WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS GRANT?
ANSWER KEY
There are at least three things wrong with this outcome statement. The most obvious problems:
1. Outcomes are not measurable! Other than the 30% figure at the end of the paragraph, none of the cited outcomes are measurable. (And even the 30% figure makes no sense — 30% greater than who? Who are the people connected to the "national average" figure?) Statements asserting that the program will lead to "more trusting relationships," "completing school," and "appropriate job placement," sound nice enough, but provide the funder with no real way to assess whether progress is being made. "More" is not a measurable benchmark — it can be achieved even if only one participant reaches that goal. Here are a few effective examples of "realistic measurable outcomes" for this type of program:
- At least 80% of youth who participate in the mentor program for at least six months will demonstrate measurable improvements in the following categories: academic performance, motivation to learn, community engagement, self-confidence and interpersonal skills. Progress will be measured through pre/post testing using the Healthy Kids Survey (administered to each youth mentee upon entry into the program and every 6 months thereafter).
- At least 70% of youth who participate in the mentor program for at least six months will complete high school with their peer age group, and 60% will make a successful transition to college or other postsecondary education program within a year of graduation.
2. Weakly presented logic. Although the writer attempts to provide a logical chain of events leading to certain outcomes — stronger bonds of friendship leading to trusting relationships, leading to mentors promoting self-esteem and encouraging goal setting — the claims read more like a general statement of expectations than a true logic model. It would be more effective to present an actual logic model:
Inputs (such as staff, mentors, facilities, etc.)
leading to
Activities (in-person mentoring, group activities, training, etc.)
leading to
Outputs (measurable indicators of performance, such as # of mentoring hours, # of participants, # of mentor/youth matches, etc.)
leading to
Interim and final outcomes (such as percentage/# of participants demonstrating improvement in academic performance and self-confidence, percentage/# of participants attending college, etc.)
3. Killer lead sentence. This first sentence is a study in how to generate an immediate negative impression. The writer's first assertion, that the organization expects "to see the same outcomes we have seen over the past 17 years," is hardly a promising start. Although it is soon followed by "but on a much larger scale," the damage has already been done. Far from being excited by the request, the reader is left with the feeling that this is nothing more than business as usual. And for most grantmakers, business as usual is just about the last thing they are interested in funding.
|
