Key Takeaways — Chapter 10: The Evaluation Plan
-
Funders fund measurable change, not activity (threshold concept). The evaluation plan is your promise to show whether the change happened, and it's increasingly the tiebreaker between comparable proposals. Embrace it as the proof of impact, not a chore.
-
The logic model is the spine: inputs → activities → outputs → outcomes → impact. Build it in full and check it right-to-left for broken links. The key distinction is outputs (what you did) vs. outcomes (what changed) — funders buy outcomes.
-
Include both process and outcome evaluation. Process (did you deliver it, with fidelity, to the right people?) lets you interpret outcomes; outcome (did it work?) is what the funder most wants. Output-only "evaluation" is a process measure in disguise.
-
Write SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound), each with an indicator, justified target, data source, and method/timing, covering the outcomes you promised. Present them as a clean matrix.
-
Specify data collection and analysis concretely, with a comparison (baseline, target, or comparison group), so change is interpretable. Align indicators to any funder-required measures; avoid indicator traps (unmeasurable, vanity, uncollectable, too many).
-
Choose formative + summative and internal vs. external to fit the stakes, funder expectation, and budget. Match rigor to scale — neither under-rigorous for high stakes nor over-engineered for a small grant. Engage an external evaluator early.
-
For research, the analysis plan plays the same role: pre-specified endpoints, a statistical plan, and a power/sample-size justification (an underpowered design is a fatal flaw).
-
A rigorous evaluation is an investment in your funding future — its data becomes the track record for your next proposal — and it's the proposal holding itself accountable, which funders trust.
Common Mistakes
- Measuring only outputs and calling it outcome evaluation.
- Vague objectives/analysis; no comparison basis.
- A logic model with a broken activities→outcomes link.
- An evaluation mismatched to the stakes; (research) an underpowered design.
Decision Framework — Is your evaluation plan ready?
(1) Does your logic model hold right-to-left? (2) Do you measure outcomes, not just outputs? (3) Does each promised outcome have a SMART objective with indicator/target/source/method? (4) Is there a comparison basis? (5) Have you chosen who evaluates (matched to stakes) and, for research, justified power? Any "no" is your next revision.
Your Project
You should now have a complete logic model, a matrix of SMART objectives (with indicators, justified targets, sources, methods), process + outcome measures, an internal/external decision, and — for research — an analysis plan with a power justification. Your budget (next) funds whatever this requires.