Grant Proposal Outcomes - Assignment Example

Overview: How to Write the Outcomes Evaluation Section of a Grant Proposal [The grantmaking process] is truly an ideal partnership. The nonprofits have the ideas and the capacity to solve problems, but no dollars with which to implement them. The foundations and corporations have the financial resources but not the other resources needed to create programs. Bring the two together effectively, and the result is a dynamic collaboration (Foundation Center 2009). As you are putting together a grant proposal, you are creating a narrative that convinces the grantmaker your project has merit. Goals and objectives turn into outcomes as the program moves along. The grantmaker gives your organization money based on how well your goals and objectives match their own goals and objectives. They are investing money in your organization and programs, much like you would do if you bought a stock or bond. The grantmaker wants to see a “return on investment” in the form of outcomes. Not just feel-good outcomes, but evidence that something has changed or improved because of their investment with you. By the time you get to write the Outcomes Evaluation section of the proposal, you should already have: Defined parties involved for each work plan component. Identified major outcomes. Identified milestone dates. Prioritized and chosen the outcomes that you want to examine. The Next Step: Write the Outcomes Evaluation and Dissemination Plan Now you are ready to write the Outcomes Evaluation and Dissemination Plan. The outcomes evaluation section of a grant proposal is the most difficult to write and usually ends up being the shortest section. This is too bad, because here is where a non-profit can show itself to be organized and professional. Designing instruments, gathering data, and crunching numbers seems to be a frustrating waste of time for the people on the ground. You or your staff might think: There are so many constituents who could use our help; why do we waste our time proving we are helping? Just look around! It’s not quite that simple, however. Grantmakers are not punishing you by asking for outcomes evaluation. This data, properly gathered and evaluated, and properly applied, strengthens your organization (Foundation Center 2009). It is like a pat on the back you give yourselves, or constructive criticism you create from within your organization. Don’t skimp on the Outcomes and Evaluation section of the proposal; depending on the RFP (request for proposal) requirements, it should probably be several pages and cover the following points: Specific observable measurements or indicators for each outcome of your project. Information you will gather to show these indicators, and how new information relates to current knowledge. How data will be collected. How findings will be reported and analyzed. A plan for disseminating information upon program completion. It should go without saying, but a reminder is always nice: read the request for proposal carefully. Some grantmakers want to see actual prototypes of information-gathering instruments; others just want to know what you will develop and who will develop it. Figure Out What You Can Realistically Observe and Measure Data collection doesn’t happen in isolation; it is part of the process of delivering a service. If your staff is busy working with clients, they don’t have much time to gather 10,000 bits of data. However, data collection is a vital component of continuing improvement and is required by funders, so it behooves the grant proposal writer to make realistic promises and take realistic measurements. Use your familiar data-collection methods for any new grants wherever possible. Sometimes, statistical analysis by other non-profits in your sector can be used as a guide to form your own methods. Basically, you do not need to reinvent the wheel for every new grant; you have more important things to do with your time and talent. Some examples of data collection instruments and charts are at the end of this document. Identify Information You Will Gather To properly evaluate a project or program, or even your entire organization, you need both statistics and anecdotes. You need a representative sample, not full information from every participant. However, you need to gather more information than you think you will need, because chances are, you will need it and regret not having it at your fingertips later. The key with data collection is that it be thorough enough to give a good evaluative result without interfering with the quality of your service. Depending on the scope of your project, you will probably gather both qualitative and quantitative data (Foundation Center 2009). Quantitative data answer the question, “How much change did we do?” and qualitative data answer the question, “How did the change happen?” In addition, your evaluation will probably be both formative and summative. Summative evaluation concerns objectives (“How close did we get to our objectives?”), and measures how you have met your objectives by the end of certain phases, or by the end of the project. Formative evaluation concerns the overall project (“How did we do overall?”), is ongoing both during the project and afterwards, and is used as a tool for changing directions if warranted (EPA 2008). Don’t be put off by these confusing terms; they are just jargon for what you already do regarding data collection and analysis. Government