Expert Panel Score

A.C.T.I.O.N Coalition

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 61

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 9

Comments:

They did not state which ARC goal they aligned with; however, it is apparent that they do align with goal 2 from their description. But, they did not go into any detail to provide specific examples, imact analysis or how they aligned with multiplet goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Described impact = loss of grant revenue, inability to provide services to inmates leaving because of COVID, inability to provide in-person sessions; provided some financial details – loss of revenue/grants; provided some impact on end-users.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Stated that sustainability was a major concern and selected that topic area; described how instruction could move them forward; provided distinct mission delivery issues – e.g., the only group in community provided resources, clients loss of services

A.C.T.I.O.N Coalition

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 72

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

Org’s goals could be better aligned with ARC’s focus on Recovery To Work


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Impacts are significant and in line with expectations. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Learning more about the requested topics would leave the org with a better understanding of how to flourish in light of COVID-19.

A.C.T.I.O.N Coalition

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

Did not clearly describe how the organization’s mission correlates to ARC Goals. Provides some description of organization’s importance to the Region. Addresses two ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Does not provide detailed financial impacts. Demonstrates limited impacts on users.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Concerns were not specific enough to demonstrate impact on mission delivery. Concerns are not directly related to topic area selection. Concerns do not lend themselves to future sustainability.

A.C.T.I.O.N Coalition

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Slight mention of ARC goals and clear they have potential impact, but answer was missing further explanation.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

There was only slight mention of financial impact, and I felt there could have been more details of the impact on their users.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

The concerns tied into what the long-term financial management would support and the critical need for long-term planning.

A.C.T.I.O.N Coalition

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

SUD/workforce mentioned, no clear link to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

not a lot of detail, had to lay of roughly 50% of staff, in person work affected


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

concerns relevant and sense their lack of service would leave void in community

Allegany Arts Council

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 80

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

The applicant aligns well with Goal #1 and Goal #4. But, they do not call those goals out. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

Great description of the impacts – loss of revenue and in-person programming. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant provided an excellent assessment of their three issues which align with their selected topics. Additionally, their statement regarding what they would get from the training was motivating. 

Allegany Arts Council

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 63

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

There is some overlap with ARC goals in the area of tourism promotion and its management of the Arts & Entertainment District.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Impact has unquestionably been severe. Costs have increased as revenue has dropped, the double whammy.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Achieving sustainability will be a challenge for this group if their board does not go along with needed modifications to their revenue model. Participation could have some positive impact on the sustainability of the organization. 

Allegany Arts Council

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Does not clearly describe correlation between organization and ARC’s Goals. Does not address more than one ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Does not provide discussion of Covid’s impact on mission. Does not describe implemented mitigation strategies. Does not provide significant detail on impacts to constituents, members, or users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Only provides two concerns. Primary focus is fundraising, little discussion on how additional training provides value. 

Allegany Arts Council

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 68

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Clear alignment in multiple points.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Main missing piece was impact on their users. The description of their membership model and how it’s been impacted was helpful. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Explicit alignment across concerns and hopes for sustainability.

Allegany Arts Council

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

can make case for 3 goals but no direct link


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

in person engagement hurt, revenue streams affected, finances clear, how has this affectec constituents


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Appalachia Habitat for Humanity, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 88

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Clearly articulately the organization’s alignment with ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

Exceptional description of the impact on homebuilding, volunteerism, fundraising, etc. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The concerns align with the selected course choices. HFH gave a slightly deeper dive into what they need versus other applicants. 

Appalachia Habitat for Humanity, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 55

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Housing is not currently an ARC goal area. There is some spillover into this type of goal, but it is clearly outside the normal boundary of our work. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

Obvious COVID-19 impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

There is little question that this type of assistance could help HFH, but I question why they should take up a spot in a program really designed for orgs that do not have the benefit of an established national parent org.

Appalachia Habitat for Humanity, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 47

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

Limited correlation between organization and ARC. Only addresses one ARC goal and link is limited. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

Did not provide planned financial mitigation strategies. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 8

Comments:

Did not adequately describe concerns.

Does not adequately describe how concerns match topic areas.

Did not describe how instruction would be of help. 

Appalachia Habitat for Humanity, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Lacked explicit connection to some ARC goals but the importance and relation to ARC goals was made clear.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

Good explanation of impact across the users, finances, and general operations.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

This section was lacking explanation and clear alignment across the three sections.

Appalachia Habitat for Humanity, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 47

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

explicitly one ARC goal


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

cannot turn out volunteers, material prices up, programming on hold, not a lot of detail, staff levels consistent


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

APPALACHIAN EARLY CHILDHOOD NETWORK, INC

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 78

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Clearly articulates the alignment with Goals 1 and 2. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

The applicant provides some financial impact; however, the majority of the answer concerns the delay of new child care projects which impacts their clients. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Outlined what they wanted to learn and how rural strategies will work for them. 

APPALACHIAN EARLY CHILDHOOD NETWORK, INC

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 73

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Applicant makes a compelling case as to why their mission is aligned with ARC’s goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

Clear COVID-19 impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Applicant placed no emphasis on long-term sustainability

APPALACHIAN EARLY CHILDHOOD NETWORK, INC

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 27

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

Limited correlation between ARC and organization. 

Did not describe how organization is important to region. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 6

Comments:

Did not provide relevant information on Covid’s impact.

Does not discuss financial impact. 

Limited discussion on impacts to constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 10

Comments:

Did not answer question with sufficient information.

Some alignment with the selected topics.

Did not adequately describe how support will assist will sustainability.

APPALACHIAN EARLY CHILDHOOD NETWORK, INC

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

Basic alignment with two ARC goals but could use more explanation of how they’re working towards those goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Did not mention much about their users or details about the financial impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Not much mention of sustainability but generally good alignment across questions and hopes for gaining from the program.

APPALACHIAN EARLY CHILDHOOD NETWORK, INC

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 47

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

makes case for two ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

fundraising struggles, can’t train/support child care providers


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Appalachian RC&D Council

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 83

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 23

Comments:

While the grantee does not specifically align each activity of the org to specific goals, they do list the appropriate goals (4 of them) to match the very well-defined mission and its impact on Appalachia. Increasing effectiveness of farmers business impact, access to markets, increases knowledge/skills, contributes to healthy workforce through healthy food, builds community and economic development potential through farming.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

Articulated the impacts of COVID – the inability of farmers markets to open, unable to host Americorps, unable to deliver education to students, loss of revenue as a result, analysis of the financial impact (e.g., endowment), etc.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Explanation of low ROI fundraisers aligns with organization’s selection of long term financial management and fundraising TA.

Appalachian RC&D Council

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 86

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

Clear alignment with ARC’s goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

COVID-19 impact has been significant and measurable


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

This is typical of the type of non-profit this program is designed to assist.

Appalachian RC&D Council

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Some programming relevant to ARC’s goals. 

Does not include impact analysis. 

Sufficient description for supporting 2-3 goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Did not describe mitigation strategies to offset financial impact. 

Limited discussion on impact to constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 10

Comments:

Did not provide relevant information to support concerns. 4

Some concerns align with selection of topic areas. 5

Did not include information on how instruction will help. 1

Appalachian RC&D Council

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 71

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Very clear alignment with multiple goals on multiple program fronts.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Impact across multiple fronts and good explanation of financial and participant losses.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Strong explanation of what they hope to gain from this assistance.

Appalachian RC&D Council

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 75

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

3 goals in mission state, 4 explicitly mentioned


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

operating expenses shot up, programming halted, state funding suspended


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 26

Comments:

no current fundraising plan

Archway Station

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

The applicant does not name any of our goals; however, one could argue they meet Goal 2. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant describes losses of staff, client reductions, inability to provide telehealth, but does not give any kind of quantitative analysis.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant’s concerns align with their requested learning topics. They also provided excellent reasons for joining the training – learning from others.

Archway Station

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Alignment with ARC’s goals is tenuous at best. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Impact appears to have been somewhat muted when compared to other orgs. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Applicant makes a moderately-effective case for assistance. Not as compelling as some. 

Archway Station

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 20

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 0

Comments:

No relevant information is included that addresses the relationship between the organization and ARC’s mission.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 8

Comments:

Some relevant information provided. 

No discussion of financial impact. 

Limited information provided describing impact to constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

Shared relevant concerns but did not provide sufficient information.

Limited alignment between concerns and topic areas.

Limited discussion on how training will support sustainability. 

Archway Station

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 33

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Unclear what Archway Station does and how it aligns with goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 11

Comments:

Unclear what they do and how the virus has changed that financially or for their users.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

Some connection between the three sections but unclear vision for utilizing assistance.

Archway Station

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 39

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 9

Comments:

no linkage to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

lacking detail, basic info, financial impacts, what is the financial model


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 13

Comments:

Ashe Services for Aging, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 80

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

While the description of the organization’s work is clear, they only address one of ARC’s goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The description of impacts on clients, finances, and the general community is well done. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

The applicant provides an excellent assessment of their pressing concerns, courses they need as a result, and what they hope to get out of the program.

Ashe Services for Aging, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

It is a bit of a stretch to say this org aligns with ARC’s goals. Very little in the way of economic development is practiced, although day care is an activity that enables a caregiver to go to work.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

Applicant was significantly impacted by COVID-19. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Org has a large budget, larger than the orgs this program was designed for, so fundraising as a priority is relative. Unclear how the agency is tied to our LDD headquartered in Boone, NC. Org receives significant amounts of entitlement government funding. 

Ashe Services for Aging, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

Little discussion on relevance between organization and ARC’s mission. 

No impact analysis provided. 

Did not provide sufficient information on how organization addresses ARC goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Discussion on impact limited. 

No financial details provided. 

Constituent impact assessment not detailed.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Shared three concerns with limited discussion 8

Concerns appropriately aligned. 8

Some discussion but specifics are limited. 8

Ashe Services for Aging, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 61

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

General alignment but really only focus on one goal.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Biggest miss was lack of financial impact within answer.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Good explanation of needs, how assistance would be put to use, and I liked the balance between fundraising and operations.

Ashe Services for Aging, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 54

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

on clear alignment w/ health


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

layoffs, operating costs up, social distance measures an impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Athens County Child Advocacy Center

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 57

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

The applicant did not provide enough detail; however, did show alignment with Goal #2. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

The limited narrative in this section made scoring it a little difficult. The applicant’s succinct answers lacked analysis. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

The applicant provided three solid concerns and provided background on why her participation in the program would benefit the program. I could only see that they selected one course. 

Athens County Child Advocacy Center

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 57

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Little connection to ARC’s goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

COVID-19 impact was measurable but limited when compared to other applicants. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Applicant could have made a more compelling case for assistance if they could look past their immediate financial shortfall. 

Athens County Child Advocacy Center

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 33

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 7

Comments:

Limited correlation between organization and ARC. 

No information provided on importance to region. 

Did not include sufficient information on how organization addresses goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 6

Comments:

Limited information on impact to mission delivery. 

Some impact of financial impact but no mitigation strategies. 

No discussion of impact on constituents.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

 

Only 1 of 3 concerns are related to topic areas. 

Sufficient description. More detail needed.

Athens County Child Advocacy Center

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 34

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 9

Comments:

Only alignment with one goal and not much explanation of overall impact on ARC region


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 11

Comments:

While brief and direct it lacked explanation on direct impact of users.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

Executive director’s hope to gain long-term fundraising support is admirable but could use further explanation of how it would be put to use.

Athens County Child Advocacy Center

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

no explicit link to ARC goals really


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

important work but not clear how COVID has impacted operations


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

Big Sandy College Educational Foundation, Inc

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 81

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

The applicant’s narrative fits with Goal #2. They did a good job articulating that alignment. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant’s inability to hold fundraisers, meet in person with donors and have online learning means lower revenue streams.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant’s needs align with their choice of learning topics and their statement of what they would get out of it indicates their willingness to grow and change. 

Big Sandy College Educational Foundation, Inc

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Some correlation but limited description. 

High importance but limited specifics. 

Only discusses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Good description but limited specifics. 

Does not discuss mitigation strategies. 

Does not detail severity of impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

Concerns are not all relevant to impact of Covid. 

Some concerns are aligned with selected topic area. 

Some discussion on the impact of instruction but does not address both topic areas. 

Big Sandy College Educational Foundation, Inc

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 77

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

Orgs goals are fully aligned with ARC


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Orgs activities are minimal, seemingly solely devoted to fundraising for scholarships through events. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

There appears to be some chance of this organization successfully turning itself around. Difficult to fully understand this one.

Big Sandy College Educational Foundation, Inc

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Unclear connection beyond supporting educational advancement, but it was not explained the organization’s impact on the larger community.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Lacked direct explanation of finances and beneficiaries impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Thoughtful explanation of concerns and how the program can address those structural challenges.

Big Sandy College Educational Foundation, Inc

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

direct connection to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

what is impact on target population to be served


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Birthplace of Country Music, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 90

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant thoughtfully aligned their activities with all five of ARC’s goal areas. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant provided a strong analysis of COVID’s impact on their operations – a tourism-based museum that had to close following what was to be a real boost from Ken Burns documentary – Country Music. Additionally, the canceled fundraisers provided an additional reduction in revenue. The applicant laid the groundwork of being open to rethinking their approaches to content and programming delivery.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

A thorough analysis of the issues confronting the organization aligned with their desired courses. Additionally, they provided a thoughtful statement on how instruction would help. 

Birthplace of Country Music, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 81

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

This is a former ARC grantee


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Museum was closed and events canceled. No staff layoffs were noticed.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 26

Comments:

Org requests help with long term and short term fiscal management. 

Birthplace of Country Music, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 68

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

Application clearly describes correlation, but correlation is loose. 

No impact analysis included. 

 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Lacked discussion of specific impact. 

Some financial impacts are discussed but no specifics and lacks mitigation strategies. 

Discusses access issues, but not well defined. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Three relevant concerns but lacking detail. 

Concerns align with topics but lack thoughtful rationale. 

 

Birthplace of Country Music, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 78

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Strong explanation of alignment and impact across numerous goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

Detailed explanation of impacts across all three categories.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Thoughtful explanation of how the program will assist the organization structurally and long-term.

Birthplace of Country Music, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

very concerted effort to align with all five ARC goals, even if stretch at some point


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

no big impacts….yet, not much detail on impacts to community through tourism revenues


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

Black Sheep Brick Oven Bakery

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 30

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 6

Comments:

The applicant does not give enough details about what they do for it to be a clear alignment. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

The applicant does not paint a picture as to how COVID impacts their organization’s activities. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

The applicant provides a compelling reason for participating; however, they should have selected short term financial since they are in survival mode. 

Black Sheep Brick Oven Bakery

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Some stated alignment with ARC goals although it is unclear exactly how they align.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

Applicant gave little explanation of how they were impacted.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

This is a very small non-profit and it is unclear if they could actually implement what they learned from the instruction.

Black Sheep Brick Oven Bakery

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 28

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 7

Comments:

Did not answer question with sufficient information. 

Some description of why organization is important to the region. 

Did not include sufficient information on alignment with goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 6

Comments:

Did not answer question with relevant information. 

Did not articulate financial impact. 

Did not include sufficient information on impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Shared concerns but lacks information. 

Concerns align but lack rationale. 

Some description but lacks detail. 

Black Sheep Brick Oven Bakery

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 32

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Goals not explicitly identified but implicitly mentioned.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 6

Comments:

Lacks explanation across the board.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

Could use a lot more explanation of how the program will be put to use.

Black Sheep Brick Oven Bakery

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

little linkage to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

not great on details. but best application, they are doing the work


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Blount County Economic Development Council, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

The program aligns with three of ARC’s goals; however, they do not provide depth around how. Since I was a local economic developer, I could take a leap with their answers. But, I did not take a big one. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Provided some information on mission-impact, financial impact, and constituent impact; however, more depth could have strengthened their application. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Top 3 concerns and choices align. The applicant sees the near-term and long-term importance of participating. 

Blount County Economic Development Council, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 70

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Clear alignment with ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Not much information given on how the impact has hurt them. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Blount County Economic Development Council, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Shared relevant information on correlation but lacks detail. 

Good quality information but lacks quality description. 

Discusses correlation but lacks specific detail. 

 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

Some relevant information but lacks detail. 

Does not provide detail on financial impact. 

Describes impact but lacks detail. 

 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 11

Comments:

Concerns do not appear severe. 

Some concerns align with selected topics. 

Some discussion but lacks detail. 

Blount County Economic Development Council, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 40

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Identify the goals but don’t provide explanation of the connection to each goal. More assumed.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Could use more explanation of impact on finances and users, not much detail.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 11

Comments:

Lacking explanation of sustainability and how program will be useful.

Blount County Economic Development Council, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

clearly identified ARC relevant ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

impacts are general instability


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

not much insight into how training would help

Blue Ridge Mountains Arts Association

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 8

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 2

Comments:

They listed a few goals; however, there was not enough information to make an informed analysis.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 0

Comments:

There was not enough information to determine impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 6

Comments:

While there were concerns listed, there was no analysis/articulation of these concerns. 

Blue Ridge Mountains Arts Association

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 6

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 0

Comments:

There was not enough information to analyze this application


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 0

Comments:

There was not enough information to analyze this application


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 6

Comments:

There was not enough information to analyze this application; however, they did list 3 concerns

Blue Ridge Mountains Arts Association

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 74

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

Some alignment with ARC goals, although not as robust as the target org.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Some clear negative impact, although they continue to operate


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

This type of organization could substantially benefit from the instruction

Blue Ridge Mountains Arts Association

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 41

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 6

Comments:

Did not answer question with sufficient information. 

Did not answer question with sufficient information. 

Did not answer question with sufficient information. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Describe Covid-related impacts but lacks clear description. 

Shares some financial impact, but lacks detail. 

Describes impact but lacks detail. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Shared concerns but did not relate to mission delivery. 

Some concerns are aligned, but not all. 

Some discussion but not sufficient description. 

Blue Ridge Mountains Arts Association

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 26

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 7

Comments:

Only state the goals they relate to but no explanation of how they do.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 11

Comments:

No clear explanation of financial and programmatic impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 8

Comments:

Lacking alignment across the three sections or explanation of how this program will be used.

Blue Ridge Mountains Arts Association

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 44

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

notes ARC goals but doesn’t really discuss them


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

sparse details throughout


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Blue Ridge National Heritage Area Partnership

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 69

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant provides a succinct description of how they align with ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant provides some narrative about how the pandemic affects their organization but lacks some details and quantification.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

While I understand that their financials need to be stabilized, they do list concerns about operations. I do like their statement regarding what they hope to gain from the program. 

Blue Ridge National Heritage Area Partnership

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 85

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Significant alignment with ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

Major negative impacts from COVID19, including layoffs


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Org could significantly benefit from the instruction

Blue Ridge National Heritage Area Partnership

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 9

Comments:

Some correlation but little discussion. 

No discussion of important to region. 

Discussion pertaining to one goal, but little discussion on second. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

Shared relevant information but lacked clarity. 

Did not provide detailed financial impact or mitigation strategies. 

Lacks well-defined discussion on impact to constituents and users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Shared three relevant concerns but lack discussion on mission impact. 

Concerns align but lack thoughtful rationale. 

 

Blue Ridge National Heritage Area Partnership

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Good explanation of how they align to two of the ARC goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

Unclear what they mean by losing 3 staff and don’t mention financial or programmatic impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Thoughtful explanation of where they could use financial guidance and how it would help them be a stronger organization.

Blue Ridge National Heritage Area Partnership

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 53

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

essentially a work shutdown, no details on finances


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

pretty clear connection between concerns and anticipated effects of participation

Boys & Girls Club of the Eastern Panhandle

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 70

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

The applicant articulates its activities and the appropriate ARC goals for two areas.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

The major impacts – inability to provide valuable programming to the community and fundraise. Well done. More specifics could have made this application stronger. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Concerns align with impacts and course selection. The applicant genuinely wants to re-align operations to be sustainable for the future. 

