OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES

Links to worksheets for grantseekers are available at the bottom of this page.

Introduction

The William Penn Foundation has an enhanced proposal, reporting, and evaluation system to measure progress in achieving the goals set forth in the Strategic Plan. The evaluation system includes the articulation of program strategy and goals, alignment of grants to strategy, monitoring of progress, and the use of outside expertise to further develop strategies, assess implementation of strategy, and evaluate outcomes and impact. One of the major elements of the system is the development of “outputs and outcomes” for each grant to help track and measure level of accomplishment. Grant outcomes align with and contribute to the outcome goals for each program strategy.

There are four basic components of the Foundation’s evaluation system:

Enhanced grant monitoring and outputs and outcomes to gauge individual grant effectiveness and learn from grantee experience;
The tracking of key indicators to inform the Foundation about changes in outcomes of interest based on the Foundation's objectives and strategies;
Assessment and evaluation of individual grants or clusters of grants to better understand grantee accomplishments and advance knowledge in areas closely linked to Foundation objectives; and
Assessment of Foundation strategies toward achievement of objectives through the review of grants, indicators, assessments, and evaluation.

This system will help the Foundation:

Assess the degree to which it achieves desired goals.
Enhance its judgment regarding selection of priorities and grants.
Learn from its grantmaking, from both grants that do and do not achieve their anticipated outcomes.
Share acquired knowledge with others.

The Foundation adopted this approach because it believes it will help grantees strengthen their services and help the Foundation assure that its resources are invested wisely. Programs that can document the positive outcomes they achieve are more likely to gain or maintain funding from a variety of sources and retain or attract high-quality staff. There are also significant lessons to be learned by the Foundation and grantees from programs that are not able to achieve their anticipated outcomes.

Definitions of "Outputs and Outcomes"

The development of outputs and outcomes for each grant is a key component of the evaluation system. Applicant organizations and Foundation program staff work together to articulate appropriate and reasonable outputs and outcomes during the proposal review process. The following guidelines and examples should help clarify the relationships among outputs, outcomes, grant-period outcomes, and post-grant outcomes.

Outputs are the major products and/or the substantial and completed processes that will be created to reach outcomes. They are the anticipated accomplishments funded through the grant, and they are directly under the grantee's control. The outputs occur “in order to achieve” an intended outcome.

Outcomes are the desired change(s) or results that the proposed project will eventually accomplish. They follow from the outputs and identify the anticipated change that is the goal of the grant.

Grant-Period Outcomes

Occur within the life of the grant-funded projects and often reflect an intermediate stage of change.
Are based on the successful accomplishment of the outputs, but may also be influenced by factors outside the grantee's control.
Must be reported on by grantees at the end of the grant period.

Post-Grant Outcomes

Are the results expected to occur after the life of the grant, and reflect the longer term outcomes related to the purpose of funded support.
Often require the work of others and therefore usually are not fully under the control of the grantee.
Do not require grantee reporting. The Foundation will assess progress on post-grant outcomes as it reviews clusters of grants and grantmaking strategies over time.

More on Writing Outcomes

Are the expected results of the grant work made observable and/ or measurable.
Are selected based on experience and prior research. They must be realistic, grounded and achievable for the grantee. Applicant must be able to describe how the measurable or observable change will be documented, including resources (including financial) that will be applied.
Are developmental--outcomes reflect what can be reasonably accomplished at a given point in time in light of resources, grantee capacity, and environmental conditions. Example: An effort to support policy change might have an outcome of getting a study in the hands of policymakers. A later effort would have an outcome of the policy being adopted by a targeted agency.
Address the results of a strategy and include details on what, when, where, whom (target group), how much (extent), and how we will know (whenever possible, include an "as evidenced by" statement). Example: 95% of children at study school will read at or above grade level by the end of the third grade, as evidenced by school administered assessments.

What – reading at or above grade level;

When – end of the third grade

Whom – third graders at study school;

How Much – 95%

How will you know – through school- administered assessments

Can be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively. The example above is quantitative. Example of a qualitative outcome: Board adoption of policy.
Are not absolutely guaranteed because they depend on contextual factors and the actions of many groups of individuals.

An important caveat: There is no definitive formula for writing outputs and outcomes. It is not a science; rather, it is an experiential process – a way to learn through doing.

EXAMPLES OF OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES (These examples are illustrative and do not necessarily indicate funding preferences. Actual grants will be more specific.)

Example #1: EVALUATION OR RESEARCH PROJECT

Outputs: Appropriate stakeholders engaged. Interim findings shared (if applicable). Evaluation/research completed.
— Note: Grantee has full responsibility for completing evaluation/research.

Grant-period outcome: Interim and final evaluation/research findings distributed to and discussed with stakeholders. Changes made as a result of interim evaluation feedback.
— Note: Grantee has full responsibility to distribute analysis to stakeholders
— Note: Grantee does not control whether stakeholders adopt changes.
— Note: Grantee responsibility to track and report use and utility.

Post-grant outcome: Recommendations from evaluation/research implemented.-- Note: Grantee does not control whether stakeholders act based on the analysis. Foundation tracks use of findings; grantee may discuss in subsequent grant proposals.

Example #2: CAPACITY BUILDING PROPOSAL (note: time periods incorporated into outcomes)

Output: Plan (as appropriate) completed. Staff trained. Efficiency protocols implemented.

Grant-period outcomes: Improved service provided, as evidenced by_____. New staff salaries institutionalized and incorporated in the operating budget.

Post-grant outcome: Improved/increased services provided on an annual basis by Year 4, as evidenced by_____.

Example #3: POLICY PROPOSAL

Output: Policy study conducted within grant period.

Grant-period outcomes: Policy report delivered to policymakers by the end of the grant. Press coverage monitored by grantee during period of the grant.

Post- grant outcome: Policy recommendations implemented.

Worksheets for developing outputs and outcomes for each of our three grantmaking programs can be accessed through the links below: