Annual Performance Reports - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Annual Performance Reports PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 67d81b-MzNlM



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Annual Performance Reports

Description:

* Agenda Purpose of Annual Performance Report ED 524B Cover Sheet ... of grants a standard format for reporting the financial status of their awards Follow the ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:12
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Date added: 7 June 2020
Slides: 36
Provided by: Natasha50
Learn more at: http://www2.ed.gov
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Annual Performance Reports


1
Year 3 APR Webinar for 2010 i3 Grantees
  • Annual Performance Reports Matching Funds
  • November 2013

2
Agenda
  • Purpose of Annual Performance Report
  • ED 524B
  • Cover Sheet
  • Executive Summary
  • Section A Performance Objectives Information
  • Section B Budget Information
  • Section C Additional Information
  • SF 425
  • QA

3
Reporting Requirements
  • Annual Performance Report (APR)
  • Completed annually using the ED 524B
  • Reports on activities, challenges, program (GPRA)
    measures, project objectives and expenditures
  • Electronic reporting through G5
  • Match Reporting
  • Completed annually using the ED 524B and in the
    SF 425
  • The SF 425 should be scanned and emailed to
    program officers
  • Both reports due January 14th, 2014

4
Purpose
  • Annual and Final Performance reports are REQUIRED
    of all grantees
  • APRs help to ensure that individual i3 projects
    are making substantial progress toward meeting
    program performance goals and project objectives
  • APRs clearly and comprehensively describe the
    extent to which an i3 project has progressed
    toward meeting stated goals and objectives as
    described in the funded application

5
Parts of the APR
  • Grantees will complete an APR using the ED 524B
    reporting form
  • Cover Sheet
  • Executive Summary
  • Project Status Chart
  • Section A- Performance Objectives Information and
    Related Performance Measures Data
  • Section B- Budget Information and SF 425
  • Section C- Changes/Additional Information

6
Cover Sheet
7
Sample APR Cover Sheet
8
APR Cover Sheet
9
Executive Summary
10
APR Executive Summary
  • A 2-3 page concise and focused overview of the
    project
  • A narrative description of the activities and
    work completed in year three of the project
    including
  • Outline of year three program activities
  • Description of participants/population served
    (students, teachers, locations of LEAs served,
    student grade levels, etc.)
  • Description of the progress of the independent
    evaluation
  • Highlights of the projects goals, including
  • Extent to which individual project objectives,
    expected outcomes, and performance measures were
    achieved
  • Number of students served and number of high-need
    students served, including a description of how
    your project defines high-need student
  • Cost per student
  • A description of challenges encountered and the
    solutions implemented

11
APR Executive Summary
LEA City and State of LEA Number of Students Served Number of High-Need Students Served Number of Teachers Served Number of Principals Served Grade Levels Served
District 1 Niskayuna, NY 750 625 50 25 7-8
District 2 Cohoes, NY 500 500 50 25 7-8
District 3 Rochester, NY 600 600 50 25 7-8
12
Section A Performance Objectives Information
13
APR Section A- Status Chart
  • GPRA vs. Project Measures
  • GPRA measures
  • GPRA 1 The percentage of grantees that reach
    their annual target number of students as
    specified in the application
  • GPRA 2 The cost per student actually served by
    the grant
  • Project measures
  • Target vs. Actual Data
  • Target data are the goals for each measure as
    stated in the approved application. Target data
    should match the targets in the application.
  • Actual data are the measures of actual
    performance for this performance period.

14
APR Section A- Status Chart
  • Use the Explanation of Progress box below the
    status charts to provide additional information
    on the data. Provide highlights of the project's
    goals, the extent to which the expected outcomes
    and performance measures were achieved, and what
    contributions the project has made to research,
    knowledge, practice, and/or policy. Explain the
    instruments used for the measures and interpret,
    in plain language, the results.
  • Note numbers in executive summary should match
    what is reported in the measures

15
Program Measures vs. Project Measures
  • Program Measures
  • Project Measures
  • May have been included in the grant application,
    derived from logic model or developed with Abt or
    Program Officer
  • Tailored to each individual i3 project
  • Measures assessed to evaluate services provided
    and monitor project implementation
  • Also called Government Performance and Results
    Act (GPRA) Measures
  • Standardize reporting requirements
  • Aggregate data across i3 projects
  • Provide data about i3 program effectiveness

16
GPRA Measures
  1. The percentage of grantees that reach their
    annual target number of students as specified in
    the application.
  2. The percentage of programs, practices, or
    strategies supported by evaluations that provide
    evidence or promise of improving student outcomes
    (actual measure requirements varies according to
    i3 grant type).
  3. The percentage of programs practices, or
    strategies supported by a grant that have ongoing
    evaluations that are providing high-quality
    implementation data and performance feedback that
    allow for periodic assessment of progress toward
    achieving intended outcomes.
  4. The cost per student actually served by the
    grant.

17
GPRA 1
  • For Scale-up and Validation grantees, there are
    two GPRA measures to which grantees need to
    respond. The first of which is
  • 1. The percentage of grantees that reach their
    annual target number of students as specified in
    the application.
  • For this measure, grantees will actually report
    on the following
  • 1. The number of students served by the project.

18
Notes on Students Served
  • When calculating students served, please
    remember
  • Served must be defined by the grant project and
    included in the APR explanation of progress
  • Calculations should reflect treatment group
    participants only
  • Data are reported according to the federal
    reporting period whenever possible.
  • Grantees must maintain internal consistency in
    reporting.

19
GPRA 1 cont.
  • Grantees are encouraged to report on the number
    of high-need students reached as part of the
    total number of studentsspecify in the
    explanation of progress section what the numbers
    represent.
  • Example 85 students were servedof the 85, 60
    were high-need.
  • Grantees are also encouraged to report on
    subgroups relevant to specific objectives.
  • Example 85 students were servedof the 85, 40
    were ELL students, 12 were special education
    students.

20
Sample APR Section A- Status Chart
1. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data
The number of students served by the project GPRA Target Target Target Actual Performance Data Actual Performance Data Actual Performance Data
The number of students served by the project GPRA Raw Number Ratio Raw Number Ratio
The number of students served by the project GPRA 1,000 / 975 /
Explanation of Progress During the reporting year, our program served 975 students, through 38 elementary school teachers. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers. Because of the nature of the program, all students in each of the 38 elementary school teachers were counted as being served by the program. The annual target was 1,000 students, so we did not reach our target this year. We believe that this was because this was the programs first year. We have undertaken a review to determine why we missed the target and will implement changes in the coming year to avoid this problem again. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-needs students. The state uses the Race to the Top definition of high-needs students, which can be found on page 12 of this document (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf) and is as follows students at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools, who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English language learners. Explanation of Progress During the reporting year, our program served 975 students, through 38 elementary school teachers. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers. Because of the nature of the program, all students in each of the 38 elementary school teachers were counted as being served by the program. The annual target was 1,000 students, so we did not reach our target this year. We believe that this was because this was the programs first year. We have undertaken a review to determine why we missed the target and will implement changes in the coming year to avoid this problem again. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-needs students. The state uses the Race to the Top definition of high-needs students, which can be found on page 12 of this document (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf) and is as follows students at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools, who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English language learners. Explanation of Progress During the reporting year, our program served 975 students, through 38 elementary school teachers. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers. Because of the nature of the program, all students in each of the 38 elementary school teachers were counted as being served by the program. The annual target was 1,000 students, so we did not reach our target this year. We believe that this was because this was the programs first year. We have undertaken a review to determine why we missed the target and will implement changes in the coming year to avoid this problem again. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-needs students. The state uses the Race to the Top definition of high-needs students, which can be found on page 12 of this document (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf) and is as follows students at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools, who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English language learners. Explanation of Progress During the reporting year, our program served 975 students, through 38 elementary school teachers. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers. Because of the nature of the program, all students in each of the 38 elementary school teachers were counted as being served by the program. The annual target was 1,000 students, so we did not reach our target this year. We believe that this was because this was the programs first year. We have undertaken a review to determine why we missed the target and will implement changes in the coming year to avoid this problem again. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-needs students. The state uses the Race to the Top definition of high-needs students, which can be found on page 12 of this document (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf) and is as follows students at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools, who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English language learners. Explanation of Progress During the reporting year, our program served 975 students, through 38 elementary school teachers. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers. Because of the nature of the program, all students in each of the 38 elementary school teachers were counted as being served by the program. The annual target was 1,000 students, so we did not reach our target this year. We believe that this was because this was the programs first year. We have undertaken a review to determine why we missed the target and will implement changes in the coming year to avoid this problem again. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-needs students. The state uses the Race to the Top definition of high-needs students, which can be found on page 12 of this document (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf) and is as follows students at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools, who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English language learners. Explanation of Progress During the reporting year, our program served 975 students, through 38 elementary school teachers. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers. Because of the nature of the program, all students in each of the 38 elementary school teachers were counted as being served by the program. The annual target was 1,000 students, so we did not reach our target this year. We believe that this was because this was the programs first year. We have undertaken a review to determine why we missed the target and will implement changes in the coming year to avoid this problem again. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-needs students. The state uses the Race to the Top definition of high-needs students, which can be found on page 12 of this document (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf) and is as follows students at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools, who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English language learners. Explanation of Progress During the reporting year, our program served 975 students, through 38 elementary school teachers. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers. Because of the nature of the program, all students in each of the 38 elementary school teachers were counted as being served by the program. The annual target was 1,000 students, so we did not reach our target this year. We believe that this was because this was the programs first year. We have undertaken a review to determine why we missed the target and will implement changes in the coming year to avoid this problem again. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-needs students. The state uses the Race to the Top definition of high-needs students, which can be found on page 12 of this document (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf) and is as follows students at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools, who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English language learners. Explanation of Progress During the reporting year, our program served 975 students, through 38 elementary school teachers. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers. Because of the nature of the program, all students in each of the 38 elementary school teachers were counted as being served by the program. The annual target was 1,000 students, so we did not reach our target this year. We believe that this was because this was the programs first year. We have undertaken a review to determine why we missed the target and will implement changes in the coming year to avoid this problem again. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-needs students. The state uses the Race to the Top definition of high-needs students, which can be found on page 12 of this document (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf) and is as follows students at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools, who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English language learners.
21
GPRA 4
  • All grantees are to report on GPRA measure 4
  • 4. The cost per student actually served by the
    grant.
  • Cost per student will be based on the total funds
    encumbered in year one (minus evaluation costs),
    divided by the number of students served.
  • Grantees are encouraged to report on the target
    number of students to be served and the actual
    number of students served in year one.

Expenditures (Federal, non-Federal, and other costs expended in year three) - Evaluation Costs expended in year three
Students Served Number of students served during year three
22
APR Section A- Status Chart
1. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data
The cost per student actually served by the grant GPRA Target Target Target Actual Performance Data Actual Performance Data Actual Performance Data
The cost per student actually served by the grant GPRA Raw Number Ratio Raw Number Ratio
The cost per student actually served by the grant GPRA / 513 500,000/975
Explanation of Progress During year one, the program served 975 students. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers counted as being served by the grant. The grants budget was 450,000 in Federal grant funds and 100,000 in state funds this year, but the grant set aside 50,000 of Federal funding for evaluation. Therefore, we did not include it in the above calculation. So, the cost (minus evaluation) per student this year was 513. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-need. We used the state definition of high-need to assign students to that group. The state definition can be found on page 12 of this document and at the following link (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf). Explanation of Progress During year one, the program served 975 students. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers counted as being served by the grant. The grants budget was 450,000 in Federal grant funds and 100,000 in state funds this year, but the grant set aside 50,000 of Federal funding for evaluation. Therefore, we did not include it in the above calculation. So, the cost (minus evaluation) per student this year was 513. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-need. We used the state definition of high-need to assign students to that group. The state definition can be found on page 12 of this document and at the following link (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf). Explanation of Progress During year one, the program served 975 students. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers counted as being served by the grant. The grants budget was 450,000 in Federal grant funds and 100,000 in state funds this year, but the grant set aside 50,000 of Federal funding for evaluation. Therefore, we did not include it in the above calculation. So, the cost (minus evaluation) per student this year was 513. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-need. We used the state definition of high-need to assign students to that group. The state definition can be found on page 12 of this document and at the following link (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf). Explanation of Progress During year one, the program served 975 students. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers counted as being served by the grant. The grants budget was 450,000 in Federal grant funds and 100,000 in state funds this year, but the grant set aside 50,000 of Federal funding for evaluation. Therefore, we did not include it in the above calculation. So, the cost (minus evaluation) per student this year was 513. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-need. We used the state definition of high-need to assign students to that group. The state definition can be found on page 12 of this document and at the following link (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf). Explanation of Progress During year one, the program served 975 students. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers counted as being served by the grant. The grants budget was 450,000 in Federal grant funds and 100,000 in state funds this year, but the grant set aside 50,000 of Federal funding for evaluation. Therefore, we did not include it in the above calculation. So, the cost (minus evaluation) per student this year was 513. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-need. We used the state definition of high-need to assign students to that group. The state definition can be found on page 12 of this document and at the following link (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf). Explanation of Progress During year one, the program served 975 students. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers counted as being served by the grant. The grants budget was 450,000 in Federal grant funds and 100,000 in state funds this year, but the grant set aside 50,000 of Federal funding for evaluation. Therefore, we did not include it in the above calculation. So, the cost (minus evaluation) per student this year was 513. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-need. We used the state definition of high-need to assign students to that group. The state definition can be found on page 12 of this document and at the following link (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf). Explanation of Progress During year one, the program served 975 students. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers counted as being served by the grant. The grants budget was 450,000 in Federal grant funds and 100,000 in state funds this year, but the grant set aside 50,000 of Federal funding for evaluation. Therefore, we did not include it in the above calculation. So, the cost (minus evaluation) per student this year was 513. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-need. We used the state definition of high-need to assign students to that group. The state definition can be found on page 12 of this document and at the following link (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf). Explanation of Progress During year one, the program served 975 students. This count of students was determined by examining the class rosters of the 38 teachers counted as being served by the grant. The grants budget was 450,000 in Federal grant funds and 100,000 in state funds this year, but the grant set aside 50,000 of Federal funding for evaluation. Therefore, we did not include it in the above calculation. So, the cost (minus evaluation) per student this year was 513. Of the 975 students served, 432 were high-need. We used the state definition of high-need to assign students to that group. The state definition can be found on page 12 of this document and at the following link (http//www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf).
23
Project Measures
  • For each of your project objectives, you may have
    several performance measures to include in
    Section A of the report
  • Objective 1 Increase the number of district
    students who read at grade level
  • The number of English/Language Arts teachers who
    complete professional development to become
    certified in Project READ competencies by the end
    of year one.
  • The percentage of students who score proficient
    or better on the state grade level literacy exam
    after two years of Project READ.
  • Objective 2
  • Performance Measure 2a
  • Performance Measure 2b

24
Project Measures
Objective 1 Increase the number of district
students who read at grade level
1a. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data
The number of English/Language Arts teachers who complete professional development to become certified in Project READ competencies by the end of year one. Project Target Target Target Actual Performance Data Actual Performance Data Actual Performance Data
The number of English/Language Arts teachers who complete professional development to become certified in Project READ competencies by the end of year one. Project Raw Number Ratio Raw Number Ratio
The number of English/Language Arts teachers who complete professional development to become certified in Project READ competencies by the end of year one. Project 60 59
Explanation of Progress This year we targeted two thirds (60 out of 90) of the districts English/language arts teachers and all completed the two week training program except for one who had to drop out for personal reasons. This teacher will join the next cohort in the upcoming grant year. All of those teachers who completed the professional development program demonstrated the Project READ competencies through a written assessment at the end of the program, a portfolio of lesson plans, and observations that were embedded in the training. Following the summer training, they taught the core English language arts course that was required of all Project READ students. Explanation of Progress This year we targeted two thirds (60 out of 90) of the districts English/language arts teachers and all completed the two week training program except for one who had to drop out for personal reasons. This teacher will join the next cohort in the upcoming grant year. All of those teachers who completed the professional development program demonstrated the Project READ competencies through a written assessment at the end of the program, a portfolio of lesson plans, and observations that were embedded in the training. Following the summer training, they taught the core English language arts course that was required of all Project READ students. Explanation of Progress This year we targeted two thirds (60 out of 90) of the districts English/language arts teachers and all completed the two week training program except for one who had to drop out for personal reasons. This teacher will join the next cohort in the upcoming grant year. All of those teachers who completed the professional development program demonstrated the Project READ competencies through a written assessment at the end of the program, a portfolio of lesson plans, and observations that were embedded in the training. Following the summer training, they taught the core English language arts course that was required of all Project READ students. Explanation of Progress This year we targeted two thirds (60 out of 90) of the districts English/language arts teachers and all completed the two week training program except for one who had to drop out for personal reasons. This teacher will join the next cohort in the upcoming grant year. All of those teachers who completed the professional development program demonstrated the Project READ competencies through a written assessment at the end of the program, a portfolio of lesson plans, and observations that were embedded in the training. Following the summer training, they taught the core English language arts course that was required of all Project READ students. Explanation of Progress This year we targeted two thirds (60 out of 90) of the districts English/language arts teachers and all completed the two week training program except for one who had to drop out for personal reasons. This teacher will join the next cohort in the upcoming grant year. All of those teachers who completed the professional development program demonstrated the Project READ competencies through a written assessment at the end of the program, a portfolio of lesson plans, and observations that were embedded in the training. Following the summer training, they taught the core English language arts course that was required of all Project READ students. Explanation of Progress This year we targeted two thirds (60 out of 90) of the districts English/language arts teachers and all completed the two week training program except for one who had to drop out for personal reasons. This teacher will join the next cohort in the upcoming grant year. All of those teachers who completed the professional development program demonstrated the Project READ competencies through a written assessment at the end of the program, a portfolio of lesson plans, and observations that were embedded in the training. Following the summer training, they taught the core English language arts course that was required of all Project READ students. Explanation of Progress This year we targeted two thirds (60 out of 90) of the districts English/language arts teachers and all completed the two week training program except for one who had to drop out for personal reasons. This teacher will join the next cohort in the upcoming grant year. All of those teachers who completed the professional development program demonstrated the Project READ competencies through a written assessment at the end of the program, a portfolio of lesson plans, and observations that were embedded in the training. Following the summer training, they taught the core English language arts course that was required of all Project READ students. Explanation of Progress This year we targeted two thirds (60 out of 90) of the districts English/language arts teachers and all completed the two week training program except for one who had to drop out for personal reasons. This teacher will join the next cohort in the upcoming grant year. All of those teachers who completed the professional development program demonstrated the Project READ competencies through a written assessment at the end of the program, a portfolio of lesson plans, and observations that were embedded in the training. Following the summer training, they taught the core English language arts course that was required of all Project READ students.
1b. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data Quantitative Data
The percentage of students who score proficient or better on the state grade level literacy exam after two years of Project READ. Project Target Target Target Actual Performance Data Actual Performance Data Actual Performance Data
The percentage of students who score proficient or better on the state grade level literacy exam after two years of Project READ. Project Raw Number Ratio Raw Number Ratio
The percentage of students who score proficient or better on the state grade level literacy exam after two years of Project READ. Project 320/400 80 323/400 81
Explanation of Progress This years target was 80 (or 320) of the 400 students enrolled in Project READ. This is their second full year in the program. 323 or 80.75 of the 400 students scored at or above the targeted level. Those students who did not meet grade level proficiency will receive special one-on-one tutoring with community volunteers. Explanation of Progress This years target was 80 (or 320) of the 400 students enrolled in Project READ. This is their second full year in the program. 323 or 80.75 of the 400 students scored at or above the targeted level. Those students who did not meet grade level proficiency will receive special one-on-one tutoring with community volunteers. Explanation of Progress This years target was 80 (or 320) of the 400 students enrolled in Project READ. This is their second full year in the program. 323 or 80.75 of the 400 students scored at or above the targeted level. Those students who did not meet grade level proficiency will receive special one-on-one tutoring with community volunteers. Explanation of Progress This years target was 80 (or 320) of the 400 students enrolled in Project READ. This is their second full year in the program. 323 or 80.75 of the 400 students scored at or above the targeted level. Those students who did not meet grade level proficiency will receive special one-on-one tutoring with community volunteers. Explanation of Progress This years target was 80 (or 320) of the 400 students enrolled in Project READ. This is their second full year in the program. 323 or 80.75 of the 400 students scored at or above the targeted level. Those students who did not meet grade level proficiency will receive special one-on-one tutoring with community volunteers. Explanation of Progress This years target was 80 (or 320) of the 400 students enrolled in Project READ. This is their second full year in the program. 323 or 80.75 of the 400 students scored at or above the targeted level. Those students who did not meet grade level proficiency will receive special one-on-one tutoring with community volunteers. Explanation of Progress This years target was 80 (or 320) of the 400 students enrolled in Project READ. This is their second full year in the program. 323 or 80.75 of the 400 students scored at or above the targeted level. Those students who did not meet grade level proficiency will receive special one-on-one tutoring with community volunteers. Explanation of Progress This years target was 80 (or 320) of the 400 students enrolled in Project READ. This is their second full year in the program. 323 or 80.75 of the 400 students scored at or above the targeted level. Those students who did not meet grade level proficiency will receive special one-on-one tutoring with community volunteers.
25
Section B- Budget Information
26
APR Section BBudget Information
  • Provide an overview of the expenses for the
    performance period with a budget summary chart
    and a narrative explanation
  • A budget summary chart should be included using
    budget categories from the ED 524 budget form
  • Show budgeted expenses for year one , actual year
    one expenditures, carryover, and projected year
    two expenses for each budget line item of the ED
    524 budget form

