Scoring Considerations
The Organizational Development Committee and NKY ASAP Director organize and implement a review process. Reviewers are recruited from the Board and community partners. The NKY ASAP Director provides each reviewer with applications to review, instructions/training, and the NKY ASAP application scoring tool.
Reviewers meet and compare/discuss scored applications. Reviewers note any follow up questions to be asked of applicants and the NKY ASAP Director follows up as needed.
Reviewers submit proposals deemed “eligible” and/or recommendations for applications to fund to the NKY ASAP Director who provides the information via a “scoring summary document” to the Organizational Development Committee. The Organizational Development Committee makes a recommendation to the Executive Committee of the Board. When possible, the Board shares the recommendations with the full NKY ASAP Board prior to any submission (for feedback, etc.). The NKY ASAP Director notifies projects of approval or decline for the application by email. Declined projects receive feedback for continuous quality improvement.
Scoring
90-100: Proposal appears complete, accurate, comprehensive, effective, and reasonable with no significant deficiencies.
80-89: Proposal appears complete, accurate, comprehensive, effective, and reasonable with only minor deficiencies that must be addressed prior to funding.
70-79: Proposal has significant deficiencies that the applicant must correct prior to funding
<69: Proposal appears to have major deficiencies and does not qualify for funding.
Counties/Population to be served with this funding:
____#, _____urban, ______rural, _____youth, ____adult, ____older adult, _____other(s)
No more than 6 pages was submitted (including budgets):
Yes No Unsure
Will the project collaborate with other organizations?
Yes No Unsure
Does project timeline coincide?
Yes No Unsure
Statement of Problem (20 points):
• Statement of the problem applicant is trying to address through programming is clearly described; specific data is provided
Summary of the Project (20 points):
• Project/Program description is clean and concise and adequately outlines proposed services. Consider target population, geographic boundaries and number of individuals served being clearly defined
SMART Goals/Objectives (20 points):
• Goals and Objectives are SMART
– Specific: What is the goal they are trying to realize?
– Measurable: How much? How often? How many?
– Attainable: Is it achievable?
– Realistic: Do you have the time/resources to achieve the goal?
– Timely: When will it happen? What is a realistic timeframe?
Evaluation (10 points):
• Evaluation process is clearly outlined and sufficient to collect needed data
Sustainability (10 points):
• Adequately describes if and/how the organization plans to sustain the project/activity after this funding has ended
Budget (20 points):
• Proposed budget provides consistent, accurate calculations as well as adequate budget narrative explanations which support funding expenditures
TOTAL POINTS AWARDED:
Clarification is needed:
Comments: