Many organisations invest heavily in social inclusion. They create safe spaces, reduce barriers to services, and work to build stronger communities. Yet measuring—and communicating—the impact of this work remains a challenge. Are the right people being reached? Do they feel included? Has anything really changed?

Turning good intentions into real change

This was the dilemma facing a large municipality we recently supported at MDF. They had many projects aimed at unemployed people, migrants and LGBTI people at risk. The initiatives were well-intended and well-funded, but the question lingered: were they making a difference, or just ticking boxes?

We worked with them to revise their Theory of Change (ToC). Not as a bureaucratic exercise—but as a conversation tool. Together with civil servants and community partners, we mapped out what meaningful inclusion should look like from the perspective of those most affected. We identified assumptions, surfaced blind spots, and added indicators that tracked not just activities, but changes in behaviour, access, and personal experience.

What emerged was a clearer picture. The ToC helped shift the focus from “how many people attended” to “who is now participating that wasn’t before, and why?”. It made invisible barriers visible and turned anecdotal stories into evidence.

The core of communicating inclusion

Communicating inclusion starts by acknowledging that the work is rarely neutral. In the current political climate where social spending is scrutinised, organisations are under pressure to “prove” their value. In this context, compliance reporting no longer suffices. Solid data needs to be combined with stories that explain what matters. Numbers can tell us something—but they need context, voices, and equity-focused identifiers to mean something.

This is the heart of inclusive communication: moving from compliance to learning. By treating inclusion as an ongoing process—with data, with communities, and within teams—organisations can build credibility, grow empathy, and stay accountable. For the municipality, it wasn’t about proving impact. It was about understanding it—and then communicating it with honesty and clarity to all audiences, supportive or sceptical.

‍