FY 2015
STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM
TIPS FOR COMPLETING THE TECHNICAL REVIEW FORM (TRF)
v Make all comments in “draft” status in G5, pending review by the panel monitor and Departmental staff. Upon final Control Room approval, you may change the G5 status to “submit”.
v Write from the mindset that the application starts at zero and must earn each point, not that they start at 100 and have points deducted.
v Write on each subcriterion, and only that subcriterion; do not interject your own personal feelings/opinions. Make your comments as objective as possible. If you find a particular aspect especially weak, do not continue to deduct in multiple sections for the same reason, only penalize once.
v Provide your assessment in the first sentence of each comment. This means using evaluative language to describe the quality of the proposal. For example, use descriptive adjectives such as “strong, comprehensive, excellent, well documented,” etc. or “weak, lacking, confusing, etc”. Avoid mushy/middle of the road words such as “adequate”.
v Each comment needs to be fully justified with data/examples from the application. If you find a particular criterion strong, provide examples to explain why it is strong. If you find something weak, you must fully explain why this is worth not awarding points and what would have made for a better plan. By fully providing supporting material, each comment should be comprised of more than a single sentence.
v Try to avoid using the same “boilerplate” language for every review. Make sure your comments apply specifically to the application in question.
v Do not make reference to page numbers or charts/tables from the application in your comments.
v Do not use the first person (e.g. “I, we, us”).
v Remember that SSS is not a minority specific program, but is for low-income, first-generation or disabled college students. Avoid all references to minority populations.
v Format your comments such that it is clear you have assessed each numbered or lettered subcriterion under both strength and weakness. Every time the TRF divides up the questions of the selection criteria, your comments should as well.
v If you do not find a weakness for a given criterion or subcriterion, write “No weakness noted” or “None noted” for each criterion.
v When you are awarding points under strengths, do not indicate the point total. However, when you are not awarding points under weaknesses, write “(X point(s) not awarded)” after your comment.
v Be careful to make sure the points awarded/not awarded add up correctly for each selection criterion.
v Formatting example:
STRENGTHS
1) “The applicant well documents….”
2) “The proposal clearly demonstrates…”
3) i) “No strengths noted.”
ii) “Clear data is presented to…”
WEAKNESSES
1) No weaknesses noted.
2) No weaknesses noted.
3) i) “The applicant should have provided…” (2 points not awarded)
ii) No weaknesses noted.
iii) “The applicant failed to…” (2 points not awarded)
v INSTRUCTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE OBJECTIVES SECTION:
o Be sure to refer to the scoring guideline on the peer reviewer reference website. (reviewgrants.com/sss)
o Be sure to letter (not number) each comment.
o Be sure you are writing on the correct objectives, depending on whether it is a 2-year (ABC&D) or 4-year institution (AB&E).
o For 2 year schools only, objective 3 is split into two separate objectives, graduation and transfer. Readers should provide separate comments for both the graduation and transfer objectives in both strengths and weaknesses and score them separately.
§ For 2 year schools: Graduation: (1 point) 1 or 0 points awarded and Transfer: (2 points) 2 or 0 points awarded. Combine the scores to get a total score (3 points) for Objective 3.
§ For 4 year schools: Graduation (3 points) 0 or 3 points awarded.
o For each objective you must assess whether the proposed goal is both ambitious and attainable.
§ To determine if it is ambitious, provide the stated objective percentage and compare it to specific baseline data from the Need section. For example, if the objective for persistence is 45%, and the applicant states that for the last two years the SSS-eligible population has only been persisting at 30%, these two data points give you a basis to judge whether it is ambitious or not. If an objective is not ambitious, it receives a 0.
§ To determine if it is attainable, you need to take a look at the proposed intervention success rates and decide whether they are realistic with the proposed plan of operation and project resources. If you feel the proposed improvement is unrealistic, you can say so, but you must justify your comment. If an objective is not attainable, it receives a 0.
§ If an objective is ambitious and attainable, it receives maximum score.
o See scoring guidelines for more details.
v For the Evaluation criterion (#7), please format your comments so that they read: 1A, 1B, and 2.
v Above all, review each of your comments before you save them. (You are all capable of providing constructive comments.
3