Critical analysis to improve management
The rationale for this exercise is to analyze and review the management of grantmaking instruments (calls for proposals and projects) and their midpoint achievements to better manage the instruments themselves.
Surveys to systematically collect the feedback on the quality of service received during project selection and the grantmaking phases by all the organizations that submitted an application for grants under calls for proposals.
Survey on the project selection phase
Polling of organizations that qualified for funding (funded and not funded) and those that did not qualify (ineligible or inconsistent). The following information is gathered: general information about the organization; details of the individual who prepared the documentation; information on how they came to know about the call for proposals and its details; how they rate the clarity of documents (Call for proposal and Guidance on submission of proposals); how they rate the site (reserved section and online forms); how they rate the assistance received (type of assistance received and ratings of specific services); how they rate the selection process and how they rate it compared to other grantmakers; suggestions.
Survey on the grant-making phase
Polling of all organizations that received a grant under a call of proposals at the time they submit a request for the final payment of the grant. The following information is gathered: general information about the organization; details of the individual who prepared the documentation; information on how they came to know about the call for proposals and its details; how they rate the clarity and user-friendliness of documents (accounting forms and guidelines); how they rate the assistance received (type of assistance received and ratings of specific service); how they rate the interactions with the various players during the implementation of the project (usefulness, timeliness, structure) and how the service offered by the Foundation compares to other grantmakers; suggestions.
Implementation analysis entails getting constant feedback on project implementation to bring out any weaknesses or obstacles and thus facilitate their solution and learn lessons.
This type of evaluation is generally called formative evaluation as opposed to summative evaluation.
Implementation analysis can be conducted by an external on an internal evaluator. Information is gathered by observing and listening to those participating in the process applying the techniques typically used in any qualitative evaluation (structured interviews, in-depth interviews, questionnaires, direct observations, focus groups).
Implementation analysis is key to the project success: its goal is not to pass judgment or punish but to improve. The internal or external evaluator provides continuous feedback to the project management, that is the ultimate recipient of the results of the evaluation. The evaluator acts as a critical friend.
Ex post assessment
In-depth qualitative and quantitative measurement of the results achieved through individual calls for proposals or a whole Action Plan. The assessment highlights the strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of the Foundation’s policies and their effectiveness, provides useful insights into the best practices as well as into the relationship between grantees and the Foundation.