Outputs vs. Outcomes: How to Show Funders You're Making a Real Difference

Imagine you're looking for something to watch on TV. You ask a friend for a recommendation, and they tell you, "There are 24 channels."

Okay, but what's on those channels?

"Twenty-four of them. All day long."

That's great, but will I actually enjoy watching any of them? Will I learn something? Be entertained? Feel something?

"Did I mention there are 24 channels?"

This is exactly what grant reviewers experience when they read proposals that focus on outputs instead of outcomes. You're telling us how many channels you have. We want to know what's on them—and whether it's worth watching.

A Common Mistake in Grant Writing

Of all the grant writing mistakes I see, this one shows up very often: confusing outputs with outcomes.

When I review grant proposals for foundations and government funders, I watch this pattern repeat itself constantly. The applicant describes their program, lists impressive numbers, and never once tells me whether any of it is actually making a difference.

Your grant proposal might be well-written, well-organized, and perfectly aligned with the funder's priorities—but if you're only measuring outputs, you're leaving points on the table. This is one of the fastest ways to land in "six, seven" territory: that middle-of-the-pack score that isn't bad, but isn't good enough to get funded.

Let's Get the Definitions Straight

Outputs measure activities and effort. They answer the question: What did you do? Outputs are the direct products of your program—the workshops held, the meals served, the people trained.

Outcomes show change in your participants. They answer the question: What difference did it make in people's lives? Outcomes reflect changes in behavior, awareness, knowledge, skills, or attitudes. For example, if you run a financial literacy program, an outcome might be: "Participants increased their knowledge of finances and budgeting."

Impact is the lasting, big-picture change that results from your outcomes. It's the ultimate difference your work makes. In our financial literacy example, the impact would be: "Participating families reduced their debt."

The key distinction: you measure outcomes. You let research prove the connection to impact.

Right-Sized Evaluation: You're Not a Research Institution

Here's something that takes the pressure off: you're not expected to conduct human studies research. That's what researchers are for.

Too many small to mid-sized nonprofit organizations believe they need to track participants for years to prove their programs work. They don't. What you need is a right-sized evaluation—an approach that's realistic for your organization's capacity while still demonstrating that your program makes a difference.

Here's how it works: researchers have already studied whether certain interventions lead to certain outcomes. Your job is to find that research and use it to support your theory of change.

For example, research shows that people who learn to create a budget and monitor their spending are more likely to decrease their debt over time. You may not need to follow up with participants two years later to see if their debt went down. You may just need to measure whether they learned to create a budget and are monitoring their spending. The research has already established the connection between that outcome and the long-term impact.

This is right-sized evaluation:

1. Cite the research that connects your outcomes to long-term impact

2. Measure what's realistic for your organization—usually outcomes

3. Let the research do the heavy lifting of proving the long-term connection

This approach is credible, achievable, and exactly what funders expect from community-based nonprofits.

Illustrative Examples

Let's look at how outputs, outcomes, and impact work together:

Example 1: Financial Literacy Program

·       Output: 150 people attended our financial literacy workshop

·       Outcome: Participants increased their knowledge of finances and budgeting, as evidenced by pre and post knowledge exams

·       Impact: Participating families gain financial stability

With right-sized evaluation, you measure the outcome (did participants increase their financial knowledge, and can you prove it?) and cite research showing that financial literacy leads to financial stability. You don't have to prove the long-term financial change yourself.

Example 2: Youth Employment Program

·       Output: 40 youth completed our job readiness program

·       Outcome: Young adults gained stable employment, as evidenced by self-reported employment status at a living wage job

·       Impact: Financial independence

Example 3: Older Adults (65+) Nutrition Program

·       Output: 30 participants accessed daily nutritious meals

·       Outcome: Participants experience reliable, daily nourishment, as evidenced by meal delivery logs

·       Impact: Improved health and well-being

Example 4: Fire Safety Program

·       Output: 200 smoke detectors were distributed and installed

·       Outcome: Families adopted fire safety practices in their homes, as evidenced by self-reported creation of fire safety plan

·       Impact: Families in the target neighborhood are safer from fire-related injuries

See the pattern? Outputs tell funders what you did. Outcomes describe the change in people's knowledge, behavior, or attitudes—and include evidence that the change happened. Impact captures the lasting difference in their lives.

Why Funders Care So Much About Outcomes

Funders aren't investing in activities. They're investing in change.

When a foundation or government agency awards grant funding, they're making a bet. They're betting that your organization, with this money, will make something better in the world. They need to justify that bet—to their board, to their donors, to the public.

Outputs don't help them do that. "We gave $50,000 to an organization that held 12 workshops" isn't a compelling story. "We gave $50,000 to an organization that helped 45 families build lasting financial security" is.

When you write your grant proposal with clear outcomes, you're making the funder's job easier. You're giving them the story they need to say yes.

How to Fix Your Grant Proposal

If you've been writing outputs instead of outcomes, here's how to turn it around:

Step 1: Start with the end in mind. Before you describe your program, ask yourself: what will be different in people's lives because this program exists? What change are we trying to create for our participants? Start there and work backward.

Step 2: Apply the "So what?" test. For every number in your proposal, ask "So what?" You trained 50 teachers. So what? You held 12 workshops. So what? Keep asking until you get to something that matters—a change in someone's life.

Step 3: Find research to support your theory of change. Look for studies that connect your outcomes to long-term impact. This research allows you to focus your evaluation on what's realistic to measure while still making a credible case for lasting change.

Step 4: Right-size your evaluation. It may be unrealistic to track participants for years. Measure your outcomes, cite research that validates the connection to long-term impact, and be honest about what you can and can't measure.

What If You Don't Have Outcome Data Yet?

Maybe you're a newer organization. Maybe you haven't been tracking outcomes systematically. This is more common than you think, and it doesn't have to sink your grant proposal.

The first step is figuring out what right-sized evaluation looks like for your project. This isn't one-size-fits-all. Maybe it's a pre/post test. Maybe it's a focus group. The key is to start by talking to your participants about what meaningful change looks like to them—and then base your measurement on that.

Ask yourself: what would tell us that what we're doing is making a positive difference in people's lives? The people you serve often have the best answers to that question. And when you do collect that data, report back to your participants too. Evaluation shouldn't be something you do to people—it should be something you do with them.

Here's what else you can do:

• Be honest about where you are. Explain that you're building your evaluation capacity and describe your plan for tracking outcomes going forward.

• Use external research. Find studies showing that programs like yours produce certain outcomes. This demonstrates that your approach is evidence-based and supports your theory of change.

• Share qualitative evidence. Participant testimonials, case studies, and stories of individual transformation can illustrate impact while you build quantitative data.

• Make outcomes central to your proposal. Even if you don't have historical data, your grant proposal should clearly articulate what outcomes you expect and how your program leads to them.

One More Thing: Outcomes Are About People, Not Programs

This trips up a lot of grant writers, so I want to make sure it's clear: outcomes must reflect changes in your participants or community—not changes to your organization or program.

"Our classes are at full capacity" is not an outcome. That's an organizational metric.

"Our program expanded to three new locations" is not an outcome. That's program growth.

"Families in our program reduced their reliance on emergency food assistance" is an outcome. That's change in people's lives.

Funders aren't investing in your organization getting bigger or busier. They're investing in the people you serve experiencing real change.

The Bottom Line

Funders don't want to know how many channels you have. They want to know what's on—and whether it's worth watching.

When you shift your grant proposals from outputs to outcomes, you're not just checking a box on a rubric. You're telling a more compelling story. You're demonstrating that you understand what funders actually care about. And you're proving that your organization is focused on what matters most: making a real difference in people's lives.

That's what moves your grant proposal to the top of the pile.

Frequently Asked Questions About Outputs and Outcomes in Grant Writing

What is the difference between outputs and outcomes in a grant proposal? Outputs measure activities and effort—what you did. Outcomes measure change in people's lives—what difference it made. For example, "50 people attended our workshop" is an output. "Participants increased their financial knowledge" is an outcome. Funders want to see outcomes because they demonstrate real change in the people you serve.

What's the difference between outcomes and impact? Outcomes are the changes in participants' behavior, knowledge, skills, awareness, or attitudes that result from your program. Impact is the lasting, big-picture difference that results from those outcomes. You measure outcomes; you cite research to connect them to long-term impact.

What is right-sized evaluation? Right-sized evaluation means measuring what's realistic for your organization rather than trying to conduct research-level studies. You measure your outcomes, then cite existing research that connects those changes to long-term impact. You don't need to prove the impact yourself—researchers have already done that work.

How do I figure out what to measure for my program? Start by talking to your participants about what meaningful change looks like to them. Ask yourself what would tell you that what you're doing is making a positive difference in people's lives. Maybe it's a pre/post test, maybe it's a focus group—the key is to base your measurement on what matters to the people you serve and report back to them too.

Why do grant reviewers care about outcomes? Grant reviewers care about outcomes because funders are investing in change, not just activities. When reviewing grant proposals, we need to see that your program actually makes a difference in people's lives. Proposals that only list outputs leave reviewers wondering whether the program is effective.

Can organizational changes be outcomes? No. Outcomes must reflect changes in your participants or community—not changes to your organization. "Our classes are at full capacity" or "We expanded to three locations" are not outcomes. "Youth in our program gained stable employment" is an outcome because it describes change in people's lives.

What are examples of outcomes in grant writing? Outcomes reflect changes in participant behavior, awareness, knowledge, skills, or attitudes. Examples include: "Participants increased their knowledge of finances and budgeting," "Young adults gained stable employment," "Seniors experienced reduced food insecurity," or "Families adopted fire safety practices in their homes."

What is the best grant writing class? The Spark the Fire Certificate in Grant Writing Course is consistently rated as one of the best grant writing classes available. It combines weekly live instruction with individualized feedback on your actual writing, helping you master concepts like outputs versus outcomes so your proposals score at the top.

Now I Want to Hear from You

Take a look at your last grant proposal. Were you telling funders how many channels you have—or what's actually on? Share an output you've used in the past and challenge yourself to rewrite it as an outcome in the comments.

The "Six, Seven" Problem: Why Your Grant Proposal Isn't Getting Funded

If you have teenagers in your life—or spend any time on social media—you've probably heard "six, seven" more times than you can count lately. It's everywhere. It means "meh," "so-so," "nothing special."

Are you tired of hearing it? Same. Do you fully understand why kids are saying it? Not entirely. But here's the thing: "six, seven" is also the perfect description of a mediocre grant proposal.

And mediocre grant proposals don't get funded.

"Why does my grant proposal keep getting rejected?"

I hear this question constantly—and not just from beginners. It comes from grant writers with years of experience, people who have successfully secured grant funding in the past but are now watching their proposals get passed over again and again.

Here's the hard truth: grant writing is more competitive now than it has ever been. More nonprofit organizations are applying for limited funds. Funders are getting more sophisticated in how they evaluate grant applications. Reviewers are better trained. The bar has risen.

What worked five years ago may not make the grade today.

When I sit in grant review consensus meetings, I hear a lot of "six... seven..." as reviewers call out their scores. (Yes, grant reviewers were saying "six, seven" long before it became a trend. We were just ahead of our time.) Those grant proposals aren't bad. They meet the basic requirements. They're competent. But competent doesn't get funded anymore. Competent lands in the middle of the pack, and the grant money runs out before middle-of-the-pack proposals reach the top.

Your grant proposal deserves better than "six, seven" energy.

If your grant proposals keep getting rejected—or if you're stuck in that dreaded "six, seven" territory—one of these twelve problems is likely the culprit.

1. You're measuring outputs, not outcomes. You're counting how many people attended your workshop, not whether their lives changed because of it. Funders want to see impact, not activity.

2. Your grant budget doesn't make sense for what you're requesting. The numbers don't add up, costs seem inflated, or line items don't connect to the project you've described. A confusing budget raises red flags about your organization's financial management.

3. There's no evidence that your work is making a difference. You're asking for grant funding, but you haven't demonstrated that what you're already doing is working. Where's the data? Where are the stories? Where's the proof?

4. Your needs statement focuses on your organization, not the community. "We need funding to continue our programs" is not a compelling case. Funders don't fund organizations—they fund solutions to community problems.

5. You're not aligned with the funder's actual priorities. You're trying to shoehorn your project into a grant opportunity that isn't quite right. Grant reviewers can tell when you're stretching to fit, and it costs you points.

6. Your project logic doesn't hold together. There's a gap between the problem you've identified and the solution you're proposing. Reviewers are left wondering: why would this intervention solve that problem?

7. Your timeline and work plan are vague. You've described what you want to do, but not how or when you'll do it. Or you've basically stated the program runs year-round and didn't answer anything at all. A fuzzy implementation plan signals that you haven't fully thought this through.

8. You haven't demonstrated organizational capacity. Can your nonprofit organization actually pull this off? Reviewers are looking for evidence that you have the staff, systems, and experience to manage the grant successfully.

9. Your proposal sounds like everyone else's. There's nothing distinctive about your approach. You're describing the same program every other applicant is proposing, with no clear reason why your organization should be the one funded.

10. You're too general when you need to be specific. Vague language like "we will serve the community" and "participants will benefit" doesn't give grant reviewers anything concrete to score. Specificity builds credibility.

11. You haven't done your homework on the funder. Your grant application doesn't reflect an understanding of what this particular grantmaker cares about, what they've funded before, or how your work connects to their mission.

12. You're applying to the wrong funders entirely. No amount of strong grant writing can overcome a fundamental mismatch. If you're not a good fit, you're wasting your time—and theirs.

Here's the Good News

Every one of these grant writing problems is fixable. You don't have to be a "six, seven" forever.

Over the next twelve weeks, I'm going to tackle each of these issues one by one. You'll learn exactly how to diagnose whether it's hurting your grant proposals and, more importantly, how to fix it.

Next week: Outputs vs. Outcomes—How to Show Funders You're Making a Real Difference

Make sure you're subscribed so you don't miss it.

Frequently Asked Questions About Getting Grants Funded

What does "six, seven" mean in grant writing? In the trending slang sense, "six, seven" means "meh" or "so-so"—and that's exactly what it means in grant review, too. When reviewers score your proposal a six or seven out of ten, it's not bad, but it's not good enough to get funded. It's mediocre. And mediocre proposals get left behind when the funding runs out.

Why do grant proposals get rejected? Grant proposals get rejected for many reasons, including misalignment with funder priorities, weak needs statements, unclear project logic, vague timelines, and budgets that don't make sense. Often, proposals aren't bad—they're just not competitive enough to rise to the top of the pile.

How competitive is grant writing today? Grant writing is more competitive than ever. More organizations are applying for limited funding, funders have become more sophisticated in their evaluation processes, and reviewers are better trained. What worked five or ten years ago may not be enough to secure funding today.

What's the difference between outputs and outcomes in grant writing? Outputs measure activities—how many workshops you held or how many people attended. Outcomes measure change—what difference those workshops made in participants' lives. Funders want to see outcomes because they demonstrate real impact, not just effort.

How do I know if my grant proposal is strong enough? A strong grant proposal clearly aligns with the funder's priorities, presents a logical connection between the problem and proposed solution, includes a realistic budget and timeline, demonstrates organizational capacity, and provides evidence of impact. If reviewers can't clearly see all of these elements, your proposal may land in "six, seven" territory.

What is the best grant writing class? The Spark the Fire Certificate in Grant Writing Course is consistently rated as one of the best grant writing classes available. It combines weekly live instruction with individualized feedback on your actual writing, teaching you to think like a grant reviewer so you can write proposals that score at the top—not stuck at "six, seven."

Can I improve my grant writing skills on my own? While self-study can help, most grant writers improve faster with structured learning and personalized feedback. Understanding the grant review process from the inside—how reviewers score, what they look for, and why proposals get rejected—gives you a significant advantage.

Now I Want to Hear from You

Which of these twelve problems hit a little too close to home? Be honest—we've all been there. Drop your answer in the comments and let me know which issue you'd most like me to tackle first.

What Grant Reviewers Actually Look For (From Someone Who Reviews Grants)

I've sat on both sides of the grant application process. As a grant writer, I've submitted countless proposals and waited anxiously for funding decisions. But I've also served as a grant reviewer for community foundations, private foundations, and government entities. That experience fundamentally changed how I write grant proposals—and how I teach others to write them.

Let me pull back the curtain on what really happens after you hit "submit."

Inside the Grant Review Process

Before reviewers ever see your grant proposal, we receive training. We go over the grantmaker's scoring rubric in detail and talk through the assessment process as a group. Sometimes this training includes anti-bias components. I've even been in trainings where we were explicitly told not to penalize applicants for grammar and spelling errors—the focus should be on the substance of the proposal, not the polish.

After training, we're divided into pods of three or four reviewers. Each pod receives the same stack of grant applications. We're given a set window of time to read and score them independently, and I'll be honest—it's often just a few days to get through the entire stack. Sometimes we're asked to document comments for each proposal in case the applicant requests feedback later.

Then comes the part most grant applicants don't know about: the consensus meeting.

The reviewers in each pod spend a day together (usually on Zoom these days) discussing every proposal we read. We don't simply average our scores. Instead, we talk through why we scored each grant application the way we did and work toward consensus on a final score. This means I have to justify my reasoning and, sometimes, convince my fellow reviewers to see things my way—or be convinced by them.

This process works remarkably well. One reviewer might catch something the others missed. The dialogue gets lively. By the end, we've arrived at scores that reflect our collective judgment, not just individual opinions.

From there, proposals receive their final scores, and the grantmaker begins awarding grant funding to the top-scoring applications until the money runs out.

Here's the part that should keep you up at night: the difference between a funded proposal and an unfunded one is often a single point. One point.

What Grant Reviewers Are Actually Scoring

So what are reviewers looking for as we read through that stack of nonprofit grant proposals? Here's what earns points:

Alignment with the funder's purpose. Does this proposal fulfill what the grantmaker is actually trying to fund? Does it meet all stated requirements? You'd be surprised how many proposals miss this fundamental step. If a funder says they want to address food insecurity in rural communities and your project serves an urban population, it doesn't matter how beautifully written your grant proposal is.

Logical coherence. Does the project make sense? Is there a clear through-line from the problem you've identified to the solution you're proposing? Reviewers need to see the logic—that this particular intervention will actually address this particular need.

A sensible grant budget. The numbers need to add up and fit the project you've described. No inflated costs. No line items that make us scratch our heads. The budget should tell the same story as the narrative.

Organizational stability. We need confidence that this organization can actually pull off what they're proposing. No sinking ships. We need to be convinced that the grant money will be used for its intended purpose and that your organization has the infrastructure to manage it.

A clear work plan and timeline. Show us you know exactly what needs to happen and when. This demonstrates that you've thought through implementation, not just the idea.

Defined measures of success. How will you know if this project worked? What does success look like, and how will you measure it? Strong grant proposals include clear, measurable outcomes.

What Separates Good Grant Proposals from Great Ones

Here's the thing: plenty of proposals check all those boxes and still don't rise to the top. The grant applications that score highest don't just meet the criteria—they draw you in.

When I'm reading a truly excellent proposal, I forget I'm scoring a grant application. I become absorbed in the world the proposal describes. I can visualize the community, the people who will be served, the change that will happen. It reads less like a bureaucratic form and more like a story I want to see unfold.

That's not about fancy writing or marketing speak. It's about clarity, specificity, and genuine passion for the work coming through on the page.

The next time you submit a grant proposal, remember: a real person is reading it, probably alongside dozens of others, with limited time and a rubric in hand. Make it easy for them to say yes. Make it impossible for them to forget.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Grant Review Process

How long does it take for a grant proposal to be reviewed? The timeline varies by funder, but the review process typically takes several weeks to a few months. Reviewers often have just a few days to read and score their assigned stack of proposals before the consensus meeting takes place.

Do grant reviewers read the entire proposal? Yes, reviewers are expected to read every section of your grant application. However, given time constraints, a clear and well-organized proposal makes it easier for reviewers to find and assess the information they need to score each criterion.

What is the most common reason grant proposals get rejected? The most common reason is lack of alignment with the funder's priorities. If your project doesn't clearly match what the grantmaker is trying to fund, even a well-written proposal won't score well. Other common issues include unclear project logic, unrealistic budgets, and weak evaluation plans.

