[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39590-39615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16757]
[[Page 39589]]
Vol. 76
Wednesday,
No. 129
July 6, 2011
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Promise Neighborhoods Program; Implementation Grant Competition
Applications for New Awards; Planning Grant Competition; Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2011 /
Notices
[[Page 39590]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
RIN 1855-ZA07
[CFDA: 84.215P]
Promise Neighborhoods Program
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) announces priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the legislative
authority of the Fund for the Improvement of Education Program (FIE),
title V, part D, subpart 1, sections 5411 through 5413 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The
Secretary may use one or more of these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for Promise Neighborhoods
competitions for fiscal year (FY) 2011 and later years.
We take this action to focus Federal assistance on projects that
are designed to create a comprehensive continuum of solutions,
including education programs and family and community supports, with
great schools at the center. The continuum of solutions must be
designed to significantly improve the educational and developmental
outcomes of children and youth, from birth through college and to a
career. We intend that these projects support organizations that focus
on serving high-need neighborhoods, have a strategy to build a
continuum of solutions, and have the capacity to achieve results.
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria are effective August 5, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Hodgdon, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4W220, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453-6615 or by e-mail: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Program: The Promise
Neighborhoods program is carried out under the legislative authority of
the FIE, title V, part D, subpart 1, sections 5411 through 5413 of the
ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7243-7243b). FIE supports nationally significant
programs to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education
at the State and local levels and to help all children meet challenging
State academic content and student academic achievement standards.
The purpose of the Promise Neighborhoods program is to
significantly improve the educational and developmental outcomes of
children and youth in our most distressed communities, and to transform
those communities by--
(1) Identifying and increasing the capacity of eligible
organizations (as defined in this notice) that are focused on achieving
results for children and youth throughout an entire neighborhood;
(2) Building a complete continuum of cradle-through-college-to-
career solutions (continuum of solutions) (as defined in this notice)
of both educational programs and family and community supports (both as
defined in this notice), with great schools at the center. All
solutions in the continuum of solutions must be accessible to children
with disabilities (CWD) (as defined in this notice) and English
learners (ELs) (as defined in this notice).
(3) Integrating programs and breaking down agency ``silos'' so that
solutions are implemented effectively and efficiently across agencies;
(4) Developing the local infrastructure of systems and resources
needed to sustain and scale up proven, effective solutions across the
broader region beyond the initial neighborhood; and
(5) Learning about the overall impact of the Promise Neighborhoods
program and about the relationship between particular strategies in
Promise Neighborhoods and student outcomes, including through a
rigorous evaluation of the program.
Applicable Program Regulations: The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80,
81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in the Federal Register on March
10, 2011 (76 FR 13152) (NPP). That notice contained background
information and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
There are differences between the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the NPP and these
final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, as
discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section elsewhere in
this notice. Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP,
37 parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not
directly related to the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.
Note about General Comments and Comments Outside the Scope of
the NPP: We received many comments expressing general support or
making general recommendations for this program. In most cases,
these general comments and recommendations were similar to the
comments that supported specific provisions or made specific
recommendations for the program's proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, or selection criteria, which we discuss in the sections
that follow. We, therefore, do not include a separate discussion of
the general comments and recommendations.
We also received a number of comments relating to issues that may
have been discussed in communications from the Department or in the
application and review process for the FY 2010 Promise Neighborhoods
competition, but were not proposed as part of the NPP. These issues
include: The length of discretionary grant periods, the application
process, and technical assistance for applicants. We do not address
comments on these issues here. We note, however, that information on
these issues will be made available through other Department documents,
including the notice inviting applications for this program.
General
Comment: Two commenters made recommendations and requested
clarification regarding whether implementation grantees must use funds
for developing the administrative capacity of the eligible organization
or whether they could use the funds to provide solutions for children
and youth in the neighborhood. One commenter recommended that the
Department provide maximum flexibility for applicants to determine how
the funds are to be used and not require that funds be used to develop
administrative capacity. Another commenter requested greater
clarification about the percentage of implementation grant funds that
could be used to develop administrative capacity, on the one hand, and
to
[[Page 39591]]
provide solutions for children and youth, on the other.
Discussion: The Department expects implementation grantees to use
grant funds for two primary purposes: (1) To develop the administrative
capacity necessary to successfully implement a continuum of solutions;
and (2) to provide solutions within the continuum of solutions to
children and youth in the neighborhood. We anticipate that a majority
of implementation grant funds would be used to develop a grantee's
administrative capacity and that other public and private sources would
be used to provide solutions. However, we believe that each applicant
is best positioned to determine the allocation of funds between the two
purposes given its needs assessment and plans to build its
organizational capacity.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: The Department seeks to clarify that Promise
Neighborhoods planning and implementation grantees must take into
consideration the unique needs of CWD, ELs, and their families in
designing the planning process, conducting the needs assessment,
identifying the continuum of services, and developing the
implementation plan for Promise Neighborhoods.
Changes: The Department has revised language throughout the notice
of final priorities to highlight the importance of considering the
unique needs of CWD, ELs, and their families in the planning for and
implementation of a continuum of services designed to improve academic
outcomes for all children and youth. References can be found in
paragraph (4) of Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation
Priority 1, Final Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority
4, and the definition of education programs. In addition, we have added
definitions for both children with disabilities and English learners to
the Final Definitions section of this notice. These definitions are
consistent with how the terms are defined in the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the ESEA, and section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act.
Priorities
Priorities--General for Final Planning Priorities and Final
Implementation Priorities
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department not
designate any priorities as competitive preference priorities. Two
commenters recommended that if the Department designates priorities as
competitive preference priorities, the number of competitive preference
priorities to which an applicant may apply should be limited, or the
competitive preference priorities should be used as tie breakers. Two
of the commenters recommended designating priorities 4 through 8 as
invitational priorities. Another commenter recommended eliminating
priorities 4 through 8 altogether.
Discussion: The Promise Neighborhoods program encourages a
comprehensive continuum of solutions that are designed to dramatically
improve academic and developmental outcomes for all children and youth,
in our country's most distressed communities, and to transform those
communities. Because we believe that the following components of a
comprehensive continuum of solutions can significantly improve academic
and developmental outcomes, we have included them as priorities:
Provision of high-quality comprehensive local early learning networks,
quality internet connectivity, access to the arts and humanities,
availability of quality affordable housing, and family engagement in
learning through adult education. In a given competition, we may use
one or more of these priorities to focus Federal funds on components
most in need of support. The decision to use these priorities as
absolute, competitive preference or invitational will be made on a
competition-by-competition basis. We announce these designations and
the scoring methodology in the notice inviting applications.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters asked whether an applicant must meet
Absolute Priority 1, Absolute Priority 2, or Absolute Priority 3, or
whether an applicant could focus on only one priority among Priorities
4 through 8.
Discussion: Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications
that meet either Absolute Priority 1, Absolute Priority 2, or Absolute
Priority 3. In order to be considered for funding under the Promise
Neighborhoods program, an applicant must meet all of the requirements
in the absolute priority that it chooses to address. We announce
designations for other priorities in notices inviting applications.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns that the absolute
priorities for rural and tribal communities would disadvantage suburban
communities. Another commenter recommended adding an absolute priority
for small towns and mid-sized cities stating that these communities may
have access to fewer resources than more urban areas.
Discussion: We included Absolute Priorities 2 and 3 to focus on
rural areas and Indian tribes because of the unique and daunting
challenges faced by these communities. In 2004, more than one-fifth of
the Nation's nearly 2,000 ``dropout factories,'' in which the
graduation rate is less than 60 percent, were located in rural areas
(Balfanz, R., and Letgers, N., Locating the Dropout Crisis: Which High
Schools Produce the Nation's Dropouts? Johns Hopkins University, 2004.)
Compared to white students, American Indian students have poorer
academic outcomes and higher poverty rates (Institute for Education
Sciences. Status and Trends in the Education of American Indians and
Alaska Natives, 2008). American Indian and Alaska Native students, who
could be among those served under Absolute Priority 3, have a
graduation rate of less than 50 percent nationally (The Civil Rights
Project. The Dropout/Graduation Crisis Among American Indian and Alaska
Native Students: Failure to Respond Places the Future of Native Peoples
at Risk, 2010). While we recognize the challenges faced by small towns
and mid-sized cities, we decline to add an absolute priority focused on
these communities because their challenges are not as severe as the
challenges faced by students in rural and tribal communities.
Changes: None.
Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1
Geographic Area and Need
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require a
neighborhood to have a child poverty rate of 50 percent or more in
order to be eligible for a Promise Neighborhood grant. The commenter
stated that this threshold would demonstrate the severity of need in
the neighborhood.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that a child poverty rate
of 50 percent or more is an indicator of tremendous need in a
neighborhood. However, poverty is only one indicator of need.
Significant achievement gaps, the percentage of children with
preventable health conditions, and the crime rate in a neighborhood
could also be indicators of tremendous need. Applicants are in the best
position to provide the information that is most relevant to
establishing the need of the particular neighborhood that they propose
to serve, and comprehensive information about indicators of need
[[Page 39592]]
will allow us to make thoughtful and informed grant decisions in light
of the level of distress in the neighborhood.
Changes: None.
Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1
Promise Neighborhood Plan
Comment: One commenter expressed concerns about the severity of the
specific types of interventions required for applicants proposing to
work with persistently lowest-achieving and low-performing schools,
especially the turnaround interventions required by the Race to the Top
(RTT) program.
Discussion: We require an applicant proposing to work with a
persistently lowest-achieving school to include as part of its strategy
one of the four school intervention models (turnaround model, restart
model, school closure, or transformation model) described in Appendix C
of the RTT notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2010 that
was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2009 (74 FR
59836, 59866). While applicants working with low-performing schools may
implement one of these four school intervention models, these
applicants are not required to do so. They have the flexibility to
implement any interventions that are sufficiently ambitious, rigorous,
and comprehensive to significantly improve academic and other outcomes
for all students.
We believe that the comprehensive education programs that Promise
Neighborhoods grantees implement should be consistent with efforts to
reform these schools carried out under other programs supported by the
Department, such as the RTT and School Improvement Grants (SIG)
programs.
Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1
provide for a structured yet flexible approach that is consistent with
these programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns and requested
clarification regarding the entity that must implement school
interventions. One commenter asked whether an applicant must implement
the school interventions or whether another organization could
implement the school interventions on its behalf. One commenter
expressed concern that some charter schools may have difficulty forming
partnerships with low-performing traditional public schools, and
recommended that the Department eliminate the requirement that grantees
serve at least one low-performing school or persistently lowest-
achieving school.
Discussion: Promise Neighborhoods grantees are required to develop
a complete continuum of cradle-through-college-to-career solutions over
time in a neighborhood, and few if any single organization could
directly implement all of the expected solutions within a complete
continuum. For this reason, the program is designed to support
applicants that partner with other organizations to provide this
continuum of solutions. To clarify this, we are revising both Final
Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1 to state that
school interventions may be implemented by the applicant or one or more
of its partners.
With regard to the comment recommending that the Department
eliminate the requirement that grantees serve at least one low-
performing school or persistently lowest-achieving school, we decline
to make this change because we believe that Promise Neighborhoods must
play an important role in turning around persistently-lowest achieving
schools and improving low-performing schools.
Changes: We have revised both Final Planning Priority 1 and Final
Implementation Priority 1, paragraph (2)(b) to clarify that the school
interventions in the strategy or plan to build a continuum of solutions
may be implemented by the applicant or one of its partners. We added
``(or one or more of its partners)'' to both Final Planning Priority 1
and Final Implementation Priority 1, paragraph (2)(b) in reference to
the entity that must implement the school interventions.
Comment: One commenter recommended requiring the use of digital,
multi-platform (e.g., public television, web-based, etc.) delivery
models for early learning programs in the continuum of solutions.
Discussion: We believe that applicants are best positioned to
determine the specific solutions and the implementation of those
solutions that most effectively address neighborhood needs, and
therefore, decline to require that all grantees use digital, multi-
platform delivery models for early learning, as recommended by the
commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended adding a new requirement within
the education component of the continuum of solutions that focuses on
family-school partnerships and family engagement in learning.
Discussion: Family and community support for learning is a critical
component of Promise Neighborhoods. For example, as specified in Tables
1 and 2 in both Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation
Priority 1, family and community member support for learning is one of
the 10 core program results in a Promise Neighborhood, and Priority 8
focuses on family engagement in learning through adult education. For
this reason, we believe adding the requirement recommended by the
commenter is unnecessary and therefore decline to add it.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding whether
applicants are required to focus on children attending a target school
or on all children in a neighborhood. The applicant asked whether
students who attend a target school in the Promise Neighborhood, but
live outside the neighborhood, could be served by a Promise
Neighborhood project.
Discussion: We agree that clarification about the students who can
receive the complete continuum of solutions under a Promise
Neighborhoods grant would be helpful, especially in light of the
variations in attendance zone and school choice policies in many
communities. Therefore, we are revising both Final Planning Priority 1
and Final Implementation Priority 1 to clarify that the continuum of
solutions must be designed to ensure that over time, (1) Children and
youth in the neighborhood who attend the target school or schools have
access to a complete continuum of solutions, and (2) as appropriate,
children and youth in the neighborhood who do not attend the target
school or schools have access to solutions within the continuum of
solutions.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (2) in both Final Planning
Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1 to clarify that the plan
or strategy must ensure that, over time, a greater proportion of
children and youth in the neighborhood who attend the target school or
schools have access to a complete continuum of solutions, and ensure
that over time, a greater proportion of children in the neighborhood
who do not attend the target school or schools have access to solutions
within the continuum of solutions. The plan or strategy must also
ensure that students not living in the neighborhood who do attend the
target school or schools have access to solutions within the continuum
of solutions.
[[Page 39593]]
Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1
Needs Assessment, Segmentation Analysis, and Indicators
Comment: A number of commenters recommended that we require
additional results and indicators that focus on areas such as the arts,
life-long learning opportunities, out-of-school learning activities,
discipline referrals, access to learning materials, volunteer and
community service, age-appropriate functioning for four-year-olds,
regular school attendance, and access to primary care providers; or
populations such as high school graduates who need remediation and
students who participate in the child welfare system. One commenter
asked the Department to clarify whether applicants have flexibility to
substitute required indicators.
Discussion: Regarding the request that we require additional
results and indicators on specific topics, grantees, in addition to
being required to collect data for the needs assessment that includes
education and family and community support program indicators
prescribed by the Department, may also develop their own family and
community support project indicators. These grantee-developed project
indicators may focus on the areas and populations mentioned by the
commenters. In addition, eligible applicants may use intermediate
variables that are strongly correlated with the required program and
project indicators. These intermediate variables may also include
variables on the areas and populations mentioned by the commenters
(e.g., immunization rates could be an intermediate variable with regard
to the result that students are healthy). While we recognize the
importance of the topics mentioned by the commenters, we believe
providing flexibility to grantees to select indicators is more
appropriate than requiring additional specific indicators. In response
to the request for clarification, applicants are not allowed to
substitute required indicators for this program. Our framework allows
for flexibility and ensures that Promise Neighborhood projects across
the country are comprehensive in their approach and can be evaluated in
a consistent manner by using the set of required indicators.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended changing one of the indicators
related to family and community support of learning. Specifically, the
commenters recommended that the indicator regarding the number and
percent of parents or family members who report that they read to their
child three or more times a week begin at the birth of the child, not
when the child turns six months, to encourage good habits from the very
beginning of a child's life.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter about the importance of
reading to children very early in their lives and, therefore, are
revising the indicator to focus on children from birth to kindergarten
entry, instead of six months to kindergarten entry.
Changes: In both Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation
Priority 1, in the indicators found in Table 2, which measures the
number and percent of family members who report that they read to their
child three or more times a week, we have replaced ``six months to
kindergarten entry'' with ``birth to kindergarten entry.''
Comment: One commenter recommended changing the indicator related
to students who are healthy. Specifically, the commenter recommended
separating the indicator into an indicator for the number and percent
of children who participate in at least 60 minutes of exercise and an
indicator for the number and percent of children who consume five or
more servings of fruits and vegetables daily. According to the
commenter, this would allow grantees to demonstrate progress in
achieving changes in diet, exercise, or both.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that disaggregating the
data for this indicator would provide more valuable data for the
grantees and the community. We, therefore, are revising the indicator
accordingly.
Changes: In both Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation
Priority 1, we have revised the indicator related to students who are
healthy by creating two separate indicators: (1) The number and percent
of children who participate in at least 60 minutes of moderate to
physical activity daily, and (2) the number and percent of children who
consume five or more servings of fruits and vegetables daily.
Comment: Three commenters requested clarification and additional
information regarding how the Department defines specific terms used in
the indicators. One commenter asked how the Department defines ``access
to broadband internet.'' Another commenter asked for clarification
regarding the frequency and ``dosage'' of several indicators, including
the indicator for parents encouraging their children to read books. A
third commenter requested additional information about the definition
of ``medical home,'' as it relates to the ``students are healthy''
result.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that greater clarification
and specificity regarding some of the terms used in the indicators
could ensure more consistent data collection across the Promise
Neighborhoods grantees. The Department anticipates contracting with a
national evaluator or other entity to provide technical assistance to
Promise Neighborhoods grantees for data collection and to develop data
definitions. It is our goal, at a minimum, to make that technical
assistance available on the Promise Neighborhoods program Web site for
use by grantees, applicants, and other organizations.
Changes: None.
Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1
Experience, Lessons Learned, Capacity Building, and Data System
Comment: Several commenters recommended adding more explicit
references to the inclusion of parents and family members in
applicants' descriptions of their experiences and lessons learned, and
how applicants will build capacity, including in collecting, analyzing,
and using data. Some commenters recommended requiring applicants to
describe their experiences and plans to work with the neighborhood and
its residents, including parents and families. The commenters
recommended that applicants describe their experience and plans to make
Promise Neighborhoods data accessible to parents, families, and
community residents, in addition to program partners, researchers, and
evaluators.
Discussion: We agree that systemic family and community engagement
is a critical component of school reform and neighborhood
revitalization in Promise Neighborhoods. Therefore, we are adding more
specific references to family and community involvement in the planning
and implementation process to elevate their role in the program.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (4)(a) and (b)(ii) of Final
Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1 to require
applicants to describe their experience and plans to work with parents
and families, including families with children or other family members
with disabilities or ELs, during planning and implementation, as well
as to share data with parents and families.
Comment: Two commenters recommended adding specific
[[Page 39594]]
individuals and entities as required partners and members of the
governing or advisory board for a Promise Neighborhoods project. One
commenter recommended requiring applicants to work in partnership with
community organizations, local businesses, and other entities that have
the capacity to contribute to a partnership and that have a proven
track record as a partner. Another commenter recommended requiring the
involvement of parents and families on the Promise Neighborhoods
governing board or advisory board.
Discussion: The individuals and entities described by the
commenters may very well be appropriate partners or board members for a
Promise Neighborhoods project. We believe that the requirements for
board membership and partners are sufficiently prescriptive to foster a
successful Promise Neighborhood project, but broad enough to allow
applicants, who are best positioned to select their partners and board
members, the flexibility to choose the board members and partners that
they believe can best meet the needs of the neighborhood they propose
to serve.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding whether a
partner's financial and programmatic commitments, as described in the
memorandum of understanding, may include in-kind commitments. The
commenter noted that some partners, such as schools, would not be able
to contribute resources other than in-kind supports.
Discussion: A partner's financial and programmatic commitments may
include in-kind commitments. Additional information on matching funds,
including in-kind contributions, can be found under the cost-sharing
and matching section of this notice, and in the Department's
regulations at 34 CFR 74.23 and 80.24.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require
solutions that are culturally appropriate for residents in the
neighborhood.
Discussion: As included in the background section of the NPP, one
of the activities for planning grantees is to develop a plan and build
community support for and involvement in the development of the plan.
In addition, significant community involvement is required with regard
to the governing board's or advisory board's decision-making and is
integral to the planning and implementation process, as shown by the
focus on family and community supports. Moreover, we define
developmentally appropriate early learning measures to mean, in part,
that the measures are designed and validated for use with children
whose ages, cultures, languages spoken at home, socioeconomic status,
abilities and disabilities, and other characteristics are similar to
those of the children with whom the assessments will be used. We
believe these provisions help to ensure that the continuum of solutions
in a Promise Neighborhood meet the needs of and are linguistically and
culturally appropriate for neighborhood residents, including ELs and
CWD. In addition, we believe increasing the emphasis on community
involvement in the development of the plan will increase the assurance
that solutions are culturally appropriate and relevant for neighborhood
residents.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (2) of Final Planning Priority 1
and Final Implementation Priority 1 to clarify that one of the required
activities during the planning phase is to build community support for
and involvement in the development of the plan.
Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1
Evaluation
Comment: Several commenters requested clarification and made
recommendations regarding the evaluation process. One commenter asked
for information about the process the Department will use in selecting
a national evaluator and the timing of that selection. Three commenters
requested clarification and made recommendations regarding components
of the evaluation, including the use of comparison groups. A final
commenter requested clarification regarding whether Promise
Neighborhood grant funds could be used to conduct the evaluation and
needs assessments, including for the early learning indicators.
Discussion: The Department anticipates contracting with a national
evaluator or other entity to provide technical assistance to Promise
Neighborhoods grantees for data collection and to create the conditions
for a rigorous national evaluation. We expect grantees to work with the
Department and with the national evaluator or other entity to ensure
that data collection and program design are consistent with plans to
conduct a rigorous national evaluation of the Promise Neighborhoods
program and are adding this as a requirement in Final Planning Priority
1 and Final Implementation Priority 1. The Department expects to award
a contract for this work through a process that is separate from the
awarding of planning and implementation grants. The timing and design
of the evaluation is currently under development. With regard to the
comment about the use of Promise Neighborhoods grant funds, activities
conducted by grantees related to evaluations and needs assessments are
allowable uses of Promise Neighborhoods grant funds.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (5) of both the Final Planning
Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1 to clarify that
applicants must describe their commitment to work with the Department
and with a national evaluator for Promise Neighborhoods or another
entity designated by the Department.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require
Promise Neighborhoods applicants to describe how they will engage
institutions of higher education (IHEs) in research and evaluation.
Discussion: While IHEs may bring tremendous resources to a Promise
Neighborhoods project, including in the areas of research and
evaluation, we do not believe the recommended change is needed in order
for IHEs to become involved in a Promise Neighborhoods project. IHEs
are eligible, on their own, to apply for a Promise Neighborhood grant.
Moreover, beyond requiring an applicant to coordinate with a public
elementary and secondary school located in the geographic area it
proposes to serve, we believe that applicants are best positioned to
determine their partners.
Changes: None.
Final Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4
Comprehensive Local Early Learning Network
Comment: Several commenters made recommendations and expressed
concerns about references to specific early learning settings in both
Final Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4--
Comprehensive Local Early Learning Network. One commenter recommended
that we add a separate competitive preference priority to encourage
formal coordination between Promise Neighborhoods and the Head Start
and Early Head Start programs. Another commenter recommended explicitly
including private child care providers in Final Planning Priority 4 and
Final Implementation Priority 4. Yet another commenter expressed
concern that the
[[Page 39595]]
requirement to integrate formal early education and care in a Promise
Neighborhoods project may not be realistic given cutbacks in funding
for early education at the Federal and State levels.
Discussion: Final Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation
Priority 4 encourage proposals and plans that include Head Start and
Early Head Start. We do not believe that a separate priority is
necessary to coordinate with Head Start because the priorities already
include Head Start programs as one of the early learning services. The
Department continues to work with other Federal agencies, including the
Department of Health and Human Services, to identify additional
opportunities to align programs, including through the Race to the
Top--Early Learning Challenge program.
With regard to the recommendation to include private child care
providers in Priority 4, we agree that private child care providers
should be included in both Final Planning Priority 4 and Final
Implementation Priority 4 and are making this change accordingly.
Although the Department recognizes that the current fiscal climate
may constrain Federal, State, and local financial support for early
learning, we expect applicants to propose early learning networks that
work across existing funded programs in a variety of early learning
settings, including formal care (school-based or private providers) and
family, friend, or neighbor care that is currently operating in the
neighborhood. This important work to improve quality in existing
programs has the potential to improve short-term and long-term
educational and developmental outcomes for students.
Changes: We have revised both Final Planning Priority 4 and Final
Implementation Priority 4 to include ``child care providers licensed by
the State, including public and private providers and center-based
care'' among the list of early learning services and programs that
applicants can propose to coordinate in its Promise Neighborhood.
Comment: None.
Discussion: After internal review, we determined that the
requirement that proposals include various early learning services and
programs should be clarified to increase the emphasis on service and
program integration focused on enhancing quality.
Changes: We have revised the language in Final Planning Priority 4
and Final Implementation Priority 4 to clarify that proposals integrate
various early learning services and programs to enhance the quality of
those services and programs.
Comment: Two commenters recommended requiring applicants who
address Priority 4 to focus on early literacy and numeracy skills for
young people.
Discussion: We agree that early literacy and numeracy are critical
areas of cognitive development for young children. Paragraph (2)(a) of
Final Planning Priority 1 and paragraph (2)(a)(i) of Final
Implementation Priority 1 require applicants to include in their
continuum of solutions high-quality learning programs and services
designed to improve outcomes across multiple domains of early learning.
Although we define multiple domains of learning to include language and
literacy development, as well as cognition and general knowledge,
including mathematical knowledge, we believe Final Planning Priority 4
and Final Implementation Priority 4 should more explicitly reference
the multiple domains of early learning and are changing the language in
Priority 4 accordingly.
Changes: We have revised the second sentence in Final Planning
Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4 for both planning and
implementation grants, which relates to an applicant's plan for a
comprehensive local learning network, to focus on improving outcomes
across multiple domains of early learning. As defined in this notice,
the term ``multiple domains of early learning'' includes early literacy
and numeracy.
Comment: One commenter recommended expanding Final Planning
Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4 to ensure that the early
learning network includes innovative digital programs available on
multiple platforms (e.g., public television, web-based) and in multiple
locations (e.g., at home, at school, and at other community locations).
Discussion: The Department believes that early learning programs
offer a significant opportunity to provide accessible, digital
programming to young children and their families and that we should
reference such opportunities in Final Planning Priority 4 and Final
Implementation Priority 4 to create an incentive for applicants to
innovate in this area. We, therefore, are revising the priorities to
require that an applicant's proposal or plan for a comprehensive early
learning network describe how the project will provide, to the extent
practicable, early learning opportunities on multiple platforms and in
multiple locations (e.g., at home, at school, and at other community
locations). These early learning opportunities must be fully accessible
to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who are blind
or have low vision; otherwise, the plans must describe how
accommodations or modifications will be provided to ensure that the
benefits of the early learning opportunities are provided to
individuals with disabilities in an equally effective and equally
integrated manner.
Changes: We have added language to Final Planning Priority 4 and
Final Implementation Priority 4 to clarify that the plan must describe
how the project will provide, to the extent practicable, accessible
early learning opportunities on multiple platforms (e.g., public
television, web-based) and in multiple locations (e.g., at home, at
school, and at other community locations).
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department acknowledge
the two distinct time periods within the early learning portion of the
continuum--birth to preschool and kindergarten through the third grade.
The commenter recommended that we give applicants addressing Final
Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4 the flexibility
to address the early learning continuum in stages, rather than all at
once.
Discussion: We believe that it is important to maintain the focus
on a comprehensive and continuous early learning network from birth
through third grade rather than distinguishing two separate periods.
Without a comprehensive focus on early learning, there is a risk of
fragmentation of work and results. However, as we discuss in the
response to comments related to Planning Grant Priority 1, we are
revising paragraph (2) in both Planning Priority 1 and Implementation
Priority 1 to require applicants to describe how they will plan to
ensure that the children have, over time, access to the complete
continuum of solutions.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters noted that the qualifications for early
learning personnel vary by State and requested clarification about the
necessary qualifications for the individual responsible for overseeing
and coordinating the early learning initiatives.
Discussion: Considering the variation in State early learning
certifications, we do not believe additional specificity about the
types of certification is appropriate in this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: After internal review, we determined that the
requirement that the applicant designate an individual to
[[Page 39596]]
oversee and coordinate the early learning initiatives and provide
applicable documentation should be clarified to ensure that the
individual has experience with ``high-quality'' programs and services.
Changes: We have revised the language in Final Planning Priority 4
and Final Implementation Priority 4 to clarify that the documentation
the applicant provides must demonstrate that the individual designated
to oversee the early learning initiatives or the individual hired to
carry out those responsibilities possesses the appropriate State
certification and has experience and expertise in managing and
administering high-quality early learning programs, including in
coordinating across various high-quality early learning programs and
services.
Final Planning Priority 5 and Final Implementation Priority 5
Quality Internet Connectivity
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department create an
absolute priority focused on developing programs that promote student
engagement, learning, and digital literacy, as well as neighborhood
communication and networking, via access to broadband internet and
digital television.
Discussion: Broadband internet access is a critical learning tool
to prepare students for college and careers in the digital age, which
is why we included it as a priority. We believe this priority will
create an incentive for applicants to expand access to broadband
internet, which will create the conditions for engagement, learning,
and digital literacy, as well as neighborhood communication and
networking. The decision to use this priority as absolute, competitive
preference or invitational will be made on a competition-by-competition
basis. For each competition, we announce these designations in the
notice inviting applications.
Since June 13, 2009, all full-power U.S. stations have broadcast
digital-only signals; we do not believe further incentive is needed to
encourage use of digital television. Therefore, we did not include
digital television as part of Final Planning Priority 5 or Final
Implementation Priority 5.
Changes: None.
Final Planning Priority 7 and Final Implementation Priority 7
Quality Affordable Housing
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department expand
Final Planning Priority 7 and Final Implementation Priority 7 to
include applicants that have submitted an application through Choice
Neighborhoods or Hope VI, or that are working on affordable housing
generally, rather than restricting the priority to applicants that have
been awarded grants under the Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI program
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Discussion: Applicants that were the subject of an affordable
housing transformation pursuant to a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI
grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
during FY 2009 or later years may address Final Planning Priority 7 and
Final Implementation Priority 7. We are limiting the priority to
applicants that have undergone or are undergoing this affordable
housing transformation supported by Choice Neighborhoods or a HOPE VI
grant because these applicants have met evidence-based criteria as
determined by HUD and will be ready to integrate quality, affordable
housing into their Promise Neighborhood. Moreover, focusing the
priority in this manner supports the goal of Promise Neighborhoods to
break down agency ``silos'' at the Federal and local levels, by
aligning investments from the Promise Neighborhoods and Choice
Neighborhoods or HOPE VI programs. While we decline to expand the
priority 7 to include applicants who have applied for but not received
a Choice Neighborhoods or Hope VI grant, we want to point out that
applicants working on affordable housing generally in their
neighborhood may also identify a housing solution to address the
``students live in stable communities'' result described in Final
Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1, so long as the
solution otherwise meets the requirements in this notice.
Changes: None.
Final Planning Priority 8 and Final Implementation Priority 8
Family Engagement in Learning Through Adult Education
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department be more
explicit about the connection between adult education and family
engagement in Final Planning Priority 8 and Final Implementation
Priority 8. Specifically, the commenter recommended that these
priorities be revised to put a greater emphasis on parent and family
partnerships to support improving educational outcomes.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges the importance of family
engagement in education and learning. We believe that Final Planning
Priority 8 and Final Implementation Priority 8 sufficiently address
this issue by focusing on coordinated services, which may include
programs that provide training and opportunities for family members to
support student learning.
Changes: None.
Implementation Grant Priority 1
Continuum of Solutions
Comment: Several commenters made recommendations and requested
guidance regarding the timeline for developing the continuum of
solutions. Another commenter requested guidance about how many
solutions should be implemented in year one and over time. Two
commenters recommended that the Department require applicants for
implementation grants to provide information on their startup and
``phasing'' strategy to build the continuum of solutions.
Discussion: Because implementation grantees will build a complete
continuum over time, we agree that we should be more explicit about
requiring an implementation applicant to include in its proposal its
strategy for developing the continuum. We are adding language in
Implementation Priority 1 to make this clear. We believe that
applicants are best positioned to determine the timing of the phasing
strategy to build the continuum of solutions, and therefore, decline to
provide guidance on how many solutions should be implemented in year
one and over time.
Changes: We have revised Implementation Priority 1 to require
applicants to describe in an appendix to the application how and when
during the implementation process the solution will be made available
to children and youth in the geographic area to be served.
Comment: Several commenters requested clarification and expressed
concerns about the expected ``penetration rate'' of solutions, that is,
the percentage of all children of the same group within the
neighborhood proposed to be served by each solution. Another commenter
requested clarification and guidance about setting benchmarks for
penetration rates. One commenter expressed concern regarding the
requirement that implementation applicants ensure that each child in
the neighborhood receives appropriate services. The commenter
recommended that applicants be encouraged to
[[Page 39597]]
emphasize their plans for growth in the penetration rate over time.
Discussion: Based on the needs assessment and segmentation
analysis, an applicant may determine that not every child in the
neighborhood needs every solution in its continuum of solutions.
Moreover, a 100 percent penetration rate for children and youth in the
neighborhood receiving solutions is difficult, if not impossible, to
achieve, especially in year one of implementation. We believe that
applicants will be best positioned to determine the penetration rate of
solutions and, therefore, decline to provide guidance on benchmarks for
the penetration rate of solutions. However, we believe it would be
helpful to require applicants for implementation grants to describe
their annual goals for increasing the penetration rate over time and
are changing Final Implementation Priority 1 accordingly.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (3) of Final Implementation
Priority 1 to clarify that implementation applicants must describe how
they will ensure that children in the neighborhood receive the
appropriate services. While not necessarily every child will receive
services, specific groups of children (i.e., CWD and ELs) must not be
excluded from the plan. We have also revised paragraph (2) of Final
Implementation Priority 1 to require implementation applicants to
describe their goals to increase the penetration rate over time.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department acknowledge
the long-term nature of the work required to transform neighborhoods.
Specifically, they stated that the ultimate success of Promise
Neighborhoods will require the use of both short-term and long-term
goals to measure progress.
Discussion: We agree that the difficult work of dramatically
improving the quality of education and transforming distressed
neighborhoods demand both a sense of urgency and sufficient time to
implement change properly. Given this reality, it is important to
measure success using short-term and long-term goals.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (2) of Final Implementation
Priority 1 to acknowledge that, considering the time and urgency
required to dramatically improve outcomes of children and youth in our
most distressed neighborhoods and to transform those neighborhoods, an
applicant must establish both short-term and long-term goals against
which it will measure its progress.
Comment: One applicant expressed concern that reviewers would use
per-child cost estimates for providing solutions to make comparisons
among applicants and to make scoring decisions.
Discussion: The Department directs peer reviewers to score
applications against the established selection criteria and not to make
comparisons among and between applications.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the requirement that
implementation applicants establish annual goals for improving systems,
such as changes in policies, environments, or organizations that affect
children and youth in the neighborhood. The commenter stated that
setting annual goals for improving systems can be distracting to the
short-term work that must happen in the neighborhood.
Discussion: Changes in the neighborhood and systems change may
happen concurrently. Alignment of the Promise Neighborhoods strategy
with a local educational agency's (LEA) school turnaround effort
supported by SIG funds in neighborhood schools is an example of an
annual goal for improving systems that may directly support short-term
work that must happen in the neighborhood.
Changes: None.
Implementation Grant Priority 1
Needs Assessment, Segmentation Analysis, and Indicators
Comment: None
Discussion: After internal review, we noted that the NPP
encouraged, but did not require implementation applicants to describe
how they collected data for educational and family and community
support indicators. We intend to require applicants to describe their
data collection process because data collection is a critical component
of a successful Promise Neighborhood.
Changes: We changed ``should'' to ``must'' to specify that an
applicant for an implementation grant is required to describe how it
collected data for educational and family and community support
indicators.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we require applicants to
describe how the implementation of solutions will work at the
individual level. The commenter also recommended that the Department
require applicants to describe how they will help children, youth, and
families navigate multiple public systems and obtain the full benefits
of the continuum of solutions.
Discussion: An implementation applicant will be required to
describe how it is using its needs assessment and segmentation analysis
to ensure that children in the neighborhood receive appropriate
services from the continuum of solutions. An effective needs assessment
and segmentation analysis will create the conditions for effective
targeting and service delivery that meet the individual needs of
residents, and thus reduce the need for the residents to navigate
multiple public systems. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary
to include the additional requirement recommended by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that implementation applicants
be required only to demonstrate that they have collected data on a
majority of the indicators and that they be allowed to identify
indicators for which they will have the data in hand by the end of the
planning or early implementation phase. Another commenter expressed
concerns about the financial and time costs of collecting the required
data.
Discussion: Implementation applicants are required to describe how
they collected data on the indicators described in Table 1 and Table 2
in Final Implementation Priority 1 for the needs assessment. Paragraph
(3) of Final Implementation Priority 1 requires applicants to describe
how the data were used to ensure that children receive the appropriate
services from the continuum of solutions. Implementation applicants
must accurately describe their needs assessment and segmentation
analysis process. Under the design of the Promise Neighborhoods
program, applicants are expected to complete a rigorous needs
assessment during the planning phase and collect baseline data during
the first year of implementation. Data collection and management is a
critical component of Final Implementation Priority 1, and we decline
to loosen our requirements in this area as requested by the commenter.
While we appreciate the costs associated with the required data
collection, activities associated with data collection and management
are eligible uses of Promise Neighborhoods grant funds. Moreover, we
believe that the costs and time involved in the required data
collection and management activities are necessary to the overall
success of Promise Neighborhoods.
Changes: None.
[[Page 39598]]
Implementation Priority 1
Experience, Lessons Learned, Capacity Building, and Data System
Comment: Two commenters recommended that implementation applicants
describe the progress they have made on developing their longitudinal
data systems and linking their systems to school-based, LEA, and State
data systems. One of the commenters recommended that the Department
support the implementation of longitudinal data systems that build on
existing systems, rather than the creation of new systems. In light of
the challenges in integrating student-level data from multiple sources,
especially while abiding by privacy laws and requirements, another
commenter recommended that applicants explain their progress in
integrating student-level data from multiple sources. One commenter
requested information regarding the Department's expectations for
having the applicant's longitudinal data system in operation at the
time the application is submitted or a grant is awarded.
Discussion: We expect that the data systems managed by
implementation applicants will be at different stages of development.
We agree with the commenters that applicants should have the
flexibility to build upon an existing data system or create a new
system, and are changing paragraph (4)(b) in the Implementation
Priority 1 accordingly. We also believe that each implementation
applicant should describe its progress in implementing its longitudinal
data system, including the progress it has made in linking its system
to school-based, LEA, and State data systems, and integrating student-
level data from multiple sources. We will revise Implementation
Priority 1 accordingly.
Changes: We have added language to paragraph (4)(b)(i) in
Implementation Priority 1 to require an implementation applicant to
describe progress toward developing and implementing its data system
and in integrating student-level data from multiple sources. We also
have added language to paragraph (4)(b)(ii) of this priority to require
each implementation applicant to describe how it has linked or made
progress to link its longitudinal data system to school-based, LEA, and
State data systems.
Final Implementation Priority 4
Comprehensive Local Early Learning Network
Comment: None.
Discussion: After internal review, we noted that the NPP
encouraged, but did not require the implementation plan for a high-
quality and comprehensive local early learning network to reflect input
from a broad range of stakeholders. We intend to require the plan to
reflect such input because we believe that diverse viewpoints will
strengthen the final product.
Changes: We changed ``should'' to ``must'' to specify that the
implementation plan for a high-quality and comprehensive local early
learning network is required to reflect input from a broad range of
stakeholders.
Implementation Optional Supplemental Funding Opportunity
Comment: Several commenters expressed their support for the
Optional Supplemental Funding Opportunity from the Department of
Justice (DOJ) and recommended that the Department require similar
alignment with other programs and initiatives, both within the
Department of Education and with other Federal agencies.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that it is important to
create opportunities for alignment and funding opportunities among
multiple programs and Federal agencies and will continue pursuing such
opportunities in the future. Moreover, paragraph (4)(e) in the Planning
Priority 1 and Implementation Priority 1 require applicants to describe
their experience integrating funding streams from multiple sources. We
believe this approach better supports organizations pursuing
comprehensive, cradle-through-college-to-career strategies to
revitalize neighborhoods.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the Optional
Supplemental Funding Opportunity to provide more flexibility in an
implementation applicant's public safety plans. Specifically, the
commenter recommended allowing applicants to pursue public safety
strategies that include prevention, intervention, enforcement, or a
focus on the reentry of offenders, instead of the Department requiring
all of these four strategies.
Discussion: The Department anticipates providing additional details
regarding the Optional Supplemental Funding Opportunity in the NIA. The
NIA will likely include further direction to applicants regarding the
areas to be addressed in and the uses of funds to pursue a
comprehensive public safety strategy, including whether or not an
applicant must address all four strategies.
Changes: None.
Requirements
Planning and Implementation Grants Requirements
Eligible Applicants
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department allow all
eligible entities, not only FY 2010 Promise Neighborhoods planning
grantees, to submit applications for implementation grants.
Discussion: Eligible applicants for implementation grants are not
restricted to grantees that received FY 2010 Promise Neighborhoods
planning grants. Applicants that did not compete for or receive a
planning grant may compete for an implementation grant alongside FY
2010 planning grantees. While all eligible entities will be able to
apply for implementation grants, communities that have effectively
carried out the planning activities described in the FY 2010 notice
inviting applications, whether independently or through a Promise
Neighborhoods planning grant, are likely to be well-positioned with the
plan, commitments, data, and demonstrated organizational leadership and
capacity necessary to develop a quality application for an
implementation grant.
Changes: None.
Other Requirements
Comment: One commenter recommended limiting the indirect cost rates
that Promise Neighborhoods grantees can include in their budgets to 20
percent or less of the grant amount.
Discussion: The Department does not believe it is necessary to
adopt the commenters' suggestion because it is not aware of any
evidence that there is a link between indirect cost rates that are 20
percent or higher and problems with grantee performance for the Promise
Neighborhoods program, or any other discretionary grant program
administered by this agency. Federal agencies, including the
Department, carefully negotiate indirect cost rates with grantees and
believe that the negotiated rates are appropriate. Thus, grantees are
allowed to spend up to that negotiated amount.
Changes: None.
Matching
Planning and Implementation Grants Matching
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department provide more
information about potential match sources, including eligible and
ineligible sources.
Discussion: Additional information on matching funds, including in-
kind
[[Page 39599]]
contributions, can be found in the Department's regulations at 34 CFR
74.23 and 80.24. In addition, the Department expects to issue a
``frequently asked questions'' guidance document that will provide
information on requirements, such as the matching funds requirement.
Changes: None.
Implementation Grants Matching
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department reduce the
private match requirement for implementation applicants proposing to
serve rural and tribal communities from 10 percent to 5 percent.
Discussion: The Department's decision that implementation
applicants demonstrate a private-sector match of at least 10 percent of
the total amount of Federal funds requested is based on the
determination that this amount of private support is a strong indicator
of the potential for sustaining the proposed project over time.
However, the Department understands the concerns raised by the
commenters and points out that we will permit applicants to count in-
kind contributions towards the 10 percent private sector matching
requirement and to request a waiver of the matching requirement in the
most exceptional circumstances. In addition, rural and tribal
implementation applicants are only required to provide half the amount
of total matching funds (50 percent versus 100 percent).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department reconsider the
100 percent match requirement for implementation grants and instead
consider a scaled approach that would increase the matching percentage
required over time.
Discussion: The implementation grant match may include resources
(cash or in-kind donations) from Federal, State, and local public
agencies, philanthropic organizations, private businesses, or
individuals. The Department believes that this allows sufficient
flexibility for applicants to secure the full 100 percent match. We
also note that rural and tribal applicants for implementation grants
are only required to obtain a 50 percent match.
Changes: None.
Definitions
Planning and Implementation Grants Definitions
Education Programs
Comment: None.
Discussion: After internal review, we believe the Department must
be more explicit about the requirement that the standards with which
high-quality early learning programs must align are ``State early
learning and development'' standards, as appropriate, to provide
clarity and consistency for grantees.
Changes: We are revising paragraph (1) of the definition of
education programs to clarify that high-quality early learning programs
must align with ``State early learning and development'' standards, as
appropriate.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require
applicants to describe how solutions will help young people through
college and into their career.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the end of the cradle-
through-college-to-career solutions is a critical area of focus for
Promise Neighborhoods. This is especially true considering the
challenges faced by many first-generation college students from
distressed neighborhoods and in light of the Administration's goal that
the United States lead the world in the proportion of college graduates
by 2020. Therefore, we are revising the definition of education
programs to focus on the transition through college and into the
workforce.
Changes: We have added a new paragraph (f) in the definition of
education programs that specifies that education programs include
programs that support college students, including CWD and ELs, from the
neighborhood to transition to college, persist in their academic
studies, graduate, and transition into the workforce.
Family and Community Supports
Comment: Several commenters recommended changing the definition of
family and community supports to ensure that there is a more extensive
and systemic role for family and community engagement in education.
Discussion: We agree that strategies for family and community
engagement in education must be integrated throughout the work of
Promise Neighborhoods and, therefore, are revising the definition of
family and community supports to make this clear.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (4) in the definition of family
and community supports by adding language stating that family and
community supports includes family and community engagement programs
that are systemic, integrated, sustainable, and continue through a
student's transition from K-12 school to college and career. In
addition, we have added language to specify that these programs also
include programs that support the engagement of families in early
learning programs and services; programs that provide guidance on how
to navigate through a complex school system and advocacy for more and
improved learning opportunities; and programs that promote
collaboration with educators and community organizations to improve
opportunities for healthy development and learning.
Comment: One commenter recommended that applicants partner with
organizations, such as television and radio stations that are able to
distribute information about solutions through the Promise
Neighborhoods.
Discussion: The definition of family and community supports
includes programs that provide for the use of such community resources
as libraries, museums, and local businesses to support improved student
education outcomes. We agree with the commenter and will include
television and radio stations as additional examples of community
resources that can be used to support and distribute information about
the Promise Neighborhood efforts and are making this change to the
definition of family and community supports.
Changes: We have revised the definition of family and community
supports to include local television and radio stations as additional
examples of community resources that can support and align with family
and community engagement programs.
Indian Tribe
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department expand the
definition of Indian tribe to include additional Alaskan ``tribes.''
Discussion: In the NPP, the Department proposed to define the term
Indian tribe to include any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band,
nation, pueblo, village or community that the Secretary of the Interior
acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe, 25 U.S.C. 479a and 479a-1.
This proposed definition was consistent with the definition we used in
the 2010 Promise Neighborhoods competition. However, we agree with the
commenter that this definition should include Alaskan tribes and, for
this reason, are revising the definition to include any Alaska Native
village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. 1601.
Changes: We have changed the definition of Indian tribe to include:
Any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined
in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,
43 U.S.C. 1601, et seq., that is recognized as eligible for the special
programs and
[[Page 39600]]
services provided by the United States to Indians because of their
status as Indians. Also, we now specify in the definition of Indian
tribe that the term ``Indian'' means a member of an Indian tribe.
Neighborhood
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department expand a
Promise Neighborhood to include ``affinity groups.''
Discussion: The Promise Neighborhoods program is focused on
geographically defined areas. Although we provide flexibility in how
applicants define geographically-defined areas, which may be
noncontiguous, geographical proximity and the need to serve a high
percentage of children and youth within the geographic areas are
important components of the program. Affinity groups, which we
interpret to mean a group of people having a common interest or goal or
acting together for a specific purpose, may not always be
geographically-defined.
Changes: None.
Neighborhood Assets
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise the
definition of neighborhood assets so that the reference to ``social
assets'' specifically includes parents and families.
Discussion: The Department agrees that parents and families are
important neighborhood assets. We did not intend to exclude them but
merely implied their inclusion in ``community.'' However, we believe
that specifically including parents and families in this definition
will emphasize their importance as examples of social assets and are
making this change in the definition of neighborhood assets.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (5) in the definition of
neighborhood assets to include ``partnerships with youth, parents, and
families'' as an example of social assets that establish well-
functioning social interactions.
Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department broaden the
definition of persistently lowest-achieving schools to include the
bottom 10 percent of lowest-performing schools.
Discussion: The definition of persistently lowest achieving schools
is consistent with the definition used in the Department's RTT and SIG
programs. We believe that using the same definition across these
programs ensures that the comprehensive education programs implemented
in Promise Neighborhoods are consistent with efforts to reform low-
performing schools under other programs supported by the Department.
Additionally, an applicant may also propose to serve, through a Promise
Neighborhoods grant, low-performing schools (as defined in the notice)
that are not also persistently lowest-achieving schools, which could
include a school in the neighborhood that is in the bottom 10 percent
of lowest performing schools in the State.
Changes: None.
School Climate Needs Assessment
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department modify the
definition of school climate needs assessment to include one or more
needs assessment tools. In particular the commenter requested that we
revise the definition to explicitly require the needs assessment to
assess the needs of different stakeholders, including students, staff,
parents, families, and the community.
Discussion: The Department recognizes the potential difficulty in
obtaining the views of multiple stakeholders regarding school climate
using a single tool. However, we believe that requiring applicants to
include students, staff, parents, families, and the community in its
needs assessment, as recommended by the commenter, would significantly
increase implementation costs. This increase in costs would result from
additional costs associated with ensuring consistency in the use of the
tool across Promise Neighborhoods sites. Applicants may choose to add
stakeholders and tools to perform the school climate needs assessment,
but at a minimum must use an evaluation tool that measures the extent
to which the school setting promotes or inhibits academic performance
by collecting perception data from individuals, which could include
students, staff, or families.
Changes: None.
Strong Evidence
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the definitions of
strong evidence and moderate evidence, as well as the reference to best
available evidence.
Discussion: The tiered levels of evidence reflect the Department's
efforts to balance the need to cultivate new programs with support for
existing programs that have proven to be effective.
Changes: None.
Selection Criteria
General--Selection Criteria
Comment: One commenter recommended that we reorganize the selection
criteria categories to include project design, schools, neighborhood
experience, data and indicators, funding, and project significance.
Discussion: Each Promise Neighborhood project must have several
core features: Significant need in the neighborhood for the grant
services, a strategy to build a continuum of solutions with strong
schools at the center, and the capacity to achieve results. We believe
the selection criteria are best organized to align with these core
features. Thus, the ``need for project'' criterion aligns with the
absolute priority requirement that applicants describe the need in the
neighborhood. The ``quality of project design'' and ``quality of
project services'' criteria align with the absolute priority
requirement that applicants describe a strategy to build a continuum of
solutions with strong schools at the center. The ``quality of the
management plan'' criterion aligns with the absolute priority
requirement that applicants describe their capacity to achieve results.
Changes: None.
Planning and Implementation Grants Selection Criterion
Planning and Implementation Grants Selection Criterion 4--Quality of
Management Plan
Comment: One commenter recommended that the quality of management
plan criterion be revised to require applicants to describe how the
applicant will hold partners accountable for outcomes.
Discussion: We agree that holding partners accountable for
performance is critical to realizing the program's vision that all
children and youth growing up in Promise Neighborhoods have access to
great schools and strong systems of family and community support that
will prepare them to attain an excellent education and successfully
transition to college and a career. Therefore, we are changing the
criterion accordingly.
Changes: We have revised the quality of management plan selection
criterion paragraph (b)(iii) for planning and implementation applicants
to require applicants to describe in their memorandum of understanding
``a system for holding partners accountable.'' A similar change was
made in paragraph (4)(d) of Final Planning Priority 1 and Final
Implementation Priority 1.
[[Page 39601]]
Implementation Grants Selection Criteria
Implementation Grants Selection Criterion 2--Quality of Project Design
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the selection criteria
emphasize the quality and likely success of the plan, including how an
applicant included neighborhood residents in its development.
Discussion: The selection criteria for implementation grants
address the quality and success of the planning process, which includes
resident engagement. Specifically, peer reviewers will use selection
criterion (2)(b)(iv), quality of the project design, to judge
applicants' experiences in integrating high-quality programs into the
continuum of solutions, including during the planning process. In
addition, peer reviewers will use selection criterion (4)(b)(i),
quality of the management plan, to judge the applicants' work with
neighborhood residents. Therefore, we do not believe a change in the
selection criteria, as recommended by the commenters, is necessary.
Changes: None.
Implementation Grants Selection Criterion 3--Quality of Project
Services
Comment: Two commenters recommended that implementation applicants
describe their goals for improvement, as measured by the indicators.
Discussion: We agree that Promise Neighborhoods should establish
goals for improving outcomes for children and youth over time and are
revising the selection criterion for quality of project services, as
well as Implementation Grant Priority 1 so that there is a clear focus
on an applicant's improvement in achieving results as measured by the
required indicators.
Changes: We have revised paragraph (3)(b)(iii) in the quality of
project services selection criterion by replacing the word ``changes''
with the word ``improvement.'' Under paragraph (3)(b)(iii) we measure
the extent to which the applicant describes clear, annual goals for
growth on indicators. We also have revised Implementation Grant
Priority 1, paragraph (3)(c) to require applicants to describe how it
will collect clear, annual goals for growth on indicators.
Implementation Grants Selection Criterion 4--Quality of Management Plan
Comment: One commenter requested clarification about how an
applicant's efforts to sustain and scale-up its program will be
evaluated under the selection criteria.
Discussion: Applicants are required to describe their experience,
lessons learned, and a plan to build capacity in several areas,
including creating and strengthening formal and informal partnerships
to sustain and scale up what works. Peer reviewers will consider an
applicant's description of its partnerships to sustain and scale up as
part of the quality of the management plan under paragraph (4)(b)(iii)
of the selection criteria.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
Final Planning Grant Priority 1 (Absolute): Proposal To Develop a
Promise Neighborhood Plan
To meet this priority, an applicant must submit a proposal for how
it will plan to create a Promise Neighborhood. This proposal must
describe the need in the neighborhood, a strategy to build a continuum
of solutions, and the applicant's capacity to achieve results.
Specifically, an applicant must--
(1) Describe the geographically defined area \1\ (neighborhood) to
be served and the level of distress in that area based on indicators of
need and other relevant indicators. Applicants may propose to serve
multiple, non-contiguous geographically defined areas. In cases where
target areas are not contiguous, the applicant must explain its
rationale for including non-contiguous areas;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purposes of this notice, the Department uses the
terms ``geographic area'' and ``neighborhood'' interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Describe how it will plan to build a continuum of solutions
based on the best available evidence including, where available, strong
or moderate evidence (as defined in this notice) designed to
significantly improve educational outcomes and to support the healthy
development and well-being of children and youth in the neighborhood.
The applicant must also describe how it will build community support
for and involvement in the development of the plan. The plan must be
designed to ensure that over time, children and youth in the
neighborhood who attend the target school or schools have access to a
complete continuum of solutions, and ensure, as appropriate, that
children and youth in the neighborhood who do not attend the target
school or schools have access to solutions within the continuum of
solutions. The plan must also ensure that students not living in the
neighborhood who attend the target school or schools have access to
solutions within the continuum of solutions.
The success of the applicant's strategy to build a continuum of
solutions will be based on the results of the project, as measured
against the project indicators defined in this notice and described in
Table 1 and Table 2. In its strategy, the applicant must describe how
it will determine which solutions within the continuum of solutions to
implement, and must include--
(a) High-quality early learning programs and services designed to
improve outcomes across multiple domains of early learning (as defined
in this notice) for children from birth through third grade;
(b) Ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive education reforms that
are linked to improved educational outcomes for children and youth in
preschool through the 12th grade. Public schools served through the
grant may include persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in
this notice) or low-performing schools (as defined in this notice) that
are not also persistently lowest-achieving schools. An applicant (or
one or more of its partners) may serve an effective school or schools
(as defined in this notice) but only if the applicant (or one or more
of its partners) also serves at least one low-performing school (as
defined in this notice) or persistently lowest-achieving school (as
defined in this notice). An applicant must identify in its application
the public school or schools that would be served and the current
status of reforms in the school or schools, including, if applicable,
the type of intervention model being implemented. In cases where an
applicant operates a school or partners with a school that does not
serve all students in the neighborhood, the applicant must partner with
at least one additional school or schools that also serves students in
the neighborhood. An applicant proposing to work with a persistently
lowest-achieving school must include as part of its strategy one of the
four school intervention models (turnaround model, restart model,
school closure, or transformation model) described in Appendix C of the
Race to the Top (RTT) notice inviting applications for new awards for
FY 2010 that was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2009
(74 FR 59836, 59866).
An applicant proposing to work with a low-performing school must
include, as part of its strategy, ambitious, rigorous, and
comprehensive interventions to assist, augment, or replace schools,
which may include implementing one of the four school
[[Page 39602]]
intervention models, or may include another model of sufficient
ambition, rigor, and comprehensiveness to significantly improve
academic and other outcomes for students. An applicant proposing to
work with a low-performing school must include an intervention that
addresses the effectiveness of teachers and leaders and the school's
use of time and resources, which may include increased learning time
(as defined in this notice);
Note regarding school reform strategies: So as not to penalize
an applicant for proposing to work with an LEA that has implemented
rigorous reform strategies prior to the publication of this notice,
an applicant is not required to propose a new reform strategy in
place of an existing reform strategy in order to be eligible for a
Promise Neighborhoods planning grant. For example, an LEA might have
begun to implement improvement activities that meet many, but not
all, of the elements of a transformation model of school
intervention. In this case, the applicant could propose, as part of
its Promise Neighborhood strategy, to work with the LEA as the LEA
continues with its reforms.
(c) Programs that prepare students to be college- and career-ready;
and
(d) Family and community supports (as defined in this notice).
To the extent feasible and appropriate, the applicant must
describe, in its plan, how the applicant and its partners will leverage
and integrate high-quality programs, related public and private
investments, and existing neighborhood assets into the continuum of
solutions.
An applicant must also describe in its plan how it will identify
Federal, State, or local policies, regulations, or other requirements
that would impede its ability to achieve its goals and how it will
report on those impediments to the Department and other relevant
agencies.
As part of the description of how it will plan to build a continuum
of solutions, the applicant must describe how it will participate in,
organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice (as
defined in this notice) for Promise Neighborhoods.
(3) Specify how it will conduct a comprehensive needs assessment
and segmentation analysis of children and youth in the neighborhood
during the planning grant project period and explain how it will use
this needs assessment and segmentation analysis to determine the
children with the highest needs and ensure that those children receive
the appropriate services from the continuum of solutions. In this
explanation of how it will use the needs assessment and segmentation
analysis, the applicant must identify and describe in the application
both the educational indicators and the family and community support
indicators that the applicant will use in conducting the needs
assessment during the planning year. During the planning year, the
applicant must--
(a) Collect data for the educational indicators listed in Table 1
and use them as both program and project indicators;
(b) Collect data for the family and community support indicators in
Table 2 and use them as program indicators; and
(c) Collect data for unique family and community support
indicators, developed by the applicant, that align with the goals and
objectives of projects and use them as project indicators or use the
indicators in Table 2 as project indicators.
Note: Planning grant applicants are not required to propose
solutions in their applications; however, they are required to
describe how they will identify solutions, including the use of
available evidence, during the planning year that will result in
improvements on the project indicators.
Table 1--Education Indicators and Results They Are Intended to Measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator Result
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- and % of children birth to Children enter kindergarten
kindergarten entry who have a place where ready to succeed in school.
they usually go, other than an emergency
room, when they are sick or in need of
advice about their health.
-- and % of three-year-olds and
children in kindergarten who demonstrate
at the beginning of the program or school
year age-appropriate functioning across
multiple domains of early learning (as
defined in this notice) as determined
using developmentally appropriate early
learning measures (as defined in this
notice).
-- & % of children, from birth to
kindergarten entry, participating in
center-based or formal home-based early
learning settings or programs, which may
include Early Head Start, Head Start,
child care, or preschool.
-- & % of students at or above Students are proficient in
grade level according to State core academic subjects.
mathematics and reading or language arts
assessments in at least the grades
required by the ESEA (3rd through 8th and
once in high school).
--Attendance rate of students in 6th, 7th, Students successfully
8th, and 9th grade. transition from middle
school grades to high
school.
--Graduation rate (as defined in this Youth graduate from high
notice). school.
-- & % of Promise Neighborhood High school graduates obtain
students who graduate with a regular high a postsecondary degree,
school diploma, as defined in 34 CFR certification, or
200.19(b)(1)(iv), and obtain credential.
postsecondary degrees, vocational
certificates, or other industry-
recognized certifications or credentials
without the need for remediation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Family and Community Support Indicators and Results They Are
Intended To Measure:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator Result
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- & % of children who Students are healthy.
participate in at least 60 minutes of
moderate to vigorous physical activity
daily; and.
-- & % of children who consume
five or more servings of fruits and
vegetables daily; or.
--possible third indicator, to be
determined (TBD) by applicant.
-- & % of students who feel safe Students feel safe at school
at school and traveling to and from and in their community.
school, as measured by a school climate
needs assessment (as defined in this
notice); or.
--possible second indicator, TBD by
applicant.
--Student mobility rate (as defined in Students live in stable
this notice); or. communities.
--possible second indicator, TBD by
applicant.
[[Page 39603]]
--For children birth to kindergarten Families and community
entry, the and % of parents or members support learning in
family members who report that they read Promise Neighborhood
to their child three or more times a schools.
week;
--For children in kindergarten through the
eighth grade, the and % of
parents or family members who report
encouraging their child to read books
outside of school; and
--For children in the ninth through
twelfth grades, the and % of
parents or family members who report
talking with their child about the
importance of college and career; or
--possible fourth indicator TBD by
applicant.
-- & % of students who have Students have access to 21st
school and home access (and % of the day century learning tools.
they have access) to broadband internet
(as defined in this notice) and a
connected computing device; or
--possible second indicator TBD by
applicant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The indicators in Table 1 and Table 2 are not intended to
limit an applicant from collecting and using data for additional
indicators. Examples of additional indicators are--
(i) The and % of children who participate in high-
quality learning activities during out-of-school hours or in the
hours after the traditional school day ends;
(ii) The and % of children who are suspended or
receive discipline referrals during the school year;
(iii) The share of housing stock in the geographically defined
area that is rent-protected, publicly assisted, or targeted for
redevelopment with local, State, or Federal funds; and
(iv) The and % of children who are homeless or in
foster care and who have an assigned adult advocate.
Note: While the Department believes there are many programmatic
benefits of collecting data on every child in the proposed
neighborhood, the Department will consider requests to collect data
on only a sample of the children in the neighborhood for some
indicators so long as the applicant describes in its application how
it would ensure the sample would be representative of the children
in the neighborhood.
(4) Describe the experience and lessons learned, and describe how
the applicant will build the capacity of its management team and
project director in all of the following areas:
(a) Working with the neighborhood and its residents, including
parents and families that have children or other family members with
disabilities or ELs, as well as with the school(s) described in
paragraph (2) of this priority; the LEA in which the school or schools
are located; Federal, State, and local government leaders; and other
service providers.
(b) Collecting, analyzing, and using data for decision-making,
learning, continuous improvement, and accountability. The applicant
must describe--
(i) Its proposal to plan to build, adapt, or expand a longitudinal
data system that integrates student-level data from multiple sources in
order to measure progress on educational and family and community
support indicators for all children in the neighborhood, disaggregated
by the subgroups listed in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA;
(ii) How the applicant will link the longitudinal data system to
school-based, LEA, and State data systems; make the data accessible to
parents, families, community residents, program partners, researchers,
and evaluators while abiding by Federal, State, and other privacy laws
and requirements; and manage and maintain the system;
(iii) How the applicant will use rapid-time (as defined in this
notice) data both in the planning year and, once the Promise
Neighborhood strategy is implemented, for continuous program
improvement; and
(iv) How the applicant will document the planning process,
including by describing lessons learned and best practices;
(c) Creating formal and informal partnerships, for such purposes as
providing solutions along the continuum of solutions and attaining
resources to sustain and scale up what works. An applicant, as part of
its application, must submit a preliminary memorandum of understanding,
signed by each organization or agency with which it would partner in
planning the proposed Promise Neighborhood. The preliminary memorandum
of understanding must describe--
(i) Each partner's financial and programmatic commitment; and
(ii) How each partner's existing vision, theory of change (as
defined in this notice), theory of action (as defined in this notice),
and existing activities align with those of the proposed Promise
Neighborhood strategy;
(d) The governance structure proposed for the Promise Neighborhood,
including a system for holding partners accountable, how the eligible
entity's governing board or advisory board is representative of the
geographic area proposed to be served (as defined in this notice), and
how residents of the geographic area would have an active role in the
organization's decision-making; and
(e) Securing and integrating funding streams from multiple public
and private sources from the Federal, State, and local level. Examples
of public funds include Federal resources from the U.S. Department of
Education, such as the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program
and title I of the ESEA, and from other Federal agencies, such as the
U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, Justice, Labor, and Treasury.
(5) Describe the applicant's commitment to work with the
Department, and with a national evaluator for Promise Neighborhoods or
another entity designated by the Department, to ensure that data
collection and program design are consistent with plans to conduct a
rigorous national evaluation of the Promise Neighborhoods program and
of specific solutions and strategies pursued by individual grantees.
This commitment must include, but need not be limited to--
(a) Ensuring that, through memoranda of understanding with
appropriate entities, the national evaluator and the Department have
access to relevant program and project data (e.g., administrative data
and program and project indicator data), including data on a quarterly
basis if requested by the Department;
(b) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, an
evaluation strategy, including identifying a credible comparison group;
and
(c) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, a plan
for identifying and collecting reliable and valid baseline data for
both program participants and a designated comparison group of non-
participants.
Final Planning Grant Priority 2 (Absolute): Promise Neighborhoods in
Rural Communities
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to develop a plan
for
[[Page 39604]]
implementing a Promise Neighborhood strategy that (1) meets all of the
requirements in Absolute Priority 1; and (2) proposes to serve one or
more rural communities only.
Final Planning Grant Priority 3 (Absolute): Promise Neighborhoods in
Tribal Communities
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to develop a plan
for implementing a Promise Neighborhood strategy that (1) meets all of
the requirements in Absolute Priority 1; and (2) proposes to serve one
or more Indian tribes (as defined in this notice).
Final Planning Grant Priority 4: Comprehensive Local Early Learning
Network
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to develop a plan
to expand, enhance, or modify an existing network of early learning
programs and services to ensure that they are high-quality and
comprehensive for children from birth through the third grade. The plan
must also ensure that the network establishes a high standard of
quality across early learning settings and is designed to improve
outcomes across multiple domains of early learning. Distinct from the
early learning solutions described in paragraph (2) of Absolute
Priority 1, this priority supports proposals to develop plans that
integrate various early learning services and programs in the
neighborhood in order to enhance the quality of such services and
programs, i.e., school-based early learning programs; locally- or
State-funded preschool programs; Early Head Start and Head Start; the
local child care resource and referral agency, if applicable;
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) services and
programs; services through private providers; home visiting programs;
public and private child care providers that are licensed by the State,
including public and private providers and center-based care; and
family, friend, or neighbor care in the Promise Neighborhood.
The local early learning network must address or incorporate
ongoing State-level efforts regarding the major components of high-
quality early learning programs and services, such as State early
learning and development standards, program quality standards,
comprehensive assessment systems, workforce and professional
development systems, health promotion, family and community engagement,
a coordinated data infrastructure, and a method of measuring,
monitoring, evaluating, and improving program quality. For example, an
applicant might address how the Promise Neighborhoods project will use
the State's early learning standards, as applicable, and the Head Start
Child Development and Early Learning Framework (Framework), as
applicable, to define the expectations of what children should know and
be able to do before entering kindergarten. The Framework is available
on the Office of Head Start's Web site at: http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/ecdh/eecd/Assessment/Child%20Outcomes/HS_Revised_Child_Outcomes_Framework.pdf. Similarly, an applicant that
addresses this priority must discuss, where applicable, how it would
align with the State's Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), as
applicable, professional development and workforce infrastructure, and
other appropriate State efforts. In addition, the proposal must
describe how the project will provide, to the extent practicable, early
learning opportunities on multiple platforms (e.g., public television,
web-based) and in multiple locations (e.g., at home, at school, and at
other community locations.)
Note regarding accessibility of early learning programs and
services: These early learning opportunities must be fully
accessible to individuals with disabilities, including individuals
who are blind or have low vision; otherwise, the plans must describe
how accommodations or modifications will be provided to ensure that
the benefits of the early learning opportunities are provided to
children and youth with disabilities in an equally effective and
equally integrated manner.
The proposal to develop a plan for a high-quality and comprehensive
local early learning network must describe the governance structure and
how the applicant will use the planning year to plan solutions that
address the major components of high-quality early learning programs
and services as well as establish goals, strategies, and benchmarks to
provide early learning programs and services that result in improved
outcomes across multiple domains of early learning (as defined in this
notice). An applicant addressing this priority must designate an
individual responsible for overseeing and integrating the early
learning initiatives and must include a resume or position description
and other supporting documentation to demonstrate that the individual
designated, or individual hired to carry out those responsibilities,
possesses the appropriate State certification, and has experience and
expertise in managing and administering high-quality early learning
programs, including in coordinating across various high-quality early
learning programs and services.
Final Planning Grant Priority 5: Quality Internet Connectivity
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to develop a plan
to ensure that almost all students in the geographic area proposed to
be served have broadband Internet access (as defined in this notice) at
home and at school, the knowledge and skills to use broadband Internet
access effectively, and a connected computing device to support
schoolwork.
Final Planning Grant Priority 6: Arts and Humanities
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to develop a plan
to include opportunities for children and youth to experience and
participate actively in the arts and humanities in their community so
as to broaden, enrich, and enliven the educational, cultural, and civic
experiences available in the neighborhood. Applicants may propose to
develop plans for offering these activities in school and in out-of-
school settings and at any time during the calendar year.
Final Planning Grant Priority 7: Quality Affordable Housing
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to serve
geographic areas that were the subject of an affordable housing
transformation pursuant to a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant
awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development during
FY 2009 or later years. To be eligible under this priority, the
applicant must either (1) be able to demonstrate that it has received a
Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant or (2) provide, in its
application, a memorandum of understanding between it and a partner
that is a recipient of Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant. The
memorandum must indicate a commitment on the part of the applicant and
partner to coordinate planning and align resources to the greatest
extent practicable.
Final Planning Grant Priority 8: Family Engagement in Learning Through
Adult Education
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to develop a plan
that is coordinated with adult education providers serving neighborhood
residents, such as those funded through the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act, as amended. Coordinated services may include adult basic
and secondary education and programs that provide training and
opportunities for
[[Page 39605]]
family members and other members of the community to support student
learning and establish high expectations for student educational
achievement. Examples of services and programs include preparation for
the General Education Development (GED) test; English literacy, family
literacy, and work-based literacy training; or other training that
prepares adults for postsecondary education and careers or supports
adult engagement in the educational success of children and youth in
the neighborhood.
Final Implementation Grant Priorities
Final Implementation Grant Priority 1 (Absolute): Submission of Promise
Neighborhood Plan
To meet this priority, an applicant must submit a plan to create a
Promise Neighborhood. The plan must describe the need in the
neighborhood, a strategy to build a continuum of solutions, and the
applicant's capacity to achieve results. Specifically, an applicant
must--
(1) Describe the geographically defined area \2\ (neighborhood) to
be served and the level of distress in that area based on indicators of
need and other relevant indicators. The statement of need in the
neighborhood must be based, in part, on results of a comprehensive
needs assessment and segmentation analysis (as defined in this notice).
Applicants may propose to serve multiple, non-contiguous geographically
defined areas. In cases where target areas are not contiguous, the
applicant must explain its rationale for including non-contiguous
areas;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For the purposes of this notice, the Department uses the
terms ``geographic area'' and ``neighborhood'' interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Describe the applicant's strategy for building a continuum of
solutions over time that addresses neighborhood challenges as
identified in the needs assessment and segmentation analysis. The
applicant must also describe how it has built community support for and
involvement in the development of the plan. The continuum of solutions
must be based on the best available evidence including, where
available, strong or moderate evidence (as defined in this notice), and
be designed to significantly improve educational outcomes and to
support the healthy development and well-being of children and youth in
the neighborhood. The strategy must be designed to ensure that over
time, a greater proportion of children and youth in the neighborhood
who attend the target school or schools have access to a complete
continuum of solutions, and must ensure that over time, a greater
proportion of children and youth in the neighborhood who do not attend
the target school or schools have access to solutions within the
continuum of solutions. The strategy must also ensure that, over time,
students not living in the neighborhood who attend the target school or
schools have access to solutions within the continuum of solutions.
