21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS

1

State of North Dakota Department of Public Instruction Kirsten Baesler, State Superintendent

600 E. Boulevard Avenue, Dept. 201 Bismarck, ND 58505-0440

21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS Pursuant to: Title IV, Part B, of the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act December 10, 2015

2021 Grant Competition Application for Selection instructions for completion

Applications Due May 14, 2021 by 3:00 PM CDT

No extensions will be permitted once the deadline closes.

Issued: February 16, 2021

Becky Eberhardt, 21st CCLC Program Administrator

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section One General Information A. Purpose and Background B. 21st Century Community Learning Centers Defined C. Applicable Federal Regulations D. Community Based Organization Define E. Eligible Applicants Defined F. Grant Period and Award G. Purpose of Funding H. Proposal Workshop I. Grant Termination J. Debarment K. Conflict of Interest Section Two Grant Priorities A. Absolute Priority B. Invitational Priority C. Competitive Priority Section Three Grant Application Requirements A. Need for Project B. Quality of Project Design C. Adequacy of Resources D. Quality of Management Plan E. Quality of Project Evaluation F. Quality of Partnerships Section Four Program Requirements A. Collaboration B. Required Activities C. Federal Sub-grantee Reporting Requirements D. Monitoring Requirements E. Components of a Quality Afterschool Program F. Measures of Effectiveness G. Sustainability Plan Section Five Selection and Review Process A. Selection Criteria B. Overview C. Peer Reviewers D. Training of Peer Reviewers E. Compensation F. Funding Section Six Application Process for a 21st CCLC Grant A. Submission Requirements B. Budget and Budget Narrative Attachments Attachment A – Scoring Rubric Attachment B – Sample Partnership Agreement

3

Section One - General Information The North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, Office of Federal Title Programs (STATE) is pleased to announce the release of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) FY 21 Application for Selection. This application contains the guidelines that should be followed when applying for a sub-grant under this program. This 21st CCLC Competitive Grant Application is ONLY for organizations who do not currently have a 21st CCLC grant award OR programs whose grant award expires June 31, 2021. President Barack Obama signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This law went into effect July 2017. This application is governed by ESSA rules. ESSA under Title IV, Part B CFDA #84.287.

Section Description A. Background and Purpose

A great need exists for afterschool programs that provide appropriate youth supervision and involvement. In 1994, the U. S. Congress authorized the establishment of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) as Title IV, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to provide a broad and consistent source for afterschool funding. In 1998, the program was refocused on supporting schools to provide school-based academic and sport/recreational activities during after school hours, summer, and other times schools were not in session. This funding source was administered and monitored by the United States Department of Education (USDE). On January 8, 2002, President George Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. This law redefined the federal role in K-12 education and intended to help close out the achievement gap between students that are disadvantaged, minority, and their peers. The NCLB Act of 2001 made several significant changes to the 21st CCLC program. These changes ensure that the program focuses on helping children in high-need schools succeed academically through the use of scientifically based practice and extended learning time. The statute provided additional State and local flexibility in how funds can be used to support higher academic achievement, focused on improving reading and mathematics; including youth development activities, drug and violence prevention programs, counseling programs, art, music, recreation, technology, and character education programs and dramatically expands eligibility for 21st CCLC funding to public and private educational and youth-serving organizations. On December 10, 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This law further evolved the program by focusing on a myriad of programs such as physical fitness and wellness programs, financial literacy programs, environmental literacy programs, mathematics, science, career and technical programs, internship or apprenticeship programs, and other ties to an in-demand industry sector or occupation for high school students. Additionally, the program focuses on meaningful engagement with families and their children’s education. This document provides instructions for submitting proposals, the procedure and criteria by which the Providers(s) will be selected and the contractual terms that will govern the relationship between the State of North Dakota, Office of Federal Title Programs (STATE) and the selected Providers. The STATE will accept separate applications for new applicants.

4

B. 21st Century Community Learning Centers Defined

A 21st CCLC is an entity within a public elementary, middle, or secondary school building, or equally accessible and available building, that:

1. provides educational, recreational, health, and social service programs for students from high poverty schools and the families of those students within a local community; and

2. is operated by the grantee, the local governmental agencies, businesses,

vocational education programs, institutions of higher education, community colleges, local educational agencies (LEAs), and cultural, recreational, and other community and human service entities.

A local school district (LEA) is an entity that is legally responsible within a state for providing public education to elementary and secondary students. The full definition of this term is set out in section 9101(26) of the No Child Left Behind Act.

C. Applicable Federal Regulations

The Uniform Grant Guidance (UGG) combines and codifies the requirements of eight Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars: A-89, A-102 (former 34 CFR part 80), A-110 (former 34 CFR part 74), A-21, A-87, A-122, A-133, A-50. For the Federal Department of Education (FDOE), this means that the requirements in EDGAR Parts 74 and 80 have also been subsumed under the UGG. The final rule implementing the UGG was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2014, and become effective for new and continuation awards issued on or after December 26, 2014. In addition, applicants must comply with applicable state laws that may include teacher licensing requirements, childcare licensing requirements, transportation requirements, and state and local health, safety, and fire codes. It is recommended that applicants review the information on the following links. All sub-recipients of federal funds are required to understand and are held accountable for implementing programs within the law.

U.S. Department of Education Regulations http://www.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/index.html

Uniform Grant Guidance (UGG)

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/fund/guid/uniform-guidance/index.html

D. Community Based Organization Defined

Community‐based organizations (CBO), both secular and faith‐based, are essential partners in the educational achievement of students, which will expand the learning time and experiences for students, support the full range of student needs, engage families, and foster a community culture of education success. In section 3201 (2) of the ESSA, the term “community-based organization” (CBO) is defined as public or private nonprofit organization of demonstrated effectiveness that:

is representative of a community or significant segments of a community; and provides educational or related services to individuals in the community.

E. Eligible Applicants Defined

Eligible applicants may include Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and/or CBOs. These may include faith-based organizations, institutions of higher education, city or county government agencies, for-profit corporations and other public or private entities, or a consortium of two or more of such agencies, organizations, or entities.

