Charities are rarely short of stories.
They see the difference they make every day: in the lives of individuals, in the strength of communities, in the confidence of families, in the resilience of local systems, and in the changes that happen long before they appear in formal data.
But as the sector prepares for SORP 26, many charities are facing a more practical and pressing question:
How do we explain and evidence that impact in a way that is meaningful, proportionate and good enough for our Trustees’ Annual Report?
For many organisations, the challenge is two-fold.
First, they know they will need to comply with the new requirements, but they are not yet sure what preparing for that looks like in practice.
Second, they are trying to work out what kind of evidence is enough. Should they include a few patches of data? A handful of case studies? A short paragraph about outcomes? A longer impact narrative? A separate impact report?
And underneath all of this sits a very understandable concern:
How do we present our charity in a strong, credible light without overclaiming, overcomplicating things, or turning the Trustees’ Annual Report into an evaluation report?
That is where early thinking matters.
The Trustees’ Annual Report for 2027 may feel some way off, but the evidence, narrative and internal alignment needed to support it cannot be pulled together at the last minute. Charities that start now will be in a much stronger position to explain not just what they do, but why it matters, who benefits, and how they know.
The issue is not usually a lack of evidence
Many charities already hold a wealth of material about their work and its impact.
They may have monitoring data, case studies, annual report content, evaluation findings, beneficiary feedback, trustee papers, funder reports, practitioner insight and internal learning documents.
The problem is often that these sources are not joined up.
Stories sit in one place.
Outcome data sits in another.
Activity reporting is gathered for one purpose.
Financial reporting is prepared somewhere else.
Trustee papers tell part of the story.
Funder reports tell another.
The result is that, when it comes to writing the Trustees’ Annual Report, charities can find themselves trying to stitch together evidence and narrative after the event.
This can lead to impact reporting that feels either too thin or too fragmented. There may be patches of evidence, but not enough narrative to explain what they mean. Or there may be a strong story, but not enough evidence to support the claims being made.
SORP 26 creates a reason to address this more deliberately.
Impact reporting can no longer be treated as the “nice story” at the end of the annual report. It needs to be part of how charities account for their work, their value, their choices and their responsibilities.
A stronger impact narrative starts with need, activities and outcomes
A good impact narrative does not start with a list of achievements.
It starts with need.
Charities need to be able to explain the issue they exist to address, why that issue matters, and how their activities respond to it. From there, they need to show what changes as a result of their work.
This means building a clear and cohesive line between:
Need: What problem, inequality, gap or opportunity is the charity responding to?
Activities: What does the charity do in response to that need?
Outcomes: What changes for people, communities, organisations or systems as a result?
Evidence: How does the charity know this change is happening?
Learning: What does the charity understand about what is working, what is changing, and where there are limitations or gaps?
This line of sight is important because activity alone is not impact.
Charities can often say how many people they supported, how many sessions they delivered, how many resources they produced or how many partnerships they formed. These details matter. They explain scale, reach and delivery.
But the more important question is: what changed because of that activity?
Did people feel safer, more confident, better supported or more connected?
Did families avoid crisis?
Did communities build trust or resilience?
Did partners work differently?
Did practice, policy or decision-making shift?
Did the charity help prevent demand elsewhere in the system?
These are the kinds of questions that turn a description of work into an account of value.
What is “good enough”?
One of the most common worries for charities is knowing what counts as sufficient evidence.
There is no single answer, because it depends on the type of charity, the scale of activity, the claims being made and the audiences the charity wants to influence.
A smaller charity may need a clear, proportionate narrative supported by a modest but well-chosen evidence base.
A larger charity, or one making more substantial claims about long-term outcomes, prevention, system change or economic value, will usually need to do more. It may need a fuller impact framework, stronger outcome measures, more consistent data, deeper beneficiary insight, and clearer evidence about the relationship between its activities and the changes being claimed.
The key principle is proportionality.
Not every impact claim requires the same level of evidence. A simple claim about reach or satisfaction may be supported by basic monitoring or feedback data. A stronger claim about long-term change, reduced demand, improved wellbeing or cost savings will require more robust evidence and a clearer explanation of assumptions.
What matters is that the evidence is appropriate to the claim.
This is where charities need to be careful. It is tempting to include every positive statistic or story available. But good impact reporting is not about filling space with disconnected evidence. It is about selecting evidence that supports a coherent narrative.
The strongest reports are not necessarily the longest. They are the ones where the reader can clearly understand:
What need the charity is addressing.
What the charity does.
What changes as a result.
Who experiences that change.
How the charity knows.
What the charity is learning.
Where the evidence is strong, and where it is still developing.
Three questions every charity should ask
A practical starting point is to ask three questions.
1. What changed?
Activity is easier to describe than change.
It is usually simpler to count sessions, referrals, grants, resources, visits or hours of support than it is to evidence the difference those activities made.
But SORP 26 should encourage charities to move beyond activity reporting and into outcome reporting.
That means being clear about the changes that matter most.
Some changes will be immediate. Others will happen over time. Some will be measurable in numbers. Others will be better understood through stories, feedback, professional insight or qualitative evidence.
A good impact narrative does not reduce all of this complexity into a single metric. Instead, it helps explain the most important changes clearly and proportionately.
2. For whom?
Impact does not happen in the abstract.
It happens for particular people, communities, organisations and systems.
That is why charities need to be clear about who is experiencing change.
The same activity may create different types of value for different groups.
A youth service might improve confidence and wellbeing for young people. It might also reduce pressure on families, support schools to respond earlier, and help local agencies work more effectively together.
A health charity might support individuals to manage their condition, while also helping professionals understand lived experience and influencing wider practice or policy.
A community organisation might provide immediate practical help, while also strengthening trust, connection and resilience over time.
Being clear about “for whom” helps charities avoid vague claims. It also helps them show the full range of value they create.
This is particularly important where charities are delivering preventative work. Prevention often creates value across multiple parts of a system, but that value can be difficult to see if reporting focuses only on direct outputs.
3. How do we know?
This is the question that turns an impact story into impact evidence.
It is also where many charities feel the most pressure.
There can be an assumption that robust evidence has to mean large datasets, control groups, complex modelling or external evaluation. Sometimes those things are appropriate. But often, what matters most is whether the evidence is suitable for the claim being made.
Charities should ask:
What evidence do we already have?
What does it tell us?
How reliable is it?
What are its limitations?
What can we reasonably claim from it?
Where do we need to be more cautious?
What do we need to strengthen now so that we are ready for future reporting?
Good impact reporting is not about pretending the evidence is perfect. In fact, being honest about evidence gaps can strengthen credibility.
It shows that the charity understands the difference between what it knows, what it is learning, and what it still needs to test.
A strong evidence base may include a mix of:
• monitoring and outcome data;
• feedback from beneficiaries;
• case studies and lived experience;
• practitioner insight;
• partner and stakeholder feedback;
• external research;
• economic or social value analysis;
• evaluation findings;
• learning from delivery.
The important thing is not simply to collect more evidence. It is to use evidence well.
Joining up impact, finance and governance
One of the most important shifts under SORP 26 is that impact reporting should not sit separately from wider organisational reporting.
Impact connects directly to strategy, finance, governance and accountability.
Trustees need to understand whether the charity is achieving its purposes. Senior leaders need to know whether resources are being used effectively. Funders and commissioners want to understand value. Finance teams need to connect financial information with the story of what those resources enable. Impact teams need to ensure evidence is meaningful, proportionate and usable.
This is why SORP 26 should not be seen only as a technical reporting issue.
It is an opportunity for charities to bring together conversations that are often held separately.
The strongest organisations will not treat impact reporting as an annual scramble to gather stories and numbers. They will build a clearer line of sight between purpose, need, activities, outcomes, evidence, finance and learning.
Three ways charities can respond
There is no single right way for every charity to prepare for SORP 26.
The right approach depends on what the charity already has in place, the strength of its evidence base, the complexity of its work, the size of the organisation, and the audiences it wants to influence.
Broadly, there are three ways charities can respond.
1. Compliance built on a sound supporting framework and narrative
For some charities, the priority will be to ensure they can meet the reporting expectations in a clear, proportionate and credible way.
This does not have to mean building a large impact measurement system from scratch.
It may mean developing a simple supporting framework that clarifies:
• the charity’s core areas of need;
• the main activities delivered;
• the outcomes the charity is working towards;
• the evidence already available;
• the gaps that need to be addressed;
• the narrative that can be used in the Trustees’ Annual Report.
This approach is likely to suit charities that need a practical route to compliance and want to avoid fragmented or unsupported impact claims.
The aim is to create a clear, evidenced narrative that is good enough for the Trustees’ Annual Report, while also identifying what needs strengthening over time.
2. Meaningful, engaging and persuasive disclosure based on a fuller supporting framework
Some charities will want to go further.
They may want their Trustees’ Annual Report to do more than comply. They may want it to be more engaging, more persuasive and more useful for funders, commissioners, partners, trustees and supporters.
This may require a fuller supporting framework that brings together outcomes, indicators, evidence sources, beneficiary journeys, stakeholder value and, where appropriate, archetypes.
Archetypes can be particularly helpful where a charity supports people with different needs, starting points or pathways. They can help show how different groups experience change in different ways, and why a single average impact story may not be enough.
For example, one group may need short-term practical support. Another may need longer-term relational support. Another may experience change through advocacy, prevention or system navigation.
A fuller framework can help charities explain these differences clearly, without making the Trustees’ Annual Report too complicated.
This approach is likely to suit charities that already have some evidence and want to turn it into a stronger, more compelling impact narrative.
3. Meaningful, engaging and persuasive disclosure, backed up by separate impact reporting
For larger charities, or charities with complex models of change, the Trustees’ Annual Report may not be the right place to tell the whole impact story.
In these cases, the annual report can provide a clear, credible and evidenced summary, while a separate impact report, evaluation report or social value report provides the fuller evidence base behind it.
This can be particularly useful where a charity wants to influence funders, commissioners, policymakers or strategic partners.
A separate impact report can explore:
• outcome evidence in more depth;
• beneficiary journeys and archetypes;
• economic or social value;
• system-level outcomes;
• prevention and long-term value;
• learning and improvement;
• evidence gaps and future measurement priorities.
The Trustees’ Annual Report can then draw from this wider evidence base, presenting a concise but credible account of the charity’s impact.
This approach is likely to suit charities that need to meet reporting expectations while also using impact evidence for influence, funding, strategy or commissioning.
The choice depends on what you have and who you want to influence
The right route will depend on two key questions.
First: what do you already have?
Some charities already have a theory of change, outcome measures, beneficiary feedback, evaluation findings and case studies. Others may have strong stories, but weaker outcome data. Others may have data, but no clear narrative to connect it.
Second: who do you want to influence?
If the primary audience is trustees and auditors, the focus may be on clear, proportionate compliance. If the charity wants to influence funders, commissioners or policymakers, it may need a more persuasive and developed evidence base. If the charity wants to support internal learning and strategic decision-making, the framework needs to be useful for management, not just reporting.
This is why preparation matters now.
By the time charities are drafting their 2027 Trustees’ Annual Report, it will be much harder to build the narrative and evidence base from scratch. The organisations that start earlier will be better placed to tell a stronger, more coherent and more credible story.
Making impact reporting useful
There is always a risk that new reporting expectations become a compliance exercise.
But impact reporting should be more than something produced once a year for an annual report.
Done well, it can help charities:
• make better strategic decisions;
• communicate their value more clearly;
• strengthen trustee oversight;
• improve funding and commissioning conversations;
• understand what is working and what is not;
• identify gaps in evidence;
• support learning and improvement;
• build trust with stakeholders.
The goal is not to make reporting longer or more complicated.
The goal is to make it more meaningful.
For many charities, the best place to start is by reviewing what they already have. What evidence is already being collected? Where does it sit? What story does it tell? Where are the gaps? How does it connect to need, activities and outcomes? And how can it be brought together in a way that is useful, credible and proportionate?
A practical starting point
As charities prepare for SORP 26, three questions provide a simple but powerful starting point:
What changed?
For whom?
How do we know?
These questions will not answer everything. But they can help charities move from activity reporting to impact reporting.
They can help teams connect stories with evidence, evidence with strategy, and strategy with accountability.
Most importantly, they can help charities tell a more credible story about the difference they make, without losing sight of the complexity and humanity behind the work.
Sonnet Advisory & Impact CIC is pleased to be joining MHA for a practical webinar on Articulating and Evidencing Charity Impact Under SORP 26, with Jim Clifford OBE and Stuart McKay.
The session will explore what the new reporting environment means in practice, and how charities can prepare impact narratives and evidence that are robust, proportionate and useful.
