ZICA VIRUS , PLS DO NOT BID IF YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE,, 20-25 PAGES
Grant Scoring Tool
| Part I-Background, Needs Assessment and Community Analysis (130 total points) | /130 | ||
| 35-50 Part 1A-Background and Needs Assessment | 18-34 | 0-17 | Comments and score |
| 23-Background and Needs Assessment are accurate, content correct. Has national data with citations, moving to local data for population. 2-Population well defined and identified. 8-Appropriate and diverse/complete data sources used. Need is clear. 10-Community Analysis is thorough and done using the PATCH Model..in a way that indicates a strong understanding of it. 7-Logic Model present, complete, correct, thorough, succinct | Background and needs assessment are accurate, but small content errors. Need is somewhat clear Population well defined. Data sources are appropriate, but not complete/diverse. Community Analysis is done using the PATCH Model and shows moderate understanding of the model. It is not as thorough as it could be. Logic Model present, missing one or two items to left | Background and needs assessment have major errors. Population is not identified or is not well defined. Data sources are not appropriate. Need isn’t clear or supported. Community Analysis is vague and/or shows minimal/no understanding of how to use PATCH LM missing or very vague/inaccurate, incorrect, …. | |
| 4-5 Part 1 B-Statement of Purpose | 2-3 | 0-1 | |
| 4-Purpose of the grant is clearly articulated. 1-Purpose clearly aligns with Part A above | Purpose is not as clearly articulated. Purpose somewhat/partially aligns with Part A above. | Purpose not stated, or stated purposed doesn’t match grant Doesn’t align with Part A above | |
| 45-55 Part 1 C-Work Plan or Implementation Plan | 25-44 | 0-24 | |
| --9-Clearly identifies at least one model that supports programming in a way that demonstrates a strong understanding of the model. --5-model clearly supports programming --3-has three column chart with goals at top, objectives, strategies, assessment or evaluation. --10-all or almost all objectives are SMART ---6 three columns align with each other. ---6-they align with the grant ---6-Brief narrative explaining major components of programming ---5-work plan/chart with assigned duties, person, timeline ---5-excel spreadsheet timeline present and matches work plan (appendix) | At least one model is identified, but not clear that it supports the programming or demonstrates moderate understanding of the model Model moderately supports program Uses wrong or incomplete chart. More than half the objectives are SMART Three columns align with each other ---more than half the time. They align with grant more than half the time. Narrative is unclear. Work plan/chart is incomplete Excel spreadsheet doesn’t match the work plan. | No model identified, or model is not explained correctly, or shows little to no understanding of the model. Model doesn’t support program. Chart missing Fewer than half the objectives are SMART Three columns are present, but align with each other less than half the time. Align with grant less than half time. Narrative is missing. Work plan is missing Excel spreadsheet is missing | |
| Part ID Evaluation-20 points total | |||
| 15-20 | 8-14 | 0-7 | |
| 5- Narrative explains how evaluation from part I will occur. 10- Adequate samples (2-4) of evaluation tools are present (appendices). 5- Evaluation tools measure what they should and are appropriate. | Narrative is not as clear or thorough as it could be. Less than adequate samples present. More than half … | Narrative is missing or doesn’t explain the charts from above None Fewer than half do or are missing. | |
| Part 2- Capacity and Organizational Support (total 30 points) | /35 | ||
| 15-20 Part 2A-Capacity and Support | 10-14 | 0-9 | |
| 5-Narrative describes staffing, equipment and other resources needed. Does this succinctly and thoroughly 5-Clearly explains strong existing relationship with population. 5-Identifies advisory board and its members 5-Explains existing relationships with other agencies and organizations that demonstrate capacity. | Narrative is brief or not thorough enough. Or it doesn’t support what is in Parts I and II. Relationships are minimal and do not demonstrate existing relationships Advisory board identified, but there are omissions in members Existing relationships with orgs and agencies do not show a strong capacity | Narrative is non-existent or doesn’t match anything that has been written. Relationship with population is not explained. Advisory board is not identified. Capacity is not demonstrated. | |
| 11-15 Part 2B. Budgets | 6-10 | 0-5 | |
| 3-Both budgets are present and in correct format. 3-Both budgets match each other. 5-Budgets are within grant requirement. 4-There are no errors in math, calculations or descriptions | Both budgets are present, but there are errors. Budgets do not match each other Budget is too low to be seriously considered for the grant. | Only one or no budget present. Budget is over the max allowed. Major errors in math and calculations. | |
| Appendices 5 points | /5 | ||
| 4-5 | 2-3 | 0-1 | |
| All appendices from above are present Other appropriate items are included Examples-advisory board members, job descriptions, description of organization, organizational flow chart, data charts | Not everything is present should be present | Most/all appendices are missing. | |
| Formatting-30-points | /30 | ||
| 24-30 | 12-23 | 0-11 | |
| -8--Correct formatting is used, font size, spacing, margins, pages. -2--Source list and title page Optional TOC 10--0-1 s/g errors 10-0-1 APA errors | Loss of 2 points for each item that is wrong 1-One item missing 5-9 for 2-6 s/g errors 5-9 for 2-3 APA errors | Same Both missing 0-4 points for more than 6 errors 0-4 points for more than 3 errors | |
| Total | /200 Conversion to /250 |
Chart for Work Plan Section Part I C
Goal:
| Objectives | Strategies | Assessment |
