Building a Better Schoolyard Fence

BUILDING A BETTER SCHOOLYARD FENCE GRANTS PROGRAM-- FY 2011 U.S. Department of Fences

Dear Panelist:

Congratulations for being selected to participate as a panel member for the Building a Better Schoolyard Fence Grants Program. Launched in 2004, the Building a Better Fence Grants program is administered by the U.S. Department of Fences under the authority contained in section 1 of the Fence Act of 1990. This program is designed to stimulate and enable colleges and universities to provide high-quality, cost-effective and safe fencing that protects our nation’s children in schoolyards.

In the following pages, you will find instructions, information, and worksheets necessary for you to review your assigned proposals. Should you have any questions, your panel manager and support staff will be available to assist you. Thank you for your commitment to the panel review process.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING INDIVIDUAL AND PANEL REVIEWS

1. Read the grant program RFA document (pp. 2-3).

2. Review the Evaluation Criteria guidelines (p. 4).

3. Read the Individual Review Worksheet (p. 5).

4. Read each Proposal. Each panelist will be assigned as a primary reviewer for one proposal, and a secondary reviewer for two proposals. Primary reviewers should read their proposal carefully so that they can lead the discussion about the merits of the proposal. Secondary reviews should be prepared to contribute to the discussion.

5. Score the Proposals — Review all proposals to assess overall compliance with the Evaluation Criteria (p. 4). Your initial comments and scores may change as you move through all the proposals, and especially once you discuss the proposals with your panelists. Use the Individual Review Worksheet (p. 5) to record your thoughts and comments.

6. Discuss the Proposals. For the panel meeting, each panelist will lead a roundtable discussion for the proposal he/she has been assigned as a primary reviewer. The other two readers will also provide their comments to complete the summary review. During the discussion, the primary reviewer for each proposal will try to reach consensus among the panelists, and the secondary reviewers will have a chance to verify, revise, and/or add to their comments and scores based on the discussions.

7. Complete the Summary Review Worksheet. Once consensus has been achieved, add up the panelists’ scores and divide by three to determine the average final score for the proposal. Record this score and consensus comments on the Summary Review Worksheet (p. 6) and check only one funding box. Be prepared to discuss your score and comments during the debriefing session.

1 BUILDING A BETTER SCHOOLYARD FENCE GRANTS PROGRAM

REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS (RFA) -- FY 2011

A. Purpose and Priorities. This program is designed to stimulate and enable colleges and universities to provide high-quality, cost-effective and safe fencing that protects our nation’s children in schoolyards. Applications may be submitted by colleges and universities.

B. Program Area Description. Applications must focus their activities on one or more of the following program areas:  Fence Design and Materials Development: To promote new and improved fence designs and materials for schoolyards.  Faculty Development and Preparation for Fence Building: To promote development of college faculty teaching competencies, subject matter expertise, or skill in building fences.  Fence Delivery and Installation Systems and Strategic Partnerships: To encourage the use of alternative methods and partnerships for delivering and installing fences to enhance the quality, effectiveness, and cost efficiency of fence building.  Equipment and Instrumentation for Fence Building: To provide teachers and students with suitable, up-to-date equipment for fence building.

C. Funding Availability. For the FY 2011 award cycle, $3,000,000 is available for project grant awards. It is anticipated that approximately $100,000 will be awarded to each eligible institution for FY 2011.

D. Content and Form of Application Submission.

1. The Project Narrative. The Project Narrative shall not exceed 3 pages of written text (including the budget), single-spaced with one inch margins and ‘Times New Roman’ 12 point font.

The Project Narrative must include the following section headings:

a. Opportunity Statement: What issue or problem is being addressed and a one sentence vision statement for the program.

b. Target Audience(s) and Program Areas: Who is being impacted by the project activities and which Program Areas are to be concentrated on.

c. Specific Objectives and Activities of the Project Plan: The project should have an overall theme and strive for an overall impact on fence building within the Institution.

d. Long-Term Benefits to the College or University: Describe how project relates to any available institution or department strategic plan, roadmap or business plan.

2 e. Key Personnel and Responsibilities: Who is responsible for doing what - Include cooperating institutions roles and responsibilities and their personnel.

f. Timeframe for Completion: An outline of activities and phases with projected dates of completion and responsible personnel.

g. Expected Outcomes and Evaluation: Identify appropriate methodologies for reviewing and evaluating the project and expected project outcomes. The use of a logic model is strongly encouraged. This information may be provided as a narrative or formatted into a logic model chart. The logic model planning process is a tool that should be used to develop your project before writing your proposal. Provide the numbers of students (or faculty) currently involved in fence building activities and the number for those expected to be directly and indirectly impacted by activities.

E. The Budget. Applications must contain a budget, included in the project narrative. A Budget Narrative that justifies and documents specific expenditures and subcontracts is required.

3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following evaluation criteria and weights will be used to evaluate proposals submitted for funding (weight is in parentheses; 100 total points):

A. Quality of Application; Opportunity Statement; Program Objectives (25 points): This criterion relates to the quality of the application, and the soundness of the opportunity statement and program objectives. 1) Quality of Application – Is the application logically structured and were RFA directions followed (5 points)? 2) Opportunity Statement – How well stated a case does the applicant make for overcoming a problem or taking advantage of an opportunity (5 points)? 3) Soundness of Program Objectives – Are the specific program objectives written in clear, concise, complete, measurable and logically arranged statements (10 points)? 4) Target Audience – Is the target audience identified and is it relevant to the opportunity statement and program objectives (5 points)?

B. Program Approach, Design and Implementation Activities (35 points): This criterion relates to the quality of the program approach, design, and implementation activities. 1) Program Approach – Will the program design, strategies and activities likely produce the outcomes needed to meet the objectives (10 points)? 2) Implementation Activities – Are the specific program activities written in clear, concise, complete, measurable, and logically arranged statements (10 points)? 3) Timeframe for Completion – Are the scope, duration, and timetable of the program activities adequate to produce positive outcomes (10 points)? 4) Key Personnel – Are the key personnel identified and are they appropriate (5 points)?

C. Institutional Commitment, Resources, & Integration (15 points): This criterion relates to the institutional commitment to the project, including necessary resources. 1) Institutional Commitment – Is there evidence of an institutional commitment to the project (10 points)? 2) Leadership and Resources – Is the project sufficiently focused and does it contain a critical mass of leadership and resources to undertake the activity (5 points)?

D. Budget and Cost Effectiveness (15 points): This criterion relates to the soundness and cost effectiveness of the project budget. 1) Quality of Budget – Is the budget written in clear, concise, complete, measurable, and logically arranged manner (5 points)? 2) Soundness of Budget – Does the total budget adequately support the project and is it cost- effective (10 points)?

E. Evaluation Methods and Proposed Outcomes (10 points): This criterion relates to the soundness of evaluation methods and proposed outcomes. 1) Quality of Evaluation Plan – Is there an evaluation plan? Are there proposed outcomes? Is there any evidence of use of a logic model (10 points)?

4 INDIVIDUAL REVIEW WORKSHEET

Proposal Number: Institution: Project Director:

CRITERION EVALUATION (PLEASE PRINT) A. Quality of Application; Comments: Acceptable ____ Marginal ____ No _____ Opportunity Statement; Program Objectives (25 points) This criterion relates to the quality of the application, and the soundness of the opportunity statement and program objectives.

B. Program Approach, Design Comments: Acceptable ____ Marginal ____ No _____ and Implementation Activities (35 points) This criterion relates to the quality of the program approach, design, and implementation activities.

C. Institutional Commitment, Comments: Acceptable ____ Marginal ____ No _____ Resources, & Integration (15 points) This criterion relates to the institutional commitment to the project, including necessary resources.

D. Budget and Cost Effectiveness Comments: Acceptable ____ Marginal ____ No _____ (15 points) This criterion relates to the soundness and cost effectiveness of the project budget.

E. Evaluation Methods and Comments: Acceptable ____ Marginal ____ No _____ Proposed Outcomes (10 points) This criterion relates to the soundness of evaluation methods and proposed outcomes.

RECOMMENDATION – Record Points From Above, Check Only One Fund Box Below

Points A Points B Points C Points D Points E Total: (25 max) _____ (35 max) _____ (15 max) _____ (15 max) _____ (10 max) _____ (100 max) _____

Fund with Minor Revisions _____ Do Not Fund ______Fund as Submitted ______(see comments above) (Detailed justification on reverse)