Selection Criteria and Format for the Personnel Preparation Competitions CFDA 84.325

SELECTION CRITERIA AND FORMAT FOR THE TRAINING AND INFORMATION FOR PARENTS OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES (CFDA 84.328) COMPETITIONS

Part III of the application form requires a narrative that addresses the selection criteria that will be used by reviewers in evaluating individual proposals. Applications are more likely to receive favorable reviews by panels when they are organized according to the format suggested below. This format was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER as an appendix to the program regulations, and it addresses all the selection criteria used to evaluate applications required by regulations. If you prefer to use a different format, you may wish to cross-reference the sections of your application to the selection criteria to be sure that reviewers are able to find all relevant information.

The selection criteria that will be used to evaluate applications submitted to the Training and Information for Parents of Children with Disabilities (CFDA 84.328) competition are the selection criteria for new grants required by the EDGAR general selection criteria menu. The maximum score for all of the criteria is 100 points.

An abstract, not to exceed two pages, should precede the application narrative of all applications and it would be helpful if it included the following information:  Purpose of the project; disability addressed by the project; age group (e.g., 0-3, preschool, elementary school, middle school, high school, secondary transition, and postsecondary); geography (e.g., rural, suburban, urban); severity (e.g., mild, moderate, and severe); proposed products; proposed outcomes; names/affiliations of key collaborators. It would be helpful if the abstract includes: (a) the title of the program, (b) the name of the Absolute Priority, and (c) the CFDA Number (e.g., 84.328C).

The application narrative should include the following sections in this order:

(a) Significance (15 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population; and

(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project.

(b) Quality of the project design (25 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;

(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs;

(iii) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with other appropriate agencies and organizations providing services to the target population;

(iv) The extent to which the proposed project encourages parental involvement; and

(v) The extent to which the proposed project encourages consumer involvement.

(c) Quality of project personnel (15 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator; and

(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.

(d) Adequacy of resources (10 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project; and

(ii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.

(e) Quality of the management plan (20 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project

(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;

(ii) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project; and

(iii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.

(f) Quality of the project evaluation (15 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.

(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are appropriate to the context within which the project operates.

(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.