What Funders Actually Expect From a Program Evaluation

A lot of program evaluations report activity — how many people attended, how many sessions ran, how satisfied participants said they were — and call it impact. Funders, especially ones who've read more than a few evaluation reports, notice the difference between "we did the thing" and "the thing worked," and increasingly ask for the second one explicitly.

Outputs versus outcomes

Outputs are what your program produced: workshops held, clients served, materials distributed. Outcomes are what changed for the people you served because of it: test scores, employment, health measures, whatever your theory of change claims you affect. A report full of outputs and light on outcomes reads, to an experienced funder, as evidence-avoidance — even when that's not the intent.

What a credible evaluation typically includes

• A stated theory of change. What you believe causes what, and why — so the evaluation can actually test that logic rather than just describe activity.
• Some form of comparison, where feasible. A true control group is the gold standard, but even a credible before/after comparison, a matched comparison group, or a benchmark against a known baseline is far more convincing than a single post-program number with nothing to compare it to.
• Honest reporting of null or mixed results. Funders who evaluate a lot of programs know that not everything works as hoped. A report that only ever finds success, across every metric, every time, reads as less credible than one that reports what didn't move and considers why.
• Enough methodological detail to be checked. Sample sizes, response rates, and how missing data was handled — not necessarily in the main report, but available if asked.

Matching the evaluation to the budget

Not every program can or should fund an RCT. A well-designed pre/post comparison with a clear theory of change and honest limitations is often the right evaluation for the budget and stakes involved — the goal is credibility proportional to the claim you're making, not maximum rigor regardless of cost.

If a funder or board is asking for evidence your current reporting doesn't provide, this is the kind of evaluation work we design around real budgets and real data.

One email whenever we publish something new. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.