1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Postsecondary Education 

Washington, DC 20006-6078

Fiscal Year 2014

APPLICATION FOR GRANTS 

UNDER THE 

LANGUAGE RESOURCE CENTERS PROGRAM

(CFDA NUMBER: 84.229A)

CLOSING DATE: TBD

Form Approved

OMB No. 1840 -0808, Exp. Date: XX/XX/20XX
2

Application for New Awards Under the 

Language Resource Centers (LRC) Program 

Table of Contents

 

PROGRAM SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS AND FORMS 

Dear Applicant Letter .............................................................................................. 4

Competition Highlights.............................................................................................6

Introduction and Overview of the LRC Program ....................................................... 9

Supplemental Information......................................................................................10

Federal Register Notice Inviting Applications for LRC

New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 .....................................................Place Holder

Authorizing Legislation and Regulations.................................................................14

Code of Federal Regulations...................................................................................22

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and 

 Performance Indicators for the LRC Program.....................................................28

Guidance on Developing an Evaluation Plan............................................................30

Guidance to LRC Applicants....................................................................................36

Frequently Asked Questions...................................................................................46

Instructions for Completing the LRC Application Package........................................48

Selection Criteria....................................................................................................50

Instructions for Budget Summary Form & Itemized Line Item Budget......................56

Application Checklist..............................................................................................58

Burden Statement..................................................................................................59

STANDARD INSTRUCTIONS AND FORMS

*Placeholder for Standard instructions and forms
3

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Dear Applicant:

Thank you for your interest in applying for a grant in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 competition for 

new awards under the Language Resource Centers (LRC) program. The LR program provides 

grants to institutions of higher education to establish, strengthen and operate centers that 

serve as resources for improving the nation’s capacity for teaching and learning foreign 

languages. 

This letter highlights a few items in the FY 2014 application package that will be important to 

you in applying for grants under this program. You should review the entire application package 

carefully before preparing and submitting your application. Information on the LRC program is 

accessible at the U.S. Department of Education’s Web site at:

http://www.ed.gov/programs/iegpslrc/index.html

The Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards published in the Federal Register is the official

document that contains the guidance for preparing an LRC grant application. You should not 

rely upon any information that is inconsistent with the guidance contained in the official 

document. Applicants who have general questions concerning the LRC program are 

encouraged to submit their questions, via e-mail, to LRC@ed.gov. We encourage applicants to 

review the Competition Highlights found in the application package for an overview of 

important items. 
4

Finally, I would like to share with you the importance of ensuring that your application includes 

a strong evaluation plan. The peer reviewers will be instructed to look closely at each 

applicant’s plan of evaluation. Applicants must clearly state the performance goals for their 

projects and the performance measures for the project. The evaluation plan should include 

clear information about the methodology that will be employed, the validity of the 

methodology and the appropriate controls that will be included. The evaluation plan should 

also include a description of the strategies that will be utilized to ensure that the evaluation will 

be independent in nature and led by an individual or entity other than the project director or 

materials developers. The plan should follow the development of the project and provide 

benchmarks for the measurement of progress throughout the grant award period. Where 

appropriate, attempt to link program outcomes to specific activities or materials and respond 

to all aspects of the questions in the Supplemental Information of the application package 

regarding the development of your evaluation activities. 

I appreciate your interest in LRC program and look forward to receiving your application.

Sincerely,

Lenore Yaffee Garcia

Acting Senior Director

International and Foreign Language Education

Office of Postsecondary Education
5

COMPETITION HIGHLIGHTS

1. For the FY 2014 competition, the Department is particularly interested in applications that 

meet the following priorities:

Competitive Preference Priority #1: Applications that propose activities that focus on any 

of the 78 priority languages selected from the U.S. Department of Education's list of Less 

Commonly Taught Languages (LCTLs). We will award an additional five points to an 

application that meets this priority. 

The list includes the following:

Akan (Twi-Fante), Albanian, Amharic, Arabic (all dialects), Armenian, Azeri 

(Azerbaijani), Balochi, Bamanakan (Bamana, Bambara, Mandikan, Mandingo, 

Maninka, Dyula), Belarusian, Bengali (Bangla), Berber (all languages), Bosnian, 

Bulgarian, Burmese, Cebuano (Visayan), Chechen, Chinese (Cantonese), Chinese 

(Gan), Chinese (Mandarin), Chinese (Min), Chinese (Wu), Croatian, Dari, Dinka, 

Georgian, Gujarati, Hausa, Hebrew (Modern), Hindi, Igbo, Indonesian, Japanese, 

Javanese, Kannada, Kashmiri, Kazakh, Khmer (Cambodian), Kirghiz, Korean, Kurdish 

(Kurmanji), Kurdish (Sorani), Lao, Malay (Bahasa Melayu or Malaysian), Malayalam, 

Marathi, Mongolian, Nepali, Oromo, Panjabi, Pashto, Persian (Farsi), Polish, 

Portuguese (all varieties), Quechua, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Sinhala (Sinhalese), 

Somali, Swahili, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, Tibetan, Tigrigna, Turkish, 

Turkmen, Ukrainian, Urdu, Uyghur/Uigur, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Wolof, Xhosa, Yoruba, 

and Zulu.

Competitive Preference Priority #2: Applications that incorporate significant and sustained 

collaborative activities with a Minority-Serving Institution (as defined in the Federal Register

notice) or a community college (as defined in the Federal Register notice). These activities 

should be designed to incorporate foreign languages into the curriculum and to improve 

foreign language instruction on the MSI or community college campus.

 Community college is defined in section 312(f) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1058(f); or 

an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 

1001)) that awards degrees and certificates, more than 50% of which are not 

bachelor’s degrees (or an equivalent); or master’s , professional, or other 

advanced degrees.

 Minority-Serving Institution (MSI): means an institution that is eligible to receive 

assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A or under part B of Title III or 

under Title V of the HEA.
6

We will award up to an additional 5 points to an application that meets this priority. Further 

information on this priority is located under the “Selection Criteria” section of this application.

Invitational Priority #1: Applications from new applicants (as defined in the Federal Register 

notice).

New applicant refers to applicants who have not received a grant from the LRC program, 

either as an individual institution or as a member of a consortium, during the last two 

funding cycles (FY 2006-2009, FY 2010-2013).

Invitational Priority #2: Applications that propose programs or projects that engage in 

collaborative activities with heritage language centers or schools to support the language 

maintenance and development of heritage language speakers. Note: For the purposes of the 

LRC program, a Heritage Language speaker is a person who grew up using the language of 

research at home and/or received K-12 education in the language.

 Please note that these priorities are explained in detail in the Federal Register notice 

contained in this application package. You are urged to fully review the Federal Register

notice carefully before preparing your application.

2. The project abstract is limited to one page, single-spaced. The abstract should include 

information about the proposed project, the project methodology and the final product of 

the grant. The abstract must be uploaded into the ED abstract form as part of the eapplication.

3. Please note that you must submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m. (Washington, D.C. time) 

on or before the application deadline date. Late applications will not be accepted. We 

suggest that you submit your application several days before the deadline. The 

Department is required to enforce the established deadline to ensure fairness to all 

applicants. No changes or additions to an application will be accepted after the deadline 

date and time.

4. Electronic submission of applications is required; therefore, you must submit an electronic 

application unless you follow the procedures outlined in the Federal Register notice inviting 

applications for new awards for FY 2014 and qualify for one of the exceptions to the 

electronic submission requirement.

5. All applicants are required to adhere to the 50-page limit for the Program Narrative portion 

of the application. The Federal Register notice contains the specific standards and 

instructions for preparing the Program Narrative. 

6. All attachments must be in .DOC, .RTF, or .PDF format. Other types of files will not be 

accepted, which may result in your application being rejected.
7

You are reminded that the document published in the Federal Register is the official document, 

and that you should not rely upon any information that is inconsistent with the guidelines 

contained within the official document.
8

 RODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Introduction & Overview of the LRC Program 

AUTHORIZATION

Title VI, Part A, sections 601 and 603 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as amended.

PROGRAM REGULATIONS

Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) 34 CFR parts Parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 

80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. The regulations for this program are in 34 CFR parts 655 and 669.

PURPOSE

The Language Resource Centers Program makes awards for the purpose of establishing, 

strengthening, and operating centers that serve as resources for improving the nation’s capacity for 

teaching and learning foreign languages effectively.

ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

Institutions of higher education or a combination of institutions of higher education are eligible to 

receive an award.

ACTIVITIES FUNDED UNDER THIS PROGRAM

 Centers must carry out activities to improve the teaching and learning of foreign languages. These 

 efforts must include effective dissemination efforts, whenever appropriate, and may include—

a) The conduct and dissemination of research on new and improved methods for teaching 

foreign languages, including the use of advanced educational technology;

b) The development and dissemination of new materials for teaching foreign languages, to 

reflect the results of research on effective teaching strategies;

c) The development, application and dissemination of performance testing that is 

appropriate for use in an educational setting to be used as a standard and comparable 

measurement of skill levels in foreign languages;

d) The training of teachers in the administration and interpretation of foreign language 

performance tests, the use of effective teaching strategies and the use of new 

technologies;

e) A significant focus on the teaching and learning needs of the less commonly taught 

languages, including an assessment of the strategic needs of the United States, the 

determination of ways to meet those needs nationally and the publication and 

dissemination of instructional materials in the less commonly taught languages;

f) The development and dissemination of materials designed to serve as a resource for 

foreign language teachers at the elementary and secondary school levels; and

g) The operation of intensive summer language institutes to train advanced foreign language 

students, to provide professional development and to improve language instruction 

through pre-service and ins-service language training for teachers.
9

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

The following information supplements the information provided in the “Dear 

Applicant” letter and the Federal Register notice.

1. Grants.gov 

LRC applications submitted for FY 2014 must be submitted electronically using the 

Grants.gov system. You are urged to acquaint yourself with the requirements of 

Grants.gov early as the registration procedures may require five or more days to 

complete. More complete information is found in the Federal Register Notice and in this 

application package under “Submission Procedures and Tips for Applicants”. Grants.gov 

is accessible through its portal page at:

http://www.grants.gov

Grants.gov does not allow applicants to un-submit applications. Therefore, if you 

discover that changes or additions are needed once your application has been accepted 

and validated by the Department, you must resubmit the application. You should know 

that if the Department receives duplicate applications, we will accept and process the 

application with the latest date and time received validation.

