A refined scoring methodology and a wider cohort — plus the first year-over-year comparison against the 1.0 baseline.
What Changed From 1.0
Version 2.0 kept the four VAM dimensions — System, Training, Programmes, Measurement — but reworked the scoring rubric after 1.0 revealed it was too forgiving at the middle of the scale. We also expanded the cohort beyond existing Volint partners to include a small number of organizations with no prior relationship to us, scored using the same structured-interview method.
The Expanded Cohort
2.0 scored a larger and more varied group across the three sectors, still concentrated in Nigeria, still using structured interviews and document review rather than self-report. The goal was breadth within the same rigor, not a different methodology.
What Held, What Moved
Measurement remained the weakest dimension across every sector, confirming it wasn't a 1.0 fluke — it's a structural gap. Within the cohort organizations that had also been scored in 1.0, System maturity showed the clearest improvement, which tracked with organizations that had invested in operational structure between the two reports.
Social enterprises in the 2.0 cohort showed the widest internal spread of any sector — some had moved decisively away from founder-dependency, others hadn't moved at all, which suggests the gap is closing unevenly rather than universally.
Reading the Score
We deliberately do not publish the Impactometer as a public ranking. It's designed as a diagnostic an organization can use with its own leadership and board, not a comparison tool between organizations that may be operating under very different constraints.
What's Next
We plan to keep the cohort running rather than treating each version as a one-off snapshot, so future reports can speak to genuine change over time rather than a new baseline each time.