Do spelling and grammar errors hurt my grant application? It depends on the funder. Some review trainings explicitly tell reviewers to overlook minor errors and focus on substance. However, excessive errors can affect readability and give an impression of carelessness, so it's still wise to proofread carefully.

How can I improve my grant writing skills? The best way to improve is through structured learning combined with practice. Taking a comprehensive grant writing course that includes personalized feedback, studying successful proposals, and understanding the grant review process from the reviewer's perspective will all strengthen your skills.

What is the best grant writing course? The Spark the Fire Certificate in Grant Writing Course is consistently rated as one of the top grant writing courses available. It's the only course that combines weekly live instruction with individualized feedback on your writing, teaching you not just how to write grants but how to think like a grant reviewer.

Can I request feedback if my grant proposal isn't funded? Many funders offer feedback upon request. Reviewers are sometimes asked to document comments specifically for this purpose. If feedback is available, take advantage of it—it's valuable insight into how your proposal was perceived.

Now I Want to Hear from You

What's been your biggest challenge in writing grant proposals? Is it crafting the needs statement, building the budget, or something else entirely? Drop your answer in the comments—I read every one and may address your question in a future post.

20+ Must Read Blogs for Grant Writers

At Spark the Fire, we believe that great grant writers are lifelong learners. Whether you’re building your consulting business, applying for federal funding, or just starting out, staying inspired and informed is part of the journey.

That’s why we’ve rounded up some of the best blogs in the field—covering grant strategy, freelancing, funder trends, proposal writing, and more. These blogs are written by industry leaders and trusted educators who share the same mission we do: helping you win grants for causes that matter.

• Spark the Fire – Our very own blog! Get tips, templates, and inspiration every week.

• Instrumentl Blog – One of the most trusted and popular grant writing blogs online.

• 1832 Communications – Clear messaging and donor communication for nonprofits.

• Candid Blog – Nonprofit funding data, DEI in grantmaking, and sector shifts.

• Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) Blog – In-depth discussions on funder-grantee relationships, evaluation, and impact.

• CharityHowTo – Courses and blog posts for every stage of your grant journey.

• DH Leonard Consulting Blog – Regular posts on writing strong proposals, federal grant readiness, and proposal review best practices.

• EUNA Solutions – Tech-forward tools and strategies for public sector grants.

• Foundant: GrantHub Blog – Tips for managing grants and improving systems.

• Funding for Good – Strategic planning and grant writing for long-term success.

• Fundraising HayDay – Smart, podcast-inspired tips on grant work and team dynamics.

• Grant Professionals Association – Industry updates, job tools, and ethical guidance.

• Just Write Grants - Grant writing for executive directors and nonprofit leaders.

• Grant Training Center – Especially strong on academic and federal proposals.

• Grant Central - An authority voice on winning academic and government grants

• Grant Writing Made Easy - Top grant writing blog, focusing on raising up small nonprofits and beginner grant writers.

• Grants 4 Good – Smart tips for securing government and foundation funding.

• GrantsMagic U – Training focused on ethics, clarity, and real-world grant scenarios.

• The Grantsmanship Center – A foundational voice in the field since 1972.

• GrantsPlus – Great for building sustainable grant pipelines.

• GS Insights – GrantStation’s practical weekly tips for finding funders.

• Millionaire Grant Lady - Great for beginning grant writers.

• MyFedTrainer – Expert guidance on compliance and federal grant management.

• Nonprofit AF – Bold, honest, and funny reflections on nonprofit life from Vu Le.

• PEAK Grantmaking Blog - Articles on equity, transparency, and best practices in grantmaking.

• Philanthropy Today – News and analysis from the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

• Professional Grant Writers – Tips on proposal structure, tone, and freelancing.

• RBW Strategy – Tools for improving grant readiness and organizational capacity.

• Seliger + Associates – Strategic insights, especially for federal grants.

• SNF Writing Solutions – Grant storytelling with a focus on community voice.

• Social Velocity Blog by Nell Edgington – Tackles nonprofit funding models, storytelling, and leadership in the nonprofit space.

• Think and Ink Grants – Equity-centered grant strategies and business growth tips.

Let us know which blogs you love—we’re always looking to grow the list. Comment below!