|
Trying to Do Evaluation 'Right', Right From the Start: The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Effort to Institutionalize Evaluation Into the Entire Grantmaking Lifecycle
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Christina Kakoyannis, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, christina.kakoyannis@nfwf.org
|
| Matthew Birnbaum, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, matthew.birnbaum@nfwf.org
|
| Abstract:
To better demonstrate the environmental or social impacts of the organization's grantmaking investments, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation provided additional staff and leadership support to embed a more comprehensive system of monitoring and evaluation into the entire lifecycle of the Foundation's new long-term initiatives. Now two years into the process, we reflect back on our effort to translate key principles from evaluation theory into practice within a conservation foundation. In this presentation, we provide insights regarding what worked and what did not in establishing an evaluation system to continuously learn from our grantmaking. We discuss key lessons from our experience, such as accounting for the disciplinary context, striking a balance between funder and grantee responsibilities, and understanding the trade-offs between the flexibility that accommodates specific grants and the standardization that allows for comparisons across multiple initiatives.
|
|
Planning for Evaluation of New Initiatives: Determining Evaluation Needs for the Tribal Tobacco Education and Policy Initiative
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Linda Bosma, Bosma Consulting LLC, linda@bosmaconsulting.com
|
| Chris Matter, ClearWay Minnesota, cmatter@clearwaymn.org
|
| Jaime Martinez, ClearWay Minnesota, jmartinez@clearwaymn.org
|
| Nicole Toves, ClearWay Minnesota, ntoves@clearwaymn.org
|
| Joanne D'Silva, ClearWay Minnesota, jdsilva@clearwaymn.org
|
| Abstract:
Planning for evaluation is as essential as planning for program implementation, but funding agencies do not always have sufficient in house expertise to determine evaluation needs.
Recently, ClearWay MinnesotaSM began funding the Tribal Tobacco Education and Policy initiative (TTEP), and wanted an evaluation tailored to this unique policy initiative. Rather than issue a general request for evaluation proposals, staff enlisted an evaluator familiar with initiatives similar to TTEP, to help them determine the project's evaluation needs. The evaluator assisted staff in articulating the TTEP's theory of change and recommended an evaluation framework, then assisted in drafting the formal call for proposals and review and hiring of the evaluation team. The authors will present an overview of the TTEP initiative, the decision to seek evaluation consultation, and the process that foundation staff and the evaluator undertook that defined their evaluation needs, leading to successfully securing an evaluation firm.
|
|
Assessment of Shifting Grantmaking Strategies: Can Increased Standardization Work?
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Anita Baker, OMG Center for Collaborative Learning, Anita@omgcenter.org
|
| Abstract:
Between July and September 2008, OMG Center for Collaborative Learning provided short-term grantmaking evaluation and technical assistance to a public Grantmaker committed to supporting nonprofit housing development organizations. The purpose of this evaluation was to help the Grantmaker obtain feedback and insights from key stakeholders regarding their recently modified grantmaking process, and to review all grantmaking decisions for consistent application of the new procedures. The modified grantmaking process reflected a major change in context for both the Grantmaker and grantees as they moved from a proposal-based strategy to a more uniform organizational underwriting approach. The evaluation results showed that pursuant to the goal of standardizing grantmaking, there was both perception of increased standardization and evidence of it in grant award distributions. The paper presents findings from the review as well as a discussion of methods and strategies used to collect and analyze data from multiple stakeholders and from grant proposals.
|
| | |