[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70033-70051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27775]



[[Page 70033]]

Vol. 79

Monday,

No. 226

November 24, 2014

Part III





Department of Education





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Applications for New Awards; Performance Partnership Pilots; Notice

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

[[Page 70034]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Performance Partnership Pilots

AGENCY: Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of 
Education

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overview Information:
    Performance Partnership Pilots.
    Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 
2014.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.420A.


DATES: 
    Applications Available: November 24, 2014.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: January 8, 2015.

    Note:  Submission of a notice of intent to apply is optional.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: March 4, 2015.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: May 4, 2015.

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The Performance Partnership Pilots (P3) 
program, authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, 
Division H, Section 526 (the Act), will enable up to ten pilot sites to 
test innovative, outcome-focused strategies to achieve significant 
improvements in educational, employment, and other key outcomes \1\ for 
disconnected youth \2\ using new flexibility to blend \3\ existing 
Federal funds and to seek waivers \4\ of associated program 
requirements. P3 pilots will receive start-up grants to support ongoing 
planning, streamlined governance, strengthened data infrastructure, 
improved coordination, and related activities to help pilots improve 
outcomes for disconnected youth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Outcomes are the intended results of a program, or 
intervention. They are what you expect your project to achieve. An 
outcome can be at the participant level (for example, changes in 
employment retention or earnings of disconnected youth) or at the 
system level (for example, improved efficiency in program operations 
or administration).
    \2\ The Act defines ``disconnected youth'' as individuals 
between the ages of 14 and 24 who are low-income, and either 
homeless, in foster care, involved in the juvenile justice system, 
unemployed, or not enrolled in, or at risk of dropping out of, an 
educational institution.
    \3\ Blending funds is a funding and resource allocation strategy 
that uses multiple existing funding streams to support a single 
initiative or strategy. Blended funding merges two or more funding 
streams, or portions of multiple funding streams, to produce greater 
efficiency and/or effectiveness. Funds from each individual stream 
lose their award-specific identity, and the blended funds together 
become subject to a single set of reporting and other requirements, 
consistent with the underlying purposes of the programs for which 
the funds were appropriated.
    \4\ A waiver provides flexibility around statutory, regulatory, 
or administrative requirements to enable a State, locality, or tribe 
to organize its programs and systems or provide services in ways 
that best meet the needs of its target populations. Under P3, 
waivers provide flexibility in exchange for a grantee's commitment 
to improve programmatic outcomes consistent with underlying 
statutory authorities and purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Successful pilots will use cost-effective strategies to increase 
the success of disconnected youth in achieving educational, employment, 
well-being, and other key outcomes. Through a combination of careful 
implementation of evidence-based and promising practices, effective 
administrative structures, alignment of outcomes and performance 
measures, and more efficient and integrated data systems, P3 may 
produce better outcomes per dollar by focusing resources on what works, 
rather than on compliance with multiple Federal program requirements 
that may not best support outcomes.
    Background:
    The Act authorizes the Departments of Education (ED), Labor (DOL), 
and Health and Human Services (HHS), the Corporation for National and 
Community Service (CNCS) and/or the Institute of Museum and Library 
Services (IMLS) (collectively, the Agencies), to enter into a total of 
up to ten Performance Partnership Agreements (performance agreements) 
with State, local, or tribal governments \5\ to provide additional 
flexibility in using certain of the Agencies' FY 2014 discretionary 
funds,\6\ including competitive and certain formula grant funds, across 
multiple Federal programs. Entities that seek to participate in these 
pilots will have to commit to achieving significant improvements in 
outcomes for disconnected youth in exchange for this new flexibility. 
Section 526(a)(2) of the Act states that `` `[t]o improve outcomes for 
disconnected youth' means to increase the rate at which individuals 
between the ages of 14 and 24 (who are low-income and either homeless, 
in foster care, involved in the juvenile justice system, unemployed, or 
not enrolled in or at risk of dropping out of an educational 
institution) achieve success in meeting educational, employment, or 
other key goals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A tribal government must represent a State- or Federally-
recognized tribe to be eligible.
    \6\ Discretionary funds are funds that Congress appropriates on 
an annual basis, rather than through a standing authorization. They 
exclude ``entitlement'' (or mandatory) programs such as Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, most Foster Care IV-E programs, and 
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Discretionary 
programs administered by the Agencies support a broad set of public 
services, including education, job training, health and mental 
health, and other low-income assistance programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Government and community partners have invested considerable 
attention and resources to meet the needs of disconnected youth. 
However, practitioners, youth advocates, and others on the front lines 
of service delivery have observed that there are significant 
programmatic and administrative obstacles to achieving meaningful 
improvements in education, employment, health, and well-being for these 
young people. These challenges include: Limited evidence and knowledge 
of what works to improve outcomes for disconnected youth; poor 
coordination and alignment across the multiple systems that serve 
youth; policies that make it hard to target the neediest youth and help 
them overcome gaps in services; fragmented data systems that inhibit 
the flow of information to improve results; and administrative 
requirements that impede holistic approaches to serving this 
population. Many of these challenges can be addressed by improving 
coordination among programs and targeting resources to those approaches 
that achieve the best results for youth. More information on these 
challenges, approaches to address challenges, and the consultation that 
the Agencies have conducted with stakeholders on these issues can be 
found in the P3 Consultation Paper, ``Changing the Odds for 
Disconnected Youth: Initial Design Considerations for Performance 
Partnership Pilots'' (available at www.findyouthinfo.gov/docs/P3_Consultation_Paper_508.pdf).
    Performance Partnership Pilots will test the hypothesis that 
additional flexibility for States, localities, and tribes, in the form 
of blending funds and obtaining waivers of certain programmatic 
requirements, can help overcome some of the significant hurdles that 
States, localities, and tribes may face in providing intensive, 
comprehensive, and sustained service pathways \7\ and improving 
outcomes for disconnected youth. For example, P3 may help address the 
``wrong pockets'' problem, where programs that see improved outcomes or 
other benefits due to an intervention are unable to provide funds to 
support that intervention based on program restrictions. P3 funds may 
also help to

[[Page 70035]]

build additional evidence that an intervention is successful or to 
strengthen a foundation of data capacity and performance management. If 
this hypothesis proves true, providing necessary and targeted 
flexibility to remove or overcome these hurdles will help to achieve 
significant benefits for disconnected youth, the communities that serve 
them, and the agencies and partners that are involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A service pathway is a series of connected service 
interventions that aim to change behavior and increase knowledge or 
skills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Partnerships are critical to pilots' ability to provide innovative 
and effective service-delivery and systems-change strategies that meet 
the education, employment, and other needs of disconnected youth. We 
encourage applicants to build on strong, existing partnerships that 
have experience in working together to improve outcomes for 
disconnected youth. Partnerships will vary depending on the nature and 
focus of individual projects, but may cut across: State, local, and 
tribal levels of government; education, employment, and other agencies 
or programs operating within the same level of government; and 
governmental, non-profit, and other private-sector organizations.
    As partnerships work to improve outcomes, meaningful measures and 
indicators that draw on reliable data will be critical to understanding 
how well pilots attain their goals. As a result, it is important to 
make sure that pilots track outcome measures and interim indicators \8\ 
that will accurately capture their performance and success and that the 
pilots have the capacity to collect, access, and analyze these data as 
Federal, State, and local laws allow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An interim indicator is a marker of achievement that 
demonstrates progress toward an outcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purely illustrative purposes, examples of potential pilots 
include:
     A State, local or tribal government and its partners could 
build an integrated enrollment and case-management system that would be 
used by numerous youth-serving systems (juvenile justice, child 
welfare, mental health, workforce and vocational rehabilitation 
systems) in order to better target appropriate services to youth who 
are served by multiple systems.
     A State, local, or tribal government and its partners 
could develop and test a coordinated approach to serving youth who are 
involved in multiple systems that creates joint performance goals, 
integrates services for vulnerable youth and their families, and aligns 
conflicting eligibility requirements that currently result in service 
gaps.
     A State, local, or tribal government and its partners 
might implement systems change by establishing cross-sector 
collaboration at the local level to break down municipal agency 
``silos.'' This pilot could create integrated teams that represent 
multiple agencies and service systems to comprehensively address the 
needs of individual clients and establish new mechanisms for sharing 
and tracking data across multiple systems that serve disconnected youth 
in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws. Systems change can 
include strong partnerships with local philanthropic organizations and 
non-profit service providers.
     A State, local, or tribal government could create a more 
integrated and effective job-driven training and service-delivery 
system that enhances key elements of programs, such as employer 
engagement, leveraging of public and private resources, data-informed 
decision making, work-based training opportunities, career pathways, 
outcomes measurement and program improvement, and the elimination of 
barriers to employment to ensure that disconnected youth are equipped 
with the skills that employers need and are connected to employers with 
good job opportunities. A job-driven training program that uses the 
flexibilities offered by P3 might combine Workforce Investment Act 
youth formula program funding for job training and adult education 
funds for literacy and numeracy training (and, if Congress continues P3 
authority in FY 2015, Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act youth 
formula program and adult education funding), and other program funds 
to eliminate employment barriers.
    P3 is one of multiple Federal approaches to advance innovation and 
program delivery to address critical social challenges through 
community-driven, evidence-based strategies. Complementary approaches, 
which are laid out in the P3 Consultation Paper, include:
     Promise Zones, which ensure that Federal programs and 
resources are focused intensely on hard-hit communities;
     Job-Driven Training, which drives improvements in 
workforce development and job training programs, emphasizing effective 
approaches that lead to education and credentials needed for in-demand 
jobs, and providing workers with pathways to good careers and incomes;
     Federal innovation funds--including the Social Innovation 
Fund, the Workforce Innovation Fund, and the education-focused 
Investing in Innovation Fund--which support projects that use and build 
evidence about how to effectively improve skills of at-risk youth that 
will enable them to succeed in the workforce; and
     Pay for Success initiatives launched by the Department of 
Justice, DOL, and CNCS, which are fostering outcome-focused 
partnerships among Federal and State governments, local communities, 
private-sector investors, service providers, and research organizations 
to implement cost-effective services that improve outcomes for 
disconnected youth while generating savings for taxpayers.

Key Features of Successful P3 Proposals

    P3 will support a youth-centric approach to service pathways by 
enabling pilot sites to define the key outcomes that youth in the 
target population should achieve and to coordinate services so they can 
achieve those outcomes. Pilots will: (1) Identify the pilot's target 
population through a needs assessment; (2) use data and evaluations to 
determine the most effective strategies for serving the target 
population; (3) propose appropriate funding streams to blend in order 
to support the strategies; (4) identify the flexibility, both Federal 
and non-Federal, they need in order to implement the strategies; and 
finally (5) enter into a performance agreement with a lead Federal 
agency (designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)) and 
pilot partners (including any and all State, local, and tribal entities 
that would be involved in implementation of the pilot) that specifies 
pilot goals, outcome measures and interim indicators, accountability 
and oversight mechanisms, and responsibilities of the entities 
involved.
    (1) Identify the pilot's target population through a needs 
assessment.
    Federal consultation with stakeholders has underscored that 
unclear, varied, or conflicting eligibility criteria for programs that 
serve youth have posed a barrier to providing comprehensive, effective 
services for disconnected youth. The broad statutory definition of 
``disconnected youth'' provided in section 526(a)(2) of the Act, 
combined with the Agencies' expanded authority to allow pilots to blend 
funds and obtain other waivers of program requirements, is meant to 
address this barrier by providing applicants with flexibility to define 
a specific sub-population of disconnected youth that the pilot will 
serve. This target population must be identified through a data-driven 
needs assessment, which is discussed further in the Application 
Requirements section of this notice.
    (2) Use data and evaluations to determine the most effective 
strategies for serving the target population.

[[Page 70036]]

    The Agencies are seeking to ensure that pilots create a foundation 
for broader change and continuous improvement in serving disconnected 
youth. P3 will therefore support pilots that include, to the greatest 
extent possible, evidence-based and evidence-informed \9\ interventions 
and practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Evidence-based interventions are approaches to prevention or 
treatment that are validated by documented scientific evidence from 
experimental, quasi-experimental or correlational studies and that 
show positive effects on the primary targeted outcomes (for 
experimental and quasi-experimental studies) or favorable 
associations (for correlational studies). The best evidence to 
support an applicant's proposed reform(s) and target population will 
be based on one or more studies using a randomized controlled trial. 
The next best evidence will be studies using a quasi-experimental 
(matched comparison) group. Definitions for these types of studies 
can be found in 34 CFR 77.1(c). Correlational analysis may also be 
used as evidence to support an applicant's proposed reforms. 
Interventions and practices are considered evidence-informed if they 
bring together the best available research, professional expertise, 
and input from youth and families to identify and deliver services 
that have promise to achieve positive outcomes for youth, families, 
and communities. Applicants proposing reforms on which there are not 
yet evaluations (such as innovations that have not been formally 
tested or tested only on a small scale) must document how evidence 
or practice knowledge informed the proposed pilot design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In many cases, broader change and continuous improvement rely on 
both specific service-delivery models and also larger systems, such as 
policy and administrative frameworks. The Agencies are interested in 
pilots that draw on the best available evidence about how to improve 
outcomes for disconnected youth, both generally as well as for 
applicants' specific target populations, through both service delivery 
and systems change.
    (3) Propose appropriate funding streams to blend in order to 
support the strategies.
    P3 allows States, localities, and tribes to blend certain FY 2014 
discretionary funds from the Agencies in order to implement outcome-
focused strategies for serving disconnected youth. When funds are 
blended, individual funding streams, or portions of the funding 
streams, are merged under a single set of reporting and other 
requirements, losing their award-specific identity. The unified 
requirements for blended funds may differ from the various requirements 
that are associated with each of the original, individual funding 
streams, but must be consistent with the purposes of the programs under 
which the funds were appropriated. In addition, when activities are 
supported by blended funding streams, the associated costs do not need 
to be allocated or tracked back to the original, separate programs.
    Programs from which funds may be blended in pilots are limited to 
those that target disconnected youth, or that are designed to prevent 
youth from disconnecting from school or work by providing education, 
training, employment, and other related social services. More 
information about programs that applicants may want to consider in 
their proposals is provided in Appendix B.
    Where funding streams from certain Federal programs are not 
eligible or suitable for blending under P3, pilots may also consider 
how to braid \10\ them, or align them in other ways that promote more 
effective and efficient outcomes while maintaining the separate 
identity of each funding stream. Pilots may involve both blended and 
braided funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Braiding funding is a funding and resource allocation 
strategy in which entities use existing funding streams to support 
unified initiatives in as flexible and integrated a manner as 
possible while still tracking and maintaining separate 
accountability for each funding stream. One or more entities may 
coordinate several funding sources, but each individual funding 
stream maintains its award-specific identity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the pilots are intended to facilitate flexible use of 
existing funding streams that were made available under the Act. 
However, in order to provide incentives to participate in P3 and 
facilitate the initial implementation of performance agreements that 
will likely require additional coordination and collaboration among a 
range of State, local, and tribal agencies, the Agencies are awarding 
FY 2014 start-up funding in this competition. These start-up grants 
will be in the range of $400,000-$700,000 per grantee.
    (4) Identify the flexibilities, both Federal and non-Federal, 
pilots need in order to implement the strategies.
    P3 authority enables heads of the Agencies to approve significant 
flexibilities, including both the authority to permit blending of funds 
and the authority to grant waivers of program requirements associated 
with these funds. In addition to any existing waiver authority that the 
Agencies have, they also may waive any statutory, regulatory, or 
administrative requirements that they are otherwise not authorized to 
waive, as long as the waiver is in keeping with important safeguards 
(see sections 526(d) and (f) of the Act). Specifically, the waivers 
must be consistent with the statutory purposes of the relevant Federal 
programs necessary to achieve the pilot's outcomes, and no broader in 
scope than necessary to achieve those outcomes. Requirements related to 
nondiscrimination, wage and labor standards, and the allocation of 
funds to State and sub-State levels cannot be waived. Agency heads also 
must determine that the Agency's participation and the use of proposed 
program funds: (1) Will not result in denying or restricting individual 
eligibility for services funded by those programs; and (2) will not 
adversely affect vulnerable populations that are the recipients of 
those services.
    The flexibility, including waivers, permitted under the Act will 
allow pilot sites to tailor requirements, such as the allowable 
activities, eligibility criteria and reporting requirements for Federal 
funds, so that they support the goals and objectives of the pilot and 
maximize its capacity to improve outcomes for youth.
    Successful applicants will be responsible for identifying and 
securing flexibilities that they need at the State, local, or tribal 
level in order to implement their pilots.
    (5) Enter into a performance agreement with a lead Federal agency 
(designated by OMB) and pilot partners.
    The Act requires that each selected pilot be governed by a 
performance agreement between a lead Federal agency and the respective 
representatives of all of the State, local, or tribal governments 
participating in the agreement (see program requirement (d)). 
Performance agreements will identify, among other things, the Federal 
funds and programs involved in the pilot, the population to be served 
and the outcome(s) to be achieved by the pilot, and the cost-effective 
Federal oversight procedures that will be used for the purpose of 
maintaining the necessary level of accountability for funds. OMB has 
designated ED as the lead agency for purposes of administering P3 
start-up grants. OMB may also designate an additional lead Federal 
agency for each pilot on the basis of the programs included and/or the 
outcomes sought in the pilot.
    Priorities: The Agencies are establishing these priorities for the 
FY 2014 grant competition and any subsequent year for which P3 awards 
are made from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition. We 
are establishing absolute priorities 1 through 3 and competitive 
preference priorities 1 and 2 in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of 
the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). 
Competitive preference priority 3 is from the notice of final 
priority--Promise Zones, published in the Federal Register on March 27, 
2014 (79 FR 17035).
    Absolute Priorities: For FY 2014 and any subsequent year for which 
we make awards from the list of unfunded

[[Page 70037]]

applicants from this competition, these priorities are absolute 
priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications 
that meet Absolute Priority 1, 2, or 3.

    Note:  Applicants must indicate in their application whether 
they are applying under absolute priority 1, absolute priority 2, or 
absolute priority 3. An applicant that applies under absolute 
priority 2, but is not eligible for funding under absolute priority 
2, or applies under absolute priority 3, but is not eligible for 
funding under absolute priority 3, may be considered for funding 
under absolute priority 1.

    Because a diverse group of communities could benefit from P3, the 
Secretary establishes an absolute priority for applications that 
propose to serve disconnected youth in one or more rural communities 
\11\ only, and an absolute priority for applications that propose to 
serve disconnected youth in one or more Indian tribes, and an absolute 
priority for applications that propose to serve disconnected youth in 
other communities. P3 is intended, through a demonstration, to identify 
effective strategies for serving disconnected youth. The Agencies are 
aware such strategies may differ across environments, and wish to test 
the authority in a variety of settings. Stakeholder input emphasized 
that tribal and rural communities in particular can face unique 
challenges in effectively serving disconnected youth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A rural community is a community that is served only by one 
or more local educational agencies (LEAs) that are currently 
eligible under the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or 
the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under 
Title VI, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (ESEA), as amended, or includes only schools designated by the 
National Center for Education Statistics with a locale code of 42 or 
43. Applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible 
for the SRSA or RLIS programs by referring to information on the 
following Department Web site: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible14/index.html. The first tab in the spreadsheets available 
at this site lists LEAs that are eligible for SRSA; the second tab 
lists LEAs that are eligible for RLIS. Applicants may determine 
school locale codes by referring to the following Department Web 
site: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/. Involvement in a pilot 
by an LEA or school is not a requirement to participate in P3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These priorities are:
    Absolute Priority 1--Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth.
    Under this priority, we provide funding to an applicant that 
proposes a pilot designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth.
    Absolute Priority 2--Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in 
Rural Communities.
    Under this priority, we provide funding to an applicant that (1) 
meets absolute priority 1; and (2) proposes to serve disconnected youth 
in one or more rural communities only.

    Note:  To assist us in verifying whether an applicant qualifies 
for absolute priority 2, an applicant that applies under absolute 
priority 2 must include the following information in its 
application: (1) A list of the communities it proposes to serve; and 
(2) a list and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 
identification codes of (a) the LEA or LEAs that serve each of the 
communities it proposes to serve if the applicant qualifies for this 
priority through the criterion using the Small, Rural School 
Achievement program or the Rural and Low-Income School program or 
(b) the school or schools that serve each of the communities it 
proposes to serve if the applicant qualifies for this priority 
through the criterion using school-level NCES locale codes.

    Absolute Priority 3--Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in 
Tribal Communities.
    Under this priority, we provide funding to an applicant that (1) 
meets absolute priority 1; (2) will serve disconnected youth in one or 
more Indian tribes; and (3) represents a partnership that includes one 
or more Indian tribes.
    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2014 and any subsequent 
year for which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from 
this competition, these priorities are competitive preference 
priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), up to an additional 5 points 
will be awarded to an application based on how well the application 
meets competitive preference priority 1, up to an additional 10 points 
to an application based on how well the application meets competitive 
preference priority 2, and an additional 2 points to an application 
that meets competitive preference priority 3.
    Background for Competitive Preference Priorities 1 and 2:
    Under competitive preference priorities 1 and 2, we will award 
points to applicants based on their plans to conduct independent impact 
evaluations of at least one service-delivery or operational component 
of their pilots, in addition to participating in the national P3 
evaluation, which is discussed in the Program Requirements section of 
this notice. In proposing these site-specific impact evaluations, 
applicants should use the strongest possible designs and research 
methods and use high-quality administrative data in order to maximize 
confidence in the evaluation findings and minimize the costs of 
conducting these evaluations. Federal start-up funds and blended funds 
may be used to finance these evaluations, which will augment the 
evidence that is gained through any impact studies that are included in 
the national P3 evaluation.
    Competitive Preference Priority 1--Quasi-Experimental Site-Specific 
Evaluations (Up to 5 points).
    Under this priority, competitive preference will be given to 
applicants that propose to conduct an independent evaluation of the 
impacts on disconnected youth of their overall program or specific 
components of their program using a quasi-experimental \12\ design. 
Proposals will be scored based on the clarity and feasibility of the 
proposed evaluation design and the applicants' demonstrated expertise 
in planning and conducting a quasi-experimental evaluation study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Quasi-experimental design'' means a study using a design 
that attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a 
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important 
respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can 
meet ED's What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with 
reservations. (34 CFR 77.1(c); see also the What Works Clearinghouse 
Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0, March 2014, 
available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Competitive Preference Priority 2--Experimental Site-Specific 
Evaluations (Up to 10 points).
    Under this priority, competitive preference will be given to 
applicants that propose to conduct an independent evaluation of the 
impacts of their overall program or components of their program on 
disconnected youth using a randomized controlled trial.\13\ Applicants' 
proposals will be scored based on the clarity and feasibility of the 
proposed evaluation design and the applicants' demonstrated expertise 
in planning and conducting experimental evaluation studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``Randomized controlled trial'' means a study that employs 
random assignment of, to give education-based examples, students, 
teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to receive the 
intervention being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive 
the intervention (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of 
the intervention is the difference between the average outcome for 
the treatment group and for the control group. These studies, 
depending on design and implementation, can meet ED's What Works 
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations. (34 CFR 
77.1(c); see also the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 
Standards Handbook, Version 3.0, March 2014, available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please see Appendix A for the requirements for evaluation proposals 
that are related to competitive preference priorities 1 and 2.
    Competitive Preference Priority 3--Promise Zones (0 or 2 points).
    Background:
    Under this priority, competitive preference will be given to 
applicants

[[Page 70038]]

that propose projects that are designed to serve and coordinate with a 
federally designated Promise Zone. Promise Zone designees have 
committed to establishing comprehensive, coordinated approaches in 
order to ensure that America's most vulnerable children succeed from 
cradle to career. In January 2014, President Obama announced the first 
five Promise Zones, located in: The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Los 
Angeles, Philadelphia, San Antonio, and Kentucky Highlands. This 
designation is designed to assist local leaders in creating jobs, 
increasing economic activity, improving educational opportunities, 
leveraging private investment, and reducing violent crime in high-
poverty urban, rural, and tribal communities. By partnering with 
Promise Zone designees, the Federal government will help communities 
access the resources and expertise they need--including the resources 
from various neighborhood revitalization initiatives--to ensure that 
Federal programs and resources support the efforts to transform these 
communities.
    Priority:
    This priority is for projects that are designed to serve and 
coordinate with a federally designated Promise Zone.

    Note:  Applicants should submit a letter of support from the 
lead organization of a designated Promise Zone describing the 
contribution of the applicant's proposed activities. A list of 
designated Promise Zones and lead organizations can be found at 
http://hud.gov/promisezones.

    Application Requirements:
    The following requirements apply to all applications submitted 
under this competition. Any application that does not include the 
required documents or information will not be considered.
    (a) Statement of Need for a Defined Target Population.
    (1) The applicant must define the target population to be served, 
based on data and analysis demonstrating the need for services within 
the relevant geographic area. The target population must be consistent 
with the population identified by section 526(a)(2) of the Act.
    (2) The applicant's statement of need must include data 
demonstrating how the target population lags behind other groups in 
achieving the outcomes that the pilot will seek to attain, including an 
analysis of disparities in circumstances and outcomes among the target 
population and these other groups. These data must be based on a needs 
assessment that was conducted or updated within the past three years 
using representative data on youth from the jurisdiction(s) proposing 
the pilot. Applicants do not need to include a copy of the needs 
assessment with the application, but must identify when the assessment 
was conducted.
    (b) Flexibility, including waivers.
    (1) Federal requests for flexibility, including waivers. The 
applicant must describe the Federal flexibility that is needed to 
implement the proposed pilot and to improve outcomes for the target 
population, focusing on changes to major program requirements that 
would otherwise inhibit implementation. Flexibility involves both the 
ability to blend funds, thereby aligning certain administrative 
activities, and other waivers of program requirements. Examples of 
potential requests for flexibility include, but are not limited to: 
changes to eligibility requirements, allowable uses of funds, or 
performance reporting. Applicants must cite the specific Federal 
statutory, regulatory, or other requirements for which they are 
requesting flexibility. (More information on flexibility, including 
waivers, is provided in the FAQ section of the application package.)

    Note:  The waiver request process for P3, which is part of the 
application process, differs from standard agency processes. 
Applicants do not need to submit separate waiver requests or 
information to the respective agencies outside of the P3 application 
process.

    (2) Non-Federal flexibility, including waivers. In addition to 
Federal flexibility, successful implementation of proposals may also 
depend on flexibility related to requirements imposed at the State, 
local, or tribal level. The Agencies do not have the authority to waive 
non-Federal requirements. Applicants therefore must identify the 
specific State, local, or tribal policies, regulations, or other 
requirements that may impede the pilot's ability to achieve its goals 
so that, if the proposed pilot and flexibility, including waivers, are 
approved, requirements across non-Federal levels of government are 
aligned to support effective implementation. Applicants must provide 
written assurance that:
    (A) The State, local, or tribal government(s) with authority to 
grant any needed non-Federal flexibility, including waivers, will 
approve such flexibility within 60 days of an applicant's designation 
as a pilot finalist; or
    (B) Non-Federal flexibility, including waivers, is not needed in 
order to successfully implement the pilots.
    (c) Project Design.
    The applicant must present a project design for how it will improve 
specific outcomes for the target population. The design must indicate 
the proposed length of the pilot, which may not extend beyond September 
30, 2018, and whether and how the applicant intends to incorporate 
future funding, including FY 2015 funding, into the multi-year project 
if Congress extends P3 authority.\14\ Applicants may propose to expand 
the number of Federal programs supporting pilot activities using FY 
2015 or other future funding beyond the Federal programs proposed using 
FY 2014 funds. The applicant's design must include the following 
elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Authority for pilots to blend funds for future years is 
subject to Congressional action as well as agency approval. However, 
because the Agencies will evaluate applications, in part, based on 
their multi-year plans, an applicant should provide as much 
information as possible about its future plans. Once pilots are 
selected, the Agencies may consider changes, including changes in 
scope and objectives, to pilot designs in subsequent years as a 
result of new funding streams. The reason for considering those 
changes is that, because P3 is intended to test a new approach to 
improving outcomes for disconnected youth, the pilots that 
demonstrate successful performance and effective governance 
processes may be able to build on these gains by using additional 
funding streams and/or including additional partners in future 
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) An explanation of how the strategies and activities that the 
pilot will employ are based on (or informed by) available research 
evidence.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The best evidence for the expected effects of proposed 
interventions and reforms will be based on one or more studies using 
a randomized controlled trial. The next best evidence will be 
studies using a quasi-experimental (matched comparison group). Some 
studies that use these designs have been reviewed and are available 
in Federal registries of evidence-based interventions, such as the 
What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/) and the 
Clearinghouse on Labor Evaluation and Research (CLEAR) (http://clear.dol.gov/). Correlational analysis may also be used as evidence 
to support an applicant's proposed reform. More information on 
Federal registries is provided in the FAQ section of the application 
package. Applicants are encouraged to identify (and cite) studies 
that support their proposed pilot strategies and activities (whether 
from Federal registries or other sources) to explain the strengths 
and limitations of the existing evidence and to describe how the 
proposed strategies and activities will take into account those 
strengths and limitations in the existing evidence. Applicants 
proposing reforms on which there is not yet research evidence (such 
as innovations that have not been formally tested or tested only on 
a small scale) must document how evidence or practice knowledge 
informed the proposed pilot design.

    Note:  Applicants must cite the studies on service interventions 
and system reform that informed their pilot design and explain the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
relevance of the cited evidence to the proposed project.

    (2) A graphic depiction (not longer than one page) of the pilot's 
logic model \16\ that illustrates the underlying

[[Page 70039]]

theory of how the pilot's strategy will produce intended outcomes. More 
information on logic models is provided in the FAQ section of the 
application package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Logic model'' (also referred to as theory of action) 
means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key 
components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice 
(i.e., the active ''ingredients'' that are hypothesized to be 
critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the 
relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically 
and operationally. (34 CFR 77.1(c).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) A description of the Federal program funds the applicant will 
blend in the pilot to carry out the activities described. In order to 
qualify for a pilot, the proposal must include at least two Federal 
programs: (a) That have policy goals related to P3; and (b) at least 
one of which is administered (in whole or in part) by a State, local, 
or tribal government (see Appendix B for examples of specific programs 
that applicants may want to consider). If applicable, the applicant 
should also describe any Federal funds that will support the proposed 
pilot or complementary activities by being braided rather than blended, 
such as funds that are not eligible under the Act to be blended, but 
may still support relevant activities under the pilot.

    Note:  Agencies will review the blending of FY 2014 competitive 
grants in pilots on a case-by-case basis in order to consider how 
the scope, objectives, and target populations of the existing award 
align with the proposed pilot. As discussed under the selection 
criteria, applicants will be scored, in part, based on the extent to 
which they demonstrate that alignment.

    (d) Work Plan and Project Management. The applicant must provide a 
detailed work plan that describes how the proposed work will be 
accomplished. The applicant must describe the professional 
qualifications that will be required of the project manager and other 
key personnel to ensure proper management of pilot activities.
    (e) Partnership Capacity and Management. The applicant must--
    (1) Identify the proposed partners, including any and all State, 
local, and tribal entities and non-governmental organizations that 
would be involved in implementation of the pilot. Partnerships that 
cross programs and funding sources but are under the jurisdiction of a 
single agency or entity must identify the different sub-organizational 
units involved.
    (2) Provide assurance of the proposed partners' commitment, such as 
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or letter of commitment. The 
assurance of commitment must be signed by the executive leader or other 
accountable senior representative of each relevant organization or 
agency and include, at a minimum: (a) A description of each proposed 
partner's commitment of financial or in-kind resources (if any); (b) 
how each proposed partner's existing vision and current and proposed 
activities align with those of the proposed pilot; and (c) how each 
proposed partner will be held accountable under the proposed governance 
structure.
    (3) Describe how the applicant and proposed partners will use and 
coordinate resources in order to improve outcomes for disconnected 
youth. This description may include whether proposed efforts are 
aligned with, or whether the applicants' and proposed partners' 
jurisdiction is participating in, complementary Administration 
initiatives or efforts, such as Promise Zones and Pay for Success, or 
efforts that are focused on populations such as foster youth, young men 
of color, or homeless youth. For projects that include a focus on 
placing youth in work-based training and employment opportunities, 
applicants should address engagement with business and industry in 
identifying employment opportunities and skills, defining competencies, 
designing programs, and developing curricula, when applicable.

    Note: While applicants must describe how the proposed project 
will use and coordinate resources, participation in complementary 
initiatives or efforts of the Administration is not a requirement 
for participation in P3.

    (f) Data and Evaluation Capacity.
    (1) Applicants must describe the proposed partnership's data and 
evaluation capacity, including its ability to collect, analyze, and use 
data for decision-making, learning, continuous improvement, and 
accountability. Specifically, the applicant must describe the extent to 
which the proposed partners have done, and will continue to do, the 
following:
    (A) Manage and maintain computerized administrative data systems to 
track program participants, services, and outcomes;
    (B) Execute data-sharing agreements with programs or organizations 
to share information with program partners and evaluators for case 
management, performance management, and evaluation purposes, in 
accordance with Federal, State, and other privacy laws and 
requirements;
    (C) Link or make progress toward linking programmatic data to 
administrative data from relevant government agencies;
    (D) Collect, store, and make data available to program partners, 
researchers, and evaluators in accordance with Federal, State, and 
other privacy laws and regulations;
    (E) Use data to determine cost-effective strategies for improving 
outcomes; and
    (F) Regularly analyze program data to assess progress, identify 
operational strengths and weaknesses, and determine how implementation 
could be strengthened to improve outcomes.
    (2) The applicant must propose outcome measures and interim 
indicators to gauge pilot performance. At least one outcome measure 
must be in the domain of education, and at least one outcome measure 
must be in the domain of employment. Applicants may specify additional 
employment and education outcome measures, as well as outcome measures 
in other domains of well-being, such as criminal justice, physical and 
mental health, and housing. Regardless of the outcome domain, 
applicants must identify at least one interim indicator for each 
proposed outcome measure. Examples of education- and employment-related 
outcome measures and interim indicators include:
     For High School Diploma Attainment: High school 
enrollment, attendance, and grade promotion;
     For Community College Completion: Class attendance and 
credit accumulation; and
     For Sustained Employment in Career Field: Job placement or 
acquisition, employment retention, and earnings.
    The specific outcome measures and interim indicators the applicant 
uses should be grounded in its logic model, and informed by applicable 
program results or research, as appropriate. More information on 
outcomes and interim indicators is available in the FAQs included in 
the application package.
    (3) For each proposed outcome measure and interim indicator, the 
applicant must describe:
    (A) The methodology and progress milestones (such as monthly, 
quarterly, annually) that will be used to assess progress;
    (B) The sources of data that will be used, and whether the data are 
subject to audit or other means of validation for accuracy; and
    (C) The frequency with which data will be recorded by the pilot and 
the frequency with which the applicant proposes to report on outcome 
measures, interim indicators, and project progress milestones to the 
Federal government.

    Note:  Lead Federal agencies will work with selected pilots to 
finalize the reporting requirements and to determine the frequency 
of reporting as part of the performance partnership agreement. The 
lead Federal agency for each pilot reserves the right to

[[Page 70040]]

negotiate the selected interim indicators, outcome measures, and 
project progress milestones, and to add relevant performance 
measures as part of the performance agreement process.

    (g) Budget and Budget Narrative.
    (1) The applicant must identify specific funding levels for the 
funding sources to be used in the pilot, specifically--
    (A) For each Federal program, the amount of funds to be blended and 
the percentage of total program funding received by the applicant that 
this amount represents;
    (B) The total amount of funds from all Federal programs that would 
be blended under the pilot;
    (C) The source and amount of any non-Federal funds and programs, 
including funds from State, local, tribal, philanthropic, and other 
sources, that will be used for the pilot, as well as a description of 
how those funds and programs will complement Federal funds in the 
implementation of the proposed strategy and activities; and
    (D) The total amount of all funds, Federal and non-Federal, that 
will be used to support activities related to the pilot.
    (2) The applicant must indicate whether in-kind contributions or 
other braided Federal funds will be used to support the pilot and, if 
so, identify these contributions.
    (3) The applicant must provide a detailed budget and a budget 
narrative that describe how the pilot will use the requested start-up 
grant funds, as well as the FY 2014 and FY 2015 Federal program funds 
that the applicant proposes to blend. The budget must cover all years 
during which FY 2014 and FY 2015 Federal funds would be used to support 
the pilot and must include at least the first full year of the pilot. 
The applicant should request a specific start-up grant amount that is 
between $400,000 and $700,000 and describe how the pilot will use these 
start-up funds to support effective implementation, such as planning, 
governance, technical assistance, site-specific evaluation, capacity-
building, and coordination activities. Examples of other uses include 
supporting the measurement of pilot performance and results, such as 
modifications to information systems.
    Program Requirements:
    (a) In addition to any site-specific evaluations that pilots may 
undertake, the Agencies are initiating a national P3 evaluation. Each 
P3 pilot must participate fully in any federally sponsored P3 
evaluation activity, including the national evaluation of P3, which 
will consist of the analysis of participant characteristics and 
outcomes, an implementation analysis at all sites, and rigorous impact 
evaluations of promising interventions in selected sites. The applicant 
must acknowledge in writing its understanding of these requirements by 
submitting the form provided in Appendix A, ``Evaluation Commitment 
Form,'' as an attachment to its application.
    (b) All P3 pilots must participate in a community of practice \17\ 
that includes an annual in-person meeting of pilot sites (paid with 
grant funding that must be reflected in the pilot budget submitted; see 
the FAQ in the application package for more information) and virtual 
peer-to-peer learning activities. This commitment involves each pilot 
site working with the lead Federal agency on a plan for supporting its 
technical assistance needs, which can include learning activities 
supported by foundations or other non-Federal organizations as well as 
activities financed with Federal funds for the pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ``Community of practice'' means a group of pilots that 
agrees to interact regularly to solve a persistent problem or 
improve practice in an area that is important to them and the 
success of their projects. Establishment of communities of practice 
under P3 will enable pilots to meet, discuss, and collaborate with 
each other regarding grantee projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) P3 pilots must secure necessary consent from parents, 
guardians, students, or youth program participants to access data for 
their pilots and any evaluations, in accordance with applicable 
Federal, State, local, and tribal laws. Applicants must explain how 
they propose to ensure compliance with Federal, State, local, and 
tribal privacy laws and regulations as pilot partners share data to 
support effective coordination of services and link data to track 
outcome measures and interim indicators at the individual level to 
perform, where applicable, a low-cost, high-quality evaluation.
    (d) Each P3 pilot, along with other non-Federal government entities 
involved in the partnership, must enter into a performance agreement 
that will include, at a minimum, the following (as required by section 
526(c)(2) of the Act):
    (1) The length of the agreement;
    (2) The Federal programs and federally funded services that are 
involved in the pilot;
    (3) The Federal discretionary funds that are being used in the 
pilot;
    (4) The non[hyphen]Federal funds that are involved in the pilot, by 
source (which may include private funds as well as governmental funds) 
and by amount;
    (5) The State, local, or tribal programs that are involved in the 
pilot and their respective roles;
    (6) The populations to be served by the pilot;
    (7) The cost[hyphen]effective Federal oversight procedures that 
will be used for the purpose of maintaining the necessary level of 
accountability for the use of the Federal discretionary funds;
    (8) The cost[hyphen]effective State, local, or tribal oversight 
procedures that will be used for the purpose of maintaining the 
necessary level of accountability for the use of the Federal 
discretionary funds;
    (9) The outcome (or outcomes) that the pilot is designed to 
achieve;
    (10) The appropriate, reliable, and objective 
outcome[hyphen]measurement methodology that will be used to determine 
whether the pilot is achieving, and has achieved, specified outcomes;
    (11) The statutory, regulatory, or administrative requirements 
related to Federal mandatory programs that are barriers to achieving 
improved outcomes of the pilot; \18\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Agencies cannot grant waivers of requirements under 
mandatory programs or programs funded outside of Division H of the 
Act, except where the agency has existing administrative authority 
to provide waivers. The Act requires that P3 performance agreements 
list barriers in mandatory programs even though P3 authority does 
not authorize these programs to be blended for pilot purposes. While 
these programs' funds are not eligible for blending funds under P3, 
applicants are encouraged to identify strategies for better 
coordinating the delivery of services with these programs to the 
extent possible. Medicaid, TANF and certain Foster Care programs 
authorized by the Social Security Act are examples of mandatory 
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (12) Criteria for determining when a pilot is not achieving the 
specified outcomes that it is designed to achieve and subsequent steps, 
including:
    (i) The consequences that will result; and
    (ii) The corrective actions that will be taken in order to increase 
the likelihood that the pilot will achieve such specified outcomes.
    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure 
Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department of Education generally offers 
interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed definitions, 
requirements, and selection criteria. However, Section 437(d)(1) of the 
General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1)) allows 
the Secretary to exempt the first grant competition under a new or 
substantially revised program authority from rulemaking requirements 
and regulations.
    This is the first P3 grant competition and, therefore, it qualifies 
for this exemption. In order to ensure timely

[[Page 70041]]

awards, the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the 
priorities, definitions, requirements, and selection criteria under 
section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. These priorities, definitions, requirements, 
and selection criteria will apply to the FY 2014 grant competition and 
any subsequent year for which we make awards from the list of unfunded 
applicants from this competition.

    Program Authority:  Section 526 of Division H of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-76).

    Applicable Regulations:
    This application notice (also referred to as a notice inviting 
applications (NIA)) is being published before the Department adopts the 
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit 
Requirements in 2 CFR part 200. We expect to publish interim final 
regulations that would adopt those requirements before December 26, 
2014, and make those regulations effective on that date. Because grants 
awarded under this NIA will likely be made after the Department adopts 
the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, we list as applicable regulations 
both those that are currently effective and those that will be 
effective at the time the Department makes grants.
    The current regulations follow: (a) The Education Department 
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 
80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies 
on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR 
part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 
CFR part 3485.
    At the time we award grants under this NIA, the following 
regulations will apply: (a) EDGAR in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 
84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on 
Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 
180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR 
part 3485, and the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 
200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474.
    Regardless of the timing of publication, the following also applies 
to this NIA: The notice of final priority--Promise Zones, published in 
the Federal Register on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17035).

    Note:  The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants 
except federally recognized Indian tribes.

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.
    Estimated Available Funds: Up to $7,100,000.
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from 
the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
    Estimated Range of Awards: $400,000 to $700,000.
    Estimated Average Size of Award: $550,000.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 10.

    Note:  The Agencies are not bound by any estimates in this 
notice.

    Project Period: Not to extend beyond September 30, 2018.

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible applicants: An application must be submitted by a lead 
applicant on behalf of a partnership that involves all public and 
private organizations (including non-profit, business, industry, and 
labor organizations) that will participate in pilot implementation and 
governance. The lead applicant must be a State, local, or tribal 
government entity, represented by a Chief Executive, such as a 
governor, mayor, or other elected leader, or the head of a State, 
local, or tribal agency. In addition to formally submitting the 
application, the official representing the lead applicant will serve as 
the primary official who is responsible for the pilot project if the 
proposal is selected as a pilot. A private, non-profit organization is 
not an eligible applicant for a pilot; however, it may have a 
significant role in the design, governance, and implementation of a 
pilot and may, if appropriate, be a signatory to the performance 
agreement. For more information on the potential roles and 
participation of non-profit organizations in a pilot, see the FAQs in 
the application package.
    For each application selected as a pilot, the respective 
representatives of all participating State, local, and tribal 
governments must be parties to the performance agreement governing the 
pilot. For example, when a P3 pilot proposed at the local or tribal 
level is financed with funds administered by a State, the administering 
State agency must be a party to the agreement and must agree to any 
waivers or other proposals that are needed to implement the pilot and 
also fall under that State agency's jurisdiction. If a State or group 
of States proposes a pilot that would be implemented only in certain 
communities and would involve participation by local government 
jurisdictions, these jurisdictions will need to be party to the 
agreement and agree to implement the pilot as proposed by the State(s).
    2. Cost-Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost-
sharing or matching.

IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: Braden Goetz, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11141, PCP, 
Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-7405.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application 
package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, 
or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in 
this section.
    2. a. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements 
concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you 
must submit, are in the application package for this competition.
    Notice of Intent to Apply: January 8, 2015.

    Note:  Submission of a notice of intent to apply is optional.

    Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, 
address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your 
application. We recommend that you limit the application narrative to 
no more than 40 pages, using the following standards:
     A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1'' 
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
     Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) 
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, 
footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in 
charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
     Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller 
than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
     Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 
Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font 
(including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
    The recommended page limit does not apply to the application cover 
sheet; the detailed annual budget; the assurances and certifications; 
or the abstract, the absolute and competitive priorities, the

[[Page 70042]]

resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of commitment and MOUs. 
However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the 
application narrative section.
    b. Submission of Proprietary Information:
    Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications 
for Performance Partnership Pilots, your application may include 
business information that you consider proprietary. The Department's 
regulations define ``business information'' in 34 CFR 5.11.
    Because we plan to make successful applications available to the 
public, and may make all applications available, you may wish to 
request confidentiality of business information.
    Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your 
application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure 
under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate 
Appendix section of your application, under ``Other Attachments Form,'' 
please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this 
information. For additional information, please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
    3. Submission Dates and Times:
    Applications Available: November 24, 2014.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: January 8, 2015.
    Note: Submission of a notice of intent to apply is optional.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: March 4, 2015.
    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted 
electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For 
information (including dates and times) about how to submit your 
application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery 
if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
    Other Submission Requirements of this notice.
    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the 
deadline requirements.
    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or 
auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact 
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII 
of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or 
auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the 
application process, the individual's application remains subject to 
all other requirements and limitations in this notice.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: May 4, 2015.
    4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
    Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs 
under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this 
competition.
    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification 
Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the 
Department of Education, you must--
    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a 
Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award 
Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the 
Government's primary registrant database;
    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information 
while your application is under review by the Department and, if you 
are awarded a grant, during the project period.
    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number 
can be created within one to two business days.
    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or 
organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. 
If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal 
Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a 
new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business 
days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the 
completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by 
an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal 
financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, 
please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number 
and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:  Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to 
allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in 
Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through 
Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make 
any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with 
your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update 
your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further 
assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in 
SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov 
Tip Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.
    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, 
you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized 
Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with 
Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the 
following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.
    7. Other Submission Requirements:
    Applications for competition must be submitted electronically 
unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance 
with the instructions in this section.
    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.
    Applications for grants under the Performance Partnerships Pilots 
program, CFDA number 84.420A, must be submitted electronically using 
the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through 
this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application 
package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your 
application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant 
application to us.
    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format 
unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of 
the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no 
later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written 
statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these 
exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that 
is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in 
this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.
    You may access the electronic grant application for P3 at 
www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application 
package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include

[[Page 70043]]

the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.420, 
not 84.420A).
    Please note the following:
     When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find 
information about submitting an application electronically through the 
site, as well as the hours of operation.
     Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time 
stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must 
be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as 
otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if 
it is received--that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov 
system--after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application 
deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply 
with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from 
Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application 
because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 
4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
     The amount of time it can take to upload an application 
will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the 
application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we 
strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline 
date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
     You should review and follow the Education Submission 
Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are 
included in the application package for this competition to ensure that 
you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov 
system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures 
pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 
system home page at www.G5.gov.
     You will not receive additional point value because you 
submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you 
if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your 
application in paper format.
     You must submit all documents electronically, including 
all information you typically provide on the following forms: the 
Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of 
Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information--Non-
Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and 
certifications.
     You must upload any narrative sections and all other 
attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) 
read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or 
fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, 
non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not 
review that material.
     Your electronic application must comply with any page-
limit requirements described in this notice.
     After you electronically submit your application, you will 
receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that 
contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates 
receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The 
Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send 
a second notification to you by email. This second notification 
indicates that the Department has received your application and has 
assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified 
identifying number unique to your application).
     We may request that you provide us original signatures on 
forms at a later date.
    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues 
with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting 
your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov 
Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a 
Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.
    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your 
application on the application deadline date because of technical 
problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension 
until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to 
enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand 
delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing 
instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC 
time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person 
listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this 
notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you 
experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk 
Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a 
technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that 
problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The 
Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether 
your application will be accepted.

    Note:  The extensions to which we refer in this section apply 
only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the 
Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed 
to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before 
the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem 
you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an 
exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your 
application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application 
through the Grants.gov system because--
     You do not have access to the Internet; or
     You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to 
the Grants.gov system;

and

     No later than two weeks before the application deadline 
date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the 
application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business 
day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement 
to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception 
prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be 
postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline 
date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must 
receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the 
application deadline date.
    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Braden Goetz, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11141, PCP, 
Washington, DC 20202. FAX: (202) 245-7838.
    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the 
mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.
    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a 
commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail 
the original and two copies of your application, on or before the 
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: 
U.S. Department of Education,

[[Page 70044]]

Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.420A, LBJ 
Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the 
U.S. Postal Service.
    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial 
carrier.
    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the 
U.S. Department of Education.
    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do 
not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
    (1) A private metered postmark.
    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
    If your application is postmarked after the application deadline 
date, we will not consider your application.

    Note:  The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a 
dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with 
your local post office.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.
    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper 
application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original 
and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the 
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: 
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: 
CFDA Number 84.420A, 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center 
Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily 
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except 
Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand 
Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your 
application to the Department--
    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and--if not provided by the 
Department--in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix 
letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your 
application; and
    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification 
of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this 
notification within 15 business days from the application deadline 
date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application 
Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria. We are establishing the following selection 
criteria for the FY 2014 grant competition and any subsequent year for 
which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this 
competition. Eligible applicants may receive up to 100 total points 
based on the extent to which their applications address these selection 
criteria. The number of points that may be awarded for each criterion 
is indicated in parentheses next to the criterion. An applicant's final 
score will include both points awarded based on selection criteria and 
also any points awarded for the three competitive preference 
priorities.
A. Need for Project (5 Points)
    In determining the need for the proposed project, we will consider 
the extent to which the applicant used a comprehensive needs assessment 
completed within the previous three years that draws on representative 
data on youth in the jurisdiction(s) to be served by the pilot that are 
disaggregated according to relevant demographic factors to: (1) Show 
disparities in outcomes among key sub-populations; and (2) identify an 
appropriate target population of disconnected youth with a high level 
of need. Examples of relevant demographic factors include race, 
ethnicity, gender, age, disability status, involvement in systems such 
as foster care or justice, status as pregnant or parenting, and other 
key factors selected by the applicant.
B. Need for Requested Flexibility, Including Blending of Funds and 
Other Waivers (10 Points)
    In determining the need for the requested flexibility, including 
blending of funds and other waivers, we will consider the following 
factors--
    (1) The extent to which the applicant presents evidence that 
specific Federal barriers are hindering successful achievement of 
outcomes for the target population of disconnected youth identified by 
the applicant and cites the relevant statute(s), regulation(s), and/or 
administrative requirement(s) for which it is seeking flexibility, 
including waivers (5 points); and
    (2) The extent to which the applicant provides a justification of 
how requested flexibility, including blending funds and other waivers, 
will reduce barriers, increase efficiency, support implementation of 
the pilot, and produce significantly better outcomes for the target 
population(s) (5 points).
C. Project Design (25 Points)
    In determining the strength of the project design, we will consider 
the following factors--
    (1) The extent to which the applicant presents a clear and logical 
plan that is likely to improve outcomes significantly for the target 
population, by addressing the gaps and the disparities identified 
through the needs assessment, including the extent to which--
    (a) The inputs and activities shown in the logic model are 
necessary and sufficient to achieve the project's objectives, and
    (b) The assumptions of the logic model are identified and a 
rationale is provided for them. For example, applicants proposing job 
training or employment strategies should include data on the demand for 
particular occupations in the relevant geographic areas (10 points);
    (2) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that the pilot 
will use evidence-based and evidence-informed interventions, in 
addition to systems change, as documented by citations to the relevant 
evidence (5 points);

    Note:  Applicants should cite the studies on service 
interventions and system reform that informed their pilot design and 
explain the relevance of the cited evidence to the proposed project 
in terms of subject matter and evaluation evidence.

    (3) The extent to which the pilot will provide intensive, 
comprehensive, and sustained service pathways and coordinated 
approaches that are likely to improve outcomes significantly over the 
short, medium, and long term by helping individuals progress seamlessly 
from one educational stepping stone to another, across work-based 
training and education, or through other relevant programmatic 
milestones to improve outcomes. For example, a pilot might prevent gaps 
in service that would jeopardize the achievement of outcomes by 
creating a seamless progression of services that provide continuous 
support as needed to the target population (5 points); and
    (4) For Federal programs that are proposed to provide funding for 
pilots, the extent to which the applicant explains how the use of funds 
for the pilot: (a) Will not result in denying or restricting the 
eligibility of individuals for services that (in whole or in part) are 
otherwise funded by these programs; and (b) based on the best available 
information, will not otherwise adversely affect vulnerable populations 
that are the recipients of those services. If the applicant proposes to 
include FY 2014 competitive grant funds that have already been awarded, 
the extent to

[[Page 70045]]

which the applicant demonstrates that the scope, objectives, and target 
population(s) of the existing award align with the proposed pilot (see 
the FAQs included in the application package for more information) (5 
points).
D. Work Plan and Project Management (10 Points)
    In determining the strength of the work plan and project 
management, we will consider the extent to which the applicant presents 
a strong work plan and project management approach that includes--
    (1) A detailed timeline and implementation milestones, including--
    (a) A statement of when any necessary preparatory work will be 
completed, which must be within 180 days of being awarded pilot start-
up funding;
    (b) The expected start date of a project manager, the expected 
award dates of contracts and other authorized subawards, and expected 
dates for establishing agreements among the partners;
    (c) The start date of the pilot services, such as participant 
intake and services;
    (d) When the partnership will begin to implement pilot services or 
changes to administrative systems and policy and which partners are 
responsible for key tasks;
    (e) The number of participants expected to be served under the 
pilot for each period, such as quarterly or annually (for example, 
number of participants enrolled, and the number achieving specified 
education, employment, and other outcomes); and
    (f) For an applicant that is proposing an evaluation (as described 
in competitive preference priorities 1 and 2), when it will begin 
evaluation activities, including execution of a contract with an 
independent evaluator.
    (2) A description of how the proposed budget and budget narrative 
align with the work plan, identifying how each implementation milestone 
will be adequately funded as outlined in the proposed budget;
    (3) A description of any existing or anticipated barriers to 
implementation and how they will be overcome; and
    (4) A description of the professional qualifications that will be 
required of the project manager and other key personnel, including a 
description of how such qualifications are sufficient to ensure proper 
management of all grant activities, such as timely reporting and the 
ability to manage a strategic partnership (10 points).

    Note:  If the program manager or other key personnel are already 
on staff, the applicant should provide this person's resume or 
curriculum vitae.

E. Partnership Capacity (15 Points)
    In determining the strength and capacity of the proposed pilot 
partnership, we will consider the following factors--
    (1) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has an 
effective governance structure in which partners that are necessary to 
successfully implement the pilot are represented and partners have the 
necessary authority, resources, expertise, and incentives to achieve 
the pilot's goals, resolve unforeseen issues, and sustain efforts to 
the extent possible after the project period ends, including by 
demonstrating the extent to which, and how, participating partners have 
successfully collaborated to improve outcomes for disconnected youth in 
the past. The proposed governance structure should reflect a plan for 
effective cooperation across levels of government, including a 
description of the State, local, and tribal roles in the partnership, 
or across entities within the same level of government, to improve 
outcomes for disconnected youth, such as through coordinated program 
delivery, easier program navigation for participants, or identification 
and resolution of State and local policy barriers (10 points);
    (2) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that its 
proposal was designed with input from all relevant stakeholders, 
including disconnected youth and other community partners. Where the 
project design includes job training strategies, the extent of employer 
input and engagement in the identification of skills and competencies 
needed by employers, the development of the curriculum, and the 
offering of work-based learning opportunities, including pre-
apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship, will be considered (5 
points).
F. Data Capacity (30 Points)
    In determining the strength of the applicant's data capacity, we 
will consider the following factors--
    (1) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates the capacity to 
collect, analyze, and use data for decision-making, learning, 
continuous improvement, and accountability, and has a strong plan to 
bridge the gaps in its ability to do so, including the extent to which 
the applicant has, and will continue to:
    (a) Manage and maintain computerized administrative data systems to 
track program participants, services, and outcomes;
    (b) Execute data-sharing agreements with programs or organizations 
to share information with program partners and evaluators for case 
management, performance management, and evaluation purposes in 
accordance with Federal, State, local, and other privacy laws and 
requirements;
    (c) Use data to determine cost-effective strategies for improving 
outcomes; and
    (d) Regularly analyze program data to assess the pilot's progress, 
identify operational strengths and weaknesses and determine how 
implementation can be strengthened to improve outcomes (5 points).
    (2) The strength of the applicant's plan to manage and link data in 
ways that comply with all relevant Federal, State, and local privacy 
laws and regulations to ensure the protection of personally 
identifiable information (5 points).
    (3) The extent to which the applicant shows how the outcomes of the 
proposed pilot are likely to be a significant improvement compared with 
what might have occurred in its absence, both during the pilot project 
period and, for longer-term outcomes, beyond the project period (10 
points).
    (4) The extent to which proposed outcome measures and interim 
indicators, as well as their measurement methodologies and progress 
milestones, are appropriate and sufficient to gauge progress toward 
pilot objectives (5 points).
    (5) The extent to which the data sources for the outcome measures 
and interim indicators will be accessible and independently audited or 
validated for accuracy (5 points).
G. Budget and Budget Narrative (5 Points)
    In determining the adequacy of the resources that will be committed 
to support the project, we will consider the extent to which the costs 
are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential 
significance of the project.
    2. Review and Selection Process: The Department will screen 
applications that are submitted in accordance with the requirements in 
this notice, and will determine which applications are eligible to be 
read based on whether they have met the eligibility and application 
requirements established by this notice.
    The Department will use reviewers with knowledge and expertise on 
issues related to improving outcomes for disconnected youth to score 
the selection criteria. The Department will thoroughly screen all 
reviewers for conflicts of interest to ensure a fair and

[[Page 70046]]

competitive review. Reviewers with expertise in evaluation will score 
competitive preference priorities 1 and 2. The Department will assign 2 
points for competitive preference priority 3 if the application 
includes a letter from the lead organization of a designated Promise 
Zone describing the contribution of the applicant's proposed 
activities.
    Technical scoring. Reviewers will read, prepare a written 
evaluation, and assign a technical score to the applications assigned 
to their panel, using the selection criteria provided in this notice, 
competitive preference priorities 1 and 2, and the scoring rubric in 
Appendix D.
    The Department will then prepare a rank order of applications based 
on their technical scores.
    Flexibility, including blending of funds and other waivers. Using 
this rank order, representatives of the Agencies that administer 
programs under which flexibility in Federal requirements is sought will 
evaluate whether the flexibility, including blending of funds and other 
waivers, requested by top-scoring applicants meets the statutory 
requirements for Performance Partnership Pilots and is otherwise 
appropriate (as described in Appendix B). For example, if an applicant 
is seeking flexibility under programs administered by HHS and DOL, its 
requests for flexibility will be reviewed by HHS and DOL officials. 
Applicants may be asked to participate in an interview at this point in 
the process in order to clarify requests for flexibility and other 
aspects of their proposals.
    For applicants that propose to include funds from FY 2014 
competitive grants that have already been awarded, the flexibility 
review will include consideration of whether the scope, objectives, and 
target populations of the existing competitive grant award(s) are 
sufficiently and appropriately aligned with the proposed pilot. Any 
changes in terms and conditions of the existing competitive grant 
award(s) required for pilot purposes must be justified by the applicant 
(see FAQ included in the application package). The Agencies will review 
those requests on a case-by-case basis.
    If 25 or fewer applications are received, the technical scoring and 
reviews of flexibility requests may be conducted concurrently.
    Selecting finalists. Agency officials may recommend the selection 
of up to ten projects as Performance Partnership Pilots. In accordance 
with 34 CFR 75.217(d) and in consultation with the other Agencies, the 
Secretary will select finalists after considering the rank ordering, 
the recommendations of the Agencies that administer the programs for 
which the applicants are seeking flexibility and other information 
including an applicant's performance and use of funds and compliance 
history under a previous award under any Agency program. In selecting 
pilots, the agencies may consider high-ranking applications meeting 
absolute priority 2 or absolute priority 3 separately to ensure that 
there is a diversity of pilots. In addition, as required by the Act, 
each pilot must meet all statutory criteria.
    For each finalist, a lead Federal agency designated by OMB will 
negotiate a performance agreement. If a performance agreement cannot be 
finalized for any applicant within 60 days, an alternative applicant 
may be selected as a finalist instead. The recommended projects will be 
considered finalists until performance agreements are signed by all 
parties, and pilot designation and start-up grant funds will be awarded 
only after execution of each finalist's performance agreement.
    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary 
also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal 
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or 
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department 
of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
    3. Special Conditions: Under current 34 CFR 74.14 and 80.12 and, 
when grants are made under this NIA, 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may 
impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk 
conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially 
stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or 
other management system that does not meet the standards in 34 CFR 
parts 74 or 80, as applicable or, when grants are awarded, the 
standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the 
conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your 
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award 
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to 
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may also notify you 
informally.
    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, 
we will notify you.
    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify 
administrative and national policy requirements in the application 
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable 
Regulations section of this notice.
    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of 
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and 
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also 
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding 
commitments under the grant.
    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, 
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and 
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply 
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final 
performance report, including financial information, as outlined in the 
P3 performance agreement. If you receive a multi-year award, you must 
submit an annual performance report that provides the most current 
performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the 
Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more 
frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific 
requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
    4. Performance Measures: Performance measures and interim 
indicators, along with required reporting, will be outlined in P3 
performance agreements.

VII. Agency Contact

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Braden Goetz, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11141, PCP, Washington, DC 
20202. Telephone: (202) 245-7405 or by email: disconnectedyouth@ed.gov.
    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-
8339.

VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format 
(e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to 
the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
in section VII of this notice.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System

[[Page 70047]]

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: November 19, 2014.
Johan E. Uvin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education.

Appendices

Appendix A: Evaluation Commitment Form
Appendix B: Examples of Programs Potentially Eligible for Inclusion 
in Pilots
Appendix C: Competitive Preference Priorities 1 and 2 Evaluation 
Submission Requirements
Appendix D: Scoring Rubric

Appendix A: Evaluation Commitment Form

    An authorized executive of the lead applicant and all other 
partners, including State, local, tribal, and non-governmental 
organizations that would be involved in the pilot's implementation, 
must sign this form and submit it as an attachment to the grant 
application. The form is not considered in the recommended 
application page limit.

Commitment To Participate in Required Evaluation Activities

    As the lead applicant or a partner proposing to implement a 
Performance Partnership Pilot through a Federal grant, I/we agree to 
carry out the following activities, which are considered evaluation 
requirements applicable to all pilots:
    Facilitate Data Collection: I/we understand that the award of 
this grant requires me/us to facilitate the collection and/or 
transmission of data for evaluation and performance monitoring 
purposes to the lead Federal agency and/or its national evaluator in 
accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local, and tribal 
laws, including privacy laws.
    The type of data that will be collected includes, but is not 
limited to, the following:
     Demographic information, including participants' 
gender, race, age, school status, and employment status;
     Information on the services that participants receive; 
and
     Outcome measures and interim outcome indicators, linked 
at the individual level, which will be used to measure the effects 
of the pilots.
    The lead Federal agency will provide more details to grantees on 
the data items required for performance and evaluation after grants 
have been awarded.
    Participate in Evaluation: I/we understand that participation 
and full cooperation in the national evaluation of the Performance 
Partnership Pilot is a condition of this grant award. I/we 
understand that the national evaluation will include an 
implementation systems analysis and, for certain sites as 
appropriate, may also include an impact evaluation. My/our 
participation will include facilitating site visits and interviews; 
collaborating in study procedures, including random assignment, if 
necessary; and transmitting data that are needed for the evaluation 
of participants in the study sample, including those who may be in a 
control group.
    Participate in Random Assignment: I/we agree that if our 
Performance Partnership Pilot or certain activities in the Pilot is 
selected for an impact evaluation as part of the national 
evaluation, it may be necessary to select participants for admission 
to Performance Partnership Pilot by a random lottery, using 
procedures established by the evaluator.
    Secure Consent: I/we agree to include a consent form for, as 
appropriate, parents/guardians and students/participants in the 
application or enrollment packet for all youth in organizations 
implementing the Performance Partnership Pilot consistent with any 
Federal, State, local, and tribal laws that apply. The parental/
participant consent forms will be collected prior to the acceptance 
of participants into Performance Partnership Pilot and before 
sharing data with the evaluator for the purpose of evaluating the 
Performance Partnership Pilot.

SIGNATURES

Lead Applicant
Print Name-------------------------------------------------------------
Signature--------------------------------------------------------------
Organization-----------------------------------------------------------
Date-------------------------------------------------------------------

Partner
Print Name-------------------------------------------------------------
Signature--------------------------------------------------------------
Organization-----------------------------------------------------------
Date-------------------------------------------------------------------

Partner
Print Name-------------------------------------------------------------
Signature--------------------------------------------------------------
Organization-----------------------------------------------------------
Date-------------------------------------------------------------------

Partner
Print Name-------------------------------------------------------------
Signature--------------------------------------------------------------
Organization-----------------------------------------------------------
Date-------------------------------------------------------------------

Partner
Print Name-------------------------------------------------------------
Signature--------------------------------------------------------------
Organization-----------------------------------------------------------
Date-------------------------------------------------------------------

Partner
Print Name-------------------------------------------------------------
Signature--------------------------------------------------------------
Organization-----------------------------------------------------------
Date-------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B: Examples of Programs Potentially Eligible for Inclusion in 
Pilots

    Programs that may be included in pilots are limited to those 
that target disconnected youth, or are designed to prevent youth 
from disconnecting from school or work, that provide education, 
training, employment, and other related social services. Programs 
that serve youth as well as other populations may still be eligible 
for inclusion. In general, the Agencies will consider whether the 
inclusion of a program in a pilot is consistent with, or conflicts 
with, other significant legal or policy considerations.
    The Agencies recognize that for Performance Partnership Pilots 
to be successful they must protect vulnerable populations and 
individuals served by programs included in each pilot at the same 
time that funds are blended and pilots are given new flexibilities. 
For a program to be blended as part of a pilot, the Federal agency 
must determine that doing so will: (1) Not deny or restrict an 
individual's eligibility to services; and (2) not adversely affect 
vulnerable populations that receive services from that program. More 
information on these determinations is provided in the FAQ section 
of the application package.
    Some programs may introduce a greater likelihood of adversely 
affecting vulnerable populations, if blended in a pilot, and 
therefore warrant greater levels of review during the application 
process to ensure appropriate safeguards. Certain programs may be 
particularly well suited for blending if they have broad authority 
or a purpose well aligned with that of a Performance Partnership 
Pilot and therefore have very low risk of violating the P3 statutory 
protections. On the other hand, other programs may not be 
appropriate for a pilot at all if the Agencies determine that their 
inclusion would infringe on the statutory protections, or that 
inclusion would undermine important Federal policies or objectives. 
Where Federal programs are not eligible or suitable for blending 
under P3, pilots may consider how to braid funding streams, or align 
them in ways that promote more effective and efficient outcomes even 
though each stream of funds maintains a separate identity and 
remains subject to the requirements of the program for which the 
funds were appropriated.
    To assist applicants in determining whether to propose various 
Federal programs for inclusion in a pilot using funds from FY 2014 
and later years, the Agencies have identified three categories of 
risk as well as specific examples of the types of programs in each 
category. This resource identifies programs that should likely not 
be included in a pilot and those for which agencies believe that 
applicants would have either a notably high or low burden of proof 
to show that the statutory protections will not be violated. This is 
not a comprehensive list of all programs that may be involved in a 
pilot, and applicants should consider the context of their 
localities in determining which programs to blend.
    In addition, the inclusion of FY 2014 competitive grants that 
have already been

[[Page 70048]]

awarded will merit special consideration on a case-by-case basis to 
determine whether the scope, objectives, and target population(s) of 
the existing competitive grant award(s) appropriately and 
sufficiently align with, as well as enhance, the scope, objectives, 
and target population(s) of the proposed pilot.

Category 1: Programs With Low Likelihood of Adversely Affecting 
Vulnerable Populations

    The Agencies have identified these programs as presenting a low 
likelihood of adversely affecting vulnerable populations if they are 
included in a pilot. The Agencies would require assurances, but not 
plans, for ensuring the protection of individuals and vulnerable 
populations in receiving services.
    These programs may align with the purpose or requirements of 
Performance Partnership Pilots, or they may have sufficiently broad 
authority that blending those funds would be highly unlikely to 
violate the statutory protections.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Agency                              Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporation for National and Community   Americorps State Grants.
 Service.
Corporation for National and Community   Social Innovation Fund.
 Service.
Department of Education--Office of       Adult Education and Family
 Career, Technical and Adult Education.   Literacy Act.
Department of Education--Office of       Career and Technical Education.
 Career, Technical and Adult Education.
Department of Education--Office of       Promise Neighborhoods.
 Innovation and Improvement.
Institute of Museum and Library          National Leadership Grants for
 Services.                                Museums/National Leadership
                                          Grants for Libraries.
Department of Labor--Employment and      Workforce Investment Act--
 Training Administration.                 Adult.
Department of Labor--Employment and      Workforce Investment Act--
 Training Administration.                 Youth.
Department of Labor--Employment and      YouthBuild.
 Training Administration.
Department of Labor--Employment and      Workforce Innovation Fund.
 Training Administration.
Department of Labor--Employment and      Workforce Investment Act
 Training Administration.                 Section 166 Indian and Native
                                          American Youth Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Category 2: Programs Requiring Significant Review To Ensure That 
Vulnerable Populations Are Not Adversely Affected

    The Agencies have identified these programs as potentially 
eligible for blending, but only with significant, robust safeguards 
in place to ensure that vulnerable populations are not adversely 
affected. While applicants should propose safeguards as needed, 
these safeguards would ultimately be negotiated and finalized 
through the performance agreement.
    These programs typically serve highly vulnerable populations, 
such as homeless youth, foster youth, and students with 
disabilities. To blend funds from such programs, applicants must 
convincingly demonstrate that the outcomes of the population served 
by the original program will not diminish during the pilot.
    Evidence may include plans for data collection on the vulnerable 
population, alternative service options, and alternative sources of 
funds. A pilot's Performance Agreement will include outcome 
measurements and accountability mechanisms related to these 
vulnerable populations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Agency                              Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Health and Human           Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention
 Services--Administration for Children    Program (APPP).
 and Families.
Department of Health and Human           Basic Centers Program (BCP--
 Services--Administration for Children    Runaway and Homeless Youth).
 and Families.
Department of Health and Human           Chafee Education and Training
 Services--Administration for Children    Vouchers.
 and Families.
Department of Health and Human           Street Outreach Program (SOP--
 Services--Administration for Children    Runaway and Homeless Youth).
 and Families.
Department of Health and Human           Transitional Living Program
 Services--Administration for Children    (TLP--Runaway and Homeless
 and Families.                            Youth).
Department of Health and Human           ``Now Is The Time'' Healthy
 Services--Substance Abuse and Mental     Transitions (HT): Improving
 Health Services Administration.          Life Trajectories For Youth
                                          And Young Adults With, Or At
                                          Risk For, Serious Mental
                                          Health Conditions.
Department of Health and Human           State Youth Treatment (SYT)
 Services--Substance Abuse and Mental     Cooperative Agreements.
 Health Services Administration.
Department of Labor--Employment and      Reintegration of Ex-Offenders.
 Training Administration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Category 3: Programs Likely Inappropriate for Pilots Due to High 
Likelihood of Restricting Eligibility for Services or Adversely 
Affecting Vulnerable Populations

    The Agencies have determined that any blending of funds from 
these programs would: (1) Deny or restrict an individual's 
eligibility for services funded by these programs; or (2) adversely 
affect vulnerable populations that receive such services. These 
programs may entitle all eligible individuals to a service, or 
provide individuals with direct benefits such as vouchers, credits, 
and scholarships. Applicants can try to justify that the blending of 
these programs' funds would not violate the P3 statutory 
protections. Such justifications must be compelling.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Agency                              Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Health and Human           Promoting Safe and Stable
 Services--Administration for Children    Families, title IV-B, subpart
 and Families.                            2 (discretionary
                                          appropriations only).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 70049]]

Appendix C: Competitive Preference Priorities 1 and 2 Evaluation 
Submission Requirements

    In order to be awarded any of the additional points under 
competitive preference priorities 1 and 2, applicants must include 
the following two documents as separate attachments to their 
applications:
    1. A Summary Evaluation Plan that describes how the pilot or a 
component of the pilot (such as a discrete service-delivery 
strategy) will be rigorously evaluated. The evaluation plan may not 
exceed 8 pages. Our reviewers will be instructed to read only the 
first 8 pages of the plan. The plan must include the following:
     A brief description of the research question(s) 
proposed for study, and an explanation of its/their relevance, 
including how the proposed evaluation will build on the research 
evidence base for the project as described in Requirement 4 and how 
the evaluation findings will be used to improve program 
implementation.
     A description of the impact-study methodology, 
including the key outcome measures, the process for forming a 
comparison or control group, a justification for the target sample 
size and strategy for achieving it, and the approach to data 
collection (and sources) that minimizes both cost and potential 
attrition;
     A proposed evaluation timeline, including dates for 
submission of required interim and final reports; and
     A plan for selecting and procuring the services of a 
qualified independent evaluator \19\ prior to enrolling participants 
(or a description of how one was selected if agreements have already 
been reached). The applicant must describe how it will ensure that 
the independent evaluator has the capacity and expertise to conduct 
the evaluation, including estimating the effort for the evaluator 
including the time, expertise, and analysis needed to successfully 
complete the proposed evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Qualified Independent Evaluator: A qualified independent 
evaluator is an individual who coordinates with the grantee and the 
lead Federal agency for the pilot, but works independently on the 
evaluation and has the capacity to carry out the evaluation, 
including, but not limited to: Prior experience conducting 
evaluations of similar design (such as for random assignment 
evaluations, the evaluator will have successfully conducted a random 
assignment evaluation in the past); positive past performance on 
evaluations of a similar design, as evidenced by past performance 
reviews submitted from past clients directly to the awardee; lead 
staff with prior experience carrying out a similar evaluation; lead 
staff with minimum credential (such as a Ph.D. plus 3 years of 
experience conducting evaluations of a similar nature, or a Master's 
degree plus 7 years of experience conducting evaluations of a 
similar nature); and adequate staff time to work on the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. A supplementary Evaluation Budget Narrative, which is 
separate from the overall application budget narrative and provides 
a description of the costs associated with funding the proposed 
program evaluation component, and an explanation of its funding 
source--i.e., blended funding, start-up funding, or other funding 
(such as philanthropic). The budget must include a breakout of costs 
by evaluation activity (such as data collection and participant 
follow-up), and the applicant must describe a strategy for refining 
the budget after the services of an evaluator have been procured. 
There is no page limit for the Evaluation Budget Narrative. The 
applicant must include travel costs for the independent evaluator to 
attend at least one in-person conference in Washington, DC during 
the period of evaluation. All costs included in this supplementary 
budget narrative must be reasonable and appropriate to the project 
timeline and deliverables.
    In designing their evaluations, we encourage eligible applicants 
to be familiar with the criteria for well-implemented quasi-
experimental and experimental studies as described in both the 
Department of Education's What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 
Standards Handbook (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf) and 
the Department of Labor's new standards for its Clearinghouse for 
Labor Evaluation and Research (CLEAR) (see http://clear.dol.gov/sites/default/files/CLEAR_EvidenceGuidelines_1.1_revised.pdf).
    The Agencies will review the Summary Evaluation Plans and 
Evaluation Budget Narrative and provide feedback to applicants that 
receive competitive preference priority points and that are selected 
as pilot finalists or alternates. After award, these pilots must 
submit to the lead Federal agency a detailed evaluation plan of no 
more than 30 pages that relies heavily on the expertise of a 
qualified independent evaluator. The detailed evaluation plan must 
address the Agencies' feedback and expand on the Summary Evaluation 
Plan.

