WebJunction

Following is the scoring guide used by the Review Teams when evaluating and scoring minigrant proposals. Review of the scoring guide before and after writing your minigrant should assist in producing a well–written proposal which meets the LSTA criteria and goals, as well as addressing the specific points which reviewers are seeking. Before submitting your proposal you may wish to have an interested, outside party "critique" your proposal using the scoring guide.

The minigrants are awarded points in four areas: General Description of the project, Evaluation, Relation of project to LSTA goals, and Budget. Each area is worth a specific number of points toward the total maximum score of 100. The general description and budget areas have several sub–areas that need to be considered. Each of the sub–areas can be awarded points separately but the total number of points for the entire area cannot exceed the maximum number of points for that area.

The attached scoring sheet has space for comments for each area of the grant application. It is important to provide some justification for the number of points awarded in each area of the application. These comments may be shared with the applicant after being edited by the State Library staff. The following is a brief guide for scoring the three areas of the minigrant applications.

This portion of the application is worth 45 points. It should clearly identify the needs that will be met by this project or a problem that can be addressed. Points should be deducted if it is unclear what specific needs will be met from this project. The statement of need and the relationship to this project are worth approximately 9 of the 45 points.

The application should tie this project to long range goals of the institution and, if applicable, to the institution's Technology Plan. The outcome of the project should clearly further these goals in a specific way. If long range goals are not evident or if this project will not further the long range goals of the institution points should be deducted. This portion of the application is worth approximately 9 points.

Specific objectives should be clearly stated. The objectives should be measurable and should be related to the need for this project. For example, if the need for the project is to develop a library and community web page, then a conceivable measurable objective would be the number of patrons who accessed the web page and/or a survey of patrons indicating whether or not they have used it and like it. If the objectives are not measurable or are not related to the initial need then points should be deducted. This section is worth approximately 9 points.

There should be a description of the activities that will take place in order to meet the objectives of the project. The description should be sufficiently detailed to link the activities to the objectives in a logical way and should also be related to the initial need. If the description is vague or seems inappropriate for the objective then points should be deducted. This section is worth approximately 9 points.

The proposal should demonstrate the appropriateness of specific components of the project. These components could include hardware/software, materials, training programs, etc. that will be part of this project. The application should provide some detail as to how decisions were made to include specific components. There should also be some indication about how the components of this project fit into other areas/programs in the institution. This section is worth approximately 9 points.

The total score for this portion of the grant cannot exceed 45 points, however, if one section is particularly well written you could award more than 9 points for that portion of the application. Well written proposals should receive a score between 38 and 45 points for this section. Reasonable proposals with one or two important deficits should receive a score between 31 and 38 points. Questionable proposals or those that should not be approved as they are written should receive scores lower than 30 points for this section.

The evaluation portion of the proposal has a maximum point value of 10. The evaluation should include some definable way of determining the impact of the proposal and changes in the target audience in terms of knowledge, behavior or attitude. The project should directly impact the need for the project that is described in the General Description of the Project portion of the grant application. The evaluation plan should describe what data will be used to determine impact. A well written evaluation plan should receive a score between 8 and 10 points.

Evaluation plans with lose links to objectives and needs should receive scores between 6 and 8. Evaluations that do not provide sufficient data or do not assess the impact of the project should receive scores of 5 or less.

This section of the grant is worth 25 points. The applicant should be able to clearly explain how this project will help to achieve one or more of the overall goals and priorities in the LSTA plan. The LSTA Priorities are:

1. Programs which address narrowing the digital divide by providing services to those with limited access to technology.
2. Allowing a library or libraries to introduce new technologies to the library and the public.
3. Providing continuing education and training opportunities in emerging technologies, information literacy training and use of information resources.
4. Allowing libraries to utilize technology, including assistive adaptive devices, to improve access to information to underserved individuals.
5. Providing library services to persons with limited English speaking skills and to ethnically and culturally diverse populations.
6. Providing equity of information access to youth, particularly youth in poverty.
7. Initiating family literacy programs and other library services which target families living below the poverty line.
8.  Initiatives to market and merchandise the library based on the Trading Spaces model (eligible libraries only).

A well written proposal should receive a score between 20 and 25 points. A proposal with some limitations or unclear connections to LSTA priorities should receive a score between 15 and 20 points. Scores below 12 should be indicative of a proposal that does a poor job of linking to any of the LSTA priorities.

The budget portion of the proposal is worth 15 points. The items in the budget should be well defined and specific dollars should be allocated to each item. There should be a budget justification that links major items in the budget to specific aspects of the project. Matching funds should be clearly defined within each category of the project. The overall budget should seem reasonable in relation to the scope of the project. There are three major areas of review for the budget section of the grant. Each is worth approximately 5 points. You may award more points in a particular area if it is exceptionally well written, however, the total point award for the budget cannot exceed 15 points.

The first major section of the budget is the identification of major categories of expenditures and details on specific items within those categories. A well–written budget should be awarded 4 or 5 points. A reasonable budget with minor deficiencies or a need for small clarifications should receive a 3. Scores of less than 3 should be given to budgets that are unclear or too vague to assess.

The second area of review is the budget justification for major components within the budget. Each major item in the budget should be tied to some specific aspect of the project. If the budget justification does a good job of establishing links between expenditures and specific aspects of the project it should receive a score of 4 or 5. If there are minor discrepancies or justifications are not complete on every item a score of 3 is appropriate. A score of 2 or less would indicate that there are serious problems with the justification of the budget.

The third area of the budget is the description of the match. The match should be done for each category in the budget and for each item within the categories. If the descriptions are complete a score of 4 or 5 is appropriate. If the match has minor discrepancies in any category a score of 3 is appropriate. A score of 2 or less should be given if match information is missing or seriously inadequate.

Overall, a well written budget section should receive a score of 12 or higher. Proposals with minor problems in the budget section should receive scores of 9 through 11. Scores of less than 10 should be indicative of serious concerns with the budget.

The look and readability of the proposal is worth 5 points. The applicant should have followed all proposal format requirements; including a text no more than 4 pages in length, signed by appropriate official, double–spaced, font size no less than 12, numbered on all pages and includes a title page and budget page which follow the sample guidelines. Appropriate appendices should be attached. A proposal which follows all guidelines and is easy to read and find information should receive 5 points. A proposal which follows all guidelines but it is difficult to locate specific information should receive 3–4 points. Proposals which do not follow formating, title page or budget guidelines should receive 0–2 points depending on the number of requirements not met and how it affects the overall impression and readability of the proposal.