What Difference Did It Make?
How to demonstrate results in today’s political landscape
By Alan Maxcy
Government agencies face unprecedented scrutiny. Budgets are being inspected line by line. Efficiency is the watchword of the day. Public and private funders alike are asking tougher questions about the return on their investments.
This isn't just a temporary shift – it's the new reality for nonprofit funding.
In this climate, simply counting your activities is no longer enough. Reporting that you "served 1,000 youth" or "distributed 10,000 meals" might have satisfied funders in the past, but today's funders want to know:
"So what? What difference did those activities make in people's lives?"
The trend toward results-focused funding has been building for years, but today's political and economic context has intensified the pressure. Funders at all levels are expected to demonstrate efficiency and impact with every dollar they distribute. This scrutiny inevitably flows downstream to nonprofits, who must now provide compelling evidence that their programs actually work.
For nonprofit leaders, this represents both a challenge and an opportunity. Organizations that can clearly demonstrate their results will thrive in this environment, attracting more funding and support. Those who continue to focus solely on activities and outputs risk being left behind.
For nonprofits, adapting to this landscape requires a fundamental shift in how you think about measurement and reporting. It's no longer enough to count what you do – you must be able to show what difference you make.
The problem with “by the numbers” reporting
Look at almost any nonprofit annual report, website, or grant proposal, and you'll likely find a page proudly labeled "By the Numbers" or "At a Glance." These sections typically showcase statistics like:
"We served 1,000 youth." "We distributed 10,000 meals." "We engaged 500 volunteers."
But do these numbers actually demonstrate impact? The truth is, they only tell part of the story – what you did, not what difference it made.
They measure effort, not results.
This "By the Numbers" approach to reporting fails to address what funders really want to know: Did the people you serve end up better off because of your work? Did lives actually improve? Did community conditions change?
In today's funding environment, nonprofits that can't answer these questions find themselves at a significant disadvantage. This is why transitioning from output-focused to outcome-focused measurement and reporting has become essential for sustainability.
Outputs vs. Outcomes
To communicate your impact effectively, you must first understand the fundamental distinction between different types of measurement. While these concepts may seem basic, confusing them is one of the most common mistakes organizations make in their reporting.
The measurement continuum
Activities: The tasks and actions your organization performs
Conducting workshops
Distributing meals
Providing counseling sessions
Running after-school programs
Outputs: The direct, countable products of those activities
Number of workshops held
Number of meals distributed
Number of counseling sessions conducted
Number of students attending programs
Outcomes: The changes that occur as a result of your activities
Increased knowledge or skills
Improved health indicators
Enhanced financial stability
Better academic performance
Impact: The broader, longer-term difference your outcomes make
Reduced poverty rates in a community
Improved public health metrics
Higher community graduation rates
Systemic or policy changes
Most nonprofit reporting focuses heavily on activities and outputs because they're easiest to count. Want to know how many meals you distributed? Just count them. Want to know how many people attended your workshop? Check your registration list.
Measuring outcomes and impact is more challenging. It requires baseline data, follow-up assessment, and often specialized evaluation methods. But these higher-level measurements demonstrate the real value of your work – and what today's funders want to see.
The "So what?" test
A simple way to distinguish between outputs and outcomes is to apply the "So what?" test to any measurement.
Example: "We served 1,000 youth in our after-school program."
So what? What changed for those youth as a result of participating?
Output-based answer: "We provided 3,000 hours of academic support."
(This still doesn't answer "So what?" – it's just another output)
Outcome-based answer: "85% of participants improved their grades, with the average increasing from C to B-. Additionally, 73% reported increased confidence in their academic abilities, and disciplinary incidents decreased by 40%."
This outcome-based response shows the actual difference the program made in the lives of participants – the changes in their knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and circumstances that resulted from the activities.
Modern funders are increasingly applying this "So what?" test to everything you report. If you can't answer it convincingly, you're still focused on outputs, not outcomes.
Results-Based Accountability
As nonprofits seek to move from outputs to outcomes, many struggle with complex evaluation terminology and methods. Terms like "logic models," "theory of change," "indicators," and "impact metrics" can quickly become overwhelming.
Results-Based Accountability (RBA) offers a refreshingly straightforward alternative. Created by Mark Friedman and described in his book "Trying Hard is Not Good Enough," RBA replaces jargon with plain language and provides a simple framework for measuring what matters.
