uses their services to 

the outcomes for those participants. With ever-

increasing amounts of evidence and knowledge 

pooled together, methodological, theological, and 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 3(2), Winter 2022  

Kumar, Toward Building Evidence of Kingdom Impact  26 

theoretical tools and frameworks can be further 

developed, transformed, and shared to benefit 

CCOs.  

 

5. Promote accountability and Christian stewardship: 

Christian stewardship is a theological virtue and an 

act of flourishing in the management of God’s call 

to live godly lives. Christian stewardship demands 

that CCOs wisely manage their resources, and 

measuring impact that feeds into designing 

evidence-based programming can be of great help. 

CCO investment in evidence-building and using the 

evidence can lead to better decision-making and 

developing better mission strategies, and thereby 

give CCOs the opportunity to create more “bang for 

the buck.” Moreover, the kind of kingdom impact 

data referred to here will enhance the reputation of 

CCOs and most likely make them more attractive to 

both donors and grantors. Polling from Gallup, for 

example, found that 57% of donors look for a solid 

mission and proof that the charities can accomplish 

that mission before they open their wallets (Fritz 

2020). Foundations typically ask potential grantees 

to provide a section on evaluation in their grant 

applications. They follow up with site visits and 

frequent reporting expectations to ensure the 

effectiveness of the evaluation plan.  The more data-

driven the CCO, the more likely that it will attract 

foundation grants. Even watchdog organizations, 

such as Charity Navigator, include assessment 

platforms that incorporate performance or impact 

components. 

 

A Theology of Kingdom Impact Measurement 
Having reviewed the benefits of measuring 

kingdom impact, it becomes crucial to identify the 

foundational underpinnings that inform its creation and 

practice. This theology of kingdom impact 

measurement consists of seven elements:  

 

1. God delights in evidence, measurement, and 

evaluation: We serve a God who created a world of 

measurable things, and he seems to find delight in 

measurement. In fact, he takes measuring things 

very seriously, including the spiritual growth of 

believers. Thus, measuring the impact of programs 

and projects is an important subplot in God’s story. 

For example, Jesus speaks often of the 

measurement of faith, love, and hope (e.g., Matt. 

6:30, 8:26, 16:8, Jn 15:13). Similarly, throughout the 

Bible, hope, joy, and knowledge are all referred to 

as measurable in the life of the believer. In fact, the 

Bible itself is a source of BIG DATA, data as 

historical narrative, data in terms of law, data in 

poetry, and data in prophecies, all leading to one 

thing – The Theos. “The more we explore data in 

the Bible, the more we discover his purpose” 

(Everitt 2009, 137). 

 

2. Evaluation is and must be treated as an instrument 

of spiritual discernment: As we do evaluation work, 

we need to walk with Jesus. As we take up evaluation 

assignments, we must walk barefoot, because we will 

witness God at work; we will be in his holy presence. 

If we are to be highly professional, we must gird 

ourselves with prayer and fasting (Foster 1998). We 

must use our gifts of the Spirit as tools for collecting 

evidence of kingdom impact. Evaluators need to 

wear the full armor of God, or else they can be easily 

attacked by the evil one, because he does not want 

the renewing of minds arising from the 

transformational work of Christian missions 

(Kumar 2017).  

 

3. The evaluation of holistic Christian mission must 

seek to be transformational as well as 

transformative: A transformational approach to 

evaluation has to do with ensuring that through 

measurements, the monitoring and evaluation 

(M&E) staff are looking for evidence of shalom - the 

kingdom impact. If we do not engage in this process 

of discernment, our evaluation work may be 

indistinguishable from that of secular organizations, 

and would not be transformational in the spiritual 

sense of the word. In fact, transformational 

evaluation begins with seeing and discerning what 

God is doing in the communities in the midst of all 

the rigor involved in highly technically sound 

development programs. It begins with God and 

ends with God. Typical developmental evaluation, 

on the other hand, begins with human effort and 

seeks to enhance human effort (Cookingham 2015, 

Kumar 2017). A kingdom approach to evaluation, 

however, must also be transformative, one that 

includes the objective of renewing the evaluator’s 

thinking and stakeholders’ views regarding what 

really matters in Christian mission (Cookingham 

2015, Kumar 2017). The image for transformative 

evaluation is a longer period of time that includes 

study, prayer, fasting, scripture search (Foster 1998), 

and visioning interwoven with evaluation planning, 

data collection and analysis, and report preparation. 

The evaluation is an occasion for evaluation team 

members and others to grow spiritually as they seek 

God’s will for Christian mission (Kumar 2017). 

 

4. An evaluation of Christian mission should examine 

the motives, worldview, ideological underpinnings, 

and spiritual undergirding that drive development 

planning and interventions: Among the aims of 

holistic Christian mission are (a) awareness of how 

God relates to people, (b) repentance, or change in 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 3(2), Winter 2022  

Kumar, Toward Building Evidence of Kingdom Impact  27 

thinking from self-centeredness to Christ-

centeredness, and (c) commitment to community 

that is led by the Holy Spirit (Cookingham 2009, 

Kumar 2017). To understand awareness on (a) how 

God relates to people, the evaluation must ask 

questions such as: In local communities, what does 

God call staff and various groups of stakeholders to 

do about the present situation? Participatory 

scripture exercises and transformative prayer 

(Foster 1998) that aid a process of discerning 

appropriate recommendations are especially 

helpful here. Also, what do staff, community 

members, and other stakeholders envision for 

communities that will make the establishment of 

God’s kingdom manifest? And how can this 

evaluation enable kingdom visioning (Kumar 

2017)? For (b) repentance, or a change in thinking 

from self-centeredness to Christ-centeredness, 

questions such as “what aspects of sin in these 

communities are keeping people in bondage?” can 

be helpful. We should ask ourselves, “How can the 

content and style of the evaluation enable 

appropriate confession and repentance” (Kumar 

2017)? Finally, for (c) commitment to community 

that is led by the Holy Spirit, it might be best to ask 

whether staff and community members (including 

church leaders) believe that God is powerful enough 

to transform these communities according to his 

overall purpose. Or what does evaluation evidence 

say about their belief and unbelief (Kumar 2017)? 

