Quiz — Chapter 10: The Evaluation Plan
Question 1. State the threshold concept and explain "funders fund measurable change, not activity."
Answer
A logic model is the spine connecting need, activities, and impact, and the evaluation plan proves the spine holds. Funders are accountable for results and want to fund what works, so they buy *outcomes* (change) rather than *activity*; the evaluation plan is your promise to show whether the change happened.Question 2. Write the logic-model chain and name the distinction beginners most blur.
Answer
Inputs → Activities → Outputs → Outcomes → Impact. The blurred distinction is **outputs vs. outcomes**: outputs are what you did (people served, sessions held); outcomes are what changed (knowledge, behavior, condition). A project can have impressive outputs and zero outcomes; funders buy outcomes.Question 3. Why does an evaluation plan need both process and outcome evaluation?
Answer
Outcome evaluation tells you whether it worked; process evaluation tells you whether the program was delivered as planned, with fidelity, to the intended population. Without process data you can't interpret a null outcome — it could mean the program doesn't work or was never properly delivered. Process evaluation lets you tell the difference.Question 4. What makes an objective SMART, and what four things must accompany it?
Answer
Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound. Each needs an indicator (the observable measure), a target (the level counting as success), a data source (where it comes from), and a method/timing (how and when collected).Question 5. Why is a comparison (baseline, target, or comparison group) essential?
Answer
Because change is only meaningful against a reference. "80% scored proficient at the end" means little without knowing the baseline or what would have happened anyway. "Rose from 20% to 80%" tells a story; "versus 30% in a comparison group" tells a stronger one. Some comparison basis is what separates a real outcome measure from an uninterpretable number.Question 6. How should you set and justify a target?
Answer
Ambitious but defensible — grounded in your track record or comparable programs' evidence, and explicitly justified ("based on our [X]% track record and the literature, we project [target]"). Avoid arbitrary high targets (invite skepticism), too-modest targets (suggest the program barely works), and sandbagging (reviewers recognize it, and you report against these later).Question 7. Distinguish formative from summative evaluation and explain why mentioning formative signals maturity.
Answer
Formative happens during the project and feeds back to improve it (catch and fix problems while there's still time); summative happens at the end and judges overall success. Formative signals maturity because it shows you treat the grant as a chance to learn and adapt, protecting the funder's investment — an adaptive posture funders increasingly value.Question 8. When should you use an external evaluator, and what's the mistake to avoid?
Answer
Use one when the funder requires it, the stakes/grant are large, and the budget can bear it — external evaluation adds credibility (results aren't graded by those with a stake). The mistake is a *mismatch*: a casual internal survey for a high-stakes large grant, or an expensive external evaluation that crowds out a small community program. Match rigor to stakes, funder expectation, and budget.Question 9. For research, what plays the evaluation plan's role, and what are its key elements?
Answer
The analysis plan: pre-specified endpoints/outcome measures, a statistical analysis plan (tests/models/comparisons), a power analysis / sample-size justification (evidence the study can detect the effect), and handling of confounds/missing data/multiple comparisons. An underpowered design is a fatal flaw reviewers hunt for.Question 10. Why does the chapter call the evaluation plan "the proposal holding itself accountable"?
Answer
Because it specifies exactly how you'll know whether the promised outcomes were achieved — the applicant saying "don't take my word; here's precisely how we'll measure whether it worked, and what success looks like." That self-imposed accountability reassures funders that you're more interested in actually helping than in merely getting funded.Question 11. Name two indicator traps and how to avoid them.
Answer
Any two: *unmeasurable* indicators ("feel empowered") → define how you'll measure it; *vanity* indicators (social-media followers, satisfaction as a proxy for impact) → measure the actual outcome; *uncollectable* indicators (data you can't obtain) → choose feasibly collectable measures; *too many* indicators → prioritize a few real, collectable, used ones.Question 12. Why is a rigorous evaluation an investment in your funding future, not just the present grant?