Policy in Action, Running the Numbers, Looking for Points, Getting FUNDED

If you're a "free-lance" grant writer, you look for clients (potential grant applicants) who have proposed projects that will score points and get funded.  Most of the 900+ recent letters of interest received by the FCC were prepared by potential grant applicants. Sometime this year, a bunch of these folks will submit applications for their proposed projects.  In addition, so will others.  The letter of interest was optional. Eventually, assuming the likelihood of some objective scoring system affecting the rankings of the proposals submitted, then, you're off in the numbers game, running the numbers.  Other factors will typically apply as well, such as national overall geographical distribution perhaps, but still you're running the numbers game. As the scoring system comes out, for whatever broad geographic range I'm hoping to be working in, I'll be running the numbers.  I've never met anyone else who is "running the numbers" on USDA Community Connect rural broadband deployment grants, although there are certainly clear indications that many others have been paying attention and succeeding.  They scored.  They got funded. You got points for being poor.  You got points for being rural.  You got even more points if you were very poor. You got even more points if you were very rural.  Over the years, every time USDA Community Connect changed the definition of eligible community/rural/very rural and poor/very poor, I'd run the new numbers.  In addition, when the new 2010 census numbers became available, after having used 2000 census numbers for so many years, I ran the new numbers again. My "point" here is that: policy turns into action through the scoring system, and therefore, the "numbers" are important.  If you want to get funded, you've got to pay attention to the scoring system.  This is a service I typically provide for free.  I run the numbers, before even offering any grant writing contracts.  I explain the scoring system to the potential client.  I tell them how their proposed project scores, in comparison to the maximum number of points available.  We talk about the objective score and any subjective scoring criteria information provided in the funder's request for proposals. Once upon a time, I was in a room full of potential grant applicants targeting various communities in Virginia's Ninth Congressional District.  We'd listened to the presentations, as participants contemplated their various proposed projects for Community Connect grants.  I stood up and stated something like this, "I'd like to work for anybody who can get broadband to Hurley."  I had "run the numbers."  I expected that Hurley was very likely to get funded, because of their "numbers." (I also had a particular affinity for Hurley, having met some people from Hurley while we were piled up in a van going to Richmond to lobby our state legislators during the General Assembly.  We wanted the legislators to support a budget line item that included some money for indoor plumbing.  We wanted indoor plumbing for homes that didn't have it yet.  Everyone we talked to in Richmond was all for it.  We didn't find anyone against indoor plumbing!  We were preaching to the choir.  We got that budget line item.  We put indoor plumbing into a lot of homes.  And I got to know some more folks in Hurley.  Eventually, we secured Virginia's first ever Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development - Community Organizing Planning Grant!  We used some of the money to rent a building up on Lester's Fork for a community center.  The community center survived the horrendous flood in Hurley.  