Most Funders Will Request Evaluation Of The Grant Program

Most Funders Will Request An Evaluation Of The Grant Program The Fund

Most funders will request an evaluation of the grant program. The funder wants evidence that the funded program achieved its intended outcomes. Therefore, understanding types of evaluation methods and evaluation criteria is important. Using the course material and additional research: Discuss formative and summative evaluations. Research evaluation criteria used in three grant proposals, identify the criteria used, and discuss any commonalities between the criteria. Now that you know more about program evaluations, how might you write the grant proposal differently?

Paper For Above instruction

Program evaluation is a vital component in securing funding and demonstrating the effectiveness of initiatives supported by grants. Funders seek assurance that the invested resources produce measurable and meaningful outcomes, which necessitates clear and strategic evaluation methods. This paper explores two primary types of evaluation—formative and summative—discusses evaluation criteria derived from three different grant proposals, identifies commonalities among these criteria, and considers how this understanding influences the process of writing a grant proposal.

Understanding Formative and Summative Evaluations

Formative and summative evaluations serve distinct yet complementary purposes within program assessment. Formative evaluation is conducted during the implementation phase of a program, providing ongoing feedback that can be used to modify and improve activities in real-time. Its goal is to enhance program processes, increase efficiency, and ensure that objectives are aligned with activities and resources. For example, a formative evaluation might include participant feedback, process observations, and periodic assessments that identify barriers to success and areas requiring adjustment (Patton, 2015).

Conversely, summative evaluation takes place at the conclusion of a program, aiming to assess its overall effectiveness and impact. It provides a summation of outcomes—such as changes in participant behavior, skill acquisition, or community benefits—and seeks to determine whether the program achieved its stated goals. Summative evaluations often employ quantitative measures like surveys, standardized tests, or statistical analyses to establish causality and measure success against predefined criteria (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004).

Both evaluation types are essential in crafting a comprehensive picture of program performance. While formative evaluation guides ongoing improvements, summative evaluation offers evidence of success or areas for further development, satisfying the informational needs of funders.

Evaluation Criteria in Grant Proposals

Analysis of three distinct grant proposals reveals varied yet overlapping evaluation criteria. In Proposal A, evaluation focused on process indicators such as participant engagement levels, attendance rates, and fidelity to program design. Proposal B emphasized outcome measures, including participant knowledge gains, behavior change, and community impact. Proposal C combined both process and outcome criteria, also incorporating sustainability measures and stakeholder satisfaction.

Common evaluation criteria across these proposals include:

- Effectiveness in achieving program objectives

- Participant or stakeholder satisfaction

- Implementation fidelity

- Cost-effectiveness

- Long-term sustainability of outcomes

These commonalities suggest a consensus on key indicators that funders value, reflecting a balanced emphasis on both the quality of implementation and the results achieved.

Implications for Grant Proposal Writing

Understanding the evaluation criteria valued by funders influences how grant proposals are written. Proposers should incorporate clear, measurable objectives aligned with evaluation methods. Articulating specific evaluation strategies—detailing formative and summative methods, types of data collection, and analysis plans—demonstrates preparedness and accountability.

Furthermore, integrating evaluation criteria into the proposal narrative ensures that evaluative measures are seen as integral to program success, not as afterthoughts. Highlighting a plan for ongoing formative assessments reassures funders of continuous quality improvement, while outlining a robust summative evaluation at the conclusion signals a commitment to demonstrating impact.

In addition, emphasizing potential for sustainability and capacity building within the evaluation plan can address funders' long-term interests. These modifications to proposal development increase credibility, transparency, and the likelihood of funding approval.

Conclusion

Effective program evaluation—through both formative and summative assessments—is indispensable for demonstrating achievement of grant objectives and securing future funding. Recognizing the common evaluation criteria used by funders can guide applicants in crafting comprehensive, credible proposals that align with funder priorities. By integrating these evaluation components into proposal writing, practitioners can enhance the likelihood of success and foster continuous program improvement.

References

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Utilization-focused evaluation. Sage Publications.

Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage Publications.

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Pearson Higher Ed.

Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. Sage Publications.

Chen, H. T. (2005). Practical evaluation. Sage.

Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation. In H. F. Kravis (Ed.), The encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 319-339). Academic Press.

Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage Publications.

Jayaratne, S. (2004). Systematic evaluation of community programs. Journal of Social Service Research, 30(1), 1-12.

Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., & Mbatswana, T. (2012). RealWorld evaluation: Working under budget, time, data, and political constraints. Sage Publications.

Bickman, L., & Rog, D. J. (2009). The SAGE handbook of evaluation. Sage publications.