[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 104 (Friday, May 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30794-30799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-12208]



[[Page 30793]]

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

Part VI





Department of Education





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



Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools; Overview Information; Mentoring 
Programs; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2004; Notices

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 104 / Friday, May 28, 2004 / 
Notices  

[[Page 30794]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RIN 1865-ZA00


Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools--Mentoring Programs

AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final priorities, requirements, and selection 
criteria under the Mentoring Program.

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

SUMMARY: The Deputy Under Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
announces final priorities, requirements, and selection criteria under 
the Mentoring Program. The Deputy Under Secretary will use these 
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria for a competition in 
FY 2004 and may use them in later years.

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities are effective July 7, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Earl Myers, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E254, Washington, DC 20202-
6450. Telephone: (202) 708-8846. E-mail address: [email protected], or
    Bryan Williams, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 
SW., room 3E259, Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone: (202) 260-2391. 
E-mail address: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We published a notice of proposed 
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria for this program in 
the Federal Register on March 15, 2004 (69 FR 12138).
    In response to the comments received, this notice of final 
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria contains significant 
changes from the notice of proposed priorities. We have revised the 
proposed definition of school-based mentoring; added a new factor to 
the selection criterion ``Quality of the Project Design'' and revised 
the point distribution within that criterion; and changed the proposed 
Application Requirement for community-based organizations. We fully 
explain these changes in the Appendix--Analysis of Comments and Changes 
found elsewhere in this notice.


    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use these final priorities, requirements, and 
selection criteria, we invite applications through a notice in the 
Federal Register. A notice inviting applications for new awards 
under this program for FY 2004 is published elsewhere in this issue 
of the Federal Register.

Absolute Priority

    This priority supports projects that address the academic and 
social needs of children with the greatest need through school-based 
mentoring programs and activities and provide these students with 
mentors. These programs and activities must serve children with the 
greatest need in one or more grades 4 through 8 living in rural areas, 
high-crime areas, or troubled home environments, or who attend schools 
with violence problems.

Competitive Preference Priority

    We will award five additional points to a consortium of eligible 
applicants that includes either: (a) At least one local educational 
agency (LEA) and at least one community-based organization (CBO) that 
is not a school and that provides services to youth and families in the 
community; or (b) at least one private school that qualifies as a 
nonprofit CBO and at least one other CBO that is not a school, and that 
provides services to youth and families in the community.
    The consortium must designate one member of the group to apply for 
the grant, unless the consortium is itself eligible as a partnership 
between a LEA and a nonprofit CBO.
    To receive this competitive preference, the applicant must clearly 
identify the agencies that comprise the consortium and must include a 
detailed plan of their working relationship and of the activities that 
each member will perform, including a project budget that reflects the 
contractual disbursements to the members of the consortium. For the 
purpose of this priority, a ``consortium'' means a group application in 
accordance with the provisions of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129.

Eligibility Requirements for All Applicants

    To be eligible for funding, an applicant must include in its 
application an assurance that it will: (1) Establish clear, measurable 
performance goals; and (2) collect and report to the Department data 
related to the established Government Performance and Results Act 
(GPRA) performance indicators for the Mentoring Programs grant 
competition. We will reject any application that does not contain this 
assurance.

Application Requirements for CBOs

    To be eligible for funding, each CBO must include in its 
application an assurance that: (a) It is an eligible applicant under 
the definitions provided in the application package; (b) timely and 
meaningful consultation with an LEA or private school has taken place 
during the design and/or development of the proposed program; (c) LEA 
or private school staff will participate in the identification and 
referral of students to the CBO's proposed program; and (d) the LEA or 
private school will participate in the collection of data related to 
the established GPRA performance measures for the Mentoring Programs 
grant competition.

Definitions

    (1) The term ``school-based mentoring'' means mentoring activities 
that are closely coordinated with schools, including involving 
teachers, counselors, and other school staff in the identification and 
referral of students, and that are focused on improved academic 
achievement, reduced student referrals for disciplinary reasons, 
increased bonding to school, and positive youth development. (2) The 
term ``core academic subjects'' means English, reading or language 
arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, 
economics, arts, history, and geography.

