Scores and Comments
19.c.ps.114.437
Ruth Eckerd Hall, Inc.
Application Details |
|
|---|---|
| Proposal Type | General Program Support - Discipline-Based |
| Request Amount |
$150,000
|
| Total Score | 571.000 |
| Average Score | 95.167 |
Panelist Scores
| Panelist | Excellence | Impact | Management | Accessibility | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Black Thomas | 40 | 30 | 16 | 10 | 96 |
| Geitner Robert | 38 | 28 | 19 | 10 | 95 |
| Iles Delma | 38 | 30 | 20 | 9 | 97 |
| Rodante Leigh | 38 | 27 | 20 | 8 | 93 |
| Sabo Jennifer | 38 | 28 | 20 | 9 | 95 |
| Young Elizabeth | 37 | 28 | 20 | 10 | 95 |
Comments |
|
|---|---|
| Black Thomas - Score: 96.000 | |
| Excellent programming - Goals/Objectives/Activities were clear and well-demonstrated. I would have liked more budgetary detail on what grant dollars will be spent. | |
| Geitner Robert - Score: 95.000 | |
| {No comments provided.} | |
| Iles Delma - Score: 97.000 | |
|
Excellent proposal: clear and well-written, detailed and thorough. All requested grant funds allocated to programming. |
|
| Rodante Leigh - Score: 93.000 | |
| {No comments provided.} | |
| Sabo Jennifer - Score: 95.000 | |
|
Well-written, clear, and easy to understand grant. Make sure to update your Section 504 Workbook. It is more than 3 years old. |
|
| Young Elizabeth - Score: 95.000 | |
| well done application- my only suggestion would be to mention a few examples of who/what/descriptions of your programming. | |