Metrics Aren’t Meaning: Reclaiming What Impact Actually Looks Like

Nonprofits are often told that success means setting SMART goals and backing them up with hard numbers. But when the work is rooted in trust, healing, and systems change, these rigid tools rarely capture the depth or reality of what’s actually happening on the ground.

That’s because, over time, numbers became a proxy for truth. Evaluation frameworks are now treated like GPS systems: punch in your inputs, follow the steps, and arrive at impact. Organizations are asked to produce metrics that are clear, quantifiable, and, above all, funder-friendly.

But if you’ve ever stood in the hallway after a community meeting, or sat across from a parent trying to navigate broken systems, you already know: what’s meaningful isn’t always measurable. And what’s measurable isn’t always meaningful.

The Problem with Metrics-as-Mission

This is not a call to abandon accountability. It’s a call to interrogate who accountability is designed for, and how it’s defined.

Across the sector, especially for grassroots groups, emerging leaders, and organizations led by people of the global majority, there’s growing recognition that many evaluation demands are mismatched with the realities of community-based work.

Organizations are expected to prove their impact while still building basic infrastructure. They’re asked for clean data sets when they haven’t been resourced to hire a data analyst. They’re pushed to demonstrate year-over-year growth, without recognition that staying open and trusted might be the most significant outcome.

Metrics are not neutral. They reflect the assumptions of whoever selects the indicators, frames the benchmarks, and decides what’s worth counting.

And one of the most persistent culprits? The SMART Goal.

Why SMART Goals Aren’t Always Smart

SMART Goals—Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound—sound reasonable on the surface. But in practice, they often do more harm than good when applied to the complexity of social change.

They compress transformation into tidy timelines and checkboxes. They prioritize clarity over context, and simplicity over substance. They incentivize short-term wins over long-term movement building.

Many organizations end up contorting meaningful, relational work into these templates just to meet reporting requirements. But what does a SMART Goal look like for rebuilding trust in a neighborhood that’s experienced generations of environmental harm? Or for shifting how a city values lived experience over academic credentials?

Not everything worth doing can—or should—be pre-scoped, timed, and measured into compliance. Some of the most transformative work is emergent, adaptive, and inherently nonlinear. So, let's all start chucking SMART goals out the window.

When Metrics Become Harmful

Here are just a few ways impact measurement can become counterproductive:

• Extractive reporting cycles that require significant staff time without adding internal value
• Out-of-sync benchmarks that ignore cultural nuance, lived experience, or on-the-ground complexity
• Over-reliance on short-term outcomes, especially when organizations are doing long-term systems change work
• Perverse incentives, where what gets funded is what’s easy to measure, not what’s most needed

The result? Nonprofits shape their work to meet the metric instead of their mission. Community-rooted solutions are devalued because they don’t translate cleanly into dashboards. And funders, despite good intentions, reinforce a status quo that centers institutional comfort over community wisdom.

What We Recommend Instead

The field doesn’t lack ideas, it lacks room to try them. For those ready to reimagine what meaningful evaluation could look like, here are a few starting points:

1. Redefine What Success Looks Like

Start by creating your own impact vocabulary. What outcomes feel authentic to your mission? How do your community members define success? If a funding report doesn’t capture that, supplement it with your own materials: quotes, community feedback, photos, or narrative case examples.

2. Audit Your Data Burden

Track how much time your team spends collecting data that serves someone else’s needs. Is that time proportional to the insight it provides? If not, advocate for fewer, more meaningful measures, and back it up with examples of what a more useful system could look like.

3. Center Relationship-Based Accountability

Accountability doesn’t have to be punitive or performance-based. True accountability grows from relationship. How are you communicating impact to your community, not just your funders? How are you making your process transparent, accessible, and inclusive?

4. Invest in Story Infrastructure

You already have impact. What many organizations need is a better way to document it. This doesn’t mean inflating results, it means having the tools, staff, and systems to track stories over time, connect the dots, and frame your work in ways that resonate with funders and partners alike.

5. Push for Evaluative Equity

If you work with funders, invite them to join you in building more equitable evaluation practices. Ask:

• “Are our communities involved in defining the goals?”
• “Are these measures telling the whole story?”
• “How might we include qualitative insight, not just quantitative metrics?”

Final Thought: Value Comes First

You are not running a tech startup. You are not a vending machine for social progress. And you are not failing if you can’t deliver a neatly packaged metric by Q3.

Your value is not in how much you can prove, but in how deeply you are trusted.
How courageously you respond to need.
How creatively you build solutions from the ground up.

The most powerful organizations aren’t just proving their impact. They’re reclaiming the right to define it. Let’s build a sector where that’s not the exception, it’s the expectation.

‍

‍