The responses to requests for information in the IGA zwill be subjectively and objectively evaluated on a few go / no go factors, and quantitatively evaluated based on responses to requested information, with weighting factors as indicated below.
Go / No go factors: If any of the following statements are not true for a prospective grantee, the IGA will be deemed unacceptable and not further reviewed. In such cases, the prospective grantee will be informed. If an IGA is rejected, the Board may choose, in its sole discretion, to allow the prospective grantee to cure the defects in the IGA and resubmit it, but as a general rule, all submitted IGAs should be considered final when delivered to the Peninsula Endowment.
Go / No go factors: If any of the following statements are not true for a prospective grantee, the IGA will be deemed unacceptable and not further reviewed. In such cases, the prospective grantee will be informed. If an IGA is rejected, the Board may choose, in its sole discretion, to allow the prospective grantee to cure the defects in the IGA and resubmit it, but as a general rule, all submitted IGAs should be considered final when delivered to the Peninsula Endowment.
- Prospective Innovation Grantee must be a nonprofit IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization which is principally physically located in Northern California, USA.
- Prospective Innovation Grantee must serve persons with visual disabilities who reside principally in Northern California, USA
- Prospective Innovation Grantee must complete an IGA and attach requested supporting documentation by the submission deadline.
- Unacceptable response.
- No response to request for information provided.
- Response demonstrated a significant misunderstanding of the information requested.
- Response does not meet the criteria espoused in the request for information even to a minimum extent
- Weak response
- Response meets certain aspects of the information request to a minimum extent but fails in several others.
- Response demonstrates little evidence of ability to meet or deliver to the proposed criteria espoused in the request for information.
- Fair response.
- Response meets the majority but not all aspects of the criteria espoused in the request for information.
- Response demonstrates adequate evidence of ability to meet or deliver to the proposed criteria espoused in the request for information.
- Good response.
- Response meets all aspects of the criteria espoused in the request for information.
- Response is comprehensive, providing a demonstration of clear and thorough understanding of the criteria espoused in the request for information.
- Response indicates clear evidence of ability to meet or deliver to the proposed criteria espoused in the request for information.
- Response exceeds criteria espoused in the request for information.
- Response indicates an approach which materially exceeds the criteria espoused in the request for information through a creative or innovative approach.
- Response indicates aspects of project likely to generate additional added value.
- Response demonstrates clear evidence of ability to exceed the proposed criteria espoused in the request for information.
Other Factors to Evaluate: Responses to the following requests for information using the indicated weighting factors in an IGA are to be quantitatively evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being unacceptable and 5 being excellent.
ld describe the quality and innovative nature of the proposed project. The application should clearly articulate the benefits of the project for project participants. The application should also describe the importance and relevance of the issues addressed in the project and how the project aligns with the funding priorities of the Peninsula Endowment. Other issues which may be addressed in the application to demonstrate the strength of the project may include: the number and scope of project beneficiaries, the degree of benefit expected to be conferred, the vulnerability of the target group of beneficiaries, any diversity, deprivation effects and/or inequality issues to be addressed, etc.
20% Weighting. Likelihood of Project Success and Ability to Measure Success: The application should describe the range of outcomes or outputs expected as a result of implementing the innovative project, how the prospective grantee will define success based on the range of expected outcomes, and the likelihood of achieving those outcomes. The application should describe how the prospective grantee will objectively measure such success. The application should also describe strengths and weaknesses of the prospective grantee in terms of implementation skills to successfully carry through with projects of the type and scope proposed.
10% Weighting. Description of Due Diligence that Project Benefits will actually Positively Affect Persons with Visual Disabilities: The application should describe the efforts the applicant performed to confirm that persons with visual disabilities will actually positively benefit from the implementation of the project, as compared to a theoretical benefit. For example, a project which proposes to implement a specific program which only a limited number of, or no persons with visual disabilities would be reasonably expected to actually benefit from would not be considered appropriate, even if the project sounds great from a theoretical standpoint. Also, for example, a project which proposes to generate a specific benefit which persons with visual disabilities would not be reasonably expected to value will not be viewed favorably.
10% Weighting. Description of Financial Needs of the Applicant to Implement Proposed Project: The application should describe the financial needs of the applicant organization in terms of funding the proposed project. Greater priority is expected to be given to applicants whose financial needs are greater than others.
10% Weighting. Budgeted Project Costs. The application should include a simple budget detailing the revenues expected from and expenses of implementing the proposed project. If the expected project costs are expected to be more than the Innovation Grant amount, the application should describe the sources of the additional funds needed to fully implement the project. If the project is expected to be implemented over a period of longer than 1 year, the application should describe how the Innovation Grant funds will be utilized during the life of the project. A sample templet budget is provided in the IGA for the convenience of applicants and may be filled in directly in the IGA. Alternatively, an applicant may submit the requested budget estimate in the form of a text based document such as Microsoft® Word or Microsoft® Excel as an additional attachment to the IGA when submitted. Note that a template Microsoft® Excel budget document was sent along with the IGA for the convenience of applicants.
Rating scale for quantitively evaluating application responses. To promote transparency, the following general criteria may be used to guide the Peninsula endowment IGA reviewers concerning any given response on a grant application.