Boys & Girls Club of the Eastern Panhandle

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 62

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

Some alignment with ARC goals but more social service focused than economic dev. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

Significant negative impact from COVID19. Including layoffs and closures


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 10

Comments:

No CEO participation is a negative mark

Boys & Girls Club of the Eastern Panhandle

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 54

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Does not clearly describe correlation between organization and ARC goals. 

Did not provide good quality description of importance to region. 

Does not provide sufficient description of how organization addresses ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Lacks description of specific impact. 7

Does not discuss mitigation strategies. 5

Does not provided well-defined discussion on member impact. 5

 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Lacks discussion on impact to mission. 

No discussion on alignment with topics. 

Lacks description of instruction on sustainability. 

Boys & Girls Club of the Eastern Panhandle

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Strong explanation of alignment with ARC goals across multiple areas.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

No real mention of financial impact but clear impact on programmatic goals.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Helpful explanation of what they envision to gain from the program.

Boys & Girls Club of the Eastern Panhandle

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 53

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

all boilerplate program language


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

programming and fundraisers shut down, finances seem okay (?) but w/o fundraisers who knows


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

no CEO engagement

BRITE Energy Innovators (legal name Tech Belt Energy Innovation Center)

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 84

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

Though the appropriately articulated, that applicant did correlate the goals specifically to goal #s. They clearly do fit into ARC’s goals: 1, 2, 3, 4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 28

Comments:

Applicant describes specific issues (good/bad): staff stretched thin because of increased dealflow, financial analysis – lost rental income, reduced fundraising activities


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Clearly lack the need of unencumbered funds which aligns their choices to TA exactly on point.

BRITE Energy Innovators (legal name Tech Belt Energy Innovation Center)

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 81

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

Former ARC grantee and fully aligned with ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Significant impact, some of it being an increase in demand for services


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 26

Comments:

Org would benefit from ARC assistance but might need more specific help given their specialty focus.

BRITE Energy Innovators (legal name Tech Belt Energy Innovation Center)

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 84

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Narrative lacks sufficient rationale. 

Lacks rationale for selection of topic areas. 

Sufficient but lacks discussion on future sustainability. 

BRITE Energy Innovators (legal name Tech Belt Energy Innovation Center)

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 64

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Strong alignment across multiple goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Their balance between benefiting and hurting from COVID was a bit confusing.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Helpful explanation of goals and importnat that this is taking part during their strategic planning process.

BRITE Energy Innovators (legal name Tech Belt Energy Innovation Center)

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 67

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

very good alignment with ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

capacity stretched (b/c things picked up!), but finances also hurt. how is audience/target pop impacted?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Cambridge Main Street

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 53

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

While their activities and purpose align with ARC goals; they make no mention of ARC’s goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant provided an outline of general impacts – reduced fundraising, inability to hold events, and small businesses struggling. A more thoughtful analysis would have been helpful. One note: this organization is extremely small.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

The main concerns articulated in the application: fundraising, business survival, etc. could be addressed by the course selections. They only have one employee in the organization so team problem solving may be difficult unless there is an engaged board of directors. 

Cambridge Main Street

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 73

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Strong alignment with ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Org will tap into emergency funds to continue


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Limited information provided on this question. Lack of clarity on whether the applicant understands the nature of the training. 

Cambridge Main Street

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 43

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Some correlation but id not provide sufficient discussion. 

Discussion lacks quality.

Addresses one goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Shared some relevant information but lacks detail on negative impact to mission. 

Does not provide quality analysis on financial situation. 

Lacks discussion on impact to constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Shared relevant concerns but lack relationship to mission delivery. 

Some concerns align with topic areas 

Some discussion on relevance but lack specific detail. 

 

Cambridge Main Street

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 47

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Don’t explicitly outline goals but tie to numerous goals although it is very localized.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Lacked explanation of how they are not able to support their users, but basic explanation of impact and financial pain.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 13

Comments:

Could use much more explanation of how concerns will be translated into structure improvement with program.

Cambridge Main Street

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 58

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

small org (1 person), revenues limited, small biz can’t return support b/c of their reduced income


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

CAO of Scioto County

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 16

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 0

Comments:

While applicant’s mission aligns with several of ARC’s goals, their simple answer of “All of the Above” provides no correlation at all to the goal areas.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

“COVID has dramatically reduced in-office traffic by customers of all of our services,  Head Start has decreased children in classrooms” Short answer with no details.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 6

Comments:

While three issues are listed, there is no real articulation of how they would benefit from program other than “hope to learn from others.”

CAO of Scioto County

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 35

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Some minimal overlap with ARC goals but agency is more social service oriented than ARC


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

Minimal impact from COVID relative to other applicants


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 10

Comments:

Minimal evidence is given for how instruction will help them

CAO of Scioto County

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 22

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 0

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 8

Comments:

Share relevant information but lacks clear description. 

No discussion on financial impact. 

Some impact discussed but lacks detail. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

Lacks discussion on mission delivery. 

Some concerns align

Did not include sufficient information.

CAO of Scioto County

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 10

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 0

Comments:

No explanation. What is this organization?


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 4

Comments:

Little to no explanation.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 6

Comments:

Unclear what they hope to gain from this. 

CAO of Scioto County

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 28

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 8

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

didn’t really answer any of the questions


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 10

Comments:

Capabilities, Inc

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 62

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant’s activities appear to align with Goal #2, but they do not mention it. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

The applicant provided a clear picture of how COVID impacts their agency; however, they do not quantify the financial burden. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

The concerns mostly align with the learning topics; however, they identify in this question and in the COVID impact question that they have operational issues. 

Capabilities, Inc

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 79

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

Clear alignment with ARC mission


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Some clear negative impact, some of it due to inadaptability of staff to convert to remote work.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 26

Comments:

Good rationale for how they will benefit is presented.

Capabilities, Inc

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 7

Comments:

Some relevant information but lacks detail. 

No discussion on importance to region. 

Addresses two goals but lacks detail. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

 

Does not provide good quality financial impact measures. 

Some discussion on impact to constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Shared three concerns but lack connection to mission. 

Not all concerns align with topic areas. 

 

Capabilities, Inc

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 53

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Needed more explanation, lacking identification of goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Mentioned the financial impact but no details.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Exciting vision for using the program as a small organization to be nimble and prepared for future crisis.

Capabilities, Inc

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

state funding withheld, can’t support their population like usual to get certifications and job placements


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

Castle Shannon Revitalization Corporation

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 63

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant provides a clear list of their activities which would align with Goals 1 and 2. However, they do not call those goals out by name. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

The description lacks detail and quantitative analysis. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Great description of the concerns and alignment with the learning topics. The CEO’s description provides insight into her desire to build the organization. My concern is that it appears there are no employees not even her and that the budget is so small. 

Castle Shannon Revitalization Corporation

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 73

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Seems to be closely aligned with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

This is a tiny organization with no apparent employees. Not sure how to gage the impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Instruction would clearly help the individual that appears to be the CEO. 

Castle Shannon Revitalization Corporation

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 7

Comments:

Did not answer the question with sufficient information. 

Did not discuss importance to region. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 

 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

Shared some relevant information but lacks discussion on mission impact. 

Some financial details but lacks detailed information. 

Does not discuss impact to constituents or users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Shared three relevant concerns but lack discussion on mission impact. 8

Some concerns are aligned with topic areas. 5

 

Castle Shannon Revitalization Corporation

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Clear impact but did not articulate direct alignment with goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Lacked financial impact details.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Strong explanation of challenges they want to address.

Castle Shannon Revitalization Corporation

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

8/6/6 — in line with ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

8/6/5 — clearly outlines work they do, can no longer engage with constituents, just well articulated


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

8/7/6 —

Chestnut Creek School of the Arts (CCSA)

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant’s activities align with four of ARC’s goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

The applicant provides too little narrative and no data on how the impact is impacting their operations.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

While some of the applicant’s concerns are financial, they do have operational concerns. Their statement for participation is good.

Chestnut Creek School of the Arts (CCSA)

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 71

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

some alignment with ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

Severe negative impact resulting from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Applicant does not present a strong case for why this instruction would help. Very tepid response

Chestnut Creek School of the Arts (CCSA)

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 39

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Did not answer question. 

Some description of importance to region. 

Addresses two ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

Shared some relevant information. 

Did not specifically discuss financial impact. 

Impacts are implied, but not discussed in detail. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

Three relevant concerns. 

Topic areas do not appear aligned with operations oriented concerns. 

Some discussion on how instruction will help, but more focus on networking. 

Chestnut Creek School of the Arts (CCSA)

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Strong explanation of alignment with ARC in multiple aspects.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

Little explanation of impact. Need much more details.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

Strong questions to address but lacking details in sustainability.

Chestnut Creek School of the Arts (CCSA)

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 55

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

8/6/7 — pretty good job of directly addressing ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

8/5/4 — finances hit, activities halted as it can’t be done remotely, how is target audience affected?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

6/6/5

Community Action Agency of South Alabama

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 63

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant’s mission aligns with ARC’s Goal #2 as they stated and as described. There were no other goals that they identified. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

The applicant did a good job at describing some of the impacts, but did not translate that into numbers. How many clients can they no longer serve? What has that done to their revenue?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant selected the appropriate learning topics for their top concerns. Additionally, I liked their statements about what they wanted to achieve.

Community Action Agency of South Alabama

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 1

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 0

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 1

Comments:


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 0

Comments:

Community Action Agency of South Alabama

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 55

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 23

Comments:

Does not include impact analysis. 

Addresses one goal explicitly and one implicitly. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 9

Comments:

Shared some relevant information. 

Did not describe financial impact. 

Some impact discussed but lacks detail.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Three relevant concerns but fail to demonstrate relevance to mission. 

Two concerns align with topic areas. 

 

Community Action Agency of South Alabama

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 34

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 8

Comments:

Confusing how the organization aligns and the relevancy of the needs assessment.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 11

Comments:

Lacked financial and user impacts.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Could use more explanation of concerns alignment to the program effects.

Community Action Agency of South Alabama

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

6/7/5


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

5/4/5 — general operations affected, no financial details


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

6/6/6

Community Action Agency of South Alabama

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

6/7/5


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

5/4/5 — general operations affected, no financial details


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

6/6/6

Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education (EntreEd)

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 69

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant addresses the goals as listed – 1, 2, 5. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant provides an excellent narrative on the impacts to their clients, but does not put any numbers to the impacts. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

The applicant aligns their concerns with the learning topics except that operations would like to be a better choice. The description of why they want to participate is good. 

Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education (EntreEd)

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 82

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

ARC grantee in clear alignment with ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 27

Comments:

Significant negative impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Vision for how instruction could help is somewhat muted

Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education (EntreEd)

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

Shared relevant information but did not clearly describe correlation. 

Lacks impact analysis. 

Description lacks detail.

 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Did not discuss financial impact. 

Discusses impact but lacking severity. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Some concerns aligned with topic areas. 

Sufficient discussion but lacks detail on how TA leads to sustainability. 

Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education (EntreEd)

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Good explanation of alignment with ARC goals and clear identification.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

No explanation of financial impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

Concerns seem to speak to operational support but request for fundraising and short-term financial mgmt.

Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education (EntreEd)

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

6/5/6 — classic ARC org


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

7/4/6 — materials not making it into schools, need help with virtual delivery


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

6/5/6 — sections not too aligned with concerns

Corning-Elmira Musical Arts, Inc., dba, Orchestra of the Southern Finger Lakes

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 9

Comments:

The organization clearly articulates their activities; however, they do not mention the relationship with ARC’s goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

Well articulated impacts: fundraising, concerts (education for kids and entertainment), tourism, etc. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

Fantastic job of outlining concerns, aligning with our training opps, and going in-depth into how the training will help. 

Corning-Elmira Musical Arts, Inc., dba, Orchestra of the Southern Finger Lakes

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 67

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Not a strong alignment with ARC


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

Major impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

Applicant makes a compelling case for assistance

Corning-Elmira Musical Arts, Inc., dba, Orchestra of the Southern Finger Lakes

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 64

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

Some relevant information on correlation. 

Some description of importance to region but lacks specifics. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Shared three relevant concerns

Some concerns aligned 

 

Corning-Elmira Musical Arts, Inc., dba, Orchestra of the Southern Finger Lakes

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 54

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Connection to 2 goals with general alignment with ARC.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Good explanation of impact across each section.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Could use some more explanation of how they would put the program into action.

Corning-Elmira Musical Arts, Inc., dba, Orchestra of the Southern Finger Lakes

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

3/5/3 — tenuously linked to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

8/7/6 — budget not too affected, but want to stabilize for long-term planning efforts, impacts and reasoning very clear


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

6/7/7

Corning’s Gaffer District

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 39

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 0

Comments:

The applicant did not provide any information on how the organization aligns with ARC’s goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant provided an excellent summary of how the businesses were affected, but does not go into detail of how COVID affects the organization’s operations and finances. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Excellent narrative on top issues and how they align with course choices. 

Corning’s Gaffer District

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 82

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

strong alignment


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Applicant could have provided more specific information


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Applicant makes a good case for assistance.

Corning’s Gaffer District

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 2

Comments:

Does not discussion correlation. 

Does not demonstrate importance to region. 

Does not provide sufficient information. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Does not discuss financial impact. 2


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

 

 

Corning’s Gaffer District

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 3

Comments:

Only listed goals they align with. You can assume how they do, but not discussed.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Lacking any discussion of financial hardship.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Strong explanation of how their participation would empower member small businesses which is exciting.

Corning’s Gaffer District

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

5/5/7 — just listed relevant ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

7/5/6 — BID/downtown revitalization symbiotic relationship with biz, not many specific financial details


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

8/7/9

County of Otsego Industrial Development Agency

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 21

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 6

Comments:

While the project aligns with a few of ARC’s goals, the applicant does not paint a picture of how and which goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

Some information was provided, but not a complete picture of the impact.  


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 3

Comments:

The fact that the applicant does not think the training will help leads me to believe that they will not take the program seriously. 

County of Otsego Industrial Development Agency

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 71

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Very good alignement with ARC


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Less than compelling description presented


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Difficult to score a response like this one

County of Otsego Industrial Development Agency

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 39

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Shared relevant information but no discussion on correlation. 

Some description of importance to region. 

Some description of addressing two goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 9

Comments:

Shared relevant information. 

Some financial impact discussed. 

Did not discuss impact to constituents. 

 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Did not include sufficient information on how program can help. 

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

County of Otsego Industrial Development Agency

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 22

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

Lacking direct explanation of alignment with goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 8

Comments:

Little to no explanation of impact, only identification.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 3

Comments:

Doesn’t seem very hopeful…

County of Otsego Industrial Development Agency

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 37

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

5/5/3


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

6/6/2 — revenue and rental income fallen, state funding on hold, impacts on operations???


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 10

Comments:

5/5/0 — “not sure it can help”

Cumberland Valley Domestic Violence Services, Inc

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 27

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 6

Comments:

While the applicant provides crucial tools to the community, it is not clear how the program aligns with ARC’s goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Provided some information. It would be helpful to know how all of the issues fit together (e.g., does using the hotel for quarantine increase costs for the organization?).


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 6

Comments:

The applicant puts all of the learning on the head of the financial manager. This should be a multi-level team. 

Cumberland Valley Domestic Violence Services, Inc

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 62

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Not a clear alignment with ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

Some significant impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Negative mark for no CEO participation, although they are a somewhat larger-staffed org

Cumberland Valley Domestic Violence Services, Inc

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 43

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

No correlation between organization and ARC goals. 

Lacks impact analysis. 

Does not address ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

Shared relevant information, but does not appear to impact mission. 

No discussion of financial impact. 

Some impact on users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Some concerns aligned with topic areas. 

Sufficient description of impact but lacks detail. 

Cumberland Valley Domestic Violence Services, Inc

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 34

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

No direct alignment with ARC goals and explanation.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

No financial impact mentioned.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

Could use much more explanation of how the assistance will be put to use.

Cumberland Valley Domestic Violence Services, Inc

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 47

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

3/7/3 — ARC goal #2


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

6/4/7 — clearly explains impact, finances less clear, more operational impacts


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

6/6/5

Discover Life in America

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 57

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

This section lacked details; however, they did identify three goals for alignment. The narrative does not give me enough information to provide a higher score.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The description of the impacts should contain more specifics and analysis.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

While the details behind the concerns are short – “being able to accomplish our work,” I do believe that understanding the fundraising and fundings sources could be met with this training.

Discover Life in America

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 67

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

Overlap with ARC’s goals is partial


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Some impact due to covid. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Applicant makes a “less than compelling” case for assistance

Discover Life in America

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

Some relevant information but lacks clarity on correlation. 

No discussion on importance to region. 

Lacks sufficient description of connection between one or more ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

Description of impact lacks detail. 

Some financial impact but lacks mitigation discussion. 

Some impact on users but not well-defined. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Concerns fail to demonstrate mission impact. 

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

Sufficient description but little related to mission. 

Discover Life in America

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 47

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

Direct explanation of goals alignment.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

More explanation of how they are not providing services to participants.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 13

Comments:

Basic information and not detailed in future planning.

Discover Life in America

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

6/5/4 — attempts to link 3 ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

5/4/3 — how has it affected target population?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

6/5/4

Ducktown Basin Museum

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 23

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 0

Comments:

ARC is not even mentioned in this answer. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 9

Comments:

Vague answer though it is based on tourism being the main driver in the community along with the health of the Part-Time employees. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

There are three distinct concerns and the correct courses seem to be selected to deal with these concerns. It is not apparent how the executive director would use the training. 

Ducktown Basin Museum

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 78

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 23

Comments:

Some alignment but not a great amount


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 28

Comments:

Impact has been severe


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

It appears that the applicant would really like to participate, so I have given them a high score here.

Ducktown Basin Museum

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 41

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Some relevant information on correlation. 

Some description of importance. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Clearly describes impact. 

Good quality financial details but lack mitigation strategies. 

Impact well defined. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 11

Comments:

Some relevant concerns. 

Topic areas requested do not align with concerns. 

Some discussion on how instruction will help but no reference to sustainability. 

Ducktown Basin Museum

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 28

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 8

Comments:

Mention alignment with goals but it seems more personal to the individual applicant not the organization.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 11

Comments:

Discuss impact on community, not as much organization as a whole.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 9

Comments:

Again more focused ont he individual and questions not that strong.

Ducktown Basin Museum

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 40

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

5/4/3 — tourism, natural/cultural heritage


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

5/4/4 — zero revenue, not set up for sustainability it seems


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

6/5/4

Envision Williamston

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 39

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

The grantee did not describe their ARC alignment in enough detail though I believe they align with goals #1 and #4. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 6

Comments:

The applicant did not provide enough analysis regarding the COVID impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

The applicant’s concerns align with their requested learning topics. The participation statement shows that they will be coachable. 

Envision Williamston

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 64

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Stated goals are in alignment with ARC’s.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

This is questionable. Not enough evidence presented to know.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

I do not believe this applicant will benefit substantially from this training

Envision Williamston

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 37

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Some relevant information on correlation. 

No demonstration of importance to region. 

Addresses two ARC goals but lacks detail. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 6

Comments:

Some relevant information on Covid impact. 

No discussion of financial impact. 

No discussion impacts to members/constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Shared three relevant concerns. 

Appropriate alignment with topic areas. 

Some discussion on how instruction will help but lacks detail. 

Envision Williamston

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 36

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

No clear identification of goals although there is value for the local community.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

No clear explanation of impact beyond identification of closure and lack of events.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

Unclear how concerns will be supported by fundraising and financial planning assistance.

Envision Williamston

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 39

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

5/4/3 – no direct links to ARC goals, oblique references


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 11

Comments:

4/3/4 — more downtown/biz dev conundrum


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/5/5

Erie Downtown Partnership

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 65

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 5

Comments:

Clearly articulates the organization’s alignment with all five goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

Well-articulated impact on businesses which leads to an impact on the organization’s finances.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Applicant aligns their concerns, programming request, and statement of how program can help them. 

