Upload
stuart-rodger-fox
View
214
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Evaluation Overview and Findings From An Interim
Evaluation of Grants to Green
Presented by:Highland Communications, LLC
Jennifer Ballentine, MPH
October 29, 2009
2
Purpose of the Evaluation• To monitor implementation and measure
success towards desired outcomes– Increased efficiency– Cost savings– Increased awareness of environmental
sustainability
• Findings will be used for:– Ongoing quality improvement – Sustainability planning– Promoting public will and policy – Informing decision making
3
Evaluation Principles
• We focus on results, use data to make decisions and then act on these decisions
• We value all input from our grantees • We will draw on the wisdom and experience
of our grantees• We will share and disseminate results • We will respect the rights and confidentiality
of grantees • We will use grantees’ time judiciously• We will honor environmental sustainability in
our evaluation approach
4
Monitoring and Evaluation Methods
• Initial Review of Grant Agreement
• Baseline survey
• Interim survey
• Final survey
• End-of-grant period site visit
• Monthly monitoring and review of utility bill data
• Monitoring of web seal placement
6
Findings from an Interim Evaluation
• Methods– Online survey– Analysis of utility bill data for Cycle 1
grantees– Monitoring visits with Cycle 1
Implementation Grantees
• Time Frame– Data collected in May-June 2009– Findings presented to Advisory Board in
August 2009
7
Assessment Grantees
• Cycle 1 (September 1, 2008 – September 1, 2009)– 19 applicants– 12 grantees (approx. $4,000 per grantee = $48,000)– 100% grantees completed
• Cycle 2 (March 1, 2009 – March 1, 2010)– 13 applicants– 12 grantees (approx. $4,000 per grantee = $48,000)– 100% grantees completed
• Cycle 3 (July 1, 2009 – July 1, 2010)– 25 applicants– 16 grantees (approx. $4,000 per grantee = $64,000)– In progress
8
Implementation Grantees
• Cycle 1 (September 1, 2008 – September 1, 2010)• 14 applicants• 10 grantees ($342,000 awarded, $304,500 matched*)• 50% of grantees completed
• Cycle 2 (March 1, 2009 – March 1, 2011)• 10 applicants• 9 grantees ($347,126 awarded, $336,068 matched*)• In progress
*Match rate = $1 to $1 for operational budgets $500K+ .50 to $1 for operational budgets $250K-$499K
9
Survey Sample
Type of Survey
Cycle Sample Size
Response Rate
Evaluation (pre and post)
1 20 91%
Baseline 2 21 100%
10
Change in Knowledge
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Green Building Technology Practices Savings
Before
Mid-Point
N=20
Ave
rage
Lev
el o
f K
now
led
ge1=
Lit
tle
or N
o 5
= A
Lot
Knowledge Indicator
11
Green Practices in Place Before and After Grants to Green
95 95
2530
15
7060
90
60
70
0
15
0102030405060708090
100
Recycling Composting EnergyMonitoring
EnergyConservation
ResourceConservation
Other
Before
Mid-Point
N=20
Per
cen
t
Type of Practice
12
Green Policies in Place Before and After Grants to Green
155
15
65
45
80
35 3530 30
5 5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
None EnergyMonitoring
EnergyConservation
GreenProcurement
AlternativeTransportation
Other
BeforeMid-Point
N=20
Per
cen
t
Type of Policy
13
Number of Communications, Presentations and Panels
18
48
66
18
45
63
36 9
0
1020
3040
5060
70
8090
100
Communications Presentations Panels
Assessment
Implementation
Both
N=20
Nu
mb
er
Type of Effort
14
Utility Data Sample
• 6 Implementation Grantees– Includes 50% who fully completed project– Includes 50% who partially completed project
• 10 Assessment Grantees
15
Implementation Grantees’ 6 Month Actual Cost Savings
149,016
124,879
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Baseline 6 Month Cost Current 6 Month Cost
$
*16% decrease, including 0-2 months of no implementation
An
nu
al U
tili
ties
16
Implementation Grantees’ Annual Projected Cost Savings
1,041,454
831,884
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
Baseline Consumption Projected AnnualConsumption
$
*20% decrease, projection based on actual savings rate
An
nu
al U
tili
ties
17
Implementation Grantees’ Energy Savings
Energy Cost %6 Month Savings 257,264 $24,474 16%
Annual Projected Savings 646,352 $61,403 20%
-Annual Savings will continue year after year
Energy Saved is the annual equivalent of:
- Lbs of Coal Saved: 430,858
- Lbs of CO2: 963,064
- Cars removed from road: 104 for 1 year (12,000 miles)
18
Woodruff Arts Center-Goal: Annual Savings of $49,395-Award: $40,000 -Six Months of Savings: $26,310-Projected Annual Savings: $51,758 (25%)
19
The Galloway School
-Goal: Annual Savings of $6,538 -Award: $25,000 -Six Months of Savings: $7,879 -Projected Annual Savings: $8,740 (12%)
20
Georgia Citizens Coalition on Hunger
-Goal: Annual Savings of $3,921-Award: $50,000-Six Months of Savings: $2,593-Projected Annual Savings: $3,002 (4%)-Provided AC for community gym
21
The Open Door Community-Goal: Annual Savings of $1,100 -Award: $9,000-Six Months of Savings: $-143-Provided AC for kitchen and dining room serving homeless
22
Assessment Grantees’ Projected Annual Cost Savings
$770,874$711,196
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
Baseline Cost Annual Cost to Date
$
*8% decrease, $59,678 projected annual cost savings
An
nu
al U
tili
ties
23
Selected Assessment Grantees’ Cost Savings
Organization Gas Electric Water Total Percent Savings
CARE $7,972(24%)
$19,587(8%)
$3,871(14%)
$31,430 10%
Georgia Justice Project
N/A* $2,346(18%)
N/A* $2,346 18%
Agnes Scott $907(3%)
$10, 295(13%)
N/A* $11,202 10%
Hands on Atlanta N/A* $8,322(11%)
N/A* $8,322 11%
$53,000 Annual Savings *No data, or not applicable
24
Where is Grants to Green Going?
•30 Energy Assessments Completed (includes 6 pilots)
•19 Implementation awards granted
•$503,520 Annual Savings Opportunities Found
•$150k of opportunities pay for themselves in 6 months or less
•16 Assessments in progress
•14-16 Assessments starting in January 2010
•Additional Implementation awards to be granted in 2010
25
Evaluation Limitations
• Survey responses dependent on respondent’s knowledge, understanding of program and recall
• Analysis of energy and cost savings only includes Cycle 1 grantees
• Analysis does not take into account other factors such as staff changes, changes in hours of operation, etc.
• 10 Implementation grantees only eleven months into two-year grant period