All funding of Graduate Student 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 outside technical reviewers. Technical reviewers make up a cross section of ag professionals across the Southern region. Technical reviewers are assigned proposals based on their area of expertise.
Technical reviewers evaluate proposals using the following weighted criteria. Refer to the Graduate Student Grant Scoring Rubric for an easy, printable copy of the review criteria.
| Review Criteria | Points |
| Qualifications of the Graduate Student | 5 |
| Statement of the Problem | 15 |
| Objectives | 10 |
| Approaches and Methods | 25 |
| Project Relevance to Sustainable Agriculture | 20 |
| Timetable | 10 |
| Literature Cited | 5 |
| Budget | 10 |
| Total | 100 |
Qualifications of the Graduate Student (5 points) -- Reviewing the Qualifications of the Graduate Student to determine that the student (with the major professor’s support) has the experience and qualifications to conduct the proposed work and can complete the work within proposed timetable.
Statement of the Problem (15 points) -- Reviewing the Statement of the Problem to ensure that the applicant clearly describes the problem and why the problem needs to be addressed.
Objectives (10 points) -- Reviewing the Objectives to ensure that they can realistically be completed within the proposed time frame, and project goals are feasible to obtain by the methods stated.
Approaches and Methods (25 points) -- Reviewing the Approaches and Methods to determine if the project experiment is clear, well designed and thought out so that useful and applicable results can be obtained.
Project Relevance to Sustainable Agriculture (20 points) -- Determining how the Project is Relevant to Sustainable Agriculture. How does 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?
Timetable (10 points) -- Reviewing the Timetable to determine if the project can be effectively completed in the time provided based on the research proposed. Does the graduate student demonstrate the ability to complete the proposed project?
Literature Cited (5 points) -- Reviewing the Literature Cited to determine how well the applicant prepared their proposal based on published literature on the research topic.
Budget (10 points) -- Evaluating 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?
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 technical reviewers complete their reviews, the Project Review Committee of Southern SARE’s Administrative Council (Southern SARE’s governing body) reads the high scoring proposals and meets virtually to discuss fundable proposals. This process roughly takes two weeks. The Project Review Committee convenes at the summer Administrative Council (AC) meeting to finalize selections. Those are then recommended to the full Administrative Council and voted on for funding.
Applicants are contacted regarding the status of their proposal, and a summary of the review comments are provided to them. If awarded a Graduate Student 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.