2019 RFP External Reviewer Guide

First, thank you.  Your reviews are essential to our award selection process.  You will narrow the field of about 35 applicants to a small pool of semi-finalists from which the JRS Board will select about 10 finalists.

Please read this guide carefully and endeavor to understand our strategy and priorities.  We are looking for projects with the potential for long-term impact on the development of biodiversity data and knowledge systems (see our Strategy and Programs).  It would be valuable to review the grants we approved in 2016, 2017, and 2018 as we seek to build synergy among our projects. Time spent up-front to get to know JRS will greatly speed your reviews and rankings.  Download this guide here: 2019 RFP External Grant Reviewer Guide.

Please ask me questions! Call or write anytime: (206) 454-7915, JRSRFP@jrsbiodiversity.org

1.  Assess applications through the lens of JRS’ strategy.

Our goal is to increase the access to and value of biodiversity data and information services in sub-Saharan Africa. We achieve our goal by funding projects where the demand for knowledge for conservation and economic development will sustain and grow our investments in people, systems and infrastructure.  Freshwater Biodiversity and Resources and Pollinator Biodiversity and Services are the two program areas where we seek demand-driven projects that will increase the access to and value of biodiversity data and information services.

We achieve our goal by supporting capacity development in sub-Saharan Africa. We prioritize projects with long-term strategies for building and maintaining capacity in Africa.  We are not funders of research nor seeking to answer research questions; the data, information services and capacity that we support may be applied to research as well to conservation action and economic development.

2.  View these applications as subject to revision.

The grant applications can be viewed as “pre-proposals”.  We work with potential grantees and can request significant revisions to raise the quality of the project plans, improve partnerships, and to align with our strategy. Your notes of what would improve the project are essential – if the core elements are worth funding. In our experience, every project team benefits from additional planning.

Any application might be deferred to do additional planning.  If an application isn’t quite ready for funding, let us know.  A few of these applications could be offered some time and funds for better planning and better partnership formation. One of the choices for your final funding recommendations is to recommend funding a 4-month or 8-month planning phase.

3.  Rank planning grant applications based on their final goal.

Only rank a planning grant highly if you think the product of that planning process would rank that high as compared to other projects! We only fund planning processes when we are keenly interested in the eventual project. Planning grants must be specific about where they are going and specific about the uncertainties that they will address in the planning phase.

4.  Your comments and insights are very valuable.

Every question in the form has a place for comments. Be candid, honest and constructive.  Reviewers’ comments have a significant impact on how we ask applicants to revise their proposals.  Please don’t waste any effort restating any aspect of the proposal – just share your judgment.

5.  We ask you to rank the proposals by funding priority.

Grantmaking is not a science.  We will award about $2,500,000 among 10-12 proposals.  Our questions ask you to score the proposal on absolute or relative scales and then, finally, to rank them.  Please try to use the full five-point scale among your reviews so that the differences among the ratings of proposals can be discerned. Don’t be shy about ranking low to use the full 1-5 scale as we must use your scores and rankings to differentiate proposals.

Our question: Will this investment create biodiversity information resources that serve the needs of users and that foster capacity development and sustained access to biodiversity knowledge?

6.  Another take on what we are looking for:

We want to foster a critical mass of valuable biodiversity knowledge resources and the trained individuals to help kick-start locally-sustained biodiversity information systems.  We believe that takes a “demand pull” on the information and not only a push from biodiversity scientists.  We know biodiversity data is not a high priority for most stakeholders and African governments, but we seek projects with clear or very plausible end-use and value in Africa. Even when there is demand, there must be strategic communications and outreach to create awareness.

Biodiversity data and informatics capacity must be central to the projects we fund.  We’re a niche funder who funds information technology and its applications to conservation. Our value isn’t to fund ecological research, to support recurring costs of field surveys, or to resolve taxonomic questions.  We use our funds to catalyze information systems that could be powerful tools over the long-term for many stakeholders and that are more valuable than any single data set that it may hold and serve.  Some proposals may need to strengthen the informatics components to ensure their long-term value.