Erie Downtown Partnership

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 81

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

Very strong alignment


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

Significant negative impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Good rationale for assistance

Erie Downtown Partnership

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 83

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Financial details is lacking. 8

Lacks detail on impact to constituents. 5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Erie Downtown Partnership

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 75

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Clear alignment iwth ARC goals and well articulated.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Identification of impact from COVID but lacked some details in user and financial impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

Thoughtful questions that can be addressed with assistance from program.

Erie Downtown Partnership

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 68

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

10/6/10 – really nailed the ARC goals list


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

7/8/6 — downtown BID/main st program, funding gaps now exist


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

9/6/6

F.A.R.M. (Feed All Regardless of Means) Cafe

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 80

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

While the organization’s activities align with at least one of ARC’s goals, the applicant does not explicitly provide their understanding of that alignment. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

An excellent outline of how COVID affected service delivery, how the organization pivoted, what it means for social health of the community. Additionally, the applicant paints the picture of revenue loss from in-person meals and canceled fundraisers. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant provided an excellent outline of their concerns and specifically stated why each of the topics selected would impact their situation. 

F.A.R.M. (Feed All Regardless of Means) Cafe

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 79

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

Good alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 28

Comments:

Significant impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

A compelling response on how this org would benefit. 

F.A.R.M. (Feed All Regardless of Means) Cafe

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 67

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Some relevant information on correlation between organization and ARC goals. 

Discussion lacks impact analysis. 

Addresses two ARC goals indirectly. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

Discussion lacks specific financial details. 

Well-defined impact on users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Shared three relevant concerns. 

Some concerns aligned with topic areas. 

 

F.A.R.M. (Feed All Regardless of Means) Cafe

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 67

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Lacked explicit identification of goals but clear alignment and importance for region.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Clear identification of impact across sections, particularly strong in user and overall impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

More connection to operations/mission and could use more explanation of benefits from fundraising track.

F.A.R.M. (Feed All Regardless of Means) Cafe

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 61

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

5/7/5 — not the clearest job linking to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

8/6/6 — good response to answers, outlined situation well


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

9/7/8

Fairmont Community Development Partnership, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 81

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

The applicant provides a compelling alignment of their mission with ARC’s plan and goals mostly goal #1 though they may have counted goal #2. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant provided significant analysis of the issues impacting their operations.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant provided an excellent description of how their selection of learning topics equals their 3 biggest concerns. I also thought their statement on why they are participating was very good. 

Fairmont Community Development Partnership, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 72

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

very good alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Negative impact from covid has been significant


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Applicant presents a compelling case for participation

Fairmont Community Development Partnership, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 77

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

Clearly describes correlation and provides examples. 

Discussion lacks impact analysis. 

Addresses one goal explicitly and one indirectly. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Shared some relevant concerns; one is a derivative or a prior. 

 

Fairmont Community Development Partnership, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 72

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

Strong alignment with ARC goals and clearly articulated.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Strong explanation of impact, particularly in financial impact. Could use more around user impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Thoughtful discussion of needs but could use a bit more clarity between fundraising and financial, as there was some operational discussion.

Fairmont Community Development Partnership, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 62

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

7/6/7 — solid job linking to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

7/6/7 — finances hit


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

6/9/7 — concerns not entirely distinct, courses directly line up though

Faith in Action of the Greater Kanawha Valley, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 54

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 6

Comments:

There is no mention of ARC or any of the wording from our goal document. The group likely has a positive impact on Appalachia.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The applicant provides some COVID-19 impact; however, they do not provide much detailed analysis. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

These concerns clearly align with the courses selected. and, the director seems to be open to learning how to make the organization more sustainable and resilient. 

Faith in Action of the Greater Kanawha Valley, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

Good alignment with some of ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Significant impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Some good discussion of potential impact

Faith in Action of the Greater Kanawha Valley, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 8

Comments:

Did not answer question with sufficient information on correlation between organization and ARC goals. 

Some description of importance to region. 

Did not include sufficient information on one or more ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

Shared some relevant concerns. 

Some financial details but lack specifics and negative impacts. 

Lacks discussion on impact to constituents. 

 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Sufficient description on how instruction will help but lacks detail.

Faith in Action of the Greater Kanawha Valley, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 55

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Not the clearest alignment beyond health and education.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Could use some additional explanation of impact particularly on users.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Thoughtful identification of support needed around fundraising and structural financial mgmt.

Faith in Action of the Greater Kanawha Valley, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

5/5/4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

6/5/6 — big impacts yet to hit


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

7/6/5

Festiv-ALL Charleston, West Virginia, Inc

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 9

Comments:

The applicant does not mention ARC’s goal areas; however, their work likely plays in at least three of ARC’s goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

Excellent outline of impacts facing the organization including programming, logistics, financials, and operations. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 9

Comments:

The applicant’s answers are relatively vague in this section. I only saw long term financial management as their choice. Perhaps fundraising could be helpful given their COVID impact description. 

Festiv-ALL Charleston, West Virginia, Inc

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 61

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Little effort was made to fulfil this requirement


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Applicant made a good effort to show impact across different areas


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Very abbreviated response 

Festiv-ALL Charleston, West Virginia, Inc

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 7

Comments:

Did not answer the question with sufficient information. 

Some description of importance to region. 

Did not include sufficient information on how organization aligns with ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Discusses lack of ticket sales but does not provide detail of financial impact. 

Impacts defined but lack severity. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Two relevant concerns; one duplicative. 

Some concerns align; discussion focuses more on fundraising. 

Sufficient description but lack detail. 

Festiv-ALL Charleston, West Virginia, Inc

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

Good explanations of alignment without identification of the ARC goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 27

Comments:

Strong explanation of impacts across all segments of organization.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

Could use stronger questions and explanation of the need and where the asisstance will support.

Festiv-ALL Charleston, West Virginia, Inc

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

4/5/4 — clear descriptive impact to org


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

8/7/5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

7/5/4 — no real linkage to ARC goals

FoodWorks Alliance, LLC

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 80

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

I would have liked to see more detail in their alignment description; however, they clearly align with goal 1 and 2.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The applicant should have provided a little more detail on the impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicants concerns align with the learning topic and the statement regarding participation seems to show the applicant will be coachable. 

FoodWorks Alliance, LLC

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 62

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

MIssion is aligned with a couple of ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Some lack of clarity, some impact mixed in with the mission paragraph


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

This is difficult. What they need is a food incubator consultant, not this training. They will not get what they need from this activity. 

FoodWorks Alliance, LLC

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Shared relevant information but lacks clear correlation. 

Some description of importance to region. 

Addresses one ARC goal directly, one indirectly. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

Shared some relevant information but lacks specific detail. 

Some financial detail but notes improved position. 

Does not discuss impact on user. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Some concerns but not related to Covid or note severity. 

Two concerns aligned with topic areas. 

Some discussion on how training will help, but examples are inconsistent with topic areas. 

FoodWorks Alliance, LLC

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Lacking explanation beyond the one goal and not much overal impact identified.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Needs much more explanation of organizational impact and on the stakeholders.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Thoughtful about how the assistance will help organizationally grow.

FoodWorks Alliance, LLC

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 57

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

6/5/6


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

7/7/6


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

6/7/7

Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Likely aligns with two ARC goals; however, they did explicitly state this. Their activities fit with ARC’s strategic plan. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

A more in-depth analysis of how much COVID costs the Foundation would be helpful. Are there contributions lower? Are they giving less grants? 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

While the applicant needs fundraising assistance, operational support would likely prove equally beneficial. I like that the applicant is part of a cohort. 

Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 23

Comments:

Response exhibited a lack of clarity. Too much puffery copy and paste and not enough black and white examples of how they match up with ARC.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Expressed the standard concerns re: lack of travel


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Request of this program was limited to fundraising

Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Some correlation but lacks detail. 

Some description of importance to region but lacks detail. 

Does not provide enough information on how organization addresses ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 7

Comments:

Some relevant information on impact to region. 

Does not provide detailed description of financial impact. 

No discussion on impact to constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

 

Some concerns aligned with topic areas. 

 

Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Good explanation of own goals but didn’t show direct alignment with ARC goals or identify those they feel connected to.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Lacking clear statement of financial impact but implicitly clear that financially tough during COVID to fundraise. Did not mention any operational impacts.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Clear direction of where the help is needed.

Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 54

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

7/7/7


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

6/5/5 — how have they adjusted beyond not meeting IRL?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

6/6/5

FoundersForge (previously Startup Tri-Cities)

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 78

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

The applicant clearly aligns with the stated goals and provides an outstanding description; however, I fear that as a new nonprofit, they may be trying to do too much. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant provides an excellent analysis of COVID’s impact on their organization. They are basically a startup and this has dampened their efforts. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The applicant aligned their top three concerns with the learning topics. Additionally, they provided a thorough statement on what they would gain from this program. My concern is that they are a startup without any employees right now. It appears that a board of directors is launching. 

FoundersForge (previously Startup Tri-Cities)

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 71

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Very strong alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Difficult to ascertain the real impact. I don’t believe they were in existence too long before COVID


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Good concise explanation of how training will help. This is a startup non-profit. Was this the intended purpose of our activity?

FoundersForge (previously Startup Tri-Cities)

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 6

Comments:

Does not necessarily note negative impact on mission. 

Does not denote negative financial impact. 

Does not note negative impact on constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Some concerns are relevant but lack severity. 

 

FoundersForge (previously Startup Tri-Cities)

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 70

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

Good explanation of connection to numerous ARC goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Helpful explanation of how covid has negatively impacted but the opportunity it has created for them with the right assistance and structure.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

I like the admission of help needed from a nonprofit perspective and recognition of the sturctural financial planning help needed.

FoundersForge (previously Startup Tri-Cities)

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 54

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

7/6/6 — entrepreneurship


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

5/5/5 — a lot of words, not many specifics to pick out


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

5/7/8

Four H clubs of Webster County- Camp Caesar

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 77

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

The applicant articulates the alignment with goals 3 and 4. You could argue that they also serve goal 5, but they did not make that argument. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 28

Comments:

The applicant provides insight into the impact to their revenue and the loss of jobs as a result of the cancellations of their events. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

The applicant outlines three concerns but does not select operations which I think maybe one of their saving graces given their description of the impacts. Additionally, the expectation is a little sparse. 

Four H clubs of Webster County- Camp Caesar

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 62

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Some alignment with ARC’s goals, although infrastructure goal 3 is inappropriately mentioned.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Good explanation of impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Does not appear to have a plan or vision ready to implement

Four H clubs of Webster County- Camp Caesar

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 40

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

Some correlation between organization and ARC. 

Some discussion on importance to region, but lacks detail. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

Discusses some negative impact on mission but mostly focuses on staff. 

Does not denote detailed financial impact. 

Impact focuses more on staff than constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

 

Some relevant concerns but topic areas also focus on operations. 

Some discussion but lacks specifics. 

Four H clubs of Webster County- Camp Caesar

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 54

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Good explanation of alignment with 2 goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Lacking more detailed information about financial impact but programmatic and overall impact identified.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

Acknowledgement of need for short-term support. Focus is clear on weathering this current storm.

Four H clubs of Webster County- Camp Caesar

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

6/5/5 — made effort to link to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

7/6/4


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/6/4

Friends of Deckers Creek

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 10

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 2

Comments:

The applicant did not expand on why it fits Goal #4. And, I do not really know what they do by reading this answer. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 2

Comments:

There is really too little information for me to analyze the impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 6

Comments:

Too brief to gauge what their needs truly are and if they are picking the correct courses. 

Friends of Deckers Creek

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Some alignment with one of ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

Very brief description with little information presented


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Lack of vision. Not sure if they are ready for instruction

Friends of Deckers Creek

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 14

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 0

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 2

Comments:


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

Shared three relevant concerns but lack detail on impact to mission. 

One concern aligned with topic areas. 

Did not include sufficient information to determine how training will impact sustainability. 

Friends of Deckers Creek

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 13

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 3

Comments:

Identified one goal but no explanation.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 5

Comments:

Lack of explanation for impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 5

Comments:

Concerns don’t seem to be aligned with need.

Friends of Deckers Creek

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 25

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 7

Comments:

4/2/1


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 5

Comments:

2/2/1 — incredibly sparse


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 13

Comments:

5/4/4

Friends of the Cheat

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 64

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Some alignment with one of ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

good articulation of impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Some discussion of benefits of instruction. 

Friends of the Cheat

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 57

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Some relevant information on correlation between organization and ARC. 

Quality description of importance to region but lacks impact analysis. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

Some discussion on mission impact. 

Some discussion on financial impact but lacks detail on mitigation strategies. 

Does not describe impact on end users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Friends of the Cheat

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 44

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Identification of one goal but not too much elaboration of overall alignment.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Basic explanation of impact in operations and funding.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

Alignment across sections of need for financial TA and that it will help them navigate the current crisis.

Friends of the Cheat

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

7/5/6 — quick, clear


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

6/7/5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

8/6/6 — linked with ARC goals

Future of Nursing West Virginia

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

Excellent alignment with ARC’s goals 1 & 5. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 3

Comments:

The applicant did not provide sufficient information on the impacts. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

The applicant did not provide enough of a statement about their interest in the program. Their choice of topics is consistent with their concerns. 

Future of Nursing West Virginia

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

Some alignment with ARC goals, although not as stated by applicant.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Weak description of impact. Very brief


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

Too brief a description to indicate an understanding of the nature of assistance we are offering.

Future of Nursing West Virginia

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

 

Some discussion of importance to region. 

 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 4

Comments:

Did not describe how shift impacted constituents. 

Did not describe financial impact. 

Did not describe how shift impacted mission delivery. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

Lack of details on impact to sustainability. 

Concerns are duplicative. 

Some concerns are aligned with topic areas. 

Future of Nursing West Virginia

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 28

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Identified two but only clearly spoke to one.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 4

Comments:

Lacking explanation of impact on finances or users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

Consistent on assistance with financial mgmt need.

Future of Nursing West Virginia

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

7/5/6 — clear link to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

4/5/3 — how is target pop affected?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/6/4 — concerns relevant but not distinct

Garrard Arts

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

The applicant did not mention any of ARC’s goals. This organization appears to be active in both Goal 1 and Goal 4. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Articulated revenue issues because of the closing of the gift shop and the inability to rent the artists’ studios. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

While the three issues are listed, there is no depth to the answers. Operational support would be helpful to this organization. 

Garrard Arts

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

May align with one ARC goal


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Some definite impact. Applicant actually purchased a building in 2019 and has lost major revenue sources.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

This is another start up operation that I am not sure will benefit from this program. Nor was the program designed to aid this type of non-profit.

Garrard Arts

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

Shared some relevant information on correlation. 

Some description of importance to region. 

Does not provide sufficient information on how organization addresses ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

Clearly describe impacts, but lacks specificity. 

Does not provide specific financial impact to organization. 

Some impact on constituents, but lacks detail. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Three relevant concerns but lack detail. 

Some concerns are aligned but lack detail. 

Little discussion on how assistance will help move toward sustainability. 

Garrard Arts

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Are not explicit on goals they align with but have some conenction to ARC goals and overall work.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Clear identification of impacts and how they connect with each other.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 13

Comments:

Could use more explanation of the concerns and how fundraising supports the stated needs and concerns.

Garrard Arts

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

4/5/4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

7/5/6


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

6/4/5 — looking for stability and better outreach

Garrett County Lighthouse, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

The applicant provides little detail on how they align with ARC’s goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

The applicant provides a good narrative about their challenges; however, they do not provide data. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

The applicant did not provide enough information in their statement about what they hope to accomplish in the sessions. 

Garrett County Lighthouse, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 65

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Alignment with at least one of ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Significant impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Concerns are aligned with training offereings.

Garrett County Lighthouse, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 27

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 2

Comments:

Does not provide enough information on correlation between organization and ARC. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

Shared relevant information on Covid impact, but lacked specificity. 

No discussion of specific financial impact. 

No discussion on impact to constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Concerns are relevant but lack detailed discussion. 

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

Discussion lacks specificity. 

Garrett County Lighthouse, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 39

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

No explanation of how it connects with all five goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Helpful connection of impact between financial and programmatic.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

Clear on financial support needed but could use many more details on how assistance would help achieve sustainability.

Garrett County Lighthouse, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 44

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

4/5/3 — quick link to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

7/5/5 – average detail, increased expenses


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

6/4/5

Greater Honesdale Partnership

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 74

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

The applicant provides alignment with four ARC goals; however, I believe they mistook Goal #5 for Goal #1. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant provides a quantitative analysis of the impacts. Am I reading this correctly that they are using funds that their members want to go toward 2021 activities now? 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant aligns their concerns with the learning topics. They also have clear goals in mind for what they want to achieve from the training. 

Greater Honesdale Partnership

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Some alignment is mentioned, with one or two ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Significant impact from covid 19


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Seems to be a non-profit set up to provide a salary for an individual

Greater Honesdale Partnership

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 82

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Narrative lacks discussion on specific impact to constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

Concerns are relevant but lack discussion on impact to mission. 

 

Greater Honesdale Partnership

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 65

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Helpful explanation of alignment of goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

Clear impact across each category.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Shared focus on fundraising and how that will help organization.

Greater Honesdale Partnership

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 65

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Helpful explanation of alignment of goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

Clear impact across each category.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Shared focus on fundraising and how that will help organization.

Greater Honesdale Partnership

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

8/6/7 – good link to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

7/7/5 — downtown org dilemma with fundraising and sponsorship of events


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

6/6/8

Habitat for Humanity of the Tri-State, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 84

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant articulated the goal alignment well. OJT, workforce development, leadership, and community capacity. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant clearly articulates the impacts of COVID – five fewer fundraisers, volunteers, ReStore sales down 30%, etc. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The concerns are both operational in nature (extended territory and safely serving the target population) and financial. I would have expected that they selected the operational TA. 

Habitat for Humanity of the Tri-State, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 73

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Very strong alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Cannot access balance sheet. Link is not functioning. A lot of clear impact comes from the narrative


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Applicant did not tie the response back to the type of assistance the program offers. 

Habitat for Humanity of the Tri-State, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 86

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

Narrative lacks discussion on impact to constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Habitat for Humanity of the Tri-State, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

Clear alignment with two ARC goals identified.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Impact has occurred across their operations. Missing some of the financial impact details.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Important points made in the need for capacity building and financial planning, but unsure if the assistance will help with the capacity building beyond fundraising.

Habitat for Humanity of the Tri-State, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

6/7/5


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

8/7/7 — clear and descriptive responses


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

7/7/6

Heritage Farm Foundation

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 84

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant does a fantastic job of describing how they fit with goals 4 and 5. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The applicant provides an excellent narrative around the impacts; however, they do not quantify the loss. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant aligns their concerns with the learning topics, and provides an outstanding narrative regarding their learning objectives. 

Heritage Farm Foundation

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Very minimal alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

Major loss of revenue from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 13

Comments:

Not very well articulated

Heritage Farm Foundation

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 80

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Narrative lacks specific discussion on financial impacts and mitigation strategies. 

Lacks discussion on impact to constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Heritage Farm Foundation

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 62

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Identified two ARC goals for alignment. Narrative doesn’t completely show alignment but does seem to be impactful for state and region.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Clear impact across operations, stakeholders, and finances.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Concerns align with assistance requested but there’s not much baked into sustainability conversation beyond navigating financial decision making.

Heritage Farm Foundation

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 53

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

6/5/5


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

7/6/6 — finances took a nice hit


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

7/6/5

Highland Children’s House

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

While the applicant lists reasons consistent with ARC’s second goal, they did not list ARC at all. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

The applicant did not provide enough analysis about the financial burden of COVID. How much did it cost them in past revenue and projected revenue losses?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

The applicant did not provide much detail about how they will benefit. I do believe; however, that their request is consistent with their issues. They should consider operations as one of the concerns listed included “Are our precautions enough?” 