Please note, once you download an application from Grants.gov, you will be working 

offline and saving data on your computer. Please be sure to note where you are saving 

the Grants.gov file on your computer. You will need to log on to Grants.gov to upload 

and submit the application 

2. Evaluation of Applications for Awards

A three-member panel of non-federal reviewers reviews each application. Each reviewer 

will prepare a written evaluation of the application and assign points for each selection 

criterion. 

3. Selection of Grantees

The Secretary will select an application for funding in rank order, based on the 

application’s total score for the selection criteria. If there are insufficient funds to fund 

all applications with the same total score, the Secretary will choose among the tied 

applications using Criterion #1: Need for the Project as a tiebreaker. 

4. Applicant Funding
10

The Department is often unable to award the full amount of funds requested. Applicants 

should pay close attention to the “Maximum Award” section of the Federal Register

notice. The Department will not fund any application at an amount exceeding the 

applicable maximum award level.

5. Notice to Successful Applicants

The Department's Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs will inform the 

Congress regarding applicants approved for new LRC grants. Successful applicants will 

receive award notices by mail shortly after the Congress is notified. No funding 

information will be released before the Congress is notified. For the FY 2014

competition, notification will occur no later than September 2014.

6. Notice to Unsuccessful Applicants

Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing following the notice to successful 

applicants. 

7. Performance Reports

All LRC grantees must submit project performance reports using the International 

Resource Information System (IRIS) electronic reporting system. If you wish to view the 

performance report currently required, visit the IRIS website at 

http://iris.ed.gov/iris/pdfs/LRC.pdf . Please be advised that the report is for 

informational purposes only, and does not reflect the actual reporting instrument that 

you will use, should you receive a FY 2014 grant award. The performance report will 

assist IFLE staff in determining whether or not the LRC project is making substantial 

progress toward meeting the approved project objectives and whether or not a 

continuation award, if applicable, is in the best interest of the federal government. 

Project Directors will be responsible for overall project reports as well as entering 

entering any additional data into the IRIS website. The IRIS reporting instrument 

includes sections for grantees to input data and information that respond to the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) to assess overall program 

performance. 

8. Estimated Funding and Project Period

 Estimated Available Funds: $2,746,768

 Estimated Average Award: $183,118

 Estimated Number of Awards: 15

 Project Period for New Awards: Up to 48 months

Applicants are limited to 8% indirect costs. The U.S. Department of Education is not 

bound by these estimates. 
11

9. Appendices to Applications

Please limit the appendices to the following:

a. The curricula vitae of key personnel and professional staff directly involved 

in the applicant’s program;

b. A timeline of project activities for the duration of the grant;

c. Letters of support; and

d. A table of objectives that will guide project activities for the FY 2014-2017

performance period.

10. Selection Criteria

The selection criteria in 34 CFR sections 655.31 and 669.21 are used to evaluate 

applications. The selection criteria and maximum possible points are included in 

the Notice.

11. Performance Period

The performance period start date for the FY 2014 grant cycle is September 15, 

2014 and the performance period end date is September 14, 2018. 

For LRC program-related questions and assistance, please contact:

Senior Program Officer: Tanyelle H. Richardson 

Address: International and Foreign Language Education

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street, N.W., Room 6099

Washington, D.C. 20006-6078

Telephone: (202) 502-7626

Fax: (202) 502-7859

E-mail Address: tanyelle.richardson@ed.gov

Senior Program Officer: Pamela Maimer, Ph.D.

Address: International and Foreign Language Education

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street, N.W., Room 6100

Washington, D.C. 20006-6078

Telephone: (202) 502-7704

Fax: (202) 502-7859

E-mail Address: pamela.maimer@ed.gov
12

Federal Register Notice Place Holder 
13

Authorizing Legislation and Regulations

TITLE VI – INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

SEC. 601. INTERNATIONAL AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES.

Part A of title VI (20 U.S.C. 1121) is amended to read as follows:

PART A--INTERNATIONAL AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

SEC. 601. FINDINGS; PURPOSES; CONSULTATION; SURVEY.

(a) FINDINGS- Congress finds as follows:

(1) The security, stability, and economic vitality of the United States in a complex global era depend 

upon American experts in and citizens knowledgeable about world regions, foreign languages, 

and international affairs, as well as upon a strong research base in these areas.

(2) Advances in communications technology and the growth of regional and global problems make 

knowledge of other countries and the ability to communicate in other languages more essential 

to the promotion of mutual understanding and cooperation among nations and their peoples.

(3) Dramatic changes in the world's geopolitical and economic landscapes are creating needs for 

American expertise and knowledge about a greater diversity of less commonly taught foreign 

languages and nations of the world.

(4) Systematic efforts are necessary to enhance the capacity of institutions of higher education in 

the United States for--

(A) producing graduates with international and foreign language expertise and knowledge; and

(B) research regarding such expertise and knowledge.

(5) Cooperative efforts among the Federal Government, institutions of higher education, and the 

private sector are necessary to promote the generation and dissemination of information about 

world regions, foreign languages, and international affairs throughout education, government, 

business, civic, and nonprofit sectors in the United States.

(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this part are--

(1) (A) to support centers, programs, and fellowships in institutions of higher education in the 

United States for producing increased numbers of trained personnel and research in foreign 

languages, area studies, and other international studies;

(B) to develop a pool of international experts to meet national needs;

(C) to develop and validate specialized materials and techniques for foreign language acquisition 

and fluency, emphasizing (but not limited to) the less commonly taught languages;

(D) to promote access to research and training overseas, including through linkages with 

overseas institutions; and

(E) to advance the internationalization of a variety of disciplines throughout undergraduate and 

graduate education;
14

(2) to support cooperative efforts promoting access to and the dissemination of international and 

foreign language knowledge, teaching materials, and research, throughout education, 

government, business, civic, and nonprofit sectors in the United States, through the use of 

advanced technologies; and

(3) to coordinate the programs of the Federal Government in the areas of foreign language, area 

studies, and other international studies, including professional international affairs education 

and research.

(c) CONSULTATION. -

(1) IN GENERAL. – The Secretary shall, prior to requesting applications for funding under this title 

during each grant cycle, consult with and receive recommendations regarding national need for 

expertise in foreign languages and world regions from the head officials of a wide range of 

Federal agencies.

(2) CONSIDERING RECOMMENDATIONS; PROVIDING INFORMATION. The Secretary –

(A) may take into account the recommendations described in paragraph (1) ; and

(B) shall-

(i) provide information collected under paragraph (1) when requesting applications for 

funding under this title; and

(ii) make available to applicants a list of areas identified as areas of national need.

(d) SURVEY. – The Secretary shall assist grantees in developing a survey to administer to students who 

have completed programs under this title to determine postgraduate employment, education, or 

training. All grantees, where applicable, shall administer such survey once every two years and report 

survey results to the Secretary.
15

SEC. 603. LANGUAGE RESOURCE CENTERS.

(a) LANGUAGE RESOURCE CENTERS AUTHORIZED- The Secretary is authorized to make grants to and 

enter into contracts with institutions of higher education, or combinations of such institutions, for the 

purpose of establishing, strengthening, and operating a small number of national language resource and 

training centers, which shall serve as resources to improve the capacity to teach and learn foreign 

languages effectively.

(b) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES- The activities carried out by the centers described in subsection (a)--

(1) shall include effective dissemination efforts, whenever appropriate; and

(2) may include--

(A) the conduct and dissemination of research on new and improved teaching methods, 

including the use of advanced educational technology;

(B) the development and dissemination of new teaching materials reflecting the use of 

such research in effective teaching strategies;

(C) the development, application, and dissemination of performance testing appropriate 

to an educational setting for use as a standard and comparable measurement of skill 

levels in all languages;

(D) the training of teachers in the administration and interpretation of performance 

tests, the use of effective teaching strategies, and the use of new technologies;

(E) a significant focus on the teaching and learning needs of the less commonly taught 

languages, including an assessment of the strategic needs of the United States, the 

determination of ways to meet those needs nationally, and the publication and 

dissemination of instructional materials in the less commonly taught languages;

(F) the development and dissemination of materials designed to serve as a resource for 

foreign language teachers at the elementary and secondary school levels; and

(G) the operation of intensive summer language institutes to train advanced foreign 

language students, to provide professional development, and to improve language 

instruction through preservice and inservice language training for teachers.

(c) CONDITIONS FOR GRANTS- Grants under this section shall be made on such conditions as the 

Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.
16

PUBLIC LAW 110–315—AUG. 14, 2008

TITLE VI—INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

SEC. 601. FINDINGS; PURPOSES; CONSULTATION; SURVEY.

Section 601 (20 U.S.C. 1121) is amended—

(1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘AND PURPOSES’’

and inserting ‘‘; PURPOSES; CONSULTATION; SURVEY’’;

(2) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ‘‘post-Cold War’’;

(3) in subsection (b)(1)(D), by inserting ‘‘, including through

linkages with overseas institutions’’ before the semicolon; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(c) CONSULTATION.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, prior to requesting

applications for funding under this title during each grant

cycle, consult with and receive recommendations regarding

national need for expertise in foreign languages and worldAWS

regions from the head officials of a wide range of Federal

agencies.

‘‘(2) CONSIDERING RECOMMENDATIONS; PROVIDING INFORMATION.—

The Secretary—

‘‘(A) may take into account the recommendations

described in paragraph (1); and

‘‘(B) shall—

‘‘(i) provide information collected under paragraph

(1) when requesting applications for funding under

this title; and

‘‘(ii) make available to applicants a list of areas

identified as areas of national need.

‘‘(d) SURVEY.—The Secretary shall assist grantees in developing

a survey to administer to students who have completed programs

under this title to determine postgraduate employment, education,

or training. All grantees, where applicable, shall administer such

survey once every two years and report survey results to the Secretary

SEC. 603. LANGUAGE RESOURCE CENTERS.

Section 603(c) (20 U.S.C. 1123(c)) is amended by inserting

‘‘reflect the purposes of this part and’’ after ‘‘shall’’.
17

Title 34: Education

Revised as of September 25, 2009

PART 655—INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subpart A—General

§ 655.1 Which programs do these regulations govern?

§ 655.3 What regulations apply to the International Education Programs?

§ 655.4 What definitions apply to the International Education Programs?

Subpart B—What Kinds of Projects Does the Secretary Assist?

§ 655.10 What kinds of projects does the Secretary assist?

Subpart C [Reserved]

Subpart D—How Does the Secretary Make a Grant?

§ 655.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?

§ 655.31 What general selection criteria does the Secretary use?

§ 655.32 What additional factors does the Secretary consider in making grant awards?

Authority: 20 U.S.C 1121–1130b, unless otherwise noted. 

Source: 47 FR 14116, Apr. 1, 1982, unless otherwise noted. 

Subpart A—General

§ 655.1 Which programs do these regulations govern?

The regulations in this part govern the administration of the following programs in international 

education:

(a) The National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language and Area Studies or 

Foreign Language and International Studies (section 602 of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965, as amended);

(b) The Language Resource Centers Program (section 603);

(c) The Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program (section 

604);

(d) The International Research and Studies Program (section 605); and

(e) The Business and International Education Program (section 613).

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1121–1130b)

[47 FR 14116, Apr. 1, 1982, as amended at 58 FR 32575, June 10, 1993; 64 FR 7739, Feb. 16, 

1999]

§ 655.3 What regulations apply to the International Education Programs?

The following regulations apply to the International Education Programs:

(a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) as follows:
18

(1) 34 CFR part 74 (Administration of Grants to Institutions of Higher Education, 

Hospitals, and Nonprofit Organizations).

(2) 34 CFR part 75 (Direct Grant Programs).

(3) 34 CFR part 77 (Definitions that Apply to Department Regulations).

(4) 34 CFR part 79 (Intergovernmental Review of Department of Education 

Programs and Activities), except that part 79 does not apply to 34 CFR parts 

660, 669, and 671.

(5) 34 CFR part 82 (New Restrictions on Lobbying).

(6) 34 CFR part 85 (Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension 

(Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free 

Workplace (Grants)).

(7) 34 CFR part 86 (Drug-Free Schools and Campuses).

(b) The regulations in this part 655; and

(c) As appropriate, the regulations in—

(1) 34 CFR part 656 (National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language 

and Area Studies or Foreign Language and International Studies);

(2) 34 CFR part 657 (Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program);

(3) 34 CFR part 658 (Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 

Program);

(4) 34 CFR part 660 (International Research and Studies Program);

(5) 34 CFR part 661 (Business and International Education Program); and

(6) 34 CFR part 669 (Language Resource Centers Program).

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1121–1127; 1221e–3)

[47 FR 14116, Apr. 1, 1982, as amended at 58 FR 32575, June 10, 1993; 64 FR 7739, Feb. 16, 

1999]

§ 655.4 What definitions apply to the International Education Programs?

(a) Definitions in EDGAR. The following terms used in this part and 34 CFR parts 656, 

657, 658, 660, 661, and 669 are defined in 34 CFR part 77:

Acquisition EDGAR Grant period Private

Applicant Equipment Local educational 

agency

Public

Application Facilities Nonprofit Secretary

Award Fiscal year Project State educational 

agency

Budget Grant Project period Supplies

Contract Grantee Grant period

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1121–1127) 

(b) Definitions that apply to these programs: The following definitions apply to 

International Education Programs:
19

Consortium of institutions of higher education means a group of institutions of higher 

education that have entered into a cooperative arrangement for the purpose of carrying 

out a common objective, or a public or private nonprofit agency, organization, or 

institution designated or created by a group of institutions of higher education for the 

purpose of carrying out a common objective on their behalf.

Critical languages means each of the languages contained in the list of critical languages 

designated by the Secretary pursuant to section 212(d) of the Education for Economic 

Security Act, except that, in the implementation of this definition, the Secretary may set 

priorities according to the purposes of title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended.

Institution of higher education means, in addition to an institution that meets the 

definition of section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, an 

institution that meets the requirements of section 101(a) except that (1) it is not located 

in the United States, and (2) it applies for assistance under title VI of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended, in consortia with institutions that meet the 

definitions in section 101(a).

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1121–1127, and 1141)

[47 FR 14116, Apr. 1, 1982, as amended at 58 FR 32575, June 10, 1993; 64 FR 7739, Feb. 16, 

1999; 74 FR 35072, July 17, 2009]

Subpart B—What Kinds of Projects Does the Secretary Assist?

§ 655.10 What kinds of projects does the Secretary assist?

Subpart A of 34 CFR parts 656, 657, and 669 and subpart B of 34 CFR parts 658, 660, 661 

describe the kinds of projects that the Secretary assists under the International Education 

Programs.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1121–1127)

[74 FR 35072, July 17, 2009]

Subpart C [Reserved]

Subpart D—How Does the Secretary Make a Grant?

§ 655.30 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?

The Secretary evaluates an applications for International Education Programs on the basis of—

(a) The general criteria in §655.31; and

(b) The specific criteria in, as applicable, subpart D of 34 CFR parts 658, 660, 661, and 

669.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1121–1127)

[64 FR 7739, Feb. 16, 1999]
20

§ 655.31 What general selection criteria does the Secretary use?

(a) Plan of operation.

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the 

quality of the plan of operation for the project.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) High quality in the design of the project;

(ii) An effective plan of management that ensures proper and efficient 

administration of the project;

(iii) A clear description of how the objectives of the project relate to the 

purpose of the program;

(iv) The way the applicant plans to use its resources and personnel to 

achieve each objective; and

(v) A clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and 

treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups 

that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as—

(A) Members of racial or ethnic minority groups;

(B) Women; and

(C) Handicapped persons.

(b) Quality of key personnel.

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the quality 

of the key personnel the applicant plans to use on the project.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) The qualifications of the project director (if one is to be used);

(ii) The qualifications of each of the other key personnel to be used in the 

project. In the case of faculty, the qualifications of the faculty and the 

degree to which that faculty is directly involved in the actual teaching 

and supervision of students; and

(iii) The time that each person referred to in paragraphs (b)(2) (i) and (ii) 

of this section plans to commit to the project; and

(iv) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory 

employment practices, encourages applications for employment from 

persons who are members of groups that have been traditionally 

underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic minority groups, 

women, handicapped persons, and the elderly.

(3) To determine the qualifications of a person, the Secretary considers evidence 

of past experience and training, in fields related to the objectives of the 

project, as well as other information that the applicant provides.

(c) Budget and cost effectiveness.

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that the 

project has an adequate budget and is cost effective.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) The budget for the project is adequate to support the project 

activities; and

(ii) Costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the project.
21

(d) Evaluation plan. 

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the quality 

of the evaluation plan for the project.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows methods of evaluation that

are appropriate for the project and, to the extent possible, are objective and 

produce data that are quantifiable.

(e) Adequacy of resources.

(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that the 

applicant plans to devote adequate resources to the project.

(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—

(i) Other than library, facilities that the applicant plans to use are 

adequate (language laboratory, museums, etc.); and

(ii) The equipment and supplies that the applicant plans to use are 

adequate.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1121–1127)

§ 655.32 What additional factors does the Secretary consider in making grant awards?

Except for 34 CFR parts 656, 657, and 661, to the extent practicable and consistent with the 

criterion of excellence, the Secretary seeks to achieve an equitable distribution of funds 

throughout the Nation.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1126(b)).

[58 FR 32575, June 10, 1993]

[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 34, Volume 3]

[Revised as of July 1, 2008]

[CITE: 34CFR669]
22

TITLE 34--EDUCATION

CHAPTER VI--OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

PART 669—LANGUAGE RESOURCE CENTERS PROGRAM

Subpart A—General

§ 669.1 What is the Language Resource Centers Program?

§ 669.2 Who is eligible to receive assistance under this program?

§ 669.3 What activities may the Secretary fund?

§ 669.4 What regulations apply?

§ 669.5 What definitions apply?

Subpart B [Reserved]

Subpart C—How Does the Secretary Make a Grant?

§ 669.20 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?

§ 669.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?

§ 669.22 What priorities may the Secretary establish?

Subpart D—What Conditions Must Be Met by a Grantee?

§ 669.30 What are allowable equipment costs?

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123, unless otherwise noted. 

Source: 55 FR 2773, Jan. 26, 1990, unless otherwise noted. 

Subpart A—General

§ 669.1 What is the Language Resource Centers Program?

The Language Resource Centers Program makes awards, through grants or contracts, for the 

purpose of establishing, strengthening, and operating centers that serve as resources for 

improving the nation's capacity for teaching and learning foreign languages effectively.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123)

§ 669.2 Who is eligible to receive assistance under this program?
23

An institution of higher education or a combination of institutions of higher education is eligible 

to receive an award under this part.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123)

§ 669.3 What activities may the Secretary fund?

Centers funded under this part must carry out activities to improve the teaching and learning of 

foreign languages. These activities must include effective dissemination efforts, whenever 

appropriate, and may include—

(a) The conduct and dissemination of research on new and improved methods for teaching 

foreign languages, including the use of advanced educational technology;

(b) The development and dissemination of new materials for teaching foreign languages, to 

reflect the results of research on effective teaching strategies;

(c) The development, application, and dissemination of performance testing that is appropriate 

for use in an educational setting to be used as a standard and comparable measurement of skill 

levels in foreign languages;

(d) The training of teachers in the administration and interpretation of foreign language 

performance tests, the use of effective teaching strategies, and the use of new technologies;

(e) A significant focus on the teaching and learning needs of the less commonly taught 

languages, including an assessment of the strategic needs of the United States, the 

determination of ways to meet those needs nationally, and the publication and dissemination 

of instructional materials in the less commonly taught languages;

(f) The development and dissemination of materials designed to serve as a resource for foreign 

language teachers at the elementary and secondary school levels; and

(g) The operation of intensive summer language institutes to train advanced foreign language 

students, to provide professional development, and to improve language instruction through 

pre-service and in-service language training for teachers.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123)

[64 FR 7741, Feb. 16, 1999]

§ 669.4 What regulations apply?

The following regulations apply to this program:

(a) The regulations in 34 CFR part 655.
24

(b) The regulations in this part 669.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123)

[58 FR 32577, June 10, 1993]

§ 669.5 What definitions apply?

The following definitions apply to this part:

(a) The definitions in 34 CFR 655.4.

(b) “Language Resource Center” means a coordinated concentration of educational research 

and training resources for improving the nation's capacity to teach and learn foreign languages.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123)

Subpart B [Reserved]

Subpart C—How Does the Secretary Make a Grant?

§ 669.20 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?

The Secretary evaluates an application for an award on the basis of the criteria contained in 

§§669.21 and 669.22. The Secretary informs applicants of the maximum possible score for each 

criterion in the application package or in a notice published in the Federal Register.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123)

[70 FR 13377, Mar. 21, 2005]

§ 669.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?

The Secretary evaluates an application on the basis of the criteria in this section.

(a) Plan of operation. (See 34 CFR 655.31(a))

(b) Quality of key personnel. (See 34 CFR 655.31(b))

c(c) Budget and cost-effectiveness. (See 34 CFR 655.31(c))

(d) Evaluation plan. (See 34 CFR 655.31 (d))

(e) Adequacy of resources. (See 34 CFR 655.31(e))

(f) Need and potential impact. The Secretary reviews each application to determine—
25

(1) The extent to which the proposed materials or activities are needed in the foreign languages 

on which the project focuses;

(2) The extent to which the proposed materials may be used throughout the United States; and

(3) The extent to which the proposed work or activity may contribute significantly to 

strengthening, expanding, or improving programs of foreign language study in the United 

States.

(g) Likelihood of achieving results. The Secretary reviews each application to determine—

(1) The quality of the outlined methods and procedures for preparing the materials; and

(2) The extent to which plans for carrying out activities are practicable and can be expected to 

produce the anticipated results.

(h) Description of final form of results. The Secretary reviews each application to determine the 

degree of specificity and the appropriateness of the description of the expected results from 

the project.

(i) Priorities. If, under the provisions of §669.22, the application notice specifies priorities for 

this program, the Secretary determines the degrees to which the priorities are served.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1840–0608) 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123)

[55 FR 2773, Jan. 26, 1990, as amended at 58 FR 32577, June 10, 1993; 70 FR 13377, Mar. 21, 

2005]

§ 669.22 What priorities may the Secretary establish?

(a) The Secretary may each year select funding priorities from among the following:

(1) Categories of allowable activities described in §669.3.

(2) Specific foreign languages for study or materials development.

(3) Levels of education, for example, elementary, secondary, postsecondary, or teacher 

education.

(b) The Secretary announces any priorities in the application notice published in the Federal 

Register.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123)
26

Subpart D—What Conditions Must Be Met by a Grantee?

§ 669.30 What are allowable equipment costs?

Equipment costs may not exceed fifteen percent of the grant amount.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123)
27

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 

What is GPRA?

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) is a straightforward statute that 

requires all federal agencies to manage their activities with attention to the consequences of 

those activities. Each agency is to clearly state what it intends to accomplish, identify the 

resources required, and periodically report their progress to the Congress. In so doing, it is 

expected that the GPRA will contribute to improvements in accountability for the expenditures 

of public funds, improve Congressional decision-making through more objective information on 

the effectiveness of federal programs, and promote a new government focus on results, service 

delivery, and customer.

How has the Department of Education Responded to the GPRA Requirements?

As required by GPRA, the Department of Education has prepared a strategic plan for 2007-

2013. This plan reflects the Department’s priorities and integrates them with its mission and 

program authorities and describes how the Department will work to improve education for all 

children and adults in the U.S. The Department’s goals, as listed in the plan, are:

Goal 1: Increase student achievement, reward qualified teachers, and renew troubled 

schools so that every student can read and do math at grade level by 2014, as 

called for by the No Child Left Behind Act.

Goal 2:Encourage more rigorous and advanced coursework to improve the academic 

performance of our middle and high school students.

Goal 3:Work with colleges and universities to improve access, affordability, and 

accountability, so that our higher education system remains the world’s finest. 

What are the Performance Indicators for the Language Resource Centers (LRCs)?

Language Resource Centers (LRCs) provide grants for establishing, strengthening and operating 

centers that serve as resources for improving the nation's capacity for teaching and learning 

foreign languages through teacher training, research, materials development and dissemination 

projects.

1. Percentage of LRC products or activities judged to be successful by LRC 

customers with respect to quality, usefulness and relevance.

2. Percentage of LRC products judged to be successful by an independent expert 

review panel with respect to quality, usefulness and relevance. 
28

The information provided by grantees in their performance reports submitted via the IRIS

reporting system will be the source of data for these measures. 
29

Guidance on Developing an Evaluation Plan

Overview of GPRA Measures, Program Evaluation, and Project Evaluation

The U.S. Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and the 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 to assess and improve federally funded programs. GPRA 

requires that federal agencies document the achievements of grant-funded programs. 

Specifically, GPRA requires federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education, to 

develop and report quantifiable annual and long-term measures to Congress. GPRA stipulates 

that these measures be limited in number, be specific, and have baselines and targets that are 

ambitious, yet achievable. Performance reporting occurs at the program level, meaning that

the U.S. Department of Education (ED) aggregates data from all IFLE grantees and reports on 

measures of the IFLE program overall. ED’s challenge is to articulate program-level measures 

that are relevant to several grant programs and that capture the achievements of many 

disparate grantees. ED’s Budget Service and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

review and approve IFLE’s GPRA measures to make sure that the measures reflect the 

programs’ overall goals. Therefore, once approved, GPRA measures remain relatively constant 

over time. 

IFLE must collect data from grantees to respond to the GPRA measures for each program. ED 

IFLE aggregates the GPRA information reported by all grantees to report the impact of each 

grant program (e.g., the Center for International Business and Education - CIBE grant program 

as a whole) to Congress and other interested stakeholders. This information contributes to 

ED/IFLE’s overall evaluation of each grant program. 

By contrast, individual project measures yield specific information that enables grantees to 

make mid-course corrections in implementing their proposed projects, if necessary. Projectspecific evaluation measures are tailored by project leadership to that project’s goals. Project 

leadership may establish specific measures to garner internal institutional support, attract and 

train staff, attract and retain students, and sustain the project’s effort beyond the grant period. 

Project-specific measures will vary greatly between institutions that have received IFLE grants 

before and novice applicant institutions. For example, an institution that is a current recipient 

of a CIBE grant or that has received CIBE grants in the past might offer many Study Abroad 

programs. Based on feedback from its prior project evaluations, that institution might propose 

a new Study Abroad program in a world region not previously served, or expand the duration of 

an existing program. In this case, a project-specific measure might be the number of students 

enrolled in the new program. However, a first-time CIBE applicant might propose to offer a few 

short-term Study Abroad summer programs in its first year as part of a multi-year plan that 

includes expanding the world regions served over time. In this case, a project-specific measure 

might be the number of faculty qualified to lead a summer program to specific world regions. 
30

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and the GPRA Modernization 

Act of 2010 (GPRAMA)

GPRA and GPRAMA are intended to improve accountability for the expenditure of public funds, 

enhance congressional decision-making by providing Congress with objective information on 

the effectiveness of federal programs, and promoting federal programs’ results, delivery of 

services, and customers’ satisfaction. Accordingly, GPRA and the GPRAMA mandate that 

federal agencies, including ED, submit three major products to Congress: multi-year strategic 

plans, annual plans, and annual reports. To comply with GPRA and GPRAMA, ED must state 

clearly in these products what it intends to accomplish, identify the resources required, and 

report on its progress annually to Congress. 

 

How has the Department of Education Responded to the GPRA Requirements?

As required by GPRA, ED has developed a strategic plan that reflects its organizational priorities 

and also integrates IFLE’s mission and program authorities. ED’s stated goal for IFLE is “to meet 

the nation’s security and economic needs through the development and maintenance of a 

national capacity in foreign languages, and area and international studies.”

The Title VI international education programs’ overarching goals are to maintain a U.S. higher 

education system with the capacity to produce experts in less commonly taught languages and 

area studies who are capable of contributing to the needs of U.S. government, academic, and 

business institutions. The Fulbright-Hays programs provide opportunities for U.S. educators and 

postsecondary students to advance their studies of foreign languages, to create and improve 

curriculum, or to conduct learning and research activities in host country settings. Each IFLE 

grant program addresses a specific objective related to the overarching goal. The next section 

of this document provides program-specific guidance to applicants on selecting appropriate 

performance and evaluation measures. 

IFLE Grant Project Evaluation

A strong project proposal by an applicant for an IFLE grant includes a well-designed evaluation 

plan that is based on clearly stated goals and objectives. The evaluation plan must address all 

IFLE GPRA measures, as well as include project-specific measures that are tied to the project’s 

goals and objectives. The evaluation plan also must identify how each of the specific objectives 

will be achieved, and establish the quantitative and qualitative measures that will be used to 

demonstrate the successful implementation of the proposed project. The PerformanceMeasure Form (PMF) serves as a guide for applicants to plan and articulate key aspects of a 

well-designed evaluation plan.

IFLE offers applicant institutions the following suggestions to consider in developing the Impact 

and Evaluation section of the grant application.

Developing an Evaluation Plan
31

Working with an Independent Project Evaluator

Please note that an independent project evaluator may not be required for every IFLE grant 

program. Applicants and grantees should consult with their IFLE program officer and refer to 

program-specific materials for guidance.

The independent project evaluator should be involved in the project throughout the entire 

grant cycle from the proposal development phase through the project’s funding and 

implementation to ensure that a well-designed evaluation plan is developed and implemented. 

The independent project evaluator works with key project personnel to draft measurable 

objectives, identify appropriate progress indicators and benchmarks, and to formalize the data 

collection, calculation, and analytical methodologies. The primary role of the independent 

project evaluator is to provide technical support and expertise to the project in order to best 

demonstrate its progress toward achieving stated goals and objectives. The independent 

project evaluator may also provide support and guidance for the development of a 

dissemination plan to publicize the project results to internal and external entities. 

A grant applicant may wish to collaborate with other projects on a given campus to pool 

resources and share the cost of a professional evaluator. The guidance provided in this 

document is intended to help maximize evaluation resources by streamlining an evaluation 

process and by supporting collaboration between key project personnel and an independent 

evaluator. Very small projects may have very limited funds available to compensate an 

evaluator. In such cases, limited resources are best expended on working with an evaluator at 

the project’s start, as opposed to its later stages. 

To ensure both the quality and the credibility of the evaluation, it should be conducted by a 

qualified evaluator with appropriate expertise and training. The evaluator should be 

independent, whether the evaluator is internal or external to the grant project. The applicant 

should provide a plan to ensure that the evaluator maintains sufficient independence from the 

project team, thus avoiding any potential or perceived conflict of interest. 

Developing Clear Goals and Objectives

A well-designed evaluation plan includes clearly articulated goals, measurable objectives, and a 

way to collect concrete data to substantiate the project’s progress toward achieving its goals. 

The evaluation plan should be limited to a few clear and specific objectives that are linked 

directly to the proposed goals of the project and that can be measured. The applicant/grantee 

should consider the following when developing measurable objectives and planning for data 

collection:

1. What will indicate or demonstrate that the project is meeting its goals? Describe the 

expected measurable outcomes.
32

2. What types and sources of data will best demonstrate that the project is achieving, or will 

achieve, its objectives? Identify the data and its sources that can serve as indicators or 

benchmarks that the project is meeting, or will meet, the intended outcomes.

3. How will the data be collected? Describe access and frequency.

4. How will the data be analyzed and reported? Describe the methodology and key personnel 

responsible.

5. Will the results demonstrate the project’s proposed outcome and impact (e.g., an increase 

in qualified language instructors, higher graduation rate in international studies, better 

employment rate of program graduates, etc.)? Describe how the results may demonstrate 

short-term and long-term outcomes and impact.

Examples of possible project-specific quantitative objectives include:

 Increase the number of students completing advanced courses in priority languages;

 Increase the number of students in business, health, or science majors graduating 

with foreign language skills;

 Increase the number of study abroad opportunities for students on campus; or,

 Increase the number of certificates and degrees conferred in targeted programs of 

study.

Examples of possible project-specific qualitative objectives include:

 Improve employment opportunities for students who possess advanced language 

skills and international experience;

 Strengthen collaboration between foreign language departments, international 

education, and other disciplines; or,

 Improve quality of assessment tools for priority and/or less-commonly-taught 

languages. 

Examples of specific activities that may support project objectives include:

 Recruit and hire of qualified priority language faculty; or, 

 Create or increase professional development and training sessions for faculty.

Progress indicators that relate to the quantitative and qualitative examples cited in the above 

sections include, but are not limited to, the following:

 Increase in the number of new faculty positions in priority and/or less-commonly-taught 

languages, area studies courses, or interdisciplinary courses that are institutionalized 

after grant support has ended;
33

 Increase in the number and type of courses developed, piloted, and subsequently 

submitted to the institution’s review board for inclusion in the college catalog for the 

upcoming academic year. 

Developing Evaluation Questions

An applicant should formulate evaluation questions that interest all stakeholders and audiences 

related to the proposed project, and align the questions with appropriate information gathering 

techniques.

1. Who/what will change? 

2. When will the change(s) take place?

3. How much change is expected?

4. How will change be measured, recorded, or documented?

Planning Data Collection and Analysis

In order to show change, baseline data must be included in the final evaluation plan, submitted 

to the program office, once the grant is awarded. Applicants should determine if baseline data 

already exist and where to find them. Data collection instruments that are not readily available 

need to be developed. Data collection instruments may include surveys, standardized tests, 

exams, focus groups, and topic guides. Institutions may have additional instruments that are 

specific to the proposed project. The final evaluation plan must specify the types and sources of 

data that will be collected and describe how the data will be collected, including access and 

frequency. The plan must also describe how the data will be compiled, analyzed, and reported, 

as well as the methodology that will be used and key personnel responsible for these tasks. The 

institutions should work with evaluation specialists to develop a detailed analysis plan to 

analyze the data and interpret results. In addition, the evaluation plan should include a timeline 

to delineate tasks and specify when and how progress benchmarks or indicators will be met. 

The timeline will help projects to stay on track toward achieving their goals. On this phase, LRC 

projects may wish to collaborate with other projects on campus to enrich the process and share 

resources.
34

Guidance to Language Resource Center Applicants

The Title VI international education programs’ overarching goal is to maintain a U.S. higher 

education system with the capacity to produce experts in less commonly taught languages and 

area studies who are capable of contributing to the needs of U.S. government, academic and 

business institutions. Each IFLE grant program addresses a specific objective related to this 

overarching goal. The objective of the LRC program is to strengthen and improve K-12 and 

undergraduate instruction in foreign languages. The overriding goal of all LRC projects is to 

develop prototypes for teaching and measuring performance that can be applied broadly and 

used as resources to improve foreign language education nationally. The LRC program provides 

grants to establish, strengthen and operate centers that provide teacher training, research, 

materials development and dissemination projects to improve teachers’ abilities to teach and 

students’ capacities to learn foreign languages.

US/ED has developed and the Office of Management and Budget has approved the following 

GPRA measures to evaluate the overall success of this IFLE grant program:

LRC GPRA Measure 1: Percentage of LRC products or activities judged to be successful 

by LRC customers with respect to quality, usefulness and relevance.

LRC GPRA Measure 2: Percentage of LRC products judged to be successful by an 

independent expert review panel with respect to quality, usefulness and relevance. 

Applicants must define how they will collect and report data for these measures when they 

develop their proposed projects. Successful applicants, later grantees, will be required to 

collect data on LRC GPRA Measures 1 and 2 and report that data to US/ED in their interim and 

final performance reports.

Example GPRA Performance Measure Form (PMF)

The following information on GPRA Performance Measures and their related PMFs is for 

applicants’ information purposes only. Applicants to the FY 2014 LRC program are not required 

to complete a PMF for GPRA Measure 1 and 2 as part of their application. Should an applicant’s 

project be selected for funding, GPRA PMFs will be requested by the IFLE Program Office once 

awards are made. Please also note that all FY 2014 LRC grantees must report on the LRC GPRA 

Measure 1 and 2 on an annual basis as part of their regular online IRIS reporting. Below, please 

find an example of a PMF completed for the LRC GPRA Measure 2 in Figure 2. 
35

Figure 1: PMF for GPRA Measures for LRC Applicants

1. Performance 

Measures

2. 

Activities

3. Data/ 

Indicators

4. 

Frequency

5. 

Data 

Source

6. Baseline and Targets

BL T1 T2 T3 T4

A) Percentage in the 

number of LRC 

products or activities 

judged to be 

successful by LRC 

customers with 

respect to quality, 

usefulness, and 

relevance.

B) Percentage in the 

number of LRC 

products judged to be 

successful by an 

independent expert 

review panel with 

respect to quality, 

relevance, and 

usefulness. 

Instructions for Completing GPRA PMF

1. Performance Measures – The GPRA measures are already filled in. Note that applicants are 

to provide a count (raw number) rather than percentage for each measure.

2. Activities – Fill in the major activities that the institution will undertake to achieve the GPRA 

performance measure goals.

3. Data/Indicators – State the data or indicators that will be used to track progress of each 

activity stated in #2. Note that one of the indicators should be synonymous with the 

performance measure, while other indicators will be used to track progress toward meeting 

the performance measure. Since the performance measure might not change from the 

baseline in the early year(s) of the grant, supporting indicators will be used to track and 

demonstrate progress.

4. Frequency – State period of measurement (e.g., quarterly, by semester or annually).

5. Data Source – State the source of the data (e.g., grantee records or university registrar).

6. Baseline (BL) and Targets (T1-T4) – State the number of training programs for K-16 

instructors of less commonly taught languages that the program currently runs as the 

“Baseline” and how many training programs are expected to be running at the end of each 

grant year as the answers for T1 through T4. 
36

The LRC grantee will need to complete a PMF for LRC GPRA Measures 1 and 2. The following 

guidance is offered to assist the applicant in calculating and inputting the proper baseline 

numbers. 

Details Regarding GPRA Baseline Numbers 

LRC grantees must provide baseline figures for the two GPRA Measures for LRC Projects. The 

IFLE office must know what that baseline number is since the LRC GPRA measures will assess 

the change from baseline to outcome.
37

Figure 2: Sample PMF for GPRA Measures for LRC Applicants

1. Performance 

Measures

2. Activities 3. Data/Indicators 4. 

Frequency

5. Data Source 6. Baseline and Targets 

B

L

T1 T2 T3 T4

A) Percentage of 

LRC products or 

activities judged to 

be successful by 

LRC customers 

with respect to 

quality, 

usefulness, and 

relevance

A.1 Survey K-16 courses offered at 

schools within the region of the LRC 

– or nationally within the same LCTL 

areas to identify gaps/weaknesses.

A.2 Prioritize manageable set of 

training programs to improve or 

reinvent.

A.3 Pilot test training modules.

A.4 Finalize training modules based 

on feedback.

A.5 Offer training modules for use at 

K-16 institutions.

 Number of respondents to a survey of K12 teachers of LCTLs.

 Ranked list of estimates of 

“marketplace” demand for training 

programs by language and level of 

instruction.

 Average rating of training modules used 

by beta testers.

 Average rating of training modules after 

improvements based on feedback.

 Average composite rating (on a 0 – 5 

scale) with respect to quality, relevance 

and usefulness by K-12 teachers who 

have completed the new training 

program.

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Center records

Center records

Center records

Center records

Survey1of K-12 

users of LRC 

products and 

activities

0

0

0

0

N

/

A

100

Yes

B

A

4.0

140

Yes

B

A

4.1

180

Yes

B

A

4.2

220

Yes

B

A

4.3

 

1

If an independent survey conducted at the LRC program level is fielded, then individual LRCs would be expected to cooperate with that survey effort rather than conduct a 

survey and provide the results.
38

1. Performance 

Measures

2. Activities 3. Data/Indicators 4. 

Frequency

5. Data Source 6. Baseline and Targets 

B

L

T1 T2 T3 T4

B) Percentage of 

LRC products 

judged to be 

successful by an

independent 

expert review 

panel with respect 

to quality, 

usefulness and 

relevance. 

B.1 Scan peer-reviewed journals for 

promising practices in improved 

teaching methods.

B.2 Carry out meta-analysis of 

studies on most promising 

techniques.

B.3 Conduct experiments to validate 

preliminary findings.

B.4 Disseminate results of research 

and serve as distributor of materials 

used in improved teaching methods.

 Number of new promising practices 

found.

 Number of new promising practices that 

rise to the level of evidence-based 

practice.

 Where evidence is equivocal, number of 

experiments to validate or reject 

hypotheses.

 Number of downloads of materials 

related to improved teaching methods.

 Satisfaction rating (on a scale of 1 to 5) 

of those who have downloaded and 

used materials related to new teaching 

methods.

 Average composite rating (on a 0 – 5 

scale) with respect to quality, relevance, 

and usefulness by an independent 

expert panel.2

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Center records

Center records

Center records

Webmaster’s 

records

Web survey

Expert Panel 

Review

0

0

0

0

N

/

A

N

/

A

20

10

2

200

4.0

4.0

20

10

4

280

4.1

4.1

20

10

6

360

4.2

4.2

20

10

8

440

4.3

4.3

 

2

If an expert panel is activated, then individual LRCs will be expected to cooperate with the expert panel process rather than supply the composite number. 
39

Project-Specific Performance Measure Form (PMF)

The following information on Project-Specific Performance Measures and their related PMFs is 

for applicants to use in completing their applications to the FY 2014 LRC program. Applicants to 

the FY 2014 LRC program are required to partially complete a minimum of two PMFs for 

Project-Specific Measures as part of their application to the program. Below, please find an 

example of a PMF completed for a sample LRC Project-Specific Measure.

Applicants must submit at least two Project-Specific PMFs, each one with a different Project 

Goal Statement. For each PMF submitted with the application, Items 1 (Project Goal 

Statement) and 2 (Performance Measures) in Figure 3 should be addressed. Should an 

applicant become a grantee, they will be required to submit a completed PMF for approval by 

the IFLE Program Office and report on it as part of the annual online reports in the IRIS system. 

An example of a PMF completed for LRC Project-Specific Measures is provided in Figure 4.

Figure 3: PMF for Project-Specific Measures for LRC Applicants

1. Project Goal Statement

2. 

Performance 

Measures

3. 

Activities

4. Data/ 

Indicators

5. 

Frequency

6. 

Data 

Source

7. Baseline and Targets

BL T1 T2 T3 T4
40

Instructions for Completing a Project-Specific PMF

1. Project Goal Statement – Each project will have more than one goal. Examples of goals 

include the following: “What nationally-normed language tests are now available?” “Is 

there a need for a Computer Assisted Speech Tool (CAST) in this arena?” “Is CAST best used 

as a feedback loop to students and their teachers?”

2. Complete a separate PMF template row for each project goal. State the first project-specific 

goal in the first (header) row of the template, then proceed to step 2. Repeat the process 

for each project-specific goal. *Note: Numbers 3-7 are to be completed if applicant is 

awarded a Fiscal Year 2014 LRC award.

3. Performance Measures – State the project-specific measure in an objective and time-bound 

manner. Make sure the units of measure (e.g., number of courses, number of students, etc.) 

are well defined.

4. Activities – Fill in the major activities that the institution will undertake to achieve the 

project-specific performance measure goal.

5. Data/Indicators – State the data or indicators that will be used to track progress of each 

activity stated in #2. Note that one of the indicators should be synonymous with the 

performance measure, while the other indicators will be used to track progress toward 

meeting the performance measure. Since the performance measure might not change from 

the baseline in the early year(s) of the grant, supporting indicators will be used to track and 

demonstrate progress.

6. Frequency – State period of measurement (e.g., quarterly, by semester or annually).

7. Data Source – State the source of the data (e.g., program records or university registrar).

8. Baseline (BL) and Targets (T1-T4) – State the level of each measure at the time that the 

application is submitted as the “Baseline” and provide the target levels at the end of each 

subsequent grant year. Where the measure specifies “new,” the baseline is stated as the 

existing total at the time of the application and the targets are stated as the incremental 

increase.
41

Figure 4: Sample PMF for Project-Specific Measures for LRC Applicants

1. Project Goal Statement: To increase the number of highly qualified credentialed teachers in less commonly taught languages (LCTLs), first, in the state 

of XXX and, second, throughout the nation.

2. Performance 

Measures

3. Activities 4. Data/Indicators 5. 

Frequency

6. Data 

Source

7. 

BL

T1 T2 T3 T4

A) Research to 

identify alternative 

teacher credentialing 

pathways for critical 

and less commonly 

taught languages.

A.1 Review XXX state teacher credentialing 

requirements for a language teaching credential.

A.2 List all of the competency requirements for 

each of the content areas: language, culture, 

linguistics, etc.

A.3 Research and identify exams or coursework 

that can meet the stated competency 

requirements and their availability.

A.4 Propose to XXX (XXX State Teacher 

Credentialing Commission) alternative means by 

which experienced teachers from other subject 

matters or countries could demonstrate teaching 

experience and have student teaching 

requirements waived. 

 A list of alternative ways 

that teacher candidates may 

demonstrate their 

competencies in each of the 

required subject matter 

areas for a language 

teaching credential 

(updated annually).

 A comprehensive manual to 

assist a teacher candidate 

seeking to be credentialed 

in a less commonly taught 

language (updated 

annually).

Annually

Annually

Online and 

peer-to-peer 

research

Compilation 

of online 

and peer-topeer 

research

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

B) Develop an online 

language instruction 

module to assist less 

commonly taught 

language teacher 

candidates in 

successfully passing 

the XXX Subject 

Examinations for 

Teachers (XSET) in 

order to qualify for 

their teaching 

credential.

B.1 Identify the required language and culture 

components on the XSET that teacher candidates 

must pass.

B.2 Create a working group to develop online 

language and culture modules for each of the 

components (Year 1: Filipino; Year 2: Chinese & 

Arabic; Year 3: Korean & Vietnamese; Year 4: 

Review and Revise all based on learners’ feedback).

B.3 Recruit teacher candidates to test the online 

modules designed to prepare them to pass the 

XSET.

B.4 Document the teacher candidates who 

completed the online modules for each language 

and their success rate of passing the XSET.

B.5 Collect and analyze examinees’ feedback to 

improve the online modules.

 The number of language 

modules developed for each 

LCTL.

 The number of cultural 

modules developed for each 

LCTL.

 The number of teacher 

candidates who complete 

the online modules.

 The number of teacher 

candidates who successfully 

pass the CSET.

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Posted on 

LRC website

Posted on 

LRC website

LRC Records

Survey of 

teacher 

candidates

0

0

0

0

4

4

12

10

4

8

36

31

4

8

60

52

12

20

60

54
42

1. Project Goal Statement: To increase the number of highly qualified credentialed teachers in less commonly taught languages (LCTLs), first, in the state 

of XXX and, second, throughout the nation.

2. Performance 

Measures

3. Activities 4. Data/Indicators 5. 

Frequency

6. Data 

Source

7. 

BL

T1 T2 T3 T4

C) Develop an online 

forum that includes 

researchers, 

experienced 

educators, and 

credentialed 

language teachers to 

integrate theories 

and practice to 

further the language 

instruction field.

C.1 Identify and invite leading researchers and 

educators in the field of second language 

acquisition and foreign language instruction and 

practicing foreign language teachers at K-16 levels. 

Be sure to have a wide representation of 

languages.

C.2 Design and create an online forum that allows 

asynchronous multimedia participation including 

text, chat, audio, and video.

C.3 Identify forum participation protocols to 

maximize constructive interactions and exchanges 

and hold an online orientation session.

C.4 Ensure that there is always one person who 

acts as a rotating facilitator to keep the 

conversation moving and to summarize the 

exchanges at the end of each time period.

 The number of people who 

actively participate each 

week.

 The innovative or 

substantive ideas that 

emerge from each week’s 

forum that are being 

documented.

Weekly

Annually

Center 

Records

Center 

Records

0

0

10

40

25

40

35

40

40

40
43

Impact and Evaluation Selection Criteria

This section describes the selection criteria that reviewers will use to score the “Evaluation 

Plan.” The following questions in bold are quoted from the “Instructions for Project Narrative” 

on the LRC application. Each question is followed by guidance to help the applicant provide 

information that will enable reviewers to award the appropriate level of points for the 

applicant’s planned impact and evaluation efforts. The applicant should provide actual baseline 

numbers, including trend data if possible, when answering the questions in the grant 

application. If the applicant has not tracked the data requested, the applicant should explain 

what mechanisms will be put into place to collect the desired data and analyze it to track 

progress toward the proposed project’s goals and objectives. 

For the LRC program, there are two questions that an applicant must answer concerning the 

Evaluation Plan:

What is the quality of the evaluation plan for the project?

The applicant should review the section entitled “Guidance on Developing an Evaluation Plan” 

earlier in this document. This guidance document simplifies and demonstrates the key elements

of a comprehensive and objective evaluation plan. Applicants need to clearly express: 

Who/what will change? When will the change(s) to take place? How much change is expected? 

What are the proposed data collection methodologies? Are the credentials, qualifications and 

impartial statuses of those who will carry out the evaluation plan sufficient to ensure that the 

results will be valid and reliable?

Does the plan have methods of evaluation that are appropriate for the project and, to the 

extent possible, are objective and produce data that are quantifiable?

Applicants should design the evaluation plan to reflect a clear and well-defined set of goals and 

objectives. For instance, if a project’s desired outcome is the development of a new and 

improved curriculum, its evaluation plan should contain questions to assess whether the 

curriculum development followed established best practice guidelines. The success of a new 

curriculum may be assessed from the students’ perspective to ascertain whether they are 

engaged in a classroom setting, be it virtual or in person. The assessment may be based on 

feedback from those students pertaining to their sense of engagement with the course, and on 

objective feedback pertaining to their mastery of the material as compared to a similar class of 

students using the old teaching method.
44

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Q: Our center has received an LRC grant in the past. Is it appropriate to refer to this in our 

application?

A: Yes, however, IIFLE strongly suggests that you refrain from referring to your proposal as an 

application for "renewal" of your grant. A new competition for grant awards is held every four 

years. In selecting applications for funding, no preference is given to applicants who have 

received LRC grants in the past.

Q: What techniques does the U.S. Department of Education (US/ED) consider helpful for 

presenting the application narrative and other important information?

A: In presenting the application narrative (your responses to the selection criteria), we 

encourage you to follow the order of the selection criteria as listed in the “Instructions for the 

Project Narrative” section in the application booklet. Additional useful techniques include:

using cross-references in the budget and appendices, providing an acronyms list and using 

tables and graphs to present information effectively. 

Q: What criteria do the reviewers use when scoring the selection criteria?

A: Three peer reviewers score each application using the selection criteria in 34 CFR 655.31 and 

669.21. The selection criteria are explained further in the section, “Instructions for the Project 

Narrative.” The review panels provide written comments and scores to support their judgments 

about the quality, significance and impact of the proposed project.

Q: What criteria do the reviewers use when scoring the competitive preference priorities?

A: Please see “FISCAL YEAR 2014 - Applying Competitive Preference Priority Points” page of this 

application.

Q: What happens to my application if US/ED finds it to be ineligible?

A: It is not evaluated. Section 75.216 of EDGAR prohibits US/ED from evaluating an application 

if it does not meet the program eligibility criteria or does not otherwise comply with application 

requirements. If ineligible, a letter is sent to the applicant explaining why it was not evaluated.

Q: Should references, footnotes, endnotes or the bibliography be included in the narrative? 

How long should they be?

A: References, footnotes, endnotes and the bibliography will certainly strengthen an 

application. However, they will be considered part of the application narrative, and subject to 

the page limit restrictions. Please check the Federal Register notice for more information 

regarding the narrative page limit.

Q: Do the provisions of the “Fly America Act” apply to this program?

A: Yes. Travel paid for with grant funds must be in accordance with the Fly America Act 

(International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of 1974, PL 93-624, PL 96-192). 
45

To be in compliance, travel must be on American carriers wherever available, based on jet 

economy high season rates. 

Q: How will funding continuation decisions be made?

A: Annual performance reports will be submitted in lieu of formal continuation requests. 

Continuation funding will be contingent upon demonstration of substantial progress toward the 

completion of the project activities in the annual performance report. Instructions for 

completing performance reports will be forwarded to successful grantees shortly after the 

grant awards have been determined.

Q: When will selections be announced?

A: The awards will be announced no later than September 30, 2014.

Q: If an applicant has programmatic questions, whom should he or she contact?

A: He or she should contact US/ED program officer at LRC@ed.gov.
46

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE LRC APPLICATION PACKAGE

ABSTRACT & PROJECT NARRATIVE:

 Provide an abstract of no more than one page describing your program’s background, 

resources, goals, purpose, intended audiences and any special features. Please attach 

this document under “Abstract Attachment” in the online application.

 The project narrative must be limited to 50 pages and should adhere to the following 

format:

o A “page” is 8.5" x 11", on one side only, with 1" margins at the top, bottom, and 

both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1” margin. Double 

space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application 

narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references and 

captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures and graphs.

o Applicants may only use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 

Courier New or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including 

Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted. Applicants must use a font 

that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

o The page limit does not apply to the cover sheet, the budget section (including 

the narrative budget justification), the assurances and certifications, or the onepage abstract, the resumes, the timeline of project activities, the letters of 

support or the appendices. However, the page limit does apply to all of the 

application narrative section.

 Before preparing the Program Narrative, applicants should also review the Dear 

Applicant Letter, Competition Highlights, the Federal Register notice and program 

statute for specific guidance and requirements. Note that applications will be evaluated 

according to the specific selection criteria specified in the Notice and this package.

 The Secretary evaluates an application on the basis of the broad criteria in 34 CFR Part 

75, sections 75.209(a) and 75.210 of the Education Department General Administrative 

Regulations (EDGAR). Please see “Selection Criteria” in the Federal Register notice. 

To facilitate the review of the application, please construct the narrative in the order of the 

selection criteria provided below. Be sure to address the components in each of the categories, 

as the reviewers will be using these guidelines to score the applications.
47

APPENDICES TO BE INCLUDED

 The curricula vitae of key personnel and professional staff directly involved in the 

applicant’s program.

 A timeline of project activities for the duration of the grant.

o The timeline should reflect all proposed program development activities to be 

funded during the four-year grant period and represent activities that contribute 

to strengthening of the overall program. 

o Cross-reference pages in the narrative, when appropriate. Identify activities that 

are new, continuing or ending during the four-year cycle. Demonstrate which

costs will be shared by the institution(s). Use color or shading to illustrate 

program development, cost sharing and other strategies for institutionalizing the 

activities. If colors are used, please ensure that all copies have color.

o If applying as a consortium, clearly identify the institutions conducting the 

activity (ies).

 Letters of support.

 A table of objectives that will guide project activities for the FY 2014-2017

performance period.

o IFLE is requesting these objectives to assist with our review of the performance 

reports that you will be submitting in IRIS. In addition to the status information 

and data that you report, the objectives will provide a helpful context for 

assessing progress. 

o Helpful hints for developing objectives:

 Objectives must be clear. 

 Objectives should not have too many parameters.

 Objectives should define the outcome (effect or benefit) to be realized. 

 Objectives should be time-phased and measurable

 Performance Measure Form PMF (Please see Guidance to LRC applicants)
48

Selection Criteria 

To facilitate the review of the application, provide responses to each of the following selection 

criteria in the following order:

1. Plan of Operation (15 points)

2. Quality of Key Personnel (10 points)

3. Adequacy of Resources ( 5 points)

4. Need for Potential Impact (20 points)

5. Likelihood of Achieving Results (10 points)

6. Description of Final Form of Results (10 points)

7. Evaluation Plan (20 points) *

8. Budget and Cost Effectiveness (10 points)

Total Base Score (100 points)

9. Competitive Preference Priority I (5 points)

10. Competitive Preference Priority II (5 points)

_________

Total Maximum Score for Selection Criteria 110 points

The following guidance may assist you in addressing each of the selection criteria:

1. PLAN OF OPERATION (15 points)

Does the application demonstrate:

a. A high quality in the project design?

b. An effective plan of management that ensures proper and efficient 

administration of the project?

c. A clear description of how the objectives of the project relate to the purpose of 

the program?

d. The way the applicant plans to use its resources and personnel to achieve each 

objective?

e. A clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and treatment 

for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have been 

traditionally underrepresented, such as:

i. Members of racial or ethnic minority groups 

ii. Women

iii. Handicapped persons

2. QUALITY OF KEY PERSONNEL (10 points)

Does the application demonstrate the quality of the key personnel the applicant plans 

to use on the project?

a. What are the qualifications of the project director?
49

b. What are the qualifications of each of the other key personnel to be used in the 

project? 

i. In the case of faculty – what are the qualifications of the faculty and the 

degree to which that faculty is directly involved in the actual teaching and 

supervision of students?

c. How much time does each of the mentioned key personnel plan to commit to 

the project? 

d. To what extent does the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment 

practices, encourage applications for employment from persons who are 

members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as 

members of racial or ethnic minority groups, women, handicapped persons and 

the elderly?

e. Do the qualifications of the proposed key personnel include evidence of past 

experience and training in fields related to the objectives of the project, as well 

as other information that the applicant provides?

3. ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES (5 points)

Does the application demonstrate that the applicant plans to devote adequate 

resources to the project?

a. Other than libraries, are the facilities that the applicant plans to use adequate 

(language laboratories, museums, etc.)?

b. Are the equipment and supplies that the applicant plans to use adequate?

4. NEED AND POTENTIAL IMPACT (20 points)

a. To what extent are the proposed materials or activities needed in the foreign 

language(s) on which the project focuses?

b. To what extent may the proposed materials be used throughout the United 

States?

c. To what extent may the proposed work or activity contribute significantly to 

strengthening, expanding or improving programs of foreign language study in 

the United States? 

5. LIKELIHOOD OF ACHIEVING RESULTS (10 points)

a. What is the quality of the outlined methods and procedures for preparing the 

materials?

b. To what extent are the plans for carrying out activities practicable, and can they 

be expected to produce the anticipated results?

6. DESCRIPTION OF FINAL FORM OF RESULTS (10 points)

a. What is the degree of specificity and the appropriateness of the description of 

the expected results from the project?

7. EVALUATION PLAN (20 points)

a. What is the quality of the evaluation plan for the project?
50

b. Does the plan have methods of evaluation that are appropriate for the project 

and, to the extent possible, are objective and produce data that are 

quantifiable?

*Note – Please see Guidance on Developing an Evaluation Plan section of this 

application.

8. BUDGET AND COST EFFECTIVENESS (10 points)

a. Is the budget for the project adequate to support the project activities?

b. Are costs reasonable in relation to the objectives of the project?

Competitive Preference Priorities 

Competitive Preference Priority # 1: (0 or 5 points)

Applications that propose activities that focus on any of the 78 priority languages selected 

from the U.S. Department of Education's list of Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTLs). 

We will award an additional five points to an application that meets this priority. 

