This report presents the methodology and findings from the outcomes evaluation for the HOPE II (Helping Outreach Programs To Expand) initiative, which provided financial and technical assistance to faith-based and community organizations that offered services to crime victims in urban, high-crime areas.
In its examination of the three major capacity areas specified in the HOPE II project request for proposals (RFPs)--volunteer development and management, community partnerships, and sustainable funding--the outcomes evaluation found that the subgrantees experienced the greatest improvements in capacity with respect to four aspects of organizational development. First, regarding volunteer development and management, the subgrantees hired and sustained volunteer coordinators. Second, regarding sustainable funding, subgrantees reported increased funding competitiveness and increases in revenue. Third, regarding organizational development, the subgrantees implemented electronic recordkeeping. Fourth, regarding service delivery capacity, subgrantees increased the number of services offered and clients served. There were only nominal changes in other capacity areas, including community partnerships. Based on these findings, the evaluation recommends more focus on improvement in specific areas of capacity. When the grant program focuses on specific areas of growth across all subgrantees, capacity changes are more likely to occur in targeted areas among larger numbers of subgrantees. Otherwise, changes in capacity are too scattered and inconsistent to show measurable changes across multiple grant recipients. The evaluation also recommends uniform technical assistance from the intermediary entity that implements the grant program. The outcomes evaluation found that the achievements were impaired by inconsistency in the technical assistance subgrantees received. In addition, the evaluation recommends that grants be awarded to organizations that have demonstrated ability to increase capacity. The selection process for identifying HOPE II grant recipients did not produce a subgrantee class that was uniformly likely to succeed. 7 appendixes that include supplementary tables, surveys, and the subgrantee application review form