This page will be kept updated with any changes made to the Impact and Improvement Standards. For questions and queries, please email [email protected].
| June 2025 | |
|---|---|
| 1.1 and 1.11 merged | Both items overlap significantly, especially around consulting with young people and using their voices to inform design. The key difference is that 1.1 includes community and staff/volunteer voices, while 1.11 goes deeper into youth voice and mentions systematic reflection and frameworks. The merged version (1.1) that keeps the depth of both while reducing repetition and ensuring clarity. |
| 2.1 and 2.10 merged | 2.1 focuses on consulting broader stakeholders (youth, community, staff/volunteers) and on building quality relationships. 2.10 zooms in on youth voice, with added emphasis on systematic reflection, inclusivity, and iteration. The merged version (2.1) preserves the full spectrum of progression (from recognition to embedded practice), includes both breadth (multiple stakeholders) and depth (youth voice, reflection, iteration, relationships), and removes duplication. |
| 1.8 and 6.6 updated to better demonstrate nuance between the two items | 1.8 original focus: General evidence linked to the theory of change. Clarified focus: Use of existing evidence (internal or external) to inform the development of the theory of change. Emphasised this item is about sourcing and applying existing research or data (practice-based or evidence-based). Clarified that the purpose is to build a strong theoretical foundation, not to generate new learning. |
| 6.6 Original focus: Vague progression from internal to external evidence coverage. Clarified focus: Active generation of new evidence through reflection, evaluation, and organisational learning — to validate, challenge, or refine the theory of change. Reframed each level to describe a learning process, not just the presence of evidence. | |
| 2.2 title and scoring criteria | ‘Target population’ reframed as ‘who you intend to reach and engage’ to soften the language and criteria - recognising that ‘target population’ may not resonate with all types or contexts of provision |
| 2.3 title and scoring criteria | ‘Clarity of delivery targets’ expanded to ‘clarity of delivery targets or intentions’ - recognising that fixed ‘targets’ may not resonate with all types or contexts of provision |
| 4.1 title and scoring criteria | Item expanded with a more explicit and detailed description ‘of consistency’, to cover quality, intentionality, and alignment with plans: |
Quality refers to your definition and description of quality (see Domain 3 - Be high quality)
Intentionality means being purposeful in your practice - doing things for a clear reason, linked to your goals
Aligning with plans means delivering what was agreed or designed - ensuring delivery matches your intended approach. | | 6.1 scoring criteria | Scoring criteria updated to explicitly include ‘and other people that we support’, as this was previously reflected in the item title but not the criteria | | 6.2 scoring criteria updated | Scoring criteria updated, to add focus on breadth of involvement (beyond leadership), show progression in how learning is acted on, integrate stakeholder voice earlier, and aligns more clearly with reflective, learning-centred practice. | | Other | Other items were reviewed for overlap, with small tweaks made to add guidance or nuance, but ultimately kept separate to ensure that focus and attention is kept to different aspects. For example:
3.7 is about internal commitments to EDI and professional practice, including frameworks, staff behaviour, and systemic accountability; whereas 3.8 is about youth leadership and co-creation in EDI, emphasising power-sharing and inclusion of lived experience
3.5 is about training and support for staff/volunteers engaged in MEL: it focuses on capacity building - ensuring staff/volunteers have the time, training, and support to deliver monitoring, evaluation, and learning activities effectively; whereas 4.4 is about clarity of responsibilities for MEL: it focuses on accountability and role clarity - making sure everyone knows who is responsible for MEL, what they need to do, and that their activities are tracked and reviewed
5.2 is about how individuals/teams are supported to engage with reflection (especially in relation to data and feedback); whereas 6.2 is about the organisation-level routine for review and how embedded that is. |