Show funders the change, not the attendance
Grant reports lean on attendance and testimonials because outcome measurement looks like a research project. Renewals get harder each year the evidence stays soft.
The short way: Baseline and endline waves with identical measures per participant — the before/after deltas that turn a renewal conversation around.
Ready-made templates for this
Prefer to start from a questionnaire rather than a description? These are already written.
Programme Impact Assessment Survey
Nonprofits & Community
Ask beneficiaries what changed - the outcomes evidence funders ask for.
Six-Month Outcomes Follow-up
Nonprofits & Community
The durability check: what stuck after the programme's glow faded.
Beneficiary Service Feedback
Nonprofits & Community
Dignity-first feedback from the people using your services.
Impact Report Readership Survey
Nonprofits & Community
Does anyone read the annual report - and what actually lands from it?
Type this — that’s the whole job
“An impact survey for our youth mentoring programme: confidence, school engagement and future outlook, asked at enrolment and at 6 months”
Build it now — freeFree to start. The Pro plan adds invitation tracking. Compare plans
No setup, no tutorial. The words above go with you — review what the AI builds, then share the link.
How it works — three steps
- 1
Describe the outcomes your theory of change claims; the AI drafts matched measures.
- 2
Baseline at enrolment; duplicate for the endline wave.
- 3
Personal links join waves per participant; the delta table is the report's spine.
What’s doing the work
Wave duplication
The endline is a one-click copy of the baseline — identical wording keeps deltas honest.
Invitation trackingPro
Waves join per participant without identity questions.
PDF report export
The funder annex generates itself from the summary view.
Questions people ask
What if participants skip the endline?
Automatic reminders recover most; report the matched-pairs count honestly — funders respect a stated N far more than a suspiciously round percentage.
Do we need a control group?
For most grant reporting, matched before/after with a clear method note suffices; if your funder wants comparison groups, run a parallel collector for the waitlist.