The success of the applicant's strategy to build a continuum of
solutions will be based on the results of project, as measured against
the project indicators as defined in this notice and described in Table
1 and Table 2. In its strategy, the applicant must propose clear and
measurable annual goals during the grant period against which
improvements will be measured using the indicators. The strategy must--
(a) Identify each solution that the project will implement within
the proposed continuum of solutions, and must include--
(i) High-quality early learning programs and services designed to
improve outcomes across multiple domains of early learning (as defined
in this notice) for children from birth through third grade;
(ii) Ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive education reforms that
are linked to improved educational outcomes for children and youth in
preschool through the 12th grade. Public schools served through the
grant may include persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in
this notice) or low-performing schools (as defined in this notice) that
are not also persistently lowest-achieving schools. An applicant (or
one or more of its partners) may serve an effective school or schools
(as defined in this notice) but only if the applicant (or one or more
of its partners) also serves at least one low-performing school (as
defined in this notice) or persistently lowest-achieving school (as
defined in this notice). An applicant must identify in its application
the public school or schools it would serve and describe the current
status of reforms in the school or schools, including, if applicable,
the type of intervention model being implemented. In cases where an
applicant operates a school or partners with a school that does not
serve all students in the neighborhood, the applicant must partner with
at least one additional school that also serves students in the
neighborhood. An applicant proposing to work with a persistently
lowest-achieving school must include in its strategy one of the four
school intervention models (turnaround model, restart model, school
closure, or transformation model) described in Appendix C of the Race
to the Top (RTT) notice inviting applications for new awards for FY
2010 that was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2009
(74 FR 59836, 59866).
An applicant proposing to work with a low-performing school must
include in its strategy ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive
interventions to assist, augment, or replace schools, which may include
implementing one of the four school intervention models, or may include
another model of sufficient ambition, rigor, and comprehensiveness to
significantly improve academic and other outcomes for students. An
applicant proposing to work with a low-performing school must include
in its strategy an intervention that addresses the effectiveness of
teachers and leaders and the school's use of time and resources, which
may include increased learning time (as defined in this notice);
Note regarding school reform strategies: So as not to penalize
an applicant for proposing to work with an LEA that has implemented
rigorous reform strategies prior to the publication of this notice,
an applicant is not required to propose a new reform strategy in
place of an existing reform strategy in order to be eligible for a
Promise Neighborhoods implementation grant. For example, an LEA
might have begun to implement improvement activities that meet many,
but not all, of the elements of a transformation model of school
intervention. In this case, the applicant could propose, as part of
its Promise Neighborhood strategy, to work with the LEA as the LEA
continues with its reforms.
(iii) Programs that prepare students to be college- and career-
ready; and
(iv) Family and community supports (as defined in this notice).
To the extent feasible and appropriate, the applicant must
describe, in its plan, how the applicant and its partners will leverage
and integrate high-quality programs, related public and private
investments, and existing neighborhood assets into the continuum of
solutions. An applicant must also include in its application an
appendix that summarizes the evidence supporting each proposed solution
and describes how the solution is based on the best available evidence,
including, where available, strong or moderate evidence (as defined in
this notice). An applicant must also describe in the appendix how and
when--during the implementation process--the solution will be
implemented; the partners that will participate in the implementation
of each solution (in any case in which the applicant does not implement
the solution directly); the estimated per-child cost, including
administrative costs, to implement each solution; the
[[Page 39606]]
estimated number of children, by age, in the neighborhood who will be
served by each solution and how a segmentation analysis was used to
target the children and youth to be served; and the source of funds
that will be used to pay for each solution. In the description of the
estimated number of children to be served, the applicant must include
the percentage of all children of the same age group within the
neighborhood proposed to be served with each solution, and the annual
goals required to increase the proportion of children served to reach
scale over time.
An applicant must also describe in its plan how it will identify
Federal, State, or local policies, regulations, or other requirements
that would impede its ability to achieve its goals and how it will
report on those impediments to the Department and other relevant
agencies.
As appropriate, considering the time and urgency required to
dramatically improve outcomes of children and youth in our most
distressed neighborhoods and to transform those neighborhoods,
applicants must establish both short-term and long-term goals to
measure progress.
As part of the description of its strategy to build a continuum of
solutions, the applicant must also describe how it will participate in,
organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for
Promise Neighborhoods;
(b) Establish clear, annual goals for evaluating progress in
improving systems, such as changes in policies, environments, or
organizations that affect children and youth in the neighborhood.
Examples of systems change could include a new school district policy
to measure the results of family and community support programs, a new
funding resource to support the Promise Neighborhoods strategy, or a
cross-sector collaboration at the city level to break down municipal
agency ``silos'' and partner with local philanthropic organizations to
drive achievement of a set of results; and
(c) Establish clear, annual goals for evaluating progress in
leveraging resources, such as the amount of monetary or in-kind
investments from public or private organizations to support the Promise
Neighborhoods strategy. Examples of leveraging resources are securing
new or existing dollars to sustain and scale up what works in the
Promise Neighborhood or integrating high-quality programs in the
continuum of solutions. Applicants may consider, as part of their plans
to scale up their Promise Neighborhood strategy, serving a larger
geographic area by partnering with other applicants to the Promise
Neighborhoods program from the same city or region;
(3) Explain how it used its needs assessment and segmentation
analysis to determine the children with the highest needs and explain
how it will ensure that children in the neighborhood receive the
appropriate services from the continuum of solutions. In this
explanation of how it used the needs assessment and segmentation
analysis, the applicant must identify and describe in its application
the educational indicators and family and community support indicators
that the applicant used to conduct the needs assessment. Whether or not
the implementation grant applicant received a Promise Neighborhoods
planning grant, the applicant must describe how it--
(a) Collected data for the educational indicators listed in Table 1
and used them as both program and project indicators;
(b) Collected data for the family and community support indicators
in Table 2 and used them as program indicators; and
(c) Collected data for unique family and community support
indicators, developed by the applicant, that align with the goals and
objectives of the project and used them as project indicators or used
the indicators in Table 2 as project indicators.
An applicant must also describe how it will collect at least annual
data on the indicators in Tables 1 and 2; establish clear, annual goals
for growth on indicators; and report those data to the Department.
Table 1--Education Indicators and Results They Are Intended To Measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator Result
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- and % of children birth to Children enter kindergarten
kindergarten entry who have a place where ready to succeed in school.
they usually go, other than an emergency
room, when they are sick or in need of
advice about their health.
-- and % of three-year-olds and
children in kindergarten who demonstrate
at the beginning of the program or school
year age-appropriate functioning across
multiple domains of early learning (as
defined in this notice) as determined
using developmentally appropriate early
learning measures (as defined in this
notice).
-- & % of children, from birth to
kindergarten entry, participating in
center-based or formal home-based early
learning settings or programs, which may
include Early Head Start, Head Start,
child care, or preschool.
-- & % of students at or above Students are proficient in
grade level according to State core academic subjects.
mathematics and reading or language arts
assessments in at least the grades
required by the ESEA (3rd through 8th and
once in high school).
--Attendance rate of students in 6th, 7th, Students successfully
8th, and 9th grade.. transition from middle
school grades to high
school.
--Graduation rate (as defined in this Youth graduate from high
notice).. school.
-- & % of Promise Neighborhood High school graduates obtain
students who graduate with a regular high a postsecondary degree,
school diploma, as defined in 34 CFR certification, or
200.19(b)(1)(iv), and obtain credential.
postsecondary degrees, vocational
certificates, or other industry-
recognized certifications or credentials
without the need for remediation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Family and Community Support Indicators and Results They Are
Intended To Measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator Result
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- & % of children who participate in Students are healthy.
at least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous
physical activity daily; and
-- & % of children who consume five or
more servings of fruits and vegetables daily;
or
--possible third indicator, to be determined
(TBD) by applicant..
[[Page 39607]]
-- & % of students who feel safe at Students feel safe at
school and traveling to and from school, as school and in their
measured by a school climate needs assessment community.
(as defined in this notice); or
--possible second indicator, TBD by applicant.
--Student mobility rate (as defined in this Students live in
notice); or stable communities.
--possible second indicator, TBD by applicant.
--For children birth to kindergarten entry, the Families and community
and % of parents or family members members support
who report that they read to their child three learning in Promise
or more times a week; Neighborhood schools.
--For children in the kindergarten through
eighth grades, the and % of parents
or family members who report encouraging their
child to read books outside of school; and
--For children in the ninth through twelfth
grades, the and % of parents or
family members who report talking with their
child about the importance of college and
career; or
--possible fourth indicator TBD by applicant.
-- & % of students who have school and Students have access
home access (and % of the day they have access) to 21st century
to broadband internet (as defined in this learning tools.
notice) and a connected computing device; or
--possible second indicator TBD by applicant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The indicators in Table 1 and Table 2 are not intended to
limit an applicant from collecting and using data for additional
indicators. Examples of additional indicators are--
(i) The and % of children who participate in high-
quality learning activities during out-of-school hours or in the
hours after the traditional school day ends;
(ii) The and % of students who are suspended or
receive discipline referrals during the year;
(iii) The share of housing stock in the geographically defined
area that is rent-protected, publicly assisted, or targeted for
redevelopment with local, State, or Federal funds; and
(iv) The and % of children who are homeless or in
foster care and who have an assigned adult advocate.
Note: While the Department believes there are many programmatic
benefits of collecting data on every child in the proposed
neighborhood, the Department will consider requests to collect data
on only a sample of the children in the neighborhood for some
indicators so long as the applicant describes in its application how
it would ensure the sample would be representative of the children
in the neighborhood;
(4) Describe the experience and lessons learned, and describe how
the applicant will build the capacity of its management team and
project director in all of the following areas:
(a) Working with the neighborhood and its residents, including
parents and families that have children or other members with
disabilities or ELs, as well as with the schools described in paragraph
(2) of this priority; the LEA in which the school or schools are
located; Federal, State, and local government leaders; and other
service providers.
(b) Collecting, analyzing, and using data for decision-making,
learning, continuous improvement, and accountability. The applicant
must describe--
(i) Progress towards developing, launching, and implementing a
longitudinal data system that integrates student-level data from
multiple sources in order to measure progress on educational and family
and community support indicators for all children in the neighborhood,
disaggregated by the subgroups listed in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of
the ESEA;
(ii) How the applicant has linked or made progress to link the
longitudinal data system to school-based, LEA, and State data systems;
made the data accessible to parents, families, community residents,
program partners, researchers, and evaluators while abiding by Federal,
State, and other privacy laws and requirements; and managed and
maintained the system;
(iii) How the applicant has used rapid-time (as defined in this
notice) data in prior years and, how it will continue to use those data
once the Promise Neighborhood strategy is implemented, for continuous
program improvement; and
(iv) How the applicant will document the implementation process,
including by describing lessons learned and best practices.
(c) Creating and strengthening formal and informal partnerships,
for such purposes as providing solutions along the continuum of
solutions and committing resources to sustaining and scaling up what
works. Each applicant must submit, as part of its application, a
memorandum of understanding, signed by each organization or agency with
which it would partner in implementing the proposed Promise
Neighborhood. The memorandum of understanding must describe--
(i) Each partner's financial and programmatic commitment; and
(ii) How each partner's existing vision, theory of change (as
defined in this notice), theory of action (as defined in this notice),
and current activities align with those of the proposed Promise
Neighborhood;
(d) The governance structure proposed for the Promise Neighborhood,
including a system for holding partners accountable, how the eligible
entity's governing board or advisory board is representative of the
geographic area proposed to be served (as defined in this notice), and
how residents of the geographic area would have an active role in the
organization's decision-making.
(e) Integrating funding streams from multiple public and private
sources from the Federal, State, and local level. Examples of public
funds include Federal resources from the U.S. Department of Education,
such as the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program and title I
of the ESEA, and from other Federal agencies, such as the U.S.
Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, Justice, Labor, and Treasury.
(5) Describe the applicant's commitment to work with the
Department, and with a national evaluator for Promise Neighborhoods or
another entity designated by the Department, to ensure that data
collection and program design are consistent with plans to conduct a
rigorous national evaluation of the Promise Neighborhoods program and
of specific solutions and strategies pursued by individual grantees.
This commitment must include, but need not be limited to--
(a) Ensuring that, through memoranda of understanding with
appropriate entities, the national evaluator and the Department have
access to relevant program and project data sources (e.g.,
administrative data and program and project indicator data), including
data on a quarterly basis if requested by the Department;
[[Page 39608]]
(b) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, an
evaluation strategy, including identifying a credible comparison group
(as defined in this notice); and
(c) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, a plan
for identifying and collecting reliable and valid baseline data for
both program participants and a designated comparison group of non-
participants.
Final Implementation Grant Priority 2 (Absolute): Promise Neighborhoods
in Rural Communities
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to implement a
Promise Neighborhood strategy that (1) meets all of the requirements in
Absolute Priority 1; and (2) serves one or more rural communities only.
Final Implementation Grant Priority 3 (Absolute): Promise Neighborhoods
in Tribal Communities
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to implement a
Promise Neighborhood strategy that (1) meets all of the requirements in
Absolute Priority 1; and (2) serves one or more Indian tribes (as
defined in this notice).
Final Implementation Grant Priority 4: Comprehensive Local Early
Learning Network
To meet this priority, applications must include plans that propose
to expand, enhance, or modify an existing network of early learning
programs and services to ensure that they are high-quality and
comprehensive for children from birth through the third grade. The plan
must also ensure that the network establishes a high standard of
quality across early learning settings and is designed to improve
outcomes across multiple domains of early learning. Distinct from the
early learning solutions described in paragraph (2) of Absolute
Priority 1, this priority supports implementation plans that integrate
various early learning services and programs in the neighborhood, i.e.,
school-based early learning programs in order to enhance the quality of
such services and programs; locally- or State-funded preschool
programs; Early Head Start and Head Start programs; the local child
care resource and referral agency, if applicable; IDEA services and
programs; services through private providers; home visiting programs;
child care providers licensed by the State, including public and
private providers and center-based care; and family, friend, or
neighbor care in the Promise Neighborhood.
The early learning network must address or incorporate ongoing
State-level efforts regarding the major components of high-quality
early learning programs and services, such as State early learning and
development standards, program quality standards, comprehensive
assessment systems, workforce and professional development systems,
health promotion, family and community engagement, a coordinated data
infrastructure, and a method of measuring, monitoring, evaluating, and
improving program quality. For example, an applicant might address how
the Promise Neighborhoods project will use the State's early learning
standards, as applicable, and the Head Start Child Development and
Early Learning Framework (Framework), as applicable, to define the
expectations of what children should know and be able to do before
entering kindergarten. The Framework is available on the Office of Head
Start's Web site at: http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/ecdh/eecd/Assessment/Child%20Outcomes/HS_Revised_Child_Outcomes_Framework.pdf. Similarly, an applicant that addresses this priority
must discuss, where applicable, how it would align with the State's
Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), as applicable,
professional development and workforce infrastructure, and other
appropriate State efforts. In addition, the plan must include, to the
extent practicable, early learning opportunities on multiple platforms
(e.g., public television, web-based, etc.) and in multiple locations
(e.g., at home, at school, and at other community locations).
Note regarding accessibility of early learning programs and
services: These early learning opportunities must be fully
accessible to individuals with disabilities, including individuals
who are blind or have low vision; otherwise, the plans must describe
how accommodations or modifications will be provided to ensure that
the benefits of the early learning opportunities are provided to
children and youth with disabilities in an equally effective and
equally integrated manner.
The implementation plan for a high-quality and comprehensive local
early learning network must describe the governance structure and the
major components of high-quality early learning programs and services
as well as include goals, strategies, and benchmarks to provide early
learning programs and services that result in improvements across
multiple domains of early learning. The plan must result from a needs
assessment and segmentation analysis (as defined in this notice) and
must reflect input from a broad range of stakeholders. An application
addressing this priority must designate an individual responsible for
overseeing and coordinating the early learning initiatives and must
include a resume or position description and other supporting
documentation to demonstrate that the individual designated, or
individual hired to carry out those responsibilities, possesses the
appropriate State certification, and has experience and expertise in
managing and administering high-quality early learning programs,
including in coordinating across various high-quality early learning
programs and services.
Final Implementation Grant Priority 5: Quality Internet Connectivity
To meet this priority, an applicant must ensure that almost all
students in the geographic area proposed to be served have broadband
internet access (as defined in this notice) at home and at school, the
knowledge and skills to use broadband internet access effectively, and
a connected computing device to support schoolwork.
Final Implementation Grant Priority 6: Arts and Humanities
To meet this priority, an applicant must include in its plan
opportunities for children and youth to experience and participate
actively in the arts and humanities in their community so as to
broaden, enrich, and enliven the educational, cultural, and civic
experiences available in the neighborhood. Applicants may include plans
for offering these activities in school and in out-of-school settings
and at any time during the calendar year.
Final Implementation Grant Priority 7: Quality Affordable Housing
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to serve
geographic areas that were the subject of an affordable housing
transformation pursuant to a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant
awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development during
FY 2009 or later years. To be eligible under this priority, the
applicant must either (1) be able to demonstrate that it has received a
Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant or (2) provide, in its
application, a memorandum of understanding between it and a partner
that is a recipient of a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant. The
memorandum must indicate a commitment on the part of the applicant and
partner to coordinate implementation and align resources to the
greatest extent practicable.
[[Page 39609]]
Final Implementation Grant Priority 8: Family Engagement in Learning
Through Adult Education
To meet this priority, an applicant must include plans that are
coordinated with adult education providers serving neighborhood
residents, such as those funded through the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act, as amended. Coordinated services may include adult basic
and secondary education and programs that provide training and
opportunities for family members and other members of the community to
support student learning and establish high expectations for student
educational achievement. Examples of services and programs include
preparation for the General Education Development (GED) test; English
literacy, family literacy, and work-based literacy training; or other
training that prepares adults for postsecondary education and careers,
or supports adult engagement in the educational success of children and
youth in the neighborhood.
Optional Supplemental Funding Opportunity
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) intends to provide an
optional, supplemental funding opportunity for Promise Neighborhoods
implementation grantees with plans that propose to analyze and resolve
public safety concerns associated with violence, gangs, and illegal
drugs utilizing strategies that include prevention, intervention,
enforcement, and reentry of offenders back into communities upon
release from prison and jail. Under this opportunity, DOJ, through an
interagency agreement with the Department of Education, would provide
additional funds to some Promise Neighborhoods implementation grantees.
Specifically, DOJ would consider supporting Promise Neighborhoods
grantees with plans that align with local leadership in implementing
and sustaining innovative solutions that incorporate evidence and
research into local program and policy decisions to address and reduce
persistent crime. Additional information about this optional funding
opportunity will be provided to Promise Neighborhoods implementation
grantees after grant awards are announced.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
The Department establishes the following eligibility requirements
for the Promise Neighborhoods program. We may apply one or more of
these requirements in any year in which we conduct a competition for
this program.
1. Eligible Applicants: To be eligible for a grant under this
competition, an applicant must be an eligible organization (as defined
in this notice). For purposes of Absolute Priority 3: Promise
Neighborhoods in Tribal Communities, an eligible applicant is an
eligible organization that partners with an Indian tribe or is an
Indian tribe that meets the definition of an eligible organization.
2. Cost-Sharing or Matching:
(a) Planning grants. To be eligible for a planning grant under this
competition, an applicant must demonstrate that it has established a
commitment from one or more entities in the public or private sector,
which may include Federal, State, and local public agencies,
philanthropic organizations, private businesses, or individuals, to
provide matching funds for the planning process. An applicant for a
planning grant must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations for the
planning process equal to at least 50 percent of its grant award,
except that an applicant proposing a project that meets Absolute
Priority 2: Promise Neighborhoods in Rural Communities or Absolute
Priority 3: Promise Neighborhoods in Tribal Communities must obtain
matching funds or in-kind donations equal to at least 25 percent of the
grant award.
(b) Implementation Grants. To be eligible for an implementation
grant under this competition, an applicant must demonstrate that it has
established a commitment from one or more entities in the public or
private sector, which may include Federal, State, and local public
agencies, philanthropic organizations, private businesses, or
individuals, to provide matching funds for the implementation process.
An applicant for an implementation grant must obtain matching funds or
in-kind donations equal to at least 100 percent of its grant award,
except that an applicant proposing a project that meets Absolute
Priority 2: Promise Neighborhoods in Rural Communities or Absolute
Priority 3: Promise Neighborhoods in Tribal Communities must obtain
matching funds or in-kind donations equal to at least 50 percent of the
grant award.
Eligible sources of matching include sources of funds used to pay
for solutions within the continuum of solutions, such as Head Start
programs, initiatives supported by the LEA, or public health services
for children in the neighborhood. At least 10 percent of an
implementation applicant's total match must be cash or in-kind
contributions from the private sector, which may include philanthropic
organizations, private businesses, or individuals.
(c) Planning and Implementation Grants. Both planning and
implementation applicants must demonstrate a commitment of matching
funds in the applications. The applicants must specify the source of
the funds or contributions and in the case of a third-party in-kind
contribution, a description of how the value was determined for the
donated or contributed goods or service. Applicants must demonstrate
the match commitment by including letters in their applications
explaining the type and quantity of the match commitment with original
signatures from the executives of organizations or agencies providing
the match. The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching
requirement in the most exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case
basis.
An applicant that is unable to meet the matching requirement must
include in its application a request to the Secretary to reduce the
matching requirement, including the amount of the requested reduction,
the total remaining match contribution, and a statement of the basis
for the request. An applicant should review the Department's cost-
sharing and cost-matching regulations, which include specific
limitations in 34 CFR 74.23 applicable to non-profit organizations and
institutions of higher education and 34 CFR 80.24 applicable to State,
local,
[[Page 39610]]
and Indian tribal governments, and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) cost principles regarding donations, capital assets,
depreciations and allowable costs. These circulars are available on
OMB's Web site at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html.
Final Definitions
We establish the following definitions for this program. We may
apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Broadband internet access means internet access sufficient to
provide community members with the internet available when and where
they need it and for the uses they require.
Children with disabilities or CWD means individuals who meet the
definition of child with a disability in 34 CFR 300.8, infant or
toddler with a disability in 34 CFR 300.25, handicapped person in 34
CFR 104.3(j), or disability as it pertains to an individual in 42
U.S.C. 12102.
Community of practice means a group of grantees that agrees to
interact regularly to solve a persistent problem or improve practice in
an area that is important to them and the success of their projects.
Establishment of communities of practice under Promise Neighborhoods
will enable grantees to meet, discuss, and collaborate with each other
regarding grantee projects.
Continuum of cradle-through-college-to-career solutions or
continuum of solutions means solutions that--
(1) Include programs, policies, practices, services, systems, and
supports that result in improving educational and developmental
outcomes for children from cradle through college to career;
(2) Are based on the best available evidence, including, where
available, strong or moderate evidence (as defined in this notice);
(3) Are linked and integrated seamlessly (as defined in this
notice); and
(4) Include both education programs and family and community
supports.
Credible comparison group includes a comparison group formed by
matching project participants with non-participants based on key
characteristics that are thought to be related to outcomes. These
characteristics include, but are not limited to: (1) Prior test scores
and other measures of academic achievement (preferably the same
measures that will be used to assess the outcomes of the project); (2)
demographic characteristics, such as age, disability, gender, English
proficiency, ethnicity, poverty level, parents' educational attainment,
and single- or two-parent family background; (3) the time period in
which the two groups are studied (e.g., the two groups are children
entering kindergarten in the same year as opposed to sequential years);
and (4) methods used to collect outcome data (e.g., the same test of
reading skills administered in the same way to both groups).
Developmentally appropriate early learning measures means a range
of assessment instruments that are used in ways consistent with the
purposes for which they were designed and validated; appropriate for
the ages and other characteristics of the children being assessed;
designed and validated for use with children whose ages, cultures,
languages spoken at home, socioeconomic status, abilities and
disabilities, and other characteristics are similar to those of the
children with whom the assessments will be used; and used in compliance
with the measurement standards set forth by the American Educational
Research Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association
(APA), and the National Council for Measurement in Education (NCME) in
the 1999 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.
Education programs means programs that include, but are not limited
to--
(1) High-quality early learning programs or services designed to
improve outcomes across multiple domains of early learning for young
children. Such programs must be specifically intended to align with
appropriate State early learning and development standards, practices,
strategies, or activities across as broad an age range as birth through
third grade so as to ensure that young children enter kindergarten and
progress through the early elementary school grades demonstrating age-
appropriate functioning across the multiple domains;
(2) For children in preschool through the 12th grade, programs,
inclusive of related policies and personnel, that are linked to
improved educational outcomes. The programs--
(a) Must include effective teachers and effective principals;
(b) Must include strategies, practices, or programs that encourage
and facilitate the evaluation, analysis, and use of student
achievement, student growth (as defined in this notice), and other data
by educators, families, and other stakeholders to inform decision-
making;
(c) Must include college- and career-ready standards, assessments,
and practices, including a well-rounded curriculum, instructional
practices, strategies, or programs in, at a minimum, core academic
subjects as defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA, that are aligned
with high academic content and achievement standards and with high-
quality assessments based on those standards; and
(d) May include creating multiple pathways for students to earn
regular high school diplomas (e.g., using schools that serve the needs
of over-aged, under-credited, or other students with an exceptional
need for flexibility regarding when they attend school or the
additional supports they require; awarding credit based on demonstrated
evidence of student competency; or offering dual-enrollment options);
and
(3) Programs that prepare students for college and career success,
which may include programs that--
(a) Create and support partnerships with community colleges, four-
year colleges, or universities and that help instill a college-going
culture in the neighborhood;
(b) Provide dual-enrollment opportunities for secondary students to
gain college credit while in high school;
(c) Provide, through relationships with businesses and other
organizations, apprenticeship opportunities to students;
(d) Align curricula in the core academic subjects with requirements
for industry-recognized certifications or credentials, particularly in
high-growth sectors;
(e) Provide access to career and technical education programs so
that individuals can attain the skills and industry-recognized
certifications or credentials for success in their careers;
(f) Help college students, including CWD and ELs from the
neighborhood to transition to college, persist in their academic
studies in college, graduate from college, and transition into the
workforce; and
(g) Provide opportunities for all youth (both in and out of school)
to achieve academic and employment success by improving educational and
skill competencies and providing connections to employers. Such
activities may include opportunities for on-going mentoring, supportive
services, incentives for recognition and achievement, and opportunities
related to leadership, development, decision-making, citizenship, and
community service.
Effective school means a school that has--
(1) Significantly closed the achievement gaps between subgroups of
students (as identified in section
[[Page 39611]]
1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA) within the school or district; or
(2)(a) Demonstrated success in significantly increasing student
academic achievement in the school for all subgroups of students (as
identified in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA) in the school;
and (b) made significant improvements in other areas, such as
graduation rates (as defined in this notice) or recruitment and
placement of effective teachers and effective principals.
Eligible organization means an organization that--
(1) Is representative of the geographic area proposed to be served
(as defined in this notice);
(2) Is one of the following:
(a) A nonprofit organization that meets the definition of a
nonprofit under 34 CFR 77.1(c), which may include a faith-based
nonprofit organization.
(b) An institution of higher education as defined by section 101(a)
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
(c) An Indian tribe (as defined in this notice);
(3) Currently provides at least one of the solutions from the
applicant's proposed continuum of solutions in the geographic area
proposed to be served; and
(4) Operates or proposes to work with and involve in carrying out
its proposed project, in coordination with the school's LEA, at least
one public elementary or secondary school that is located within the
identified geographic area that the grant will serve.
English learners or ELs means individuals who meet the definition
of limited English proficient, as defined in section 9101(25) of the
ESEA.
Family and community supports means--
(1) Child and youth health programs, such as physical, mental,
behavioral, and emotional health programs (e.g., home visiting
programs; Early Head Start; programs to improve nutrition and fitness,
reduce childhood obesity, and create healthier communities);
(2) Safety programs, such as programs in school and out of school
to prevent, control, and reduce crime, violence, drug and alcohol use,
and gang activity; programs that address classroom and school-wide
behavior and conduct; programs to prevent child abuse and neglect;
programs to prevent truancy and reduce and prevent bullying and
harassment; and programs to improve the physical and emotional security
of the school setting as perceived, experienced, and created by
students, staff, and families;
(3) Community stability programs, such as programs that--
(a) Increase the stability of families in communities by expanding
access to quality, affordable housing, providing legal support to help
families secure clear legal title to their homes, and providing housing
counseling or housing placement services;
(b) Provide adult education and employment opportunities and
training to improve educational levels, job skills and readiness in
order to decrease unemployment, with a goal of increasing family
stability;
(c) Improve families' awareness of, access to, and use of a range
of social services, if possible at a single location;
(d) Provide unbiased, outcome-focused, and comprehensive financial
education, inside and outside the classroom and at every life stage;
(e) Increase access to traditional financial institutions (e.g.,
banks and credit unions) rather than alternative financial institutions
(e.g., check cashers and payday lenders);
(f) Help families increase their financial literacy, financial
assets, and savings; and
(g) Help families access transportation to education and employment
opportunities;
(4) Family and community engagement programs that are systemic,
integrated, sustainable, and continue through a student's transition
from K-12 school to college and career. These programs may include
family literacy programs and programs that provide adult education and
training and opportunities for family members and other members of the
community to support student learning and establish high expectations
for student educational achievement; mentorship programs that create
positive relationships between children and adults; programs that
provide for the use of such community resources as libraries, museums,
television and radio stations, and local businesses to support improved
student educational outcomes; programs that support the engagement of
families in early learning programs and services; programs that provide
guidance on how to navigate through a complex school system and how to
advocate for more and improved learning opportunities; and programs
that promote collaboration with educators and community organizations
to improve opportunities for healthy development and learning; and
(5) 21st century learning tools, such as technology (e.g.,
computers and mobile phones) used by students in the classroom and in
the community to support their education. This includes programs that
help students use the tools to develop knowledge and skills in such
areas as reading and writing, mathematics, research, critical thinking,
communication, creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
Graduation rate means the four-year or extended-year adjusted
cohort graduation rate as defined by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1).
