An audit-defensible evaluation methodology with a working single-file instrument, brand-faithful narrative deliverables, and a two-tier service offering. Built. Validated. Ready to deploy. For organizations holding institutional grants of $500K+ over multi-year periods who require independent evaluation that produces analysis, not dashboard data.
Most evaluator engagements produce print-dumps of dashboard data. Ours produce readable narrative reports designed for off-screen reading by the funder and grantee leadership. The methodology is the product.
A composite Health Index across eight evaluator-defined domains, anchored to documented judgment basis preserved across the engagement. Multi-band rubric. Quarterly re-scoring.
A single-file offline HTML evaluation instrument with full data ingestion, financial reconciliation, compliance tracking, and on-demand report generation. Cryptographic chain of custody throughout.
System-generated reports on letterhead, designed for off-screen linear reading by funders and grantee leadership. Every figure traces to source. Narrative paragraphs, not table dumps.
Audit-defensibility lives in the instrument; client-actionability lives in the consultancy service. The two together are the KonnektingDots product. Both included per engagement.
Every engagement produces a structured cadence of deliverables, calibrated to the grant period and the reporting calendar of the funder. The cadence is recurring, the format is brand-faithful, the discipline is consistent.
Quarterly compliance posture against the grant agreement, with current eight-domain composite and cross-platform engagement signals for the period.
Cumulative annual evaluation with full eight-domain re-scoring, year-over-year analysis, and forward recommendations for the coming year.
Phase baseline at engagement start. Year 3 formative evaluation. Year 5 summative evaluation. The reference points against which all subsequent quarterly memos are measured.
Ad-hoc audit response deliverables generated from the instrument as needed — for funder questions, board reviews, or auditor inquiries.
The quarterly + annual cadence is the standard pattern. For some engagements — particularly capital reporting or department BI — the cadence flexes to monthly or semi-annual. The pattern is calibrated during Discovery, not imposed from a template.
The composite Health Index is a weighted average across eight domains. Each domain is scored on a five-band rubric (Excellent · Strong · Adequate · Watch · Critical) and anchored to documented judgment basis preserved in the evaluation instrument.
Weights are calibrated during Discovery to reflect the grant's specific obligations and the funder's priorities. The framework travels; the weighting is configured per engagement. The exact weighting schema is part of the engagement deliverable, not published here.
The composite score is intentionally rounded down to be conservative. The instrument carries the precise calculation and the documented judgment basis for every domain score, so any score is fully defensible to an auditor.
Every cycle produces both an internal evaluator record (audit-defensible, system-generated) and an external client service deliverable (authored, client-actionable). Audit defensibility lives in Tier 1. Client actionability lives in Tier 2.
System-generated, mechanical, audit-defensible. Carries state verification, cryptographic provenance, full traceability. The durable working record across the engagement.
Evaluator-authored consultancy deliverable. Plain-language provenance, expanded recommendations, coordinated next-steps calendar. What the grantee receives and may submit to the funder.
The standard arc is four phases over the grant period, plus ongoing quarterly delivery. Specific timing flexes to your grant cycle and reporting calendar.
Review the grant agreement. Map reporting obligations under each article. Identify the eight-domain weighting calibrated to this grant. Output: written scope document and configured methodology brief.
Configure the evaluation instrument for the grant: line-item categories, compliance triggers, BRR thresholds, engagement metrics schema, brand letterhead. Validated against initial data ingest.
Cumulative baseline evaluation. Eight-domain scores established. Compliance posture documented. Stewardship arc framing if relevant. Becomes the reference point for all subsequent quarterly memos.
Quarterly Compliance Memos. Annual Eight-Domain Evaluations. Year 3 formative and Year 5 summative evaluations on schedule. Ad-hoc audit response on demand.
Independent Evaluator engagements are for organizations with three characteristics: an institutional grant of meaningful size, a multi-year period, and a board or funder that requires independent evaluation. If you have all three, we can probably help.
Foundation grantees. Organizations that have received grants of $500K+ over three or more years from institutional funders (Lilly Endowment, Templeton, Robert Wood Johnson, Kellogg, Casey, MacArthur, Ford, regional community foundations) and need an evaluator who produces more than dashboard print-dumps.
Federal grant recipients. Organizations with SAMHSA, HRSA, Department of Education, or other federal grants that require independent third-party evaluation as a condition of award.
Nonprofit boards. Boards of mid-to-large nonprofits that want an external evaluator to assess program performance independently — either for governance reasons, for funder relations, or for strategic planning.
Funders directly. Foundations and family offices that want an independent evaluator to assess one or more grantee programs — rather than relying on grantee self-reporting alone.
The 30-minute Discovery conversation is the right starting point. We can tell you honestly within that call whether the methodology fits your situation. If it doesn't fit, we'll say so — and often point you toward someone better suited.