California Colorectal Cancer Coalition (C4) Grant Scoring Guidance

California Colorectal Cancer Coalition (C4) Grant Scoring Guidance

California Colorectal Cancer Coalition (C4) Grant Scoring Guidance

C4 Scoring Guidance- 2018 Community Grants Program

CRITIQUE / SCORE AND COMMENTS (see scoring criteria below)
Significance:How well does this project address one or more of the C4 priority areas? Will successful completion of the project lead to improved screening rates for underserved populations, improved screening capacity, improved access to treatment, new strategies for reducing disparities in CRC screening, improved educational outreach, or otherwise providing a significant return on the investment made?
Priority areas include:
•Primary Prevention and Screening
•Screening Barriers
•Epidemiology
•Health Communications
•Psychosocial/Cultural and Survivorship Issues
•Cancer Health Care - Delivery
•Cancer Health Care - Economics
•Cancer Health Care – Policy / Score:
Innovation: Does the application challenge and seek to shift current clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel approaches, methodologies, or interventions? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of approaches, methodologies, or interventions proposed?Does the project/organization have a history of success with the strategies proposed in the project plan? Does the project plan aim to improve outcomes in populations previously identified as being at increased risk, based on current California Cancer Registry data for screening rates, stage of diagnosis, or mortality? / Score:
Approach:Does this proposal contain a clear and feasible project plan? Is the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses appropriate to accomplish the project? Does the plan include a clear understanding of the baseline data to be used as a basis of comparison for analyzing the success of the project? Are benchmarks for success presented? Does the project include a reasonable timeline for implementing the project? If educational materials are proposed as part of the project, do the strategies align with C4’s current goals and available resources?
If this is a continuation project, does the project plan include a progress report from previous years’ funding and/or indications that previous funding facilitated improvement in screening rates at the facility or impacted patient care in other areas? / Score:
Facilities and resources available:Is the environment in which the work will be done conducive to success? Are all the resources necessary for successful completion of the project available to the organization and/or project manager? If the project includes patient screening, does the facility have the capacity to tract testing and notification of patients? Does the project include a plan for referring patients for diagnosis or treatment if the project generates positive screening results? If the project is serving populations that are non-native English speakers, does the project include a mechanism for providing services in a culturally appropriate fashion? Are staffing issues addressed in the application, including the roles of personnel as they relate to completion of the project? / Score:
Budget: Is the proposed budget reasonable, given the project plan? Are expenditures of funds itemized to allow assessment of how funds are earmarked for spending? Does the proposal include information on matching funds from the institution, highlighting additional institutional commitment? Does the application indicate means of sustaining the funding and/or project once the award period ends? If educational materials are to be developed, are the budgetary costs appropriate for print or digital media? / Score:

C4’s Community Grant Scoring Narrative:

Assigned reviewers provide a separate score on a 9-point rating scale for each of the five review criteria indicated above. The overall impact score need not be an average of the five review criteria, but will take into consideration that an application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major impact according to C4’s mission.

Impact / Score / Descriptor / Additional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses
High / 1 / Exceptional / Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses
2 / Outstanding / Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses
3 / Excellent / Very strong with only some minor weaknesses
Medium / 4 / Very Good / Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses
5 / Good / Strong but with at least one moderate weakness
6 / Satisfactory / Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses
Low / 7 / Fair / Some strengths but with at least one major weakness
8 / Marginal / A few strengths and a few major weaknesses
9 / Poor / Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses
Non-numeric score options: NR = Not Recommended for Further Consideration,
Minor Weakness: An easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen impact
Moderate Weakness: A weakness that lessens impact
Major Weakness: A weakness that severely limits impact

IMPACT SCORE –overall impression of the proposed project and C4’s perception of the likelihood of success.

Scale: 1-9*

Reviewer #1 Overall Impact Score
Reviewer #2 Overall Impact Score
Reviewer #3 Overall Impact Score
Reported to Applicant – Average of Overall Impact Scores

*The scale: 1 (high score – high likelihood of success) to 9 (very unlikely to succeed). Scoresmay include rankings with tenths, such as 1.4; if this more accurately captures impression of the grant.

Page 1 of 3

Version 1

October 2017