SAA Foundation Grant Program Application Evaluation Procedures

1. Committee Responsibilities

The Grant Review Committee (the “Committee”) is an appointed body of the SAA Foundation Board. The Purpose, Composition, Terms, Reporting Procedures, and Duties/Responsibilities of the committee are detailed at SAA Foundation Grant Review Committee.

In addition, the Committee is responsible for reviewing and updating these grant application procedures and guidelines, as needed.

2. Funding Priorities

The SAA Foundation Board awards grants that meet the mission and goals of the Foundation and/or the strategic planning priorities of the Society of American Archivists (SAA). Applicants must make direct and substantive reference to the way(s) in which an award of funds will advance one or more of the strategic goals of the SAA Foundation and/or the SAA. To set reasonable expectations for applicants, the Board endeavors to publicize special concerns within the SAA Foundation funding priorities and invite applications in those areas.

Current funding priorities and eligibility requirements are detailed at SAA Foundation Catalyst Grant: Application Process and Guidelines.

3. Catalyst Grant Cycle

The annual grant cycle follows:

November 1: Application Portal Opens
January 31: Application Portal Closes (5:00 PM Central Time)
February – April: Grant application review
May: Award Recommendation approved by the SAA Foundation Board Meeting
May: Awardee notifications and distribution of funds

4. Application Review Guidelines

The Committee will evaluate and make a recommendation to the Board on every grant application that it receives after an invitation to apply. The Committee shall consider, but not be limited by, the following criteria in making its recommendations:

Appropriateness of the methods (reliability, validity, population, etc.)
Overall impact of the project on the profession or a segment thereof
Uniqueness of the activity and/or project (has it been done before)
Availability of other equally useful routes to achieving a similarly valuable outcome
Soundness of the work plan, techniques, tools, and human resources.

The Committee also should confirm that:

Applicants meet eligibility requirements (See SAA Foundation Catalyst Grant: Application Process and Guidelines)
Funding requests fall within the award guidelines (e.g., $500-$5,000). [Note that the Committee may consider proposals that exceed funding guidelines if there are compelling reasons to do so.]
Unambiguous evidence has been provided to identify the individual and/or the entity that will be the recipient of the funds and who will conduct the work.
The proposal addresses the overall mission and priorities of Foundation and/or SAA.
The applicant pointedly addresses how the proposal implements or advances at least one of the goals or activities of the SAA strategic plan.
The proposed activity is not covered under other funding initiatives (e.g., National Disaster Recovery Fund for Archives, Annual Meeting Awards Fund).
The proposed expenses for which funding is requested meet eligibility requirements.
Any/all conflicts of interest have been identified. (See Section 5 below.)

Requests for Additional Information. As necessary, the Committee chair will assign a Committee member as the key contact to solicit additional information from an applicant to clarify the work/activity under review (methods, product, sponsor, budget use, qualifications, impact, etc.). The key contact will report their findings to the full Committee, after which the Committee will determine how best to proceed.

Expert Review. The Committee, in consultation with Board members, may consider the input of individuals who can lend expertise to the review process for proposals that involve a specialist’s knowledge, technical skills, methodologies, and/or similar unfamiliar domains. The key contact will gather this input, as deemed necessary. The Committee is not required to seek outside opinion if the substance of the proposal is within their professional competence to evaluate.

Consulted experts should make every attempt to: (1) evaluate statements of fact and declarative statements made by the applicant/proposal, and (2) assess the overall value of the proposed activity to the profession. Such inquiries should protect the confidentiality of the application process for both the applicant and reviewer.

Evaluation Forms. An Evaluation Form is used to formally record the Committee’s assessment of each application and prepare a recommendation for the Board.

All evaluations are anonymous and confidential in source beyond the Committee; however, the Chief Executive Officer may share the contents of the reviews with the applicant upon request.

5. Committee Recommendations

The Committee will confer in real time (via phone conference or in person) at least once to review and vote on all pending grant proposals, to reconcile differences in evaluations of individual proposals, and to prepare final recommendations for the Board. A final decision about how to allocate the available funds in the annual distribution should not occur until all proposals have been received and evaluated in the annual grant cycle. An exception to this rule may be an expedited request from the Foundation Board, SAA Council, or SAA Execuitve Committee to meet an extraordinary contingency situation.. All votes of the Committee to recommend (or not to recommend) a grant to the Foundation Board shall be by vote. All voting members of the committee are required to vote unless they have an acknowledged conflict of interest.

6. Conflicts of Interest

During the evaluation, Committee members will review the full applications for any potential conflict of interest. If a conflict of interest is found or suspected, the Chief Executive Officer and the Board will be notified and asked to review the matter of a potential conflict of interest before the Committee puts forward its final recommendation.

Members of the Committee and Foundation Board members are expected to announce a potential conflict of interest and to recuse themselves from any decision-making role or vote on a grant proposal that originates from or benefits an entity with which the member has a personal or other association. (Such association is one that a reasonable person could perceive as leading to favorable or unfavorable treatment on any basis other than a strictly professional and unbiased evaluation.) No current Committee or Foundation Board member may be the direct recipient of Foundation grant funds or be reimbursed or paid with Foundation funds for serving, in any capacity, an entity receiving a Foundation grant. No Committee member may serve as a key contact for an applicant if that member is familiar with the applicant or could be perceived as having a conflict of interest in fairly assessing or representing the applicant's proposal.

7. Post-Award Accountability

In consultation with the Chief Executive Officer, the Committee will prepare a brief report to the Board on the work of the Committee, including its recommendations for improving the grant application and review process and other useful observations that will assist the next Committee.

The Committee will work with the Chief Executive Officer to examine and monitor previous grant awards for expected outcomes and measures. If deemed necessary, the Committee (or the Chief Executive Officer) will report to the Board on the recipients’ grant activity within 12 months of the conclusion of the grant cycle.

Adopted by the SAAF Board, August 2016. Revisions approved November 2018; August 2021, October 2024.