SORP 2026 · CHARITY IMPACT REPORTING · THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE

For the first time, telling your funders and the public what difference your charity makes is no longer optional. It is a rule, written into the accounting standard every UK charity must follow.

The new Charities Statement of Recommended Practice — SORP 2026 — makes impact reporting mandatory for every charity that prepares accruals accounts, whatever its size. If your financial year began on or after 1 January 2026, your next trustees’ annual report must explain not just what your charity did, but what changed for the people you serve as a result. For thousands of charities that have spent years reporting activities — sessions run, people seen, meals served — this is a genuine shift, and many are discovering they do not yet collect the data the new rules require.

This guide is the complete, plain-English answer. It explains exactly what SORP 2026 means by “impact reporting” — citing the precise sections of the standard — what it requires of your charity depending on your size, and, crucially, how to actually calculate and evidence impact. That last part is where most guidance stops short. The accountants can tell you what you must report. The harder question is where the evidence comes from and how you calculate it — and that is a data question, which is exactly what we do.

What Is SORP 2026?

SORP 2026 is the updated Charities Statement of Recommended Practice — the framework setting out how UK charities preparing “true and fair” accruals accounts must prepare their annual report and accounts. Published on 31 October 2025 by the Charity Commission with the Scottish (OSCR) and Northern Irish (CCNI) regulators, it applies to accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2026. Its most far-reaching change is the introduction of mandatory impact reporting for charities of every size for the first time.

It is the most significant overhaul of charity reporting in a decade. The document has grown from around 200 pages to roughly 300, reflecting a real increase in expectations, not a reduction. There are technical accounting changes too — a new five-step income recognition model for exchange transactions, and a single lease accounting model bringing most leases onto the balance sheet — but the change affecting the widest number of charities, including the very smallest, is the new requirement to report impact.

What Does SORP 2026 Actually Mean by “Impact Reporting”?

This is the question most articles skate over, so let us be precise. Impact reporting under SORP 2026 lives in Module 1 of the standard, in a new section covering paragraphs 1.27 to 1.33, within the “Achievements and Performance” part of the trustees’ annual report. It is worth understanding exactly what the standard asks for, because the wording is deliberately different for different sizes of charity.

In the regulators’ own framing:

• Tier 1 charities (the smallest) are asked to consider how their work made a difference to beneficiaries and provided benefit to wider society. This is a summary of main achievements and the difference made.
• Tier 2 and Tier 3 charities are required to explain the impact the charity is making, and must consider the long-term effect of its activities on individual beneficiaries and on society as a whole — supported by appropriate measures.

Two things are true for every charity, regardless of tier. First, you must address both positive and negative factors — internal and external — that affected the achievement of your objectives. Honest reporting of what did not go to plan is now part of the expectation, not a weakness to hide. Second, the report must genuinely link your mission, activities, results, and resources into a coherent account of the change you create.

So “impact reporting” in the SORP sense is not a social-value spreadsheet or a formal evaluation study. It is a structured narrative — supported by evidence — that answers a simple question: what difference did your charity make to your beneficiaries and to wider society this year? For a small charity, that can be a well-told story backed by a few figures. For a larger charity, it must be an evidenced account of measured outcomes and longer-term effects. We unpack the wider accountability shift driving this in The Five Reporting Burdens Facing Funded VCSEs in 2026.

The Three-Tier Structure: Which Tier Is Your Charity?

Your tier is based solely on your charity’s gross annual income, and it determines how much detail your report must contain.

Tier 1 — income up to £500,000. Where most UK charities sit. Simplified reporting: income and expenditure by type, reduced cost disclosure, a simpler reserves narrative, and no mandatory cash flow statement. The impact narrative requirement still applies.

Tier 2 — income £500,001 to £15 million. More detailed disclosures, including a structured, programme-by-programme analysis of results — and impact reporting that evidences measured outcomes, not just activities.

