Sponsor Review Criteria
The funding agency will identify their mission, priorities, and the problems they wish to address with funding, and specific application requirements. In general, however, reviewers will review your application in order to seek answers to the following questions:
- Why is this project significant enough that it should be funded? Why does the research matter?
- What is new about the research objective? Is it filling any gaps? What will be its impact?
- What is the approach the researchers will take to answer the research question?
- Who are the key personnel and do they have the subject matter and/or technical expertise and experience to pull off the project?
- What is the research environment? Will protocols be in place to ensure the safety, privacy, and/or mentorship of project members and participants?
- Does the project fit the budget?
- How will the project work be evaluated by the researchers? How will success be measured?
- How will the researchers share their findings?
Resource: Grant Review Rubric
This example of a simple Grant Proposal Scoring Rubric demonstrates common sponsor expectations and essential application criteria. Additionally, you may wish to view this NSERC rubric which includes very detailed, program-specific criteria and a score breakdown.
This dropdown contains a plaintext version of the sample rubric linked above.
| Criterion | 4: Exemplary | 3: Adequate | 1: Needs Improvement | 0: Insufficient Evidence | Comments Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Innovation | Project represents the implementation of a new insight or idea, with potential benefits of change made clear. | Project represents local implementation of emerging innovation or trend, with potential benefits specified. | Project represents practice(s) commonplace within field, or an adoption of a change with well-established benefits. | No innovation described or specific potential improvement defined. | |
| Justification | Strong rationale and significance of proposed work. Addresses specific need(s) common among peer institutions. | Rationale or significance of project trends toward the too-specific or too-general, but overall argument holds. | Weak presentation of institutional or community need, or tenuous argument for grant’s ability to address need. | Unconvincing or no evidence of need presented, or grant proposal does not address stated need. | |
| Relationship to Organizational Strategic Vision and/or Community’s Goals | Project outcomes or activities align with both organizational vision and goals of greater community. | Project elements align with goals of either the organization or its greater community, but not both. | Project tangentially but not directly related to organizational strategic vision or community goals. | No explicit relationship between project and the agenda of its organization or community. | |
| Feasibility | Personnel, project activities timeline, and budget expenditures congruent with project description and outcomes. | Deficiencies or over-estimations exist in personnel, timeline, or budget within tolerable range, outcomes appear achievable despite gaps or leaps. | Project’s assembled personnel, timeline, or budget expose weakness in plan design. Outcomes unlikely to be achieved in project’s current form. | Insufficient information about personnel, project activities timeline, or budget expenditures to gauge feasibility. |
