Why India’s nonprofits must embrace data culture

Data is evidence – it will shape social action in the digital age. Resisting it risks inefficiency and irrelevance.

At a time when misinformation and deepfakes distort public discourse, data and evidence assume a special significance not only to design better policies but also to build public narratives and strengthen democratic outcomes.

As programme lead and comms specialist with multi-donor global programme The Think Tank Initiative for Asia, the authors have seen how disciplined use of evidence can transform both institutions and their influence in public life. That is why the recent State of the Sector Report on the Data Maturity of Social Purpose Organisations in India, brought out by the Indian School of Development Management (ISDM), is both timely and urgent as India accelerates towards rapid digitalisation.

From “nowcasting” models that promise real-time insights to government pushes for embedding digital practices in everyday life, the landscape is shifting quickly. But is the social sector ready?

The report’s central finding is sober. Using a comprehensive mapping of data-readiness, it surveys 360 Social Purpose Organisations (SPOs) across the country. The study reveals that the sector’s average data maturity stands at a modest 48 out of 100. Nearly 70% of organisations sit in what the researchers call the “emerging” or “progressing” categories, while only 4% qualify as true experts. The implication is clear: most organisations recognise the importance of data, but very few have managed to embed it meaningfully into their everyday, cross-functional decisions.

The gap between aspiration and practice is visible in surprising ways: 84% of organisations report using data for programme design, yet only 28% apply it across the organisation, from HR and fundraising to finance. Many still depend on paper-based collection, with a third storing critical information in hard copies. Fewer than a quarter have reliable indicators aligned to programme goals, and only about 15% conduct regular data-security audits. What this means is that while the vocabulary of data has entered the sector’s bloodstream, the deeper culture and systems needed to make it a living, breathing practice remain elusive.

The difference between an organisation that uses data well and those that do not is palpable. Consider one that employs dashboards to track outcomes to generate continuous feedback loops for improvement. Contrast this with smaller grassroots organisations that continue to rely on handwritten records, making institutional memory fragile and learning sporadic. One inspires trust among donors and communities alike; the other struggles to prove its impact despite years of service. The divergence lies less in technology and more in culture, governance, and people. Data maturity is not the same as buying software. It is about leadership that champions evidence, teams that are trained and curious, and systems that safeguard the integrity and accessibility of information.

So where do funders come in? Too often, donors finance flashy dashboards or exploratory AI pilots without paying for the plumbing that sustains data practice. What is neglected are the basics: secure storage, governance routines, reliable indicators, and the unglamorous but essential staffing of data leads or embedded fellows. Even a small provision – 2 to 3% of every grant set aside for data capacity – could help organisations build the foundations for more ambitious technologies. This is not a call for endless resources but for smarter allocations that treat data as a strategic necessity rather than a compliance afterthought. This is important to improve the efficiency and sustainability of organisations in the not-for-profit sector.

Change is imperative

The report also offers cues on what collaborative roadmaps might look like. Funders and implementing organisations can jointly baseline partners on core dimensions of data maturity – from culture and mindset to analysis and visualisation – and agree on a handful of realistic milestones for the year ahead. Reviews should be framed as opportunities for collective learning rather than audits for compliance, thus encouraging experimentation rather than defensive box-ticking. Shared platforms and neutral help-desks could provide smaller organisations with templates, training, and vendor support that they would struggle to access alone. Even modest experiments, such as a few funders aligning on a common reporting schema, can significantly reduce duplication and free up scarce staff time for actual learning.

It is important to recognise the financial gradient. Organisations with annual expenditures of Rs one to five crore score an average of 73 on the data maturity index, compared to 57 for those spending under Rs one lakh. Resources matter because they allow investment in training, infrastructure, and systems. But this is not simply about money; it is about capacity. Smaller organisations need not be condemned to remain data-poor if funders and intermediaries are willing to underwrite shared services and build mentoring linkages between large and small institutions.

India’s social purpose organisations stand at a delicate juncture. Communities they serve are increasingly digitally savvy, governments are embracing digital tools, and donors are demanding transparency. Yet, many organisations are caught between recognising the value of data and lacking the means to embed it in their DNA. Without change, they risk irrelevance, inefficiency, and declining trust. With change, they can sharpen interventions, attract more sustained funding, and deepen democratic accountability.

The report should be seen less as a scorecard and more as a mirror. It reflects not only where the sector is today but also what it must prioritise tomorrow. Building data literacy across staff, adopting simple governance measures, incentivising cross-functional forums, and creating sector-wide standards are not optional extras; they are the bedrock of credible social action in the digital age. Funders must take the first step by acknowledging that robust evidence is not a luxury but the foundation for impact.

Data maturity is not about technology. It is about trust, credibility, and accountability. And it is about the courage to see evidence as a guide rather than a threat. The question is whether we, as funders, practitioners, and citizens, are willing to act on it.

(Samar is a Gurugram-based economist and policy professional who has led global programmes with international funding agencies; Annapoorna is a Bengaluru-based communication specialist and trainer)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.