20B - AA - LIBRARY GRANT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IMLS Completed Review Report y,ya y.i . jo. INSTITUTE of p� °. 0* IY Iuseumand�ibraV SERVICES LG -07 -14 -0067 City of Santa Ana LG- Statement of Need This is an innovative and ambitious project with many different parts to it. It's an exciting collaboration among 4 very different and geographically disperse libraries, and with Historypin. I love the emphasis on community engagement, programming, workshops, and reaching out to communities in need. It would great to see how many people they want to reach? What is the capacity of the program as it's designed? LG- Impact Project is response to US changing demographics, the need for libraries to anchor communities, and for active engagement with immigrant youth that leverages digital technology and social media in order to advance digital literacy /STEM training and interest. How many people will be targeted? What are the goals? Creation of new content? How much? This was unclear. It's also not convincing that this is a STEM project. It's a digital literacy project, which has its own important merits, but not STEM. LG- Project Design This is a complicated work plan, with multiple parts and with different institutions /entities taking responsibility. Effective communication and project management will be essential for this to move forward smoothly. I would welcome more discussion about how this communication will be accomplished, and how the project will be overseen and coordinated. Given the complexity of the project, with workshops happening simultaneously across the country, I wonder if a planning /pilot phase approach wouldn't be an effective way to roll out this type of programming. That way, the key findings at each site could be a more effective guide to future planning and development. More discussion is needed to discuss more deeply the advisory meetings. LG- Project Resources: Personnel, Time, Budget The allocation of staff time seems light, given the complexity of the project (project director at 50 %, for example). It is encouraging to see the director of Historypin and his staff so committed to the project. The staff at partner libraries is committed at a relatively minimal level (between 7% and 14 %). The grant budget represents only a small part of the total costs of the project. It's surprising that the project manager salary isn't being applied to the grant. As it's envisioned, only part-time staff are paid from the grant and a number of full time staff only have a small percentage of their time committed to the grant. This is somewhat concerning. Further, the budget narrative itself is nearly 30 pages long. This is a clear indication that the project requires significant management time, both financially and otherwise. It is not clear that the project is adequately staffed. At the same time, a significant amount of money ($80k) is being spent on hiring /training student interns. I would love to see more discussion of this decision in terms of how it supports the core objectives of the project (which it seems like it does do)... LG- Communications Plan "Jump Kits" will serve as a natural vehicle for sharing, and it looks as though the partners are well positioned to promote their programs. Historypin isn't included in the communications plan, and I would expect that be an effective partner in that regard. The communications plan generally could be better developed given the nature of the project, and the ambitions to serve as a model for programming and outreach that other libraries would want to replicate /develop. 20B -15