Different impact mandates. One guided way to work the decision.
ImpactGround adapts the context, workshop and evidence boundary to each institution while keeping the same human-led path for social, environmental and community impact, from question to qualified evidence and the next decision.
WHO OWNS IT?FOUNDATION · BANK · GOVERNMENT · COMPANY→WHAT IS THE CALL?FUND · CHANGE · SCALE · STOP→WHAT IS RECORDED?DECISION · CONDITIONS · EVIDENCE · REVIEW
Which programmes should be renewed, scaled, redesigned or exited before the next allocation?Where should the next CSR budget go, and which existing initiatives should be protected, improved, expanded or stopped?Which community and environmental initiatives should each property fund, standardise, localise or stop?Which interventions best serve the mandate, place and affected population, and under what delivery conditions?
THE SHARED PATH
Choose an institution. See the full working case.
01FOUNDATION OR FAMILY OFFICE
Build a defensible grant and programme portfolio.
THE DECISION
Which programmes should be renewed, scaled, redesigned or exited before the next allocation?
DECISION OWNERFoundation director + investment committee
BUYING MOMENTAnnual allocation, renewal or strategy reset
ONE LIVE USE CASE · WORKED THROUGHFOUNDATION OR FAMILY OFFICE
CONTEXT CONNECTED
01Mandate, impact thesis and funding restrictions
02Geographic and beneficiary priorities
03Current grants, programmes and partner evidence
WHAT IS TESTEDPortfolio choices become visible
Strategic contributionDelivery confidence
RENEWMaternal health
SCALEYouth livelihoods
REDESIGNSchool grants
EXITAd-hoc relief
THE RECORD LEAVES THE ROOM01Decision report
Comparable portfolio allocation view · Conditional renewal and exit recommendations
02Delivery + evidence plan
Partner evidence requirements · Board decision pack and next review gate
BUSINESS CONSEQUENCE
01Capital follows the mandate, not the loudest proposal
02Renewal conditions are explicit before approval
03Partner evidence is proportionate and reusable
Open the full working scope +
CONTEXT CONNECTED
Mandate, impact thesis and funding restrictions
Geographic and beneficiary priorities
Current grants, programmes and partner evidence
Board risk appetite and decision calendar
WHAT IS TESTED
Mission fit and additionality
Coverage gaps and portfolio overlap
Evidence quality and delivery capacity
Cost, concentration and sustainability risk
WHAT THE TEAM GETS
Comparable portfolio allocation view
Conditional renewal and exit recommendations
Partner evidence requirements
Board decision pack and next review gate
MORE WORKSPACES
The same playground can serve other accountable impact owners.
07IMPACT FUND OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
Which investment case has the strongest credible impact pathway?
Connect the impact thesis to diligence, material outcomes, evidence gaps and post-investment monitoring.
08HOSPITAL OR HEALTH SYSTEM
Which community health intervention should move beyond a pilot?
Connect population need, access barriers, clinical pathways, community partners and outcome follow-up.
09UNIVERSITY OR SCHOOL NETWORK
Which student and community programmes deserve sustained funding?
Compare wellbeing, access, skills and community programmes against need, reach, evidence and institutional priorities.
10DEVELOPER OR PLACE-BASED PROJECT
Which social and environmental commitments should shape the place?
Connect community expectations, environmental baselines, delivery dependencies and long-term place outcomes.
START WITH ONE LIVE QUESTION
See the method before you scope the work.
Walk through all six stages with illustrative data, or bring a real initiative or portfolio for a qualified first review.