 

5. Evaluation is about telling the truth: Evaluation is 

about truth-telling of the community’s life. It is 

about establishing truth in the public domain. 

Furthermore, as John 8:32 reminds us, it is pointing 

in the direction of truth that sets every human being 

free. Good evaluation helps people become aware 

of what they create when they live in ways 

inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. Evaluations 

help in unmasking the deceptions (Col. 2:7-8) of the 

principalities and powers, and they help expose the 

ultimate powerlessness of the principalities and 

powers in the face of God’s rule (Cookingham 2009, 

Kumar 2017). Does our desire to be in control of 

things by setting and achieving goals reflect rebellion 

against God’s unfolding plan for salvation and 

redemption? There is a mix of motives that can be 

placed on a continuum from selfish gain to selfless 

service. There is a mix of perceptions about God 

that range from seeing God as being at work for the 

greatest good of people from a divine perspective, 

to understanding God as irrelevant for describing 

the dynamics of Christian mission. There is a mix of 

faith touchstones from God being compassionate 

but single-mindedly focused on salvation, to people  

meaning to do good deeds, but getting diverted 

easily (Cookingham 2009, Kumar 2017). 

 

6. Evaluation should facilitate speaking about the most 

meaningful things witnessed: As followers of Jesus, 

we speak about the most meaningful things we 

witness. A primary evaluation task should thus be to 

assist project stakeholders to use all of their senses 

to seek evidence in development work that 

illuminates the meaning of life, the Word that was 

there from the beginning, and that is made manifest 

in the relationships of ordinary life. There are 

especially two kinds of evidence that need to be 

spoken. One is the deeds of darkness that need to 

be confessed, so that those involved can be cleansed 

and liberated to love God and neighbor. The other 

is the experience of walking in the light, the joy of 

being in the presence of God (Cookingham 2009, 

Kumar 2017). 

 

7. In an evaluation, it is crucial that the culture and 

worldview of the community subject to evaluation 

be taken fully into account: It is extremely important 

that the evaluation be based on an understanding of 

the community’s worldview and core values that are 

manifested in thought, word, and deed in order to 

understand the significance of observations and 

information (Bradshaw 1993). This calls for a deep 

level of cultural competence and discernment, 

especially in the process of analyzing the worldview 

of the poor and non-poor, including measuring 

behavioral changes (especially those that indicate 

love for God and neighbor in that culture). Such 

deep understanding allows the evaluator to assess 

the extent to which the poor can imagine a different 

future and those with power are enabled to redefine 

power and challenge various aspects of reality that 

perpetuate poverty (Cookingham 2009, Kumar 

2017). This can be very complex, but it is essential 

for holistic Christian mission evaluation. We need 

to respect local cultures, and if we are going to 

engage in any evaluation within a particular culture, 

local people who are part of the culture should 

participate fully in the evaluation. This reinforces 

Accord Network Principle #6, that we enter a 

community as guests, grow as partners, and continue 

as friends, demonstrating humility and a learner’s 

heart to understand poverty from their perspective 

and in their culture (Accord Network, n.d.). We can 

then envision culturally-sensitive project designs, 

measure progress, and celebrate together in 

culturally appropriate ways.  

 

A Kingdom Impact Measurement Framework 
With the theological underpinnings in place, we 

can now consider how to apply them in practice by 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 3(2), Winter 2022  

Kumar, Toward Building Evidence of Kingdom Impact  28 

creating a guiding framework for kingdom impact 

evaluation. This framework, called the “Kingdom 

Impact Measurement Framework” (KIMF), draws and 

builds on two sources, and bears some similarities to a 

third. First, it is a framework developed and used in 

Food for the Hungry under the name “Evidence 

Building Capability Framework.” Second, it builds on 

the insights from the article “Towards Laying a 

Foundation for Christ-Centered M&E” (Check et al. 

2020). Third, it bears nomenclature similarities with 

Eido Research’s “Kingdom Impact Framework” (Eido 

Research), a framework that Eido has been developing 

with some members of the Accord Network and 

beyond. Even though some terminology in this paper is 

similar to Eido’s Kingdom Impact Framework (KIF), 

the Kingdom Impact Measurement Framework 

proposed here has different elements and perspectives. 

As seen in Figure 1, this framework is made up of 

six components. The first, and overarching, component 

is the kingdom framework. The other five – program 

theory, evaluation design, the measurement of impact, 

advanced analysis, and biblical hermeneutics, are 

intimately linked together and influenced by the 

kingdom framework perspective. In what follows, each 

is presented in detail. 

 

       
 

Figure 1: Kingdom Impact Measurement Framework 

 

Seeking Kingdom Impact Evidence Requires a 

Kingdom Framework 

Evaluation is about learning, which never happens 

in a vacuum. Rather, learning always happens in some 

kind of cognitive framework, in some kind of basic 

conceptual model that structures and interconnects 

ideas together and helps us make sense of things. It is 

always important, therefore, to intentionally create 

frameworks that guide planning, implementation, and 

evaluation processes. In fact, there are excellent 

examples of kingdom frameworks that have already 

been created by Christ-Centered Organizations 

(CCOs). These include World Vision’s 

Transformational Development Framework, Tear 

Fund’s Light Wheel, Eido Research’s Kingdom Impact 

Framework, and Food for the Hungry’s 

Transformation Framework (See Box 1). The crucial 

function of all these frameworks is to help articulate the 

CCO’s theology, theory, and practice, and to provide a 

foundation towards seeking, building, and using 

evidence for kingdom impact.  

CCO frameworks built to guide the evaluation and 

measurement of the impact of programs are most 

helpful if they consist of three components:  1) the 

theological component that underpins the framework 

as a whole and drives the purpose and reason for the 

framework’s existence and the principles under which 

it should operate; 2) the theoretical component that 

gives additional insights into how and why things work 

the way they do; and 3) the operational component that 

transforms the conceptual elements of theology and 

theory into practice, including the practice of 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 3(2), Winter 2022  

Kumar, Toward Building Evidence of Kingdom Impact  29 

measurement and the analysis of results. Figure 2 gives 

a visual depiction of these components and their 

relationship to each other as they function in a constant 

process of feedback and flux to nurture, sustain, and 

transform the Kingdom Impact Measurement 

Framework as a whole. 

 

 
Box 1: An Example of Food for the Hungry’s (FH) Kingdom Framework* 

 
Theological Framework: God’s Story – The Foundation of FH’s work in Relief and Development (Food for the 
Hungry 2017) articulates the theological assertions that inspire, guide, and support FH’s mission. God’s story 
can be summarized through the four concepts of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration. God’s story starts 
with God’s creation to try to understand God’s intended design for his creation and our (humans’) role in it. To 
perform well in Christian mission, FH must return to God’s design for the world and exercise its Christian 
imagination for peace, justice, and abundant life (12).  
 
Theoretical Framework: FH believes that poverty is multifaceted and thus needs to be responded to holistically. 
FH’s definition of multidimensional poverty embraces a diverse range of characteristics, such as moral, 
emotional, and spiritual dimensions, and it is not limited only to financial resources, material deprivation, social 
isolation, exclusion and powerlessness, and physical and psychological ill-being (16).  
 
Operational Framework: When asking how FH makes its theological and theoretical frameworks operational, 
the answers lie in FH’s Child-Focused Community Transformation (CFCT) program model. At the heart of this 
model is the welfare of the most vulnerable population in most societies — children. All programs and projects 
in FH use approaches as defined in CFCT (19). 
 
Measurement Framework: It is through the measurement framework that FH is able to understand whether it 
is delivering on its mission, that is, the evidence of a trend of a community’s advancement toward flourishing 
and preparedness to continue their transformational development pursuit. This measurement framework is 
applied to all FH’s programs (20). 
 
Results Framework: The results framework for measuring the kingdom impact is what FH calls 
transformational outcomes or domains of change. There are seven domains of change that all FH programs are 
measured on, and these domains of change provide evidence of restoring broken relationships, which are based 
on FH’s theological and theoretical framework that defines poverty as the result of broken relationships (21).  
 

*  All page numbers are from Food for the Hungry’s Impact and Learning Report (FY 17-19) (2019b) 

       

          
   Figure 2: Conceptual Construction of the Kingdom Framework (Source: FH’s Impact and Learning Report, 2019b, 7) 

 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 3(2), Winter 2022  

Kumar, Toward Building Evidence of Kingdom Impact  30 

The role of the first component (the theological 

framework) is to answer “the why” question. Why a 

CCO exists and why we do what we do should be 

answered by the CCO’s theological framework. The 

second component in the kingdom framework is the 

theoretical framework that primarily answers “the 

what.” There are multiple perspectives and theories 

used to understand poverty; therefore, just as with the 

theological framework, the CCO needs to ascertain its 

theoretical understanding of poverty. A theoretical 

framework provides conceptual clarity on the missional 

impact and outcomes the CCO wants to achieve. 

Ascertaining a better theoretical underpinning of the 

evidence they generate would also make this body of 

knowledge more useful. The need for the operational 

framework, the third component in the kingdom 

framework, is to answer “the how” question. CCOs 

operationalize their theological and theoretical 

frameworks through an operational framework. In the 

absence of an operational framework, the danger is that 

theological and theoretical frameworks can limit 

themselves to mere abstract concepts. What is 

implemented needs to be measured. That is the 

purpose of the measurement framework and the results 

framework; to connect the “why,” the “what,” and the 

“how” by developing and focusing on metrics that 

matter (Greer & Horst 2014). It is through the 

measurement framework that the CCO will be able to 

understand whether it is delivering on its mission. The 

results framework connects CCO evidence back to 

what it defined in its theological and theoretical 

frameworks. 

 
Seeking Kingdom Impact Evidence Requires Sound 

Program Theory 

In order to guide the collection of the evidences of 

kingdom impact, it is essential to be guided by program 

theory. The program theory should be guided by both 

the theological and theoretical frameworks. Program 

theory helps explore why (or why not) CCOs missional 

activities are effective. Program interventions should be 

underpinned by appropriate theory. A good theory 

helps to prevent overlooking factors that may be 

important determinants of program execution. 

Program theory generally consists of two elements, the 

names for which are sometimes used interchangeably: 

a theory of change and a theory of action (Funnel & 

Rogers 2011). The theory of change explains why a 

certain set of activities leads to a certain set of results, 

whereas the theory of action describes in detail what 

those activities and results are. Program theory, which 

is the combination of the theory of change and theory 

of action, becomes the basis for impact evaluation 

(Funnel and Rogers 2011). CCOs are encouraged to 

develop a program theory for each of their programs, 

and to do so paying special attention to what they want 

to achieve both on the material and the spiritual side. 

Grounding this process in the CCO’s theological 

framework and biblical worldview is crucial; otherwise, 

CCO programs will be no different from those of their 

secular counterparts.  

 

Seeking Kingdom Impact Evidence Requires an 

Appropriate Evaluation Design 

Choosing an appropriate evaluation design is 

highly technical and the most overlooked part of any 

evaluation. Again, the decision to choose an evaluation 

design should be guided by theological and theoretical 

frameworks. Evaluation designs determine what and 

how to measure and validate the program theory. They 

can be created with a focus on collecting quantitative 

evidence, qualitative evidence, or both. The purpose of 

choosing an appropriate evaluation design is to ensure 

that the data collected can answer the evaluation 

questions that are most important for the organization 

and the community, and, as much as possible, provide 

evidence of the causal links between the interventions 

and the impact as defined in the program theory. The 

way the evaluation is designed has much to do with how 

accurate and reliable the results are, and how well those 

results can be used to improve program 

interventions. The design should be one that best 

addresses key threats to internal validity (whether the 

intervention caused the change) and external validity 

(the ability to generalize results to other situations, 

communities, and populations) (Food for the Hungry 

2019a). In this process, four main objectives must be 

kept in mind: 

● Providing reliability, validity, and credibility to the 

results.  

● Choosing the right data collection methods to 

answer evaluation questions. 

● Identifying unintended consequences (both 

positive and negative). 

● Organizing the structure for the evaluation and a 

coherent evaluation plan. 

 

It is critical that the evaluation questions are defined 

before choosing an evaluation design. Here again, the 

theological and theoretical frameworks help define 

evaluation questions. A specific design can be chosen 

by considering the following: 

 

● What are the evaluation questions? 

● What is the nature of the program? Which design 

will better provide the information that can lead to 

valid and reliable conclusions? 

● How valid and reliable do findings need to be?  

● Are there any ethical concerns related to choosing 

a specific design? 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 3(2), Winter 2022  

Kumar, Toward Building Evidence of Kingdom Impact  31 

● How feasible is each option? What is the time 

constraint and how much does each option cost?  

 

Experimental designs such as randomized control trials 

(RCTs) can be costlier than quasi-experimental or non-

experimental designs, but they are well-suited if the 

evaluation’s purpose is to answer questions around 

causality. RCTs are not always needed. Some 

alternatives to RCTs are Factorial Designs and Time 

Series Designs, which do a better job of answering 

change questions and whether the change is due to the 

programs in question. CCOs that do not need RCTs 

can use quasi-experimental, non- experimental, 

factorial, or time-series designs. 

 

Seeking Kingdom Impact Evidence Requires 

Measuring Impact  

One of the main traps CCOs fall into with their 

measurement efforts is that they measure only what they 

actually do, or what they implement. This is sometimes 

referred to as “traditional” M&E. For example, 

measuring the number of Bibles distributed, the 

number of children attending Sunday school, or other 

such “indicators,” does not provide evidence of 

kingdom impact, nor does it provide an opportunity to 

learn and improve. The problem is that these are 

measurements of “outputs,” of the activities carried out, 

not of “outcomes” or “impacts” that actually represent 

the real transformation.  

In his book, Impact Assessment for Development 

Agencies – Learning to Value Change (2005), Chris 

Roche defines impact as “significant or lasting changes 

in people’s lives, brought about by a given action or 

series of action” (21). He defines impact measurement 

as “systematic analysis of the lasting changes – positive 

or negative, intended or not – in people’s lives brought 

about by a given action or series of action” (Roche 2005, 

21). Evidence of kingdom impact, therefore, is about 

capturing certain types of change: change in the beliefs, 

attitudes, and behaviors of people who are served by 

CCO programs. These are the “results” that are actually 

sought, encompassing both the “outcomes” and the 

“impacts” of the programs. This is why “Results-Based 

Management” (RBM) approaches have become so 

influential in the humanitarian relief and development 

world and have influenced M&E practices globally. 

RBM is a broad management strategy aimed at learning 

and achieving improved performance and 

demonstrable results. RBM differs from traditional 

M&E that focusses only on inputs, activities, and 

outputs as mentioned earlier, whereas RBM combines 

the traditional monitoring with assessments of 

outcomes and impacts (Morra Imas and Rist 2009, 

108). RBM has been demanded by major donors such 

as USAID and others for many years now.  

Monitoring and Evaluation based on RBM is 

especially well-suited for documenting the evidence of 

kingdom impact because it is designed to address the 

“so what” questions. For example, so what that outputs 

have been generated? So what that activities have taken 

place? So what that outputs from these activities have 

been counted? It therefore feeds into the process of 

assessing both measurable heart and well-being changes 

in the lives of the most vulnerable, especially children, 

providing feedback on the actual outcomes and impacts 

of missional strategies and projects. RBM also supports 

the performance of CCOs and other stakeholders in 

relation to their obligations, functions, and 

relationships, and holds them accountable for results 

that demonstrate kingdom values. 

 

Seeking Kingdom Impact Evidence Uses Advanced 

Analytical Capabilities When Quantitative Approaches 

Are Employed 

When using quantitative evaluation approaches to 

evaluation, advanced statistical analytical capabilities are 

especially helpful in generating the most useful and far-

reaching insights and conclusions that help describe 

kingdom impact and also provide guidance for how to 

improve it. Without insights, data are mere empty 

statistics. It is insights that help CCOs leverage and 

harness value from their data and turn them into 

strategic assets. CCOs can use what data science refers 

to as the "Final Frontier of Analytical Capabilities" 

(Louchez 2016) to derive insights from their evaluation 

data. At the heart of this lies data analytics, a process 

that can be defined as taking raw data and transforming 

it in a way that it can generate actionable insights from 

that data. Building capabilities in data analytics is key in 

creating a data-driven culture within any organization, 

and in understanding data at a deep level that some see 

as critical to organizational success (Intel Corporation, 

n.d.). Louchez points to four analytical capabilities that 

CCOs must invest in their organization: descriptive or 

exploratory analysis, diagnostic analysis, predictive 

analysis, and prescriptive analysis (Walker 2014; 

Louchez 2016).  

 

● Descriptive or Exploratory Analytical Capability: 

This is primarily called “hindsight analysis” as it 

looks only at the historical data. Descriptive 

analysis helps explore the data and answer the 

question of “what” is happening in the program 

(Louchez 2016). Most common in M&E, 

descriptive analysis has to do with identifying 

trends, with tracking change over time, and with 

understanding the extent to which progress is being 

made in achieving key indicators, and what 

problems might exist. Limiting the process to 

descriptive analysis alone is not good enough, 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 3(2), Winter 2022  

Kumar, Toward Building Evidence of Kingdom Impact  32 

because it uses univariate and bivariate analysis and 

provides information only on progress (trends).  
 

● Diagnostic Analysis: This type of analysis helps 

answer the “why” of what is happening. (Louchez 

2016), and thus complements descriptive analysis. 

Diagnostic Analysis enables CCOs to drill down to 

the root cause of the problems identified during 

descriptive analysis. Also based on the evaluation 

design chosen, it provides the ability to isolate the 

confounding factors.  

 

The purpose of both descriptive and diagnostic 

analysis is to help CCOs make operational, tactical, 

or strategic decisions, and to make course 

corrections based on the insights generated so that 

problems can be addressed or impacts can be 

sustained. 

 

● Predictive Analytical Capability: Predictive analysis 

basically predicts “what’s likely to happen” 

(Louchez 2016). Predictive analysis is gaining more 

significance these days. Use of artificial intelligence 

(AI) and machine learning (ML) is making 

predictive analysis easier. One can build predictive 

modelling using AI/ML algorithms. This type of 

analysis helps predict the likelihood of success or 

failure of a strategy or program interventions. It is 

carried out using multivariate methods, with odds 

ratios and relative risks being the most common 

statistical measures employed.  

 

● Prescriptive Analytical Capability: Prescriptive 

analysis basically helps CCOs answer the question, 

“so what do I need to do?” (Louchez 2016). Based 

on predictive analysis, prescriptive analysis deals 

with prescribing where a CCO should specifically 

invest so that there is a high likelihood of kingdom 

impact – maybe even maximum impact. This 

analysis uses linear, logistic, multivariate, and 

multinomial regression modelling and is the most 

advanced of the four.  

 

The purpose of predictive and prescriptive analysis 

is to make informed choices so that better results 

can be achieved. It enables CCOs (especially those 

with limited funding) to make decisions on how to 

concentrate their resources on mission activities 

most likely to yield kingdom impact. 

 

 

 

 

Seeking Kingdom Impact Evidence Requires 

Adopting a Hermeneutical Approach to 

Learning and Reflection.  
The final component of the Kingdom Impact 

Measurement Framework is a hermeneutical approach 

to learning and reflection. “Hermeneutical” simply 

means interpretation and making sense, and this 

approach consists of interpreting the data with three 

tools:  the theological framework, an awareness of 

different perspectives (a “constructivist” approach), and 

helping those different perspectives be in dialogue with 

each other (a “reflexive” approach). This approach 

basically takes results of the operational framework, 

which are measured using the results framework, and 

connects them back to the theological and theoretical 

framework to make sense of the data. 

First, without the right interpretation, quantitative 

and qualitative data are, at best, merely empty statistics 

and decontextualized opinions and, at worst, quite 

misleading. This is because the relationship between 

the data and its usefulness (value) depends on how we 

approach them interpretively. This “hermeneutical” 

approach has up to four levels of depth of 

understanding and abstraction, levels that make up what 

has been called a “hierarchy of data, information, 

knowledge, wisdom” (DIKW framework), as depicted 

in Figure 4 (Kumar 2021). At the base level of this 

hierarchy lie the data, which are individual facts, 

statistics, or narrative items. They are raw and, without 

some transformation and interpretation, are of limited 

value. The second level of interpretation is information, 

which consists of data that have been applied to the 

context and understanding of one or more relational 

connections in the data. The third level is knowledge, 

an arranging of information in a useful manner based 

on an identification and understanding of observed 

patterns and trends. When meaning is provided to the 

information, it transforms into knowledge. Knowledge 

differs from data or information. New knowledge may 

be created from existing knowledge using logical 

inference. The fourth and final level of interpretation is 

wisdom. When insights are generated from knowledge, 

the knowledge converts to wisdom. Usually achieved 

over a long time span, wisdom helps us understand the 

principles that underpin patterns and relationships at 

the level of information and knowledge, and it helps in 

driving data-driven decision making. Moving in the data 

value chain from data to knowledge is primarily enabled 

by data science practices, while moving from knowledge 

to wisdom requires a discernment process. Seeking 

evidence of kingdom impact, therefore, is about 

discerning a compassionate use of knowledge and 

wisdom. It is at this point that we transition in our 

analytics from using data as transactional to 

transcendence and start gazing at the face of God 

(Kumar 2021).



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 3(2), Winter 2022  

Kumar, Toward Building Evidence of Kingdom Impact  33 

  
        

            Figure 4: The Hermeneutical Approach to Data Interpretation (Kumar 2021)  

 

A hermeneutical approach is important not only 

for the analysis of data, but also for building the 

evaluation design itself. In other words, it pulls 

everything together. To this end, a key part of applying 

the hermeneutical insights to the process of seeking 

evidence for kingdom impact lies in recognizing the 

facts that (1) the actors involved in CCO programs may 

have different perspectives on the central problems and 

their causes, (2) some outcomes of any program and 

missional activities are unpredictable, and (3) the 

process of transformation involves multiple pathways 

and interrelated factors that are not always apparent. 

This means that it is important for any monitoring and 

evaluation design to appreciate that people are the 

motor behind the development and societal change 

processes, and that it is only through sharing 

experiences from different perspectives by different 

people that one gets the full range of knowledge needed 

– a “constructivist approach.” It is also important to 

foster an inclusive “reflexive approach” that enables a 

collective learning process (in groups of actors and in 

projects), as well as to focus on results in terms of 

learning and institutional change (Van Mierlo 2010).  

A robust approach to building kingdom evidence 

combines the best of these constructivist (fourth 

generation models) and reflexive approaches with the 

results-oriented approach (positivist and post-positivist). 

A summary of the various tools available from each 

approach is provided in Table 1. This kind of 

comprehensive approach would stimulate the exchange 

of perspectives enabling (1) mutual understanding 

among different actors, (2) exchange of experiences and 

support of collective learning, and (3) improvement and 

change in mission strategies. Further, this approach 

provides good insights into research, tests approaches, 

and helps to collaboratively design context-sensitive, 

multi-sectoral mission activities that yield kingdom 

impact. 

 

Conclusion 
One of the recurring questions among CCO 

practitioners is what CCOs bring to the table that is 

different from other relief, development, and advocacy 

organizations. After all, much (although not all) of the 

relief, development, and advocacy work done by CCOs 

is through practical assistance that may not necessarily 

have a clearly evident “spiritual” dimension to it. Just 

because CCOs engage in relief, development, and 

advocacy work, does not necessarily make their work 

“spiritual,” except perhaps in the broad scope of their 

spiritual mission of “kingdom building.” It could be 

argued that much of what CCOs give attention to is 

essentially employing “good science” through good 

evidence, and that if CCOs would employ the same 

design, monitoring, evaluation, and learning that good 

secular organizations do, it would serve them well, and 

it would also reflect Christ-centered values. In fact, the 

substantial overlapping of the principles of the 

American Evaluation Association with the Accord 

Network principles of excellence in Integral Mission 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 3(2), Winter 2022  

Kumar, Toward Building Evidence of Kingdom Impact  34 

charted out by Check et al. (2020, 61) show how this 

argument has some merit to it.  

And yet, CCOs are called to engage effectively with 

the heart and spirituality of the communities they serve 

through engagement with faith leaders and actors 

(Bornstein 2005), to address spiritual root causes of 

poverty, and to engage in multi-faith environments to 

achieve long-lasting positive changes in attitudes and 

behavior. And they are uniquely positioned to do so. 

These types of engagements can and should lead CCOs 

to a different approach to planning for, implementing, 

and evaluating and measuring impact, precisely because 

of their call to be witnesses to Christ. The hope and 

prayer of this article is that that the presentation of this 

Kingdom Impact Measurement Framework will help 

CCOs at all stages of their engagement with 

measurement to think creatively about what the 

spiritual impact dimensions of their programs might be, 

and how best to seek evidence of both spiritual and 

material aspects as an integral whole.  

 

 

 Results-Oriented Approach Constructivist Approach Reflexive Approach 

Use RCT, other evaluation design, 

baselines and final evaluation, 

reporting on Indicator 

Performance Tracking Table 

(IPTT) and Detailed 

Implementation Plan (DIP) 

progress 

Identifying barriers to change, 

semi-annual and annual 

reviews, midterm evaluation, 

final evaluation 

Periodic project management 

meetings, structured reflective 

events in the life of the project, 

Research and Innovation 

(R&I) workshops 

Methods Theory of change (TOC), log 

frames,  

Learning histories, responsive 

evaluation, most significant 

change, impact grid 

Reflexive monitoring in 

action/reflexive process, 

monitoring/interactive learning 

approach 

Data 

collection 

methodology 

Quantitative Qualitative Qualitative 

Role of data 

and M&E 

Accountability, generating 

evidence to prove causality of 

pathways and supporting 

project management 

Supporting strategic and 

tactical management, TOC 

analysis, reasons-for-change 

learning from stakeholders, 

modifying processes, and 

support setting learning 

agenda  

Evidence to support 

knowledge creation and 

adaptation. Learning, change 

of practices, and their 

institutional setting 

 

Focus Results/predefined objectives 

or procedures  

Meanings and values, based 

on negotiations 

Calling existing practices and 

institutional settings into 

question 

Paradigm Reality exists and can be 

measured/defined objectively. 

Reality is constructed through 

interaction and negotiation. 

Reality has to be reconstructed,  

a new reality has to be 

developed. 

 

Table 1: Summary of Approaches and Functions of M&E to be used in the Project 

 

     

Note from the Editor: 
Readers will likely have noticed that no examples 

of what such an evaluation would actually look like are 

presented in this paper. If the argument in this paper 

has intrigued you, please check out the CRDA’s next 

issue (expected in August 2022), in which one or several 

such practical examples will be presented in part 2 of 

this paper. If you or your organization is interested in 

contributing to part 2 of this paper, please contact the 

editor or the author. 

 

 

 
 

 

  



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 3(2), Winter 2022  

Kumar, Toward Building Evidence of Kingdom Impact  35 

References 

 

Accord Network. “Accord’s Principles of Integral 

Mission.” 

https://accordnetwork.org/about/principles/. 

Accessed March 31, 2022. 

Accord Network Research Alliance. 

https://accordnetwork.org/ara/.  

Barna Group. 2019. “Why Generations Approach 

Generosity Differently.” June 19, 2019. 

https://www.barna.com/research/generations-

generosity/.  

Bloomberg. 2019. “Morgan Stanley Survey Finds 

Investor Enthusiasm for Sustainable Investing at an 

All-Time High.” September 12. 

https://www.morganstanley.com/press-

releases/morgan-stanley-survey-finds-investor-

enthusiasm-for-sustainable-.  

Bonem, Mike. 2012. “Measuring What Matters.” 

Christianity Today. 

https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2012/spr

ing/measuringmatters.html. Accessed April 09, 

2020. 

Bradshaw, Bruce. 1993. Bridging the Gap: 

Evangelism, Development and Shalom. Monrovia, 

CA: MARC Publications.  

Check, Kristen, Rodney Green, and Subodh Kumar. 

2020. “Towards Laying a Foundation for Christ-

Centered Monitoring & Evaluation.” Christian 

Relief, Development, and Advocacy, Winter 1(2): 

61-69. 

https://crdajournal.org/index.php/crda/article/view/

417.  

Cookingham, Frank. 2009. “Introduction to 

Transformative Evaluation in Area Development 

Programs.” World Vision International, Monrovia, 

CA. Internal Document. 

Cookingham, Frank. 2015. “Transformative 

Evaluation Model.” World Vision International, 

Monrovia, CA. Internal Document. 

DiIulio Jr., John J. 2000. “Godly People in the Public 

Square.” The Public Interest, Fall Issue, 110-115. 

Everitt, Brian. 2009. Chance Rules: An Informal 

Guide to Probability, Risk, and Statistics. London, 

UK: Springer Science. 

Eido Research. https://eidoresearch.com.  

Food for the Hungry. 2017. God's Story: The 

Foundation for FH's Work in Relief and 

Development. Phoenix, AZ. chrome-

extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/vie

wer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.us-west-

1.wasabisys.com%2Ffh-

mediacloud%2F2018%2F03%2FGods-

Story.pdf&clen=1354692&chunk=true.  

Food for the Hungry. 2017. FH CFCT Toolkit #7A: 

CFCT Monitoring and Evaluation Manual, A 

Toolkit for Implementing FH’s Child-Focused 

Community Transformation (CFCT) Model. 

Washington, D.C. 

Food for the Hungry. 2019a. FH CFCT Toolkit #7D: 

Manager’s Handbook for CFCT Mid Term 

Evaluations. Learning and Evaluation Department. 

Phoenix, AZ. 

Food for the Hungry. 2019b. Impact and Learning 

Report (FY 17-19), Learning and Evaluation 

Department. Phoenix, AZ. 

Foster, Richard J. 1998. Celebration of Discipline: 

The Path to Spiritual Growth. San Francisco: 

Harper. 

Fritz, Joanne. 2020. “How Nonprofits Benefit from 

Measuring Outcomes,” The Balance Small 

Business. https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-

nonprofits-can-measure-outcomes-and-why-they-

should-

2502307#:~:text=The%20benefits%20include%20

better%20decision,for%20all%20of%20their%20co

mmunications. Accessed May 20, 2021. 

Funnel, Sue C. and Patricia J. Rogers. 2011. 

Purposeful Program Theory, Effective Use of 

Theories of Change and Logic Models. San 

Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. 

Greer, Peter and Chris Horst. 2014. Mission Drift: 

The Unspoken Crisis Facing Leaders, Charities, 

and Churches. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House. 

Guba, Egon G. and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth 

Generation Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publication. 

Haynes, Jeffery. 2016. “Faith-Based Organizations, 

Development and the World Bank.” In Gilles 

Carbonnier, Ed. International Development 

Policy: Religion and Development. London, UK: 

Palgrave Macmillan. 49-64. 

Intel Corporation. “What Is Data Analytics” 

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/analytics

/what-is-data-analytics.html. Accessed March 13, 

2022. 

Johnson, Byron R., Ralph Brett Tompkins, and 

Derek Webb. 2008. “Objective Hope: Assessing 

the Effectiveness of Faith Based Organizations: A 

Review of the Literature.” Waco, TX: Baylor 

University. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-

library/abstracts/objective-hope-assessing-

effectiveness-faith-based-organizations.  

Joint Learning Initiative on Faith & Local 

Communities. https://jliflc.com/.   

Kumar, Subodh. 2015. “Devotion Series on 

Transformative Evaluation,” Food for the Hungry, 

Phoenix, AZ. Internal Publication. 

