read and Respond to each of these peer DQ work with 3-4 sentence each.   1.   The evaluation of a grant proposal is extremely important.  Any grant-writer should know how the grant will be evaluated as they are crafting the proposal.  Evaluation criteria may vary from grant to grant, given the nature of the organization and funding.  However, there are some evaluation criteria that are more universal.  I researched three different grants and looked at their grading criteria to gain a better understanding.  The first grant was from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and provides funding for schools to initiate head start programs in their area.  The second set of evaluation criteria I reviewed covered all grants related to biomedical research from the National Institute of Health (NIH).  Lastly, I reviewed the evaluation criteria for Operating Grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.  Perhaps the most common criteria for all three grants was the impact that each proposal would create if funded (CIHR, 2016).  There seems to be a large focus on the societal impact and significance of the research beyond the specific field.  Another important aspect was how the proposal project actually addresses an issue.  For example, the HHS uses this criteria specifically: “describes how it will direct head start resources to the greatest need,” (HHS, 2015) so that they can make sure the money is put to good use.  This also relates to the criteria that all three used which addresses the issue of whether or not the research is addressing an actual problem, or filling in a gap to improve things.   The HHS and NIH grants both look for originality, which seems like legitimate evaluation criteria.  A major theme for all three grant evaluation criteria is also the applicants.  For example, they look at the qualifications of the applicants, their experience, training, etc.  This is important because organizations want to know that if they grant the money, the applicants will actually be able to implement the program successfully. Based on my research, I would author a grant differently after reading the evaluation criteria.  For starters, I would reassess all the details of the grant proposal and examine the why and how of how my organization will effectively implement the program with the proposed grant money.  By knowing exactly what the grant is evaluated is helpful because you know exactly what they are looking for with your proposal.  It can also be a wakeup call for an organization to truly assess your capabilities.  For example, even though your organization could benefit from the grant, is your organization actually capable of overseeing, implementing, maintaining a new program or project?  As a strategy, I would collaborate with similar organizations who have had successful grant proposals with similar agencies to get their input.  It could also be helpful to have as many details as possible planned for the actual imp.

1. read and Respond to each of these peer DQ work with 3-4
sentence each.
1.
The evaluation of a grant proposal is extremely important. Any
grant-writer should know how the grant will be evaluated as
they are crafting the proposal. Evaluation criteria may vary
from grant to grant, given the nature of the organization and
funding. However, there are some evaluation criteria that are
more universal. I researched three different grants and looked
at their grading criteria to gain a better understanding. The first
grant was from the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), and provides funding for schools to initiate head start
programs in their area. The second set of evaluation criteria I
reviewed covered all grants related to biomedical research from
the National Institute of Health (NIH). Lastly, I reviewed the
evaluation criteria for Operating Grants from the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research. Perhaps the most common
criteria for all three grants was the impact that each proposal
would create if funded (CIHR, 2016). There seems to be a large
focus on the societal impact and significance of the research
beyond the specific field. Another important aspect was how
the proposal project actually addresses an issue. For example,
the HHS uses this criteria specifically: “describes how it will
direct head start resources to the greatest need,” (HHS, 2015) so
that they can make sure the money is put to good use. This also
relates to the criteria that all three used which addresses the
issue of whether or not the research is addressing an actual
problem, or filling in a gap to improve things. The HHS and
NIH grants both look for originality, which seems like
legitimate evaluation criteria. A major theme for all three grant
evaluation criteria is also the applicants. For example, they
look at the qualifications of the applicants, their experience,

2. training, etc. This is important because organizations want to
know that if they grant the money, the applicants will actually
be able to implement the program successfully.
Based on my research, I would author a grant differently after
reading the evaluation criteria. For starters, I would reassess all
the details of the grant proposal and examine the
why
and
how
of how my organization will effectively implement the program
with the proposed grant money. By knowing exactly what the
grant is evaluated is helpful because you know exactly what
they are looking for with your proposal. It can also be a
wakeup call for an organization to truly assess your capabilities.
For example, even though your organization could benefit from
the grant, is your organization actually capable of overseeing,
implementing, maintaining a new program or project? As a
strategy, I would collaborate with similar organizations who
have had successful grant proposals with similar agencies to get
their input. It could also be helpful to have as many details as
possible planned for the actual implementation of the project
and answers for how you plan to maintain the program/project
when the grant money ends. I would do this to better position
my organization for receiving the grant.
2.
Evaluations are necessary to measure whether or not a program
is has achieved or will achieve its intended goal. The
evaluation portion or section of the grant proposal is very
important. Grantors need a way to check up on their
investment. They also need a way to ensure that their money is
being spent wisely and on a worthwhile project. Evaluations
should be conducted during the execution of the project (Ward,

