 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Sign up to receive PND e-newsletters. |
|
| |
|
| Re: funding and evaluation health prevention services
Posted by Linda Procopio   on 9/25/2008, 12:27 pm, in reply to "funding and evaluation health prevention services"
VIP Poster
I can answer to your 2nd question better than the first. I have a couple of disease-specific nonprofits for clients (i.e., Tourette Syndrome Association; Kidney Foundation). Because the geographic reach of these organizations is so broad, we break down available statistics to define exactly who the beneficiaries are within each local or regional foundation's geographic boundaries. The way we come up with specific numbers for individual counties, etc. is to research the most accepted 'prevalence rates' per 1000 people (or in the case of Tourette, per 1000 CHILDREN). Then we used Census population data to do the math and to be able to state that "approximately XXX people with (insert disease/condition) live within your service area, including XXX that have already reached out to us for assistance". Putting a hard LOCAL number on the need has been an effective strategy.
As to your 1st question, it has to be a mighty big grant to be able to afford to evaluate outcomes or impact that will not really be known for many years into the future. We do as much tally-counting ("Outputs", I know, not "Outcomes") as we can, to show growth in numbers reached and numbers participating. Somewhere in there we try to do a Sampling Survey of some kind designed to judge effectiveness, and then support our program goals based on national statistics, or on the published outcomes of comparable programs in other parts of the globe if we can find them anywhere. Like I said, I can better answer your 2nd question than your 1st, as some programs have outcomes that are extremely difficult to measure with any accuracy. & I think most grantmakers know that and will usually accept evidence that you are thoughtfully examining your programming to the best that your resources can allow.
|
| |
