A principle in program design is that, if a program is placed in a new location, the program will still perform as expected.

From a program evaluation perspective, we understand that a program’s location presents both challenges and opportunities, as the physical location (whether it’s an actual neighborhood or virtual) is often as unique as the program itself.

So, when you’re evaluating a multi-site program, not only are you assessing the extent that differences in outcomes are due to variations in project implementation, you’re also sensitive to the fact that you’re doing a side-by-side comparison.

Why? Because if you’re a staff member that’s been placed in this new program location, and you’re experiencing the uniques characteristics and quirks of the program’s location in real time, the evaluation can yield results that you’re already aware of. Plus, you’ve most likely informed your staff’s leadership well before the evaluator showed up and this can be frustrating when you need leadership’s help in addressing issues and you’re not being listened to.

A program in multiple locations may have the same outcome goals, but will always be impacted by the conditions it’s operating in.

Every organization has unique needs, capacities, and challenges. Yet funders often make .”one size fits all” requests”. From organizational priorities and resource constraints to lack of internal buy-in and strict accountability, grantees can become resentful of funders when they’re expected to fit into a box as opposed to working together in ways that are flexible and makes sense to both the funder and the grantee.

Funders should let go of one-size-fits-all solutions and play a more crucial role in providing support and guidance to their grantees. They can do this by: