Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3)

Frequently Asked Questions

Overview: Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3), first authorized by 

Congress for fiscal year (FY) 2014 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (2014 

Appropriations Act) and reauthorized for FY 2015 by the Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2015 (2015 Appropriations Act) and for FY 2016 by the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2016 (2016 Appropriations Act) (together, the Acts), enable pilot sites to 

test innovative, outcome-focused strategies to achieve significant improvements in educational, 

employment, and other key outcomes for disconnected youth using new flexibility to blend 

existing Federal funds and to seek waivers of associated program requirements. Below are some 

“Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQs) about P3 with respect to the FY 2016 (Round 3) 

competition. 

A. Public Input and Learning from Round 2 (FY 2015)

A-1. How does this pilot competition differ from the second round? What’s new?

The Round 2 and Round 3 notices differ in three important respects:

 In Round 3, applicants may include FY 2016 Homeless Assistance Grant programs 

administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD). This was not authorized under the Round 2 authority.

 The Round 2 notice required all applicants to include with their applications a 

memorandum of understanding or letter of commitment that is described in Application 

Requirement (e)(2). All applicants also were required to include in their initial 

application an assurance that the State, local, or tribal government(s) with authority to 

grant any needed non-Federal flexibility, including waivers, has approved or will approve 

such flexibility within 60 days of an applicant’s designation as a pilot finalist or that nonFederal flexibility, including waivers, is not needed in order to successfully implement 

the pilot. (Application Requirement (c)(2)). To reduce burden on applicants, the Round 3 

notice does not require applicants to include these documents in their applications.

Instead, these documents will be requested only from top-scoring applicants following 

the peer review of applications. Top-scoring applicants will have 21 days after their 

notification by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to submit these documents to ED. 

 The Round 3 notice includes an additional invitational priority, Improving Outcomes for 

Youth in Foster Care. This priority invites applicants to propose a pilot that — (1) will 

serve disconnected youth who are or have ever been in foster care; and (2) is likely to 

result in significantly better educational or employment outcomes for such youth. In this 
2

competition, invitational priorities express the Agencies’ interest in applications that will 

improve outcomes for particular subpopulations of disconnected youth. They do not 

provide a competitive or absolute preference over other applications. See FAQ M-1. 

B. Eligibility

B-1. Is my organization eligible to apply for P3, and, if not, how can we still be

involved?

To be eligible to apply for P3, the lead applicant organization must be a recognized entity of

either a State (as defined at 2 CFR 200.90), local government (as defined at 2 CFR 200.64), or

tribal government (2 CFR 200.54 provides a definition of “federally recognized Indian tribe,”

and, as stated in FAQ B-3, State-recognized tribes are eligible to apply for P3 as well),

represented by a chief executive, such as a governor, mayor, or other elected leader, or the head

of a State, local, or tribal agency. The lead applicant must be represented by an individual who is

the authorized representative of the entity and able to bind the entity to legal commitments.

Lead applicants that are departments, divisions, or other agencies — must be recognized as

government entities by the State, locality, or tribe that they represent. Any department or division

of a State, local, or tribal government that is so recognized is an eligible lead applicant. For

example, a city, county, municipality, town, township, parish, or governor’s office could be a

lead applicant. In addition, a State, local, or tribal education, health, human services, housing, or

labor agency; division of such agency; or State or local workforce investment board could be a

lead applicant. Because recognition as a government entity may differ across jurisdictions, the

specific State, local, or tribal statute or charter that authorizes an entity may need to be

consulted in order to determine whether the entity is so recognized.

In some cases, the lead applicant for P3 will represent a partnership that includes multiple

organizations or entities. As a result, it is important to understand that a nongovernmental

organization may still participate as a partner in a pilot even if that organization is not eligible to

serve as the lead applicant. Nongovernmental entities or other partner organizations can serve

as critical partners in developing and designing a pilot application and also executing a pilot,

such as by coordinating across partners, delivering services, or helping to manage data. The P3

partnership may involve any public and private organizations, including nonprofit, for-profit

business, industry, and labor organizations, as well as other State, local, or tribal government

entities that are not the lead applicant.

B-2. Must the lead applicant already receive Federal funding?

No. The lead applicant must be a government entity but is not required to already be receiving

Federal funds to be eligible to apply (see FAQ C-8 for further information). In order to qualify 

for a pilot, the proposal must include at least: (a) two Federal programs administered by a 
3

Federal P3 agency1that have policy goals related to P3; and (b) one of which is administered

(in whole or in part) by a State, local, or tribal government.

Federal funds proposed for inclusion in a pilot may be contributed by organizations and

agencies, other than the lead applicant, that would also be partners under the pilot. Partnerships

are critical to pilots’ ability to provide innovative and effective service-delivery and systemschange strategies that meet the education, employment, and other needs of disconnected youth.

We encourage applicants to build on strong, existing partnerships that have experience in

working together to improve outcomes for disconnected youth. Partnerships will vary depending

on the nature and focus of individual projects, but may cut across: State, local, and tribal levels of

government; education, employment, and other agencies or programs operating within the same

level of government; and governmental, non-profit, and other private-sector organizations.

Information on programs that may be eligible for inclusion in a P3 pilot can be found in

the package of application instructions.

B-3. Must an Indian tribe be federally recognized to be eligible to apply for P3?

No. State-recognized Indian tribes, as well as tribes recognized by the Federal government, are 

eligible to apply.

B-4. May Territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands) apply for P3 along with States, Tribes, and 

localities?

Yes, if the applicant, whether directly or through one of its agencies or entities: (1) is wholly or 

partly administering a Federal program; (2) is classified as a State or local government for 

purposes of that Federal program; and (3) proposes to include that Federal program in the pilot.

B-5. What role can nonprofits play in applying for or implementing a P3 pilot?

A nonprofit organization may not serve as the pilot applicant or the fiscal agent for pilot 

implementation, but it still may play a significant role in the design and governance of a 

performance partnership pilot. For example, a nonprofit may:

 Facilitate the development of the pilot and prepare the application;

 Deliver services and coordinate service delivery under the pilot;

 Oversee broad implementation of the pilot, including providing progress updates and 

recommended course corrections to activities administered by government partners; 

 

1 Please see the FAQs in section C below for more information on which Federal programs may be eligible for 

inclusion in P3. For this competition, the affected agencies are the Departments of Education, Health and Human 

Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Labor, along with the Corporation for National and 

Community Service, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
4

 Represent the State, local, or tribal partnership in meetings, communications, and 

negotiations with the Federal government on matters when all the partners, including the 

Federal government, agree that this is an appropriate role for the nonprofit; and

 Secure commitments from philanthropy, other nonprofit organizations, academic and 

research organizations, employers, or other private sector organizations.

When a performance partnership proposal envisions a role for nonprofits in the pilot, the 

applicant should clearly explain the proposed responsibilities of the nonprofit organizations, their 

role(s) in the governance structure, and their prior experience in successful collaboration with the 

participating State, local, and/or tribal governments. Nonprofits may be signatories to a 

performance agreement along with — but not instead of — participating State, local, and/or 

tribal government representatives. In these cases, the State, local, and/or tribal governments will 

continue to be the parties primarily responsible for meeting the terms of the partnership 

agreement. More information about the circumstances under which participating nonprofits may 

be signatories will be made available in the solicitation and during the application review process 

and may depend in part on the specifics of individual pilot proposals.

B-6. How can I find potential P3 partners in my area?

There are several information resources available that may be helpful to potential P3 applicants

to identify potential partners including:

 Map My Community: An interactive mapping tool designed to locate federally

supported youth programs in a community. This tool is available at Youth.gov:

http://youth.gov/map-my-community.

 America’s Service Locator: A search tool designed to locate Workforce

Investment Boards, libraries, community colleges, or local employers. This tool

is available at Careeronestop.org:

http://www.servicelocator.org/contactspartners.asp.

 Map of Administration Community-Based Initiatives: This map shows some 

of the existing federal initiatives underway across the country and may be useful 

in identifying potential partnerships. This map is available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/place

B-7. May an applicant submit more than one application?

Applicants are not prohibited from submitting multiple proposals, nor are partner organizations

prohibited from participating in more than one proposal. However, in order to be considered

separate applications, each proposal must be distinct. We encourage applicants to indicate as

clearly as possible in each application (e.g., in the title and abstract of their proposal) that they

are submitting multiple applications, and that these applications are different from one another.
5

Additionally, applicants and partner organizations must be capable of fully implementing each

proposal if selected. Applicants should ensure that multiple distinct proposals do not propose to

blend the same funds, including funds received by any of the partner organizations included in

the proposal.

C. Waivers

C-1. What kinds of waivers will Federal agencies consider in the third round of pilots?

Are there specific waivers that will not be considered?

The Acts provide broad waiver authority for P3 projects. The Acts allow the heads of affected 

Federal agencies to waive statutory, regulatory, and other requirements that they are otherwise 

authorized to waive, as well as those that they might not otherwise be authorized to waive. In the 

Round 3 pilots (FY 2016) the affected agencies are the Departments of Education (ED), HUD,

2

Justice (DOJ),3 Labor (DOL), and Health and Human Services (HHS), along with the 

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) and the Institute of Museum and 

Library Services (IMLS) (collectively, the Agencies). With respect to requirements that the 

Agencies might not otherwise be authorized to waive, the Acts include important safeguards that 

applicants and the Agencies must meet (see sections 526(d) and (f) of the 2014 Appropriations 

Act). Specifically, those waiver requests must be: consistent with the statutory purposes of that 

program; necessary to achieve the pilot’s outcomes and no broader in scope than necessary; and 

able to result in efficiencies or increased ability of individuals to obtain access to services 

provided by those Federal program funds. Requirements related to nondiscrimination, wage and 

labor standards, and allocations of funds to State and sub-State levels cannot be waived. In 

addition, the heads of the Agencies must determine that their agency’s participation and the use 

of proposed program funds: (1) will not result in denying or restricting individual eligibility for 

services funded by those programs, and (2) will not adversely affect vulnerable populations that 

are the recipients of those services (see FAQs C-2 and C-3 for more information).

The Agencies will consider waiver requests on a case-by-case basis in the context of the 

applicant’s full pilot proposal and these statutory protections. During the technical review, 

applicants will be scored, in part, based on the extent to which they: (1) demonstrate that the 

requirements for which they are seeking waivers are hindering successful achievement of 

outcomes for the target population of disconnected youth who are identified for the proposed 

pilot; and (2) provide a justification of how the waivers, individually or together, will reduce 

barriers, increase efficiency, support implementation of the pilot, and produce significantly better 

outcomes for the target population. Applicants should focus waiver requests on changes to major 

 

2 The 2016 Appropriations Act authorizes HUD to enter into performance agreements with respect to FY 2016 

Homeless Assistance Grants.

3 The 2016 Appropriations Act authorizes DOJ to enter into performance agreements with respect to FY 2016 funds 

from DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs.
6

program requirements that would otherwise inhibit implementation. Examples of waivers include 

changes to eligibility requirements, allowable uses of funds, or performance reporting.

Following the technical review, the top-scoring applications will undergo a flexibility review of 

the applicant’s proposed waivers by interagency teams. Representatives of the Agency from 

which program flexibility is sought will evaluate whether the waivers requested by top-scoring 

applicants, in addition to the proposed blending of program funds, meet the statutory 

requirements for P3, and are otherwise appropriate. For example, if an applicant is seeking 

flexibility under programs administered by HHS and DOL, its requests for flexibility will be 

reviewed by HHS and DOL officials, and these DOL and HHS officials will determine the 

appropriateness of the flexibility request. During the flexibility review process, applicants may 

also be asked to participate in an interview in order to clarify requests for waivers and other 

flexibility, and potentially other aspects of their proposals.

C-2. The statutory authority for P3 states that funds must not be blended in a pilot if 

doing so would result in “denying or restricting the eligibility of any individual for any 

of the services” of a program whose funding is proposed to be blended in the pilot. See 

Section 526(d) of the 2014 Appropriations Act. What should an applicant consider in 

ensuring that it complies with this requirement?

Under standard practice in many Federal programs and as permissible under the authorizing 

statute, the entire eligible population does not actually receive services each year or grant cycle.

Eligibility requirements set an outer boundary for the target population, but program design, 

funding, or other limitations may result in services being delivered to only a subset of the eligible 

population. If allowed under the relevant statute or regulations, grantees may focus activities on a 

limited subset of the eligible population. This means that, even in programs in which funds are 

allocated to grantees based on the identification of specific types of individuals, there is no 

guarantee that each identified individual will receive services.

Similarly under P3, applicants may propose to focus their activities either on a limited subset of 

the eligible population of a particular program or on a broader eligible population without 

“denying or restricting the eligibility” of the individuals to receive services. An applicant may 

propose to blend a portion of funding from a program to serve a target population that differs 

from the program’s exact statutory eligibility requirements. An applicant may do so by either 

proposing to waive eligibility requirements to broaden the target population, or proposing to 

work with a targeted subpopulation of a particular program.

One important factor for applicants to consider is how much a proposal will affect the proportion 

of eligible individuals who actually receive services under a particular program (including 

existing program-funded services as well as any new or comparable services provided under the 

pilot). For example, an applicant could violate this provision if it proposes to blend all or most of 

the funds of a particular program, but would serve only a very limited subset of that program’s 
7

eligible population, as defined in the program’s authorizing statute, through its P3 activities.

Such a proposal could deny or restrict the eligibility of individuals for service of a program 

because its implementation could directly result in the vast majority of a program’s eligible 

population not receiving services.

C-3. The statutory authority for P3 states that funds must not be blended in a pilot if 

doing so would result in “adversely affect[ing] vulnerable populations that are the 

recipients of such services” of a program whose funding is proposed to be blended in 

the pilot. See Section 526(d) of the 2014 Appropriations Act. What should applicants 

consider in ensuring that they comply with this requirement?

The Agencies have determined that there are at least two situations in which a proposed blending 

of funds would result in an adverse effect on the recipients of services under a particular 

program. The first situation involves a program that creates a universal entitlement (i.e., 

“entitlement” or mandatory programs) that enables all eligible individuals to receive services or 

benefits. Funding from such programs may not be blended under a pilot because the pilot would 

serve only a subset of the eligible participants, thereby adversely affecting the remaining 

participants. The second situation involves programs that provide individuals with direct benefits 

(such as vouchers, credits, scholarships, or other payments). Funding from these programs may 

not be blended under a pilot under any circumstances because such a pilot would adversely affect 

the recipients of the direct benefit.

For all programs for which a pilot applicant proposes to blend funds or seek waivers, the 

applicant must describe how it will ensure in its pilot proposal that the recipients of services 

under the original program will receive a level of services or maintain a level of outcomes 

comparable to what would occur in the absence of the P3 activities. In considering whether 

blending funds would adversely affect the recipients of services funded by the original program, 

the applicant should also consider whether there are other non-mandatory Federal funds or nonFederal funds that will be used to continue to serve the recipients. 

C-4. What factors must an applicant consider in justifying its waiver requests?

An applicant must provide strong justification that the new approach that would result from any 

waivers or other flexibility is necessary to achieve the outcomes of the pilot, is no broader in 

scope than is necessary to achieve those outcomes, and will result in either (1) realizing 

efficiencies by simplifying reporting burdens or reducing administrative barriers with respect to 

such discretionary funds; or (2) increasing the ability of individuals to obtain access to services 

that are provided by such discretionary funds. (See Section 526(f)(2)(B) of the 2014 

Appropriations Act.) Applicants are asked to provide this description in response to Selection 

Criterion (B) in the Round 3 notice inviting applications. 
8

C-5. If my State already has a title IV-E child welfare waiver from the Administration

for Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services, can I

include my title IV-E funds in a P3 pilot proposal?

P3 pilots may represent valuable flexibilities for agencies and communities seeking to improve

outcomes for disadvantaged youth including agencies that are already participating in a title IVE demonstration project authorized by section 1130 of the Social Security Act. However, the

flexibility authorized for P3 under the Acts cannot be applied to allow blending of costs used to

draw title IV-E foster care matching funds because these funds are considered mandatory

funds, regardless of whether a State has a title IV-E waiver. This means that these funds cannot

be blended with other Federal funds or be subject to the additional waivers available under P3.

Nonetheless, in order to improve youth outcomes, applicants could still propose to coordinate a

P3 pilot with a title IV-E demonstration project, including by braiding together funding streams

so that IV-E funds retain their original identity and requirements. In using title IV-E funds,

agencies must ensure that they continue to follow all applicable requirements of the title IV-E

program and their waiver terms and conditions.

C-6. Can I propose to spend funds or use P3 start-up funds to construct or renovate a 

facility to serve disconnected youth?

Some of the Federal funds that could potentially be blended in a P3 project have restrictions

related to the use of funds for construction. For example, most funds awarded by the

Department of Education cannot be used for construction. See 34 CFR 75.533. Consistent with

P3 Application Requirement (c)(1) and Selection Criterion (b), if an applicant would like to use 

some of the P3 funds which normally cannot be used for construction for construction

purposes, the applicant must include a waiver request in its application that identifies the

programs and provisions for which it is requesting a waiver and an explanation for why the

relevant agencies should waive provisions prohibiting use of funds for construction.

We note that construction does not include minor remodeling, which means minor alterations

in a previously completed building. Minor remodeling also includes the extension of utility

lines, such as water and electricity, from points beyond the confines of the space in which the

minor remodeling is undertaken but within the confines of the previously completed building.

C-7. May an applicant propose to blend and braid funds administered or received by a

separate organization?

Yes. Applicants may propose to blend and braid funds that they or any of the partner

organizations under the proposed pilot receive and administer. The lead applicant itself need not

be a direct grantee or sub-grantee for these funds.
9

C-8. From which fiscal years can applicants propose to include funding for their pilots

in this second round?

In order to be eligible for selection as a FY 2016 P3 pilot, applicants must propose to 

include at least some FY 2016 funds.

Funds eligible for inclusion (either through blending, braiding, or requesting associated waivers 

of program requirements) are certain discretionary funds appropriated in FY 2016 to ED, HHS, 

DOL, CNCS, and IMLS, as well as FY 2016 funds from DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs

and HUD’s Homeless Assistance Grants. Applicants should specify in their application the

funds appropriated by Congress for FY 2016 that they would incorporate into their pilots. It is 

important to note that the fiscal year when funds were appropriated by Congress may not be the 

same as the year when State, local, or tribal governments receive those funds. If you have a 

question about the fiscal year in which the Federal funds you would like to use were 

appropriated, please contact the State or Federal agency from which you received those funds.

The statutory requirements for programs eligible to be included in a pilot remain the same as in 

the first and second rounds of P3: they must target disconnected youth, or be designed to

prevent youth from disconnecting from school or work, and provide education, training,

employment, and other related social services. Similarly, for a program to be blended as part

of a pilot, under the statute, the Federal agency must determine that doing so will not: (1) deny

or restrict an individual’s eligibility to receive services; or (2) adversely affect vulnerable

populations that receive services from that program. As in the first and second rounds, the

statute does not permit pilots to blend mandatory funds, meaning funds from entitlement

programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

Application Requirement (g) requires applicants to provide: (1) for each Federal program, the 

grantee, the amount of funds to be blended or braided, and the percentage of total program 

funding received by the grantee that the amount to be blended or braided represents; and (2) the 

total amount of funds from all Federal programs that would be blended or braided under the 

pilot.

C-9. May an applicant propose to blend mandatory funds like TANF or Medicaid? 

No, mandatory funds such as TANF, Medicaid, Social Security, Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services, and most Foster Care IV-E programs (see FAQ C-5) cannot be blended in a pilot. 

Mandatory funds can support a pilot as a braided resource; however, there is no authority to 

offer waivers or flexibilities for these programs under P3. 

D. Competitive Grants

D-1. Can competitive grants be included in a P3 Pilot?
10

The Agencies will consider the inclusion of competitive grant funds that have already been 

awarded on a case-by-case basis. The Agencies will determine if the scope, objectives, and target 

population(s) of the grant appropriately and sufficiently align with the scope objectives, and 

target populations of the proposed pilot. Situations in which it may be appropriate to include an 

already-awarded competitive grant or grants in a pilot include cases in which there are 

similarities between the competitive grant and the proposed pilot, such as the project plan, 

performance goals and metrics, proposed participants, leveraging of diverse funding, and 

partnership approaches, and an increased potential to amplify an existing program model and 

improve outcomes for disconnected youth.

Situations in which it may not be appropriate to include already-awarded competitive grant funds 

in a P3 pilot include cases in which, for example, the competitive grant is undergoing a rigorous 

evaluation that could be negatively affected or interrupted by the inclusion in the P3 pilot.

Additional situations in which it might not be appropriate include if the competitive grant had 

been awarded based on a proposal to serve a specific population that would not align with the 

pilot’s proposed target population, or if the proposed pilot approach could, in any way, adversely 

affect that targeted population or the overall goals of the competitive grant.

The Agencies will consider the strength of the applicant’s justification for including the alreadyawarded competitive grant funds in its proposed P3 pilot. This requires the applicant to clearly 

demonstrate that the scope, objectives, and target population(s) of the competitive grant 

appropriately and sufficiently align with the proposed pilot’s scope, objectives, and target 

population(s). The applicant must also justify any potential changes in terms and conditions of 

the existing competitive grant that may be required for the purposes of the pilot (such as 

allowable costs and activities).

E. Needs Assessment

E-1. What is a comprehensive needs assessment, and how will it inform my P3 pilot?

In general, a comprehensive needs assessment is a systematic process to develop an informed 

understanding of the gaps or needs that exist, as well as the factors or root causes that contribute 

to the existence of those needs. A needs assessment first defines the scope of the assessment and 

may outline key questions to be answered by the assessment. Next, it gathers data to analyze and 

document findings, which may include strengths, gaps, opportunities, and challenges. Using this 

information, and other applicable evidence-based research, the assessment then establishes 

priorities and strategies for addressing the identified issues. 

The Agencies acknowledge the diversity in definitions and processes for conducting a needs 

assessment. One example of a specific type and process for conducting a needs assessment is the 

community needs assessments described by HHS, Administration for Children & Families 

(ACF), at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/conducting-a-community-assessment-1
11

While a specific model or process is not required, the P3 review process includes consideration 

of the extent to which the applicant used a comprehensive needs assessment that was conducted 

or updated (either by the applicant or by other partners or organizations) within the past three 

years (Selection Criterion (a)). The needs assessment should use representative data on 

disconnected youth in the jurisdiction(s) to be served by the pilot that are disaggregated 

according to relevant demographic factors (such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, and disability 

status) to: (a) show disparities in outcomes among key sub-populations; and (b) identify an 

appropriate target population of disconnected youth with a high level of need. For example, a 

comprehensive needs assessment that an applicant conducts or uses for purposes of this 

application may analyze workforce, education, and well-being data for disconnected youth in 

defined areas of service and identify a target population with significant outcome disparities in 

comparison to other peer groups. Applicants, especially those that are conducting a needs 

assessment for purposes of the P3 application, are encouraged to align priorities and next steps 

identified through the needs assessment to the pilot logic model in order to inform the overall 

project design (See FAQ F-1, Logic Models).

F. Logic Models

F-1. What is a logic model, and what information should it include?

A logic model (also referred to as theory of action) is a well-specified conceptual framework that 

identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the “active 

ingredients’’ that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and 

describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and 

operationally (34 CFR 77.1). In other words, a logic model clarifies what the applicant is seeking 

to change or produce through the pilot — the expected results, and the intermediate and longterm outcomes — and identifies how the project’s activities will contribute to achieving that 

result.

As described in the Notice Inviting Applications (NIA), P3 applicants are required to submit a 

graphic (no longer than one page) that depicts the pilot’s logic model and illustrates the 

underlying theory of how the pilot’s strategy will produce intended outcomes. The first step in 

developing a theory of change, after identifying the issue(s) to be addressed, is to identify the 

theoretical solution(s) based on available data. The next step is to describe the desired outcomes 

and impacts in addressing the issue and develop a plan for attaining those goals. Using this 

information, a logic model communicates how the program would operate when implemented. A 

variety of frameworks are used to describe the parts of a logic model, and P3 does not require a 

specific model. However, applicants are encouraged to include the following elements in their 

logic model. 

a. Inputs include the resources that are needed to carry out the program plans. Examples of 

inputs are personnel, facilities, funding streams, supplies, and equipment.
12

b. Activities are the services and interventions that are proposed as part of the program 

design. It is helpful to consult evidence from the field regarding the effectiveness of the 

activities in achieving the desired outcomes and goals. It should be clear from your logic 

model how the key components are related to, or expected to produce, the outputs that 

ultimately lead to the intervention’s intermediate and longer-term outcomes. 

c. Outputs are the immediate results or products of the project activities, which are often 

(but not always) described in numerical terms. For example, outputs might include the 

number of youth who complete a certification program.

d. Interim indicators are goals that the intervention is expected to help achieve that lead to 

achievement of long-term outcomes. It may be helpful to include indicators that 

encompass different levels (such as participant-level, organizational-level, or systemlevel outcomes) and across time (such as short-term and long-term). 

e. Long-term outcomes are the expected changes in behavior, attitudes, aptitude/skill, 

knowledge, etc. for the target population. In particular, because these pilots are intended 

to improve outcomes for disconnected youth, long-term outcomes are related to 

reconnection of youth or successful prevention of disconnection, including by ensuring 

youth are enrolled in school or gainfully employed. 

Logic models may also show assumptions made by the applicant, as well as any external factors 

that may bear on the intermediate and long-term outcomes. These elements provide context for 

the proposed interventions.

For additional information on how to develop a logic model, see DOL’s WorkforceGPS Web 

site: https://innovation.workforcegps.org/or “Evaluation Toolkit for Prospective WIF Grantees,” 

starting on page 10:

https://www.workforcegps.org/sitecore/content/sites/innovation/resources/2014/06/11/16/22/desi

gning-your-wif-evaluation-the-evaluation-toolkit-for-prospective-wif-gr. The Regional 

Educational Laboratory Pacific, one of the 10 Regional Educational Laboratories established and 

funded by ED’s Institute of Education Sciences, also has produced an Education Logic Model 

Application that can be used to build logic models. The Education Logic Model Application is 

available at: http://relpacific.mcrel.org/ELM.html. Finally, CNCS has produced a resource on 

“How to Develop a Program Logic Model” at: 

http://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/upload/How%20to%20Develop%20a%20Logi

c%20Model%20508.pdf (PDF, 36 pages)

G. Outcomes and Interim Indicators

G-1. Do applicants have to propose to use the education- and employment-related 

outcomes and interim indicators that are listed in the NIA?
13

Applicants may choose from the menu of outcome measures and interim indicators listed in the 

NIA and that appear below or may propose alternative indicators and outcome measures if they 

describe why their alternatives are more appropriate for their proposed projects.

Education Domain

Outcome Measure Interim Indicator

High school diploma or equivalency 

attainment

• High school enrollment

• Reduction in chronic absenteeism

• Grade promotion

• Performance on standardized assessments

• Grade Point Average 

• Credit accumulation

College completion • Enrollment

• Course attendance

• Credit accumulation

• Retention

Employment Domain

Outcome Measure Interim Indicator

Sustained Employment • Unsubsidized employment at time periods 

after exit from the program

• Median earnings at time periods after exit 

from the program

The specific outcome measures and interim indicators the applicant uses should be grounded in 

its logic model, and informed by applicable program results or research, as appropriate.

Applicants must also indicate the source of the data, the proposed frequency of collection, and 

the methodology used to collect the data. 

NOTE: The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA) (Public Law 113-128) 

establishes performance indicators for certain recipients of WIOA funds that P3 applicants may 

reference as useful examples of outcomes that applicants could establish for their P3 projects.

Following are additional examples of non-education/employment measures that may be 

appropriate for use in a pilot. Use of these additional non-education/employment measures is 

not required. 

Housing Stability and Other Well-Being Outcomes
14

Outcomes related to well-being of disconnected youth include stable housing as well as those 

related to personal, cognitive, and developmental status, such as self-regulation, coping skills, 

conflict resolution skills, personal efficacy, ability to plan, and prosocial behavior.4

Housing Stability and Homeless Reduction

The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness published a report, “Framework to End 

Youth Homelessness,” in February 2013 that identified four core outcomes for youth who are 

experiencing homelessness: stable housing, permanent connections, education or employment, 

and social-emotional well-being. The report did not provide interim indicators for these 

outcomes or the pathways to improving services, but it did include a logic model.5

Additionally, HUD has developed a series of system performance measures for Continuums of 

Care, to better gauge the performance of a community-wide effort to end homelessness instead 

of focusing only on isolated program or project performance. These system measures look at 

criteria such as length of time households remain homeless, the extent to which households that 

have exited to permanent destinations return to homelessness, the total number of households 

experiencing homelessness in a community, successful housing placement, and employment and 

income growth.6 These system performance measures may be useful to P3 communities who are 

considering how to measure housing stability and reductions in homelessness.

Personal and Developmental Well-Being

Research indicates that major predictors of future youth disconnection include poor grades, poor 

health (including mental health and severe disability), problem peers, and early parenthood.7

Tracking interim outcomes related to these risk factors, like pregnancy prevention and improved 

mental health, could improve an applicant’s ability to serve this population. For information on 

the role of risk assessment in service-planning and achieving short-term and long-term outcomes, 

see www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/resource/framework-for-advancing-the-well-being-and-selfsufficiency-of-at-risk-youth.

Delinquency Prevention

 

4 See “Community Programs to Promote Youth Development” at 

http://mnliteracy.org/sites/default/files/youth_development_brief.pdf (PDF, 8 pages)

5 See http://usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/USICH_Youth_Framework__FINAL_02_13_131.pdf (PDF, 

19 pages)

6 See https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/coc/system-performance-measures/

7 Fernandez, Adrienne; Gabe, Thomas. 2009. Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24- Year Olds Who are Not 

Working or in School. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.

Hair, E.; Moore, K., Ling; T, McPhee-Baker, C.; Brown, B. 2009. Youth who are Disconnected and Those who then 

Reconnect: Assessing the Influence of Family, Programs, Peers and Communities. Washington D.C., Child Trends.
15

Sample outcomes for programs serving justice-involved youth, in addition to the education and 

employment outcomes listed above, include the number and percent of youth who offend or reoffend while in the program.

H. Interventions Based on Evidence

H-1. Do applicants have to use studies from Federal registries of interventions based 

on evidence, such as the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), to inform their pilot 

design?

While applicants are not required to use studies from Federal evaluation clearinghouses, 

applicants are encouraged to use (and cite) research, such as studies that appear in various 

Federal evaluation clearinghouses, to inform their pilot design, as relevant. While each Federal 

Clearinghouse on evidence-based interventions uses somewhat different procedures and criteria 

in its work, they are similar in that the research studies that they include are summarized, and the 

strength and rigor of their findings are assessed according to specific guidelines. 

Clearinghouses with evidence that is related to potential P3 pilots include: 

 ED’s What Works Clearinghouse (WWC): Evidence on programs, products, practices, and 

policies in education (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/).

 DOL’s Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and Research (CLEAR): Evidence on laborrelated issues (http://clear.dol.gov/)

 HHS’ Teen Pregnancy Prevention Evidence Review: Evidence on programs with impacts 

on teen pregnancies or births, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), or sexual activity 

(http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/oah-initiatives/teen_pregnancy/db/tpp-searchable.html). 

 SAMHSA's National Registry of Evidenced-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP):

Evidence on mental health and substance abuse interventions (http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/)

 HHS’ Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness: Evidence on home visiting program 

models that target families with pregnant women and children from birth to age five 

(http://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/).

 DOJ’s CrimeSolutions: Evidence on criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim 

services, programs, and practices (www.crimesolutions.gov).

 Child Welfare Information Gateway: Information on child welfare programs and services 

(https://www.childwelfare.gov/).

Other useful Federal Clearinghouses that include literature summaries, program resources, and 

promising practices, although they do not rate the quality of the analysis or findings, include:
16

 Self-Sufficiency Research Clearinghouse: Research on low-income and TANF 

families (www.opressrc.org).

 Workforce Strategies Solutions: Research on education and training; employment, 

retention, and advancement; and management and operations 

(https://strategies.workforcegps.org/).

 National Clearinghouse on Families and Youth: Resources to end youth homelessness, 

teen pregnancy, and family violence. (http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/) 

I. Evaluation

I-1. What are the key components of a rigorous evaluation?

Although there are many different types of evaluation, only an impact evaluation can establish 

whether a program or intervention caused an observed outcome. A randomized controlled trial 

(RCT), when appropriate, can provide the most rigorous causal evidence.

An RCT research design measures the “impacts” of the intervention or program on individuals or 

systems. An impact is an estimate of the direction (positive or negative) and magnitude (by how 

much) of the change in outcomes that can be directly attributed to the intervention.

The key to this design is random assignment. Eligible applicants are randomly assigned, such as 

by lottery, to the treatment group that receives the services provided by the intervention or to a 

control group that does not. This approach ensures that the two groups are identical in all 

respects except that one will participate in the intervention (program services) and the other will 

not. Therefore, any differences in outcomes between these groups (such as different rates of 

employment) can be attributed to the intervention.

RCTs are considered the “gold standard” (i.e., the most reliable form) of evaluation because they 

allow programs to assert, with a certain degree of confidence, that participants have improved 

their outcomes because of that program. Although RCT studies can require more effort to design 

and implement, if random assignment is conducted correctly, the results provide clear, rigorous 

evidence of program effectiveness. Additionally, the results from an RCT evaluation will provide 

important contributions to the evidence base for the intervention. Results from this evaluation 

approach are also valuable to stakeholders and scholars in determining whether the expected 

impacts were realized, and in developing approaches that build on this evidence to refine and 

expand programs.

Quasi-experimental design (QED) studies are similar in most respects to RCTs except, 

importantly, they determine the members of a treatment and control group by methods other than 

random assignment. Typical methods including “matching” a treatment group of service 

participants to a group of similar individuals who did not participate, using characteristics of the 

individuals prior to their choice to participate. When RCTs cannot be used, quasi-experimental 
17

design (QED) studies can sometimes provide good estimates of impact, though they cannot fully 

distinguish the effects of the intervention (program services) from differences between the two 

groups that existed before the intervention began and that: (1) cannot be easily measured or used 

in matching (e.g., persistence, motivation, grit), and (2) could be related to important outcomes.

For this reason, impacts estimated from QED studies have to be treated with some caution.

Implementation studies are important components of rigorous evaluations, no matter the design 

used. An implementation study illuminates and explains “what is happening and why” in the 

design, implementation, administration, operation, services, and outcomes of social programs.

This type of study can provide context and information that makes evaluation results more useful 

for improving program implementation. In addition, findings from implementation research can 

be used to inform future program development or replication.

For further details and guidance on the key components of evaluation, please review “The 

Evaluation Toolkit for Prospective Workforce Innovation Fund Grantees” available at 

https://www.workforcegps.org/sitecore/content/sites/innovation/resources/2014/06/11/16/22/desi

gning-your-wif-evaluation-the-evaluation-toolkit-for-prospective-wif-gr (PDF, 74 pages).

J. Budget

J-1. How should applicants budget for the annual "community-of–practice" meetings 

that are required of pilot sites?

Applicants’ budgets must include funds for their participation in two meetings during the project 

period. The meetings will take place in Washington, DC, and are expected to last for three days.

Applicants should plan to bring at least two project staff and may send up to four. An applicant 

that proposes to conduct an independent evaluation of its pilot may bring an additional fifth 

person from the evaluation team. All participant travel, accommodations, and meals should be 

budgeted using start-up funds.

J-2. By when must pilots expend start-up funds?

Pilots may propose to spend start-up funds at any point over the course of the project period

(which may not exceed September 30, 2020). Start-up funds do not need to be expended in the

first year of the program. Applicants should request a specific start-up grant amount that is

between $200,000 and $250,000 and describe in their Budget Narrative how the pilot will use

these start-up funds to support effective implementation, such as planning, governance,

technical assistance, site-specific evaluation, capacity-building, and coordination activities.

Examples of other uses include supporting the measurement of pilot performance and results,

such as modifications to information systems.
18

K. Technical Assistance

K-1. What kind of technical assistance (TA) resources will the Federal government 

make available to pilot sites?

Based on input from the field about the importance of TA, the Agencies are helping sites meet 

their needs in a number of ways:

 Start-up grant funding. Applicants may propose to use the start-up grant funding for a 

variety of purposes, including TA that is specific to the needs of the proposed pilot.

 Other Federal funds blended under P3. Pilot sites may also secure TA using a portion of 

other Federal funds, beyond the start-up grants, that are blended for P3 purposes. 

 Community of practice. All P3 grantees must commit to participating in a community of 

practice that includes an annual meeting of pilot sites (paid with grant funding that must 

be reflected in the pilot budget that is submitted as part of the application) and peer-topeer learning activities. A community of practice is a group of grantees that agrees to 

interact regularly to solve a persistent problem or improve practice in an area that is 

important to them and the success of their projects. Establishment of communities of 

practice under P3 will enable grantees to meet, discuss, and collaborate with each other 

regarding grantee projects.

 Evaluation. Federal agencies are working to identify resources to support P3 pilots (and 

their independent evaluators) in conducting rigorous impact evaluations appropriate for 

their circumstances. Such support could include workshops on common approaches to 

designing an evaluation common problems encountered, tradeoffs of different evaluation 

designs, and data collection topics, as well as site-specific assistance on specific issues 

that arise.

 The Agencies will support the community of practice to organize and disseminate TA 

tools and resources that have been created and/or identified by the Agencies that would 

have broad applicability across the P3 pilots. These resources might include links to 

grantee webinars or transcripts and recordings from calls with project directors, written 

guidance to assist pilots in understanding program requirements and relevant laws and 

regulations, and program announcements and other news. The Agencies also intend to 

provide guidance on Federal information and privacy laws (such as the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and the Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act) and assist grantees in developing model consent 

forms.
19

L. Other Issues

L-1. Would a Pay for Success (PFS) model be appropriate for P3?

Pay for Success, also referred to as Social Impact Bonds, is an innovative financing model that

leverages philanthropic and private dollars to fund services up front, with the Government

reimbursing investors after the services generate results. Both P3 and PFS are funding models

that focus jurisdictions on defining specific outcome goals for a well-defined target population,

using reliable data to measure progress, and generating evidence about cost-effective

interventions.

Both P3 and PFS are complex, emerging models that the Federal government is testing, and

each one requires some experience and expertise to implement successfully. As noted in the

NIA, P3 applications will be scored, in part, based on partnership capacity. This capacity takes

into account the extent to which partners have the necessary authority, resources, expertise, and

incentives to achieve the pilot’s goals, resolve unforeseen issues, and sustain efforts to the

extent possible after the project period ends, including by demonstrating the extent to which,

and how, participating partners have successfully collaborated to improve outcomes for

disconnected youth in the past. PFS brings together new partners, such as outside investors, to

implement a new model of service delivery that, in many cases, the partners will be

implementing for the first time. As a result, applicants may be challenged to demonstrate

partnership capacity, including how partners have successfully collaborated to improve

outcomes for disconnected youth, if they propose a PFS model that partners have not previously

implemented.

Although applicants may be challenged to demonstrate partnership capacity if they propose

blending PFS funds or supporting a PFS model with P3 funds, there are ways in which a P3

project may be used separately from a PFS project that would still complement or prepare for a

PFS project. For example, a jurisdiction that is considering pursuing PFS but lacks needed

information about current outcomes for youth before structuring a project might first propose a

P3 project to understand these outcomes through the careful tracking required under P3. Or a

jurisdiction seeking to sustain a successful intervention first tested through PFS might propose

to continue supporting the intervention through a P3 project.

Other Federal resources that are helping jurisdictions to build capacity to implement Pay for

Success include grants recently awarded by the Social Innovation Fund. More information on

the Pay for Success model is available at http://payforsuccess.org/.

L-2. Is there a minimum or maximum number of youth to be served in the pilots?

No. There is no minimum or maximum number of youth to be served by the pilots. However,

applicants must define the target population to be served by the pilot, based on data and

analysis demonstrating the need for services within the relevant geographic area. Please see
20

Application Requirement (b), Target Population.

