FY13 Grant Reviewer Training

1. FY13 Grant Reviewer Training December 13, 2012

2. Adobe Connect Participant listing showing the number of people and their names Main Viewing Area- where presentations and documents are displayed in the meeting.

3. Adobe Connect Have a question? Type in your questions in the chat box.

4. Adobe Connect These are notes from the host. Important information is included here.

5. Adobe Connect Any files provided by host or presenter are included here. Click on the DOWNLOAD to MY COMPUTER button and a new browser window will open for each file you download

6. About 21CCLC Enable communities to design and implement effective out-of-school program MODELS that will result in improved student achievement, and be enhanced by and sustained through community partnerships beyond the term of the grant. • Total FY13 Funding for Awards: $5,658,457.45 • Total FY13 Funding Request: $11M +

7. For More Info on Iowa 21CCLC Iowa Dept. of Education 21CCLC Webpage Shortened url: http://bit.ly/iowa21cclc Iowa 21CCLC Wiki http://iowa21cclc.wikispaces.com

8. Peer Review Process • 19 readers • 22 applications • Comments are required for scores less than full points (let grantees know WHY they did not meet the rubric criteria)

9. Reader Responsibilities • Becoming thoroughly familiar with the 21CCLC application, including program priorities. • Understanding how to apply the scoring criteria. • Maintaining confidentiality. • Reporting any conflicts of interest. • Not evaluating one application against another, rather evaluating each application against the scoring criteria. • Preparing constructive strength and weakness comments on the Application Review Form. • Attending the Readers Conference and actively participating in discussions. • Ensuring all required forms are completed and submitted.

10. Confidentiality • Only discuss apps with other readers, Iowa DOE staff, and IAA staff. • You may not discuss an application or your written comments or scores with anyone else before, during, or after the panel review. • Do not divulge the names of the other reviewers, the names of applicants, the number of applications received, reviewer scores, or the results of your team discussions. • Reviewers’ comments enjoy a similar confidentiality and review forms are never distributed to applicants with the reviewer’s name. A list of reviewers’ names may be furnished, however, if requested.

11. Conflict of Interest • The Iowa Department of Education is committed to ensuring a fair, equitable, and transparent grant review process. • Conflicts of interest are any relationships that may impair your ability to judge applications objectively according to the scoring criteria. • You should not score any application with which you are affiliated.

12. Reading the Applications • Read with a purpose. • Focus on information related to the scoring criteria. • Skim over nonessential information. • Concentrate on key words/phrases. • Read critically. • Read quickly. • Don’t try to memorize. • Take notes! • Relax and clear your mind of personal concerns. • Minimize distractions.

13. If Fraud or False Statements Suspected • If you are participating in an ED peer review and you believe a grant application (from an LEA, for example) has false information, should you stop the process or let the process continue? • You should promptly stop the review and notify the State Consultant of your concern, so that we can make a determination before you continue the review of the grant application

14. Scoring • The applicant’s intentions must be clear and specific, not obscured by jargon. • The ideas presented must flow logically. • The application must provide the complete response to the scoring criteria. • The activities outlined in the different sections of the application must be consistent with each other. • The activities proposed by the applicant must be consistent with current, accepted knowledge and ideas in that field. • Do not score on grammar or spelling.

15. Always include your reviewer/team code on all pages! Scoring Worksheets

16. Writing Comments ***If you assign the application any score below “Extensive Evidence,” you MUST provide comments for your score.***Please be constructive when providing your comments. Positive comments are helpful to the applicant, as well as comments explaining weak scores.

17. Questions Next Up: Application Section-by-Section

18. Eligibility and Priorities Please double-check these priorities! Will request competitive priority on the COVER PAGE Absolute priority: target population will be students from schools designated as Title I school-wide eligible (minimum40 percent FRPL) Competitive priorities: • Schools designated as schools in need of improvement (SINA) under Title I • Joint submission of application between Title I schools and CBOs

19. Application Review Cover Page (includes request for competitive priority up to 10 additional points possible) Table of Contents (not scored) – fit on single page Narrative Text (total possible 100 points) Proposal Abstract (not scored) – maximum 2 pages Student Needs Assessment (20 points) – maximum 3 pages Project (20 points) – maximum 3 pages Research Base (5 points) – maximum 1 page Management Plan (20 points) – maximum 3 pages Communication Plan (5 points) – maximum 1 page Partnerships (10 points) – maximum 2 pages (not including MOUs or Letters of Support) Evaluation (10 points) – maximum 2 pages Budget Narrative (10 points) – maximum 2 pages Memoranda of Understanding or Letters of Support (not scored) Required Forms (not scored)

20. Student Needs Assessment 20 Total Points 2.1 Provide strong evidence utilizing objective data that very clearly defines: • the student need for a before and/or after school program (may include weekends, holiday and summer); • evaluates school and community resources available; • and convincingly documents how proposed program will address student needs (including needs of students with working families). Required students need data: Title programs data available from the Iowa Department of Education and data describing achievement gaps. 2.2 Must provide evidence that a wide variety of stakeholders, including youth, parents, and partners, were engaged in the identification of needs and development of the program. Student needs template provided with application.

21. Needs Assessment Scoring Hints • Template provided to applicants outlined minimal requirements for needs assessment. • Student poverty and associated needs • Student achievement and associated needs • Family needs • Additional needs, including motivation to learn, attendance, etc. • Additional information required on need for BAS and engaging stakeholders.

22. Project20 Total Points 3.1 Must show evidence that proposed academic, enrichment, and family literacy activities are linked to the student needs assessment described in the “Student Needs Assessment” section. 3.2 Application must propose a variety of 1) academic, 2) enrichment, and 3) family literacy services that fit within the 14 eligible federal activities listed in the RFA. 3.3 Based on the second principle of effectiveness, goals and objectives for all activities must be described. 3.4 Alignment with school day instruction through relationships with school staff, alignment with state and national standards, or through the CSIP must be evidenced. 3.5 The eligible organization’s experience in providing educational and related activities that will complement and enhance the academic performance, achievement, and positive youth development of students must be described.

23. Project Scoring Hints • All activities must fit within 14 allowable categories listed on page 12 of RFA. • Should vary among 14 categories. • Must include activities focusing on: • Academic Support • Academic Enrichment • Family Services • Basic Q: do the activities sound engaging? Would you be interested in seeing them in action?

24. Research Base5 Total Points

25. Management Plan20 Total Points 5.1 A plan to ensure effective staffing, including recruitment and retention of highly qualified staff, professional development, effective leadership (including how leadership will maintain alignment with school day instruction), and how the program will use volunteers, specifically seniors, to support high-quality programming. 5.2 Plan for studenttransportation to and from the program, where appropriate, and student access, including translation services, serving students with disabilities, and the inclusivity of program facilities. 5.3 The development and engagement of a stakeholder advisory group and organizational or program leadership structure. 5.4 Plan for continuous program improvement and sustainability of the program following the end of 21CCLC funding, including a description of how resources will be combined or coordinated with the proposed program for the most effective use of public funds.

26. Management Plan Scoring Hints • Should get a good idea of how they will run the program. • Should give a good overview of leadership and advisory structure. • Must provide good overview of plans for staffing, including hiring and recruitment, plans for PD, and oversight.

27. Communication Plan5 Total Points • Describe the outreach strategies or activities to be employed to share evaluation and other program information, frequency of use, and estimation of the methods’ impacts on the program. • Target audiences for outreach activities must include, but are not limited to, the broader community, parents, youth, and partners.

28. Partnerships10 Total Points 7.1 Describe existing organizational and/or programmatic partnerships and the partners’ roles in programming and/or sustainability. 7.2 Describe a plan for meaningfully engaging partners over lifetime of grant, recruiting new partners, and maintaining relationships. MOUs and/or letters of support included provide additional detail as to the quality of partnerships but are NOT SCORED.

29. Partnerships Scoring Hints • They must explain the role and impact of partners, not simply that they have partnerships. This is key! • They can explain in-kind and financial support in this section.

30. Adult Literacy Partnerships • Adult Literacy Partnerships- Many Community Colleges in Iowa offer FREE adult literacy and GED preparation. We encourage all grantees to partner with their regional colleges to support adult literacy. • The 21st Century grant is not a GED program. A list of Iowa Community Colleges is provided in the application. See appendix G for more details.

31. Evaluation10 Total Points 8.1 Application must provide evidence that an experienced evaluator is in place that has the capacity and experience to conduct a comprehensive, rigorous evaluation of program effectiveness, both at the local level and in cooperation with Iowa Department of Education, and the intent to provide all requested data and program information to the state. 8.2 Application must provide evidence of how evaluation results will be used to refine, improve, and strengthen the program and build community support. The proposed evaluation procedures must align with the project’s goals, objectives, and program activities. The application must provide a detailed plan, including timelines, to make the evaluation results public in a form and language that is easily understood.

32. Evaluation Scoring Hints • Does evaluation plan mention activities outlined on pages 15-17 of RFA? • Should include local evaluation plans and participation in state level activities. • Should feel confident that a high-quality evaluation will be carried out by grantee.

33. Budget Narrative10 Total Points 9.1 Application must provide detailed justification for each line item from Form D2, including how each expenditure is necessary and reasonable and how each expenditure aligns with proposed activities. 9.2 Application must describe how the program seeks to supplement, rather than supplant, current funding.

34. Budget Narrative Scoring Hints • Are all expenditures justified and reasonable? • Do expenditures align with proposed activities? • Does budget set aside required/recommended allotments for PD, access, evaluation, and admin? • Is the budget well constructed to minimize need for amendments later in the contract? • Are funds supplementing existing services?

35. Supplementing, Not Supplanting • When determining whether a fiscal expenditure supplements and not supplants, school districts must run these three tests. • Test I: Required – Is the program or activity that the district wants to fund required under state, local, or another federal law? If it is, then it is supplanting. • Test II: Equivalency – Were state or local funds used in the past to pay for this program or activity? If they were, it is supplanting. • Test III: Non-Title Programs – Are the same programs or activities being implemented in other schools that do not receive Title funds AND are these programs and activities being paid for with state or local funds? If yes, then this is supplanting. • You cannot use federal funds to backfill – that is supplanting. If an expenditure does not pass any of the above tests, then it is presumed that Title funds are supplanting state or local funds. Expenditures must pass all three tests to truly be supplemental.

36. Continuation Grants Eligible Previous grantees must continue the original level of service to the original number of students served in the fifth and final year of their previous grant. Effective partnerships within the community allow for more efficient use of local resources. Collaboration among diverse partners strengthens the variety of services the community can offer. For example: volunteers help staff the program, community partners provide space for the program to be held, and local businesses can provide cash donations to supplement costs and provide long term sustainability to offset reductions in funding and when the grant funding expires. Must complete Form D4 – Budget must reflect ability to maintain level of programming from previous grant

37. Example Application

38. Directions • Read and score each application individually at home. • Submit ALL score sheets for each application to Michelle Rich at mrich@sppg.comprior to the January 3 Readers’ Conference. We will make copies for you! • Each team will complete a score sheet for each application on Jan. 3 representing a consensus score.

39. Additional Questions?

40. Contact Information Vic Jaras Vic.jaras@iowa.gov; (515) 242-6354 Michelle Rich mrich@sppg.com; (515) 237-0328