{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015028901734104046, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.972413793103448, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Objective Rating Form to Evaluate Grant Proposals to the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health

The lack of support for mental health–related projects by private philanthropy, even among those that express an interest in mental health, is due in large part to the subjectivity of the grant review process. To address this problem, Whaley, Rodriguez, and Alexander developed the Grant Proposal Rating Form (GPRF) to make the grant review process more objective at the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health. The purpose of the current study is to establish the ecological validity of the GPRF by a pilot study of its implementation in the actual grant review process of the foundation. The overall results of this pilot study did not yield consistently favorable psychometric outcomes as the original study by Whaley et al. The implications of these results are discussed.