Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Program Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PPE Committee to seek third‑party study of GO Virginia projects’ long‑term impact
Summary
DHCD staff recommended the Program Performance and Evaluation Committee endorse an RFP to hire an independent evaluator to sample more than 100 closed GO Virginia projects to assess sustainability, long‑term impact and lessons learned; members signaled support to present the work to the state board.
The Program Performance and Evaluation Committee of the GO Virginia board on a virtual meeting recommended moving forward with a third‑party evaluation of closed projects to assess whether projects were sustained and how they evolved after grant closeout. Sarah, a DHCD staff member, told the committee staff had prepared a draft request for proposals and that limited administrative funds exist to start the study.
"At this time, staff would recommend that we do engage a third party to evaluate a sample of the more than 100 projects that have closed," Sarah said, adding the study could be completed in time for the September board retreat. She said the evaluation would determine whether projects are being sustained, how they continue to make an impact and how they have evolved since closeout.
James Clemens, introduced as a grant analyst at the division, was identified as a staff member who has developed internal analyses and a performance dashboard that could inform the study design. Committee members discussed methodological issues — including the need for a sample that captures winners and losers, geographic distribution, investment category, and small, medium and large projects — and emphasized the importance of an independent expert designing the work.
One procedural path discussed was contracting with a state university or other public institution, which staff said could be done without a public procurement and would be the quickest route; alternately, the committee could issue an open RFP. Sarah said the committee could endorse the work and that staff could bring the item to the state board at a future meeting (she cited the March board meeting as a possible milestone for review).
Committee members and staff framed the effort as a strategic follow‑up to recommendations in the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee review, intended to provide evidence about the program’s long‑term portfolio performance and inform future grant criteria and technical assistance.
Next steps: staff will circulate the draft RFP to committee members for comment, and the committee expects to present the recommended procurement approach to the state board for endorsement or review.
