Home / Community Grants / Criteria

Criteria

How are proposals evaluated?

We evaluate proposals against our mission statement and the general purpose of the community grants program. Following review by SLHI's Program Committee, proposals are recommended to the full Board of Trustees for final action.

We look for proposals that are clear, succinct and present a complete picture of what is to be accomplished. We rely not only on the proposal itself, but also on SLHI's extensive network of contacts in Arizona health and human service organizations.

SLHI follows one strategy in evaluating each proposal, whether it comes from the community or is generated in partnership with other organizations. The key steps in the process are fit, focus, and flexibility.

FIT

The key question is whether the proposal fits with SLHI's strategic plan. Will it increase the effectiveness of the organization? Does it provide an opportunity to be a catalyst for community health? Does it address the health needs of the underserved and vulnerable populations? Does it provide opportunities for leverage, community partnerships and positive change? Five years from now, what difference will it make whether the proposal is funded or not?

FOCUS

Successful proposals focus not only on the priorities of the grantmaker, but also on those of the applicant organization. The goal is to tie these priorities together in a collaborative relationship that is more than rhetorical smoke and mirrors.

First, staff evaluate whether the proposal clearly identifies the problem the grant or project will address, and whether the solution proposed actually addresses it. It can be an organizational capacity issue or a community need. In either case, the problem needs to be well defined with adequate rationale to support the need.

Staff also look to see whether the proposal includes specific objectives related to the problem and identifies measures that the organization will use to assess progress. When applicants go through this process, it improves their ability to identify the best approach. For instance, an organization might want to improve immunization rates through a public education campaign in a community where there are not enough providers. The goal might not be achieved because the organization didn't identify the real problem.

The proposal budget is another area where staff look for a clear focus. Is justification provided for the various line items, and are they reasonable compared to similar proposals? If the project is going to require ongoing funding after the grant period, is there a plan in place to achieve sustained support?

Proposal focus provides the framework - the discipline - for both SLHI and the applicant to determine whether a fit really exists between the parties involved. In a perfectly ordered, rational world, that might be enough. Since the world seldom works that way, good evaluation requires something more.

Flexibility & Timing

Flexibility is not necessarily found in the proposal itself, but is revealed in the history, reputation and integrity of the applicant. That's why staff do more than simply read a proposal and write up an evaluation. They talk to people in the organization, ask others about them, make a site visit if appropriate, and look at their past performance. Often more is revealed in this informal communication network than the application of a formal evaluation checklist.

Effective organizations, like effective people, are seldom dogmatic and inflexible. If the project director quits, the project still goes on; if the time line falls apart, the organization is able to adapt; if new knowledge or opportunities arise that weren't foreseen in the original project design, the organization is willing to shift gears.

But flexibility is a two-way street. Take the matter of timing. Sometimes there is an overabundance of good grant opportunities in a funding cycle, other times the quality suffers. A good grant in December is also a good grant in March, but perhaps it isn't as fundable because the competition is more intense. Evaluators have to be flexible enough to adapt their recommendations to shifting contexts.

These are just a few of the vagaries of grant evaluation. After proposals are assessed by staff, they are sent to the Grants Committee, who read them thoroughly and meet to discuss each in turn. The committee's recommendations are then forwarded to the full Board, which makes the final decisions.