GeorgiaDepartment of Education

Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) Evaluation and Continuation Report

Scoring Chart

A total of 100 quality points are available based on the relative merit of the evaluation.

Applicant: ______

Reader #: ______

I. PROGRAM REPORT
d. FY13ehcy pROGRAM eVALUATION
D-1 Evaluation of Authorized Activities
MAXIMUM 10 POINTS
Points Awarded:
Ideal Indicator / Evaluation / Reviewer’s comments
Clearly defined evaluation of the authorized activities carried out under this program as proposed in FY13 EHCY application for funding. / Meets expectations – 5-10 points
  • A detailed evaluation with clearly writtencriteria forthe evaluationof allauthorized activities carried out in the FY13 grant year is provided.
Did not meet expectations – 1-4 points
  • A narrative forthe evaluation for all authorized activities in the FY13EHCY grant year is provided, but the criteria are vague and/or do not measure all the identified activities.
Applicant did not provide a response – 0 points
Justification for assigned score:
I. PROGRAM REPORT
d. FY14 ehcy pROGRAM eVALUATION
D-2 Overall Evaluation of the FY13 EHCY Grant
MAXIMUM 15 POINTS
Points Awarded:
Ideal Indicator / Evaluation / Reviewer’s comments
The sub-grantee provides adetailed description of the overall success or lack of success in implementation of the FY13EHCY grant. (Please refer to the original FY13 EHCY application) / Meets expectations – 10-15 points
  • A detailed description of success or lack of success of the FY13ECHY grant is provided including all of the following:
  • Identification of areas that were particularly successful and detailed rationale for the success.
  • Identification of areas that were not successful and detailed rationale for the lack of success.
  • Identification of challenges experienced inimplementation, coordination, and/or administration and how the challenges wereresolved.
Does not meet expectations – 1-9 points
  • A description of success or lack of success is provided, but some descriptions are vague and/or do not address the following:
  • Identification of areas that were particularly successful and detailed rationale for the success.
  • Identification of areas that were not successful and detailed rationale for the lack of success.
  • Identification of challenges experienced inimplementation, coordination, and/or administration and how the challenges wereresolved.
Applicant did not provide a response- 0 points
Justification for assigned score:
II. FY14EHCY GrantCONTINUATION REQUEST
A. Continuation Activities
A-1 Review and Reassess Needs
MAXIMUM 15 POINTS
Points Awarded:
Ideal Indicator / Evaluation / Reviewer’s comments
The sub-grantee clearly describes the process that has been used to review and reassess the needs of the homeless children and youth in their district and how that has impacted the identification of services for the FY14continuation grant services. / Meets expectations- 10-15 points
  • A detailed summary of the process used to review and reassess the needs of the homeless children and youth in their district is provided.
  • Clear and detailed information as to how this information has impacted the identification of services for the FY14continuation grant is provided
Does not meet expectations-1-9 points
  • A summary of the process used to review and reassess the needs of the homeless children and youth in their district is provided but lacks clarity and/or specific details.
  • Required information as to how this information has impacted the identification of services for the FY14continuation grant is provided but is vague and unclear in parts.
Applicant did not provide a response-0 points
Justification for assigned score:
II. FY14EHCY GRANT Continuation Activities
A. Continuation Activities
A-2 Proposed GrantContinuation Activities
MAXIMUM 10 POINTS
Points Awarded:
Ideal Indicator / Evaluation / Reviewer’s comments
The applicant clearly describes the current activities to be continued, including any changes and the plan for any new or additional activity (ies) proposed for the FY14 continuation grant year. / Meets expectations – 5-10 points
  • A detailed plan with clearlywritten examples of the continued activities from the district’s original grant proposal, including any changes to them, is provided.
  • Detailed information with clearly written strategies describing new or additional activities to be implemented during the FY14EHCY continuation grant is provided.
Did not meet expectations – 1-4 points
  • A plan that lacks clarity and/or does not fully address the original activities, or describe new or additional activities.
Applicant did not provide a response – 0 points.
Justification for assigned score:
  1. FY14EHCY Grant Continuation Request
B. Proposed Program Coordination Activities
MAXIMUM 20 POINTS
Points Awarded:
Ideal Indicator / Evaluation / Reviewer’s comments
The sub-grantee provides a detailed description of the district’s original grant application program coordination activities to be continued, including any changes to be done, and the plan for any new or additional coordination activities for the FY14continuation grant year.
The narrative includes a clearly described process to evaluate the coordinating agencies’ services and the process to be used to evaluate those services for the continuation grant year – FY14.
A detailed description of the coordination of the homeless program with Title I Part A services is also addressed. / Meets expectations- 10-20 points
  • A detailed description of the homeless program’s agency community coordination plan that will be continued, including programs and resources offered and how they will meet the needs of homeless children and youth is provided.
  • A detailed evaluation plan to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the coordinating agencies’ services and howthe evaluation will be conducted is provided.
  • A detailed description of the coordination of the homeless program with Title I Part A services is provided.
Does not meet expectations- 1-4 points
  • A description of the homeless program’s agency community coordination plan that will be continued, including programs and resources offered and how they will meet the needs of homeless children and youth is provided but is not well documented and/or lacks clarity.
  • An evaluation plan to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the coordinating agency’s services for FY14and howthe evaluation is conducted is provided, but lacks clarity and/or sufficient information.
  • A description of the coordination of the homeless program with Title I Part A services is provided but does not provide specific examples of coordination activities.
Applicant did not provide a response – 0 points
Justification for assigned score:
  1. FY14EHCY Grant Continuation Request
c. fiscal responsibility
C-1 Proposed Budget Narrative for the FY14 continuation grant funding
MAXIMUM 20 POINTS
Points Awarded:
Ideal Indicator / Evaluation / Reviewer’s comments
A detailed budget narrative that clearly explains the expenditures anticipated for the FY14 grant year is provided. Each expenditure is related to the original grant application and supported by the most recent needs assessment. / Meets expectations – 10-15 points
  • A clearly detailed narrative of all proposed expenditures for the FY14 grant year is provided.
  • The narrative relates all expenditures to the original grant plan and/or supports the expenditures with the most recent needs assessment of the homeless children and youth to be served.
Does not meet expectations – 1-9 points.
  • The narrative of all proposed expenditures for the FY14grant year is provided but lacks detail and clarity.
  • Some expenditures are related to the original grant plan and/or supported by the most recent needs assessment of the homeless children and youth to be served but are vague or are not addressed at all.
Applicant did not provide a response – 0 points.
Justification for assigned score:
II. FY14EHCY Grant Continuation Request
C. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
C-2 Proposed Budget Summary and Schedule of Expenses for FY14Grant Request
MAXIMUM 10 POINTS
Points Awarded:
Ideal Indicator / Evaluation / Reviewer’s comments
Budget Summary and Detail pages for EHCY continuation grant funding for FY14 with function and object codes in accordance with McKinney-Vento funds and the State’s Chart of Accounts are provided. / Meets expectations – 6-10 points
  • A projected budget summary with appropriately described and placed expenditures on the detail pages as described in the State Chart of Accounts is provided.
Does not meet expectations – 1-5 points.
  • A projected budget summary with expenditures on the detail pages is provided but some detailed descriptions are not provided and/or some items are not appropriately placed according to the State Chart of Accounts.
Applicant did not provide a response – 0 points.
Justification for assigned score:

Dr. John D. Barge, State School Superintendent

April 3, 2013● Page 1 of 8