70034 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 

1Outcomes are the intended results of a program, 

or intervention. They are what you expect your 

project to achieve. An outcome can be at the 

participant level (for example, changes in 

employment retention or earnings of disconnected 

youth) or at the system level (for example, 

improved efficiency in program operations or 

administration). 

2The Act defines ‘‘disconnected youth’’ as 

individuals between the ages of 14 and 24 who are 

low-income, and either homeless, in foster care, 

involved in the juvenile justice system, 

unemployed, or not enrolled in, or at risk of 

dropping out of, an educational institution. 

3Blending funds is a funding and resource 

allocation strategy that uses multiple existing 

funding streams to support a single initiative or 

strategy. Blended funding merges two or more 

funding streams, or portions of multiple funding 

streams, to produce greater efficiency and/or 

effectiveness. Funds from each individual stream 

lose their award-specific identity, and the blended 

funds together become subject to a single set of 

reporting and other requirements, consistent with 

the underlying purposes of the programs for which 

the funds were appropriated. 

4A waiver provides flexibility around statutory, 

regulatory, or administrative requirements to enable 

a State, locality, or tribe to organize its programs 

and systems or provide services in ways that best 

meet the needs of its target populations. Under P3, 

waivers provide flexibility in exchange for a 

grantee’s commitment to improve programmatic 

outcomes consistent with underlying statutory 

authorities and purposes. 

5A tribal government must represent a State- or 

Federally-recognized tribe to be eligible. 

6 Discretionary funds are funds that Congress 

appropriates on an annual basis, rather than 

through a standing authorization. They exclude 

‘‘entitlement’’ (or mandatory) programs such as 

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, most Foster 

Care IV–E programs, and Temporary Assistance to 

Needy Families (TANF). Discretionary programs 

administered by the Agencies support a broad set 

of public services, including education, job training, 

health and mental health, and other low-income 

assistance programs. 

7A service pathway is a series of connected 

service interventions that aim to change behavior 

and increase knowledge or skills. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Applications for New Awards; 

Performance Partnership Pilots 

AGENCY: Office of Career, Technical, and 

Adult Education, Department of 

Education 

ACTION: Notice. 

Overview Information: 

Performance Partnership Pilots. 

Notice inviting applications for new 

awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.420A. 

DATES: 

Applications Available: November 24, 

2014. 

Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: 

January 8, 2015. 

Note: Submission of a notice of intent to 

apply is optional. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: March 4, 2015. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review: May 4, 2015. 

Full Text of Announcement 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

Purpose of Program: The Performance 

Partnership Pilots (P3) program, 

authorized by the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, Division H, 

Section 526 (the Act), will enable up to 

ten pilot sites to test innovative, 

outcome-focused strategies to achieve 

significant improvements in 

educational, employment, and other key 

outcomes 1 for disconnected youth 2

using new flexibility to blend 3 existing 

Federal funds and to seek waivers 4 of 

associated program requirements. P3 

pilots will receive start-up grants to 

support ongoing planning, streamlined 

governance, strengthened data 

infrastructure, improved coordination, 

and related activities to help pilots 

improve outcomes for disconnected 

youth. 

Successful pilots will use costeffective strategies to increase the 

success of disconnected youth in 

achieving educational, employment, 

well-being, and other key outcomes. 

Through a combination of careful 

implementation of evidence-based and 

promising practices, effective 

administrative structures, alignment of 

outcomes and performance measures, 

and more efficient and integrated data 

systems, P3 may produce better 

outcomes per dollar by focusing 

resources on what works, rather than on 

compliance with multiple Federal 

program requirements that may not best 

support outcomes. 

Background: 

The Act authorizes the Departments 

of Education (ED), Labor (DOL), and 

Health and Human Services (HHS), the 

Corporation for National and 

Community Service (CNCS) and/or the 

Institute of Museum and Library 

Services (IMLS) (collectively, the 

Agencies), to enter into a total of up to 

ten Performance Partnership 

Agreements (performance agreements) 

with State, local, or tribal governments 5

to provide additional flexibility in using 

certain of the Agencies’ FY 2014 

discretionary funds,6 including 

competitive and certain formula grant 

funds, across multiple Federal 

programs. Entities that seek to 

participate in these pilots will have to 

commit to achieving significant 

improvements in outcomes for 

disconnected youth in exchange for this 

new flexibility. Section 526(a)(2) of the 

Act states that ‘‘ ‘[t]o improve outcomes 

for disconnected youth’ means to 

increase the rate at which individuals 

between the ages of 14 and 24 (who are 

low-income and either homeless, in 

foster care, involved in the juvenile 

justice system, unemployed, or not 

enrolled in or at risk of dropping out of 

an educational institution) achieve 

success in meeting educational, 

employment, or other key goals.’’ 

Government and community partners 

have invested considerable attention 

and resources to meet the needs of 

disconnected youth. However, 

practitioners, youth advocates, and 

others on the front lines of service 

delivery have observed that there are 

significant programmatic and 

administrative obstacles to achieving 

meaningful improvements in education, 

employment, health, and well-being for 

these young people. These challenges 

include: Limited evidence and 

knowledge of what works to improve 

outcomes for disconnected youth; poor 

coordination and alignment across the 

multiple systems that serve youth; 

policies that make it hard to target the 

neediest youth and help them overcome 

gaps in services; fragmented data 

systems that inhibit the flow of 

information to improve results; and 

administrative requirements that 

impede holistic approaches to serving 

this population. Many of these 

challenges can be addressed by 

improving coordination among 

programs and targeting resources to 

those approaches that achieve the best 

results for youth. More information on 

these challenges, approaches to address 

challenges, and the consultation that the 

Agencies have conducted with 

stakeholders on these issues can be 

found in the P3 Consultation Paper, 

‘‘Changing the Odds for Disconnected 

Youth: Initial Design Considerations for 

Performance Partnership Pilots’’ 

(available at www.findyouthinfo.gov/

docs/P3_Consultation_Paper_508.pdf). 

Performance Partnership Pilots will 

test the hypothesis that additional 

flexibility for States, localities, and 

tribes, in the form of blending funds and 

obtaining waivers of certain 

programmatic requirements, can help 

overcome some of the significant 

hurdles that States, localities, and tribes 

may face in providing intensive, 

comprehensive, and sustained service 

pathways 7 and improving outcomes for 

disconnected youth. For example, P3 

may help address the ‘‘wrong pockets’’ 

problem, where programs that see 

improved outcomes or other benefits 

due to an intervention are unable to 

provide funds to support that 

intervention based on program 

restrictions. P3 funds may also help to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 70035 

8An interim indicator is a marker of achievement 

that demonstrates progress toward an outcome. 

build additional evidence that an 

intervention is successful or to 

strengthen a foundation of data capacity 

and performance management. If this 

hypothesis proves true, providing 

necessary and targeted flexibility to 

remove or overcome these hurdles will 

help to achieve significant benefits for 

disconnected youth, the communities 

that serve them, and the agencies and 

partners that are involved. 

Partnerships are critical to pilots’ 

ability to provide innovative and 

effective service-delivery and systemschange strategies that meet the 

education, employment, and other 

needs of disconnected youth. We 

encourage applicants to build on strong, 

existing partnerships that have 

experience in working together to 

improve outcomes for disconnected 

youth. Partnerships will vary depending 

on the nature and focus of individual 

projects, but may cut across: State, local, 

and tribal levels of government; 

education, employment, and other 

agencies or programs operating within 

the same level of government; and 

governmental, non-profit, and other 

private-sector organizations. 

As partnerships work to improve 

outcomes, meaningful measures and 

indicators that draw on reliable data 

will be critical to understanding how 

well pilots attain their goals. As a result, 

it is important to make sure that pilots 

track outcome measures and interim 

indicators 8 that will accurately capture 

their performance and success and that 

the pilots have the capacity to collect, 

access, and analyze these data as 

Federal, State, and local laws allow. 

For purely illustrative purposes, 

examples of potential pilots include: 

• A State, local or tribal government 

and its partners could build an 

integrated enrollment and casemanagement system that would be used 

by numerous youth-serving systems 

(juvenile justice, child welfare, mental 

health, workforce and vocational 

rehabilitation systems) in order to better 

target appropriate services to youth who 

are served by multiple systems. 

• A State, local, or tribal government 

and its partners could develop and test 

a coordinated approach to serving youth 

who are involved in multiple systems 

that creates joint performance goals, 

integrates services for vulnerable youth 

and their families, and aligns conflicting 

eligibility requirements that currently 

result in service gaps. 

• A State, local, or tribal government 

and its partners might implement 

systems change by establishing crosssector collaboration at the local level to 

break down municipal agency ‘‘silos.’’ 

This pilot could create integrated teams 

that represent multiple agencies and 

service systems to comprehensively 

address the needs of individual clients 

and establish new mechanisms for 

sharing and tracking data across 

multiple systems that serve 

disconnected youth in accordance with 

Federal, State, and local laws. Systems 

change can include strong partnerships 

with local philanthropic organizations 

and non-profit service providers. 

• A State, local, or tribal government 

could create a more integrated and 

effective job-driven training and servicedelivery system that enhances key 

elements of programs, such as employer 

engagement, leveraging of public and 

private resources, data-informed 

decision making, work-based training 

opportunities, career pathways, 

outcomes measurement and program 

improvement, and the elimination of 

barriers to employment to ensure that 

disconnected youth are equipped with 

the skills that employers need and are 

connected to employers with good job 

opportunities. A job-driven training 

program that uses the flexibilities 

offered by P3 might combine Workforce 

Investment Act youth formula program 

funding for job training and adult 

education funds for literacy and 

numeracy training (and, if Congress 

continues P3 authority in FY 2015, 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act youth formula program and adult 

education funding), and other program 

funds to eliminate employment barriers. 

P3 is one of multiple Federal 

approaches to advance innovation and 

program delivery to address critical 

social challenges through communitydriven, evidence-based strategies. 

Complementary approaches, which are 

laid out in the P3 Consultation Paper, 

include: 

• Promise Zones, which ensure that 

Federal programs and resources are 

focused intensely on hard-hit 

communities; 

• Job-Driven Training, which drives 

improvements in workforce 

development and job training programs, 

emphasizing effective approaches that 

lead to education and credentials 

needed for in-demand jobs, and 

providing workers with pathways to 

good careers and incomes; 

• Federal innovation funds— 

including the Social Innovation Fund, 

the Workforce Innovation Fund, and the 

education-focused Investing in 

Innovation Fund—which support 

projects that use and build evidence 

about how to effectively improve skills 

of at-risk youth that will enable them to 

succeed in the workforce; and 

• Pay for Success initiatives launched 

by the Department of Justice, DOL, and 

CNCS, which are fostering outcomefocused partnerships among Federal and 

State governments, local communities, 

private-sector investors, service 

providers, and research organizations to 

implement cost-effective services that 

improve outcomes for disconnected 

youth while generating savings for 

taxpayers. 

Key Features of Successful P3 Proposals 

P3 will support a youth-centric 

approach to service pathways by 

enabling pilot sites to define the key 

outcomes that youth in the target 

population should achieve and to 

coordinate services so they can achieve 

those outcomes. Pilots will: (1) Identify 

the pilot’s target population through a 

needs assessment; (2) use data and 

evaluations to determine the most 

effective strategies for serving the target 

population; (3) propose appropriate 

funding streams to blend in order to 

support the strategies; (4) identify the 

flexibility, both Federal and nonFederal, they need in order to 

implement the strategies; and finally (5) 

enter into a performance agreement with 

a lead Federal agency (designated by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB)) and pilot partners (including 

any and all State, local, and tribal 

entities that would be involved in 

implementation of the pilot) that 

specifies pilot goals, outcome measures 

and interim indicators, accountability 

and oversight mechanisms, and 

responsibilities of the entities involved. 

(1) Identify the pilot’s target 

population through a needs assessment. 

Federal consultation with 

stakeholders has underscored that 

unclear, varied, or conflicting eligibility 

criteria for programs that serve youth 

have posed a barrier to providing 

comprehensive, effective services for 

disconnected youth. The broad statutory 

definition of ‘‘disconnected youth’’ 

provided in section 526(a)(2) of the Act, 

combined with the Agencies’ expanded 

authority to allow pilots to blend funds 

and obtain other waivers of program 

requirements, is meant to address this 

barrier by providing applicants with 

flexibility to define a specific subpopulation of disconnected youth that 

the pilot will serve. This target 

population must be identified through a 

data-driven needs assessment, which is 

discussed further in the Application 

Requirements section of this notice. 

(2) Use data and evaluations to 

determine the most effective strategies 

for serving the target population. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70036 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 

9Evidence-based interventions are approaches to 

prevention or treatment that are validated by 

documented scientific evidence from experimental, 

quasi-experimental or correlational studies and that 

show positive effects on the primary targeted 

outcomes (for experimental and quasi-experimental 

studies) or favorable associations (for correlational 

studies). The best evidence to support an 

applicant’s proposed reform(s) and target 

population will be based on one or more studies 

using a randomized controlled trial. The next best 

evidence will be studies using a quasi-experimental 

(matched comparison) group. Definitions for these 

types of studies can be found in 34 CFR 77.1(c). 

Correlational analysis may also be used as evidence 

to support an applicant’s proposed reforms. 

Interventions and practices are considered 

evidence-informed if they bring together the best 

available research, professional expertise, and input 

from youth and families to identify and deliver 

services that have promise to achieve positive 

outcomes for youth, families, and communities. 

Applicants proposing reforms on which there are 

not yet evaluations (such as innovations that have 

not been formally tested or tested only on a small 

scale) must document how evidence or practice 

knowledge informed the proposed pilot design. 

10Braiding funding is a funding and resource 

allocation strategy in which entities use existing 

funding streams to support unified initiatives in as 

flexible and integrated a manner as possible while 

still tracking and maintaining separate 

accountability for each funding stream. One or more 

entities may coordinate several funding sources, but 

each individual funding stream maintains its 

award-specific identity. 

The Agencies are seeking to ensure 

that pilots create a foundation for 

broader change and continuous 

improvement in serving disconnected 

youth. P3 will therefore support pilots 

that include, to the greatest extent 

possible, evidence-based and evidence– 

informed 9 interventions and practices. 

In many cases, broader change and 

continuous improvement rely on both 

specific service-delivery models and 

also larger systems, such as policy and 

administrative frameworks. The 

Agencies are interested in pilots that 

draw on the best available evidence 

about how to improve outcomes for 

disconnected youth, both generally as 

well as for applicants’ specific target 

populations, through both service 

delivery and systems change. 

(3) Propose appropriate funding 

streams to blend in order to support the 

strategies. 

P3 allows States, localities, and tribes 

to blend certain FY 2014 discretionary 

funds from the Agencies in order to 

implement outcome-focused strategies 

for serving disconnected youth. When 

funds are blended, individual funding 

streams, or portions of the funding 

streams, are merged under a single set 

of reporting and other requirements, 

losing their award-specific identity. The 

unified requirements for blended funds 

may differ from the various 

requirements that are associated with 

each of the original, individual funding 

streams, but must be consistent with the 

purposes of the programs under which 

the funds were appropriated. In 

addition, when activities are supported 

by blended funding streams, the 

associated costs do not need to be 

allocated or tracked back to the original, 

separate programs. 

Programs from which funds may be 

blended in pilots are limited to those 

that target disconnected youth, or that 

are designed to prevent youth from 

disconnecting from school or work by 

providing education, training, 

employment, and other related social 

services. More information about 

programs that applicants may want to 

consider in their proposals is provided 

in Appendix B. 

Where funding streams from certain 

Federal programs are not eligible or 

suitable for blending under P3, pilots 

may also consider how to braid 10 them, 

or align them in other ways that 

promote more effective and efficient 

outcomes while maintaining the 

separate identity of each funding 

stream. Pilots may involve both blended 

and braided funds. 

In general, the pilots are intended to 

facilitate flexible use of existing funding 

streams that were made available under 

the Act. However, in order to provide 

incentives to participate in P3 and 

facilitate the initial implementation of 

performance agreements that will likely 

require additional coordination and 

collaboration among a range of State, 

local, and tribal agencies, the Agencies 

are awarding FY 2014 start-up funding 

in this competition. These start-up 

grants will be in the range of $400,000– 

$700,000 per grantee. 

(4) Identify the flexibilities, both 

Federal and non-Federal, pilots need in 

order to implement the strategies. 

P3 authority enables heads of the 

Agencies to approve significant 

flexibilities, including both the 

authority to permit blending of funds 

and the authority to grant waivers of 

program requirements associated with 

these funds. In addition to any existing 

waiver authority that the Agencies have, 

they also may waive any statutory, 

regulatory, or administrative 

requirements that they are otherwise not 

authorized to waive, as long as the 

waiver is in keeping with important 

safeguards (see sections 526(d) and (f) of 

the Act). Specifically, the waivers must 

be consistent with the statutory 

purposes of the relevant Federal 

programs necessary to achieve the 

pilot’s outcomes, and no broader in 

scope than necessary to achieve those 

outcomes. Requirements related to 

nondiscrimination, wage and labor 

standards, and the allocation of funds to 

State and sub-State levels cannot be 

waived. Agency heads also must 

determine that the Agency’s 

participation and the use of proposed 

program funds: (1) Will not result in 

denying or restricting individual 

eligibility for services funded by those 

programs; and (2) will not adversely 

affect vulnerable populations that are 

the recipients of those services. 

The flexibility, including waivers, 

permitted under the Act will allow pilot 

sites to tailor requirements, such as the 

allowable activities, eligibility criteria 

and reporting requirements for Federal 

funds, so that they support the goals and 

objectives of the pilot and maximize its 

capacity to improve outcomes for youth. 

Successful applicants will be 

responsible for identifying and securing 

flexibilities that they need at the State, 

local, or tribal level in order to 

implement their pilots. 

(5) Enter into a performance 

agreement with a lead Federal agency 

(designated by OMB) and pilot partners. 

The Act requires that each selected 

pilot be governed by a performance 

agreement between a lead Federal 

agency and the respective 

representatives of all of the State, local, 

or tribal governments participating in 

the agreement (see program requirement 

(d)). Performance agreements will 

identify, among other things, the 

Federal funds and programs involved in 

the pilot, the population to be served 

and the outcome(s) to be achieved by 

the pilot, and the cost-effective Federal 

oversight procedures that will be used 

for the purpose of maintaining the 

necessary level of accountability for 

funds. OMB has designated ED as the 

lead agency for purposes of 

administering P3 start-up grants. OMB 

may also designate an additional lead 

Federal agency for each pilot on the 

basis of the programs included and/or 

the outcomes sought in the pilot. 

Priorities: The Agencies are 

establishing these priorities for the FY 

2014 grant competition and any 

subsequent year for which P3 awards 

are made from the list of unfunded 

applicants from this competition. We 

are establishing absolute priorities 1 

through 3 and competitive preference 

priorities 1 and 2 in accordance with 

section 437(d)(1) of the General 

Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 

U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). Competitive 

preference priority 3 is from the notice 

of final priority—Promise Zones, 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17035). 

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2014 and 

any subsequent year for which we make 

awards from the list of unfunded 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 70037 

11A rural community is a community that is 

served only by one or more local educational 

agencies (LEAs) that are currently eligible under the 

Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program 

or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) 

program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(ESEA), as amended, or includes only schools 

designated by the National Center for Education 

Statistics with a locale code of 42 or 43. Applicants 

may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible 

for the SRSA or RLIS programs by referring to 

information on the following Department Web site: 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible14/

index.html. The first tab in the spreadsheets 

available at this site lists LEAs that are eligible for 

SRSA; the second tab lists LEAs that are eligible for 

RLIS. Applicants may determine school locale 

codes by referring to the following Department Web 

site: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/. 

Involvement in a pilot by an LEA or school is not 

a requirement to participate in P3. 

12 ‘‘Quasi-experimental design’’ means a study 

using a design that attempts to approximate an 

experimental design by identifying a comparison 

group that is similar to the treatment group in 

important respects. These studies, depending on 

design and implementation, can meet ED’s What 

Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with 

reservations. (34 CFR 77.1(c); see also the What 

Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 

Handbook, Version 3.0, March 2014, available at: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_

resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_

handbook.pdf.) 

13 ‘‘Randomized controlled trial’’ means a study 

that employs random assignment of, to give 

education-based examples, students, teachers, 

classrooms, schools, or districts to receive the 

intervention being evaluated (the treatment group) 

or not to receive the intervention (the control 

group). The estimated effectiveness of the 

intervention is the difference between the average 

outcome for the treatment group and for the control 

group. These studies, depending on design and 

implementation, can meet ED’s What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without 

reservations. (34 CFR 77.1(c); see also the What 

Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 

Handbook, Version 3.0, March 2014, available at: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_

resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_

handbook.pdf.) 

applicants from this competition, these 

priorities are absolute priorities. Under 

34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only 

applications that meet Absolute Priority 

1, 2, or 3. 

Note: Applicants must indicate in their 

application whether they are applying under 

absolute priority 1, absolute priority 2, or 

absolute priority 3. An applicant that applies 

under absolute priority 2, but is not eligible 

for funding under absolute priority 2, or 

applies under absolute priority 3, but is not 

eligible for funding under absolute priority 3, 

may be considered for funding under 

absolute priority 1. 

Because a diverse group of 

communities could benefit from P3, the 

Secretary establishes an absolute 

priority for applications that propose to 

serve disconnected youth in one or 

more rural communities 11 only, and an 

absolute priority for applications that 

propose to serve disconnected youth in 

one or more Indian tribes, and an 

absolute priority for applications that 

propose to serve disconnected youth in 

other communities. P3 is intended, 

through a demonstration, to identify 

effective strategies for serving 

disconnected youth. The Agencies are 

aware such strategies may differ across 

environments, and wish to test the 

authority in a variety of settings. 

Stakeholder input emphasized that 

tribal and rural communities in 

particular can face unique challenges in 

effectively serving disconnected youth. 

These priorities are: 

Absolute Priority 1—Improving 

Outcomes for Disconnected Youth. 

Under this priority, we provide 

funding to an applicant that proposes a 

pilot designed to improve outcomes for 

disconnected youth. 

Absolute Priority 2—Improving 

Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in 

Rural Communities. 

Under this priority, we provide 

funding to an applicant that (1) meets 

absolute priority 1; and (2) proposes to 

serve disconnected youth in one or 

more rural communities only. 

Note: To assist us in verifying whether an 

applicant qualifies for absolute priority 2, an 

applicant that applies under absolute priority 

2 must include the following information in 

its application: (1) A list of the communities 

it proposes to serve; and (2) a list and the 

National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) identification codes of (a) the LEA or 

LEAs that serve each of the communities it 

proposes to serve if the applicant qualifies for 

this priority through the criterion using the 

Small, Rural School Achievement program or 

the Rural and Low-Income School program or 

(b) the school or schools that serve each of 

the communities it proposes to serve if the 

applicant qualifies for this priority through 

the criterion using school-level NCES locale 

codes. 

Absolute Priority 3—Improving 

Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in 

Tribal Communities. 

Under this priority, we provide 

funding to an applicant that (1) meets 

absolute priority 1; (2) will serve 

disconnected youth in one or more 

Indian tribes; and (3) represents a 

partnership that includes one or more 

Indian tribes. 

Competitive Preference Priorities: For 

FY 2014 and any subsequent year for 

which we make awards from the list of 

unfunded applicants from this 

competition, these priorities are 

competitive preference priorities. Under 

34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), up to an 

additional 5 points will be awarded to 

an application based on how well the 

application meets competitive 

preference priority 1, up to an 

additional 10 points to an application 

based on how well the application 

meets competitive preference priority 2, 

and an additional 2 points to an 

application that meets competitive 

preference priority 3. 

Background for Competitive 

Preference Priorities 1 and 2: 

Under competitive preference 

priorities 1 and 2, we will award points 

to applicants based on their plans to 

conduct independent impact 

evaluations of at least one servicedelivery or operational component of 

their pilots, in addition to participating 

in the national P3 evaluation, which is 

discussed in the Program Requirements 

section of this notice. In proposing these 

site-specific impact evaluations, 

applicants should use the strongest 

possible designs and research methods 

and use high-quality administrative data 

in order to maximize confidence in the 

evaluation findings and minimize the 

costs of conducting these evaluations. 

Federal start-up funds and blended 

funds may be used to finance these 

evaluations, which will augment the 

evidence that is gained through any 

impact studies that are included in the 

national P3 evaluation. 

Competitive Preference Priority 1— 

Quasi-Experimental Site-Specific 

Evaluations (Up to 5 points). 

Under this priority, competitive 

preference will be given to applicants 

that propose to conduct an independent 

evaluation of the impacts on 

disconnected youth of their overall 

program or specific components of their 

program using a quasi-experimental 12

design. Proposals will be scored based 

on the clarity and feasibility of the 

proposed evaluation design and the 

applicants’ demonstrated expertise in 

planning and conducting a quasiexperimental evaluation study. 

Competitive Preference Priority 2— 

Experimental Site-Specific Evaluations 

(Up to 10 points). 

Under this priority, competitive 

preference will be given to applicants 

that propose to conduct an independent 

evaluation of the impacts of their overall 

program or components of their program 

on disconnected youth using a 

randomized controlled trial.13

Applicants’ proposals will be scored 

based on the clarity and feasibility of 

the proposed evaluation design and the 

applicants’ demonstrated expertise in 

planning and conducting experimental 

evaluation studies. 

Please see Appendix A for the 

requirements for evaluation proposals 

that are related to competitive 

preference priorities 1 and 2. 

Competitive Preference Priority 3— 

Promise Zones (0 or 2 points). 

Background: 

Under this priority, competitive 

preference will be given to applicants 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70038 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 

14Authority for pilots to blend funds for future 

years is subject to Congressional action as well as 

agency approval. However, because the Agencies 

will evaluate applications, in part, based on their 

multi-year plans, an applicant should provide as 

much information as possible about its future plans. 

Once pilots are selected, the Agencies may consider 

changes, including changes in scope and objectives, 

to pilot designs in subsequent years as a result of 

new funding streams. The reason for considering 

those changes is that, because P3 is intended to test 

a new approach to improving outcomes for 

disconnected youth, the pilots that demonstrate 

successful performance and effective governance 

processes may be able to build on these gains by 

using additional funding streams and/or including 

additional partners in future years. 

15The best evidence for the expected effects of 

proposed interventions and reforms will be based 

on one or more studies using a randomized 

controlled trial. The next best evidence will be 

studies using a quasi-experimental (matched 

comparison group). Some studies that use these 

designs have been reviewed and are available in 

Federal registries of evidence-based interventions, 

such as the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 

(http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/) and the Clearinghouse 

on Labor Evaluation and Research (CLEAR) 

(http://clear.dol.gov/). Correlational analysis may 

also be used as evidence to support an applicant’s 

proposed reform. More information on Federal 

registries is provided in the FAQ section of the 

application package. Applicants are encouraged to 

identify (and cite) studies that support their 

proposed pilot strategies and activities (whether 

from Federal registries or other sources) to explain 

the strengths and limitations of the existing 

evidence and to describe how the proposed 

strategies and activities will take into account those 

strengths and limitations in the existing evidence. 

Applicants proposing reforms on which there is not 

yet research evidence (such as innovations that 

have not been formally tested or tested only on a 

small scale) must document how evidence or 

practice knowledge informed the proposed pilot 

design. 

16 ‘‘Logic model’’ (also referred to as theory of 

action) means a well-specified conceptual 

framework that identifies key components of the 

proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., 

the active ’’ingredients’’ that are hypothesized to be 

critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and 

that propose projects that are designed 

to serve and coordinate with a federally 

designated Promise Zone. Promise Zone 

designees have committed to 

establishing comprehensive, 

coordinated approaches in order to 

ensure that America’s most vulnerable 

children succeed from cradle to career. 

In January 2014, President Obama 

announced the first five Promise Zones, 

located in: The Choctaw Nation of 

Oklahoma, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, 

San Antonio, and Kentucky Highlands. 

This designation is designed to assist 

local leaders in creating jobs, increasing 

economic activity, improving 

educational opportunities, leveraging 

private investment, and reducing 

violent crime in high-poverty urban, 

rural, and tribal communities. By 

partnering with Promise Zone 

designees, the Federal government will 

help communities access the resources 

and expertise they need—including the 

resources from various neighborhood 

revitalization initiatives—to ensure that 

Federal programs and resources support 

the efforts to transform these 

communities. 

Priority: 

This priority is for projects that are 

designed to serve and coordinate with a 

federally designated Promise Zone. 

Note: Applicants should submit a letter of 

support from the lead organization of a 

designated Promise Zone describing the 

contribution of the applicant’s proposed 

activities. A list of designated Promise Zones 

and lead organizations can be found at 

http://hud.gov/promisezones. 

Application Requirements: 

The following requirements apply to 

all applications submitted under this 

competition. Any application that does 

not include the required documents or 

information will not be considered. 

(a) Statement of Need for a Defined 

Target Population. 

(1) The applicant must define the 

target population to be served, based on 

data and analysis demonstrating the 

need for services within the relevant 

geographic area. The target population 

must be consistent with the population 

identified by section 526(a)(2) of the 

Act. 

(2) The applicant’s statement of need 

must include data demonstrating how 

the target population lags behind other 

groups in achieving the outcomes that 

the pilot will seek to attain, including 

an analysis of disparities in 

circumstances and outcomes among the 

target population and these other 

groups. These data must be based on a 

needs assessment that was conducted or 

updated within the past three years 

using representative data on youth from 

the jurisdiction(s) proposing the pilot. 

Applicants do not need to include a 

copy of the needs assessment with the 

application, but must identify when the 

assessment was conducted. 

(b) Flexibility, including waivers. 

(1) Federal requests for flexibility, 

including waivers. The applicant must 

describe the Federal flexibility that is 

needed to implement the proposed pilot 

and to improve outcomes for the target 

population, focusing on changes to 

major program requirements that would 

otherwise inhibit implementation. 

Flexibility involves both the ability to 

blend funds, thereby aligning certain 

administrative activities, and other 

waivers of program requirements. 

Examples of potential requests for 

flexibility include, but are not limited 

to: changes to eligibility requirements, 

allowable uses of funds, or performance 

reporting. Applicants must cite the 

specific Federal statutory, regulatory, or 

other requirements for which they are 

requesting flexibility. (More information 

on flexibility, including waivers, is 

provided in the FAQ section of the 

application package.) 

Note: The waiver request process for P3, 

which is part of the application process, 

differs from standard agency processes. 

Applicants do not need to submit separate 

waiver requests or information to the 

respective agencies outside of the P3 

application process. 

(2) Non-Federal flexibility, including 

waivers. In addition to Federal 

flexibility, successful implementation of 

proposals may also depend on 

flexibility related to requirements 

imposed at the State, local, or tribal 

level. The Agencies do not have the 

authority to waive non-Federal 

requirements. Applicants therefore must 

identify the specific State, local, or 

tribal policies, regulations, or other 

requirements that may impede the 

pilot’s ability to achieve its goals so that, 

if the proposed pilot and flexibility, 

including waivers, are approved, 

requirements across non-Federal levels 

of government are aligned to support 

effective implementation. Applicants 

must provide written assurance that: 

(A) The State, local, or tribal 

government(s) with authority to grant 

any needed non-Federal flexibility, 

including waivers, will approve such 

flexibility within 60 days of an 

applicant’s designation as a pilot 

finalist; or 

(B) Non-Federal flexibility, including 

waivers, is not needed in order to 

successfully implement the pilots. 

(c) Project Design. 

The applicant must present a project 

design for how it will improve specific 

outcomes for the target population. The 

design must indicate the proposed 

length of the pilot, which may not 

extend beyond September 30, 2018, and 

whether and how the applicant intends 

to incorporate future funding, including 

FY 2015 funding, into the multi-year 

project if Congress extends P3 

authority.14 Applicants may propose to 

expand the number of Federal programs 

supporting pilot activities using FY 

2015 or other future funding beyond the 

Federal programs proposed using FY 

2014 funds. The applicant’s design must 

include the following elements. 

(1) An explanation of how the 

strategies and activities that the pilot 

will employ are based on (or informed 

by) available research evidence.15

Note: Applicants must cite the studies on 

service interventions and system reform that 

informed their pilot design and explain the 

relevance of the cited evidence to the 

proposed project. 

(2) A graphic depiction (not longer 

than one page) of the pilot’s logic 

model 16 that illustrates the underlying 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 70039 

describes the relationships among the key 

components and outcomes, theoretically and 

operationally. (34 CFR 77.1(c).) 

theory of how the pilot’s strategy will 

produce intended outcomes. More 

information on logic models is provided 

in the FAQ section of the application 

package. 

(3) A description of the Federal 

program funds the applicant will blend 

in the pilot to carry out the activities 

described. In order to qualify for a pilot, 

the proposal must include at least two 

Federal programs: (a) That have policy 

goals related to P3; and (b) at least one 

of which is administered (in whole or in 

part) by a State, local, or tribal 

government (see Appendix B for 

examples of specific programs that 

applicants may want to consider). If 

applicable, the applicant should also 

describe any Federal funds that will 

support the proposed pilot or 

complementary activities by being 

braided rather than blended, such as 

funds that are not eligible under the Act 

to be blended, but may still support 

relevant activities under the pilot. 

Note: Agencies will review the blending of 

FY 2014 competitive grants in pilots on a 

case-by-case basis in order to consider how 

the scope, objectives, and target populations 

of the existing award align with the proposed 

pilot. As discussed under the selection 

criteria, applicants will be scored, in part, 

based on the extent to which they 

demonstrate that alignment. 

(d) Work Plan and Project 

Management. The applicant must 

provide a detailed work plan that 

describes how the proposed work will 

be accomplished. The applicant must 

describe the professional qualifications 

that will be required of the project 

manager and other key personnel to 

ensure proper management of pilot 

activities. 

(e) Partnership Capacity and 

Management. The applicant must— 

(1) Identify the proposed partners, 

including any and all State, local, and 

tribal entities and non-governmental 

organizations that would be involved in 

implementation of the pilot. 

Partnerships that cross programs and 

funding sources but are under the 

jurisdiction of a single agency or entity 

must identify the different suborganizational units involved. 

(2) Provide assurance of the proposed 

partners’ commitment, such as a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

or letter of commitment. The assurance 

of commitment must be signed by the 

executive leader or other accountable 

senior representative of each relevant 

organization or agency and include, at a 

minimum: (a) A description of each 

proposed partner’s commitment of 

financial or in-kind resources (if any); 

(b) how each proposed partner’s existing 

vision and current and proposed 

activities align with those of the 

proposed pilot; and (c) how each 

proposed partner will be held 

accountable under the proposed 

governance structure. 

(3) Describe how the applicant and 

proposed partners will use and 

coordinate resources in order to 

improve outcomes for disconnected 

youth. This description may include 

whether proposed efforts are aligned 

with, or whether the applicants’ and 

proposed partners’ jurisdiction is 

participating in, complementary 

Administration initiatives or efforts, 

such as Promise Zones and Pay for 

Success, or efforts that are focused on 

populations such as foster youth, young 

men of color, or homeless youth. For 

projects that include a focus on placing 

youth in work-based training and 

employment opportunities, applicants 

should address engagement with 

business and industry in identifying 

employment opportunities and skills, 

defining competencies, designing 

programs, and developing curricula, 

when applicable. 

Note: While applicants must describe how 

the proposed project will use and coordinate 

resources, participation in complementary 

initiatives or efforts of the Administration is 

not a requirement for participation in P3. 

(f) Data and Evaluation Capacity. 

(1) Applicants must describe the 

proposed partnership’s data and 

evaluation capacity, including its ability 

to collect, analyze, and use data for 

decision-making, learning, continuous 

improvement, and accountability. 

Specifically, the applicant must 

describe the extent to which the 

proposed partners have done, and will 

continue to do, the following: 

(A) Manage and maintain 

computerized administrative data 

systems to track program participants, 

services, and outcomes; 

(B) Execute data-sharing agreements 

with programs or organizations to share 

information with program partners and 

evaluators for case management, 

performance management, and 

evaluation purposes, in accordance with 

Federal, State, and other privacy laws 

and requirements; 

(C) Link or make progress toward 

linking programmatic data to 

administrative data from relevant 

government agencies; 

(D) Collect, store, and make data 

available to program partners, 

researchers, and evaluators in 

accordance with Federal, State, and 

other privacy laws and regulations; 

(E) Use data to determine costeffective strategies for improving 

outcomes; and 

(F) Regularly analyze program data to 

assess progress, identify operational 

strengths and weaknesses, and 

determine how implementation could 

be strengthened to improve outcomes. 

(2) The applicant must propose 

outcome measures and interim 

indicators to gauge pilot performance. 

At least one outcome measure must be 

in the domain of education, and at least 

one outcome measure must be in the 

domain of employment. Applicants may 

specify additional employment and 

education outcome measures, as well as 

outcome measures in other domains of 

well-being, such as criminal justice, 

physical and mental health, and 

housing. Regardless of the outcome 

domain, applicants must identify at 

least one interim indicator for each 

proposed outcome measure. Examples 

of education- and employment-related 

outcome measures and interim 

indicators include: 

• For High School Diploma 

Attainment: High school enrollment, 

attendance, and grade promotion; 

• For Community College 

Completion: Class attendance and credit 

accumulation; and 

• For Sustained Employment in 

Career Field: Job placement or 

acquisition, employment retention, and 

earnings. 

The specific outcome measures and 

interim indicators the applicant uses 

should be grounded in its logic model, 

and informed by applicable program 

results or research, as appropriate. More 

information on outcomes and interim 

indicators is available in the FAQs 

included in the application package. 

(3) For each proposed outcome 

measure and interim indicator, the 

applicant must describe: 

(A) The methodology and progress 

milestones (such as monthly, quarterly, 

annually) that will be used to assess 

progress; 

(B) The sources of data that will be 

used, and whether the data are subject 

to audit or other means of validation for 

accuracy; and 

(C) The frequency with which data 

will be recorded by the pilot and the 

frequency with which the applicant 

proposes to report on outcome 

measures, interim indicators, and 

project progress milestones to the 

Federal government. 

Note: Lead Federal agencies will work with 

selected pilots to finalize the reporting 

requirements and to determine the frequency 

of reporting as part of the performance 

partnership agreement. The lead Federal 

agency for each pilot reserves the right to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70040 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 

17 ‘‘Community of practice’’ means a group of 

pilots that agrees to interact regularly to solve a 

persistent problem or improve practice in an area 

that is important to them and the success of their 

projects. Establishment of communities of practice 

under P3 will enable pilots to meet, discuss, and 

collaborate with each other regarding grantee 

projects. 

18The Agencies cannot grant waivers of 

requirements under mandatory programs or 

programs funded outside of Division H of the Act, 

except where the agency has existing administrative 

authority to provide waivers. The Act requires that 

P3 performance agreements list barriers in 

mandatory programs even though P3 authority does 

not authorize these programs to be blended for pilot 

purposes. While these programs’ funds are not 

eligible for blending funds under P3, applicants are 

encouraged to identify strategies for better 

coordinating the delivery of services with these 

programs to the extent possible. Medicaid, TANF 

and certain Foster Care programs authorized by the 

Social Security Act are examples of mandatory 

programs. 

negotiate the selected interim indicators, 

outcome measures, and project progress 

milestones, and to add relevant performance 

measures as part of the performance 

agreement process. 

(g) Budget and Budget Narrative. 

(1) The applicant must identify 

specific funding levels for the funding 

sources to be used in the pilot, 

specifically— 

(A) For each Federal program, the 

amount of funds to be blended and the 

percentage of total program funding 

received by the applicant that this 

amount represents; 

(B) The total amount of funds from all 

Federal programs that would be blended 

under the pilot; 

(C) The source and amount of any 

non-Federal funds and programs, 

including funds from State, local, tribal, 

philanthropic, and other sources, that 

will be used for the pilot, as well as a 

description of how those funds and 

programs will complement Federal 

funds in the implementation of the 

proposed strategy and activities; and 

(D) The total amount of all funds, 

Federal and non-Federal, that will be 

used to support activities related to the 

pilot. 

(2) The applicant must indicate 

whether in-kind contributions or other 

braided Federal funds will be used to 

support the pilot and, if so, identify 

these contributions. 

(3) The applicant must provide a 

detailed budget and a budget narrative 

that describe how the pilot will use the 

requested start-up grant funds, as well 

as the FY 2014 and FY 2015 Federal 

program funds that the applicant 

proposes to blend. The budget must 

cover all years during which FY 2014 

and FY 2015 Federal funds would be 

used to support the pilot and must 

include at least the first full year of the 

pilot. The applicant should request a 

specific start-up grant amount that is 

between $400,000 and $700,000 and 

describe how the pilot will use these 

start-up funds to support effective 

implementation, such as planning, 

governance, technical assistance, sitespecific evaluation, capacity-building, 

and coordination activities. Examples of 

other uses include supporting the 

measurement of pilot performance and 

results, such as modifications to 

information systems. 

Program Requirements: 

(a) In addition to any site-specific 

evaluations that pilots may undertake, 

the Agencies are initiating a national P3 

evaluation. Each P3 pilot must 

participate fully in any federally 

sponsored P3 evaluation activity, 

including the national evaluation of P3, 

which will consist of the analysis of 

participant characteristics and 

outcomes, an implementation analysis 

at all sites, and rigorous impact 

evaluations of promising interventions 

in selected sites. The applicant must 

acknowledge in writing its 

understanding of these requirements by 

submitting the form provided in 

Appendix A, ‘‘Evaluation Commitment 

Form,’’ as an attachment to its 

application. 

(b) All P3 pilots must participate in a 

community of practice 17 that includes 

an annual in-person meeting of pilot 

sites (paid with grant funding that must 

be reflected in the pilot budget 

submitted; see the FAQ in the 

application package for more 

information) and virtual peer-to-peer 

learning activities. This commitment 

involves each pilot site working with 

the lead Federal agency on a plan for 

supporting its technical assistance 

needs, which can include learning 

activities supported by foundations or 

other non-Federal organizations as well 

as activities financed with Federal funds 

for the pilot. 

(c) P3 pilots must secure necessary 

consent from parents, guardians, 

students, or youth program participants 

to access data for their pilots and any 

evaluations, in accordance with 

applicable Federal, State, local, and 

tribal laws. Applicants must explain 

how they propose to ensure compliance 

with Federal, State, local, and tribal 

privacy laws and regulations as pilot 

partners share data to support effective 

coordination of services and link data to 

track outcome measures and interim 

indicators at the individual level to 

perform, where applicable, a low-cost, 

high-quality evaluation. 

(d) Each P3 pilot, along with other 

non-Federal government entities 

involved in the partnership, must enter 

into a performance agreement that will 

include, at a minimum, the following 

(as required by section 526(c)(2) of the 

Act): 

(1) The length of the agreement; 

(2) The Federal programs and 

federally funded services that are 

involved in the pilot; 

(3) The Federal discretionary funds 

that are being used in the pilot; 

(4) The non-Federal funds that are 

involved in the pilot, by source (which 

may include private funds as well as 

governmental funds) and by amount; 

(5) The State, local, or tribal programs 

that are involved in the pilot and their 

respective roles; 

(6) The populations to be served by 

the pilot; 

(7) The cost-effective Federal 

oversight procedures that will be used 

for the purpose of maintaining the 

necessary level of accountability for the 

use of the Federal discretionary funds; 

(8) The cost-effective State, local, or 

tribal oversight procedures that will be 

used for the purpose of maintaining the 

necessary level of accountability for the 

use of the Federal discretionary funds; 

(9) The outcome (or outcomes) that 

the pilot is designed to achieve; 

(10) The appropriate, reliable, and 

objective outcome-measurement 

methodology that will be used to 

determine whether the pilot is 

achieving, and has achieved, specified 

outcomes; 

(11) The statutory, regulatory, or 

administrative requirements related to 

Federal mandatory programs that are 

barriers to achieving improved 

outcomes of the pilot; 18 and 

(12) Criteria for determining when a 

pilot is not achieving the specified 

outcomes that it is designed to achieve 

and subsequent steps, including: 

(i) The consequences that will result; 

and 

(ii) The corrective actions that will be 

taken in order to increase the likelihood 

that the pilot will achieve such 

specified outcomes. 

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: 

Under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(5 U.S.C. 553), the Department of 

Education generally offers interested 

parties the opportunity to comment on 

proposed definitions, requirements, and 

selection criteria. However, Section 

437(d)(1) of the General Education 

Provisions Act (GEPA) (20 U.S.C. 

1232(d)(1)) allows the Secretary to 

exempt the first grant competition under 

a new or substantially revised program 

authority from rulemaking requirements 

and regulations. 

This is the first P3 grant competition 

and, therefore, it qualifies for this 

exemption. In order to ensure timely 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 70041 

awards, the Secretary has decided to 

forgo public comment on the priorities, 

definitions, requirements, and selection 

criteria under section 437(d)(1) of 

GEPA. These priorities, definitions, 

requirements, and selection criteria will 

apply to the FY 2014 grant competition 

and any subsequent year for which we 

make awards from the list of unfunded 

applicants from this competition. 

Program Authority: Section 526 of 

Division H of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113– 

76). 

Applicable Regulations: 

This application notice (also referred 

to as a notice inviting applications 

(NIA)) is being published before the 

Department adopts the Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles, and Audit Requirements in 2 

CFR part 200. We expect to publish 

interim final regulations that would 

adopt those requirements before 

December 26, 2014, and make those 

regulations effective on that date. 

Because grants awarded under this NIA 

will likely be made after the Department 

adopts the requirements in 2 CFR part 

200, we list as applicable regulations 

both those that are currently effective 

and those that will be effective at the 

time the Department makes grants. 

The current regulations follow: (a) 

The Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 

86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The OMB 

Guidelines to Agencies on 

Governmentwide Debarment and 

Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR 

part 180, as adopted and amended as 

regulations of the Department in 2 CFR 

part 3485. 

At the time we award grants under 

this NIA, the following regulations will 

apply: (a) EDGAR in 34 CFR parts 75, 

77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) 

The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on 

Governmentwide Debarment and 

Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR 

part 180, as adopted and amended as 

regulations of the Department in 2 CFR 

part 3485, and the Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles, and Audit Requirements for 

Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as 

adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 

3474. 

Regardless of the timing of 

publication, the following also applies 

to this NIA: The notice of final 

priority—Promise Zones, published in 

the Federal Register on March 27, 2014 

(79 FR 17035). 

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 

apply to all applicants except federally 

recognized Indian tribes. 

II. Award Information 

Type of Award: Cooperative 

agreement. 

Estimated Available Funds: Up to 

$7,100,000. 

Contingent upon the availability of 

funds and the quality of applications, 

we may make additional awards in 

subsequent years from the list of 

unfunded applicants from this 

competition. 

Estimated Range of Awards: $400,000 

to $700,000. 

Estimated Average Size of Award: 

$550,000. 

Estimated Number of Awards: 10. 

Note: The Agencies are not bound by any 

estimates in this notice. 

Project Period: Not to extend beyond 

September 30, 2018. 

III. Eligibility Information 

1. Eligible applicants: An application 

must be submitted by a lead applicant 

on behalf of a partnership that involves 

all public and private organizations 

(including non-profit, business, 

industry, and labor organizations) that 

will participate in pilot implementation 

and governance. The lead applicant 

must be a State, local, or tribal 

government entity, represented by a 

Chief Executive, such as a governor, 

mayor, or other elected leader, or the 

head of a State, local, or tribal agency. 

In addition to formally submitting the 

application, the official representing the 

lead applicant will serve as the primary 

official who is responsible for the pilot 

project if the proposal is selected as a 

pilot. A private, non-profit organization 

is not an eligible applicant for a pilot; 

however, it may have a significant role 

in the design, governance, and 

implementation of a pilot and may, if 

appropriate, be a signatory to the 

performance agreement. For more 

information on the potential roles and 

participation of non-profit organizations 

in a pilot, see the FAQs in the 

application package. 

For each application selected as a 

pilot, the respective representatives of 

all participating State, local, and tribal 

governments must be parties to the 

performance agreement governing the 

pilot. For example, when a P3 pilot 

proposed at the local or tribal level is 

financed with funds administered by a 

State, the administering State agency 

must be a party to the agreement and 

must agree to any waivers or other 

proposals that are needed to implement 

the pilot and also fall under that State 

agency’s jurisdiction. If a State or group 

of States proposes a pilot that would be 

implemented only in certain 

communities and would involve 

participation by local government 

jurisdictions, these jurisdictions will 

need to be party to the agreement and 

agree to implement the pilot as 

proposed by the State(s). 

2. Cost-Sharing or Matching: This 

program does not require cost-sharing or 

matching. 

IV. Application and Submission 

Information 

1. Address to Request Application 

Package: Braden Goetz, U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue 

SW., Room 11141, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202. Telephone: (202) 245–7405. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain a copy of the application package 

in an accessible format (e.g., braille, 

large print, audiotape, or compact disc) 

by contacting the program contact 

person listed in this section. 

2. a. Content and Form of Application 

Submission: Requirements concerning 

the content of an application, together 

with the forms you must submit, are in 

the application package for this 

competition. 

Notice of Intent to Apply: January 8, 

2015. 

Note: Submission of a notice of intent to 

apply is optional. 

Page Limit: The application narrative 

is where you, the applicant, address the 

selection criteria that reviewers use to 

evaluate your application. We 

recommend that you limit the 

application narrative to no more than 40 

pages, using the following standards: 

• A ‘‘page’’ is 8.5′′ x 11′′, on one side 

only, with 1′′ margins at the top, bottom, 

and both sides. 

• 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. 

• Use a font that is either 12 point or 

larger or no smaller than 10 pitch 

(characters per inch). 

• 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. 

The recommended page limit does not 

apply to the application cover sheet; the 

detailed annual budget; the assurances 

and certifications; or the abstract, the 

absolute and competitive priorities, the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70042 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 

resumes, the bibliography, or the letters 

of commitment and MOUs. However, 

the recommended page limit does apply 

to all of the application narrative 

section. 

b. Submission of Proprietary 

Information: 

Given the types of projects that may 

be proposed in applications for 

Performance Partnership Pilots, your 

application may include business 

information that you consider 

proprietary. The Department’s 

regulations define ‘‘business 

information’’ in 34 CFR 5.11. 

Because we plan to make successful 

applications available to the public, and 

may make all applications available, 

you may wish to request confidentiality 

of business information. 

Consistent with Executive Order 

12600, please designate in your 

application any information that you 

feel is exempt from disclosure under 

Exemption 4 of the Freedom of 

Information Act. In the appropriate 

Appendix section of your application, 

under ‘‘Other Attachments Form,’’ 

please list the page number or numbers 

on which we can find this information. 

For additional information, please see 

34 CFR 5.11(c). 

3. Submission Dates and Times: 

Applications Available: November 24, 

2014. 

Deadline for Notice of Intent to 

Apply: January 8, 2015. 

Note: Submission of a notice of intent 

to apply is optional. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: March 4, 2015. 

Applications for grants under this 

competition must be submitted 

electronically using the Grants.gov 

Apply site (Grants.gov). For information 

(including dates and times) about how 

to submit your application 

electronically, or in paper format by 

mail or hand delivery if you qualify for 

an exception to the electronic 

submission requirement, please refer to 

section IV. 7. 

Other Submission Requirements of 

this notice. 

We do not consider an application 

that does not comply with the deadline 

requirements. 

Individuals with disabilities who 

need an accommodation or auxiliary aid 

in connection with the application 

process should contact the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If 

the Department provides an 

accommodation or auxiliary aid to an 

individual with a disability in 

connection with the application 

process, the individual’s application 

remains subject to all other 

requirements and limitations in this 

notice. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review: May 4, 2015. 

4. Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. 

Information about Intergovernmental 

Review of Federal Programs under 

Executive Order 12372 is in the 

application package for this 

competition. 

5. Funding Restrictions: We reference 

regulations outlining funding 

restrictions in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

6. Data Universal Numbering System 

Number, Taxpayer Identification 

Number, and System for Award 

Management: To do business with the 

Department of Education, you must— 

a. Have a Data Universal Numbering 

System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer 

Identification Number (TIN); 

b. Register both your DUNS number 

and TIN with the System for Award 

Management (SAM) (formerly the 

Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the 

Government’s primary registrant 

database; 

c. Provide your DUNS number and 

TIN on your application; and 

d. Maintain an active SAM 

registration with current information 

while your application is under review 

by the Department and, if you are 

awarded a grant, during the project 

period. 

You can obtain a DUNS number from 

Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number 

can be created within one to two 

business days. 

If you are a corporate entity, agency, 

institution, or organization, you can 

obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue 

Service. If you are an individual, you 

can obtain a TIN from the Internal 

Revenue Service or the Social Security 

Administration. If you need a new TIN, 

please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to 

become active. 

The SAM registration process can take 

approximately seven business days, but 

may take upwards of several weeks, 

depending on the completeness and 

accuracy of the data entered into the 

SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you 

think you might want to apply for 

Federal financial assistance under a 

program administered by the 

Department, please allow sufficient time 

to obtain and register your DUNS 

number and TIN. We strongly 

recommend that you register early. 

Note: Once your SAM registration is active, 

you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the 

information to be available in Grants.gov and 

before you can submit an application through 

Grants.gov. 

If you are currently registered with 

SAM, you may not need to make any 

changes. However, please make certain 

that the TIN associated with your DUNS 

number is correct. Also note that you 

will need to update your registration 

annually. This may take three or more 

business days. 

Information about SAM is available at 

www.SAM.gov. To further assist you 

with obtaining and registering your 

DUNS number and TIN in SAM or 

updating your existing SAM account, 

we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, 

which you can find at: http://

www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/samfaqs.html. 

In addition, if you are submitting your 

application via Grants.gov, you must (1) 

be designated by your organization as an 

Authorized Organization Representative 

(AOR); and (2) register yourself with 

Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these 

steps are outlined at the following 

Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/

web/grants/register.html. 

7. Other Submission Requirements: 

Applications for competition must be 

submitted electronically unless you 

qualify for an exception to this 

requirement in accordance with the 

instructions in this section. 

a. Electronic Submission of 

Applications. 

Applications for grants under the 

Performance Partnerships Pilots 

program, CFDA number 84.420A, must 

be submitted electronically using the 

Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site 

at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, 

you will be able to download a copy of 

the application package, complete it 

offline, and then upload and submit 

your application. You may not email an 

electronic copy of a grant application to 

us. 

We will reject your application if you 

submit it in paper format unless, as 

described elsewhere in this section, you 

qualify for one of the exceptions to the 

electronic submission requirement and 

submit, no later than two weeks before 

the application deadline date, a written 

statement to the Department that you 

qualify for one of these exceptions. 

Further information regarding 

calculation of the date that is two weeks 

before the application deadline date is 

provided later in this section under 

Exception to Electronic Submission 

Requirement. 

You may access the electronic grant 

application for P3 at www.Grants.gov. 

You must search for the downloadable 

application package for this competition 

by the CFDA number. Do not include 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 70043 

the CFDA number’s alpha suffix in your 

search (e.g., search for 84.420, not 

84.420A). 

Please note the following: 

• When you enter the Grants.gov site, 

you will find information about 

submitting an application electronically 

through the site, as well as the hours of 

operation. 

• Applications received by Grants.gov 

are date and time stamped. Your 

application must be fully uploaded and 

submitted and must be date and time 

stamped by the Grants.gov system no 

later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC 

time, on the application deadline date. 

Except as otherwise noted in this 

section, we will not accept your 

application if it is received—that is, date 

and time stamped by the Grants.gov 

system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, 

DC time, on the application deadline 

date. We do not consider an application 

that does not comply with the deadline 

requirements. When we retrieve your 

application from Grants.gov, we will 

notify you if we are rejecting your 

application because it was date and time 

stamped by the Grants.gov system after 

4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on 

the application deadline date. 

• The amount of time it can take to 

upload an application will vary 

depending on a variety of factors, 

including the size of the application and 

the speed of your Internet connection. 

Therefore, we strongly recommend that 

you do not wait until the application 

deadline date to begin the submission 

process through Grants.gov. 

• You should review and follow the 

Education Submission Procedures for 

submitting an application through 

Grants.gov that are included in the 

application package for this competition 

to ensure that you submit your 

application in a timely manner to the 

Grants.gov system. You can also find the 

Education Submission Procedures 

pertaining to Grants.gov under News 

and Events on the Department’s G5 

system home page at www.G5.gov. 

• You will not receive additional 

point value because you submit your 

application in electronic format, nor 

will we penalize you if you qualify for 

an exception to the electronic 

submission requirement, as described 

elsewhere in this section, and submit 

your application in paper format. 

• You must submit all documents 

electronically, including all information 

you typically provide on the following 

forms: the Application for Federal 

Assistance (SF 424), the Department of 

Education Supplemental Information for 

SF 424, Budget Information—NonConstruction Programs (ED 524), and all 

necessary assurances and certifications. 

• You must upload any narrative 

sections and all other attachments to 

your application as files in a PDF 

(Portable Document) read-only, nonmodifiable format. Do not upload an 

interactive or fillable PDF file. If you 

upload a file type other than a readonly, non-modifiable PDF or submit a 

password-protected file, we will not 

review that material. 

• Your electronic application must 

comply with any page-limit 

requirements described in this notice. 

• After you electronically submit 

your application, you will receive from 

Grants.gov an automatic notification of 

receipt that contains a Grants.gov 

tracking number. (This notification 

indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not 

receipt by the Department.) The 

Department then will retrieve your 

application from Grants.gov and send a 

second notification to you by email. 

This second notification indicates that 

the Department has received your 

application and has assigned your 

application a PR/Award number (an EDspecified identifying number unique to 

your application). 

• We may request that you provide us 

original signatures on forms at a later 

date. 

Application Deadline Date Extension 

in Case of Technical Issues with the 

Grants.gov System: If you are 

experiencing problems submitting your 

application through Grants.gov, please 

contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, 

toll free, at 1–800–518–4726. You must 

obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case 

Number and must keep a record of it. 

If you are prevented from 

electronically submitting your 

application on the application deadline 

date because of technical problems with 

the Grants.gov system, we will grant you 

an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., 

Washington, DC time, the following 

business day to enable you to transmit 

your application electronically or by 

hand delivery. You also may mail your 

application by following the mailing 

instructions described elsewhere in this 

notice. 

If you submit an application after 

4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on 

the application deadline date, please 

contact the person listed under For 

Further Information Contact in section 

VII of this notice and provide an 

explanation of the technical problem 

you experienced with Grants.gov, along 

with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case 

Number. We will accept your 

application if we can confirm that a 

technical problem occurred with the 

Grants.gov system and that that problem 

affected your ability to submit your 

application by 4:30:00 p.m., 

Washington, DC time, on the 

application deadline date. The 

Department will contact you after a 

determination is made on whether your 

application will be accepted. 

Note: The extensions to which we refer in 

this section apply only to the unavailability 

of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov 

system. We will not grant you an extension 

if you failed to fully register to submit your 

application to Grants.gov before the 

application deadline date and time or if the 

technical problem you experienced is 

unrelated to the Grants.gov system. 

Exception to Electronic Submission 

Requirement: You qualify for an 

exception to the electronic submission 

requirement, and may submit your 

application in paper format, if you are 

unable to submit an application through 

the Grants.gov system because–– 

• You do not have access to the 

Internet; or 

• You do not have the capacity to 

upload large documents to the 

Grants.gov system; 

and 

• No later than two weeks before the 

application deadline date (14 calendar 

days or, if the fourteenth calendar day 

before the application deadline date 

falls on a Federal holiday, the next 

business day following the Federal 

holiday), you mail or fax a written 

statement to the Department, explaining 

which of the two grounds for an 

exception prevent you from using the 

Internet to submit your application. 

If you mail your written statement to 

the Department, it must be postmarked 

no later than two weeks before the 

application deadline date. If you fax 

your written statement to the 

Department, we must receive the faxed 

statement no later than two weeks 

before the application deadline date. 

Address and mail or fax your 

statement to: Braden Goetz, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., Room 11141, PCP, 

Washington, DC 20202. FAX: (202) 245– 

7838. 

Your paper application must be 

submitted in accordance with the mail 

or hand delivery instructions described 

in this notice. 

b. Submission of Paper Applications 

by Mail. 

If you qualify for an exception to the 

electronic submission requirement, you 

may mail (through the U.S. Postal 

Service or a commercial carrier) your 

application to the Department. You 

must mail the original and two copies 

of your application, on or before the 

application deadline date, to the 

Department at the following address: 

U.S. Department of Education, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70044 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 

Application Control Center, Attention: 

CFDA Number 84.420A, LBJ Basement 

Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20202–4260. 

You must show proof of mailing 

consisting of one of the following: 

(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service 

postmark. 

(2) A legible mail receipt with the 

date of mailing stamped by the U.S. 

Postal Service. 

(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or 

receipt from a commercial carrier. 

(4) Any other proof of mailing 

acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. 

Department of Education. 

If you mail your application through 

the U.S. Postal Service, we do not 

accept either of the following as proof 

of mailing: 

(1) A private metered postmark. 

(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by 

the U.S. Postal Service. 

If your application is postmarked after 

the application deadline date, we will 

not consider your application. 

Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not 

uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before 

relying on this method, you should check 

with your local post office. 

c. Submission of Paper Applications 

by Hand Delivery. 

If you qualify for an exception to the 

electronic submission requirement, you 

(or a courier service) may deliver your 

paper application to the Department by 

hand. You must deliver the original and 

two copies of your application by hand, 

on or before the application deadline 

date, to the Department at the following 

address: U.S. Department of Education, 

Application Control Center, Attention: 

CFDA Number 84.420A, 550 12th Street 

SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–4260. 

The Application Control Center 

accepts hand deliveries daily between 

8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, 

DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, 

and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or 

Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If 

you mail or hand deliver your 

application to the Department— 

(1) You must indicate on the envelope 

and—if not provided by the 

Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 

the CFDA number, including suffix 

letter, if any, of the competition under 

which you are submitting your 

application; and 

(2) The Application Control Center 

will mail to you a notification of receipt 

of your grant application. If you do not 

receive this notification within 15 

business days from the application 

deadline date, you should call the U.S. 

Department of Education Application 

Control Center at (202) 245–6288. 

V. Application Review Information 

1. Selection Criteria. We are 

establishing the following selection 

criteria for the FY 2014 grant 

competition and any subsequent year 

for which we make awards from the list 

of unfunded applicants from this 

competition. Eligible applicants may 

receive up to 100 total points based on 

the extent to which their applications 

address these selection criteria. The 

number of points that may be awarded 

for each criterion is indicated in 

parentheses next to the criterion. An 

applicant’s final score will include both 

points awarded based on selection 

criteria and also any points awarded for 

the three competitive preference 

priorities. 

A. Need for Project (5 Points) 

In determining the need for the 

proposed project, we will consider the 

extent to which the applicant used a 

comprehensive needs assessment 

completed within the previous three 

years that draws on representative data 

on youth in the jurisdiction(s) to be 

served by the pilot that are 

disaggregated according to relevant 

demographic factors to: (1) Show 

disparities in outcomes among key subpopulations; and (2) identify an 

appropriate target population of 

disconnected youth with a high level of 

need. Examples of relevant demographic 

factors include race, ethnicity, gender, 

age, disability status, involvement in 

systems such as foster care or justice, 

status as pregnant or parenting, and 

other key factors selected by the 

applicant. 

B. Need for Requested Flexibility, 

Including Blending of Funds and Other 

Waivers (10 Points) 

In determining the need for the 

requested flexibility, including blending 

of funds and other waivers, we will 

consider the following factors— 

(1) The extent to which the applicant 

presents evidence that specific Federal 

barriers are hindering successful 

achievement of outcomes for the target 

population of disconnected youth 

identified by the applicant and cites the 

relevant statute(s), regulation(s), and/or 

administrative requirement(s) for which 

it is seeking flexibility, including 

waivers (5 points); and 

(2) The extent to which the applicant 

provides a justification of how 

requested flexibility, including blending 

funds and other waivers, will reduce 

barriers, increase efficiency, support 

implementation of the pilot, and 

produce significantly better outcomes 

for the target population(s) (5 points). 

C. Project Design (25 Points) 

In determining the strength of the 

project design, we will consider the 

following factors— 

(1) The extent to which the applicant 

presents a clear and logical plan that is 

likely to improve outcomes significantly 

for the target population, by addressing 

the gaps and the disparities identified 

through the needs assessment, including 

the extent to which— 

(a) The inputs and activities shown in 

the logic model are necessary and 

sufficient to achieve the project’s 

objectives, and 

(b) The assumptions of the logic 

model are identified and a rationale is 

provided for them. For example, 

applicants proposing job training or 

employment strategies should include 

data on the demand for particular 

occupations in the relevant geographic 

areas (10 points); 

(2) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that the pilot will use 

evidence-based and evidence-informed 

interventions, in addition to systems 

change, as documented by citations to 

the relevant evidence (5 points); 

Note: Applicants should cite the studies on 

service interventions and system reform that 

informed their pilot design and explain the 

relevance of the cited evidence to the 

proposed project in terms of subject matter 

and evaluation evidence. 

(3) The extent to which the pilot will 

provide intensive, comprehensive, and 

sustained service pathways and 

coordinated approaches that are likely 

to improve outcomes significantly over 

the short, medium, and long term by 

helping individuals progress seamlessly 

from one educational stepping stone to 

another, across work-based training and 

education, or through other relevant 

programmatic milestones to improve 

outcomes. For example, a pilot might 

prevent gaps in service that would 

jeopardize the achievement of outcomes 

by creating a seamless progression of 

services that provide continuous 

support as needed to the target 

population (5 points); and 

(4) For Federal programs that are 

proposed to provide funding for pilots, 

the extent to which the applicant 

explains how the use of funds for the 

pilot: (a) Will not result in denying or 

restricting the eligibility of individuals 

for services that (in whole or in part) are 

otherwise funded by these programs; 

and (b) based on the best available 

information, will not otherwise 

adversely affect vulnerable populations 

that are the recipients of those services. 

If the applicant proposes to include FY 

2014 competitive grant funds that have 

already been awarded, the extent to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 70045 

which the applicant demonstrates that 

the scope, objectives, and target 

population(s) of the existing award align 

with the proposed pilot (see the FAQs 

included in the application package for 

more information) (5 points). 

D. Work Plan and Project Management 

(10 Points) 

In determining the strength of the 

work plan and project management, we 

will consider the extent to which the 

applicant presents a strong work plan 

and project management approach that 

includes— 

(1) A detailed timeline and 

implementation milestones, including— 

(a) A statement of when any necessary 

preparatory work will be completed, 

which must be within 180 days of being 

awarded pilot start-up funding; 

(b) The expected start date of a project 

manager, the expected award dates of 

contracts and other authorized 

subawards, and expected dates for 

establishing agreements among the 

partners; 

(c) The start date of the pilot services, 

such as participant intake and services; 

(d) When the partnership will begin to 

implement pilot services or changes to 

administrative systems and policy and 

which partners are responsible for key 

tasks; 

(e) The number of participants 

expected to be served under the pilot for 

each period, such as quarterly or 

annually (for example, number of 

participants enrolled, and the number 

achieving specified education, 

employment, and other outcomes); and 

(f) For an applicant that is proposing 

an evaluation (as described in 

competitive preference priorities 1 and 

2), when it will begin evaluation 

activities, including execution of a 

contract with an independent evaluator. 

(2) A description of how the proposed 

budget and budget narrative align with 

the work plan, identifying how each 

implementation milestone will be 

adequately funded as outlined in the 

proposed budget; 

(3) A description of any existing or 

anticipated barriers to implementation 

and how they will be overcome; and 

(4) A description of the professional 

qualifications that will be required of 

the project manager and other key 

personnel, including a description of 

how such qualifications are sufficient to 

ensure proper management of all grant 

activities, such as timely reporting and 

the ability to manage a strategic 

partnership (10 points). 

Note: If the program manager or other key 

personnel are already on staff, the applicant 

should provide this person’s resume or 

curriculum vitae. 

E. Partnership Capacity (15 Points) 

In determining the strength and 

capacity of the proposed pilot 

partnership, we will consider the 

following factors— 

(1) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that it has an effective 

governance structure in which partners 

that are necessary to successfully 

implement the pilot are represented and 

partners have the necessary authority, 

resources, expertise, and incentives to 

achieve the pilot’s goals, resolve 

unforeseen issues, and sustain efforts to 

the extent possible after the project 

period ends, including by 

demonstrating the extent to which, and 

how, participating partners have 

successfully collaborated to improve 

outcomes for disconnected youth in the 

past. The proposed governance structure 

should reflect a plan for effective 

cooperation across levels of government, 

including a description of the State, 

local, and tribal roles in the partnership, 

or across entities within the same level 

of government, to improve outcomes for 

disconnected youth, such as through 

coordinated program delivery, easier 

program navigation for participants, or 

identification and resolution of State 

and local policy barriers (10 points); 

(2) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that its proposal was 

designed with input from all relevant 

stakeholders, including disconnected 

youth and other community partners. 

Where the project design includes job 

training strategies, the extent of 

employer input and engagement in the 

identification of skills and competencies 

needed by employers, the development 

of the curriculum, and the offering of 

work-based learning opportunities, 

including pre-apprenticeship and 

registered apprenticeship, will be 

considered (5 points). 

F. Data Capacity (30 Points) 

In determining the strength of the 

applicant’s data capacity, we will 

consider the following factors— 

(1) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates the capacity to collect, 

analyze, and use data for decisionmaking, learning, continuous 

improvement, and accountability, and 

has a strong plan to bridge the gaps in 

its ability to do so, including the extent 

to which the applicant has, and will 

continue to: 

(a) Manage and maintain 

computerized administrative data 

systems to track program participants, 

services, and outcomes; 

(b) Execute data-sharing agreements 

with programs or organizations to share 

information with program partners and 

evaluators for case management, 

performance management, and 

evaluation purposes in accordance with 

Federal, State, local, and other privacy 

laws and requirements; 

(c) Use data to determine costeffective strategies for improving 

outcomes; and 

(d) Regularly analyze program data to 

assess the pilot’s progress, identify 

operational strengths and weaknesses 

and determine how implementation can 

be strengthened to improve outcomes (5 

points). 

(2) The strength of the applicant’s 

plan to manage and link data in ways 

that comply with all relevant Federal, 

State, and local privacy laws and 

regulations to ensure the protection of 

personally identifiable information (5 

points). 

(3) The extent to which the applicant 

shows how the outcomes of the 

proposed pilot are likely to be a 

significant improvement compared with 

what might have occurred in its 

absence, both during the pilot project 

period and, for longer-term outcomes, 

beyond the project period (10 points). 

(4) The extent to which proposed 

outcome measures and interim 

indicators, as well as their measurement 

methodologies and progress milestones, 

are appropriate and sufficient to gauge 

progress toward pilot objectives (5 

points). 

(5) The extent to which the data 

sources for the outcome measures and 

interim indicators will be accessible and 

independently audited or validated for 

accuracy (5 points). 

G. Budget and Budget Narrative (5 

Points) 

In determining the adequacy of the 

resources that will be committed to 

support the project, we will consider the 

extent to which the costs are reasonable 

in relation to the objectives, design, and 

potential significance of the project. 

2. Review and Selection Process: The 

Department will screen applications 

that are submitted in accordance with 

the requirements in this notice, and will 

determine which applications are 

eligible to be read based on whether 

they have met the eligibility and 

application requirements established by 

this notice. 

The Department will use reviewers 

with knowledge and expertise on issues 

related to improving outcomes for 

disconnected youth to score the 

selection criteria. The Department will 

thoroughly screen all reviewers for 

conflicts of interest to ensure a fair and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70046 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 

competitive review. Reviewers with 

expertise in evaluation will score 

competitive preference priorities 1 and 

2. The Department will assign 2 points 

for competitive preference priority 3 if 

the application includes a letter from 

the lead organization of a designated 

Promise Zone describing the 

contribution of the applicant’s proposed 

activities. 

Technical scoring. Reviewers will 

read, prepare a written evaluation, and 

assign a technical score to the 

applications assigned to their panel, 

using the selection criteria provided in 

this notice, competitive preference 

priorities 1 and 2, and the scoring rubric 

in Appendix D. 

The Department will then prepare a 

rank order of applications based on their 

technical scores. 

Flexibility, including blending of 

funds and other waivers. Using this rank 

order, representatives of the Agencies 

that administer programs under which 

flexibility in Federal requirements is 

sought will evaluate whether the 

flexibility, including blending of funds 

and other waivers, requested by topscoring applicants meets the statutory 

requirements for Performance 

Partnership Pilots and is otherwise 

appropriate (as described in Appendix 

B). For example, if an applicant is 

seeking flexibility under programs 

administered by HHS and DOL, its 

requests for flexibility will be reviewed 

by HHS and DOL officials. Applicants 

may be asked to participate in an 

interview at this point in the process in 

order to clarify requests for flexibility 

and other aspects of their proposals. 

For applicants that propose to include 

funds from FY 2014 competitive grants 

that have already been awarded, the 

flexibility review will include 

consideration of whether the scope, 

objectives, and target populations of the 

existing competitive grant award(s) are 

sufficiently and appropriately aligned 

with the proposed pilot. Any changes in 

terms and conditions of the existing 

competitive grant award(s) required for 

pilot purposes must be justified by the 

applicant (see FAQ included in the 

application package). The Agencies will 

review those requests on a case-by-case 

basis. 

If 25 or fewer applications are 

received, the technical scoring and 

reviews of flexibility requests may be 

conducted concurrently. 

Selecting finalists. Agency officials 

may recommend the selection of up to 

ten projects as Performance Partnership 

Pilots. In accordance with 34 CFR 

75.217(d) and in consultation with the 

other Agencies, the Secretary will select 

finalists after considering the rank 

ordering, the recommendations of the 

Agencies that administer the programs 

for which the applicants are seeking 

flexibility and other information 

including an applicant’s performance 

and use of funds and compliance 

history under a previous award under 

any Agency program. In selecting pilots, 

the agencies may consider high-ranking 

applications meeting absolute priority 2 

or absolute priority 3 separately to 

ensure that there is a diversity of pilots. 

In addition, as required by the Act, each 

pilot must meet all statutory criteria. 

For each finalist, a lead Federal 

agency designated by OMB will 

negotiate a performance agreement. If a 

performance agreement cannot be 

finalized for any applicant within 60 

days, an alternative applicant may be 

selected as a finalist instead. The 

recommended projects will be 

considered finalists until performance 

agreements are signed by all parties, and 

pilot designation and start-up grant 

funds will be awarded only after 

execution of each finalist’s performance 

agreement. 

In addition, in making a competitive 

grant award, the Secretary also requires 

various assurances including those 

applicable to Federal civil rights laws 

that prohibit discrimination in programs 

or activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance from the Department of 

Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 

108.8, and 110.23). 

3. Special Conditions: Under current 

34 CFR 74.14 and 80.12 and, when 

grants are made under this NIA, 2 CFR 

3474.10, the Secretary may impose 

special conditions and, in appropriate 

circumstances, high-risk conditions on a 

grant if the applicant or grantee is not 

financially stable; has a history of 

unsatisfactory performance; has a 

financial or other management system 

that does not meet the standards in 34 

CFR parts 74 or 80, as applicable or, 

when grants are awarded, the standards 

in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not 

fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; 

or is otherwise not responsible. 

VI. Award Administration Information 

1. Award Notices: If your application 

is successful, we notify your U.S. 

Representative and U.S. Senators and 

send you a Grant Award Notification 

(GAN); or we may send you an email 

containing a link to access an electronic 

version of your GAN. We may also 

notify you informally. 

If your application is not evaluated or 

not selected for funding, we will notify 

you. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements: We identify 

administrative and national policy 

requirements in the application package 

and reference these and other 

requirements in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations section of 

this notice and include these and other 

specific conditions in the GAN. The 

GAN also incorporates your approved 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a 

grant under this competition, you must 

ensure that you have in place the 

necessary processes and systems to 

comply with the reporting requirements 

in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive 

funding under the competition. This 

does not apply if you have an exception 

under 2 CFR 170.110(b). 

(b) At the end of your project period, 

you must submit a final performance 

report, including financial information, 

as outlined in the P3 performance 

agreement. If you receive a multi-year 

award, you must submit an annual 

performance report that provides the 

most current performance and financial 

expenditure information as directed by 

the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The 

Secretary may also require more 

frequent performance reports under 34 

CFR 75.720(c). For specific 

requirements on reporting, please go to 

www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/

appforms/appforms.html. 

4. Performance Measures: 

Performance measures and interim 

indicators, along with required 

reporting, will be outlined in P3 

performance agreements. 

VII. Agency Contact 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Braden Goetz, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 11141, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202. Telephone: (202) 245–7405 or by 

email: disconnectedyouth@ed.gov. 

If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the 

FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

VIII. Other Information 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document 

and a copy of the application package in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT in section VII of this notice. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 70047 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: November 19, 2014. 

Johan E. Uvin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Career, 

Technical, and Adult Education. 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Evaluation Commitment Form 

Appendix B: Examples of Programs 

Potentially Eligible for Inclusion in 

Pilots 

Appendix C: Competitive Preference 

Priorities 1 and 2 Evaluation Submission 

Requirements 

Appendix D: Scoring Rubric 

Appendix A: Evaluation Commitment 

Form 

An authorized executive of the lead 

applicant and all other partners, including 

State, local, tribal, and non-governmental 

organizations that would be involved in the 

pilot’s implementation, must sign this form 

and submit it as an attachment to the grant 

application. The form is not considered in 

the recommended application page limit. 

Commitment To Participate in Required 

Evaluation Activities 

As the lead applicant or a partner 

proposing to implement a Performance 

Partnership Pilot through a Federal grant, I/ 

we agree to carry out the following activities, 

which are considered evaluation 

requirements applicable to all pilots: 

Facilitate Data Collection: I/we understand 

that the award of this grant requires me/us 

to facilitate the collection and/or 

transmission of data for evaluation and 

performance monitoring purposes to the lead 

Federal agency and/or its national evaluator 

in accordance with applicable Federal, State, 

and local, and tribal laws, including privacy 

laws. 

The type of data that will be collected 

includes, but is not limited to, the following: 

• Demographic information, including 

participants’ gender, race, age, school status, 

and employment status; 

• Information on the services that 

participants receive; and 

• Outcome measures and interim outcome 

indicators, linked at the individual level, 

which will be used to measure the effects of 

the pilots. 

The lead Federal agency will provide more 

details to grantees on the data items required 

for performance and evaluation after grants 

have been awarded. 

Participate in Evaluation: I/we understand 

that participation and full cooperation in the 

national evaluation of the Performance 

Partnership Pilot is a condition of this grant 

award. I/we understand that the national 

evaluation will include an implementation 

systems analysis and, for certain sites as 

appropriate, may also include an impact 

evaluation. My/our participation will include 

facilitating site visits and interviews; 

collaborating in study procedures, including 

random assignment, if necessary; and 

transmitting data that are needed for the 

evaluation of participants in the study 

sample, including those who may be in a 

control group. 

Participate in Random Assignment: I/we 

agree that if our Performance Partnership 

Pilot or certain activities in the Pilot is 

selected for an impact evaluation as part of 

the national evaluation, it may be necessary 

to select participants for admission to 

Performance Partnership Pilot by a random 

lottery, using procedures established by the 

evaluator. 

Secure Consent: I/we agree to include a 

consent form for, as appropriate, parents/

guardians and students/participants in the 

application or enrollment packet for all youth 

in organizations implementing the 

Performance Partnership Pilot consistent 

with any Federal, State, local, and tribal laws 

that apply. The parental/participant consent 

forms will be collected prior to the 

acceptance of participants into Performance 

Partnership Pilot and before sharing data 

with the evaluator for the purpose of 

evaluating the Performance Partnership Pilot. 

SIGNATURES 

Lead Applicant 

Print Name lllllllllllllll

Signature llllllllllllllll

Organization llllllllllllll

Date llllllllllllllllll

Partner 

Print Name lllllllllllllll

Signature llllllllllllllll

Organization llllllllllllll

Date llllllllllllllllll

Partner 

Print Name lllllllllllllll

Signature llllllllllllllll

Organization llllllllllllll

Date llllllllllllllllll

Partner 

Print Name lllllllllllllll

Signature llllllllllllllll

Organization llllllllllllll

Date llllllllllllllllll

Partner 

Print Name lllllllllllllll

Signature llllllllllllllll

Organization llllllllllllll

Date llllllllllllllllll

Partner 

Print Name lllllllllllllll

Signature llllllllllllllll

Organization llllllllllllll

Date llllllllllllllllll

Appendix B: Examples of Programs 

Potentially Eligible for Inclusion in 

Pilots 

Programs that may be included in pilots 

are limited to those that target disconnected 

youth, or are designed to prevent youth from 

disconnecting from school or work, that 

provide education, training, employment, 

and other related social services. Programs 

that serve youth as well as other populations 

may still be eligible for inclusion. In general, 

the Agencies will consider whether the 

inclusion of a program in a pilot is consistent 

with, or conflicts with, other significant legal 

or policy considerations. 

The Agencies recognize that for 

Performance Partnership Pilots to be 

successful they must protect vulnerable 

populations and individuals served by 

programs included in each pilot at the same 

time that funds are blended and pilots are 

given new flexibilities. For a program to be 

blended as part of a pilot, the Federal agency 

must determine that doing so will: (1) Not 

deny or restrict an individual’s eligibility to 

services; and (2) not adversely affect 

vulnerable populations that receive services 

from that program. More information on 

these determinations is provided in the FAQ 

section of the application package. 

Some programs may introduce a greater 

likelihood of adversely affecting vulnerable 

populations, if blended in a pilot, and 

therefore warrant greater levels of review 

during the application process to ensure 

appropriate safeguards. Certain programs 

may be particularly well suited for blending 

if they have broad authority or a purpose 

well aligned with that of a Performance 

Partnership Pilot and therefore have very low 

risk of violating the P3 statutory protections. 

On the other hand, other programs may not 

be appropriate for a pilot at all if the 

Agencies determine that their inclusion 

would infringe on the statutory protections, 

or that inclusion would undermine important 

Federal policies or objectives. Where Federal 

programs are not eligible or suitable for 

blending under P3, pilots may consider how 

to braid funding streams, or align them in 

ways that promote more effective and 

efficient outcomes even though each stream 

of funds maintains a separate identity and 

remains subject to the requirements of the 

program for which the funds were 

appropriated. 

To assist applicants in determining 

whether to propose various Federal programs 

for inclusion in a pilot using funds from FY 

2014 and later years, the Agencies have 

identified three categories of risk as well as 

specific examples of the types of programs in 

each category. This resource identifies 

programs that should likely not be included 

in a pilot and those for which agencies 

believe that applicants would have either a 

notably high or low burden of proof to show 

that the statutory protections will not be 

violated. This is not a comprehensive list of 

all programs that may be involved in a pilot, 

and applicants should consider the context of 

their localities in determining which 

programs to blend. 

In addition, the inclusion of FY 2014 

competitive grants that have already been 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70048 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 

awarded will merit special consideration on 

a case-by-case basis to determine whether the 

scope, objectives, and target population(s) of 

the existing competitive grant award(s) 

appropriately and sufficiently align with, as 

well as enhance, the scope, objectives, and 

target population(s) of the proposed pilot. 

Category 1: Programs With Low Likelihood 

of Adversely Affecting Vulnerable 

Populations 

The Agencies have identified these 

programs as presenting a low likelihood of 

adversely affecting vulnerable populations if 

they are included in a pilot. The Agencies 

would require assurances, but not plans, for 

ensuring the protection of individuals and 

vulnerable populations in receiving services. 

These programs may align with the 

purpose or requirements of Performance 

Partnership Pilots, or they may have 

sufficiently broad authority that blending 

those funds would be highly unlikely to 

violate the statutory protections. 

Agency Program 

Corporation for National and Community Service ................................... Americorps State Grants. 

Corporation for National and Community Service ................................... Social Innovation Fund. 

Department of Education—Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education.Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. 

Department of Education—Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education.Career and Technical Education. 

Department of Education—Office of Innovation and Improvement ......... Promise Neighborhoods. 

Institute of Museum and Library Services ................................................ National Leadership Grants for Museums/National Leadership Grants 

for Libraries. 

Department of Labor—Employment and Training Administration ........... Workforce Investment Act—Adult. 

Department of Labor—Employment and Training Administration ........... Workforce Investment Act—Youth. 

Department of Labor—Employment and Training Administration ........... YouthBuild. 

Department of Labor—Employment and Training Administration ........... Workforce Innovation Fund. 

Department of Labor—Employment and Training Administration ........... Workforce Investment Act Section 166 Indian and Native American 

Youth Program. 

Category 2: Programs Requiring Significant 

Review To Ensure That Vulnerable 

Populations Are Not Adversely Affected 

The Agencies have identified these 

programs as potentially eligible for blending, 

but only with significant, robust safeguards 

in place to ensure that vulnerable 

populations are not adversely affected. While 

applicants should propose safeguards as 

needed, these safeguards would ultimately be 

negotiated and finalized through the 

performance agreement. 

These programs typically serve highly 

vulnerable populations, such as homeless 

youth, foster youth, and students with 

disabilities. To blend funds from such 

programs, applicants must convincingly 

demonstrate that the outcomes of the 

population served by the original program 

will not diminish during the pilot. 

Evidence may include plans for data 

collection on the vulnerable population, 

alternative service options, and alternative 

sources of funds. A pilot’s Performance 

Agreement will include outcome 

measurements and accountability 

mechanisms related to these vulnerable 

populations. 

Agency Program 

Department of Health and Human Services—Administration for Children and Families.Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program (APPP). 

Department of Health and Human Services—Administration for Children and Families.Basic Centers Program (BCP—Runaway and Homeless Youth). 

Department of Health and Human Services—Administration for Children and Families.Chafee Education and Training Vouchers. 

Department of Health and Human Services—Administration for Children and Families.Street Outreach Program (SOP—Runaway and Homeless Youth). 

Department of Health and Human Services—Administration for Children and Families.Transitional Living Program (TLP—Runaway and Homeless Youth). 

Department of Health and Human Services—Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration.

‘‘Now Is The Time’’ Healthy Transitions (HT): Improving Life Trajectories For Youth And Young Adults With, Or At Risk For, Serious 

Mental Health Conditions. 

Department of Health and Human Services—Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration.

State Youth Treatment (SYT) Cooperative Agreements. 

Department of Labor—Employment and Training Administration ........... Reintegration of Ex-Offenders. 

Category 3: Programs Likely Inappropriate 

for Pilots Due to High Likelihood of 

Restricting Eligibility for Services or 

Adversely Affecting Vulnerable Populations 

The Agencies have determined that any 

blending of funds from these programs 

would: (1) Deny or restrict an individual’s 

eligibility for services funded by these 

programs; or (2) adversely affect vulnerable 

populations that receive such services. These 

programs may entitle all eligible individuals 

to a service, or provide individuals with 

direct benefits such as vouchers, credits, and 

scholarships. Applicants can try to justify 

that the blending of these programs’ funds 

would not violate the P3 statutory 

protections. Such justifications must be 

compelling. 

Agency Program 

Department of Health and Human Services—Administration for Children and Families.Promoting Safe and Stable Families, title IV–B, subpart 2 (discretionary 

appropriations only). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 70049 

19Qualified Independent Evaluator: A qualified 

independent evaluator is an individual who 

coordinates with the grantee and the lead Federal 

agency for the pilot, but works independently on 

the evaluation and has the capacity to carry out the 

evaluation, including, but not limited to: Prior 

experience conducting evaluations of similar design 

(such as for random assignment evaluations, the 

evaluator will have successfully conducted a 

random assignment evaluation in the past); positive 

past performance on evaluations of a similar design, 

as evidenced by past performance reviews 

submitted from past clients directly to the awardee; 

lead staff with prior experience carrying out a 

similar evaluation; lead staff with minimum 

credential (such as a Ph.D. plus 3 years of 

experience conducting evaluations of a similar 

nature, or a Master’s degree plus 7 years of 

experience conducting evaluations of a similar 

nature); and adequate staff time to work on the 

evaluation. 

Appendix C: Competitive Preference 

Priorities 1 and 2 Evaluation 

Submission Requirements 

In order to be awarded any of the 

additional points under competitive 

preference priorities 1 and 2, applicants must 

include the following two documents as 

separate attachments to their applications: 

1. A Summary Evaluation Plan that 

describes how the pilot or a component of 

the pilot (such as a discrete service-delivery 

strategy) will be rigorously evaluated. The 

evaluation plan may not exceed 8 pages. Our 

reviewers will be instructed to read only the 

first 8 pages of the plan. The plan must 

include the following: 

• A brief description of the research 

question(s) proposed for study, and an 

explanation of its/their relevance, including 

how the proposed evaluation will build on 

the research evidence base for the project as 

described in Requirement 4 and how the 

evaluation findings will be used to improve 

program implementation. 

• A description of the impact-study 

methodology, including the key outcome 

measures, the process for forming a 

comparison or control group, a justification 

for the target sample size and strategy for 

achieving it, and the approach to data 

collection (and sources) that minimizes both 

cost and potential attrition; 

• A proposed evaluation timeline, 

including dates for submission of required 

interim and final reports; and 

• A plan for selecting and procuring the 

services of a qualified independent 

evaluator 19 prior to enrolling participants (or 

a description of how one was selected if 

agreements have already been reached). The 

applicant must describe how it will ensure 

that the independent evaluator has the 

capacity and expertise to conduct the 

evaluation, including estimating the effort for 

the evaluator including the time, expertise, 

and analysis needed to successfully complete 

the proposed evaluation. 

2. A supplementary Evaluation Budget 

Narrative, which is separate from the overall 

application budget narrative and provides a 

description of the costs associated with 

funding the proposed program evaluation 

component, and an explanation of its funding 

source—i.e., blended funding, start-up 

funding, or other funding (such as 

philanthropic). The budget must include a 

breakout of costs by evaluation activity (such 

as data collection and participant follow-up), 

and the applicant must describe a strategy for 

refining the budget after the services of an 

evaluator have been procured. There is no 

page limit for the Evaluation Budget 

Narrative. The applicant must include travel 

costs for the independent evaluator to attend 

at least one in-person conference in 

Washington, DC during the period of 

evaluation. All costs included in this 

supplementary budget narrative must be 

reasonable and appropriate to the project 

timeline and deliverables. 

In designing their evaluations, we 

encourage eligible applicants to be familiar 

with the criteria for well-implemented quasiexperimental and experimental studies as 

described in both the Department of 

Education’s What Works Clearinghouse 

Procedures and Standards Handbook (see 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_

resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_

handbook.pdf) and the Department of Labor’s 

new standards for its Clearinghouse for Labor 

Evaluation and Research (CLEAR) (see http:// 

clear.dol.gov/sites/default/files/CLEAR_

EvidenceGuidelines_1.1_revised.pdf). 

The Agencies will review the Summary 

Evaluation Plans and Evaluation Budget 

Narrative and provide feedback to applicants 

that receive competitive preference priority 

points and that are selected as pilot finalists 

or alternates. After award, these pilots must 

submit to the lead Federal agency a detailed 

evaluation plan of no more than 30 pages that 

relies heavily on the expertise of a qualified 

independent evaluator. The detailed 

evaluation plan must address the Agencies’ 

feedback and expand on the Summary 

Evaluation Plan. 

Appendix D: Scoring Rubric 

Reviewers will assign points to an 

application for each selection sub-criterion, 

as well as for Competitive Preference Priority 

1 (Quasi-Experimental Site-Specific 

Evaluations) and Competitive Preference 

Priority 2 (Experimental Site Specific 

Evaluations). The Department will assign 

points to Competitive Preference Priority 3 

(Promise Zones) if the application includes a 

letter from the lead organization of a 

designated Promise Zone describing the 

contribution of the applicant’s proposed 

activities. To help promote consistency 

across and within the panels that will review 

P3 applications, the Department has created 

a scoring rubric for reviewers to aid them in 

scoring applications. 

The scoring rubric below shows the 

maximum number of points that may be 

assigned to each criterion, sub-criterion, and 

the competitive preference priority. 

Selection criteria Sub-criterion 

points Criterion points 

A. Need for the Project .................................................................................................................................... 5 5 

The extent to which the applicant used a recent comprehensive needs assessment completed within 

the previous three years that draws on representative data on youth in the jurisdiction(s) to be 

served by the pilot that are disaggregated according to relevant demographic factors to (1) show 

disparities in outcomes among key sub-populations and (2) identify an appropriate target population of disconnected youth with a high level of need.

B. Need for Requested Waivers ...................................................................................................................... ............................ 10 

(B)(1) The extent to which the applicant presents evidence that specific Federal barriers are hindering successful achievement of outcomes for the target population of disconnected youth identified by the applicant and cites the relevant statute, regulation, and/or administrative requirements 

for which it is seeking flexibility, including waivers ............................................................................... 5 ............................

(B)(2) The extent to which the applicant provides a justification of how requested flexibility, including 

blending funds and other waivers, will reduce barriers, increase efficiency, support implementation 

of the pilot, and produce significantly better outcomes for the target population(s) ............................ 5 ............................

C. Project Design ............................................................................................................................................. ............................ 25 

(C)(1) The extent to which the applicant presents a clear and logical plan that is likely to improve 

outcomes significantly for the target population by addressing the gaps and the disparities identified through the needs assessment, including the extent to which— .................................................. 10 ............................

(a) The inputs and activities shown in the logic model are necessary and sufficient to achieve 

the project’s objectives, and 

(b) The assumptions of the logic model are identified and a rationale is provided for them. For 

example, applicants proposing job training or employment strategies should include data on 

the need for particular occupations in the relevant geographic areas.


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70050 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 

Selection criteria Sub-criterion 

points Criterion points 

(C)(2) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that the pilot will use evidence-based and evidence-informed interventions, in addition to systems change, as documented by citations to the 

relevant evidence .................................................................................................................................. 5 ............................

(C)(3) The extent to which the pilot will provide intensive, comprehensive, and sustained service 

pathways and coordinated approaches that are likely to improve outcomes significantly over the 

short, medium and long term by helping individuals progress seamlessly from one educational 

stepping stone to another, across work-based training and education, or through other relevant 

programmatic milestones to improve outcomes. For example, a pilot might prevent gaps in service 

that would jeopardize the achievement of outcomes by creating a seamless progression of services that provide continuous support as needed to the target population ........................................... 5 ............................

(C)(4) For Federal programs that are proposed to provide funding for pilots, the extent to which the 

applicant explains how the use of funds for the pilot (a) will not result in denying or restricting the 

eligibility of individuals for services that (in whole or in part) are otherwise funded by these programs, and (b) based on the best available information, will not otherwise adversely affect vulnerable populations that are the recipients of those services. If the applicant proposes to include FY 

2014 competitive grant funds that have already been awarded, the extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that the scope, objectives, and target population(s) of the existing award align with 

the proposed pilot ................................................................................................................................. 5 ............................

D. Work Plan and Project Management .......................................................................................................... ............................ 10 

(D) The extent to which the applicant presents a strong work plan and project management approach 

that includes— ...................................................................................................................................... 10 ............................

(1) A detailed timeline and implementation milestones, including— 

(a) A statement of when any necessary preparatory work will be completed, which must be 

within 180 days of being awarded pilot start-up funding; 

(b) The expected start date of a project manager, the expected award dates of subgrants 

and contracts, and expected dates for establishing agreements among the partners; 

(c) The start date of the pilot services, such as participant intake and services; 

(d) When the partnership will begin to implement pilot services or changes to administrative 

systems and policy and which partners are responsible for key tasks; 

(e) The number of participants expected to be served under the pilot for each period, such 

as quarterly or annually (for example, number of participants enrolled, and the number 

achieving specified education, employment, and other outcomes); and 

(f) For an applicant that is proposing an evaluation (as described in competitive preference 

priorities 1 and 2), when they will begin evaluation activities, including execution of a contract with an independent evaluator 

(2) A description of how the proposed budget and budget narrative align with the work plan, 

identifying how each implementation milestone will be adequately funded as outlined in the 

proposed budget; and 

(3) A description of any existing or anticipated barriers to implementation and how they will be 

overcome. 

(4) A description of the professional qualifications that will be required of the project manager 

and other key personnel are sufficient to ensure proper management of all grant activities, including timely reporting and the ability to manage a strategic partnership.

E. Partnership Capacity ................................................................................................................................... ............................ 15 

(E)(1) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has an effective governance structure in 

which partners that are necessary to successfully implement the pilot are represented and partners 

have the necessary authority, resources, expertise and incentives to achieve the pilot’s goals, resolve unforeseen issues, and sustain efforts to the extent possible after the project period ends, including by demonstrating the extent to which, and how, participating partners have successfully 

collaborated to improve outcomes for disconnected youth in the past. The proposed governance 

structure should reflect a plan for effective cooperation across levels of government, including a 

description of the State, local, and tribal roles in the partnership, or across entities within the same 

level of government to improve outcomes for disconnected youth, such as through coordinated 

program delivery, easier program navigation for participants, or identification and resolution of state 

and local policy barriers ........................................................................................................................ 10 ............................

(E)(2) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that its proposal was designed with input from 

all relevant stakeholders, including disconnected youth and other community partners. Where the 

project design includes job training strategies, the extent of employer input and engagement in the 

identification of skills and competencies needed by employers, the development of the curriculum, 

and the offering of work-based learning opportunities, including pre-apprenticeship and registered 

apprenticeship, will be considered ........................................................................................................ 5 ............................

F. Data Capacity .............................................................................................................................................. ............................ 30 

(F)(1) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates the capacity to collect, analyze, and use data 

for decision-making, learning, continuous improvement, and accountability, and/or has a strong 

plan to bridge the gaps in its ability to do so, including the extent to which the applicant has, and 

will continue to: ..................................................................................................................................... 5 ............................

(a) Manage and maintain computerized administrative data systems to track program participants, services, and outcomes; 

(b) Execute data-sharing agreements with programs or organizations to share information with 

program partners and evaluators for case management, performance management, and evaluation purposes in accordance with Federal, State, local, and other privacy laws and requirements; 

(c) Use data to determine cost-effective strategies for improving outcomes; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices 70051 

Selection criteria Sub-criterion 

points Criterion points 

(d) Regularly analyze program data to assess the pilot’s progress, identify operational strengths 

and weaknesses and determine how implementation can be strengthened to improve outcomes.

(F)(2) The strength of the applicant’s plan to collect, store, manage and link data in ways that comply 

with all relevant Federal, State, and local privacy laws and regulations to ensure the protection of 

personally identifiable information ........................................................................................................ 5 ............................

(F)(3) The extent to which the applicant shows how the outcomes of the proposed pilot will be a significant improvement compared with what might have occurred in its absence, both during the pilot 

project period and, for longer-term outcomes, beyond the project period ........................................... 10 ............................

(F)(4) The extent to which proposed outcome measures and interim indicators, as well as their 

measurement methodologies and progress milestones, are appropriate and sufficient to gauge 

progress toward pilot objectives ........................................................................................................... 5 ............................

(F)(5) The extent to which the data sources for the outcome measures and interim indicators will be 

accessible and independently audited or validated for accuracy ......................................................... 5 ............................

G. Budget and Budget Narrative ..................................................................................................................... 5 5 

The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the project. 

Total ................................................................................................................................................... 100 100 

Competitive Preference Priority 1: Quasi-Experimental Site-Specific Evaluations. Under this priority, competitive preference will be given to applicants that propose to conduct an independent evaluation of the 

impacts on disconnected youth of their overall program or specific components of their program using a 

quasi-experimental design. Proposals will be scored based on the clarity and feasibility of the proposed 

evaluation design and the applicants’ demonstrated expertise in planning and conducting a quasi-experimental evaluation study ......................................................................................................................... 5 5 

Competitive Preference Priority 2: Experimental Site-Specific Evaluations. Under this priority, preference 

will be given to applicants that propose to conduct an independent evaluation of the impacts of their 

overall program or components of their programs on disconnected youth using a randomized controlled 

trial. Applicants’ proposals will be scored based on the clarity and feasibility of the proposed evaluation 

design and the applicants’ demonstrated expertise in planning and conducting experimental evaluation 

studies .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 10 

Competitive Preference Priority 3: Promise Zones. This priority is for projects that are designed to serve 

and coordinate with a federally designated Promise Zone ......................................................................... 2 2 

The reviewers will be asked to use the 

general ranges below as a guide when 

awarding points. 

Maximum point value 

Quality of applicant’s response 

Low Medium High 

10 0–2 3–7 8–10 

5 0–1 2–3 4–5 

[FR Doc. 2014–27775 Filed 11–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS