ARPA Rubric
If you wish to see this page in a different language,
please select it at the top left of the screen.
EVALUATION PROCESS
A review committee consisting of City staff, will review and score applications based on the evaluation rubric contained below. Recommendations based on how the applicant scores will then be provided to Mayor. All applicants will be scored fairly and equally no matter the size of the organization. Beginning on February 1st 2022, all applications will be reviewed with a letter and grant contract packet provided to successful applicants by February 21st, 2022. The evaluation rubric will be consistent with responses made on the application and evaluated accordingly:
| PROPOSAL EVALUATION RUBRIC | |||
| Criteria | Weak/Basic = 1 points | Good/Average = 2 points | Strong/Above Average = 3 points |
| Needs Assessment | Need/priority described was weakly described simply describing a worthwhile cause only, no statistical foundation for services the organization intends to provide. | Need/priority was someone reflected through the findings, and minimal data was provided. | Organization has effectively identified the issue and population to be served in an understandable way and is able to demonstrate need with verifiable facts, statistics and data. Project would be relative to overall community. |
| Purpose and Objectives | Purpose and objectives as it relates to the proposal are not adequately described. | Purpose and objectives as it relates to the proposal are adequately described. | Purpose and objectives as it relates to the proposal have effectively been identified and provides clarity into the intended purpose of the program. |
| Impact & interim final rule criteria | Organization does not adequately describe the impact COVID-19 has had on the organization and not followed the eligibility guidelines as it relates to the interim final rule. | Organization provides some response as to the impact of COVID-19 and adequately describes how it relates to the interim final rule. | Organization provides detailed and empirical evidence on the impact of COVID-19. A detailed response has been provided as to how the proposal relates to the interim final rule. |
| Proposed Budget | The proposed budged is incomplete and does not address the allowable costs. | The proposed budget is complete and adequately addresses the allowable costs. | The proposed budget is proficiently complete and addresses all allowable costs. |
| Performance Measures | The proposal does not describe performance measures adequately. | The proposal somewhat describes performance measures. | Performance measures are described in detail with supporting empirical evidence and strongly describes on the effectiveness of the proposal |
| Timeline of Activities | The proposal does not provide an adequate timeline of activities. | The proposal adequately describes the organizations timeline of activities. | A comprehensive timeline of activities has been provided by the organization. |
| PROPOSAL EVALUATION RUBRIC | |||
| Criteria | Weak/Basic = 1 points | Good/Average = 2 points | Strong/Above Average = 3 points |
| Financial Condition and Strength | The organization did not adequately disclose the required financial documents. | The organization adequately provided the required financial documents. | The organization provided all required financial documents. |
| Sustainability | The proposal does not adequately describe sustainability after the grant award has been exhausted. | The proposal adequately described how the program will be sustained after the grant award has been exhausted. | The proposal provides great detail as to how the program will be sustained after the grant award has been exhausted. |
| SCORE | |||