2014-27775.pdf

Vol. 79 Monday, No. 226 November 24, 2014

Part III

Department of Education Applications for New Awards; Performance Partnership Pilots; Notice

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:06 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\24NON2.SGM 24NON2as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 5V

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

P R

O P

O S

A

LS

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

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.

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.

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Applications for New Awards;

Performance Partnership Pilots

AGENCY: Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education ACTION: Notice.

Overview Information:

Performance Partnership Pilots.

Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014.

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

DATES:

Applications Available: November 24, 2014.

Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply:

January 8, 2015.

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

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: March 4, 2015.

Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: May 4, 2015.

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

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

Successful pilots will use 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.’’

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:06 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON2.SGM 24NON2as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 5V

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

P R

O P

O S

A

LS

http://www.findyouthinfo.gov/docs/P3_Consultation_Paper_508.pdf http://www.findyouthinfo.gov/docs/P3_Consultation_Paper_508.pdf

70035 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices

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

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

Partnerships are critical to pilots’ ability to provide innovative and effective service-delivery and 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.

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:06 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON2.SGM 24NON2as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 5V

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

P R

O P

O S

70036 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices

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.

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.

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

In many cases, broader change and continuous improvement rely on both specific service-delivery models and also larger systems, such as policy and administrative frameworks. The Agencies are interested in pilots that draw on the best available evidence about how to improve outcomes for disconnected youth, both generally as well as for applicants’ specific target populations, through both service delivery and systems change.

(3) Propose appropriate funding streams to blend in order to support the strategies.

P3 allows States, localities, and tribes to blend certain FY 2014 discretionary funds from the Agencies in order to implement outcome-focused strategies for serving disconnected youth. When funds are blended, individual funding streams, or portions of the funding streams, are merged under a single set of reporting and other requirements, losing their award-specific identity. The unified requirements for blended funds may differ from the various requirements that are associated with each of the original, individual funding streams, but must be consistent with the purposes of the programs under which the funds were appropriated. In addition, when activities are supported by blended funding streams, the associated costs do not need to be allocated or tracked back to the original, separate programs.

Programs from which funds may be blended in pilots are limited to those that target disconnected youth, or that are designed to prevent youth from disconnecting from school or work by providing education, training, employment, and other related social services. More information about programs that applicants may want to consider in their proposals is provided in Appendix B.

Where funding streams from certain Federal programs are not eligible or suitable for blending under P3, pilots may also consider how to braid 10 them, or align them in other ways that promote more effective and efficient outcomes while maintaining the separate identity of each funding stream. Pilots may involve both blended and braided funds.

In general, the pilots are intended to facilitate flexible use of existing funding streams that were made available under the Act. However, in order to provide incentives to participate in P3 and facilitate the initial implementation of performance agreements that will likely require additional coordination and collaboration among a range of State, local, and tribal agencies, the Agencies are awarding FY 2014 start-up funding in this competition. These start-up grants will be in the range of $400,000– $700,000 per grantee.

(4) Identify the flexibilities, both Federal and non-Federal, pilots need in order to implement the strategies.

P3 authority enables heads of the Agencies to approve significant flexibilities, including both the authority to permit blending of funds and the authority to grant waivers of program requirements associated with these funds. In addition to any existing waiver authority that the Agencies have, they also may waive any statutory, regulatory, or administrative requirements that they are otherwise not authorized to waive, as long as the waiver is in keeping with important safeguards (see sections 526(d) and (f) of the Act). Specifically, the waivers must be consistent with the statutory purposes of the relevant Federal programs necessary to achieve the pilot’s outcomes, and no broader in scope than necessary to achieve those outcomes. Requirements related to nondiscrimination, wage and labor standards, and the allocation of funds to State and sub-State levels cannot be waived. Agency heads also must determine that the Agency’s participation and the use of proposed program funds: (1) Will not result in denying or restricting individual eligibility for services funded by those programs; and (2) will not adversely affect vulnerable populations that are the recipients of those services.

The flexibility, including waivers, permitted under the Act will allow pilot sites to tailor requirements, such as the allowable activities, eligibility criteria and reporting requirements for Federal funds, so that they support the goals and objectives of the pilot and maximize its capacity to improve outcomes for youth.

Successful applicants will be responsible for identifying and securing flexibilities that they need at the State, local, or tribal level in order to implement their pilots.

(5) Enter into a performance agreement with a lead Federal agency (designated by OMB) and pilot partners.

The Act requires that each selected pilot be governed by a performance agreement between a lead Federal agency and the respective representatives of all of the State, local, or tribal governments participating in the agreement (see program requirement (d)). Performance agreements will identify, among other things, the Federal funds and programs involved in the pilot, the population to be served and the outcome(s) to be achieved by the pilot, and the cost-effective Federal oversight procedures that will be used for the purpose of maintaining the necessary level of accountability for funds. OMB has designated ED as the lead agency for purposes of administering P3 start-up grants. OMB may also designate an additional lead Federal agency for each pilot on the basis of the programs included and/or the outcomes sought in the pilot.

Priorities: The Agencies are establishing these priorities for the FY 2014 grant competition and any subsequent year for which P3 awards are made from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition. We are establishing absolute priorities 1 through 3 and competitive preference priorities 1 and 2 in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). Competitive preference priority 3 is from the notice of final priority—Promise Zones, published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17035).

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2014 and any subsequent year for which we make awards from the list of unfunded

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:06 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON2.SGM 24NON2as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 5V

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

P R

O P

O S

70037 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices

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.

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

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_ resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_ handbook.pdf.)

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

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_ resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_ handbook.pdf.)

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

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

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

Stakeholder input emphasized that tribal and rural communities in particular can face unique challenges in effectively serving disconnected youth.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1—Improving

Outcomes for Disconnected Youth.

Under this priority, we provide funding to an applicant that proposes a pilot designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth.

Absolute Priority 2—Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in Rural Communities.

Under this priority, we provide funding to an applicant that (1) meets absolute priority 1; and (2) proposes to serve disconnected youth in one or more rural communities only.

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

(b) the school or schools that serve each of the communities it proposes to serve if the applicant qualifies for this priority through the criterion using school-level NCES locale codes.

Absolute Priority 3—Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in Tribal Communities.

Under this priority, we provide funding to an applicant that (1) meets absolute priority 1; (2) will serve disconnected youth in one or more Indian tribes; and (3) represents a partnership that includes one or more Indian tribes.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2014 and any subsequent year for which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), up to an additional 5 points will be awarded to an application based on how well the application meets competitive preference priority 1, up to an additional 10 points to an application based on how well the application meets competitive preference priority 2, and an additional 2 points to an application that meets competitive preference priority 3.

Background for Competitive Preference Priorities 1 and 2:

Under competitive preference priorities 1 and 2, we will award points to applicants based on their plans to conduct independent impact evaluations of at least one 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.

Competitive Preference Priority 2— Experimental Site-Specific Evaluations (Up to 10 points).

Under this priority, competitive preference will be given to applicants that propose to conduct an independent evaluation of the impacts of their overall program or components of their program on disconnected youth using a randomized controlled trial.13 Applicants’ proposals will be scored based on the clarity and feasibility of the proposed evaluation design and the applicants’ demonstrated expertise in planning and conducting experimental evaluation studies.

Please see Appendix A for the requirements for evaluation proposals that are related to competitive preference priorities 1 and 2.

Competitive Preference Priority 3— Promise Zones (0 or 2 points).

Background:

Under this priority, competitive preference will be given to applicants

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:06 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON2.SGM 24NON2as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 5V

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

P R

O P

O S

A

LS

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible14/index.html http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible14/index.html http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/

70038 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices

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.

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.

16 ‘‘Logic model’’ (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active ’’ingredients’’ that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and that propose projects that are designed to serve and coordinate with a federally designated Promise Zone. Promise Zone designees have committed to establishing comprehensive, coordinated approaches in order to ensure that America’s most vulnerable children succeed from cradle to career.

In January 2014, President Obama announced the first five Promise Zones, located in: The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Antonio, and Kentucky Highlands.

This designation is designed to assist local leaders in creating jobs, increasing economic activity, improving educational opportunities, leveraging private investment, and reducing violent crime in high-poverty urban, rural, and tribal communities. By partnering with Promise Zone designees, the Federal government will help communities access the resources and expertise they need—including the resources from various neighborhood revitalization initiatives—to ensure that Federal programs and resources support the efforts to transform these communities.

Priority:

This priority is for projects that are designed to serve and coordinate with a federally designated Promise Zone.

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

Application Requirements:

The following requirements apply to all applications submitted under this competition. Any application that does not include the required documents or information will not be considered.

(a) Statement of Need for a Defined Target Population.

(1) The applicant must define the target population to be served, based on data and analysis demonstrating the need for services within the relevant geographic area. The target population must be consistent with the population identified by section 526(a)(2) of the Act.

(2) The applicant’s statement of need must include data demonstrating how the target population lags behind other groups in achieving the outcomes that the pilot will seek to attain, including an analysis of disparities in circumstances and outcomes among the target population and these other groups. These data must be based on a needs assessment that was conducted or updated within the past three years using representative data on youth from the jurisdiction(s) proposing the pilot.

Applicants do not need to include a copy of the needs assessment with the application, but must identify when the assessment was conducted.

(b) Flexibility, including waivers.

(1) Federal requests for flexibility, including waivers. The applicant must describe the Federal flexibility that is needed to implement the proposed pilot and to improve outcomes for the target population, focusing on changes to major program requirements that would otherwise inhibit implementation.

Flexibility involves both the ability to blend funds, thereby aligning certain administrative activities, and other waivers of program requirements.

Examples of potential requests for flexibility include, but are not limited to: changes to eligibility requirements, allowable uses of funds, or performance reporting. Applicants must cite the specific Federal statutory, regulatory, or other requirements for which they are requesting flexibility. (More information on flexibility, including waivers, is provided in the FAQ section of the application package.)

Note: The waiver request process for P3, which is part of the application process, differs from standard agency processes.

Applicants do not need to submit separate waiver requests or information to the respective agencies outside of the P3 application process.

(2) Non-Federal flexibility, including waivers. In addition to Federal flexibility, successful implementation of proposals may also depend on flexibility related to requirements imposed at the State, local, or tribal level. The Agencies do not have the authority to waive non-Federal requirements. Applicants therefore must identify the specific State, local, or tribal policies, regulations, or other requirements that may impede the pilot’s ability to achieve its goals so that, if the proposed pilot and flexibility, including waivers, are approved, requirements across non-Federal levels of government are aligned to support effective implementation. Applicants must provide written assurance that:

(A) The State, local, or tribal government(s) with authority to grant any needed non-Federal flexibility, including waivers, will approve such flexibility within 60 days of an applicant’s designation as a pilot finalist; or

(B) Non-Federal flexibility, including waivers, is not needed in order to successfully implement the pilots.

(c) Project Design.

The applicant must present a project design for how it will improve specific outcomes for the target population. The design must indicate the proposed length of the pilot, which may not extend beyond September 30, 2018, and whether and how the applicant intends to incorporate future funding, including FY 2015 funding, into the multi-year project if Congress extends P3 authority.14 Applicants may propose to expand the number of Federal programs supporting pilot activities using FY 2015 or other future funding beyond the Federal programs proposed using FY 2014 funds. The applicant’s design must include the following elements.

(1) An explanation of how the strategies and activities that the pilot will employ are based on (or informed

by) available research evidence.15

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

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:06 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON2.SGM 24NON2as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 5V

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

P R

O P

O S

A

LS

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ http://hud.gov/promisezones http://clear.dol.gov/

70039 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally. (34 CFR 77.1(c).)

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

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

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

(d) Work Plan and Project Management. The applicant must provide a detailed work plan that describes how the proposed work will be accomplished. The applicant must describe the professional qualifications that will be required of the project manager and other key personnel to ensure proper management of pilot activities.

(e) Partnership Capacity and Management. The applicant must—

(1) Identify the proposed partners, including any and all State, local, and tribal entities and non-governmental organizations that would be involved in implementation of the pilot.

Partnerships that cross programs and funding sources but are under the jurisdiction of a single agency or entity must identify the different 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:06 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24NON2.SGM 24NON2as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 5V

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

P R

O P

O S

70040 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Notices

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

18 The Agencies cannot grant waivers of requirements under mandatory programs or programs funded outside of Division H of the Act, except…