The list includes the following:

Akan (Twi-Fante), Albanian, Amharic, Arabic (all dialects), Armenian, Azeri 

(Azerbaijani), Balochi, Bamanakan (Bamana, Bambara, Mandikan, Mandingo, 

Maninka, Dyula), Belarusian, Bengali (Bangla), Berber (all languages), Bosnian, 

Bulgarian, Burmese, Cebuano (Visayan), Chechen, Chinese (Cantonese), Chinese 

(Gan), Chinese (Mandarin), Chinese (Min), Chinese (Wu), Croatian, Dari, Dinka, 

Georgian, Gujarati, Hausa, Hebrew (Modern), Hindi, Igbo, Indonesian, Japanese, 

Javanese, Kannada, Kashmiri, Kazakh, Khmer (Cambodian), Kirghiz, Korean, Kurdish 

(Kurmanji), Kurdish (Sorani), Lao, Malay (Bahasa Melayu or Malaysian), Malayalam, 

Marathi, Mongolian, Nepali, Oromo, Panjabi, Pashto, Persian (Farsi), Polish, 

Portuguese (all varieties), Quechua, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Sinhala (Sinhalese), 

Somali, Swahili, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, Tibetan, Tigrigna, Turkish, 

Turkmen, Ukrainian, Urdu, Uyghur/Uigur, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Wolof, Xhosa, Yoruba, 

and Zulu.

Competitive Preference Priority #2 (up to 5 points): 

Applications that incorporate significant and sustained collaborative activities with a 

Minority-Serving Institution (as defined in this notice) or a community college (as defined in 

this notice). These activities should be designed to incorporate foreign languages into the 

curriculum and to improve foreign language instruction on the MSI or community college 

campus. We will award up to an additional 5 points to an application that meets this priority. 

 Minority-Serving Institution (MSI): means an institution that is eligible to receive 

assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A or under part B of Title III or 

under Title V of the HEA.
51

Community college is defined in section 312(f) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1058(f); or an institution of 

higher education (as defined in section 101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1001)) that awards degrees 

and certificates, more than 50% of which are not bachelor’s degrees (or an equivalent); or 

master’s , professional, or other advanced degrees.

Please note that panel reviewers will be instructed to apply competitive priority points as 

follows: 

Please use the following information to apply points for this criterion. 

0 points: -Not Addressed.

1 point: -Addressed, but unclear and little information provided. 

2 points: -Some information, but many questions left unanswered.

3 points: -Adequate, neither poor nor stellar. Information is disjointed or confusing to 

understand. 

4 points: -Good, most information provided, but could have included additional details 

and better examples.

5 points: -Considered excellent.

 Self-identifies as a collaborative application. Lead applicant and partner 

institution(s) clearly identified by name and whether each is an MSI or 

community college. 

 Multiple collaborative activities identified and described in detail, 

including lead partner, which partners and sectors of the international 

education community will be involved and benefit from each activity, and 

timeline. Each partner should be represented in leading and being 

responsible for implementation of activities. All relevant activities 

(international business, foreign language, area studies) to be undertaken 

should be specified and explained, with names and bios of lead 

individuals provided with excellent qualifications.

 Discussion of how partnership will build upon strengths and resources of 

each institution partner

 Convincing evidence that partners have consulted effectively during the 

pre-application phase and that the partnership and its activities will 

address documented need and lead to effective results.
52

Invitational Priority (0 points): 

While no additional points will be awarded to an application that meets these priorities, we 

encourage applications from any of the following:

 Invitational Priority #1: Applications from new applicants (as defined in the 

Federal Register notice).

 Invitational Priority #2: Applications that propose programs or projects that 

engage in collaborative activities with heritage language centers or schools to 

support the language maintenance and development of heritage language 

speakers.
53

Instructions for Budget Summary Form

& Itemized Line Item Budget

NOTE: Applicants to the LRC program must submit: (1) a budget summary form to categorize 

requested funds (ED Form 524, Sections A & B) AND (2) a detailed line item budget and 

accompanying budget narrative. 

The budget summary is to be included on the “Department of Education Budget Summary 

Form – (ED Form 524).” The applicant must complete both Sections A & B. 

The detailed line item budget AND accompanying budget narrative should be submitted for all 

four years. This should be included in the “Budget Narrative Attachment Form” in the online 

application.

This section requests information on the applicant’s financial plan for carrying out the project. 

Please show both the Federal and any non-Federal match (not required, but highly 

encouraged). Explain how these costs support the project activities.

1. Personnel: On line 1 (ED Form 524), enter only the project personnel salaries and wages. 

[Fees and expenses for consultants should be included on line 8.] The budget should include 

the total commitment of time and the total salary to be charged to the project for each key 

staff member. You should provide a breakdown of project personnel that includes: the 

position titles, the percent of time and number of months committed to the project for 

each key staff member, the salary for each key staff member and the total salary costs to be 

charged to the grant. 

2. Fringe Benefits: On line 2 (ED Form 524), enter the amount of fringe benefits. The 

institution’s normal fringe benefit contribution may be charged to the program. Leave this 

blank if fringe benefits applicable to direct salaries and wages are treated as part of the 

indirect costs. In the budget, include an explanation and appropriate justification if the 

institution’s normal fringe benefit contribution exceeds 20 percent of salaries.

3. Travel: On line 3 (ED Form 524), provide the travel costs for project personnel and student 

participants. [Consultants’ travel should be included on line 8.] In the budget, you should 

detail the proposed travel costs: for each trip, explain the purpose and objective of the 

travel and provide the number of persons traveling. Transportation costs should not exceed 

tourist class airfare. For automobile mileage, the established institution rate should be used. 

Reimbursement is allowed for taxi, bus, train or van transportation. Per diem at the 

established institution rate is permitted when an individual is away from home overnight on 

official project business (see OMB Circular A-21, J.48.c - Commercial Air Travel). Foreign 

travel can be authorized under the grant. Please include in your travel budget funds to 

travel to the annual LRC Project Directors’ Meeting. You may include costs for up to two 
54

people to attend. Allowable expenses include: airfare and ground transportation, hotels, 

conference fees, meals and incidentals. 

4. Equipment: On line 4 (ED Form 524), indicate the cost of equipment -- non-expendable 

personal property, which has a usefulness of greater than one year and an acquisition 

cost of $5,000 or more per unit. [Consistent with an applicant’s policy, a lower dollar 

amount may be used to define equipment.] In the budget, explain why the requested 

equipment is necessary to carry out project activities and include a list of all equipment 

in the following format: item, quantity, cost per unit and total cost. Note: no more 

than 15% of your total budget can be used in this category.

5. Supplies: On line 5 (ED Form 524), include the costs of all tangible personal property 

that was not included as “equipment” on line 4. In the budget, provide an itemized list 

of the supplies.

6. Contractual: Not applicable. Leave blank.

7. Construction: Not applicable. Leave blank.

8. Other: On line 8 (ED Form 524), indicate all direct costs not covered on lines 1 through 

5. The costs/fees for consultants and consultants’ travel should be included here. 

Examples of “other” costs are: equipment rental, required fees, communications costs, 

rental of space, utilities, custodial services and printing costs. In the budget, provide a 

breakdown of all direct costs not clearly covered by other budget categories. 

Evaluators and Consultants: If the project proposes to use external/outside evaluators 

and consultants, identify the consultants who will work on the project, the scope of 

work to be performed by each consultant and justify why project personnel cannot 

perform this work. Also, provide a detailed breakdown of the costs (daily fees to be 

paid, estimated number of days of services and all travel expenses, including per diem). 

Cost allowances for consultant fees, honoraria, per diem and travel should not exceed 

amounts permitted by comparable institutional policies. 

9. Total Direct Costs: On line 9 (ED Form 524), provide the total direct costs requested –

the sum of lines 1 through 8.

10. Indirect Costs: On line 10 (ED Form 524), provide the amount of indirect costs that you 

propose to charge against the grant. 

Remember: Indirect costs are limited to 8 percent of a modified total direct cost base. 

{See EDGAR, 34 CFR 75.562 (c)}

11. Training Stipends: Not applicable. Leave blank.

12. Total Cost: On line 12 (ED Form 524), provide total amount that you are requesting –

the sum of lines 9 and 10. Note: This amount should be the same as that shown as 14a 

on the application face sheet (SF 424). 
55

Language Resource Centers (LRC) Program

FY 2014 Application Checklist

Use This Checklist While Preparing Your Application. All items listed on this

checklist are required. The list is organized in the same manner that the submitted 

application should be organized. 

Part I: 424 Forms 

 Application for Federal Assistance - (SF 424) 

 Department of Education Supplemental Information Form for the SF 424 -

 Note Please do not attach any narratives, supporting files or application components to the 

Standard Form (SF 424). Although the form accepts attachments, the Department of 

Education will only review materials/files attached to the forms listed below. 

Part II: 524 Forms 

 Department of Education Budget Summary Form - (ED 524) – Sections A & B

Part III: Program Narrative

 Ed Abstract Attachment Form

 Project Narrative Attachment Form

 Other Attachments Form

 Budget Narrative Attachment Form

NOTE: The “Ed Abstract Attachment Form” is where you would attach your program abstract. 

The “Project Narrative Attachment Form” will include table of contents and the narrative 

sections addressing the program selection criteria that will be used to evaluate applications 

submitted for this competition. The “Other Attachments Form” should include appendices such 

as a detailed Performance Measure Form, (see Federal Register notice), curricula vitas of key 

personnel, letters of support, examples of evaluation materials, etc. The “Budget Narrative 

Attachment Form” is where you would attach a detailed line item budget and any supplemental 

budget information. 

Part IV: Assurances and Certifications

 GEPA Section 427 Requirement

 Assurances – Non-Construction Programs (SF 424B)

 Grants.gov Lobbying Form (formerly ED Form 80-0013)

 Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants

 Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL)
56

Paperwork Burden Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to 

respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB 

control number is 1840-0808. Public reporting burden for this collection of 

information is estimated to average 100 hours per response, including time for 

reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining 

the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

The obligation to respond to this collection is required to obtain or retain benefit 

(20 USC 1123). Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other 

aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to regulations.gov during the public comment period for this collection of 

information. If you have specific questions about the form, instrument or survey, 

please contact (Office of Postsecondary Education/IFLE, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street, N.W., Sixth Floor, Washington, D.C. 20006-6078.