27
APR Section BBudget Information
  • Provide explanations for deviations from the
    approved budget. Describe why there are unspent
    funds, why there is a difference in use of funds
    across the budget categories, and any budgetary
    issues for example
  • Changes that affected your ability to achieve
    approved project activities and/or project
    objectives
  • Explain how funds not expended (carryover) in
    year one will be used in year two by elaborating
    on
  • Timeline for completion of activities delayed in
    year one
  • In the case of surplus funds, reallocating them
    toward other project objectives

28
APR Section B- Budget Information
Budget Categories Year one Budgeted Year one Actual Carryover Year Two Projected
Personnel 70,000 70,000 0 70,000
Fringe 10,000 10,000 0 10,000
Travel 20,000 16,845 3,155 25,000
Equipment 7,000 5,413 1,587 7,000
Supplies 30,000 10,465 19,535 30,000
Contractual 100,000 75,087 24,913 100,000
Other 40,000 25,789 14,211 40,000
Total Direct Costs 277,000 213,599 63,401 282,000
Indirect Costs 11,634 8,971 2,663 11,844
Training Stipends 20,000 28,000 -8,000 30,000
Total Costs 308,634 250,570 58,064 323,844
Explanation of Budget The unexpended projected
funds in each category are due mostly to an
over-estimation of costs. After the proposal was
funded, contracts with our partners were
finalized, and we found many services, such as
usage of partner facilities for training, were
much less costly than projected and, in some
cases, free. The amount spent on stipends
increased from 20,000 to 28,000, as we served
more teachers than originally planned. We plan to
use the carryover from our first project year to
increase the number of teacher participants,
offer an additional weekend training seminar, and
increase training stipends distributed across
grant years 2, 3, 4, and 5.
29
APR Section BBudget Information
  • Example of a budget explanation
  • We spent less on travel than anticipated because
    our advisory group meeting was delayed. Instead
    of being held in August, it will be held in late
    October of the second budget year.
  • We had shortfalls in expenditures in supplies and
    in contractual because of delays in the selection
    of school sites. We were not able to provide all
    planning services during the summer and have had
    to defer these until fall.
  • The increase in other results from increased
    planning stipends to schools because of the
    addition of an additional school site (approved
    by program officer 6/5/12) for year one in year
    two we will be starting one fewer school sites.

30
APR Section BBudget Information
  • Matching funds should be reported in a similar
    format to the federal funds, accounting for both
    private and, where applicable, public funds in
    those cases where grantees have promised
    contributions beyond the required private match.
  • Reporting on matching funds ensures that all
    funds were secured as described in the previously
    submitted match letters

31
SF 425
  • Gives recipients of grants a standard format for
    reporting the financial status of their awards
  • Follow the step-by-step SF 425 Instructions that
    are included (as an attachment) with the Dear
    Colleague Letter
  • To submit, scan and then email to respective
    program officer

32
Section C Additional Information
33
APR Section CAdditional Information
  • Include any changes in project activities
  • Provide updates on the evaluation plan, including
    any changes to the evaluation design or
    instruments that will be used and copies of any
    interim findings or reports
  • DO NOT use this section to attach press
    clippings, meeting agendas, materials,
    testimonials, and other extras please send
    these to your ED project officer under separate
    cover

34
APR Tips
  • Always address GPRA and Project Measures
  • Provide relevant detail in a succinct format
  • Complete all sections of the APR
  • Use numbers and always interpret data provided in
    laymans terms
  • Do not use vague language like more, most,
    less

35
How to Submit in G5
  • Go to https//www.g5.gov and log into the system.
  • Go to Grant Maintenance ?Package Submission?
    Select to mark the correct PR for the grant?
    Current Report Package? and Initiate the Interim
    Performance Report.
  • We must have current project director information
    in order for each grantee to access the report.
  • You will have until 430PM EST on the submission
    date to access and submit the report.
About PowerShow.com