Highland Children’s House

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 36

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Some minor overlap with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Applicant appears to have some minimal negative impact from COVID


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

Expectations are in minimal alignment with what the activity is about.

Highland Children’s House

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 33

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 6

Comments:

lacks relevant correlation between organization and ARC goals. 

Lacks discussion on importance to ARC region. 

Did not include sufficient information on how organization addresses ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

 

Narrative does not discuss financial impact and mitigation strategies. 

Narrative does not discuss specific impact to users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 13

Comments:

Shared three relevant concerns but lack specific discussion on mission. 

Not all concerns align with topic areas. 

Does not discuss movement towards sustainability. 

Highland Children’s House

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 47

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Explicitly identifies one ARC goal but implicitly touches goal 4 as a driver of economic development.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Narrative is short and not too detailed but briefly outlines major impacts across rubric.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Again, short in details and a little unclear how they hope to utilize the assistance to support their budget.

Highland Children’s House

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 40

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

4/6/3


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

6/4/5 — not much detail


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

5/5/2

Historical and Genealogical Society of Somerset County, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 75

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

The applicant did not list any ARC goals; however, their activities align with Goals 1, 2, 4 and 5. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant quantified the impact and provided qualitative reasoning behind why their centers and activities are on hold. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant’s answer is well-thought-out. Their concern regarding how to manage a potential “gift” over the long run is important. Their choice of classes reflects their needs. 

Historical and Genealogical Society of Somerset County, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

very minimal alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Clear articulation of covid impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

Applicant has a unique challenge that may not be addressed by this training

Historical and Genealogical Society of Somerset County, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 68

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Some relevant information on correlation.

Some relevant information on importance to region but does not include impact analysis. 

Only addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Did not discuss specific impact on users. 4


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Historical and Genealogical Society of Somerset County, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 77

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

Identification of multiple goals aligned although not each explicit.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 27

Comments:

Clear and detailed explanation of impacts overall, financially, and to stakeholders. Additionally, there is no alleviation in sight.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Open minds for how they need to shift in order to adapt in co-COVID world and clear understanding of how financial mgmt assistance will help that.

Historical and Genealogical Society of Somerset County, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 57

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

5/5/4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

8/7/5 — provided decent examples and detail


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

7/7/9

Hope’s Place, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 88

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

The applicant had an interesting take on their alignment with ARC goals demonstrating their view on a larger community impact. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant described their challenges in-depth in serving clients, keeping staff members safe, and dealing with the likely loss of federal funding. They needed to buy equipment for remote and on-site work which lead to more expenses. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant clearly demonstrated an excitement to learn and put the knowledge to work to thrive and be sustainable. Additionally, the focus on operations is important and seems to be the largest impact at this time. 

Hope’s Place, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

Very minimal overlap with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Some clear impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

Not a good articulation of how training might help this organization. 

Hope’s Place, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 7

Comments:

No real correlation between organization and ARC goals. 

Little discussion on importance to ARC region. 

Did not include sufficient information on how organization addresses one or more ARC goal(s). 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Lack of detailed discussion on financial impact. 

Lack of detailed discussion on negative impact to constituents/users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Hope’s Place, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Strong alignment with goal 2 and some tangential alignment in other ways but admirable they tried to make connections in each.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Clear impact except lacking details of financial impact until further down when concern about federal budget cuts is mentioned. Impressive they have maintained and enhanced services throughout.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Thoughtful identification of where they need help. I would only push back on Mission & Operations as the primary need. It sounds like fundraising and financial planning is most needed.

Hope’s Place, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

7/5/6 — made effort to link to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

8/6/6 — clear impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

8/6/7

Housing Development Alliance, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 78

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

While the applicant does not mention ARC specifically, they wove each one of our goals into their narrative in an impressive manner. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant articulated their challenges – increased costs around PPE, decreased home sales, higher material costs, etc. And, they quantified the impact. They also have seen an increased need for home repairs, likely due to people staying home more. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The applicant demonstrates a willingness to fully learn how to deal with their top challenges by looking at long- and short-term financial management. 

Housing Development Alliance, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Some alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Some clear impact from COVID, mainly due to increased costs of operation


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

The scoring for this applicant’s qualifying appears to be in error re: budget

Unclear whether this training is appropriate for this organization’s purpose.

Housing Development Alliance, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 55

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Did not answer the question with specific information on correlation between organization and ARC goals. 

Did provide enough detail on importance to region, including impact analysis. 

Did not specifically address one or more ARC goal(s). 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Financial impact lacks detail and mitigation strategies. 

Did not discuss specific impact on users/constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Some concerns align but focus more on operations. 

Sufficient description but lacks detail. 

Housing Development Alliance, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 64

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Brief but helpful alignment with multiple ARC goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Clear multi-faceted impact on operations and finances. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Timing seems good for assistance and strategic planning with new CFO coming on staff.

Housing Development Alliance, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 47

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

5/5/5 — some goals referenced


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

7/6/5 – materials and operating costs up, funding slowed down


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

6/4/4

Infinity Visual and Performing Arts Inc

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 71

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

The applicant aligns with ARC’s goals; however, they did not provide too many details on how they do that. I would have liked to see more of the “why” for each goal they selected. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

The applicant articulated the positives which can and did mean the need for additional resources. They had to cancel fundraisers which the quantified. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Infinity accurately described their concerns; however, they could use additional assistance with operational matters which they did not select as a course. 

Infinity Visual and Performing Arts Inc

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Minimal alignment with two ARC goals, but outside the arts as an economic development driver


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Clear articulation of the negative impact of covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

brief but good mention of ways that instruction could help

Infinity Visual and Performing Arts Inc

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Explanation could have been stronger on how it contributes to goal 4 but clarifies the impact of programming on next generation.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Stakeholder and financial impacts identified and explanation how they interact with each other is helpful. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Clear needs for assistance around fundraising from both structural enrollment and donor relations perspectives.

Infinity Visual and Performing Arts Inc

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

4/5/3 — mentions ARC goals, but no clear connection made


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

7/6/6 — fundraiser losses


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

7/4/7

Ithaca Waldorf School

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 64

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

While it can be argued that the applicant fits with Goal #2 and potentially #4, they do not reference them. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 28

Comments:

The applicant provided an excellent overview of the financial hardships and loss of students means for the longevity of the program.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The applicant aligns their concerns with the learning topics; however, their statement should have provided a little more depth. 

Ithaca Waldorf School

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 63

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Alignment with ARC’s education goal


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Clear covid impact. Increased expenses. Challenges with instruction


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Some uncertainty around whether this training is specific enough for this type of non-profit. They are a private school. 

Ithaca Waldorf School

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 47

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 8

Comments:

Did not answer the question with sufficient information. 

Some demonstration of importance to region. 

Does not specifically address one or more ARC goal(s). 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Some negative impact on mission delivery but lacks detail. 

No discussion of mitigation strategies. 

Impact on users lacks detail. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Some discussion on how training will assist but lacks detail. 

Ithaca Waldorf School

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 58

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

No clear identification of alignment with ARC goals although it can be assumed with goal 2.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Strong explanation of impacts on finances and students, as well as how those impact each other.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Brief but direct explanation of how assistance will be used. Would like to see more about structuring for future.

Ithaca Waldorf School

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 38

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 7

Comments:

2/3/2 — no arc link


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

6/5/4


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

7/5/4

Just For Kids Child Advocacy Center

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 9

Comments:

While the applicant did state their activities, they did not address how they relate to ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

While I have no doubt the Pandemic hit this organization hard, they did not make their case to the extent that they could have. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

The applicant articulated their three issues well and gave an outstanding answer as to how they would use the knowledge from the TA. Their choice of topics aligns with their needs though operational support would likely help. 

Just For Kids Child Advocacy Center

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 53

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

some overlap with ARC’s goals, but it is minimal. This is not an economic development non-profit by any measure


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Clear impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

Applicant does present good evidence that this training would help them out.

Just For Kids Child Advocacy Center

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Some relevant information. 

Some information of importance to region but no impact analysis. 

Does not provide enough information on how organization addresses two or more ARC goals. 3


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Narrative fails to discuss negative mission impact. 

Financial impact not discussed. 

Some impact on users but lacks detail. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Some concerns aligned with topic areas. 

Sufficient discussion on how instruction will help move toward sustainability. 

Just For Kids Child Advocacy Center

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 43

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

3/6/2 – no ARC link


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

6/4/4 — looking at potentially reduced funding, increased anxiety and operating costs


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

7/5/6

Khuba International

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 86

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant’s services clearly align with our goals. Additionally, they could have listed goal 1 as they assist farmers. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

The organization provided an excellent narrative on the impacts and even provided a quantified loss of customers. How did it affect their revenues? What is the number?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant aligns concerns with learning topics and outlines their reasons for participating. Additionally, I like that they listed a proposed cohort. 

Khuba International

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 69

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Good alignment with several ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Some loss of revenue evident


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Good articulation of how training would help

Khuba International

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 63

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

Strong alignment across ARC goals while not all explicit.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Brief but touches on each segment of impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Clear identification of financial assistance that is needed and hopes to incorporate in ongoing planning.

Khuba International

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

5/5/4 — some effort to link to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

6/5/4 — funding handicapped


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/5/5

Kopernik Society of Broome County Inc. DBA Kopernik Observatory & Science Center

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 63

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 9

Comments:

The applicant does not mention ARC’s goals; however, there is a good alignment with Goal 2. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant provides a quantitative analysis of COVID’s impact on students, revenue, and community activities. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The applicant provides three relevant concerns and the correct topics to address those concerns. Additionally, it appears that the executive is open to help.  

Kopernik Society of Broome County Inc. DBA Kopernik Observatory & Science Center

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 62

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Alignment with ARC’s education goal


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Some clear evidence of covid 19 impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Simple and very brief answer as to how instruction may benefit the applicant

Kopernik Society of Broome County Inc. DBA Kopernik Observatory & Science Center

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 9

Comments:

Did not provide sufficient information on correlation between organization and ARC. 

Some discussion on importance to region but lacks detail outside of supplemental education. 

Does not specifically address one or more ARC goal(s). 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Shifted program delivery virtually. 

Some impact on constituents/users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

Concerns are not all aligned with topic areas. 

Some discussion on how TA will help but lacks detail. 

Kopernik Society of Broome County Inc. DBA Kopernik Observatory & Science Center

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

Identified alignment to goal 2 but not explicit or tied to others.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Balanced explanation of impact between users and finances and how the intersect.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Concerns are more existential and not necessarily relieved directly by program assistance. I do appreciate their focus on adjusting programming to realistic funding levels.

Kopernik Society of Broome County Inc. DBA Kopernik Observatory & Science Center

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 43

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

3/4/3


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

6/6/5 — employment/income hit, programming essentially shut down


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

5/6/5 — concerns not entirely distinct

Larry Joe Harless Community Center Foundation, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 65

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Some alignment with two ARC goal areas


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Loss of revenue due to covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

Very brief answer

Larry Joe Harless Community Center Foundation, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 62

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Some discussion on correlation between organization and ARC. 

Lacks impact analysis. 

Description of relation to ARC goals lacks detail. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Lacks detail of impact to users. 5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Some concerns are aligned with topic areas. 

Sufficient description but lacks detail on how TA will move toward sustainability. 

Larry Joe Harless Community Center Foundation, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 58

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Important alignment with goal 2 but support of others is a little unclear.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Detailed explanation of financial impact and how that has affected users as well as attempts to pivot.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Admirable for their request for assistance on how to pivot structure in the face of existential, long-term challenges. Short-term mgmt should be helpful.

Larry Joe Harless Community Center Foundation, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

5/5/5 — attempted link to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

6/7/5 — not too much detail


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/5/5

Larry Joe Harless Community Center Foundation, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

5/5/5 — attempted ARC goals link


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

6/7/5 — not too much in the way of detail


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/5/5

LIFE VILLAGE INC

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 70

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant’s description of its alignment provides good insight into their worthy services.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Fundraisers and client services have been impacted. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

The selected courses and the applicant’s desire to put the newly-acquired knowledge to work provides a map forward. 

LIFE VILLAGE INC

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 67

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Alignment with one ARC goal area


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Some clear covid impact was articulated


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Instruction would address the shortage areas noted by the applicant

LIFE VILLAGE INC

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 47

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Alignment is explained for goal 5 but much of narrative is about mission and programming rather than clear alignment.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Only lightly explain impact on finances and programming.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Admirable identification of local partnerships as a way to ease financial burden.

LIFE VILLAGE INC

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 44

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

4/5/3 — not too linked to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

6/5/5 — only provider it seems, fundraising impacted


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/5/5

LIGHTS Regional Innovation & SEE

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 73

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 23

Comments:

The applicant sufficiently shows how their programming aligns with ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

The applicant provides an in-depth account of how their service delivery has been impacted. What about revenue? What about their clients?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The concerns, learning topics and statement on participating align. 

LIGHTS Regional Innovation & SEE

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 70

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

Strong alignment with several ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Could have been better articulated


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Marginal explanation of how training would benefit the org

LIGHTS Regional Innovation & SEE

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 67

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

Cleary demonstration impact but lacks specificity. 

Fails to discuss financial impact. 

Does not discuss impact on constituents outside of moving to virtual TA. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

LIGHTS Regional Innovation & SEE

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 68

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Clear alignment across ARC goals and important integration into region.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Light on details but helpful to think through how the need for them has shifted. Lack of impact on finances.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Focus on mission and fit into larger regional needs is good for mission/operations assistance.

LIGHTS Regional Innovation & SEE

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 57

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 23

Comments:

8/7/8 — know the ARC language


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

6/3/5 — pandemic forced transition to URL, how is target pop affected?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

8/7/5

Live Healthy Appalachia

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

The applicant does mention and align with goal #2. But, that is the only goal. One could argue they fit into other goals, but they did not articulate that point. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

The applicant expressed the impact – moving some programming online, reduced fundraising efforts, and creating a new program. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

The applicant appears to repeat the same goal only using different wording. Their statement regarding what they plan to get out of the program lacks much depth. They did select the relevant courses. 

Live Healthy Appalachia

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

Some evidence of alignment with ARC goal 2


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Loss of revenue is evident


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

Only a partial answer given to this question

Live Healthy Appalachia

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 8

Comments:

Shared some relevant information but lacks clarity.

Does not discuss importance to region. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Clearly described impact but not negative impacts. 

Did not articulate financial impact. 

Impacts constituents is well-defined but lack severity. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Concerns are duplicative. 

Discussion lacks detail on how TA will lead to sustainability. 

Live Healthy Appalachia

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

Clear alignment with goal 2 but no explanation of how they tie into other goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

Light on details of financial impact but shows impact and attempted adaptation programmatically.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Light on details of how assistance would be used to rethink model and new service delivery plans.

Live Healthy Appalachia

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

5/5/4 – goal #2


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

6/5/5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

5/8/5 — concerns not distinct but are aligned with selections

Meals on Wheels-Anderson

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 69

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

The applicant provides some alignment with ARC’s goals; however, some of the narrative is a stretch. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant provides a good narrative around the COVID impacts; however, does not quantify the losses. How many fewer seniors are served? How much revenue have they lost? How many volunteers are no longer working with them?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Excellent alignment of concerns and learning topics! Additionally, the statement regarding expectations shows coachability. 

Meals on Wheels-Anderson

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 54

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Some alignment with ARC goal 2. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

some impact from covid due to increased expenses and loss of volunteer personnel


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Some indication of how the training would help is presented.

Meals on Wheels-Anderson

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Some correlation between organization and ARC goals. 

Some description of importance but lacks detail. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Clearly described impact. 

Does not describe specific financial impact. 

Well-defined impact on users but lacks severity. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Shared concerns but not all relevant 

 

Meals on Wheels-Anderson

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 57

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

General description of alignment across goals 2 and 3 with attempted interest in pursuing goal 1.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Explanation of impact programmatically and how that has impacted finances, just missing details about financial impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Concise understanding of what they hope to gain from the program which seems attainable.

Meals on Wheels-Anderson

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

4/5/4 — effort to address goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

6/5/7 — more safety precautions that anything, some budget stretching


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

6/6/5

Mentoring Plus, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 75

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

The applicant adequately describes their alignment with goal #5 and hits on the keywords from goals #1 and #2. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The applicant described the impact in detail; however, how many kids are affected? How much revenue lost? How much fundraising funds lost?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant aligned their concerns with their requested learning topics and provided an excellent view on what they hope to accomplish through the program

Mentoring Plus, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Struggling to see how this is aligned with any of ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Some clear impact indicated


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Applicant presented a few ideas how the training could help.

Mentoring Plus, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 62

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Some relevant information demonstrating correlation. 

Some description of importance to region. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Concerns are duplicative. 

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

Mentoring Plus, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Clear alignment identified for one goal but did not make clear case for any others.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Strong explanation of both programmatic and financial impacts and how they have affected each other. Admirable that they adjusted programming in face of financial strains.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

Identification of longer-term budgeting is good start recognizing impending funding cuts.

Mentoring Plus, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

5/5/4 — community capacity


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

7/6/7 — in person work halted, staffing and fundraising hit


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

7/6/5

Mountain Empire Community College Foundation

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

The applicant did not provide depth regarding how their program fits into ARC goals. We need to know more about what they do. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant quantified its fundraising and financial impacts; however, their answer lacks any reference to constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The three concerns, desired classes, and the expressed willingness to put knowledge to work deserves credit. 

Mountain Empire Community College Foundation

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 67

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

Very good alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Clear impact due to covid, in loss of operating revenue


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Some indication presented as to how the training would benefit the org. 

Mountain Empire Community College Foundation

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 41

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 1

Comments:

Does not provide enough information. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Does not note specific impact on constituents. 

Does not provide enough detail to note impact on mission delivery.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Some concerns aligned with topic areas. 

No discussion on how TA moves organization toward sustainability. 

 

Mountain Empire Community College Foundation

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 34

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 8

Comments:

Only listed the goals that they see alignment with, no explanation.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

Impact brief about financial impacts and only touches on potential inability to fund scholarships.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 13

Comments:

Concerns are valid and align with request for fundraising assistance but no explanation on how this will affect planning and future success beyond finding grants.

Mountain Empire Community College Foundation

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

5/4/4 – just listed two goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

4/4/5 — not many details, fundraising hit


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/6/4

Mountain Hospice Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

While I know Hospice helps the entire family to be able to work and to continue to be healthy, the applicant did not make the case to fitting ARC’s goal areas. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

The applicant provides a glimpse into the challenges but does not go into much detail. Has it caused staffing issues? Any increased PPE needs?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

The applicant likely needs operational assistance as described in their concerns; however, they only noted their desire for fundraising TA. 

Mountain Hospice Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 58

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Some alignment with ARC’s goals. Minimal 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Clear impact from covid presented


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Decent description of how the training would benefit the org.

Mountain Hospice Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 28

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 8

Comments:

Lacks information on correlation between organization and ARC Goals. 

Some information on importance to region but lacks detail. 

Did not include enough information on how organization address ARC Goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 3

Comments:

Does not provide enough information to demonstrate negative impact on mission delivery. 

Does not discussion financial impact. 

No discussion on impact to constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

Discussion does not provide sufficient information on how TA leads to sustainability. 

Mountain Hospice Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 32

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Brief identification of one goal but not much explanation.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

Answer is not clear how they’ve been impacted and what that means for finances and users.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

Confusing answer between fundraising and operational support that is not identified in assistance requested.

