New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules
Saf - Department of Safety
Subtitle Saf-C - Commissioner, Department of Safety
Chapter Saf-C-2900 - LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE REDUCTION INITIATIVE
Part Saf-C 2906 - GRANT REVIEW PROCESS
Section Saf-C 2906.01 - Grant Review Committee

Category/Max Points

Scoring Element

Scoring Methodology

Information Strategy (40 points)

1. Is this applicant a law enforcement entity with COUNTY, LOCAL, or "established joint LE drug force"?

0 = No

5 = Yes

2. Is this project a multi-jurisdictional application with all signed letters of support attached?

Yes = 5 pts No = 0 pts

3. Size of full-time department

30+ Full time LE Officers = 5pts 10-30 Full Time LE = 3 pts

1-10 Full Time LE = 1 pt

4. Does the multi-jurisdictional application make a strong and convincing case for regional funding, in the opinion of the Committee?

Yes = 5 pts Partial = 3 pts

No = 0 pts

5. Does the applicant have full-time law enforcement officers?

Yes = 5 pts No = 1 pt

6. Is the GOAL of this project reasonable based on the DSAD 67 Section I.A.1, the description of the project in the professional judgement of the committee?

Yes = 5 pts Partial = 3 pts No = 1 pt

7. Rate the effectiveness of local drug enforcement efforts planned with this project and current activities as described in the DSAD 67, section II, the program implementation strategy in the professional opinion of the Committee?

Highly Effective = 5 pts Somewhat Effective = 3 pts

Not Effective = 0 pts

8. Are the challenges and solutions in implementation described in the DSAD section II, the program implementation strategy addressed in a reasonable manner in the professional opinion of the Committee?

Yes = 5 pts Partially = 3 pts No = 0 pts

Required Attachments (10 points)

9. Does this project include all statistical/DMI categories &are supporting analysis documents attached (DMI stats, other neutral localized statistics)?

Data provided = 10 pts Partial data provided = 5 pts

No data provided = 0 pts

Section III, Project (35 points)

10. Rate the severity of the problem as identified by the application based on scale of: local, regional, more?

County-wide or larger = 15 pts

Smaller regional problems = 10 pts

Local problem = 5 pts

11. Does this application demonstrate a strong vision to support the overall project tied to RSA 21-P:66, including intelligence gathering and metrics tied to such as communications, high visibility patrols, drug pathway interdiction?

Strong Alignment = 10 pts Somewhat Aligned = 5 pts Not Aligned = 0 pts

12. Rate the proposed solution as identified by the application to mitigate the identified problem. Is this convincing in rationale to find this department or regional group in the professional judgement of the Committee?

Very convincing = 10 pts Partially convincing = 5 pts

Not convincing = 0 pts

Section IV, Budget (15 points)

13. Does the proposed project contain a concise line item budget that adds correctly with ONLY overtime and related allowable personnel costs allowed?

Line item budget = 5 pts Partial line item budget = 3 pts No line item budget = 0 pts

14. Are all proposed project costs reasonable, necessary and allowable based on narrative in the professional opinion of the Committee?

Yes = 5 pts No = 0 pts

15. How cost effective does the funding plan appear to be given the described needs in the professional opinion of the Committee?

Yes = 5 pts No = 0 pts

Section V. Management (15 points)

Does the applicant provide specific milestones as well as start and end dates within 6 months that are reasonable (milestones)?

Yes = 5

No = 0

16. Is the application signed by proper, authorized officials including multi-agency applications?

All Signatures and Proper = 5 pts Some signatures or question = 3 pts

No signature or improper = 0 pts

18. Are local funds being used currently and will they be to SUPPLEMENT current efforts and these grant related efforts?

No supplantation = 5 pts Possible supplantation = 3 pts Supplantation likely = 0 pts