Grant Evaluation & Consultation

External evaluation that strengthens your project — and your next proposal

Funders increasingly expect a credible, independent evaluation plan baked into every proposal, and a defensible evaluation report at the end of every funded year. We serve as external evaluators and pre-submission consultants for federal, state, and foundation grants — bringing the same research rigor we apply to our own funded portfolio.

What we do

• Pre-submission consultation — Proposal review, logic model design, theory-of-change articulation, and evaluation-plan drafting before you submit. Catches the gaps that cost projects in review.
• External evaluation — Formative and summative evaluation across the life of your award, with mixed-methods data collection, instrument design, and IRB-aligned protocols.
• Annual and final reporting — Funder-ready evaluation reports, executive summaries, and dissemination-ready findings that satisfy program-officer expectations.
• Measurement design — Custom instruments, validated scales, and observation protocols tuned to your project’s outcomes — not a generic survey pulled off a shelf.
• Capacity-building reviews — Mid-cycle audits for districts and grantees managing multiple awards, with actionable recommendations for the next renewal or follow-on proposal.

Funders we work with

We have experience working on and receiving awards from the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, state education agencies, and private foundations — including capacity-building, teacher-preparation, CS/STEM integration, AI literacy, and cybersecurity-education programs.

Why competitive rates matter

Most external evaluators charge 8–12% of a project’s total budget. Our rates are deliberately set at 3–4% of the funded grant budget for standard evaluation engagements, with scope and deliverables negotiated up front. Lower evaluation overhead means more of your award reaches the work it was funded to do — without sacrificing the rigor reviewers and program officers expect.

How it works

1. Scoping conversation — We read your draft or funded proposal and discuss outcomes, timeline, and reporting cadence.
2. Evaluation plan — We provide a written plan detailing methods, instruments, milestones, and deliverables — suitable to attach to a proposal or share with a program officer.
3. Implementation — We collect, analyze, and report on the data on the cadence your funder expects, with quarterly or annual touchpoints with your project team.
4. Reporting — Funder-ready written deliverables, plus optional briefings for your leadership, board, or advisory committee.

Engagements are scoped against the size and duration of the award. For pre-submission consultation alone, we offer flat-fee packages that scale with proposal complexity.

Example engagements

These exemplars are starting points, not fixed packages. Evaluation engagements are scoped against the size of the award, the number of sites, the reporting cadence your funder expects, and the depth of dissemination you want at the end. The three sketches below illustrate the range we typically work across — each priced at our standard 3–4% of the funded award.

Tier 1 — Small or pilot-scale evaluation

A focused, single-site evaluation for state, foundation, or smaller federal awards.

• Reach: $150K–$500K total award, typically a single site or small partner network
• Investment: ~$5K–$20K across the life of the award
• Duration: 12–24 months
• Example fit: State CS or STEM PD pilot, foundation teacher-preparation grant, small USED demonstration

Planning and instrument design (months 1–2, ~25 hours of Freyja Labs team time)

• Freyja Labs: review the funded proposal, finalize the evaluation plan, design or select instruments, draft the IRB protocol
• PI: ~6 hours — kickoff, evaluation plan review, alignment with the project workplan
• Project staff: ~3 hours — context documents, participant lists, calendar coordination

Implementation (months 3–22, ~10 hours per quarter of Freyja Labs team time)

• Freyja Labs: quarterly check-ins, formative data collection (typically pre/post surveys, 6–10 interviews, light observation), interim memos
• PI: ~2 hours/quarter — evaluation check-ins, course-correction conversations
• Project staff: ~3 hours/quarter — facilitate access to data and participants

Summative reporting (months 22–24, ~30 hours of Freyja Labs team time)

• Freyja Labs: analysis, draft and final report, executive summary
• PI: ~4 hours — report review, dissemination planning
• Funder program officer: optional close-out briefing

Deliverables

• Funder-ready evaluation plan
• Pre/post instrument set and IRB-aligned protocols
• Annual or final evaluation report
• Executive summary suitable for the funder and project advisory group
• One dissemination artifact on request (poster, brief, or short paper)

Tier 2 — Mid-scale federal evaluation

A full-cycle evaluation for typical multi-year federal awards.

• Reach: $1M–$2M total award, 3–6 partner sites
• Investment: ~$30K–$80K across the life of the award
• Duration: ~3 years
• Example fit: NSF DRK-12 or ITEST, IES partnership, USED EIR mid-phase

Year 1 — Foundation (~90 hours of Freyja Labs team time)

• Freyja Labs: evaluation plan finalization, custom instrument design (validated scales plus observation protocols), IRB protocol across sites, baseline data collection
• PI: ~12 hours — quarterly meetings, evaluation plan refinement
• Project director: ~6 hours/quarter as primary evaluation liaison
• Site partners (3–6): ~4 hours each — onboarding and data infrastructure
• Project advisory board: review the evaluation plan at the year-1 meeting

Year 2 — Implementation (~90 hours of Freyja Labs team time)

• Freyja Labs: formative data collection (surveys, observations, interviews), mid-year memo, full annual report
• PI and project director: ongoing quarterly meetings
• Site partners: ongoing data access and coordination
• Advisory board: annual review of formative findings

Year 3 — Summative and dissemination (~90 hours of Freyja Labs team time)

• Freyja Labs: endline data collection, mixed-methods analysis, summative report, dissemination support
• PI: ~8 hours — final report co-development, dissemination planning
• Program officer: close-out briefing
• Advisory board: final findings review

Deliverables

• Detailed evaluation plan and logic model
• Custom instrument battery (surveys, observation protocol, interview guides)
• IRB-aligned protocols across sites
• Three annual evaluation reports with executive summaries
• Final summative report
• 1–2 dissemination artifacts (conference posters, journal-article support)
• Quarterly check-in summaries for the project team

Tier 3 — Large multi-year, multi-site evaluation

A long-horizon evaluation for capacity-scale awards spanning multiple sites or institutions.

• Reach: $3M–$8M+ award, 5–15 partner sites or multi-state cohort
• Investment: ~$90K–$320K across the life of the award
• Duration: 4–5 years
• Example fit: NSF capacity-building, USED implementation at scale, regional research-practice partnership

Year 1 — Foundation (~165 hours of Freyja Labs team time)

• Freyja Labs: multi-site evaluation design, custom instrument battery, cross-site IRB protocols, baseline data collection at every site, theory-of-change articulation
• PI: ~16 hours — kickoff, evaluation plan finalization
• Project director: ~8 hours/month as evaluation liaison
• Co-PIs across sites: ~4–6 hours each in year 1
• Site coordinators (5–10): ~5 hours each — onboarding and data infrastructure
• Project advisory board: year-1 evaluation plan review

Years 2 through N–1 — Ongoing implementation (~110 hours/year of Freyja Labs team time)

• Freyja Labs: multi-site data collection, formative analysis, annual report, advisory-board briefings, mid-cycle capacity-building review
• PI and project director: ongoing
• Site coordinators: ongoing data coordination
• Project advisory board: annual reviews
• External steering or technical advisory committee: annual briefings

Final year — Summative and dissemination (~175 hours of Freyja Labs team time)

• Freyja Labs: endline data, longitudinal analysis, summative report, dissemination plan, journal articles, policy briefs
• PI: ~12 hours — co-authorship and dissemination
• Program officer: 1–2 briefings, including a renewal-positioning conversation
• Advisory board: final findings review
• External audiences (policy, practitioner): final briefing materials

Deliverables

• Multi-site evaluation plan with cross-site comparability
• Custom instrument battery and observation protocols
• IRB protocols negotiated across sites
• Annual evaluation reports (4–5) with executive summaries
• Mid-cycle external advisory briefings
• Final summative and longitudinal report
• 3–5 dissemination artifacts (journal articles, conference papers, policy briefs)
• Public-facing executive summaries
• Mid-cycle capacity-building review to position the next proposal

Pre-submission consultation packages

Pre-submission work is priced as a flat fee, independent of the eventual award size.

• Proposal review — written critique of a near-final draft, focused on the evaluation plan, logic model, and reviewer-facing weak points. ~$1.5K–$3K, 1–2 weeks of turnaround.
• Evaluation plan drafting — co-developed evaluation plan, logic model, and instrument concept, suitable to attach to the proposal. ~$3K–$8K, 3–6 weeks of turnaround.
• Full pre-submission partnership — multiple working sessions across the proposal arc, including theory-of-change articulation, evaluation plan, and reviewer simulation. ~$8K–$15K, 6–10 weeks of turnaround.