Mountain Hospice Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 38

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

4/5/3 — tenuous link to goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

4/4/6 — need help to help those without health insurance, fundraisers halted


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

5/3/4

Mountaineer Food Bank

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 79

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

The applicant aligns their activities with Goal #2; however, that is the only stated goal. They likely could have argued that they align with Goal #1 and Goal #5. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

Applicant quantifies and qualifies the COVID-19 impact – shortage of food, too much work


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

The desire of the executive to align their greatest concerns, build partnerships to improve, and learn from long-term financial planning make them competitive. 

Mountaineer Food Bank

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 70

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Some alignment with ARC’s goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 27

Comments:

Very significant impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

There is some uncertainty as to how the applicant would benefit. There would be at least some benefit, but they speak of broader goals

Mountaineer Food Bank

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Some correlation between nonprofit and ARC goals. 

Some discussion on importance to region. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Does not address financial impact. 

Lacks discussion on impact to constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Concerns do not appear to be relevant to the organization. 

Some concerns aligned with topic areas. 

 

Mountaineer Food Bank

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Clearly aligns with goal 2 but beyond mentioning the goals there’s no explanation of other alignment.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Lacked financial impact explanation but very clear impact on programming and users but impressively have shifted to meet resource and user demands.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Exciting vision for how to address concerns, which long-term financial mgmt assistance could be really useful for.

Mountaineer Food Bank

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

4/5/3 — one direct link


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

7/6/5 — staff levels up but stretched thin


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

7/6/5

My Place: A Play and Learning Center

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 6

Comments:

While this type of activity fits in with Goal #2, the applicant failed to make the argument. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The applicant outlined the challenges in not being able to re-open fully and attracting participants for some programs. Staffing also appears to be a problem. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 26

Comments:

The applicant selected the missions/operations course which fits well with their stated needs.

My Place: A Play and Learning Center

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Really very little overlap with ARC’s goals. Only in that lack of day care can prevent a parent from going to work


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Fairly severe negative impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 11

Comments:

Very little evidence given how training would benefit the org

My Place: A Play and Learning Center

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 39

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 2

Comments:

Does not provide sufficient information. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Does not include financial impact. 

Does not include specific impact on constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Concerns relevant but inconsistent with topic areas. 

Sufficient discussion on TA but not specific on sustainability. 

My Place: A Play and Learning Center

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 43

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

No clear alignment beyond goal 2 which is only briefly mentioned.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

Mention of programmatic impact but light on financial impact and how they’ve sought to adjust.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Clear concerns around mission and operations but unsure how that builds in sustainability.

My Place: A Play and Learning Center

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

3/6/4 — didn’t try to link to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

6/5/6 — only child care provider in county it seems


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/5/5

New Opportunity School for Women, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

The applicant states one goal. They do fit into this category but could have made arguments around others. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The applicant stated its challenges – program changes, recruiting participants, and canceled fundraising efforts. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

The applicant selected financial management and fundraising. It appears given one of their concerns that operations TA would be helpful. The description of what they hope to accomplish is well done. 

New Opportunity School for Women, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 70

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

Hard to really pinpoint how this org matches up to ARC. They clearly have a similar customer to ARC but offer services that really only match up to the education goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Significant impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 26

Comments:

They presented a very thoughtful description of how they could benefit from the training. It is clear that a lot of effort went into the description.

New Opportunity School for Women, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Clear explanation of goal 2 alignment but miss the opportunity to discuss how they can also support other ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Clear identification of impacts across programming but they identify that there have not been financial stresses luckily. Unclear if there is negative impact financially.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Narrative is a bit confusing because it seems like they need operations support on how to adapt but the main ask ends up being financial and fundraising.

New Opportunity School for Women, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 55

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

Some relevant information on correlation. 

Some demonstration of importance to region. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Clearly demonstrate impact to organization. 

Does not articulate significant negative financial impact on organization. 

Some impact to constituents in form of moving to virtual format. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Some concerns are relevant with topic areas. 

 

New Opportunity School for Women, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 61

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

6/6/5


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

9/6/6 — one of the better descriptions of covid impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

8/8/7

Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center, Inc. (D/B/A NEPIRC)

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 76

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant fails to mention ARC; however, provides a good description of its activities under Goal 1. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant provides a thoughtful analysis of their current financial challenges and those of their clients – manufacturers. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

The applicant selected courses that align with their greatest needs and expressed their willingness to gain from a cohort-based learning environment. 

Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center, Inc. (D/B/A NEPIRC)

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 80

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

This organization is as aligned with ARC as any I have scored


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 27

Comments:

Very clear description of negative covid impact presented.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Applicant articulates a strong rationale for receiving instruction. Some additional and more specific assistance may be needed that this project is not designed to offer. 

Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center, Inc. (D/B/A NEPIRC)

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 70

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Clear alignment with goals while not all are explicitly identified. Support goals 1 and 4 in supporting manufacturers.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Clear identification of impacts financially and some programmatically. COVID has affected on multiple fronts.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 26

Comments:

Impressive insight into how assistance will be best used. Good to see that they’re already thinking through long-term management but need support in identifying best path forward and how to implement.

Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center, Inc. (D/B/A NEPIRC)

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 79

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

Clearly describes correlation but does not specifically mention ARC goal. 

Does not include impact analysis. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center, Inc. (D/B/A NEPIRC)

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

6/8/6 — def hits ARC goals but good better explicate that


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

7/9/8 — state funding hit


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

9/7/6

Ohio-West Virginia Youth Leadership Association

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 78

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant provided a statement showing alignment with 4 ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The impact is clear; however, what does it mean $ wise? How much funding have they lost?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The necessary courses should include operations; however, survival necessitates the short-term financial course. The organization hopes to develop better plans coming out of ARC’s program. 

Ohio-West Virginia Youth Leadership Association

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 67

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Very good alignment with several ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Some clear evidence of covid impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Applicant makes a good case for inclusion

Ohio-West Virginia Youth Leadership Association

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Strong alignment across 3-4 goals and explain importance of program as it relates to region.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

No mention of financial impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

There is a misalignment of impact identified, concerns, and request for assistance as some mention operational challenges but then financial support is requested.

Ohio-West Virginia Youth Leadership Association

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

Some relevant information on correlation.

Does not include impact analysis. 

Addresses two ARC goals implicitly. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Cleary describes impact. 8

Does not articulate financial impact or mitigation strategies. 5

Outside of participation, does not note specific impact to users. 5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

Sufficient description of TA on sustainability but lacks detail. 

Ohio-West Virginia Youth Leadership Association

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

8/6/8 — good job hitting ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

8/6/6 — big programs shuttered


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

6/6/5

Olive Hill Community Economic Development Corporation, Inc

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

The applicant lays out its activities in alignment with 2 ARC goals. Well done. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

While the impacts stated make sense, the applicant did not provide much analysis behind what it means financially or from a staffing perspective. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

The applicant does not understand its CDE designation. I would like to reach out to them to talk about it more. I am not sure this program will help with that specific concern; however, overall, ARC’s program will help them meet their other concerns. 

Olive Hill Community Economic Development Corporation, Inc

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 70

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

Very good alignment with multiple ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Clear impact from multiple directions


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Applicant presents a good case for inclusion

Olive Hill Community Economic Development Corporation, Inc

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 57

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Alignment across a number of goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Balanced impact across programming and necessary program additions that seem to have demanded financial support causing strain.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Very clear in what they hope to gain from assistance, as long as program can support that assistance needed.

Olive Hill Community Economic Development Corporation, Inc

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Shared some relevant information on correlation but lacks detail. 

No impact analysis or geographic service area. 

Implicitly addresses three ARC goals but lacks detail. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

Description lacks detail. 

Discussion financial impact limited. 

Discussion impact to users lacking. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Shared some relevant concerns. 

Concerns are appropriately aligned with topic areas but lack rationale. 

 

Olive Hill Community Economic Development Corporation, Inc

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

5/6/5 — biz dev/entrepreneurship


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

7/5/6 — concise description of impacts and mission statement


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

6/6/6

OVEC-Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

The applicant does not provide any connection to ARC goals and it is difficult to tell from their narrative which goals they address. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

What do the challenges mean financially? The overall description of the impact provides some reasoning, but no financial analysis. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

The applicant likely has a greater need for short-term financial management to stabilize considering its stated concern. The executive director indicates their coachability which is a major plus!

OVEC-Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 63

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

Possible alignment with one or two ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Some impact but not as severe as some


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

I believe the applicant would benefit from the training. 

OVEC-Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

No clear identification of alignment but can be assumed alignment with goals 2 and 5, potentially 1 and 4 in innovation of non-extractive economic development.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Lack of financial impact explanation but important show of efforts to adjust programmatically to serve stakeholders.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Unclear how the assistance will support current activities to develop long-term plan

OVEC-Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 47

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Some correlation between organization and ARC goals but lacks detail. 

Some evidence of importance to region but lacks detail and geographic service area. 

Implicitly addresses three ARC goals but lacks detail. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 9

Comments:

Shared some relevant information on negative impact. 

No discussion on negative financial impact. 

No discussion on negative impact to users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Shared three relevant concerns but lack relation to mission delivery. 

Some concerns aligned with topic areas. 

 

OVEC-Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

5/5/4 — no direct ARC goal links


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

7/4/5 – not too hard hit financially?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

7/6/5 — need org capacity

PA Coalition for Oral Health

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

The argument is strong for alignment with goal #2; however, I had to make a leap to get to the Goal 5 alignment. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

The applicant stated reasons; however, they did provide an analysis as to what that means to them from a financial perspective. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The applicant likely needs more operational support; however, they gave strong reasoning on what they will get out of the training. 

PA Coalition for Oral Health

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Some alignment with one ARC goal


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Some limited covid impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

some benefit would accrue from instruction in long term financial management and fundraising

PA Coalition for Oral Health

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Clearly describes correlation but lacks specific examples. 

Some demonstration but lacks geographic service area. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 

 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

Does not describe specific impact. 

Does not articulate financial impact. 

Does not convey impact on users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Some relevant concerns. 

Some concerns align with topic area. 

 

PA Coalition for Oral Health

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

5/5/6 — made effort to connect to goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

6/5/4 — moved online, impact on target pop?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

6/6/5

PA Coalition for Oral Health

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

I did not necessarily see the connection with goal 5 but they do play an important role in advancing public health in the region.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

Lacking details of financial impact and how their shift in strategy has affected users.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Some discussion of long-term planning and sustainability through diversified funding sources but unclear balance between operational adjustments and fundraising needs.

PA Wilds Center for Entrepreneurship, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 69

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

While the applicant does not list ARC goals specifically, they provided a thorough accounting of their activities which align with ARC goals 1, 2, 4, and 5. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

While the applicant does paint a picture of how the pandemic affects its operations, clients, and revenue, there are no quantitative metrics provided. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Excellent match of topics with needs, and expressed genuine desire to learn from the program. 

PA Wilds Center for Entrepreneurship, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 70

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Very strong alignment with ARC goals and an ARC grantee


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Some limited impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Applicant makes a good case for inclusion

PA Wilds Center for Entrepreneurship, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 69

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Lacks detail on impact to mission delivery. 

Does not provide detailed financial impact. 

Does not discuss specific negative impact to users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

 

PA Wilds Center for Entrepreneurship, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 61

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

7/9/8 — ARC partner for a while, good analysis of it’s work and relationship to region


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

6/5/6 — some brick and mortar revs hit


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

7/7/6

PA Wilds Center for Entrepreneurship, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Clear alignment of mission with three ARC goals and importance to a region.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

I wish they had spoken more about the impact on the rural small businesses they work with. Most of the detail was on the gift shops they operate.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Their plan for utilizing the assistance is strong in preparing for future adversity.

Pennsylvania Downtown Center, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 71

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

The applicant outlines their services in terms of ARC’s goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

The applicant provides an excellent narrative on the impacts, but does not provide the resulting financial impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The concerns of the applicant align with the learning topics, but, I wanted to see operations as one of their top topics as the ED describes that as a concern. The applicant’s description of what they hope to get from the program provides valuable insight into the coachability of the CEO. 

Pennsylvania Downtown Center, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 65

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Some alignment with two ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Some substantial impact from COVID


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Applicant makes a decent case for inclusion, albeit with a somewhat limited vision.

Pennsylvania Downtown Center, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 57

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Describes correlation but lacks detail. 

Does not include impact analysis. 

Does not specifically note one or more ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

Some negative impact on mission but center on shift to virtual format. 

Some discussion on financial impact but lacks detail. 

Constituent impact lacks detail. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Some concerns are relevant. 

Discussion lacks rationel. 

 

Pennsylvania Downtown Center, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

5/5/5


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

6/6/4 — state budgets in air, IRL cancelled, how is audience directly impacted?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

7/7/6

Pennsylvania Downtown Center, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 54

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

While not explicit, the organization aligns with a few of ARC’s goals 1, 4, and 5. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Could use more detail about financial costs to overall budget and how communities they serve are being impacted from their lack of on-the-ground support.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

They’re asking good questions that are consistent with future planning and how they would like to use this assistance.

Potomac Highlands Food and Farm Inititative

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 71

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

The applicant aligns with goals 1 and 2. Their narrative lacked detail though. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant described the impact and quantified it. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

The applicant only selected financial management, yet listed operational issues. They would be a good candidate for the operations piece. While I like the response to what they hope to get out of the session, a deeper answer would have been better. 

Potomac Highlands Food and Farm Inititative

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 63

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Good alignment with one ARC goal


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Some limited impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Based on a limited vision, applicant presents a moderate case for inclusion

Potomac Highlands Food and Farm Inititative

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Clearly describes correlation but lacks specificity. 

Describes importance but does not include geographic service area. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Does not demonstrate severe negative impact on mission delivery. 

Limited discussion on financial impact but lacks detail. 

Some negative impacts on constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Some relevant concerns but lack discussion on impact to mission delivery. 

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

 

Potomac Highlands Food and Farm Inititative

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

5/4/4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

5/5/4 — not many details, revs down and costs up


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

6/5/4

Potomac Highlands Food and Farm Inititative

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Not explicit but assumed that alignment with goals 1 and 2. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

No discussion of how COVID is impacting their programming for the entrepreneurs they work with, only its impact on the store they run.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

Still a lack of clarity what the assistance will be going towards? For the programming they provide to entrepreneurs mentioned in #2? Or to running the business efficiently?

Rea of Hope, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

There is some slight overlap with ARC’s goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Some clear impct from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 10

Comments:

I don’t believe this would be a good investment, given that the executive director is unwilling to participate.

Rea of Hope, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 63

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Discussion lacks detail on correlation to goals. 

Does not include impact analysis or geographic service area. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Some impact on constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

Sufficient description but lacks detail on moving toward sustainability.

Rea of Hope, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

4/4/3 — no direct ARC goal linkage


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

6/9/6 — pretty thorough financial situation documented


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

6/5/3

Rea of Hope, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Do not identify goals they align with so can only assume alignment with goal 2.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 28

Comments:

Strong presentation of impact across organization, finances, and programming.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

Lack of insight into details of the assistance will be put to use.

Ready, Set, Grow Child Care Center

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 74

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

The applicant described their organization’s alignment with only one goal; however, they provide an excellent description on two ways they meet that goal – education for kids and helping parent participate in the workforce. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The applicant describes the COVID Impact well; however, does not quantify the # of students or parents participating and what that means financially. Additionally, how much is the increased staffing costs affecting them? What are the numbers?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

The applicant provides a clear alignment with the learning topics, what they want to get out of the training, and excellent concerns. I would have liked them to consider operations as there are new realities with keeping children and staff safe. 

Ready, Set, Grow Child Care Center

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Minimal alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Some loss of revenue due to covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

I don’t see this training as a very good fit for this organization

Ready, Set, Grow Child Care Center

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Clearly describes correlation. 

Does not include impact analysis. 

Address one ARC goal.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Does not demonstrate negative impact on mission delivery. 

Lack of detail on financial impact. 

Little impact on users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Shared some relevant concerns. 

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

 

Ready, Set, Grow Child Care Center

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

5/5/5


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

6/6/4 — enrollment down, staffing up, work is stop and go


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

6/6/5

Ready, Set, Grow Child Care Center

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 55

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Strong alignment to goal 2 and make a case for supporting employment and economic development but only implicit.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Clear and noted impact on organization and operations. Could use a bit more detail on how funding is impacted.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

They seem to have a clear plan for how the assistance will help them prepare for future crises.

RiverLink

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 58

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

The work aligns with goals 4-5; however, the applicant did not mention ARC’s goals in their analysis. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Their stated impacts provide a glance into their staffing, fundraising, and programming issues; however, like many applicants, they did not quantify the impacts. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The applicant provides three distinct topics; however, only seeks to learn about two of them. An operations course could help. Their authentic answer to how the training could help – some training paints to rosy of a picture – was excellent. Additionally, their reference to real world experience makes me believe they will be coachable. 

RiverLink

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Not sure where this really aligns with ARC’s goals. Goal 4 possibly, to an extent


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Some clear loss of revenue due to covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Applicant makes an interesting point. Not sure this training will be any different.

RiverLink

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Some correlation to ARC goals. 

Quality description of importance to region, but no impact analysis.

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Does not demonstrate significant negative impact on mission. 

Does not provide detailed financial impact. 

Some impact on constituents by moving to virtual environment. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

Lacks detail on how TA moves organization toward sustainability. 

RiverLink

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

4/4/3


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

6/5/5 — fundraising and programming hit, not many specific details


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

7/7/7 — vert forthright

RiverLink

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Only specifically identifies one goal 2 but can be connected with goal 4 through emphasizing natural assets.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Could use a bit more detail on financial impact but covers overall and stakeholder impacts.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

They have clear expectations of what they hope to gain from the assistance and how to implement it in strengthening the org.

Roberson Museum and Science Center

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 70

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

While the applicant provides a clear alignment to ARC goal #4 and even names the goal, they miss an opportunity to describe how they fit into goals 1 and 5. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

The applicant provides a vivid listing of issues – canceled fundraisers, reduced revenues through closings, client/participant impact(12,000 students). I would like to see more financial analysis behind what that translates into fiscally. How much?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Excellent listing of concerns, alignment with training, and reasoning for participating in the training. 

Roberson Museum and Science Center

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 55

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Not sure how this lines up with ARC


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Significant negative impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

There would be some benefit to the applicant from participation

Roberson Museum and Science Center

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 75

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Clearly describes correlation. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Does not provide detailed financial impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Roberson Museum and Science Center

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

5/5/4 — goal #4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

7/6/7


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

7/6/5

Roberson Museum and Science Center

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Connects with 2 goals through education and emphasis of natural/cultural assets.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Impact of COVID is evident from financial and programmatic perspective. They outline well how the pandemic affects each part of the org.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

They are asking tough questions about their viability, which aligns with the assistance needed to prepare for their plans for a capital campaign in the next year. 

Robert H. Jackson Center Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 58

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant does not list ARC’s goals; however, they do align with goals 2 and 4. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The impacts are clear – reduced foot traffic, fundraising losses, donations from visitors. They do provide some quantitative data on the impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

The applicant clearly needs operational support; however, they only ask for fundraising and long-term financial management. 

Robert H. Jackson Center Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 47

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 8

Comments:

I don’t see any  alignment


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Some covid impct


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

Some benefit would be accrued by the applicnat from participation

Robert H. Jackson Center Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Some discussion on correlation between organization and ARC goals. 

Does not include impact analysis. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Does not clearly describe impact on mission delivery. 

Some financial impact information but lacks detail. 

Does not provide sufficient discussion on impact to users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Does not provide rationale for concerns. 

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

Does not address long-term sustainability. 

Robert H. Jackson Center Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 40

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

3/5/2 — no connection


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

5/5/4 — sponsorships hit


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/5/5

Robert H. Jackson Center Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 54

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

While not explicit, they identify ways in which they align with ARC goals 2 and 5.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Could use additional explanation of how they are now serving visitors and students.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Seem to be asking the right questions and be in a position to actualize the assistance provided by the program. Timing with a new president has strong potential for impact.

Salem Community Center

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant provides good reasoning around why they fit with our Goal #2. They could have; however, have added Goal #5 – leadership. They do not specifically list ARC goals in the narrative. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

The applicant provided an analysis of staffing, mitigation requirements, limited revenue, etc. They did provide a financial analysis. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

The concerns are fine; however, there is an operational need. The answer to the sustainability question impressed me. 

Salem Community Center

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Possibly some alignment to one ARC goal


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Some fairly significant impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

Applicant does not have a good understanding of what they need

Salem Community Center

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

Some relevant information on correlation but lacks detail. 

Some demonstration of importance to region but lacks detail. 

Addresses one ARC goal but lacks specificity. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Does not include financial impact detail. 

Does not provide details on impact to constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Some concerns align with topic areas, but appear to be operations oriented. 

Lacks detail on how training will promote sustainability. 

Salem Community Center

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 39

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

3/5/2


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

4/5/4 — big funding hit, not many details on exactly what they do


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/5/5

Salem Community Center

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Only present clear alignment with goal 2.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Clear impact across organization but seems to be a missing piece that they did not discuss the impact on memberships and how that translates to financial impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Positive that they’re open to changing the way they do business, but that is not present in the fundraising and short-term mgmt assistance listed.

Save the Tygart Watershed Association Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Some alignment with ARC goals in one area


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Not a very significant impact from covid. Somewhat overstated


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Lack of clarity in the application. Too brief to really understand their situation

Save the Tygart Watershed Association Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Some correlation between organization and ARC. 

Lacks impact analysis. 

Addresses two ARC goals but does not directly cite. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

Does not discuss financial impact. 

Some impact on constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Shared three relevant concerns. 

Some concerns align, but focus more on operations. 

 

Save the Tygart Watershed Association Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

5/4/4 — some ARC goal association


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

6/4/4 — no real financial details


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

6/5/4

Save the Tygart Watershed Association Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Only 1 goal explicitly aligned but they do make some connection to community development through natural assets.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Clear impact across financial and multiple programmatic areas. Also clear alignment between the financial and programmatic impacts (contracts and fundraising/education dual events).


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Timing seems to be strong for them to receive assistance as they are still building out their new structure. Alignment of different funding streams will be helpful.

Schuyler County Partnership for Economic Development (SCOPED)

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 84

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant articulates the alignment with all five goals. The arguments tease out the story of each. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant adequately describes and quantifies several issues – need for increased staffing, loss of grant revenue.  


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The applicant provides solid concerns; however, at least two of the three are operational in nature. The applicant did not request that specific learning topic. I was impressed by their statement about how they would take their learnings back to the community to help other businesses and nonprofits. 

Schuyler County Partnership for Economic Development (SCOPED)

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 73

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

Very strong alignment


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Significant impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Applicant makes a very good case for inclusion in the training

Schuyler County Partnership for Economic Development (SCOPED)

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 83

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 27

Comments:

Did not detail impact to constituents. 7


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 26

Comments:

Some concerns appear to be short- rather than long-term focused. 

Schuyler County Partnership for Economic Development (SCOPED)

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 72

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

10/8/10 — noted direct examples for each ARC goal


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

8/7/6 — financial support withering


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

8/6/9

Schuyler County Partnership for Economic Development (SCOPED)

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 77

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Clear alignment across all ARC goals and has potential for broader impact.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Clear impact across financial and programmatic areas of organization with helpful details of how COVID has exacerbated existing challenges and brought along new ones.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Potential to reach broader community using train the trainer model to convey financial sustainability strategies through to businesses.

Seed Sower, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 78

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant provides a compelling outline of how they meet goals #1 and 2. And, they hit one of ARC’s initiatives through their focus on SUD. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

As a startup organization, the applicant’s activities came to a halt. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant provides a clear alignment with the learning topics. The applicant is not the lead grantee for the new POWER grant, but a large component. I hope that this training would help them be a strong partner. I am surprised that they are a startup. 

Seed Sower, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 58

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

Some alignment with ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Impact was evident but not as severe as others felt. This is a start up operation


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

This would function essentially as start up training.

Seed Sower, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 80

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Does not discuss impact on constituents. 7

Does not include impact analysis. 7


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 26

Comments:

Concerns focus more on operations and short-term management. 

Seed Sower, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

8/4/8 — direct examples for a couple goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 11

Comments:

4/5/2 — not many operations to be impacted yet


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

7/6/6

Seed Sower, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 61

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Clear alignment with 2 ARC goals while I would also argue there is implicit alignment with goal 4 also connecting into community and economic development opportunities.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

A bit harder to assess as they are a new organization.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Good opportunity to really put the assistance to use as it would be helping the organization in its beginning lay a strong financial foundation.

Seneca Lake Wine Trail

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 75

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant described their services creatively for four goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

The fundraising impact is clear; however, they did not provide anything about the tourism industry. Additionally, I would have liked to see more of a description on how their members are affected. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The applicant laid out three relevant concerns and proved their coachability for the program. Their choices of learning topics align with their concerns. Operations would help their members. 

Seneca Lake Wine Trail

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 69

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Does not provide impact analysis. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Does not document negative financial impact. 

Does not discuss impact on users. 

 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Concerns focus on operations. 

Discussion lacks specifics in TA’s ability to lead organization to sustainability. 

Seneca Lake Wine Trail

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

Good alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Significant loss of revenue due to covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Some clear benefit is possible but not that well articulated

Seneca Lake Wine Trail

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

7/4/7 — made effort to connect with up to four of the ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

6/6/4 — income hit hard, how have users been impacted?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

5/5/4

Seneca Lake Wine Trail

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 55

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Clear alignment with 3 ARC goals and slight alignment with goal 2, as it seems a bit more aligned with business development. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Clear financial and programmatic impact that identifies how its member businesses have challenges from COVID that impact Wine Trail’s operations.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Would have liked to see more explanation of how the fundraising and financial management tools would be put to use organizationally and with the participating businesses.

Southeast Kentucky Economic Development

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 58

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

The applicant provides services that align with goal #1, but they do not mention the goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

The applicant does not provide enough quantitative information. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant adequately aligns their concerns with learning topics. Their need for the program seems great right now because of their campaign and the director’s desire to find non-federal funding.

Southeast Kentucky Economic Development

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 47

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Clearly describes correlation. 

Does not include impact analysis.

Addresses two ARC goals but does not cite. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 6

Comments:

Does not discuss financial impact. 

Lacks discussion on negative impact to mission delivery. 

Does not discuss impact to end users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Some concerns are relevant. 

Concerns appear to be operations/mission oriented. 

 

Southeast Kentucky Economic Development

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 71

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Very strong alignment and and ARC grantee


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Some significant impact from covid although they have fared better than others


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Applicant could benefit from the training

Southeast Kentucky Economic Development

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

5/4/4 — no real linkage to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

6/5/5 — short on details but impact there


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

6/6/5

Southeast Kentucky Economic Development

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 43

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Strong alignment with Goal 1 and important aspect of ARC’s work.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

A bit too brief re: the impact of COVID, both operationally and financially.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

A bit unclear alignment across the three segments; there is opportunity in tapping into assistance of non-federal funding.

Southern Tier Health Care System, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 77

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

The fact that ARC previously funded the project shows that the applicant aligns with the goals;however, they should have listed how they fit into the other goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 28

Comments:

The applicant provides excellent commentary on the impacts – loss of revenue, depletion of reserves, staffing issues. They quantified part of the economic issues. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

The applicant only provided two issues. They did lay out a compelling reason for participating and selected relevant courses for their concerns. 

Southern Tier Health Care System, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 61

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Does no include impact analysis. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

Some financial details and strategies to offset. 

Lacking specificity on impact to mission delivery. 

Lacking discussion on impact to users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Concerns are duplicative. 

 

Southern Tier Health Care System, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 70

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Good alignment with ARC


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Significant  loss of revenue


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Very good case made for participation in training

Southern Tier Health Care System, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 43

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

5/5/4 — not many direct ties or links to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

5/6/5 — public financing withheld and reduced, staff cuts, telehealth adopted


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 13

Comments:

3/5/5

Southern Tier Health Care System, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 58

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Clear alignment with goal 2 and potential alignment to econoimc and community development, but really only one goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Impact is clear across all aspects of the business and admirable that they are continuing operations despite receiving funding.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Would like to see more about how long-term financial planning will help, as they seem to be doing ok financially to be able to cover unpaid grants.

Southwestern NC Resource Conservation & Development Council, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Shared some relevant information on correlation but lacks clarity. 

Does not include impact analysis. 

Addresses two goals but not explicitly. Needs more detail. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

Does not provide detail on impact to mission delivery. 

Does not provide financial impact detail. 

No discussion on impact to users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Some concerns are relevant. 

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

Does not provide sufficient detail on TA and sustainability. 

Southwestern NC Resource Conservation & Development Council, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 64

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Org is very much aligned with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Some clear impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

Good case made for inclusion in training although very brief and nonspecific

Southwestern NC Resource Conservation & Development Council, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 78

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant aligns with all of ARC’s goals. Please note, they are a bit creative in how they presented their organization in light of our goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant scarcely describes the impacts of COVID and does not quantify the impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant aligns its three greatest concerns with its selection of courses. Additionally, the description shows coachability and a sense of self-awareness. 

Southwestern NC Resource Conservation & Development Council, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 54

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 23

Comments:

8/6/9 — made a point to address each ARC goal


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

6/4/5 — shifting of priorities of partners and greater economic landscape due to COVID


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

5/6/5

Southwestern NC Resource Conservation & Development Council, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 44

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

Strong alignment with multiple ARC goals and appear to have impact across region’s economic development goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

Briefly cover financial impact but little discussion of operational or organizational impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

Unclear what type of change they’re hoping to achieve structurally and would have been nice to understand what the current problems are.

Sprouting Farms Corp

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 80

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

Excellent alignment with all five of ARC’s goal areas. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant provided an excellent narrative about their impacts including how they have dealt with them so far. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

The applicant provided excellent reasons for participating in the program as they are a new nonprofit. They only listed two concerns and only chose fundraising and financial management. I would have liked them to look at operations since that is one of the two concerns listed. 

Sprouting Farms Corp

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Clearly describes correlation but does not provide specific examples. 

Does not include impact analysis. 

Addresses two ARC goals but does not describe how. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

Does not discuss financial impact. 

Lacking discussion on impact to end users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Some concerns align with topic areas but others are more general. 

Does not provide sufficient detail on TA’s ability to impact sustainability. 

Sprouting Farms Corp

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 65

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

Very good alignment with ARC’s goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Significant negative impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Applicant could stand to benefit but does not articulate how in great detail

Sprouting Farms Corp

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 54

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

6/6/7 — aligned with ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

7/5/5 — details a bit vauge


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

6/7/5

Sprouting Farms Corp

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 58

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

Strong alignment across multiple ARC goals with impact in education, economic development, and entrepreneurship.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Clear impact across organziation and operations, but they did not discuss financial impact and thus why they would seek long-term financial planning assistance.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Could use more explanation of needs, although the youth of the organization is exciting for potential impact assistnace with long-term planning could provide.

Square One GJM

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 6

Comments:

It is unclear what they do. What victims are they serving? Of what crimes?


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant provided a heartfelt account of their efforts to meet clients where they were. They did not quantify the funds lost from the capital bill. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The applicant explains their concerns and aligns with the learning topics. The new executive director could benefit from this program. My concern is that they are a startup without any paid employees. I assume she is currently working for free. 

Square One GJM

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 2

Comments:

Lacks detail. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 28

Comments:

Outside of capital grant, lacks detail on financial impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Some relevant concerns. 

Concerns are more short-term oriented. 

Lacks discussion on TA’s ability to lead toward sustainability. 

Square One GJM

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 33

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 6

Comments:

I don’t see any alignment


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

applicant felt significant impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 10

Comments:

This is a start up non profit

Square One GJM

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

4/5/4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

7/5/7 — very new nonprofit that had rug pulled out from under them, target pop not getting full range of services


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

7/6/4

Square One GJM

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Identification of goal 2 for alignment but not much detail.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

General information about impact on finances and operations, but lacking what would be helpful detail on how the pandemic hit their finances and other operations.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Helpful information about what they hope to achieve but lacks details on areas in which they need to grow their financial planning.

Steuben County Habitat for Humanity

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 72

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

The applicant did not express which goals areas they touch. The other Habitat for Humanity projects laid out excellent alignment. I would see this organization working in 3 to 4 ARC goal areas. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant quantified the impacts of COVID including lost revenue. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant does an excellent job of describing their financial concerns moving from long-term to now only being able to survive. They selected the right courses. Their desire to participate in the program is well stated. 

Steuben County Habitat for Humanity

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 7

Comments:

Lacks detail on correlation. 

No impact analysis and details on regional significance. 

Does not provide enough information. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Lacks detail on impact to end users. 

Limited discussion on impact to mission delivery. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Concerns are duplicative and general. 

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

 

Steuben County Habitat for Humanity

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 58

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Some marginal alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Clear impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Would clearly benefit from participation

Steuben County Habitat for Humanity

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 36

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 8

Comments:

3/4/1 — no ARC goal links


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

5/5/4 — some financial details


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

4/5/5 — concerns aren’t distinct

Steuben County Habitat for Humanity

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Light discussion of alignment to community development and education/economic health of population.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Strong impact to finances and operations through closure and lack of ability to sell, but it would have been helpful to understand impact on volunteers and community engagement.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Admirable to see the forward thinking of building a financial plan that helps to alleviate stresses on staff and diversify funding streams.

Stuart’s Opera House

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 78

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant does a good job describing their role of culture – Goal 4. However, they needed to explore other goals as they relate to their organization. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant does a good job of outlining the quantitative impact of COVID on revenues and community programming. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant’s biggest concerns align with their desired learning topics.  Additionally, their description of why they want to participate is compelling. 

Stuart’s Opera House

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 58

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Does not provide enough detail on correlation. 

Addresses one ARC goal but not explicitly. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Lacking information on impact to mission delivery. 

Lacking detail on impact to end users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Some concerns are immediately relevant. 

Some concerns are aligned with topic areas. 

Discussion lacks detail on TA’s ability to move organization toward sustainability.

Stuart’s Opera House

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Some alignment with Goal 4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Significant revenue loss from COVID 19


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Poorly articulated but applicant would stand to benefit from participation

Stuart’s Opera House

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

5/7/3


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

8/6/5 — clear, descriptive COVID impact, stats to bolster org’s place in community


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

7/5/5

Stuart’s Opera House

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Alignment in economic/community development and education goals. Made clear economic importance to local community.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Clear financial and operations impact through shutdown, but I wonder what kind of programming they have provided virtually.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

This section was a bit confusing. What are they hoping to gain from the TA? Rethinking their model or building a financial plan?

Tamaqua Area Community Partnership, Inc

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 90

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant’s services align with all five goals. Excellent and creative description of categorizing programs. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant articulated the challenges of COVID well and provided quantitative analysis. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant related their concerns to the learning topics and provided an excellent description of what they hope to get out of the program. 

Tamaqua Area Community Partnership, Inc

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 79

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Does not include impact analysis. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Lacks information on negative impact to mission delivery. 

Lacking detail of impact to end users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

Lacking connection between concerns and topic areas. 

Tamaqua Area Community Partnership, Inc

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 69

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 23

Comments:

very good alignment


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Substantial revenue losses


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Applicant makes a very good case for inclusion

Tamaqua Area Community Partnership, Inc

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 61

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

9/6/9 — strong connection to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

7/7/6 — answered the questions


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

7/5/5

Tamaqua Area Community Partnership, Inc

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 71

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

The partnership appears to combine so many aspects of the community’s effforts that align partners across all ARC goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Clear impact across multiple fronts and from a financial and operational perspective. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

HAve a strong idea of how to utilize the assistance. My main question is whether this has always been a challenge for its 25 years existence and why have they waited until now to rethink?

Tennessee College of Applied Technology Elizabethton

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

The applicant aligns with one of our goals; however, they likely could have stated additional goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant described their situation clearly with the quantitative impacts listed. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

The applicant provides three good concerns; however, they do not describe how the training will help their operations or financial position. It appears they are using this application to ask for dollars. 

Tennessee College of Applied Technology Elizabethton

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 44

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Very strong alignment


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

clear impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 1

Comments:

Training was not intended for this type of applicant and should not be considered

Tennessee College of Applied Technology Elizabethton

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 53

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 2

Comments:

Lacks sufficient detail. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 28

Comments:

Lacking additional detail on negative impact to users. 8


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Concerns more short term related. 

Discussion lacks detail on how TA will lead to future sustainability. 

Tennessee College of Applied Technology Elizabethton

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

6/5/5


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

6/5/5 — funding from state in reduced and in question


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

6/7/5

Tennessee College of Applied Technology Elizabethton

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 44

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Missed opportunity to discuss how the interact with community and economic development, only mentioning goal 2 and education.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Clear impact across operations and finances but do seem to have been able to start back up.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Unclear what they want to utilize the TA for. It seems that they more need direct cash grants and I’d imagine being part of the state system should provide them access to go after that.

The Appalachian Center for the Arts

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 43

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

The applicant aligns with three of our goal areas as I read their narrative; however, they do not provide a specific reference to those goal areas. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

The applicant did not provide enough detail behind their narrative. How many people? How much money?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 10

Comments:

The concerns align with the learning topics. I wanted to see more narrative around how this program will help them. 

The Appalachian Center for the Arts

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 57

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Some marginal alignment with ARC goal 4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Devastating impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

Poorly articulated vision on how to benefit from training

The Appalachian Center for the Arts

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Discussion on correlation between organization and ARC is lacking. 

No impact analysis. 

Addresses on ARC goal with little description. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Lacking description on negative impact to mission. 

No discussion of financial impact. 

Some impact on constituents defined. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Lacking discussion on how TA helps organization move toward sustainability. 

The Appalachian Center for the Arts

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 39

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

5/5/4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

5/4/4 – finances hit


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

6/4/2 – no details here

The Appalachian Center for the Arts

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 44

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Strong alignment with goals 2 and 4.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

No mention of financial impact and only liimited discussion of operational impact and how they’ve worked through that.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 13

Comments:

Appear to be seeking operations support but have fundraising listed and unfortunately no discussion of sustainability.

The Arc Of The Mid Ohio Valley Inc

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 84

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant provided an excellent description of how the applicant aligns with each goal and provides value to the community. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The narrative provides information on the revenue lost, impact on clients, etc. However, they did not provide any fiscal analysis. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The concerns align well with the learning topics. The applicant’s desire to have actionable plans after the training is impressive. 

The Arc Of The Mid Ohio Valley Inc

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Very little alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Some negative impact shown


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Applicant does not have a clear vision on how to benefit beyond formal fundraising

The Arc Of The Mid Ohio Valley Inc

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 67

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

Lacks impact analysis. 

Address more than one ARC goal, but not all descriptions goal description. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Lacking discussion on negative impact on mission delivery. 

Discussion on financial impact lacking. 

Some impact on user but not well defined. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Concerns appear more aligned with operations and long-term financial. 

Sufficient description of how TA will help organization. 

The Arc Of The Mid Ohio Valley Inc

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

8/5/8 — made an effort to connect their work to the ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

5/4/5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

4/6/6

The Arc Of The Mid Ohio Valley Inc

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Description of programming that aligns with all 5 ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Lacking detail of level of impact on finances although it can be assumed through the closure of the store operations.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Concerns only partially align with their interest in building out fundraising plans which do speak to potential sustainability.

The Center for Rural Development

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

Though the applicant does not call out the goals by number, they do use the keywords. They align with four of ARC’s goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant does not adequately describe the impacts of quantitative or detailed analysis. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

The applicant provides alignment with their concerns and learning topics. However, they do not provide comprehensive reasoning around why participating in this program will help. 

