DLT Applctn. Guide Part 3

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

Rurality Score for Projects in which all End-User Sites are Non-fixed
Before you begin, remember that non-fixed site projects must have a defined service territory based on
the map you provided with the Site Worksheet under Tab A of your application as described on page
15. Also, as you read this section, you may wish to refer to the Rurality Worksheet-for Non-Fixed
Sites in the Toolkit or the excerpt of that Worksheet that appears several pages below. Finally, we note
that many applicants try a different approach in order to use populations that are more familiar to them
such as townships, boroughs, or zip codes. Use of political jurisdiction populations is to be avoided.
Such population numbers are frequently misleading and can not be used directly as described below.
Enter each Census Urbanized Area and Urban Cluster in the service territory on a separate line. Show
the name of the Urban Area in column 1, its Census Designation in column 2, and its Census
Population in Column 3. In most cases, the service territory will include all of the Urban Area, and the
same population that is shown in column 3 will be entered in column 4. If the applicant does not serve
the entire Census Urban Area, provide a demonstration of the portion that is in the service territory and
enter that population in column 4. Enter the entire Census Rural population in the service territory on
one line. Rurality Points are based on the size of the Census Urban Area or the Census Rural
Designation as entered in column 3, regardless of whether the applicant serves it in whole or in part.
In other words, if the Urban Area is an Urban Cluster of 15,675, it will be scored as 15 points. If it is
an Urban Cluster of 4,324 or if it is a Census Rural Area, it is scored as 45 points. On each line,
multiply the population shown in column 4 by the points shown in column 5 to obtain the product,
which is entered in column 6. Divide the total of column six by the total of column 4 to obtain the
Rurality Score. Document the Urban Area populations with Census printouts in the manner described
above under fixed sites and as demonstrated in the example that follows. Before reviewing the
example of a non-fixed site project, you may find it useful to review the use of the Census tool as
described above under “Rurality Score for Projects in which all End-user Sites are Fixed.”
Example of a Rurality Score for a Non-Fixed Site Project:
Imagine that a visiting nurse association serves Centre County Pennsylvania. As shown below, Center
County contains 3 Census Urban Areas: State College Urbanized Area and the Bellefonte and
Philipsburg Urban Clusters. The Philipsburg cluster straddles the border with another County. The
balance of the County is Census Rural. For purposes of illustration, we will assume that this
organization’s defined service territory includes only Centre County residents.

Image 12
54

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

Image 13
Start by going to the main Fact Finder website as shown above and click on the dropdown menu
“Decennial Census” under “Data Sets.” On the next screen, choose “Detailed Tables.” Choose
“County” and “Pennsylvania” from the drop down menus as shown below. Wait for the website to
populate the list of counties. Choose “Centre” and then “add” and finally “show results.”

Image 14
The next screen will look like image 10. Choose P1 and P2, “add,” then “show results.” The next
screen shows the population of Centre County (135,758), the population in Urbanized Areas (71,301),
the population in Urban Clusters (16,021), and the population in Census Rural Areas (48,436).
55

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

Image 15
With knowledge of its service territory, the applicant can guess that State College is the Urbanized
Area, and that Bellefonte and Philipsburg are the Urban Clusters. If you refer to image 11 from the
previous section on Fixed Sites, you will see that State College Urbanized Area’s population of 71,301
accounts for the entire “Inside Urbanized Areas” population in Centre County. To find the size of
Bellefonte and Philipsburg, return to the screen shown in Image 14, select “Urban Areas,” wait for the
website to populate the list, choose “Bellefonte Urban Cluster,” “add,” “Philipsburg Urban Cluster,”
“add,” then “show results.”

Image 16
56

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

The sum of these two (19,978) exceeds the County Urban Cluster Population (16,021) shown in image
15 by 3,957. By looking at the maps for Bellefonte and Philipsburg, and recentering throughout the
county, it can be determined that that Bellefonte Urban Cluster is entirely within Centre County,
whereas Philipsburg Urban Cluster is partly in Clearfield County. It can also be determined that there
are no other urban clusters in Centre County. Therefore, the portion of the Phillipsburg Urban Cluster
Population within Centre County is 8,737 less 3,957 or 4,780.
The applicant would complete the Rurality Worksheet as shown below. In this case, the hypothetical
project’s score would be 18.35. This project would not be eligible for DLT Grant funding, because the
minimum required Rurality score is 20 points. If the score were eligible, the applicant would attach
the appropriate Census Data Sheets like the ones above as documentation behind a copy of the Rurality
Worksheet – Non-Fixed Sites, which would look as follows:
1. Service Territory Population Centers
(List each Urbanized Area & Urban Cluster on a separate
line. Show Census Rural Area(s) separately.

3.
2.
5.
4. Population in
Census
Census
Rurality
Service
Designation Population Territory
Points

6. Product
(4 X 5 = 6)

Urbanized
Area

71,031

71,031

Zero

Zero

2 Bellefonte

Urban
Cluster

11,241

11,241

15

168,615

3 Phillipsburg

Urban
Cluster

8,737

4780

30

143,400

4 Centre County Rural

Census
Rural

48,436

48,436

45

2,179,620

1 State College

5
Sum Rows 1-5 of columns 4 & 6 ►
(include any additional rows from continuation sheets)

Applicant’s Estimated Rurality Score
(Sum of Column 6 ÷ Sum of Column 4)

18.35

135,758

2,491,635

Rurality Score
(For Agency Use)

Autonomous Service Territories – We operate under the assumption that a non-fixed site project will
operate over the entire area served by the applicant/organization. In other words, that any grant or
match funded equipment will be used throughout the entire service territory based on medical need, not
the location of the person to whom the service is provided. As such, the entire population of the
service territory must be used in determining the Rurality score because the entire population benefits
from the grant and/or match.
However, we are aware that in some cases a service provider will have multiple, discrete service
territories that are essentially stand-alone operations. For example, a visiting nurse association may
serve three counties, but operate as three discrete and autonomous units, each providing their service
out of a separate physical facility in one of the three counties and providing service only in that county.
Such an organizational arrangement can be referred to as a regional division.
In cases such, where an applicant serves more than one service territory, and those territories are well
defined, already in existence, and operating autonomously out of a separate physical facility as a
57

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

regional division, we can have reasonable confidence that if a grant is awarded to such a regional
division, its benefit will flow only to the residents within that regional division. As a consequence, we
will entertain an application specific to one (or more) regional division(s) of the operation and consider
scoring the application on the specific regional division(s).
The burden of proof will be on the applicant to demonstrate that the equipment and personnel will
work out of an existing physical location separate from other territories served by the organization and
that the division provides service only within that defined territory. Future service territory divisions,
pledges to reorganize by territory, organizational service territories on paper, and other types of
arrangements, that are not distinct and physically autonomous regional divisions will not be
considered. To be considered as stand-alone, the regional division must be existing and genuine.
Otherwise, the applicant must base its scores on the population of the entire service area.
Supplemental Guidance for Non-Fixed Site Projects:
Complicated Service Territory - Some projects entire service territory may be in an exceptionally
rural area (5,000 or less). If the Pine County visiting nurse association serves all of Pine County, and
the Census website shows no Urban Cluster in the entire County, or no Urban Cluster larger than
5,000, the Rurality Worksheet and supporting data are easily prepared.
On the other hand, a service territory may not be tied to easily identifiable borders like a county. In
such cases, the Census website provides additional levels of detail which should allow evaluation of
even the most complicated service territory by allowing the applicant to align its service boundary with
these smaller population units. The Census provides population information at the County, subCounty and Subbarrio level. It also provides data and maps at the Census Tract, Census Block Group,
and Census Block level. You can obtain these other categories by altering what was done in images 5 7, above. After repositioning on the zip code for State College and choosing “Change Boundaries and
features,” we turn off some things as before but leave Census Tract, Block Group, and Urban Area.
When the map is updated, the Census Tracts and Block Groups are outlined and numbered. If even
finer detail is needed, Census Blocks can be mapped.

Image 17
58

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

To obtain the population of Census Tract 115, Block Group 2 (circled on the map above), return to
“Detailed Tables” as shown in Image 14, enter the details as shown below, then select “Add” and
“Show Results” as in previous examples to obtain the population of that individual Block Group. Note
that this particular tract contains a mixture of urban and rural population:

Image 18

Image 19
59

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

E-2. National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
This criterion uses National School Lunch Program (NSLP) eligibility statistics as a way to measure
the financial need of the beneficiaries of the DLT project. We ask you to present an estimated NSLP
score in your application. An NSLP Worksheet is provided in the Toolkit for this purpose. The
Agency will review your estimate and correct it if necessary. For purposes of the DLT Program, the
NSLP percentage reflects the percentage of students eligible for reduced-price or free lunches for each
area served by a hub/end-user or end-user site, not the percentage of actual participation.
Background of the NSLP
The NSLP is a federally assisted meal program providing nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free
lunches to millions of children in thousands of schools and childcare institutions. School districts and
independent schools in the program receive cash support and donated commodities from USDA for
each meal they serve. In return, they must serve lunches that meet Federal requirements and they must
offer reduced-price or free lunches to eligible children. The Food and Nutrition Service of USDA
administers the program at the Federal level. At the State level, state education agencies and local
school districts usually administer the NSLP.

The NSLP Score by Type of Project – Fixed and Variable Sites
Most DLT projects operate at fixed sites such as schools or medical facilities. For these traditional
DLT projects, the NSLP score is based on NSLP data for the sites where the end-users are located.
As discussed with greater elaboration above with respect to the Rurality score, other projects serve
end-users that are not fixed but vary over time such as home health care. For these types of projects,
the NSLP score is based on NSLP data for the entire service territory.
Tips:

• If you have no supporting data behind your NSLP Worksheet, you have not
documented your NSLP percentages, and you will receive a zero in this
category.
•

If you are in a small district, where K-12 is in one school, or on one campus where the lunch
facility is shared so that separate NSLP data is not available for the individual high, middle, or
elementary school, make this clear in the supporting documentation you supply behind the
NSLP Worksheet.

•

If you provide printouts of NSLP data for many schools other than the sites in the application,
please highlight the data relevant to your application.

Determining the NSLP Score for Projects in which all End-user Sites are Fixed
The NSLP score is based on the average of the relevant NSLP eligibility percentage for all hub/enduser and end/user sites. Use the following guidelines in preparing the NSLP Worksheet.

60

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

Does the applicant use specific school or district-wide statistics?
1. If the hub/end-user or end-user site is a public school or non-profit private school of
Kindergarten through Grade 12 (K-12), use the eligibility percentage for that specific school.
If it is a high school, provide high school data. If it is an elementary school, provide data for the
elementary school. Do not provide district-wide data or data from another school.
2. If the hub/end-user or end-user site is any other entity (college, private for-profit school,
library, hospital, clinic, etc.) use the NSLP eligibility score for the school district in which the
site is located.
How does the applicant enter data on the NSLP Worksheet?
1. Enter each hub, hub/end-user, and end-user site onto the NSLP Worksheet placing them in the
same order as on the Site Worksheet and Rurality Worksheet. Identify the site by type. Provide
data for hubs. Although pure hubs are not part of the calculation, the Agency will need this data
if it determines that the site is actually a hub/end-user. Place pure hubs at the beginning of the
list separated by a space and do not include them in your NSLP calculations as described below.
2. Your sites (fixed-site projects) or service territory (non-fixed-site projects) must be consistent
throughout the application. If the end-user sites or service territory are not consistent, your
application cannot be evaluated and will be returned as ineligible.
3. Applicants must document each site’s NSLP percentage with a certification from the
organization that administers the NSLP in your area that the data is accurate and the most recent
available. Any site without verifiable documentation attached behind the NSLP Worksheet
will be evaluated at zero percent eligibility. Some official NSLP data is posted on state
and/or local governmental websites. If so, you may provide printouts from these official sites.
Make certain that the official website from which those printout are obtained is provided either
on the printout or is added to it so that we can verify the information. A web address is to be
provided with the printout, but if you provide only a web address, with no data, you have not
documented your data and those sites will be evaluated at zero percent eligibility. Printouts
without evidence of source and data from unofficial sites, such as commercial websites that
report information about schools, are frequently out-of-date and/or unreliable, so they are not
acceptable. Place all NSLP certifications and any other documentation behind the NSLP
Worksheet under Tab E-2 of your application.
NSLP Documentation Errors to Avoid:
1. No documentation. Your application will receive an NSLP score of zero.
2. A statement from the certifying NSLP official that the data is correct and the most recent available,
but with no evidence in the letter of what the data is.
3. An unsigned letter from the certifying official.
4. A letter from the certifying official without a clearly printed name and title.

61

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

How is the score calculated?
1. The “Average NSLP” entered on the NSLP Worksheet is the rounded average of the relevant
NSLP eligibility percentages for all the hub/end-user and end-user sites or, in the case of a nonfixed site project, all the school districts that serve within the project service territory. When
calculating the average, use the eligibility percentages exactly as received from the source of the
NSLP data. In other words, if the administrator of the lunch program provides data to two
decimal places, enter that data for each site on the NSLP Worksheet to two places.
2. Use rounding: After calculating the average, round the result to an integer in the standard
manner. (If less than 0.5, round down - 39.379% rounds to 39%. If 0.5 or greater, round up 39.571% rounds to 40%.) Enter the rounded average in the “Average NSLP” block on the
Worksheet.
3. Use the decision table below (it also appears on the NSLP Worksheet) to enter the score in the
“Applicant’s Estimated NSLP Score” block.
Decision Table
NSLP Percentage:
Points
NSLP < 25%
0
25% ≤ NSLP < 50%
15
50% ≤ NSLP < 75%
25
75% ≤ NSLP
35

Excluded Sites - Your project may benefit urban sites (>20,000) that would not score well in the
Rurality and NSLP Categories. Remember that the DLT Grant Program is intended to benefit rural
sites. We encourage applicants not to include urban end-users in their project. Should you choose to
include urban end-users, but wish to exclude such sites from the calculations, show the excluded sites
separately on the Worksheets with a clear indication that they have been excluded from the
calculations. In such cases, all funds that benefit the excluded sites must come from other funds.
None can be included in the grant or match budget. This is true even if the funds are used for
facilities located at a Hub/End-user site that is included in the Rurality calculation. (See D-1,
Telecommunications System Plan, for detail on apportioning DLT project benefit.)
Example of NSLP Calculation for a Project with Fixed Sites:
Central Community College will link itself, a community library, and two schools to the Deepwoods
Nature Center for the purpose of receiving environmental distance learning courses via teleconference.
The Deepwoods Nature center is the source of the distance learning content and does not receive any
content from the other sites nor will it use equipment placed at Deepwoods to benefit users not shown
on the Worksheet. As such, the applicant considers it a pure hub and does not use it in the calculation.
The applicant correctly provides the NSLP data anyway so that if the Agency finds that the site is an
end-user, it can recalculate the score. Central Community College will be the electronic hub of the
network, but it will receive distance learning content from the Nature Center so it is a hub/end-user.
The average of the four relevant percentages is 36.125% which rounds to 36%. The applicant looks at
the decision table and enters 15 points in the “Applicant’s Estimated NSLP Score” block.
62

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide
Site Name
(Same numbering and order as Site & Rurality Worksheets)

Site Type

(Hub, etc.)

Total
Students

% Eligible
(See
Attached)

1

Deepwoods Nature Center
(school district data)

Hub
Not Incl.

347

37.1

2

Central Community College
(use school district data)

Hub/End-User

3,200

24.2

3

Kingstown Library
(use school district data)

End-user

1,200

28.9

4

Farwell High School
(use specific school data)

End-user

235

34.1

5

Clarksburg High School
(use specific school data)

End-user

432

57.3

Average NSLP

36%

(Sum of NSLP Percentages ÷ # of Sites & then rounded to an Integer)
Applicant’s Estimated NSLP Score

(Enter Points from Scoring Table)

NSLP Score

15

(for Agency Use)

NSLP Score for Projects in which all End-user Sites are Non-Fixed
The NSLP Worksheet for Non-Fixed Sites is quite similar to that for Fixed Sites except that it
comprises all the Public School Districts that serve the non-fixed site service territory, whether in
whole or in part.
School District Name

Total Students

% Eligible
(See Attached)

1

Valley Falls School District

658

37%

2

Great Meadow School District

345

56%

3

Sandy Beach School District

532

42%

4

Roosevelt Public Schools

439

32%

5
Average NSLP

(Sum of NSLP Percentages ÷ # of School Districts rounded to an Integer)
Applicant’s Estimated NSLP Score

(Enter Points from Scoring Table)

63

15

NSLP Score

(for Agency Use)

42

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

E-3. Leveraging (Matching Funds and other Assistance)
The Leveraging score is based on the eligible matching fund contribution of the applicant and others.
The applicant proposes a match. The Agency determines what is eligible. Based on what you believe
to be eligible, we ask you to present an estimated Leveraging score in your application. The Agency
will correct your estimated score if necessary. This criterion is intended to measure the level of
commitment in the local community for the project. A DLT project that is widely supported within a
rural community is more likely to be strong and successful. Remember that your application is
evaluated for eligibility and scored based on the material submitted by the deadline. Additional
information and clarifications not provided as part of the application as received by the deadline will
not be solicited or considered by the Agency.
Eligible purposes for matching funds are identical to eligible purposes for a DLT grant. If an
item is not eligible for grant funding, it can not be credited as a match. For a line-item to be eligible in
full for match funding, the application must demonstrate:
1. That none of the use is for ineligible purposes,
2. That none of the use is to benefit sites not shown in the scoring, and
3. That the predominant purpose (over 50% of use) of that line-item is for purposes which
meet the DLT grant definition of distance learning or telemedicine as described in the
application.
If any part of a line-item is for ineligible purposes, the line-item cannot be budgeted for match. If
otherwise eligible but the predominant purpose (50% or more of use) is not for the DLT project, or if
some of the use will benefit sites not shown in the scoring, the applicant can propose that a portion of
the line-item be budgeted for match. The portion eligible for match is that attributable to the sites on
which the project is scored. The balance must come from other funds. (See D-1, Telecommunications
System Plan and Scope of Work, for detail on apportioning DLT project benefit.)
•

To be eligible, items proposed as match must be integral to the project in exactly the same
way as items the applicant proposes to obtain with the grant. Keep in mind that the DLT
Program is not simply a technology support program. The purpose of matching funds is not to
give an advantage to institutions for general technology purchases that are not part of the
project and which they would have made in any case such as annual computer purchases. It is
intended to build distance learning and/or telemedicine systems by encouraging support for a
project that would not exist if not for the grant.

•

Your project must have non-Federal matching funds equal to at least 15% of the DLT grant
requested to qualify for the DLT Program. The minimum match receives no points. Matches
that exceed 15% can earn points on a sliding scale. There are special matching provisions for
American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Applications from
these areas are not required to provide a minimum match in order to be eligible for the DLT
Program. However, they must meet the same thresholds (30%, 50%, etc.) in order to earn
points in the Leveraging category.
From time to time, applicants seek to use an existing non-federal grant as matching funds
towards their DLT Grant application. To document the match, they include a copy of the
announcement letter from the grantor. However, the letter from the grantor is often not explicit
about the purpose of the grant or the letter may imply unstated limitations or exclusions. Under
such circumstances, we cannot credit the proposed match. If you intend to apply another grant
as matching funds toward the DLT Grant application, you should still include a letter from the

•

64

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

•

grant recipient stating that the money in that grant is available and can be applied to the
purposes of the DLT Grant.
Frequently, a complete project requires items that are ineligible as grant or match such as a
building addition. Although not eligible as matching funding, financial support and in-kind
contributions from the local community (other than the applicant) that go toward such items
shows evidence of the commitment of the community to the project. Detail this support in the
Budget and provide evidence of this type of support under F-2, Needs and Benefits, but do not
claim credit for it as a match.

Sources of Eligible Matching Funds:
•

•

The Applicant. During this discussion of matching funds, when we speak of the applicant, we
include the formal applicant (the organization that signs the SF-424) and also those entities that
participate in the project as a hub, hub/end-user and or end-user site regardless of whether grant
or match funds are budgeted for that site.
Parties not participating in the DLT project either as a hub, hub/end-user or end-user site or as
manufacturer, vendor, or service provider that will benefit from the grant through the
prospective sale of goods or services. Parties not participating in the project include donors
such as individuals, community groups, state and local governments, and charities. It also
includes businesses whose products or services will not be purchased for the project. In
general, federal funds cannot be used for match. An important exception is funding from the
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). Please see www.arc.gov for a list of eligible
counties under the Counties in Appalachia heading. Applying ARC funds as a match requires
coordination with ARC State Program Managers and States in the Region. See the ARC
Members, Partners and Staff link also at www.arc.gov for ARC State Program Managers
contact information. DLT applicants considering an ARC match are strongly encouraged to
contact their ARC State Program Manager(s) early in the process to explore the feasibility of an
ARC grant.

Sources that Cannot Be Considered for Matching Funds
•
•

Except as provided for under Federal law, funds from other Federal sources cannot be used for
matching.
Manufacturers, vendors, and service providers whose equipment or services will be used as part
of the DLT Project.

Note: The regulation (7 CFR 1703) states that in-kind items must have an “established monetary
value” and that “manufacturer’s or service provider’s discounts are not considered in-kind
matching.” Because the purposes for grant and match are identical, a discount cannot be
considered a cash match either. The reason for not considering discounts is that, in the world of
telecommunications, list prices are nominal. They are not an established monetary value. Actual
prices are flexible and it is impossible for us to evaluate whether a discount has an actual
established monetary value. The same logic applies to any proposed match (cash or in-kind)
from a manufacturer, vendor, or other service provider that stands to benefit from the grant or
match funds through the prospective sale of equipment or services. A match from one of these
entities is indistinguishable from a discount and impossible to evaluate as to its value. As a
consequence, we will not accept cash or in-kind matching funds from manufacturers, vendors,
or service providers whose equipment or services will be used in the project.
65

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

Types of Matching Funds:
Cash: The regulation conveys explicitly the expectation that cash will be the usual method of
leveraging when it states that “matching contributions must generally be in the form of cash.” Cash is
unambiguous and can be applied to any eligible item in the budget. During review of an application, if
the Agency were to determine that some items in the budget are ineligible, the removal of those items
would not lower the dollar value of the applicant’s proposed match.
From time to time, applicants characterize their match as “cash,” but specify particular items that they
will acquire with their matching funds. When linked to a specific item, such a proposed match is “inkind,” not cash. As such, the eligibility of the proposed match is directly related to the eligibility of the
item as described in the next paragraph.
In-Kind Match: In-kind matches are also acceptable under the regulation, but we do not recommend
that the applicant propose them. In-kind matches must be closely scrutinized to determine if they have
the same relevance and credibility as a cash match. Remember, an in-kind match must be integral to
and necessary for the DLT project, not simply a technology purchase made in the same timeframe.
Unlike cash, in-kind matches are tied directly to the eligibility of the proposed in-kind item. Should
we determine that the item is not eligible, the item would be removed from the grant and match budget
and the proposed match would disappear with it. This may lead to a lower Leveraging score than you
expected to earn. If the reductions were to lower your eligible match below 15%, your application
would be ineligible for the DLT competition.
As a practical matter, there is no compelling reason for an applicant to propose an in-kind match.
Because items acquired before the application deadline are not eligible for grant or match, any items
that the applicant would propose as an in-kind match must be obtained with cash after the application
is submitted. In other words, when an applicant proposes an in-kind match, it is in effect committing
cash with which the proposed in-kind item will be purchased at some point after the deadline, except
that if the item is not eligible, neither is the match. A true cash match (unspecified) can be applied
against any remaining eligible purpose.
Proposed in kind matches from organizations not affiliated with the applicant and whose products or
services will not be purchased as part of the DLT project are acceptable. Remember that the
established monetary value of any proposed in-kind match must be demonstrated through evidence
such as actual selling price. List prices and valuations assigned outside of the marketplace by the
donor or others are not evidence of an established monetary value.

66

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

Funding Commitments
Failure to properly document the minimum required match is the single largest reason that an
applications is returned as ineligible. For that reason, before we describe how to document your
match, we include this list of errors to avoid.
TIPS AND MATCH DOCUMENTATION ERRORS TO AVOID
1. Only documented matches will be credited. Each donor, including the applicant, must document its match.
If you have nothing under Tab E-3 in your application, or nothing but a Leveraging Worksheet without
proper documentation behind that Worksheet as described below, you have no match. As a consequence,
your application is ineligible and will be returned without being considered for funding.
2. A signature on the SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance, does not document the commitment of
matching funds in a form satisfactory to the Agency. Neither is a reference to matching funds, say in the
Budget or Telecommunications System Plan, unless properly documented by the donor under Tab E-3.
3. The person signing letters documenting matching funds must have authority to commit funds on behalf of the
donor. If you are not clearly such a person, for example, a chief executive officer, a board chairman, or
school superintendent, you should attach evidence of your ability to commit matching funds. Examples of
titles that do not convey clear authority are “technical coordinator,” “IT Manager,” or “Radiology
Department Manager.”
4. An unsigned letter or a letter that does not carry the donor’s title is not acceptable. Neither is a letter that is
signed “for” the responsible party and initialed, unless the person who initialed for the responsible party
provides evidence not only of the responsible party’s authority to commit the organization, but of the
initialing party’s authority to sign on the responsible party’s behalf.
5. You cannot commit funds on behalf of any organization except your own. If you are the superintendent of
XYZ High School, you cannot commit funds on behalf of ABC middle school, a school over which you
have no authority. The commitment for ABC school must come from that organization.
6. Conditional Matches are not acceptable. For example, “We commit ZYX Funds, subject to Board
Approval.” Until the Board Resolution is passed, no match exists. If it is not passed before the application
deadline, no proposed match can be credited because the funds were not committed by that deadline as
required under the regulation. If it is passed by the deadline, the resolution should be included under Tab
E-3 to show that the condition has been satisfied.
7. Remember that proposed matches must be relevant to the project in the same way as items for which grant
funds are requested. Do not propose as match items that are not going to the project. For example, if the
proposed match is coming from a school district, you cannot be credited for funds going to schools that are
not end-users as shown in the application. If you are proposing an in-kind match, specify the line-items in
your supporting letter by the line-item number shown in the budget.
8. Proposed Matches must be committed and available as of the application deadline. Matches proposed
in future years are considered conditional and will not be credited. For example, if an applicant proposes
$100 per year for ten years, we will credit only the $100 committed in the year of the application. While
you may wish to do internal budgeting over time, a match commitment must be for the entire amount
without conditions.
9. Match letters must be specific and state the dollar amount. Avoid statements like “We commit 15% of our
need.” Instead, state a specific dollar amount such as “We commit $320 dollars, 15% as much as the grant
budget proposed for our site in the application.” If your cash match is intended only for the benefit of a
specific site(s), so state in your letter such as “We commit $480 dollars, 30% as much as the grant budget
proposed for our site in the application. Should the grant budget for our site be reduced, our proposed
match is also reduced so that it remains 30% of the grant budget for our site in the application.

67

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

Match Documentation Specifics - The applicant must document the project’s proposed matching
funds in form and substance satisfactory to the Agency. The documentation must be placed
under Tab E-3 of your application. We have arranged the Leveraging Worksheet to provide a
place to enter each contribution. Each proposed match entry on the worksheet must be
supported by a signed letter from the individual donor proposing the match.
1. Be signed by a person capable of obligating the donor organization. Include the printed name
and title of the person signing the letter. The letter must clearly indicate the name of the donor
organization and state that the funds are committed to the proposed DLT project as described in the
Budget and elsewhere in the application. If your name and title do not appear on the donor
organization’s letterhead, attach evidence of your position to the letter.
2. If the match is cash, state the $ amount. Letters without a stated cash amount cannot be credited
as a cash match.
3. If the proposed match is in-kind, state the $ amount and give a complete description of the
donation identified by the line-item number in the budget and the expected date of purchase.
Letters that do not identify the line-items in the budget cannot be credited as an in-kind match.
Keep in mind that items acquired before the application deadline are not eligible for grant or match.
Also, demonstrate how the established monetary value of the item was determined.
Proposed matches must be consistent on the SF-424, the Budget, and the Leveraging Worksheet.
Proposed matches not documented under Tab E-3 with a letter as described above will not be
credited in the Leveraging score.
Criterion Point Value and Allocation
Up to 35 points are available under this criterion. Points are awarded as follows:
Percentage of Eligible Match Compared to Grant Request
15% < Match % ≤ 30%

Points
0

30% < Match % ≤ 50%

15

50% < Match % ≤ 75%

25

75% < Match % ≤ 100%

30

Match > 100%

35

Example: Applicants receive different scores based on their proposed matching funds:
Grant Requested

Matching Funds

% of GRANT Funds Points Scored

Applicant #1

$100,000

$15,000

15%

0

Applicant #2

$100,000

$45,000

45%

15

Applicant #3

$100,000

$60,000

60%

25

Applicant #4

$100,000

$80,000

80%

30

Applicant #5

$100,000

$105,000

105%

35

68

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

E-4. USDA Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities
And Champion Communities (EZ/EC)
This criterion documents project participation in USDA’s Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community
(EZ/ECs) and related Champion Community programs, based on end-user site locations within these
designated areas. We ask you to present an estimated EZ/EC score in your application. An EZ/EC
Worksheet has been provided in the Toolkit for this purpose. The Agency will review your estimate
and correct it if necessary.
EZ/EC Points
Up to 15 points may be awarded for this criterion. If your project has:
At Least 1 End-user Site Located in a USDA:

Your Application will Receive

EZ/EC Community

10 points

Champion Community

5 points

If any of your sites are located in a current USDA Rural Empowerment Zone, USDA Enterprise
Community or USDA Champion Community, your application may be eligible for points in this
category. The category does not include Rural Economic Area Partnerships (REAP) Zones.
Check the official websites shown below for USDA designated areas. These lists are reprinted on
other websites and sometimes the other sites are not up-to-date. We do not accept information not
shown on the official website. If you believe the official website to be in error, use the “feedback” link
on that site to contact the webmaster responsible for maintaining the site.
Check these Web pages to find out whether any of the communities in your project are located in one
of the EZ/EC or Champion Communities. Check the official websites shown below for designated
areas. We do not accept information except from official sites so do not substitute printouts from other
sites, which may be out of date. If you believe the official website to be in error, use the “feedback”
link on that site to contact the webmaster responsible for maintaining the site. The official sites are:
EZ/EC:
Champion Communities:

www.ezec.gov/Communit/ruralezec.html
www.ezec.gov/Communit/champions.html

Ten points can be earned if at least 1 end-user site is within an EZ/EC. (Additional sites located in that
or another EZ/EC do not earn additional points. If you have two or more EZ/EC Communities, your
application still earns only ten points.) Five points can be earned if at least 1 end-user site is in a
Champion Community. (Again, additional sites located in that or another Champion Community do
not earn additional points.) The maximum score an applicant can earn in this category is fifteen points
for having at least one site in an EZ/EC and another site in a Champion Community. Remember that
the two categories are mutually exclusive. There are no areas that are both an EZ/EC and a Champion
Community so one site cannot earn all fifteen points.
Any end-user site shown on the EZ/EC Worksheet must be consistent with the sites shown elsewhere in
the application such as on the Rurality and NSLP Worksheets. To document the EZ/EC or Champion
Community status of the sites, place printouts from the USDA websites shown above behind the
Worksheet under Tab E-4. If not documented under Tab E-4, no points will be awarded in this
category. USDA EZ/EC designations use Census tracts. The Census tract information for each EZ or
EC is available at the Web page listed above. You must supply the Census tract information if you
69

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

wish to claim either EZ or EC status. Check the Census Tract information as shown on the EZ/EC
website against the 2000 Census and explain any discrepancies.
For further information on the EZ/EC and Champion Community Programs, contact:
USDA Office of Community Development
1400 Independence Ave. SW Stop 3203
Washington, DC 20250-3203
202-619-7980 or 800-645-4712
www.ezec.gov
Email: CDPWebmaster@wdc.usda.gov

F. Subjective Scoring Supporting Documentation
In the four subjective scoring categories (Additional NSLP, Needs and Benefits, Innovativeness and
Cost Effectiveness), scoring is relative, not absolute. The scoring mechanism is intended to create a
ranking of projects within these categories. This means, for example, that an applicant’s score is
dependent on the qualities of documentation presented by all other applicants. Applications tend to
improve from year to year, so an applicant who uses the same quality of documentation year after year
can expect to receive progressively lower scores.
Provide self-contained arguments in each of the four subjective scoring categories. Reviewers will not
consider information outside a category’s write-up. For example, all information that the applicant
believes could support its Needs and Benefits score must be under Tab F-2 of the application.
Each of the four subjective scoring categories assesses a unique characteristic of the project which is
not captured by the other scoring categories. For example, Needs and Benefits assesses the specific
educational or health care needs, not the general economic needs, of a project’s beneficiaries.
Economic need is captured by other scoring categories. Needs and Benefits also does not attempt to
assess the Rurality of a project’s area, although an applicant can argue that an unusual rural
characteristic of its area contributes to its needs in a way that does not affect rural areas in general.
Generally speaking, applicants who apply to the DLT Program are rural and share relatively high
levels of need. For a project to receive a competitive score in this program, the applicant must
successfully demonstrate that it exceeds the norm for rural projects in a particular category.
Applicants are reminded that this is a national competition. Arguments showing only comparisons
with other areas in a state are not compelling in this program. Comparative data should be both local
and national in coverage.
In presentation in each of the four subjective categories, statements supported by numerical data
receive the higher scores. Statistics about a project should be compared to national averages and
ranges. These comparisons help reviewers understand statistics presented about a project. Presenting
a spreadsheet showing, for example, statistics about end-user sites, with national references, is an
especially effective way to support subjective scoring arguments.

70

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

F-1. Additional NSLP
The primary measure of general economic need for an area served by a proposed project is based on
the National School Lunch Program (NSLP as described above under E-1) and is captured in the NSLP
score. The Additional NSLP category is intended to provide an opportunity to correct for an
NSLP score that understates the relative economic need of a project’s beneficiaries.
If an applicant has an NSLP eligibility below 50%, and the applicant can demonstrate that the area it
would serve, or the subset of the public it would serve, is not accurately captured by the NSLP
percentage, it may request Additional NSLP points. Based on the strength of the evidence provided
by the applicant, the Agency may award up to ten points in this category.
To score well, it is not sufficient to demonstrate, for example, above average unemployment compared
to the state average without putting that statistic into context. The key to scoring points in this
category is providing a convincing demonstration that the economic plight of the applicant’s target
beneficiaries is more challenging that that of other areas with similar NSLP scores.
To gain points in this category, the applicant must specifically request them in Section F-1 of the
Application (See Additional NSLP Worksheet in the Toolkit.).

F-2. Community Needs and Project Benefits
This criterion measures the extent to which the proposed project meets the goals and objectives of the
DLT Program. We may award up to 45 points in this category. You must document the specific
needs of the community and how the proposed project will address those needs. You must also
document evidence of support from the community.
Tip: Remember, this category is not intended to capture the general economic need of the area
served by the project. That need is captured by the NSLP score, and, if applicable, Additional
NSLP scores described above under E-2 and F-1. While a brief overall sketch of the local
economy and geography is useful for context, extended discussions of the overall economic
health of a region generally do not help tell the story of the specific needs to be addressed by
your project.
Discuss Other Projects
DLT Grants cannot be awarded to projects that duplicate facilities. If any of the sites or service
territory in the project as described in the application are part of another application in FY 2009 or
were part of a project funded in the previous two fiscal years (2006 & 2007), explain any relationship
between or among these projects as you discuss the specific need and benefit that will be provided by
the proposed project. In particular, discuss how match and grant funding for this project, if approved,
would complement previous efforts. (Provide a more thorough discussion of project overlaps in the
Telecommunications System Plan, as described above. In the absence of an explanation, overlaps in
projects are assumed to be duplication and as a consequence, proposed grant and match budget may be
adjusted to remove such duplication.)
71

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

Define the Community
In some cases, projects propose serving specific communities – the entire population of a town; all
adults in several towns; or students in a particular school district. In others, the community to be
served is a subset of the entire community. Whatever the nature of the community, your narrative
should give us a clear picture of it.
Need for Services
Clearly state the economic, educational, or health care challenges facing the project’s respective
communities, and provide documentation that explains the challenges. Use verifiable data and
statistics to substantiate and quantify these challenges. Demonstrate how the proposed project will
help resolve these challenges and why the applicant cannot afford the project without a grant.
Document support for the project provided by experts in the educational or health care fields.
Remember that the more specific the expert opinion is to your project, the more compelling it is.
Substantiate the underserved educational or health care nature of the project’s proposed service area;
and justify, explain, and document the specific educational or medical services that will provide
direct benefits to rural residents.
You should demonstrate that rural residents and other beneficiaries want the educational or medical
services from the project. In other words, show that the reason for the project is to meet local
community needs, not simply to install technology that could possibly benefit the community.
Willingness of local end-users or community-based organizations to contribute to the costs of
completing, operating, or maintaining the project is a strong indication of community support.
Documentation of support includes letters of financial and non-financial commitment towards the
project from local organizations.
Address the participation by local residents and organizations in planning and developing the project.
Include evidence of this participation in your application. Examples of evidence of community
involvement include community meetings, public forums and surveys.
The Agency will also consider the extent to which the application is consistent with the State strategic
plan prepared by the USDA Rural Development State Director. (See IV-G, Contact With USDA State
Director.)
Benefits Derived from Services
In addition to documenting the need for services, describe how the project would assist the community
in solving these challenges. Document the specific benefits of your project and quantify them in
terms of expected outcomes. Tie the benefits of your project DIRECTLY to the stated needs you
intend to address. Provide measurable targets or goals such as estimates of the number of people that
will benefit from the project.
Tip: Do not address benefits to your organization in this section, unless they are directly
tied to community benefit. Benefits of the project that accrue primarily to your organization
should be addressed under Cost Effectiveness.

72

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

Examples:
For a distance learning project that serves secondary schools, provide the number of schools and
students that will benefit. You should also document all other benefits provided by the project with
quantifiable goals when possible such as:
•
•
•
•

four-year foreign language availability up from 300 to 1,200 students
organic chemistry offered for first time to entire district
expanded educational facility use, like evening vocational training
reducing the dropout rate from 17% to 12%

For a telemedicine project that serves a consortium of hospitals, provide the number of health care
facilities and the potential number of patients to benefit. You should also document all other
benefits provided by the project such as:
•
•
•
•

time and monetary savings to the community from telemedicine diagnoses
400 patients receiving at-home monitoring
4 doctors retained in your community
lives saved due to prompt medical diagnosis

Document ancillary benefits or multiple uses that create value in the rural communities which the
project will serve. Examples include training, information resources, library assets, adult education,
lifetime learning, community use of technology, jobs, and connection to the local and global
information networks. If applicable, you should address particular community problems such as outmigration and the extent to which the project would reduce or prevent population loss.
Tip: Do not restrict your supporting documentation to the guidance and examples cited here or
use them as a template for your application. The material in this section is intended only to
provide a starting-point. Neither should you think that gaining a grant requires special expertise
or that you will be more successful if you model your application on that of a previously
successful applicant. You, the applicant, are the expert about the needs of your community and
how your project will meet those needs. Use that expertise to paint a compelling picture of what
your project can accomplish.

F-3. Innovativeness of the Project
This criterion assesses how the objectives of the proposed project are met in new and creative ways.
Up to 15 points may be awarded for this criterion. There are two obvious ways that a distance
learning or telemedicine project can be innovative, i.e., technical and in application. Technical
innovation is rare but possible in rural distance learning and telemedicine projects. Most of the
innovativeness we encounter is in the application of state-of-the-art technologies to solve problems in
new ways.
Innovation Issues
Technical innovativeness occurs where a new type of device is used to provide a capability. Examples
of innovative technologies are the mobile presentation of a capability that previously had only been
available in fixed locations, or where a new transmission medium (such as the Internet) is used to
deliver data, replacing leased or dial-up telecommunications facilities. We expect applicants to use
73

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

state-of-the-art equipment, so doing this alone does not contribute to a high score in this category.
Technical innovativeness can be risky, so wherever it is truly present, the applicant should address any
risks inherent in the approach.
Application innovativeness occurs where a tried and true technology is applied in a unique or unusual
way to provide a new capability, or to provide a familiar capability in a new way. Presumably, all
proposed projects will provide new capabilities to their beneficiaries, so an application with this
characteristic alone would not earn a high score in this category.
The application should explore the following sources of evidence of innovativeness:
• Does the project employ technical innovation?
• Are there educational and medical programmatic innovations proposed?
• Does the project use unique adaptations of technology to better meet the special needs or
circumstances of the project’s proposed service area or beneficiaries?
• Does the project have the potential to influence or promote changes in how distance learning or
telemedicine services can be delivered in other areas?
• Does the project use existing resources (telecommunications facilities) in a new way?
Tip: The best examples of innovativeness will come from the imagination of applicants and
cannot be suggested here. Technical and application innovativeness are by no means the only
forms of innovativeness that will be credited by the reviewer.

F-4. Cost Effectiveness of the Project
This criterion evaluates the efficiency with which the proposed project delivers educational and
medical benefits to beneficiaries. Up to 35 points may be awarded for this criterion. Generally,
efficiency of delivery is accomplished by studying every technology option, considering the use of
available resources and using them wherever possible, creating a project that not only accomplishes the
primary service delivery, but accomplishes many other functions as well. The emphasis in this
criterion is value, not lowest cost alone.
Cost-Effectiveness Scores are Based On:
1. The extent to which your organization considered alternative technological options for delivering
the proposed services. The applicant must provide sufficient documentation reflecting accepted
analytical and financial methodologies to substantiate its choice of technology as the most cost
effective option. Cost information such as quotations from multiple vendors that you provide in
the TSP and Budget is useful for demonstrating cost effectiveness.
2. The extent to which the project uses existing telecommunications transmission facilities.
Supporting information may include evidence of considerations of the use of existing facilities,
agreements between the applicant and other entities for sharing transmission facilities, and all other
measures taken to lower the project’s costs for using such facilities.
3. The extent to which the project will use existing networks at the regional, statewide, national, or
global levels. Most projects connect to the Internet, so this use of an existing network has a
minimal effect on an application’s score.
4. The extent to which the requested financial assistance will extend or enhance the benefits of the
project.
74

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

5. Whether buying or leasing specific equipment is more cost-effective.
6. Whether a proposed project will accomplish purposes beyond the primary objective. Although the
applicant is asked to specify whether distance learning or telemedicine is the predominant use of
the project, the facilities funded by the project may benefit the community in other ways.
Generally, a multi-use facility will be a greater asset to a rural area than a single-use facility if the
two are equally efficient at performing the project’s primary function.
7. Whether the proposed project creates the appropriate level of capability to reasonably meet the
community’s needs. This refers to a matching of project capability to the defined need.
Tips:
• Unsupported assertions of cost effectiveness are not useful. A spreadsheet showing
initial cost and annual costs of all considered alternative technologies and
implementations can offer strong support for a good score in this category. Don’t forget
to explain all assumptions and sources for cost information used in the comparison.
• Be sure that the facts presented are meaningful to the reviewer. For example, a statement
that a telemedicine project will provide the capability for 42,000 rural residents to have
access to teleradiology facilities at a cost of 29¢ per resident is not meaningful, but a
statement that the teleradiology project will reduce the cost to a rural resident of a chest
x-ray from $125 to $20, and will save the patient 6 hours of driving time, is meaningful.

G. Contact with USDA State Director
You must provide evidence that your organization has consulted with the USDA State Director for
Rural Development about the availability of other sources of funding available at the State or local
level. Include this evidence as part of your application.
You must also provide evidence from the State Director for Rural Development that your application
conforms with the State strategic plan as prepared under section 381D of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.). Not all states have a strategic plan, so you should
indicate if such a plan does not exist. See Section IV, F-2, Community Needs & Project Benefits, for
our use of this evidence in scoring your application. Include the evidence in your application.
Note: Applicants should contact the USDA State Director as early as possible in
the application process. You can find a listing of the State Rural Development
Offices here:
www.rurdev.usda.gov/recd_map.html

75

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

H. Certifications
The Toolkit contains certification forms to demonstrate compliance with other Federal statutes and
regulations. There are nine required certifications and we have numbered them C-1 through C-9 so
that you can see at a glance if they are all in your application. Applications submitted without a
non-duplication certification cannot be evaluated and will be returned as ineligible.
C-1 Equal Opportunity and Nondiscrimination
C-2 Architectural barriers
C-3 Flood hazard area precautions
C-4 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
C-5 Drug-free workplace
C-6 Debarment and suspension rules
C-7 Lobbying for contracts, grants, etc.
C-8 Non-duplication of services
C-9 Environmental impact

76

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide

Section V - Putting it all Together
Assemble and tab your grant application in the following order, which is the same order as
described under Section IV - The Complete Application. Material not located under the proper
tab will not be considered by reviewers. If material is relevant under more than one tab, it
should be repeated under each relevant tab. Any supplemental information that the applicant
wants to submit should be included under the relevant tab. The Toolkit provides forms,
worksheets, sample certifications, and Web resources to help you find information and present it in
your application.
TAB

ITEM

A

SF-424 – Application for Federal Assistance w/attch. (Site Worksheet & Optional Survey)

B

Legal Eligibility

C

Executive Summary

D.

Project Information
D-1 Telecommunications System Plan and Scope of Work
D-2 Budget
D-3 Financial Information and Sustainability
D-4 Statement of Experience

E.

Objective Scoring
E-1 Rurality Calculation Worksheet and Supporting Documentation
E-2 NSLP Worksheet and Supporting Documentation
E-3 Leveraging Worksheet and Evidence of Funding Commitments
E-4 EZ/EC Worksheet and Supporting Documentation (If Applicable)

F.

Subjective Scoring Supporting Documentation
F-1 Request for Additional NSLP Points Worksheet (If Applicable)
F-2 Need for Services and Project Benefits
F-3 Innovativeness of the Project
F-4 Cost-Effectiveness of the Project

G.

Contact with USDA State Director—Rural Development

H.

Certifications

77

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide – Appendix
Process Changes from FY 2006 & 2007

This appendix repeats discussion of significant process changes as those changes were
described in the Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 Application Guides.
2006 Application Review Process Changes
Eligibility and Scoring Information to be Complete by Application Deadline
The regulation requires that a “complete” application contain certain information and that it be
submitted by the application deadline. Fundamental information such as that necessary to establish
eligibility to enter the scoring pool and for the scoring itself are expected to be in the original
application. This is confirmed by §1703.129, which concerns an applicant’s right to appeal its score.
In that section it states that an appeal must be based on inaccurate scoring of the application and “no
new information or data that was not included in the original application will be considered.” It
follows that information submitted after the application deadline is not a basis for eligibility or scoring.
To do otherwise gives applicants who do not follow the rules an unfair advantage by allowing them to
demonstrate their eligibility and perfect their score after the deadline. This is not fair to applicants who
submitted a proper application by the deadline according to the rules.
In our continuing effort to make certain that all applications receive fair and equal consideration, all
information necessary for establishing eligibility for the program, for the eligibility of the project, and
for determining the score must be submitted by the application deadline. We will not request such
information after the deadline as part of the completeness review process.
So that there is no ambiguity about what is required by the application deadline, this Application Guide
is cross-referenced so that you will know precisely what to include in your application. The three
thumbnails that follow give a brief description of how applications will be reviewed:
1. Applications whose eligibility cannot be determined because they did not submit information
sufficient to evaluate their project and establish that they meet the minimum set of requirements as
specified in the relevant rules (7 CFR 1703, the 2009 Notice of Solicitation of Applications, and as
elaborated upon throughout this Guide) will be returned as ineligible. In particular, any proposed
match that is not properly documented under Tab E-3 will not be credited. This can reduce the
applicant’s Leveraging score from what they expect. It can also result in the applicant’s being
ineligible for funding consideration because of not meeting the 15% minimum match. Such
applications are ineligible and will be returned to the applicant. See E-3, Leveraging, in Section IV
of the Application Guide for more detail on matching funds and the Leveraging score.)
2. Information not necessary for determining eligibility but necessary for scoring must also submitted
by the application deadline. If scoring information is missing, the application will be scored based
on the information submitted by the deadline.
3. Applications should be complete when submitted. However, information not required under the
previous two paragraphs but necessary in order to be awarded a grant (the information required
under Tabs G and H) will be requested as part of the completeness review process.
Application Format Described in the Application Guide Must Be Followed
The implementing regulation, 7 CFR 1703, is not designed for nor is it intended to be a guide on
how to present your application. That is specified in the Application Guide. In order to make it
administratively possible to review hundreds of applications and make the grant awards within a
A- 1

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide – Appendix
Process Changes from FY 2006 & 2007

reasonable time, all applications must follow the format set in the current year’s Application Guide.
Applications not presented in this format will be returned as ineligible. In particular, matches not
properly documented under Tab E-3 of your application will not be credited as an eligible match.
Please submit your application in an appropriately sized three-ring binder with tabbed dividers as
described below and throughout the Application Guide. If you submit electronically, make certain that
each page is clearly identified by Tab and page number, as if it were a physical application.
All information relevant to a section must be included under that section. Information contained
elsewhere in the application will not be considered and cannot be a basis for a scoring appeal. For
example, the only information that reviewers will consider in scoring Needs and Benefits is
information which the applicant provides under Tab F-2, Needs and Benefits. If the applicant believes
that information in another section (such as the Telecommunications System Plan) is relevant to the
Needs and Benefits category, the information should be repeated under that category.
Proof of Shipping
Paper applications that are not delivered into our hands by the application deadline must carry proofof-shipping by the application deadline from a third-party shipper such as a commercial carrier or the
postal service. Other indications, such as a printed label from a postage meter, do not constitute proofof-shipping. (Look at C, How to Submit a Paper Application, and D, How to Submit an Electronic
Application, in Section II of the Application Guide for information on submitting your
application.)
Apportioning DLT Project Benefit
Neither grant nor match funds may be used for ineligible purposes. Nor do ineligible purposes become
eligible when they are lumped into a single line-item with eligible purposes. If a line-item will be used
for any ineligible purpose, applicants are advised to obtain vendor pricing that apportions the eligible
and ineligible purposes into separate line-items so that the eligible portion can be considered for grant
or match. Otherwise, the entire line-item is ineligible. Also, to be eligible in full as grant or match, the
applicant must demonstrate, not merely assert, that it will be used at least 50% of the time for purposes
that meet the grant definition of distance learning or telemedicine and must also demonstrate that none
of the other use is for ineligible purposes. Line-items that are used less than 50% of the time will be
eligible as match or grant only for the percentage that does meet the grant definition of distance
learning and telemedicine. See D-1, Telecommunications System Plan & Scope of Work, in Section
IV of the Application Guide for more detail on apportioning DLT project benefit.
Third-Party Procurement
All items to be funded with match or grant must be obtained from an organization other than the
applicant or other entities participating in the applicant’s DLT project as hubs, hub/end-users, or endusers, i.e., items must be procured from a third party. See D, Project Information, in Section IV of
the Application Guide for more detail on third-party procurement.
Matching Funds from Vendors, Manufacturers and Other Interested Parties
We will not accept cash or in-kind matching funds from manufacturers, vendors, or service providers
whose equipment or services will be used in the project. See E-3, Leveraging, in Section IV of the
Application Guide for more detail on matching funds and the Leveraging score.)
In-Kind Matching Funds from Applicant and Participating Sites
A- 2

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide – Appendix
Process Changes from FY 2006 & 2007

The regulation explicitly conveys the expectation that cash will be the usual method of leveraging
when it states that “matching contributions must generally be in the form of cash.” Cash is
unambiguous and can be applied to any eligible item in the budget. During review of an application, if
the Agency were to determine that some items in the budget are ineligible, the removal of those items
would not lower the dollar value of the applicant’s proposed match.
In-kind matches are also acceptable under the regulation, but we do not recommend that the applicant
or other sites participating in the project propose them. In-kind matches must be closely scrutinized to
determine if they are integral to and necessary for DLT purposes, not simply a technology purchase
made in the same timeframe. Unlike cash, in-kind matches are tied directly to the eligibility of the
proposed in-kind item. Should we determine that the item is not eligible, the item would be removed
from the grant and match budget and the proposed match would disappear with it. This may lead to a
lower Leveraging score than you expected to earn. If the reductions were to lower your eligible match
below 15%, your application would be ineligible for the DLT competition. Please remember that
when you state in your matching documentation or budget that a specific line-item will come
from matching funds, that is a proposed in-kind match, not a cash match. As such, its eligibility
to be credited as a match is tied directly to the eligibility of that line-item.
As a practical matter, there is no compelling reason for an applicant to propose an in-kind match.
Because items acquired before the application deadline are not eligible for grant or match, any items
that the applicant would propose as an in-kind match must be obtained with cash after the application
is submitted. In other words, when an applicant proposes an in-kind match, it is in effect committing
cash with which the proposed in-kind item will be purchased at some point after the deadline.
Applicants should instead propose true cash matches which can be applied against any eligible item in
the budget as a whole. See E-3, Leveraging, in Section IV of the Application Guide for more detail
on matching funds and the Leveraging score.)
Consistent Site Information
DLT Grants are awarded as a result of a competition based on scoring. The nature and location of the
sites and service territory in a DLT project are the basis for that competition. Sites and service
territory must be consistent throughout the application. Otherwise, the application cannot be
properly evaluated as to eligibility or score. Applications without consistent site information will
be returned as ineligible. In particular, the sites must be consistent throughout the application
including the:
1. Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance (Tab A of your application
package). The applicant provides the most detailed site information on the Site Worksheet
as an attachment to the SF-424. The Site Worksheet provides space to respond to
information requested on the SF-424 and is designed to link that information to the project
as described throughout the balance of the application package. The information includes
the precise name and location of the site or service territory. If the applicant wishes to use a
shortened name for a site, the abbreviation must be shown here and that abbreviation must
then be used consistently throughout the application.
2. Telecommunications System Plan (Tab D-1)
3. Budget (Tab D-2)
4. Rurality Worksheet (Tab E-1)
5. NSLP Worksheet (Tab E-2)

A- 3

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide – Appendix
Process Changes from FY 2006 & 2007

2007 Application Review Process Changes
Refinement of the Tool for Evaluating Rurality
In our continuing effort to ensure fairness in the competition and to simplify the application process,
we have adopted a new tool for use in calculating the Rurality score of a project. As before, the score
will be based on data of the US Census. We will use their objective and extensive urban and rural area
analysis while remaining consistent with the words and intent of the statute and regulation. More
detail is provided below and elsewhere in the Application Guide.
If you are familiar with previous Application Guides, one of the first things you may notice is that this
year’s guide is considerably longer. This is due almost entirely to the additional guidance we have
provided about how to use the Census website for determining your Rurality Score. This guidance
contains many images of the relevant portion of Census web pages highlighting the navigational
techniques needed to gain access to the data.
Background - The DLT program was created and operates under three pieces of legislation – the Farm
Bill of 1990, an Amendment to the Farm Bill of 1992, and the Farm Bill of 1996. The program was
conceived in the first of these bills, implemented in the second, and had features added to it in the
third.
The statutory authority directs the Agency to finance “the construction of facilities and systems to
provide telemedicine services and distance learning services in rural areas,” but leaves the
determination of “rural areas” largely to the Agency, which is instructed to consider the “population
sparsity of the affected rural area.”
Without new guidance in the legislation, the Agency adapted the definition of “rural” from the Rural
Electrification Act under which we have operated our Telecommunications Program since 1949 and
the Electric Program since 1935. As guided by the “sparsity” language and other guidance in the
statute, we set an “urban” threshold of over 20,000 and divided populations under 20,000 into scoring
ranges.
We repeat the DLT regulatory definition here for ease of reference:
EXCEPTIONALLY RURAL AREA – 5000 and under. Any area of the United States not
included within the boundaries of any incorporated or unincorporated city, village, or borough
having a population in excess of 5,000 inhabitants. (45 points)
RURAL AREA – 5,001-10,000. Any area of the United States included within the boundaries of
any incorporated or unincorporated city, village, or borough having a population over 5,000 and
not in excess of 10,000 inhabitants. (30 Points)
MID-RURAL AREA – 10,001-20,000. Any area of the United States included within the
boundaries of any incorporated or unincorporated city, village, or borough having a population
over 10,000 and not in excess of 20,000 inhabitants. (15 Points)
URBAN AREA - Over 20,000. Any area of the United States included within the boundaries
of any incorporated or unincorporated city, village, or borough having a population in excess of
20,000 inhabitants. (Zero Points)

In short, the lower the population, the more points are scored. Clearly, the regulatory intent is to target
program benefit to the most rural (sparsest) areas by giving those areas the highest score.

A- 4

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide – Appendix
Process Changes from FY 2006 & 2007

As the awareness of the DLT Program has spread through the education and medical communities and
from its intended rural constituency to suburban and urban America, we have been receiving more
applications to serve areas that no observer would characterize as “rural,” but if scored on the
individual city, village, or borough jurisdictions, would receive a higher score than if the entire
population center were considered. This is because the larger urban population is often divided into a
number of separate jurisdictions whose individual populations may each be a small percentage of the
overall urban population.
To ensure accuracy in a competitively scored program aimed at sparsely settled areas, the tools used to
evaluate “rural” and “urban” should lead to a genuine characterization of how rural an area is. In other
words, given two otherwise identical population centers, they should be scored similarly. The score
should not be the result of varying jurisdictional peculiarities.
Analysis - There are two striking characteristics of the definition that must be considered in refining
the scoring tool:
1. The language in the regulation refers to “any incorporated or unincorporated city, village, or
borough” having a certain population. Because an “unincorporated city, village, or borough” has no
defined boundaries or even a legal existence, the definition can be construed as referring to a
collection of people in a population center that has characteristics typical of population centers such
as cities, villages, and boroughs. In other words, in a state where towns are often not incorporated,
a collection of 700 people living around a crossroads could be considered an unincorporated village.
In another state, several adjacent boroughs that share the population characteristics of a city could
be considered an unincorporated city.
The jurisdictional nature of population centers varies greatly from state to state. Townships, which
are not mentioned in the regulation, are borough-like entities in some states. In others, a borough
does not even describe a population center. A borough in Alaska is more like a county. Using a
borough population would greatly overstate the population of a specific end-user site located
outside of any town but within an Alaskan borough. Similarly, some cities have limits that extend
far beyond the Urban Area and include significant rural area(s). Sites in the rural area, but within
the city limits, would be scored inaccurately if based on the population inside the city limits.
Otherwise identical collections of people are organized politically in many different ways across the
country. It is clear that using population data only from individual incorporated cities, villages, and
boroughs provides non-uniform and unfair outcomes in the Rurality scoring category between
projects and among states. Complicating this, prior to this year, we had not found a satisfactory tool
for evaluating the population of an “unincorporated city, village, or borough” that is accurate,
objective, and publicly available at no cost to applicants.
2. The word “boundaries” is plural. This suggests that we consider not only the individual boundary
of each city, village, or borough, but the collective boundaries should such jurisdictions be part of
one population center. It also directs us to consider the de facto boundaries of similarly populated
unincorporated areas.
There is a compelling reason for looking at urban populations as a whole rather than by jurisdiction.
As noted above, in some states, areas that have large populations are divided into multiple adjacent
jurisdictions. Such individual jurisdictions within a larger population do not look or feel rural in the
way that an isolated jurisdiction with a similar population does and they do not share the isolated
community’s challenges that flow from an overall low population.

A- 5

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide – Appendix
Process Changes from FY 2006 & 2007

Conclusion - Similar populations should produce similar scores. We believe we must use an
objective, nationally consistent, and publicly available (at no cost to applicants) tool to evaluate
Rurality and that we have found that tool in the extensive data and objective analysis of the
Department of Commerce’s US Census. The Census defines Urban Areas by the collective urban
characteristics of a population center independent of political jurisdictions. We know of no other
objective measure that is free and easily available to the public that comes closer to capturing the intent
of the statutory direction to consider the “population sparsity of the affected rural area” while
remaining consistent with the words and intent of the DLT regulation.
Census Designated Urban Areas - The Census defines two sizes of Urban Area:
1. Urbanized Area (UA) - An Urbanized Area is a statistical geographic entity comprising a
central core and adjacent densely settled territory that together contain at least 50,000
people, generally with an overall population density of at least 1,000 people per square
mile. An Urbanized Area can include all or part of one or more city, village, or borough as
well as adjacent areas not incorporated as a city, village, or borough. An Urbanized Area
does not share any area with another Urbanized Area or Urban Cluster. To learn more
about Census geography, terms and criteria see www.census.gov/geo/www.
2. Urban Cluster (UC) - An Urban Cluster is a new statistical geographic entity designated
for the 2000 Census, consisting of a central core and adjacent densely settled territory that
together contains between 2,500 and 49,999 people. Typically, the overall population
density is at least 1,000 people per square mile. Urban Clusters are based on Census block
and block group density and do not coincide with official municipal boundaries. An Urban
Cluster can include all or parts of one or more city, village, or borough as well as adjacent
areas not incorporated as a city, village, or borough. An Urban Cluster does not share any
area with, or touch another Urbanized Area or Urban Cluster.
The example that follows is for illustration. Guidance on how to use the website from which this
Census Data is obtained is provided under E-1, Rurality, in Section IV of this guide. In addition to
population data, the Census site has a wealth of information, including mapping of school and
Congressional Districts, which can be of assistance in completing the Site Worksheet attachment to the
Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance.
Example: Lincoln Park is a Census-designated place in Colorado. Here is how its population and area
(in yellow) are displayed on Fact Finder if you use the “fast access to information” lookup on its main
page (factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en).

A- 6

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide – Appendix
Process Changes from FY 2006 & 2007

Lincoln Park’s population is given by Fact Finder as 3,904, but if you click on “reference map,” it is
clearly part of the greater Canon City population center. A site located in Lincoln Park, immediately
adjacent to the Canon City population of 15,431 is not as rural as one located in an isolated town of
4,000. It does not share the reduced access to goods, opportunities, and services, particularly
telecommunications, typical of the more thinly populated isolated town.

A- 7

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide – Appendix
Process Changes from FY 2006 & 2007

However, even adding Lincoln Park to Canon City doesn’t capture the actual size of the population
center. The total population, as determined by the Census’ Urban Cluster analysis, comprises Canon
City, Lincoln Park, and parts of other adjacent places for a total in the contiguous built-up Urban Area
of 26,332.

If a site is located in Lincoln Park, the Canon City Urban Cluster population is a better indicator of
Rurality than is Lincoln Park’s individual jurisdictional population. The situation is similar in many
major metropolitan areas. Highland Park is an independent city in Texas with a population of 8,842.
But it is surrounded by the City of Dallas, and is an integrated piece of the Dallas-Fort Worth
Urbanized Area, which the Census shows as having a population of 4,145,659. Clearly, the Census’
Urbanized Area population gives a more accurate picture of whether a site in Highland Park is located
in an urban or rural area.
Throughout this guide, we will use population data from Census designated Urbanized
Areas (≥50,000), Urban Clusters (2,500-49,999), and Census Rural (<2500) as the tool for
determining populations located “within the boundaries of an incorporated or
unincorporated city, village, or borough.” Guidance for completing your Rurality
Worksheet and for finding population data are provided in this guide under E-1, Rurality,
in Section IV of the FY 2007 Application Guide.
A- 8

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide – Appendix
Process Changes from FY 2006 & 2007

Rurality and NSLP Scoring for Applicants with Non-Fixed End-User Sites
Applicant eligibility and scoring, particularly with respect to the Rurality category, is based on the
location of the specific end-user sites such as schools or rural health clinics where people will benefit
from the distance learning or telemedicine project. In recent years, we have received increasing
numbers of applications from projects in which the end-user sites are not fixed. An example of this is
a home health monitoring project where the equipment is moved over time from one patient’s home to
another as medical needs arise. Another example is an ambulance-based telemedicine project, where
the equipment will serve an entire area.
These types of projects were not contemplated when the regulation was adopted. As a consequence,
there is no established method for the applicant to estimate and for us to evaluate such an applicant’s
Rurality score or its NSLP score. Rurality, in particular, is central to the process because it is
important not only in scoring, but in determining if the applicant is eligible for the program.
Because these types of projects are becoming more common, we must specify a fair scoring method
that meets the spirit of the regulation while providing a measure of rural benefit that is reasonably
comparable to that captured by the method for fixed-site projects. We have provided such a method in
this Application Guide. Applicants for such projects will base their Rurality calculation on the total
population within their service territory that is located in each population zone using the Urban Area
and Rural designations of the US Census as described above and under E-1, Rurality, in Section IV of
this guide. In other words, each person, or potential end-user, is treated as if it were an actual end-user.
Because this method will not look at specific sites but on the population as a whole, such applicants
will base their NSLP calculations on the average for all school districts in the service territory. Also,
because we must be able to evaluate the population that benefits from the project, the applicant must
have a defined service territory (and end-users) that can be definitively shown on a map. Projects to
serve undefined users (fixed sites or not) cannot be evaluated or scored, which makes them ineligible
for the competition.
Finally, an application must be exclusively for one or the other, either fixed or non-fixed sites. The
service areas of fixed and non-fixed site projects are not directly comparable because they are unlikely
to benefit the same universe of people. As a consequence, we have no administratively practical way
to score an application that contains both types of projects. An example would be an application for a
fixed site teleradiology project that connects four clinics operated by technicians with the radiology
department of a hospital as well as a non-fixed site project such as placing a videoconferencing system
connecting an ambulance to the emergency room for purposes of triage. In other words, if you have
both components in your plans, and you include both in one application, we cannot evaluate or score it,
which will result in its being ineligible. See E-1, Rurality, and E-2, NSLP, for more detail about
developing the Rurality and NSLP data and scores for projects with non-fixed end-user sites.
New Worksheets
In an effort to make certain that applicants know exactly what to submit and that it is submitted in a
form that will speed the grant award process, we modified several worksheets in the DLT Grants
Toolkit in FY 2006. This year we have added Site, Rurality, and NSLP Worksheets specifically
designed for projects with non-fixed end-user sites as described in the preceding paragraphs.
We stress that all the Worksheets are there to guide you through the process and will prevent
your making errors in the application. For example, the Leveraging Worksheet reminds you to
document each donation in your proposed match under Tab E-3 behind that Worksheet. If you do not
A- 9

2009 DLT Grant Application Guide – Appendix
Process Changes from FY 2006 & 2007

do so, the undocumented matches can not be credited, which could result in your application’s being
ineligible. (See the Toolkit for all the worksheets and forms you need to complete your application.)

A - 10