Baros Sustainability Index
Part of: SUSTAIN · Economic Development
For Governments
You want proof your systems can run without us — not just our word that they can.
Most transition and handover claims are never actually tested. A program is declared “transitioned” when the paperwork says so, not when anyone has checked whether your teams can genuinely run it without ongoing outside support. Independent research on real, donor-funded health transitions has found that even programs reported as sustained for two years were often still quietly dependent on continued external technical assistance — the gap was simply never measured.
✅ You get documented, credible evidence that your systems run independently — not just a handover certificate.
✅ You can show donors and future partners an evolving, honest track record of ownership, not a one-time claim.
✅ You get early warning if a “completed” transition starts slipping back into dependency, before it becomes a crisis.
-
What's holding you back: the sustainability theater problem
A program can look transitioned — government logo on the letterhead, government staff in the org chart — while still depending entirely on an outside advisor to actually keep it running. Without a measure built to catch that gap specifically, no one finds out until the funding or the advisor disappears.
You've felt this:
“We signed the transition agreement two years ago. We're honestly not sure if we could still run this without them.”
“Every donor wants proof of sustainability. We've never had a real way to measure it ourselves.”
“The person who championed this program retired last year. No one has checked whether the program is still doing okay.”
We help you build the evidence, not just accept the claim. The BAROS Sustainability Index (BSI) scores every system twice — once for whether the capability exists, and once for whether you can run it without us — so the gap between looking transitioned and being transitioned is visible before it becomes a problem.
Your Plan — 3 steps you take with our tools
1. Baseline assessment
We score your systems on both capability (do you have it) and independence (can you run it without us) across governance, service delivery, financing, and information systems.
2. Close the gap
You get a plan built for whichever specific gap the assessment finds — not a generic capacity-building program applied everywhere the same way.
3. Ongoing durability checks
Scheduled check-ins after formal transition — not a one-time handover and goodbye — so backsliding gets caught early, not discovered years later.
For Donors
You want to know your investment actually achieved independence — not just that a report said it did.
It's not a trust problem — it's a measurement problem.
Most transition and sustainability reporting checks whether a system exists, not whether it can run without continued support. Independent research on real PEPFAR-funded transitions found that even programs reported as sustained for two years were often still quietly dependent on ongoing technical assistance — a gap that standard reporting was never built to catch. The BSI is built specifically to catch it: every domain is scored twice, once for capability, once for genuine independence from ongoing external support.
-
Your wins, as a donor:
✅ Your sustainability reporting is built on the same four-domain framework already used and trusted across PEPFAR's own Sustainability Index Dashboard — not a new instrument you have to learn from scratch.
✅ You see the gap between “looks transitioned” and “is transitioned” that most instruments miss entirely, because most instruments only ask whether a capability exists.
✅ You get scheduled durability checks after transition, not a one-time assessment that goes stale the day it's published.
“Within the first review cycle, you see not just whether the capability exists, but whether it can survive without anyone in the room.”
For Partners
You want your technical contribution measured by whether it actually stuck — not just whether it was delivered.
It's not a delivery problem — it's a durability problem most measurement tools never check for.
A technical contribution can be delivered on time, on budget, and fully documented — and still quietly stop functioning the moment the partner who built it moves on. The BSI tracks contributions the same way it tracks everything else: for whether they hold up months and years later, not just whether they were handed over.
-
Your wins, as a partner:
✅ Your specific technical contribution is tracked for durability, not just delivery — showing funders and stakeholders that what you built is still running independently well after handover.
✅ You get a shared, credible standard for demonstrating impact, grounded in a validated framework already recognized by USG stakeholders.
✅ You join an effort that measures its own claims rigorously — protecting your reputation from being associated with sustainability claims that don't hold up to scrutiny.