36 CFR § 72.50 - Grant selection criteria.
(a) Recovery Action Program grant selection criteria. The following criteria will be used in evaluating Recovery Action Program grant applications and in deciding priorities for funding:
(1) Degree of need for funds to develop a Recovery Action Program and an ongoing planning process, including the size and complexity of the community's problems, deficiencies in existing planning, and in the capability of the community to initiate and sustain continuing planning efforts.
(2) Degree of the community's commitment to systematic planning, including financial, personnel and time resources already devoted to planning or committed for the future.
(3) Extent to which current park and recreation planning is integrated with overall community planning or would be better integrated as a result of the grant, including use of other Federal or State funds for related planning purposes.
(4) Appropriateness and efficiency of the planning program's work elements (scope, timing, methodology, staffing and costs) in relation to the basic requirements for Recovery Action Programs contained in subpart B, §§ 72.10 through 72.18 (45 FR 15456).
(b) Rehabilitation Grant Selection Criteria. The following criteria will be used to evaluate and rank Rehabilitation proposals:
(1) The Federal UPARR investment per person served by the entire system; relationship between the size of the community and the amount of grant funds requested. Highest priority will be given to proposals with lower per capita costs in relation to recreation benefits provided.
(2) Providing neighborhood recreation needs. Higher priority will be given to proposals serving close-to-home recreation needs, lower priority to those serving area or jurisdiction-wide needs.
(3) Condition of existing recreation properties to be rehabilitated, including the urgency of rehabilitation and the need to maintain existing services.
(4) Improvement in the quality and quantity of recreation services as a result of rehabilitation, including improvements at specific sites and overall enhancement of the recreation system.
(5) Improvement of recreation service to minority and low to moderate income residents, special populations, and distressed neighborhoods.
(6) Proposal's consistency with local government objectives and priorities for overall community revitalization.
(7) Neighborhood employment opportunities created.
(8) State participation in the proposal, including financial and technical assistance.
(9) Private participation by both the non-profit and for-profit sectors in the proposal, including contributions of financial assistance.
(10) Jurisdiction's commitment to implementing its overall Recovery Action Program.
(c) Innovation Grant Selection Criteria. The following criteria will be used to evaluate and rank Innovation proposals:
(1) Degree to which the proposal provides a new, unique or more effective means of delivering a recreation service that can serve as a model for other communities.
(2) Degree of citizen involvement in proposal conceptualization and implementation.
(3) Degree to which the proposal may lead to a positive, systemic change in how park and recreation services are provided. Extent to which the proposal creates opportunities for new partnerships between the people affected, private interests within the community, and public agencies (e.g., Mayor's Office, Recreation Department, Board of Education, Planning Department, social service agencies).
(4) Degree of commitment of community and proposal participants to continue the long term program objectives, including commitments to continue funding after the requested Federal grant money is no longer available. Extent of private resources committed to providing funds or in-kind services for continuing operation and maintenance of projects.
(5) Degree to which proposal managers use the Federal funds to leverage greater public or private investments (in the form of services and materials, as well as dollars).
(6) Degree to which the proposal provides potential coordination with other community, State and Federal programs of community development and those providing recreation to the target population (e.g., public and private non-profit, education programs, CETA for employment, HUD programs).
(7) Extent of improvement in the quality and quantity of recreation services as a result of the Innovation project.
(8) Degree to which the proposal ties in with goals, priorities and implementation strategies expressed in the local park and recreation Recovery Action Program.
(9) Degree to which the proposal leads to a transfer of a recreation role traditionally performed by a public entity, to quasi-public or private non-profit interests. This degree means the degree to which the private sector can take full responsibility, supplement, or fill the gaps in public recreation services, management or operation; either through a transfer of funding responsibility, or an exchange of technique or method approaches which may prove to be more effective under the private sector. This should in no way alter the public sector responsibility to continue to provide and/or monitor good quality recreation facilities and services.
(10) Degree to which a proposal benefits disadvantaged community populations and/or those areas within a distressed community which have the greatest recreation deficiencies.
Innovation proposals for the adaptive reuse of non-recreation areas or structures, through rehabilitation for recreation should also address rehabilitation selection criteria, particularly the criteria covering Federal investment per person served and the degree to which the proposal would serve close to home recreation needs.