Preferred applicants explained Responses described: how the proposed activity will how the activity will address the needs of the target effectively address the identified group; need/s, and detailed the specific activities to be delivered. specific details of the activities that will be delivered to the target if relevant, research or independent evaluations of similar projects or pilot projects that demonstrate the proposal’s potential effectiveness to address the need/s of the target group. Preferred applicants demonstrated Responses described: how their proposals are consistent A clear link between their project and the Information, with the following Activity Area in Linkages and Referrals activity area. This includes the ILC Policy: explaining why the project fits within the Information, Information, Linkages and Linkages and Referrals activity area (which involves Referrals providing people with disability and their families and carers with access to up-to-date, relevant and quality information and/or make sure they are linked into services and support in the community that meet their needs). Preferred applicants explained Responses described: how they intend to measure a demonstrated understanding of ILC outcomes and progress towards the ILC the measurement approach outlined in the ILC outcomes. Outcomes Framework Discussion Starter (i.e., how much is being done, how well it is being done and the difference made for the target group, which may be measured at an individual, organisational and/or community level); how the implementation of the proposed activity will deliver an outcome or multiple outcomes that contribute to the relevant ILC outcome; and robust processes to collect qualitative and quantitative data to monitor the progress towards ILC outcomes over the period of the grant. Areas for improvement Generally, applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 1 by:
Preferred applicants explained how the proposed activity will effectively address the identified need/s, and detailed the specific activities to be delivered. Responses described: how the activity will address the needs of the target group; specific details of the activities that will be delivered to the target if relevant, research or independent evaluations of similar projects or pilot projects that demonstrate the proposal’s potential effectiveness to address the need/s of the target group. Preferred applicants demonstrated how their proposals are consistent with the following Activity Area in the ILC Policy: Information, Linkages and Referrals Responses described: A clear link between their project and the Information, Linkages and Referrals activity area. This includes explaining why the project fits within the Information, Linkages and Referrals activity area (which involves providing people with disability and their families and carers with access to up-to-date, relevant and quality information and/or make sure they are linked into services and support in the community that meet their needs). Preferred applicants explained how they intend to measure progress towards the ILC outcomes. Responses described: a demonstrated understanding of ILC outcomes and the measurement approach outlined in the ILC Outcomes Framework Discussion Starter (i.e., how much is being done, how well it is being done and the difference made for the target group, which may be measured at an individual, organisational and/or community level); how the implementation of the proposed activity will deliver an outcome or multiple outcomes that contribute to the relevant ILC outcome; and robust processes to collect qualitative and quantitative data to monitor the progress towards ILC outcomes over the period of the grant. Areas for improvement Generally, applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 1 by:
D18%20322615%202017-1154%20ILC%20National%20Readiness%20Round%202%20Grants%20-%20Generic%20fback.docx