Professional Development Program Grant Review Criteria

All funding of Professional Development Program 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.

Pre-proposal Review Process

Upon closure of the grant deadline, pre-proposals receive a technical review by the Professional Development Program Grant Committee of Southern SARE’s Administrative Council, the program’s governing body.

Full proposal invite is based on the following criteria:

• Collaboration: The pre-proposal should demonstrate interdisciplinary efforts and multi-institutional partnerships that can endure beyond the life of the project. Collaboration may include: non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations, land grant universities, non-land grant universities, colleges, USDA agencies, and mentor farmers. There is meaningful farmer / producer participation in the planning, delivery, and evaluation of the training. Farmers and ranchers are not the primary audience of the training, but they are the ultimate beneficiaries of information, so they can provide a valuable perspective and should be included in the planning and implementation of training.
• Project Summary: A project’s central purpose must be to provide or enable training to one or more of the following: Cooperative Extension Service agents; USDA field personnel from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Farm Service Agency, and other USDA agencies,and; Other agricultural professionals and educators, including farmers who will serve as trainers. Research projects and farmer-outreach or education projects do not qualify for this funding.
• Project Objective: Project outcomes must focus on developing sustainable agriculture systems or moving existing systems toward sustainability, as defined in the 1990 Farm Bill. The 1990 Farm Bill defines sustainable agriculture as: An integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term; Enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends; Make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources, and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls; Sustain the economic viability of farm operations; enhance the quality of life of farmers and ranchers, and of society as a whole.

• Project Activities: The proposed training projects must be relevant to sustainable agriculture in the Southern SARE service region.
• Project Evaluation: A coherent evaluation plan should demonstrate a feedback loop, which is essential to assess the effectiveness of the training model and include a plan to measure realistic outcomes that assess the change in attitudes, knowledge, skills, and actions of the trainees.
• Project Timeline: Timeline of project activities reasonable for to achieve objectives in a one or two year time frame.
• Estimated Budget

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 Executive Committee makes a recommendation to invite pre-proposal applicants to submit a full proposal.

---

Full Proposal Review Process

The full proposal process incorporates three entities within SSARE: The Administrative Council, the Professional Development Program Grant Committee of the Administrative Council, and an outside Technical Review Team.

Upon the full proposal grant deadline, proposals are assigned to and reviewed by an outside technical review team made up individuals who are trained and experienced in developing educational programs for agricultural professionals. The role of the technical reviewers is to focus on the theoretical approach of the program design and review the objectives, methods, approaches, design, timeline, and evaluation plan.

The technical reviewers provide a written review that concentrates on:

• Methods and appropriateness of project design (including objectives and timeline);
• Evaluation and impact design;
• Ability of project director and major participants.

Once the technical review deadline closes, the Professional Development Program Grant Committee is assigned to and reviews the full proposals based on the following weighted review criteria:

Review Criteria
Farmer/Producer Participation	15
Project Collaboration	15
Behavior-based Objectives	10
Project Activities	10
Project Evaluation	10
Project Resources	10
Educational Methodologies	10
Project Timeline and Budget	10
Project Linkages	10
Total	Total 100 points

• Farmer/Producer Participation: There is meaningful farmer / producer participation in the planning, delivery, and evaluation of the training. Farmers and ranchers are not the primary audience of the training, but they are the ultimate beneficiaries of information, so they can provide a valuable perspective and should be included in the planning and implementation of training. The effectiveness of the training should be evaluated from the producers’ perspective and training material revised based on the input received.
• Project Collaboration: The proposal should demonstrate interdisciplinary efforts and multi-institutional partnerships that can endure beyond the life of the project.
• Behavior-based Objectives: The objectives and outcomes of the proposed training and education project must be clearly defined. Groups to be trained and the expected change in attitudes, knowledge, educational skills and most importantly, behavior changes (trainings conducted by those trained) should be identified.
• Project Activities: The proposed training projects must be relevant to sustainable agriculture in the Southern SARE service region.
• A coherent evaluation plan: A coherent evaluation plan should demonstrate a feedback loop, which is essential to assess the effectiveness of the training model and include a plan to measure realistic outcomes that assess the change in attitudes, knowledge, skills, and actions of the trainees.
• Project Resources: Does the proposal define project resources, explain how other inputs are leveraged, describe the plan to expand the scope of the training project and educational products, and sustain outcomes in the future by institutionalizing the project?
• Appropriate educational methodology: Are educational methodologies clearly presented and appropriate to achieve the stated training objectives?
• Realistic timelines and cost-effective budget: Does this project provide a clear explanation of the major budget items and a realistic timeline of how they would be used?
• Develop linkages to other SARE proposals: Does this project build upon or develop linkages to a previously funded SARE grant program project?

Additionally, the Professional Development Program Grant Committee is asked to rate the proposal's value to be funded by ranking it using a One (1) to Four (4) scoring system. Overall comments about the proposal can also be provided.

The Administrative Council makes the final decision on 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 Professional Development Program Grant Committee. If awarded a Professional Development Program 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.