Many communities in Appalachia still do not enjoy the same
overall quality of life as in other parts of the country, with respect to
material prosperity, health, education, safety, recreation, and other aspects
of community well-being. Further, there is a strong case to be made that
these struggling communities are in need not just of external financial assistance
or infusions of new industry and business, but also of a kind of transformation
from within wherein whole communities come together to envision their future
and awaken to their potential for collective action and improvement. The
ultimate goal of community capacity building is to recognize and develop untapped
resources to improve the living conditions and quality of life of people in
communities. Community capacity building involves:
- Purposive and planned action on the part of a representative cross-section
of the community;
- The mobilization and participation of a broad, diverse coalition of citizens
within a community;
- The generation of awareness of community issues and problems, as well as
a sense of commitment, common purpose, and empowerment on the part of community
members;
- The strengthening of human capital by equipping people with the skills,
know-how, and creativity necessary to carry out common goals; and
- The establishment of dense collaborative networks across agencies, organizations,
and individuals.
Since 1995, the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) has invested nearly $12.5
million in 168 community capacity-building projects. [Many of the projects received
additional funding from other agencies and organizations.] This report summarizes
findings from an evaluation study of 100 community capacity-building projects
funded by the ARC between 1995 and 2003. Chapters 1 and 2 provide background
information about the study and community capacity building. Chapter 3 portrays
the various community contexts in which the capacity-building projects were
embedded, including information on grant recipients, community characteristics,
assets, liabilities, and available resources. Chapter 4 presents findings on
project activities and their implementation, including barriers encountered
and how these were overcome. Chapter 5 examines project accomplishments and
impact, and chapter 6 addresses performance measurement. The final chapter
presents lessons learned and recommendations for ARC regarding its future capacity-building
projects.
Study Overview
In 2003, the ARC commissioned an evaluation of its civic
capacity-building program. The purpose of this evaluation was as follows:
- To document the range of outputs and outcomes that capacity-building and
community leadership projects set for themselves in their proposals to ARC
and to assess the extent to which these projects were able to accomplish their
goals;
- To measure the extent to which these projects made progress toward the
objectives [the objectives for ARC Goal 3 are (1) the percentage of Appalachian
residents participating in leadership development programs aimed at community
improvement will substantially increase, and (2) all communities and community
organizations will have access to capacity-building activities to enhance
their ability to marshal resources, plan, and develop solutions to local problems]
and performance goals [the performance goals for ARC Goal 3 are (1) support
4,000 participants in leadership development and/or civic capacity programs,
and (2) provide support to develop leadership and civic capacity programs
for 10 additional counties per year] that pertain to ARC Goal 3;
- To document community outcomes that occurred as a result of these projects;
- To assess the implementation of a sample of these projects, with an emphasis
on identifying obstacles and steps taken to overcome these obstacles;
- To identify potentially promising practices that might be adapted elsewhere;
and
- To make policy recommendations aimed at improving ARC's efforts to monitor
and assist its civic capacity-building and community leadership projects.
Within this context, two important purposes of the evaluation
were to assess factors associated with successful capacity-building projects
and to recommend a wide range of performance measures that might be used to
document the impact of successful initiatives. The study examines projects'
implementation and accomplishments, assesses the extent to which they met
their own objectives, and makes policy recommendations for a performance measurement
system.
The evaluation of ARC's capacity-building projects included
four integrated activities:
- A review of the literature regarding theoretical and applied perspectives
on capacity-building and associated best practices;
- A review of applications and final reports to gain a better understanding
of the purpose, scope, and accomplishments of the 100 projects in the study
sample;
- Telephone interviews with a representative sample of 25 projects to obtain
broad information about project-related activities and accomplishments; and
- Site visits with 12 projects to obtain more detailed information about
project-related implementation experiences, accomplishments, impacts, and
performance measures.
Project Context
All capacity-building projects are embedded in particular
communities and, as such, must navigate unique contexts, factoring in interrelated
sets of specific aims, assets, liabilities, and resources. Many of
the communities in this study faced a common set of challenges: geographic
isolation, persistent poverty, unemployment, and declining population, often
attributed to young people moving away for educational and employment opportunities
that do not exist in their home communities. Other problems mentioned by
grant recipients include drug trafficking and addiction, teen pregnancy, and
high rates of high school dropouts.
The most common goals reported by the 100 grant recipients
in the study were developing or expanding the pool of potential community
leaders, reducing the community's sense of isolation, preserving natural resources,
fulfilling or improving municipal services, providing previously unavailable
opportunities to local youth, and improving the economic health of their communities.
Some projects reported interrelated goals. For example, projects geared toward
youth were often described as an attempt to stem the exodus of young people
from the community, with the community's long-term economic health in mind.
Each community had its own combination of assets and liabilities.
The site visits and telephone interviews indicated that communities faced
a variety of limitations or obstacles as they embarked on their capacity-building
and community development work, such as the local political structure, lack
of empowerment, fear of change, and limited resources. Another pervasive
problem for the communities in the study was limited resources, most notably
funding, but also including nonmaterial resources such as technical expertise
and available staff. Even communities with resources that could be marshaled
in the drive for change did not necessarily maintain a formal mechanism through
which such resources could be distributed efficiently and effectively.
Community capacity building has at its core an assets-based
approach to community development, emphasizing the identification and mobilization
of community resource toward shared goals. Community organizations, innovative
leaders, concerned citizens, and natural resources are just a few examples
of community assets that can be directed toward community improvement efforts.
In particular, the importance of community organizations—via collaboration,
innovative leaders, and concerned citizens willing to get involved in community
projects—was a prevalent theme echoed throughout the telephone interviews
and site visits.
Resources are the financial, organizational, and human
inputs that communities rely on to conduct project activities. Resources
can include funding, ideas, expertise and technical assistance, time, materials,
technology and equipment, and staff, among others. Grant recipients who participated
in the telephone interviews and site visits often stated that they took advantage
of existing resources in the community to facilitate project activities.
Projects varied considerably in the amount of ARC funding
they received, from a low of $1,137 for a recycling program in Georgia, to
a high of $335,000 for the West Virginia Flex-E-Grant Program. This wide range
of funding suggests the breadth of activities that ARC funded capacity-building
projects comprise, and also reflects different funding strategies used by
ARC to foster capacity building in Appalachia. Projects received approximately
$5.3 million in matching funds from federal, state, local, and other sources.
Most projects received aid from outside organizations in the form of technical
assistance, outreach, and/or additional funds and other resources.
Project Implementation
The approaches employed by the ARC-funded capacity-building projects reflect
the diversity of the communities in which they operated. Projects conducted
numerous activities suited to particular project goals, and used strategies
attuned to the particular needs, assets, liabilities, and available resources
of their communities. The activities conducted by ARC-funded community capacity-building
projects were divided exhaustively into 11 activity types, with an other category
for activities that were not categorized elsewhere. [Examples of activities
categorized as other include the establishment of a 24-hour toll-free
number for victims of domestic abuse, recycling activities, health screenings,
and the renovation and expansion of a local history museum.] For organizational
purposes, similar activity types were grouped into four overall strategies:
vision and direction, involvement, skills and knowledge, and support.
Looking across all projects, the single most prominent
activity—cited by 51 percent of projects—was conducting a group instructional
activity such as a workshop or course (see table E-1). Other common activities
included strategic planning (35 percent), meetings, conferences, and forums
(28 percent), and technical assistance and consultation (26 percent).
Table E-1.—Percent of projects that included various
types of activities, grouped by project strategies
Type of strategy and activity |
Percent of projects |
Vision |
|
Conduct strategic
planning and analysis
|
35 |
Conduct regional
or local needs assessment
|
13 |
|
|
Involvement |
|
Organize and hold meetings, conferences, forums, etc. |
28 |
Conduct outreach to raise awareness of local issues
|
16 |
Conduct small-scale community improvement projects requiring the
participation of community members for completion |
15 |
Establish/develop a community organization, program, foundation,
or association |
12 |
|
|
Skills |
|
Organize
and conduct group instructional activities, such as workshops and courses
|
51 |
Develop,
purchase, publish, and/or distribute materials
|
18 |
Facilitate,
organize, and conduct one-on-one instructional activities, such as mentoring,
counseling, and teaching
|
6 |
|
|
Support |
|
Provide or obtain technical assistance/consultation |
26 |
Provide technological support |
5 |
Source: Document review of ARC grantees.
Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of projects relied on strategies
designed to enhance skills and knowledge—e.g., organizing and conducting group
instructional activities, conducting one-on-one instructional activities,
and facilitating the distribution of instructional materials. Most of these
training programs focused on the promotion of leadership skills (38 projects),
but other topics were also addressed—e.g., economic development (8 projects),
civic development (5 projects), and technical issues such as strategic planning
and grant writing (5 projects) (see table 4-4 in Chapter 4). Most (51 of
62) projects used group instruction—and this group instruction was most frequently
aimed at adult community members (17 projects), community and business leaders
(15 projects), and youth (14 projects) (see table 4-4).
The problems that grant recipients encountered were generally
not severe enough to prevent projects from implementing their approach. The
most commonly cited problems included time and staffing constraints, attracting
participant interest in the project, the isolation of and competition between
communities, and limited resources. Projects were able to troubleshoot problems
related to implementation, as demonstrated by the fact that the overwhelming
majority of these projects remain active.
Project Accomplishments
and Impact
Site visit and telephone interview findings provided significant
qualitative evidence that the ARC-funded projects were largely successful
at building capacity at different levels. There were three main types of capacity
outcomes: individual, organizational, and community. At the individual level,
projects enhanced the skills and knowledge of community members, increased
awareness of community issues, and developed people's sense of empowerment.
Many projects benefited organizations by increasing collaboration and the
sharing of ideas and strategies for community development, and by enhancing
their efficiency and effectiveness, as well as their stability and growth.
Projects also benefited communities more broadly by improving strategic planning,
enhancing the sense of community self-reliance and pride, increasing civic
and political participation, and improving infrastructure and educational
opportunities.
Study findings reveal that many projects had outcomes and
achievements at more than one level of capacity, suggesting a richness and
efficiency of approach on the part of projects with respect to capacity building.
Qualitative evidence from across the site visits and telephone interviews
support the view that many projects had far-reaching effects on their communities.
Some involved significant changes in orientation and attitude, toward both
communities in general and social and political duty and service in particular.
Many projects led to greater awareness of community issues, a greater sense
of community pride and self-reliance, and a stronger commitment to community
service. Also, many projects were successful at convincing people of their
own capacity for self-improvement and change. Besides these important psychological
and attitudinal changes, projects gave rise to more concrete benefits, including
the development of individual skills and knowledge, increased collaboration,
the strengthening of community organizations and infrastructure, increased
volunteerism, and improved planning.
Performance Measurement
A systematic and accurate assessment of project achievement
requires a performance monitoring system that can be used to demonstrate that
projects carried out their proposed activities, and the extent to which those
activities ultimately benefited individuals and communities. For such a system
to work effectively, activities and related benefits must be clearly defined
and measurable. Further, projects should have realistic plans to obtain valid
and reliable data for documenting progress toward their outcomes.
The benefits of ARC's community capacity-building projects
to individuals, organizations, and communities were far reaching and significant.
One could argue that such enhanced capacity has paved the way for longer term
economic, environmental, and social benefits, as well as increased community
assets and decreased liabilities. However, these conclusions about program
impact are primarily based on the observations, reflections, and judgments
of project staff and participants themselves, rather than on more concrete
and documented forms of evidence. Claims of project success could not be substantiated
with hard data. In some cases, the desired outcomes that projects described
in their proposals were not sufficiently clear, specific, and measurable—and
therefore could not provide data-based tangible evidence of project success.
In other cases, projects did not invest in the data collection activities
required to demonstrate the immediate or long-term impacts of the efforts.
Moreover, the definition of clear and measurable outcomes
is notoriously difficult for community capacity-building projects. One reason
is that many of the benefits resulting from such efforts, such as enhanced
community pride, empowerment, and community self-reliance, are not easily
quantifiable. Further, many of the more quantifiable outcomes are hard to
measure in a cost-effective manner. For small-scale and/or short-term projects
with limited resources for data collection, it is even more difficult to assess
whether the activities ultimately contributed to longer term economic, environmental,
or social outcomes. In any event, over the long term, these obstacles will
ultimately hinder the Commission's ability to document the range of benefits
resulting from its community capacity-building projects.
Most (85 percent) of the 179 outcomes proposed by the 30 projects were capacity-based
(i.e., individual, organizational, or community). [In fact, of the 30 site visit
and telephone interview sites included in this analysis, only one project did
not propose at least one capacity outcome. This particular project proposed
three economic/increased employment outcomes, all involving an increase in new
jobs for project participants. The project might have also proposed an increase
in individual skills as an outcome, but did not.] The remaining 26 outcomes
(15 percent) were development outcomes (economic, environmental, or social),
suggesting that most projects were setting their sights on shorter-term capacity-building
goals (see table E-2).
Of the 179 outcome statements, 55 (30 percent) were classified as individual,
25 (14 percent) as organizational, and 73 (41 percent) as community outcomes. Of
the 26 developmental-based outcome statements, 11 outcome statements (6 percent)
were economic, 7 (4 percent) were environmental, and 8 (4 percent) were social
outcomes. Across the 179 outcome statements that we reviewed, the most commonly
proposed included enhanced skills (22 percent), increased civic participation
(15 percent), improved planning (11 percent), and increased collaboration (9
percent).
Table E-2: Types and number of outcomes for the 30 case study and telephone
interview sites
Number and percent of outcomes (n=179)
Type of outcome
| Number |
Percent |
Total |
179 |
100 |
|
|
|
Capacity Outcomes |
153 |
85 |
Individual |
55 |
30 |
Enhanced skills |
40 |
22 |
Increased awareness of community issues |
7 |
4 |
Enhanced empowerment |
8 |
4 |
Organizational |
25 |
14 |
Increased collaboration |
17 |
9 |
Enhanced efficiency and effectiveness |
5 |
3 |
Enhanced stability/growth |
3 |
2 |
Community |
73 |
41 |
Improved planning |
20 |
11 |
Improved community self-reliance |
14 |
8 |
Increased civic participation |
26 |
15 |
Increased political participation |
2 |
1 |
Enhanced community pride |
5 |
3 |
Improved infrastructure |
2 |
1 |
Improved educational opportunities |
4 |
2 |
|
|
|
Development Outcomes |
26 |
15 |
Economic |
11 |
6 |
Increased tourism |
2 |
1 |
Increased commerce |
2 |
1 |
Increased/improved employment |
5 |
3 |
Decreased outmigration |
2 |
1 |
Environmental |
7 |
4 |
Improved water quality |
4 |
2 |
Improved air quality |
* |
* |
Improved soil quality |
* |
* |
Improved land use |
3 |
2 |
Increased/improved recycling |
* |
* |
Social |
8 |
4 |
Improved health |
1 |
1 |
Improved learning |
3 |
2 |
Increased safety |
* |
* |
Improved governance |
2 |
1 |
Improved community housing and structures |
2 |
1 |
*No outcomes statements were proposed.
Most (70 percent) of the 179 outcomes proposed by the case
study and telephone interview projects were successfully achieved (see table
6-3). However, projects appeared to have difficulty obtaining data that could
be used to ascertain whether an outcome—especially developmental outcomes—had
been achieved. This mirrors our finding from the site visits that the evidence
provided in support of project success was mostly anecdotal. In fact, most
of the 30 case study and telephone interview projects did not collect any
data about project implementation and impact. Interviews with project staff
revealed several reasons for this—e.g., the difficulty of collecting data,
a lack of resources or funding for data collection activities, lack of expertise
and experience in data collection and evaluation methods, and the belief that
such data collection was not formally required by ARC. In addition, only
a few of the projects appeared to believe that the collection of such data
would further their own immediate interests (e.g., to attract future funding,
improve activities), and some viewed data collection as an external imposition.
Recommendations
The weight of both the qualitative and quantitative evidence
indicates that a clear majority of projects succeeded in achieving real results.
Nevertheless, if the ARC wants to be in a position to demonstrate the impact
of its community capacity-building projects, it will have to do a better job
in the future of measuring, tracking, and reporting performance of the program.
Our recommendations are designed to build upon our previous recommendations
by identifying specific steps that ARC might take to enhance the application
and reporting guidelines for its community capacity-building projects.
Reinforce the ARC application materials provided to
community capacity-building applicants. First, we recommend that ARC
reinforce the general blueprint set forth in earlier ARC publications by developing
additional materials aimed at helping applicants consider the range of steps
required to execute their proposed approach and document the resulting community
benefits. Exhibit E-1 presents seven guiding questions that community capacity-building
applicants might address in their proposals. Beginning with project purpose,
these questions are designed to help applicants consider the range of issues
they will need to address over the life of their project—most notably the
link between their proposed approach and the capacities they are trying to
enhance, the community conditions they are seeking to improve, and the data
they will use to document project success.
Exhibit E-1: Guiding questions for ARC community capacity-building projects
- What do you hope to accomplish as a result of your project?
- What resources—within and outside of your community—do you have at
your disposal to conduct your project?
- What factors within your community are likely to affect the implementation
and success of your project?
- What strategies and activities will you use to achieve your goals?
- How will project activities enhance the capacity of individual community
members, organizations within your community, and/or the overall community?
- As a result of enhancing your community's capacity, how will your
economic, environmental, and/or social conditions improve?
- How will you know if capacity has been enhanced and conditions have
improved?
|
Provide prospective applicants with examples of community
capacity-building outcomes. In an effort to help prospective community
capacity-building projects address these questions in their proposals, we
recommend that the ARC provide applicants with supplemental materials that
demonstrate the range of outputs and outcomes that might be attributed to
a generic community capacity-building project. The logic model presented
throughout this report provides an example of the type of tool that might
be posted on the ARC web site. The model, which portrays the relationship
between a project's intended purpose, activities, and outcomes, can be used
to provide applicants with illustrative examples of intermediate and long-term
outcomes that are commonly associated with community initiatives (see appendix
A).
We further recommend that the Commission work more closely with individual
applicants to help them specify (1) the goals and outcomes that their projects
are designed to address, (2) the numeric benchmarks against which their progress
can be assessed—and the timeframe within which these benchmark will be achieved
(see exhibit E-2), (3) a description of the methodologies that will be used
to assess whether the numeric benchmark was achieved (see exhibit E-3), and
(4) a description of how and when the data will be reported to the ARC. While
some of this could be accomplished by posting a tool like the logic model on
the Commission's web site, many projects will likely benefit from having extended
discussions with ARC staff (or other experts recommended by the ARC) on topics
pertaining to performance measurement. [The introduction to the logic model
includes an overview of how to transform goals and outcomes into measurable
benchmarks. See the electronic attachment for a full working version of the
logic model.]
Exhibit E-2: Examples of community goals, outcomes, and corresponding benchmarks
Goal |
Outcome |
Benchmark |
Individual Capacity: Enhance skills |
Increase
in skills of community members |
20
community members who received training will increase their leadership
skills in 2005 |
Organizational Capacity: Increase collaboration |
Increase
in number of service providers using input from community members to
determine priorities and make decisions |
15
local service providers will report using input from community members
to make decisions in 2005 |
Community Capacity: Enhance
community pride |
Increase
in the number of suggestions for community improvements from residents |
50
community members will suggest a community improvement in 2005 |
Economic: Increase
tourism |
Increase
in hotel business |
Over
the next 3 years, all community hotels will increase their yearly revenues
by at least
5 percent |
Environmental:
Increase recycling |
Increase
in the number of local businesses that recycle |
Over
the next 2 years, 90 percent of local businesses will be recycling |
Social: Improve
quality of community housing |
Decrease
in the number of community homes needing major repair |
Over
the next 2 years, there will be a 25 percent decrease in the number
of community homes that need major repair |
Exhibit E-3: Examples of benchmarks and corresponding data
sources
Benchmark |
Data Source |
20
community members who received training will increase their leadership
skills in 2005 |
Pre/post
survey of trainees—e.g., survey trainees before and after training to
document improvement in their knowledge or skills |
15
local service providers will report using input from community members
to make decisions in 2005 |
Interview
local service providers to assess whether they have increased their
review of input from community members |
50
community members will suggest a community improvement in 2005 |
Conduct
an informal survey (e.g., an open-ended question in a common gathering
place such as a grocery store) to obtain suggestions from residents
about community improvements |
Over
the next 3 years, all community hotels will increase their yearly revenues
by at least 5 percent |
Analysis
of local tax records |
Over
the next 2 years, 90 percent of local businesses will be recycling |
One-time
survey of all local businesses to document the proportion of businesses
that are using recycling procedures |
Over
the next 2 years, there will be a 25 percent decrease in the number
of community homes that need major repair |
Windshield
survey of residential structures to rate neighborhood dwellings on a
five-point scale—should be conducted every year to document decreases
in the number of homes in need of repair |
Provide projects with written materials on potential data collection and
analysis practices. While collecting data can be difficult and time consuming,
findings from the literature review and site visits suggest that some of the
outcomes that projects propose can be addressed through analysis of easily accessible
existing records—e.g., county tax records, school enrollment records, police
reports, employment and unemployment statistics, organizational meeting minutes,
medical records, and hotel receipts. These data can often be found in county
offices or the local chamber of commerce, as well as through such state and
federal agencies as the Bureau of the Census, Department of Education, Department
of Agriculture, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Department
of Commerce. By publicizing these existing sources, ARC may be able to help
projects devise strategies for obtaining and analyzing public data that can
be used to demonstrate improvements in a given condition (e.g., unemployment,
hotel occupancy rates) over time. For other outcomes, projects may need to
be encouraged to collect new data through one-time surveys, pre/post surveys
and assessments (e.g., to measure changes in participants' skills or knowledge),
and interviews (conducted in person or over the phone).
The ARC may need to help individual grant recipients develop
low-cost plans for collecting and analyzing data. While working with individual
projects—collectively or in a workshop setting—can be time consuming, we believe
that the potential rewards are substantial. By their very nature, community
capacity-building projects should be making continuous use of data to inform
their consensus-building and decision-making efforts. As such, the Commission's
efforts to help community capacity-building projects make maximum use of data
would represent a valuable investment with many long-term benefits.
Reinforce ARC's reporting structure. If the ARC is to be in a position
to identify innovative and successful community capacity-building practices,
its staff will need to be able to systematically access more detailed information
about the implementation and impact of its projects. We therefore recommend
that the ARC develop uniform closeout report guidelines that are to be used
by all of its community capacity-building projects. Exhibit E-4 provides an
example of the topics that the ARC's community capacity-building projects might
be required to address in their final reports. Collected over time, we believe
this information would enhance the ability of program staff to assess the implementation
and impact of the Commission's community capacity-building projects. While
some grant recipients might continue to rely primarily on anecdotal information,
the use of standard reporting guidelines—coupled with the requirement that projects
report on their intermediate and long-term outcomes—would likely enhance the
Commission's ability to obtain consistent data that can be used to assess project
and program success. In addition, interviews with case study respondents suggest
that projects would actually welcome more structured reporting requirements,
so long as those requirements are not onerous or unrealistic.
Exhibit E-4: Example of potential ARC guidelines for community
capacity-building project final reports
Background— Provide a short statement regarding the need for this
project. What problems did you hope to solve when you applied for ARC
funding?
Activities— Describe in detail what actually happened during this
grant cycle, and explain how you implemented the project activities.
If there were significant changes to your program during the course
of the project, or if the project was implemented differently than described
in your original proposal, please describe those changes here.
Description of Project Benefits— Provide a description of how your project (1) enhanced
the capacity of individuals and/or organizations within your community
and (2) contributed to communitywide improvements. Also, assess the
extent to which your project has addressed the problems or needs that
you identified in your original request for ARC support.
Outcome Data— Provide any data that documents the outcomes associated
with your project. Data will vary according to the type of project
you completed, and it may be difficult to provide data at this time.
However, it is very important to gather this kind of information so
both your organization and ARC can document our successes. At a minimum,
report on the extent to which you met the numeric goals that you identified
in your original request for ARC support.
Problems Encountered— What would you do differently if you were starting this
project again? Describe any major problems that may have occurred during
the implementation of your project. Knowing the types of difficulties
you encountered and how you resolved them will be helpful to other technology
grantees that may be interested in replicating your program.
Program Continuation and Sustainability— This
section should describe whether and how you intend to continue program
activities after the end of the ARC grant period. Will the program continue
with other funding, and if so, what other sources of funds have been
identified? If the program is to be discontinued, has it served its
purpose, or is there still a need to solve the problems you were addressing?
What additional steps are being taken to obtain other resources needed
to continue the project?
Conclusions and Recommendations— This section summarizes your project and the lessons
learned during its implementation. Include a review of your successes
and suggest ways that your experiences may be helpful to others.
Attachments— Attach any material that helps to describe your project
and documents your success, such as photographs, news clippings, maps,
videotapes, or web site addresses. Also, please attach copies of any
written evaluations that may have been completed for your project.
Source: Adapted from the ARC Grant Administration Manual. |
|