Research and Education Grant Review Criteria

Pre-proposal Review Process

Upon closure of the grant deadline, pre-proposals are reviewed by the full Administrative Council, the program's governing body.

Full proposal invited is based on the following criteria:

• A Systems Approach to Sustainable Agriculture: The pre-proposal demonstrates a whole systems approach to sustainable agriculture, focusing on more than one component system and including SARE’s three pillars of sustainability.
• Multi-institutional, Multi-disciplinary Collaborations: The pre-proposal includes meaningful multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary collaborations with their roles in the project relevant to the three pillars of sustainability.
• Project Relevance to Sustainable Agriculture: The pre-proposal focuses on sustainable agricultural systems and makes a clear, well-thought case of either making existing systems more sustainable, or creates a new and innovative method for sustainability. The project meets SARE goals of sustainable agriculture.
• Educational/Outreach Component: The project design is realistic based on the timeline, with regional and/or national adaptability of the findings and outcomes of the project. An educational/outreach component is included with usable findings by farmers/ranchers and other intended audiences.

Each criteria is scored on a scale of One to Four (1-4) with the scores averaged for a final score.

A brief written explanation is also included in the review process. Based on this final score and the comments, the Administrative Council makes a recommendation to invite pre-proposal applicants to submit a full proposal.

After the full Administrative Council makes its recommendation on the pre-proposals, the Project Review Committee meets to discuss which pre-proposals to invite for full proposals based on the scores, comments, and recommendations put forth by the Administrative Council. The purpose of this review step is to ensure that pre-proposals recommended to submit a full proposal meet the conceptual requirements of the program and focus on sustainable agriculture, specifically as it relates to whole farming systems. It is at this time that final selections are made and are presented for a vote at the winter Administrative Council meeting. This stage is to identify those projects the Administrative Council wishes to explore more fully. Comprehensive reviews are undertaken at the full proposal stage.

---

Full Proposal Review Process

Upon the full proposal grant deadline, proposals are assigned to and reviewed by outside technical reviewers with expertise in a wide range of sustainable agriculture research areas. Technical reviewers are assigned to proposals based on their expertise area.

Technical reviewers score and comment on proposals based on the following review criteria:

Review Criteria
Qualifications of Applicant and Major Participant	5
Alignment with SARE Legislation	10
An Approach to Systems Research	10
Statement of Problem, Rationale, and Significance	10
Objectives	20
Approaches and Methods	20
Outreach Plan	10
Evaluation and Impact	10
Budget	5
Total	Total 100 Points

Qualifications of Applicant and Major Participant (5 points) -- Reviewing the Ability of Project Investigators and Major Participants to Achieve Stated Goals to determine if the investigators are qualified to conduct the proposed project. Are the roles of all investigators and participants adequately defined and appropriate?

Alignment with SARE Legislation (10 points) -- Determining how well the project aligns with SARE’s legislated purpose, as defined by Congress in the 1990 Farm Bill. This means an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will over the long-term: Satisfy human food and fiber needs, enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agriculture economy depends, make the most efficient use of nonrenewable and on-farm resources, sustain the economic viability of farm operations, and enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.

An Approach to Systems Research (10 points) -- Determining if the project demonstrates a whole systems approach to sustainable agriculture, and incorporates the three pillars of sustainability: profit, people, places. Are farmers (minimum three farmer cooperators), multiple and diverse institutions, community organizations, and interdisciplinary approaches meaningfully and functionally integrated into the research and education plan? Does the proposal have a realistic plan for assembling an appropriate team of participants and devising an effective team strategy for successful project outcomes?

Statement of Problem, Rationale, and Significance (10 points) -- Reviewing the Statement of Problem, Rationale and Significance to determine if project goals can be attained and how the project outcomes contribute to sustainable agriculture and the priorities of Southern SARE.

Objectives (20 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 (20 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. Are the proposed methods and experimental design adequate to meet project objectives? Are they technically sound?

Outreach Plan (10 points) -- Determining the effectiveness of the outreach plan. Project results should have specific applicability for farmers and be presented in a way that could be adopted or implemented. Is the outreach plan well thought out and a benefit to its intended audience? Are the methods for implementing the outreach plan the most effective way of reaching farmers and ranchers?

Evaluation and Impact (10 points) -- Reviewing the assessment plan of Evaluation and Impact to determine if it’s an integral part of the development of each objective and is evident in conducting the project. How will the benefits be measured? How do farmers benefit from the project? What is the environmental benefit of the project? What are the potential economic and social benefits of the project?

Budget (5 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?

Once the technical reviewers complete their reviews, the Project Review Committee of Southern SARE’s Administrative Council (Southern SARE’s governing body) reviews the high scoring proposals and meets virtually to discuss fundable proposals. 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.

By March grant applicants are contacted regarding the status of their proposal, and a summary of the review comments for the proposal are provided. Feedback is restricted to written comments from the outside Technical Review Team and the Project Review Committee. If awarded a Research and 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.