3. 2010).
There are different evaluation techniques that may be used by
funders but the two most used forms are formative, which is
conducted during the course of the project and summative,
which is done at the end of the project (Ward, 2010).
Summative of course are the cheaper type of evaluation so they
are used more often. Grantees usually have to provide a report
or several reports to grantors in order for the grantor to evaluate
the success of the project based on set standards.
There are several different evaluation tools that may be used for
the purpose of gathering information on a project. Those tools
include the questionnaires, surveys, interviews (Ward, 2010).
The logic model helps to determine which tools are necessary
for the evaluation process and includes input, activities, outputs
and outcomes of a project. Inputs are those persons, locations
and items needed for the project, activities are those programs,
funding, and equipment needed, outputs are what’s expect from
the organization expects from its staff and contractors, real
estate, etc. The outcomes of course are the project goals.
The experimental designs often used in the case of research, can
be expensive so the quasi experimental design is an alternate
less expensive way of evaluating participants or groups of
participants by testing them prior to the beginning of the project
and then retesting them at the end of a project to compare them
(Ward, 2010).
When comparing three grants evaluation criteria the most
common criteria was along the line of the logic model. The
financial statements with updates to the budget that show a
clear picture of how funds are being used throughout the
project. This portion of the evaluation criteria was important
for each grant that I researched. The grantee needs to know if
the project is going in the right direction so financial evaluation
is very important for them. Grantors want to ensure that the
program in which they have funded can be sustained beyond the
first year of funds being awarded. If money is not being spent
appropriately then the evaluation process will reveal this and

4. raise red flags for the grantor. Grantees need to know if they
require additional or alternate funders or if they need to
reevaluate the program needs and requirements.
Grantees will need a way to evaluate their staff as well. They
need to make sure that all persons involved in the project are
doing their job and doing it in a way that is beneficial to the
project. If the staff has shortcomings, then staffing issues may
need to be addressed by retraining or by hiring more qualified
individuals to complete the job (http://grantsnorthwest.com).
The reputation of the grantee is important and having the
appropriate staff or personnel will play.
The outcomes of the project and whether or not the project
activities were effective at achieving those stated outcomes in a
timely manner is important for the evaluation process.
Outcomes will be determined by the input, activities and output.
Grantors want to know if the intended recipients of the grant or
the people or the target population are being served properly by
the grantees. This lets the grantor know that their investment
was worthwhile. If the project is not meeting the need of the
intended population within the proposed time frame, then the
grantees may need to make adjustments to the project or they
may just lose funding all together.
I would approach writing the grant proposal with more details
on how each dollar will be spent and when. If evaluations are
conducted in a formative manner, then timelines are very
important. Focusing and the target population and the budget
seems to be the two most important things when writing the
grant proposal. For my project I would definitely make it my
priority to show exactly how my grant will benefit the target
population, and how it will reflect very positively on the
grantor. Grantors will be more likely to consider your grant
proposal over others if you can get their attention by focusing
on how the grant will benefit the intended recipients as well as
themselves all while maximizing funds.
Through my research I have found that evaluation criteria for
grants vary depending on the type of grant and the funder. Each

5. funder can have their own specific format and reporting
procedures. In order to better learn the evaluation process for
my particular grant I would research similar grants as well as
grantors and base my proposal off of those. I would also ask
questions when given the opportunity in order to better
understand what the grantor wants or expect from your
organization. I would not take a chance and guess because
grantors may reject your application if you do not have the
proper evaluation criteria. I would just research the organization
and see if they have a reporting format and specific evaluation
criteria available prior to writing the proposal. If one is not
available then I would find a very similar organization and use
that one as an example.