Kumar, Subodh. 2010. “Impact Measurement 

Involving Transformational Outcome,” World 

Vision India, Chennai, India. Internal Publication. 

about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank#:~:text=The%20benefits%20include%20better%20decision,for%20all%20of%20their%20communications
about:blank#:~:text=The%20benefits%20include%20better%20decision,for%20all%20of%20their%20communications
about:blank#:~:text=The%20benefits%20include%20better%20decision,for%20all%20of%20their%20communications
about:blank#:~:text=The%20benefits%20include%20better%20decision,for%20all%20of%20their%20communications
about:blank#:~:text=The%20benefits%20include%20better%20decision,for%20all%20of%20their%20communications
about:blank#:~:text=The%20benefits%20include%20better%20decision,for%20all%20of%20their%20communications
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 3(2), Winter 2022  

Kumar, Toward Building Evidence of Kingdom Impact  36 

Kumar, Subodh. 2017. Measuring Outcome of the 

Diakonal Mission, Doctoral Thesis, Centre for 

Contemporary Christianity, Bangalore, India. 

Kumar, Subodh. 2020. “The Theology of Data: 

Devotion Series on Gazing Upon the Face of God 

Through Data.” Food for the Hungry, Phoenix, 

AZ. Internal Publication. 

Kumar, Subodh. 2021. “The Kingdom View of 

Evidence.” Key Note Address, Ridgecrest, North 

Carolina. One Accord 2021. 

Louchez, Alain. 2016. “The Case for a New Final 

Frontier in Data Analytics.” 

https://www.datasciencecentral.com/the-case-for-a-

new-final-frontier-in-data-analytics/.  Accessed 

October 9, 2021. 

Morra Imas, Linda G. and Ray Rist. 2009. The Road 

to Results, Designing and Conducting Effective 

Development Evaluations. The World Bank, 

Washington DC. 

Mudaliar, Abhilash and Hannah Dithrich. 2020. 

“Sizing the Impact Investing Market.” Global 

Impact Investment Market. April 1. 

https://thegiin.org/research/publication/impinv-

market-size.  

Offutt, Stephen and Amy Reynolds. 2019. “Christian 

Ideas of Development. Understanding the Current 

Theories, Networks and Priorities of Accord 

Organizations.” Christian Relief, Development, 

and Advocacy, Summer 1(1), 1-14. 

https://crdajournal.org/index.php/crda/article/view/

189/271.  

Oracle Cloud Infrastructure. 2022. “What is Big 

Data?” https://www.oracle.com/big-data/what-is-

big-data/#:~:text=Big%20data%20defined,-

What%20exactly%20is&text=Put%20simply%2C%

20big%20data%20is,just%20can't%20manage%20th

em. Accessed March 13, 2022. 

Roche, Chris. 2005. Impact Assessment for 

Development Agencies: Learning to Value 

Change. London: Oxfam. 

Streeter, Ryan. 2001. Transforming Charity: Toward a 

Results-Oriented Social Sector. The Hudson 

Institute. Westfield, Indiana. 

Van Mierlo, Barbara. 2010. “Approaches and 

methods for Monitoring and Evaluation.” Syscope 

Magazine, Summer, 31-33. 

Walker, Michael. 2014. “Descriptive, Predictive and 

Prescriptive Analysis.” Data Science Association.  

World Bank Group. n.d. “The World Bank Group’s 

Engagement with Faith-based and Religious 

Organizations.” Faith-Based-flyer-4-14-15web.pdf. 

https://www.worldbank.org/en/about/partners/brief

/faith-based-organizations. Accessed March 13, 

2022. 

 

 “What Is Data Analytics?” Intel. 

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/analytics

/what-is-data-

analytics.html#:~:text=Data%20analytics%20is%20t

he%20process,data%20for%20practically%20any%

20purpose. Accessed March 15, 2022. 
 

 

Subodh Kumar is the Chief Data Officer for World 

Vision International and formerly Senior Director, 

Data for Good with Food for the Hungry. He holds 

doctoral degrees in Statistics and in Missiology with a 

focus on evaluation. He is a member of the Accord 

Network Board, the CRDA Board, and the Steering 

Committee of the Accord Research Alliance.  

 

Author email: subodh_kumar@wvi.org   
 

about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank#:~:text=Big%20data%20defined,-What%20exactly%20is&text=Put%20simply%2C%20big%20data%20is,just%20can't%20manage%20them
about:blank#:~:text=Big%20data%20defined,-What%20exactly%20is&text=Put%20simply%2C%20big%20data%20is,just%20can't%20manage%20them
about:blank#:~:text=Big%20data%20defined,-What%20exactly%20is&text=Put%20simply%2C%20big%20data%20is,just%20can't%20manage%20them
about:blank#:~:text=Big%20data%20defined,-What%20exactly%20is&text=Put%20simply%2C%20big%20data%20is,just%20can't%20manage%20them
about:blank#:~:text=Big%20data%20defined,-What%20exactly%20is&text=Put%20simply%2C%20big%20data%20is,just%20can't%20manage%20them
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank#:~:text=Data%20analytics%20is%20the%20process,data%20for%20practically%20any%20purpose
about:blank#:~:text=Data%20analytics%20is%20the%20process,data%20for%20practically%20any%20purpose
about:blank#:~:text=Data%20analytics%20is%20the%20process,data%20for%20practically%20any%20purpose
about:blank#:~:text=Data%20analytics%20is%20the%20process,data%20for%20practically%20any%20purpose
about:blank#:~:text=Data%20analytics%20is%20the%20process,data%20for%20practically%20any%20purpose
about:blank

