Grant writing often involves drafting an evaluation plan about how your program will be evaluated. The evaluation section of a grant proposal is an opportunity to communicate how the project will measure impact and determine if it has been successful. We’ve reviewed many evaluation plans in grant proposals and identified the three critical mistakes.
1. The Evaluation Plan is Generic
A generic evaluation plan could be cut and pasted into almost any grant proposal and still make sense. Such plans make very general statements about the focus of the evaluation, such as the following:
Formative and summative evaluations will be conducted to inform program improvement and decision-making.
In a generic evaluation plan, the descriptions of data collection lack concrete details about what type of data will be collected and how, like in this example:
Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected to assess program impact.
Including such general statements in evaluation, plans is fine if they are elaborated with details specific to the proposed project.
Takeaway: If an evaluation plan could be cut and pasted into almost any proposal and still make sense, then it’s too generic to be compelling and convince reviewers that evaluation resources will be put to good use.
Why do generic evaluation plans happen to otherwise good grant proposals?
The most common reason is that the evaluator was asked to contribute to the proposal at the last minute.
We recommend contacting an evaluator to help write a proposal as soon as possible in your program development and grant writing process. Evaluators need ample time to learn about your program and craft an evaluation plan to meet your information needs. Having an evaluator on board early asking smart questions about the program can help programs better articulate their program in the proposal.
Evaluators are often not paid for the time they spend on grant proposals.
When an evaluator helps draft a grant proposal, the implicit understanding is that the evaluator will be hired to work on the project if the grant is funded. When identifying an evaluator to work with during the grant process, ask if they can develop an evaluation plan tailored to your proposed program.
2. They focus on methods and fail to explain what aspects of a program will be evaluated.
A common problem with evaluation proposals is that they mention specific data collection methods (e.g., surveys and focus groups) without specifying what will be measured and why. This omission leaves reviewers guessing what will be investigated and how it will inform the program.
Takeaway: We recommend that proposals explain each evaluation question's data sources (e.g., program participants) and methods.
One reason the details about data collection are left out is that the details haven’t been worked out yet. The lack of detail can signal to reviewers that the evaluation was an afterthought. Another reason proposals may be gloss over data collection is to save space (because many proposals have page limits). We recommend using a table format to succinctly link data sources, methods, and evaluation.
3. The evaluation plan fails to convey that the project is serious about evaluation.
Grant proposals can convey that proposers aren’t serious about evaluation in several ways, including not identifying a qualified evaluator, not discussing how the evaluation will be used, and not specifying an evaluation budget. We’ll talk about what’s often done and tips for how to get it right.
a. They don’t include the evaluator’s evaluation-related qualifications
Sometimes, an evaluator is listed by name in proposals, but their evaluation-related qualifications are not provided.
Takeaway: Identify the evaluator by name and the organization they are affiliated with—the latter can help inform reviewers about whether the evaluator is internal or external to the organization. Don’t forget to mention the evaluator’s evaluation-related qualifications.
Relatedly, sometimes proposers identify the evaluator’s experience related to the program’s content area (e.g., experience leading STEM education initiatives) but forget to describe credentials demonstrating they are qualified evaluators. Including a biosketch or resume for the evaluator in a proposal’s appendices is also a good idea, if allowed.
b. They don’t discuss how the evaluation will be used
Some proposals fail to specify how the evaluation results will be used—which can convey that the evaluation results are not a high priority and that evaluation resources won’t be used effectively.
Takeaway: Demonstrate a commitment to regularly engaging with the evaluation findings and using the information to improve project implementation. For example, if a program holds repeated events such as workshops or webinars, and feedback data is collected for each event—the proposal could state that feedback on the events will be reviewed twice yearly to develop action plans and adjust project implementation if needed.
Learn More
Learn the four essential steps to creating a compelling evaluation plan for a grant proposal in Valeo’s short course on Developing Evaluation Plans for Grant Proposals. Through engaging activities, you will build a succinct yet detailed example evaluation plan tied to a program’s activities and intended outcomes. You’ll be prepared to create a strong evaluation plan for your next grant proposal in less than one hour. Leave with downloadable guides you can use as you work on the evaluation section of your next grant proposal.
You’ll earn a certificate summarizing what you learned after completing any of Valeo’s online courses.
Valeo is powered by The Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Join our mailing list to receive notifications about new content.
About the Course Authors
Lori Wingate and Kelly Robertson work at The Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University and have Ph.D.s in interdisciplinary evaluation. They have written many evaluation plans for proposals submitted to various funders and served on funding agency review panels. Together, they have researched evaluation plans included in proposals to a federal agency spanning 17 years. You can read more about Lori here and Kelly here.
