Proposal Writing
Grant Evaluation Plan: What to Include, With a Sample
Grant Writing Service Editorial Team
June 12, 2026 · 5 min read
Table of contents
Key takeaways
- Start from evaluation questions, then choose indicators, data sources, and a schedule that answer them.
- Plan baseline data collection before the program starts, or you will have nothing to compare against.
- Measure implementation as well as outcomes, so weak results can be traced to delivery or design.
- Match the design to the funder: a pre and post comparison suits most foundation grants, while some federal competitions score rigorous comparison designs.
A grant evaluation plan is the section of a proposal that explains how you will find out whether the project worked and whether it was delivered as planned. It sets out the evaluation questions, the indicators that answer them, the data sources and collection schedule, the design used to judge change, who runs the evaluation, and how results will be reported and used. Each indicator should trace back to an objective, so the funder can see exactly how every promise will be checked.
The parts reviewers look for
- Purpose and audience. One or two sentences on why you are evaluating (accountability to the funder, program improvement, building evidence) and who will use the results.
- Evaluation questions. Three to five questions the evaluation will answer. Include at least one about implementation and at least one about outcomes.
- Indicators with baselines and targets. Pulled directly from your SMART objectives, with the same numbers.
- Data sources and instruments. Assessments, surveys, administrative records, attendance logs, interviews. Name the instrument, not just the method.
- Design. How you will judge whether change happened and whether your program caused it (see the options below).
- Schedule and responsibilities. When each data point is collected and who collects it.
- Analysis. How data will be summarized or compared, in plain terms.
- Reporting and use. Which reports go to the funder and when, and how staff will use interim findings to adjust the program.
Process and outcome evaluation
A process evaluation (also called implementation evaluation) asks whether the program was delivered as designed: were the planned sessions held, did the intended participants enroll, did they attend enough to benefit? An outcome evaluation asks whether participants changed.
You need both, because outcome data alone cannot explain a disappointing result. If reading scores did not rise, the process data tells you whether the tutoring failed or whether students attended too rarely for it to matter. Federal reviewers look for this: the Department of Education's selection criteria (34 CFR 75.210) include whether evaluation methods "are designed to measure the fidelity of implementation of the project."
Formative and summative describe timing and use rather than type. Formative evaluation produces interim data during the project so you can make adjustments; summative evaluation judges results at the end. Most plans describe a quarterly formative review and a final summative report.
Choosing a design that fits
| Design | What it shows | When it fits |
|---|---|---|
| Pre and post comparison | Whether participants changed between intake and exit | Most foundation and smaller government grants |
| Comparison with a benchmark | Whether participants did better than district, state, or national rates | When reliable public data exists for the same measure |
| Comparison group (quasi-experimental) | Whether participants did better than similar non-participants | Larger grants, or when the funder asks for evidence of effectiveness |
| Randomized controlled trial | Whether the program caused the change | Research grants and evidence-building competitions |
Choose the simplest design that answers your questions credibly with the budget you have. A rigorous design you cannot afford to run is weaker than a pre and post comparison you will carry out well. That said, read the notice of funding opportunity closely: some Department of Education competitions award points for evaluations designed to meet What Works Clearinghouse standards, and some funders require an independent evaluator.
Internal or external evaluator
Staff can run a straightforward evaluation, especially for process measures and pre and post outcome data. An external evaluator, usually a university center or independent firm, adds independence and methodological expertise, and some funders require one. If you use an external evaluator, name the organization, summarize relevant experience, and put the cost in the budget. Reviewers notice when an ambitious evaluation has no money behind it.
A sample evaluation plan
The sample below is illustrative, written for a fictional after-school literacy program serving 120 students a year for two years.
Purpose. The evaluation will document whether the program was delivered as designed and whether participants' reading improved, and will give staff quarterly data to adjust tutoring groups.
Evaluation questions.
- Did the program enroll the intended students and deliver tutoring at the planned frequency?
- Did participants' reading fluency improve between fall and spring?
- Did the share of participants reading at grade level increase?
- Which program elements did families and teachers find most useful?
Measurement table.
| Question | Indicator | Baseline | Target | Data source | Timing | Responsible |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Students enrolled who meet eligibility criteria | Not applicable | 120 per year | Enrollment records | Monthly | Program coordinator |
| 1 | Share attending three or more sessions a week | Not applicable | 80 percent | Attendance log | Weekly | Tutors |
| 2 | Average words read correctly per minute | Fall score | 20 percent gain | Benchmark fluency assessment | Fall, winter, spring | Tutors |
| 3 | Share reading at grade level | 38 percent | 55 percent | District spring benchmark | Fall and spring | Coordinator, with district data agreement |
| 4 | Ratings and themes from interviews | Not applicable | Not applicable | Family survey; teacher interviews | Spring | External evaluator |
Design and analysis. Pre and post comparison of each participant's scores, with results compared against the school-wide rate for non-participating third graders as a benchmark. Attendance will be analyzed against score gains to test whether frequency mattered.
Reporting and use. Quarterly dashboard to staff and the board; interim report to the funder at month 12; final report at month 24. Staff will regroup students each quarter based on winter benchmark data.
Making it hold up
- Collect baselines at intake. If the program starts before the baseline is captured, you lose the comparison.
- Secure data access in writing. If you need district or hospital records, get a data-sharing agreement and mention it.
- Keep instruments consistent. Switching assessments midway makes pre and post scores incomparable.
- Do not measure outputs and call them outcomes. Attendance is a process indicator; changed reading levels are an outcome.
The plan should mirror the outcomes column of your logic model for the program and, where you have one, the preconditions in your theory of change diagram. Once funded, the same indicators feed the progress reports funders require. For where evaluation sits among the other sections, see our proposal writing guide, and if you need the plan written to a specific funder's criteria, our grant review and editing service can check a draft you already have.