We want to support capacity development that is motivated by, and serves priorities of, Africans for local needs.  We don’t need safe bets and JRS can bear more risk in funding in Africa than is typical of foreign donors.  JRS is too small a funder to build institutions, but we can invest in people, projects, networks, and outreach so that our successes attract attention, resources, imitation, and growth. We do not wish to fund projects where the technical expertise still resides in the U.S. or Europe at the end of the project.

Our impact will come from networks and the diffusion of ideas, models people, technology, and tools.  We don’t want “one-off” success; we seek projects led by institutions and individuals who have the talents, montivations, and legitimacy to succeed and to grow.

We hope to connect our projects literally and virtually through training, conferences, resource sharing, partnerships, outreach, and visibility.  We can do that best when grants are in the same countries or in ecosystems/regions within eastern and southern Africa. We also can add the most value to our grants the more we know about the national context, institutions, and people. Our focal countries are Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Botswana, and South Africa.  Investing outside of those countries requires a truly exceptional project. South Africa has a special place in our strategy due its high technical development. In South African projects, we look for innovations and models that might be transferred elsewhere in Africa.

Freshwater biodiversity data and pollinator biodiversity data are currently valued in different ways. The water sector is highly developed as is the awareness of the economic importance of water – though not of ecosystem services.  There is only an emergent awareness of pollinators’ biodiversity and ecosystem services and there are few or no conservation policies or agricultural policies formulated or implemented to conserve pollinators.  We expect that the freshwater projects will have more applied and evident uses of data than do the pollinator projects.  Our pollinator projects are building the foundation for data and knowledge that will inform future policy and practice.

Our projects succeed or fail due to management, leadership and institutional issues, and not due to underlying technical reasons.  Read that again!  You’ll find that few or none of these proposals are at the cutting edge of technology.  Our projects use well-established technology and good project managers will find and adapt good technical solutions. Success is driven by “organizational solutions” such as partnerships, technical competence to implement the plan, management structure, leadership talent, assessment methods, plans for adaptation, politics, and institutional legitimacy. All of these proposals address important places under threat.  Please pay as much attention to whether the project, the partnerships, outreach, and the team appear designed for success as you do to the technical validity.

Finally, and scores aside, your intuition is a powerful integrator of complex information and factors.  Try to step back, consider all the projects, and do not rank them based upon the best written proposal or the one most likely to succeed. Consider JRS’ ability to bear risk and our goal to catalyze sustainable biodiversity information systems that serve local needs and ask yourself, “which are most worth doing?”

The On-line Review Form Guide

Please use the full range of 1 to 5 so that your scores meaningfully differentiate the proposals. In every question, please think of what you would change or revise to improve the project.

A.     Is the project demand-driven and does it reflect users’ involvement and users’ needs?

Most Relevant Proposal Sections:  D. Problem in Biodiversity Information, F. Organizational Solutions, L. Organizational Background, and N. Project Partners

This is the driver of JRS’ strategy.  Please read carefully and between the lines as to whether this is ‘supply-driven’ by data providers who hope for future use or is it ‘demand-driven’ and involves or will be shaped by users. As we like to say: “hope is not a strategy.” Do the applicants seem to know and work with the end-users or is the partnership formation an activity at the start of the project? Are end-users involved in the design of the information systems? Plans that have all the outreach and training at the end, always short-change and under-perform in that aspect. A user-driven mindset should be apparent in the plans and the budget. Do the applicants present logic for how data will serve local decision-making for conservation and development?

B.     How likely is the technical strategy and approach to succeed?

Most Relevant Proposal Sections: D. Problem in Biodiversity Information, E. Technical Solution, H. Work Plan, I. Risk Management, and K. Open Access to Data Plan

Do you think that the team is taking the right technical approach to solve the stated problem in biodiversity data and knowledge access? Do they show awareness of or exploration of alternatives and justify their choices? Does the Project Director, Partners, and Organization appear to have the stated technical expertise?

  • If they are collecting field data is there a good rationale of methods, timing, and sampling?
  • If they are collecting or mobilizing museum data, do they have a good handle on work flow, data quality, and access?
  • If they are building user-facing interfaces, do they have plans for design, testing, and adaptation?
  • If they plan to develop technologies, do they have a roadmap with iterations of testing and refinement?

If you see missed opportunities or different approaches that should be considered, please note them! One of the most valuable things JRS does for grantees is to connect them to technical solutions. Does the budget seem appropriate for the proposed technical activities?