grants especially use these terms in their RFPs; foundations and private donors want to see the same data collection and evaluation methods, even if they do not use the jargon “qualitative” or “summative.” Decide How Data Will Be Collected Gathering data from program participants as the project moves along is vital to having a useful pool of information to analyze. You will be designing instruments and processes. Again, be realistic, and keep in mind the learning curve of staff and volunteers. Your organization’s goal is to serve, and data collection must fit into that service, not interrupt it. The best case scenario for you is to gather data only once and to evaluate it in different ways for different parties. Here is where planning comes into play, and you have to work your way backwards to find out what data to gather and how to gather it. You have probably collected data from your constituents or programs in the past. It is important that you include references to prior years’ findings when writing reports to the grant maker. The evaluation outcomes section of the grant proposal is the perfect place to show off statistics you have gathered before sending the proposal, and demonstrate how those statistics serve as a baseline for this particular project’s goals, objectives and outcomes. Include a thorough discussion of what you already know, so you can show the grantmaker how you think this project will impact your participants (Hillman and Abarbanel 1975). Each piece is a link in the chain that shows you can follow through. Use your base demographics or previous participant results as a jumping off point for any new analysis. Consider your goals and objectives section: Is any part of your service changing? Are you targeting a new audience? Is this program innovative or a continuation of past success? Are you replicating another non-profit’s programs or methods? Answering these questions tells you how to collect data, and which data to collect, to produce useful reports for your organization or the grantmaker. Describe How Findings Will Be Reported and Analyzed You should have a good idea of who will do what in the process, when they will do it, how they will do it, and those people’s qualifications for the job. It is important in the Outcomes Evaluation and Dissemination section of the grant proposal to tell the grant maker the qualifications of the people gathering and analyzing the data. They not only want to know that you will gather data, but how you will make that data useful to improve your program or organization. The grant maker wants to know that you are prepared to change your methods if you aren’t getting the results you expected, and would like to see that you have put some thought into how you will use the information, as well as disseminate the information. Planning ahead on how that information will be analyzed, and by whom, cuts down on costs and frustration. Careful consideration should be give to the qualifications and current workloads of anyone involved in data collection, analysis, and dissemination. For some organizations, it might be better to hire an outsider to evaluate the data (Joseph 2004; Hillman and Abarbanel 1975; Kopkowski 2007; Foundation Center 2009; EPA 2008). An excellent resource for the nonprofit on hiring outside consultants is available from the Council on Foundations website, including a process evaluation and work plan. For do-it-yourself evaluators who want to keep this task in-house, don’t forget to include a line in the budget for that person’s time, which will probably fall outside his or her normal duties. Figure out how long it would take a person inside your organization to do the analysis. Add the actual cost of that person’s salary, and the intangible costs to constituents because that person is not available for his or her normal duties. Balance that against hiring a data cruncher and you can see if it is cost-effective in the end for you to evaluate data yourself. Decide How Information Will Be Disseminated Upon Program Completion Dissemination is your time to brag, or your time to do a little soul-searching as an organization. You are not working on an island: if you have a good idea, tell others about it so they can replicate your project or join forces with you. Articles in scholarly journals are a good start at dissemination, but do not limit yourself. Mainstream media could find your project or results interesting, and cross-pollination among disciplines and organizations happens all the time—once everyone knows about what the other guy is up to. At least three different groups involved in the project need to know about the information generated by data collection and evaluation (Decker and Decker 1978). Internally, the project director and project personnel examine the information to ensure everyone is on track according to timelines, goals, and objectives. As part of the funding process, the grantmaker wants to see reports on a regular basis, and on-going outcomes evaluation is one component of those reports. Finally, the project participants, media, potential donors, etc. need to see outcomes evaluation to show them how the non-profit is performing. Each of these groups needs information boiled down and disseminated for them. And each of these interested parties wants the information boiled down to ten-words-or-less format so they don’t have to struggle to find what they are looking for in a sea of statistics. It