The Center for Rural Development

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 44

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Very strong alignment


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Less impact than many others


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 2

Comments:

This applicant should not take up a slot if it means a target non-profit misses out

The Center for Rural Development

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Discussion lacks impact analysis. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 9

Comments:

Does not discuss financial impact with sufficient detail. 

Not sufficient information on impact to mission delivery. 

Not sufficient information on impact to end users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

Some concerns align but others related to long-term financial. 

Not sufficient information on how TA leads to sustainability. 

The Center for Rural Development

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 44

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

5/5/6 — connects to ARC initiatives


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

5/5/3 — in person trainings halted and staff cut


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

5/6/4

The Center for Rural Development

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

Clear alignment across 3 ARC goals that all come together to support the area’s economic development and vitality.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

Little to no detail of what financial impact occurred after PPP ran out and few details about operational changes.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

Lack of detail of what they hope to gain from the program and how they will use that to adjust operations or financial situation.

The Chamber of the Northern Poconos

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Some clear alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Significant impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

Applicant would benefit from training

The Chamber of the Northern Poconos

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 82

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant sees itself in a broader position than most chambers of commerce. Excellent alignment with ARC’s goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

The applicant provides a well-written and comprehensive narrative regarding the impacts of COVID; however, they did not provide data. I am sure it is devastating. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 26

Comments:

The applicant aligns its top three concerns with the appropriate learning topics. Their statement about their needs is thorough and demonstrates coachability. 

The Chamber of the Northern Poconos

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 68

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Lacks impact analysis. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Discussion on financial impact lacking detail. 

Some impact on constituents but narrative focused more on internal impacts. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Some concerns are aligned with topic ares. 

Narrative does not provide information on how TA leads to sustainability. 

The Chamber of the Northern Poconos

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

7/5/7 — worked to identify relevant ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

6/6/5 — op expenses up, rev down


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/6/4

The Chamber of the Northern Poconos

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 63

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

Aligns with four ARC goals with detailed programming and partnerships.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Lacked details on financial impact but clear that there is impact across the organization and difficulty to plan for future .


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Would like more information on how this assistance will be conveyed to member businesses and provide support to them. 

The David School

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

The applicant aligns with goal #2, but does not list it. There are no other goals in their description of the program. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

The applicant provided an excellent glimpse into the issues facing the school; however, they did not quantify the financial burden. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

The concerns line up with the learning topics. The applicant should have provided additional explanation of what they hope to get from the program. 

The David School

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 62

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

There may be some marginal alignment with ARC Goal 2


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

devastating impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

There would be some clear benefit from participation by the applicant

The David School

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 65

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Discussion of correlation lacking. 

No impact analysis. 

Does not explicitly address one more ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Discussion on financial impact lacking. 

Well-defined impact on end users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Concerns/needs alignment lacking rationale. 

 

The David School

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

3/5/3 — not linked to ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

6/6/6 — entire staff, save for two admins, cut


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 13

Comments:

6/4/3

The David School

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Identification of alignment with goal 2 only.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

General impact of operational closure and light explanation of financial challenge.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Potential impact for financial planning assistance to help is high but lack clear vision of where the assitance will be put to good use.

The Discovery Center of the Southern Tier

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 61

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

While the applicant provides an overview of their services, they do not align them with ARC’s goal areas. They fit goal #2 and potentially goal #1. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant provided a narrative, but no quantitative analysis. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

The applicant aligns their concerns with learning topics. They provide a nice statement on why they want to participate. 

The Discovery Center of the Southern Tier

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Marginal alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Very real impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

There would be clear benefit from participation 

The Discovery Center of the Southern Tier

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 61

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Shared some relevant information on correlation 

No impact analysis or discussion on benefit to region. 

Addresses one ARC goal 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Does not articulate financial impact. 

Well-defined impact on end users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 26

Comments:

Concerns are short-term in nature. 

The Discovery Center of the Southern Tier

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 43

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

4/5/3


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

7/5/4 — all programming and services impacted, staff laid off


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

6/4/5

The Discovery Center of the Southern Tier

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Alignment with goal 2 and partial alignment with goal 4 in providing promotion of cultural assets.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Basic explanation of impact across finances, operations, and organization’s efforts to serve the community


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Admirable there’s the potential for this assistance to be conveyed to the community as well.

The eagles nest ministry

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 6

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 0

Comments:

Does not provide any correlation to ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 0

Comments:

Does not demonstrate COVID impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 6

Comments:

The applicant listed three concerns. One of the three aligns with the topics selected. The applicant does not provide enough information on how the program will address the listed concerns. 

The eagles nest ministry

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 13

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 3

Comments:

Not likely


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 5

Comments:

Unknown


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 5

Comments:

Undetermined due to lack of information

The eagles nest ministry

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 17

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 0

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 1

Comments:


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Some topic areas align with concerns. 

Not sufficient information on how instruction will be of help.

The eagles nest ministry

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 8

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 0

Comments:

0/0/0 — nada


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 1

Comments:

1/0/0 — they do something


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 7

Comments:

3/3/1 — these are concerns

The eagles nest ministry

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 3

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 0

Comments:

No alignment with ARC goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 0

Comments:

Unclear any impact of COVID.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 3

Comments:

Unclear how concerns would be alleviated by assistance.

The Greater Cumberland Committee

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 63

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant lists activities that would fit into at least 3 goals; however, they do not list those goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

The applicant provides a very brief description of the areas affecting them; however, those particular impacts need to be quantified. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant aligns concerns with learning topics and provides a compelling story of their desire participate in the program. 

The Greater Cumberland Committee

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

Alignment with one of ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Some limited impact from COVID


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

Some thoughtful information presented to indicate the applicant would benefit from the training

The Greater Cumberland Committee

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Shared some relevant information on correlation between organization and ARC. 

Did not include impact analysis. 

Sufficient description of how organization address two ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 9

Comments:

Did not provide sufficient information to determine negative impact on mission delivery. 

Did not provide sufficient information to determine financial impact. 

Some impact on constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

Discussion on how TA can lead organization toward sustainability is lacking detail. 

The Greater Cumberland Committee

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

8/7/5


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 11

Comments:

4/3/4 — revenue down, details beyond that are sparse


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

5/5/5 — not v distinct concerns

The Greater Cumberland Committee

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 54

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

Strong alignment across 4 goals based on broad workflows.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

Financial impact is mentioned but unclear at what level and how long that is anticipated to be a challenge. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Alignment across the three segments, but I wonder how this impacts their membership and if it will be impactful through conveyance to membership.

The Highland Center

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 69

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Very strong alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Very significant impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Applicant can benefit from training

The Highland Center

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 71

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Lacking detailed discussion on financial impact. 

Lacking detailed discussion on impact to end users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Some concerns are aligned with topic areas. 

Sufficient description on how TA will assist with sustainability. 

The Highland Center

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 53

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

7/7/6


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

7/5/4


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

6/6/5

The Highland Center

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

While not explicit, the center aligns with numerous ARC goals by utilizing space for diverse programming ins upport of health, education, community development, and infrasturcture.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Clear impact across finances and operations and helpful explanation of potential further impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Alignment between concerns and assistance requested but lack bigger vision for how assistance will be used.

The Ithaca Voice

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 18

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 0

Comments:

The applicant does not address any of ARC’s goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

The applicant lists a few impacts, but misses the opportunity to quantify them. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 6

Comments:

The applicant only provides two distinct concerns. They fail to provide good reasoning to participate. In fact, their statement sounds like a plea for donations. 

The Ithaca Voice

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 38

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

Hard to see the alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Some clear impact from covid, with no detail


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 10

Comments:

Copy and paste language from an advert does not help

The Ithaca Voice

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 30

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 8

Comments:

Did not answer question with sufficient relevant information.

No impact analysis. 

No discussion of relationship to ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 6

Comments:

Did not answer question with sufficient information.

Financial impact lacking detail. 

 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Concerns fundraising oriented. 

No discussion how TA aids in sustainability. 

The Ithaca Voice

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 38

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 9

Comments:

2/5/2


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

6/5/4


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

6/5/3

The Ithaca Voice

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 40

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Partial alignment with goal 4 in elevating cultural assets but definitely a unique, new type of organization for ARC to work with.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Brief identificaiton of impact across operations and finances.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

Unclear what assistance will be able to help generate revenue streams in a traditionally difficult industry.

The Learning Lamp

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 88

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

The applicant provided an excellent description of how the program fits two of ARC’s goal areas. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant described in exquisite detail the issues from COVID-19 and quantified those issues. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant’s concerns fully align with their requested learning topics. They provided a detailed vision of how this program could help their operations. 

The Learning Lamp

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 90

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The Learning Lamp

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Some alignment with ARC goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Significant impact from COVID


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

I believe the applicant would benefit from the training.

The Learning Lamp

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 65

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

6/7/7


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

7/7/7


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

7/8/9

The Learning Lamp

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 67

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Slight alignment with goal 1 but clear alignment with goal 2 and regional nature is helpful in being supportive of ARC’s work.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Clear impact across organization, finances, and operations, but also admirable efforts to continue to meet the needs of its clients.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

Answer taps into the need for this organization to figure out a stronger operational and financial model to meet the needs of the communities they serve.

Thrive Regional Partnership

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

The applicant’s description of their services meets four of ARC’s goals; however, they do not specifically name those goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant describes the impacts; however, does not quantify nor give an in-depth description. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The applicant’s description of how they will benefit from the program bolstered their score in this category. They missed an opportunity to work on creative operational issues by only focusing on the funding perspective. 

Thrive Regional Partnership

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 71

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Lacking discussion on impact to constituents.

Lacking detailed discussion on financial impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Some concerns and topic areas align. 

Sufficient description on how TA will lead to sustainability but lacks detail. 

Thrive Regional Partnership

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Good alignment with ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Some impact typical of an organization that did not run a lot of programs which had to close


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Applicant would clearly benefit from instruction 

Thrive Regional Partnership

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

7/8/6


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

6/6/5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

7/7/8

Thrive Regional Partnership

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 64

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

Strong alignment with ARC goals 1, 3, and 4 with diverse programming in each.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Clear financial and operational impact but could use more detail as well as explanation of efforts to continue the work.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Recognize their potential impact in strengthening their financial model and the necessary alignment between strategy shifts and financial planning.

Toccoa-Stephens County Chamber of Commerce

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 74

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

The applicant provides an excellent narrative regarding their alignment with ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The applicants provides some description of the impacts; however, they do not quantify the issues. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The applicant aligns two of its concerns with learning opportunities but missed the opportunity to look at operations as they stated they wanted to do things differently. They could have provided more depth on their path to sustainability. 

Toccoa-Stephens County Chamber of Commerce

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 55

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Alignment with multiple ARC goals19


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Some impact, not clearly stated


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

Some benefit from the instruction would be possible for the applicant

Toccoa-Stephens County Chamber of Commerce

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

Lacks impact analysis. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

Some relevant information on mission delivery. 

Discussion on financial impact lacking. 

Discussion on impact to end users lacking. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Some concerns are relevant. 

Some concerns are aligned with topic areas. 

Discussion on how TA will aid in sustainability is lacking. 

Toccoa-Stephens County Chamber of Commerce

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 57

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 19

Comments:

7/5/7


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

7/6/5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

7/8/5

Toccoa-Stephens County Chamber of Commerce

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 53

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

Clear and deep alignment across two ARC goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

Could have used more detail of financial impact since it was identified as the main impact, but helpful description of negative impact operationally and what they have done to step in to support businesses.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Important that they’re willing to break the model of what chambers generally do and it will be interesting to see if they can develop innovative funding models for a chamber.

Tuscarawas Arts Partnership

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 75

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant described their programming fit with three of ARC’s goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant provided an excellent quantified description of the impact of COVID on not only their revenues but also on those of their clients. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Although the applicant listed three concerns, they do not align with the correct learning topics. Also, it appears that the primary mission is to gain funding. This is a very small organization. 

Tuscarawas Arts Partnership

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Some alignment with multiple ARC goal areas. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Some clear impact from COVID


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Applicant would benefit from instruction but the program was not designed for a tiny start-up non-profit

Tuscarawas Arts Partnership

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

Clearly describes correlation between organization and ARC. 

No impact analysis. 

Sufficient description of how organization address three ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 13

Comments:

Shared some relevant information on negative impact to mission delivery. 

Shared some financial detail and mitigation strategies. 

Lacking discussion on impact to end users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

Concerns lack severity. 

Some concerns are aligned with topic areas. 

No discussion on how TA leads to sustainability. 

Tuscarawas Arts Partnership

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 17

Comments:

6/5/6


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

6/5/4


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

5/4/5

Tuscarawas Arts Partnership

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Clear alignment in two goals and partial alignment with leadership development in the art space, although this could use a bit more explanation.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Helpful explanation of financial impact but unclear what the operational impacts have been for programming.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

Strong concerns raised that should help them think creatively about the future but no clear idea of how assistance can support sustainability.

United Way of Central WV

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant fits almost all of ARC’s goals; however, they do not expand their narrative enough to tell. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant provides some narrative on the impacts; however, does not quantify them. How many organizations will they no longer be able to help? How many fundraisers will they not be able to hold?


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant aligns their concerns with the learning topics and provides a nice description of why they want to participate. ARC did recently fund them, so their participation would add value on a few levels. 

United Way of Central WV

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 80

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

applicant made no effort to understand ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

assumed large impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Allowing this applicant into the mix would in theory reach many other smaller orgs

United Way of Central WV

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 24

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 2

Comments:

Narrative lacks sufficient information. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 4

Comments:

Discussion is lacking on overall negative impact to mission delivery, end users, and financials. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Some concerns are aligned with selected topics.

Some discussion on how TA will lead to sustainability. 

United Way of Central WV

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 47

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

4/7/3


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

7/5/5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/5/5

United Way of Central WV

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 30

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 8

Comments:

Light alignment with one ARC goal that could use further explanation.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

Unclear impact beyond financial challenges with fundraising.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 10

Comments:

Unclear what they’re hoping to achieve from assistance and how it will help the org be more sustainable moving forward.

Upper Cumberland Broadcast Council WCTE-TV

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 82

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

The applicant provided good alignment with ARC’s goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The applicant provides an outline of staffing, revenue, and other issues; however, they do not quantify those issues. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant aligned their concerns with the learning topics and provided an outstanding outline of what they want to achieve through the courses. 

Upper Cumberland Broadcast Council WCTE-TV

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 74

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Questionable alignment with ARC’s goals. Only in a broad view


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

significant impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

applicant makes a compelling case, as any grant writer should be able to do.

Upper Cumberland Broadcast Council WCTE-TV

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 71

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Does not include impact analysis. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Some relevant information on impact to mission delivery. 

Financial impact assessment lacking. 

Lacking sufficient information on impact to end users. 

 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Upper Cumberland Broadcast Council WCTE-TV

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 53

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

5/5/6


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

7/6/5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

6/6/7

Upper Cumberland Broadcast Council WCTE-TV

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 65

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

Unique alignment with three ARC goals that takes media beyond simply journalism and into infrastructure and education.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Balance between immediate covid impact as well as underlying challenges that have been exacerbated by COVID. Lack detail on operational impact on users though.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

Impressive thinking around fundraising and financial management to be used for investment in workforce which does imbue sustainability.

Upstate Circle of Friends

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 72

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant is describing activities consistent with Goal #2; however, they do not use the keywords nor do they call out the goal #. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The applicant described the impacts in great detail; however, they do not quantify the revenue loss. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant’s concerns align with their learning topic choices. Additionally, their statement reflects a thoughtful perspective on the course’s impact and a willingness to be coachable. 

Upstate Circle of Friends

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 82

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

significant overlap with some of ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 28

Comments:

significant impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Compelling case for assistance

Upstate Circle of Friends

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 65

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Some correlation between organization and ARC.

No impact analysis. 

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Lacking discussion on financial impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Upstate Circle of Friends

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

5/6/4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

6/5/7


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

5/7/6

Upstate Circle of Friends

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Alignment with 2 ARC goals surrounding education and leadership development.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

Clear impact on operations being pushed back by months and financial strain both from reduced general operations but admirable expanded new operations to meet the community’s needs.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Impressive approach to looking at funding and utilizing the plan through this program to maintain accountability to executing good fundraising practices.

Urban Mission

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 76

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

The applicant provides a nice outline of their services and states that they align with goals 2 and 5. They do not provide a lot of detail. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

The applicant provides a narrative around the impacts but does not quantify what this means for them financially. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Their concerns align with their learning topics. They described their transition as an organization and how they felt that the training would help guide their changes. 

Urban Mission

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 76

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Significant alignment


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

some impact apparent but they have actually increased employment during covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

good case for assistance is made

Urban Mission

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

Does not provide sufficient information on correlation between ARC and organization. 

No impact analysis or discussion on importance to region. 

Some information on how organization addresses two ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Some negative impact on mission delivery, specifically increased demand. 

Narrative lacks discussion on financial impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Some concerns are relevant. 

Concerns and topic areas are properly aligned but lack rationale. 

Sufficient discussion on how TA leads to sustainability. 

Urban Mission

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

5/5/5


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

6/5/7


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

6/7/6

Urban Mission

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Alignment on goals 2 and partial on 5 by supporting health and educational efforts of young people and families.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

Appears that impact has been through increased demand and operations that may or may not be financially covered, but that’s not included answer.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

While a tough time to make a major pivot, it is admirable of the organization to think bigger about systemic issues to tackle and recognize now as the opportunity to do so.

Venango County Association for the Blind

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 61

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant addresses goal #2 and potentially goal #4. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

The applicant outlined the impacts in service delivery, operational changes, and transportation for clients. While they quantified the # of clients they will not be able to serve, they should have given us a revenue estimate for those issues. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

The applicant provides two financial concerns and one operational. I would have liked to see operations as one of their choices. I thought their answer regarding participation seemed sparse. 

Venango County Association for the Blind

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 74

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 23

Comments:

The extent of the alignment with ARC goals is questionable.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 27

Comments:

Significant impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Applicant makes an abbreviated case for assistance

Venango County Association for the Blind

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Shared some relevant information about correlation between organization and ARC. 

Lack of impact analysis and quality description of why organization is important to the region. 

Does not include sufficient description of how organization addresses ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Discussion does not articulate financial impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Concerns are more operations oriented. 

Does not provide sufficient information on how program will lead to sustainability. 

Venango County Association for the Blind

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

5/5/4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

7/5/6


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

8/6/4

Venango County Association for the Blind

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Direct alignment on two ARC goals through education/health and supporting transportation infrastructure.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

Missing explanation of financial impact that was probably great due to lack of programming they were able to execute.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

Clear alignment across the three concerns and assistance requested but no real discussion of how this builds into sustainability for the organization.

Virginia Rural Health Association

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 75

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

The applicant fits nicely with three of our goals and the other two seem to be a stretch. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The issues of staffing and revenue loss are real. They should have quantified the impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

The issues align with the learning topics and the applicant’s willingness to admit that they have not been thinking long term is commendable. 

Virginia Rural Health Association

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 77

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

Significant alignment over several goal areas


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

A lot of face to face programs have been cut


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Applicant makes an abbreviated case for assistance.

Virginia Rural Health Association

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 70

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

No discussion of impact analysis. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Lack of detailed discussion on negative impact to mission delivery. 

Lack of discussion on financial impact. 

Some impact on constituents  in terms of service delivery. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

Concerns are short-term in nature.

Some discussion on how TA will aid in sustainability. 

Virginia Rural Health Association

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

7/7/7


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

7/7/5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

7/6/6

Virginia Rural Health Association

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 57

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Clear alignment on goals 1, 2, and 5 in support local clinics, the education and health of the community members and empowerment of health leaders; however, unclear if real alignment for goals 3 and 4.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

While their typical operations have been severely hindered, they have stepped up to meet other basic needs, which has caused some financial impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Admirable for them to be thinking long-term even though they do not have existential threat in the short-term due to COVID.

Walker Area Community Foundation

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

The applicant lists all five goals. The depth in which they address them could be stronger. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

In the answer to this question, the applicant does not clearly address the impacts and definitely does not provide any quantifiable information. 

 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

The concerns align with the learning topics; however, the applicant should have provided more depth in their answers. 

Walker Area Community Foundation

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 77

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

Very strong alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Unclear exactly how covid impacted this organization. They only discuss Jasper retail


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Not sure if this training will do all they expect it to do.

Walker Area Community Foundation

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Lacks impact analysis or quality description of overall importance to the region. 

 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 6

Comments:

Insufficient information on the negative impact on mission delivery. 

Lack of discussion on financial impact. 

Insufficient information on impact to end users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

Sufficient description on how TA will aid in sustainability but lacks detail. 

Walker Area Community Foundation

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 43

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

5/5/6


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

4/4/6


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/5/5

Walker Area Community Foundation

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 40

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 22

Comments:

Has programming that touches each ARC goal but could use additional details about what these programs entail so as to fully assess alignment.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 8

Comments:

Answer covers the community’s felt impacts rather than the foundation’s.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 10

Comments:

No clear answer about sustainability and how the assistance would be used.

Washington County Museum of Fine Arts

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 63

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

I scored this application low as it did not list the goals and went into detail that takes away from their larger position in the community – tourism, education, entrepreneurship. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant provided an excellent and thorough assessment of the impact of COVID on their activities. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

The organization outlined three important concerns. But, given their concerns, they likely would benefit most from the operations learning topic. I was amazed at the quality of their expected benefit from the program. Definitely a sign of coachability.

Washington County Museum of Fine Arts

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 64

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

Marginal alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Significant negative impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 26

Comments:

One of the more compelling and thoughtful responses

Washington County Museum of Fine Arts

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 75

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

Did not answer question with sufficient information regarding correlation between ARC and organization. 

Does not provide sufficient information on how organization addresses one or more ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Washington County Museum of Fine Arts

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

4/5/4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

8/7/6


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 22

Comments:

6/7/9

Washington County Museum of Fine Arts

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 62

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Touches two ARC goals of education and community development of cultural assets.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

Financial and operational impacts very clear and the importance of this institution to the area it serves makes sense due to prior membership.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Thoughtful concerns that align operation considerations with realistic need for longer-term financial planning and rethinking current funding model.

WaterWays

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

The applicant indirectly related its activities to the goals. They likely fit goals 2, 3, 4, and 5. 

 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Additional detail on the fiscal impacts would be helpful and in-depth description of the impacts they identified. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Two of their concerns could be met with our classes; however, they need assistance with operations. Their expectations should have provided more depth. 

WaterWays

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 83

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Very good alignment with several ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 28

Comments:

Very significant covid impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Applicant made a very compelling case for assistance.

WaterWays

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

Some relevant information on correlation. 

No impact analysis. 

Does not specifically address one or more ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 19

Comments:

Does not adequately convey impact on end users. 

Some financial information but lacks detail. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Shared three relevant concerns but lacking detail on mission delivery. 

Concerns appropriately aligned with topic area but lack rationale. 

Does not provide sufficient information on how TA will support sustainability. 

WaterWays

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 42

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

4/4/3


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

6/4/4


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

6/6/5

WaterWays

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 39

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Mostly focused on alignment with ARC goal 2.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Operational and financial impacts identified but little detail on how they are working to alleviate and how they are responding in light of impacts.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

Thoughtful about rethinking their model and how they could use financial planning but lacks detail of how this translates into sustainability.

Wayne Economic Development Corporation

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 84

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

The applicant provides an outstanding narrative around how their services align with all five goal areas of ARC. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The applicant provides some description of COVID-19 impacts and some quantification. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant provides an outstanding description of how their concerns align with the learning topics and why they want to participate!

Wayne Economic Development Corporation

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 83

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

Very strong alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Some negative impact from covid19


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Applicant makes a very compelling case for assistance

Wayne Economic Development Corporation

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 83

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

Strong alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Significant COVID impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Assistance would have a clear impact

Wayne Economic Development Corporation

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 70

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

Some information on impact to mission delivery. 

Some financial details provided. 

Lacks information on end user support. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Sufficient description of how TA supports sustainability. 

Wayne Economic Development Corporation

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 62

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

8/8/10


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

6/6/5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

7/7/5

Wayne Economic Development Corporation

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 27

Comments:

Clear and detailed alignment with four of ARC goals with broad coverage of programming to where assistance could be impactful on multiple fronts.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Clear financial impact that could use some more details of what county finances are like. Also what has been the impact on the programs that they facilitate as mentioned in Q2.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Admirable their acknowledgement that organizational operations and finances are not prioritized over programming, which intimates readiness to open up and gain from TA.

West Alabama Works

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 72

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant squarely aligns with one of ARC’s goals – #2; however, they do not mention the goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The applicant provided a quantative analysis of how COVID impacted their clients and staff, but did not express how their revenues were impacted. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant provided an excellent analysis of how their concerns align with the learning topics and what they hope to get from the program. 

West Alabama Works

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 71

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

very strong alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 23

Comments:

Some negative covid impact, not as severe as some others


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Applicant does not make a compelling case for assistance. Some possible misconceptions about the nature of the assistance are evident

West Alabama Works

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 63

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Lack of discussion on correlation between organization and ARC goals. 

Lacks impact analysis and detailed discussion on why organization is important to the region. 

Does not specifically address one or more ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

Does not provide detailed negative financial impact. 6

Some impacted on end users noted. 5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 26

Comments:

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

 

West Alabama Works

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 52

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 15

Comments:

5/6/4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

8/6/6


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

6/6/5

West Alabama Works

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

Not explicitly stated but appears to align with goals 2 and possibly 1 or 4 but lacks details.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

Deep explanation of operational impacts and efforts to combat but no detailed answer of financial impact until Q11.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

There is clear alignment across the concerns, the request for fundraising, but I’m not convinced from the narrative that simply fundraising improvement will get them towards sustainability. They seem to be seeing fundraising and the assistance as a silver bullet to save the day.

West Virginia Institute for Spirituality

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 24

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 6

Comments:

The applicant does not address ARC’s goals; however, I do see some alignment with education and leadership development (goals 2 and 5).


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 6

Comments:

The applicant provides scant details around the impact with no financial analysis. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

The applicant provides three distinct concerns, relates those to the learning topics, but does not provide much of a description of how they would benefit from participating. 

West Virginia Institute for Spirituality

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 40

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 5

Comments:

Not a strong alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

Unclear impact from covid


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Simple but straightforward explanation. 

West Virginia Institute for Spirituality

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 23

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 5

Comments:

2/0/0


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 7

Comments:

4/2/1


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 11

Comments:

4/4/3

West Virginia Institute for Spirituality

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 29

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 8

Comments:

Did not answer the question of correlation with ARC with sufficient or relevant information. 2

Does not demonstrate importance to region. 4

Does not include sufficient information on how organization addresses ARC goals. 2


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 4

Comments:

Lacks sufficient information to determine financial, mission delivery, and end user impacts. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

Shared three relevant concerns. 

Some concerns are relevant to the topic areas. 

Some discussion on how TA will help move toward sustainability. 

West Virginia Institute for Spirituality

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 28

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Implicitly align with multiple ARC goals but lacks explanation and clear identification of goals.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 8

Comments:

Minimal explanation of impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 8

Comments:

Alignment across what they need but no explanation of moving towards sustainability and not enough information to evaluate.

Western NC Housing Partnership Inc

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

The applicant covers some of ARC’s goals but does not list them. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

The applicant stated a few impacts, but should have quantified them. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Their concerns, learning topics and narrative around what they hope to get out of the training all align. 

Western NC Housing Partnership Inc

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Some alignment with ARC’s goals. Not primary


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Impact is less than most applicants have felt


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 19

Comments:

Applicant makes less than a compelling case for assistance. Possibly misunderstood the nature of assistance

Western NC Housing Partnership Inc

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 37

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 10

Comments:

3/5/2


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

6/4/4


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 13

Comments:

6/4/3

Western NC Housing Partnership Inc

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

Did not answer the correlation question with sufficient information. 

Quality description of importance to region without impact analysis. 

Does not include sufficient information on how organization addresses one or more ARC goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

Shared some relevant information on impact to mission delivery but lacks detail. 

Did not articulate financial impact. 

Some impact on constituents through movement to virtual training. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Does not include sufficient information on how instruction will be of help. 

Western NC Housing Partnership Inc

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 36

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Indirect alignment with goal 1 but potential alignment with goal 3 through housing as infrastructure.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

Minor explanation of operational impact but no discussion of financial impact so hard to assess need for assistance.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

Unclear how the assistance would drive sustainable financial and organizational model.

White County Chamber of Commerce

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 78

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

Excellent work in describing activities in all five goal areas!


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

The narrative provides a few impacts – fundraising and staffing. The quantitative impacts on chamber membership would be a good addition to this information. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Excellent alignment with concerns and learning topics. I would have liked to see more depth in their answer around what they expect to get out of it. However, I am impressed that they want to build collaborative partnerships with other participants. 

White County Chamber of Commerce

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 76

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 30

Comments:

Very strong alignment


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Not a good correlation between explanation and actual covid impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 26

Comments:

Applicant presents a good case for assistance

White County Chamber of Commerce

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

6/6/7


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

6/5/5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

6/6/5

White County Chamber of Commerce

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 76

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Does not include impact analysis. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Lacks detailed discussion on financial impact. 

Does not include well-defined impact on constituents. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Sufficient description of how instruction will help but lacks detail. 

White County Chamber of Commerce

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

Strong alignment across all ARC goals that provide programming and advocacy across community needs for rural area.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Would have liked to know a bit more about what services they are currently providing in light of COVID and more about level of finances that are impacted without in-person events.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Concerns are helpful in understanding where the Chamber stands to gain from assistance identified, but answer is lacking on movement towards sustainable operations.

Will Bright Foundation

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 36

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

While more narrative could have made this a 30 point answer, they succinctly answered the question that they deal with at least 2 of our goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 6

Comments:

The applicant did not provide much detail at all in their answer. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 6

Comments:

The answers are too short to understand what they really want to learn. 

Will Bright Foundation

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 76

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 26

Comments:

Good alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Some clear impact, albeit through a weak explanation


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Very non-specific summary of expected benefits of participation

Will Bright Foundation

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 31

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 11

Comments:

5/4/2


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 7

Comments:

3/1/3


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 13

Comments:

6/4/3

Will Bright Foundation

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 32

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Description lacks clarity of correlation by providing specific examples of correlation between organization and ARC. 

Some description of importance to region but lacks impact analysis. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 2

Comments:

Lacks sufficient information on negative impact to mission delivery, finances, and end users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 12

Comments:

Did not address concerns with sufficient information. 

Some concerns align with topic areas. 

Some discussion on how instruction will help organization but lacks detail. 

Will Bright Foundation

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 30

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

Alignment with ARC goal 2 only.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 8

Comments:

Need way more information about financial impact and no information about operational impact.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 10

Comments:

Explanation too short in order to assess where assistance is needed and if TA will be beneficial.

Women’s Opportunity Center

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 75

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

The applicant provides reasons for their alignment with goals 1, 2 and 5, but does not call those out by number only a few key words. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

The applicant provides a detailed narrative on the impacts; however, they do not quantify them from a financial perspective. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant aligns their concerns with the learning topics and provide excellent reasons for their participation. 

Women’s Opportunity Center

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 83

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Very good alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

Significant negative impact from COVID


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 29

Comments:

Applicant makes a very good case for assistance

Women’s Opportunity Center

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 58

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

5/6/5


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 24

Comments:

9/8/7


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

6/6/6

Women’s Opportunity Center

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 65

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Shared some relevant information on correlation between organization and ARC but narrative lacks detail. 

Does not discuss importance to region or provide impact analysis. 

Does not provide description of how organization addresses one or more ARC goal(s). 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 28

Comments:

Lacks detailed financial impact analysis. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Shared three relevant concerns but lack detail on impact to mission. 

Concerns are appropriately aligned with topic areas but lack rationale. 

Some discussion on how instruction could help but lacks specificity. 

Women’s Opportunity Center

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Interesting alignment with goals 1 and 5.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 16

Comments:

Would like to know more details about operational impact and what is still able to continue operating. Financial hardship is clear.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Based on recent actions it appears that concerns and hopes for using assistance are valid and much needed but could use better understanding of how assistnace will be put to use.

Workforce Wayne, Inc. dba Wayne Pike Workforce Alliance

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 49

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Provides alignment with five of ARC’s goals though #3 may be a stretch. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 6

Comments:

The applicant provides very limited information on the impact with no data. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

The applicant provides clear concerns that align with learning topics; however, their reason for participating lacks detail. 

Workforce Wayne, Inc. dba Wayne Pike Workforce Alliance

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 60

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Good alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Poor explanation of a critical element


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

Another poor explanation of a critical component

Workforce Wayne, Inc. dba Wayne Pike Workforce Alliance

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 36

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

5/4/4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

4/3/3


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 13

Comments:

5/4/4

Workforce Wayne, Inc. dba Wayne Pike Workforce Alliance

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 37

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Clear description of correlation but lacks specific examples. 

Some description of importance to region but lacks impact analysis. 

Does not explicitly address one or more ARC goals but programming addresses two. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 2

Comments:

Does not provide sufficient information on the negative impacts on mission delivery, finances, and end users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 17

Comments:

Shared three relevant concerns but lack connection to mission delivery. 

Some concerns are aligned with topic areas but lack rationale. 

Discussion on importance of instruction is lacking detail. 

Workforce Wayne, Inc. dba Wayne Pike Workforce Alliance

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 38

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Addresses alignment across all 5 goals albeit brief and not all are helpful in assessing true alignment.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 10

Comments:

No explanation of financial impact or operational impact beyond not having time to retool. Unclear what that means.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 10

Comments:

Confusing what they’re actually seeking assistance for and how concerns align with program request.

WV Farmers Market Association

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 20

Comments:

The organization aligns with at least two of our goals. I would have preferred that they list out each goal as it is a bit muddled. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 12

Comments:

The applicant provides some expanded impacts; however, they do not list how it directly impacts their organization. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

The applicant aligns their concerns, requested learning topics and narrative on what they would like to get out of the training. 

WV Farmers Market Association

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 68

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Very strong alignment with ARC goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

Not a compelling case for assistance. Abbreviated and vague


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 23

Comments:

Concerns were clear; Instruction less so

WV Farmers Market Association

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 43

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

4/5/4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

6/4/4


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

6/5/5

WV Farmers Market Association

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

Shared some relevant information on correlation but lacks clarity. 

Does not include impact analysis. 

Addresses two ARC goals but lacks detail in discussion. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 3

Comments:

Discussion does not demonstrate negative impact on mission delivery, financial impact, and end users. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

WV Farmers Market Association

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 50

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Clear alignment with goals 1, 2, and 4 in a comprehensive way.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 15

Comments:

Missing explanation of financial impacts and how they have pivoted with operational impacts.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 14

Comments:

Would like further explanation of how fundraising would help address the two concerns around marketing and supply chain development.

Youth Farm Project

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 75

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

The applicant provides a description of their services which fit goals 1 and 2. They should have listed the goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 21

Comments:

The applicant provided a good narrative on the impact, however, they did not include any numbers behind clients served or financial issues. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant’s concerns align with their learning topics. They did a wonderful job in describing what they wanted to get out of the programming. 

Youth Farm Project

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 66

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant describes activities in line with Goal #2 and potentially Goal #1; however, they do not use the keywords nor do they call out the goals. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

The applicant lightly touches on the COVID impacts and does not provide any data. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant provides three clear concerns that align with the learning topics. Additionally, their statement regarding expectations shows coachability and I am excited that they want to be part of a regional cohort. 

Youth Farm Project

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 80

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 28

Comments:

Very strong alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Clear impact from covid19


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

Applicant makes a compelling case for assistance

Youth Farm Project

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 46

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

4/5/3


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 14

Comments:

6/4/4


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 20

Comments:

6/6/8

Youth Farm Project

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 61

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

Does not clearly describe correlation between ARC goals and organization. 

Narrative lacks in discussion on importance to region including an impact analysis. 

Addresses two ARC goals but does not explicitly note in narrative. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

No discussion of financial impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 28

Comments:

Discussion lacks rationale for selection of topic ares.

Youth Farm Project

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 58

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Alignment with goal 2 and 5.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

Clear and helpful explanation of impacts operationally and to community served but no mention of financial impact and how that coincides with operational changes.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 24

Comments:

Clear outline of what they hope to gain from participation in the program. Only concern is that they could use support across both requested cohorts.

Youth Health Service, Inc.

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 78

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant described activities consistent with goal #2 and acknowledges that they are not a traditional ARC partner. They make a compelling case as to why they should be. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant describes the negative effects on their clients, employees, and bottom line. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant describes an alignment with their greatest needs and the identified learning topics. Additionally, their statement regarding course objectives shows that they are coachable. 

Youth Health Service, Inc.

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 77

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 24

Comments:

Some alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 26

Comments:

Significant negative impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 27

Comments:

Applicant makes a compelling case for assistance

Youth Health Service, Inc.

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 45

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 12

Comments:

4/6/2


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 17

Comments:

7/5/5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

5/6/5

Youth Health Service, Inc.

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 77

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 25

Comments:

Addresses one ARC goal. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Narrative lacks discussion of financial impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

Youth Health Service, Inc.

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 59

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Direct alignment with goal 2 and makes good case for goal 5 in that they help to ensure future community leaders through early mental health interventions.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 22

Comments:

Clear financial and operational impacts and explanation of how they have pivoted to continue serving participants.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 21

Comments:

Strong explanation of the need to look to the future and develop a plan that extends their impact beyond the day-to-day operations.

YWCA Elmira & Twin Tiers

Reviewer: Jennifer Simon

Expert Panel Score: 78

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 18

Comments:

The applicant lists one of our goals. I believe there are additional goals they could have included – 2 and 4. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 30

Comments:

The applicant described in detail the staffing, services, and financial strain as a result of COVID. I appreciated the quantitative analysis.  


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 30

Comments:

The applicant aligned their greatest concerns with the learning topics. Their statement of what they hope to accomplish is authentic and shows that they are coachable. They are humble in what they need to change. 

YWCA Elmira & Twin Tiers

Reviewer: David Hughes

Expert Panel Score: 73

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 21

Comments:

Marginal alignment with ARC’s goals


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 27

Comments:

Significant covid19 impact


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 25

Comments:

Applicant wants to significantly shift gear toward donations to supplement the fee-for-service model

YWCA Elmira & Twin Tiers

Reviewer: Braedon Koerwitz

Expert Panel Score: 48

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 14

Comments:

4/6/4


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 18

Comments:

7/6/5


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 16

Comments:

4/7/5

YWCA Elmira & Twin Tiers

Reviewer: Aury Kangelos

Expert Panel Score: 56

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 13

Comments:

Lacks discussion on correlation between ARC goals and organization. 

Does not include impact analysis. 

Does not address one or more ARC goals with sufficient detail. 


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 25

Comments:

Lacking detailed discussion financial impact. 


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 18

Comments:

Some relevant concerns but others do not appear relevant to mission. 

Topic areas do not align well with concerns. 

Some discussion on how instruction will help organization but lacks detail on how TA will lead to sustainability. 

YWCA Elmira & Twin Tiers

Reviewer: Spencer Lucker

Expert Panel Score: 51

Q2. Alignment with ARC Goals: 16

Comments:

Explicit alignment to goal 5 but I would also argue goal 2 implicitly is identified.


Q10. COVID-19 Impact: 20

Comments:

Helpful explanation of how operational and financial impacts are intertwined.


Q11. Pressing Concerns: 15

Comments:

Concerns do not align with request for fundraising assistance and seems like long-term management is what’s needed since they state they have been successful with the event planning.