The Southwestern Florida Jurisdiction GLOW Investment Fund (SWFLJ-GIF) will use a Loan-Grant Scoring Gird (pg.19) to review and evaluate Loans and/or Grants.

A scoring grid is a tool that some Program Managers use to grade projects before and after completion. When used correctly, this tool can make the project evaluation process more objective and help produce better-quality outcomes.

Basics of a project scoring grid

A scoring grid, is a tool that Program Managers use to score a project qualification for selection. Program Managers use score sheets to ensure a company evaluates projects in a fair, consistent manner and that Program Managers rate each project using an objective measurement tool. Evaluating all projects using the same criteria helps Program Managers clearly and accurately compare each project qualifications and suitability for the organization.

A project scoring grid typically includes the following

  • A consistent rating system
  • Specific questions aimed at evaluating a project’s strength, viability, need and cost
  • Clearly defined criteria specific to the project
  • Criteria related to how a project would fit into a church’s culture
  • Comments section
  • A “total score” section

Create and distribute scoring grid to Church as part of the application process. This is so all church officials are aware of the key criteria being sought and to ensure that loan and /or grant committee members are objective throughout the evaluation process. 

How project application reviews relate to scoring grids

Scoring grids make project evaluation more consistent and objective. However, they cannot achieve this goal effectively unless your committee members themselves are consistent.

The following are the advantages and disadvantages of using scoring grids for project evaluation:

Pros of using project scoring grids

There are several benefits of using scoring grids during a project review can provide.

These benefits include:

  • Helping the meeting to stay on trackBy following preselected questions and interviewing each church in a similar manner using an objective rating system, discussions are much more likely to go according to plan.
  • Keeping meetings consistentScoring grids can help ensure discussions remain consistent from church to church and that discussions follow an objective outline of questions when reviewing and evaluating documents for a loan and/or a grant.
  • Helping church evaluations remain objective: Discussions can easily become subjective depending on the committee members biases, personal preferences, and initial impression of the church request. Using scoring grids to move through the application evaluation process is a good way to maintain objectivity and consistency and rate churches using the same scale.
  • Helping committee remember each candidateWhen performing multiple meetings, it is easy to forget the specifics of each church and keep the opinions about churches separate. By using scoring grids to track thoughts and impressions, committee members can easily review each church and recall how the discussion went.

Cons of using project scoring grids

The following are potential disadvantages of using scoring grids during the project evaluation process:

  • Limited answersAsking specific questions means that a church can only answer in a set number of ways. By following a scoring grid and only asking certain questions, you may risk missing learning other relevant information about the church.
  • Limited engagementWhen a committee member is constantly looking at a scorecard, engagement can be limited between the committee member and the church officials.

More time: Implementing the use of scoring grids can require an adjustment period for committee members and the church officials to get used to using this tool during loan and/or grant application process. As a result, discussions may take longer and/or committee members will have to take time out of their day to become familiar with using scoring grids.


Criterion4-pts: Exemplary3-pts: Adequate1-pts: Needs Improvement0-pts: Insufficient Evidence
InnovationProjects are the implementation of new ideas with potential benefits.Projects represent local implementation of emerging innovation or trends with potential benefits.Project is an adoption of a practice or change with established benefits.No innovation or potential improvement identified.
JustificationProposed work addresses specific need among peer institutions.Projects should not be too specific or general.Grant’s ability to address need is limited by lack of presentation.Unconvincing evidence of need or grant proposal does not address need.
Organizational strategic vision and community goals.Project outcomes must align with organizational vision and community goals.Project elements must align with organizational or community goals.Projects are not related to organizational strategic vision or community goals.No explicit relationship between project and organization or community.
FeasibilityPersonnel, activities, budget, and outcomes must align with project description and outcomes.Deficiencies in personnel, timeline, or budget can still lead to successful outcomes despite gaps.Projects with inadequate personnel, timeline, or budget fail to achieve desired outcomes.Inadequate information about personnel, project activities, timeline, and budget to assess feasibility.
Efficiency of Tactic/ApproachProject plan leverages existing infrastructure.Project plan must include connections to relevant work to be meaningful.Extension or replication is unadvisable due to duplication of effort.Plan lacks detail to understand local contexts.
AssessmentData will be collected and used to measure outcomes.Plan lacks details about data or methods.Success is difficult to measure due to unknown outcomes, or lack of data.Evaluation plans missing or unusable.
SustainabilityProjects can be sustained beyond grant period if results warrant.Projects are temporary, designed to end when grant ends, or to secure commitment beyond grant period.Planning for the future is based on assumptions without supporting evidence.No plans appear in proposal.
Total Score
Recommend Funding?YesPartial $_______Not at this time
Additional Comments

"*" indicates required fields

DD slash MM slash YYYY
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.