1 / 17

Assessment of the Post-Grant Evaluation Process

Assessment of the Post-Grant Evaluation Process. Arumi, Corinne, Ed, Lonnie, Mandip and Martha. Outline of Presentation. Community Foundation Background Project Description Methodology Findings Recommendations. Background. Community Foundation Aims/ Goals Stakeholders Donors Grantees

marinel
Download Presentation

Assessment of the Post-Grant Evaluation Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Assessment of the Post-Grant Evaluation Process Arumi, Corinne, Ed, Lonnie, Mandip and Martha

  2. Outline of Presentation • Community Foundation Background • Project Description • Methodology • Findings • Recommendations

  3. Background • Community Foundation • Aims/ Goals • Stakeholders • Donors • Grantees • The Community at Large

  4. Project Description • Post Grant Reporting • Analyzing the process - Best Practice - Surveys - Info sharing

  5. Methodology • Data Collection • Surveys • Grantee Interviews • Staff & Board Interviews • Data Analysis • Statistical • Blank Responses • Open-ended Questions • Categorize by funding range, sector, location

  6. Findings • General Grantee Approval • Post Grant Reporting

  7. Findings • General Grantee Approval • In general, the Community Foundation ranks above average or exceptional in grantee approval.

  8. Findings • Post Grant Reporting • Funding range and comfort level with the Community Foundation • Amount of interaction with the Community Foundation • Helpfulness of the Luncheon • Internal Processes

  9. Findings • Post Grant Reporting • Suggestions for Improvement NO YES

  10. Findings • Post Grant Reporting • Reporting Time Frame

  11. Short Term Recommendations Outline • Communicate Flexible Report Filing • Assess Grantee Impact in the Community and Health of Grantee Organization • Increase Guests and Networking Opportunities at Grantee Luncheons

  12. Long Term Recommendations Outline • Continue to Develop Culture of Evaluation Within the Organization • Expand the Greater Funding Communities’ Knowledge of Lessons Learned • Invite Select Key Members of the Community to Grantee Luncheon • Grantee Interaction

  13. Short Term Recommendations • Report Recommendations • Assessment – • Impact on grantee’s funding • “Do you believe the Community’s Foundation grant and endorsement for this project leveraged any other donations? Please elaborate” • Health of grantee organization • “How is your organization better off having undertaken the funded project?”

  14. Short Term Recommendations • Luncheon Recommendations • Additional Guests • Benefit: strengthened communication • Cost: moving, catering • Possible Solution: Use grantee’s facility • Increase Networking Awareness

  15. Long Term Recommendations • Continue to develop the evaluation culture. • Establish a budget. • Hire a full time evaluator. • Expand the greater funding community’s knowledge of “lessons learned” • Engage other local funding organizations to review projects they have worked on.

  16. Long Term Recommendations • Grantee Interaction • Confirmation receipt. • Thank you note. • Closed grant memo for board members • Pros and Cons

  17. CONCLUSION WE ARE NOW OPEN TO QUESTIONS

More Related