Your questions, answered.

“What does Owl Impact actually do?”

It turns the work your team already does into evidence a funder or a board will accept, without anyone adding it up. The person who delivered the session logs it on their phone in about two minutes — the hours, what happened, the change they saw. The platform costs it, files it, and builds the return. At month end you filter and press print.

“What are the six moons?”

Six tools that all feed one report. Log your time costs the hours your team gives. Outcomes records what happened — a referral, a start, a qualification. Distance travelled captures the before and after. In-Kind values donated professional time at proper rates. SROI & returns shows what came back. Reports is where it all lands. Nothing is typed up twice.

“What are the three lenses?”

One hour of work can be described three ways, and each answers a different question. Cost — what it cost you to deliver, at actual salary. Social value — what was given beyond what anyone paid for, at a recognised proxy. In-kind — what donated time would have cost to buy, at the replacement rate for that person. The three never combine into one total: cost and in-kind can describe the same hour from opposite directions, and social value answers something else entirely. See the full method →

“Can I claim social value for work my funder already paid for?”

No, and neither can anyone else. A social value proxy applies only to time given beyond what someone paid for. Hours a grant or contract funded are cost, at actual salary, and they belong in the investment line of an SROI — never the return. Costing funded delivery at a proxy and reporting it as social value counts the same money twice, and it is the first thing an evaluator will test. Why this rule exists →

“How is the social value figure worked out?”

Simply, and in the open. It's the hours actually worked, multiplied by a recognised proxy value for that kind of activity — currently £16.93 an hour, from the National TOMs 2022 framework, on an ONS replacement-cost basis at 2021 prices. No survey, no estimate, no guesswork: every rate is published with its source and its year, and applied only to the time really given. Every rate and where it comes from → You can set your own rates per role at onboarding, so a finance director's hour and a general volunteer's hour aren't costed the same.

“This sounds like made-up numbers.”

It's the opposite of made-up — that's the whole point. Every figure is built from a recognised proxy value, applied only to hours actually worked, with the method shown rather than hidden. And the same costed record goes to the organisation that hosted the session as well as the person who delivered it — so it's a number two parties hold, not a line someone typed into a bid. Every rate we use is published with its source, including the ones we could not find a citation for and therefore do not publish.

“Do you add the three figures together?”

Never. Costed social value, distance travelled and in-kind are three different lenses on the same work, and summing them would double-count. They sit side by side on the report, each with its own method shown. Any platform that hands you one combined number is hiding something.

“I haven't got time for another admin job.”

Then this is the opposite of what you're picturing. There's no login for the person logging — they get a personal link that already knows who they are, their programmes and their rate. It works offline and submits when they're back in signal. The admin job it replaces is the evening you'd otherwise spend reconstructing the year from three notebooks.

“What is distance travelled?”

The change, not the attendance. You ask the same question before and after — confidence, readiness, wellbeing, whatever your funder cares about — and the shift between the two is the evidence. It's what turns “forty people came” into “forty people moved, and here's by how much.”

“What is in-kind, and how is it different?”

In-kind values donated time at what that time is actually worth — a trustee's hour, a solicitor's hour, a skilled volunteer's hour, each at its own rate rather than one blended figure. It's the number funders will recognise against match-funding requirements, and it's usually the contribution organisations most under-report. See how in-kind works →

“There are already big social value platforms — why you?”

The big platforms are built for the reporting end of large contracts, and they cost accordingly. We're built for the delivery end: the session, the referral, the volunteered hour — the everyday work that never reaches those systems because logging it is someone's unpaid evening. Built in Wales, priced for organisations that don't have a data team.

“Will it stand up — in a tender, to a funder, to an inspector?”

It's built to. Every figure carries its method, its source and its date. Every entry is logged by the person who did the work, at the time, not reconstructed afterwards. The evidence trail sits underneath the total, so anyone who asks “where did that come from?” can be shown, line by line. That's a stronger position than a number typed into a bid.

“Who's behind this?”

Owl Impact™ is part of the AsktheOwl® suite, built by ATO Insight Solutions Ltd in Flintshire, North Wales. Built here, for organisations working here — and for the Welsh procurement and funding duties that now expect this evidence.

“What does it cost?”

We price by programme and by the people logging on it, in tiers — so a small organisation with one programme and a handful of staff pays a small organisation's price, and it only goes up as you grow. Professional firms costing pro bono time are licensed by the number of people logging. Membership and umbrella bodies are priced by the size of their network, rather than by the people logging. National bodies and funders are scoped and quoted on what they need. Schools pay nothing — a local employer funds the licence through an Evidence Partnership. Find your price in two questions →

“Can I test it before I commit?”

Yes — that's what the tester tools are for. Give a work email and you can cost a session, capture a before-and-after, or value donated time on the live product, with real reports coming back to your inbox. The tester runs for a set number of logs so you can see exactly how it behaves with your own work, then you pick the band that fits. Test it live today →

“Can I see the whole thing working first?”

The live preview is the real dashboard filled with sample data for a fictional organisation — nothing to install, nothing to set up. You see exactly what your team would see when they log, and what lands on your desk at month end. Every new licence also opens the whole Full Moon dashboard for its first 14 days.

“What happens if my team grows?”

You move up a band, and we tell you before anything changes — never a surprise charge. A second programme takes its own licence, priced on its own team, so a big programme never subsidises a small one and you're not paying for capacity you don't use.

“We've no budget for software.”

Then don't take it out of your budget. Funders recognise monitoring and evaluation as a legitimate cost of delivery — this belongs in the bid as the M&E line, covered by the grant rather than your core funds. It's the tool that evidences your impact in pounds, which is what strengthens the next application. Built to help you win more grants, not eat into what you've already got.

“Does the person logging ever pay?”

No. The licence sits with the organisation. Staff, volunteers, trustees and delivery partners log through their personal link at no cost to them, whatever the size of your team.

“What do you actually hold about people?”

The name and email of the people on your team who log — so their reports reach them and their hours carry the right rate. That is all the personal data in the system. Nothing about the people you support: beneficiaries and partner organisations are identified by a code, and you hold the key to who that is, offline. Codes, never names.

“Do you collect data on young people — is it GDPR-safe?”

We hold no participant data at all. A young person is a code and a headcount — never a name, never a date of birth, never anything that identifies them. Your organisation keeps the key offline, under your own retention rules. Handled under UK GDPR, and the shortest honest answer is that there's nothing about them here to lose.

“Are you selling anyone's data?”

No, and we couldn't — there's no participant data to sell. Aggregate insight, where it's offered, is built from counts and costed hours across organisations that have agreed to it, never from individuals.

“Who owns what we log?”

You do. It's your evidence, your reports, your figures. You can export and print at any time, and if you leave you take it with you.

“Is this really for an organisation our size?”

It's who we built it for. Most social value tooling is priced for principal contractors and local authorities, which is why smaller organisations end up doing it in a spreadsheet in January. This is priced by your programme and your team, so a two-person CIC pays a two-person price and gets the same engine a national body gets.

“We already report to funders — won't this duplicate it?”

It replaces the gathering, not the reporting. You still send your funder their report — but it compiles itself from what your team logged as they went, filtered to that funder, that programme, that period. Most organisations find the awkward part isn't writing the report, it's assembling the numbers in the week before it's due.

“A pound figure feels like it undervalues what we do.”

A fair worry, and the honest answer is that the pound figure isn't the point — it's the door. Funders and commissioners think in budgets, so a costed figure gets you taken seriously. What keeps you there is the distance travelled sitting next to it: the change in the people you worked with. That's why the figures never merge into one.

“We rely on volunteers and trustees — does that count?”

It counts, and it's usually the biggest thing organisations leave out. In-kind values a trustee's hour, a skilled volunteer's hour and a general volunteer's hour each at its own proper rate. For a lot of organisations the donated time is the largest contribution they've never put a number to.

“Can we use it for match funding?”

Evidenced in-kind at proper rates is the kind of contribution funders recognise against match requirements — it's a common route, and the reason we built the in-kind report to funding-claim standard with the method and source shown. Always check your funder's own match rules, since they vary.

“We run courses or programmes — does this fit?”

Directly. Log delivery hours across a course, capture the distance travelled from first session to last, and record the outcomes your commissioner actually asks for — referral, start, qualification, employment or self-employment. Outcomes, not attendance.

“Can we show outcomes, not just completion?”

That's the whole design. Completion tells a commissioner someone finished. Distance travelled tells them what changed, per person, per programme — and the costed hours tell them what it took to get there. Both go on the same page without being added together.

“We're an FE college or skills provider — what about learner data?”

No learner data comes near us. Learners are codes you generate and hold; we see a code, a measure and a shift. Your existing MIS keeps the identities, under your own retention policy.

“Can we run it across several programmes?”

