Certain types of grant proposals require an evaluation plan. When an evaluation plan is required, it is usually made clear in the program announcement. Generally speaking, smaller, single investigator grant proposals do not require one, while large, more involved proposals do. If there is question about this, the OVPR can assist the researcher in determining whether an evaluation plan is needed. The staff of OVPR can help researchers write simple evaluation plans for small projects. However, proposals for large center grants require contracting a professional external evaluator.

An evaluation plan is an integral part of a grant proposal, and should be considered equally with other aspects of the grant. Evaluation provides information that will help to improve the project; it should be used during the development stage and throughout the life of the project, as well as when the project is complete. Evaluation provides different kinds of information to those who are directly involved with the project (participants) and to those who are otherwise invested in the project, whether by credibility, control, or other capital (stakeholders). Participants and stakeholders should be clearly identified in the evaluation plan. A properly presented evaluation plan can be used to document the value of a project. The types, or stages, of evaluation are explained below.

Formative: Formative evaluation assesses initial and ongoing project activities. It begins during project development and continues through implementation. It is an assessment tool that can provide new and sometimes unanticipated insights or information that can then be used to improve the outcome of the project.

Summative: The purpose of a summative evaluation is to assess the quality and success of the project in reaching its stated goals. It presents the information collected regarding the activities and outcomes of the project. Although it addresses some of the same questions as the formative evaluation, it takes place after the completion of the project.
 
The evaluation process can be broken down into a series of steps, from preparing the evaluation to carrying it out and interpreting it. A more detailed explanation can be found at the OVPR or online at the NSF (The 2002 User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation).

1)  The participants should develop a conceptual model of their project and identify key evaluation points. This is to ensure that all participants and stakeholders have a common understanding about the project's structure and expected outcomes, and will help them to focus on the most important elements of the project.

2)  From this starting point, participants can create evaluation questions and define measurable outcomes. The latter can be further divided into short term and long term outcomes, or the more immediate number of people affected by the project versus the overall changes that might not occur until after completion of the project.

3)  The next step is to develop an evaluation design that is best suited to the project. This means that the evaluation should be geared toward extracting and presenting the most useful information about the project’s objectives, as well as addressing its shortcomings. In developing the evaluation design, the researcher must determine who will be studied and when, and also select a methodological approach and data collection instruments. The NSF-sponsored Online Evaluation Resource Library is an excellent source, providing step-by-step instructions for developing an evaluation plan.

4)  At this point, data collection can begin. There are several methods for this: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method.

• The quantitative method focuses on large numbers of respondents, and uses numerical measurement and data analysis based on statistical methods. It is often thought to be more objective and accurate, and tends to be favored by proposal reviewers because it provides results that can be analyzed using sophisticated statistical techniques. This can be misleading, since a number of factors may negate these results (survey respondents might not understand the questions, surveyors may misinterpret the responses, etc.).

• Qualitative data collection opts for a less broad approach, with a smaller pool of respondents. It is more descriptive and interpretive, making use of observations, in-depth interviews, and focus groups. Qualitative data collection yields richer data that many stakeholders believe to be more informative and representative. However, it is more costly and time-consuming, and does not get as large a number of responses as quantitative data collection.

• Mixed method employs both of the types detailed above, and is perhaps the most balanced approach. In addition to the evaluation results being strengthened by the use of more than one data collection method, each type (quantitative and qualitative) brings unique information to those results.

5) Once data collection is complete for either a formative or summative evaluation, the data must be analyzed and provided to the interested audiences. The reviewers of a formative evaluation could be the principle investigator, the steering or governance committee, and either an internal or external evaluator (depending on the grant requirements). A formative evaluation plan should always clearly state how the evaluation will be used to improve the outcome of the project. The summative evaluation would involve all of the reviewers listed above, plus the program director for the funding agency. The staff of the OVPR can help prepare and review both types of evaluation plans

Resources for Writing Proposals

• Writing a management plan
• Writing an evaluation plan
• Statement on diversity at Brown for use in proposals
• Broader Impact ideas