Comment from Karen Powell

45 CFR Part 2553 Proposed Rules A. Peer review panels: --Does having peer review panel members with “specialized expertise in senior service and aging” mean that projects must include work plans that address issues related to aging or merely that these members will have that expertise in order to ensure that project activities are appropriate for volunteers 55+? B. Site inspections: --Will site visit assessments be used as part of the factoring of the application score or only be used to provide clarification of an unclear point or provide answers in the case of a point of concern? Site visits might illustrate, in a way that the grant application alone cannot, effective administration of a project and a positive volunteer and community partner experience. C. Performance Measures, Outcomes, and Other Criteria: --Will there be opportunities, during CNCS’ development of them, for public comment/suggestion on the new “performance measures, outcomes, and other criteria” that will eventually be used in the evaluation of all applicants? Based on our experiences with such projects, we could offer practical suggestions on how to ensure that those new criteria are as clear, reasonable/relevant, and effective as possible and thus help ensure an easier transition to the use of them. --Will these be criteria to assess projects’ impact on pressing community needs, impact on Retired Senior Volunteers, both? D. Assessments of Existing RSVP projects: --Would “representatives of the communities served by RSVP volunteers” mean representatives of those general types of constituencies, perhaps from across the country, or representatives who are actually local to each of our existing or proposed projects? --If those “representatives of the communities” are actually local, how will CNCS ensure that the representatives do not have a conflict of interest that could cloud their assessment?