M. Priorities

M-1. There are several different kinds of priorities in this competition. How do these 

different priorities work?

The Round 3 P3 competition includes three different types of priorities. Here is what each of 

these types of priority involves:

Absolute priorities: For the purposes of this competition, absolute priorities create separate 

categories for scoring and considering applications. An applicant must meet an absolute 

priority to be considered for funding. These absolute priorities are helpful because a diverse 

group of communities could benefit from P3. We are aware that strategies to improve 

outcomes for disconnected youth may differ across environments and wish to test the 

authority in a variety of settings. This Round 3 competition includes four different absolute 

priorities:

 Absolute Priority 1: Applications that are designed to improve outcomes of 

disconnected youth.

 Absolute Priority 2: Applications that are designed to improve outcomes for 

disconnected youth in one or more rural communities (as defined in the Round 3

notice) only; 

 Absolute Priority 3: Applications that: (1) propose a pilot that is designed to improve 

outcomes for disconnected youth who are members of one or more State- or federallyrecognized Indian tribal communities; and (2) represent a partnership that includes 

one or more State- or federally-recognized Indian tribes; and

 Absolute Priority 4: Applications that are designed to improve outcomes for 

disconnected youth in one or more communities that have recently experienced civil 

unrest. 

Note that any applicant that does not qualify for Absolute Priorities 2, 3, or 4 may be 

considered under Absolute Priority 1.

Competitive preference priorities: Competitive preference priorities allow applicants to 

receive extra (bonus) points for meeting the priorities. An applicant can qualify for these 

points regardless of the absolute priority for which they apply. This Round 3 competition 

includes four competitive preference priorities:

 Competitive Preference Priority 1: Projects that: (1) will serve disconnected youth 

who are neither employed nor enrolled in education and who face significant barriers 
21

to accessing education and employment; and (2) are likely to result in significantly 

better educational or employment outcomes for such youth (up to 5 points);

 Competitive Preference Priority 2: Projects that provide all disconnected youth served 

by the project with paid work-based learning opportunities (3 points); 

 Competitive Preference Priority 3: Projects that are designed to serve and coordinate 

with a federally designated Promise Zone (2 points); and

 Competitive Preference Priority 4: Applicants that plan to conduct independent 

impact evaluations of at least one service-delivery or operational component of their 

pilots (site-specific evaluation), in addition to participating in any national P3 

evaluation (up to 10 points).

Invitational priorities: Invitational priorities express the Agencies’ interest in applications 

that will improve outcomes for particular subpopulations of disconnected youth. They do not 

provide a competitive or absolute preference over other applications. This Round 3

competition includes three invitational priorities:

 Invitational Priority 1: Applications that propose a pilot that: (1) will serve 

disconnected youth who are homeless youth (as defined in the Round 3 notice); and 

(2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or employment outcomes for 

such youth.

 Invitational Priority 2: Applications that propose a pilot that: (1) will serve disconnected 

youth who are involved in the justice system; and (2) is likely to result in significantly 

better educational or employment outcomes for such youth.

 Invitational Priority 3: Applications that propose a pilot that: (1) will serve disconnected 

youth who are or have ever been in foster care; and (2) is likely to result in significantly 

better educational or employment outcomes for such youth.

M-2. In the NIA and the Notice of Final Priorities (NFP), the definition of rural 

community is “a community that is served only by one or more local educational 

agencies (LEAs) that are currently eligible under the Department of Education’s Small, 

Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) 

program authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(ESEA), as amended, or includes only schools designated by the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) with a locale code of 42 or 43.” For the FY16 P3 

competition, how can applicants determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for the 

SRSA or RLIS programs?

For the FY 2016 P3 competition, applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible 

for the SRSA or RLIS programs by referring to information on the following Department Web 

site: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible16/index.html. 
22

The first tab in the spreadsheets available at this site lists LEAs that are eligible for SRSA; the 

second tab lists LEAs that are eligible for RLIS. Applicants may determine school locale codes 

by referring to the following Department Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/. 

Involvement in a pilot by an LEA or school is not a requirement to participate in P3.

M-3. How can I demonstrate that my application meets Absolute Priority 2 (Improving 

Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in Rural Communities)?

An applicant may demonstrate that its application meets Absolute Priority 2 by including in its 

application a description that includes: (1) a list of the communities it proposes to serve; and (2) 

a list and the NCES identification codes of (a) the LEA or LEAs that serve each of the 

communities it proposes to serve if the applicant qualifies for this priority through the criterion 

using the SRSA program or the RLIS program, or (b) the school or schools that serve each of the 

communities it proposes to serve if the applicant qualifies for this priority through the criterion 

using school-level NCES locale codes.

M-4. The Round 3 competition includes an absolute priority for communities that have 

experienced recent civil unrest (Absolute Priority 4). Is there a definition of “civil 

unrest?”

No, the NIA does not include a definition of the term “civil unrest.” However, the notice 

identifies several examples of what might be considered “civil unrest,” such as large protests or 

instances of civil disobedience, increases in self-directed or interpersonal violence in 

concentrated areas, or civic disorder prompted by a public health emergency. An applicant that 

applies under the absolute priority for communities that have experienced recent civil unrest 

should describe the instance(s) of civil unrest, including (1) a description of the civil unrest that 

occurred in the community or communities it intends to serve; and (2) the date or dates the civil 

unrest occurred.

M-5. What information must applicants provide to qualify for the additional points 

available under the competitive preference priority for Promise Zones (Competitive 

Preference Priority 3)?

An applicant seeking the additional points available under the competitive preference priority for 

Promise Zones must provide a HUD Form 50153 (Certification of Consistency with Promise 

Zone Goals and Implementation) that has been signed by an authorized Promise Zone official.

This form may be found at the link below:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=HUD_Form_50153.pdf (PDF, 1 page)