Detailed Scoring Breakdown
Strategic Alignment - Maximum Points 20
How well does the application address one or more of the five statutory purposes of the NOCP? The five statutory purposes are:
- Improve communication about angling and boating opportunities
- Reduce barriers to participation
- Advance sound angling and boating practices
- Promote conservation and responsible use
- Further safety in fishing and boating
Scoring scale:
- 0 Points: Does not address any of the five purposes.
- 5 Points: Provides brief or vague references to one or more of the purposes, and lacks sufficient detail regarding needs, objectives, and methods, demonstrating a superficial understanding of the purposes.
- 10 Points: Describes one or more of the purposes but has limited details describing the need, objectives, or methods, leaving some degree of doubt in ability to address the purposes as proposed.
- 15 Points: Addresses one or more of the purposes with a compelling needs statement and relevant objectives and approach, but some details are lacking leaving some, but not all, aspects of addressing the purposes incomplete.
- 20 Points: Clearly addresses one or more of the purposes with a well-defined need statement, clear objectives, and detailed practical approach that reflects a comprehensive, strong plan for addressing the purposes.
R3 Outcomes and Best Practices - Maximum Points 10
To what extent does the application align with effective Recruitment, Retention, and Reactivation (R3) strategies and demonstrate alignment with current best practices in outreach, marketing, or public engagement? Strong applications include:
- Incorporates R3 Strategies: Clearly articulates the use of effective strategies that aim to recruit new participants, retain existing participants, and reactivate former participants in fishing and boating activities.
- Aligns with Best Practices: Demonstrates adherence to recognized best practices in outreach and marketing, supported by evidence from research or successful case studies.
- Evidence-based Approaches: Uses data and research to inform strategies, ensuring that proposed activities are grounded in proven methods relevant to the intended audience.
- Adaptation to Local Context: Tailors R3 strategies to fit the specific needs and characteristics of the target audience and participation trends.
Scoring scale:
- 0 Points: Fails to address or recognize any of these elements of R3 strategies or best practices.
- 2 Points: Superficially mentions R3 strategies and does not describe best practices or evidence-based approaches, including failing to tailor strategies to target audiences informed by participation trends.
- 5 Points: Identifies some effective R3 strategies but lacks comprehensive detail on best practices or evidence-based approaches.
- 7 Points: Clearly articulates a range of R3 strategies and demonstrates awareness of best practices and evidence-based strategies though some details may be generalized.
- 10 Points: Thoroughly integrates effective R3 strategies with strong evidence-based approaches, aligns with best practices, and successfully tailors strategies based on target audiences and participation trends.
Innovation - Maximum Points 10
To what extent does the application demonstrate originality and creativity in the proposed approach? Strong applications include:
- Originality: Demonstrates unique concepts and innovative solutions that distinguish the project from existing initiatives.
- Creative Use of Technology: Effectively integrates new technologies and digital tools that enhance project implementation and outreach.
- Adaptation of Successful Models: Applies proven strategies in new contexts or settings, showcasing adaptability and foresight for improving longer-term outcomes.
Scoring scale:
- 0 Points: Complete lack of original ideas or creative concepts and/or requests support for existing/ongoing operational needs.
- 2 Points: Contains few original approaches and relies heavily on repeating existing concepts without any significant innovation or creativity.
- 5 Points: Shows minimal innovation, with some new elements or slight improvements to existing approaches.
- 7 Points: Demonstrates moderate innovation by introducing new methods, tools, or creative approaches that could improve how needs and challenges are addressed.
- 10 Points: Highly innovative, offering creative solutions, tools or technology that have strong potential to advance identified needs and challenges.
Measurable Outcomes and Evaluation Plan - Maximum Points 20
Evaluate the clarity and quality of the performance measures and evaluation framework. Strong applications will include:
- Specific, measurable objectives: Clearly defined targets that articulate what success looks like for the project and align with one or more of the program鈥檚 key outcomes (e.g., increased participation in fishing and boating; enhanced awareness of how and where to participate; targeted outreach; stakeholder capacity-building; or improved access awareness).
- Use of baseline data: Incorporation of relevant baseline data to support the measurement of progress against set objectives.
- Plans for data collection: Detailed descriptions of methods and tools for data collection (e.g., license data, web analytics, surveys) that will be used to evaluate progress toward outcomes.
- Continuous performance monitoring and reporting: Plans for ongoing performance tracking and adjustment of strategies over the grant period, including milestones and evaluation checkpoints to assess progress at regular intervals (e.g., quarterly or semi-annual evaluations).
Scoring scale:
- 0 Points: Lacks specific objectives, methods and any defined performance measures or plans for monitoring project progress and performance.
- 5 Points: Objectives are unclear and not measurable, there is limited or no use of baseline data or data collection, and performance measures are vague.
