Grant Proposal Evaluation Rubric
Grant Applicant (Nonprofit Organization) Name:
Reviewer (Student) Name:
Rating Guidelines:
Excellent – Specific and complete. Thoughtful and thoroughly developed ideas that fully meet the criteria.
Good – Adequate information as to how the criteria are met, but there may be minor inconsistencies and weaknesses.
Acceptable – Criteria appear to be minimally met, but limited information is provided about approach and strategies. Lacks focus and detail.
Poor – Does not meet the criteria, fails to provide information, provides inaccurate information, or provides information that requires substantial clarification as to how the criteria are met.
| Criteria (check appropriate box and comment on problems) | All met | One or more not met | |
| Mandatory criteria • Does the organization have 501©(3) status? • Did the organization provide all requested information? NarrativeBudgetIRS 501©(3) letterCurrent 990 tax return and financial statementList of executive director & board with background? • Serve populations in the area? | Yes | ||
| Comments on criteria not met (finish complete analysis regardless of this conclusion): For this assignment, assume all documents were submitted and the proposal serves the population in the area. |
| Criteria (highlight number and comment) You can add a decimal (example 3.5 = between excellent and good) | Excellent | Good | Acceptable | Poor | |
| 2. The proposal clearly states the issue it intends to address and makes a solid case for its importance and impact on society. (the issue falls within the overall mission to develop an early reading program) | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| Comments explaining why you selected the above score based on the criteria listed: | |||||
| 3. The proposal outlines a project to address the introduction to reading issue including the following elements: • Goals and objectives • Specific strategies to achieve goals versus general practices • Target population identified • Who will work on the project (volunteers, paid staff, etc…) • Specified timeline to complete project • Planned measures of output & outcomes | 16 | 12 | 8 | 4 | |
| Comments (you should have a lot of comments here!): |
| Criteria | Excellent | Good | Acceptable | Poor | |
| 4. The project includes their target population in the decision- making process, promoting an early reading program. | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| Comments: | |||||
| 5. The project works within the community to support a strong and proactive awareness of the importance of reading. • Indication of cooperation with other partners within the community • History of progress with this issue • Long-term solution or immediate relief | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | |
| Comments: | |||||
| 6. The organization and proposal consider the needs of under supported communities or groups of people. | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| Comments: | |||||
| 7. The organization demonstrates a solid history of organizational effectiveness. • Strong board involvement and competent leadership • Promotes ongoing development of new leaders | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| Comments: | |||||
| 8. Financial considerations: • Unit value (cost per child) is acceptable • The tax return does not indicate any ethical issues such as conflicts of interest or excessive compensation • Healthy balance of program versus administrative percentages. | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| Comments: Unit Value: |
| Criteria | Excellent | Good | Acceptable | Poor | ||
| 9. Budget • Does the budget connect well to the proposed project? • Is the proposed budget realistic given the size of the project? • Does the proposed budget give careful attention to detail? • Is the project using other resources to help fund the project? | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Comments: | ||||||
| Total Score out of 44 possible points: | ||||||
| Comments/Suggestions: | ||||||
