Water for Schools
Menu

Classroom activity Grade 12 Social Studies & Civics

Scoring State Revolving Fund Applications: A Grade 12 Panel

A grade 12 activity in which review panels score five fictional towns' water loan applications on a priority point system, rank them, and award a limited fund.

Objectives

  1. Students will apply a stated priority point system to five competing infrastructure loan applications.
  2. Students will rank applications by score and allocate a fixed fund under a stated funding rule.
  3. Students will explain how scoring criteria create incentives that shape what applicants submit.

Vocabulary

Key words: revolving fund, priority points, readiness to proceed, disadvantaged community, capitalization grant

Teacher overview

Every state runs a drinking water state revolving fund, which lends federal and state money to water systems at low interest and recycles the repayments into new loans. Because applications always exceed the money available, states rank projects with a published point system, and those points decide which towns get help. In this activity, panels of four students act as a state review panel, score five fictional applications against a simplified point system, rank them, and award a limited fund. The design of the activity carries the concept, because the tradeoffs built into the criteria become visible only when students apply them to towns that each score well on something different.

Activity Directions

  1. Frame the work (8 minutes). Explain how a revolving fund operates: federal capitalization grants and state matching money seed the fund, systems borrow at below-market rates, and repayments fund the next round of projects. Add that states must also direct part of each round to systems serving what the program calls a disadvantaged community, a category each state defines for itself, which is the idea behind the affordability points on today's scoring sheet. Note the scale of the need, since EPA's needs assessment estimates $625 billion in drinking-water investment is required over twenty years, with distribution pipes accounting for about two-thirds of that. Then state the day's constraint plainly, which is that this fictional state has one round of money and five applicants.
  2. Form panels (2 minutes). Group students in fours and assign roles within each panel: a scorer for public health and affordability, a scorer for readiness and regional benefit, a recorder who fills the score table, and a chair who runs the funding vote and reports out. Every student still computes the totals independently as a check.
  3. Score the applications (15 minutes). Distribute the student handout. Panels apply the point rules to all five applicants and complete handout items 1 through 5. Circulate and confirm that panels are reading each rule as written rather than awarding points on impression, which is the most common error here.
  4. Rank and fund (10 minutes). Panels complete handout items 6 through 8, ranking the applicants and applying the funding rule to the fixed balance. Require the recorder to write the funded list on a half sheet and post it, so the class can compare panels before any discussion.
  5. Report and compare (10 minutes). Each chair takes sixty seconds to name the panel's funded list and the one scoring decision that mattered most. Panels that disagree should identify the exact rule they read differently. Expect disagreement over the readiness category, which is where the point system rewards preparation rather than need.
  6. Debrief (10 minutes). Close with handout item 9 and two questions for the whole class. First, which applicant had the most serious health problem, and why did the point system still not fund it? Second, if you were the manager of a small town preparing next year's application, what would this scoring sheet push you to do differently in the twelve months beforehand? Collect the panels' written answers to item 9 as the record of the activity.

The activity ends when every panel has posted a funded list and submitted item 9.

Scoring State Revolving Fund Applications: A Grade 12 Panel — Grade 12 Social Studies & Civics
Name: ____________________________ Date: ______________

Student Handout

You are a member of a review panel for a fictional state's drinking water revolving fund. Five towns have applied, and in our scenario the fund has $12 million available in this round. Score every application using the rules below, then answer items 1 through 9.

Point rules (100 points possible):

  • Public health need, 0 to 40 points. Award 40 for an active violation of a health-based drinking water standard; 25 for a documented health risk with no current violation, such as lead service lines still in service; 10 for an aging asset at risk of failure with no violation and no documented risk; 0 for none of these.
  • Affordability, 0 to 30 points, based on the applicant's median household income as a percent of the state median. Award 30 if it is below 70 percent; 15 if it is at least 70 percent and below 90 percent; 0 if it is 90 percent or above.
  • Readiness to proceed, 0 to 20 points. Award 20 if design is complete and permits are issued; 10 if design is at least half complete; 0 if design has not started.
  • Regional benefit, 0 to 10 points. Award 10 if the project serves two or more communities; 0 if it serves one.

Funding rule: Fund projects in rank order from the highest score down. Stop when the next project on the list costs more than the balance remaining. Do not fund a project in part.

Applications:

Applicant Public health status Income as percent of state median Design status Communities served Project cost
Nyland Lead service lines still in service, no current violation 64 percent Design complete, permits issued 1 $4.2 million
Hargate Active nitrate violation 82 percent Design 55 percent complete 1 $5.4 million
Baxendale Sixty-year-old mains, no violation, no documented risk 96 percent Design complete, permits issued 1 $2.8 million
Stemple Active disinfection byproduct violation 68 percent Design complete, permits issued 3 $6.5 million
Wolcott Lead service lines still in service, no current violation 88 percent Design not started 2 $3.1 million
  1. What is Nyland's total score?
  2. What is Hargate's total score?
  3. What is Baxendale's total score?
  4. What is Stemple's total score?
  5. What is Wolcott's total score?
  6. List all five applicants in rank order, from the highest score to the lowest.
  7. Applying the funding rule to the $12 million balance, which applicants receive funding?
  8. How many dollars remain in the fund after those awards?
  9. Hargate has an active violation of a health standard and still receives no money this round. Name the two scoring decisions that produced that result, and explain what incentive the point system creates for a town preparing next year's application.

From Water for Schools (waterforschools.org). This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely.

Answer Key
  1. Answer: 75 points. Nyland earns 25 for a documented risk without a violation, 30 for income below 70 percent of the state median, 20 for completed design with permits, and 0 for regional benefit.
  2. Answer: 65 points. Hargate earns 40 for an active health-based violation, 15 for income between 70 and 90 percent, 10 for design at least half complete, and 0 for regional benefit.
  3. Answer: 30 points. Baxendale earns 10 for an aging asset with no violation, 0 for income at or above 90 percent, 20 for completed design with permits, and 0 for regional benefit.
  4. Answer: 100 points. Stemple earns 40 for an active violation, 30 for income below 70 percent, 20 for completed design with permits, and 10 for serving three communities.
  5. Answer: 50 points. Wolcott earns 25 for a documented risk without a violation, 15 for income between 70 and 90 percent, 0 because design has not started, and 10 for serving two communities.
  6. Answer: Stemple, Nyland, Hargate, Wolcott, Baxendale. The totals are 100, 75, 65, 50, and 30 points.
  7. Answer: Stemple and Nyland. Stemple's $6.5 million leaves $5.5 million of the fictional $12 million balance, and Nyland's $4.2 million leaves $1.3 million, which is less than Hargate's $5.4 million, so funding stops there.
  8. Answer: $1.3 million remaining. The starting balance of $12 million less $6.5 million and $4.2 million leaves $1.3 million unawarded.
  9. Answer: Hargate lost points on readiness, earning 10 rather than 20 because its design was only 55 percent complete, and on affordability, earning 15 rather than 30 because its income sits between 70 and 90 percent of the state median. The point system therefore rewards towns that finish design and permitting before they apply, which pushes a town to spend its own money on engineering a year ahead, a cost that is hardest for the smallest systems to carry.

Differentiation

Support

Give these students a scoring worksheet with the four categories printed as rows and the point choices printed as options to circle, so each award is a selection rather than a recall task. Complete Nyland together as a worked example before panels begin, and let these students verify totals with a calculator rather than mental arithmetic.

Extension

Ask advanced students to redesign the fictional point system so that the applicant with the most serious health problem is funded, then apply their revised rules to all five towns and report which town their design now leaves out. Require a short defense of the tradeoff they accepted.

ELL supports

Pre-teach "revolving fund," "violation," "readiness," and "median" with a simple diagram showing money flowing out as loans and back as repayments. Provide the sentence frame "This town earned ___ points for ___ because ___" for the scoring discussion, and allow item 9 to be answered in bullet points before it is written as prose.

Extensions

Have students find their own state's current intended use plan or project priority list for the drinking water revolving fund, identify the actual scoring categories, and compare the weight the state gives to public health, affordability, and readiness against the fictional system used here.