Most clients who ask us for an evaluation budget are not asking what a rigorous evaluation costs. They are asking whether the number we are going to quote will fit the line item their funder gave them. Those are different questions, and the gap between them is where most projects get into trouble.
The three cost drivers that matter
For most mid-size program evaluations, cost comes from three places: the number of sites or cohorts in the design, the amount of primary data collection required, and the sophistication of the analysis. Everything else — reporting, meetings, travel — is proportionally small.
Where the surprises come from
Clients are rarely surprised by the headline number. They are surprised by what it buys. The most common gap: a budget that assumes existing administrative data will answer the question, paired with a question that requires primary data to answer well. Closing that gap usually means either reshaping the question or adjusting the budget.
The pragmatic test
When we scope an evaluation, we ask the client a version of the following: “If this study comes back and says the program did not work, what decision will change?” If the answer is specific, the budget follows from the rigor that decision needs. If the answer is vague, we work on the decision first — because paying for a study nobody will act on is the most expensive kind of evaluation.
