Structural Readiness Proposal Evaluation Guide 2016-2017

Notice

This website will change as a result of the dissolution of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, the creation of Indigenous Services Canada and the eventual creation of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. During this transformation, you may also wish to consult the updated Indigenous and Northern Affairs home page.

Introduction

This Structural Readiness Proposal Evaluation Guide is for use alongside the Structural Readiness Proposal Evaluation Worksheet.

Please ensure that the appropriate Microsoft Excel worksheet, "FNSSP –Structural Readiness Proposal Evaluation Forms/Worksheets," is used to complete the evaluation.

Scoring Criteria

The proposal will be evaluated in accordance with a 5 point scoring system in each section and sub-section of the evaluation. Detailed scoring level criteria have been identified in each of the sections and are provided to guide the reviewer in objectively identifying the appropriate score. The relevant sections of the proposal that should be reviewed to evaluate each of the criteria are also indicated to assist the reviewer.

Proposal Requirement Sections and Evaluation Weight:

  1. Current State / Statement of Need - 5%
  2. Capability - 25%
  3. Consultation and Commitment - 5%
  4. Implementation Activities and Project Costs - 45%
    • 4.1 Activities Planned
    • 4.2 Expected Results
    • 4.3 Activity Expenses/Proposed Budget
  5. Project Management - 15%
    • 5.1 Project Governance
    • 5.2 Project Monitoring, Reporting, and Evaluation
    • 5.3 Human Resources Management
    • 5.4 Risk Management
  6. Overall - 5%

1. Current State/Statement of Need:

Describe the background and context for the project, what issues are to be addressed and the drivers leading to the request.

Total Weight - 5%

Demonstrated through the Current State/Statement of Need section of the proposal

Rating Level 1 – Score 0-1 point:

  • The current state/statement of need is not well described.
  • Gaps, needs, goals and approaches are unclear or have not been identified through an assessment tool/process.

Rating Level 2 – Score 2-3 points:

  • The current state/statement of need is described but only at a high level.
  • Gaps, needs, goals and approaches are described at a high level and/or have been partly identified through an assessment tool/process.

Rating Level 3 – Score 4-5 points:

  • The current state/statement of need is clearly and fully described.
  • Detailed information is also provided about what the gaps, needs, goals and approaches are and have been clearly identified through an assessment tool/process.

2. Capability

This section guides the evaluation of the extent to which the proposal:

Total Weight - 25%

Demonstrated through the Organizational Assessment and Capability sections of the proposal

Rating Level 1 – Score 0-1 point:

  • Prior activities of the applicant organization do not demonstrate a positive track record, or demonstrate a negative track record (i.e. impact and effectiveness, and ability to deliver on-time and on-budget).
  • The applicant organization has insufficient experience, expertise and/or organizational capacity to successfully implement proposed activities.

Rating Level 2 – Score 2-3 points:

  • Prior activities of the applicant organization demonstrate a fairly positive track record (i.e. impact and effectiveness, and ability to deliver on-time and on-budget).
  • The applicant organization has some experience, expertise and/or organizational capacity to successfully implement proposed activities.

Rating Level 3 – Score 4-5 points:

  • Prior activities of the applicant organization clearly demonstrate a positive track record, and/or a very positive track record (i.e. impact and effectiveness, and consistently delivers on-time and on-budget).
  • The applicant organization has significant experience (3+ years), expertise and/or organizational capacity to successfully implement proposed activities.

3. Consultation and Commitment

The extent to which the proposal has the support of the community; and the extent of, and approach to, community consultation for the implementation of the structural readiness activities.

Total Weight - 5%

Demonstrated through the Community Consultation section of the proposal

Extent of and Approach to Community Consultation:

Note: Community consultation refers to the frequency and types of engagement that are planned with communities (Band Councils, Directors of Education, principals, etc.) to discuss plans and priorities, and to exchange information about the project, progress being made, what's working well, what can be improved, etc.

Rating Level 1 – Score 0-1 point:

  • There is little to no evidence of community consultation plans, or community consultation is very limited (less than 15% of communities were consulted during the development and planning of Structural Readiness activities).
  • No clear plans or process exist to report back to the communities.

Rating Level 2 – Score 2-3 points:

  • There is little evidence of community consultation plans, or community consultation has been moderate (between 16% - 50% of the communities were consulted during the development and planning of Structural Readiness activities).
  • There are plans or processes to report back to the communities, but they are not well-described, likely, or feasible.

Rating Level 3 – Score 4-5 points:

  • There is clear evidence of community consultation plans, and/or community consultation has been effective: i.e., communities were thoroughly consulted during the development and planning of Structural Readiness activities.
  • There are clear and well thought-out plans and/or processes to report back to the communities.

4. Implementation Activities/Project Costs

This section guides the evaluation of the extent to which the proposal:

Total Weight - 45%

4.1 Activities Planned:

Degree to which each of the proposed activities:

  • Are described in sufficient detail and are coherent and logical
  • Are relevant to the objectives of Structural Readiness
  • Are feasible to be undertaken and completed as proposed
  • Would have a tangible impact on the organization's capacity

Sub-Weight - 15%

Demonstrated through the Activities Planned and Expected Results section of the proposal

Rating Level 1 – Score 0-1 point:

  • Descriptions of proposed activities have a low level of detail and/or coherence.
  • Proposed activities are not related/relevant to the program objectives.
  • Proposed activities are not feasible (i.e. not realistic, no clear implementation plan, unlikely to meet stated objectives and outcome within stated timeframe, etc.)
  • Proposed activities have already been funded in the past.

Rating Level 2 – Score 2-3 points:

  • Descriptions of proposed activities have an acceptable level of detail and/or coherence.
  • Proposed activities are sufficiently related/relevant to the program objectives.
  • Proposed activities are relatively feasible (i.e. are largely realistic and achievable. mostly clear implementation plan, will likely meet stated objectives and outcome within stated timeframe, etc.)

Rating Level 3 – Score 4-5 points:

  • Descriptions of proposed activities have a high level of detail and/or coherence.
  • Proposed activities are directly related/relevant to the program objectives.
  • Proposed activities are very feasible (i.e. are realistic, very clear implementation plan, will meet stated objectives and outcome within stated timeframe, etc.)

4.2 Expected Results:

Degree to which each of the expected results:

  • Are described in sufficient detail and are coherent and logical.
  • Are likely outcomes of the proposed activities.
  • Contribute to the strength of the Organization's capacity.

Sub-Weight - 15%

Demonstrated through the Activities Planned and Expected Results section of the proposal

Rating Level 1 – Score 0-1 point:

  • Descriptions of expected results have a low level of detail and/or coherence.
  • Expected results are not a likely outcome of the proposed activities.
  • Expected results do not contribute to the strength of the Organization's capacity.

Rating Level 2 – Score 2-3 points:

  • Descriptions of expected results have an acceptable level of detail and/or coherence.
  • Expected results are a somewhat likely outcome of the proposed activities.
  • Expected results somewhat contribute to the strength of the organization's capacity.

Rating Level 3 – Score 4-5 points:

  • Descriptions of expected results have a high level of detail and/or coherence.
  • The expected results are a very likely outcome of the proposed activities.
  • Expected results directly contribute to the strength of the organization's capacity.

4.3 Activity Expenses/Proposed Budget:

Degree to which expenses for each activity:

  • Are eligible, as per the FNSSP National Program Guidelines.
  • Are described in sufficient detail and are coherent and logical.
  • Are clearly linked to the components of the proposed activities.
  • Are reasonable and well justified.

Sub-Weight - 15%

Demonstrated through the Expenses section; some information may also be in the Activities Planned and Expected Result section of the proposal

Rating Level 1 – Score 0-1 point:

  • Descriptions of expenses have a low level of detail and/or coherence.
  • Expenses breakdown contain mathematical errors.
  • Expenses are not linked to the components of the proposed activities.
  • Expenses are unreasonable and unjustified.

Rating Level 2 – Score 2-3 points:

  • Descriptions of expenses have a sufficient level of detail and/or coherence.
  • Expenses are somewhat linked to the components of the proposed activities.
  • Expenses are sufficiently reasonable and justified.

