Outputs and outcomes: definitions, comparison tables and indicator examples

Outputs are products or services directly produced by a program, such as training delivery, consultation, materials and outreach distribution. Their volume is checked through delivery counts, user numbers and distribution counts. The English term is output.

Outputs are essential for program management. Implementation records allow frequent checks of planned delivery and intended reach. The counts and numbers in this guide alone do not show whether behavior or conditions changed.

The OECD's 2023 glossary also includes changes in knowledge, skills and abilities directly produced by activities within Outputs. Do not mechanically assume that every count is an output or every knowledge change is an outcome.

• What the provider delivered or did
• Directly controlled by the provider
• Can be established from implementation records or operational data
• Delivery counts and participant numbers alone do not show changes in behavior or conditions

Outcomes are changes for people or organizations receiving outputs. They refer to behavior or conditions, such as applying learned procedures at work after training or consultees accessing necessary schemes. The English term is outcome.

Distinguishing time horizons helps organize outcomes. This site treats understanding and awareness changes as short-term, behavior and practice as medium-term, and condition or social changes as long-term. These 3 categories are this site's practical framework; some forms use 2 categories or other labels.

Learning changes shown as short-term outcomes here may be outputs in other forms. Check the reporting recipient's definitions and note the correspondence if classifications change.

Definitions alone may leave difficult cases, so 6 perspectives commonly disputed in practice are compared. This table is the site's classification example. OECD Outputs include knowledge and skill changes; check the definition differences explained above. Questions, measurement timing and pitfalls are also this site's practical guidance.

If unsure, ask whether this is something the provider did or a change for the target group. What the provider directly controls is an output; changes for the target group are outcomes. Make the target group the subject when writing outcomes: write that users accessed necessary support rather than that support was provided.

• Was it directly produced by the provider?
• Did target-group knowledge, behavior or conditions change?
• Is the subject the provider or target group?
• Check whether it measures delivery volume or target-group change, not the record type

In plans and reports, put outputs in implementation-management fields and outcomes in outcome fields. For example, 100 consultations delivered is an output; more consultees accessing necessary schemes afterward is an outcome.

Following increased consultation numbers immediately with improved lives leaves an untested leap. Put them on separate lines with their respective supporting records.

This distinction also helps organize indicators. Obtain output indicators from implementation records and check outcome indicators through surveys, follow-up, administrative data, interviews and case records.

• Outputs show delivery volume and reach
• Outcomes show changes for the target group
• Distinguish short-, medium- and long-term outcomes
• Do not claim outcomes from activity volume alone

Output evaluation checks whether planned activities were delivered as scheduled and reached the target group. Implementation records and operational data are its main materials, and it can inform adjustments during delivery.

Outcome evaluation checks whether knowledge, behavior or conditions subsequently changed. Combine surveys, follow-up, administrative data, interviews and case records, timing the work for when change could occur.

They have different roles and sequences rather than substituting for each other. Without output evaluation, unchanged outcomes cannot be distinguished between non-delivery and delivery without change. Conversely, output evaluation alone does not answer the program's purpose. This is the site's practical explanation; schemes may use other terms or classifications.

• Output evaluation: check delivery volume and reach through implementation records
• Outcome evaluation: check target-group changes when they could occur
• Considering both distinguishes implementation-related from change-related reasons for non-achievement
• State which evaluation was conducted in report headings

These are fictional illustrations, not real programs. Apply the same approach to 3 programs: training, parenting support and community revitalization.

In every example, the output column describes products or services delivered and the outcome column describes target-group change. Even using the same operational records, training delivery counts measure outputs, while participant practice or connections to support organizations measure outcomes. Distinguish by what is measured, not record type.

Distinguish indicators by whether they measure delivery volume or changes in target-group behavior or conditions. Operational and administrative records may support either. Set aggregation intervals according to when change can be checked and when decisions will use results, rather than source type alone.

Names alone do not ensure comparable recording for either type. Define periods, counting units, exclusions and missing-data treatment, and numerator and denominator for proportions. For qualitative indicators, specify descriptions or observations and judgment criteria. Indicators capture conditions or progress and should be kept separate from targets specifying desired levels.

A report listing output indicators alone establishes only high delivery volume. Combining quantitative indicators with open responses or case records for main outcomes allows explanation of reasons for change as well.