Data and knowledge access is everything to JRS.  Consider whether the project team appears knowledgeable about global data repositories, standards, data quality, software platforms, and the time involved to create software, website, or new apps? In Section G. on Goals and Measures of Success, do they have clear metrics and time-bound targets for data and knowledge access? Please comment on potential improvements or gaps.

C.     How likely is the organizational approach and the team to succeed?

Most Relevant Proposal Sections: F. Organizational Solution, H. Work Plan, I. Risk Management, and N. Project Partners

The question on organizational solutions is often the least understood and most poorly answered question in our proposals. The lack of data and information systems is not due to global absence of technology, lack of high potential people, or lack of biodiversity to assess. The information gap is due to the motivation, incentives, relationships, resources, politics, priorities, historical biases, and legitimacy of the involved communities, institutions, economies, and governments.  There are many good and many disappointing reasons why there isn’t accessible biodiversity information.  Does this proposal seem to get at some of those local or systemic barriers?

This is a question about the lead institution, project director, and the choice of partners.  Is the project team is purely technical in mindset or is thinking about what will engage users, partners, and supporters in the near-, medium-, and long-terms? To the extent that you can tell, are the right players involved in this project? If you have personal experience working in these systems, please convey your candid opinions about the proposed approach. Please note if you have doubts about the partners or individuals or whether key actors do not seem to be at the table.

D.     What is the quality of the capacity development for biodiversity informatics in the project?

Most Relevant Proposal Sections: F. Organizational Solution, J. Sustainability, O. Capacity Development, N. Project Partners.

Capacity development is the heart of our work.  Section O. comes late in the proposal but is a key and make-or-break question.  We find that formal and experiential training over time that is coupled with roles, responsibility, and authority in the project is what helps local actors develop capacity to serve local needs. Network participation and development is a powerful tool.  We believe that training workshops at the end of a project have limited value and are often a sign of a weak concept of how to build relationships and foster capacity development. Please consider not only the activities labelled as ‘training’ but the overall impact to the recipient organization and partners from conducting the project; formal training is a complement to the more effective experiential capacity development.

Projects may appear to have a lot of capacity development activities but many of the activities might be capacity development in areas such as ecology, field work, and taxonomy.

E.      Are the Resources for Time and Money Designed for Success?

Most Relevant Proposal Sections: P. Budget Narrative

We’re often surprised that we receive very weak budget sections given it is an application to a financial institution and even though this is the one section with no word limit.  The Foundation’s job is to connect dollars to activities and results.  If something looks off, it probably is and let us know. A very common mistake is that the budget does not reflect the timing of the stated activities.  For example, we often see plans for a new staff person but salaries start in Month One or that episodic or cyclic expenses are constant throughout the project.

Do you see any red flags in the budget? How would you assess the level of resources proposed to complete the stated goals?  Consider all resources such as the direct funding, the project leader’s percentage time, the applicant’s organization and partners, duration of the project, and co-funding. Please look at the budgets and their approach to assess if the resources are in the right ball park. If the budget is too low, please estimate where it might be lacking and by how much.  If the budget is excessive, please let us know where it might be cut or what other activities and products we might ask for.  Our job is to do the detailed analysis. We ask you: Compared to the set of your proposals, does this one seem over resourced, well resourced, or under resourced? If it doesn’t seem quite right, please estimate if it is off by 10%, 20%, or 40%.

F.     The Final Funding Recommendation and Ranking

Recommendation: It has come to this, the bottom line.  We never fund proposals “as is” and always seek revisions. We might ask an applicant with a proposal to accept a planning grant instead.  If you recommend a planning grant, a new question will open to ask you why.

Ranking: Proposals don’t exist in isolation and we fund in comparison among the pool of proposals. We will likely make our final funding choice among the top third of proposals. Ranking helps reveal the terciles of which proposals appear most worthwhile to fund, which are good but not exceptional, and which do not make the grade.  You might feel uncomfortable ranking proposals that seem equal in your mind or could be equal, but we insist on sequential ranks. The portal provides an unweighted total of your scores that you can use for comparison.

Thank you!

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Which are your primary communications interest?