is an art to take statistics and weave a good story out of them; always keep your audience in mind while considering how information will be delivered. “Reporting” and dissemination are not the same thing. Reports are written to funders, outlining where the non-profit stands in relation to money spent, objectives met, and outcomes so far. Dissemination is the non-profit’s advertising and marketing, to use commercial terms. Newspaper reports, press releases, web sites, journal articles, chapters in edited books, and even word of mouth are all dissemination. Funder-Required Evaluation The key to a successful program is evaluation. The key to a successful grant proposal is a strong outcomes evaluation section. Funders are increasingly calling for clearer evidence that the resources they expend actually produce benefits for people. They want better accountability for the use of resources and they want to see if the programs that they fund really make a difference in the lives of people. Once programs have specified their expected outcomes and how they plan to evaluate them upon program completion, fund allocators can consider whether those outcomes align with their funding priorities. A survey by the United Way asked 298 agencies to evaluate to what extent outcome evaluation helps their programs. Over 88 percent responded that outcome evaluation helped them communicate their results to stakeholders; 86 percent stated that it helped clarify their programs purpose; 84 percent reported that it helped identify effective practices; 83 percent that it helped them compete for resources; and 76 percent agreed that outcomes evaluation helped them improve delivery services (United Way 2000). After you receive the grant, you have the opportunity to clarify what the grantmaker wants to see in the form of reports and deliverables. Before you receive the grant, you are in unknown territory and must predict or guess at what they will want to see. Always ask questions of your contact at the funding organization as you are writing the grant. Make a list of questions before you call or email so you’re not wasting the grantmaker’s time with multiple contacts. Research carefully in the RFP and on the grantmaker’s website to see if you can find the answers to your questions. But, in the end, don’t be afraid to ask for clarification! Grantmaker Requirements: Sometimes Above and Beyond [Most] nonprofit grantseekers must juggle multiple funders, each of which has a distinct set of questions, a separate grantmaking cycle, a different budget form, individual online or hard-copy systems, and page, word or character specifications, not to mention myriad requirements for how demographic data is to be represented, activities evaluated and results reported. . . . [It] becomes easy to see how the sector’s grantmaker-specific practices might interfere with the efficient flow of funding to address community needs. (Bearman 2008) Grantmakers don’t want their money used for grant administration; they would rather see those precious dollars spent on helping stakeholders and constituents. However, they still want to see evaluation, reports and dissemination. What is a non-profit to do? Streamline processes and plan ahead as far as possible. Non-profits report that, on average, they spend about 28 hours on creating a proposal and applying for a grant. They spend about 21 hours on foundation-required reporting and evaluation (Bearman 2008). Each grant’s requirements are different, and each foundation’s expectations on reporting are different. Some funders do require specific program evaluations which the non-profit itself may not need, or may not have the capacity to generate (Bearman 2008). Or, a particular program officer at a funding organization may want to enact political change on a fundamental level, and call upon grant seekers or recipients to participate in projects that are beyond the scope of the non-profit itself (Horwitz 2008). These projects and assessments benefit the grantor, but may be a burden on the grantee. Speaking on panels; writing testimonials; putting together photo journals; or telling name-changed stories about constituents who have benefitted from the funding are sometimes outside the capabilities of grantees, but are requested by funders. These time-consuming processes may be “worth it” to the non-profit to secure continued funding, but if you do not take those requirements into consideration while writing the grant proposal, you could end up with a nasty surprise and hours worth of un-reimbursed work to fulfill the grantmaker’s evaluation requirements. In addition, grantseekers sometimes feel these required (and sometimes incredibly time-consuming and complex) reports are simply shelved by the grantmaking organization. Grantmakers themselves say they use reports primarily to monitor compliance with grant requirements, and only 27 percent of grantors share report information with others in their fields (Bearman 2008). As a non-profit, knowing that may make you feel like you are wasting your time. Try to make the work as useful as possible to your organization. Review What You’ve Written: Final Checklist Once you’ve gotten a good first or second draft of the Outcomes Evaluation and Dissemination section down on paper, review your work. Data must be objective, reliable, timely, relevant, complete, and efficiently collected. Evaluation must be objective, applicable to other populations, and relevant to your organization, your funder, your constituents, other non-profits, and the world at large. Decker and Decker (1978) created a checklist to help you get started on data collection and analysis. Your proposal should have described in detail at least the following: 1. Each data collecting instrument (surveys, metrics, interview forms, video or audio observations, etc.). You should also include copies of each instrument you plan to use, if the funder wants to see them; these do not need to be the final copies, but a good idea of what the instrument will end up to be. 2. How data collection will proceed. Are you using newly-invented data collection instruments, or standard tools? How will you determine the reliability and consistency of the data? Pre-test any data collection methods with which you are not familiar. 3. The data collection process. Who’s collecting the data, and what are their backgrounds? What training will be given so data is accurate and complete? Who will supervise data collectors? Who will evaluate them and the data? 4. A timeline. When and where will data be collected? Be specific on a timeline. The End Result: Proposal Approval and Rejection After all this careful planning, laboring over the writing, jumping through every hoop of the RFP, and waiting for word from the grantmaker like a kid anticipating Christmas morning, your proposal has a big statistical likelihood of rejection. Unless you are applying for a government grant, you may not know why your proposal was rejected. The standard letter doesn’t usually give you enough detail, beyond there-are-so-many-good-ideas-and-so-little-money (Horwitz 2008; Foundation Center 2009). Phone or email your personal contact at the grantmaking organization for a more detailed rejection. You deserve to know what distinguished your proposal from one that was funded. You need to know how to improve. This information is vital to the survival of your non-profit, and if the project is really as good as you think it is, you should seek funding elsewhere until you get it up and running. Next Step: Incorporating the Outcomes Evaluation and Dissemination Plan in the Budget Give yourself a pat on the back. You have completed the major narrative portions of a quality grant proposal: organizational information, the statement of need or opportunity, goals and objectives, project activities, and outcomes evaluation and dissemination. Now you are ready to move on to budgeting and the budget narrative. Remember to include time or budget money for the actual data collection instruments, including graphic design, photocopying, incentives for completing surveys, and whatever else you deem appropriate to smooth the data collection process. Also consider the internal time it will take to evaluate the data. Even if you hire an outside consultant to produce evaluative reports, you will need to manage the data on a daily basis and make it useable for the consultant. Most seasoned program development coordinators recommend hiring a consultant to help with evaluation, analysis and dissemination. It’s money well-spent and should be considered even before you write the Outcomes Evaluation and Dissemination section of your proposal. Bringing this person on board during the planning stages can save you a lot of headaches, and he or she might know ways to streamline data collection or have collection instruments on hand you can use in your organization. Dissemination costs money, so don’t forget to include it in the budget. Designing, printing and distributing reports takes time and talent; making posters or flyers advertising your program and services is part of the dissemination process as well. Brainstorm everything that could cost money, and include it in the budget everywhere you can. Good luck! Your hard work will pay off in better programs, more funding, and organizational fulfillment. For Example: A Fictional Nonprofit Applying these Principles The concepts in this document may confuse the beginner. Most of us learn better by example, so here’s an example of a fictional non-profit and how the Outcomes and Evaluation Section of their grant proposal might be shaped. Your project will no doubt be different; you will have different managers, directors and participants; your funder may have specific requirements your proposal must meet. Always read a request for proposal carefully, and make the global needs of your organization a top priority. The Oak Street Youth Center is located in a medium crime neighborhood in a medium sized city in Middle America. The Oak Street Youth Center has written as one of their goals in the Goals and Objectives Section of their proposal that they would like to double the number of kids who come in on Tuesday nights (goal). They know 10 kids usually come in now (current knowledge), and think that if counselors make a short presentation in classrooms at the local schools they can double that number within six months (method). Using a broad-based data collection tool (see the end of this document), the regular Tuesday night counselors do a headcount every two hours between 3 p.m. and 9 p.m., tracking the total number of kids and the number of “new faces” at each time (quantitative data collection). In addition, the counselors ask each new kid briefly how they heard about the program (qualitative data collection). Each counselor does this individually using a standard form (process) and submits the data to the program director on Wednesday morning (timeline). The program director combines and synthesizes the data for six months. She accounts for outside effects on the numbers (on a certain Tuesday there was a concert at the school, so participation at the Youth Center was down), and produces a short report on the numbers (quantitative evaluation) and the way participants heard about the program (qualitative evaluation). Using this evaluation, she can determine if there are actually more kids participating (summative evaluation) and whether the classroom visits her counselors have been making to the schools have actually had an effect (formative evaluation). Another example: At the Oak Street Youth Center, the project director wants weekly reports showing how many young people came by the center, how long they stayed, and what they did while they were there (internal reporting). The funder wants to know this plus how much money the Center spent on counselors, game equipment, and snacks, and how many young people played which games and enjoyed which snacks, condensed in a biannual report (funder-related reporting). Project participants, the media, and parents don’t really want to know how many kids come by each week and which snacks they ate, but they do want to know how the Youth Center is reducing truancy and drug use among the kids who participate (external reporting/dissemination). Because the Oak Street Youth Center collected data through standard forms and interviews to gather as much information as possible from each participant with as little probing as possible, each one of these reports can be extracted to provide the right analysis. Sample Charts to Use in Proposals Charts are your friends when you are writing a grant proposal. Reviewers may be inundated with dozens if not hundreds of proposals twice a year; make it easy for them to glance at your proposal and put you on the short list. Charts, summaries set off in the text, judicious use of bold and italics, clear headings and subheadings, and a narrative thread make it easy for reviewers to read your document and understand what you are talking about (Kopkowski 2007). Here is an example of a Project Management Review Chart (Decker and Decker 1978) that broadly summarizes your outcomes evaluation process: Problem or Need Goal Objective Procedure or Activity Measuring Technique Data Analysis Report Date Here is that same chart with our Oak Street Youth Center example plugged in: Problem or Need Goal Objective Procedure or Activity Measuring Technique Data Analysis Report Date Kids need a safe place to spend time after school Make more kids aware the Center is available for them Double the number of kids who use the Center on Tuesday nights Counselors do a 10-minute presentation in local classrooms twice per semester General headcount of kids every two hours on Tuesdays; specific headcount of new kids Ask new kids informally how they heard about the Center and why they came Wednesday a.m.; synthesis analysis for internal reporting in six months; report to funder in six months Here is an example of an Evaluation Design Summary that synthesizes the grant proposal and joins it with evaluation: Performance Objective Target Group Date to Measure Record Instrument or Technique Data Analysis Date to Report And again, our Oak Street Youth Center example plugged in: Performance Objective Target Group Date to Measure Record Reduce truancy among kids who participate in Center activities Kids ages 12-18 from School District 318 Weekly for six months Instrument or Technique Data Analysis Date to Report Interview; observation recordings by counselors Project director, in coordination with outside evaluator Six months; ongoing dissemination to the media and school district Here is another good chart from the Council on Foundations. This one shows the funder what is already in place, and what the organization will develop either before the project is funded or as it goes along. This chart could be included in every grant proposal. PROGRAM AND OUTCOMES EVALUATION IN PLACE TOP PRIORITY MIDDLE PRIORITY LOW PRIORITY Valid methods to assess client needs, i.e., focus groups, surveys, etc. Service outcomes to match clients needs Target indicators for each outcome Internal reporting system for outcomes External marketing plan for outcomes Sample Data Collection Instrument For the Oak Street Youth Center, here is an example of the chart the counselors and other staff could use to collect data. Each column should be filled in as fully and accurately as possible, given the situation where the data is being gathered. Date Name Time Number of Kids Activity Number of Participants Observations from Kids 3:05 p.m. 8 (2 new) Pool table (1) Snack table (5) Hanging out (2) 1 new kid said she came with a friend 5:10 p.m. 16 (4 new) Hanging out (6) Wii (4) Pool table (2) Ping pong (4) 1 new kid said he came with a friend; 1 new kid said she came because the heard about Center at school; 1 new kid just walked in Notes: I asked one of the new girls if she’d be interested in doing an interview; she said maybe, to ask her tomorrow. One of the regular boys agreed to an interview; questions and answers attached. Sample In-Depth Interview Questions Subjective interviews aren’t scientific, but they can be very illustrative of how a program functions for the participants. After all, your goal as a non-profit is to provide a service to someone; if you are going to succeed at providing a service, you must ask the participants about their experiences. A broad base of interviews can provide non-profits with a wealth of useful information: anecdotal quotes for funders or the media; program improvements to consider at the next board meeting; valid ideas for new projects or ways of implementing current projects. The key is consistency in questions and objectivity on the part of the interviewer. For the Oak Street Youth Center, sample questions could include: How did you hear about the Center? What do you like best about the Center? What do you like least about the Center? Have you told friends about the Center? Have they joined you here? What were their opinions of the Center? Do you spend less time alone because the Center is open? Do you think the Center can help keep kids from using illegal drugs? How many days of school have you missed recently? References Bearman J 2008. Drowning in paperwork, distracted from purpose. Project Streamline. Available from: http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/drowninginpaperwork.pdf. Accessed 2009 25 Feb. Council on Foundations 2009. Grand Rapids Capacity Building checklist: Nonprofit technical assistance fund (capacity building checklist). Council on foundations website. Available from: http://bestpractices.cof.org/community. Accessed 2009 25 Feb. Council on Foundations 2009. Grand Rapids capacity building checklist: nonprofit technical assistance fund (selecting a consultant). Council on Foundations website. Available from: http://bestpractices.cof.org/community. Accessed 2009 25 Feb. Decker V and Decker L. 1978. The funding process: grantsmanship and proposal development. Charlottesville (VA): Community Collaborators. 120 p. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8 Aug 2008. Tips on writing a grant proposal. EPA website, Grants and Debarment section. Available from http://www.epa.gov/ogd/recipient/tips.htm. Accessed 2009 25 Feb. Foundation Center 2009. Proposal writing short course. Foundation Center website. Available from http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/tutorials/shortcourse/index.html. Accessed 2009 26 Feb. Hillman H and Abarbanel K. 1975. The art of winning foundation grants. New York: Vanguard Press. 186 p. Horwitz J. 13 Nov 2008. How foundations can help grant seekers achieve results. Chronicle of Philanthropy 21(3):23. Accessed 2009 26 Feb. from Academic Search Premier Database. Joseph L. Sep 2004. Formula for a winning proposal. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools 11(5):20-23. Accessed 2009 25 Feb. from Academic Search Premier Database. Kopkowski C. Nov 2007. Write a grant. NEA Today 26(3):40-41. Accessed 2009 26 Feb. from Academic Search Premiere database. United Way of America 2000. Agency experiences with outcome measurement: survey findings. Available from the United Way website www.unitedway.org/outcomes. Available from http://www.liveunited.org/_cs_upload/Outcomes/4087_1.pdf. Accessed 2009 23 Feb. INDEX Audience 5, 7 Budget 5, 11-12 Charts 14-15 Consultant 5, 11 Data 3-4 Data Collection 4-5 Deliverables 8, 20 Dissemination 1-2, 6-7, 11 Government Grants 5 Grant Requirements 9 Indicators 3 Interview Questions 17 Measurements 3-4 Project Director 6 Qualitative 4-5 Quantitative 4-5 Rejection 10-11 Representative Sample 4 Request for Proposal 3 Stakeholders 7, 8 Statistics 4 Timeline 6, 10, 21 United Way 7 Glossary Audience: A target group or constituency to whom efforts are directed or have an effect upon. Budget: A detailed breakdown of estimated income and expenses that can be used as a tool for projecting revenue and expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year. Deliverables: A deliverable is normally an accepted thing or purpose that can be the result of a task execution - a "thing" in terms of tangible (item, article, entity) and a "purpose" in terms of intangible (point, idea, goal, intention). Funder: Organization who awards money to different organizations or people upon review of their grant proposals. Grant: (1) An award of funds to an organization or individual to undertake charitable activities. Indicators: Information that can be collected that would indicate the status of a program, its impacts, or outcomes. Objectives: A significant step toward a goal; or a precise, measurable, time-phased result. Outcomes: The measurable results of a project. The positive or negative changes that occur in conditions, people, and policies as a result of an organization’s or program’s inputs, activities, and outputs. Outcome Evaluation: An evaluation used to identify the results of a program’s effort. Proposal: A written application, often accompanied by supporting documents, submitted to a foundation or corporate giving program in requesting a grant. Qualitative Data: Soft data that approximates but does not measure the attributes, characteristics, properties, etc., of a thing or phenomenon. Quantitative Data: Hard, measurable and verifiable data amenable to statistical manipulation. Request for Proposal: An invitation from a funder to submit applications on a specified topic with specified purposes. Stakeholder: One who has credibility, power, or other capital invested in a project and thus can be held to be to some degree at risk with it. Statistics: The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling. Timeline: The designated period of time in which activities will occur and the chronological sequence of these activities. Read More