Application for Workload Equivalence (WKE) for Grant Writing/Development
1. Applicant Information
a. Name
b. Department
c. Previous grant writing experience (funded and unfunded proposals; 1/2 page maximum)
2. Funding Source to which Proposal will be Submitted
a. Agency/Organization
b. Length of funding cycle
c. Estimated funding levels
d. Number and size of awards
e. Typical project duration
f. Amount of funding being sought ($100,000 minimum)
3. RFP Summary– 1 page maximum: summarize key elements of the RFP. Include a web link to the RFP.
4. Description of Proposed Program/Research- 2 pages maximum, four sections below. Use language that can be
understood by a colleague who is not an expert in the discipline.
a. Purpose and Significance – summary of the scholarly importance of the program or research, proposal
summary; as appropriate: research question, hypothesis, goals/objectives, anticipated results, benefits to
California University.
b. Methods and Procedures – summary of how the project will be implemented; as appropriate: approaches,
research methodologies, frameworks, data-gathering techniques, resources required (including faculty, staff,
students, graduate assistants, etc.).
c. Outcomes and Deliverables - summary of anticipated results, outcomes, deliverables, etc.
d. Dissemination of Results - plan to disseminate results: journal articles, presentations, web pages, etc.
5. Collaborators – list Co-PIs, partners, and collaborators at Cal U and other organizations, briefly describe their roles
6. Grant Writer's Competitiveness – 1 page maximum: description of the grant writer's potential to win the grant award
being sought: summary of previous related research experience, pilot data collected, completion of RFP-focused
workshop or grant-writer training, grant writing/directing experience, communication with program manager,
invitation to submit, etc.
Application for WKE for Grant Writing/Development
Page 1 of 3
7. Funding Agency Timeline - due dates for LOI, preliminary proposal, full proposal, award date, etc.
8. Proposal Development Timeline - list specific tasks to be completed for proposal development leading to submission
prior to the deadline. Include sufficient time for the Office of Sponsored Programs & Research Quality Circles Review, if
required.
9. Proposed Replacement for WKE
a. Course to be assigned to temp faculty:
b. Semester/Year in which WKE will be used:
Fall/
Spring/
=========================================================================================
SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
A. Faculty member – email the completed form to your department chair.
B. Department Chair – to verify available temp faculty and department support; enter your name, and email the form to
the Office of Sponsored Programs & Research (vogrig@calu.edu).
C. Department Chair Endorsement – Enter name and email completed form to vogrig@calu.edu.
I verify that temporary faculty are available to cover the course and that the department supports the proposal.
Chair Name:
Application for WKE for Grant Writing/Development
Page 2 of 3
Evaluation Rubric
Evaluators will score each application in the following categories as excellent, good, fair, or poor.
Item
Excellent Good
Fair
Poor
Evaluators – write in the number on the scale for your rating of each item 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Adherence to Guidelines. The application form is filled out completely and
correctly. Chair endorsement is included. The application includes all of the
components required and the proposed Program/Research sections are
appropriately labeled. The page limits are within the guidelines described.
Purpose and Significance. The narrative describes why the project has scholarly
importance. T he research question, hypothesis, goals/objectives, anticipated results,
and benefits to the University are adequately described. The proposed
Program/Research project can be easily understood by a colleague who is not an
expert in the field.
Methods and Procedures. The manner in which the proposed Program/Research
project will be implemented is clearly described, including, as appropriate:
approaches, research methodologies, frameworks, data-gathering techniques, and
resources required (including faculty, staff, students, graduate assistants, etc.). The
methods and procedures indicate that the project is well conceived and well
planned.
Outcomes and Deliverables. The anticipated results, outcomes, deliverables are
described clearly, are likely to be achieved, and will make a significant contribution
to the applicant, the university, and the disciplinary scholarly community.
Dissemination of Results. The manner in which the results of the proposed
project will be disseminated is clearly described, including journal articles, papers,
presentations, books, web pages, and other scholarly products. The proposed
project is likely to result in scholarly products that will have significant impact on the
applicant, the university, and the disciplinary scholarly community.
Collaborators. Any partners or collaborators at Cal U or other organizations are
identified and their roles described clearly.
Grant Writer’s Competitiveness. The grant writer’s potential to win the grant
award being sought is adequately described with a summary of any relevant previous
work or preparations made.
Proposal Timeline. The grant writer’s listing of tasks to be completed for proposed
project development is clear and reasonable and aligned with the funding agency’s
timeline.
Proposed Replacement for WKE. The course to be assigned to temp faculty is
identified along with the semester and year in which the WKE will be used.
Scoring Guide - Evaluators will then assign a holistic score to the application. The score is informed by the ratings on the
above rubric.
5 Fund without reservation - Application meets all the requirements for category 4, and exceeds them in quality, strength,
value. The proposed Program/Research project is compelling. Application ranks among the strongest submitted.
4
High priority for funding – Proposed Program/Research project is highly significant, with clearly articulated methodology,
and has demonstrable and worthwhile outcomes. Proposed Program/Research is clear and effective to a lay reader. The
application meets criteria for prioritized eligibility.
3
2
1
Fundable - Proposed Program/Research project meets all guideline criteria, has significance, draws on appropriate
methodologies, and the outcomes are of value. The application is clear and effective. The value or strength of the proposal in
one or more key categories is not as robust or demonstrable as it might be. Compared to other proposals, the value is less
evident.
Fundable with significant revisions - Application does not meet all guideline criteria, meets some key requirements, but does
not satisfy one or more category or requires significant rethinking or revision. The perceived weaknesses may be a result of
quality of the proposed Program/Research.
Do not fund - Application does not meet the criteria defined in the guidelines. Key requirements of the application are not
included. Applicant is encouraged to rethink the viability of the proposed Program/Research and/or the nature of the project.
Reviewed by: __________________
Application for WKE for Grant Writing/Development
Page 3 of 3