All funding of On-Farm Research 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 On-Farm Research Grant Scoring Rubric for an easy printable copy of the review criteria.
| Review Criteria | |
| Statement of the Problem | 15 |
| Statement of the Proposed Solution and Relevance to Sustainable Agriculture | 15 |
| Approaches and Methods | 25 |
| Timetable | 10 |
| Literature Cited | 5 |
| Outreach Plan | 20 |
| Budget | 10 |
| Total | 100 points |
Statement of the Problems (15 points): Technical reviewers review the Statement of the Problem to ensure that the applicant clearly describes the problem and why the problem needs to be addressed.
Statement of the Proposed Solution and Relevance to Sustainable Agriculture (15 points): The applicant should demonstrate that the proposed solution is an improvement to address the current problem. The project and its results should also contribute to sustainable agriculture
Approaches and Methods (25 points): The proposed solution to the problem should be specific and measurable. The Approaches and Methods generally involves a clear and well-thought out experimental design so that useful and applicable results can be obtained. The Approaches and Methods should include the following aspects:
- The site where the research will be conducted;
- An experimental design, if the research calls for one;
- What the applicant will be measuring and the ways the applicant will be measuring it;
- The materials and supplies being using to conduct the research;
- How the applicant will collect data, how often, and what tools will be used;
- How the applicant will analyze the data, and what tools the applicant will use;
- How the applicant will interpret the data and draw conclusions.
Timetable (10 points): The proposal demonstrates that the project can be effectively completed in the time provided based on the research proposed.
Literature Cited (5 points): The literature cited demonstrates how well the applicant is knowledgeable about the research topic and demonstrates a gap in the research that their project would fill.
Outreach Plan (20 points): Southern SARE requires an outreach component to research grants to ensure that project results are shared with farmers and ranchers, reach diverse audiences, and have the widest possible benefits for the community in furthering sustainable agriculture across the Southern region.
The applicant must indicate an outreach or educational plan for the project. Outreach plans may include workshops, field days, on-farm demonstrations, farmer training, online training efforts, curriculum development, videos and webinars, educational publications, journal articles or presentations at meetings or other events.
The outreach plan should be well thought out and a benefit to its intended audience. The methods for implementing the outreach plan should demonstrate their effectiveness in reaching farmers and ranchers.
Budget (10 points): The budget is a list of allowable expenses required to conduct the project. The items in the budget should align with the Approaches and Methods. The budget must be itemized and include a justification for each allowable item listed. The amount requested should be reasonable and realistic.
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 Producer Grant 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 Producer Grant Committee convenes at the February Administrative Council (AC) meeting to finalize selections. Those are then recommended to the full Administrative Council and voted on for funding.
Based on the scores and comments of the Technical Review Committee, the Producer Grant Committee should focus its efforts on the following aspects of the proposal:
- Project need and importance to sustainable agriculture in the Southern region. Does the proposed project fill a research need, address something new, or expand on existing research through a different lens? Use your own expertise or farming experiences to determine the potential contributions the research project would bring to sustainable agriculture.
- Project outreach plan. The On-Farm Research Grant requires an outreach component to its research to share results with the greater farming community. Evaluate if the outreach plan is clearly defined and would benefit its intended audience. Is the outreach plan proposed the most effective way of reaching the project’s intended audience? Does the outreach plan provide value for its users? Is the PI thinking outside the box? Think about whether the outcomes of the outreach plan would have life beyond the project and how the use of the outreach plan to communicate project results would lead to greater exploration or application on the farm.
- Project budget. Scan the budget and determine if the budget is realistic for the project. Examples to consider: Reasonable budget for labor, or reasonable request for materials or supplies relative to size of treatment plots. Don’t let a questionable budget item (if allowable) deter you from potentially funding the project. The budgets of most funded grant projects are revised prior to subaward contracts being finalized.
By late February or early March applicants are contacted regarding the status of their proposal, and a summary of the review comments are provided to them. If awarded an On-Farm Research 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.