The rubrics real funders use to score your proposal.

A balanced 5-criterion rubric that works when you don't know the funder's exact review framework yet. Use this as your default.

1. Alignment with funder priorities

   Does the draft mirror the RFP's language, priorities, and evaluation criteria?

2. Specificity & evidence

   Concrete numbers, citations, and named sources instead of vague claims.

3. Clarity & flow

   Easy for a reviewer skimming 80 proposals in one afternoon.

4. Compliance with section purpose

   Does it actually do what this section is supposed to do?

5. Funder-readiness

   Would a program officer flag this as weak, or move it to the yes pile?

The five scored criteria NIH study sections use for R01 and most research grants. Reviewers score each 1 (exceptional) to 9 (poor), then give an overall Impact Score.

1. Significance

   Does the project address an important problem or critical barrier?

   • → If the aims are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, or clinical practice improve?
   • → How will successful completion change the concepts, methods, or interventions that drive this field?

2. Investigator(s)

   Are the PDs/PIs and collaborators well suited to the project?

   • → Do the investigators have appropriate training, experience, and record of accomplishments?
   • → For early-stage investigators, is the training and mentorship plan credible?

3. Innovation

   Does the application challenge current paradigms or use novel concepts, approaches, or methods?

4. Approach

   Are the strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate?

   • → Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented?
   • → Is the rigor of the prior research (that supports the proposed work) sufficiently addressed?

5. Environment

   Will the scientific environment contribute to the probability of success?

Based on NIH's published peer review criteria.

The two merit review criteria NSF uses across all directorates. Every NSF proposal must address both, and reviewers rate each Poor / Fair / Good / Very Good / Excellent.

1. Intellectual Merit

   Potential to advance knowledge within its own field or across different fields.

   • → What is the potential for the proposed activity to advance knowledge and understanding?
   • → To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or transformative concepts?
   • → Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale?
   • → How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
   • → Are there adequate resources available to the PI to carry out the proposed activities?

2. Broader Impacts

   Potential to benefit society and contribute to specific desired societal outcomes.

   • → What is the potential to benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes?
   • → Is there a well-reasoned plan for the proposed activities, including broadening participation of underrepresented groups?

Based on NSF's Merit Review Criteria (PAPPG).

A weighted rubric that mirrors the review criteria used across most non-NIH federal RFPs (HRSA, DOJ, DOE, ACF, and similar). Weights below are typical; the actual NOFO will publish the exact points per criterion.

1. Statement of Need (20 pts)

   Magnitude of the problem, target population, and gaps in current services.

2. Project Design & Approach (30 pts)

   Logic model, evidence base, activities, timeline, and feasibility.

3. Organizational Capacity (15 pts)

   Staff qualifications, past performance, and organizational infrastructure.

4. Evaluation Plan (15 pts)

   Measurable outcomes, data collection, and use of findings.

5. Budget & Cost-Effectiveness (10 pts)

   Reasonable costs tied to activities; adequate match if required.

6. Sustainability (10 pts)

   How the work continues after the federal funding period.

Composite of common federal NOFO review sections. Confirm exact weights in your NOFO.

How most U.S. community foundations score general operating support requests from small nonprofits.

1. Mission alignment

   Fit with the foundation's priorities and geographic scope.

2. Community impact

   Clear population served and measurable difference in the community.

3. Organizational health

   Board governance, leadership stability, and financial health.

4. Program effectiveness

   Evidence that programs work — outcomes, retention, community feedback.

5. Financial stewardship

   Reasonable overhead, diversified revenue, clean audit or review.

Typical rubric a program officer at a family or private foundation uses for a project-specific grant.

1. Need & population fit

   Is the population and problem well-defined, and does the foundation care about them?

2. Program design

   Evidence-informed activities with realistic scope and timeline.

3. Outcomes & measurement

   SMART outcomes with a specific measurement plan.

4. Organizational capacity

   Track record with similar programs and staff to deliver.

5. Budget reasonableness

   Costs match activities; personnel and match funding are credible.

6. Sustainability

   Plan for continuing the work beyond this grant.

What a corporate foundation or CSR team looks for. Weighs brand alignment and employee-engagement opportunities more heavily than a private foundation would.

1. Community impact

   Concrete, measurable benefit in communities where the company operates.

2. Brand & mission alignment

   Fit with the company's stated CSR priorities and public commitments.

3. Employee engagement opportunity

   Volunteer days, skills-based volunteering, or matched giving hooks.

4. Measurable outcomes

   Reportable metrics for the company's annual impact/ESG report.

5. Recognition & visibility

   Appropriate acknowledgment without feeling transactional.

For grants that fund infrastructure — technology, planning, board development, fundraising systems — rather than direct program delivery.

1. Diagnosed capacity gap

   Clear self-assessment of what's holding the organization back.

2. Plan credibility

   Realistic activities, timeline, and consultant/partner if applicable.

3. Impact on mission delivery

   How the capacity investment translates into more/better program outcomes.

4. Organizational readiness

   Leadership commitment, staff time allocated, board support.

5. Post-grant sustainability

   How the capacity persists after the grant ends (not one-time consulting spend).