Laserfiche WebLink
. a. <br />IMLS Completed Review Report <br />INSTITUTE of <br />MuseumandLibrary <br />SERVICES <br />1,G -07 -14 -0067 City of Santa Arta <br />LG•Statoment of Need <br />This is an Innovative and ambitious project with many different parts to it. It's an exciting collaboration among <br />4 very different and geographically disperse libraries, and with Historypin. I love the emphasis on community <br />engagement, programming, workshops, and reaching out to communities in need. <br />It would great to see how many people they want to reach? What is the capacity of the program as it's <br />designed? <br />LG- Impact <br />Project is response to US changing demographics, the need for libraries to anchor communities, and for <br />active engagement with immigrant youth that leverages digital technology and social media in order to <br />advance digital literacy /STEM training and interest. How many people will be targeted? What are the goals? <br />Creation of new content? How much? This was unclear. It's also not convincing that this is a STEM project. <br />It's a digital literacy project, which has Its own important merits, but not STEM. <br />LG- Project Design <br />This is a complicated work plan, with multiple parts and with different institutionslentlties taking responsibility. <br />Effective communication and project management will be essential for this to move forward smoothly. I would <br />welcome more discussion about how this communication will be accomplished, and how the project will be <br />overseen and coordinated. <br />Given the complexity of the project, with workshops happening simultaneously across the country, I wonder if <br />a planning /pilot phase approach wouldn't be an effective way to roll out this type of programming. That way, <br />the key findings at each site could be a more effective guide to future planning and development. <br />More discussion is needed to discuss more deeply the advisory meetings. <br />LG- Project Resources: Personnel, Time, budget <br />The allocation of staff time seems light, given the complexity of the project (project director at 50 %, for <br />example). It is encouraging to see the director of Historypin and his staff so committed to the project, The staff <br />at partner libraries is committed at a relatively minimal level (between 7% and '14 %). The grant budget <br />represents only a small part of the total costs of the project. It's surprising that the project manager salary isn't <br />being applied to the grant. As it's envisioned, only part -time staff are paid from the grant and a number of full <br />time staff only have a small percentage of their time committed to the grant. This is somewhat concerning. <br />Further, the budget narrative itself is nearly 30 pages long. This is a clear indication that the project requires <br />significant management time, both financially and otherwise. It is not clear that the project is adequately <br />staffed. <br />At the same time, a significant amount of money ($80k) is being spent on hiringltralning student interns. I <br />would love to see more discussion of this decision in terms of how it supports the core objectives of the <br />project (which it seems like it does do)... <br />LG- Communications Plan <br />"Jump Kits" will serve as a natural vehicle for sharing, and it looks as though the partners are well positioned <br />to promote their programs. Histon /pin isn't included In the communications plan, and I would expect that be <br />an effective partner In that regard. The communications plan generally could be better developed given the <br />nature of the project, and the ambitions to serve as a model for programming and outreach that other libraries <br />would want to replicate /develop. <br />