Impact and Evaluation

Through grantmaking, the ProVeg Grants Program has reached countless members of the public, corporations, government officials, and other influential changemakers who are contributing to a meaningful reduction and elimination in animal consumption.

Some grant recipients opted out of the evaluation survey, so we expect our reach is actually higher than what is shown.

Results for this section include only grants that have been completed by August 2021 and do not include granted projects that are currently in process.

The ProVeg Grants Program offers 5 types of grants and numerous capacity-building opportunities.

The ProVeg Grant and E.V.A. Grant accept unsolicited proposals.  The Capacity, COVID-Relief, and Donor-Advised Grants are available only to current ProVeg and E.V.A. Grant recipients. The capacity-building accelerators are open to everyone.

Results from this section include both ongoing grants and completed grants up to August 2021.

 

 

Grant recipient countries

Grants by Region 

Hover over chart for values.

 

Grants by Global South and Global North

Hover over chart for values.

 

Grants by Grantee Budget

Hover over chart for values.

In addition to reach and impact we also measure the professional capacity of our grantees to gain insight on how grantmaking affects their capacity.

The capacity measure is also used as an element of our needs analysis. We use the capacity measure to determine which areas are in most need of capacity-building support, and to determine how capacity needs differ by region and organization size. We then use these results to guide our capacity-building plans.

 

Results in this section include only grants that have been completed by August 2021 and do not include granted projects that are currently in process.

To learn more details of our methodology, please contact [email protected]

 

To measure grantee capacity we have developed a Capacity Scale that is an aggregate of the following self-perception indices: financial security, impact, strong management, network satisfaction, ability to overcome challenge, and preparation for growth. The Capacity Scale ranges from a score of -12 to +12 and is an aggregate of all self-perception indices. Each self-perception index is an average score and ranges from a score of -2 to +2.

 

To better understand how grantmaking has affected capacity, we measure capacity both before and after completing the grant cycle, and compare these values. Data is collected using an anonymous survey.

 

Capacity can be affected by a variety of factors, not only our grantmaking,  and we acknowledge results aren’t due entirely to our grantmaking. However, we believe this measure does provide meaningful insight to some of the affects of our grantmaking, particularly for organizations where ProVeg Grants Program is their largest donor.

 

Since the capacity scale is an aggregate of self-perceived measures, risk of social desirability bias exists. We attempt to mitigate this risk through strategic phrasing of survey questions and anonymous responses.

 

In future rounds of this evaluation, we would like to measure capacity while controlling for other factors, such as participation in a ProVeg Grants Program Accelerator and receiving other additional major funds. Furthermore, we will introduce statistical modeling into our capacity analysis once additional data has been collected and we will evaluate capacity by budget size once additional data has been collected.

 

 

Interpretation of current results

 

Change in Capacity by Grant Type

The above chart demonstrates how the Capacity Scale score changed with receiving the grant, it is calculated by taking the difference in Capacity Scale score before receiving the grant and after the grant is completed.  The Capacity Scale ranges from a score of -12 to +12 and is an aggregate of all Capacity Scale indices, as described earlier in this section. The above chart demonstrates the change in Capacity Scale before and after the grant is completed.

The above chart demonstrates that when combining ProVeg Grant and E.V.A. Grant recipients, Capacity Scale score slightly decreased. However, when seperating by grant type, we see that ProVeg Grant recipients showed an increase in Capacity Scale score while E.V.A. Grant recipients showed a decrease. The decrease in capacity for E.V.A. Grant recipients is an unexpected result as we hypothesized that grantmaking would correlate with an increase in capacity for both grant types. One hypothesized explanation to this outcome is that all post-grant data was collected during the height of COVID-19. During COVID-19 many organizations experienced a considerable decrease in programs, funding, and morale which we can assume impacted their self-perceptions of capacity, and in general, E.V.A. Grant recipients are smaller organizations than ProVeg Grant recipients, and are emerging or all-volunteer, and thus are less resilient to impacts of COVID-19 than are ProVeg Grant recipients. Furthermore, many E.V.A. Grant recipients are smaller and emerging organizations, and the responsibilities of a first major grant might have induced organizational stress that contributed to perceptions of decreased capacity.

 

 

Index Change in Capacity by Grant Type

The Capacity Scale is an aggregate of the following self-perception indices: financial security, impact, strong management, network satisfaction, ability to overcome challenge, and preparation for growth. Each index is an average score between -2 and +2. The above chart displays the change in Capacity Scale score for each self-perception index, before receiving the grant and after the grant’s completion.  Hover over each bar to see the key and values.

The chart shows that for both ProVeg and E.V.A. Grant recipients combined, there is a variety of increased and decreased capacity for each index. Both ProVeg Grant and EVA Grant recipients experience an increase in financial security and perceptions of impact which we hypothesized would occur with additional funding enabling increased programs. However, both ProVeg Grant recipients and EVA Grant recipients experienced a decrease in preparation for growth, abiliy to overcome challenge, and perceptions of well-managed.  These results are surprising as we theorized an increase in funding would support an increase in other capacity areas. One potential reason for these results is that all post-data was collected during the height of COVID-19 when many organizations were experiencing a considerable decrease in programs, funding, and morale.

 

Change in Capacity by Region

The above chart displays the change in Capacity Scale score by region.  Africa, Asia, Australasia, and Latin America show an increase in capacity while North America and Europe show a decrease. We were not surprised to see the most increase in Africa, as all our Africa grant recipients are experiencing successful growth and new program launches.

 

Conclusion

To conclude, providing additional funding doesn’t necessarily correlate with increased capacity and providing capacity-building support alongside grantmaking is useful for healthy growth of an organization and the overall movement.   Grantees based in Africa, Asia, and Latin America demonstrate the highest improvement in capacity and additional capacity-building support will ensure they remain on this positive growth trajectory.  By contrast, grant recipients from North America and Europe are demonstrating higher need for capacity support.  Furthermore, the capacity factors perceptions of a well-managed organization, ability to overcome challenge, and preparation for growth show the highest decrease in capacity, demonstrating the need to focus capacity-building efforts to improve management and contingency plan skills.

 

 

Capacity-Building Action Steps

Using these results, the ProVeg Grants Program is considering 3 new tentative avenues of support for 2022: new in-depth capacity-building accelerators focusing on management, sustainable growth, and contigency plans; continuing our capacity-building accelerator in Africa to facilitate the region’s positve capacity trajectory; and further rebranding of our consultation and capacity grant opportunities to attract additional use by grantees. Furthermore, in mid-2021 we conducted an in depth needs analysis to better ascertain effective areas of capacity-support and will use these results to develop 2022’s plans.