Tier 3 — income over £15 million. The full disclosure regime (fewer than 1% of charities, but the majority of sector income): mandatory cash flow statement, dedicated sustainability and ESG reporting, detailed volunteer analysis, a review of fundraising performance and return on fundraising investment, and comprehensive reserves and risk disclosures.

Two things catch charities out. First, the tier is set on a single year’s gross income — there is no two-or-three-year averaging as in company law, so charities can move between tiers year to year. Second, the assessment is based on your forecast income for the year, which makes forecasting more important than before — and because the new lease accounting rules can push reported income up, some smaller charities may find themselves nudged into a higher tier. Higher tiers must meet all the requirements of the tiers below, plus their own.

Outputs, Outcomes, Impact: The Distinction Everything Turns On

Because the whole requirement rests on these three words, precision matters — confusing them is the single most common mistake in charity reporting.

Outputs are what you deliver: sessions run, people seen, hours provided, meals served. Countable activity — and what most charities have always reported.

Outcomes are what changes for the person as a result: improved wellbeing, reduced isolation, a job secured, a tenancy sustained. Outcomes are measured — ideally against a recognised, validated tool, with a starting point (a baseline) and an end point.

Impact is the wider, longer-term difference your work contributes to — including, crucially, the more expensive problems you prevented: the hospital admission avoided, the eviction that did not happen, the family placement never needed.

SORP 2026 asks all charities to speak to the difference they make, and larger charities to evidence outcomes and long-term impact specifically. A charity that can only count outputs — however diligently — now falls short of a regulatory expectation, not merely a best-practice one.

How to Calculate and Evidence Your Impact

Here is the part almost every SORP guide leaves out. Knowing you must report impact is one thing; knowing how to calculate it is another. There are three broad levels of rigour, and you should choose the one proportionate to your charity’s size and the expectations of your funders.

Level 1: Measure Outcomes With a Validated Tool

The foundation of all impact evidence is measured change in the people you support. You do this with a validated outcome measure — a questionnaire independently tested for reliability and validity, rather than a self-invented set of questions that carries no scientific weight. Many are free:

• WEMWBS (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale) — 14 items, free with light registration, widely accepted. Reliable change threshold: 3 points or more (1 point on the 7-item SWEMWBS).
• PHQ-9 (depression) — 9 items, free, no registration. Reliable change: 5 points or more.
• GAD-7 (anxiety) — 7 items, free, no registration. Reliable change: 4 points or more.
• SDQ (children’s wellbeing) — free for non-commercial use. Reliable change: 3 points or more on Total Difficulties.
• Outcomes Star — a licensed family of 50+ sector-specific tools, widely accepted by commissioners.

The method is simple. Score each person at the start (the baseline) and again at the end. Count how many improved by more than the tool’s published threshold for reliable change — the minimum improvement that can confidently be attributed to your work rather than random variation. A worked example: a befriending service scores 50 clients on WEMWBS before and after a 12-week programme. The average score rises from 32 to 42, and 36 of the 50 (72%) show a reliable improvement of 3 points or more. That 72% figure, drawn from real clients, is exactly the kind of measured outcome the SORP impact narrative calls for. Presenting this well — a live view of outcomes by programme, cohort, and period — is what a charity impact dashboard is built to do.

Level 2: Calculate the System Value You Created

The next level translates outcomes into monetary value — the language funders and commissioners increasingly respond to. You do this by applying published financial proxies (established monetary values for social outcomes) to your activity. Several respected, free or low-cost UK sources exist:

• HACT UK Social Value Bank (v7) — 88 outcomes with wellbeing valuation figures, HM Treasury Green Book compliant.
• GMCA Cost Benefit Analysis model — a free downloadable spreadsheet with cross-sector unit costs (families, employment, homelessness, health, justice).
• NASP (National Academy for Social Prescribing) — publishes an evidence rate of around £418 of NHS benefit per patient per year, based on a 42,000-patient dataset showing a 42% reduction in GP appointments.

A simple worked calculation: a community wellbeing charity supports 200 people at a programme cost of £48,000. Applying the NASP rate of £418 per person gives a modelled NHS system value of £83,600 — or about £1.74 of value for every £1 spent, using only the conservative GP-visit figure. State clearly that this is a modelled figure (published evidence applied to your activity) rather than a measured one (scores from your specific clients). Both are legitimate; transparency about which you are using is what protects your credibility. This same social-value calculation increasingly feeds Procurement Act reporting too — we cover that overlap in Social Value Analytics for VCSEs.

Level 3: A Full SROI Calculation

The most rigorous approach is Social Return on Investment (SROI) — a ratio expressing the total social value created for every £1 invested, calculated as value created divided by cost invested. A credible SROI follows six stages: establish scope and stakeholders, map outcomes, evidence outcomes and give them a value, establish impact, calculate the ratio, and report. Crucially, it applies four adjustments to avoid over-claiming:

• Deadweight — the proportion of the outcome that would have happened anyway, without you.
• Attribution — the share of the outcome created by other organisations, not you.
• Displacement — benefit to one group that came at the expense of another.
• Drop-off — the fading of outcomes over time.

Published UK studies give a realistic sense of the numbers: social prescribing and community wellbeing interventions typically return in the range of £3 to £5 for every £1 invested once these adjustments are applied; debt and welfare advice can return considerably more. SROI is powerful for demonstrating value to commissioners, but it demands time, skill, and access to financial proxies — so it is generally better suited to larger charities or specific flagship programmes than to whole-organisation, every-year reporting. For most charities, Levels 1 and 2 are the sensible, sustainable choice.

The Six Calculations Any Charity Can Do This Year

You do not need to be a data scientist to produce credible impact figures. These six calculations, each using public reference costs, cover most of what a charity needs — and every one can be done on data you already hold:

• Outcome rate — clients showing reliable change ÷ total clients × 100. (e.g. 45 ÷ 50 × 100 = 90%.)
• Cost per outcome — total programme cost ÷ outcomes achieved. (e.g. £48,000 ÷ 60 = £800 per outcome.)
• Prevented escalation value — events prevented × unit cost avoided. (e.g. 20 A&E visits avoided × £2,600 = £52,000.)
• Wellbeing value — outcomes achieved × HACT wellbeing value. (e.g. 100 × £1,300 = £130,000.)
• SROI ratio — value created ÷ cost invested. (e.g. £192,000 ÷ £48,000 = £4 per £1.)
• Reporting cost — staff × hours per month × hourly rate × 12 (useful for showing the cost of manual reporting itself). (e.g. 2 × 24 × £25 × 12 = £14,400 a year.)

The reference costs behind these come from free, credible sources: the GMCA CBA model, HACT UKSVB, NHS reference costs, and sector-specific datasets from bodies such as Crisis (homelessness), the Ministry of Justice (offending), and ADASS (adult social care). Note the year of any reference cost you use, and you have a defensible, sourced figure.

The Question the Accountants Leave Hanging

Search for SORP 2026 and you will find excellent explainers from accountancy firms telling you accurately what the rules say. But almost none answer the question every charity leader is left with: “Impact reporting is mandatory now — so how do I actually produce it, year after year, without it consuming the team?”

That is a data question. You cannot write a credible impact narrative — and certainly cannot report measured outcomes or calculate social value — from data you have not collected, or from data scattered across spreadsheets, inboxes, and a case management system that stores records but cannot report on them. This is where most charities get stuck: not on understanding the requirement, but on producing the evidence for it. We cover the full picture in our complete guide to data analytics for charities.

How to Build the Data Foundation for Impact Reporting

Here is a proportionate path that meets the SORP requirement and, as a bonus, produces the evidence your funders want too.

1. Start With a Simple Theory of Change

Get clear on the change you exist to create: activities, then outputs, then outcomes, then impact. It need not be elaborate — a single clear paragraph is a legitimate start, and free guidance from NPC (which now hosts the Code of Good Impact Practice) is well established. For a small charity, the discipline is to pick three to five core outcomes that connect to your charitable objects — not twenty, and not whatever looks impressive on a bid.

2. Capture the Same Few Fields Every Time

Consistency beats sophistication. Capture the same handful of fields on every person — who they are (age band, ethnicity using ONS categories, postcode), what you did, when, where they came from and went to, and what changed — and you will have structured, reportable data within one cycle. Postcode alone lets you show your reach into more deprived areas automatically, which speaks to the “wider society” element the SORP asks about.

3. Bring It Into One Place

The reason most charities cannot report impact easily is not a shortage of data — it is fragmentation. Attendance in one system, outcomes on a spreadsheet, case notes elsewhere. Bringing your operational data into one structured, reliable source means your annual report, your funder returns, and your board pack all draw from the same numbers. A well-built analytics layer — sitting on top of the systems you already use, not replacing them — turns a painful annual scramble into a repeatable output. This is the same “capture once, report to everyone” principle behind commissioner-ready reporting for charities, and we show how one data layer serves multiple funders in One Data Layer, Multiple Commissioners. We walk through the leadership side in The Leader’s Roadmap to 2026.

Be Honest About Evidence Gaps

One principle runs through all credible SORP 2026 guidance: good impact reporting is not about pretending your evidence is perfect. Being honest about gaps strengthens your credibility. Stating that “our exit data covers 78% of clients this year due to X” is defensible and shows you understand your own data; hidden or inflated figures are not. The SORP explicitly asks for both positive and negative factors. There is no such thing as flawless data, and the regulators do not expect it — what they expect is an honest, structured account of the difference you make.

Turning a Compliance Task Into an Advantage

It would be easy to see SORP 2026 as one more burden on already-stretched charities. But the impact evidence it requires is very nearly the same evidence your funders, commissioners, and trustees increasingly want. Build the data foundation once — a simple theory of change, consistent capture, a validated measure, and a single source of truth — and you satisfy the regulator, strengthen every funding bid, and understand your own effectiveness better than before. The charities that treat this as an opportunity rather than a chore will come out of it measurably stronger.

If you would like to talk about where your charity’s impact data sits today — and what it would take to meet SORP 2026 comfortably and turn it into a funding advantage — that first conversation is always free. You can reach me at [email protected] or learn more on our data analytics for charities page.

Related Reading

SORP 2026 is one part of a wider accountability shift. These Quematics guides go deeper on the themes above:

Foundations

• What Is Data Analytics for Charities? The Definitive 2026 Guide — building the data foundation that makes impact reporting easy.
• The Five Reporting Burdens Facing Funded VCSEs in 2026 — why reporting has become so demanding, and how to fix it.
• The Leader’s Roadmap to 2026 — navigating the wider accountability shift as a charity leader.
• AI for Charities: Where We Are in 2026 and Why Data Is the Key — why clean data, not chatbots, unlocks AI’s value for impact reporting.

Reporting to multiple funders

• When Your VCSE Holds Contracts With the NHS, Local Authority and Combined Authority at the Same Time — the multi-commissioner data problem.
• Three Different Frameworks, Three Different Reports — structuring data collection across commissioners.
• How Quematics Manages Multi-Framework VCSE Reporting — from Charitylog and Mosaic to every commissioner portal.

Social value & the Procurement Act

• The Procurement Act 2023 and Your VCSE Contract — what the 2026 changes actually mean.
• Social Value KPIs Under the Procurement Act — what VCSE suppliers must now track and publish.
• Social Value Analytics for VCSEs — tracking and automating social value reporting.

Services

• Charity Impact Dashboards — presenting outcomes and impact in a live, funder-ready view.
• Commissioner-Ready Reporting for Charities — evidence structured for the funders you report to.
• Power BI for Charities — the analytics engine that sits on top of your existing systems.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is SORP 2026?

SORP 2026 is the updated Charities Statement of Recommended Practice, the framework governing how UK charities preparing accruals accounts must prepare their annual report and accounts. Published on 31 October 2025 by the Charity Commission with OSCR and CCNI, it applies to accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2026. Its most far-reaching change is that impact reporting is now mandatory for charities of every size for the first time.

When does SORP 2026 come into effect?

It applies to accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2026. If your financial year starts on 1 January 2026, your first report under the new rules covers the year ending 31 December 2026. If your year starts on 1 April 2026, your first SORP 2026 report covers the year ending 31 March 2027. Charities with a December year-end will be the first to file under the new rules.

What is impact reporting under SORP 2026?

Impact reporting is a mandatory section of the trustees’ annual report (Module 1, paragraphs 1.27 to 1.33, in the Achievements and Performance section) that explains the difference the charity made to its beneficiaries and to wider society during the year, not just the activities it delivered. Tier 1 charities are asked to consider the difference made; Tier 2 and Tier 3 charities are required to explain their impact and consider the long-term effect of their work, supported by appropriate measures. All charities must address both positive and negative factors.

Is impact reporting mandatory for all charities?

Yes, for all charities preparing accruals accounts, including the smallest Tier 1 organisations. This was optional best practice under the previous SORP; under SORP 2026 it is a requirement. The depth expected scales with size: small charities can meet it with an honest narrative supported by a few figures and case studies, while charities over £500,000 must evidence measured outcomes.

What are the three tiers in SORP 2026?

Charities are placed into tiers by gross annual income. Tier 1 is income up to £500,000 (simplified reporting, no mandatory cash flow statement). Tier 2 is £500,001 to £15 million (more detailed disclosures, including measured outcomes). Tier 3 is over £15 million (full disclosure, including mandatory cash flow, ESG and sustainability, fundraising return, and detailed volunteer reporting). The tier is based on a single year’s forecast income, with no multi-year averaging, so charities can move between tiers year to year.

How is impact reporting different for Tier 1 versus Tier 2 and 3 charities?

The SORP wording is deliberately different. Tier 1 charities are asked to consider how their work made a difference to beneficiaries and wider society, which a qualitative narrative with supporting figures can satisfy. Tier 2 and Tier 3 charities are required to explain the impact they are making and must consider the long-term effect of their activities on individuals and society, supported by appropriate outcome measures. In short, Tier 1 needs a well-evidenced story; Tiers 2 and 3 need measured outcomes and longer-term impact.

What is the difference between outputs, outcomes, and impact?

Outputs are what you deliver, such as sessions, hours, and people seen. Outcomes are what changes for the person as a result, measured against a validated tool with a baseline and an end point. Impact is the wider, longer-term difference your work contributes to, including the more expensive problems you prevented. SORP 2026 asks all charities to describe the difference they make, and larger charities to evidence outcomes specifically, a decisive shift away from activity-only reporting.

How do you calculate charity impact?

There are three levels of rigour. First, measure outcomes: score beneficiaries on a validated tool at the start and end, and count how many improved beyond the tool’s reliable-change threshold. Second, calculate system value: apply published financial proxies (from HACT UKSVB, the GMCA CBA model, or NASP) to your activity to model the monetary value created. Third, a full SROI: divide total social value created by total investment, applying the four adjustments (deadweight, attribution, displacement, drop-off) to avoid over-claiming. Most charities should use the first two levels; SROI suits larger organisations or flagship programmes.

What is a validated outcome measure, and which are free?

A validated measure is a questionnaire independently tested for reliability (consistent scores) and validity (it measures what it claims). Commissioners and funders prefer them because self-invented questions carry no scientific weight. Free options include WEMWBS (wellbeing, light registration), PHQ-9 (depression, no registration), GAD-7 (anxiety, no registration), the SDQ (children’s wellbeing, free for non-commercial use), and the ONS-4 wellbeing questions (public domain). The Outcomes Star is a strong licensed option covering many sectors.

What is a baseline and why does it matter?

A baseline is the score you record at the very start of your service, before any intervention, giving you a reference point to compare against later. Every outcome measure requires one, because without a baseline you have no way to prove change occurred. The basic method of outcome measurement is simply baseline at the start, repeat the same measure at the end, and compare.

What is reliable change?

Reliable change is the minimum score improvement that can be confidently attributed to your intervention rather than random measurement variation. Each validated tool publishes its own threshold: WEMWBS is 3 points or more (1 point on the 7-item SWEMWBS), PHQ-9 is 5 points, GAD-7 is 4 points, and the SDQ is 3 points on Total Difficulties. If a client’s score improves by less than the threshold, it may be noise; if it exceeds the threshold, you can confidently report that something changed.

What is the difference between modelled and measured evidence?

Measured evidence is real scores from real clients using a validated tool, traceable back to individual records. Modelled evidence applies published evidence rates (from sources such as NASP or Crisis) to your activity count to estimate value, rather than measuring it directly on your clients. Both are legitimate and commissioners increasingly want both, but you should always be transparent about which you are using. Presenting a modelled figure as if it were measured is the fastest way to lose credibility.

What is SROI (Social Return on Investment)?

SROI is a ratio expressing the total social value created for every £1 invested, calculated as value created divided by cost invested. A credible SROI follows six stages and applies four adjustments — deadweight, attribution, displacement, and drop-off — to avoid overstating impact. UK social prescribing and community wellbeing programmes commonly report £3 to £5 of social value per £1 invested; debt and welfare advice can report more. SROI is credible only when the valuation uses public evidence sources rather than invented numbers.

What are financial proxies and where do they come from?

Financial proxies are established monetary values assigned to social outcomes that have no direct market price, such as the value of reduced isolation or improved wellbeing. Credible UK sources include the HACT UK Social Value Bank v7 (88 outcomes, Green Book compliant), the GMCA Cost Benefit Analysis model (free cross-sector unit costs), NHS reference costs, and NASP’s social prescribing figures. Using published proxies rather than your own estimates is what makes a value calculation defensible.

What is cost per outcome and how do I calculate it?

Cost per outcome is your total programme cost divided by the number of outcomes achieved. For example, a £48,000 programme that achieved 60 outcomes has a cost per outcome of £800. It is one of the most useful figures for a commissioner because it moves the conversation from what you spent to what that spend achieved, and it lets funders compare value across providers.

What is prevention and why does SORP 2026 care about it?

Prevention means stopping a problem getting worse and requiring a more expensive statutory intervention: befriending preventing isolation and GP visits, youth work preventing school exclusion and EHCP escalation, debt advice preventing financial and housing crisis. It matters for SORP because the standard asks about the long-term effect of your work on individuals and wider society, and prevented escalation is exactly that longer-term, society-wide impact, often with a measurable financial value attached through NHS reference costs or the GMCA model.

Do we need to hire an accountant or a data analyst to comply?

Your accountant or independent examiner should verify the financial figures and the reserves reconciliation. The narrative sections, including impact, are the trustees’ responsibility, not the accountant’s. The impact requirement is a data challenge rather than an accounting one, and it does not require an expensive in-house data analyst. Most charities meet it with a proportionate approach — a simple theory of change, consistent capture, a free validated measure, and a single reliable data source — often built once with support from a specialist data partner and then reused each year.

Where in the trustees’ annual report does the impact narrative go?

In the Achievements and Performance section. For each programme or activity, you describe what changed for beneficiaries — quantitatively where you can, qualitatively otherwise. Valid evidence includes outcome data, beneficiary feedback, case studies with informed consent, testimonials, and, for larger charities, measured outcomes and social value figures. Tier 1 charities can keep this to a page or two; Tier 2 and 3 expand into structured, programme-by-programme analysis.

What kind of evidence counts for impact reporting?

A range of evidence is acceptable and encouraged: monitoring and outcome data, feedback from beneficiaries, case studies and lived experience (with consent), practitioner insight, partner and stakeholder feedback, external research, and economic or social value analysis. The regulators note that personal beneficiary or society-wide impact stories can be especially valuable in communicating meaning. The point is not to collect more evidence than you can manage, but to use good evidence well.

Our charity has poor or incomplete data. Can we still report impact?

Yes. There is no such thing as perfect data, and the SORP does not expect it — it explicitly asks for both positive and negative factors. Being honest about gaps strengthens credibility: stating that your exit data covers a certain percentage of clients is defensible, while hidden or inflated figures are not. Start capturing better data now, report honestly on what you have this year, and each subsequent year’s report becomes stronger.

What else changed in SORP 2026 besides impact reporting?

Charities must now disclose their volunteer contribution (hours, roles, and value where reasonably calculable); future plans and a reconciled reserves narrative are mandatory rather than optional; and there is a new five-step income recognition model for exchange transactions plus a single lease accounting model that brings most leases onto the balance sheet. Tier 3 charities also face mandatory sustainability and ESG reporting and a review of fundraising performance and return. The SORP document grew from around 200 to 300 pages.

How do we report our volunteer contribution?

SORP 2026 requires charities to disclose the contribution of volunteers, including hours, the types of work undertaken, and the value they add, where this is reasonably calculable. For the first year, a sensible ballpark figure is acceptable, and you can refine your record-keeping over time. For volunteer-led small charities in particular, this makes your volunteers a formal part of your public reporting for the first time.

Does SORP 2026 apply to very small charities?

It applies to charities preparing accruals accounts, which fall into Tier 1 at the small end, with simplified financial reporting but the impact narrative requirement still in place. Very small charities that prepare receipts and payments accounts (generally those under the audit and accruals thresholds) are treated under different rules and are not required to follow the full SORP, though the direction of travel across all funders is toward evidenced outcomes regardless.

Our funders do not ask for outcomes yet. Why bother with impact reporting?

Two reasons. First, SORP 2026 now requires it regardless of what individual funders ask. Second, the direction of travel across every funder type — statutory, trust, foundation, corporate, and lottery — is firmly toward outcome-based reporting, so building the discipline now positions you for the next funding cycle. Better outcome data also helps you make better internal decisions about which of your services works best, which is valuable whatever your funders require.

How long does it take to set up impact measurement?

The core discipline — a theory of change, choosing three to five outcomes, selecting a validated tool, and defining your capture fields — can be established in a few days of focused thinking and a team workshop. Embedding it into everyday practice takes around three to six months of new habits. Building a full data foundation with connected systems and automated reporting typically takes three to nine months depending on complexity, though you see value long before it is complete.

Can we use the same impact data for SORP, funders, and commissioners?

Yes, and this is the real prize. The impact evidence SORP 2026 requires is very nearly the same evidence funders and commissioners want. If you capture outcome data once, at source, into a single structured source of truth, you can reshape it into your trustees’ annual report, your grant reports, and your commissioner returns without collecting it multiple times. Building the foundation once and reusing it is the difference between impact reporting being a burden and being an asset.

How does Quematics help with SORP 2026 impact reporting?

Quematics builds the data foundation that makes impact reporting straightforward: connecting the systems you already use into a single reliable source, structuring your outcome and demographic data, and producing the evidence your trustees’ annual report, funders, and commissioners need — without a system migration or an in-house data hire. The starting point is a free, no-obligation data and reporting review of where your impact data sits today and where the gaps are. Everything covered in this guide can also be done in-house with free tools; Quematics offers speed, reliability, and specialist expertise for charities that would rather not build it alone.