Rating Level 3 – Score 4-5 points:

  • Descriptions of expenses have a high level of detail and/or coherence.
  • Expenses are directly linked to the components of the proposed activities.
  • Expenses are very reasonable and justified.

5. Project Management

How the project will be managed, including project governance, project monitoring, reporting and evaluation, human resources management, and risk management.

Total Weight - 15%

Demonstrated through the Project Governance, Human Resource Management, Project Monitoring, Reporting, and Evaluation, and Risk Management sections of the proposal

5.1 Project Governance:

Sub-Weight - 5%

Rating Level 1 – Score 0-1 point:

  • Descriptions of the organization structure, roles and responsibilities and governance are vague or absent in some areas, and/or approaches described do not appear that they will provide the governance structures needed to support successful project outcomes.

Rating Level 2 – Score 2-3 points:

  • Organization structures, roles and responsibilities and governance are described and approaches appear adequate to support successful project outcomes.

Rating Level 3 – Score 4-5 points:

  • Organization structures, roles and responsibilities and governance structures are described in detail. Comprehensive, best practice approaches in governance are planned.

5.2 Project Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation:

Sub-Weight - 2%

Rating Level 1 – Score 0-1 point:

  • The approach to monitoring, reporting and evaluation has not been well developed and thought out or does not provide enough detail.
  • Approaches do not appear that they will ensure adequate two-way communication with key stakeholders.

Rating Level 2 – Score 2-3 points:

  • The approach to monitoring, reporting and evaluation provides some detail, but is too high-level to provide proper insight.
  • Approaches appear that they will ensure adequate two-way communication with most key stakeholders.

Rating Level 3 – Score 4-5 points:

  • The approach to monitoring, reporting and evaluation has been well developed and thought out and provides a good amount of detail.
  • Approaches appear to be very comprehensive in terms of ensuring adequate two-way communication with key stakeholders.

5.3 Human Resource Management:

Sub-Weight - 2%

Rating Level 1 – Score 0-1 point:

  • The description of the staffing plan required for the project is not well described or absent.

Rating Level 2 – Score 2-3 points:

  • The human resource strategy and staffing plan for the project appear to be adequate to achieve the goals of the project.

Rating Level 3 – Score 4-5 points:

  • The human resource strategy and staffing plan for the project are very comprehensive to achieve the goals of the project and efficiently use resources.

5.4 Risk Management:

Sub-Weight - 5%

Rating Level 1 – Score 0-1 point:

  • The identified risks are not real risks and/or not well thought out
  • The proposed mitigation strategies are not relevant or appropriate to addressing the identified risks

Rating Level 2 – Score 2-3 points:

  • Some, but not all of the identified risks are realistic and well thought out
  • The proposed mitigation strategies are fairly relevant and appropriate to addressing the identified risks

Rating Level 3 – Score 4-5 points:

  • Identified risks are real and well thought out
  • The proposed mitigation strategies are relevant and appropriate to addressing the identified risks

6. Overall:

The reviewer's overall assessment of the proposal and its potential impact on organizational capacity of the applicant.

Total Weight - 5%

Demonstrated throughout the entire proposal

Rating Level 1 – Score 0-1 point:

  • The proposal is unclear due to grammatical and/or typographical errors.
  • The overall project is poorly detailed and the strategies that it includes do not appear to be feasible.
  • The project's objectives, activities and outcomes are vague and do not appear to lead to improved organizational capacity.

Rating Level 2 – Score 2-3 points:

  • The proposal contains grammatical and/or typographical errors. However, those errors do not impact the clarity of the proposal.
  • The overall project has sufficient details and the strategies that it includes appear feasible.
  • The project's objectives, activities and outcomes are clear and are aimed at improving organizational capacity.

Rating Level 3 – Score 4-5 points:

  • The overall project is very detailed, strategic and well thought out.
  • The project's objectives, activities and outcomes are very clear and are strongly aimed at improving organizational capacity.

Priority:

Priority will be given to those Structural Readiness proposals that focus on the development of either an aggregate First Nation Education Authority/School Board, or an agreement with a provincial school division, that fully delegates the responsibility for elementary and secondary education funding and services on reserve, including the operation of schools on-reserve and management of tuition agreements.

Date modified: