Evaluation of Grant Proposal E through a Funder’s Eye Essay
Evaluation of Grant Proposal E through a Funder’s Eye
Yes_ Establishes credibility of agency as a good investment: It has already got a good work record. Despite impressive achievements, health services were still failing to reach those who need them most (Mahler, 2008). In this scenario, it is a good investment. No_ Establishes role of contact person: No information has been provided. No_ Establishes qualifications of agency and staff in areas of activities for which funds are requested: Though the qualification of the agency is provided, information related to qualification of staff is not provided. Need Component
Yes_ States a problem of reasonable dimension: The hospital would provide health services for those who fall below the poverty line and desire a good service. No_ Supports a client need with relevant data: The data provided is very generic and just qualitative and not quantitative. Yes_ Establishes the project/program’s current need for funds: A clear idea is provided. Objectives Component No_ Describes measurable outcomes to be achieved: Though objective is understood, outcome is not clearly mentioned. Yes_ Appears feasible in light of agency resources: Already has experience. Part of the required fund has already been generated.
Yes_ Is achievable within time frame of grant: Set up cost is sought for. Sustainability could be reached soon if the initial operation cost is provided. Methods Component No_ Describes how objectives will be achieved: Methods are very vague and general. Yes_ Includes staffing, timelines, and client selection: Staffing and client selection mentioned. But the timeline is missing. Yes_ Appears cost-effective: Only minimum requirements are asked for which could bring about decent operation. Evaluation Component No_ Tells process for evaluating accomplishment of objectives: Claimed to have produced. It would be available only upon request.
No_ Tells process for evaluating and modifying methods: Information is not provided. No_ Tells who will be doing the evaluation: The proposal remains silent on this area. No_ Tells how data will be gathered, analyzed, and reported: Details of the system are not given Future Funding Component No_ Tells plan for solvency after grant. It will continue to function. Yes_ Seems probable work will continue beyond grant period. Sustainability measures provided. Budget Component No_ Is complete and accurate. Very general. Accuracy could not be traced. Yes_ Seems sufficient to cover cost of methods and achieve objectives: Seems sufficient.
Detailed information not provided. Yes_ Indicates how our funds will be used. Break-up of capital and operational expenditure mentioned. Yes_ Provides information on other sources of income. Already got grant from Bureau of Primary Health Care. It will seek from other charitable organizations later. Yes_ Will be balanced with addition of our grant. Appropriate planning has been done considering the grant from Valley foundation. References Carlson, M. (2002). Winning Grants. Canada: John Wiley & sons. Mahler, H. (2008). Health services ‘failing’ underprivileged. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from < http://www. ameinfo. com/173893. html >
Subject: Grant Proposal,
University/College: University of California
Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter
Date: 8 October 2016
We will write a custom essay sample on Evaluation of Grant Proposal E through a Funder’s Eye
for only $16.38 $12.9/page