All NSF projects are required to submit a project outcomes report within 90 days of the grant’s expiration, along with a final annual report. In addition to the fact that a project outcomes report is a few paragraphs (200 to 800 words) long while annual reports typically span several pages, there are three other ways a project outcomes report is distinct from a final annual report.

A project outcomes report is solely about outcomes. A final annual report addresses many other topics.

A project outcomes report should describe what a project developed and the changes it brought about with regard to advancing knowledge (intellectual merit) and contributing to desired social outcomes (broader impacts). The focus should be on products and results, not project implementation.

Publications are important evidence of intellectual merit, and a list of publications will be generated automatically from the project’s annual reports submitted to Other products generated with grant funds, such as data sets, software, or educational materials, should be listed. If these products are available online, links may be provided. (ATE grants awarded in 2014 or later are required to archive their materials with ATE Central.)

To address the project’s broader impacts, reports should highlight achievements in areas such as increasing participation in STEM by underrepresented minorities, improving teaching and learning, and developing the technical workforce.

A project outcomes report provides a “complete picture of the results” of a project. A final annual report covers the last year of the project only.

A project outcomes report is not a progress report. It is the final word on what a project achieved and produced. PIs should think carefully about how they want their work to be portrayed to the public for decades to come and craft their reports accordingly.

Dr. Joan Strassman of Washington University provides this cogent advice (and more) about crafting outcomes reports:

[A project outcomes report] is where someone … can go to see where NSF is spending its tax dollars. This document is not the plan, not the hopes, but the actual outcomes, so this potential reader can get direct information on what the researcher says she did. It pulls up along with the original funding abstracts, so see to it they coordinate as much as possible. Work hard to be clear, accurate, and compelling.

A project outcomes report is a public document. A final annual report goes to the project’s NSF program officer only.

A big difference between these audiences is that a project’s program officer probably has expertise in the project’s content area and is certainly familiar with the overall aims of the program through which the project was funded. For the benefit of lay readers, project outcomes report authors should use plain language to ensure comprehension by the general public. Authors may check a report’s readability by having a colleague from outside the project’s content area review it. It’s important to include complete yet succinct documentation that is readily understandable by individuals outside the project’s content area.

To access past ATE project outcomes reports, search here by entering “ATE” in the keyword box and checking the box for “Show Only Awards with Project Outcomes Reports.”


A previous version of this blog post appeared in the Spring 2015 EvaluATE newsletter.

About the Authors

Lori Wingate

Lori Wingate box with arrow

Executive Director, The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University

Lori has a Ph.D. in evaluation and more than 20 years of experience in the field of program evaluation. She is co-principal investigator of EvaluATE and leads a variety of evaluation projects at WMU focused on STEM education, health, and higher education initiatives. Dr. Wingate has led numerous webinars and workshops on evaluation in a variety of contexts, including CDC University and the American Evaluation Association Summer Evaluation Institute. She is an associate member of the graduate faculty at WMU. She, along with Dr. Kelly Robertson, led the development of The Evaluation Center's online training program, Valeo (

Creative Commons

Except where noted, all content on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Related Blog Posts

Nation Science Foundation Logo EvaluATE is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number 1841783. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.