Technical Review Coversheet

Strengthening Institutions Program

CFDA 84.031A

Applicant: ______

PR Award #:

Reader #: ______

Selection Criteria for Development Grant / Possible Points / Points Scored
1. Quality of Comprehensive Development Plan (34 CFR 607.22 (a)) / 20
2. Quality of Project Design (34 CFR 75.210 (c)(2)(xxix)) / 10
3. Quality of Activity Objectives (34 CFR 607.22 (b)) / 15
4. Quality of Implementation Strategy (34 CFR 607.22 (c)) / 15
5. Quality of Key Personnel (34 CFR 607.22 (d)) / 8
6. Quality of Project Management Plan (34 CFR 607.22 (e)) / 10
7. Quality of Evaluation Plan (34 CFR 607.22 (f)) / 15
8. Quality of Budget (34 CFR 607.22 (g)) / 7
Total / 100


Technical Review Form

Strengthening Institutions Program, Title III, Part A,

CFDA 84.031A

PR Award Number: P031A17XXXX Applicant:

Application Date and Time:

Panel Monitor: Panel #:

Reader #:

1.  Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) (20 points):

Evaluate to what extent the applicant has clearly and comprehensively analyzed and identified the strengths, weaknesses and significant problems of the institution’s academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability. Also evaluate to what extent the applicant’s strengths and weaknesses analysis result from a process that involved the major constituencies of the institution, as they relate to the proposed activity (ies). In addition to the aforementioned, the CDP must also include:

  1. A delineation of the institution’s goals for its academic programs, institutional management and fiscal stability, based on the outcomes of the described analysis as it relates to the proposed activity (ies).
  2. Measurable objectives related to reaching each goal and timeframes for achieving the objectives.
  3. Methods and resources that will be used to institutionalize practices and improvements developed under the proposed project.

Excellent Extent 20-17

Good Extent 16-13

Average Extent 12-9

Minimal Extent 8-1

Not Addressed 0

Strengths

Weaknesses

2.  Quality of the Project Design (10 points):

Evaluate to what extent the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in the notice).

Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.

Excellent Extent 10-9

Good Extent 8-7

Average Extent 6-5

Minimal Extent 4-1

Not Addressed 0

Strengths

Weaknesses

3.  Activity Objectives (15 points):

Evaluate to what extent the applicant has, for each proposed activity, identified the objectives for each activity in realistic and measurable terms with defined results, as well as related the objectives for each activity to the problems to be solved and to the goals of the comprehensive development plan.

Excellent Extent 15-12

Good Extent 11-9

Average Extent 9-6

Minimal Extent 5-1

Not Addressed 0

Strengths

Weaknesses

4.  Implementation Strategy and Timetable (15 points):

Evaluate to what extent the applicant has comprehensively identified the implementation strategy for each activity. Applicants must also identify:

  1. The rationale for the implementation strategy for each activity, clearly described and supported by the results of relevant studies or projects; and
  2. Likely to be attained and realistic timetable(s) for each activity.

Note: Use the budget period of October 1 to September 30 to sequentially identify implementation strategy (ies) to meet the objectives proposed for each year for which funds are requested.

Excellent Extent 15-12

Good Extent 11-9

Average Extent 9-6

Minimal Extent 5-1

Not Addressed 0

Strengths

Weaknesses

5.  Key Personnel (8 points):

(For evaluative purposes Key Personnel are defined by the Title III Program Office as the Project Director/Coordinator and Activity Directors).

Evaluate to what extent the applicant has identified the past experience and training of key professional personnel, how that past experience and training is directly related to the stated activity objectives and whether or not the time commitment of key personnel is realistic.

Excellent Extent 8-7

Good Extent 6-5

Average Extent 4-3

Minimal Extent 2-1

Not Addressed 0

Strengths

Weaknesses

6.  Project Management Plan (10 points):

Evaluate to what extent the applicant has identified the procedures for managing the project that are likely to:

  1. Ensure that the institution will efficiently and effectively implement the project and;

b.  Ensure that the project coordinator and activity director(s) have sufficient authority to conduct the project effectively, including access to the president or chief executive officer.

Note: Do not evaluate fiscal and accounting procedures in this section of the narrative.

Excellent Extent 10-9

Good Extent 8-7

Average Extent 6-5

Minimal Extent 4-1

Not Addressed 0

Strengths

Weaknesses

7.  Evaluation Plan (15 points):

Evaluate to what extent the applicant identified data elements and data collection procedures that clearly:

a.  Describe and are appropriate to measure the attainment of activity objectives;

b.  Measure the success of the project in achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan;

c.  Also evaluate to what extent the applicant describes data analysis procedures that are likely to produce formative and summative results on attaining activity objectives and measuring the success of the project achieving the goals of the CDP.

Excellent Extent 15-12

Good Extent 11-9

Average Extent 9-6

Minimal Extent 5-1

Not Addressed 0

Strengths

Weaknesses

8.  Budget (7 points):

Evaluate to what extent the applicant has identified proposed costs that are necessary and reasonable in relation to the project’s objectives and scope.

Excellent Extent 7-6

Good Extent 5-4

Average Extent 3-2

Minimal Extent 1

Not Addressed 0

Strengths

Weaknesses