|

|
| An Evaluation Summary is compiled by the Foundation
staff for each grant based on the evaluation plans and reports submitted
by Grantees in connection with Foundation grants. The summaries are
prepared for the Foundation's Distribution Committee after
all required reports for each grant have been received. The nature
of the reports will vary depending on the amount of each grant and
the level of expertise of each Grantee. Effective June 2006, the
Foundation is placing these summaries on our website for the information
of the many stakeholders we serve. The summaries are accessible by
charitable purpose and organization name. |

|
|
|

|

|
|


|
|

General Contact Information:
|
Kronkosky Charitable
Foundation
Weston Centre
112 East Pecan, Suite 830
San Antonio, Texas 78205
(210) 475-9000
(888) 309-9001 (toll free)
Fax (210) 354-2204
kronfndn@kronkosky.org |
|
|

| |
The mission of the Kronkosky Charitable Foundation
is “ To produce profound good that is tangible and measurable...”.
The Foundation therefore makes evaluation an integral part of the
requirements for nonprofit organizations that receive grants.
Evaluation is the systematic process for gathering,
analyzing and reporting information about a program or intervention
for use in making decisions. Evaluation can have many purposes.
Evaluation may help an organization find out
what is and is not working in its programs. The information collected
can help an organization identify where changes are necessary in
program activities so program goals can be better achieved. A key
question for each program activity or intervention is “What
is the expected progress or client change expected as the result
of the efforts expended on the program activity?”. The evaluation
process gathers the information necessary to determine whether expectations
are being met. Most importantly, if expectations are not met then
a solid evaluation should provide information as to why expectations
were not met.
The evaluation required by the Foundation in
connection with its grants should be designed, first and foremost,
to provide information that is useful to the grantee. The Foundation
does not have proscribed criteria or methodology. Each grantee’s
evaluation is necessarily unique to its own programs and the evaluation
questions it is asking. Our hope is that each grantee will understand
the importance and usefulness of evaluation in assessing its effectiveness
in achieving its program goals. We expect the evaluation results
will be reviewed, discussed and assessed by the staff and board
of each grantee. All too often, grantees develop evaluation reports
to meet funder requirements and do not use the information in their
own decision making. To be most useful, the evaluation process should
be integrated into the day-to-day operating procedures of an organization
and it must have staff buy-in. Like any good operating procedure,
it must be developed with care, include staff input and have sufficient
documentation to insure both support and implementation.
Evaluation should uncover problems as well as
document successes. If an evaluation demonstrates that a program
is not working, that is good information. It should lead to program
modifications or elimination. Perhaps the evaluation will demonstrate
that a problem has been solved. Then resources can be directed at
a new or different problem. It is the Foundation’s policy
to encourage honest evaluation. If problems are uncovered in the
evaluation process, it will not mean automatic funding termination.
We will be open to program modification and new approaches that
may better solve the problem.
We encourage the sharing of evaluation results
beyond the organization itself. Grantees in similar fields can benefit
by sharing their expectations and evaluation findings. Foundation
experience indicates that group discussions of common evaluation
issues are very helpful.
Evaluation of programs by grantees is expected
by an increasing number of funders. Some have more specific requirements
than the Foundation. It is clear that good evaluations lead to increased
success in obtaining support from funders and from the community.
Being able to provide evidence about grantee programs is a definite
asset in both fund raising and public relations.
The Kronkosky Charitable Foundation requires
each grant applicant to describe its planned evaluation processes
in its original letter of inquiry, the first step in applying for
a grant. Our purpose in asking for an evaluation plan in the Letter
of Inquiry is to encourage each potential grantee to incorporate
evaluation into its program plans as early as possible. By defining
the evaluation plan early, a potential grantee will be able to identify
additional support needed. Not every leader of an organization has
had experience in evaluation; and, for this reason, no one will
be denied funding due to a lack of such expertise. However, we will
expect organizations to identify their needs for financial support
of evaluation efforts and include such needs in their grant proposal
budgets for program planning. The Foundation will support the costs
of equipment and software and training courses that help organizations
evaluate programs and develop skills in database management and
reporting. One of our goals is to help create information systems
that enhance planning and decision-making at the program level.
When an applicant’s Letter of Inquiry
leads to the Foundation’s request for a full proposal, a general
outline and two standard forms are provided in the Foundation’s
proposal packets to help lead an applicant through the preparation
of an Evaluation Plan. The Foundation’s grant managers are
available to provide guidance and answer questions about evaluation
plans and may direct applicants to other available resources for
more complicated evaluations. The evaluations required by the Foundation
relate to programs only. For example, for facilities grants, we
require evaluation plans for the programs to be carried out in the
facilities for which funding is being requested, not an evaluation
plan covering the construction process.
|
|
|