Outputs, Outcomes & Impact: What’s the difference?

“We put so much hard work and passion into running our program, that by the time we got to the end, we didn’t have the energy or time left to really evaluate it. But people seem generally pretty happy with our services, so I think we are OK.” 

“I have a really great idea for a new program, but the grant I’m applying for is asking me all these questions about program evaluation, and I’m really not sure how to answer them. I really need this money though, or the program will never get off the ground.”

“We’d *like* to have a better idea of, and a better way of talking about, what our organization does well and where we could improve, but we really don’t know where to start.”

As consultants supporting nonprofits, we hear variations on these basic statements all the time. We get it; putting in that ‘extra’ step of evaluation work can be frustrating, especially when you’re not sure of the purpose or process.  

But evaluation work is extremely important, and getting it right matters. Good evaluation allows you to know whether or not your efforts are effectively helping you reach your goals, and whether or not you’re making best use of scarce resources. If it turns out your programs aren’t as effective or efficient as you thought – it doesn’t mean you’ve failed. In fact, your evaluation can be used to make any necessary adjustments, learn from your experiences, and improve your offerings in the future.

Good evaluation also allows you to convey your successes with confidence to supporters, funders, and policymakers, inviting opportunities for your demonstrably effective programs and successes to grow and reach even more people.

So that covers the purpose of evaluation work, but what about the process?

Where to begin…

One of the most confusing aspects of evaluation work has to do with 3 terms that on the surface appear to be similar (two of them even sound very similar): Outputs, Outcomes, and Impact.

But for evaluators, these 3 terms mean very different, and very specific things. Understanding the difference between these three evaluation terms can remove a lot of the frustration and head-spinning many folks experience around evaluation work.

Note: This is an especially important distinction when writing grant proposals. Unfortunately, a sure-fire way to get rejected from a highly competitive grant is to mix up these terms. This becomes even more frustrating as grant applications don’t always give an explanation or example of what the founders are looking for in terms of listing outputs, outcomes, and impact. On the other hand, understanding the differences can give you a leg up on grant applications.

Let’s break it down…

We will start with the definitions:

Outputs 

Outputs refer to the direct, physical results of a program or activity. Outputs can be counted, and are reported as a number. For example, outputs can be the number of trainings or clinics provided, the number of people served, the number of program graduates, or the number of goods produced or delivered. The key here is that an output is a number of ‘things’ ...’put out.’

Important to note – when listing outputs for a potential or proposed program in a logic model for a grant application, outputs are literally written as “number of …. (or # of ….),” as in “# of students enrolled in program” or “# of meals served.” You would not replace ‘#’ with a numerical value (25 students enrolled in program; 150 meals served); you are indicating what you will count when evaluating, not making predictions regarding potential outputs.

One of the easiest and most common errors regarding outputs is to instead describe what are actually ‘outcomes’ or even ‘impact’ (which we will discuss in depth below). An example of this error might be, when asked to describe the output of a literacy program: ‘Students will improve their reading scores and become more confident.”’ But as we can now see, this is not an output. Instead, the outputs of this program might be

-# of students enrolled in the program

-# of 30-minute program sessions attended

Outcomes 

Outcomes are the intended effects of a program. They describe the benefits or changes that occur as a direct result of the outputs you’ve produced. Common outcome areas include an increase/decrease in Knowledge, Skills, Confidence, Intention, Attitude, Values, Perception, Awareness, Expectation, Social Norms, Influences, Supports, Buy-in, or Beliefs.

The key here is that outcomes are changes, generally indicated as an ‘increase’ or ‘decrease’ from the starting point. For example, outcomes might include a decrease in hunger, a decrease in disease, an increase in knowledge, or an increase in ability.

Outcomes should also be measurable, so be sure to include a numerical performance target with projected outcomes. For example: “80 percent of students enrolled in the reading program demonstrate an increase in their reading skills” or “Attendees of the reading program increase reading test scores by 2 percentage points.”

Keep in mind that there can be short-term (immediate) outcomes, or medium-term (ranging from a few months to a couple of years) outcomes. Some grant applications or evaluation plans may call for you to differentiate between outcomes. Some may even ask for long-term (3+ year) outcomes; though long-term outcomes are best thought of as program ‘impact’ (described in more detail below).

Outcomes are usually much easier to write or plan out once the program outputs have been appropriately identified, because now there is a progression to follow. Outcomes point out what the outputs will ideally lead to. The biggest problem in identifying outcomes usually stems from having first wrongly identified outputs.

Impact 

Impact refers to the ‘big picture’ context of a program. Changes that take place several years after your program ends are its long-term outcomes – which are more commonly referred to as the program ‘impact.’ Impact can be described as the higher-level change in values, norms, conditions, and or system-wide policies and structure. Again, there is a natural progression. Once outcomes are identified, ask yourself: ‘What long-term impact will these outcomes lead to?’

Program impact is often effectively described with lofty, aspirational language, no more than a sentence or two in length. This can especially appeal to funders. For example (written in the present tense): “[Organization Name], the community’s modernized toy library, has become the guiding light for children and their families, enabling young minds to imagine inventions, soar to the outer planets, and see no limits on interactive learning…”

What comes next…

Once you’ve identified outputs, outcomes, and impact, you should have a clear idea of what kind of data and metrics to keep track of during the course of your program, and/or to collect and compare to your evaluation plan once the program has finished.

With the outputs, outcomes, and impact identified, you can also easily use your evaluative data to create a case-study narrative clearly describing your process and results to stakeholders, supporters, potential funders, or clients.

To sum it all up, remember the progression:

Outputs —> Outcomes —> Impact.

If you need more resources, here are some great websites to check out: 

https://www.professionalgrantwriter.org/understanding-difference-outputs-outcomes

https://www.professionalgrantwriter.org/basics-goals-objectives

…And as always, you can contact Spark Group for further support.

⭐ Join my weekly newsletter where I share tons of exclusive tips, tools, grant opportunities, and resources to my subscribers. Subscribe on the Spark Group home page.