FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2012 NONPROFIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (NSGP) INVESTMENT JUSTIFICATION SCORING WORKSHEET FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2012 NONPROFIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (NSGP) INVESTMENT JUSTIFICATION SCORING WORKSHEET FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2012 NONPROFIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (NSGP) INVESTMENT JUSTIFICATION SCORING WORKSHEET FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2012 NONPROFIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (NSGP) INVESTMENT JUSTIFICATION SCORING WORKSHEET State Urban Area Name of the Nonprofit Organization FY 2012 NSGP Federal Funding Request Scoring Legend Did Not The applicant provided no response Poor The applicant's response is incomplete and does not address all of the required information Partial The applicant's response is complete but minimally addresses all of the required information Adequate The applicant's response is complete and moderately addresses all of the required information Thorough The applicant's response is complete and fully addresses all of the required information I. Applicant Information (Unscored) 1. Did the applicant provide all of the required information? No The applicant did not provide all of the required information Yes The applicant did provide all of the required information II. Background (Total of 2 possible points) 2. Did the applicant provide a description of their nonprofit organization to include: . Membership and community served . Symbolic value of the site as a highly recognized national or historical institution that renders the site as a possible target of terrorism . Any role in responding to or recovering from terrorist attacks 0 = The applicant did not provided any of the required information regarding their nonprofit organization 1 = The applicant provided some of the required information regarding their nonprofit organization 2 = The applicant provided all of the required information regarding their nonprofit organization Score III. Risk (Total of 12 possible points) 3. In considering threat, how well did the applicant address findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims? 0 = The applicant did not address findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims 1 = The applicant poorly addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims 2 = The applicant partially addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims 3 = The applicant adequately addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims 4 = The applicant thoroughly addressed findings from previously conducted risk assessments, police reports, and/or insurance claims Score 4. In considering vulnerabilities, how well did the applicant address the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack? 0 = The applicant did not address the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack 1 = The applicant poorly addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack 2 = The applicant partially addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack 3 = The applicant adequately addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack 4 = The applicant thoroughly addressed the organization's susceptibility to destruction, incapacitation, or exploitation by a terrorist attack Score 5. In considering potential consequences, how well did the applicant address potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack? 0 = The applicant did not address potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack 1 = The applicant poorly addressed potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack 2 = The applicant partially addressed potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack 3 = The applicant adequately addressed potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack 4 = The applicant thoroughly addressed potential negative effects on the organization's asset, system, and/or network if damaged, destroyed, or disrupted by a terrorist attack Score IV. Target Hardening (Total of 8 possible points) 6. Did the applicant describe how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s)? 0 = The applicant did not provide a description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s) 1 = The applicant provided a poor description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s) 2 = The applicant provided a partial description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s) 3 = The applicant provided an adequate description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s) 4 = The applicant provided a thorough description of how the proposed target hardening activity will mitigate the identified risk(s) Score 7. Did the applicant's proposed target hardening activity focus on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack? 0 = The applicant's target hardening activity did not focus on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack 1 = The applicant's target hardening activity poorly focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack 2 = The applicant's target hardening activity partially focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack 3 = The applicant's target hardening activity adequately focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack 4 = The applicant's target hardening activity thoroughly focused on the prevention of and/or protection against the risk of a terrorist attack Score V. Milestones (Total of 9 possible points) 8. Did the applicant provide specific milestones that present a clear sequence of events that will allow the Investment to reach its objectives during the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance? 0 = No, the applicant did not provide specific milestones that present a clear sequence of events that will allow the Investment to reach its objectives during the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance (please proceed to question 11) 1 = Yes, the applicant did provide specific milestones that present a clear sequence of events that will allow the Investment to reach its objectives during the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance (please proceed to question 9) 9. How well do the milestones collectively present a clear sequence of events that effectively build upon each other and would allow the applicants to reach its intended objectives during the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance? 0 = The milestones identified do not present a clear sequence of events that effectively build upon each other and would allow the applicant to reach its intended objectives during the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance 1 = The milestones present a poorly defined sequence of events that effectively build upon each other and would allow the applicant to reach its intended objectives during the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance 2 = The milestones present a partially defined sequence of events that effectively build upon each other and would allow the applicant to reach its intended objectives during the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance 3 = The milestones present a adequately defined sequence of events that effectively build upon each other and would allow the applicant to reach its intended objectives during the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance 4 = The milestones present a thoroughly defined sequence of events that effectively build upon each other and would allow the applicant to reach its intended objectives during the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance Score 10. How well did the applicant describe the milestones as well as associated key activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance? 0 = The applicant did not provide a description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance 1 = The applicant provided a poor description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance 2 = The applicant provided a partial description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance 3 = The applicant provided an adequate description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance 4 = The applicant provided a thorough description of milestones and associated activities that lead to the milestone event over the FY 2012 NSGP period of performance Score VI. Project Management (Total of 5 possible points) 11. Has the applicant described, at high-level, the roles and responsibilities of the management team, governance structures, and subject matter expertise required in managing the Investment? 0 = No, the applicant did not describe the management team's roles and responsibilities, governance structure, or subject matter expertise required to manage the Investment 1 = Yes, the applicant did describe the management team's roles and responsibilities, governance structure, and subject matter expertise required to manage the Investment Score 12. How well did the applicant justify the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment? 0 = The applicant did not justify the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment 1 = The applicant poorly justified the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment 2 = The applicant partially justified the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment 3 = The applicant adequately justified the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment 4 = The applicant thoroughly justified the effectiveness of the proposed management team's roles and responsibilities and governance structure to support the implementation of the Investment Score VII. Impact (Total of 4 possible points) 13. Did the applicant provide a brief description of how the outcomes will mitigate risks outlined in the Background and Risk sections, as well as how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified NPG Core Capabilities? 0 = The applicant did not provide a brief description of how the outcomes will mitigate risks outlined in the Background and Risk sections, as well as how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified NPG Core Capabilities 1 = The applicant poorly provided a brief description of how the outcomes will mitigate risks outlined in the Background and Risk sections, as well as how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified NPG Core Capabilities 2 = The applicant partially provided a brief description of how the outcomes will mitigate risks outlined in the Background and Risk sections, as well as how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified NPG Core Capabilities 3 = The applicant adequately provided a brief description of how the outcomes will mitigate risks outlined in the Background and Risk sections, as well as how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified NPG Core Capabilities 4 = The applicant thoroughly provided a brief description of how the outcomes will mitigate risks outlined in the Background and Risk sections, as well as how the investment supports building or sustaining the identified NPG Core Capabilities\ Score Total Score Total Investment Justification Score: Based on a possible score of 40, this Investment Justification scored a: 0