1. ACF, Office of Child Care Tribal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Visiting Program: Development and Implementation April 2016

2. Reviewers’ Written Comments Purpose:  To indicate the application strengths and weaknesses and to justify the numeric score  To assist the Office of Child Care in determining which applicants to fund  To provide useful feedback to all applicants, including those who are not funded

3. Requirements for Written Comments  Comments must be written in complete sentences  Use proper grammar and spelling  Justify each strength and weakness statement  Do not mix strengths and weaknesses in the same comment  Comments must support the score(s)  Be specific, detailed yet concise  Be tactful and professional  Evaluate rather than merely restate  Spell out acronyms in the first reference

4. How to Write Effective Comments  Comments MUST be written to support your scores and to inform the award selection process.  Comments MUST include both judgments and explanations  Comments MUST align with the Funding Opportunity Announcement evaluation criteria  Comments MUST include examples to support findings, citing page numbers when referring to details in the proposal  Comments MUST clearly identify and explain the proposal’s strengths and weaknesses Support your scores with substantive comments Applicants will be able to see your comments: Please be courteous and direct in your response, and ensure that your comments support your scores.

5. How to Write Clear and Supported Comments Comments should include both a judgment and support Not Acceptable: “A timeline for the project is provided.” Weak and Unclear: “The applicant has included a realistic timeline and provides a chart showing what could be accomplished.” Better: “The applicant provides a comprehensive work plan for the implementation of the proposed project. The chart includes a timeline and specific activities for partners and staff (pages 9-11). Best: “The application includes a comprehensive and realistic timeline for implementation, specifying a logical sequence of milestones and clear task assignments for staff and partners in the project (pages 9-11).”

6. How to Avoid Unacceptable Comments Unacceptable comments will be rejected and returned to you for revision Comments will be considered unacceptable if they consist of: Judgments not based on relevant criteria or do not adequately justify scores Judgments based on knowledge not contained in the application materials Restatements or paraphrases of the proposal Assertions that an applicant has or has not met criteria without providing any basis for such assertions Circular reasoning (“It reduces expenditures because it brings down costs.”) Inappropriately harsh, offensive, or demeaning comments Poorly written or unintelligible commentary

7. Reviewers’ Written Comments Goal: To write specific and detailed evaluative comments (strengths and weaknesses) in support of scores based on evaluation criteria. Comments must be well-documented with examples from the application. Definition: What are “evaluative” comments?  Evaluative comments assess the value, worth or quality of the information in the application in relation to the evaluation criteria.

8. Helpful Hints  Focus comments on significant strengths and weaknesses.  When writing comments, ask yourself, “What?” or “How?”  “What is the significance of my comment?”  How will my comment help ACF with making a funding determination?”  Ask yourself, “Does my comment illustrate how an aspect of the application did or did not comply with the review criteria?”

9. Helpful Hints – Con’t  Identify the various criteria that the Funding Opportunity Announcement lists, find the related information in each application and determine whether or not the application includes all of the information it is supposed to include.  Identify sections of the application that are relevant to criteria and evaluate the extent to which the application responds to them.  Use only the information presented in the application.

10. Helpful Words Appropriate/Inappropriate Comprehensive/Partial Convincing/Unconvincing Demonstrates/Lacks Describes/Fails to describe Details/Broad Documented/Undocumented Exhaustive/Limited Experienced/Inexperienced Extensive/Limited or narrow Feasible/Unlikely Focused/Unfocused Innovative/Common Justified/Unjustified Presents/Fails to present Provides evidence/Lacks evidence Qualified/Unqualified Reasonable/Unreasonable Sound/Unsound Specify/Does not specify Strong/Weak or Vague Thorough or Complete/Incomplete

11. Final Considerations General Questions to Ask Yourself:  Does the applicant provide complete responses to the evaluation criteria?  Are the applicant’s intentions clear and specific?  Are activities outlined in the different sections of the application consistent with one another (e.g., does the applicant make the case that the proposed approach will meet the described needs and accomplish the proposed objectives)?  Are the described activities consistent with current, accepted knowledge and best practices in the field?  Do the ideas flow logically?