Scoring and Rubric for Unit 1: Public Health Grant Proposal

Most grants are scored on a scale of 1-10, one being perfect, 10 being poorly written.

Successful Grants have high marks in the following:

  • addresses a socially significant problem (emphasizes the “big picture”): the grant makes the social significance explicit in both throughout the proposal through effective research and writing. Proposal makes appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos where appropriate.
  • very responsive to previous critiques (this one won’t be emphasized in our rubric, except through the literature review): literature review provides a rich, well-researched and well-reasoned background, applying to appropriate authorities (logos).
  • well written (both clear and concise with appropriate headings and good mechanics, and appropriate addresses to audience:  remember, you have limited space and a lot you need to say, so aim for succinctness)
  • logical with appropriate controls (good design or framework for any experiments or if experiments aren’t your aim, that all categories are appropriately utilized, with effective use of emphasis (underline, bold, italics, syntax, etc).
  • crucial preliminary data (for our purposes, the innovations/interventions you discuss in your literature review): successful proposals make effective use of research, have appropriate facts, figures, and tables to reinforce both the social significance and the effectiveness of the proposed innovation.
  • hypothesis (or thesis or aim) is clearly stated and repeated throughout (memorable): here is where repeating yourself will be richly rewarded. Remember that repetition comes in many different forms: you can achieve a more memorable proposal if you not only repeat key words or phrases but also re-inscribe your significance, purposes, and interventions through varying words and phrases.
  • not overly ambitious: highly doable / very realistic. This is a task that can be achieved within the budgeted time and money.