Yes. Each programme takes its own licence, priced on the people logging on it, and you get an aggregate across all of them — so you can show one commissioner their programme, and your board the whole picture.

“What can I actually log as a session?”

Anything you'd defend as delivery. A drop-in, a group session, a one-to-one, a school visit, a residential, a piece of outreach, time spent signposting. If a person gave hours and something came of it, it's a session — including the prep and the travel, which most organisations forget to count.

“‘How many did we signpost?’ — nobody knows.”

That's the exact gap. A signpost takes ten seconds to log at the time and is unrecoverable three months later. Logged as it happens, it becomes a number you can put in front of a funder instead of a shrug.

“Are you storing anything about the young people?”

Nothing. A young person is a code and a headcount. We never see a name, and we never want to — the key stays with you, offline.

“We do pro bono work — what does this give us?”

A defensible number for it. Your people log the time they give at their own charge-out rate, so a partner's hour and an associate's hour aren't costed the same. What comes out is your firm's donated year, costed from individual pieces of work rather than estimated at year end — ready for CSR, ESG and tender responses.

“How is the firm licence priced?”

By the number of people at your firm who log time, in bands, as an annual licence. Find your band →

“Can the charities we help see it too?”

Yes — the same costed record can go to the organisation that received the support, so the value is held by both sides rather than asserted by one. That's what makes it evidence rather than a claim.

“We're a membership body — can we offer this to our members?”

Yes, and it's priced for that: by the size of your network rather than by the people logging, with a cross-member dashboard and the right to offer Owl Impact to members at a preferential rate. You see the portfolio; each member sees their own.

“We're national — can we see it by country and region?”

That's the point of it. Filter by country, region, programme, month or funder — Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland each with their own figure, plus the consolidated UK picture, from the same set of entries. A regional lead sees their own patch; you see the whole. See what a national deployment includes →

“Can we have a dashboard built around our own strategy?”

Yes — a customisable dashboard arranged around the measures your strategy actually names, in your branding, with the filters your regional leads need. Bespoke training for your teams comes with it. Both are scoped and quoted on what you need.

“Can reports carry our name?”

Yes. Branded reports are part of the full dashboard, and for larger deployments we can dual-brand so a report carries both your name and the delivering organisation's.

“We're a funder — can we configure it for our grantees?”

That's a conversation worth having. Owl Impact can be configured around a specific fund, so the organisations you fund all evidence against the measures you set, and you see the fund's whole picture rather than twenty differently-shaped reports. Talk to us →

“We already put social value in our bids — why this?”

Because what goes in the bid is usually a promise, and what gets asked for afterwards is delivery. This is the record of what you actually did, logged as it happened, dated and costed — so the next bid cites evidence rather than intent.

“Does it fit the scoring our main contractor asks for?”

It gives you the underlying evidence in the form those frameworks expect: hours, activity type, beneficiary group, location, date, costed with a recognised proxy and the method shown. It sits underneath whatever portal or template you're asked to fill in.

“We've done community work for years but never recorded it.”

Most firms haven't, which is why the first year is usually the surprising one. Start logging from today and by the next tender you have a dated, costed record instead of a memory of a school visit someone did in March.

“Will it actually help us win work?”

It gives you something to say that most bidders can't evidence. We won't promise you a contract — nobody honestly can. What we can say is that Welsh procurement duties now expect social value evidence, and turning up with a dated record beats turning up with an intention.

“What does it cost a school?”

Nothing. A local employer funds your licence through an Evidence Partnership — they get their name on the toolkit and their own contribution costed, and your school gets every tool at no cost to you. Until a partner comes forward, reports carry a light watermark. See how it works for schools →

“Is this more work for my team?”

Less, if anything. The employer logs the visit, not your careers lead. What arrives on your side is a dated record of the encounter, already written up.

“Does it really count for CWRE?”

It gives you dated, described employer-encounter records with named organisations and the year group involved — the evidence a CWRE conversation needs. Curriculum for Wales careers and work-related experiences expectations are embedded across the rollout, and the schools that find the record-keeping easiest are the ones already keeping the record as they go.

“What about pupil data?”

Owl Impact holds no pupil data. Encounters are recorded at year-group level with no individual identified. Nothing about a pupil enters the system.

“Can you supply the employers for us?”

We can introduce, but we won't overpromise. Employers come to us because they need the evidence too — where there's a fit locally we'll make the connection, and the Evidence Partnership is what makes it worth their while.