The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Scoring Worksheet
FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2017 NONPROFIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (NSGP)
INVESTMENT JUSTIFICATION SCORING WORKSHEET
State
Urban Area
Name of the Nonprofit Organization
FY 2017 NSGP Federal Funding Request
| Scoring Legend | | | | |
| | Did Not | | The applicant provided no response |
| | Poor | | The applicant's response is incomplete and does not address all of the required information |
| | Partial | | The applicant's response is complete but minimally addresses all of the required information |
| | Adequate | | The applicant's response is complete and moderately addresses all of the required information |
| | Thorough | | The applicant's response is complete and fully addresses all of the required information |
| I. Applicant Information (Unscored) | | | | |
| 1. Did the applicant provide all of the required information in the Applicant Information Section? | | | |
| | No | The applicant did not provide all of the required information | |
| | Yes | The applicant did provide all of the required information | |
| II. Background (Total of 2 possible points) | |
| 2. Did the applicant provide a description of their nonprofit organization to include: |
▪ Symbolic value of the site as a highly recognized national or historical institution or significant institution within the community that renders the site as a possible target of terrorism
▪ Any role in responding to or recovering from terrorist attacks
| 0 | = The applicant did not provide a response to all of the required information regarding their nonprofit organization |
| 1 | = The applicant provided some of the required information regarding their nonprofit organization |
| 2 | = The applicant provided all of the required information regarding their nonprofit organization |
| Score | |
| III. Risk (Total of 12 possible points) | | | |
| 3. In considering threat, how well did the applicant address findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims? | | |
| | 0 | = The applicant did not address findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims |
| | 1 | = The applicant poorly addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims |
| | 2 | = The applicant partially addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims |
| | 3 | = The applicant adequately addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims |
| | 4 | = The applicant thoroughly addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims |
| | Score | |
| 4. In considering vulnerabilities, how well did the applicant describe the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack? | | |
| 0 | = The applicant did not address the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack |
| 1 | = The applicant poorly addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack |
| 2 | = The applicant partially addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack |
| 3 | = The applicant adequately addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack |
| 4 | = The applicant thoroughly addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack |
| Score | |
| 5. In considering potential consequences, how well did the applicant address potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack? | |
| 0 | = The applicant did not address potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack |
| 1 | = The applicant poorly addressed potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack |
| 2 | = The applicant partially addressed potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack |
| 3 | = The applicant adequately addressed potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack |
| 4 | = The applicant thoroughly addressed potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack |
| Score | |
| IV. Target Hardening (Total of 14 possible points) | | | |
| 6. How well does the proposed target hardening activity mitigate the identified risk(s) and/or vulnerabilities? | | |
| | 0 | = The applicant did not provide a description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s) |
| | 1 | = The applicant provided a poor description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s) |
| | 2 | = The applicant provided a partial description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s) |
| | 3 | = The applicant provided an adequate description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s) |
| | 4 | = The applicant provided a thorough description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s) |
| | Score | |
| 7. Did the applicant's proposed target hardening activity focus on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack? | | |
| 0 | = The applicant's target hardening activity did not focus on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack |
| 1 | = The applicant's target hardening activity poorly focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack |
| 2 | = The applicant's target hardening activity partially focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack |
| 3 | = The applicant's target hardening activity adequately focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack |
| 4 | = The applicant's target hardening activity thoroughly focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack |
| Score | |
| 8. Did the applicant propose projects that are allowable based on the priorities of the program? | | |
| 0 | = The proposed projects are not allowable based on the priorities of the program |
| 1 | = The proposed projects are partially allowable and the unallowablity will compromise the successful implementation of the project. |
| 2 | = The proposed projects are partially allowable but could be resolved with a minor modification to the propsed project |
| 3 | = The proposed projects are all allowable based on the priorities of the program. |
| Score | |
| 9. Did the applicant propose projects that are feasible based on the priorities of the program? | | |
| 0 | = The proposed projects are not feasible based on the priorities of the program |
| 1 | = The proposed projects could be feasible but require significant changes. |
| 2 | = The proposed projects could be feasible but require minor changes. |
| 3 | = The proposed projects are feasible based on the priorities of the program. |
| Score | |
V. Milestones (Total of 4 possible points)
| 10. How well did the applicant describe the milestones and the associated key activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2017 NSGP period of performance? | | |
| 0 | = The applicant did not provide a description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2017 NSGP period of performance |
| 1 | = The applicant provided a poor description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2017 NSGP period of performance |
| 2 | = The applicant provided a partial description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2017 NSGP period of performance |
| 3 | = The applicant provided an adequate description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2017 NSGP period of performance |
| 4 | = The applicant provided a thorough description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2017 NSGP period of performance |
| Score | |
| VI. Project Management (Total of 3 possible points) | |
| 11. How well did the applicant justify the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment? |
| 0 | = The applicant did not justify the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment |
| 1 | = The applicant partially justified the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment |
| 2 | = The applicant adequately justified the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment |
| 3 | = The applicant thoroughly justified the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment |
| Score | |
| VII. Impact (Total of 5 possible points) | | | |
| 12. How well did the applicant describe the outcomes/outputs that would indicate that the investment was successful? | | |
| | 0 | = The applicant did not discuss what outcomes/outputs indicate that the investment was successful |
| | 1 | = The applicant poorly discussed what outcomes/outputs indicate that the investment was successful |
| | 2 | = The applicant partially discussed what outcomes/outputs indicate that the investment was successful |
| | 3 | = The applicant adequately discussed what outcomes/outputs indicate that the investment was successful |
| | 4 | = The applicant thoroughly what outcomes/outputs indicate that the investment was successful |
| | Score | |
| 13. Did the applicant describe how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified Goal Core Capabilities? | | |
| 0 | = The applicant did not provide a description of how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified Goal Core Capabilities |
| 1 | = The applicant provide a description of how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified Goal Core Capabilities |
| Score | |
Total Score
| Total Investment Justification Score: | |
| Based on a possible score of 40, this Investment Justification scored a: | 0 |
| Arizona | Anaheim/Santa Ana Area |
| California | Atlanta Area |
| Colorado | Baltimore Area |
| District of Columbia | Bay Area |
| Florida | Boston Area |
| Georgia | Charlotte Area |
| Illinois | Chicago Area |
| Maryland | Dallas/Fort Worth/Arlington Area |
| Massachusetts | Denver Area |
| Michigan | Detroit Area |
| Minnesota | Houston Area |
| Missouri | Jersey City/Newark Area |
| New Jersey | Los Angeles/Long Beach Area |
| New York | Miami/Ft.Lauderdale Area |
| North Carolina | National Capital Region |
| Pennsylvania | New York City Area |
| Texas | Philadelphia Area |
| Washington | Phoenix Area |
| Pittsburgh Area |
| Sacramento Area |
| San Diego Area |
| Seattle Area |
| St. Louis Area |
| Tampa Area |
| Twin Cities Area |
| Arizona | Anaheim/Santa Ana Area |
| California | Atlanta Area |
| Colorado | Baltimore Area |
| District of Columbia | Bay Area |
| Florida | Boston Area |
| Georgia | Charlotte Area |
| Illinois | Chicago Area |
| Indiana | Cleveland Area |
| Maryland | Dallas/Fort Worth/Arlington Area |
| Massachusetts | Denver Area |
| Michigan | Detroit Area |
| Minnesota | Hampton Roads Area |
| Missouri | Houston Area |
| Nevada | Indianapolis Area |
| New Jersey | Jersey City/Newark Area |
| New York | Las Vegas Area |
| North Carolina | Los Angeles/Long Beach Area |
| Ohio | Miami/Fort Lauderdale Area |
| Oregon | National Capital Region |
| Pennsylvania | New York City Area |
| Texas | Philadelphia Area |
| Utah | Phoenix Area |
| Virginia | Pittsburgh Area |
| Washington | Portland Area |
| Riverside Area |
| Sacramento Area |
| Salt Lake City Area |
| San Antonio Area |
| San Diego Area |
| Seattle Area |
| St. Louis Area |
| Tampa Area |
| Twin Cities Area |
Sheet1
Department of Homeland Security