All funding of Education Grants is awarded competitively and more proposals may be submitted than receive funding. The proposal will be less competitive, or may not be funded at all, if it doesn't conform to the requirements in the Call for Proposals. Refer to an archived Call for Proposals for more information.
Upon closure of the grant deadline, proposals receive a technical review by the Project Review Committee of Southern SARE's Administrative Council, the program's governing body.
The Project Review Committee evaluates the proposal using the following weighted criteria. Refer to the Education Grant Scoring Rubric for an easy, printable copy of the review criteria.
| Review Criteria | Points |
| Qualifications of the Applicant | 5 |
| Statement of Need, Rationale, and Significance | 10 |
| Project Relevance to Sustainable Agriculture | 15 |
| Objectives | 10 |
| Approaches and Methods | 25 |
| Budget | 10 |
| Outreach Plan | 10 |
| Evaluation | 15 |
| Total | 100 |
Qualifications of the Applicant (5 points) -- The review committee must make sure that the is applicant eligible and has the experience, skills, knowledge and resources to complete the project.
Statement of Need, Rationale, and Significance (10 points) -- The Need, Rationale and Significance of the project is based on skills and knowledge gaps that can be fulfilled through a “teachable” project whose success can be effectively measured through evaluation.
Project Relevance to Sustainable Agriculture (15 points) -- The review committee determines how the project and its expected results contribute to sustainable agriculture. Is the project and its expected results a new and creative innovation? Does the project contribute to the growth of sustainable agriculture by building on and/or adding to existing knowledge? Is it a band-aid to conventional agriculture or does it move the needle in more sustainable farming practices?
Objectives (10 points) -- The objectives should realistically be completed within the proposed time frame, and project goals are feasible to obtain by the methods stated.
Approaches and Methods (25 points) -- The review committee determines if the proposed educational approach is clear, well designed and thought out so that it solves a problem or encourages farmer adoption of recommended practices or strategies.
Budget (10 points) -- The review committee evaluates the project’s budget to determine if the requested amount is reasonable and realistic, and is clear on what the funds will be spent on. Are the requested funds allowable? Are budget items itemized with clear descriptions on how they will be used in the project?
Outreach Plan (10 points) -- The review committee determines if the outreach plan is applicable for farmers/ranchers and their ability to adopt or implement project results.
Evaluation (15 points) -- The review committee ensures that evaluation methods demonstrate project process, outcome, and success of implementation or adoption of skills, knowledge, strategies or other educational resources.
Each Proposal is scored as described:
100-75 = High priority: Proposal meets the mission/vision of the SARE program, addresses SARE’s pillars of sustainability, and fulfills the review criteria. Proposal requirements are met and addresses a topic of need with a unique, innovative, sustainable ag solution. Depending on funding levels, not all high priority proposals may be funded.
74-50 = Fundable: Proposal meets the mission/vision of the SARE program, pertains to sustainable agriculture, and fulfills the review criteria. Proposal requirements are met, but could be improved. While fundable, the proposal may not receive funding due to competition from other proposals.
49-25 = Revise and resubmit: Proposal meets the mission/vision of the SARE program and pertains to sustainable agriculture, but there are sections of the proposal that don’t fulfill review criteria or not all requirements of Call for Proposals have been met. Author is encouraged to revise and resubmit for the next year’s competition per the reviewer’s comments to strengthen the proposal.
24-0 = Not fundable: Proposal does not fit into the grant program applied for; proposal does not meet the mission/vision of the SARE program, does not pertain to sustainable agriculture, and/or does not meet the requirements of the Call for Proposals. The applicant has applied to the wrong grant program.
Once the Project Review Committee completes its technical review, it meets by Zoom call to discuss fundable proposals, and then again at the February Administrative Council (AC) meeting to select fundable projects. Those are then presented to the full Administrative Council for funding.
By March grant applicants are contacted regarding the status of their proposal, and a summary of the review comments for the proposal are provided. If awarded an Education Grant, the applicant is required to sign a contract with University of Georgia prior to receiving any funds. Budgets are also reviewed and, if needed, revised to conform to allowable costs. If applicants sign the contract, they agree to conduct the activities outlined in the proposal and fulfill all grant requirements, including reporting. Any changes in budget or activities must receive prior Southern SARE approval. Grant funds are paid by reimbursement of allowable project expenses. Awardees must keep receipts of their expenditures for three (3) years after project completion.