| |
How Awards Are Made (ANA and ICDBG Samples)
It is helpful to understand how grants are rated to insure that all requirements
are addressed in the narrative. Grant applications typically go through two
screenings. First applications are examined to determine if threshold requirements
are met.
Threshold Requirements
- Whether your application is received or submitted according to requirements set forth in the funding notice.
- Whether you are eligible to apply for the grant. For instance, ANA requires tribal applicants to submit tribal authorizing resolutions, and non-tribal applicants to submit proof that a majority of the governing board of directors is representative of the community to be served. If the application does not have one of these, it is considered incomplete and excluded from the competitive review process.
- Whether the proposed project is eligible. Is your proposed project one of the activities covered by the funding agency?
- Whether your application contains substantially all the components specified in the funding announcement. Under ANA requirements, no grant award will be made on the basis of an incomplete application.
- Whether your application clearly focuses on groups or areas being targeted. For instance, if applying for ICDBG funds, the application must show that at least 70 percent of the grant funds are to be used for activities that benefit low-and moderate-income persons. HUD uses 2000 data for screening purposes if the data you submitted does not meet this screening requirement.
- Whether your application is for an amount that does not exceed the grant ceilings listed in the fund announcement.
|
Competitive Review
If threshold requirements are met, then applications go to a Competitive Review
Process. Typically fund sources will use independent review panels to evaluate
and rate proposals using Evaluation Criteria designed to analyze and assess
the quality of a proposed community-based project, the likelihood of its success,
and the ability of the agency to monitor and evaluate community impact and long-term
results.
ANA’s six criteria categories are:
- Project Approach (25 points):
- Objectives and Need for Assistance/Need for Assistance (20 points)
- Budget and Budget Justification (15 points)
- Organizational Capacity (15 Points):
- Results or Benefits Expected - Project Impact/Evaluation (15 Points)
- Introduction and Project Summary/Application Format (10 Points)
|
CDBG criteria categories:
In reviewing ICDBG applications, HUD assigns a maximum of 100 points for 5
rating factors. To be considered for funding, your application must receive
a minimum of 15 points under Rating Factor 1 and an application score
of 70 out of the maximum possible 100 points.
- Rating Factor 1: Capacity of the Applicant (30 points) You must receive a minimum of 15 points under this Factor for your proposed activity to be eligible for funding. Managerial, Technical and Administrative Capability (20 points for current lCDBG grantees/30 points for new applicants) - - Your rating depends on the extent to which the applicant has the organizational resources necessary to successfully implement the proposed activities in accordance with your implementation schedule.
- Managerial and Technical Staff (10 points)
- Project Implementation Plan and Program Evaluation (5 points for current ICDBG grantees/7 points for new applicants)
- Financial Management (3 points for current ICDBG grantees/8 points for new applicants)
- Procurement and Contract Management (2 points for current IGDBG grantees/5 points for new applicants)
- Past Performance (10 points for current ICDBG grantees/0 points for new applicants)
- Rating Factor 2: Need/Extent of the Problem (20 points)
- Qualitative Documentation/Essential Community Development Need (5 points)
- Benefits Neediest Segment (15 points)
- Rating Factor 3: Soundness of Approach (35 Points)
- Description of and Rational for Proposed Project (14 points)
- Budget and Costs Estimates (5 points)applicable goals.
- HUD Policy Priorities (1 point)
- Commitment to Sustain Activities (15 points)
- Rating Factor 4: Leveraging Resources (10 Points)
- Rating Factor 5: Comprehensiveness and Coordination (5 Points)
- Coordination with other Entities/Programs (2 points)
- Measurable Outputs/Outcomes/Community Viability (3 points)
|
Overview of the Review Process:
In summary, funding decisions are based on:
- An analysis of the application by the review panel.
- Panel review scores and recommendations.
- An analysis by agency staff.
- A review of previous grantee’s past performance.
- Comments from State and Federal agencies having contract and grant performance related information.
|
*It should be noted that the fund source reserves the right to award more or
less than the funds requested.
[back to top]
|
|
©2005 Tlingit & Haida Central Council 
