Where do we even start with measuring our impact?

England and Wales: This page sets out the position in full. Scotland: the same position, with no difference in principle — deciding what to measure is craft, not law, and the SORP is UK-wide; the annual report duty itself is framed differently, and Step 15 covers it. Northern Ireland: the same position, with no difference in principle; Northern Ireland’s own annual report duty is also covered in Step 15.

Which parts of a charity impact assessment are required?

Almost none of a charity impact assessment is a legal requirement. The legal core is the trustees’ annual report. Its rules differ between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, whose regulators are the Charity Commission, OSCR and the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. Everything else trustees are told they need is a funder’s condition, published good practice or convention.

This is the first step in measuring impact. It comes before anything is built: the theory of change and the indicators follow once you know why you are measuring.

You have probably been told you need an impact framework. Before you build anything, find out what kind of claim that is. Every statement about impact measurement, or monitoring and evaluation, is one of the four kinds in this table, and most guides never say which.

The sorting is this guide’s own. It exists because the usual failure in this field is convention dressed up as requirement.

A charity that knows the difference can make a proportionate choice. One that does not will be sold a framework.

One point needs care: how far impact reporting reaches the smallest charities. The section on the SORP and the smallest charities sets out where the SORP draws the line.

Three honest reasons to measure

There are three good reasons to measure anything. Decide which one you are in before you do anything else.

1. The law requires a specific thing. That is your trustees’ annual report. Writing the public benefit statement for your annual report covers it.
2. A funder requires a specific thing. That binds that grant only. Reporting to a funder in their format covers it.
3. You want to know whether the work is doing what you think.

The third is the only one worth doing beyond the minimum. If it is your reason, let it drive every choice from here: the theory of change, the indicators, the baseline and how you collect data. Those are Steps 3 to 8.

The first two set a floor. The third decides how far above it you go.

The legal minimum in the annual report

The legal bar is low. This applies in England and Wales to a charity that does not need an audit. Its annual report must give, verbatim, “a brief summary” of its main activities and main achievements. The duty sits in reg. 40 of the Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008.

The closest UK law comes to requiring measurement is one clause. In England and Wales, a charity that needs an audit must report achievements “measured by reference to the aims and objectives which have been set”. It binds those charities only.

Scotland and Northern Ireland each have their own annual report duty, built differently. The public benefit statement step sets out all three. Nothing in any of them names a framework, a tool or an indicator.

Does the SORP require impact reporting from the smallest charities?

Not as a requirement at Tier 1 — but the SORP does not let a Tier 1 report ignore the question either. The Charities SORP sets what goes in the annual report of a charity preparing accruals accounts, across the UK. On impact, its text draws the line like this.

• At every tier, the report “must contain a summary of the main achievements of the charity”.
• At Tier 1, the trustees “should” consider how the work made a difference to beneficiaries’ circumstances, and whether it provided wider benefits to society.
• From Tier 2, the report “must explain the impact the charity is making”. That paragraph sits under the heading “Tier 2 – in addition to tier 1 requirements”.

So a Tier 1 charity that writes about the difference made is doing what the SORP asks it to consider. One that says nothing may be asked why.

That line is itself the advice. It tells a small charity how much to invest here: enough to say honestly what changed, not a bought framework. The Tier 1 income ceiling is £500,000. SORP 2026 and the three tiers explains how to find your tier. Establish your SORP tier and your report’s contents sets out what each tier’s report contains.

Does better impact reporting win more grants?

There is no evidence that it does. No UK funder and no sector body publishes a study showing that better reporting improves grant success. The evidence is not mixed. It does not exist.

You will hear that strong impact reporting leads to renewals. Every instance of that claim found for this guide traced back to a consultancy, a grant-writing service or a seller of reporting software. They assert it without data.

Notice who benefits from the opposite claim: the people selling the reporting. That is not a reason to ignore them. It is a reason to ask for their evidence.

What is published points the other way. IVAR’s research records funders worrying that reporting systems invite overly positive, unreliable accounts. Charities write them that way because they believe reports affect future funding.

How much is proportionate: our reasoning, by income

No published source sets a proportionate minimum by income. What follows is this guide’s own reasoning. It rests on sourced anchors, and it is flagged for review by an evaluation practitioner. Disagree with it if you like.

• Under £25,000 — a one-page theory of change, three indicators, and a simple record of who you helped and what changed for them. Nothing licensed, nothing bought.
• £25,000 to £100,000 — everything in the previous band, plus a consistent before-and-after measure for your main activity. Add a short yearly write-up that answers what funders commonly ask. Still no licensed tool.
• £100,000 to £500,000 — everything in the previous band, plus a baseline collected systematically. Say what you contributed, rather than claiming you caused the change alone. At this size, build the funder write-up once and reuse it.
• Above £500,000 — here the SORP tier changes, and Tier 2’s explicit impact paragraph applies. The tiers explainer above covers it; this page does not re-argue it.

The reasoning rests on four anchors:

• the low bar of the annual report duty
• the SORP tier boundary
• NPC’s free guides, written for charities with “limited budgets or capacity”
• funders such as Comic Relief that publish their own tiered reporting

Who is the measurement for?

Write one short paragraph saying who the measurement is for and what decision it will inform. It is the deliverable for this step, and every later step leans on it.

1. Who will read the measurement? Name them: your trustees, a named funder, the public through your annual report.
2. What decision will it inform? Renewing a service, changing it, stopping it, or reporting on it.
3. Which of the three reasons applies? Say so in one line each.
4. What is the legal minimum, and where is it met? Usually the annual report.
5. What more will you do, and why? Size it against the bands above.

If a line in that paragraph says “because we were told to”, find out who told you and which kind of claim it was. Next, identify who your beneficiaries are, and how you know. Every later measure is a change in that group.

Common mistake: treating impact measurement as a legal requirement

Nobody else opens by saying what is and is not required, and much of the field has an interest in blurring the line. So the charity gets sold a framework. The legal requirements here are the annual report content and, in Scotland and Northern Ireland for accruals charities, the SORP’s content. Everything else is a grant condition, published good practice, or convention.

Common mistake: saying flatly that impact reporting is — or is not — compulsory for the smallest charities

The SORP’s text puts an explanation of impact under Tier 2, and tells Tier 1 trustees to consider the difference their work made. Calling it a Tier 1 requirement overstates the text; treating it as irrelevant at Tier 1 ignores what the SORP asks trustees to consider. Use the position above: a Tier 1 charity that reports impact is on safe ground, and one that does not may be asked why.

Common mistake: measuring because you have been told it wins grants

The claim is everywhere, and every instance found traces to consultancies, grant-writing services or reporting-software vendors. There is no good UK evidence that better impact reporting improves grant success. It is not one of the three honest reasons to measure.

Worked example

Tollgate Youth CIO’s one employee is told by a visiting consultant that the charity “needs an impact framework” before its next funding round.

She tests the claim against the four kinds. The legal requirements are the annual report content. In England and Wales, for a charity that does not need an audit, that is “a brief summary” of main activities and achievements. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, accruals charities also follow the SORP’s content.

An explicit impact explanation is a Tier 2 requirement, not a Tier 1 one. But the SORP asks Tier 1 trustees to consider the difference made, so she plans a short paragraph on it. No funder-wide rule names a tool. Evidence that better reporting wins grants: none found.

She writes one paragraph. The measurement is for the trustees and one named funder. The legal minimum is met through the annual report. Anything more is Tollgate’s own choice, made to learn whether the youth sessions work. She sizes it against this guide’s income bands, and notes that they are this guide’s reasoning, not a rule.