Azari Foundation
Impact claims require the same discipline as programme decisions.
Impact governance defines who reviews evidence, approves public claims and challenges conclusions about what a programme achieved.
Separate activity from impact
High participation or expenditure does not automatically mean meaningful change occurred.
Governance should require teams to distinguish outputs, outcomes and longer-term effects.
Review evidence before publication
Public impact statements should be traceable to a source, method and period.
Where evidence is preliminary or limited, the language should say so.
Challenge positive bias
Programme teams and funders can both be inclined to interpret ambiguous evidence favourably.
Independent review or structured challenge can improve credibility.
Include safeguarding and unintended effects
A programme can achieve its stated output while still creating harm, exclusion or unintended incentives.
Impact review should consider those effects, not only the intended outcome.
Retain learning
Important findings should inform future programme design and partner decisions.
Institutional memory is part of impact governance.