Is the Digital Equity Sector Using the Wrong Impact Metrics?

Look at the website of any organization in the digital equity space. You’ll likely see some impressive stats. You know the kind we mean:

• 1,000+ Families Gain Internet Access each month
• Over 500 Internet-ready Devices Distributed 3 months after program launch
• 500+ People Receive Digital Literacy Training Annually

Across the digital equity landscape, nonprofits and funders alike celebrate these easy-to-measure milestones and present them as victories. These kinds of numbers look compelling on websites and grant reports, satisfy board members, and may impress and attract funders. But they often mask an uncomfortable truth — we often may be working for short-term wins instead of creating lasting change. 

We believe the greater challenge — and opportunity — lies in looking further ahead. 

Continuity Over Quantity

This tendency to seek and measure quick results reflects a fundamental tension in digital equity work. Organizations feel pressure to demonstrate immediate impact to secure funding. Funders want to see their dollars reach as many people as possible. Boards expect quantifiable results. The entire system generally incentivizes large quick hits over sustainability, breadth of services over deep, ongoing impact.

Maybe we're just looking for and measuring the wrong things. Perhaps we should be measuring outcomes over time, rather than in the moment. Helping 1,000 people in one year may look impressive, but what if serving a smaller number of people over five years led to true digital stability for those families?

We are big proponents of continuity — the ability for families to stay digitally connected, equipped, and engaged over time. Continuity creates compounding benefits across education, employment, and health. A student with continuous internet access throughout high school is statistically more likely to graduate, attend college, and earn a higher income later in life.

What Short-Term Metrics Miss

Consider a student or family that receives internet connectivity and a device — through a government program such as the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP)  — only to lose access after nine months when a program’s funding is allowed to expire, or the family moves, changes schools, or has a job disruption. They still get counted as a success — one of the families that gained internet access, even though they weren’t even connected for a full year.

But that family or student is back at square one. They've experienced what digital access makes possible — employment options, education access, healthcare access, cultural connection — only to lose it through no fault of their own. 

We're not just failing to make a meaningful ongoing difference in their lives, we're creating a cycle of instability that can feel worse than never having access at all.

How are We Addressing this Issue?

At 35 Mile Foundation, our partner agreements for our low-cost broadband typically have an initial term of five years. We start with guaranteed pricing for those five years so that both our partners and the individuals they serve know they can rely on the service we provide for a much longer period than broadband providers might offer. 

Our agreements also recognize that aggregating data about those using the service could be useful when determining the programmatic impact for storytelling, transparency, and donor reporting. We are interested in learning and evaluating the impact and reach of the relationship made possible by the longer-term nature of our partnership.  

Let’s Rethink the Impact Framework

The digital equity field often references a "three-legged stool" of affordable internet, devices, and digital skills. But this framework may limit how we think about our work. Digital equity isn't just a technical problem — it's fundamentally about economic justice and social equity. 

It’s about impact over time.

Every organization working on housing stability, food security, workforce development, healthcare access, or education should recognize digital connectivity as essential infrastructure for their mission. The social safety net has moved to the internet, yet we treat digital access as a separate issue rather than a prerequisite for nearly every other social service — all of which look at outcomes over time.

The siloing of digital equity work from broader social justice efforts creates missed opportunities. When nonprofits outside of the digital equity sector  don't consider digital access as fundamental to their work, they're building programs on a shaky foundation. We should all be working together to create a broad foundation that moves people across the digital divide and helps them stay there.

Let’s Ask Different Questions and Track Different Outcomes

Shifting toward exponential impact requires asking different questions:

For Funders: Instead of "How many people will you reach this year?" ask "What is your capacity and strategy to continue this work over several years? What resources do you need for a multi-year program?"

For Boards: Rather than focusing solely on quarterly metrics, ask "When we believe in a great program, how can we figure out ways to support it for three, five, or more years?"

For Digital Equity Leaders: Change your mindset from asking, “How can we maximize the number of people helped today?” to “Would it be better to serve fewer people with longer-term support to create more meaningful outcomes?”

Nonprofit leaders, funders, and boards alike should think about grants and services over four to five years rather than a one-time commitment — not based on monthly results, but a commitment to supporting organizations and programs over a longer period of time. Multi-year commitments from everyone involved make for a much more sustainable sector and drive outcomes that produce generational change.

The Challenge for All of Us

Our call to aim for and do the hard work of measuring long-term significant impact isn't a call to abandon metrics or accountability. Numbers matter. Organizations need to demonstrate impact. Funders need to make informed decisions about resource allocation. But we need to expand our thinking about what we measure and value and when.

The current funding environment — particularly with federal digital inclusion funding becoming increasingly uncertain — makes this conversation more urgent. When resources are limited, we must be even more intentional about creating sustainable impact rather than chasing impressive numbers. 

Digital equity work is about more than connecting people for a moment. It’s about connecting them for life. Let’s acknowledge this reality and commit to doing the slow work of creating lasting change.