This article is part of Busara’s Tafakari 2025 yearbook. You can download the whole yearbook here.

In global development, the quest for measurable impact often gravitates towards quantifiable outcomes: the number of lives touched, programs implemented, or policies influenced. However, when the end goal transcends individual projects and aims for systemic change, traditional metrics generally fall short. At Busara, we have grappled with this tension firsthand through our work in Guatemala addressing gender-based violence (GBV). This experience has compelled us to rethink how we define, measure, and communicate impact when the ultimate objective is to transform complex systems.

The challenge of measuring systems change

Traditional impact metrics excel at capturing immediate, tangible results, but often overlook the nuanced, long-term transformations that systemic change entails. In Guatemala, GBV is not just a series of isolated incidents but a pervasive issue embedded within cultural norms, institutional practices, and policy frameworks. Our Behavioral Systems Approach revealed that addressing GBV effectively requires altering the very fabric of interconnected systems—healthcare, justice, and community structures.

So, how do we measure progress when the goal is to shift these deep-rooted systems? How do we capture the ripple effects of interventions that may not manifest as quantifiable outcomes in the short term but are crucial for sustainable change? The answer is: we emphasize drawing connections.

Embracing a behavioral systems approach

Our work in Guatemala involved a comprehensive framework integrating behavioral science and systems thinking. This approach allowed us to map out the complex networks influencing GBV and identify leverage points for intervention. By engaging more than 80 stakeholders—from government officials to frontline workers—we gained a holistic understanding of survivors’ systemic barriers.

We constructed an agent-based model to simulate 29 intervention scenarios, enabling us to forecast impacts and anticipate unintended consequences. This method highlighted the limitations of traditional metrics, which might only consider the number of policies changed or services provided without assessing whether these changes effectively disrupt harmful cycles or improve survivor experiences.

Reframing impact through holistic metrics

To capture the essence of systemic change, we needed metrics that reflect the interconnectedness of the factors at play. This meant moving beyond counting services rendered to evaluating shifts in cultural norms, policy efficacy, and institutional collaboration. For instance, we realized the need to measure:

• Policy alignment: The degree to which new policies incorporated survivor-centered principles and facilitated cross-sector collaboration.
• Trust in systems: Changes in survivors’ willingness to engage with healthcare and justice systems, indicating increased trust and perceived safety.
• Interconnected outcomes: Reducing negative feedback loops, such as policies inadvertently discouraging reporting due to lack of confidentiality.
• Victim wellbeing: The extent to which interventions improved survivors’ physical, emotional, and social well-being, recognizing that proper recovery encompasses more than immediate safety.

These metrics provided a more accurate picture of our impact on the system, acknowledging the slow yet profound nature of systemic transformation.

The human element in impact measurement

A crucial aspect of redefining impact metrics is incorporating the human experience. Numbers alone cannot capture the lived realities of GBV survivors or the frontline workers supporting them. We integrated qualitative data—stories, testimonials, and experiential insights—to contextualize our quantitative findings.

By humanizing our impact assessments, we offered a more comprehensive narrative resonating with stakeholders and emphasizing systemic changes’ real-world significance. This approach also helped build trust with communities, demonstrating a genuine commitment to understanding and addressing their needs.

Implications for monitoring and evaluation practices

Our experience in Guatemala underscores the need for innovative Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) practices that accommodate the complexities of systemic change. Traditional M&E frameworks often rely on linear models of cause and effect, which are insufficient for capturing the dynamics of systems.

We advocate for M&E approaches that:

1. Embrace complexity: Recognize that change is non-linear and influenced by multiple interacting factors.
2. Prioritize learning: Focus on adaptive learning processes that allow for course corrections based on ongoing insights.
3. Engage stakeholders: Involve all system actors in defining success metrics, ensuring they reflect diverse perspectives and needs.

Collaborating for systemic impact

Achieving systemic change requires collaboration across sectors and with various stakeholders, including funders, policymakers, and community organizations. We found bringing these groups on board early and fostering open communication essential.

By demonstrating the value of our Behavioral Systems Approach, we can build credibility and secure buy-in. This collective effort amplifies impact and ensures that changes are embedded within the system rather than imposed externally.

Reflecting on impact beyond numbers

Our work in Guatemala has been a transformative journey, compelling us to rethink how we define and measure impact. When aiming for systemic change, traditional metrics prove insufficient. Instead, we have adopted holistic, human-centered approaches that capture the complexity of the systems we seek to transform.

Currently, we are initiating a system-strengthening program with doctors, nurses, and social workers at sexual violence clinics. This is the first of many steps outlined in our plan to facilitate systemic change by implementing strategic, incremental adjustments at key leverage points identified in our analysis. By making these targeted changes, we aim to stimulate various system components, driving meaningful and impactful transformation.

At Busara, we are committed to pioneering these new methodologies and advocating for their adoption within the global development community. By doing so, we hope to enhance our impact and contribute to a broader shift in how organizations approach systemic challenges.

As we continue this journey, we are reminded that impact is not just about the magnitude of change but also its depth and sustainability. It is about paying attention to connections to improve systems so they serve people better, acknowledging that actual progress often defies simple quantification.

In redefining our metrics, we embrace the intricacies and interconnectedness of human experiences and the multifaceted nature of societal systems. This perspective allows us to create more meaningful, lasting change—an impact that numbers alone could never fully encapsulate.