Redefining impact measurement: "care goes beyond publications"

Measuring impact remains one of the most challenging questions for organisations working in social innovation, education, and community participation. This week, SAMA took part in the KEMs (Key Enabling Methodologies) Impact Session organised by CLICKNL, where researchers, practitioners and organisations gathered to discuss a deceptively simple question: How do we measure impact?

The session revealed that impact is not about counting outputs, attendance or publications. Instead, it is about understanding meaningful change, who defines value, and why measuring impact becomes more complex as projects grow deeper and more significant. For SAMA, which operates at the crossroads of urban culture, participation, non-formal education, technology and social innovation, many of the insights felt familiar and relevant.

Community murals often symbolise long-term social impact beyond their immediate completion.

Impact Unfolds Over Time, Not Immediately

One of the most powerful ideas discussed was the temporal dilemma: when should impact be measured? Traditional funding and evaluation systems often demand evidence right after a project ends. This expectation clashes with the reality that meaningful change rarely fits neatly into project timelines.

For example, a mural may be painted in a week, but the trust it builds within a community can take months or even years. Behavioural shifts or institutional changes often require sustained effort and time to emerge. SAMA’s projects such as Community Living Lab, Nieghbourhood Garden of Stories, Digital Street Art Depot, STAR 2.0 toolit for youth workers, STRAATWIJS and Urbanites United consistently show that the most valuable outcomes appear well after formal reporting deadlines.

This raises a critical question:

how can evaluation systems allow enough time for impact to mature before requiring proof?

Funders and organisations need to rethink rigid timelines and embrace longer-term perspectives on success.

Impact Is Not Neutral or One-Size-Fits-All

Another key discussion challenged the assumption that impact can be standardised or universal. Impact depends on context, values, and the perspectives of those involved. What counts as success for one community or project may not hold for another.

For example, in street art projects, impact might mean increased community pride and participation rather than measurable economic benefits. In non-formal co-learning, it could be shifts in confidence or social skills that do not immediately translate into quantifiable data. SAMA’s experience highlights the importance of co-defining impact with participants and stakeholders. This approach respects diverse values and avoids imposing external metrics that may miss the true significance of change.

Who Defines Value Matters

The session also emphasised that impact measurement is deeply political. Who decides what counts as valuable change shapes the entire process. Often, funders or institutions set criteria that reflect their priorities rather than those of communities or participants. SAMA’s work shows that involving communities in defining impact leads to richer, more relevant outcomes. For example, in the Community Living Lab, residents helped identify what success looked like, focusing on trust-building and social cohesion rather than just physical improvements.

This participatory approach shifts power dynamics and ensures that impact measurement reflects lived realities rather than abstract targets.

Practical Steps for Better Impact Measurement

Based on the session and SAMA’s experience, here are some practical ideas to improve how organisations measure impact:

• Allow longer evaluation periods to capture delayed or evolving outcomes.

• Co-create impact criteria with participants and stakeholders to reflect diverse values.

• Use mixed methods combining qualitative stories with quantitative data for a fuller picture.

• Focus on change processes such as trust-building or behaviour shifts, not just final outputs.

• Advocate for flexible funding models that support ongoing impact tracking beyond project end.

  
  

These steps help move impact measurement from a tick-box exercise to a meaningful tool for learning and improvement.

Examples from SAMA Projects

• Community Living Lab: Residents and artists collaborated to improve neighbourhood spaces. Impact became visible through increased social connections and trust, which took months to develop. [trust and social infrastructure]

• Neighbourhood Garden of Stories: Through co-creation, gardening, storytelling and cultural activities, residents transformed a shared outdoor space into a place for encounter, expression and belonging. Impact emerged through strengthened neighbour relations, increased participation and a growing sense of ownership over the environment — outcomes that became visible gradually through repeated encounters, collective rituals and sustained community involvement. [belonging and ownership]

• Digital Street Art Depot: This project created digital archives of street art, preserving cultural heritage. Impact included raising awareness and inspiring new artists, outcomes that unfolded over years. [long-term cultural memory]

• STAR 2.0 and STRAATWIJS: Both projects combined street art with education, focusing on personal growth and community engagement. Impact was seen in participants’ confidence and social skills, which required qualitative evaluation methods. [non-formal learning and confidence]

• Urbanites United: A network fostering urban creativity and social innovation. Impact was measured by the strength of collaborations and new initiatives sparked, often emerging after formal reporting. [networks and emergent collaboration]

These examples show that impact is complex, layered, and often intangible, requiring patience and openness in measurement.

Moving Forward with Impact Measurement

What stayed with me most after the session was not a specific framework or indicator, but a shift in perspective. Too often, impact conversations begin once projects are finished & when reports are due, numbers are counted and conclusions are expected. Yet the discussions today reminded us that impact starts much earlier: in who is invited to participate, who defines success, who owns knowledge and whether systems create enough space for care, reflection and learning to happen.

For SAMA, this felt deeply familiar. Working in public space, culture and participation means accepting that some of the most meaningful outcomes are difficult to capture immediately — trust, belonging, ownership, confidence, new relationships and unexpected collaborations. These rarely appear neatly in reporting templates, but they shape long-term change. The conversations around collective learning, shared repositories, alternative outputs and recognising follow-up work as part of impact — not as an invisible extra — felt particularly relevant. One sentence from the day stayed with me:

Care goes beyond publications.

If impact is truly collective, perhaps our methods for understanding and documenting it should become more collective too. Thank you to everyone who contributed their perspectives, questions and provocations. I hope to see the next KEM’s session at SAMA ;)