What's the difference between an output and an outcome?

England and Wales: This page sets out the position in full. Scotland: the same position, with no difference in principle — these are definitions from named bodies, not law, and they do not change at the border. Northern Ireland: the same position, with no difference in principle, for the same reason.

Four words, four meanings

Outputs, outcomes and impact — with activities, the fourth word — are defined in this guide in NPC’s words, from its Understanding Impact guide. They are good practice from a named body, not a legal rule in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Whoever writes your theory of change, trustee or manager, should still pick one set of definitions and use it consistently. This step works on the chain you drew when you built your theory of change; if you have not drawn one, start there.

“Impact” gets used to mean four different things, and most writing about it is muddled as a result. These are NPC’s words, not ours, quoted verbatim:

Every later step in this hub uses these four.

Outputs versus outcomes: the line that matters most

An output is something you produced; an outcome is a change in the people you work with. That line matters more than any other in your theory of change.

Sessions run, meals served, leaflets handed out, people attending — those are outputs. They are true whether or not anyone’s life changed.

Outcomes are changes in the people you work with. More confidence, less isolation, a job kept, a skill learned. Each is a change in your target group.

Here is a test for any line in your theory of change. Ask whether it could be true even if nobody was any better off. If it could, it is an output. That test is this guide’s shorthand, not NPC’s.

Two definitions of “impact” in UK use

Two definitions of impact are in active use in the UK, though most guides give one as though there were only one.

• NPC and the Kellogg logic model treat impact as a point in time: the long-term, lasting end of the chain.
• Impact Frontiers treats it as a question of cause. Its definition, verbatim: “Impact is a change in an outcome caused by an organization. An impact can be positive or negative, intended or unintended.”

Under the first, impact is about how long a change lasts. Under the second, it is about how much of a change you caused, however long it takes.

Neither is an error. Both are legitimate. If you read two guides that seem to contradict each other, this is usually why.

Naming your definition of impact

Add one line to your theory of change and to any report built from it: “We use NPC’s definitions.” Or name Impact Frontiers, if that is the one you mean.

This is good practice, not a requirement. But without it, a reader who knows the other definition will assume you have got it wrong.

Why funders care which column a line sits in

Funders care because their headline question is about outcomes. This guide read the published reporting requirements of eight UK funders. Every one of them asks, as its headline question, what changed for beneficiaries — in outcome language, not just counts of what you did. A report of sessions run does not answer it.

That is why the relabelling matters before you write a bid. Write your case for support uses the outcomes you settle here to make the argument to a funder. The bid’s own list comes from the same columns when you set your outputs and outcomes.

How to relabel your theory of change

Relabelling takes one pass through your theory of change.

1. Go through every box in the chain.
2. Apply the test to each: ask whether it could be true if nobody was better off.
3. Move each line to the right column — activities, outputs, outcomes or impact.
4. Where a column is empty, ask why. A chain with no outcomes is a list of activities.
5. Add the definitions line at the foot of the page.

The outcomes column is what you will measure. The next step, choose your indicators, turns each outcome into something you can count.

Common mistake: reporting outputs as if they were outcomes

“Impact” is used to mean four different things, and most sector content is muddled about it. Every funder in the eight this guide read asks what changed for beneficiaries, in outcome language, not output counts. A report of sessions run does not answer it. Use NPC’s four definitions, word for word, and use them consistently — good practice from a named body, not a legal requirement.

Common mistake: assuming one of two guides must be wrong when they define “impact” differently

The major frameworks do disagree. NPC and Kellogg place impact on a time horizon — the lasting end of the chain. Impact Frontiers places it on cause — a change in an outcome caused by an organisation, whatever the timeframe.

Both are legitimate and both are in active UK use. State which definition you are using, on the document, rather than assume your reader shares it.

Worked example

Tollgate Youth CIO’s draft theory of change lists the number of sessions run as an outcome.

The manager applies NPC’s definitions. The sessions it runs are an output: a service that results from Tollgate’s activities. The outcome is the change in the young people who attend. Impact, on NPC’s definition, is the lasting change the young people achieve themselves.

She then decides which definition of impact Tollgate uses, because NPC and Impact Frontiers disagree.

The session count moves to the outputs column. A stated change in the young people replaces it. The page gains one line at the foot: “We use NPC’s definitions.” That is good practice, not a legal requirement.