This rubric evaluates proposals on several criteria in order to assess their quality. Key areas of evaluation include identifying the need for the proposed research and providing supporting statistics, clearly outlining the purpose, methods, results and conclusions, making a compelling argument for why the research should be conducted, describing the project and providing milestones/timelines, developing a reasonable budget and identifying risks, explaining the organizational structure, and summarizing with a call to action. Proposals are scored on a scale from 1 to 3 in each category, with 3 being excellent/fully addressed and 1 being poor/inadequately addressed.

1. Evaluating Your Proposal: A Simple Rubric
CATEGORY
3
(Excellent)
2
(Fair)
1
(Poor)
SCORE
Needs
Assessment
• Identifies specific
need adequately in
25-50 words
• Statistics for local,
state, or national
situation is properly
identified and
referenced
• Internal data was
obtained without force
or cohersion and is
unbiased and
repeatable
• Statistical analysis of
the data was
accurately performed
using the correct
mathematical method
having a sufficient
sample size to test
• Specific need is
partially identified
• Provides some
statistics that are
relevant to the
research
• Compilation of internal
data has a minor
amount of bias and a
few errors when
collecting data
• Statistical analysis has
minor errors in the
mathematical method
with a sufficient
sample size to test
• Specific need not identified
or is too vague
• No statistics provided
• Internal data is missing,
heavily biased, and non-
repeatable
• Statistical analysis uses
incorrect mathematical
model or sample size is too
small.

2. Proposal -
purpose,
summary,
conclusion
• Purpose of the
document is clear and
thorough
• Provides a summary
of all methods used,
results to be obtained,
and recommendations
for funding
• Conclusion is strong
and reiterates the
goal behind the plan
• Purpose of the
document is somewhat
clear and has a few
areas that need
additional supporting
research
• Provides some of the
methods used, and an
incomplete listing of
results to be obtained
along with
recommendations for
funding
• Conclusion is a
summary of the
procedures used and
needs a more specific
goal
• Purpose of the document is
unclear and incomplete
• Provides a vague listing of
methods used, has no
information on the results
obtained or
recommendations for
funding
• Conclusion is weak and
does not site a specific goal
for the project
Statement of
Need
• Argument for
performing research/
training is strong,
convincing, and is
significant to solving
the problem at hand
• Factual information is
accurate, and
supports the reason
for research
• Argument has some
strong points and lacks
some cohesive support
to the research project
• Factual information is
somewhat accurate and
complete
• Argument is weak and
does not provide a
significant reason to
perform the research
• Factual information is
missing or has no
connection to the research
being performed
Project
Description
• Project plan is in a
well-structured
• Project plan has some
areas that are not
• Project plan has no
structure or is deficient in

3. format
• Provides a clear
explanation of the
methods to be used
and the specific goals
to be obtained
• Desribes the major
milestones to be
achieved with a
supporting schedule
properly structured for
the research being
performed
• Provides a clear
explanation for some of
the methods used and
the majority of goals
for the project
• Describes the majority
of the milestones for
the project with a
supporting schedule
many areas
• Provides no information
about the methods used or
has vague goals
• Describes only a few of the
major milestones for the
project and does not
include a schedule for
completion
Budget • Lists all possible
funding sources with
expected resources
allotments
• Provides reasonable
and necessary
expenditures for the
proposed plan
• Identifies potential
pitfalls for excessive
expenditures
• Includes a complete
budgetary schedule
for the length of the
program
• Lists a few funding
sources with minor
errors in resource
allotments
• Provides most of the
reasonable and
necessary expenditures
for the proposed plan
• Identifies a few
potential pitfalls for
excessive expenditures
• Includes a partial
budgetary schedule for
the initial phase of the
program
• Does not provide proper
funding sources or has
incorrect resource
allotments
• Expenditures are
unreasonable or
unnecessary
• No probable expenditure
overruns listed or
identified
• Schedule is vague, not
within program limits, or
has unrealistic timeline

4. Organizational
Information
• Indicates
organizational
structure and level of
authority within the
organization
• Provides a listing of
all key personnel
responsible for
research,
management, and
oversight for the
program
• Describes all
management
functions
• Indicates the majority
of organizational
structure and authority
levels with some
positions yet to be
determined
• Provides a listing of the
majority of key
personnel responsible
for research,
management, and
oversight for the
program
• Describes some of the
management functions
• No organizational
structure provided or little
infomation on levels of
authority within the
organization
• Provides no listing of key
personnel
• Does not describe the
management functions
Conclusion • Provides a summary
statement with
possible solutions
based on the proposed
research
• Places the focus of the
project on the
required need and the
relevancy of the
research
• Presents a "call to
action" that requests
the funding agency to
support the project
• Provides a summary
statement of a few
methods used and
possible solutions
based on the proposed
research
• Places the focus of the
project on the required
need but does not site
the relevancy of the
research
• Presents the data with
a vague request
for support from the
funding agency
• Provides an incomplete
summary with vague
references to the proposed
research
• Places no focus on the
required need
• Does not request action
from the funding agency to
support the proposed
research project

5. General
Document
Attributes
• Written in an
acceptable style with
no errors
• Uses research data
that is acceptable and
relevant to the
proposed project
• Written in an
acceptable style with 1-
3 errors
• Uses research data
that is somewhat
relevant to the
proposed research
project
• Written in an unacceptable
style with several
(>3) errors
• Uses research data that
has no connection to the
proposed research project
•
I MARK AWARDED FOR SUBMISSSION PUNCTUALITY

6. General
Document
Attributes
• Written in an
acceptable style with
no errors
• Uses research data
that is acceptable and
relevant to the
proposed project
• Written in an
acceptable style with 1-
3 errors
• Uses research data
that is somewhat
relevant to the
proposed research
project
• Written in an unacceptable
style with several
(>3) errors
• Uses research data that
has no connection to the
proposed research project
•
I MARK AWARDED FOR SUBMISSSION PUNCTUALITY