Review criteria
The published standards an application is scored against, usually with weights — need, approach, capacity, evaluation, budget. Where a notice publishes them, they are the most useful paragraphs in it, and they are prose rather than data.
Part of the GrantTrove grant funding glossary — one entry for every field the catalogue stores.
Also called Evaluation criteria · Scoring criteria
In detail
Weights are the part most often skimmed and most worth reading. A criterion worth forty percent and one worth ten are not both "important", and treating them as equal is how effort goes to the wrong section.
Foundation calls frequently publish no criteria at all, which is a real difference in transparency between sectors rather than a gap in anyone’s data.
Against the fields we extract
We extract facts a record can hold: amounts, dates, eligibility, use of funds, the source link and the verification stamp. Criteria are argumentative prose with weights, and summarising them into a field would turn the funder’s standard into our paraphrase of it. The notice is linked instead.
How GrantTrove stores it
- `source_url` links the notice on every record, and `last_verified_at` says when we last confirmed that page still matched.
- The record page names the classes of information not extracted, so an absence is a stated boundary rather than something a reader has to infer from empty space.
Common questions
Do you extract review criteria?
No. They are prose with weights, and a paraphrase would become our claim rather than the funder’s.
Why do foundations publish fewer?
Practice varies by sector. Federal notices are required to publish; foundations are not.
Where do I find them?
In the notice, which every record links.