Impact
Our framework follows the Impact Management Project's five dimensions of impact and is designed so that a funder, auditor or regulator could reconstruct every number we publish.
Methodology
We agree the change we are trying to evidence with the client before any work begins, naming the population affected, the timeframe, and which of the five impact dimensions the engagement speaks to. This prevents retrofitted claims once a programme has concluded.
Baseline and follow-up data are gathered through structured interviews, board minutes, beneficiary surveys and administrative records held by the organisation, with a named data owner on both sides so the trail can be audited later without our involvement.
Where monetisation is appropriate we apply HACT and National TOMs unit values rather than bespoke multipliers, and we disclose the proxy used against every figure so a reader can substitute their own assumptions and reach a different, equally legitimate number.
A colleague who was not part of the original engagement reviews the evidence chain, checks the arithmetic, and challenges any claim that cannot be traced to a source document, before a figure is cleared for external publication or funder reporting.
Findings are written up in language a trustee board can defend to a funder or regulator without translation, distinguishing throughout between change we can attribute to the intervention and change we can only associate with it.
Dimensions
Four dimensions, each with a defined indicator set collected at the point of delivery.
The extent to which the organisations we work with can continue operating, governing and delivering their mission without our involvement.
Change experienced by the people and places an organisation exists to serve, measured against the outcomes it set for itself.
The monetised and non-monetised value generated for beneficiaries, commissioners and the wider local economy.
Whether an organisation's legal form, asset lock and reporting obligations are being honoured in substance as well as on paper.
Dashboard
Reported quarterly to the board and annually to the public.
Social value figures independently assured before publication
Target
Engagements opening with a written consultation
Target
Average time to first board meeting post-incorporation
Target
Clients holding a maintained compliance calendar at handover
Target
Governance reviews benchmarked against the Charity Governance Code
Target
Engagements reported against pre-agreed indicators
Target
Standards
Measurement standards
Framework
Standard
We apply HACT's peer-reviewed unit values for housing, wellbeing and community outcomes wherever a client's activity falls within its scope, disclosing the proxy version used.
Standard
Public sector-facing engagements are valued using the National TOMs framework so figures translate directly into procurement scoring and contract reporting.
Standard
For central government-adjacent work we map outcomes against the Social Value Model's themes and outcomes to keep bids and reporting consistent with Procurement Act implementation.
Standard
Our five-dimension structure — what, who, how much, contribution and risk — follows the Impact Management Project's norms rather than a proprietary alternative.
Standard
Governance assessments for charities and CIOs are benchmarked against the Code's seven principles, with gaps reported to the board rather than smoothed into a composite score.
Where standards conflict, we report to the more conservative valuation.
Limitations
Attribution in place-based work is imperfect. We publish the constraints alongside the figures.
01
Attribution is rarely clean: most organisations we support receive funding or support from other sources concurrently, so we will report contribution rather than sole causation.
02
Self-reported beneficiary data is subject to social desirability bias, particularly where an organisation's continued funding may depend on positive responses.
03
Monetised social value figures are only as robust as the proxy values underlying them, and HACT and National TOMs values are periodically revised.
04
As a newly established organisation we hold no longitudinal data. Any long-term measure will only be reported once enough time has passed to make it meaningful.
Next step
We build outcome frameworks that survive funder scrutiny, internal audit and community challenge.