Development of a Rating Form to Evaluate Grant Applications to the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health

Arthur L. Whaley, Reymundo Rodriguez and Laurel A. Alexander
Additional contact information
Arthur L. Whaley: Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, The University of Texas at Austin
Reymundo Rodriguez: Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, The University of Texas at Austin
Laurel A. Alexander: Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, The University of Texas at Austin

Evaluation Review, 2006, vol. 30, issue 1, 3-26

Abstract: Reliance on subjective grant proposal review methods leads private philanthropies to underfund mental health programs, even when foundations have mental health focuses. This article describes a private mental health foundation’s efforts to increase the objectivity of its proposal review process by developing a reliable, valid proposal rating form. Staff from the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, an administrative unit of The University of Texas at Austin, developed the items for the grant proposal rating form (GPRF). Four interns, who had educational backgrounds equivalent to the foundation’s grant-making staff, used the GPRF to independently rate 20 grant proposals previously reviewed by the foundation. Internal consistency and interrater reliability were very good. It had good face and construct validity and moderate criterion validity. The GPRF’s psychometric properties are sufficient to recommend its use in the foundation’s review process and suggest private philanthropies’ grant proposal review processes can be made more objective and reliable without compromising validity.

Keywords: foundations; grant proposal; mental health funding; psychometrics; philanthropy; rating form (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2006
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X05275586 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:evarev:v:30:y:2006:i:1:p:3-26

DOI: 10.1177/0193841X05275586

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Evaluation Review
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().