CED Application Reviewer Training

CED Application Reviewer Training Module 1: Introduction to CED Program and Application Review June 2012

Module Outline • Module 1 includes: • An introduction to the program • Guidelines for application reviews and scoring • An overview of the application process • Tips on writing comments • Info on the application review schedule • Quiz questions to gauge what you’ve learned

The CED Program • Provides technical and financial assistance to activities that contribute to community economic development and revitalization • Support creation of jobs through start-up or expansion of businesses • For 2012, as part of the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, special emphasis on efforts to address food deserts in low-income communities • Requirements specified in Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) published on April 6, 2012

FY 2012 CED Awards • FY 2012 funds available for awards $27M • Maximum award level: $800,000 • Length of Project or Project Period: • 36 months (3 years) for non-construction projects • 60 months (5 years) for construction jobs

Application Review Guidelines • The FOA lists 6 criteria under which each application will be reviewed • Objectives and Need for Assistance • Business Plan • Organizational Capacity • Public Support • Budget and Budget Justification • Bonus Points

Application Review Guidelines (cont.) • Review all information provided, regardless of where in the application it is presented • Applications that meet the requirements of the FOA and present the projects most likely to succeed should be score the highest • Assess whether the application proposes a “well-planned and viable” project and plans seem feasible and mutually reinforcing

Scoring Applications • Scoring done on “extent to which” each criterion is addressed within the application • Use the full range of points as appropriate • Evaluation sub-criteria for a given criterion of the application are not designed to receive equal weight • Written descriptions of strengths and weaknesses, with application page numbers • Ensure that the scores are consistent with the written comments • Panel members must reach consensus • Score applications independently; don’t try to produce “winning” applications

Scoring Applications (cont.) • When scoring applications, do not: • Award a perfect score to an application that has a stated weakness. • Award a zero score to an application that has a stated strength. • List weaknesses or strengths that are not part of the evaluation criteria. • Provide an applicant a score without sufficient evidence-based comments to justify it • Expect significant scoring differences to be approved.

Application Review Process Submitted to Chair Submitted to PAM Chair • Priority • Area • Manager • (PAM) Reviewer Approval Reviewer Reviewer Rejected by PAM Rejected by Chair

The Panel Works as a Team • Panel members are expected to • Fully participate and contribute in order to work towards completing the review per the OCS schedule • Be prompt and fully prepared for all team scheduled conference calls • Be available to meet and respond to comments via email as needed, including on weekends • Maintain objectivity and undertake a thorough, comprehensive analysis of applications • Fully consider and respect the opinions of others

The Panel Works as a Team • Panel members must: • Develop panel summary reports by consensus • Not consider their work to be complete until the PAM approves all summaries • Solve problems through good communication • Maintain confidentiality • Ask for assistance from OCS, Team WilDon, and OGM when needed

Reviewers’ Written Comments • When reviewing and scoring applications you must provide written comments in the ARM system • Comments justify the scores assigned to each application review criterion • Comments should: • Be detailed enough to summarize the main points of the application being reviewed • Note each application's strengths and weakness • Not include a mix of strengths and weaknesses

Reviewers’ Written Comments • Comments must: • Be constructive, objective, andfactual • Include application page numbers where you found the information referenced in your comments • Be complete sentences with proper grammar • PAMs may reject unacceptable comments

Reviewers’ Written Comments • A comment is unacceptable if it: • Reflects generic, non-substantive opinions • There is no way this organization can do this project. • Does not provide the basis for a conclusion • The applicant identifies results and benefits. • Repeats the criteria without providing evidence • The applicant’s service area has high unemployment.

Reviewers’ Written Comments • A comment is acceptable if it: • Draws from the evaluation sub-criterion when articulating a basis for each conclusion; • Uses examples from the application to support each finding; AND • Provides the applicant with a sufficient rationale for the score Example: The applicant demonstrates the compelling need in the target area for the proposed community economic development project by explaining that the area’s unemployment rate is 43%, which is significantly higher than the state’s unemployment rate of 12% (p. 2).

Application Review Schedule • Application reviews must be completed in accordance with the schedule established by OCS • Scores and summary comments must be submitted to the PAM via ARM by 9AM EDT by the established deadlines • Interim deadlines will be established through the application review process • More information about specific dates will be discussed on your first panel conference call

Application Review Schedule (cont.) • Following the approval of all applications by the PAM, your panel will be contacted with instructions on how to return review materials to Team WilDon • Use the UPS box and return shipping label provided • Signed Score Sheets • Original, signed Conflict of Interest and Work Agreement forms • Signed W9 and Honorarium Payment Voucher • Destroy any printed applications, notes from the application review and other confidential review materials at the conclusion of the review • Required forms are available from Team WilDon

Module 1 Wrap-up • You have learned… • About the CED program • Our approach to reviewing applications • Basic guidelines for application reviews and scoring • What’s next? • Self-review quiz for Module 1 • Module 2: Objectives and Need for Assistance

Self-Review Quiz • What is the purpose of the CED program? • Provide grants to nonprofits • Provide assistance for creating employment and business opportunities • Provide funding to eliminate food deserts • Provide construction and non-construction funding

Self-Review Quiz • Reviewers should focus on what when reviewing applications? • Whether the application is put together in the order specified by the FOA • Whether the application proposes a “well-planned and viable” project • Whether the application includes plans that seem feasible and mutually reinforcing • B and C • All of the above

Self-Review Quiz • When scoring CED applications, you cannot: • Ensure that the scores are consistent with the written comments • Use the full range of points as appropriate • Score applications independently • List weaknesses that are not part of the evaluation criteria

CED Application Reviewer Training