Guidance for funding organisations

This page provides a brief overview of how those within organisations that fund youth provision might make use of the Impact and Improvement Standards.

We recognise that funders operate differently to delivery organisations - they tend not to work with young people directly but rather influence delivery of youth provision via strategy, support, accountability mechanisms, and (of course) by providing money. However, the Impact and Improvement Standards can still be useful for funding organisations that wish to reflect and improve upon their own impact and improvement practices.

Furthermore, greater alignment in impact and improvement practices across different types of organisations within the sector should, in theory, contribute to stronger practice and provision for young people overall.

Items that are still highly relevant for funders (with little to no adaptation)

These items are often applicable as is because funders can (and often should) assess their own practice in these areas:

1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1 - Involvement of young people and stakeholders: Funders should meaningfully involve youth and stakeholders in strategy design, funding criteria, MEL expectations, etc.
1.3, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6 - Clarity of aims, target populations, mechanisms of change, and outcomes: Funders need to define their funding intent with similar clarity (e.g., “We fund X to improve Y for Z population”).
3.2, 3.3, 5.2, 6.2 – 6.5 - Internal learning, quality standards, and reflection: These remain applicable as funders increasingly aim to improve their own learning practices.
1.10, 2.9, 3.6 – 3.9, 4.5, 5.11, 6.9 - Equity, diversity and inclusion: These are just as (if not more) critical for funders, especially around who and what gets funded, and how equity is promoted systemically.

Items that will likely need adapting for funders

These are conceptually applicable, but may require reframing in order to better reflect funders’ roles:

Original	How to adapt for funders	Notes
1.2 Clarity on what you are delivering	Change to: Clarity on what you are funding or enabling through your investment or strategy
1.4 Programme approach linked to participants’ assets and needs	Change to: How funding strategy aligns with young people’s and community members’ lived experiences, assets, and needs
1.5 Development of programme materials	Change to: Development of guidance or tools for staff to deliver grant programmes	This might also be applied to your external delivery materials, for example guidance for potential grantees to engage with your organisation
1.6 Knowledge about dosage	Change to: Understanding of dosage expectations or patterns across funded programmes	It might (often) not be appropriate for funders to dictate this. If so, remove
1.7 Development and use of the theory of change

1.8 Existing evidence supporting the theory of change  | Add detail: How the funder’s theory of change informs funding strategy and grantee selection | It is still important for funders to have an evidence-informed theory of change, but the nuance will come in how this informs which organisations receive funding and how that links to the funder’s ultimate aims and intended impact. | | 2.3 Clarity of delivery targets or intentions | Change to: Clarity on what outcomes or outputs funded organisations are expected to deliver, and why | Please refer to the IVAR six principles for grant reporting to ensure that targets represent more proportionate, simple and useful reporting: https://www.ivar.org.uk/better-reporting/ | | 2.4 Core and flex components | Reframe as: Clarity on which funding criteria or expectations are non-negotiable (core) vs adaptable (flex) | | | 2.7 Specificity of MEL plan and methods | Note two important areas:

Clarity on how you expect funded organisations to monitor and evaluate
How you monitor your own funding impact | These two areas will require different approaches. Again, please refer to the IVAR principles linked above in relation to point (1). | | 3.5 Training/support for delivery of MEL | As above, this will cover two important areas:
Support provided to grantees to build delivery and MEL capacity
How you train and support your own staff to deliver your own MEL activities | | | 3.7 Equity, diversity, and inclusion in delivery of provision 3.8 Young people's involvement with equity, diversity, and inclusion in the delivery of provision | Even if funders are not delivering activities with young people directly, as organisations committed to funding youth organisations, youth voice and participation as part of wider equity efforts are still essential. | | | 4.4. Clarity of responsibilities for MEL | As above, this will cover two important areas:
Clarity provided to grantees on their MEL responsibilities / obligations
How you clarify responsibilities with your own staff to deliver your own MEL activities | | | 4.2 Monitoring systems | Reframe to focus on: Systems to collect, analyse and use data from grantees or across portfolio. | | | 4.3 Programme handbook/manual | See note on 1.5 | | | 5.3–5.8 Analysis and reflection on data | Apply to how the funder uses aggregate grantee data to assess strategy impact, equity, quality, etc. | | | 5.9 Alignment of MEL with practice | Translate to: Alignment between MEL expectations and the realities of grantee practice. | |

Suggestions for funder-specific additions or perspectives

Funders may wish to develop their own items to cover important areas such as:

Equity in funding decision-making: How equitable are the processes and criteria used to make funding decisions?
Capacity-building approach: How do you support grantees to strengthen their MEL, delivery, or organisational learning capacity and capabilities?
Power dynamics and accountability: How are you shifting power toward young people and grassroots organisations in your funding relationships?