Success Factors, Challenges, and 

Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative

An Implementation Evaluation

October 2019 | Final Report

Authors

Molly Chamberlin, Ph.D.

Nicole Dunn, M.P.A.

with

Abigail Kelly-Smith and Dorinda Byers

Prepared under Contract

PW-19412-18 for:
Implementation Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s POWER Initiative | 2019

This page intentionally left blank.
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 i

Contents

Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................................................................................iii

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................................................... iv

About the Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................................. iv

Implementation Themes ..........................................................................................................................................................v

Early Impact...................................................................................................................................................................................... vi

Recommendations for ARC.................................................................................................................................................. vi

Planned for Additional Study.............................................................................................................................................. vii

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

About the POWER Initiative....................................................................................................................................................2

About the Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................................3

Summary of Key Themes and Findings ......................................................................................................................11

Key Themes of Project Implementation ......................................................................................................................... 14

Theme 1. Target Beneficiary Recruitment and Engagement..................................................................... 15

Theme 2. Organizational Capacity..................................................................................................................................22

Theme 3. Partnerships and Collaboration................................................................................................................ 30

Theme 4. Community Capacity.........................................................................................................................................38

Early Impacts of POWER Implementation.....................................................................................................................44

Recommendations for ARC..................................................................................................................................................... 50

Planned for additional study...............................................................................................................................................52

Appendix.................................................................................................................................................................................................53

Appendix A: Implementation Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................54

Appendix B: Interview Protocols ...........................................................................................................................................61

Appendix C: Grantees Evaluated in Year 1.................................................................................................................... 63

Appendix D: Projects Not Included in Year 1 Evaluation....................................................................................68

Appendix E: Definitions of POWER Outputs and Outcomes............................................................................72
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 ii

Tables

Table 1: Evaluation Sample – Project Categories and Types .............................................................................5

Table 2: Outputs for Evaluated Sample..............................................................................................................................7

Table 3: Outcomes for Evaluated Sample....................................................................................................................... 9

Table 4: Additional Definitions of Success by Project Category ....................................................................11

Table 5: Participant Type by Grantee Type................................................................................................................... 15

Table 6: Strategic Recruitment Examples (n=46)......................................................................................................16

Table 7: Tailored Programming Examples (n=45) ..................................................................................................... 17

Table 8: Demonstrating Possibilities Examples (n=26).......................................................................................... 18

Table 9: Multiple Media Examples (n=25)........................................................................................................................ 19

Table 10: Participant Reluctance Examples (n=38) ................................................................................................. 20

Table 11: Beneficiary Funding Examples (n=17) .......................................................................................................... 21

Table 12: Competition Examples (n=16)............................................................................................................................ 21

Table 13: Internal Resources Examples (n=41).............................................................................................................23

Table 14: Experience/Reputation Examples (n=40)................................................................................................24

Table 15: Creative Culture Examples (n=9).....................................................................................................................25

Table 16: Project Management Examples (n=37) ......................................................................................................26

Table 17: Staffing Examples (n=32).......................................................................................................................................27

Table 18: Financial Constraints Examples (n=27) .......................................................................................................28

Table 19: Grants Management Examples (n=24)........................................................................................................29

Table 20: History Examples (n=36) ....................................................................................................................................... 31

Table 21: New Opportunities Examples (n=34)............................................................................................................32

Table 22: Partner Fit Examples (n=31).................................................................................................................................33

Table 23: Common Priorities Examples (n=26)............................................................................................................34

Table 24: Effective Communication Examples (n=18)............................................................................................35

Table 25: Process Differences Examples (n=23)........................................................................................................ 36

Table 26: Level of Commitment Examples (n=18)................................................................................................... 36

Table 27: Partner Personnel Examples (n=15)..............................................................................................................37

Table 28: Self-Determination Examples (n=44)...........................................................................................................39

Table 29: Community Leadership/Pipelines Examples (n=22)...................................................................... 40

Table 30: Influence/Presence Examples (n=19) ....................................................................................................... 40

Table 31: Shallow Pools Examples (n=27) ....................................................................................................................... 41

Table 32: Social/Environmental Examples (n=13).....................................................................................................42

Table 33: Physical Infrastructure Examples (n=12)....................................................................................................43

Table 34: Power of POWER Examples (n=27).............................................................................................................. 46

Table 35: Progress Toward Impact Examples (n=49).............................................................................................47

Table 36: Social Change Examples (n=33)..................................................................................................................... 48

Table 37: Economic Development Examples (n=30)............................................................................................. 49
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 iii

Acknowledgements

The authors at Chamberlin/Dunn LLC are grateful for the 

many people who supported the evaluation of the 

Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic 

Revitalization (POWER) Initiative. We would like to recognize 

implementers of the 88 evaluated projects for their time, 

participation, and willingness to share their perspectives. We 

are particularly grateful to POWER grantees at site visit 

locations for graciously hosting the authors, coordinating visits 

and conversations with partners, and otherwise supporting 

data collection. We are grateful to the state-level and 

foundation personnel who provided their perspective to inform 

the evaluation’s design. We thank the staff and leadership of 

the Appalachian Regional Commission, especially the 

Research & Evaluation team, communications staff, and the 

POWER Coordinators who provided vital perspective, 

guidance, and insight both during the design phase and 

throughout the year-long effort. This evaluation would not 

have been possible without their contributions.
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 iv

Executive Summary

The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) 

Initiative “is a congressionally funded program that provides resources to assist 

communities and regions adversely affected by job losses in coal mining, coal power plant 

operations, and coal-related supply chain industries due to the changing economies of 

America’s energy production.” 1 As of October 2019, the Appalachian Regional Commission 

(ARC) has funded 239 projects to help empower communities to create more diverse and 

sustainable economies under the POWER Initiative. These projects, which touch 312 

counties in 11 states, are as diverse as the Appalachian region itself, deploying nearly as 

many different strategies as there are POWER projects, across six categories:

Business Development projects support access to capital, business incubators, 

business site development, business technical assistance, entrepreneurship 

education, and export development. 

Education & Workforce Development projects support adult education, career and 

technical education, educational achievement/attainment, teacher training, and 

workforce training.

Asset-Based Development projects support arts/culture/tourism and sector-based 

strategies.

Community Development projects support community facilities, community 

infrastructure, community revitalization, and transportation.

Civic Entrepreneurship projects support community capacity and organizational 

capacity.

Health projects support access to care and health promotion/disease prevention.

About the Evaluation

This evaluation was designed to help ARC and its stakeholders learn from program 

implementation successes and challenges; identify technical assistance needs; and report 

on the qualitative impact of investments made, to date, with POWER funds. The evaluation 

prioritized open implementation grants funded in fiscal year (FY) 2018 and earlier, to capture 

the experiences of grantees who were in the process of, or had recently concluded, project 

implementation. Over FY2019, the evaluation sought to: 

• Understand grant progress, accelerators, barriers, and outcomes for the portfolio of 

POWER-funded projects;

• Leverage evaluation as an opportunity for learning, improvement, and coursecorrection, for existing and future grantees;

• Understand the impact of ARC funds on regional economic development plans and 

strategies; and

• Identify grantee technical assistance needs. 

1 https://www.arc.gov/funding/POWER.asp
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 v

A sample of 88 grantees was selected for document review, the completion of an openended pre-interview questionnaire focused on their experiences with implementation, and a 

telephone or in-person interview. Additionally, the evaluators conducted full site visits with 

nine grantees, which included interviews with additional staff, partners, and, in some cases, 

participants.

Implementation Themes

Despite their differences, projects share common objectives of economic diversification, job 

creation, capital investment, and workforce development and reemployment. Through this 

year-long evaluation of the implementation of 88 POWER projects, it is clear projects also 

share many common successes and challenges in the processes and experiences of 

implementation, including those related to target population recruitment and engagement, 

organizational capacity, partnerships and collaboration, and community capacity.

Target Population Recruitment and Engagement – The recruitment of beneficiaries (e.g., 

trainees, businesses, communities, tourists, etc.), as well as the retention and continued 

engagement of those beneficiaries throughout the project. 

Common challenges included participant reluctance, competition among organizations, 

and access to funding and capital. Common factors that accelerated success were 

strategic recruitment, the use of multiple media, tailored programming, and 

demonstrating progress. 

Organizational Capacity – The wherewithal of grantee organizations to capitalize on 

strengths related to internal management and human and financial resource capacity to 

support effective project delivery and accountability.

Common challenges were project or time management, staffing, financial management, 

and grants management. Common factors that accelerated success were internal 

resources, organizational experience and reputation, and promoting a creative and 

nimble organizational culture.

Partnerships and Collaboration – The external relationships and the extent to which 

partner organizations could be utilized to execute projects successfully. 

Common challenges were differences in organizational processes among partners, 

differing levels of commitment, and partner turnover and lack of capacity. Common 

factors that accelerated success were partnership histories, development of new 

partnerships, ensuring “fit,” a focus on common priorities, and effective communication.

Community Capacity – The willingness and ability of communities, and those businesses 

and individuals within the communities, to participate in funded projects in a way that 

would lead to achievement of project outcomes. 

Common challenges were a shallow pool of community resources, social and 

environmental barriers, and community infrastructure. Common factors that accelerated 

success were the building of community self-determination, building a pipeline of future 

leaders, and increasing grantee presence and connections with communities.
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 vi

Early Impact

This evaluation of POWER focuses on project implementation, with the main objectives of 

understanding grantee experiences and lessons learned to date as well as identifying 

strategies for ARC and grantees to improve the likelihood of success and mitigate 

challenges. The nature of the large-scale, transformative change POWER intends to effect 

means it is too early to quantify impact beyond short-term outputs and outcomes. However, 

grantees described long-term vision for economic transformation that is driven, in part, by 

social change – the building of hope and the shifting of mindsets in areas that have endured 

severe economic distress. With a recognition that it may take many years to realize true 

economic transformation, grantees stated they have started to see shorter-term outcomes 

and impacts that they believe will result in longer-term impacts over time:

The “power of POWER” to set vision and build hope

“[T]he POWER initiative has really helped rekindle hope that things can get better. This 

has been phenomenally good for our region.

Progress toward potential long-term change

“On a voluntary feedback survey, 95% of respondents intend to continue 

entrepreneurship efforts [in their schools]. Community colleges are reporting increased 

enrollment, increased matriculation, and that’s vital to keeping our youth in Appalachia”

Social change

Some folks...are beginning to realize there is a true economic development component 

to helping people live longer and be more productive. You can recruit a factory...but if 

you don’t have a healthy workforce capable of stepping into those jobs, you haven’t

done anything. This work is creating healthier people, but also a culture of awareness 

around what is local.

Economic development

People are realizing there is a value and history in our heritage. Our communities’ main 

streets are changing – they are now filling up with tourist attractions. Tourists are 

creating jobs.

Recommendations for ARC

To promote effective recruitment and engagement of program beneficiaries:

• Require additional market analysis from grantees at the time of POWER application

• Encourage the development of detailed recruitment and retention plans

• Conduct frequent check-ins with grantees during the critical start-up period 

• Continue open communication and allowing strategic pivoting when needed 

• Encourage grantees to budget for marketing and communications, including staffing

• Continue to provide technical assistance around measuring and communicating 

progress locally, regionally, and statewide

• Continually communicate the avenues for sharing stories with ARC
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 vii

To help grantees strengthen organizational capacity:

• Offer technical assistance around resource mapping (internally and externally) to 

help grantees think about current capacity and how to extend/expand it

• Provide tools and resources for assessing organizational readiness for POWER 

• At start-up, remind grantees and partners about processes and implications of 

reimbursement funding, as well as the possibility to request advances

• Remind grantees to plan for accountability and financial data collection and 

maintenance, both internally and with partner organizations

• Challenge grantees to think about and report on a variety of sustainability efforts

• Explore the establishment of a grantee mentorship network for new grantees to 

connect with more experienced grantees

• Consider ARC’s role in connecting grantees to additional sources of funding

To support collaboration and the development of partnerships:

• Encourage grantees to establish regular communication channels and schedules

• Share practices and tools for vetting partners; establishing common vision, priorities, 

and goals; delineating roles and responsibilities; and identifying partner assets and 

resources that benefit the project or fill gaps in grantee expertise or experience

To develop community capacity:

• Continue to invest in leadership and capacity building

• Continue to invest in projects that encourage collaboration and break down 

traditional jurisdictional and regional boundaries

• Communicate POWER’s impacts, and help grantees do the same

To further improve the internal management of POWER:

• Establish a more prescriptive narrative reporting format

• Consider having future grantees set and report on interim progress targets

• Consider methods for measuring results by geography

Planned for Additional Study

In FY2020, ARC plans to work with C/D to study the following topics: 

• Collect, analyze, and respond to grantee and partner implementation experiences

(new grantees not studied in Year One of the evaluation)

• Assess the implementation and outcomes of technical assistance projects

• Conduct a deeper assessment of high-priority topics, including projects focused on 

substance use disorder, multi-state and other complex projects, and projects in “high 

competition” areas with many POWER projects operating simultaneously

• Track and measure the short-, medium-, and long-term results of POWER over time

The Chamberlin/Dunn LLC (C/D) team issued monthly reports to ARC documenting early 

observations and impressions. Following the completion of interviews, C/D recoded and 

thematically analyzed all data collected and compiled the results into this report.
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 1

Introduction

Success Factors, Challenges, and 

Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative

An Implementation Evaluation

October 2019
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 2

About the POWER Initiative

The Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) 

Initiative “is a congressionally funded program that provides resources to assist 

communities and regions adversely affected by job losses in coal mining, coal power plant 

operations, and coal-related supply chain industries due to the changing economies of 

America’s energy production.”

2 As of October 2019, the Appalachian Regional Commission 

(ARC) has funded 239 projects to help empower communities to create more diverse and 

sustainable economies, with over $190 million in POWER funding awarded. POWER projects 

have touched 312 counties in 11 states across Appalachia.3

The POWER initiative is unique in comparison to other types of ARC-funded projects, in that 

it generally encourages a broader focus, looking particularly for projects that reach across 

communities and engage a variety of partners, including projects that engage multiple 

regions or states. In addition, the POWER initiative allows entities to apply directly to ARC to 

compete for POWER funding as opposed to dollars provided to states through a blockgrant formula. 

The primary objective of POWER is to invest in economic and workforce development 

projects and activities that will produce one, or a combination, of the following outcomes:

• Economic diversification: diversify the commercial and industrial bases of local and 

regional economies;

• Job creation: create high-quality, well-paying jobs in new and/or existing industries;

• Capital investment: attract new sources of job-creating investment (both public and 

private); and 

• Workforce development and reemployment opportunities: provide a range of 

workforce services and skills training, including paid work-based learning 

opportunities, resulting in industry-recognized credentials for high quality, indemand jobs. 

POWER implementation projects are grouped into six categories:

4

Business Development projects support access to capital, business incubators, 

business site development, business technical assistance, entrepreneurship 

education, and export development. 

Education & Workforce Development projects support adult education, career and 

technical education, educational achievement/attainment, teacher training, and 

workforce training.

Asset-Based Development projects support arts/culture/tourism and sector-based 

strategies.

2 https://www.arc.gov/funding/POWER.asp

3

Ibid

4 POWER has also funded Research & Evaluation and State & Local Development District 

Administration projects.
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 3

Community Development projects support community facilities, community 

infrastructure, community revitalization, and transportation.

Civic Entrepreneurship projects support community capacity and organizational 

capacity.

Health projects support access to care and health promotion/disease prevention.

Even within categories, projects vary widely in implementation strategies. To illustrate, 

POWER has funded the renovation of a welding lab, the training and employment of 

community health workers who help patients build healthy habits, and the expansion of 

water service to an airport site that could serve as the best developable land in the region. 

POWER funds have supported the building of new trails to capitalize on Appalachia’s nature 

tourism opportunities; the training of community leaders to support local entrepreneurs as 

they take new business ideas to market; and the establishment of initiatives as varied as 

food hubs, workforce training centers, business incubators, and one of only two schools of 

optometry in the Appalachian region.

Although strategies for economic transformation are varied, grantees within and across 

categories share common aims and common vision. As is detailed in POWER Project 

Categories, grantees of multiple types are working toward serving and improving 

participants, communities, businesses, and organizations; creating plans and reports for 

future development; creating new jobs; and leveraging private investment, among other 

outputs and outcomes. In addition to formal output and outcome measures, grantees 

responded with significant overlap to an open-ended question about definitions of longterm success. Grantees envision their projects creating broad and long-term economic 

impact, developing viable career paths and financial futures for local residents, and building 

community capacity to carry out future work.

This implementation evaluation of the POWER Initiative seeks to understand and document 

the experiences of grantees as they have worked toward their visions for economic 

transformation. 

About the Evaluation

Purpose and Objectives

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, ARC sought an external evaluator to assess POWER 

implementation. After a competitive request for proposal (RFP) process, Chamberlin/Dunn, 

LLC (“C/D”) was selected and began the evaluation in October 2018. The evaluation was 

designed to help ARC and its stakeholders learn from program implementation successes 

and challenges; identify technical assistance needs; and report on the qualitative impact of 

investments made, to date, with POWER funds. The evaluation focused on grants funded in 

fiscal year (FY) 2018 and earlier, as the evaluation team and ARC determined that grants first 

funded in FY2019 would not be far enough in implementation to meaningfully contribute to 

implementation evaluation. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 4

The stated objectives of the evaluation are:

• Understand grant progress, accelerators, barriers, and outcomes for the portfolio of 

POWER-funded projects;

• Leverage evaluation as an opportunity for learning, improvement, and coursecorrection, for existing and future grantees;

• Understand the impact of ARC funds on regional economic development plans and 

strategies; and

• Identify grantee technical assistance needs. 

Evaluation Questions and Methodology

Evaluation questions were designed by the C/D evaluation team and reviewed and revised 

with ARC staff. The research questions are:

• To what extent are POWER grantees progressing toward their stated performance 

outputs and outcomes?

• To what extent are there common characteristics among grantees across POWER 

project categories? If there are common characteristics, what are they? 

• What factors appear to contribute to a) strong performance, b) improved 

performance, and c) lagging performance? 

• What technical assistance could ARC provide to improve performance?

• Given POWER grant performance, and grantees’ experiences, are there better ways 

for ARC to measure, monitor, and evaluate grantee success in the future? 

C/D ultimately selected 88 grantees for inclusion in the FY2019 implementation evaluation

sample.5 C/D then analyzed data collected through three means:

1. Document review, including project narratives, approval memos, stated outputs and 

outcomes, and quarterly reports submitted to ARC through its online portal, ARCnet.

2. Pre-interview questionnaires issued to site visit and phone interview grantees, to prepare 

for interviews. 

3. In-person interviews for a select group of grantees that represent the range of POWERfunded projects, and telephone interviews for remaining selected grantees. During 

interviews, the evaluation team used a semi-structured interview process with an interview 

protocol developed in collaboration with ARC staff.

Data collected through questionnaires and interviews were analyzed using a general 

inductive approach, which is particularly useful in drawing clear links between research 

questions and objectives and data collection results. Emerging themes were developed 

through a review of qualitative data collected, as well as information obtained through 

document review. C/D completed monthly internal reports for ARC, in which identified 

themes were categorized into successes and accelerators of success; challenges and 

barriers; potential impacts; and ARC feedback and/or technical assistance needs. For this 

5 C/D originally identified 96 grantees, but it was determined that eight grantees were too early in the 

implementation process. The full project selection methodology is described in Appendix A. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 5

final evaluation report, themes identified through qualitative data analysis for monthly 

reports were re-reviewed and recategorized into the Key Themes identified in this report, 

with qualitative data components reviewed to identify keywords associated with each 

theme and placed into an analysis matrix. The final step of the analysis was for each 

member of the evaluation team to review the analysis matrix, collaboratively adding 

contextual details and revising any categorizations as necessary. Appendix A provides more 

detailed information about project selection and analysis methodology. 

POWER Project Categories

POWER projects included in the FY2019 evaluation sample covered each of the six POWER 

project categories: Business Development (n=40), Education and Workforce Development 

(n=27), Asset-Based Development (n=12), Community Development (n=5), Civic 

Entrepreneurship (n=2), and Health (n=2). Within each category, the sample included projects 

in each of the project types. Table 1 provides a breakdown of each project category and 

type and the number of grantees evaluated in each. 

Table 1: Evaluation Sample – Project Categories and Types

ARC requires grantees to identify projected outputs and outcomes for their projects, for

which they must report progress on a regular basis. In addition, as part of the semistructured interviews, grantees were asked to describe how they defined success for their 

projects, outside of set outputs and outcomes. Tables 2-4 provide an overview, by grant 

type, of common outputs and outcomes, as well as a summary of common grantee 

definitions of success (aggregated by grant type). Note that outputs, outcomes, and 

definitions of success in Tables 2-4 are limited to the 88 evaluated grantees. 

Community Development (n=5)

• 3 Community Infrastructure

• 2 Community Revitalization

Civic Entrepreneurship (n=2)

• 2 Community Capacity

Health (n=2)

• 2 Health Access

Business Development (n=40)

• 19 Business Technical Assistance

• 9 Access to Capital

• 7 Business Site Development

• 4 Business Incubator

• 1 Export Development

Education and Workforce 

Development (n=27)

• 20 Workforce Training

• 4 Career and Technical Education

• 1 Adult Education

• 1 Education Achievement/Attainment

• 1 Teacher Training

Asset-Based Development 

(n=12)

•6 Arts-Culture-Tourism

•6 Sector-based Strategies
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 6

Tables 2 and 3 list each grant type, as well as the outputs and outcomes that were selected 

by those grantees; the number of grantees selecting each output or outcome; and the total 

number anticipated to be reached by that output or outcome (e.g., how many total 

businesses were anticipated to be created, etc.). Outputs and outcomes selected, number 

of grantees selecting, and total planned counts are based on data obtained through 

ARCnet, ARC’s data collection and reporting system, as of September 2019.

6 Definitions of 

outputs and outcomes listed in Tables 2 and 3 are provided in Appendix E. 

Outputs

As shown in Table 2, there were similarities in outputs selected across project categories. All 

evaluated project types with the exception of Health selected Participants Served and 

Communities Served, and four of six types selected Businesses Served, Plans/Reports, 

Organizations Served, and Square Feet. In total, evaluated grantees aimed to serve 9,793 

participants; 595 communities; 8,301 businesses; and 232 organizations across Appalachia. 

Evaluated grantees aimed to complete 293 plans/reports and construct or improve 149,515 

square feet.

The most commonly selected output for Business Development projects was Businesses 

Served (selected by 88 percent of evaluated grantees), followed by Participants Served 

(selected by 40 percent) and Communities Served (selected by 38 percent). For Education 

and Workforce Development projects, Workers/Trainees Served was selected by 74 

percent of evaluated grantees, followed by Students Served (selected by 44 percent). 

Communities Served was the most common output for evaluated Asset-Based

Development projects (58 percent); half selected Businesses Served. Communities Served 

and Businesses Served were selected by 80 percent of evaluated Community 

Development projects. Both Civic Entrepreneurship projects selected Communities Served, 

and both Health projects selected Patients Served as outputs. Other outputs and planned 

output numbers are listed in Table 2.

6 Actual output and outcome numbers are not listed in this report, as most grantees evaluated were 

still in the process of implementation. While some had interim progress recorded in ARCnet, many 

did not, and the evaluation team determined that actual numbers recorded in ARCnet as of 

September 2019 may not be accurately representative of numbers to date. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 7

Table 2: Outputs for Evaluated Sample

Project Type Outputs Selected Projects7 Planned Outputs

Business Development 

(n=40)

Businesses Served 35 6,255

Participants Served 16 5,711

Communities Served 15 333

Plans/Reports 13 223

Students Served 5 1,190

Linear Feet 4 46,600

Workers/Trainees Served 3 1,410

Households Served 2 335

Acreage 2 2,017

Million Gallons Per Day 1 0.1

New Visitors – Days 1 200,000

Organizations Served 1 216

Square Feet 1 27,000

Access Road Miles 1 0.47

Education & Workforce 

Development 

(n=27)

Workers/Trainees Served 20 10,519

Students Served 12 36,487

Businesses Served 10 167

Communities Served 1 3

Organizations Served 1 3

Participants Served 1 130

Patients Served 1 5,060

Square Feet 1 36,000

Asset-Based 

Development 

(n=12)

Communities Served 7 201

Businesses Served 6 732

Participants Served 5 3,492

Plans/Reports 5 18

New Visitors – Days 3 222.750

New Visitors – Overnight 3 196,627

Square Feet 2 36,515

Linear Feet 1 79,200

Community 

Development 

(n=5)

Businesses Served 4 1,147

Communities Served 4 37

Households Served 2 4,642

Linear Feet 2 300,080

Students Served 2 4,985

New Visitors – Days 1 250

New Visitors – Overnight 1 100

Organizations Served 1 10

Participants Served 1 300

Plans/Reports 1 6

Power – Kilowatts 1 2,000

Square Feet 1 50,000

Civic Entrepreneurship 

(n=2)

Communities Served 2 21

Participants Served 1 160

Plans/Reports 1 16

Health 

(n=2)

Patients Served 2 12,625

Organizations Served 1 3

7 Grantees with more than one grant for the same project are counted as one grantee. Projects can 

be counted more than once, as grantees could select more than one output. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 8

Outcomes

As with outputs, Table 3 demonstrates similarities in selected outcomes across project

categories. All project categories except Civic Entrepreneurship selected Jobs Created and 

Leveraged Private Investment as outcomes, and all categories except Health selected 

Participants Improved and Communities Improved. Four of the six categories (Business 

Development, Education and Workforce Development, Asset-Based Development, and 

Community Development) selected Businesses Improved, Businesses Created, and Jobs 

Retained. In total, evaluated grantees planned to create 6,474 jobs and 982 businesses; 

leverage nearly $581 million in private investment; and improve 5,798 participants, 337 

communities, and 4,045 businesses, plus retaining 4,147 jobs. 

By project type, the most commonly selected outcomes for Business Development were 

Jobs Created (selected by 90 percent of evaluated Business Development projects), 

followed by Businesses Improved (83 percent) and Leveraged Private Investment (83 

percent). For Education and Workforce Development, 74 percent selected 

Workers/Trainees Improved, and another 44 percent selected Students Improved. All 

Asset-Based Development projects selected Jobs Created, and 67 percent selected 

Businesses Created. Community Development projects were mostly likely to select 

Businesses Improved and Communities Improved (80 percent each). Both Civic 

Entrepreneurship projects selected Communities Improved, and both Health projects

selected Patients Improved and Jobs Created. Other outcomes and planned outcome 

numbers are listed in Table 3. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 9

Table 3: Outcomes for Evaluated Sample

Project Type Outcomes Selected Projects8 Planned Outcomes

Business Development

(n=40)

Jobs Created 37 4,253

Businesses Improved 34 3,272

Leveraged Private Investment 33 $475,215,846

Businesses Created 27 675

Jobs Retained 20 3,105

Participants Improved 16 4,921

Communities Improved 15 233

Students Improved 4 600

Workers/Trainees Improved 3 1,150

Programs Implemented 3 7

Organizations Improved 1 216

Households Improved 1 65

Revenues Increased – Export Sales 1 $20,000,000

Education & Workforce 

Development 

(n=27)

Workers/Trainees Improved 20 7,171

Students Improved 12 36,109

Businesses Improved 10 129

Jobs Created 7 621

Jobs Retained 4 272

Leveraged Private Investment 3 $32,590,000

Programs Implemented 3 10

Businesses Created 3 34

Revenues Increased – Nonexport 2 $39,867,500

Communities Improved 1 3

Organizations Improved 1 3

Participants Improved 1 130

Patients Improved 1 5,060

Asset-Based 

Development 

(n=12)

Jobs Created 12 969

Businesses Created 8 270

Communities Improved 7 56

Leveraged Private Investment 7 $15,188,725

Businesses Improved 6 307

Participants Improved 5 467

Revenues Increased – Nonexport 5 $66,532,200

Jobs Retained 3 325

Programs Implemented 1 1

Telecom Sites 1 1

Community 

Development 

(n=5)

Businesses Improved 4 337

Communities Improved 4 24

Jobs Created 3 602

Jobs Retained 3 445

Households Improved 2 1,389

Leveraged Private Investment 2 $57,000,000

Businesses Created 1 3

Participants Improved 1 200

Revenues Increased – Nonexport 1 $560,000

Civic Entrepreneurship

(n=2)

Communities Improved 2 21

Participants Improved 1 80

Health 

(n=2)

Patients Improved 2 12,500

Jobs Created 2 29

Students Improved 1 60

Leveraged Private Investment 1 $780,000

Organizations Improved 1 3

8 Grantees with more than one grant for the same project are counted as one grantee. Projects could 

be counted more than once, as grantees could select more than one outcome. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 10

In addition to setting outputs and outcomes, during telephone and on-site interviews, 

grantees were asked to define success in their own terms, beyond projected outputs and 

outcomes. Table 4 provides a summary overview of other definitions of success, based on 

the evaluation team’s grouping of other definitions of success into themes. 

Grantees tend to report seeing the “big picture” beyond projected outputs and outcomes

and frequently define success in terms similar to those ARC uses to describe the goals and 

objectives of the POWER Initiative overall. The most common definition of success (noted 

by just under 40 percent of grantees) was creating a broad economic impact, including 

attracting new businesses and industries, investors, and visitors to the region; diversifying 

economies; and helping people get jobs that lead to workers staying in the region. 

Economic impact was particularly mentioned among Business Development (nearly half of 

these grantees) and Asset-Based Development grantees (over half of these grantees). 

Further, just under 40 percent of grantees mentioned a desire to support not just jobs, but 

viable and enjoyable career paths and financial futures (comments included fulfilling 

careers, high-paying jobs, and being able to support families). This definition was noted 

especially among Education and Workforce Development grantees (over two-thirds). 

Building community capacity, including building networks within communities to carry out 

the work, increasing community-based activism and leadership, and rallying communities 

around a common goal was mentioned by just below 20 percent of grantees. Both Civic 

Entrepreneurship grantees discussed this aim, as did a number of other grantees across all 

other project types except Health. 

Three additional definitions of success themes were related to building creative or positive 

strategies or feelings within communities. About 16 percent of grantees defined success as 

creating new ways of thinking in communities, including promoting innovative ways of 

considering business and economic development; using asset-based approaches; and 

shifting mindsets about career opportunities. Nearly 14 percent of grantees mentioned 

building hope, excitement, or engagement within communities. In addition, just over 10 

percent cited improvements in quality of life, which included improvements in healthcare, 

nutrition, and recreation options. 

Finally, about 10 percent of grantees felt that the overall sustainability of their project, 

beyond the life of the POWER grant, would be a definition of success. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 11

Table 4: Additional Definitions of Success by Project Category9

Project Type Other Definitions of Success

Business Development 

(n=40)

Economic impact (18)

Viable careers/financial futures (10)

New ways of thinking (9)

Building community capacity (7)

Building hope/excitement (6)

Sustainability (6)

Quality of life (3)

Education & Workforce Development

(n=27)

Viable careers/financial futures (18)

Economic impact (6)

New ways of thinking (4)

Building community capacity (3)

Building hope/excitement (2)

Quality of life (1)

Sustainability (1)

Asset-Based Development 

(n=12)

Economic impact (7)

Quality of life (4)

Viable careers/financial futures (3)

Building community capacity (3)

Building hope/excitement (2)

Sustainability (2)

New ways of thinking (1)

Community Development

(n=5 evaluated)

Building community capacity (2)

Quality of life (2)

Economic impact (1)

Civic Entrepreneurship 

(n=2 evaluated)

Building community capacity (2)

Economic impact (1)

Building hope/excitement (1)

Viable careers/financial futures (1)

Health 

(n=2 evaluated)

Building hope/excitement (1)

Sustainability (1)

Summary of Key Themes and Findings

Evaluators identified four main themes that were common across all grant types and thus 

are the focus of this report.

Target Population Recruitment and Engagement: Recruitment of beneficiaries (e.g., 

trainees, businesses, communities, tourists, etc.), as well as the retention and continued 

engagement of those beneficiaries throughout the project. Common challenges 

included participant reluctance, competition among organizations, and access to 

funding and capital. Common factors that accelerated success were strategic

recruitment, the use of multiple media, tailored programming, and demonstrating 

progress. 

9 Projects may be included in more than one definition of success, as some grantees listed multiple 

additional definitions of success. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 12

Organizational Capacity: The wherewithal of grantee organizations to capitalize on 

strengths related to internal management and human and financial resource capacity to 

support effective project delivery and accountability. Common challenges were project 

or time management, staffing, financial management, and grants management. 

Common factors that accelerated success were internal resources, organizational 

experience and reputation, and promoting a creative and nimble organizational culture.

Partnerships and Collaboration: External relationships and the extent to which partner 

organizations could be utilized to execute projects successfully. Common challenges 

were differences in organizational processes among partners, differing levels of 

commitment, and partner turnover and lack of capacity. Common factors that 

accelerated success were partnership histories, development of new partnerships, 

ensuring “fit,” a focus on common priorities, and effective communication.

Community Capacity: The willingness and ability of communities, and those businesses 

and individuals within the communities, to participate in funded projects in a way that 

would lead to achievement of project outcomes. Common challenges were a shallow 

pool of community resources, social and environmental barriers, and community 

infrastructure. Common factors that accelerated success were the building of 

community self-determination, building a pipeline of future leaders, and increasing 

grantee presence and connections with communities.

Finally, while it is too early to measure the true impact of POWER funding and POWER 

projects, grantees described long-term vision for economic transformation driven, in part, 

by social change that includes the building of hope and the shifting of mindsets in areas that 

have seen severe economic distress. Reported early impacts include the power of POWER 

to set vision and build hope; progress toward potential long-term change; social change; 

and economic development.

Each theme is discussed in more detail in the Key Themes section, along with successes 

and challenges related to each theme and lessons learned. The Early Impacts section offers

a description of perceived and anticipated impacts at this point in POWER implementation.

Evaluation Notes and Limitations

While the C/D team worked closely with ARC to ensure that evaluation methodology was 

appropriate to answer all evaluation questions, as with all evaluations, there are certain 

limitations that should be noted. 

The evaluation was primarily an implementation evaluation, as most projects had not 

concluded during the Year One evaluation period, or those that had concluded were 

recently finished. As such, this evaluation only covers project outcomes and impacts from a 

limited standpoint (namely, reviewing output and outcome numbers reported by grantees, 

as well as grantees’ perceptions about early impacts). Future iterations of POWER 

evaluations should cover longer-term project impact, comparing it against desired goals 

and objectives for POWER. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 13

In addition, the 88 POWER projects reviewed for this evaluation were at various stages of 

implementation during evaluation. Some projects had just begun, some were in the middle 

of implementation, and some were drawing to a close or had recently closed. As part of the 

monthly evaluation reports to ARC, C/D provided information on the point in 

implementation at which the project was evaluated;10 however, because projects were at

various stages of implementation, conclusions drawn about project implementation may 

not be valid for all projects. 

Because the evaluation utilized primarily qualitative methods, it also has standard limitations 

associated with qualitative analysis. C/D employed techniques to minimize these limitations 

to the extent possible. 

Finally, because data were gathered through a semi-structured inquiry process, frequencies 

reported for success, challenges, and impacts tables in the report indicate the number of 

grants for which the experience or perception was specifically mentioned. A lack of 

response should not be interpreted to mean an experience or perception was absent from, 

or did not apply to, a project. Rather, it simply indicates the factor was not affirmed through 

the data collection and analysis process. 

A full description of limitations, and techniques employed to address limitations, is provided 

in Appendix A. 

10 A measure of percentage calculated based on the number of months that had passed since grant 

approval, divided by number of approved implementation months.
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 14

Key Themes of Project Implementation
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 15

The following themes emerged through qualitative data gathered via document review, 

open-ended questionnaires, and semi-structured interview responses from program staff 

and/or partners implementing the 88 evaluated grants. While grantees across all project 

types are represented in each theme and most subthemes, subthemes where only certain 

types of projects were represented are noted. 

Theme 1. Target Beneficiary Recruitment and Engagement

“In this market, you have to get 

out there and talk to people.”

“Many [potential participants] were 

either waiting for the mine to reopen or 

weren’t open to the idea of retraining for 

another position that paid less than their 

previous jobs.”

This theme focuses on the recruitment and engagement of participants (program 

beneficiaries) across all POWER grant categories. Given the nature and variety of project

focus, the term “participant” is considered very broadly for this evaluation. Table 5 shows 

the different types of participants, as well as the grant type primarily serving them. 

Table 5: Participant Type by Grantee Type

Participant Type Primarily Served by: 

Workforce trainees Education & Workforce Development 

Students (K-12 or higher education) Education & Workforce Development

Business Development

Businesses (both small and large) Business Development

Tourists and recreation enthusiasts Asset-Based Development

Entrepreneurs Business Development

Communities Community Development

Civic Entrepreneurship 

Healthcare service recipients Health 

Recruitment included grantees’ abilities to identify and involve their desired beneficiaries in 

funded activities and services. Engagement included the ability to keep program 

participants involved in programming until desired outcomes were achieved (e.g., 

completion of workforce or education training; full participation in workshops or other skillbuilding activities; in-depth involvement in activities designed to improve health, community 

capacity or infrastructure, etc.). 

Strengths and Contributing Factors

Grantees that had success at recruitment and engagement typically reported similar factors 

contributing to those successes. Common factors included:

• Strategic recruitment (n=46)

• Tailored programming (n=45)

• Demonstrating the possibilities (n=26)

• Multiple media (n=25)
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 16

Each factor is listed below, along with examples.11

Strategic Recruitment

Over half of the interviewed grantees reported that a major contributor to recruitment 

success was the utilization of recruitment plans that included identified human and financial 

resources to support recruitment, particularly targeted to individual communities. Some 

grantees were able to capitalize on local demand or interest for the project, which included 

leveraging industry growth or excitement in a particular industry or even turning the lack of 

resources in a community or region into interest for the project. In addition, some grantees 

tailored recruitment by engaging the help of local resources and/or tailoring 

communication to communities with local events or having a local presence. Grantees in all 

project categories except Community Development provided examples under this theme.

Table 6: Strategic Recruitment Examples (n=46)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(17)

- “The region has significant demand for [the services offered through] the 

project...but would only fully utilize these services...by adding personalized 

service from an individual with a presence in the region.”

- “The growing demand for solar in the commercial sector is a key thing, a 

key positive.”

- “The region is capital starved, and the pent-up demand has really helped 

this project get off the ground.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development 

(18)

- “Local...clubs really helped get the word out and shepherd people into our 

program.” 

- “Partners delivered a robust set of ideas for targeted outreach within the 

communities. [These efforts], especially at the grassroots community level, 

tremendously advanced enrollment numbers.”

- “In the past, it has been challenging to promote interest in manufacturing 

careers. [However], the current workforce shortage, increased visibility [of 

our project], and downturn in coal is changing perceptions. Our region is 

fairly small and word-of-mouth has helped spread the word.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (7)

- “Over the past 5-7 years, there has been a push to support local farmers 

and engage with agricultural opportunities.”

- “The big thing with rural economic development in our state is outdoor 

recreation – we need to advertise ourselves as such, and [there is great 

potential to build on that].” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(2)

- “There was an openness to diversification that wasn’t being captured in 

the region. We found...a large public interest in economic development 

diversification strategies and a desire to understand which strategies were 

viable.”

Health (2) - “The primary [ways in which] patients are recruited is because [of] a 

respected peer from the community.

11 For all tables that provide examples, the number of grantees mentioning that subtheme is based 

on themes created by the evaluation team, as well as coding of responses and placing responses 

into those themes. Frequencies indicate the number of projects for which the experience or 

perception was specifically mentioned. A lack of response should not be interpreted to mean an 

experience or perception was absent from, or did not apply to, a project. Rather it indicates the factor 

was not affirmed through the data collection and analysis process.
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 17

Tailored programming 

More than half of the grantees across all categories reported that effective recruitment and 

engagement required ensuring that programming was individualized to meet the needs of 

target beneficiaries, as well to meet the needs of partners, including local businesses. While

grantees adhered to the spirit of their original project plans, they recognized flexibility was 

necessary to maximize benefits to participants. Grantees also noted that ARC’s willingness 

to allow flexibility and creativity was vital. Examples of approaches included changing 

curricula, offering training opportunities through various means (in-person and online),

offering stipends for participation, and adapting frameworks to suit community needs. 

Table 7: Tailored Programming Examples (n=45)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(18)

- “The topography and low population density of some of the remote 

counties makes it difficult to reach them. Streaming [our] workshops and 

having them as recordings has addressed this issue.”

- “[We] focused our technical assistance efforts away from classroom 

sessions to one-on-one assistance. In this market, you have to get out there 

and talk to people.” 

- “[We created] a needs assessment for each county and distributed it at an 

event at each county. [We then based] workshops on each county’s needs.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development 

(18)

- “We found that many employers need either airframe or powerplant 

certified workers, rather than both. We modified our program so students 

start with general coursework and then have dual track options. We also 

developed a high school program.”

- “We started to see a bottleneck in the pipeline because it was taking too 

long to see people through the investment stage...so we improved our 

processes to expedite the assessment and human resource functions.”

- “[To remove barriers, we purchase] tools for the trainees, and trainees get 

to keep them upon successful completion of training. A $250 weekly 

expense stipend is also given to trainees. Testing/certification fees were 

also paid by the program to remove this as another barrier for trainees to 

obtain industry credentials upon completion of training.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (5)

- “The [project] has been adapted to include co-packing, catering, and 

institutional selling. Our populations have unique needs...This has meant we 

have to be flexible and adaptable in delivering services.” 

- “[We] changed the requirements of the apprenticeship program to be 

more flexible, with 20 hours of paid on-the-job training per week, business 

plan assistance, and exposure to different aspects of the food system.” 

Community 

Development (1)

- “Our thinking has evolved, and we have developed a new approach where 

[we will engage with for-profit entities] to create...employment opportunities. 

Similarly, we have shifted our focus to engage with nonprofit partners as 

hosts for our...cohorts. This will allow us to build the capacity of nonprofit 

leaders, support wage-based employment...and generate potential 

employees for partners, our own enterprises, and others.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(2)

- “[We have tweaked and adjusted approaches based on community needs 

and preferences]. Whoever is at the table, you have to follow their lead 

before you can invest the resources.” 

Health (1) “[Programming is very individualized based on the needs of the patient]. We 

help people navigate, help them choose plans for Medicare, help them 

jump through hoops of what they need.”
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 18

Demonstrating the possibilities 

Roughly 30 percent of grantees representing all categories felt that the ability to 

communicate project success could then show potential new beneficiaries the value of 

participating in the project, particularly when they could show participants others like them 

who had been successful in the process. 

Table 8: Demonstrating Possibilities Examples (n=26)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development (9)

- “[We are] creating the demonstration of former coal miners participating in 

the new energy economy, hiring people, starting their own visions. Our work 

is largely about creating tangible demonstrations.” 

- “Clients tell our story best.” 

- “The companies have been so appreciative that they act as ambassadors 

for our organization, making entry into other businesses so much easier.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (9)

- “The [biggest thing here] is an opportunity. If you can see yourself in that 

opportunity, we get people knocking down the doors. Success breeds 

success.” 

- “[We got] testimonials from those who obtained employment that it was 

worth the wait and why they liked the job.” 

- “College stakeholders and the economic development community use the 

facility as a talking point to speak about the success of current programs 

and potential to enhance workforce development in the region.”

Asset-Based 

Development (5)

- “A big asset we’ve had with this project is peer-to-peer education, where 

farmers can really present their results and what they’re doing, success and 

failure, to other farmers.” 

- “Our communities are small and intertwined. Word-of-mouth has helped 

promote our program and encourage more participation as communities 

see new social enterprises established or experience health-related 

programming or services within them.” 

Community 

Development (1)

- “Participants and partners in the program refer others [to the project]. We 

have not had to market our services much, as we have more interest than 

we can currently serve.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “[You have to] leverage successful communities as ambassadors to 

contextualize what can happen and what the intended outcomes are. Get 

small victories upfront and build on those successes.” 

Health (1) “We’ve been able to travel and demonstrate the model. The providers have 

caught on [to the model’s success]. They see their patients getting better, 

and the referrals are flowing.” 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 19

Multiple media

About 30 percent of grantees reported that successful recruitment included identifying

ways to use multiple forms of communication for engaging participants. Media included

local, regional, or national newspapers and TV; digital and social media; local or 

organizational newsletters; and networking and social events. Grantees in all categories 

except Health affirmed topics related to this subtheme.

Table 9: Multiple Media Examples (n=25)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development (11)

- “We have had various press attention for our program’s efforts within the 

communities we are working with. This includes [our program coordinator] 

being given a monthly column in the [local newspaper] to discuss this work.” 

- “Public events have been held in three counties, and a live TV interview 

was conducted at [one event]. [In addition], networking, community events, 

and connections and partners to get the word out have been critical.” 

- “A webpage is being developed by a local provider, [and] there will be subwebpages for each business.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (11)

- “We’ve had a lot of press on campus, visits from state representatives, 

tours.”

- “Various open houses and events were featured on TV and radio. Digital

websites were also created.” 

- The local TV station has visited three times. Elected officials and 

community members have toured the facility. Newer recruiting strategies 

are also being tried, [including] more frequent TV and social media 

advertising.”

Asset-Based 

Development (1)

- “We [were] slow to gain traction, but marketing [has helped] raise 

awareness.” 

Community 

Development (1)

- “We have received a significant amount of media attention including 

features in [local magazines] and a [community college] video.”

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “One partner has a full-time communications person who has created a 

really wonderful newsletter. It’s made us realize how important that is.”

Challenges and Contributing Factors 

Nearly 60 percent of evaluated grantees reported at least some challenges with finding and 

recruiting participants, as well as engaging participants at desired levels. Common 

challenges included:

• Participant reluctance (n=38)

• Beneficiary funding (n=17)

• Competition (n=16)
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 20

Participant Reluctance

Over 40 percent of grantees across all project types experienced challenges recruiting and 

engaging participants who were ready for and interested in programs and services offered.

These grantees reported participant reluctance related to risk aversion or skepticism to 

entrepreneurship, investment, or industry diversification; a sense that coal would return, 

thus making POWER initiatives unnecessary or undesired; or a perceived sense of 

hopelessness in their implementation communities.

Table 10: Participant Reluctance Examples (n=38)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(17)

- “People have a hard time seeing owning or starting a small business as a 

viable career path. The mindset is really a challenge.” 

- “Small farming and range operations aren’t seen [as viable] businesses. 

We need to [educate people to see them] as a business, a contributor to the 

economy and not a hobby. Until we respect it for what it is, it won’t be 

viable.” 

- “Many [potential participants] were either waiting for the mine to reopen or 

weren’t open to the idea of retraining for another position that paid less than 

their previous jobs.”

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (11)

- “When we talk about prospective jobs for cyber and information 

technology, we have to be forward thinking, and it can be a hard sell when 

workforce development activities are ahead of the actual jobs.” 

- “There is a pervasive belief in the region that coal will come back. Some 

who have worked in coal expect employment/unemployment fluctuations, 

so they believe this will just be a slow time and not the death of the 

industry.” 

- “Dislocated workers can face daunting challenges in finding new 

employment. There are so many who believe there are no opportunities 

here.”

Asset-Based 

Development (4)

- “Farmers don’t move at the speed of light. They step back and see what 

early adopters do, and what happened to them.”

- “The western part of [this state] has not been as interested in [our industry 

of focus] because mining and mill jobs [had always been] readily available. 

We had to work to generate interest.”

Community 

Development (3)

- “There is a bit of ‘cognitive dissonance’ in the region relative to diversifying 

the economy or getting more mines to open. The change in state and 

federal administrations has given mixed signals to communities, and 

communities are resource constrained and cannot afford to do both.”

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(2)

- “A lot of energy and PR is around ‘we’re going to open the coal mines 

again’. You can’t point to somebody that’s working in their own coffee shop 

– that doesn’t trigger interest, because people are used to looking at coal 

miners and their money, and that’s what they want.” 

- “We are struggling against the current of hopelessness to maintain 

positivity. People are only going to be engaged if they see some results.” 

Health (1) “There’s a misconception that diabetes is a death sentence, so people throw 

up their hands and think there is no use doing anything. We have to show 

them this is not 20 years ago. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 21

Beneficiary Funding

This subtheme is one of the few that applies to just two categories: Education and 

Workforce Development and Business Development. Roughly 40 percent of Education and

Workforce Development grantees noted challenges in recruiting individuals who could 

afford to participate in education or training activities in lieu of earning wages, or the ability 

to provide stipends or wage replacement to address this issue. About 15 percent of 

Business Development grantees cited difficulties in helping participants access the capital 

needed to engage in the desired business development (typically entrepreneurial) 

endeavors. If the grantee was not able to help a potential business owner or entrepreneur 

identify resources to access capital needed, this sometimes resulted in lack of ability to 

recruit or to engage participants through the training. 

Table 11: Beneficiary Funding Examples (n=17)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(6)

- “Businesses have trouble accessing investment dollars in [more rural] 

communities.” 

- “The most significant challenge is...access to capital. Those networks [to 

provide it] just don’t exist.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development 

(11)

- “Wage replacement is the first hurdle. [Potential participants] just can’t 

afford to drop their jobs.”

- “Older workers are not participating...because they lack income during the 

training period and have no guarantee of a job afterward.” 

Competition 

About 18 percent of grantees across four project categories felt challenged recruiting and 

engaging beneficiaries due to what they perceived as competition for scarce resources with 

other grantees and competition with local or other entities. 

Table 12: Competition Examples (n=16)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development (7)

- “Community ‘turfiness’ and internal competition due to resource scarcity 

are often tough to overcome in some communities.”

- “Some communities will not partner as they see the grant as competition.”

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (4)

- “Several other tech training/internship programs had much larger awards 

and offered paid training time while ours did not. This made it a challenge 

to get the enrollment we’d hoped for.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (4)

- “There was significant apprehension in the community about the program 

and seeing it as a competitor. This has been overcome, but there is still so 

much work to be done in building out this approach.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “We’ve sought to work with each other, but we compete for a lot of the 

same civic-minded people. In [one region] in particular, there has been a lot 

of ‘noise’ because there have been so many POWER projects, and 

communities have struggled to figure out which project to connect with.” 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 22

Lessons Learned for Effective Recruitment and Engagement

1. Use screening tools. Some grantees recommended the use of tools to ensure that 

beneficiaries were the right fit for the project. These included initial participant screenings, 

background checks, and assessments; intake processes; participation contracts; and 

tailored needs assessments. They allowed the grantees to zero in on those beneficiaries 

who would be the most likely to participate fully in and thus be impacted by the project. 

2. Employ marketing staff. Grantees found that it can be valuable to invest resources in 

finding or identifying staff to focus on marketing the value of the project, especially early in 

implementation. In particular, grantees found it useful to engage communications 

professionals to tell their stories, but they also noted the value of focusing marketing and 

recruitment messages for each community. As such, some grantees recommended 

engaging individuals from local communities to support on-the-ground marketing activities.

3. Pilot programs. Because grantees often were juggling limited financial and staffing 

resources, some recommended starting small, piloting programming to ensure successful 

methods and then scaling up or focusing on a particular set of participants for recruitment 

and engagement rather than being overly broad. 

Theme 2. Organizational Capacity 

“[We are] a little bit of a risk-taking group. 

Sometimes that’s what we have to do to 

create change. Trying things that haven’t 

been tried before to make it work.”

“We underestimated the challenges in 

working with traditional educational and 

social service programming. We also 

underestimated the time needed to get 

some of the programming, facilities, and 

equipment fully in place.”

This theme focuses internally, on the ability of grantee organizations to execute grant 

projects successfully. It includes elements of organizational leadership and staffing; 

planning and project management; and grants management (such as financial and data 

tracking). 

Strengths and Contributing Factors

Grantees across all project categories reported that human, financial, and organizational 

resources supported project success, as well as the ability to build on internal 

organizational factors such as experience, history, or reputation. Additionally, grantees 

discussed the importance of organizational agility as a strength in this category. Common 

factors included:

• Internal resources (n=41)

• Experience and reputation (n=40)

• Creative culture (n=9)
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 23

Internal resources

Nearly half of all grantees cited internal resources as factors contributing to success. These

included human resources, such as leadership, full-time staff, and contractors, as well as 

the development and implementation of strong hiring or contracting processes. Grantees 

also mentioned the ability of staff members to work across multiple disciplines for the good 

of the project. Further, the development or use of existing internal systems for financial and 

data tracking were identified as vital in strong grant implementation and accountability. 

Table 13: Internal Resources Examples (n=41)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(20)

- “I have an amazing team that is purposely transdisciplinary (health, arts, 

education, economic development, planning), and that’s been really useful 

for looking at things through multiple lenses.”

- “We have individuals including former entrepreneurs, tech execs, HR 

specialists, who have expertise in helping small businesses and individuals. 

From a personnel perspective, we had all that.”

- “Tracking processes, forms, reporting, and other systems and procedures 

were put into place early on to track business contacts, training provided, 

and results. Budget forms, monthly invoicing forms, and match report forms 

were all created to ensure billing and reporting are meeting guidelines from 

all parties.” 

“[We had] many of the financial and staff tracking systems [already] in 

place for the grant.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (7)

- “The internal team – instructors, finance and accounting staff, IT staff –

have shown major dedication to making this project a success.”

- “The infrastructure for managing the grant just fell in line with [systems] 

that we already had.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (7)

- “We have some amazing people working on the project, very creative. 

Nothing is going to work in [this region] unless you’re willing to think outside 

the box.” 

- “[We have] an internal application and spreadsheet to track contacts, 

outcomes, next follow up, and hires made. Staff gets a weekly task list for 

follow ups. If you hound local food buyers and farmers too much, you can 

turn them off. [Instead we can use the system] to make notes about when to 

contact them back, depending on how hot or cold they were.” 

Community 

Development (4)

- “Our team is experienced in performing the services required, so no outside 

contractors needed to be hired and this was a key factor in maintaining the 

budget.” 

- “With having prior grant experience, we were able to replicate the 

processes and procedures already in place, allowing data to be collected 

faster.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “Having access to the [pre-existing] entrepreneurial framework and its 

resources helped to frame how we worked with communities.” 

Health (2) - [We] put a lot of focus on ensuring the right people were [brought on 

board]. People from the community, people willing to listen, people who 

understand it’s not a 9-5 job.” 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 24

Experience and reputation

Just under half of all grantees reported that the collective skills, knowledge, and experience

of the organization were tied to successful implementation. This included the grantee’s

ability to build on existing programming or beneficiary relationships to accelerate success. 

Table 14: Experience/Reputation Examples (n=40)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(19)

- “We are an existing lender known in the community. When 

marketing...people were familiar with us. Our history of performance was a 

factor. People check references when they are looking for a loan, and we do 

what we tell them we will do.” 

- “The longevity [of the organization] has been helpful, as [we] have 

weathered a number of storms. The brand is seen as having staying power, 

so more locals are willing to invest in the strategies. 

- “This project built on...project infrastructure and [a statewide program]

previously funded...30 years of experience and relationships with 

manufacturers were also leveraged. Peers in the network and an existing 

manufacturer client base made it easier to expand and implement this 

project.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development 

(10)

- “In our experience as service providers in this area, we’ve had numerous 

federal and state grants. As a provider of services since 1996, we’ve gained 

the trust of those laid off in industry. Our staff is aware of the need for 

retraining efforts...We have that connection with industry.”

- “[The organization] has strong leadership and the ability to effectively 

execute.”

- “The curriculum [for this project] is already in place; this [project] is really 

an expansion of existing capacity.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (6)

- “[Our] knowledge of administering federal grants has been invaluable on 

the project.”

- “Internal leadership has been crucial in accomplishing state policy work, 

convening diverse organizations, [and] establishing [programs] which set a 

framework of locally led public-health and community development 

projects upon which the POWER grant was based.”

Community 

Development (3)

- “We had prior experience building fiber infrastructures so the design and 

build costs were already set up and implemented. Major issues [had been] 

resolved in previous projects.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “Part of the success in [one of the implementation states] was the 

[previously existing] relationships that the communities had [with the 

intermediary organization]”

Health (1) - [The partner] “has worked with [the grantee] on several projects in the past, 

and [we] think very highly of [its leader]. [He] has been instrumental in 

[implementation]. It’s probably gone faster because of him.”
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 25

Creative culture

Nine grantee organizations in Business Development, Education and Workforce 

Development, and Civic Entrepreneurship identified the presence of an innovative and 

creative organizational culture as a success factor. Although the overall frequency of 

responses is lower for this subtheme compared to other subthemes, these organizations 

stressed the difference organizational culture made to their ability to be effective.

Table 15: Creative Culture Examples (n=9)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development (4)

- “Our organization has a culture that allows for nimbleness, taking risks, 

and encourages good ideas to come from multiple levels. Further, we 

actively facilitate collaboration and teamwork.” 

- “[We are] a little bit of a risk-taking group. Sometimes that’s what we have 

to do to create change. Trying things that haven’t been tried before to make 

it work.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (4)

- “The potential return correlates with the amount of risk you take. If the big 

picture is transforming Appalachia, that’s what we need to do.” 

- “Our administration and board leadership have been supportive of 

working on such a project which is slightly outside the realm of our typical 

area of expertise.”

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “We’re willing to be flexible. That flexibility helped us be more successful.”

Challenges and Contributing Factors

Nearly three-quarters of grantees across all project categories reported challenges or 

barriers associated with organizational capacity. These challenges included project 

management challenges, internal staff issues, financial constraints, and grants management 

issues. Common challenges included:

• Project management (n=37)

• Staffing (n=32)

• Financial constraints (n=27)

• Grants management (n=24)

Project/Time Management

Project and time management challenges included all aspects of managing the lifecycle of 

project implementation. More than 40 percent of grantees reported issues in this area, 

representing all grant categories except Civic Entrepreneurship. Some grantees had 

challenges managing multiple types of regulatory processes, while others experienced 

project management issues related to dealing with timelines and delays in implementation. 

(Delay issues were particularly common for projects that included construction.) Still other 

grantees had challenges managing the processes of partner collaboration. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 26

Table 16: Project Management Examples (n=37)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(16)

- “Getting things in motion was a challenge. It was a new approach [than we 

were used to]. Coordinating was not smooth.” 

- “Trying to launch major new programs while also being a nonprofit slows 

progress. There are just so many systems, processes, etc. to put in place. It’s 

like working on an old farmhouse – you go to change a lightbulb and find 16 

other things that need done.” 

- “Mobilizing across the broader service area was delayed by necessary 

subcontracting due diligence requirements. This has reduced the overall minigrant implementation timeline.” 

- “[There have been] 13 months of delays at multiple steps. [We have had] 

difficulties securing right of ways and [have needed] extra steps in going 

through the public service commission. These delays resulted in higher 

construction bids, [which created further delays].”

Education & 

Workforce 

Development 

(13)

- “Balancing funders and requirements, expectations, community funds, state 

funds, ARC funds, lots to balance.” 

- “We underestimated the challenges in working with traditional educational 

and social service programming. We also underestimated the time needed to 

get some of the programming, facilities, and equipment fully in place.” 

- “Delays in the renovation process created the most significant challenges. 

The construction bid was overbudget and we had to submit a change of 

scope to ARC.” 

Asset-Based 

Development 

(5)

- “These construction projects had much more significant environmental 

clearance issues than normal for community development and construction 

projects. Pre-planning required for design work that we didn’t anticipate.”

- “This project, which contains construction components, was held up until the 

environmental review was completed.”

Community 

Development 

(2)

- “The project was rebid twice in the RFP stage, and no vendors would take on 

the project.” 

Health (1) - “The accreditation process and body was a challenge. The body had a 

process which required significant due diligence on [our] part.”
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 27

Staffing 

About 36 percent of grantees representing all categories experienced internal staff-related

challenges. Hurdles to staffing included difficulty finding and retaining the right people for 

the project; turnover of existing leadership or staff, delays in hiring, and managing staff 

duties and capacity. 

Table 17: Staffing Examples (n=32)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(17)

- “The individual we hired to perform marketing tasks did not embrace the 

[project] in the manner we had hoped. We are looking for a person to fill 

that position.” 

- “Unfortunately, our project is behind due to leadership changes. 

[Leadership staff] transitioned out of their roles in mid-2017, but 

replacements were not hired until near the end of 2017.” 

- “We did not fully appreciate the amount of [staff time for] technical 

assistance and handholding that [clients would need] through this process 

[and] how much help [clients] would need to get across the finish line.”

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (6)

- “We didn’t have any idea how much time the outreach would take. It’s 

such a huge region and it takes a lot of travel time.”

- “Our team has taken on additional duties while maintaining their current 

responsibilities to make the project work. We would consider additional 

staff if we receive future funding.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (5)

- “In retrospect we didn’t do a good enough job of having administrative 

overhead personnel. Cat-herding types of individuals.”

- “Over the last 3 months, we have encountered several challenges. Most 

importantly are staffing issues. We have had a turnover in [two] positions.” 

Community 

Development (1)

- “The biggest struggles have been...hiring new staff. Fortunately, we had a 

slower build-out schedule so we were able to get the right people without 

having to rush.”

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “What’s lacking is boots on the ground – organizers to find the people and 

get a structure [in place].” 

Health (2) - “It has been somewhat challenging to recruit faculty to the area, so faculty 

retention will be an ongoing challenge.”
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 28

Financial Constraints

About 30 percent of grantees representing all categories except Civic Entrepreneurship and 

Health had challenges with organizational finances. These included issues with match 

dollars (obtaining the match dollars in a timely manner or getting partners to come through 

with promised match); challenges with the reimbursement funding or timing of payments; 

responding to situations when POWER funds and match dollars were not enough to cover 

the actual costs of the project; and concerns about how to sustain the project beyond 

POWER and other grant funding. 

Table 18: Financial Constraints Examples (n=27)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(11)

- “We have had some delays in our partners bringing in the match funding, 

due to timelines and plans because of [lack of] bandwidth.” 

- “The project has operated on ARC advances, and this lack of dollars 

[upfront] can be challenging at times.”

- “Revenue generation to support the incubator and kitchen will be 

challenging to make it sustainable. It is hard to balance revenue and 

expenses in an incubator.”

Education & 

Workforce 

Development 

(11)

- “[Our] match requirements changed, and we had to spend more money 

upfront than we expected.”

- “[Reimbursement] payment for activities can be very slow. Reimbursement 

and timing for payments is a big challenge for small and start-up 

organizations.” 

- “The aging building has presented ongoing challenges. The demolition cost 

was almost twice what we anticipated. After work began on one of the 

buildings, we discovered multiple...issues, [and] the cost of renovations went 

from $200K to somewhere between $1M-$1.5M.” 

Asset-Based 

Development 

(4)

- “Some of the local [match] share was exaggerated. That gets us all in a 

bind.” 

- “The collapsing of the [building] roof and the potential environmental aspect 

issues were not factored into the cost [of renovations] initially.” 

Community 

Development 

(1)

- “The schedule of only three reimbursements per year can create a cash flow 

strain.” 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 29

Grants Management

Just over one-quarter of grantees reported issues with grants management, including 

grantees in all categories except Civic Entrepreneurship. Grants management challenges

included data tracking for accountability (e.g., reporting on outputs and outcomes), as well 

as financial tracking. In some cases, grants management challenges were a result of 

tracking difficulties on the part of partners or other implementing organizations, rather than 

the grantee themselves. 

Table 19: Grants Management Examples (n=24)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(9)

- “Our program suffered early with system coordination. We stitched together 

solutions mostly using Google Drive for metrics collection, tracking meeting 

attendees, and creating shareable files.”

- “The quarterly reporting process has not worked well. Our coaches are very 

busy working with entrepreneurs, [so] collecting data so often becomes a real 

nuisance for them.” 

- “We have had some challenges learning to report together [with our 

partners]. Keeping track of the data is challenging.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development 

(7)

- “The reporting was a challenge. Gathering the information was difficult. We 

have [partners] doing the work, and I don’t want them to [have to spend their 

time] filling out paperwork.” 

- “We don’t have a system to track our impact, because we don’t have an 

institutional research office. We had no way to follow [participants] through 

the whole process. We had to put an internal data collection infrastructure 

together.” 

Asset-Based 

Development 

(4)

- “The financial reporting has been very challenging. The lack of systems and 

processes have almost made the grant unmanageable.” 

- “[Some organizational partners] are more mature at collecting data than 

others. We found that some of the biggest challenges in collecting data are

[not having] common tools. You have to think about [what metrics] mean and 

[how to collect them].” 

Community 

Development 

(2)

- “Some Internet Service Providers have been more responsive to requests for 

data than others, and some were more willing to provide data in a usable 

format than others.” 

Health (2) - “Reporting data can be really tough. Data collection is burdensome.”

Lessons Learned for Stronger Organizational Capacity

1. Staff appropriately. Grantees who experienced staffing challenges recommended 

reviewing project needs upfront and “staffing up,” recognizing that current staff may not be 

able to manage the workload of a large project like POWER. Additionally, some grantees 

recommended hiring staff to ensure a local presence in implementation regions and areas. 

2. Develop systems for data tracking. As a number of grantees experienced challenges in 

data tracking and reporting, particularly for accountability and financials, it was 

recommended that future grantees invest in quality data tracking systems, as well as 

clearly identifying and defining data elements needed upfront. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 30

Theme 3. Partnerships and Collaboration

“The thing that gave me the most hope 

was the willingness of all the partners

in [the region] to work together. 

We understand that we need to get it, 

and we need to work together.”

“There are [three partners], three 

opinions, three ways of doing things. 

We had to work through this as being 

one program with one message.”

One of the distinguishing characteristics of POWER is its emphasis on working across 

jurisdictional boundaries to transform regional economies. To do so, grantees and 

subgrantees assembled formal and informal partnerships with each other and with partner 

organizations, often collaborated with business and employers, and frequently worked with 

state, regional, or local government and other entities necessary for project implementation. 

Strengths and Contributing Factors

Grantees representing all project categories reported factors that contributed to strong 

partnerships and productive collaboration in support of the achievement of project goals. 

Factors included:

• Partnership history (n=36)

• New opportunities (n=34)

• Partner “fit” (n=31)

• Common priorities (n=26

• Effective communication (n=18)
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 31

History

Nearly half of the grantees across all project categories cited their history in working with 

implementation partners as an important factor in implementation success. Some grantees 

also noted that while they had been working with partners for many years, their POWER 

project strengthened the partnerships. 

Table 20: History Examples (n=36)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(14)

- “We worked with many of our partners before POWER. POWER has 

allowed us to deepen the strength of those partnerships and extend them 

into new areas of service.” 

- “A strong partnership network has been vital. The partners have all 

participated as we expected, and many at a much higher level than 

expected.” 

- “Supportive political and community leadership have been very 

instrumental. The strong partnership and collaboration with [the local area 

development council] has been a real benefit. [They are] very engaged with 

attraction of new business sites as well as marketing of the sites.”

Education & 

Workforce 

Development 

(12)

- “The region served by the project has a well-established sector 

partnership...in existence since 2012. The project was able to leverage this 

sector partnership to establish needs and priorities for equipment, as well 

as to secure employer support.” 

- “Longstanding relationships with state and federal entities have been key. 

We believe our relationship of trust has been instrumental in progress to 

date.” 

- “We have a very active economic development council for the region. 

They’re active in promoting and developing [this] industry.”

Asset-Based 

Development (7)

- “[Our region] is unique in terms of how we collaborate together. That has 

been the defining element of [this project].”

- “This grant has strengthened partnerships – we can help people get 

started with whatever stage they are at. This grant helps deepen those 

collaborations.” 

Community 

Development (1)

- “[Our organization] initially applied for [the] grant funds because we...knew 

we could make an economic impact in distressed...counties. We leveraged 

existing partnerships from this experience [for] this grant.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “In each of the communities where we’ve worked, [the partners] have 

relationships that go back a number of years. There are 30-40 years of 

organizations working together, and this project created a semblance of 

networks that could be [leveraged].” 

Health (1) - “It’s a factor that everyone we work with, I’ve already had a prior 

relationship with them. Because of that prior relationship and the 

confidence, they said, ‘when can we start’?”
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 32

New Opportunities

Nearly 40 percent of grantees in all project categories indicated that they were able to build 

new partnerships or find new opportunities for partnering as a result of their POWER grants. 

In some cases, grantees noted that these partnerships were the first of their kind and would 

not have been possible without POWER. In addition, some grantees felt that the newly 

created partnerships opened doors for participants. 

Table 21: New Opportunities Examples (n=34)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(14)

- “The network built between businesses and regional support agencies is a 

success that will live beyond the grant cycle.” 

- “The project has generated a true partnership between workforce 

development and economic development stakeholders in the region.” 

- “With [our] new partnerships, the project has the ability to reach more local 

small business owners. The...opportunity has created excitement in 

businesses, which has been the result of increased revenue to their bottom 

lines.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development 

(10)

- “The cooperation and collaboration among economic and workforce 

development, education, and business and industry is unprecedented.” 

- “Partnerships we’ve developed will allow us to offer new training and 

classes and be able to respond to industry needs in real-time. Participation 

in POWER has created new relationships with training and economic 

development partners.” 

- “We’ve brought in partners that we don’t really know – there were people 

we’d never met before. We’re at different tables and part of different 

conversations now.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (5)

- “Partners...have facilitated new opportunities...while also allowing us to 

leverage their expertise to better serve our farmers.” 

- “We’ve had some great partnerships built with private industries through 

this [grant].” 

Community 

Development (3)

- “[We] created new partnerships in the region. These new partnerships 

facilitated development of the strong project pipeline we currently have. 

[We] have partnered extensively with other POWER grantees as well.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “What’s been interesting and unique is [new] partnerships with two other 

states – being able to talk to them throughout the program.” 

Health (1) - “[As a result of the project], we now have insurance companies who are 

willing to partner with us.” 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 33

Partner “Fit”

More than one-third of grantees attributed implementation success not just to having 

partners, but also having the right partners for the project. Grantees in all categories except 

Community Development specifically mentioned the importance of partner “fit.” Partners 

were the right fit for projects because of experience and leadership in the area of focus; a 

strong reputation in the region or locality of implementation; the commitment or ability to 

hire program completers; or other factors. Partners often were engaged to fill roles and 

gaps for the grantee. 

Table 22: Partner Fit Examples (n=31)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development (11)

- “[Success has been accelerated] through an extensive process of 

assembling high-performing groups – getting the right leadership capability 

in the room.” 

- “Our partnerships play into our success greatly, because if we can’t 

provide the services needed directly, we seek our partners who can.” 

- “[One of our partners] was used as the primary source of contact with the 

manufacturing community. They were able to hit the systems they needed 

to get to, without developing a system from scratch.” 

Education &

Workforce 

Development 

(12)

- “This could have been a disaster if we had the wrong partners. But in this 

case, we had exactly the right partners that allowed us to succeed early on.” 

- “Having the right partners in the room, others appreciate that [and want to 

participate more], because they now have access to [this expertise].”

- “Partners have been committed to employing [project] graduates since the 

beginning of the program.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (4)

- “We collect and disseminate lessons learned by partners and ensure their 

expertise is widely available to our constituents.”

- “The sharing of the technical experiences of partner organizations, but 

also the infrastructure [in the state], being able to build off each other’s 

infrastructure...has been a great output of this process.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(2)

- “The [implementation partner] brought in legitimacy and credibility and 

expertise that we don’t have here.” 

Health (2) - “The partnerships have been key. The project has demonstrated what can 

be done to meet a community need when committed partners pull 

together.”
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 34

Common Priorities

Just under 30 percent of grantees in all categories except Community Development

mentioned the ability to focus on a common goal or having common priorities across 

partners as an accelerator in engaging existing partners or building buy- in for creating new 

partnerships. In some cases, grantees stressed the importance of the project being aligned 

with other local, state, or regional initiatives, funding, or workforce or economic 

development planning. 

Table 23: Common Priorities Examples (n=26)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development (11)

- “[The project] is part of the long-term economic development strategy for 

the region, including tourism and establishing a food culture. 

- “Strong partnerships with other people and organizations who understand 

the vision and value of growing the local food economy in the region [have 

been a factor of success].” 

- “This project is part of the overall city strategy to diversify the economy 

and to grow advanced manufacturing and healthcare jobs.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (7)

- “We [have] created a skilled program that benefits the entire [industry] 

cluster rather than just one employer. Every company in the...field is on 

our...advisory committee.”

- “The [programming] is a result of shared commitment and vision. The 

County Commission worked together and [we] have been moving in the 

same direction – everybody working for one common goal.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (6)

- “The thing that gave me the most hope was the willingness of all the 

partners in [the region] to work together. We understand that we need to get 

it, and we need to work together.” 

- “[We have created networks] of people [passionate about trails] who 

wouldn’t necessarily be sitting down together, and it brings them together to 

talk about trails.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “The commitment [among intermediary organizations to the common 

goal] made them more willing students, more coachable, more committed.” 

Health (1) - “Almost all of our partners are federally qualified health centers 

and...patient-centered medical health has been a big push [for them]. It was 

really helpful for that to already be in place.” 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 35

Effective Communication

About 20 percent of grantees representing five project categories credited frequent and 

meaningful communication across partners as a factor of successful partnerships and 

collaboration. This included regular in-person meetings with targeted agendas, focused 

committees, and electronic communication. 

Table 24: Effective Communication Examples (n=18)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development (6)

- “We know our strengths and weaknesses, and we’re honest with each 

other. Consistent follow-up is crucial, including formal and informal.”

- “We kept the lines of communication open [with our partner], even when 

things did not go according to plan. 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (7)

- “[We have] regular partner meetings to assess progress against project 

milestones and facilitate cross-site sharing, [which has] boosted the 

effectiveness of outreach and recruitment strategies.” 

- “[Our] task force has been a great way of constant communication. We 

include follow-up [to do] documents after each meeting.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (2)

- “We have board meetings in different counties every two months to [talk 

about issues and progress and share resources].” 

Community 

Development (2)

- “We have built good communication with [internet service] providers.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “One way [success] has happened is regional sharing and learning. We 

organize quarterly regional team meet-ups where they share project 

success.”

Challenges and Contributing Factors

Nearly half of all grantees reported challenges in working and collaborating with partners. 

They represented all project categories except Health. Challenges included:

• Process differences (n=23)

• Level of commitment (n=18)

• Partner personnel (n=15)

Process Differences

Just over one-quarter of grantees experienced challenges in working with partners due to 

organizational differences, such as differing processes in hiring and data collection; speed 

of implementation; or organizational mindsets. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 36

Table 25: Process Differences Examples (n=23)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development (9)

- “This is an ecosystem which includes many partners, many agendas, and 

many egos. Our coaches and their host agencies are all very different from 

one another, and that gives us strength in many ways, but it also creates 

challenges creating and managing consistent expectations and messages.” 

- “There are [three partners], three opinions, three ways of doing things. We 

had to work through this as being one program with one message.” 

- “[The college partner]’s hiring processes were too slow and cumbersome 

for the grant and were more academically-oriented than entrepreneuriallyoriented.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (8)

- “You have industry culture that moves fast, but nonprofit, education, and 

government move slow, and we all have to work together.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (4)

- “There was confusion among partners regarding federal guidelines and 

expectations. This has been most challenging for private sector partners 

[who aren’t used to these].”

Community 

Development (1)

- “Fiscal year [definitions] are different between our agencies, and this has 

been somewhat difficult” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “There were multiple instances where [the implementation partner] made 

the site visit organization more challenging, because of disorganization and 

lack of coordination on their end.” 

Level of Commitment

About 20 percent of grantees experienced some challenges in working with partners due to 

uncertainty in roles or expectations for project implementation, or a sense from the grantee 

that some partners were more committed than others and that initial levels of commitment 

were not being met. 

Table 26: Level of Commitment Examples (n=18)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development (9)

- “We received feedback that [some] state trade offices didn’t have the 

capacity to recruit or conduct outreach. [As a result], we had to build target 

lists and reach out to businesses that didn’t know us from Adam, and we 

weren’t expecting that.” 

- “The employer partner backed out at the 11th and a half hour, after all 

other components [of the project] were in place.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (7)

- “We were a little ambitious about how many people the employer partner 

thought they could hire. They couldn’t absorb that many – they [just] didn’t 

have the work.” 

- “Getting partner attention has been challenging – [some partners are more 

engaged than others]. There is not a sense of urgency around the facility 

except within [the grantee organization].” 

Asset-Based 

Development (1)

- “[We had some] ancillary partners that didn’t deliver as well [as we had 

anticipated or hoped].” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “[Implementation partner] consultants were not equally committed and 

engaged with site visits [across implementation sites].”
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 37

Partner Personnel 

In addition to sometimes experiencing internal staffing issues with turnover and capacity, 

over 15 percent of grantees had challenges with turnover among partner personnel 

(including leadership or staff), which sometimes led to lack of expected commitment or the 

need to consistently re-build buy-in. In addition, some grantees found issues with lack of 

partner staffing capacity. 

Table 27: Partner Personnel Examples (n=15)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development (4)

- “Partners have limited bandwidth, [particularly for things like tracking and 

reporting].” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (5)

- “[One partner] recently hired a new director after almost a year without 

one. Due to this vacancy, their direct involvement and match is not where 

we expected.” 

- “While our community college partners have performed well, staffing 

changes at some of them caused us to have to rebuild new relationships 

and/or approach the K-12 system directly.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (3)

- “What complicated [things] was there was a lot of turnover [at a partner 

agency]. People were moving around the agency; we’ve had 5 different 

managers. They were changing every few months.” 

Community 

Development (2)

- “Staffing changes and turnover in cooperative agencies have slowed the 

process at times, although this is to be expected with multiple cooperative 

agencies and entities, both public and private, participating in a one-year 

project.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “Key leaders [have left], and there has been this recurring pattern of having 

to regroup and restart the process.” 

Lessons Learned for Effective Collaboration 

1. Planning and vetting. Grantees who encountered partner challenges, especially those 

related to level of commitment and staff capacity or turnover, strongly suggested engaging 

in planning and vetting with partners prior to grant implementation. This include detailed 

discussions of roles and responsibilities, defining expectations around areas such as 

recruitment and engagement, and engaging in written agreements. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 38

Theme 4. Community Capacity

“Residents are being empowered to 

‘be the change’ 

in their communities.”

“The leadership base is thin. 

There are rising stars in these 

communities, and many times 

we go back to them time and time 

again, and they are overwhelmed.”

Grantees reported their implementation was affected by a community’s ability to participate 

in projects, including its human capital; social and environmental factors; availability and 

existence of supporting organizations; and physical infrastructure. 

Strengths and Contributing Factors

Grantees across all project categories were able to capitalize on factors unique to the 

communities in which they were working. Factors that commonly contributed to success 

included:

• Building self-determination (n=44)

• Expanding community leadership (n=22)

• Grantee influence and presence (n=19)

Building Self-Determination

Half of the grantees representing all project categories felt that their projects had been 

successful in working to build self-determination and implementation capacity within the 

communities. Efforts to increase self-determination included creating mechanisms for 

project sustainability by building replicable and sustainable skills, systems, and frameworks; 

creating train-the-trainer models; and improving the capacity of communities to seek their 

own funding and create new programming on their own. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 39

Table 28: Self-Determination Examples (n=44)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(23)

- “We train local people in how to get their own help. I’ve seen in [these 

counties] a new view – they can apply for this grant [themselves]. It’s taken 

the fear and uncertainty away.” 

- “The technical assistance provided to the businesses has equipped them 

to diversify customers and markets to reduce dependence on the coal 

industry for ongoing and new revenue.” 

- “In a region like this that does not have large employers, being able to 

mobilize the economy from the ground up provides a catalytic effect in 

local communities.” 

- “The toolkit gives [participants] a language to talk about what they are 

doing, and for investors, it gave a decision-making framework.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (9)

- “I know of other programming coming down to the area because of these 

offerings [from the project]. A larger program...is going to set up an 

incubation aspect for [this industry] because of the foundation laid by the 

train-the-trainer model and what the school can now offer.” 

- “A workforce infrastructure to advance the region has been created, and 

with teachers training other teachers, it can be sustained. The more 

students who are trained will also grow and create the skilled workforce 

needed to attract new businesses to the region.” 

- “[We are committed to] helping [the region] help itself. The people of the 

region have to own this and move it forward.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (6)

- “Residents are being empowered to ‘be the change’ in their communities.” 

- “We’ve spent time building a regional process to uniformly go through 

steps with the different construction components, and that’s been helpful 

for the smaller communities who have never done projects like this. It’s 

brought them up to a higher level of operations when implementing 

projects.” 

Community 

Development (2)

- “We are laying the groundwork for years to come. We anticipate future 

business growth and individuals can also connect with family and friends.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(2)

- “[We have supported] great projects through the mini-grant portion [of the 

POWER project], which have seeded some ideas around effective 

development in the communities.” 

Health (2) - “We connect [our participants], help them find food. We want them to

understand we’re not there to handhold, to do everything for them. We want 

to foster autonomy.” 

Expanding Community Leadership/Building Pipelines

About one-quarter of grantees found success in building up the existing or potential 

leadership base in communities, particularly those that currently have a limited pool of 

leaders. In addition, grantees had success building pipelines of future innovators, 

entrepreneurs, and community leaders through education and training. Grantees noting 

success in this area represented project types of Business Development, Education and

Workforce Development, Asset-Based Development, and Civic Entrepreneurship.
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 40

Table 29: Community Leadership/Pipelines Examples (n=22)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development (8)

- “Partnerships with the K-12 school systems have been developed, and 

these are exposing young people to entrepreneurship to try to establish an 

entrepreneurial mindset at a younger age.” 

- “[Our project] has created an environment that has encouraged younger 

leaders to become engaged in community development.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (9)

- “Teachers are taking on active leadership roles within schools on 

committees and offering professional development workshops. Some 

teachers have presented at national conferences.” 

- “[We are] attempting to shape the next generation’s perception around the 

future value of education in the region.” 

- “As an organization, we think about how to strengthen our members. If we 

want them to be seen as leaders, what do we need to arm them with?” 

Asset-Based 

Development (3)

- “Starting the [regional conference] has been a driving force in getting 

resources to regional farmers. Most of the sessions are led by regional 

farmers, allowing farmers to connect and learn from life experience.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(2)

- “Developing a deeper bench of leaders is a high priority. A lot of 

community members at first had a hard time seeing what their role was in 

supporting entrepreneurship. [Through the project], we’ve gotten individuals 

who have grown, built [leadership skills] and capacity.” 

Grantee Influence and Presence

Over one-fifth of grantees in all categories except Community Development felt that the 

POWER grants had been successful in building their organization’s influence in

implementation communities, increasing their presence in the communities, and helping to 

deepen or enhance the organization’s connections to or understanding of the communities. 

Table 30: Influence/Presence Examples (n=19)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development (8)

- “[Through this project], we have taught our own organization how to 

engage in the community.”

- “[The project] has enabled us to get in front of the community and be part 

of it on a level that we haven’t before. We’ve got a sense of pride – we’re 

solving problems.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (7)

- “POWER funding helped us create a niche in the community. We are now 

owning and understanding the role we have in this region.” 

- “[Our higher education institution] has learned how to better engage with 

companies. The program has also been helpful in informing faculty and 

staff at the college as to employer needs [within the community].” 

Asset-Based 

Development (1)

- “Surrounding states are taking notice of the project...and have asked how 

they can replicate it. Food and agriculture has never experienced this kind 

of attention before [in this region].” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “The project deepened our understanding of how to do the coaching work 

well, and the needs of the communities we work with and the motivation for 

changing the economy.” 

Health (2) - “[This facility] has become a shining star in the region. The university is 

better engaged with the community and local medical facilities and is seen 

as a true community partner meeting critical community capacity 

challenges, not just educational needs.” 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 41

Challenges and Contributing Factors

Over 45 percent of all grantees across all project categories cited challenges associated 

with community capacity. Challenges in this area included:

• Shallow “pools” of resources (n=27)

• Social and environmental barriers (n=13)

• Physical infrastructure (n=12)

Shallow Pools

Just over 30 percent of grantees in all categories except Community Development reported 

difficulties with community capacity in terms of shallow pools of human resources, 

organizations, and financial resources with which to work. This in turn created challenges in

rallying support or ensuring that participants could access necessary resources. 

Table 31: Shallow Pools Examples (n=27)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(13)

- “In rural communities there are a lack of revenue streams to support 

programming – they don’t have as many companies to sponsor.” 

- “There aren’t many conventional lenders we can tap into, and the region 

lacks business development services.” 

- “There has been an opportunity for larger impacts in some areas [rather 

than others], due to those areas having stronger partner support and 

networks.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (8)

- “There has been a challenge having sufficient numbers of employers to 

generate job openings for the trainees, and some trainees are [having to] 

commute outside the region 45 minutes to an hour for employment.”

- “Implementation and impact have been clustered to where employers are. 

It has been more challenging to recruit students from more rural areas; 

there are also fewer companies in those areas to hire students or generate 

projects.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (2)

- “More rural areas have struggled with fewer vendors and resources to 

expand or launch projects. There are also more entrepreneurs in urban 

areas than rural.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(2)

- “The leadership base is thin. There are rising stars in these communities, 

and many times we go back to them time and time again, and they are 

overwhelmed.”

Health (2) - “It is a challenge to schedule an adequate number of patient encounters 

for students.”
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 42

Social and Environmental Barriers

Just under 15 percent of grantees cited external social and environmental barriers to 

community capacity, but grantees represented all project categories. They encountered 

challenges particularly related to drug addiction and the opioid crisis, but also poverty, 

health issues, and homelessness. 

Table 32: Social/Environmental Examples (n=13)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development (5)

- “[This region] is poorer than most other areas and contains some of the 

poorest counties in the state.” 

- “Many [prospective clients] fell off the radar after learning they may be 

subjected to drug testing by a potential employer...The opioid epidemic and 

drugs in general were a big issue.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (3)

- “Drugs are an ongoing challenge in the region. Some trainees refused [to 

take] or couldn’t pass the drug test.” 

- “Participants have difficulty balancing life events with school. This is 

especially true when students experience big challenges that require 

consistent and dedicated attention and energy.”

Asset-Based 

Development (2)

- “The opioid epidemic is very challenging for the region, and some 

communities have experienced such a dramatic downturn that revitalizing 

them is providing much more challenging than anticipated.”

Community 

Development (1)

- “Another challenge has been to understand and appropriately respond to 

the deep personal challenges faced by [some participants]. Many of these 

challenges are what have prevented trainees from successfully becoming 

employees and include issues such as food insecurity, homelessness, lack 

of transportation, recovery/re-entry, and undiagnosed learning disabilities.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “The opioid epidemic is creating a sense of hopelessness in some 

communities.” 

Health (1) - “Our region has devastating health outcomes. People are struggling to get 

their heat turned on, and issues around managing their conditions takes a 

backseat.” 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 43

Physical Infrastructure

Roughly 14 percent of grantees across all project types except Civic Entrepreneurship

reported having challenges with infrastructure in the communities or regions in which they 

were implementing their projects. Infrastructure issues primarily dealt with broadband, 

although some grantees mentioned water and transportation. 

Table 33: Physical Infrastructure Examples (n=12)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(7)

- “[Lack of broadband and internet] is a barrier for rural business 

development.”

- “The community has, at times, been reluctant to embrace technology due to 

lack of infrastructure, such as broadband.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development 

(2)

- “Hooking into broadband is very expensive and one significant barrier. 

Without reliable internet, it is almost impossible to provide state-of-the-art 

cybersecurity training. In addition, our trainees will also struggle to land 

employment if they seek remote opportunities that require broadband.” 

Asset-Based 

Development 

(1)

- “One of the real barriers we had up front was telecommunications. It has 

been a struggle to get good cell and broadband service.” 

Community 

Development 

(1)

- “Continued financial support for broadband in underserved and unserved 

rural areas would be helpful.”

Health (1) - “We don’t have transportation opportunities for people [to come to us], so we 

have to go to them.” 

Lessons Learned

Most lessons learned related to community capacity overlap with other themes. As detailed 

in the Recruitment and Engagement theme, grantees stressed the importance of tailoring 

programming to meet the needs of the community and ensuring that marketing and 

recruitment messages were a good fit for the community. As indicated in the Organizational 

Capacity theme, some grantees suggested establishing a local presence through staffing. 

Further, as noted in the Partnerships and Collaboration theme, grantees recommend

ensuring community buy-in early in the project by engaging local partners and conducting 

pre-planning, including needs assessments or community readiness assessments.
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 44

Early Impacts of POWER Implementation
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 45

“I think the POWER initiative has really helped rekindle hope that 

things can get better. 

This has been phenomenally good for our region.”

POWER projects aim to create fundamental changes in Appalachia. As grantees themselves 

noted, this type of change takes time, particularly in projects that are focused on planting 

seeds of entrepreneurship in communities (e.g., in K-12 or community college settings); 

those that are focused on developing leadership and capacity within individual 

communities; and those that are building upon natural assets within the region. As one 

grantee described, “A lot of times with these projects, we’re building things that won’t have 

an impact until the next generation comes along.” However, grantees described long-term 

vision for economic transformation driven, in part, by social change that includes the 

building of hope and the shifting of mindsets in areas that have seen severe economic 

distress. With a recognition that it may take many years to realize true economic 

transformation, many grantees stated that they had started to see shorter-term outcomes 

and impacts that they believed could result in longer-term impacts over time. Early impacts 

include:

• The power of POWER to set vision and build hope (n=27)

• Progress toward potential long-term change (n=49)

• Social change (n=33)

• Economic development (n=30)

The Power of POWER

Grantees mentioned the overall vision and guiding principles of POWER as having impact in 

and of themselves, particularly in helping build their reputations and credibility, as well as in

building new collaborations and partnerships. Some grantees also noted the value of 

POWER funds in accelerating activities that were already planned or in place. Others cited 

the importance of POWER in building hope for revitalization. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 46

Table 34: Power of POWER Examples (n=27)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development (11)

- “I think the POWER initiative has really helped rekindle hope that things 

can get better. This has been phenomenally good for our region.” 

- “The POWER grant has helped to give the project and organization 

credibility. [It has] given us the range and leverage to focus on our goals. 

We were moving along incrementally, but we’ve had this shot of rocket 

fuel.” 

- “POWER has raised the profile of entrepreneurship and other foundations 

are getting involved. POWER has tremendously helped start the 

revitalization of Appalachia due to the downturn of the coal industry.” 

- “When ARC said ‘We want to see big, we want to see impacts, we want to 

see large changes in the economy, multi-state, multi-county collaborations 

– that’s an external factor, that’s the new mandate – think regionally. That’s 

been big. That lens in which ARC asked people to look through has been 

huge in terms of an indicator of making our program successful.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (11)

- “The POWER initiative has been important and helpful, and it’s good to see 

the broad strokes the initiative has funded in terms of the types of projects.” 

- “Implementation of this ecosystem vision throughout the region can make 

a decade of change and create economic opportunities that currently do 

not exist. We are attracting attention from government and major corporate 

sponsors...to invest in our initiative and region. This was not possible before 

the POWER grant.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (2)

- “The POWER grant has helped build credibility [for our project and 

organization].” 

Community 

Development (1)

- “By providing broadband, we have helped companies grow their 

businesses. This also allows people to have a work-from-home option. [We 

had wanted to do the project] but the cost to build was our largest 

holdback. The grant was able to provide the help required to get the project 

started.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “The POWER grant gives people a chance. You have a chance every day 

to make a positive difference.” 

Health (1) - “The school could not have opened without POWER.” 

Progress Toward Potential Long-Term Change

As described in Tables 2 and 3, ARC requires all grantees to identify estimated or projected 

outputs and outcomes for their projects, as well as report on progress toward achieving 

these. However, building on these shorter-term outputs and outcomes, over half of 

grantees described what they saw as longer-term potential impact that could result from 

achieving shorter-term project outputs and outcomes.
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 47

Table 35: Progress Toward Impact Examples (n=49)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(18)

- “The new products we are developing for companies will generate sales, 

and the newly trained employees will sustain their jobs far into the future.” 

- “The project has accelerated the value of start-ups and significance of 

small business growth for the economy. The university has changed its 

curriculum and has changed programming to be more focused on 

innovation.” 

- “The companies and people that attended [the TA] workshops are 

continuing to think about this topic. Economic opportunities in the supply 

chain are definitely on their minds. Many are pursuing opportunities 

independently and looking at what they can do differently to help support 

this.” 

- “People are investing in new equipment based on long-term viability in the 

farmers’ market. It is good to see private businesses on the market making 

capital investments because they believe the market will be home for many 

years to come.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development 

(15)

- “The program allows people to get certification and work remotely for 

companies all over the country, [good jobs with good wages], but they can 

stay in the region [and contribute to the regional economy].” 

- “On a voluntary feedback survey, 95% of respondents intend to continue 

entrepreneurship efforts [in their schools]. Community colleges are reporting 

increased enrollment, increased matriculation, and that’s vital to keeping 

our youth in Appalachia.” 

- “Students hired as interns have been hired full time, [but also] these 

projects and workers allow [local] companies to implement new 

technologies [that] ensure their competitiveness in the global marketplace.” 

- “Success in this program in many ways has already been achieved. The 

project has introduced a new way to think about social service delivery, 

educational attainment and progress, career development, and 

community-based learning.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (8)

- “Nineteen jobs created is not a huge amount. However, if you look at one 

of the farmers who has another full-time job but is also a farmer, he is going 

to be making about $20K more this year. He hasn’t created a job or hired 

anybody, but what this is doing is allowing people to have more expendable 

income. Creating excess income means things like going to college, buying 

books and supplies. So that’s a long-term contribution to the region.” 

- “The private industry partnerships have been exciting, because that’s longterm hope. ...You start to see what might it take to make them successful so 

that the people on the other end of the supply chain can also be 

successful.” 

Community 

Development (4)

- “To date, 61 jobs have been created and 67 retained, but also the project 

has helped increase community college enrollment, raising educational 

attainment and an educated workforce in the region.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(2)

- “We have started to get small businesses and organizations to talk to 

each other and work together. Some event participants have seen an uptick 

in business and traffic on social media.” 

Health (2) - “The effect [of our project] is a healthier workforce, people from rural 

communities having a job they didn’t have before. In order to get the 

companies to move to town, you need a healthy workforce. This project is 

doing that.” 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 48

Social Change

Nearly 40 percent of grantees reported perceived impacts in the area of social change, 

which included creating a sense of hope. In addition, some grantees felt they had 

demonstrated impacts in changing conventional wisdom about economic development. 

Others felt their project had begun to start a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation in 

their regions and communities. 

Table 36: Social Change Examples (n=33)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(17)

- “There is more openness in the community to accept change. We make it 

happen. Growing a curious community is a long-term benefit. We’re having 

conversations we never would have had without this project.” 

- “Economic development is now considering entrepreneurship a viable part 

of their toolkit and approach to growing the region.” 

- “The work we have done and are doing is creating an entrepreneurial 

mindset that has not existed before. Through [our efforts] we are building a 

‘yes we can’ attitude for hopeful entrepreneurs.” 

- “A lot of these companies, all they did was sell domestically to the mining 

industry. To get them to think outside that world they knew and look at 

international and take out the fear factor – that’s huge. Getting them to take 

that step forward is huge.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development 

(10)

- “[T]his helps people to see that the future looks different and that things 

won’t always be the way they have been.” 

- “The impact of the project is paying off. Now children aren’t growing up 

thinking they’ll finish high school and go into the mines. [The project] is 

breaking the family system addiction to coal for employment.” 

- “Success involves hope for the region. The region had lost hope for 

improvement and this project has reignited a sense of hope. There is a 

palpable sense of excitement about [this project]. It’s important to maintain 

the excitement and hope.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (3)

- “People and organizations are getting involved in public policy and 

economic diversification to effect change. Dreams, and backing for those 

dreams, is in short supply in the region. This project has provided both.”

- “Some folks in the economic development sector are beginning to realize 

there is a true economic development component to helping people live 

longer and be more productive. You can recruit a factory...but if you don’t 

have a healthy workforce capable of stepping into those jobs, you haven’t 

done anything. This work is creating healthier people, but also a culture of 

awareness around what is local, what is healthy.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “Working with small businesses, we can get a cultural shift and a narrative 

shift around what’s possible. We have helped community members realize 

that they can make a difference.” 

Health (2) - “Success is giving the region a sense of hope. Our residents are seeing the 

region as a place where world class healthcare can be available, and [it’s] a 

desirable place for others to live.” 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 49

Economic Development

Over a third of grantees reported seeing some early impacts in economic development, 

including industry diversification. The reported result has been interest and excitement in 

moving away from reliance on traditional industries, such as coal or coal supply chain, and 

into new industries, including agriculture and food production, gas and energy, and tourism. 

Potential impacts for economic development also included improvements in quality of life 

and quality of place, potentially keeping or attracting more people and businesses. 

Table 37: Economic Development Examples (n=30)

Project Category Examples

Business 

Development

(15)

- “We’ve effected change in areas we never thought we’d impact. This area 

has been tied to industry, manufacturing, but there was never any emphasis 

on what we can do to impact other segments of the economy. We’ve seen a 

change in that [as a result of the project].”

- “Many manufacturers are considering how they can become part of the 

supply chain for the shale petrochemical industry and create new products 

to meet new demand.” 

- “The TA provided to the businesses has equipped them to diversify 

customers and markets to reduce dependency on the coal industry for 

ongoing and new revenue.” 

- “People are realizing there is a value and history in our heritage. Our 

communities’ main streets are changing – they are now filling up with tourist 

attractions. Tourists are creating jobs.” 

Education & 

Workforce 

Development (8)

- “The top success has been helping diversify and grow local industry while 

providing local talent. Manufacturing is being rejuvenated and is growing in 

the area.” 

- “[There is a] statewide benefit from the relationships that have been built. 

They are building a tech sector from the ground up.” 

Asset-Based 

Development (5)

- “Just like all grants, we are looking at traditional metrics, but one of the 

more intangible metrics is the discussion around local and craft foods as an 

option now. We are in a renaissance for craft beverage creation, and what 

we’ve been able to help harness is local sourcing. Moving the discussion of 

local foods into the forefront...has been an important [impact].” 

- “Generating more interest in local food and agriculture in [the region] has 

been a major benefit, as agriculture [has been previously] ignored in this 

state.” 

Community 

Development (1)

- “The project contributes to economic revitalization and diversification in 

the region through social enterprise growth.” 

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

(1)

- “A lot of the same sectors that our teams identified saw an interest in local 

arts and agriculture. A lot of these different sectors and avenues, we have 

seen communities look to them after going through this process.” 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 50

Recommendations for ARC
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 51

Based on successes, challenges, lessons learned, and early impacts identified for the 88 

evaluated POWER grantees in Year One of the evaluation, C/D proposes the following 

recommendations. 

To promote effective recruitment and engagement of program beneficiaries:

• Require additional market analysis from grantees at the time of POWER application

• Encourage the development of detailed recruitment and retention plans, reminding 

grantees that the recruitment pool likely must be larger than output and outcome 

targets (to handle participant reluctance, competition, and potential attrition)

• Conduct frequent check-ins with grantees during the critical start-up period 

• Continue open communication and allowing strategic pivoting when needed. 

• Encourage grantees to budget for marketing and communications, including staffing

• Continue to provide technical assistance around measuring and communicating 

progress locally, regionally, and statewide

• Continually communicate the avenues for sharing stories with ARC

To help grantees strengthen organizational capacity:

• Offer technical assistance around resource mapping (internally and externally) to 

help grantees think about current capacity and how to extend/expand it

• Provide tools and resources for assessing organizational readiness for POWER 

• At start-up, remind grantees and partners about processes and implications of 

reimbursement funding, as well as the possibility to request advances

• Remind grantees to plan for accountability and financial data collection and 

maintenance, both internally and with partner organizations

• Challenge grantees to think about and report on a variety of sustainability efforts

• Explore the establishment of a grantee mentorship network for new grantees to 

connect with more experienced grantees

• Consider ARC’s role in connecting grantees to additional sources of funding

To support collaboration and the development of partnerships:

• Encourage grantees to establish regular communication channels and schedules

• Share practices and tools for vetting partners; establishing common vision, priorities, 

and goals; delineating roles and responsibilities; and identifying partner assets and 

resources that benefit the project or fill gaps in grantee expertise or experience 

To develop community capacity:

• Continue to invest in leadership and capacity building

• Continue to invest in projects that encourage collaboration and break down 

traditional jurisdictional and regional boundaries

• Communicate POWER’s impacts, and help grantees do the same

To further improve the internal management of POWER:

• Establish a more prescriptive narrative reporting format

• Consider having future grantees set and report on interim progress targets

• Consider methods for measuring results by geography
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 52

Planned for additional study

ARC plans to work with C/D in FY2020 for additional study of the following:

• Collect, analyze, and respond to grantee and partner implementation experiences

• Assess the implementation and outcomes of technical assistance projects

• Conduct a deeper assessment of high-priority topics, including projects focused on 

substance use disorder, multi-state and other complex projects, and projects in “high 

competition” areas with many POWER projects operating simultaneously

• Track and measure the short-, medium-, and long-term results of POWER over time
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 53

Appendix

A. Implementation analysis methodology

B. Interview protocols

C. Grantees evaluated in Year 1 and interview schedule

D. Grantees not included in Year 1 evaluation

E. ARC definitions of POWER outputs and outcomes
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 54

Appendix A

Implementation Analysis Methodology

Evaluation Questions and Data Collection Methodology

This evaluation was designed as an implementation study, to answer key implementation 

evaluation questions. Evaluation questions were designed by the C/D evaluation team and 

reviewed and revised with ARC staff. The questions are:

• To what extent are POWER grantees progressing toward their stated performance 

outputs and outcomes?

• To what extent are there common characteristics among grantees across POWER 

project categories? If there are common characteristics, what are they? 

• What factors appear to contribute to a) strong performance, b) improved 

performance, and c) lagging performance? 

• What technical assistance could ARC provide to improve performance?

• Given POWER grant performance, and grantees’ experiences, are there better ways 

for ARC to measure, monitor, and evaluate grantee success in the future? 

In order to answer the evaluation questions, C/D originally selected 96 grantees12 using the 

methodology described in the Project Selection section. C/D then analyzed data collected 

through three means:

1. Document review, including project narratives, approval memos, stated outputs and 

outcomes, and quarterly reports submitted to ARC.

2. Pre-interview questionnaires, to prepare for interviews.

3. Semi-structured interviews via site visit, in-person stops, or telephone for grantees that 

represent the range of POWER-funded projects, using a predesigned interview protocol.

Document review

The evaluation team gathered information, primarily available through ARCNet, to get a 

general sense of the purpose of the grant; definitions of grant success through stated 

outputs and outcomes, as well as through project narratives; and descriptions of 

implementation efforts, which typically included successes and challenges to date. Where 

available, evaluators also reviewed information provided about implementation partners. 

Data analyzed through document review was used to prepare for telephone and on-site 

interviews, as well as to populate information in grant project summaries (described in the 

Analysis and Reporting Methods of this Appendix). 

Pre-interview questionnaires

Questionnaires were sent to grantees via email the month before the scheduled telephone 

or in-person interview. Questionnaires included questions to obtain recent perspectives

from grantees (more recent, typically, than those available in quarterly reports) on notable 

12 Although 96 grantees were originally selected, the final number of grantees evaluated was 88, as it 

was determined that eight of the selected grantees were too early in the implementation process. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 55

successes and challenges; any shifts to activities (and why activities may have shifted from 

what was planned); descriptions of the most significant partner entities and their roles; ways 

in which ARC could better support the grantee; and updates on planned outcomes and 

outputs. Grantees were asked to submit responses via email prior to their scheduled 

interviews. As with document review, evaluators used pre-interview questionnaire 

responses to prepare for telephone and on-site interviews, as well as to populate 

information in project summaries.

Semi-structured interviews

During telephone calls or while on-site, evaluators used predesigned interview protocols to 

conduct semi-structured interviews. The evaluation team created interview questions 

designed to help answer overarching evaluation questions. The first draft of interview 

questions was shared with key ARC POWER staff. Based on conversations with ARC staff, 

interview questions were then revised for clarity, resulting in the final interview protocol. 

Interview protocols were shared with grantees prior to telephone or on-site discussions. The 

full set of pre-interview questionnaire and semi-structured interview questions is provided 

in Appendix B.

Project Selection

Because the evaluation was primarily focused on learning about implementation as it was 

occurring to identify opportunities for course correction and improvement (as needed), C/D 

adopted the following strategies to identify grantees for evaluation. 

First, C/D selected grantees to include in the evaluation. In selecting projects for interviews, 

the evaluation team considered the objectives of understanding grant progress, 

accelerators, barriers, and outcomes for a range of grant characteristics, including types, 

stages, locations, and performance levels, as well as focusing the evaluation on 

opportunities for improvement and correction. As such, the evaluation team, in collaboration 

with ARC staff, excluded grants that were deemed to be too new (those approved or begun 

in Fiscal Year 2019) and grants that were closed. Further, technical assistance projects were 

excluded, as it was determined that they did not align well with the evaluation objectives for 

this evaluation.13 This process resulted in 96 grants preliminarily identified for participation in 

the evaluation. After further review, the evaluation team determined that eight of the 96, 

despite being approved prior to FY2019, were too early in implementation to be included. 

Thus, 88 grantees remained and were included in the evaluation. A full list of grantees 

evaluated is provided in Appendix C.

Once projects had been identified for inclusion in the evaluation, projects were then 

identified for site visits; in-person visits in lieu of calls; or telephone calls. The evaluation 

team followed the processes detailed in the next section to determine whether grantees 

were selected for full site visits; in-person visits (stops); or telephone interviews.

13 Technical assistance grantees, along with 2019 grantees, will be evaluated in a Year 2 evaluation to 

be conducted in 2019-2020. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 56

Site Visits

To identify candidates for full site visits, the C/D evaluation team considered the following 

criteria and priorities:

• Extent to which the project is representative of POWER grant categories, types, and 

funded regions;

• Level of complexity – number of partners, projected footprint, use of multiple 

techniques or innovations;

• ARC investment (size of grant);

• Length open in relation to total implementation time (in other words, not too new);

• Distance to completion – ensuring that a mix of those earlier in the implementation 

process were included, as well as those nearing completion;

• Potential or anticipated benefit to distressed counties, primary or substantial, and 

coal-impacted counties;

• Range of development focus (e.g., different types of industries, different types of

lead grantees, different types of partners, etc.).

Using the listed criteria, grantees were initially selected by the C/D evaluation team, and 

then selections were reviewed or revised with input from ARC. Full site visits included onsite interviews with grantee staff (one or more individuals who were involved with 

implementing the grant), as well as interviews with grant partners. If feasible and applicable, 

the evaluation team also toured grant implementation sites. A total of seven grantees were 

selected for full site visits. 

In-Person Stops in Lieu of Calls

Once site visits grantees had been selected, the C/D evaluation team identified additional 

grantees that were located in close proximity to the selected site visits grantees, in order to 

maximize efficiency. Grantees selected for in-person stops participated in on-site interviews 

with grantee staff (one or more individuals who were involved with grant implementation). A 

total of 10 grantees were selected for in-person stops. 

Phone Calls

Grantees selected for telephone interviews participated in a 60-minute interview with the 

evaluation team, with one or more grantee staff responding to interview questions. The 

grantees selected for telephone interviews were remaining projects that had not been 

closed as of January 2019 but that had been awarded prior to January 2019; were not 

technical assistance projects; and had not been selected for full site visits or in-person visits. 

A total of 71 grantees were selected for phone interviews. 

Finally, after projects had been classified as full site visits, in-person visits, and phone calls, 

the evaluation team organized calls and visits by topic (e.g., Education and Workforce 

Development; Business Development, etc.) and, based on topic organization, selected 

grantees to be evaluated each month (January-August) of 2019. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 57

Data Analysis and Reporting Methods

Qualitative data gathered from the pre-interview questionnaires and semi-structured 

interviews was then entered into an online tool to group and aggregate raw notes into 

sections including purpose of the project; grantee’s definition(s) of project success; 

implementation locations and partners; key successes/accelerators and contributing 

factors; key challenges/barriers and contributing factors; grantee’s perception of impacts to 

date, including unanticipated successes or benefits; creative approaches and lessons 

learned; plans for sustainability; and feedback for ARC. Data collected through document 

review, pre-interview questionnaires, and telephone or on-site interviews were analyzed 

using a general inductive approach, which is particularly useful in drawing clear links 

between research questions and objectives and data collection results. More specific detail 

on the approach used to analyze data is provided below. 

Monthly Reports

Once data had been entered into the online tool, lead evaluators further grouped sections 

into subthemes related to successes/factors of success; challenges, barriers, and 

contributing factors; early impacts; and ARC feedback. Supporting data for identified 

themes was compiled into monthly reports for ARC, starting in January and concluding in 

August. Each month, the evaluation team discussed newly collected data and existing 

themes, to identify the extent to which new data fit identified themes; whether new themes 

had emerged; or whether any new data had been collected to contradict existing themes. 

Where supporting data was identified for a new set of grantees each month, evaluators 

included this within the appropriate theme. If an existing theme was not supported by new 

data collected in a subsequent month, that theme was noted in the monthly report as 

having no data collected that month to support it. Where contradictory data for existing 

themes was identified, evaluators reported contradictory information under existing themes 

in the appropriate monthly report. Where new themes were identified, evaluators reported 

supporting data for new themes first in the month in which the new theme was identified, 

and then in subsequent months if and where additional data was collected to support the 

new themes. 

In addition to theme-based monthly reports, a summary was created for each grant project 

interviewed in a given month, and grant project summary reports were provided for the 

grant project as supplements to the monthly theme-based reports. Grant project

summaries included information more specific to the individual grant project (as opposed to 

the theme-based report, which focused on similarities across grantees in a given month). 

Individual grant summaries included amount of funds received; grant timeline; summary of 

project purpose and definition(s) of success, including defined outputs and outcomes;

location(s) of implementation; key partners; summaries of implementation successes and 

contributing factors, as well as challenges and contributing factors; creative approaches; 

qualitative evidence of impact, as well as updates on outputs and outcomes; and other 

lessons learned. Monthly reports were shared electronically with ARC staff, followed by a

telephone call to answer any questions related to the report.
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 58

Final Report

For this final report, the evaluation team re-reviewed all monthly reports (January-August), 

as well as raw notes for each grantee. Subthemes for successes, challenges, and impacts 

were regrouped into Key Themes, based on individual review by lead evaluators and 

subsequent discussions to finalize key themes and ensure inter-rater agreement. Once key 

themes had been identified, each evaluator reviewed raw notes from a predetermined set 

of grant projects and selected keywords, phrases, and quotes to create subthemes and 

validate identified key themes. Subthemes and keywords, phrases, and quotes were then 

placed into a matrix by grant project and project category to allow for crosstabulations and 

further validation of subthemes. During this review, if potential additional subthemes were 

identified, the evaluation team had discussions to determine and finalize whether potential 

additional subthemes warranted being added, or whether they belonged as part of a 

previously identified subtheme. Once the matrix, with key themes, subthemes, and 

supporting keywords, phrases, or quotes was finalized, the evaluation team conducted a 

final review of raw notes per grantee to ensure that all data was appropriately captured. 

Finally, the evaluation team reviewed and vetted identified key themes and subthemes with 

key ARC staff, to ensure that themes seemed appropriate based on prior monthly reports 

and discussions, as well as to ensure that themes were well-understood and to provide 

clarification for any remaining questions. The evaluation team provided a final presentation 

on key themes and grantee examples for broader ARC POWER staff and used additional 

feedback from that presentation to finalize this report. 

Limitations

As with any implementation evaluation using primarily qualitative data collection and 

analysis methods, this evaluation has several limitations that should be considered when 

reading and applying this final report. Limitations are as follows:

Implementation only

Because the evaluation was designed to focus on implementation and utilized primarily 

qualitative data collection and analysis methods, it does not rigorously analyze project 

outcomes or impact. While evaluators did review reported outputs and outcomes, these 

numbers were analyzed from a descriptive standpoint only. Further, specific questions 

about perceived impacts were included in semi-structured interviews to allow evaluators to 

obtain and analyze grantees’ and partners’ perceptions of impacts. However, impacts

discussed in this report are not based on rigorous statistical analysis. As such, while it may 

be interpreted that grantees perceive or have seen evidence of early impacts, causation 

should not be interpreted from this evaluation.

Varying timelines

The 88 POWER projects reviewed for this evaluation were (by design) at varying stages of 

implementation (beginning, middle, or nearing closure) at the time they were interviewed. 

As such, grantee perspectives provided for this evaluation, particularly for those interviewed 

at the beginning or middle stages of implementation, may be different from what their 

perspectives would have been at closure. In addition, because grantees were at various 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 59

stages of implementation, conclusions drawn and themes about grantee implementation 

may not be valid or generalizable for all grantees. In order to clarify timelines, as part of the 

monthly evaluation reports (grantee summaries), C/D provided information on the percent 

complete for each grantee (number of months grant dollars were awarded compared to the 

month in which the evaluation was conducted). 

Partial and biased findings

Qualitative and perceptual research and analysis methods are, by nature, partial and biased. 

To attempt to address this limitation, the evaluation triangulated data collected through 

multiple sources, including quarterly reports, pre-interview questionnaires, and semistructured interviews, as well as through post-interview discussions within the evaluation 

team and with ARC staff. Where grantee partners were interviewed along with grantees 

themselves, the evaluation team triangulated information collected from these partners 

against information collected from the grantees. 

Selection bias

Selection bias is common in any form of design that does not involve random sampling or 

random assignment. The evaluation team included 88 POWER grantees in this evaluation. 

While the evaluation team employed a pre-defined method to identify the 88 grantees 

(described in the Project Selection section of this Appendix) in an attempt to ensure that 

grantees were the right fit to answer implementation study questions, selection bias may 

still be present. Further, grantees were required to participate in the evaluation as a 

condition of receiving POWER funds. While this requirement reduces the possibility of nonresponse, it also introduce the potential for participants to feel pressured to speak favorably 

about project implementation and the funder (ARC). To try to mitigate this, the evaluation 

team informed interview participants that their feedback would be confidential in the case 

of discussing challenges (while challenges may be associated with grant projects, 

comments would not be associated with individual interview participants) or anonymized in 

the case of feedback about ARC. Neutral, negative, and sometimes critical feedback from a 

wide variety of grantees and partners supports the notion that grantees felt comfortable to 

share their experiences, both positive and negative. 

Researcher interview bias

Although a semi-structured interview protocol was used for each telephone and on-site 

interview, it is possible that an individual researcher’s methods for asking initial or follow-up 

questions may have inadvertently introduced bias into responses. To attempt to mitigate 

this issue, the evaluation team reviewed the interview protocol questions collaboratively 

prior to conducting any interviews. The same protocol was used for all interviews. Four 

evaluation team members covered all interviews and shared notes in a common system. 

The evaluation lead, Dr. Molly Chamberlin, completed monthly and final quality reviews of 

all notes and conclusions. Where necessary, evaluation team members met to discuss any 

issues associated with carrying out the interview protocol and adjust interviewing 

techniques as needed. In addition, evaluation team members reviewed findings and 

interpretations collaboratively, as discussed in the next section, researcher extrapolation 

bias. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 60

Researcher extrapolation bias

Analysis conducted within an interpretative analytical framework is threatened by the fact 

that researcher interpretation is personal and may go beyond what is present in and 

supported by actual data. As described in the Data Analysis and Reporting Methods section 

of this Appendix, indeed the evaluation team employed its own interpretations of data 

collected through multiple methods, including using POWER-specific findings coupled with 

findings and experiences of evaluations previously conducted by the team. To mitigate 

researcher extrapolation limitations, the evaluation team individually reviewed and analyzed 

raw data collected through interviews; identified themes were collaboratively discussed 

and refined as a team; and evaluators introduced and discussed any contradictory evidence 

for themes as it arose. However, recommendations and lessons learned that were identified 

through this evaluation may not be suitable for all POWER grantees. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 61

Appendix B

Interview Protocols

Pre-Interview Questionnaire

1. Please describe your grant’s 1-2 most notable successes.

2. Please describe the 1-2 most significant challenges you and your implementation 

partners have experienced. 

3. Have you shifted any of your activities in response to successes or challenges? If so, 

please describe how your approach has evolved.

4. Who are the 2-5 most significant other entities (organizations, businesses, people, 

etc.) most actively involved in implementation? Are any partners not involved or less 

involved than anticipated? 

5. At this point, how can ARC serve you better? 

6. Is there anything else we should know about implementation prior to our discussion? 

7. ARC would like us to gather updated outputs and outcomes figures, as of the end of 

this month, if available. Please either include below (or as an attachment to this form) 

or be prepared to discuss them on the call. 

Onsite and Telephone Interviews

Context, Progress, and Lessons Learned

1. Please give us the 30 second “elevator speech” about your project: In your own 

words, what is it about, in what locations is implementation occurring, and what does 

it seek to accomplish? 

2. Are your outputs and outcomes where you expect them to be at this stage of 

implementation? Why or why not? (Note: the team will ask for updated figures, if 

applicable and if not already provided)

3. What infrastructure (processes, procedures, systems) has been developed and 

implemented to ensure grant success? 

4. Can you describe how implementation has varied across your proposed region? 

5. How has impact varied across your proposed region?

6. What factors have contributed most to your successes so far? (Accelerators)

o What internal factors have led to success?

o What external factors have helped you be successful?

7. What factors have led to barriers to progress?

o What external factors have negatively impacted progress, or prevented even 

more progress than you’ve made so far?

o What internal barriers have arisen that have prevented additional progress?

8. How might you have designed your program differently, knowing what you know 

now?

9. What do you anticipate might be the biggest risk to the project having a lasting 

impact in the region?
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 62

Results

10. Beyond the established outputs and outcomes, how do you define success for the 

program? 

o Are/how are you tracking and measuring that progress? 

o Have you had any public events or press attention that shows the public has 

recognized your progress? 

11. What unanticipated successes or benefits have occurred as a result of 

implementation?

12. How is this POWER grant affecting economic progress in the region(s) covered? 

(May vary across region)

13. Please describe how you think about sustainability for the grant. 

o Are any elements sustainable beyond funding?

o What lasting effects do you anticipate?

14. How, if at all, does POWER complement other development initiatives and activities?

15. Beyond what you’ve already shared, is there anything else ARC can do to better 

support you? What assistance might help you overcome barriers?

16. Is there anything else you’d like to tell us about your POWER project?
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 63

Appendix C

Grantees Evaluated in Year 1

(Note that implementation states in the last column represents states in which the grantee 

planned to implement the project). 

Full Site Visits (n=7)

Eval 

Month

Grant 

Number Grantee Name Project Name

Implementation 

States

Jan PW-18600-

IM

EKCEP TechHire Eastern Kentucky (TEKY) 

Initiative

KY

Jan PW-18700-

IM

Fahe Appalachia HEAT Squad KY

Mar PW-18626-

IM

Shoals Business Incubator Shoals Shift AL, MS, TN

Apr PW-18916-

IM

Washington Greene County 

Job Training Agency

Transitioning from Black to Blue OH, PA

Apr PW-18926-

IM

Washington Greene County 

Job Training Agency

ARCODE Initiative PA, WV

May PW-18729-

IM

Center for Rural 

Entrepreneurship

Building Entrepreneurial 

Communities

KY, OH, WV

Jun PW-18787-

IM

Marshall University 

Research Corp.

Sustainable Employment for 

Community Health Workers in CoalImpacted Communities

KY, OH, WV

In-Person Stops (n=10)

Eval 

Month

Grant 

Number Grantee Name Project Name

Implementation 

States

Jan PW-18727-

IM

Appalachian Wildlife 

Foundation

Appalachian Wildlife Center –

Infrastructure

KY

Jan PW-19379-

IM

Appalachian Wildlife 

Foundation

Appalachian Wildlife Center –

Wastewater

KY

Jan PW-18622-

IM

MACED Economic Transition for Eastern KY 

(ETEK) Initiative

KY

Jan PW-18789-

IM

Fahe UPLIFT Appalachia Recovery KY

Jan PW-19397-

IM

Hazard Community & 

Technical College

Welding Technology KY

Jan PW-19124-

IM

Hazard Community & 

Technical College

Intergenerational Training Center KY

Mar PW-18921-

IM

Southern Research 

Institute

The Prosperity Fund AL

Mar PW-18939-

IM 

Launch TN Launch TN’s Entrepreneurial 

Education & Workforce Development

TN

Apr PW-18895-

AM and 

PW-18895-

BM

Region 4 Planning & 

Development Council

Linking Trails and Communities to 

Spawn Economic Growth – The 

Southern WV Bike Trail Network

WV

Jun CO-18307 Williamson Health and 

Wellness Center

Health Innovation and Food Hub WV
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 64

Telephone Interviews (n=71)

Eval 

Mont

h

Grant 

Number Grantee Name Project Name

Implementation 

States

Jan PW-18616-IM Southwest VA Community 

College

REDI Center for Dislocated Coal Miners VA

Jan PW-18642-

IM

Southwest VA Community 

College

Southwest Virginia Regional 

Cybersecurity Initiative

VA

Jan PW-18726-

IM

Hocking College Appalachia RISES OH, WV

Jan PW-18790-

IM

Big Sandy Community & 

Technical College

Eastern Kentucky Coal County 

Transformation

KY

Jan PW-18801-IM Mountain Empire 

Community College

Power Linemen Career Education at 

Mountain Empire (PLCEME)

VA

Jan PW-18920-

IM

PRIDE Community 

Services

BuildJobs Initiative WV

Jan PW-18925-

IM

Buckeye Hills Regional 

Council

Innovation Gateway Network of 

Appalachian Ohio

OH

Jan PW-18657-

IM

Industrial Development 

Authority

Virginia Emerging Drone Industry 

Cluster Project

VA

Feb PW-18635-

IM

RAIN Source Capital Appalachian Angel Investor Network AL, KY, MD, NC, 

OH, PA, TN, VA, 

WV

Feb PW-18922-IM Appalachian Partnership, 

Inc. (APEG)

Appalachian Ohio – Community 

Development Financial Institution 

(CDFI) Formation

OH

Feb PW-19395-

IM

WV Community 

Development Hub

Mountain State Capital: Filling the 

Critical Venture Capital Gap in West 

Virginia

WV

Feb PW-18699-

IM

Center for Rural Health 

Development

WV Rural Health Infrastructure Loan 

Fund

WV

Feb PW-18800-

IM

Kentucky Highlands 

Investment Corp.

Kentucky Highlands Employment and 

Financial Training Program

KY

Feb PW-18497-

IM

Natural Capital Investment 

Fund, Inc.

Growing Triple Bottom Line Small 

Businesses in Coal Impacted 

Communities in Central Appalachia

WV

Feb PW-18786-

IM

Woodlands Community 

Lenders

Financing Entrepreneurship in 

Randolph, Barbour, and Tucker 

Counties

WV

Feb PW-18792-IM Virginia Community 

Capital

New Economy Loan Fund VA

Feb PW-18594-

IM

Pennsylvania Wilds Center 

for Entrepreneurship, Inc.

Nature Tourism Cluster Development 

in the PA Wilds 

PA

Mar PW-18599-

IM

New River Gorge Regional 

Development Authority

New River Gorge Region – Developing 

an Entrepreneurial Economy

WV

Mar PW-18606-

IM

Hatfield McCoy Regional 

Recreation Authority

Southern Coalfields Sustainable 

Tourism & Entrepreneurship Program

KY, VA, WV

Mar PW-18610-

IM

Ohio University Leveraging Innovation Gateways and 

Hubs Toward Sustainability (LIGHTS)

KY, OH, WV

Mar PW-18777-IM Southern Alleghenies 

Planning & Development 

Commission (SPARC)

The Alleghenies Entrepreneurial 

Ecosystem

PA

Mar PW-18714-IM Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Corporation

Southwestern Pennsylvania Economic 

Gardening Initiative

PA

Mar PW-18740-

IM

Marshall University 

Research Corp.

Appalachian Hatchery WV

Mar PW-18918-IM Ohio University Social Enterprise System II OH, WV
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 65

Eval 

Mont

h

Grant 

Number Grantee Name Project Name

Implementation 

States

Mar PW-18941-IM Southeast Kentucky 

Community & Technical 

College

Selling to the World Initiative KY, TN, VA

Apr PW-18943-

IM

Youngstown State 

University

Excellence Training Center – an 

Advanced Manufacturing Training and 

Education Center

OH, PA, WV

Apr PW-18741-IM Bevill State Community 

College

Bevill State Community College 

POWER 2017

AL

Apr PW-18755-

BM

West Alabama Chamber 

Foundation, Inc.

WAW’s 2020 Initiative Construction AL

Apr PW-18847-

IM

Canaan Valley Institute Sustainable Jobs Initiative WV

Apr PW-18940-

IM

Southeast Kentucky 

Community & Technical 

College

Southeast Kentucky Revitalization 

Project

KY

Apr PW-18916-IM Bluefield State College Center of Excellence in Manufacturing 

Education (CEME) at Bluefield State

VA, WV

May CO-18306 Appalshop, Inc. Mines to Minds: Southeast Kentucky 

High Tech Workforce Training

KY

May PW-18791-IM UMWA Career Centers, 

Inc.

New Start Retraining Initiative for 

Dislocated Coal Workers

PA, WV

May PW-18928-

IM

Pierpont Community & 

Technical College

Powering Up the Aerospace 

Workforce in Coal-Impacted 

Communities in West Virginia

WV

May PW-18614-IM Consortium for 

Entrepreneurship 

Education 

EntreEd K-14: Every Student Every 

Year

KY, OH, TN, VA, 

WV

May PW-18923-IM Morehead State University Shaping Our Appalachian Region 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (SOAR STEM)

KY

May PW-18612 Marion County Marion County Regional Center for 

Higher Education Phase II & III

TN

May PW-18670-

TA

West Virginia Community 

Development Hub

Economic Diversification Mentoring for 

Innovation Acceleration Strategy

WV

May PW-18609-

IM

University of Pikeville Kentucky College of Optometry KY, VA, WV

Jun PW-18590-

IM

University of Kentucky 

Research Foundation

Downtown Revitalization in the 

Promise Zone

KY

Jun PW-18685-

IM

Innovation Works, Inc. Revitalization of Southwest PA CoalImpacted Communities through 

Innovation and Entrepreneurship

PA

Jun PW-18778-

IM

Southwest Virginia 

Alliance for 

Manufacturing, Inc.

The Heart of Appalachia Economic 

Transition Project

VA

Jun PW-18779-

IM

West Virginia University 

Research Corp.

Manufacturing Value Stream for Shale OH, PA, WV

Jun PW-19338-

IM

Catalyst Connection PA MAKES: Mini-Grants for Small 

Manufacturers

PA

Jun PW-18795-ITAJobs for the Future Career Online High School: A Learning 

Strategy for Appalachian Communities

KY, TN, WV

Jun PW-18707-

IM

Town of Unicoi Unicoi – Mountain Harvest Kitchen 

Incubator & Entrepreneurial Training 

Program

NC, TN

Jun PW-19371-IM West Virginia Forest 

Products Cooperative, Inc.

West Virginia Forest Products 

Cooperative

WV
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 66

Eval 

Mont

h

Grant 

Number Grantee Name Project Name

Implementation 

States

Jun PW-19372-IM Southwest North Carolina 

Economic Development 

Commission

WNC Farmers Market Value-Added 

Manufacturing & Training Center 

NC

Jun PW-18317-I Southern Alleghenies 

Planning & Development 

Commission (SAPDC)

Export Promotion for the Mining 

Equipment Supply Chain

All ARC states 

Jul CO-18311-I Friends of Southwest 

Virginia

RESOURCE FULL: A Consortium 

Approach to Workforce and Economic 

Development in Southwest Virginia

VA

Jul PW-18728-

AM and PW18728-BM

Friends of Southwest 

Virginia

Building Appalachian Spring: Growing 

the Economy of Southwest Virginia 

through Outdoor Recreation

VA

Jul PW-18771-IM SEDA – Council of 

Governments

Central PA Asset-Based Economy: 

Adaptive Reuse of Coal-Impacted 

Recreation as an Economic Engine

PA

Jul PW-18794-

IM

City of Whitesburg Whitesburg Daniel Boone Hotel 

Stabilization 

KY

Jul CO-18305 Kentucky Center for 

Agriculture and Rural 

Development

Local Food Supply Chain Development 

in Eastern Kentucky

KY

Jul PW-18690-

IM

Marshall University 

Research Corp.

Sprouting Farms WV

Jul PW-18793-

IM

West Virginia Healthy Kids 

and Family Coalition

Growing Social Enterprises and 

Healthy Communities

WV

Jul PW-18917-IM Natural Capital Investment 

Fund, Inc.

Growing Food System Capacity and 

Scaling Economic Impact in Central 

Appalachia

KY, OH, TN, VA, 

WV

Jul PW-18942-

IM

Fayette County 

Community Action 

Agency

Southwestern Pennsylvania 

Development of a Local Food Shed

MD, PA, WV

Aug PW-18817-IM Huntington Municipal 

Development Authority

Polymer Technology Center of 

Huntington (P-TeCH) Project

WV

Aug PW-18919-IM Community Ventures 

Corporation

Community Ventures – Build 

Appalachia Loan Fund

KY, WV

Aug PW-19342-IM Coalfield Development SEED-LIFT: Social Enterprise and 

Economic Diversification – Leveraging 

Investment for Transformation

WV

Aug PW-18756-

IM

Somerset County Somerset County Fiber Extension 

Project

PA

Aug PW-18678-

IM

Erwin Utilities Erwin Utilities – Temple Hill & Bumpus 

Cove Broadband

TN

Aug PW-19336-ITAWest Virginia Geological & 

Economic Survey

State of West Virginia Broadband 

Development Hub

WV

Aug PW-18611-IM Bluewell Public Service 

District

Mercer County Regional Airport 

Development and Diversification 

Initiative

VA, WV

Aug PW-18620-

IM

Randolph County 

Development Authority

Hardwood Cluster Manufacturing 

Expansion Project

WV

Aug PW-18799-ITAUnlimited Future Beefing Up the Local Food Economy KY, OH, WV

Aug PW-18924-

IM

Alfred State College Biorefinery Development and 

Commercialization Center

NY

Aug PW-19402-

IM

LENOWISCO Planning 

District Commission

Project Intersection Site Development VA

Aug PW-19315-

BM

Volunteer Energy 

Cooperative

Volunteer Energy Cooperative IoT 

Innovation Ecosystem Project

TN
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 67

Eval 

Mont

h

Grant 

Number Grantee Name Project Name

Implementation 

States

Aug PW-18601-

IM

Appalachian Sustainable 

Development

The Central Appalachian Food 

Enterprise Corridor

KY, OH, TN, VA, 

WV
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 68

Appendix D

Projects Not Included in Year 1 Evaluation14

Project Type Grant Number Grantee Name Project Name

Business 

Development –

Access to Capital 

PW-18458-HM Erwin Utilities Cool & Connected Downtown Erwin 

Entrepreneurs Business Grant

PW-19352-IM Lawrence Economic 

Development Corporation

Building Technical Capacity for Angel 

Investment in the Tri-State Region of Ohio, 

Kentucky, and West Virginia

PW-19370-IM Natural Capital 

Investment Fund

Downtown Appalachia Redevelopment 

Initiative (REDI)

PW-19399-IM Virginia Community 

Capital, Inc.

Impact Appalachia: A Market-Making Fund for 

Central Appalachia

Business 

Development –

Business 

Incubator 

PW-18674-I-TA Reconnecting McDowell, 

Inc.

Reconnecting McDowell

PW-18777-IM Southern Alleghenies 

Planning & Development 

Commission (SAPDC)

The Alleghenies Entrepreneurial Ecosystem

Business 

Development –

Business Site 

Development

PW-18617-I-TA West Virginia 

Development Office

Hobet Strategic Plan

PW-18654-I-TA Rural Action Appalachian Ohio Solar Supply-Chain 

Initiative

PW-18711-I-TA Round the Mountain: 

Southwest Virginia's 

Artisan Network

Grant-Writing Assistance for "A Bolder Brew, 

a Brighter Bouquet: Strengthening the Craft 

Beverage Cluster Across Southwest Virginia"

PW-18720-I-TA Region 4 Planning and 

Development Council

UKV Revitalization Plan

PW-18780-I-TA Tri-County Council for 

Western Maryland, Inc.

I-68 Regional Economic Partnership

PW-18781-I-TA Appalachian Voices Southwest Virginia Renewable Energy and 

Economy Project

PW-18782-I-TA Virginia Coalfield 

Coalition, Inc

Virginia Coalfields Telecommunications 

Planning Grant

PW-18783-I-TA Northwest PA Regional 

Planning and 

Development Commission

Northwest PA Broadband Assessment

PW-18784-I-TA Armstrong County 

Industrial Development 

Council

Armstrong County 2017 POWER Technical 

Assistance

Business 

Development –

Business 

Technical 

Assistance

CO-18314 Rural Action, Inc. Emerging Opportunities in Social Enterprise 

Development

PW-18632-I-TA West Virginia Connecting 

Communities Inc

Linking Trails and Communities to Spawn 

Economic Growth and Wellness: The 

Southern West Virginia Bike Trail Network

PW-18655-I-TA Webster County 

Economic Development 

Authority

Central WV ATV Trail System Feasibility 

Study

PW-18706-I-TA Randolph County 

Development Authority

Hardwood Industry Cluster Strategic Plan

PW-18785-I-TA Grayson LandCare, Inc. Blue Ridge Plateau Abattoir Regional 

Partnership

PW-18788-IM WV Regional Technology 

Park Corp.

Green Mining Model Business Program

PW-18918-IM Ohio University Social Enterprise Ecosystem: SEE

14 Based on list of approved or pending projects sent by ARC on 10/11/2018. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 69

Project Type Grant Number Grantee Name Project Name

PW-19315-BM- Upper Cumberland 

Development District

Volunteer Energy Cooperative IoT Innovation 

Ecosystem Project

PW-19373-IM Mountain BizCapital, Inc. 

dba Mountain BizWorks

Growing Outdoors: Expanding the Outdoor 

Gear Manufacturing Sector

PW-19376-IM Innovation Works Western PA Small Business Services for CoalImpacted Communities

PW-19432-IM People Incorporated 

Financial Services

New Market Tax Credit Project Growth in 

Appalachia

Business 

Development –

Entrepreneurship 

Education

PW-18580-I-TA Southern Research 

Institute

Fostering Entrepreneurial Activity in Coal 

Impacted Communities in Alabama

Education & 

Workforce 

Development –

Adult Education

PW-19038-I-TA Southern Appalachian 

Labor School

Entrepreneur Coalfield Alternative 

Opportunity (ECAO)

Education & 

Workforce 

Development –

Career and 

Technical 

Education

CO-18304 Shaping Our Appalachian 

Region, Inc.

UNLEASHING THE POWER OF THE I-WAY: 

Capacity Building for Economic Development 

Professionals

PW-18713-I-TA UMWA Career Centers, 

Inc. (UMWACC)

ARC POWER TA Grant Application 

Development

PW-18755-AM West Alabama Chamber 

Foundation, Inc. dba West 

Alabama Works

WAW''s 2020 Initiative Admin

PW-18770-IM Maysville Community and 

Technical College

KY-WV Regional Drone Technology 

Workforce Project

PW-18802-I-TA Alabama Center for 

Sustainable Energy 

(ALCSE) DBA ENERGY 

ALABAMA

Alabama Advanced Energy Economic Impact 

Report (AAEEIR)

PW-18864-I American Association of 

Community Colleges

Industry-Informed Infrastructure in 

Appalachian Colleges

PW-19330-I-TA Mayland Community 

College

Redeveloping Coal Impacted Communities 

within the Appalachian Region: The Role of 

Community Colleges in Entrepreneurial 

Training and the Opioid Crisis

PW-19331-I-TA Piedmont Triad Regional 

Council

Dream. Career. Academy. Workforce 

Development Training and Education Hub 

Plan

PW-19332-IM Community College of 

Beaver County

TEAMing Up to Build Pathways to Jobs

Education & 

Workforce 

Development –

Educational 

Achievement / 

Attainment

PW-19393-I-TA Appalachian Community 

Federal Credit Union

“Funding the Future” Pre-Implementation 

Study

Education & 

Workforce 

Development –

Workforce 

Training

PW-18499-I-TA The EdVenture Group Grant-Writing Assistance for CODE: Creating 

Opportunities, Diversifying Economy Project 

Proposal

PW-18507-I-TA National Association of 

Counties Research 

Foundation

Stronger Economies in Coal-Reliant Places

PW-18511-I-TA Youngstown State 

University

Advanced Manufacturing Innovation & 

Commercialization Center

PW-18730-I-TA Williamson Health and 

Wellness Center

Healthy Workforce Initiative: Workforce 

Empowerment and Opioid Recovery Center
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 70

Project Type Grant Number Grantee Name Project Name

PW-18798-I-TA Workforce Initiative 

Association

Coal Business United Resource Network 

(Coal BURN) Real-Time Insights for Real-Time 

Actions

PW-18914-I-TA KVC Health Systems, Inc. KVC Health Systems College

PW-19333-IM Golden Triangle Planning 

& Development District, 

Inc.

East Mississippi Power Initiative 2018

PW-19334-IM Keystone Community 

Education Council

Northwest Pennsylvania Diversifying the 

Regional Economy

PW-19343-IM AL Community College 

System

Alabama S.T.R.O.N.G.-Skills Training to 

support Real Opportunities for New job 

Growth 

PW-19368-IM Marshall University 

Research Corporation

Creating Opportunities for Recovery 

Employment (CORE)

PW-19382-IM BridgeValley Community 

and Technical College

Workforce Construction, 

Telecommunications, & Energy (CCE) Training 

Center

PW-19392-I-TA Women's Institute for a 

Secure Retirement

Benefit U: An Entrepreneur's Guide to 

Financial, Health Insurance & Retirement 

Solutions

PW-19406-IM The Center for Rural 

Development

Community Oriented Access to Learning 

(COAL)

Asset-Based 

Development –

Arts-CultureTourism

PW-18458-EM- Portsmouth Murals Inc. Portsmouth Floodwall Murals Digital Access 

Project

PW-18794-IM Whitesburg, City of Whitesburg Daniel Boone Hotel Stabilization

PW-18927-I-TA Eastern Kentucky PRIDE, 

Inc.

Restoring PRIDE in Kentucky's Appalachia 

PW-19341-I-TA National Coal Heritage 

Area Authority

Tug Fork River Water Trail Access Plan

PW-19357-I-TA Pennsylvania 

Environmental Council

Erie to Pittsburgh Trail and PA Wilds Loop -

Feasibility Study

PW-19378-I-TA Southeast Kentucky 

Community & Technical 

College

Creative Capital Investment Assessment: 

Southeastern Kentucky

PW-19384-I-TA Region II Development 

Council, Inc.

Appalachian Heartland Highway Initiative

PW-19433-I-TA Carr Creek Alumni 

Association

The Magic of Carr Creek: A Community 

Revitalization Project

Asset-Based 

Development –

Sector-based 

Strategies

PW-18496-IM Coalfield Development 

Corporation

Appalachian Social Entrepreneurship 

Investment Strategy 

PW-19359-IM Appalachian Artisan 

Center, Inc.

Troublesome Creek Stringed Instruments 

Company No Go

Community 

Development –

Community 

Facility

PW-18458-FM Town of Jonesville Cool & Connected – Jonesville

PW-18458-GM Town of Pennington Gap Cool & Connected – Pennington Gap

Community 

Development –

Community 

Infrastructure

PW-18458-BM Williamson Health & 

Wellness Center, Inc.

Downtown Wi-Fi Access in Williamson, WV

PW-18458-CM Haleyville, City of Haleyville Cool & Connected

PW-18458-I US Environmental 

Protection Agency

Cool & Connected Broadband Program

PW-19335-I-TA SEDA – Council of 

Governments

Central PA Rural Broadband Coverage and 

Feasibility Study

PW-19337-I-TA Buckeye Hills Regional 

Council

U.S. 33 Corridor Broadband Feasibility Project

PW-19411-IM Youngsville Television 

Corporation

NWPA Regional Broadband Deployment 

Initiative 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 71

Project Type Grant Number Grantee Name Project Name

Community 

Development –

Community 

Revitalization

PW-18458-AM Zanesville, City of Zanesville Cool & Connected Broadband 

Program

PW-18458-DM Bluefield, City of Bluefield – Cool & Connected

Community 

Development –

Transportation

PW-19396-I-TA Growth Partnership for 

Ashtabula

Rail and Port Transportation Strategic Plan

Civic 

Entrepreneurship 

– Organizational 

Capacity

PW-18982-I Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities

Technical Assistance Support for POWER 

Grantees

Health –

Healthcare Access

PW-19369-IM Ohio University Appalachian Ohio Opiate Initiative

Health – Health 

Promotion/

Disease 

Prevention

PW-18587-I National Institute on Drug 

Abuse

ARC/National Institutes of Health Interagency 

Agreement on HIV, HCV, and Opioid 

Overdose

PW-18587-C1 National Institute on Drug 

Abuse

ARC/National Institutes of Health Interagency 

Agreement on HIV, HCV and Opioid 

Overdose: Year 2

Research & 

Evaluation

PW-18673-I West Virginia University 

Research Corporation

Economic Analysis of Coal Industry 

Ecosystem in Appalachia 

PW-18688-IM Region 1 – Planning and 

Development Council

Coalfields Cluster Mapping Initiative

PW-18705-I Downstream Strategies Strengthening Economic Resilience in 

Appalachian Communities

PW-19412-I Chamberlin/Dunn, LLC POWER Monitoring and Evaluation

State & LDD 

Administration

PW-18477-I Kentucky Department for 

Local Government

Kentucky Power Initiative Supplemental 

Consolidated Assistance Grant

PW-18625-C1 NC Department of 

Commerce

North Carolina POWER Initiative 

Supplemental Consolidated Technical 

Assistance

PW-18625-I NC Department of 

Commerce

North Carolina POWER Initiative 

Supplemental Consolidated Technical 

Assistance

PW-18634-I PA Department of 

Community & Economic 

Development

Pennsylvania POWER Initiative Supplemental 

Consolidated Technical Assistance

PW-19075-I VA Department of 

Housing & Community 

Development

VA DHCD Administrative Costs for 

Appalachian Spring POWER Project
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 72

Appendix E

ARC Definitions of POWER Outputs and Outcomes

Outputs

Metric Name Definition

Access Road Miles The length of the access roads constructed as part of the project, in 

miles or decimals of miles. 

Acreage The number of acres impacted by an ARC site-development or 

reclamation project, such as the number of acres graded and 

prepared for development at an emerging industrial park, the 

number of acres open to future development, or the number of 

acres remediated in a reclamation project.

Businesses Served The number of businesses served by an ARC project. For 

infrastructure projects, this includes either the number of nonresidential entities with access to new service (e.g., water, sewer, 

gas line, or telecommunications) or improved service (e.g., 

improvements in health or safety, compliance with environmental 

quality, improved water pressure). For business development 

projects, this includes businesses receiving technical assistance or 

participating in training, entrepreneurship, export, or other business 

development and improvement programs. 

Communities Served The number of communities served or impacted by an ARC project, 

including projects that address planning, civic participation, 

infrastructure, educational opportunities, and community capacity. 

For consolidated technical assistance grants, the number of 

communities served is the number of projects submitted by state 

ARC program offices.

Data—Megabits per Second 

(Mbps)

The data transfer capacity of a telecommunications/broadband 

network, in megabits per second. This includes the data transfer 

capacity of a new network, or the increase in data transfer capacity 

of an existing network due to renovation, new equipment, or other 

improvements. This measure may be expressed in decimals. 

Data—Terabytes (TB) The fixed data storage capacity of a server room or data center, in 

terabytes. This measure may be expressed in decimals. 

Gas—Million Cubic Feet 

(MMCF)

The fixed storage capacity of a gas pipeline or gas system, in 

millions of cubic feet. This measure may be expressed in decimals. 

Gas—Million Cubic Feet per 

Day (MMCFD)

The flow capacity of a gas pipeline or gas system, in millions of 

cubic feet per day. This includes the flow capacity of a new gas 

pipeline or system, or the increase in flow capacity of an existing 

gas pipeline or system due to renovation, new equipment, or other 

improvements. This measure may be expressed in decimals.

Heat—Million BTU (MMBTU) The fixed heating capacity of an energy system, including a gas 

system, in millions of British Thermal Units (BTUs). This measure 

may be expressed in decimals. 
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 73

Metric Name Definition

Heat—Million BTU per Day 

(MMBTUD)

The capacity of heat flow generated, transmitted, consumed, or 

conserved by an energy system, including a gas system, in millions 

of British Thermal Units (BTUs) per day. This includes the heat flow

capacity of a new combined heating and power (CHP) system. It 

also includes the increase in heat flow capacity of an existing HVAC 

system or the reduction in heat consumption by a facility due to

renovation, new equipment, energy efficiency measures, or other 

improvements. This measure may be expressed in decimals.

Households Served The number of households served by an ARC infrastructure project. 

This includes either the number of households with access to new 

service (e.g., water, sewer, gas line, or telecommunications), or 

improved service (e.g., improvements in health or safety, 

compliance with environmental quality, improved water pressure). 

Linear Feet The number of linear feet of pipe, wire, cable, trails, etc. to be 

constructed or installed. 

Million Gallons (NG) The fixed storage capacity of a water tank or sewage lagoon, in 

millions of gallons. This measure may be expressed in decimals. 

Million Gallons per Day 

(MGD)

The flow capacity of a water or sewer system, in millions of gallons 

per day. This includes the flow capacity of a new water or sewage 

treatment plant, or the increase in flow capacity of an existing plant 

due to renovation, new equipment, or other improvements. This 

measure may be expressed in decimals.

New Visitors: Days The number of new daytime visitors to a tourism destination times 

the number of days they visit, within one year of project 

implementation. 

New Visitors: Overnights The number of new overnight visitors to a tourism destination times 

the number of their overnight stays, within one year of project 

implementation. 

Organizations Served The number of organizations served by an ARC project, including 

hospitals, schools, churches, non-profits, non-governmental 

organizations, and government agencies (use when number of 

businesses or households does not apply).

Participants Served The number of individual participants served or targeted by an ARC 

project (use when patients, students, or worker/trainee measures 

do not apply). This can include the number of attendees at a 

meeting, workshop or conference. For example, the number of 

individuals participating in a planning process; participating in a 

leadership program; or the number of individuals attending health 

promotion activities.

Patients Served The number of unique patients receiving clinical services one or 

more times as a result of an ARC health project. For equipment 

projects, report the number of unique patients served by that 

equipment during the project period and one year after the 

equipment is deployed. For health projects that do not provide 

clinical services (such as health promotion activities), use the 

measure “participants served.”
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 74

Metric Name Definition

Plans/Reports The number of plans or reports developed as a result of an ARC 

project. This could include strategic plans, master plans, concept 

plans, or plans for infrastructure improvements or new programs, 

as well as research reports, feasibility studies, etc. This measure is 

often paired with the outcome “Programs Implemented,” since a 

program or specific activity is often implemented as a result of a 

planning process.

Power-Kilowatt-Hours (kWh) 

Per Year

The capacity of power flow generated, transmitted, distributed, 

consumed, or conserved by an energy system; in kilowatt-hours 

per year. This includes the flow capacity of a new power plant or 

new power line. It also includes the increase in power flow capacity 

of an electric grid or the reduction in power consumption by a 

facility due to renovation, new equipment, energy efficiency 

measures, or other improvements. This measure may be expressed 

in decimals.

Power—Kilowatts (kW) The fixed power generating capacity of an energy system, 

including a renewable energy system, in kilowatts. This measure 

may be expressed in decimals. 

Square Feet The number of square feet constructed or improved by an ARC 

project, such as the square footage of a renovated community 

center, a newly constructed parking lot, a reconfigured interior 

space, etc. 

Students Served The number of students served by an ARC education project, 

measured during the project period, when possible (e.g., the 

number of students served by a science and technology program 

in a given semester or year). For projects that are not fully 

operational during the project period, the measurement time 

period may be extended up to three years after the project end 

date. Projects that expand existing programs count only the 

additional number of students served.

Waste—Tons per Day 

Reduced/Reused/Recycled 

(TPD)

The flow capacity of waste reduced, reused, or recycled by a waste 

processing facility. This includes the flow capacity of a new wasteto-energy plant, or the increase in flow capacity of an existing 

landfill or recycling center due to renovation, new equipment, or 

other improvements. This measure may be expressed in decimals. 

Waste—Tons 

Reduced/Reused/Recycled 

The number of tons of waste reduced, reused, or recycled at a 

landfill, brownfield site or recycling center; within one year of 

project implementation. 

Workers/Trainees Served The number of worker/trainees served by an ARC training project, 

measured during the project period when possible. For example, 

the number of worker/trainees the project will be able to enroll in a 

new workforce education program. For projects that are not fully 

operational during the project period, the measurement time 

period may be extended up to three years after the project end 

date. Projects that expand existing programs count only the 

additional number of workers/trainees that the project will be able 

to serve.
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 75

Outcomes

Metric Name Definition

Businesses Created The number of new businesses created as a result of an ARC 

project. This measure is used for business development projects 

such as entrepreneurship training, value-added agriculture, access 

to capital, and business incubation programs (including seed 

accelerators). This measure should only be used to measure new 

business creation, not the number of existing businesses recruited 

or otherwise relocated from other areas. The grant applicant should 

estimate how many new businesses will be created within three 

years of the project end date.

Businesses Improved The number of businesses with a measurable improvement as a 

result of an ARC project. For new service infrastructure projects, the 

output (served) is the number of non-residential entities with 

access to the infrastructure service while the outcome (improved) is 

the number of non-residential customers that are connected to the 

infrastructure service. For improved service projects (e.g.,

improvements in health or safety, compliance with environmental 

quality, improved water pressure), all non-residential customers 

served are also considered improved. For business development 

projects, the grant applicant and ARC project manager must agree 

on what constitutes “measurable improvement” and a method for

measuring the degree of improvement must be provided. For each 

project this number is always a subset of, or the same as, the 

“businesses served” output measure.

Communities Improved The number of communities with a measurable improvement as a 

result of an ARC project, including projects that address planning, 

civic participation, infrastructure, educational opportunities, and

community capacity. For community capacity projects, this is the 

number of communities with enhanced capacity. This measure 

should also be used for consolidated technical assistance grants. 

The grant applicant and ARC project manager must agree on what 

constitutes “measurable improvement” and a method for 

measuring the degree of improvement must be provided. For each 

project, this number is always a subset of, or the same as, the 

“communities served” output measure.

Costs Reduced The amount of costs reduced as a result of project activities, within 

one year of project implementation. For example, small business 

technical assistance may help a business streamline and cut costs, 

or an energy-efficiency program may help to reduce energy costs, 

through a renegotiated flat fee for energy use or through a 

reduction in kilowatt hours used. See the output measure “energy 

capacity.”
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 76

Metric Name Definition

Households Improved The number of households with measurable improvement as a 

result of an ARC project. For new service infrastructure projects, the 

output (served) is the number of households with access to the

infrastructure service while the outcome (improved) is the number 

of residential customers that are connected to the infrastructure 

service. For improved service projects (e.g., improvements in health 

or safety, compliance with environmental quality, improved water 

pressure), all residential customers served are also considered 

improved. For each project, this number is always a subset of, or 

the same as, the “households served” output measure.

Housing Units 

Constructed/Rehabbed

The number of housing units constructed or rehabilitated as a part 

of an ARC housing or community development project. 

Jobs Created The number of jobs created (direct hires, excluding construction 

jobs) as a result of an ARC project, measured during the project 

period and up to three years after the project end date. Part-time 

and seasonal jobs should be converted to full-time equivalents and 

rounded up to whole numbers. Note: for infrastructure projects, 

employers must provide letters stating their intention to create a 

specific number of new jobs; for non-infrastructure jobs, grant 

applicants should estimate the number of jobs that will be created 

by the organizations expected to benefit from the project.

Jobs Retained The number of jobs retained as a result of an ARC project. These 

are existing jobs that would be lost or relocated if the ARC project 

were not undertaken. Note: for infrastructure projects, employers 

must provide letters explicitly stating the number of jobs at risk, 

due to relocation or loss of competitiveness, without the project. 

Existing jobs benefitting from an infrastructure upgrade cannot be 

counted as jobs retained. For non-infrastructure projects, grant 

applicants should estimate the number of existing jobs that would 

be at risk, due to relocation or loss of competitiveness, without the 

ARC-funded project.

Leveraged Private 

Investment (LPI)

The dollar amount of private-sector financial commitments, outside 

of project costs that result from an ARC project, measured during 

the project period and up to three years after the project end date. 

Note: for infrastructure projects, businesses must provide letters 

stating their intention to make a specific level of investment if the 

project is funded; for non-infrastructure projects, grant applicants 

should estimate the dollar value of investments that will be made 

by the company or companies that will benefit from the project.

Organizations Improved The number of organizations with a measurable improvement as a 

result of an ARC project, including hospitals, schools, churches, 

non-profits, non-governmental organizations, and government 

agencies (use when number of businesses or households does not 

apply). The grant applicant and ARC project manager must agree 

on what constitutes “measurable improvement” and a method for 

measuring the degree of improvement must be provided. For each 

project, this number is always a subset of, or the same as, the 

“organizations served” output measure.
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 77

Metric Name Definition

Participants Improved The number of participants with a measurable improvement as a 

result of an ARC project (use when patients, students, or 

worker/trainee measures do not apply, as with a leadership 

program or planning process). If outcomes are not achieved or 

cannot be measured within three years after the project is 

completed, the number of participants that complete or attend all 

or a required number of components of the project activity may be 

substituted. For example, the number of participants that attend at 

least four out of the five community workshops offered. The grant 

applicant and ARC project manager must agree on what 

constitutes “measurable improvement” and a method for 

measuring the degree of improvement must be provided. For each 

project, this number is always a subset of, or the same as, the 

“participants served” output measure.

Patients Improved The number of unique patients expected to benefit from an ARC 

health project. Because it is usually assumed that all patients 

served by a health project receive some benefit from it, the 

numbers for “patients served” and “patients improved” are usually 

the same. However, if the grant applicant can perform clinical 

measurement of health outcomes, the outcome number may be 

lower than the output number. For example, if 30 obese patients 

participate in an exercise program and 25 are expected to lower 

their BMI by a certain percentage, the output could be recorded as 

30 patients served and the outcome as 25 patients improved.

Programs Implemented The number of new programs, or the number of ongoing activities 

related to a defined goal, which are implemented as a result of an 

ARC project. If possible, use with other measures that indicate the 

results of the project, such as students, workers, participants, etc.

Revenues Increased: Export 

Sales

The increase in revenue in export sales realized by a business as a 

result of an ARC project, within three years of the project end date.

Revenues Increased: NonExport SalesThe increase in revenue in domestic (non-export) sales realized by 

a business as a result of an ARC project, within three years of the 

project end date. 

Students Improved The number of students who obtain a job in the field for which they 

were specifically trained; the number that receive a diploma, 

certificate or other career credential; or the number of students 

who successfully complete a course or unit of study and/or 

graduate to the next grade or level necessary to continue their 

education. When outcomes occur after the project period, the 

number of students improved may be counted up to three years 

beyond the project end date. For programs where final outcomes 

are achieved after three or more years, the number of students 

improved may be counted by an alternative benchmark, such as 

the number of students completing a skill, grade, or level, or 

continued enrollment for the project period. For each project, this 

number is always a subset of, or the same as, the “students served” 

output measure.
Success Factors, Challenges, and Early Impacts of the POWER Initiative | 2019 78

Metric Name Definition

Telecom Sites The number of new telecom services installed as a result of an ARC 

project. This diverse measure includes, but is not limited to, new 

telemedicine sites, new wi-fi hotspots, a new wireless router or 

computer lab at a high school, new fiber run to an industrial site, a 

new antenna used to provide broadband service, etc.

Workers/Trainees Improved The number of workers/trainees with improved skills that enable 

them to obtain employment or to enhance their current 

employment. For example, the number of workers or trainees 

obtaining a new job; getting higher pay or a better position; or 

receiving a certification, measured during the project period when 

possible. When outcomes occur after the project period, the 

number or workers or trainees improved may be counted up to 

three years beyond the project end date. For programs where 

outcomes are achieved after three or more years, the number of 

students improved may be counted by an alternative benchmark, 

such as completion of a skill, level/course, or continued enrollment 

for the project period. For each project, this number is always a 

subset of, or the same as, the “workers/trainees served” output 

measure.
Implementation Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s POWER Initiative | 2019

This page intentionally left blank.
Implementation Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s POWER Initiative | 2019

www.chamberlindunn.com

mc@chamberlindunn.com

nd@chamberlindunn.com