Form cover
Page 1 of 2

Funding to Impact Diagnostic Tool

If your board, executive, donors or government stakeholders asked today, “What difference is our funding making?”, could you answer?

Most research funding organisations already have many of the necessary components in place: strategy documents, funding guidelines, impact frameworks, data, metrics and reporting requirements.

But these components do not always work together. The problem is often not a lack of effort, expertise or data. It is a lack of alignment between program purpose, strategy, the pathway to impact, data and metrics, and the overall impact narrative.

The Funding to Impact System helps organisations strengthen and connect these components and build their internal capacity to design for and demonstrate impact.

This Funding to Impact Diagnostic Tool helps you identify the first point in your funding to impact system that may need attention and where targeted capacity building or improvement might be most valuable.

It is not a score, audit or test. It is a practical starting point for building on what you already have in place and deciding where to focus first.

Your result will show you:
• Your starting point
• What this means
• Why this matters
• What to do next

This diagnostic tool was developed by Quality for Outcomes. Your responses will be kept private. We may use de-identified, aggregated data to understand broader sector patterns, but we will not identify individual people or organisations in any reporting or communication.

I agree to the Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy

I agree to the Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy

What is your name?

What is the name of your organisation?

What is your email address?

Which best describes your organisation?

Which best describes your organisation?

What is your role?

CORE DIAGNOSTIC

Answer the following questions for one research funding program you know really well. This gives you a clear starting point. This is not about whether something exists. It is about whether it is clear, consistent, and usable in practice.

Q1: Purpose
It is clear what this program is trying to achieve, and this is used to guide decisions and reporting.

Not in place - The purpose is unclear, implicit, or not defined.
Partially - The purpose is defined but is broad, unclear, or not consistently used.
Mostly - The purpose is clear and reasonably well defined, but not always used to guide decisions or reporting.
Fully - The purpose is clear, well defined, and actively used to guide decisions and reporting.
Q1: PurposeIt is clear what this program is trying to achieve, and this is used to guide decisions and reporting.
A
B
C
D

Q2: Strategic Alignment

Program impacts are clearly connected to organisational strategic priorities, such as broader direction, goals, vision or mission.

Not in place - There is no clear connection between program impacts and organisational strategic priorities, such as broader direction, goals, vision or mission.

Partially - Some connections exist, but they are unclear, inconsistent, or not used.

Mostly - Impacts are generally connected to organisational strategic priorities, such as broader direction, goals, vision or mission.

Fully - Impacts are clearly connected with organisational strategic priorities, such as broader direction, goals, vision or mission.

Q2: Strategic AlignmentProgram impacts are clearly connected to organisational strategic priorities, such as broader direction, goals, vision or mission.
A
B
C
D

Q3: Impact Pathways

There is a clear impact pathway that explains how the program leads to impact (e.g. from funding decisions and activities through to short- and longer-term change).

Not in place - There is no clear explanation of how the program leads to impact.

Partially - Some elements of the impact pathway are defined, but links are unclear, incomplete, or not usable.

Mostly - The impact pathway is reasonably clear, but not consistently applied or used.

Fully - A clear, specific, and usable impact pathway is defined and actively used to guide planning, data collection, and reporting.

Q3: Impact PathwaysThere is a clear impact pathway that explains how the program leads to impact (e.g. from funding decisions and activities through to short- and longer-term change).
A
B
C
D

Q4: Short-term Impacts

The program has clearly defined, realistic, and measurable short-term impacts (not just broad intentions).

Not in place - Short-term impacts are not clearly defined.

Partially - Some short-term impacts are defined, but they are broad, unclear, or not measurable.

Mostly - Short-term impacts are clear and reasonably well defined, but not always measurable or consistently used.

Fully - Short-term impacts are clear, realistic, measurable and used to guide data collection and reporting.

Q4: Short-term ImpactsThe program has clearly defined, realistic, and measurable short-term impacts (not just broad intentions).
A
B
C
D

Q5: Data/Metrics

The data/metrics about the program are clearly aligned with each component of the impact pathway and actively used to demonstrate and interpret progress towards impact.

Not in place - Data/metrics are not clearly linked to components of the impact pathway.

Partially - Some data/metrics are aligned to components of the impact pathway, but there are gaps, inconsistencies, or limited usefulness.

Mostly - Data/metrics are generally aligned with the impact pathway, but not consistently used to demonstrate or interpret progress.

Fully - Data/metrics are clearly aligned with the impact pathway and actively used to demonstrate and interpret progress.

Q5: Data/Metrics The data/metrics about the program are clearly aligned with each component of the impact pathway and actively used to demonstrate and interpret progress towards impact.
A
B
C
D

Q6: Impact Narrative

The impact of this program can be clearly demonstrated, using data/metrics aligned with the impact pathway, in a way that would stand up to scrutiny.

Not in place - The impact of this program can not be clearly demonstrated.

Partially - Some elements of impact can be demonstrated, but the explanation is unclear, inconsistent, or not well supported by data/metrics.

Mostly - The impact of this program can be demonstrated reasonably clearly, but it may lack consistency, confidence, or strong supporting data/metrics.

Fully - The impact of this program can be demonstrated clearly and confidently, with data/metrics that would stand up to scrutiny.

Q6: Impact NarrativeThe impact of this program can be clearly demonstrated, using data/metrics aligned with the impact pathway, in a way that would stand up to scrutiny.
A
B
C
D

Q7: Portfolio-level Impacts

Aggregated impacts across multiple programs can be clearly and confidently demonstrated. This is not about reporting totals (e.g. number of grants). It is about explaining how programs collectively contribute to shared impacts.

No - Portfolio-level impacts can not be demonstrated.

Partially - Portfolio-level impacts exist, but they are fragmented or inconsistent.

Somewhat - Portfolio-level impacts can be somewhat demonstrated, but it is not fully clear or consistent.

Yes - Portfolio-level impacts can be clearly and confidently demonstrated.


Q7: Portfolio-level ImpactsAggregated impacts across multiple programs can be clearly and confidently demonstrated. This is not about reporting totals (e.g. number of grants). It is about explaining how programs collectively contribute to shared impacts.
A
B
C
D

Q8: Which question was the hardest to answer?


Q8: Which question was the hardest to answer?
A
B
C
D
E
F
G

Assigning scores