How to increase survey response rates for better impact measurement?

In the world of impact investing, philanthropy, and mission-driven enterprises, the need for credible, human-centred evaluation is growing fast. Yet many measurement systems still neglect a vital ingredient: The perspective of the people using the products and services provided by the organisation.

Stakeholder-reported outcome measures (SROMs) offer a direct line to those voices. They provide context, meaning, and credibility to the numbers we report. But here’s the challenge: many beneficiaries and stakeholders don’t respond to surveys. When they don’t, our impact data may be elegant on paper but hollow in practice.

So, how do we ensure more people respond, more honestly, and more often? This article explores the relevance of stakeholder feedback, the how of increasing response rates, and the approaches that make it all possible. 

‍

Why stakeholder voices are non-negotiable

Stakeholder-reported outcome measures (SROMs) ask a fundamental question: What changed for you? They reveal whether interventions were helpful, harmful, empowering, or irrelevant.

These approaches serve multiple purposes:

1. Centering human experience: Turning abstract data into real stories of change.
2. Revealing context: Helping explain why a program worked in one place but failed in another.
3. Building trust: Demonstrating that beneficiaries’ voices are taken seriously.

It’s no coincidence that leading impact measurement and management (IMM) frameworks are placing growing emphasis on stakeholder input. What people say about the change they experience unlocks the ‘why’ and ‘how’ behind outcomes and impact.

We already made some notes about this topic. Check out our article about the Power of qualitative data - revealing the stories behind numbers

‍

‍No one loves surveys - The risk of low response rates and nonresponse bias

Getting people to fill out surveys is hard. Even with good intentions and solid survey tools, response rates remain stubbornly low. This presents more than an inconvenience — it introduces a serious risk of bias. In other words, your results can become non-representative of the true stakeholder population. Low response rates and non-response bias are related but distinct concepts. A low response rate simply means that a significant portion of the targeted population did not participate in the survey. When only certain groups respond — often those who are more educated, more connected, or more satisfied — the data becomes skewed. This is known as nonresponse bias, and it distorts reality. Imagine a youth training programme where only the most confident graduates fill out feedback surveys. The result? Overinflated success rates, blind spots around equity, and a false sense of effectiveness.

Ensuring a high and diverse response is thus an ethical issue as much as a statistical one: we owe it to stakeholders to make their voices count in the decisions that affect them. Low participation can erode confidence in findings and lead to misguided strategies.

By understanding this relationship and the distinction of the phenomena, organisations can better design surveys that minimize both issues.

So, how can we increase survey response behaviour among stakeholders and minimise the risk of nonresponse bias?
Let’s have a look. 

‍

Designing for participation, not just data collection

Encouraging people to complete surveys starts long before the first question is asked. It begins with trust. If people don’t believe their voice matters, they won’t take the time to share it. People don’t fill out surveys because you ask them to — they do it because they see meaning. Several psychological drivers are at play:

1. Belief in impact: People are more likely to respond if they think their feedback will lead to change.
   
2. Relevance: If the survey touches on an issue that matters to them, they engage.
   
3. Social norms: Knowing others are participating can influence behaviour.
   
4. Personal recognition: Feeling seen, heard, and appreciated increases motivation.

Crucially, how you ask for feedback matters as much as what you ask. A cold, transactional survey feels like a chore. A warm, respectful invitation feels like an opportunity. 

This is true regardless of the survey format:

• In-person surveys: Allowing for direct interaction, capturing non-verbal cues, and creating a sense of personal connection.
• Phone surveys: Providing guided feedback while maintaining a conversational tone.
• Digital surveys: Offering convenience but requiring careful design to remain engaging.

‍

How to increase response rates?

The following strategies to increase response rates can be adapted based on the survey format, ensuring they align with the chosen method: 

1. Keep surveys short, simple, and mobile-friendly: Respecting your stakeholders' time is key. Surveys should take no more than 5–7 minutes. Use plain language, avoid jargon, and ensure seamless mobile access — especially important in low-bandwidth settings.
   
   • Usable for: Digital Surveys.
2. Offer small incentives: Even symbolic rewards (phone credit, vouchers) can boost response rates.
   
   • Usable for: Digital Surveys, Phone Surveys, In-Person Surveys.
3. Use reminders — politely: A well-timed, respectful nudge can increase participation.
   
   • Usable for: Digital Surveys
4. Communicate the value of feedback: Show how responses will inform funding, improve services, or shape decisions.
   
   • Usable for: All Survey Types (In-Person, Phone, Digital).
5. Gamification: Especially for younger audiences, consider using game-like elements in surveys — such as points, badges, or rewards for completion.
   
   • Usable for: Digital Surveys (Mobile and Web).

The method (in-person, phone or digital) chosen can significantly impact response rates and data quality. In-person surveys are exceptionally valuable because they allow for direct human connection, capture authentic reactions, provide real-time clarification, and offer a deeper understanding of respondents' perspectives.
‍
At leonardo. we offer our clients the ability to conduct in-person surveys, making it possible to gather richer insights directly from respondents. Want to learn more about it? Feel free to reach out anytime. 

‍

Key guidelines for in-person surveys:

To make the most of In-Person Surveys, whether conducted by internal or third-party enumerators:

1. Training and empowerment:
   Ensure enumerators are well-trained, confident, and understand the survey’s purpose. Their attitude can directly influence respondent willingness.
   ‍
2. Create a comfortable environment:
   Allow respondents to answer in a space where they feel safe and respected.
   ‍
3. Use visual aids:
   Where appropriate, use images or icons to make questions clearer.
   ‍
4. Respect local contexts, language, and culture:
   Enumerators should be familiar with local customs, speak the respondent’s preferred language fluently, and avoid any cultural insensitivity.
   ‍
5. Active listening:
   Encourage enumerators to be attentive, clarify questions if respondents look confused, and avoid rushing.
   ‍
6. Manage survey fatigue: For longer surveys, allow short breaks if needed.

Of course, even with great participation, survey data isn’t perfect. We must be vigilant about biases in responses themselves. Next, we address how to handle biases and ensure the data we collect is as reliable and fair as possible.

‍

‍Understanding and correcting bias

Even with high participation, bias can creep in. That’s why sound analysis and transparency are just as important as strong design.
Here’s how to strengthen your survey’s integrity:

• Weight your sample: If younger or rural participants are underrepresented, apply statistical weights so your data reflects the true population.
  
  
• Conduct sensitivity analysis: Run “what if” scenarios to test how much your findings would shift if non-respondents held different views.
  
  
• Identify and model response patterns: Use latent class analysis (LCA) or machine learning-based anomaly detection to uncover hidden response patterns that may indicate bias, such as extreme responding, social desirability, or acquiescence bias.
  
  
• Blend data sources: Through cross-design synthesis, you can combine survey data with case studies or observational insights to triangulate impact.
  
  

The goal isn’t perfection — it’s acknowledging uncertainty and adjusting for it. That alone strengthens the credibility of your evaluation. 

Still, no matter how robust your analysis, data only becomes meaningful when it's shared back with those who provided it. Rigorous methods may correct for bias and strengthen internal validity, but true accountability comes when stakeholders see how their input influences real-world action. That’s where the feedback loop comes in — not as an afterthought, but as the final, critical step in ethical impact measurement.
‍

Closing the loop: Turning insights into trust

The biggest mistake organisations make? Asking for feedback — and then going silent.

If people don’t hear back, they assume their input didn’t matter. This erodes trust and makes future participation less likely.

Instead, close the loop. After every survey:

• Thank respondents genuinely.
  
• Share key results in a clear and accessible way.
  
• Explain what will change as a result — or why it won’t.
  
• Invite continued dialogue, not just a one-time response.
  

Even a simple message like “You told us X, we’re now doing Y” can build enormous goodwill. Over time, this creates a feedback culture where stakeholders feel heard — and want to be heard again. At its best, impact measurement is not just about accountability — it’s about understanding. It’s a conversation between organisations and the people they serve. And conversations need both sides to speak.