IDPH Merit-Based Application Review Process

GATA
GATA Background
Statewide Implementation
IDPH Implementation
What to Expect - Grantees
Merit-Based Review Process
Merit-Based Review Appeals
IDPH GATA Communication to Grantees
Resource Library

In alignment with the Grant Accountability and Transparency Act and Federal Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200, all Illinois Department of Public Health competitive grants are required to utilize the merit-based application review process.

Applicability:

"Grant” is defined as an award of financial assistance from a state agency to a recipient to carry out a public purpose. This is not to include scholarships awards.

“Competitive Grant” is defined as a grant that is awarded through an application process in which the department has the discretion to determine which applications best address the program requirements, and is subject to an independent objective review process. Grants are awarded to those applicants that most closely meet the selection criteria identified by the granting agency. Continuation grants, which were funded during the prior fiscal year or grants which have pre-determined or statutorily defined recipients, are not competitive grants.

IDPH's Merit- Based Application Review Policy:

Review Criteria

  • Competitive Grant evaluation criteria must be tied to objectives and the purpose of the grant program
  • Evaluation criteria must include, at a minimum, the following criteria categories and questions.
    • Need: Does the applicant provide data, facts, and/or evidence that demonstrate that the proposal supports the grant program purpose?
    • Capacity: Does the applicant demonstrate its ability to execute the grant project according to project requirements?
    • Quality: Does the applicant demonstrate that the project, in total, is well articulated and in alignment with the project requirements?
    • Clearly Defined Scope of Work: Are target audiences clearly defined and realistic? Is there a complete summary of methods and procedures that will be utilized to accomplish goals stated in the scope of work?
    • SMART Objectives: Are objectives Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely (SMART) and aligned with the grant guidelines?
    • Justifiable Budget: Are the budget items and justifications valid and appropriate for the grant project?
  • Evaluation shall be based on a numerical rating scale of 0-100, unless another scoring methodology is more appropriate based on the unique circumstances of the grant program.

Application Review Committees

  • The evaluation of competitive grant applications shall be conducted by a committee of two or more people.
  • Evaluation committee members shall be determined by the grant-making office, tailored to the particular grant application, and may include, as appropriate, technical or other personnel with expertise to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of applicants.
    • Grant applicants and subgrantees are not allowed to be evaluation committee members for grant programs the grantee has submitted an application or if they represent an entity which has submitted an application. Exceptions may be made when required by law.
    • Evaluation Committee members must sign a Confidentiality Agreement and Conflict of Interest Disclosure to participate in the evaluation process.
    • Evaluator names will be available only for audit or litigation requirements
  • The grant-making office must provide adequate instructions to the Evaluation Committee members prior to scoring applications.
  • Evaluation Committee meetings are not subject to the Open Meeting Act unless specifically mandated by legislation per the Illinois Attorney General‘s office.

Scoring of Grant Applications by Evaluation Committee Members

  • Reviews must be completed with the criteria identified in the NOFO and grant application, but may consider history of performance, prior performance, and/or the Programmatic Risk Assessment questionnaire responses.
  • Reviewer scores, comments, and review outcomes for the respective grant program must be entered into the Electronic Grants Administration and Management System (EGrAMS)

Funding Recommendations

  • Reviewer scores, comments, and review outcomes for the respective grant program must be entered into the Electronic Grants Administration and Management System (EGrAMS)
  • After scores are finalized, rank eligibility for funding is determined. Additional criteria that may be used to rank grant applications for final award may include, geographic distribution or services to special populations, etc.

Grant Award

  • An award shall be made pursuant to a written determination based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the NOFO and grant application, and successful completion of finalist requirements.
  • A Notice of State Award (NOSA) shall be issued to the finalists who have successfully completed all grant award requirements, recommended for funding and awarded grant funding.
    • The NOSA will be incorporated into the grant agreement in EGrAMS as an addendum that must be signed and returned with the grant agreement.
  • A Notice of Denial shall be sent to the applicants not receiving awards via EGrAMS.