N.H. Admin. Code § Saf-C 2906.01
Table 2906-1 Scoring Rubric
Category/Max Points | Scoring Element | Scoring Methodology |
Information Strategy (40 points) | ||
1. Is this applicant a law enforcement entity with COUNTY, LOCAL, or "established joint LE drug force"? | 0 = No 5 = Yes | |
2. Is this project a multi-jurisdictional application with all signed letters of support attached? | Yes = 5 pts No = 0 pts | |
3. Size of full-time department | 30+ Full time LE Officers = 5pts 10-30 Full Time LE = 3 pts 1-10 Full Time LE = 1 pt | |
4. Does the multi-jurisdictional application make a strong and convincing case for regional funding, in the opinion of the Committee? | Yes = 5 pts Partial = 3 pts No = 0 pts | |
5. Does the applicant have full-time law enforcement officers? | Yes = 5 pts No = 1 pt | |
6. Is the GOAL of this project reasonable based on the DSAD 67 Section I.A.1, the description of the project in the professional judgement of the committee? | Yes = 5 pts Partial = 3 pts No = 1 pt | |
7. Rate the effectiveness of local drug enforcement efforts planned with this project and current activities as described in the DSAD 67, section II, the program implementation strategy in the professional opinion of the Committee? | Highly Effective = 5 pts Somewhat Effective = 3 pts Not Effective = 0 pts | |
8. Are the challenges and solutions in implementation described in the DSAD section II, the program implementation strategy addressed in a reasonable manner in the professional opinion of the Committee? | Yes = 5 pts Partially = 3 pts No = 0 pts | |
Required Attachments (10 points) | ||
9. Does this project include all statistical/DMI categories &are supporting analysis documents attached (DMI stats, other neutral localized statistics)? | Data provided = 10 pts Partial data provided = 5 pts No data provided = 0 pts | |
Section III, Project (35 points) | ||
10. Rate the severity of the problem as identified by the application based on scale of: local, regional, more? | County-wide or larger = 15 pts Smaller regional problems = 10 pts Local problem = 5 pts | |
11. Does this application demonstrate a strong vision to support the overall project tied to RSA 21-P:66, including intelligence gathering and metrics tied to such as communications, high visibility patrols, drug pathway interdiction? | Strong Alignment = 10 pts Somewhat Aligned = 5 pts Not Aligned = 0 pts | |
12. Rate the proposed solution as identified by the application to mitigate the identified problem. Is this convincing in rationale to find this department or regional group in the professional judgement of the Committee? | Very convincing = 10 pts Partially convincing = 5 pts Not convincing = 0 pts | |
Section IV, Budget (15 points) | ||
13. Does the proposed project contain a concise line item budget that adds correctly with ONLY overtime and related allowable personnel costs allowed? | Line item budget = 5 pts Partial line item budget = 3 pts No line item budget = 0 pts | |
14. Are all proposed project costs reasonable, necessary and allowable based on narrative in the professional opinion of the Committee? | Yes = 5 pts No = 0 pts | |
15. How cost effective does the funding plan appear to be given the described needs in the professional opinion of the Committee? | Yes = 5 pts No = 0 pts | |
Section V. Management (15 points) | ||
Does the applicant provide specific milestones as well as start and end dates within 6 months that are reasonable (milestones)? | Yes = 5 No = 0 | |
16. Is the application signed by proper, authorized officials including multi-agency applications? | All Signatures and Proper = 5 pts Some signatures or question = 3 pts No signature or improper = 0 pts | |
18. Are local funds being used currently and will they be to SUPPLEMENT current efforts and these grant related efforts? | No supplantation = 5 pts Possible supplantation = 3 pts Supplantation likely = 0 pts |
N.H. Admin. Code § Saf-C 2906.01