How Healthy Is Your Grant? A 10-Point Checkup.

Across many of the grant evaluations we’ve conducted, which span capacity-building, workforce initiatives, and K-12 education projects, we've observed some common practices associated with successful projects. How many of these practices do you use with your grant? Use this quick quiz to find out.

How to score:

For each item, give your project:

2 = Yes, consistently

1 = Sometimes / partly in place

0 = Not yet

The 10-practice grant success quiz

1) We have a simple logic model or theory of change that staff can explain in plain language.

This is the “map” that keeps a project from becoming a long list of disconnected tasks. The best versions are short, visual, and actively used—not just filed away with the grant application. Logic models are widely recommended as tools for planning, communicating, and evaluating how activities connect to intended outcomes.

2) We’ve narrowed our performance measures to a small set that we actually use.

Many grants struggle under the weight of too many indicators. Strong projects identify a manageable handful that directly reflect the outcomes in the logic model. This approach to performance measurement also improves reporting clarity and supports real improvement during implementation.

3) Our roles and decision-making are clear.

Successful grants rarely depend on heroic effort from one person. They succeed on clear lines of responsibility: who participates in decision-making, who owns each grant deliverable, and who is accountable when timelines slip.

4) We run the project with a steady cadence (not just bursts before reports).

A predictable rhythm—monthly check-ins, short action logs, and visible next steps—keeps momentum and reduces last-minute chaos. This aligns with continuous improvement approaches that emphasize routine documentation and follow-through.

5) We track risks early and revisit them.

Staff turnover, procurement delays, partner shifts, and seasonal constraints can derail even well-designed projects. Proactive risk management is a recognized grant management practice to protect timelines, budgets, and compliance.

6) We know our “core components” and protect them.

Strong programs are consistent where it matters most. That means identifying the few essential elements that must be delivered with fidelity, even if other parts of the program vary by site or participants.

7) We allow smart local adaptation—and document it.

The strongest projects don’t confuse flexibility with drift. They distinguish between acceptable adaptations and changes that would weaken the model. This “fidelity and fit” balance is especially emphasized in education grant contexts.

8) Our data process is realistic for our staffing and context.

Good data systems are are simple, routine, and built to survive busy seasons, staff changes, and competing priorities. The best ones focus on a small set of measures (see #2), assign clear ownership, and follow a predictable schedule so data is ready well before reporting deadlines.

9) Partners are integrated into implementation—not just listed in the proposal.

Effective partnerships show up in the work, not just the application narrative. Roles are clear, timelines are shared, and partners have regular touchpoints where they help solve problems and shape adjustments. When partners are truly embedded, they expand capacity and increase the odds that key activities will continue after funding ends.

10) We began sustainability planning early.

This is one of the most consistent predictors of long-term impact. Sustainability should be planned from the start of a grant, not in the final year.

Your score (0–20)

17–20: Strong shape. Your project is operating like a mature, high-functioning grant. Your main opportunity is refining the few weak spots into repeatable systems.

13–16: Good foundation with a few stress points. Your project is likely to deliver most core outcomes, but it may be vulnerable to turnover or scope creep.

9–12: Uneven implementation. Your project demonstrates strong intention and effort, but the “operating system” needs tightening.

0–8: High risk, high opportunity. The good news: small changes can make a big difference quickly.

If your score suggests a few of these practices need tightening, that’s good news. Most grants don’t need a redesign—they need a sharper operating system.

Shaffer Evaluation Group can help you build it. We support grantees with practical, right-sized evaluation and implementation tools, such as logic models that get used, lean measurement plans, and early sustainability roadmaps. Whether you need a quick mid-course tune-up or a full external evaluation, we’ll help you turn a good idea into a project that runs smoothly, proves its value, and lasts.