Philanthropic and Foundation-Funded Research

Federal programs usually specify an evidence standard and a reporting format, and compliance matters. Foundations rarely do, and they tend to care more about learning what's working than about proving impact to a fixed standard. That gives you more design freedom, and it also means you have to decide what good evidence looks like instead of being told.

Ask them, and we can help you frame the conversation. Program officers usually have a clear idea of what they want to learn, and it's often narrower than the grantee assumes. A short conversation before the evaluation is designed saves a lot of work aimed at the wrong question.

Evaluation is commonly budgeted at roughly five to ten percent of total program cost, and foundation work often lands at the lower end because the designs are usually lighter. We'll help you scope a number before you submit so the evaluation you promised is funded.

Yes. We write interim and final reports in the funder's format and on their schedule, and we'll analyze whatever program data you already collect. If the data doesn't support what you hoped to claim, we'll tell you before it goes to the funder.

It's enough to describe what you did and not enough to say what changed, and most foundations can tell the difference. We can analyze what you have, survey participants to fill the gap, and set up outcome measurement you can repeat. Saying you're building better measurement is more credible than overstating thin data.

Yes. Portfolio and cross-grantee evaluation is a distinct piece of work, and the hard part is usually that grantees measure different things in different ways. We'll design a common framework that respects what each one is doing while still letting a funder see across them.

Yes. Foundations bring us in for landscape analysis before shaping a strategy, for evaluation across a portfolio, and for independent assessment of an initiative. When we work for a funder, we'll be clear with grantees about who we're working for.

Yes. A learning agenda sets out what an organization or a funder is trying to find out over the next few years, and which questions matter most. It's useful precisely because it forces the choice, since nobody can study everything.

We report what we found. Program officers are generally more receptive to honest mixed findings than grantees expect, and a report that comes back uniformly positive tends to cost you trust instead of building it. Findings that show what to change are the ones that get renewed.

Yes. We write needs assessments, theories of change, and evaluation plans for foundation applications, and we can be named as the evaluator with a letter of commitment before you submit.