The community center is still there and open today.  Beautiful, handmade quilts line the walls, depicting many stories of grand adventures and achievements led from that building over the years, involving lots and lots of visitors. Yes, I have a particularly affinity for Hurley and I could write fun Hurley stories for days on end). But yes, back to the original story here, we were talking about rural broadband deployment and how the scoring points are important... I was in a room full of potential grant applicants.  I had run the numbers.  I knew Hurley would score very well and I had a particular affinity for Hurley.  Everyone in the room had already been told that the maximum grant amount was $1,000,000.  Back then it was still a new frontier, and the providers hadn't even staked out informal claims to potential service areas.  It's not like back in the days where if you wanted to stake a claim out on the frontier, you had to get a land grant, and then you had a legitimate claim to that part of the frontier.  Nowadays, service areas have begun to collide into each other and in some cases overlap, while other areas remain unserved.   So I stood up and said, "I'd like to work for anybody who can get broadband to Hurley."  The room was awkward and quiet for a moment, but then a man stood up and said something like, "I can get to Hurley. I'm coming out of Kentucky, and I can get to Hurley."  I had run the numbers.  He hired me. The grant was funded.  He got to Hurley.  Not only did he get to Hurley, but also the Hurley grant application secured the highest grant award in the nation that year!  Check it out at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/SupportDocuments/UTP-CCProjectSummaries2009.pdf.  The grant award for Hurley, Virginia was $997,015, the highest grant amounted awarded in the nation in 2009. We don't do any work on contingency, nor commission.  We get paid to write the grant, whether you get funded or not.  But, if you get funded, we not only sleep better at night, we look better.  Our marketing efforts benefit from a strong track record of successful grant applications.  So, I run the numbers. Every one of the numbers arises from a word's definition.  The definition of the word "rural" and the definition of the word "poor" has had a significant impact on the numbers designed to determine who gets funded in a competition.  Here's some really long, drawn-out examples of how this has all played out at various times.   This spreadsheet shows why I kept looking for proposed projects that would score 65 or 70 points.  Although Alaska made it in with a 40-point project, I’d guess that “geographic distribution considerations” could have been a factor. Per Capita Total Population Points Income % NAPCI Points Points Grantees in the 2006 funding round: Seama NM (CDP) 333 40 $8,871 41.1% 30 70 Concord KY (City) 28 40 $7,897 36.6% 30 70 Encinal NM (CDP) 200 40 $9,496 44.0% 30 70 Haworth OK (Town) 354 40 $9,617 44.5% 30 70 Smithville OK (Town) 123 40 $9,431 43.7% 30 70 Gans OK (Town) 208 40 $8,922 41.3% 30 70 Paguate NM (CDP) 474 40 $9,657 44.7% 30 70 Monterey KY (City) 167 40 $8,452 39.2% 30 70 Springdale WA (Town) 283 40 $10,412 48.2% 30 70 Ewing VA (CDP) 436 40 $11,722 54.3% 25 65 Rattan OK (Town) 241 40 $11,819 54.8% 25 65 Mesita NM (CDP) 776 35 $10,104 46.8% 30 65 Paraje NM (CDP) 669 35 $7,350 34.0% 30 65 Laguna NM (CDP) 423 40 $10,980 50.9% 25 65 Cleveland VA (Town) 148 40 $11,263 52.2% 25 65 Columbus KY (City) 229 40 $11,766 54.5% 25 65 Berry KY (City) 310 40 $11,275 52.2% 25 65 Bassfield MS (Town) 315 40 $13,283 61.5% 15 55 Dumas MS (Town) 452 40 $13,121 60.8% 15 55 Elk River ID (City) 156 40 $16,082 74.5% 5 45 Kasaan AK (City) 39 40 $19,743 91.5% 0 40 National Average Per Capita Income (NAPCI) $21,587 Then the spreadsheets changed altogether with a new set of program rules.  Instead of comparing your community's per capita income to the national average per capita income, points for being poor and poorer were assigned based on the comparison of your county's median household income to your state's median household income.  You were still trying to get up to 70 points for being very poor and very rural, but the points were being calculated on a different definition of poor.  So, it looked like this... 2008 USDA Community Connect 9th District VA Communities Community Scoring Review 2000 County Census MHI as a Economic Total Rurality County % of the Need Objective Community County Population Score MHI State MHI Score Points Virginia 2000 Census MHI $46,677 Gibson Station Lee 200 40 $22,972 49.2% 30 70 Caylor Lee 30 40 $22,972 49.2% 30 70 Hubbard Springs Lee 40 40 $22,972 49.2% 30 70 Stone Creek Lee 200 40 $22,972 49.2% 30 70 Manness Lee 90 40 $22,972 49.2% 30 70 Blackwater Lee 90 40 $22,972 49.2% 30 70 Breaks Buchanan 150 40 $22,213 47.6% 30 70 Davenport Buchanan 100 40 $22,213 47.6% 30 70 Maxie Buchanan 400 40 $22,213 47.6% 30 70 Trammel Dickenson 400 40 $23,431 50.2% 25 65 McClure Dickenson 350 40 $23,431 50.2% 25 65 Big Rock Buchanan 650 35 $22,213 47.6% 30 65 Harman Buchanan 600 35 $22,213 47.6% 30 65 Nora Dickenson 150 40 $23,431 50.2% 25 65 Jewell Ridge Tazewell 350 40 $27,304 58.5% 20 60 Andover Wise 250 40 $26,149 56.0% 20 60 Stonega Wise 300 40 $26,149 56.0% 20 60 Roaring Fork Wise 30 40 $26,149 56.0% 20 60 Dunbar Wise 130 40 $26,149 56.0% 20 60 Cranes Nest Wise 200 40 $26,149 56.0% 20 60 Hurricane Wise 70 40 $26,149 56.0% 20 60 Imboden Wise 100 40 $26,149 56.0% 20 60 Roda Wise 200 40 $26,149 56.0% 20 60 Duncan Gap Wise 140 40 $26,149 56.0% 20 60 Swords Creek Russell 400 40 $26,834 57.5% 20 60 Tannersville Tazewell 100 40 $27,304 58.5% 20 60 Thompson Valley Tazewell 50 40 $27,304 58.5% 20 60 Burkes Garden Tazewell 50 40 $27,304 58.5% 20 60 Springville Tazewell 50 40 $27,304 58.5% 20 60 Mudfork Tazewell 30 40 $27,304 58.5% 20 60 Dante Russell 700 35 $26,834 57.5% 20 55 Exeter Wise 500 35 $26,149 56.0% 20 55 Whitetop Grayson 150 40 $28,676 61.4% 15 55 Elk Creek Grayson 150 40 $28,676 61.4% 15 55 Bastian Bland 420 40 $30,397 65.1% 10 50 Lambsburg Carroll 190 40 $30,597 65.6% 10 50 Fancy Gap Carroll 260 40 $30,597 65.6% 10 50 Dugspur Carroll 70 40 $30,597 65.6% 10 50 Rocky Gap Bland 250 40 $30,397 65.1% 10 50 Mechanicsburg Bland 170 40 $30,397 65.1% 10 50 Hicksville Bland 30 40 $30,397 65.1% 10 50 Raven Tazewell 2593 25 $27,304 58.5% 20 45 Austinville Carroll 850 35 $30,597 65.6% 10 45 Ivanhoe Carroll 550 35 $30,597 65.6% 10 45 Snowville Pulaski 150 40 $33,873 72.6% 5 45 Hiwasse Pulaski 200 40 $33,873 72.6% 5 45 Paint Bank Craig 80 40 $37,314 79.9% 0 40 Callaghan Alleghany 120 40 $38,545 82.6% 0 40 Jordan Mines Alleghany 30 40 $38,545 82.6% 0 40 Longdale Furnace Alleghany 150 40 $38,545 82.6% 0 40 Griffith Alleghany 30 40 $38,545 82.6% 0 40 Catawba Roanoke 100 40 $48,689 104.3% 0 40 Bent Mountain Roanoke 40 40 $48,689 104.3% 0 40 The next year, I started looking at a broader geographic range, beyond Virginia's Ninth District.  I even included my own color code in 2009. Basically, if your location was bright yellow on my spreadsheet, I wanted to work for you.  If you were light yellow, it was worthy of consideration.  But if you were just plain old white on my spreadsheet, then I'd have to explain to you why your project was not likely to get funded.   I wanted to work for some folks in North Carolina, but their county wasn't "poor enough" to score well.  So I had to explain to them that there really wasn't any reason for me to write a Community Connect grant for them, because we could only get 40 objective points.   Virginia's state median household income was high, so the southwest Virginia counties were scoring very well.  Kentucky's state median household income was low, so it was more difficult to score well in much of Kentucky.  For example, if you wanted to do a project in Pike County, Kentucky, which had a median household income of $23,930, you would only get 5 points for being poor, not enough points to be competitive.  If you wanted to do a project in Scott County, Virginia, which had a median household income of $27,339 you would get 20 points for being poor.   I did, however, get to work for the North Carolina folks later, when the ARRA broadband funds became available, which had a different scoring system.  It took two tries, but they did get a project funded through ARRA funding.  Anyway, the spreadsheet looked like this: Community Connect - 2009 max. 40 2000 max. 30 max. 70 score list Appalachia Census MHI as a Economic Total Rurality County/CDP % of the Need Objective State County Population Score MHI State MHI Score Points Virginia 2000 Census MHI $46,677 Virginia Buchanan < 500 40 $22,213 48% 30 70 Virginia Lee < 500 40 $22,972 49% 30 70 Virginia Dickenson < 500 40 $23,431 50% 25 65 Virginia Wise < 500 40 $26,149 56% 20 60 Virginia Russell < 500 40 $26,834 57% 20 60 Virginia Tazewell < 500 40 $27,304 58% 20 60 Virginia Scott < 500 40 $27,339 59% 20 60 Virginia Grayson < 500 40 $28,676 61% 15 55 Virginia Smyth < 500 40 $30,083 64% 15 55 Virginia Bland < 500 40 $30,397 65% 10 50 Virginia Carroll < 500 40 $30,597 66% 10 50 Virginia Wythe < 500 40 $32,235 69% 10 50 Virginia Washington < 500 40 $32,742 70% 5 45 Kentucky 2000 Census MHI $33,672 Kentucky Owsley < 500 40 $15,805 47% 30 70 Kentucky Clay < 500 40 $16,271 48% 30 70 Kentucky Knox < 500 40 $18,294 54% 25 65 Kentucky Lee < 500 40 $18,544 55% 20 60 Kentucky Leslie < 500 40 $18,546 55% 20 60 Kentucky Harlan < 500 40 $18,665 55% 20 60 Kentucky Bell < 500 40 $19,057 57% 20 60 Kentucky Breathitt < 500 40 $19,155 57% 20 60 Kentucky Jackson < 500 40 $20,177 60% 15 55 Kentucky Knott < 500 40 $20,373 61% 15 55 Kentucky Letcher < 500 40 $21,110 63% 15 55 Kentucky Perry < 500 40 $22,089 66% 10 50 Kentucky Pike < 500 40 $23,930 71% 5 45 Kentucky Laurel < 500 40 $27,015 80% 0 40 Tennessee 2000 Census MHI $36,360 Tennessee Hancock < 500 40 $19,760 54% 25 65 Tennessee Johnson < 500 40 $23,067 63% 15 55 Tennessee Cocke < 500 40 $25,553 70% 5 45 Tennessee Claiborne < 500 40 $25,782 71% 5 45 Tennessee Carter < 500 40 $27,371 75% 0 40 Tennessee Grainger < 500 40 $27,997 77% 0 40 Tennessee Unicoi < 500 40 $29,863 82% 0 40 Tennessee Greene < 500 40 $30,382 84% 0 40 Tennessee Hawkins < 500 40 $31,300 86% 0 40 Tennessee Hamblen < 500 40 $32,350 89% 0 40 Tennessee Sullivan < 500 40 $33,529 92% 0 40 West Virginia 2000 Census MHI $32,235 West Virginia McDowell < 500 40 $16,931 53% 25 65 West Virginia Summers < 500 40 $21,147 66% 10 50 West Virginia Mingo < 500 40 $21,347 66% 10 50 West Virginia Wyoming < 500 40 $23,932 74% 5 45 West Virginia Logan < 500 40 $24,603 76% 0 40 West Virginia Boone < 500 40 $25,669 80% 0 40 West Virginia Pocahontas < 500 40 $26,401 82% 0 40 West Virginia Mercer < 500 40 $26,628 83% 0 40 West Virginia Greenbrier < 500 40 $26,927 84% 0 40 West Virginia Monroe < 500 40 $27,575 86% 0 40 North Carolina 2000 Census MHI $39,184 North Carolina Madison < 500 40 $30,985 79% 0 40 I'm looking forward to seeing the scoring system that will be developed for the Connect America Phase II proposals. And I'll be running the numbers, looking for proposed projects that SCORE!