Skip navigation

It’s far too late to fix defects in a grant proposal when it must be sent on its way before the end of the day. The best time to review it for quality, completeness, and internal consistency is well before its submission deadline. At least a week ahead of deadline is a reasonable target.

 

The more eyes that see a proposal, the stronger it should become. The best eyes are those of educated and articulate persons who were not directly involved in creating it. Lack of prior involvement enhances the objectivity of their critiques. Ideally, they will see the entire proposal, but almost any objective review is useful.

 

In order to minimize half-point item ratings, the entire checklist’s maximum score is 200 points. This post covers several checklist sections; later posts will cover others.

 

Maximum sub-scores vary by section, as noted. For each item, divide the subsection’s maximum sub-score by the 5 or 10 items in the proposal subsection.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY or ABSTRACT

YES/NO

SCORE

PROPOSAL ATTRIBUTE
    Complies with funder’s instructions
    Clearly identifies the applicant
    States requested grant award amount
    Helps to establish applicant’s credibility
    Clearly defines the problem
    Identifies key strategies to solve problem
    States focuses of proposed objectives
    Is clear and concise
    Avoids jargon
    Builds interest in reading further
Total:   Maximum is 10 points.

 

INTRODUCTION

YES/NO SCORE PROPOSAL ATTRIBUTE
    States the applicant’s vision and mission
    Describes applicant’s goals and objectives
    Provides program background and context
    Provides evidence of applicant’s capacity
    Presents data to support capacity
    Describes applicant’s accomplishments
    Relates clearly to identified problem or needs
    Is clear and concise
    Avoids jargon
    Builds interest in reading further
Total:   Maximum is 10 points.

 

NEEDS ASSESSMENT or PROBLEM STATEMENT

YES/NO SCORE PROPOSAL ATTRIBUTE
    States where and who is to be served
    Appears realistic within the time available
    Clearly relates to funder’s definition of problem/needs
    Shows evidence of intended beneficiaries’ input
    Avoids circular reasoning in defining problems/needs
    Provides appropriate data to substantiate need
    Links problem/needs to research literature
    Links needed resources to existing resources
    Presents persuasive rationale based on substantiated needs
    Builds interest in reading further
Total:   Maximum is 30 points.

 

RATING A PROPOSAL’S READINESS FOR SUBMISSION:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ABSTRACT                

Reviewer:                  Maximum: 10

INTRODUCTION                                                   

Reviewer:                   Maximum: 10

NEEDS ASSESSMENT/PROBLEM STATEMENT    

Reviewer:                   Maximum: 30

Total Possible Score:  50

Total Review Score:

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: