by Sandra Jewell for the Dance Journal

This four-part series, written by the reviewer of numerous government grant applications, provides a first hand account of the federal review process. It discusses the process involved in creating a federal Request for Application (RFA), or a Request for Proposal (RFP), and chronicles the journey a submission makes once it reaches the funding agency. The series also describes factors that can summarily disqualify an application and others that can make it memorable.

Part 1 may be read here.
Part 2 may be read here.
——————————————————————————————-

Part Three: Evaluation

Create a simple, effective plan for evaluating results.

The funding agency would like to believe that it is making a wise decision when it chooses to fund an application. So, when the funding cycle is complete, the grantor will expect to receive the evaluation that was promised in the document.

There is arguably no part of a proposal that gives applicants more trouble, or that is more important to reviewers, than the evaluation. There are many types of evaluation, some academic and arcane, and books have been written about them.

In the real world, excluding agencies that require rigorous science and statistical precision, the evaluation expectations of reviewers are usually rather basic.

Here are a few things to remember:

Life will be easier for both grant seeker and grant writer, and the odds of funding success will be improved, if evaluation planning starts the day the decision is made to respond to the RFA. It is critical that evaluation considerations be built into every step of the action plan. An effective evaluation is almost never glued on to the proposal after it’s finished.  It should be an integtral part  of the proposed project.

What should be evaluated?

First, and most difficult, agency personnel will want to know if the project made a difference. Did it alleviate the problems defined in the needs section? If the success of the project can’t be assessed with the typical short term funding but results may be measured at a future date, the application should explain this. Also include copies of any preliminary evaluation forms that might be used, discuss the initial results achieved, and the final results expected.

Qualitative evaluation is an extremely under-utilized method of creating a subjective impression of success. Before and after surveys, questionnaires completed by the participants or clients, suggestions, comments, and so on can provide a sense of where the program has been and provide input for future direction.

For a more robust evaluation, it is a good idea to build the cost of a professional evaluator into the application’s budget.

Second, and much easier, is process evaluation. Reviewers want to know that, if a funded application turns out to be a rousing triumph, it can be replicated in other locations. Or if the program wasn’t successful, they’d like to know what may have caused the shortfall. Unless the fundee documents specifically how the project was implemented, in what settings, how many clients and what kinds of program staff were involved, the problems encountered and what worked and when, no one will be able to duplicate the project no matter how successful it was, or assess its flaws if it doesn’t meet expectations.

Process evaluation means counting and keeping track and it’s important.

Which brings us to the forms that will be used in the proposed project.

Reviewers are usually keenly aware that forms play a major role in the execution and successful evaluation of funded projects. Many grant applications give the appearance that form design was regarded as a minor annoyance when it was considered at all. The efficacy of any entry, tracking, or other forms used in the project is critical to the project’s success and assessment. Forms deserve careful, logical forethought and should be constructed to capture all important information in a non-overlapping format.

All forms which will be used by the applicant should be submitted with the application, usually as part of the appendix.

When reading a post-project evaluation, the funder would much rather see that the project didn’t work as planned but staffers have ideas about what to do differently next time, than to hear that no determination of effectiveness is possible because the record keeping was sloppy.

Sandra Jewell lives in Atlanta, Georgia.  She is a former employee of the Department of Health and Human Services where she was an award winning biostatistician, analyst and writer.  She is now an author and grant writing consultant.  She can be reached at WrittenMagic.sej@gmail.com