News and Events Header Graphic

NOAA Bay Watershed Grant Application Review

B-WET
Download Recommendations: Because of occasional browser conflicts, we recommend that you download pdf files to your system by right-clicking on the link for PC users - click and hold for Macintosh users.

B-WET Information

B-WET Factsheet

Monterey Rack Card

San Francisco Rack Card

Santa Barbara Rack Card

Other B-WET Funded Programs

Fisheries Education Programs

Voices of the Bay

Ocean Guardian School Program

Evaluation

B-WET Evaluation Website

CA B-WET Executive Summary

Chesapeake Bay Executive Summary

CA B-WET Presentations

Grant 101

Multicultural


For Grant Applicants

How to Apply

Project Narrative
and Budget Narrative Example Application

Grant Writing Tips

Evaluation Criteria

Grant Recipient Report Formats

Links

Evaluation Criteria

1. Importance and/or relevance and applicability of proposal to the program goals (35 points)

  • Connection to the greater marine or estuarine environment (5 points): For Program Priority 1, 2, and 3: Does the project make a direct connection to the greater marine or coastal environment? Does the project discuss one or all of the National Marine Sanctuaries in California (i.e., the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, the Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, or the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary)? Does the proposal make an intentional connection to the watershed system and how actions within that system can affect the marine and estuarine environment? Specifically, does the project address the elements and activities as defined in Section I.B.1.a in the Full Funding Opportunity?
  • Meaningful Watershed Educational Experience (20 points): For Program Priority 1, 2, and 3: Does the proposal clearly meet the definition of a Meaningful Watershed Experience? Does the experience focus around questions, problems, or issues pertaining to the San Francisco Bay watershed and/or coastal area, Monterey Bay watershed and/or coastal area, or the Santa Barbara Channel watershed and/or coastal area? Is the project design project-oriented, hands-on, investigative, and part of a sustained activity? Does the project focus on an emerging marine issue? Does the project include pre and post activities? Does the project address multiple disciplines? Specifically, does the project address the elements and activities as defined in Section I.B.1.c-e in the Full Funding Opportunity? For Program Priority 2, does the project proposal provide sufficient materials, resources, and information for the teacher to conduct a Meaningful Watershed Experience on his/her own? Is the project designed so that the teacher is encouraged to implement and conduct a Meaningful Watershed Experience in his/her classroom?
  • Partnerships (5 points): For Program Priority 1, 2, and 3: Does the proposal include partnerships? Is the partnership a working relationship with all entities contributing to the project? Are there letters of support from each partner? Does the proposal outline the specific activity and function of each partner? Do the partners enhance the project? Does the applicant partner with a school division or school system? Specifically, does the project address the elements and activities as defined in Section I.B.1.g. and Section I.B.2.c in the Full Funding Opportunity?
  • Target audience (5 points): For Program Priority 1, 2, and 3: Does the applicant work with an underserved or low-income population? Specifically, does the applicant address project elements and activities under Section I.B.1.h. and Section I.B.2.d in the Full Funding Opportunity?

2. Technical merit (35 points)

  • Proposal requirements and format (5 points): For this criteria, points will be awarded based on the observance to the proposal technical and format requirements outlined in Section IVB.2.a and b. This includes proposal length, font size and compliance with all of the information that should be provided in the format section.
  • Integration with school program (10 points): For Program Priority 1 and 2: Does the proposal clearly outline how the project is an integral part of the instructional program? Does the proposal demonstrate how the project is aligned with the Content Standards for California Public Schools and the California Education and the Environment Initiative? Does the proposal just list the standards or demonstrate how their project supports them? Specifically, does the proposal address project elements and activities under Section I.B.1.b in the Full Funding Opportunity? For Priority Area 3 only, does the applicant demonstrate how the summer program, afterschool program or the science camp builds on and/or adds to the knowledge and information that the students are receiving during the school year.
  • NOAA products, services or personnel (5 points): For Program Priority 1, 2, and 3: Does the applicant utilize NOAA products or services focused on marine and coastal issues? Does the applicant use NOAA personnel to enhance their project? Specifically, does the applicant address the elements and activities as defined in Section I.B.1.i. and Section I.B.2.e in the Full Funding Opportunity?
  • Objectives (5 points): For Program Priority 1, 2, and 3: Are the objectives in the proposal clearly defined and focused? Does the applicant demonstrate that the objectives are realistic and can be reached within the proposed project period? Does the proposal suggest a new approach to environmental education or just an application of previously accepted approaches? Are the project outcomes measurable and have significant and lasting benefits for teachers and students?
  • Evaluation (10 points): For Program Priority 1, 2, and 3: Does the project evaluation description meet the guidelines offered in Section IV.B.2.b(6) in the Full Funding Opportunity? Specifically, does the evaluation component of the project focus on measuring changes in participants (changes can be in knowledge, attitudes, skills or conservation actions)? Are the methods for gathering evaluation data systematic and if replicated, would they gather reliable qualitative and/or quantitative data? Can the results be used to inform programming decisions (either planning the program, making changes to improve the program or judging the program's impact and value)?

3. Overall qualifications of applicants (10 points)
Does the applicant show the capability and experience in successfully completing similar projects? Does the proposal include staff biographies or C.V.s of the Principle Investigators and other staff members? Does the applicant demonstrate knowledge of the target audience? Does the applicant demonstrate knowledge of the Content Standards for California Public Schools? Does the applicant document past collaborations with schools or school systems? Does the applicant show the capability and experience in successfully completing similar projects? Are the partners involved in the project qualified?

4. Project costs (15 points)
This criterion evaluates the budget to determine if it is realistic and commensurate with the project needs and time frame. For the California B-WET Program this includes the following questions: Does the applicant demonstrate the ability to leverage other resources? Is the nature of the cost share cash or in-kind? Is the budget request reasonable and does the applicant justify the proposed budget request? Is a significant percentage of the budget directly related to bringing students and teachers in contact with the environment? Are requested funds for salaries and fringe benefits only for those personnel who are directly involved in implementing the proposed project and/or are directly related to specific products or outcomes of the proposed project? Does the applicant demonstrate sustainability beyond the project period? Does the applicant demonstrate that the project will continue after NOAA funding has expired?

5. Outreach and education (5 points)
This criterion assesses whether the project provides a focused and effective education and outreach strategy regarding NOAA's mission to protect the Nation's natural resources. For the California B-WET Program this includes the following questions: Does the project involve external sharing and communication? Does the target audience share their findings, experiences, or results to their peers or their community? Specifically, does the project address the elements and activities in Section I.B.1.f and I.B.2.b in the Full Funding Opportunity?

leaving site indicates a link leaves the site. Please view our Link Disclaimer for more information.
Revised November 13, 2013 by Sanctuaries Web Team | Contact Us | Web Site Owner: National Ocean Service
National Ocean Service | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | Privacy Policy | For Employees | User Survey
http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/news/bwet/grant_review.html