Leading vs. Lagging: Rethinking Metrics for Mission Impact
- Vincent Hicks
- 9 minutes ago
- 1 min read
As CDFIs continue to grow in visibility and influence, the need for meaningful, mission-aligned metrics has never been greater. Funders, stakeholders, and communities alike are asking not just for outcomes — but for proof that systems are working toward lasting equity.
Traditional impact metrics often focus on lagging indicators: loan repayment rates, job creation, or business survival after 12 months. While these are important, they tell the story after the fact. To shape strategy, secure funding, and improve programs, we must also elevate leading indicators — the early signals of success and equity.
⸻
🧭 Understanding the Difference
Leading Indicators
These are early signals that suggest your programs and interventions are on track before long-term outcomes show up.
• Number of technical assistance (TA) hours delivered
• Percentage of clients completing financial coaching
• Number of inquiries or applicants from target zip codes
• Frequency of repeat engagements or referrals from community partners
Why it matters: Leading indicators reveal program reach, engagement, and pipeline strength. They help guide course corrections in real time and show progress even before outcomes are finalized.
Lagging Indicators
These are results that show up after your work has already been implemented.
• Loan repayment rates over 12–24 months
• Business survival and growth rates
• Changes in client net worth or asset ownership
• Long-term employment or wage growth
Why it matters: Lagging indicators demonstrate ultimate outcomes, which funders and boards often prioritize. But they don’t offer insights soon enough to inform strategy or operations.
• #CDFIs
Comments