Guide 4 · Long read

Writing the Evaluation Section of a Federal Grant Proposal

What reviewers look for, why evaluation plans get flagged, how to set a budget that holds up, and when to bring in the evaluator who will design the plan and can write the section.

The short version

The evaluation section of a federal grant proposal is the plan for how your project will learn whether it is working, and it's strongest when it's designed before you submit by the person who will carry it out. Start from your solicitation and from what the project needs to learn, keep the plan and the budget in line, and build in ways to use what you learn while the grant is running.

Lauren McClain, Ph.D.

Lauren McClain, Ph.D.

Co-founder and workforce development consultant, Grantibly

grantibly.com/about/

· 13 min read

What You Need to Know

Key takeaways about the evaluation section of a grant proposal

What this guide covers
Why the section is hard

The evaluation section of a grant proposal describes an evaluation that has to be designed before the project begins

The evaluation section of a federal grant proposal describes how the project team and its evaluator will learn whether the project is being carried out as planned and whether it is producing the changes it was designed to produce. That evaluation has to be planned before any of the project's work begins, which is a large part of why the section is hard to write.

A principal investigator who knows the field, the curriculum, and the students or participants in the project is asked to commit, years in advance, to evaluation questions, data sources, a timeline, and a budget. Often that commitment is made against a deadline, by someone writing outside their own field.

The section matters to reviewers because it answers a question they're asked to consider. The National Science Foundation, one example of a funder, spells this out in its guidance to reviewers:

"When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful."

Among the elements NSF lists for every review: "Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?"

Other funders word their expectations differently, and your own solicitation is the guide that counts.

This guide makes one case. The evaluation section is strongest when it's treated as the first version of an evaluation you intend to carry out: drawn from what the project needs to learn, kept in proportion to the project, matched to a budget that can pay for it, and designed by the person who will conduct it.

The sections below follow that order, from the solicitation to the evaluation questions, what reviewers look for, the problems that get plans flagged, the budget, and when to bring the evaluator in.

Requirement and good practice

What your solicitation requires for the evaluation section comes first, and good practice fills in the rest

What your solicitation requires for the evaluation section is the first thing to settle, because funders differ in what they ask for, where they want it in the proposal, and how they review it. Read the solicitation's evaluation language before you draft the plan, and note every required heading, page limit, and attachment.

Here is one example of how specific a funder can be. NSF's Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program sets out these requirements in its current solicitation, NSF 24-584:

Other funders and programs set different requirements, so treat the ATE list as an illustration of the level of detail a solicitation can ask for, and follow your own.

Whether something is required and whether it's useful are two different questions. ATE, for example, makes a logic model optional and says proposals won't be penalized for leaving one out.

A logic model can still be worth sketching, because it lays out how the project's activities are expected to lead to its outcomes and helps show what the evaluation should look at. It describes how the project is expected to work. Seeing an outcome after an activity doesn't by itself establish that the activity caused it. What's a logic model, and does my proposal really need one? explains what goes in one.

The same reasoning applies in the other direction. Good practice doesn't mean adding activities that serve nothing. Every survey, measure, or group you add creates work for participants, project staff, and the evaluator, so each one should help answer a question the project needs answered.

When you agree to work with an evaluator upon funding, the evaluator can write the evaluation plan section of the proposal, taking that work off of your plate.

Lauren McClain, Ph.D., Grantibly
Questions before methods

Evaluation questions in a grant proposal come before any survey, focus group, or other method

Evaluation questions are the part of the section everything else depends on, so write them before you choose any survey, focus group, or test. It's tempting to start with methods: a team decides it needs a pre- and post-survey or a round of focus groups, and then writes questions to fit.

The evaluation question should drive the method. Once you know what the project needs to learn, you can decide what evidence would answer that question and the best way to collect it.

Good evaluation questions are specific, answerable, connected to the project's goals and intended outcomes, and focused on information that will be useful. They also look at how the project is being carried out, not only at its results.

Outcomes are hard to interpret without that. If outcomes fall short, the program may not have been fully implemented, participants may not have received enough of it, or conditions may have changed. Positive outcomes, on their own, don't tell you what produced them.

Implementation questions

How is the project being carried out? For example: which parts of a new advising model are students using, and what affects their participation?

Outcome questions

Is the project producing the changes it was designed to produce, for the students or participants it was meant to serve?

Questions to set aside

Questions that would be interesting to study but that the project doesn't need answered to be evaluated well.

The third group comes up often in projects housed in colleges and universities, which sometimes begin to treat evaluation like an academic research study. Evaluation and research overlap, and rigorous methods matter in both, but their purposes differ.

Research generally seeks knowledge that extends beyond one program or setting. Evaluation primarily seeks to understand and improve the specific project being funded. A proposal that measures every possible construct or adds several validated scales may support valuable research questions, but those additions are not automatically necessary to evaluate the project, and each one adds cost and work.

Questions can also be too broad to answer or too narrow to tell you anything useful. Each one needs a plain path to an answer: what information will answer it, where that information comes from, and when it will be gathered. What should the evaluation section of my grant proposal include? walks through that level of detail, with a table you can adapt for your own questions.

Read it like a reviewer

Reviewers look for an evaluation plan they can follow from each question to how the team will use the answer

Reviewers look for an evaluation plan they can follow from start to finish: from each evaluation question, to the information that will answer it, to when it's gathered and by whom, to how the project team will use what it learns.

The ATE solicitation's own review question, again one funder's example, asks: "Is the evaluation plan clearly tied to the project outcomes, provide for effective assessment of student learning, and likely to provide useful information to the project and others?"

Read your draft the way a reviewer would, one question at a time. The table below lists what a reviewer can check and where it should show up in the section.

What a reviewer can checkWhere it shows up in the section
AlignmentEach evaluation question connects to a stated goal, objective, or intended outcome
FeasibilityThe data sources and methods are ones the team can realistically use during the grant
TimingData collection fits the timing of the activities, and reports and meetings are on a schedule
Use during the grantFindings reach the project team while there's still time to act on them
Who will do itThe evaluator is named and qualified, or the selection process is described
CostThe budget matches the scope of the work the plan describes

Use during the grant deserves its own attention. Reviewers like to see the evaluation used to improve the program as it is carried out, which is called formative evaluation, alongside the summative evaluation at the end.

ATE, for example, describes the evaluator's primary role as informing the project team's decisions about changes to implementation, with a summative evaluation at the end of the project. What's the difference between formative and summative evaluation, and why does my funder want both? explains the two.

The section should also explain who will conduct the evaluation and why they are qualified for this project. That can include experience with the type of program being evaluated, the population or setting, and the methods the evaluation will require.

If your funder expects an independent evaluator, say how the evaluator meets that requirement. ATE, for example, allows an evaluator employed by the project's home institution if they work in a separate unit with a different reporting line. Can our internal institutional researcher do the evaluation to save money? looks at the tradeoffs of keeping the evaluation inside your institution.

Common problems

Three common problems get an evaluation plan flagged by reviewers, and each one has a different fix

Reviewers commonly flag an evaluation plan for one of three problems: an evaluation that only looks at the program at the end, a plan that isn't aligned with the project's goals and outcomes, or a scope and budget that don't match. Each problem has a different fix, which is why it helps to know which one you are facing.

Timing belongs inside the second problem. Data collection has to make sense for the timing of the activities. A survey scheduled before participants have finished the activity it asks about, for example, can't answer the question it was meant to answer.

A plan that reviewers call vague often has a version of the second problem. It doesn't show how each evaluation question connects to a goal, what data will answer it, from whom, and when. The remedy is to spell out each of those links, question by question.

The third problem has a common source. Under-pricing the evaluation is a common problem when the project team doesn't work with an evaluator during the proposal phase, and reviewers can tell when a plan promises more than its budget can pay for.

If your proposal has already been declined, start with the reviews and the panel summary before you rewrite anything, because they tell you which of these problems the reviewers saw. My proposal was declined and reviewers flagged the evaluation plan. How do I fix it? covers how to read them and what to change before you resubmit.

A budget that holds up

The evaluation budget in a grant proposal comes from the scope of the evaluation the plan describes

The evaluation budget in a grant proposal should come from the scope of the evaluation the plan describes, because there's no single right percentage. Five to 10 percent of the grant budget is a good range to consider, and what the evaluation needs to do should decide where your project falls.

Check your solicitation first, and if it says anything about evaluation costs, follow it. ATE, for example, names no percentage. It requires funds for an independent evaluator and says the requested funds must match the scope of the evaluation activities developed in partnership with the project team. Other funders handle evaluation costs differently, so ask your program officer or grants office if your solicitation is unclear.

What an evaluation costs depends on the amount of work the plan asks for. These all affect the investment amount:

Each item takes evaluator time, so a change to any of them changes the budget. That's why the same percentage can be generous for one project and far too little for another.

Under-budgeting is the more common mistake, especially when no evaluator helped plan the evaluation.

A plan with interviews, focus groups, and several rounds of surveys cannot reasonably be supported by a very small evaluation budget, and an evaluator brought in after the award with a budget that doesn't match the plan may find the plan difficult, or sometimes impossible, to carry out well.

The mismatch can run the other way too. A large budget for a plan that proposes little, such as one survey of a small group once a year, tells reviewers the evaluation is either overbudgeted or underscoped.

To keep the evaluation affordable without weakening it, focus on the questions that matter, start from data that already exists, and collect only what's missing. Records your institution already keeps, such as enrollment or completion data, can sometimes answer a question without a new survey.

How much of my grant budget should go to evaluation? goes further into setting the figure. What a particular evaluator will charge for the work is a separate question, asked when you're hiring, and What does an external evaluator actually cost? covers it.

Who designs and writes it

Bringing an evaluator into proposal development lets the person who will conduct the evaluation design it

Bringing an evaluator into proposal development means the evaluation is designed by the person who will carry it out, and that's the strongest reason to start early. Before you submit, an evaluator can make sure the project's goals, objectives, activities, and outcomes line up and are presented the way reviewers expect.

They design the evaluation plan, build an evaluation budget that matches it, and can write the evaluation section, along with any biosketch, resume, or letter of commitment the funder asks for. What can an evaluator actually do for me before I submit the proposal? describes that work in detail.

Whether you can formally name that evaluator in the proposal depends on your funder's requirements and your institution's procurement rules. An MOU or letter of commitment can document an evaluator's intended involvement without establishing a formal contract until after an award is made.

Some institutions require a competitive bid after the grant is awarded, and ATE, for example, asks proposers in that situation to note the policy and describe how they will select an evaluator after the award.

Naming an evaluator and involving one are different things. Even when you can't name anyone, involving evaluation expertise during proposal development can help make the questions, methods, timeline, and budget realistic. Do I need to name an external evaluator before my grant is funded? covers the options.

The proposal stage is also your chance to get to know the person you will work with for the life of the grant, whether that's three, four, or five years or however long the funding period runs. Look for someone you can work well with, who supports your work, and who will give you honest feedback on your program.

If you don't have an evaluator yet, How do I find an external evaluator for my federal grant? covers finding one.

Put together, the work runs in a sequence like this one:

The Grantibly perspective

Our clients may be managing a multimillion-dollar grant while also teaching classes, supervising staff, working with partners, recruiting participants, reporting to funders, and dealing with institutional processes. We never want evaluation to sound like one more thing they are failing to do correctly.

At Grantibly, we work with project teams during proposal development whenever possible so the evaluation questions, methods, timeline, and budget are designed by the people who will actually conduct the evaluation. Instead of asking what questions to put on a survey, we ask what the project needs to learn and what evidence would help answer that.

A good evaluation can help a project identify problems before they become bigger problems, understand participants' experiences, improve implementation, assess progress toward outcomes, communicate impact, and strengthen future proposals. That's worth planning for from the start.

Evaluation should support the work, not overwhelm the people doing it. That means making intentional choices about what needs to be measured, when it needs to be measured, who needs to be asked, and what the project will actually do with the information. We do not collect data simply because it might be interesting.

The Bottom Line

A strong evaluation section of a grant proposal is a plan the project team intends to carry out

A strong evaluation section reads as a plan the project team intends to carry out. Its questions come from the project's goals, the information it proposes to gather can realistically answer them, its timeline returns findings while there's still time to act, and its budget pays for the work it describes.

Most of that comes from doing the work in the right order: the solicitation, then the questions, then the methods, then the budget, with the evaluator involved early enough to design the plan rather than inherit it. The plan will also change once the work begins, which is common and expected. Our program changed mid-grant. Can we change the evaluation plan too? covers what to do when it does.

Write the evaluation section as the plan you intend to carry out, and let the person who will carry it out help design it.

Sources
  1. National Science Foundation, Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (NSF 24-1), Chapter III, "NSF Proposal Processing and Review"
  2. National Science Foundation, Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Program Solicitation, NSF 24-584
  3. National Science Foundation, Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program page
Frequently Asked Questions

More questions about the evaluation section of a grant proposal

How early should I start the evaluation section of a federal grant proposal?

Start the evaluation section of a federal grant proposal early enough to agree on the evaluation's scope and budget with your evaluator before either is fixed in the proposal. If an evaluator joins only days before the deadline, that planning may not show in the proposal. NSF's ATE program, for example, lists its full proposal deadline as the first Thursday in October each year, so check your own program's page.

Can a principal investigator write the evaluation section of a grant proposal without an evaluator?

A principal investigator can write the evaluation section of a grant proposal without an evaluator, but involving the evaluator while the proposal is being developed usually leads to a stronger plan, because the questions, methods, timeline, and budget then come from the person who will carry them out. An evaluator brought in only after the award can be left with a plan that is difficult, or sometimes impossible, to carry out well.

Does a federal grant proposal need a logic model in the evaluation section?

Whether a federal grant proposal needs a logic model depends on the solicitation. NSF's ATE program, for example, makes one optional and says proposals won't be penalized for leaving it out. Whether a logic model is required and whether it's useful are two different questions: sketching one can help your team check that the evaluation questions match what the project is trying to change.

Is the evaluation section of a grant proposal the same as a research plan?

The evaluation section of a grant proposal isn't the same as a research plan, although the two overlap and rigorous methods matter in both. Research generally seeks knowledge that extends beyond one program or setting, while evaluation primarily seeks to understand and improve the specific project being funded. A question that would be interesting to study can be worthwhile and still not belong in the evaluation's scope of work.

What should the evaluation section say if my institution requires a competitive bid to select an evaluator?

If your institution requires a competitive bid to select an evaluator after the award, the evaluation section should say so and describe how the evaluator will be selected, and the budget should still include the evaluation's cost. NSF's ATE program, for example, asks proposers to note the policy and describe the selection procedure. Check with your grants or sponsored programs office before you write the section, and ask whether the procurement office needs to be involved.

What happens to the evaluation plan in a grant proposal if the project changes after it is funded?

The evaluation plan in a grant proposal may need to change if the project changes after it is funded, and it's common, even expected, for parts of a project to change once implementation begins. Staff, partners, recruitment strategies, and timelines can all shift. Revisit the plan with your evaluator, and check with your program officer before making a significant change to an approved plan, since funders handle those changes differently.

Continue Reading

Related guides

Guide 3

The Complete Guide to Grant Evaluation, From Proposal to Final Report

The grant evaluation lifecycle, stage by stage: designing the plan with the proposal, starting after the award, findings during the grant, hard results, and the final report.

Guide 5

How to Choose an External Evaluator: An Honest Guide from Two of Them

Whether you need an external evaluator, how to find and compare one, what the cost depends on, and what the working relationship should be like.

Explore the Insight Library

Related reading in the Insight Library

Insights & Answers 02 / Topic 2B

Running a Grant Evaluation Across the Award Lifecycle

A grant evaluation runs across the whole award, from the first question asked to the funder's annual report, and the plan can change when the program does.

Insights & Answers 03 / Topic 3B

How to Find and Vet an External Evaluator

Vetting an evaluator comes down to specific questions about fit, method, and availability. Credentials alone won't tell you who's right for the work.

Insights & Answers 03 / Topic 3C

What Program Evaluation Costs and How to Right-Size It

Evaluation pricing tracks scope, and quotes vary because firms are pricing different amounts of work, which makes scope the conversation worth having first.

Lauren McClain, Ph.D.

Lauren McClain, Ph.D.

Lauren McClain, Ph.D. is a co-founder of Grantibly and a workforce development consultant who develops the workforce through evaluation, training, facilitation, and strategic planning. A sociologist and former faculty member at Savannah State University and Western Kentucky University, she taught more than 50 social research methods courses, mentored more than 21 thesis and dissertation committees, and served on three Institutional Review Boards. Her work helps organizations use evidence to understand what is happening, decide what to do next, and do MORE good.

grantibly.com
Not sure where to start?

Tell us what you're trying to understand

Schedule a consult Meet Lauren and Angelika