- 10 Points: Includes specific objectives and some use of baseline data and data collection but methods lack comprehensive detail, plans for performance tracking are mentioned but not detailed or are unclear.
- 15 Points: Clearly defines measurable objectives and incorporates baseline data; provides some detail on data collection and monitoring plans, though may lack full specificity.
- 20 Points: Thoroughly outlines specific, measurable objectives, effectively uses baseline data, details robust data collection methods, and includes a well-planned framework for continuous performance monitoring with clear milestones.
Stakeholder Coordination - Maximum Points 20
Assess the level of coordination with relevant partners such as state or tribal agencies, tourism boards, industry partners, or educational institutions. Strong application will show evidence of:
- Early coordination with key stakeholders
- Use of existing facilities, data, or outreach systems
- Letters of support or documented collaboration
Scoring scale:
- 0 Points: Fails to demonstrate any coordination with relevant partners or stakeholders in the proposal.
- 5 Points: Mentions some partners but lacks evidence of meaningful engagement or collaboration; no letters of support or other documentation of collaboration included.
- 10 Points: Shows some early coordination with key stakeholders and provides limited evidence of using existing facilities or systems; may include one or two letters of support.
- 15 Points: Clearly demonstrates early and effective coordination with multiple partners, details collaboration in using existing facilities or data, and includes several letters of support or documented collaborations.
- 20 Points: Exemplifies strong, proactive engagement with a variety of relevant partners; extensively uses existing systems and resources; includes robust letters of support and comprehensive documentation of collaborative efforts, showcasing a high level of commitment and cooperation.
Feasibility - Maximum Points 10
Evaluate the viability of the proposed project based on:
- Realistic timeline and work plan
- Clear roles and responsibilities
- Organizational capacity and experience
- Budget appropriate to scope
Scoring scale:
- 0 Points: Lacks a coherent project plan, including timeline, roles, and budget details, making project viability unclear.
- 2 Points: Minimal details provided; timeline and work plan are vague, with unclear roles and responsibilities; budget seems out of alignment with project scope.
- 5 Points: Some elements of a realistic timeline and work plan details are included, with roles at least partially defined; organizational capacity is mentioned but lacks clarity regarding who will be involved; budget reflects alignment to the scope though some elements are unclear.
- 7 Points: Presents a clear and realistic timeline and work plan, defines roles and responsibilities well, and demonstrates organizational capacity; budget is generally appropriate for the project scope.
- 10 Points: Outlines a comprehensive and realistic timeline and work plan with detailed roles and responsibilities; shows strong organizational capacity and relevant experience; budget is well-justified and directly aligned with the scope of the project.
Impact Potential - Maximum Points 10
Assess the potential for meaningful, lasting change through:
- Scalability or replicability
- Potential to increase participation or awareness at broader levels
- Ability to inform future efforts
Scoring scale:
- 0 Points: Fails to demonstrate any potential for meaningful change or lacks relevant information to assess potential impact.
- 2 Points: Very limited discussion on scalability or replicability; minimal potential for increasing participation or awareness; lacks insights on future application project efforts.
- 5 Points: Some indication of scalability or replicability; shows potential to increase participation or awareness, but lacks depth; offers basic insights for informing future efforts.
- 7 Points: Clearly outlines scalability or replicability; demonstrates a strong potential to increase participation or awareness at broader levels; suggests meaningful contributions to future efforts.
- 10 Points: Exceptional clarity on scalability and replicability; significant potential to increase participation or awareness, with a well-articulated strategy; provides comprehensive insights that will inform future initiatives and plans effectively.
Bonus: Indirect Cost Management - Maximum Point 5
How effectively does the application manage indirect costs? Strong proposals will demonstrate:
- Appropriate Use of Indirect Cost Rate: Use of a federally recognized indirect cost rate (NICRA or de minimis), no indirect costs, or a reduced rate when appropriate to the applicant鈥檚 organizational and capacity.
- Justification for Proposed Rate: A clear and detailed explanation of the chosen indirect cost rate, including how it reflects actual administrative needs and supports sound financial management.
- Support for Project Success and Cost-Effectiveness: A compelling description of how the indirect costs鈥攊f requested鈥攅nable effective project delivery, oversight, and outcomes without compromising cost-efficiency.
Scoring scale:
- 1 Point: Indirect cost rate is high, with little or no justification and unclear benefit to project success.
- 2 Points: Weak justification for indirect costs, unclear relationship to project support.
- 3 Points: Indirect costs described adequately, but justification could be stronger or more aligned to outcomes.
- 4 Points: NICRA or de minimis rate used with clear, detailed justification and alignment to project success.
- 5 Points: No indirect requested, or comprehensive justification showing rate supports strong administrative infrastructure and project delivery.
