DRAFT • PREDECISIONAL • 

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION • CUI

Recompete 

Pilot Program

Phase 1 Evaluation Debrief
Recompete Pilot Program Vision

The Recompete Pilot Program will invest $200 million in distressed 

communities across the country. The program targets areas where 

prime-age (25-54 years) employment significantly trails the national 

average.

The funding – deployed through a two-phase competition – provides 

communities both strategy development planning grants and large, 

flexible implementation awards.

2
Phase 1 Applications

3

Authorized Appropriated 2023 Phase 1

Applications

$1B

$200M

$6B+

Phase 1 of the competition was significantly 

oversubscribed. EDA received 565 applications –

marking the largest number of applications of any 

national EDA competition to date.

Applications came from all parts of the country, 

representing 49 states and 4 territories.
Phase 1 Applications

4

565 applications (225 Recompete Plans, 

340 SDGs) from 392 unique lead 

applicants:

• 53 (14%) submitted only applications 

for Recompete Plan approval;

• 172 (44%) submitted applications for 

both Recompete Plan approval and 

Strategy Development Grants; and

• 168 (43%) submitted only applications 

for Strategy Development Grants.

Non-Profits

39%

Local 

Government

24%

EDOs

13%

Educational 

Institutions

12%

Tribal or 

Government 

Organizations

6%

Others

6%
5

Goals for today’s debrief

1. Review the portfolio of 22 Finalists and 24 Strategy Development 

Grant awardees selected in Phase 1

2. Discuss common strengths and weaknesses of applications and 

opportunities for improvement 
A look at the portfolio

6
Snapshot of Recompete Plan Finalists

9

Highly Competitive: 22 Recompete Finalists selected out of 225 plans submitted – Reflecting the top 

10% of applications in the nation (15 Finalists also awarded Strategy Development Grants).

Targeted Investments: On average, Recompete Finalists’ proposed investments target areas with 

prime age employment rates that trail the national average by more than 10 percentage points and 

have an average median household income one-third below the national average.

Of the 22 Finalists:

• 7 Finalists are focused exclusively in 

rural America

• 5 are led by or involve Tribal 

organizations as a primary partner

• 7 involve labor as key partners

530+ Quality Letters of Support From:

 Local elected officials

 Private sector

 Higher education and workforce training 

organizations

 Community-based and labor organizations
Major focus areas of Recompete Finalists

10

Workforce Training (~$300 million proposed): Development and implementation of programs 

(including apprenticeships and stipends) to connect workers to good jobs

Wraparound Services (~$190 million proposed): Transportation, child/elder care, counseling, 

and other supports to ensure residents can meaningfully participate and stay in the labor force

Entrepreneurship and Small Business Supports (~$150 million proposed): Providing local 

business owners the skills, resources, and networks needed to thrive

Infrastructure Investments (~$150 million proposed): Funding to revitalize public 

infrastructure, commercial corridors, and improve residential wellbeing

Governance (~$80 million proposed): Resources to sustain local coordination to ensure 

Recompete Plans are designed by and for the communities they serve

In their Phase 1 applications, Recompete Finalists previewed projects that would be featured in their Phase 2 

Implementation applications.
9

Highly Competitive: 24 Strategy Development Grants selected out of 340 submitted – reflecting the 

top 7% of applications in the nation (15 SDG awardees were also selected as Finalists).

High Level of Distress: On average, SDG awardees target areas with prime age employment rates 

that trail the national average by more than 8 percentage points and have a median household 

income one-third below the national average.

Diverse Set of Leads / Partners: 3 projects are Tribal-led and 5 have Tribal partners; 7 involve labor 

unions; 7 are led by local government; 8 by a non-profit or public entity; 5 by economic/community 

development orgs; and 1 by a HBCU.

Wide Range of Geographies: 11 are primarily focused on large/mid-sized cities; 3 on Tribal lands; 9 

on rural areas; 2 on small towns, and 2 have a mixed geography.

Targeted Geographic Approach: The SDG awardees chose service areas with average prime-age 

populations (PAP) of ~30,000 people, far smaller than the EDA norm and ~50% lower than the PAP 

of the fully eligible area they could have chosen.

Snapshot of Strategy Development Grant Awardees
10

Goals for today’s debrief

1. Review the portfolio of 22 Finalists and 24 Strategy Development Grant 

awardees selected in Phase 1

2. Discuss common strengths and weaknesses, and opportunities for 

improvement based on the Phase 1 evaluation criteria
Recompete Finalist Themes

11

 Identified Root Causes: Finalists identified and explained causes of high PAEG in the 

service areas (e.g., using historical information, survey research, workforce data, etc.).

 Place-based Strategy: Proposals outlined the regional conditions and why the investment 

strategies proposed make sense for the targeted residents.

 Focus on Equity: Recompete Finalists made a point to identify and bring historically 

underserved communities and areas (whether rural, urban or suburban) to the table so 

benefits will accrue for these residents.

 Key Partner Engagement: Recompete Finalists engaged partners from labor unions, 

industry, educational institutions, community-based organizations, and other groups to 

create holistic plans for their target regions.

 Strategic Investment to address PAEG: Proposed projects and budgets align to the 

barriers identified and could realistically improve prime-age employment and per capita 

wages in the area.
12

Recompete Plan: 6 Evaluation Criteria

1. Understanding of regional conditions and needs (15 points);

2. Strength of strategy and quality of potential investments (15 points);

3. Equity, inclusivity, and diversity (15 points);

4. Regional assets (9 points);

5. Targeted geographic approach (9 points); and

6. Partnerships and potential commitments (9 points)
13

Understanding of Regional Conditions and Needs

App Strengths:

 Clear evidence of needs, with historical context, and indication those needs can be 

addressed

 Alignment between chosen region/service area and identified needs

 Specific and targeted population/groups most impacted, and why

Common Pitfalls:

 Minimal analysis of how economic distress shows up in the community (beyond 

directly referencing the PAEG and Median Household Income eligibility data)

 Generalized description of regional conditions and needs, lacking clarity on "why" 

distress exists

 While applicants articulated a set of regional conditions and needs, often a lack of rationale 

behind their relationship to prime-age employment and wages specifically
14

Strength of Strategy & Quality of Investments

App Strengths:

 Clearly explain the link between the proposed strategy, underlying regional conditions and 

needs (criteria #1), and local assets (criteria #4)

 Provided confidence as to why the proposed projects could be 

implemented successfully (e.g., clear evidence of investments working, best practices 

are represented, track record in the local community)

Common Pitfalls:

 Little alignment between investments in a way that constituted a regional strategy

 Lack of clarity on why proposed investments would be adopted by the end user, such as 

businesses or workers (e.g. demand)

 Few metrics of success, or why the proposed orgs have experience executing the specific 

projects identified
15

Equity, Inclusivity, and Diversity

App Strengths:

 Strong involvement from groups representing underserved communities – leading to 

confidence in the degree to which their voices impacted the Recompete effort

 High-level budgets reflect equity narrative from application

Common Pitfalls:

 Equity sections/approach minimal or missing; very few equity-based goals

 Generalized discussion of equity in the application, without specificity around which 

underserved communities would be reached through the Recompete effort, and how the 

strategy was tailored to them

 Equitable approaches discussed in application narrative, however not reflected in the 

types of partners at the table (e.g., through Letters of Support), nor in the requested 

funding in the high-level budget
16

Regional Assets

App Strengths:

 Specific assets articulated and aligned with the broader strategy

 Assets represent a clear economic starting position to build the Recompete Plan from 

(including private sector engagement)

Common Pitfalls:

 Regional assets are identified, however lack of a clear link to how they relate to the 

Recompete effort

 Minimal discussion of how assets would be further leveraged or unlocked over time, 

through Recompete investment in the proposed strategy – leading to concerns around 

sustainability beyond the potential funding period
17

Targeted Geographic Approach

App Strengths:

 Service area represents a feasible approach to achieving the applicant's goals, and well 

aligned with the proposed budget

 Alignment between all elements of the proposal (e.g. partners, lead orgs where 

applicable, needs, target populations, investments) and service area

Common Pitfalls:

 Weak rationale behind why the applicant chose its Service Area – i.e., lack of clear 

economic logic on why the geography was a distinct “place” for discernable impact, e.g.:

Too decentralized of a Service Area, raising concerns that funding will be spread too thin

A Service Area in close proximity to places with minimal economic distress, raising concerns around 

benefits “leakage”

 Minimal discussion of potential career pathways of focus, ensuring residents in the 

Service Area have pathways to Good Jobs (to the extent possible given regional conditions)
18

Partnerships and Potential Commitments

App Strengths:

 Specific partners tied to specific goals (and even when commitments were not specific, 

clarity on how the applicant would get more specific in Phase 2)

 Tangible examples, specifically from letters, of how different partners would contribute

 Private sector engagement

Common Pitfalls:

 Letters of Support were largely generic, form letters – while commitments were not 

expected in Phase 1, the strongest applicants provided letters that reflected each partner’s role

 Minimal justification behind why the Recompete partners identified were part of the 

proposal

 While strong partners may have been identified, applications often lacked representation 

from specific types of entities that were key parts of their strategies (e.g., private sector 

w.r.t. industry-specific strategies)
Recompete SDG Awardee Themes

19

 Vision that will “move the needle”: The SDG will clearly further the region’s 

capacity to raise prime age employment among underserved residents.

 Commitment to equity: Evidence that applicant engaged with impacted populations 

and will pursue strategy development that leads to equitable interventions.

 Key players at the table: The identified staff and coalition members have a history 

of working together in a meaningful way. Letters of support were highly specific and 

displayed readiness to contribute to SDG effort.

 Realistic and impactful use of funds: Proposed budget will raise capacity of lead 

applicant and generate momentum towards achieving program goals.
20

Strategy Development Grants: 4 Evaluation Criteria

1. Regional conditions assessment and preliminary idea of the assets and 

potential interventions needed (15 points); 

2. Potential of proposed Strategy Development activities (15 points); 

3. Organizational and leadership capacity (15 points); and

4. Efficient and appropriate project budget (15 points)
21

Regional Conditions, Prelim. Assets/Interventions

App Strengths:

 Clarity around the current state and underlying regional conditions or factors that led 

to a high prime-age employment gap (PAEG) and low per capita wages in the Service Area

 Clear sense of – at a high level – the types of interventions that would be necessary, 

and how a planning grant would improve those future investments

Common Pitfalls:

 Limited analysis of local assets, and how they could potentially be leveraged in a 

Recompete effort

 While applicants may have identified preliminary assets and interventions, they were often 

disjointed and did not relate to the underlying regional conditions identified
22

Potential of Proposed Strategy Development Activities

App Strengths:

 Clear process, timeline, and goals of the activities proposed through the SDG

 Confidence the proposed activities would meaningfully contribute to the long-term 

regional vision

Common Pitfalls:

 Lack of clarity on how proposed Strategy Development activities would contribute to the 

region’s ability to address prime age employment and per capita wages, specifically

 Minimal discussion on how the Strategy Development dollars would further the applicant’s 

ability to raise prime age employment among underserved workers
23

Organizational and Leadership Capacity

App Strength:

 Leadership represented key elements of the region/community, even if application was 

on behalf of a single organization

 Articulation of shared goals and priorities amongst leadership team, driving 

confidence that the partners could, with future funding, achieve the goals of Recompete

 Leadership that reflected equity and diversity as core values

Common Pitfalls:

 Lack of compelling rationale on why the lead applicant and primary partners have the 

appropriate experience, skills, and credentials to lead the Recompete effort

 Concerns around the ability of the partners to garner buy-in from other local entities 

(e.g., private-sector, public-sector, philanthropic, etc.), either based on a lack of prior 

experience, or minimal planning activities related to partnership development

 Minimal experience from the partners involved in reaching underserved communities
24

Efficient and Appropriate Project Budget

App Strength:

 Baseline level of specificity provided in budget

 Personnel, consultants, and contracts represented individuals and organizations with 

the skills and experience to be successful

Common Pitfalls:

 Proposed project budget did not match the goals and activities outlined in the Project 

Narrative, leading to concerns around impact of the funds

 Use of funds deviated from the goals of the program and did not drive confidence in the 

applicant’s ability to develop a strategy to address prime age employment and wages

 Lack of confidence that the funds would build the capacity of the lead applicant and its 

partners (e.g., budget did not include sufficient resourcing for key roles)
Questions?

25
Appendix

26
Phase 1 Portfolio – 22 Recompete Plan Finalists (1/2)

27

Recompete Plan Lead Applicant Place

Borderplex Region Workforce Recompete Plan City of El Paso El Paso, TX

City of Allentown Recompete Plan* City of Allentown Allentown, PA

Closing the Gap Recompete Plan* Plenty Doors Community Development Corporation Crow Reservation, MT

Decatur, Illinois' Recompete Plan Richland Community College Decatur, IL

East Oakland Partnership Recompete Plan* Black Cultural Zone Community Development 

Corporation

Oakland, CA

Grow Milwaukee Recompete Plan* Northwest Side Community Development Corporation Milwaukee, WI

Gulf Coast Chambers Network (GCCN) 

Recompete Plan*

Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce Foundation, Inc. Various areas in AL, MS, 

and LA

Lithium Valley Recompete Plan San Diego Regional Policy and Innovation Center Imperial County, CA

Newark Builds Newark Recompete Plan City of Newark Newark, NJ

North Olympic Peninsula Recompete Plan* Clallam County Clallam County, WA

Oasis Expansion Recompete Plan* Platform for Social Impact San Juan, PR

*Receiving both Recompete Plan Approval and SDG
Phase 1 Portfolio – 22 Recompete Plan Finalists (2/2)

28

Recompete Plan Lead Applicant Place

Prosper Memphis 2030 Recompete Plan The Memphis Chamber Foundation Memphis, TN

Reconnecting Canton Recompete Plan* Stark Economic Development Board, Inc Canton, OH

Reinvest Northwest: Birmingham Career Accelerator 

Recompete Plan

City of Birmingham Birmingham, AL

Santa Cruz River/Sonoran Corridor (I-19) Recompete Plan* Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz River Corridor, AZ

South Chattanooga/East Lake Economic Revitalization 

Recompete Plan*

City of Chattanooga Chattanooga, TN

Springfield – Holyoke Recompete Plan* MassHire Hampden County Workforce 

Board, Inc.

Springfield & Holyoke, MA

St. Claire HealthCare Recompete Plan* St. Claire Medical Center, Inc. Eastern KY

The Eastern Kentucky Runway Recompete Plan Shaping Our Appalachian Region Eastern KY

The Revitalization of Central Maine Recompete Plan* Main Street Skowhegan Central Maine

UWCV: Addressing Economic Distress Recompete Plan* United Way of the Chattahoochee Valley Columbus, GA-AL

Wind River Indigenous-based Economy Recompete Plan* Wind River Development Fund Wind River Reservation, WY

*Receiving both Recompete Plan Approval and SDG
Phase 1 Portfolio – 24 SDG awardees

29

Project Title Lead Applicant Place

“Where did our people go?” – Alutiiq: Natmen Suupet

agellriit? (SDG)

Kodiak Area Native Association Tribal areas in AK

Accelerate Mississippi Recompete Strategy (SDG) Mississippi Department of 

Employment Security

MS (various areas)

Chester Recompete Program (SDG) City of Chester (PA) Chester, PA

FAMU Gadsden County Opportunity for All (SDG) Florida A&M University Gadsden County, FL

Recompete Rochester (SDG) RochesterWorks, Inc. Rochester, NY

Recompete WA State Coastal Counties Initiative (SDG) Greater Grays Harbor, Inc. Western WA

Site Readiness and Good Jobs Initiative (SDG) Fund for Our Economic Future Cleveland, OH

Springfield Economic Empowerment Project (SDG) City of Springfield Springfield, IL

Working for Southeast Arkansas (SDG) The Alliance for Rural Impact AR (various areas)

15 of the SDGs accompany applicants also selected for Recompete Plan Approval (see prior 

slides). The 9 SDG awardees that are not Finalists are: