Outcomes vs Outputs vs Impact: Clear Definitions for Charities

TL;DR: Outputs are what you do (activities delivered, people seen, sessions run). Outcomes are the changes that happen as a result. Impact is the broader, longer-term difference your work contributes to. Funders increasingly want outcome evidence, not just activity counts — and confusing the three is one of the most common mistakes in grant reporting.

Outputs, Outcomes, and Impact: The Definitions

These three terms sit at the heart of almost every funding application, evaluation framework, and impact report. They are often used loosely — or interchangeably — by charities and funders alike, which causes real confusion. Here are the precise definitions used across the UK voluntary sector.

Outputs

An output is the direct, countable product of your activity. It describes what you have delivered, not what has changed. Outputs are measurable and immediate: you can count them as soon as the activity has happened.

Examples of outputs:

• 200 people attended a digital skills workshop
• 48 one-to-one advice sessions were delivered
• 12 community meals were held, serving 85 people each
• 3,000 information packs were distributed

Outputs are essential — they demonstrate the scale and reach of your work — but they say nothing about whether anything improved as a result.

Outcomes

An outcome is a change that happens in a person, group, or community as a result of your work. Outcomes describe the difference your programme makes: to knowledge, attitudes, skills, behaviour, circumstances, or wellbeing.

NCVO defines outcomes as "the changes, benefits, learning or other effects that happen as a result of your project or your organisation's work."

Examples of outcomes linked to the outputs above:

• 140 participants (70%) reported increased confidence using online services
• 36 clients resolved their presenting advice issue within three months
• Attendees reported reduced social isolation on validated wellbeing scales
• Recipients demonstrated improved understanding of local support services

Outcomes can be short-term (immediately after a programme), medium-term (three to twelve months later), or long-term (one to five or more years). Good outcome measurement tracks change over time rather than capturing a single snapshot.

Impact

Impact is the portion of an outcome that is attributable specifically to your organisation's work, after accounting for what would have happened anyway (known as the counterfactual). It also refers to the broader, systemic change your work contributes to over the long term.

In practice, most charities use "impact" more loosely to mean the overall difference their work makes in the world — particularly when describing their mission-level ambitions. Funders and evaluators use a stricter definition that asks: what would have happened without you?

Examples of impact statements:

• A reduction in long-term unemployment in the communities you serve
• Improved school-readiness outcomes for children from low-income households
• A measurable decrease in hospital admissions linked to social prescribing

True impact measurement is resource-intensive and often requires control groups or statistical modelling. Most charities demonstrate impact through a combination of robust outcome data and a credible theory of change, rather than through experimental evaluation.

Why Funders Care About the Distinction

The distinction between outputs and outcomes is not academic — it directly affects funding decisions. Funders have moved steadily towards outcome-based grant-making over the past decade, and reporting outputs where outcomes are expected is a common reason for weak grant applications and reports.

The UK charity sector comprises over 170,000 registered charities (Charity Commission, 2025), all competing for limited grant funding. Funders use outcome evidence to compare proposals and assess whether previous grants have been used effectively. A charity that reports only outputs — "we delivered 500 sessions" — cannot demonstrate value in the way that a charity reporting outcomes can: "75% of participants reported reduced anxiety six weeks after completing our programme."

Research from Inspiring Impact found that over 50% of charities are measuring impact for all or nearly all of their activities, but that almost 25% do not measure impact at all. This gap creates a significant disadvantage for charities that rely on activity counts alone when applying for grants.

As of 2025, over 150 funders — making grants worth over £1 billion in 2023–24 — have signed up to IVAR's Open and Trusting commitments, which include a pledge to make reporting requirements "proportionate and meaningful" (IVAR, 2025). Even within this more flexible landscape, funders expect charities to articulate outcomes clearly.

How to Measure Each

Measuring Outputs

Output measurement is straightforward: count what you deliver. Attendance registers, session logs, referral records, and case management systems all generate output data. The main risk is over-reliance on outputs as a proxy for effectiveness.

Good practice: record outputs consistently and link them to defined beneficiary groups so you can later correlate them with outcome data.

Measuring Outcomes

Outcome measurement requires a baseline and a follow-up. The most common approaches in the UK charity sector include:

• Pre- and post-surveys: Participants rate themselves on relevant scales before and after a programme. Plinth's Surveys tool makes it straightforward to design, distribute, and analyse these surveys without specialist software.
• Validated scales: Tools such as the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS), PHQ-9, or ONS4 wellbeing questions provide standardised outcome measures that are recognised by funders and commissioners.
• Outcomes Star: A suite of evidence-based tools used by over 4,000 UK organisations to track change across multiple life domains.
• Case file review: Practitioners assess progress against defined outcome criteria at regular intervals.
• Distance travelled measures: Simple numeric scales that capture how far a participant has moved between a starting point and an intended destination.

The choice of tool should follow from your theory of change: first define what outcomes matter, then choose a method that can detect change in those outcomes reliably. Plinth's Impact Reporting features help teams aggregate outcome data and present it in formats funders expect.

Measuring Impact

Full impact evaluation — with control groups, randomised designs, or statistical modelling — is beyond the capacity of most small and medium charities. However, you can build a credible impact case by:

• Documenting your theory of change clearly, showing the causal link between your activities, outcomes, and longer-term goals
• Using outcome data collected consistently over time
• Referencing relevant external evidence (academic research, sector benchmarks) that supports your programme model
• Being transparent about what you cannot yet claim, and what further evidence you intend to gather

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an output ever be an outcome?

Not in the strict sense. An output is always something you produce or deliver — a session, a leaflet, a referral. An outcome is always a change in a person or community. "100 people attended our workshops" is an output regardless of how significant the workshops were. "80 attendees reported improved job-readiness skills" is an outcome. The same activity generates both: what matters is distinguishing between the two when you report.

Why do funders sometimes ask only for outputs if outcomes are what they care about?

Many funders ask for outputs in application forms because they are easier to define in advance and verify afterwards. But most substantive funders — particularly those making grants above £10,000 — also ask for outcome evidence, either at application stage ("what change do you expect to see?") or at reporting stage ("what change did you observe?"). If a funder only ever asks for outputs, it is worth volunteering outcome evidence anyway: it strengthens your case for renewal.

How far in the future should we track outcomes?

This depends on your programme model and what you are trying to change. Short-term outcomes (confidence, knowledge, immediate behaviour change) can often be captured within weeks of a programme ending. Medium-term outcomes (sustained behaviour change, improved circumstances) typically require three-to-twelve-month follow-up. Long-term outcomes and impact (structural change, health outcomes, employment) may require multi-year tracking. Most funders are pragmatic: they expect you to track what is feasible given your resources, and to be clear about the time horizon your data covers.

Recommended Next Pages

• What is Outcome Measurement?
• What is Impact Reporting?
• Charity KPI Examples
• What is a Theory of Change?

Published by the Plinth Team. Last updated 21 February 2026.