The review and ranking of the peers’ grant proposals are conducted based on their compliance with the standards of grant proposal writing, their informativity, adherence to the assignment requirements, structuring with all necessary sections present, and the project justification narrative. The following is the ranking of the reviewed grant proposal, where the first one is thought to be the best of the reviewed proposals.
Gray Family Foundation: THe proposal is very informative and illustrative; multiple figures support the narration and illustrate the claims in a structured and logical way with sufficient detail. However, the project budget might have been provided in more detail. Overall, a high-quality problem description, activities justification, and expected results addressing contribute to the compelling style of the author’s writing and demonstrate the readiness for goal achievement.
Bainbridge Community Foundation: The proposal is well-structured with all the constituents presented logically and comprehensively. Despite a concise document, the content is informative and professionally written. The author provides a good rationale and project justification. However, it might be beneficial to include more information on the project outcome evaluation.
The Great Greetings Program: The delivery of the content is professional; the budget of the project is well-developed and justified; the writing is concise and to the point. However, the ranking is lower due to the insufficient needs assessment that diminishes the relevance of the project and scarce rationale and description of the evaluation procedure.
YouthBuild Honolulu: The proposal provides a strong justification for the project’s relevance through a detailed des description of the problem. However, the writing seems too lengthy due to the abundance of detail. Also, the grant proposal appears to lack the necessary after-project alternatives and evaluation description. Also, the budget is provided in the form of a narrative, not a table. Despite these minor imperfections, the proposal is very good.
Rose Foundation Columbia River Fund: The proposal is well-structured and has a high-quality timeline and budget tables. However, the executive summary seems to lack organizational data. The problem identification sections are not sufficient and might need more detail and data to illustrate the necessity of the project. Also, the paragraphs throughout the document might benefit from a more informative narration.
National Geographic Society Conservation Grant: This proposal has a good structure, is concise and comprehensive in the delivery of the problem statement. Some areas for improvement include a more detailed executive summary to add more project and company details, justification, and fund requirements. The proposal also seems to lack the addressing of evaluation procedures, alternative funding, partnership description, and a standard budget. However, the author provides an excellent narration of the impact and relevance of the project.