Note: This definition is not meant to prevent a grantee from
also collecting information about the reasons why students do not
graduate from the target high school, e.g., dropping out or moving
outside of the school district for non-academic or academic reasons.
Increased learning time means using a longer school day, week, or
year to significantly increase the total number of school hours. This
strategy is used to redesign the school's program in a manner that
includes additional time for (a) instruction in core academic subjects
as defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA; (b) instruction in other
subjects and enrichment activities that contribute to a well-rounded
education, including, for example, physical education, service
learning, and experiential and work-based learning opportunities that
are provided by partnering, as appropriate, with other organizations;
and (c) teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional
development within and across grades and subjects.
Indian tribe means any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation,
pueblo, village or community that the Secretary of the Interior
acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe, 25 U.S.C. 479a and 479a-1 or
any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined
in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,
43 U.S.C. 1601, et seq., that is recognized as eligible for the special
programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because
of their status as Indians. The term ``Indian'' means a member of an
Indian tribe.
Indicators of need means currently available data that describe--
(1) Education need, which means--
(a) All or a portion of the neighborhood includes or is within the
attendance zone of a low-performing school that is a high school,
especially one in which the graduation rate (as defined in this notice)
is less than 60 percent or a school that can be characterized as low-
performing based on another proxy indicator, such as students' on-time
progression from grade to grade; and
(b) Other indicators, such as significant achievement gaps between
subgroups of students (as identified in
[[Page 39612]]
section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA) within a school or LEA, high
teacher and principal turnover, or high student absenteeism; and
(2) Family and community support need, which means--
(a) Percentages of children with preventable chronic health
conditions (e.g., asthma, poor nutrition, dental problems, obesity) or
avoidable developmental delays;
(b) Immunization rates;
(c) Rates of crime, including violent crime;
(d) Student mobility rates;
(e) Teenage birth rates;
(f) Percentage of children in single-parent or no-parent families;
(g) Rates of vacant or substandard homes, including distressed
public and assisted housing; or
(h) Percentage of the residents living at or below the Federal
poverty threshold.
Linked and integrated seamlessly, with respect to the continuum of
solutions, means solutions that have common outcomes, focus on similar
milestones, support transitional time periods (e.g., the beginning of
kindergarten, the middle grades, or graduation from high school) along
the cradle-through-college-to-career continuum, and address time and
resource gaps that create obstacles for students in making academic
progress.
Low-performing schools means schools receiving assistance through
title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA), that are in corrective action or restructuring in the
State, as determined under section 1116 of the ESEA, and the secondary
schools (both middle and high schools) in the State that are equally as
low-achieving as these Title I schools and are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I funds.
Moderate evidence means evidence from previous studies with designs
that can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high internal
validity) but have limited generalizability (i.e., moderate external
validity) or from studies with high external validity but moderate
internal validity.
Multiple domains of early learning means physical well-being and
motor development; social-emotional development; approaches toward
learning, which refers to the inclinations, dispositions, or styles,
rather than skills, that reflect ways that children become involved in
learning and develop their inclinations to pursue learning; language
and literacy development, including emergent literacy; and cognition
and general knowledge, which refers to thinking and problem-solving as
well as knowledge about particular objects and the way the world works.
Cognition and general knowledge include mathematical and scientific
knowledge, abstract thought, and imagination.
Neighborhood assets means--
(1) Developmental assets that allow residents to attain the skills
needed to be successful in all aspects of daily life (e.g., educational
institutions, early learning centers, and health resources);
(2) Commercial assets that are associated with production,
employment, transactions, and sales (e.g., labor force and retail
establishments);
(3) Recreational assets that create value in a neighborhood beyond
work and education (e.g., parks, open space, community gardens, and
arts organizations);
(4) Physical assets that are associated with the built environment
and physical infrastructure (e.g., housing, commercial buildings, and
roads); and
(5) Social assets that establish well-functioning social
interactions (e.g., public safety, community engagement, and
partnerships with youth, parents, and families).
Persistently lowest-achieving school means, as determined by the
State--
(1) Any school receiving assistance through Title I that is in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring and that--
(a) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-
achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or
(b) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate that is less
than 60 percent over a number of years; and
(2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not
receive, Title I funds that--
(a) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools
or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of
schools is greater; or
(b) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate that is less
than 60 percent over a number of years.
Program indicators are indicators that the Department will use only
for research and evaluation purposes and for which an applicant is not
required to propose solutions.
Project indicators are indicators for which an applicant proposes
solutions intended to result in progress on the indicators.
Public officials means elected officials (e.g., council members,
aldermen and women, commissioners, State legislators, Congressional
representatives, members of the school board), appointed officials
(e.g., members of a planning or zoning commission, or of any other
regulatory or advisory board or commission), or individuals who are not
necessarily public officials, but who have been appointed by a public
official to serve on the Promise Neighborhoods governing board or
advisory board.
Rapid-time, in reference to reporting and availability of locally-
collected data, means that data are available quickly enough to inform
current lessons, instruction, and related education programs and family
and community supports.
Representative of the geographic area proposed to be served means
that residents of the geographic area proposed to be served have an
active role in decision-making and that at least one-third of the
eligible entity's governing board or advisory board is made up of--
(1) Residents who live in the geographic area proposed to be
served, which may include residents who are representative of the
ethnic and racial composition of the neighborhood's residents and the
languages they speak;
(2) Residents of the city or county in which the neighborhood is
located but who live outside the geographic area proposed to be served,
and who are low-income (which means earning less than 80 percent of the
area's median income as published by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development);
(3) Public officials (as defined in this notice) who serve the
geographic area proposed to be served (although not more than one-half
of the governing board or advisory board may be made up of public
officials); or
(4) Some combination of individuals from the three groups listed in
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this definition.
Rural community means a neighborhood that--
(1) Is served by an LEA that is 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 ESEA.
Applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these
programs by referring to information on the following Department Web
sites. For the SRSA program: http://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible10/index.html. For the RLIS program: http://www.ed.gov/
[[Page 39613]]
programs/reaprlisp/eligible10/index.html; or
(2) Includes only schools designated with a school locale code of
42 or 43. Applicants may determine school locale codes by referring to
the following Department Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/.
School climate needs assessment means an evaluation tool that
measures the extent to which the school setting promotes or inhibits
academic performance by collecting perception data from individuals,
which could include students, staff, or families.
Segmentation analysis means the process of grouping and analyzing
data from children and families in the geographic area proposed to be
served according to indicators of need (as defined in this notice) or
other relevant indicators.
Note: The analysis is intended to allow grantees to
differentiate and more effectively target interventions based on
what they learn about the needs of different populations in the
geographic area.
Strong evidence means evidence from studies with designs that can
support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high internal validity),
and studies that, in total, include enough of the range of participants
and settings to support scaling up to the State, regional, or national
level (i.e., studies with high external validity).
Student achievement means--
(1) For tested grades and subjects:
(a) A student's score on the State's assessments under the ESEA;
and, as appropriate,
(b) Other measures of student learning, such as those described in
paragraph (2) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and
comparable across classrooms and programs.
(2) For non-tested grades and subjects: Alternative measures of
student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-tests
and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that
are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.
Student growth means the change in achievement data for an
individual student between two or more points in time. Growth may also
include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across
classrooms.
Student mobility rate is calculated by dividing the total number of
new student entries and withdrawals at a school, from the day after the
first official enrollment number is collected through the end of the
academic year, by the first official enrollment number of the academic
year.
Note: This definition is not meant to limit a grantee from also
collecting information about why students enter or withdraw from the
school, e.g., transferring to charter schools, moving outside of the
school district for non-academic or academic reasons.
Theory of action means an organization's strategy regarding how,
considering its capacity and resources, it will take the necessary
steps and measures to accomplish its desired results.
Theory of change means an organization's beliefs about how its
inputs, and early and intermediate outcomes, relate to accomplishing
its long-term desired results.
Final Selection Criteria
We establish the following selection criteria for evaluating a
planning and implementation grant application under the Promise
Neighborhoods program. These criteria are designed to align with the
absolute priority for planning and implementation grants. Thus, the
``need for project'' criterion aligns with the absolute priority
requirement that applicants describe the need in the neighborhood. The
``quality of project design'' and ``quality of project services''
criteria align with the absolute priority requirement that applicants
describe a strategy to build a continuum of solutions with strong
schools at the center. The ``quality of the management plan'' criterion
aligns with the absolute priority requirement that applicants describe
their capacity to achieve results.
In the notice inviting applications, the application package, or
both, we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each
criterion. We may apply one or more of these criteria in any year in
which this program is in effect.
Final Planning Grants Selection Criteria
The selection criteria for planning grant applicants are as
follows:
(1) Need for project.
(a) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.
(b) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary
considers--
(i) The magnitude or severity of the problems to be addressed by
the proposed project as described by indicators of need and other
relevant indicators; and
(ii) The extent to which the geographically defined area has been
described.
(2) Quality of the project design.
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the
proposed project.
(b) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers--
(i) The extent to which the continuum of solutions will be aligned
with an ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive strategy for improvement
of schools in the neighborhood;
(ii) The extent to which the applicant describes a proposal to plan
to create a complete continuum of solutions, including early learning
through grade 12, college- and career-readiness, and family and
community supports, without time and resource gaps that will prepare
all children in the neighborhood to attain an excellent education and
successfully transition to college and a career; and
(iii) The extent to which solutions leverage existing neighborhood
assets and coordinate with other efforts, including programs supported
by Federal, State, local, and private funds.
(3) Quality of project services.
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be
provided by the proposed project.
(b) In determining the quality of the project services, the
Secretary considers--
(i) The extent to which the applicant describes how the needs
assessment and segmentation analysis, including identifying and
describing indicators, will be used during the planning phase to
determine each solution within the continuum; and
(ii) The extent to which the applicant describes how it will
determine that solutions are based on the best available evidence
including, where available, strong or moderate evidence, and ensure
that solutions drive results and lead to changes on indicators.
(4) Quality of the management plan.
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for
the proposed project.
(b) In determining the quality of the management plan for the
proposed project, the Secretary considers the experience, lessons
learned, and proposal to build capacity of the applicant's management
team and project director in all of the following areas--
(i) Working with the neighborhood and its residents; the schools
described in paragraph (2)(b) of Absolute Priority 1; the LEA in which
those schools are located; Federal, State, and local government
leaders; and other service providers;
(ii) Collecting, analyzing, and using data for decision-making,
learning,
[[Page 39614]]
continuous improvement, and accountability;
(iii) Creating formal and informal partnerships, including the
alignment of the visions, theories of action, and theories of change
described in its memorandum of understanding, and creating a system for
holding partners accountable for performance in accordance with the
memorandum of understanding; and
(iv) Integrating funding streams from multiple public and private
sources, including its proposal to leverage and integrate high-quality
programs in the neighborhood into the continuum of solutions.
Final Implementation Grants Selection Criteria
The selection criteria for implementation grant applicants are as
follows:
(1) Need for project.
(a) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.
(b) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary
considers--
(i) The magnitude or severity of the problems to be addressed by
the proposed project as described by indicators of need and other
relevant indicators identified in part by the needs assessment and
segmentation analysis; and
(ii) The extent to which the geographically defined area has been
described.
(2) Quality of the project design.
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the
proposed project.
(b) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the continuum of solutions is aligned with
an ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive strategy for improvement of
schools in the neighborhood.
(ii) The extent to which the applicant describes an implementation
plan to create a complete continuum of solutions, including early
learning through grade 12, college- and career-readiness, and family
and community supports, without time and resource gaps, that will
prepare all children in the neighborhood to attain an excellent
education and successfully transition to college and a career, and that
will significantly increase the proportion of students in the
neighborhood that are served by the complete continuum to reach scale
over time.
(iii) The extent to which the applicant identifies existing
neighborhood assets and programs supported by Federal, State, local,
and private funds that will be used to implement a continuum of
solutions.
(iv) The extent to which the applicant describes its implementation
plan, including clear, annual goals for improving systems and
leveraging resources as described in paragraph (2) of Absolute Priority
1.
(3) Quality of project services.
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be
provided by the proposed project.
(b) In determining the quality of the project services, the
Secretary considers--
(i) The extent to which the applicant describes how the needs
assessment and segmentation analysis, including identifying and
describing indicators, were used to determine each solution within the
continuum;
(ii) The extent to which the applicant documents that proposed
solutions are based on the best available evidence including, where
available, strong or moderate evidence; and
(iii) The extent to which the applicant describes clear, annual
goals for improvement on indicators.
(4) Quality of the management plan.
(a) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for
the proposed project.
(b) In determining the quality of the management plan for the
proposed project, the Secretary considers the experience, lessons
learned, and proposal to build capacity of the applicant's management
team and project director in all of the following areas--
(i) Working with the neighborhood and its residents; the schools
described in paragraph (2)(b) of Absolute Priority 1; the LEA in which
those schools are located; Federal, State, and local government
leaders; and other service providers;
(ii) Collecting, analyzing, and using data for decision-making,
learning, continuous improvement, and accountability, including whether
the applicant has a plan to build, adapt, or expand a longitudinal data
system that integrates student-level data from multiple sources in
order to measure progress while abiding by privacy laws and
requirements;
(iii) Creating formal and informal partnerships, including the
alignment of the visions, theories of action, and theories of change
described in its memorandum of understanding, and creating a system for
holding partners accountable for performance in accordance with the
memorandum of understanding; and
(iv) Integrating funding streams from multiple public and private
sources, including its proposal to leverage and integrate high-quality
programs in the neighborhood into the continuum of solutions.
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Order 12866: Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary
must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely
affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an
``economically significant'' rule); (2) create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order. The Secretary has determined that this regulatory
action is significant under section 3(f) of the Executive order.
This notice has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order
12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential
costs and benefits of this proposed regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are
those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this regulatory action, we have determined that the
benefits of the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this regulatory action does not
unduly
[[Page 39615]]
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
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
at: http://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: http://www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: June 29, 2011.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2011-16757 Filed 7-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P