Government Regulations on Fundraising: Proposal Evaluation

Government Regulations on Fundraising: Proposal Evaluation

Name:
Institution:

Government Regulations on Fundraising: Proposal Evaluation

Part I

1. Yes. Regarding the said topic, I do agree that I have read sufficient literature to realize that the respective project is worth my effort as well as time. It is important to mention that the issue of grants is a rather wide topic. However, by limiting to the relationship between not-for-profit organizations and government regulations, I have amassed enough information to deliver a rational research project.

• The project will advance the frontiers of knowledge significantly by providing information on the policies set aside in order to guide not-for-profit organizations when requesting for funds for specific projects.
• Indeed. Much of the information that is inculcated in the proposal is derived from a grant writer from a familiar not-for-profit organization.

2. Yes. I have considered the unwarranted consequences that may arise from the respective research problem. This is reinforced by the significant amount of literature I have collected in respect to the project.

• The good thing about my research project involves its assessment of processes that are not particularly known to the public. Most people see fundraising as a non-regulated and rather informal process. However, the project attacks such thoughts.
• The main potential pitfall involves the lack of sufficient information due to the substantial nature of the topic in question.

3. The main research process that will follow will involve the use of a qualitative design.

• The review of literature will involve the use of past information from peer reviewed articles and notable scholarly sources related to the topic at hand.
• Data collection will require the use of qualitative-based measures, specifically approaches such as focus interviews and open-ended questionnaires
• Interpretation of the collected data may require the use of a comparative analysis that will compare between the answers given and hypothetical information amassed from literature.

4. The research tools that are presently available for use comprise assignment calculators and library databases.

Part II

1. The statement of the problem is clear and not obscured by discussion of other subjects that may be difficult to find. In fact, it clearly addresses the consequences that arise from fundraising regulations on not-for-profit organizations.

2. The proposal overlooks the description of the methodology that will be implemented in order to conduct the research.

3. The proposal succeeds in representing a number of sub problems that emanate from the main issue. However, it does not specify the approach that will be used in resolving the respective problems due to the lack of interpretation.

4. The proposal maintains a clear organizational structure. By looking at the issue from a general standpoint and dividing it into specific areas, the reader has ease in isolating the discourse pertaining to the problem. Despite this, other aspects such as the methodology are unclear.

5. The proposal possesses generalized and specific terminologies. The use of particular terms arises as the research proposal continues.

6. The proposal format does not particularly follow the guidelines set by the funding agency or the approval group regarding the structure of grant or fundraising requests.

7. All of the sources that have been cited in the proposal appear in the list of references. In addition to this, they are cited and referenced appropriately within the paper and in the reference list as well in accordance with APA guidelines.

8. The problem manages to address the research area asserted by the funding agency since it focuses on the repercussions imposed on such agencies due to regulations imposed on fundraising.

9. The proposal stays within the confines of the grant funds that are available for the proposed project.

10. Items that are included within the budget are permitted by the conditions outlined in the grant.

11. However, it is evident that a proper and explicit budget statement based on the program costs is absent. Nonetheless, a summary on the projected expenses is definite and clear.

12.  The importance of the study has been explained clearly in the proposal. In fact, the reason given is sufficient to denote a connection between the purpose for the grant and the study itself.