1. SPDG Competition FY 2011 Management Plan

2. (f) 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) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.

3. First Criterion (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.

4. Clearly Defined Responsibilities Ensure that the responsibilities of all partners are clearly described (e.g., parent program centers, local education agencies, universities/colleges). Ensure that each of these responsibilities is appropriately budgeted for. Align the responsibilities with the appropriate objectives/goals.

5. Details, details… Timelines and Milestones The reviewers need to know that you have a plan in place and that for each objective there are activities with timelines and a benchmarks toward completion Reviewer Comment: --Two key areas were missing from this section that resulted in point deduction: (1) information about the responsibilities and effort expectations of project consultants was absent from this section and (2) project timelines and milestones.

6. For an example of performance-based contracting: March 28, 2011: Performance-based Contracting and Maine’s SPDG http://www.signetwork.org/wikis/8/page/March_28,_2011:_Performance- based_Contracting_and_Maine%E2%80%99s_SPDG March 28, 2011: Performance-based Contracting and Maine’s SPDG http://www.signetwork.org/wikis/8/page/March_28,_2011:_Performance- based_Contracting_and_Maine%E2%80%99s_SPDG

7. Second Criterion Describe how the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate,

8. October 25, 2010: SPDG Directors' Webinar: How to Work with your SPDG Advisory Board http://www.signetwork.org/content_pages/140 http://www.signetwork.org/content_pages/140

9. Reviewer Comments “Applicant describes how multiple perspectives will be brought to the project (p. 66-67). Multiple committees/teams are outlined in this section (Project Management Team, Advisory Committee, Practitioners’ Advisory Committee). Additional information about the coordination between these groups would have been helpful to the reviewer.

10. Reviewer Comments “The reader had concerns regarding the purpose and use of the advisory board since it only meets twice a year. More detail on how they will be used and what strategies will be employed to accomplish the work is needed.” “There does appear to be collaboration among the various groups and this provides a fairly diverse level of perspectives. The application would have benefitted from documentation of involvement by” the cultural group receiving PD.

11. Reviewer Comments “The role of focus groups and the steering committee was not clear with regard to how their input will result in program refinement or changes to activities. This caused the reader concern for the level of diversity of those providing input.” “Project Advisory Board membership is described on page 70 with members listed on page 71. Reviewer noted that most members of the Advisory Board are also key personnel on the project. Additional perspectives need to be reflected by adding non-project related members to board.”

12. Reviewer Comments “Required partners/perspectives are outlined in Appendix J. Additional information about how the applicant will solicit input from the stakeholders listed was needed.”

13. “The proposal does not describe how the applicant will ensure a diversity of perspectives impact project implementation or evaluation. Follow up meetings will be conducted for parents, community members and elders to share information on the use of the intervention, but limited detail regarding the way this will be done is provided.”