Social impact evaluation is a booming practice and ideology in charitable organisations. Conceptually, it offers the promise of proving to funders and other stakeholders that an organisation or program is fulfilling its promise, while also identifying opportunities for improvement. Despite the highly virtuous image this presents, evaluations often do not end up fulfilling these purposes. Scholars also raise concerns about the direction evaluations may take programs, as when an evaluation defines what “good” performance is within the context of measurement, it also defines what “good” performance looks like into the future. Therefore, as Churchman (1971, p. 34) aptly put it, “the professions which try to place numbers on social change have the responsibility to go the entire way—to understand why the numbers make a difference and why the difference they make is the right difference.'” This summary provides an overview of key contributions from the four empirical chapters of the thesis. The first paper (page 1) provides new insights into how the characteristics of service beneficiaries influence funding approaches and the choice of inspection and measurement methods. The second paper (page 2) analyses the approaches and methodologies adopted in the published evaluation reports. It identifies methodological issues that could hinder the overall effectiveness of these evaluations. The third paper (page 3) explores the emerging digital era of evaluation. It highlights key areas facing disruption, especially the evolving role of evaluators. The fourth paper (page 4) introduces a previously unexplored purpose of evaluation in the charitable sector: supporting advocacy efforts. These findings offer valuable insights for social service managers, funders, and practitioners, highlighting opportunities to improve quality assessment approaches that challenge rather than perpetuate social disadvantage. They also prompt the evaluation sector to reflect on the current trajectory of the field and consider if changes are needed.