“Reach” refers to the project’s ability to respond to the needs of underserved communities in Liberia such as women, children, elderly, people with disabilities. Evaluators will consider the geographic location of the project for this rating (rural communities).

1. The project ignores the needs of underserved groups, and the application materials provide no evidence of planning to reach these communities, especially in rural areas.
2. The project’s consideration of underserved groups is minimal, and the application materials do not adequately address how these groups will be included, especially in rural areas.
3. The project mentions underserved groups but lacks a clear and comprehensive strategy for their inclusion. The application materials could provide more information on how these groups will be reached in rural communities.
4. The project acknowledges the importance of inclusivity and geographic diversity and provides strategies for reaching underserved communities, but there could be more specific and detailed plans outlined in the application materials.
5. The project demonstrates a comprehensive and intentional approach to targeting and addressing the needs of underserved communities in Liberia, including women, children, elderly individuals, and people with disabilities. The project demonstrates a well-adapted approach to meet the specific challenges of rural communities in Liberia. The application materials provide detailed strategies and methods for effectively reaching and engaging with these communities.

“Track record” refers to the history or known reputation of the organization implementing the project. This may be through word of mouth, contacting references, published reviews found online, previous recipient of FOL small grant, the inclusion of summaries, impact and/or data of previously implemented projects in the application.

1. The organization lacks a track record of successful project implementations. No references, reviews, or summaries of previous projects in the application materials.
2. The organization’s track record is questionable in terms of consistency and reliability, with few references and unclear success history. Limited summaries of previous project impact and data in the application materials.
3. The organization has a decent track record, with mixed references and evidence of moderate success. Some summaries of previous projects’ impact and data are present in the application materials.
4. The organization has a strong track record, with positive references and some evidence of successful project implementations. Previous projects are mentioned with summaries of impact and data in the application materials. The organization has shown some adaptability and learning from previous experiences.
5. The organization has an outstanding track record of successfully implementing similar projects. Strong references and evidence of past successes support this reliability, with detailed summaries and data in the application materials. Application materials also highlight examples of how the organization improved projects based on feedback and data.

The budget is a required element of the application materials. The evaluators will judge the budget based on clarity, organization, and accuracy, all in relation to the proposed project.

1. The budget is highly inaccurate, with numerous significant discrepancies in calculations or figures. The budget’s lack of accuracy raises serious doubts about its viability and alignment with the project. The budget is poorly organized and lacks a logical structure.
2. The budget’s accuracy is questionable, with several noticeable discrepancies in calculations or figures. These discrepancies raise concerns about the budget’s reliability and alignment with the project. The budget’s organization is subpar, with several sections lacking clear categorization or order. The budget lacks clarity in some areas, with several expenses or funding sources requiring better explanations.
3. The budget contains several inaccuracies or discrepancies in calculations or figures, which may slightly impact the overall alignment between the budget and the project. The budget is reasonably organized, though some sections may lack clear categorization or logical order. Minor improvements could enhance its overall coherence. The budget is generally clear, but some expenses or funding sources lack detailed explanations. Minor inconsistencies or ambiguities may be present, but they do not significantly hinder understanding.
4. The budget is mostly accurate, with some minor discrepancies in calculations. These discrepancies do not significantly affect the overall alignment between the budget and the project. The budget is well-organized, with expenses and funding sources arranged in a coherent manner. Some categories or line items could be better structured for improved clarity. Some line items may benefit from additional clarity or detail, but overall alignment with the project is evident.
5. The budget is clear, easy to understand and organized. All expenses and funding sources are transparently presented, with detailed explanations for each line item. Categories are clearly defined, and comprehensible. The budget aligns with the project’s scope and goals. The budget is meticulously accurate, with all calculations and figures precisely reflecting the proposed project’s needs.

“Sustainability” refers to the ability of the project and the project’s impact to be maintained after implementation and without funding from Friends of Liberia.

1. The project lacks a clear plan for sustainability, and there are no evident strategies for sustaining activities and impact without ongoing funding from Friends of Liberia. The project does not prioritize capacity building or institutional strengthening, and there are no evident strategies for ensuring that local stakeholders can continue project activities after funding ends. There are no strategies in place for fostering community ownership or continued engagement in the project’s sustainability.
2. The project’s plan for sustainability is limited in scope and lacks clear strategies for maintaining activities and impact. The plan is vague or insufficiently developed. The project’s community engagement is limited, and there is a lack of clear strategies for fostering community ownership and maintaining engagement after the project’s completion. The project’s focus on capacity building and institutional strengthening is limited.
3. The project’s plan for sustainability is present, but it lacks comprehensive strategies for maintaining activities and impact without external funding. The project plan lacks comprehensive strategies for ensuring that local stakeholders are adequately equipped to continue project activities. The project involves communities to some degree but lacks comprehensive strategies for ensuring sustained community ownership and engagement beyond the project’s duration.
4. The project has a plan for sustainability, but some aspects may need further elaboration or detail. The project includes efforts to build local capacity and strengthen institutions, though there may be room for more specific details in the plan. The application materials show a commitment to transferring skills and resources. Community ownership is evident to a certain extent, and there are indications of mechanisms for ongoing engagement.
5. The project demonstrates a comprehensive and well-defined plan for sustainability. The project prioritizes building local capacity and strengthening institutions to manage and continue project activities after funding ends. A detailed plan outlines how skills and resources will be transferred to local stakeholders. The project actively involves local communities in project design, implementation, and decision-making. Communities demonstrate a strong sense of ownership and commitment to the project’s sustainability, and mechanisms for continued engagement are outlined.

“Impact” refers to the outcome of the project’s implementation on the intended and unintended, direct and indirect beneficiaries of the intervention.

1. The project’s impact goals are unclear and vague, and the application materials do not provide any coherent description of the anticipated outcomes. The project’s impact goals lack any mention of a measurement and evaluation plan, and the application materials do not address how impact will be assessed.
2. The project’s impact goals lack clarity and specificity, making it difficult to fully understand the intended outcomes from the application materials. The project’s impact goals lack a clear measurement and evaluation plan, and the application materials do not provide sufficient information on how impact will be assessed.
3. The project’s impact goals are generally clear, but there might be some lack of specificity or detail in the application materials, which could lead to potential ambiguity. The project’s impact goals have a basic measurement and evaluation plan, with some indicators and methods mentioned in the application materials, though further elaboration is needed.
4. The project’s impact goals are clear and well-described, though there might be minor areas where additional specificity or detail could enhance understanding. The project’s impact goals are supported by a measurement and evaluation plan, though there might be room for further detail or clarity in the application materials.
5. The project’s impact goals are exceptionally clear, specific, and well-defined in the application materials. The anticipated outcomes are detailed, realistic, and aligned with the project’s objectives.. The project’s impact goals are accompanied by a comprehensive measurement and evaluation plan, outlining indicators, data collection methods, and tools. The application materials show a robust strategy for assessing impact.

The overall rating of the project is a summative rating determined by the evaluator that will be used to compare all projects, generally along with a calculated score based on the above categories.

1. The project lacks fundamental elements, such as clear goals, planning, and alignment with beneficiaries’ needs. The project has critical gaps, inaccuracies, or inconsistencies that undermine its feasibility, impact, and sustainability. The project’s chances of success are extremely low, and it is unlikely to achieve meaningful outcomes.
2. The project has some elements in place, but there are substantial gaps in planning, alignment, or feasibility. There are notable deficiencies that could hinder the project’s effectiveness or sustainability. The project’s potential for positive impact is limited due to unresolved issues.
3. The project generally meets basic requirements, with goals, planning, and alignment present, though improvements are needed. The project demonstrates some positive aspects but lacks substantial innovation or comprehensive strategies. The project could achieve reasonable outcomes but may not excel due to limited innovation or strategic depth.
4. The project exhibits clear goals, planning, and alignment, with few significant gaps or inconsistencies. The project has solid elements, with innovative approaches or well-developed strategies. The project is likely to achieve meaningful impact, with clear pathways for success and sustainability.
5. The project excels in all aspects, with clear, specific, and innovative goals, comprehensive planning, and perfect alignment with beneficiaries’ needs. The project showcases remarkable innovation, comprehensive strategies, and a well-defined path to success. The project is poised for significant and sustainable impact, with exceptional strategies and alignment with goals.