Appendix D: Scoring Rubric

    Reviewers will assign points to an application for each 
selection sub-criterion, as well as for Competitive Preference 
Priority 1 (Quasi-Experimental Site-Specific Evaluations) and 
Competitive Preference Priority 2 (Experimental Site Specific 
Evaluations). The Department will assign points to Competitive 
Preference Priority 3 (Promise Zones) if the application includes a 
letter from the lead organization of a designated Promise Zone 
describing the contribution of the applicant's proposed activities. 
To help promote consistency across and within the panels that will 
review P3 applications, the Department has created a scoring rubric 
for reviewers to aid them in scoring applications.
    The scoring rubric below shows the maximum number of points that 
may be assigned to each criterion, sub-criterion, and the 
competitive preference priority.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Sub-criterion
         Selection criteria                points       Criterion points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for the Project.............                 5                 5
    The extent to which the
     applicant used a recent
     comprehensive needs assessment
     completed within the previous
     three years that draws on
     representative data on youth in
     the jurisdiction(s) to be
     served by the pilot that are
     disaggregated according to
     relevant demographic factors to
     (1) show disparities in
     outcomes among key sub-
     populations and (2) identify an
     appropriate target population
     of disconnected youth with a
     high level of need.............
B. Need for Requested Waivers.......  ................                10
    (B)(1) The extent to which the                   5  ................
     applicant presents evidence
     that specific Federal barriers
     are hindering successful
     achievement of outcomes for the
     target population of
     disconnected youth identified
     by the applicant and cites the
     relevant statute, regulation,
     and/or administrative
     requirements for which it is
     seeking flexibility, including
     waivers........................
    (B)(2) The extent to which the                   5  ................
     applicant provides a
     justification of how requested
     flexibility, including blending
     funds and other waivers, will
     reduce barriers, increase
     efficiency, support
     implementation of the pilot,
     and produce significantly
     better outcomes for the target
     population(s)..................
C. Project Design...................  ................                25
    (C)(1) The extent to which the                  10  ................
     applicant presents a clear and
     logical plan that is likely to
     improve outcomes significantly
     for the target population by
     addressing the gaps and the
     disparities identified through
     the needs assessment, including
     the extent to which--..........
        (a) The inputs and
         activities shown in the
         logic model are necessary
         and sufficient to achieve
         the project's objectives,
         and
        (b) The assumptions of the
         logic model are identified
         and a rationale is provided
         for them. For example,
         applicants proposing job
         training or employment
         strategies should include
         data on the need for
         particular occupations in
         the relevant geographic
         areas......................

[[Page 70050]]

 
    (C)(2) The extent to which the                   5  ................
     applicant demonstrates that the
     pilot will use evidence-based
     and evidence-informed
     interventions, in addition to
     systems change, as documented
     by citations to the relevant
     evidence.......................
    (C)(3) The extent to which the                   5  ................
     pilot will provide intensive,
     comprehensive, and sustained
     service pathways and
     coordinated approaches that are
     likely to improve outcomes
     significantly over the short,
     medium and long term by helping
     individuals progress seamlessly
     from one educational stepping
     stone to another, across work-
     based training and education,
     or through other relevant
     programmatic milestones to
     improve outcomes. For example,
     a pilot might prevent gaps in
     service that would jeopardize
     the achievement of outcomes by
     creating a seamless progression
     of services that provide
     continuous support as needed to
     the target population..........
    (C)(4) For Federal programs that                 5  ................
     are proposed to provide funding
     for pilots, the extent to which
     the applicant explains how the
     use of funds for the pilot (a)
     will not result in denying or
     restricting the eligibility of
     individuals for services that
     (in whole or in part) are
     otherwise funded by these
     programs, and (b) based on the
     best available information,
     will not otherwise adversely
     affect vulnerable populations
     that are the recipients of
     those services. If the
     applicant proposes to include
     FY 2014 competitive grant funds
     that have already been awarded,
     the extent to which the
     applicant demonstrates that the
     scope, objectives, and target
     population(s) of the existing
     award align with the proposed
     pilot..........................
D. Work Plan and Project Management.  ................                10
    (D) The extent to which the                     10  ................
     applicant presents a strong
     work plan and project
     management approach that
     includes--.....................
        (1) A detailed timeline and
         implementation milestones,
         including--
            (a) A statement of when
             any necessary
             preparatory work will
             be completed, which
             must be within 180 days
             of being awarded pilot
             start-up funding;
            (b) The expected start
             date of a project
             manager, the expected
             award dates of
             subgrants and
             contracts, and expected
             dates for establishing
             agreements among the
             partners;
            (c) The start date of
             the pilot services,
             such as participant
             intake and services;
            (d) When the partnership
             will begin to implement
             pilot services or
             changes to
             administrative systems
             and policy and which
             partners are
             responsible for key
             tasks;
            (e) The number of
             participants expected
             to be served under the
             pilot for each period,
             such as quarterly or
             annually (for example,
             number of participants
             enrolled, and the
             number achieving
             specified education,
             employment, and other
             outcomes); and
            (f) For an applicant
             that is proposing an
             evaluation (as
             described in
             competitive preference
             priorities 1 and 2),
             when they will begin
             evaluation activities,
             including execution of
             a contract with an
             independent evaluator
        (2) A description of how the
         proposed budget and budget
         narrative align with the
         work plan, identifying how
         each implementation
         milestone will be
         adequately funded as
         outlined in the proposed
         budget; and
        (3) A description of any
         existing or anticipated
         barriers to implementation
         and how they will be
         overcome.
        (4) A description of the
         professional qualifications
         that will be required of
         the project manager and
         other key personnel are
         sufficient to ensure proper
         management of all grant
         activities, including
         timely reporting and the
         ability to manage a
         strategic partnership......
E. Partnership Capacity.............  ................                15
    (E)(1) The extent to which the                  10  ................
     applicant demonstrates that it
     has an effective governance
     structure in which partners
     that are necessary to
     successfully implement the
     pilot are represented and
     partners have the necessary
     authority, resources, expertise
     and incentives to achieve the
     pilot's goals, resolve
     unforeseen issues, and sustain
     efforts to the extent possible
     after the project period ends,
     including by demonstrating the
     extent to which, and how,
     participating partners have
     successfully collaborated to
     improve outcomes for
     disconnected youth in the past.
     The proposed governance
     structure should reflect a plan
     for effective cooperation
     across levels of government,
     including a description of the
     State, local, and tribal roles
     in the partnership, or across
     entities within the same level
     of government to improve
     outcomes for disconnected
     youth, such as through
     coordinated program delivery,
     easier program navigation for
     participants, or identification
     and resolution of state and
     local policy barriers..........
    (E)(2) The extent to which the                   5  ................
     applicant demonstrates that its
     proposal was designed with
     input from all relevant
     stakeholders, including
     disconnected youth and other
     community partners. Where the
     project design includes job
     training strategies, the extent
     of employer input and
     engagement in the
     identification of skills and
     competencies needed by
     employers, the development of
     the curriculum, and the
     offering of work-based learning
     opportunities, including pre-
     apprenticeship and registered
     apprenticeship, will be
     considered.....................
F. Data Capacity....................  ................                30
    (F)(1) The extent to which the                   5  ................
     applicant demonstrates the
     capacity to collect, analyze,
     and use data for decision-
     making, learning, continuous
     improvement, and
     accountability, and/or has a
     strong plan to bridge the gaps
     in its ability to do so,
     including the extent to which
     the applicant has, and will
     continue to:...................
        (a) Manage and maintain
         computerized administrative
         data systems to track
         program participants,
         services, and outcomes;
        (b) Execute data-sharing
         agreements with programs or
         organizations to share
         information with program
         partners and evaluators for
         case management,
         performance management, and
         evaluation purposes in
         accordance with Federal,
         State, local, and other
         privacy laws and
         requirements;
        (c) Use data to determine
         cost-effective strategies
         for improving outcomes; and

[[Page 70051]]

 
        (d) Regularly analyze
         program data to assess the
         pilot's progress, identify
         operational strengths and
         weaknesses and determine
         how implementation can be
         strengthened to improve
         outcomes...................
    (F)(2) The strength of the                       5  ................
     applicant's plan to collect,
     store, manage and link data in
     ways that comply with all
     relevant Federal, State, and
     local privacy laws and
     regulations to ensure the
     protection of personally
     identifiable information.......
    (F)(3) The extent to which the                  10  ................
     applicant shows how the
     outcomes of the proposed pilot
     will be a significant
     improvement compared with what
     might have occurred in its
     absence, both during the pilot
     project period and, for longer-
     term outcomes, beyond the
     project period.................
    (F)(4) The extent to which                       5  ................
     proposed outcome measures and
     interim indicators, as well as
     their measurement methodologies
     and progress milestones, are
     appropriate and sufficient to
     gauge progress toward pilot
     objectives.....................
    (F)(5) The extent to which the                   5  ................
     data sources for the outcome
     measures and interim indicators
     will be accessible and
     independently audited or
     validated for accuracy.........
G. Budget and Budget Narrative......                 5                 5
    The extent to which the costs
     are reasonable in relation to
     the objectives, design, and
     potential significance of the
     project.
                                     -----------------------------------
        Total.......................               100               100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competitive Preference Priority 1:                   5                 5
 Quasi-Experimental Site-Specific
 Evaluations. Under this priority,
 competitive preference will be
 given to applicants that propose to
 conduct an independent evaluation
 of the impacts on disconnected
 youth of their overall program or
 specific components of their
 program using a quasi-experimental
 design. Proposals will be scored
 based on the clarity and
 feasibility of the proposed
 evaluation design and the
 applicants' demonstrated expertise
 in planning and conducting a quasi-
 experimental evaluation study......
Competitive Preference Priority 2:                  10                10
 Experimental Site-Specific
 Evaluations. Under this priority,
 preference will be given to
 applicants that propose to conduct
 an independent evaluation of the
 impacts of their overall program or
 components of their programs on
 disconnected youth using a
 randomized controlled trial.
 Applicants' proposals will be
 scored based on the clarity and
 feasibility of the proposed
 evaluation design and the
 applicants' demonstrated expertise
 in planning and conducting
 experimental evaluation studies....
Competitive Preference Priority 3:                   2                 2
 Promise Zones. This priority is for
 projects that are designed to serve
 and coordinate with a federally
 designated Promise Zone............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reviewers will be asked to use the general ranges below as a 
guide when awarding points.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Quality of applicant's response
  Maximum point   ------------------------------------------------------
      value               Low              Medium             High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            10                0-2                3-7              8-10
             5                0-1                2-3               4-5
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 2014-27775 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P