|
|
Home : Statewide Resource Sharing : Interlibrary Loan Development Program
ILDP application rubric
State Library
of Kansas
300 SW 10th Avenue, Room 343-N
Topeka, KS 66612-1593
785-296-3875
800-432-3919
INTERLIBRARY LOAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
FY 2008 COMPETITIVE GRANT EVALUATION RUBRIC DESCRIPTION
_____Need
| 3 |
User need is clearly
documented with statistics and specific examples of unfilled requests. It is
clear that the proposal has been developed based on client interest in and
need for information on the proposed topic or applicant has made a convincing
case for exploratory collection development. |
| |
|
| 2 |
User need is described but
limited evidence is provided as support. |
| |
|
| 1 |
Uses incomplete or vague
examples to describe need. Reader is left with unanswered questions. |
| |
|
| 0 |
No clear user impact is
evident. |
| |
|
_____Interlibrary loan (
ILL
) value
| 3 |
Applicant has checked the Kansas
Library Catalog to see if materials proposed for purchase are available in
Kansas. If similar materials are already available, applicant offers a
convincing explanation as to why more copies will enhance statewide
ILL
. |
| |
|
| 2 |
Applicant provides an
explanation of
ILL
value and
limited evidence is provided to support the explanation. |
| |
|
| 1 |
Applicant does not appear
to have checked the KLC to determine availability of similar materials.
Explanation of
ILL
value is vague
or incomplete. |
| |
|
| 0 |
Applicant has furnished no
evidence of interlibrary loan value. |
|
|
_____Commitment to continue the project after
the grant expires
| 3 |
Proposal cites the amount of
money the library plans to commit, or details how many additional materials
will be added in the future. |
| |
|
| 2 |
Moderate or very short-term
commitment in terms of dollars or items is described. |
| |
|
| 1 |
Commitment to project continuation
in terms of dollars or items is mentioned, but no specifics are provided. |
| |
|
| 0 |
No commitment in terms of
dollars or items is described. |
|
|
_____Budget
| 3 |
Budget reflects complete expenditure
information, including shipping costs and processing. Source for cost
estimates is cited. |
| |
|
| 2 |
Amount requested is
appropriate for the type and quantity of materials requested. |
| |
|
| 1 |
Cost figures are vague or incomplete.
Reader does not understand exactly how the requested amount was computed. |
| |
|
| 0 |
Budget is absent. |
|
|
_____Proposal quality
| 3 |
Shows evidence of careful planning
and preparation. All sections of the proposal are complete and clear. Reader
is given a clear understanding of the project's statewide
ILL
value. Proposal meets all grant criteria. |
| |
|
| 2 |
Answers are adequate.
Proposal meets most criteria outlined in grant application directions. But
value and need address local needs rather than statewide
ILL
needs. |
| |
|
| 1 |
Most answers lack
specificity. The reader is left with questions concerning the project's need,
ILL
impact and costs. |
| |
|
| 0 |
Proposal is not well
thought-out. |
|
|