The eligible applicants will provide assurance that the proposed program was developed and will be carried out in active collaboration with the schools the students attend. Eligible applicants are those who meet one of the following requirements:

1. Serve students (and the families of those students) that attend schools that have 40% or greater free/reduced lunch. (Applicants may use any month within the fiscal year of the competitive process up to the month in which the

http://www.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/index.html

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/fund/guid/uniform-guidance/index.html

https://www.nd.gov/dpi/sites/www/files/documents/Division%20of%20SS%26I/21st%20CCLC/Consortium%20Guidance.pdf

5

grant application is due).

2. Serve students that attend schools operating as Title I schoolwide program.

3. Schools that have been identified for comprehensive or targeted support by the NDDPI.

F. Grant Period and Award

1. Grant Period: The grant cycle is for three years: July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2024.

Approved applicants will receive a three-year grant award with funding allocated each year of the grant cycle. Subsequent years funding are subject to availability of funds from the USDE; and satisfactory performance of the grantee in the previous year. Please refer to the 21st CCLC Continuing Application Requirements.

2. Grant Award: The STATE receives approximately $6 million annually to

support the 21st CCLC Program. Grant awards under this competition will vary by location and need. Costs per recipient will be determined after considering the number of individuals served, the array of activities, and the availability of additional resources. The statute does not allow consideration for funding for any application requesting less than $50,000.

The STATE highly recommends that small districts apply as a consortium. If a small district cannot justify a $50,000 award due to the low participant numbers, then the application will be disqualified, even though the score meets the minimum.

3. Per Pupil Calculation: The STATE uses reasonableness of budget request as

one of the scoring criteria. The STATE used the following process to create a per pupil benchmark in which it will use in determining the reasonableness of the budget based on the expected number of regular attendees to be served. (A “regular attendee” is classified as any attendee who attends the program for thirty or more days.)

The STATE gathered a per pupil rate by averaging three years of student data: regular attendees of thirty days or more. Through the last three years, the average amount of attendees was 3,369 students. This number was then divided by the base grantee share award amount from the federal government for the 2019-2020 school year: $5,740,330.14. Based on these figures, the per pupil rate for STATE is approximately $1,703 per pupil. It is recommended that applicants use this number to assist in preparing your budget. Following this per pupil recommendation will help ensure that your application scores well in this area.

4. Budget Adjustment: The STATE reserves the right to adjust the budget request of applicants, within reason, and in cooperation with the applicant, if the following occurs: a. The number of regular attendees to be served is supported with sufficient

data, but the request amount is excessive based on the area and number of sites to be served.

b. The number of regular attendees to be served is not supported by sufficient data (e.g. starting a new program).

c. The number of regular attendees to be served is supported by sufficient data, but the applicant exceeded the per pupil allotment.

d. There are 21st CCLC dollars remaining. G. Purpose of Funding

The purpose of the funding is to: 1. Provide opportunities for academic enrichment, including tutorial services to

help students, particularly those who attend low-performing schools, meet

6

state and local student performance standards in core academic subjects like reading and mathematics.

2. Offer students a broad array of additional services, programs, and activities

designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic program of participating students.

3. Offer families of students served by community learning centers parenting skills, programs that promote parental involvement and family literacy, and related educational development [ESSA Sec. 4205 (a)(1)(B)(10)].

*Grant funding is contingent upon availability of 21st CCLC funding from federal sources and if federal funding is not obtained and/or continued at levels sufficient for the grant, awards may be reduced or discontinued.

H. Proposal Workshop

The STATE will be hosting an online bidders’ workshop. The workshop will be on February 23, 2021 at 11:00 AM. The STATE will post the recorded bidders’ workshop to provide technical assistance for potential applicants. There is no registration cost for the workshop. Attending the workshop is not required to submit an application but is highly encouraged. The recording of the workshop will be available for viewing later if you are unable to attend in-person.

I. Grant Termination

The STATE reserves the right to withhold, reduce, or discontinue funding awards on discovery of the following, but not limited to:

violation of grant rules, violation of law, violation of program assurances, failure to respond to a non-compliance, failure to implement a corrective action plan, failure to address data, evaluation, or monitoring requirements, and/or failure to make corrections based on technical assistance, and/or violation of health, safety, or civil rights.

*Grant funding is contingent upon availability of 21st CCLC funding from federal sources and if federal funding is not obtained and/or continued at levels sufficient for the grant, awards may be reduced or discontinued.

J. Debarment Applicant certifies that neither they nor their principals are presently debarred, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in transactions with the State or Federal Government by any Department or Agency of the Federal Government. This part of the Grantee assurances is in accordance with Executive Order 12549 and 12689. All applicants, organizations, and principles of applicant organizations receiving an approvable score will be checked to ensure, as required by law, that public contracts are not awarded to persons or businesses against which they may be disbarred.

K. Conflict of Interest Applicant assures no Federal funds from the contract will be paid by or on behalf of the undersigned to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any department, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement. If any grant funds other than Federal funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any department, Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or any employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement, the Applicant will complete and submit Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions.

7

The Applicant will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal or organizational conflict of interest or personal gain. The STATE reserves the right to cancel the award if any interest disclosed from any source could either give the appearance of a conflict or cause speculation as to the objectivity of the offeror’s proposal. The STATE’s determination regarding any questions of conflict of interest is final.

Section Two - Grant Priorities There are three types of priorities for this competition: absolute, invitational, and competitive. The Absolute Priority is a strict requirement for each application; while the Invitational Priority is strongly encouraged, but not strictly required. Applications that address the Competitive Priority receive preference points. Each priority for this competition is discussed below.

Section Description A. Absolute Priority The STATE will fund those applications that:

1. Serve schools that meet the threshold poverty requirement of 40% free and reduced lunch or are operating as Title I schoolwide program.

Offer activities that provide expanded learning opportunities for eligible children and youth in the community.

B. Invitational Priority

The STATE strongly encourages applications for projects that will meet the three criteria set below; however, an application that meets these invitational priorities does not receive competitive or absolute preference over other applications:

1. Serve student populations that are at-risk, including students from high poverty areas; students with limited English proficiency; and students who, due to other considerations, are recognized as not achieving at the level of other students.

2. Promote parental involvement through program implementation.

Serve students attending high-need rural and urban communities that have low achieving students and high rates of juvenile crime, school violence, and student drug abuse, but lack the resources to establish after school centers

C. Competitive Priority

The STATE may select an application that meets these competitive preferences over an application of equivalent merit. Preference will be given to applications that:

1. Are jointly submitted by a consortium of eligible entities (10pts).

2. Will serve students and the families of those students who attend schools that have been identified for comprehensive or targeted support by the NDDPI [ESSA Sec 4303 (a)(3)(A)(l)] (5pts). Guidance on schools that fall into comprehensive and targeted support can be found of ND DPI website

3. Provide services to students attending highly rural LEAs (5pts).

*Applicants should be aware that any response that appears to include incorrect or misleading information in order to receive maximum priority points will be subject to the termination clause (Section One, Item J, Grant Termination).

https://www.nd.gov/dpi/districtsschools/essa/accountability/comprehensive-support-and-improvement

https://www.nd.gov/dpi/districtsschools/essa/accountability/targeted-support-and-improvement

https://www.nd.gov/dpi/districtsschools/essa/accountability

8

Section Three - Grant Application Requirements

Applicants work through the Application forms in WebGrants, consider these criteria in each applicable area?

Section Description A. Need for Project The extent in which the proposed project will provide services or otherwise address

the needs of students at risk of educational failure (2-page minimum). It is recommended applicants use five objective data sources in addition to free and reduced lunch count.

1. The needs of the proposed target population and whether the proposed program is calculated to meet the needs of the target population. For example:

a. Are the students to be served attending a school that is in the program improvement category?

b. Are the students exposed to factors which place them at risk of failing to achieve success in school?

c. Are the students in need of academic improvement based upon individual performance?

d. These factors may include poverty, limited English proficiency, dropout rates, truancy, juvenile delinquency rates or unmet childcare needs, and students who attend targeted or comprehensive schools; applicants should define how these factors are linked to risk of academic failure.

2. The services to be provided and whether, if appropriate, those services are based upon rigorous, evidence-based principles and will help participants meet local content and academic achievement standards.

3. How are the services provided to help students and their families mitigate risk factors and achieve the state’s academic standards?

B. Quality of Project Design

The extent in which the application describes the design of the project: 1. Clearly define the projects goals, objectives, and outcomes; 2. The proposed measurement of these goals, objectives, and outcomes; 3. The ability to show a direct relation between the goals, objectives, and

outcomes to the state’s academic achievement standards; 4. The description of the end outcomes expected; 5. Whether the programs will result in academic improvement in mathematics,

reading, technology, and science; 6. Which the inputs and outputs are described; 7. Which families of students were involved in developing the application and

are anticipated to participate in the project; 8. Whether the project has identified and clearly explained a feasible plan for

sustainability once funding under the 21st CCLC program is no longer available. The sustainability plan must be a working document that is included as part of the day-to-day operations from the beginning of the project through to the end of the grant period. The sustainability plan must be supplemental to the funding that is awarded with this grant resulting in additional services above and beyond those that could be provided by the grant dollars alone;

9. The comprehensiveness of the program offerings; 10. The duration of the program; 11. And the length of time each week the program will be operating (minimum of

7 hours per week).

9

a. The community learning centers must offer services during non-school hours or periods when school is not in session. Each community should base its application on the needs of its students and families.

b. Centers should consider establishing consistent and dependable hours of operation with at least 65% emphasis on the core academic areas of reading, engineering, mathematics, technology, and/or science.

C. Adequacy of Resources

The extent in which the application describes the ability of the applicant to provide the required resources to host a safe and successful program.

The ability to show reasonableness in costs associated with hosting the program and students to be served. Adequacy of resources will be measured by the following:

1. Adequacy of project resources will be determined by considering the project’s ability to provide facilities, transportation, equipment, supplies, and staff that will result in a high quality program.

2. Staff shall be licensed teachers as far as practical.

3. Applicants will be required to make all assurances required by statute, including the assurance that funds obtained under this program supplement and do not supplant “other federal, state, and local public funds.”

4. Considerations will include:

a. Whether the facilities, equipment, and transportation meet required state health, safety, and fire code standards.

b. A complete FBI background check or federal background check of individuals working in the program is conducted on all staff.

c. Applicants that are not providing services in a public school must provide written documentation that the facility meets health, safety and fire code standards. A notarized document is sufficient to meet this requirement.

5. The reasonableness of the proposed budget in relation to the number of students to be served.

6. If using alternate sites, whether the location is at least as available and accessible to the students to be served as if the program were located in an elementary, middle or secondary school.

7. The applicant has addressed transportation to and from the site.

8. If assessing a fee, whether there is an effective process for assuring families not to be prevented from participating due to financial consideration, and an assurance that those fees collected will be used for the sole purpose of furthering the 21st CCLC program objectives and will be expended during the program year in which the funds are collected.

D. Quality of Management Plan

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. Quality of the management plan will be measured by the following:

1. A quality management plan will include, at a minimum, a detailed budget, staffing needs and the qualifications (including the use of licensed teachers) and responsibilities of the staff.

2. Timelines for achieving clearly delineated objectives.

3. The applicant plan for assuring stakeholders perspectives are considered in the management of the project.

4. The applications must contain approval and support of school administrators of students to be served.

10

5. A detailed training plan and funding, which should include: a. Initial training required; b. Ongoing training to be provided; c. Evidence of success of training; d. Amount of training required; e. A timeline of training to be provided; and f. How training will be funded.

6. Applicants must also address how student and family privacy rights will be assured.

7. Applicants shall describe how they will participate collaboratively with the school in assuring the educational needs of students are met including, participation in IEP meetings and other meetings to benefit the education of individual students.

E. Quality of Project Evaluation

The extent in which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible, as well as evaluating the Measures of Effectiveness. Quality evaluation means that the project will be evaluated based upon the Measures of Effectiveness, Section 4205(b). The Measures of Effectiveness require programs to

1. Be based upon an assessment of objective data regarding the need for before and after school (or summer recess) programs and activities in the schools and communities;

2. Be based upon an established set of performance measures aimed at ensuring the availability of high-quality academic enrichment opportunities;

3. If appropriate, be based upon evidence-based research that the program or activity will help students meet the challenging State academic standards and any local academic standards;

4. Ensure that measures of student success align with the regular academic program of the school and the academic needs of participating students and include performance indicators and measures described in section 4203(a)(14)(A); and

5. Collect the data necessary for the measures of student success described in subparagraph (D).

Project evaluation will be measured on the following:

1. Each grantee will do periodic evaluations annually, at a minimum, to assess progress toward its stated goals and objectives.