Performance Measures

    We have identified the following key GPRA performance measures for 
assessing the effectiveness of this program: (1) The percentage of 
student/mentor matches that are sustained for a period of twelve months 
will increase; (2) The percentage of mentored students who demonstrate 
improvement in core academic subjects as measured by grade point 
average after 12 months will increase; and (3) The percentage of 
mentored students who have unexcused absences from school will 
decrease.

Selection Criteria

    The Deputy Under Secretary will use the following selection 
criteria to evaluate applications under this competition. The maximum 
score for all of these criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for 
each criterion is indicated in parentheses.
    (1) Need for the Project. (10 points)
    In determining the need for the proposed project, the following 
factor is considered:

[[Page 30795]]

    The magnitude and severity of problems that will be addressed by 
the project, including the number of youth to be served who: (i) Are at 
risk of educational failure or dropping out of school, (ii) are 
involved in criminal, delinquent, or gang activities, or (iii) lack 
strong, positive role models. (10 points)
    (2) Quality of the Project Design. (30 points)
    In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, 
the following factors are considered:
    (a) The degree to which the applicant proposes a high-quality 
mentoring project that provides for, but is not limited to: (1) A low 
student-to-mentor ratio (one-to-one, where practicable), (2) frequent 
contacts between mentors and the children they mentor; and (3) 
mentoring relationships of 12 months or more duration. (10 points)
    (b) The quality of mentoring services that will be provided, 
including the quality of services designed to improve academic 
achievement in core academic subjects, strengthen school bonding (i.e., 
positive commitment and attachment to school), and promote pro-social 
norms and behaviors, and the resources, if any, that the eligible 
entity will dedicate to providing children with opportunities for job 
training or postsecondary education. (5 points)
    (c) The capability of each eligible entity to implement its 
mentoring program effectively, and the degree to which parents, 
teachers, community-based organizations, and the local community have 
participated, or will participate, in the design and implementation of 
the proposed mentoring project. (5 points)
    (d) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes 
a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, including 
new research, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the 
use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful 
achievement of project objectives. (10 points)
    (3) Quality of the Management Plan. (35 points)
    In determining the quality of the management plan, the following 
factors are considered:
    (a) The quality of the system that will be used to manage and 
monitor mentor reference checks, including, at a minimum, child and 
domestic abuse record checks and criminal background checks. (10 
points)
    (b) The quality of the training that will be provided to mentors, 
including orientation, follow-up, and support of each match between 
mentor and child. (10 points)
    (c) The quality of the applicant's plan to recruit and retain 
mentors, including outreach, criteria for recruiting mentors, 
terminating unsuccessful matches, and replacing mentors, if necessary. 
(5 points)
    (d) The extent to which the applicant provides a comprehensive plan 
to match mentors with students, based on the needs of the children, 
including criteria for matches, and the extent to which teachers, 
counselors, and other school staff are involved. (5 points)
    (e) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates the ability to 
carefully monitor and support the mentoring matches, including 
terminating matches when necessary and reassigning students to new 
mentors, and the degree to which the mentoring program will continue to 
serve children from the 9th grade through graduation from secondary 
school, as needed. (5 points)
    (4) Quality of Project Personnel. (10 points)
    In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary 
considers:
    The qualifications and relevant training of key staff, including 
time commitments, and experience in mentoring services and case 
management. (10 points)
    (5) Quality of the Project Evaluation. (15 points)
    In determining the quality of the evaluation, the following factors 
are considered:
    (a) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback to the Department, grantees, and mentors, and 
permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended 
outcomes, including the GPRA performance measures for the Mentoring 
Programs grant competition. (5 points)
    (b) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use 
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the 
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and 
qualitative data on the GPRA performance measures for the Mentoring 
Programs grant competition. (10 points)

Executive Order 12866

    This notice of final priorities, requirements, and selection 
criteria has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. 
Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and 
benefits of this regulatory action.
    The potential costs associated with the notice of final priorities, 
requirements, and selection criteria are those resulting from statutory 
requirements and those we have determined as necessary for 
administering this program effectively and efficiently.
    In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative 
and qualitative--of this notice of final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria we have determined that the 
benefits of the final priorities justify the costs.
    We summarized the costs and benefits in the notice of proposed 
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the 
regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive 
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened 
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State 
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Applicable Regulations: 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 
84, 85, 86, 97, 98, 99 and 299.


    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR Part 86 apply to institutions of 
higher education only.

Electronic Access To This Document

    You may 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) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. 
Government Printing Office (GPO) toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the 
Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
    You may also view this document in text or PDF at the following 
site:  http://www.ed.gov/programs/dvpmentoring/applicant.html.


    Note: 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 on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.184B Office of 
Safe and Drug-Free Schools--Mentoring Programs)

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7140.


[[Page 30796]]


    Dated: May 26, 2004.
Deborah A. Price,
Deputy Under Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

Appendix--Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to the invitation in the notice of proposed 
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria, 182 parties 
submitted comments. An analysis of the comments and of any changes 
since publication of the notice of proposed priorities, 
requirements, and selection criteria follows, grouped by major 
issues according to subject.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, 
and suggested changes we are not authorized to make under the 
applicable statutory authority.

Absolute Priority

    Comment: Over 150 commenters stated that the Department should 
not limit the program to school-based mentoring programs.
    Discussion: The proposed priority is consistent with the program 
statute, which directs the Secretary to give priority to school-
based mentoring programs.
    Change: To allow for greater flexibility, we have revised the 
definition of ``school-based mentoring'' to mean mentoring 
activities that are closely coordinated with schools, including 
involving teachers, counselors, and other school staff in the 
identification and referral of students, and that are focused on 
improved academic achievement, reduced student referrals for 
disciplinary reasons, increased bonding to school, and positive 
youth development.
    Comment: Five commenters supported limiting the priority to 
school-based mentoring.
    Discussion: We agree that school-based mentoring is an effective 
strategy to address the statutory goals of the program.
    Change: None.
    Comment: Four commenters recommended that the Department not 
limit the program to students in grades 4 through 8.
    Discussion: The transition from childhood to adolescence is a 
particularly critical developmental time in a young person's life. 
Children often initiate harmful behaviors, such as using alcohol, 
tobacco, and other drugs, in the middle school years, and one 
consequence of this early initiation is that they are more likely to 
develop future patterns of harmful behavior. Given the need for 
additional support during this vulnerable time, we believe that it 
is beneficial to focus prevention strategies on youth making the 
transition from middle school to high school.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that we should target schools with 
high dropout rates, as well as high rates of students eligible for 
free and reduced lunch, and low-income areas.
    Discussion: Our target population is consistent with the program 
statute, which requires the Secretary to give priority to each 
eligible entity that serves children with the greatest need living 
in rural areas, high-crime areas, or troubled home environments, or 
who attend schools with violence problems.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that it is not always an 
improvement to build on the infrastructure and support available in 
school settings. The commenter contended that community-based 
organizations also have infrastructure and support that can be built 
upon while allowing CBOs to specialize in the area of focus: 
mentoring.
    Discussion: We agree that effective mentoring can occur in a 
variety of settings. In response to the statutory requirement to 
focus on youth who are most at risk of educational failure, dropping 
out of school, or involvement in criminal or delinquent activities 
or who lack strong positive role models, we have determined that the 
focus of this program should be on school-based mentoring programs.
    Change: As discussed elsewhere in this Analysis of Comments and 
Changes section, to allow for greater flexibility, we have revised 
the definition of ``school-based mentoring.''
    Comment: One commenter questioned why we are focusing services 
on youth who are most at risk of educational failure, dropping out 
of school, or involvement in criminal or delinquent activities, or 
who lack strong positive role models when mentoring research 
consistently demonstrates that mentoring works when it is used as 
prevention.
    Discussion: Our focus is dictated by the statutory purpose of 
the Mentoring Programs as stated in section 4130 of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. The purpose is to 
make assistance available to promote mentoring programs for children 
with greatest need, meaning a child who is at risk of educational 
failure, dropping out of school, or involvement in criminal or 
delinquent activities, or who lacks strong positive role models.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter objected to our goal of sustaining 
mentoring matches for 12 months or more and encourages us to use six 
months as the standard.
    Discussion: The program statute directs us to take into 
consideration the degree to which the eligible entity can ensure 
that mentors will develop longstanding relationships with the 
children they mentor. Preliminary findings from those who are 
involved in mentoring strongly suggest that duration is a critical 
factor to the success of any mentoring relationship, and we do not 
believe that a period of less than 12 months is of sufficient 
duration to qualify as a longstanding relationship.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter noted that it would be a mistake to force 
projects to focus primarily on academic needs of children.
    Discussion: The absolute priority requires applicants to focus 
on both the academic and social needs of children.
    Change: None.

Competitive Preference Priority

    Comment: Four commenters recommended that we give a competitive 
preference priority to novice applicants.
    Discussion: A competitive preference was offered for novice 
applicants in the mentoring program competition in 2002. This year 
the competitive preference priority will award five additional 
points to a consortium of eligible applicants that includes either: 
(a) At least one LEA and at least one CBO that is not a school and 
that provides services to youth and families in the community; or 
(b) at least one private school that qualifies as a nonprofit CBO 
and at least one CBO that is not a school and that provides services 
to youth and families in the community.
    We hope that this collaborative approach will result in diverse 
and effective mentoring programs rooted in the community and able to 
call upon multiple sources of support. Novice applicants may still 
qualify for the competitive preference points by entering into 
partnerships as described.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that partnering with an LEA places 
an administrative burden on community-based organizations, and 
recommended that the competitive preference priority be revised to 
allow community-based organizations the option to partner with a 
school within an LEA.
    Discussion: To qualify as a consortium, a group must be 
comprised of entities that are eligible applicants under the 
program. Under the authorizing statute for Mentoring Programs, only 
local educational agencies and nonprofit, community-based 
organizations are eligible applicants. Schools within LEAs are not 
eligible applicants.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the competitive preference 
for consortia and noted that many CBOs can provide quality mentoring 
services without entering into partnerships with LEAs.
    Discussion: Community-based organizations are not required to 
enter into partnerships with LEAs to be eligible for funding. If 
they choose to do so, they are eligible for an additional five 
points under the competitive preference priority.
    Change: None.

Eligibility Requirements

    Comment: One commenter proposed, as an eligibility requirement, 
that all applicants provide statistics to show a decrease in out-of-
school suspensions.
    Discussion: We expect that one outcome of effective mentoring 
programs will be a decrease in suspensions from school. We do not 
think, however, that applicants need to demonstrate, in advance of 
receiving a grant, that this reduction has already occurred.
    Change: None.

Application Requirements for CBOs

    Comment: One commenter stated that each community-based 
organization that is eligible to apply for funding should have the 
option to submit a letter of agreement to participate, either from 
an LEA or from a single school.
    Discussion: Because the focus of the program is school-based 
mentoring, it is necessary to ensure that all applicants have the 
appropriate authorization to carry out their program in conjunction 
with a school.
    Change: We have revised the Application Requirements for 
Community-based Organizations to require each applicant to

[[Page 30797]]

provide an assurance that: (a) It is an eligible applicant under the 
definitions provided in the application package; (b) timely and 
meaningful consultation with an LEA or private school has taken 
place during the design and/or development of the proposed program; 
(c) LEA or private school staff will participate in the 
identification and referral of students to the CBO's proposed 
program; and (d) the LEA or private school will participate in the 
collection of data related to the established GPRA performance 
measures for the Mentoring Programs grant competition.

Definitions

    Comment: One party recommended that transitional youth be 
included as a focus of the program, including youth ages 17-21.
    Discussion: The program statute limits program services to youth 
that have not yet graduated from secondary school. Youth that are 
beyond this age are not eligible.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested adding the following 
characteristics to the definition of at-risk youth: emotionally 
depressed, uninspired intellectually, and those trying to survive 
desperate living conditions.
    Discussion: This program is designed to assist children with the 
greatest need. The definition of a child with the greatest need is 
provided in the statute authorizing this program.
    Change: None.
    Comment: Five commenters recommended changes to the definition 
of ``school-based mentoring.'' One recommended that the definition 
include mentoring that is initiated at and accountable to a school 
site and that has a declared academic goal (or outcomes). Another 
suggested that mentoring be permitted at CBO training facilities and 
on field trips. A third commenter asked that mentoring programs not 
be restricted to activities on school grounds. The fourth commenter 
recommended revising the definition of school-based mentoring to say 
``including activities on school grounds.'' The last commenter 
recommends that the definition of school-based mentoring be changed 
to uncouple it from ``site-based mentoring.''
    Discussion: We concur with the recommendations to allow greater 
flexibility in the location of program activities.
    Change: As discussed elsewhere in this Analysis of Comments and 
Changes section, we have revised the definition of the term 
``school-based mentoring'' to provide more flexibility for mentoring 
services.
    Comment: One commenter stated that a conflict in the priorities 
is created by requiring activities to occur on school grounds and 
also requiring them to continue for at least 12 months. This will 
increase the administrative burden placed on schools by requiring 
them to stay open for mentoring activities during the summer months.
    Discussion: We have revised the definition of school-based 
mentoring to allow applicants greater flexibility in implementing 
program activities at locations other than school grounds.
    Change: The definition of the term ``school-based mentoring'' 
has been revised as described elsewhere in this Analysis of Comments 
and Changes section of this notice.

Performance Measures

    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department place 
less emphasis on academic performance in the GPRA performance 
measures for the program.
    Discussion: One of the statutory purposes of the Mentoring 
Programs is to improve the academic performance of children with the 
greatest need. Therefore, we have determined that academic 
improvement is a key performance measure for assessing the 
effectiveness of the Mentoring Programs.
    Change: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended that the GPRA performance 
measure on student/mentor matches be revised from a period of time 
of twelve months to a period of time of nine months or longer.
    Discussion: Preliminary evidence from individuals who are 
involved in mentoring strongly suggests that one characteristic of 
positive mentoring relationships is significant duration. Therefore, 
while the academic school year in most parts of the country lasts 
nine months, applicants will be encouraged to propose programs that 
will result in mentoring relationships of significant duration, 
meaning those that last at least 12 months. Our view is that 
relationships sustained for a period of 12 months or longer is a key 
performance measure for assessing the effectiveness of the Mentoring 
Program.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the 12-month tracking 
requirement could present a challenge in districts where students 
tend to be very transient.
    Discussion: We agree that potential transience is a factor that 
can affect results. However we believe that building longstanding 
relationships, meaning those that last at least 12 months, is an 
appropriate goal and one that is consistent with the findings from 
the research on mentoring.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter proposed that ED clarify whether 
``unexcused absences'' means unexcused absence from school or from 
mentoring meetings.
    Discussion: We intend this term to mean unexcused absence from 
school.
    Change: We have revised the performance measure to clarify the 
meaning of unexcused absences.
    Comment: One commenter recommended adding ``an increased 
percentage of students develop positive attitudes toward school/
learning'' and ``an increased percentage of students develop higher 
levels of self-confidence.''
    Discussion: These characteristics are usually associated with 
sustained mentoring matches and improvements in academic 
achievement; therefore, we do not think it necessary to include them 
as specific elements within the performance measures.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended developing optional GPRA 
measures for all seven of the statutory goals for the Mentoring 
Program in addition to the three established core GPRA measures. The 
commenter also recommended that we award bonus points to programs 
seeking to address the additional statutory goals.
    Discussion: We have established GPRA performance measures that 
we believe are aligned with what will be typical for most grants, 
and that will help determine program effectiveness in terms of 
outcomes. For the Department to be able to report on GPRA measures 
for this program, grantees must use the same performance measures, 
and data must be consistently collected and reported across program 
sites. Offering ``optional'' performance measures would likely 
prevent this.
    Additionally, evaluating a program that potentially addresses 
all seven statutory goals is likely to require an extremely complex 
and rigorous design, which may be very difficult for certain 
applicants to accomplish, particularly those with limited 
experience. We do not believe that this is in the best interests of 
the program. It is not Departmental policy to award ``bonus'' 
points; however, this year we are proposing one competitive 
preference priority under which we will award five additional points 
to a consortium of eligible applicants, which we believe will be 
more beneficial as it is likely to result in more diverse and 
effective programs.
    Change: None.

Selection Criteria

    Several commenters proposed changes to the selection criteria 
and/or the points assigned to each scoring factor. The suggestions 
are grouped according to the specific selection criterion addressed.

Need for the Project

    Comment: One commenter recommended that this criterion include, 
among the students to be served by the project, a focus on students 
with a history of behavioral and/or academic problems in school.
    Discussion: The criterion as drafted is sufficiently broad to 
permit applicants to discuss behavioral and/or academic problems in 
school as part of their discussion of the need for the project.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended increasing to 40 the number 
of points awarded for need for the project, and awarding remaining 
points to the other criteria as follows: Quality of the Program 
Design, 20 points; Quality of the Management Plan, 20 points; 
Quality of Project Evaluation, 10 points, and Quality of Project 
Personnel, 10 points. The commenter believes that those communities 
with the greatest need ought to have the greatest opportunity to 
receive the benefits of the proposed projects.
    Discussion: As with any prevention strategy, mentoring is most 
effective when programs are based on proven strategies and practice. 
At a minimum, a well-designed mentoring program should provide clear 
goals and objectives, as well as strong policies and procedures for 
the management of all program operations, including volunteer 
screening, structured activities for mentors and youth, and ongoing 
training and supervision for all matches. Revising the

[[Page 30798]]

point values for the selection criteria in the manner recommended 
would make these critical factors less important in selecting 
grantees. We believe that it is appropriate to stress the importance 
of quality program design and management.
    Change: None.

Quality of the Project Design

    Comment: One commenter recommended having mentors available to 
students throughout the school day.
    Discussion: Applicants are free to propose a level of mentoring 
services that meets the needs of the students they will serve.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended moving scoring factors (2)(a) 
and 2(c) out of Quality of the Project Design and into Quality of 
the Management Plan, and giving 30 points to the remaining factor 
2(b).
    Discussion: Scoring factors (2)(a) and (2)(c) are important 
components of program design and should remain under that heading. 
They are intended to emphasize the important role each plays in the 
development of an effective mentoring program.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended allowing mentoring programs 
to build to full capacity of mentees over a period of time. Such 
flexibility would, according to the commenter, permit building a 
core group of mentees who could assist in introducing other young 
people to the program.
    Discussion: Applicants may propose to phase in the number of 
mentoring matches over the three-year life of the project.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that applicants be required 
to cite the literature, models, and other program materials used in 
the development of project design. Another commenter recommended 
that the selection criteria be expanded to give value to innovative 
approaches based on new research findings.
    Discussion: We agree that a thoughtful conceptual design is 
important to project success. We have added a scoring factor to the 
Quality of the Project Design criterion.
    Change: We added the following scoring factor to this criterion: 
The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a 
thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature (including 
new research), a high-quality plan for project implementation, and 
the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful 
achievement of project objectives. (10 points)
    The overall point value for this criterion will remain 30 
points. To accommodate the additional scoring factor, we have 
revised the point values for 2(b) and 2(c) from 10 points each to 5 
points each.
    Comment: One commenter recommended revising this criterion to 
include the development and maintenance of a program advisory board.
    Discussion: We believe that this criterion sufficiently 
addresses the involvement of parents, teachers, and other community 
organizations in program implementation. We do not believe that 
revising the criterion to require the development of an advisory 
board would materially improve this measure.
    Change: None.

Quality of Management Plan

    Comment: One commenter recommended that criterion 3(d) be 
revised to include the phrase ``based on the needs of the 
children.''
    Discussion: We believe that this criterion already addresses the 
extent to which there is a comprehensive plan to match mentors with 
students, based on the needs of the children.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that mentor reference checks 
include at least one reference from a known community organization 
or a respected community member.
    Discussion: The guidelines for mentor reference checks are 
minimum requirements directed by the statute. Applicants may propose 
checks that exceed the minimum, including references from community 
members or organizations.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the selection 
criteria to include group mentoring. The commenter believes that a 
team rather than an individual may sometimes be the best mentor for 
a child.
    Discussion: The authorizing statute calls for one-to-one 
mentoring relationships, where practicable.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we clearly articulate 
the requirement for grantees to develop a written policy and 
procedure manual to guide staff work under their project.
    Discussion: The approved grant application, the statute 
authorizing the program, and applicable regulations govern the 
conduct of the grant project. Therefore, the proposed policy and 
procedure manual is not crucial for operation of the program. 
However, applicants are strongly encouraged to develop written 
policies and procedures to document how they will carry out their 
project.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that applicants be required 
to identify clearly the topics to be included in the training 
provided to mentors, including specific training components that 
will support academic requirements.
    Discussion: Applicants may discuss training topics in relevant 
sections of their grant application. We intend to provide national 
training to grantees in order to ensure broad coverage of topics and 
consistent content.
    Change: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended that applicants be required 
to outline the following: (a) Proposed representative mentor/mentee 
activities; (b) the balance of school site-based activities versus 
community-based activities, and (c) how the applicant will bridge 
gaps in the school year calendar in order to facilitate matches that 
last 12 or more months.
    Discussion: We agree that these are important elements of 
mentoring projects, and we think that a comprehensive, thorough 
response to the scoring criteria will elicit this information.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that applicants be required 
to outline initial plans for sustaining the project past the three 
years of Federal funding.
    Discussion: We agree that sustainability is an important 
consideration. However, rather than assess a potential 
sustainability plan that may be speculative at best, we believe that 
it will be more beneficial to work directly with each grantee funded 
under this program on sustainability as well as on other issues, as 
a part of the overall training and technical assistance that we will 
provide.
    Change: None.

Quality of Project Personnel

    Comment: One commenter recommended that we require the 
submission of job descriptions for the program coordinators and 
other key program staff.
    Discussion: Resumes, when they are available, demonstrate the 
skills and experience of key personnel the applicant has available 
to help implement the project. Job descriptions, on the other hand, 
indicate the skills and experience the applicant thinks are needed 
and hopes to acquire. This speculative aspect to job descriptions 
makes them a less useful tool for assessing the quality of project 
personnel.
    Change: None.

Quality of the Project Evaluation

    Comment: One commenter recommended that applicants be required 
to provide a standard for quality communication between program 
coordinators and parents, and to include a ``Satisfaction 
Inventory'' for participants and parents.
    Discussion: The selection criteria are sufficiently broad to 
permit applicants to use a variety of methods, including 
satisfaction inventories, as part of their evaluation. We do not 
think such inventories should be required, because they are measures 
of how well participants liked the program and not measures of how 
effective the program is in achieving the established performance 
objectives established.
    Change: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended augmenting local program 
evaluation through the adoption or adaptation of existing data 
collection tools to ensure the comparability and generalizability of 
outcome data across programs. The commenter also recommended that we 
give consideration to developing a national evaluation framework and 
provide guidance for implementing the framework locally.
    Discussion: We intend to provide technical assistance to 
grantees on evaluation as well as on other topics throughout the 
life of the grants.
    Change: None.

Use of Funds

    Comment: One commenter encouraged flexibility in recompense for 
mentors, recognizing that not all suitable mentors have the funds to 
support mentoring activities.
    Discussion: The authorizing statute prohibits direct 
compensation of mentors. Applicants, however, may request funds to 
pay for allowable activities for the mentors and the children being 
mentored as part of

[[Page 30799]]

the mentoring program. These funds must remain under the 
administrative control of the grantee.
    Change: None.

[FR Doc. 04-12208 Filed 5-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P