The power of simple questions
At its core, RBA organizes performance measurement around three simple questions:
How much did we do? (Your outputs)
Number of clients served
Number of activities completed
Number of service hours provided
How well did we do it? (Your quality measures)
Percentage of activities meeting quality standards
Client satisfaction rates
Staff qualification levels
Cost per client
Is anyone better off? (Your outcomes)
Changes in knowledge/skills
Changes in attitudes/opinions
Changes in behaviors
Changes in circumstances
The beauty of this framework is its clarity. Anyone can understand these questions, regardless of their evaluation expertise. They provide a logical progression from basic counts (how much) to quality assessment (how well) to actual results (better off).
Most importantly, RBA helps organizations focus on the question that matters most to funders: "Is anyone better off?" These "better off" measures are your outcomes – the actual changes experienced by the people you serve.
Irresistible case for support: A simple framework for telling your impact story
With a clear understanding of the difference between outputs and outcomes and the RBA framework, you're ready to craft an impact story that will resonate with today's funders. This requires a simple, straightforward approach that communicates the essential elements of your work and its results.
A compelling impact report has three key sections:
1. The characters
Start by clearly establishing:
Who you are: Your mission and vision
What you do: Your activities, programs, and services
Who you serve: The specific population you serve
This section is concise and specific. Donors want to know who you are and what you do. And the funders who want to fund work with specific communities need to know your participant demographics.
2. The challenge: Define the problem you solve
The foundation of any impact story is a clear understanding of the problem you're addressing. If you can't define the problem precisely, you can't show that you're solving it.
Start by answering these questions:
What specific need or problem does your program address?
Why does this problem matter to your community?
What would happen if this problem weren't addressed?
What data demonstrates the scope and urgency of this problem?
Use specific, local data whenever possible. Instead of saying "Childhood obesity is a national epidemic," say "In our county, 35% of children ages 5-12 are clinically overweight or obese, with rates as high as 52% in low-income neighborhoods."
If possible, disaggregate your data by race, gender, income level, or other relevant factors. This often reveals disparities that strengthen your case for targeted intervention.
Remember: The clearer you are about the problem you solve, the easier it will be to collect data showing you're actually solving it.
3. The impact: How much, How well, Better off
This is where you apply the RBA framework to show your results:
How much did we do? Briefly establish the scale of your work
Example: "Last year, we provided 12,000 hours of academic support to 450 students across four sites."
How well did we do it? Highlight key quality indicators
Example: "Our program maintained a 92% attendance rate, with 85% of participants attending at least three sessions per week. 97% of parents rated our services as 'excellent' or 'very good.'"
Is anyone better off? Focus on your key outcome measures
Example: "78% of participants improved their reading scores by at least one grade level. 82% reported increased confidence in their academic abilities. School attendance among participants increased by 24% compared to the previous year."
One more thing – go beyond the numbers with:
Visual data presentations (graphs, charts)
Direct quotes from participants or stakeholders
Stories of transformation
High-quality photos
This three-part framework—Characters, Challenge, Impact—provides a clear, logical structure for communicating your results that any funder can follow and understand.
Most importantly, this framework answers the two most important questions modern donors have:
“Do you solve a problem I care about? And are you good at solving that problem?”
If you can answer these two questions well, donors are a lot more likely to write you a check.
Conclusion
The shift from outputs to outcomes is not just a passing trend—it's a fundamental change in how nonprofit effectiveness is measured and valued. In today's funding landscape, organizations that can clearly demonstrate their results will thrive, while those still focused solely on activities may struggle to maintain support.
As you navigate this transition, remember these key principles:
Start with the problem you solve. A clear understanding of the need you address is the foundation for meaningful outcome measurement.
Outputs tell what you did; outcomes show what difference it made. Always be able to answer the "So what?" question about your work.
Simple frameworks yield powerful insights. Use RBA's three questions—How much did we do? How well did we do it? Is anyone better off?—to organize your measurement approach.
Tell a complete story. Don’t just report outcomes.
Is it great the seniors in your afterschool program had a 100% graduation rate? Yes! But that is not a story. Use the irresistible case for support framework to create a clear, compelling narrative about your work and its results.
By implementing these principles, you can transform how you measure, communicate, and ultimately increase your impact. This isn't just about satisfying funders—it's about maximizing your organization's ability to create positive change in the communities you serve.
In a funding landscape increasingly focused on results, the organizations that thrive will be those that can clearly show how they're making a difference, not just how busy they've been.
About Good Work
Good Work is a specialized consulting agency providing fractional solutions in grant writing and impact management for growing nonprofits. We believe nonprofits and their leaders are the world's best problem solvers, tackling complex social issues and building a better future.
Our mission is simple: We help nonprofits do the most good.
Take the next step
Ready to transform how you measure and communicate your impact? Book a free 30-minute consultation to discuss how we can help you develop an outcome-focused approach that resonates with your funders and advances your mission.