Outputs and outcomes in grant applications: examples and a template

Start with three lines in your project plan. Keeping them separate makes a vague promise easier to test:

• Output: what you will provide, such as twelve supported computer sessions for twenty residents.
• Outcome: what you hope will change, such as residents being able to complete an everyday online task with less help.
• Indicator: the sign you will look for, such as how much support a resident needs to complete an agreed practice task at the beginning and end.

An attendance register can show that sessions happened and people came. It cannot, by itself, show that their skills improved. Choose evidence that answers the particular claim you are making. If you promise improved confidence, ask about confidence; if you promise a practical skill, consider an appropriate task as well.

Use this drafting sentence: “By [point in the project], [defined group] will have [specific change], supported by [the relevant activity].” Then read it without the activity clause. Does it still describe a meaningful change for the people involved?

For example, replace “we will deliver job-search workshops” with “by the end of the course, participants will be more confident tailoring a CV to a vacancy”. This is a proposed outcome, not a guarantee that everyone will find a job. Before choosing it, check that it reflects what participants want and what your sessions can reasonably support.

The funder's 2016 advice article recommends realistic, specific outcomes and warns against copying broad programme aims as project outcomes. We use it here for that general distinction, not as evidence of current application rules. Always follow the current questions for the particular grant you select. Our guide to evidence of need can help connect your proposed change to the problem residents have identified.

This fictional example illustrates a planning method. Its numbers are not a funder requirement or a benchmark for other projects. Suppose a community group has agreed to support twenty residents who want more independence with everyday online tasks.

• Planned output: twelve weekly sessions, with places for twenty distinct residents. Record both the number of people and their total attendances so repeat visits are not counted as new participants.
• Proposed outcome: residents need less help to complete an online task they have chosen, such as finding a local service.
• Starting point: at the first session, agree a safe practice task with each resident and note whether they need full, partial or no support.
• Follow-up: repeat a comparable task at the final session and record the support needed using the same categories.
• Illustrative target: aim for fourteen of the twenty enrolled residents to need less support. Explain how a pilot or previous delivery would justify this target before using it in a real bid.

If only sixteen residents complete both assessments, retain both denominators in your results: fourteen of twenty enrolled, and fourteen of sixteen assessed twice. Record why follow-up is missing where known. Do not silently replace the original group with completers or treat missing evidence as proof of improvement.

A before-and-after comparison would show a change during the course. It would not establish that the course alone caused it. Ask what else helped, and describe your project's contribution without claiming more than the evidence supports.

Copy these prompts into your planning notes before filling in the application form:

1. People and change: who should benefit, and what should be different for them?
2. Delivery: which activities and outputs will help that change happen?
3. Evidence: what observation, question or record would show progress?
4. Starting point and timing: what will you record before the activity, and when will you check again?
5. Target and basis: what level of change do you propose, for how many people, and what supports that estimate?
6. Responsibility: who will collect and review the evidence, and what time or resources will they need?

Keep the method manageable for participants and staff. The Community Fund's current guidance on learning from your project encourages useful learning rather than prescribing a single method. Treat this template as planning advice; it does not replace any evidence or reporting requirements in your own award.

Read each outcome alongside your timetable and budget. If the change depends on six months of support, a four-week project needs a different promise. If collecting evidence requires staff time, include that work in the delivery plan. Remove repeated outcomes that describe the same change in different words.

Check whether the application asks for outputs, outcomes, targets or a broader account of the difference you will make, and answer each field directly. Use our grant application guide for the rest of the proposal. After an award, the monitoring report guide explains how to present actual progress against the plan.

When looking for a suitable funder, start with charity and community grant results, then read the original programme guidance. Choose funding that supports the change your community wants; do not redesign the outcome simply to echo a funder's vocabulary.