One of the big takeaways from this step of grant writing is the principle that you must have an evaluation plan before putting the program into effect. Having an idea of what to look for in a program’s evaluation resonates with knowing clearly what the objectives and goals of the program are, as the program is being evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively whether they are meeting these objectives and goals, making changes as needed. Part of what makes having an evaluation plan so important is to provide the funder reassurance that there is at least an effective way for them to know whether their money is being put to good use or not, rather than just giving it away and hoping for the best. Being able to properly evaluate a program can lead to valuable feedback, strengthening the future of the program as it builds a positive reputation with the public. Something also to be mindful of is that quantitative metrics are typically emphasized when evaluating a program, sometimes leading to qualitative metrics not getting adequate attention. Especially for programs that value community, evaluating qualitative metrics gives insight into the reputation that the program has with the people, including their opinions and feelings about it, whereas quantities cannot tell the whole story, thus providing incomplete feedback that is missing vital information.
A big takeaway from step six I took was that whatever you are using your grant for must have high viability, as a funder values money just as you do. Nobody will invest in your project if it doesn’t seem likely that it will succeed to the point of the return of investment. It must be worth the time and effort from the nonprofit and the money from the funder. They can only choose a select few nonprofits, and if you fumble the bag, the likelihood of getting grants in the future drops. Another important aspect of your project is the public. Your project, as a nonprofit, should benefit the public/local communities. If you’re able to follow through with what you (essentially) promise you can do for the greater good, you can build up trust and credibility. A funder may be more inclined to grant money to a non profit that’s demonstrated that they can use the money effectively and successfully. With all of this in mind, your evaluation must show that your project is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound. Sticking to a solid SMART goal can help show in your evaluation exactly why your proposal is feasible and deserving of funding.
Point one: I like how the chapter framed the evaluation as a method of measuring whether the hypothesis (problem statement) has been solved. It makes the evaluation seem less daunting because its been simplified down to a prove/disprove situation. I think this will help me in making sure my method of eval. actually shows impact or change not just states it. Having a good eval. only leads to higher interest from funders because it demonstrates how the program is well though out beyond simply running it to how it will help.
Point two: Really interesting point made in how one determines using an internal or external evaluator. I had always thought the evaluation component would have to be internal in order for there to be a proper amount of context understood about the program/its purpose. This reason is exactly my concern with using any sort of external evaluator. At the same time, I now see an internal evaluator as a possible way for bias to seep in while the external couldn’t. Therefore, I think this decision bleeds down to a number of factors (how intricate the program is, what the evaluation is looking at, staffing numbers, etc.)
Point three: The goal is to have an evaluation that includes both measures of quantitative and qualitative data. Doing so shows that the evaluation was well thought out and that a nonprofit cares about how effective a program was compared to desired goals. Funders will be able to point out a sloppily made evaluation if it doesn’t attempt to answer questions about the programs effectiveness or impact.
This chapter heavily emphasized the importance of evaluation. Evaluation is essentially put in place to see how effective a company is at doing what they said they would. This type of in depth thinking ultimately holds companies accountable and keeps them on track. These various evaluations can take place within a company, or by an outside company. While both of these have their pros and cons, I personally found it very interesting that a company can evaluate itself. One very important part of evaluation is the use of both quantitative data (uses numbers) and qualitative data in order to prove a company’s success and framework. I really liked how this chapter gives out written examples of evaluations as well as how to begin conducting them. I feel as though the worksheet lays out a few useful questions, but I also feel as though this section is one of the more self explanatory of the ones that we have had to break down so far.
Point 1: Thinking about what will happen after your project is completed is just as important as thinking about what will happen during your project. Deciding how you will evaluate your project is a key piece of information for funders, and knowing this ahead of time is one of most important parts of creating a grant proposal.
Point 2: The importance of using internal and external evaluators. Both kinds of evaluators have pros and cons, so using a variety of these types of measurements is beneficial for avoiding bias and getting a more well-rounded view of a project’s success.
Point 3: The idea of using different kinds of data, such as qualitative and quantitative data. It is a good idea to include both kinds of data in a grant proposal, as this mix will increase credibility. If a project’s success is shown in both qualitative and quantitative data, it will stand out to possible funders in the future.
What I found most important during this reading was how evaluations are made and how important they are to the project’s end goal. Cover the aspect of “so what,” is important when writing about the project you want to fund as well as wanting someone else to fund it. If you are willing to fight for it so will they. Furthermore, the different types of evaluations are important as well, some private organizations might be looking for really minute specifics, while a public organization may just have a standard process of evaluation. The guiding questions that the reading provided I thought were super helpful as a guideline/a suggestive structure for my group and I am sure all of us going forward with this project. I also thought the ways of explaining how one could quantify their project is really helpful too because some things are hard to quantify. Overall, this reading was helpful to me.
1. Setting goals for your project is just as important as evaluating your results. This evaluation shows whether or not the program was successful and sets a premise for future grants attached to the project.
2. Including qualitative and quantitative data is necessary to show that your organization has thoroughly researched its programs. This tells funders that the program requesting a grant is serious about its mission and willing to take the time to ensure the project’s success.
3. Putting an evaluation plan into place before the program begins shows funders that you take their investment seriously. Additionally, it may allow an organization to tweak its program along the way to be more successful, as opposed to realizing afterward that the program did not meet its goals.
To start: I’m confused. Does the evaluation process happen before, during, or after the funding has been given (and the project has started). It sometimes read as though the evaluation criteria are set during the grant application process, and then the actual evaluation happens after, where the report is given to the funder to check-in on their grant.
In any case, the remainder of the journal will focus on the points I found interesting.
For starters, I found it really interesting that organizations will have external evaluators. I would have thought that companies would want to do internal evaluations – just to make sure if any disagreeable findings are revealed it stays within the company. Furthermore, I would think that somebody doing an internal evaluation would have the added benefit of having an intimate familiarity with the objectives and implementation of the project. Within this idea, however, there also lies a weakness: somebody with an intimate familiarity might have presumptions or background knowledge that would make them short-sided to some of the shortcomings of the project. It’s like a classmate peer reviewing an essay on a subject you both know very well: the essay makes sense to them because they already understand what you’re talking about; whereas somebody new to the subject might feel confused and uninformed. Conclusively, there are in fact advantages to having external evaluations.
Secondly, I really liked the idea of comparing two different methods that sought to achieve the same objective – even if the other method was by a different organization. I think having some sort of perspective around how well one method worked is really only absolutely achieved through a comparative method. And comparing one project to another is an interesting way of going about that.
Lastly, I thought the idea of expanding the evaluation (and really the judgement of success) beyond just the benchmarks set out by the organization to include the feelings and opinions of community members, participants, and staffers was interesting. It would be really easy to stick with the internal criteria, but having a true evaluation should include the people it actually effects. Moreover, this includes not only the results, but can also provide helpful insight into how to better execute projects moving forward.
1.It’s always worthwhile to measure the qualifiable, data from the positive community impact your project is making. Because of how mostly this course is more on the business side of things, with getting the fund and making connections with who you’re getting a donation is. This evaluation still brings it back to the non-profitable mission of helping out the community, and using that as motivation.
2.Also asking yourself what didn’t work and why, kind of assures the yes you’re trying to make this successful as possible to both satisfy the community and your donors. You may expect some bumps in the road and some faults exposed when putting the project in fruition. So there is an element of trial and error factored into this that you can use to improve your projects on the long term.
3.The general idea as other pointed out, of creating a way to evaluate the results before the project is created, shows thoroughness to your organization and confidence. To set what you’re expecting in stone that even though you may get some surprise variables or results. You’re not getting distracted along the way.
9 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 13”
One of the big takeaways from this step of grant writing is the principle that you must have an evaluation plan before putting the program into effect. Having an idea of what to look for in a program’s evaluation resonates with knowing clearly what the objectives and goals of the program are, as the program is being evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively whether they are meeting these objectives and goals, making changes as needed. Part of what makes having an evaluation plan so important is to provide the funder reassurance that there is at least an effective way for them to know whether their money is being put to good use or not, rather than just giving it away and hoping for the best. Being able to properly evaluate a program can lead to valuable feedback, strengthening the future of the program as it builds a positive reputation with the public. Something also to be mindful of is that quantitative metrics are typically emphasized when evaluating a program, sometimes leading to qualitative metrics not getting adequate attention. Especially for programs that value community, evaluating qualitative metrics gives insight into the reputation that the program has with the people, including their opinions and feelings about it, whereas quantities cannot tell the whole story, thus providing incomplete feedback that is missing vital information.
A big takeaway from step six I took was that whatever you are using your grant for must have high viability, as a funder values money just as you do. Nobody will invest in your project if it doesn’t seem likely that it will succeed to the point of the return of investment. It must be worth the time and effort from the nonprofit and the money from the funder. They can only choose a select few nonprofits, and if you fumble the bag, the likelihood of getting grants in the future drops. Another important aspect of your project is the public. Your project, as a nonprofit, should benefit the public/local communities. If you’re able to follow through with what you (essentially) promise you can do for the greater good, you can build up trust and credibility. A funder may be more inclined to grant money to a non profit that’s demonstrated that they can use the money effectively and successfully. With all of this in mind, your evaluation must show that your project is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound. Sticking to a solid SMART goal can help show in your evaluation exactly why your proposal is feasible and deserving of funding.
Point one: I like how the chapter framed the evaluation as a method of measuring whether the hypothesis (problem statement) has been solved. It makes the evaluation seem less daunting because its been simplified down to a prove/disprove situation. I think this will help me in making sure my method of eval. actually shows impact or change not just states it. Having a good eval. only leads to higher interest from funders because it demonstrates how the program is well though out beyond simply running it to how it will help.
Point two: Really interesting point made in how one determines using an internal or external evaluator. I had always thought the evaluation component would have to be internal in order for there to be a proper amount of context understood about the program/its purpose. This reason is exactly my concern with using any sort of external evaluator. At the same time, I now see an internal evaluator as a possible way for bias to seep in while the external couldn’t. Therefore, I think this decision bleeds down to a number of factors (how intricate the program is, what the evaluation is looking at, staffing numbers, etc.)
Point three: The goal is to have an evaluation that includes both measures of quantitative and qualitative data. Doing so shows that the evaluation was well thought out and that a nonprofit cares about how effective a program was compared to desired goals. Funders will be able to point out a sloppily made evaluation if it doesn’t attempt to answer questions about the programs effectiveness or impact.
This chapter heavily emphasized the importance of evaluation. Evaluation is essentially put in place to see how effective a company is at doing what they said they would. This type of in depth thinking ultimately holds companies accountable and keeps them on track. These various evaluations can take place within a company, or by an outside company. While both of these have their pros and cons, I personally found it very interesting that a company can evaluate itself. One very important part of evaluation is the use of both quantitative data (uses numbers) and qualitative data in order to prove a company’s success and framework. I really liked how this chapter gives out written examples of evaluations as well as how to begin conducting them. I feel as though the worksheet lays out a few useful questions, but I also feel as though this section is one of the more self explanatory of the ones that we have had to break down so far.
Point 1: Thinking about what will happen after your project is completed is just as important as thinking about what will happen during your project. Deciding how you will evaluate your project is a key piece of information for funders, and knowing this ahead of time is one of most important parts of creating a grant proposal.
Point 2: The importance of using internal and external evaluators. Both kinds of evaluators have pros and cons, so using a variety of these types of measurements is beneficial for avoiding bias and getting a more well-rounded view of a project’s success.
Point 3: The idea of using different kinds of data, such as qualitative and quantitative data. It is a good idea to include both kinds of data in a grant proposal, as this mix will increase credibility. If a project’s success is shown in both qualitative and quantitative data, it will stand out to possible funders in the future.
What I found most important during this reading was how evaluations are made and how important they are to the project’s end goal. Cover the aspect of “so what,” is important when writing about the project you want to fund as well as wanting someone else to fund it. If you are willing to fight for it so will they. Furthermore, the different types of evaluations are important as well, some private organizations might be looking for really minute specifics, while a public organization may just have a standard process of evaluation. The guiding questions that the reading provided I thought were super helpful as a guideline/a suggestive structure for my group and I am sure all of us going forward with this project. I also thought the ways of explaining how one could quantify their project is really helpful too because some things are hard to quantify. Overall, this reading was helpful to me.
1. Setting goals for your project is just as important as evaluating your results. This evaluation shows whether or not the program was successful and sets a premise for future grants attached to the project.
2. Including qualitative and quantitative data is necessary to show that your organization has thoroughly researched its programs. This tells funders that the program requesting a grant is serious about its mission and willing to take the time to ensure the project’s success.
3. Putting an evaluation plan into place before the program begins shows funders that you take their investment seriously. Additionally, it may allow an organization to tweak its program along the way to be more successful, as opposed to realizing afterward that the program did not meet its goals.
To start: I’m confused. Does the evaluation process happen before, during, or after the funding has been given (and the project has started). It sometimes read as though the evaluation criteria are set during the grant application process, and then the actual evaluation happens after, where the report is given to the funder to check-in on their grant.
In any case, the remainder of the journal will focus on the points I found interesting.
For starters, I found it really interesting that organizations will have external evaluators. I would have thought that companies would want to do internal evaluations – just to make sure if any disagreeable findings are revealed it stays within the company. Furthermore, I would think that somebody doing an internal evaluation would have the added benefit of having an intimate familiarity with the objectives and implementation of the project. Within this idea, however, there also lies a weakness: somebody with an intimate familiarity might have presumptions or background knowledge that would make them short-sided to some of the shortcomings of the project. It’s like a classmate peer reviewing an essay on a subject you both know very well: the essay makes sense to them because they already understand what you’re talking about; whereas somebody new to the subject might feel confused and uninformed. Conclusively, there are in fact advantages to having external evaluations.
Secondly, I really liked the idea of comparing two different methods that sought to achieve the same objective – even if the other method was by a different organization. I think having some sort of perspective around how well one method worked is really only absolutely achieved through a comparative method. And comparing one project to another is an interesting way of going about that.
Lastly, I thought the idea of expanding the evaluation (and really the judgement of success) beyond just the benchmarks set out by the organization to include the feelings and opinions of community members, participants, and staffers was interesting. It would be really easy to stick with the internal criteria, but having a true evaluation should include the people it actually effects. Moreover, this includes not only the results, but can also provide helpful insight into how to better execute projects moving forward.
1.It’s always worthwhile to measure the qualifiable, data from the positive community impact your project is making. Because of how mostly this course is more on the business side of things, with getting the fund and making connections with who you’re getting a donation is. This evaluation still brings it back to the non-profitable mission of helping out the community, and using that as motivation.
2.Also asking yourself what didn’t work and why, kind of assures the yes you’re trying to make this successful as possible to both satisfy the community and your donors. You may expect some bumps in the road and some faults exposed when putting the project in fruition. So there is an element of trial and error factored into this that you can use to improve your projects on the long term.
3.The general idea as other pointed out, of creating a way to evaluate the results before the project is created, shows thoroughness to your organization and confidence. To set what you’re expecting in stone that even though you may get some surprise variables or results. You’re not getting distracted along the way.