Choosing the right impact framework

There is no best impact framework. Still, clients often ask us which framework they should use. The honest answer is that it depends on what you want to do with it.

Five common forms

1. Theory of change. Good for strategy and complex programmes. It tests your assumptions and gets people on the same page. It does take time, and often guidance.
2. Logframe, a table of goals, activities and indicators. Good for programme management and grant reporting. It is simple and well known. Complex change fits in it badly.
3. A scale per participant. Good for following one person’s growth. It is visual and gives people a voice of their own. For change across a whole system it is too small.
4. Social return in money. Good for a conversation with investors. It makes impact comparable. But it takes a lot of work, and it can oversimplify.
5. Linking to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Good for a shared language across sectors. It is widely known, but also abstract.

How to choose

Start with your goal: do you mainly want to learn, or mainly to account for your work? Then look at what your funders, your investors and the people it is about want to know. Notice what is usual in your sector. And be honest about your time, money and expertise.

Combining is fine

You don’t have to pick one form. A theory of change for your strategy and a logframe for delivery go well together.

For investors it often works well to link the theory of change to the five dimensions of impact and IRIS+. Then the story holds up better in due diligence. An investor can compare the investees in a portfolio that way, and sees sooner where impact washing is a risk.

Frameworks are also sold, by consultancies and by us too. In a second opinion we therefore first check whether the framework fits the question. Only then do we check whether it was filled in well.

Whether a framework is any good shows after a year. Is it still on the table when your team makes a choice?