2. Each grantee will annually evaluate their alignment to meeting the Measures of Effectiveness.

3. Results of the evaluation are used to refine, improve, and strengthen the program and to improve and enhance the performance measures to strengthen the program.

4. Applications will explain the data to be collected, how and when it will be collected, how and when the data will be evaluated and analyzed, when the data will be available to the state and the public, and how the information obtained will be used to improve project outcomes.

11

*Programs whose attendees consistently fail to meet performance standards will be provided with additional technical assistance or considered for fund reduction, as appropriate.

F. Quality of Partnerships

Under this component, project applicants will be required to demonstrate that they have established collaborations with various community organizations as appropriate.

1. Includes a list of all community partners. 2. The services to be provided by partners. 3. Partnership Agreement in the 21st CCLC program.

See Partnership Agreement, Attachment B.

Section Four – Program Requirements Section Description A. Collaboration Applicants must collaborate with LEAs, public and nonprofit agencies and

organizations, businesses, educational entities (such as vocational and adult education programs, school-to-work programs, community colleges or universities), recreational, cultural, and other community service entities. Furthermore, non-LEA applicants must include an assurance that states “the proposed program was developed and will be carried out in active collaboration with the schools the students attend”.

Eligible entities that would like to apply as a consortium must include the following information with their application:

1. A signed letter of commitment from each eligible entity giving permission for the consortium to apply on their behalf.

2. A consortium agreement identifying the sub-grantee and fiscal agent for the three-year grant period.

3. Signed assurances that the consortium guidance has been reviewed.

Consortium guidance can be found at: https://www.nd.gov/dpi/SchoolStaff/SSI/21CCLC/resources/guidance/ *Applicants are not required to apply as a consortium; eligible entities can apply as an individual sub-grantee.

B. Required Activities Each eligible entity that receives an award may use the award funds to carry out a broad array of activities that advance student academic achievement and support student success, including:

1. Academic enrichment learning programs, mentoring programs, remedial education activities, and tutoring services, that are aligned with the challenging State academic standards and any local academic standards; and local curricula that are designed to improve student academic achievement;

2. Well-rounded education activities, including such activities that enable students to be eligible for credit recovery or attainment;

3. Literacy education programs, including financial literacy programs and environmental literacy programs;

4. Programs that support a healthy and active lifestyle, including nutritional education and regular, and physical activity programs;

5. Services for individuals with disabilities;

6. Programs that provide after-school activities for students who are English learners that emphasize language skills and academic achievement;

7. Cultural programs;

https://www.nd.gov/dpi/SchoolStaff/SSI/21CCLC/resources/guidance/

12

8. Telecommunications and technology education programs;

9. Expanded library service hours;

10. Parenting skills programs that promote parental involvement and family literacy;

11. Programs that provide assistance to students who have been truant, suspended, or expelled to allow the students to improve their academic achievement;

12. Drug and violence prevention programs and counseling programs;

13. Programs that build skills in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (referred to in this paragraph as ‘STEM’), including computer science, and that foster innovation in learning by supporting nontraditional STEM education teaching methods; programs are encouraged to include the arts to expand STEM as referred to as STEAM; and

14. That partner with in-demand fields of the local workforce or build career competencies and career readiness and ensure that local workforce and career readiness skills are aligned with the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.).

15. Applicants may also include a variety of other activities for children and community members, such as recreation; musical and artistic activities;

16. Health and nutrition programs;

17. Parent education classes;

18. GED preparation;

19. Adult literacy courses;

20. Opportunities to use advanced technology, particularly for those who do not have access to computers or telecommunications at home.

Programming must be a minimum of seven hours per week including those programs operating during the summer months; and at least 65 percent of all programming must be in the core academic areas of reading, engineering, mathematics, arts, technology, and/or science. Credit recovery programs do not qualify for the use of these funds.

To receive a grant under this program, applicants must provide services that address the program activities stated in the law as described below:

Authorized under Title IV, Part B, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the ESSA of 2015, the law’s specific purposes are to:

Provide opportunities for academic enrichment, including providing tutorial services to help students (particularly students in high-poverty areas and those who attend low-performing schools) meet state and local student performance standards in core academic subjects, such as reading and mathematics (see page 17 for further information);

1. Use best practices, including research or evidence-based practices, to provide educational and related activities that will complement and enhance academic performance, achievement, postsecondary and workforce preparation, and positive youth development of the students (ESSA);

2. Offer students a broad array of additional services, programs, and activities, such as youth development activities; drug and violence prevention

13

programs; counseling programs; art, music, and recreation programs; technology education programs; and character education programs, that are designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic program of participating students; and

3. Offers families of students served by such center opportunities for active and meaningful engagement in their children’s education, including opportunities for literacy and related educational development. Projects must offer programs that serve the families of participating students that are aligned to state standards, comply with best practices and; if appropriate, are evidence-based, meet the measures of effectiveness, can be measured in terms of performance objectives and are calculated to achieve the intended outcomes (ESSA).

Applicants are reminded of their obligation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to ensure that their program is accessible to persons with disabilities and must comply with the equitable participation requirements of Section 9501 for children attending private schools.

Section Description A. Collaboration Applicants must collaborate with LEAs, public and nonprofit agencies and













26. Programs that provide after-school activities for students who are English


14

learners that emphasize language skills and academic achievement;




















5. Offer students a broad array of additional services, programs, and activities, such as youth development activities; drug and violence prevention programs; counseling programs; art, music, and recreation programs;

15

technology education programs; and character education programs, that are designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic program of participating students; and



Section Description A. Collaboration Applicants must collaborate with LEAs, public and nonprofit agencies and













46. Programs that provide after-school activities for students who are English


16

learners that emphasize language skills and academic achievement;




















8. Offer students a broad array of additional services, programs, and activities, such as youth development activities; drug and violence prevention programs; counseling programs; art, music, and recreation programs;

17

technology education programs; and character education programs, that are designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic program of participating students; and



C. Federal Sub-Grantee Reporting Requirements

1. Annual Performance Report (APR) Each year, grantees must submit an Annual Performance Report (APR) which describes project activities, accomplishments, and outcomes. The purpose of the APR is to:

a. demonstrate that substantial progress has been made toward meeting the objectives of the project as outlined in the grant application and

b. collect data that addresses the performance indicators for the 21st CCLC program.

There are two types of data collected on the APR: descriptive data and achievement data. The sections of the APR that include descriptive data will be due to the STATE approximately two months before the anniversary date of the grant award. The section of the APR containing achievement data must be submitted by all grantees on a due date to be set by the STATE. In the last year of the grant cycle, a final report summarizing the major challenges and accomplishments achieved during the grant period will be required in addition to the APR. This report is due no later than 90 days after the end of each grant period.

2. National Evaluations Grantees are also required to participate in any national evaluations conducted by the USDE, as well as the evaluations conducted by the STATE. STATE will collect data to determine the percentage of students participating in 21st CCLCs who meet or exceed the proficient level of performance on state assessments in reading, mathematics, and science. Grantees are required to submit any and all data and reports to the STATE upon request and funding may be withheld until those reports are submitted and requests are in compliance. In addition, grantees will participate in any program evaluation or audit conducted by the state or when appropriate by a state approved contractor. Additionally, project directors are required to participate and be in attendance at all meetings and conferences sponsored by the STATE.

3. STATE Required Reports Sub-grantees are required to submit multiple reports via Webgrants to STATE staff in a timely manner. The following is a list of required reports:

• Quarterly Status Project Reports • Budget Revision • Request for Funds

D. Monitoring Requirements

The STATE 21st CCLC office monitors the effectiveness of each 21st CCLC program regularly. The purpose of monitoring is to ensure that all 21st CCLC programs are meeting the USDE general administrative regulations. The regulations to monitor are:

18

1. 76.770 A state shall have procedures to ensure compliance. Each state shall have procedures for providing technical assistance, for evaluating projects, and for performing other administrative responsibilities the state has determined are necessary to ensure compliance with applicable statutes and regulations.

2. 80.40 Monitoring and reporting program performance. Grantees are

responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of grant and sub-grant supported activities. Grantees must monitor grant and sub-grant supported activities to assure compliance with applicable federal requirements and that performance goals are being achieved. Grantee monitoring must cover each program, function, or activity.

E. Components of a Quality Afterschool Program

According to the USDE publication Working for Children and Families: Safe and Smart Afterschool Programs, eight components are generally present in high-quality afterschool programs. The eight components are:

1. Goal setting, strong management, and sustainability.

2. Quality afterschool staffing.

3. Attention to safety, health, and nutrition issues.

4. Effective partnerships with community-based organizations, juvenile justice agencies, law enforcement, and youth groups.

5. Strong involvement of families.

6. Enriching learning opportunities.

7. Linkages between school-day and afterschool personnel.

8. Evaluation of program progress and effectiveness.

Working for Children and Families is available at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED441579.pdf. Applicants are encouraged to address these components in their program narrative in the application.

F. Measures of Effectiveness

Grant applicants are required to meet and monitor Measures of Effectiveness of the 21st CCLC program. Measures of Effectiveness are explained in section 4205 (b) of ESSA. The Measures of Effectiveness require programs to:

1. Be based upon an assessment of objective data regarding the need for before and after school (or summer recess) programs and activities in the schools and communities;

2. Be based upon an established set of performance measures aimed at ensuring the availability of high-quality academic enrichment opportunities;

3. If appropriate, be based upon evidence-based research that the program or activity will help students meet the challenging State academic standards and any local academic standards;

4. Ensure that measures of student success align with the regular academic program of the school and the academic needs of participating students and include performance indicators and measures described in section 4203(a)(14)(A); and

5. Collect the data necessary for the measures of student success described in subparagraph (D).

In addition, applicants must describe plan for explaining data. This can be evidenced in appendices such as policies and procedures explaining data collection.

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED441579.pdf

19

Section Five - Selection and Review Process

Section Description A. Selection Criteria External peer reviewers will use criteria in the scoring rubric to evaluate applications

for funding, with a point value for each section. The STATE’s intent in this section of the application is to identify the selection criteria and help applicants understand how the point value will be applied during the review process. Each section criterion is presented in the scoring rubric and followed by supporting guidance regarding how the criterion applies to this competition. The reviewers of your application will use these criteria to guide their reviews, so it is in the applicant’s best interest to be familiar with them.

B. Overview The STATE administers the 21st CCLC grant program. This grant competition is for a period of three years. The STATE shall ensure all grant reviewers are qualified.

C. Peer Reviewers The STATE will use a competitive selection process to establish contracts for external peer reviewers, selecting the three highest scored proposals. Peer reviewers will be solicited from a potential large array of organizations, including educational and non-educational entities.

The national 21st CCLC listserv. Teachers and principals. Representative from community education, researchers and evaluators

with methodical expertise. Representatives from community service agencies and faith-based

organizations. Private sector individuals involved in education. Local and civic leaders. Representative from higher education.

The external peer reviewers will be required to sign a Conflict of Interest statement. Anyone who has an existing relationship with a North Dakota 21st CCLC grant application will not be able to become a peer reviewer. STATE Federal Title Programs staff will not be allowed to review applications; however, should the need arise, other non-Title I staff may be required to be reviewers; but ONLY if there aren’t other sufficient external peer reviewers.

D. Training of Peer Reviewers (If Applicable)

Selected peer reviewers will be required to review the North Dakota 21st CCLC grant review training via Microsoft Teams and will be required to sign a certificate of assurance after they have completed the training.

E. Compensation Each peer reviewer will be compensated based on the number of applications assigned to him/her.

F. Funding *Grant funding is contingent upon availability of 21st CCLC funding from federal sources; and if federal funding is not obtained and/or continued at levels sufficient for the grant, awards may be reduced or discontinued.

G. Sustainability Plan Each applicant must include a detailed plan for sustainability to address how they will meet the needs of the students to be served if federal funding were to end. A successful plan will be an evolving document. It should include partners and the services they will provide, as well as the process to obtain additional funding other than federal or state dollars.

20

Attachment A

21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS Grant Competition – Application for Selection

Scoring Rubric

Maximum Points Available – 210

This scoring rubric will be used for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) competitive grant review process to score grant applications. Each item is rated on a point scale for each section. *Grant funding is contingent upon availability of 21st CCLC funding from federal sources and if federal funding is not obtained and/or continued at levels sufficient for the grant, awards may be reduced or discontinued. Competitive Priorities – 20 Points Total Maximum Points Was application submitted as a consortium? Yes (10pts) or No (0 pts) ______

Does applicant serve students who attend schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support?

Yes (5pts) or No (0 pts) _____

Does applicant serve students who attend highly rural LEA’s? Yes (5pts) or No (0 pts) _____ Total Points for Competitive Preferences _______

A. NEED FOR THE PROJECT – 15 Points Maximum

1. Need for the program meets the needs of the target population. Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support that a comprehensive needs assessment used five objective data sources in addition to free/reduced count.

4 There is significant evidence to support that a comprehensive needs assessment that used four objective data sources in addition to free/reduced count.

3 There is moderate evidence to support that a comprehensive needs assessment that used three objective data sources in addition to free/reduced count.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support that a comprehensive needs assessment used at least two objective data sources in addition to free/reduced count.

1 There is limited or weak evidence to support that a comprehensive needs assessment used at least one objective data source in addition to free/reduced count

0 There is no evidence to support that a comprehensive needs assessment used any objective data source in addition to free/reduced count

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question A #1 _______

21

2. Services to be provided are linked to evidence-based research (EBR), and will help participants meet content and academic achievement standards.

Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence describing services supported by EBR, detailed evidence and links to content and academic achievement, comprehensive plan of how all services and achievement goals are linked together.

4 There is significant evidence to support a description of services supported by EBR, detailed evidence and links to content and academic achievement, adequate plan of how all services and achievement goals are linked together.

3 There is moderate evidence to support a description of services supported by EBR detailed evidence and links to content and academic achievement, adequate plan of how all services and achievement goals are linked together.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support minimal description of services, not supported by EBR, academic achievement and content not supported with evidence, no plan.

1 There is limited or weak evidence to support services supported by EBR, academic achievement, comprehensive plan of how all services and achievement goals are linked together.

0 There is no evidence to support services.

Comments: _______________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question A #2 _______

3. Services provided will help students and families mitigate risk factors and achieve state academic standards.

Points Awarded

Description of Services

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support a detailed plan consisting of four components: needs assessment to services, services are based in EBR, includes evidence to link services to academic achievement and content standards, addresses services to assist families.

4 There is significant evidence to support three of the four components of a detailed plan. 3 There is moderate evidence to support two of the four components of a detailed plan. 2 There is some convincing evidence to support one of the four components of a detailed

plan. 1 There is limited or weak evidence to support any components a detailed plan. 0 There is no evidence to support a detailed plan.

Comments: __________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question A #3 _______ TOTAL SCORE FOR NEED FOR THE PROJECT (15 Points Maximum)

(Combined score for questions A1, A2 and A3) _____________

22

B. QUALITY OF PROJECT DESIGN – 35 Maximum Points 1. Includes goals, objectives, and outcomes of program.

Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support that all goals, outcomes, and objectives are defined, measurable, include measurement process, and can be directly linked to state standards.

4 There is significant evidence to support a majority of goals, outcomes, and objectives are defined, measurable, include measurement process, and can be directly linked to state standards.

3 There is moderate evidence to support that some of the goals, outcomes, and objectives are defined, measurable, may or may not include measurement process, and can be directly linked to state standards.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support that some of the goals, outcomes, and objectives are defined and measurable. Measurement process not included and not linked to state standards.

1 There is limited or weak evidence to support that goals, outcomes and objective are defined, measurable, measurement process not included, not linked to state standards.

0 There is no evidence to support that goals, outcomes, and objectives are defined and measurable. Measurement process not included and not linked to state standards.

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question B #1 _______

2. Description of required inputs and outputs. Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support that all inputs and outputs are described in detail.

4 There is significant evidence to support a majority of inputs and outputs are described in detail.

3 There is moderate evidence to support minor inputs and outputs are described in limited detail.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support inputs and outputs are minimally described. 1 There is limited or weak evidence to support inputs and outputs are described in detail. 0 There is no evidence to support inputs and outputs are described in detail.

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question B #2_______

23

3. Students and families were involved in developing the application and anticipated to participate in the project. Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support that families are significantly involved: multiple meetings held, documentation of meetings, expected attendance, supporting data to verify attendance expected.

4 There is significant evidence to support that families are significantly involved: 1-2 meetings held, documentation of meetings, expected attendance, supporting data to verify attendance expected.

3 There is moderate evidence to support that families are involved: initial meeting held, expected attendance data may or may not be included.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support that families are minimally or not involved: no meetings held, limited expected attendance data.

1 There is limited or weak evidence to support that families are involved, meetings held, or expected attendance data.

0 There is no evidence to support family involvement, meetings held, or expected attendance data.

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question B #3 _______ 4. Sustainability plan. *This should be a document that describes how your 21st CCLC program

would continue without federal funding. Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support that a detailed plan includes a comprehensive working document, description of services provided by partners, list and description of other funding sources, process in finding supplementary funding sources, includes goals and timeline to meet goals.

4 There is significant evidence to support that a detailed plan includes a comprehensive working document, description of services provided by partners, list and description of other funding sources, process in finding supplementary funding sources, includes goals and timeline to meet goals.

3 There is moderate evidence to support that components include a comprehensive working document, description of services provided by partners, list and description of other funding sources, process in finding supplementary funding sources, includes goals and timeline to meet goals.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support components of a detailed plan. 1 There is limited or weak evidence to support components of a detailed plan. 0 There is no evidence to support components of a detailed plan.

Comments: ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________


24

5. Program must operate a minimum of 7 hours a week and 65% of the time must be focused on reading, engineering, mathematics, science and/or technology. Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support components of a detailed plan, which addresses transportation, describes how they will provide services for a minimum of 7 hours per week; daily schedule to verify the plan meets 65% in the required areas; includes lesson plans, includes all activities to be offered.

4 There is significant evidence to support components of a detailed plan, which addresses transportation, describes how they will provide services for a minimum of 7 hours per week, 300 hours a year; daily schedule to verify the plan meets 65% in the four required areas; includes lesson plans, includes all activities to be offered.

3 There is moderate evidence to support components of a detailed plan that addresses transportation, hours, daily schedule, lesson plans, or activities.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support components of a detailed plan that addresses transportation, hours, daily schedule, lesson plans, or activities.

1 There is limited or weak evidence to support components of a detailed plan that addresses transportation, hours, daily schedule, lesson plans or activities.

0 There is no evidence to support components of a detailed plan that addresses transportation, hours, daily schedule, lesson plans, or activities.

Comments: __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________


6. Description of how outcomes will be measured. Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support all goals, outcomes, and objectives have a measurement, process on how they will be measured, and a timeline for measurement.

4 There is significant evidence to support all goals, outcomes, and objectives have a measurement process on how they will be measured and a timeline for measurement.

3 There is moderate evidence to support goals, outcomes, and objective measurement process on how they will be measured, and a timeline for measurement.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support goals, outcomes, and objectives have a measurement process on how they will be measured, may or may not have timeline.

1 There is limited or weak evidence to support goals, outcomes, objectives, process, and may or may not have a timeline.

0 There is no evidence to support goals, outcomes, objectives, process, and has no timeline.

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________


25

7. Description of end outcomes to be achieved by the project. Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support all expected outcomes are listed, described, measurable, correlated to stated goals, and have a timeline for measurement.

4 There is significant evidence to support a majority of expected outcomes are listed, described, measurable, correlate to stated goals, and have a timeline for measurement.

3 There is moderate evidence to support a majority of expected outcomes are listed, described, measurable, correlated to stated goals, no timeline.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support some of expected outcomes are listed, described, measurable, correlated to stated goals, and no timeline.

1 There is limited or weak evidence to support some of expected outcomes are listed, described, measurable, correlated to stated goals and no timeline.

0 There is no evidence to support expected outcomes are listed, described, measurable, correlated to stated goals, and no timeline.

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________


TOTAL SCORE FOR QUALITY OF PROJECT DESIGN (35 POINTS MAXIMUM) (Combined score for questions B1 – B7) __________ C. ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES – 55 Points Maximum Points 1. Facilities meet safety regulations (whether the facilities, equipment, and transportation meet required

state health, safety, and fire code standard, and must have a FBI background check or a federal background check of individuals working in the program).

Points Awarded Description 5 - Meets

Requirement There is clear and convincing evidence to support that documentation is provided that verifies all safety regulations are met.

0 - Does Not Meet Requirements

There is no evidence to support documentation is provided to verify safety regulations are met.

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question C #1 _______ 2. Reasonableness of proposed budget

Points Awarded

Description

30-40 There is clear and convincing evidence to support per student cost, detailed description of process used to calculate this cost, process is tied to all goals, activities, and outcomes, include costs of all activities, include estimated attendance, and have data to support attendance.

21-29 There is significant evidence to support per student cost, detailed description of process used to calculate this cost, process is tied to all goals, activities, and outcomes, include costs of all activities, include estimated attendance, and lacks the supporting data.

13-20 There is moderate evidence to support per student cost, limited description of process used to calculate this cost, process is tied to a majority of goals, activities, and outcomes, include costs of all activities, includes estimated attendance, and lacks the supporting data.

26

6-12 There is some convincing evidence to support per student cost, minimal description of process used to calculate this cost, process is tied to some of the goals, activities, and outcomes, minimally states cost of activities, lacks estimated attendance, lacks the supporting data.

1-5 There is limited or weak evidence to support per student costs, minimal description of process used to calculate cost, process tied to the goals, activities and outcomes, cost of all activities, estimated attendance, and supporting data.

0 There is no evidence to support per student costs, minimal description of process used to calculate cost, process is tied to the goals, activities and outcomes, cost of all activities, estimated attendance, and supporting data.

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question C #2 _______ 3. Sites address how the program will be accessible to students. (Must address transportation)

Points Awarded

Description

5 - Meets Requirement There is clear and convincing evidence to support that the application includes a plan and process to address transportation and accessibility for all students.


There is no evidence to support that a plan to address transportation and accessibility for all students is in place.

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question C #3 _______

4. If applicable, fee assurance and process. (Must meet all components).

Points Awarded

Description

5 - Meets Requirement There is clear and convincing evidence to support that the application included a sliding scale and assurance that fees will not limit access, signed documents that parents were consulted about fee rules, and are aware of their options if unable to pay.


There is no evidence to support the inclusion of a sliding scale and assurances that fees will not limit access, signed documents that parents were consulted about fee rules, and are aware of their options if unable to pay.

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question C #4 _______ TOTAL SCORE FOR ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES (55 POINTS MAXIMUM) (Combined score for questions C1 – C4) _________

27

D. QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT PLAN – 35 Maximum Points 1. Components of a quality management plan. *If application is for a consortium or large school district,

the narrative must include the amounts allocated to each site. Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support that the applicant has included a budget, budget narrative, budget is broken down by line item, all budget items are linked to goals of the project, staffing needs with supporting evidence, includes staff description and roles.

4 There is significant evidence to support that the applicant has included a budget, budget narrative, budget is broken down by line item, all budget items are linked to goals of the project, staffing needs with supporting evidence, includes staff description and roles.

3 There is moderate evidence to support that applicant included a budget, budget narrative, staffing needs, roles of staff with supporting evidence.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support that the applicant did not include one or none of the following: budget, staffing needs, roles of staff. It does not appear that consideration has gone into the planning for budgetary needs targeted to support the 21st CCLC program.

1 There is limited or weak evidence to support that the applicant included a budget, budget narrative, staffing needs, and roles of staff. It does not appear that consideration has gone into the planning for budgetary needs targeted to support the 21st CCLC program.

0 There is no evidence to support that the applicant presented a clear indication of a budget aligned to the described plan or described activities.

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question D #1 _______

2. Timeline of goals and objectives. Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support that all goals and objectives listed in the application have a timeline for achievement.

4 There is significant evidence to support that a majority of goals and objectives listed in application have a timeline for achievement.

3 There is moderate evidence to support that at least half the goals and objectives listed in the application have a timeline for achievement.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support that less than half the goals and objectives in the application have a timeline for achievement.

1 There is limited or weak evidence to support that the applicant provided the planned budget that supports the program for the three year period.

0 There is no evidence to support that the applicant presented a clear description of goals and objectives with a feasible timeline.

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________


28

3. Stakeholders are included in the development of the management plan (parents, administrators, teachers and staff).

Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support that all stakeholder groups were consulted; includes multiple sources of quantitative data.

4 There is significant evidence to support that all stakeholder groups were consulted; includes 1-2 sources for quantitative data.

3 There is moderate evidence to support that three stakeholder groups were consulted, a minimum of one meeting was held, may or may not include qualitative data.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support that less than three stakeholder groups were consulted.

1 There is limited or weak evidence to support that at least one stakeholder group was consulted.

0 There is no evidence to support that stakeholder groups were included. Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________


4. Support of school administrators. Points Awarded Description 5 - Included There is clear and convincing evidence to support the documentation of

administrator support. 0 - Not Included There is no evidence to support the documentation of administrative support.

