21st CCLC: State Education Agency

Tips for Running and Reviewing the Award Process

TIPS FROM YOUR PEERS: NEW YORK

  1. What is your state's strategy for running the 21st CCLC award process?
    • Prospective grantees responded to a request for proposals (RFP) (Adobe® Reader® PDF 532KB) distributed by the New York State Education Department (NYSED) .
    • The New York State Center for School Safety and regional offices of the Student Support Services Network (SSSN) of NYSED provided technical assistance to potential applicants through regionally offered technical assistance sessions (Adobe Reader PDF 708KB)
    • Our state used a peer review process (Adobe Reader PDF 201KB) to make 21st CCLC award decisions. A description of the peer review process can be accessed at http://www.mhric.org/scss/brief6.pdf
    • Our state has worked directly with a statewide advisory board, which has developed into the New York State Afterschool Network (NYSAN), to ensure that the awards process is managed in a high-quality manner. View the PowerPoint presentation on the relationship of NYSAN to the 21st CCLC (Adobe Reader PDF 3.5MB).
  2. What are some tips you would offer other SEAs regarding the award process?
    • We utilized our statewide partners to recruit a large group of potential reviewers, ensuring that each proposal was reviewed by three individuals who then met as a panel.
    • We designed panels of reviewers that included at least one representative from a community-based organization and one from a local education agency. The third member of each panel was selected to round out the group in such a way as to augment their strengths. Reviewers found that the diversity of the panels greatly enhanced their experience and ability to provide an objective and knowledgeable review.
    • We were able to ensure that people were not reviewing applications in competition with their own proposals since the state was divided into three funding pools—New York City, the "Big Four" (Rochester, Syracuse, Buffalo, and Yonkers), and the rest of state. We assigned reviewers in such a way that they were reading proposals from a funding pool other than their own.
    • We found that the peer-review process built capacity among the reviewers so each year has yielded better applications. SSSN offices sent representatives and then used those people to provide technical assistance to applicants. In addition, since the reviewers often were representing entities applying for funds, those organizations were able to develop better proposals following participation in the review process.
    • Experienced reviewers also supported a smoother review process each year. Team leaders (Adobe Reader PDF 53KB) have been recruited in the second and third years from the expanding pool of experienced reviewers and utilized to coach new participants.
  3. Do you have any documents or resources that help you with this process that you can share?

    Documents that supported the technical assistance efforts for applicants include the following:

    Documents we utilized to support the peer-review process include the following:

 

Get Adobe Reader

Adobe Reader FAQ