Skip navigation

Once an organization has won a multi-year grant, evaluation is essential to getting it renewed year to year. One way to share evaluation findings is the Annual Performance Report (APR).

 

Although the specific contents of an APR vary from funder to funder, they also tend to have similar structures from report to report. What follows is one typical structure:

 

Face Page or Title Page: Should identify the grant recipient, the grant maker, and the grant program. Also may need to provide unique numerical identifiers: submission date, grant award number, employer identification number, grantee DUNS number, and others.

 

Table of Contents: Should always include whatever major topics, in whatever predetermined sequence that a specific funder may require.

 

Executive Summary or Abstract: Should offer an overview of findings and recommendations and be no longer than one page.

 

Overall Purpose of Evaluation: Should state: why the evaluation was done; what kinds of evaluation were performed; who performed them; what kinds of decisions the evaluation was intended to inform or support; and who has made, is making, or is going to make such decisions.

 

Background or Context: Should briefly describe the organization and its history. Should describe the goals and nature of the product or program or service being evaluated. Should state the problem or need that the product or program or service is addressing. Should specify the performance indicators and desired outcomes. Should describe how the product or program or service is developed and/or delivered. Also should characterize who is developing or delivering the product or program or service.

 

Evaluation Methods: Should state the questions the evaluation is intended to answer. Also should indicate the types of data collected, what instruments were used to collect the data, and how the data were analyzed.

 

Evaluation Outcomes: Should discuss how the findings and conclusions based on the data are to be used, and any qualifying remarks about any limits in using the findings and conclusions.

 

Interpretations and Conclusions: Should flow from analysis of the evaluation data. Should be responsive to the funder’s evaluation priorities (e.g., measuring GPRA or GPRMA performance indicators in Federal grants).

 

Recommendations: Should flow from the findings and conclusions. Also should address any necessary adjustments in the product or program or service and other decisions that need to be made in order to achieve desired outcomes and accomplish goals.

 

Appendices or Attachments: Should reflect the funder’s requirements and the purposes of the specific evaluation. Appendices may include, for example: the logic model governing the project; plans for management and evaluation included in the original proposal; detailed tables of evaluation data; samples of instruments used to collect data and descriptions of the technical merits of these instruments; case studies of, or sample statements by, users of the product or program or service.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: