What Evidence Do Funders Require from UK Charities?

UK funders want to know that their money has been spent as agreed and that it has made a genuine difference. The specific evidence they require varies by funder type — from the National Lottery Community Fund's structured outcome frameworks to a small family trust's preference for narrative updates. This guide breaks down what funders expect, why, and how to provide it without overwhelming your team.

TL;DR: Funders require five core types of evidence: output data (what you delivered), outcome data (what changed), financial reporting (how money was spent), case studies (human stories behind the data), and beneficiary feedback (voices of those you serve). Most major UK funders now require outcome-level evidence, a significant shift over the past decade. Plinth helps charities collect, analyse, and report this evidence from a single platform.

What Types of Evidence Do Funders Want?

Funders want evidence that answers three questions: "Was our money spent appropriately?", "Did the funded work happen as planned?", and "Did it make a difference?" The five core evidence types address these questions from different angles.

Definition: Funder evidence requirements are the monitoring, evaluation, and reporting obligations that charities must fulfil as a condition of grant funding. These requirements are specified in the grant agreement and typically cover output reporting, outcome measurement, financial accountability, qualitative evidence, and beneficiary perspectives. The purpose is to ensure accountability, demonstrate impact, and generate learning.

1. Output data

Outputs are the countable, direct products of your activities — the numbers that show what you delivered. Virtually every funder requires output reporting. Examples include:

• Number of beneficiaries served (often broken down by demographics)
• Number and type of sessions, workshops, or activities delivered
• Geographic reach (postcode areas, local authority areas)
• Number of volunteers engaged
• Materials or resources produced and distributed

Output data is the foundation of funder reporting, but on its own it is insufficient. Knowing that 200 people attended a financial literacy course tells a funder nothing about whether those people are now better at managing money.

2. Outcome data

Outcome data shows what changed as a result of your work. This is the evidence funders value most, and it is where most charities struggle. Outcomes might include:

• Changes in knowledge, skills, or confidence (measured through pre/post surveys)
• Behaviour changes (e.g., increased physical activity, reduced substance use)
• Circumstance changes (e.g., moved into employment, secured stable housing)
• Wellbeing improvements (measured using validated scales like WEMWBS or ONS4)

The Association of Charitable Foundations has noted the growing emphasis on outcome evidence across the sector, with most trusts and foundations now considering it important in funding decisions. At the same time, grant applications have surged — the ACF's 2023-2024 report found applications increased by 100-400% in some cases, intensifying the pressure on both funders and applicants. Foundation grant-making reached a record £8.24 billion in 2023-24 (ACF Foundations in Focus), yet success rates fell as applications surged. The shift reflects a sector-wide move from "what did you do?" to "what difference did you make?"

3. Financial evidence

Funders need to see that their money was spent as agreed in the grant budget. Financial evidence typically includes:

• Expenditure breakdown against budget lines
• Explanation of any significant variances (over/under-spend)
• Evidence of match funding where required
• For larger grants: audited or independently examined accounts

The Charity Commission's 2024-25 annual report noted that financial mismanagement remains a significant concern, with 4,619 regulatory concern cases opened in 2024-25, an 18% increase year-on-year (Charity Commission Annual Report 2024-25). Funders use financial reporting to fulfil their own due diligence obligations as well as to ensure charitable funds are properly managed.

4. Case studies

Case studies bring the numbers to life. A well-written case study shows the human impact behind the statistics — an individual's journey through your programme, the challenges they faced, and the changes they experienced. Most funders request 1-3 case studies per reporting period.

Effective case studies include:

• The beneficiary's starting point and circumstances
• What support they received through your programme
• What changed for them (linked to your outcome measures)
• A direct quote from the beneficiary (with informed consent)
• Any ongoing challenges or next steps

5. Beneficiary feedback

Increasingly, funders want to hear directly from the people your charity serves — not just about them. Beneficiary feedback demonstrates that your organisation listens to its users and responds to their needs. This might include:

• Satisfaction surveys and net promoter scores
• Qualitative feedback gathered through interviews or focus groups
• Co-production evidence showing beneficiaries involved in service design
• Complaints data and how issues were resolved

The Listening Fund (a collaboration between Lankelly Chase, The National Lottery Community Fund, and Comic Relief) has highlighted that relatively few charities have systematic processes for collecting and acting on beneficiary feedback. Funders increasingly see this as a gap — and a differentiator for organisations that do it well.

What Do Different Types of Funders Require?

Evidence requirements vary significantly by funder type. Understanding these differences helps you prepare the right evidence without wasting time on unnecessary reporting.

National Lottery Community Fund

As the largest funder of community activity in the UK, distributing over £600 million annually, the National Lottery Community Fund sets the standard for many other funders. Their evidence requirements include:

• Demographic data on beneficiaries (age, gender, ethnicity, disability status, postcode)
• Progress against agreed outcomes, typically 3-5 per funded programme
• A self-evaluation reflecting on what worked and what did not
• Financial reporting against the approved budget
• For larger grants: an independent evaluation may be required

Their approach is proportionate — smaller grants (under £10,000 through Awards for All) require lighter reporting than multi-year, multi-million-pound programmes.

Trusts and foundations

The UK has over 10,000 grant-making trusts and foundations, and their requirements vary enormously. Larger trusts like Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, Garfield Weston Foundation, and Lloyds Foundation have structured reporting frameworks. Smaller trusts may simply ask for a narrative letter.

Common requirements across trusts include:

• A summary of activities delivered and people reached
• Evidence that the funded work achieved its intended outcomes
• At least one beneficiary story or case study
• An honest assessment of challenges and learning
• Confirmation that the grant was spent as agreed

The Association of Charitable Foundations has been encouraging trusts to adopt proportionate reporting — asking for evidence that is useful for learning rather than creating unnecessary administrative burden. Their "Stronger Foundations" framework includes a commitment to proportionate grant management.

Local authority commissioners

Local authorities are among the most demanding funders in terms of evidence requirements. Commissioned services typically have detailed service specifications with contractual KPIs that must be met. Requirements often include:

• Quarterly monitoring returns with prescribed output and outcome data
• Demographic breakdowns matching local authority categories
• Case file audits and quality assurance checks
• Safeguarding reports and incident data
• Financial reconciliation against contract value
• Specific measurement tools (e.g., Outcomes Star, WEMWBS) may be mandated

Anecdotal evidence across the sector suggests that charities funded by local authorities tend to spend a higher proportion of grant value on monitoring and compliance activities compared to those funded by trusts and foundations, reflecting the more demanding reporting requirements.

Corporate funders

Corporate funders historically focused on brand visibility and employee engagement metrics, but this is changing. ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) reporting requirements are driving corporate funders towards outcome-level evidence. They increasingly want to demonstrate that their community investment creates real social impact, not just positive PR.

Corporate funders typically require:

• Output data and beneficiary reach
• Increasingly, outcome evidence tied to the company's social impact themes
• Case studies suitable for inclusion in annual reports and ESG disclosures
• Photography and content for communications (with beneficiary consent)
• Evidence of employee volunteering engagement where applicable

Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks

Many funders reference specific monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks when describing their evidence requirements. Understanding these frameworks helps you design your evidence collection strategy.

The Logic Model / Theory of Change Approach

Most funders expect charities to have a logic model or Theory of Change that explains how their activities lead to outcomes. Evidence is then collected against each stage of the model. This is the most widely used approach in the UK charity sector and forms the basis of most funder reporting frameworks.

Contribution Analysis

Some funders, particularly for complex or systemic change programmes, use contribution analysis — an approach that acknowledges multiple factors contribute to outcomes and asks whether the funded work made a plausible contribution to observed changes. This requires a mix of quantitative outcome data and qualitative evidence about the mechanisms of change.

Most Significant Change

Used alongside quantitative approaches, the Most Significant Change technique asks beneficiaries and stakeholders to identify the most important change they have experienced. It produces rich qualitative evidence that funders find compelling. The method is particularly useful for programmes with emergent or unpredictable outcomes.

Social Return on Investment (SROI)

Some commissioners and corporate funders ask for SROI analysis, which assigns monetary values to social outcomes. For example, if your programme helps someone into employment, the SROI calculation includes the economic value of their wages, reduced benefit payments, and tax contributions. While powerful, SROI is resource-intensive and controversial — critics argue that monetising social outcomes oversimplifies complex changes.

Tips for Presenting Evidence Effectively

Build evidence collection into delivery from day one

The single biggest mistake charities make is treating evidence collection as something that happens at reporting time rather than during programme delivery. If you are scrambling to compile evidence three weeks before a report is due, you have already lost. Use tools like Plinth to collect data as part of your service delivery workflow — surveys at programme entry and exit, case notes recorded in real time, outcomes tracked as they happen.

Match the evidence to the audience

A detailed Outcomes Star dataset is appropriate for a local authority commissioner. A small family trust wants a two-page narrative with one compelling story. Tailor your evidence presentation to each funder's expectations and reading preferences. This does not mean collecting different data — it means packaging the same underlying evidence in different formats.

Be honest about what did not work

Funders respect transparency far more than spin. If a programme fell short of its targets, explain why and what you learned. If external factors (a pandemic, a policy change, a partner organisation closing) affected your outcomes, say so. Evidence of learning is itself a valuable outcome. Sector guidance consistently emphasises that funders value honesty about challenges in grant reports — it demonstrates learning and builds trust.

Use visuals to communicate data

A well-designed chart communicates more in five seconds than a paragraph of text. Use simple bar charts for comparisons, line charts for trends over time, and pie charts sparingly (only for parts-of-a-whole data). Plinth's impact reporting features generate visual dashboards automatically from your programme data.

Keep a case study bank

Do not wait until reporting time to write case studies. Collect beneficiary stories throughout the year, with informed consent, and maintain a bank of 10-15 case studies that you can draw on for different funders and different purposes. Include a range of outcomes — not just your most spectacular successes.

Comply with the grant agreement requirements

Read your grant agreement carefully at the start of the funding period and note every reporting requirement, deadline, and format specification. Set calendar reminders well in advance. Late or incomplete reports damage your relationship with the funder and can lead to delayed or withheld payments. Meanwhile, Plinth's analysis found that the all-in cost of administering a single grant (including application, reporting, and monitoring) is approximately £6,600 — meaning charities must factor the cost of evidence collection and reporting into their grant management.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens if we cannot meet a funder's evidence requirements?

Contact the funder early and honestly. Most funders would rather negotiate a modified reporting approach than receive no evidence at all. If a specific measurement tool is too expensive or complex, propose an alternative that captures similar information. Funders generally appreciate proactive communication about challenges.

Do small charities face the same evidence requirements as large ones?

In principle, evidence requirements should be proportionate to grant size and organisational capacity. In practice, some funders apply disproportionate requirements to small grants. The Association of Charitable Foundations has been working to address this through its proportionate grant management guidelines. If you feel reporting requirements are excessive relative to the grant value, raise this with the funder.

How do we collect outcome data without overburdening beneficiaries?

Keep surveys short (5-10 questions maximum for pre/post measurement), use validated short-form scales where possible, offer multiple completion methods (in-person, online, phone), and explain to beneficiaries why their feedback matters. Plinth's survey tools are designed to minimise respondent burden while capturing meaningful outcome data. See our guide on survey fatigue for more strategies.

Can we use the same evidence for multiple funders?

Absolutely — and you should. Collect one comprehensive dataset and package it differently for each funder. This is where having a single platform like Plinth for all your programme data is invaluable. You filter and export different views of the same underlying data, rather than running parallel data collection exercises for each funder.

What evidence do funders want for unrestricted or core funding?

Core funders typically want organisational-level evidence rather than programme-specific data. This might include: overall beneficiary reach and outcomes across all programmes, financial health indicators, governance quality, and strategic progress. The Lloyds Foundation and Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, both significant core funders, focus on organisational resilience and learning rather than granular programme metrics.

Recommended Next Pages

• The Complete Guide to Outcome Measurement — How to measure the outcomes funders most want to see.

• Measuring Grant Impact — Strategies for tracking and reporting the impact of funded programmes.

• Grant Compliance Guide — Ensuring you meet all regulatory and contractual obligations.

• What is Impact Reporting? — How to communicate your results to funders, trustees, and the public.

• How to Design Effective Outcome Surveys — Practical guidance on creating the surveys that capture funder-required evidence.

Last updated: February 2026