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________


5. Plan for training (includes funding). Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support that a detailed training plan will include: initial training required, ongoing training to be provided, evidence of success of training, amount of training required, includes a timeline of training to be provided, how training will be funded.

4 There is significant evidence to support that a detailed training plan will include: initial training required, ongoing training to be provided, evidence of success of training, amount of training required, includes a timeline of training to be provided, how training will be funded.

3 There is moderate evidence to support that the application contains all components of a detailed plan but lacks a timeline.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support that the application contains a majority of the components of a detailed plan, may or may not include a timeline

1 There is limited or weak evidence to support that the application contains two or three components of a detailed plan, and lacks a timeline.

0 There is no evidence to support that a detailed plan and timeline was submitted. Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________


29

6. Includes a policy on protection of student and family privacy rights.

Points Awarded Description 5 - Included There is clear and convincing evidence to support that the application includes

a privacy policy. 0 - Not Included There is no evidence to support the inclusion of a privacy policy.

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question D #6 _______ 7. Applications contain a plan for collaboration between schools for students served and afterschool

program. Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support that a detailed plan will include: multiple methods of communication, multiple ways afterschool is aligned with regular day, assurance of afterschool participation in regular day meetings, includes timeline for regular meetings.

4 There is significant evidence to support that the application includes all components of a detailed plan, but lacks a timeline.

3 There is moderate evidence to support that the application includes all components of a detailed plan, but is limited in the methods of aligning to the school day and methods of communication, may or may not have a timeline.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support components of a detailed plan. 1 There is limited or weak evidence to support that the application has an extremely limited

plan, no timeline. 0 There is no evidence to support that a detailed plan included collaboration between

schools for students served and an afterschool program. Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question D #7 _______ TOTAL SCORE FOR Quality of Management Plan (35 POINTS MAXIMUM) (Combined score for questions D1 – D7) ________

30

E. QUALITY OF PROJECT EVALUATION – 20 Maximum Points 1. Grantee performs annual evaluations.

Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support the application contains comprehensive monitoring plan: alignment to goals, objectives, outcomes, adherence to federal requirements, includes a monitoring tool, uses multiple ways to monitor sub-grantees, document to tie everything together, and includes a timeline when monitoring data will be collected.

4 There is significant evidence to support that the application includes all aspects of comprehensive plan, does not include a timeline.

3 There is moderate evidence to support that the application includes monitoring for alignment to goals, objectives, outcomes, adherence to federal requirements, includes a monitoring tool, uses onsite monitoring and one other process to monitor, may or may not include a timeline.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support the application only uses onsite monitoring may or may not include other aspects of a comprehensive plan.

1 There is limited or weak evidence to support that the application contains a comprehensive monitoring plan.

0 There is no evidence to support a monitoring plan. Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question E #1 _______

2. Program monitors adherence to Meeting Measures of Effectiveness (MOE)

Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support that the application provided information to use at least five processes to monitor MOE.

4 There is significant evidence to support that the application provided information to use at least five processes to monitor MOE.

3 There is moderate evidence to support that the application provided information to use four described processes to monitor MOE.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support that the application provided information to use three described processes to monitor MOE.

1 There is limited or weak evidence to support that the application provided less than two processes to monitor MOE.

0 There is no evidence to support information using described processes to monitor MOE. Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________


31

3. Use of results to refine, improve and strengthen program. Points Awarded Description 5 - Included There is clear and convincing evidence to support the application includes a

plan to review all monitoring documents and how required changes will be implemented.

0 - Not Included There is no evidence to support a plan to review all monitoring documents. Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question E #3 _______ 4. Applicant has a plan for explaining data

Points Awarded

Description

5 There is clear and convincing evidence to support a detailed plan includes the following steps with detailed description: explanation of data collected, how it will be collected, when it will be collected, when outcomes will be published, how it will be used to improve project, includes a timeline.

4 There is significant evidence to support a detailed plan includes the following steps with detailed description: explanation of data collected, how it will be collected, when it will be collected, when outcomes will be published, how it will be used to improve project, includes a timeline.

3 There is moderate evidence to support that that the applicant was missing one of the elements of a detailed plan, description of activities is minimal, and may or may not include a timeline.

2 There is some convincing evidence to support that the applicant is missing more than one element of a detailed plan, limited description, and may or may not include a timeline.

1 There is limited or weak evidence to support a detailed plan for explaining data. 0 There is no evidence to support a detailed plan for explaining data.

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________


TOTAL SCORE FOR Quality of Project Evaluation (30 POINTS MAXIMUM) (Combined score for questions E1 – E4) _______ F. QUALITY OF PARTNERSHIPS – 30 Maximum Points 1. Includes a list of partners

Points Awarded Description 10 - Included There is clear and convincing evidence to support that the application includes

a list of all partners. 0 - Not Included There is no evidence to support a list of all partners was included.

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question F #1 _______

32

2. Services provided by partners

Points Awarded Description 10 - Included There is clear and convincing evidence to support the application includes a

list of all services provided by all partners. 0 - Not Included There is no evidence to support the application includes a list of all services

provided by all partners. Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question F #2 _______

3. Includes verification of partner involvement Points Awarded Description 10 - Included There is clear and convincing evidence to support that the application includes

signed agreements from all partners listed. 0 - Not Included There is no evidence to support that the application includes signed

agreements from all partners listed was included. Comments: __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Points for Question F #3 _______ TOTAL SCORE FOR Quality of Partnerships (30 POINTS MAXIMUM) (Combined score for questions F1 – F3) _______ Maximum Points Possible – 210 Points Minimum Points Allowed – 145 Points

Section Points Possible

Points Awarded

Competitive Priorities 20

A. Need for the Project 15

B. Quality of Project Design 35

C. Adequacy of Resources 55

D. Quality of Management Plan 35

E. Quality of Project Evaluation 20

F. Quality of Partnerships 30

TOTAL POINTS AWARDED 210

33

Attachment B

Sample Partnership Agreement

Partner Name:

Contact:

Contact Email:

Contact Number:

Address:

Contact Email:

Description of Partner: Services to be Provided by Partner:

_____________________________ _______________

Signature of Partner Date

_____________________________ _______________

Signature of Authorized Representative Date

Documents

21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS