[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20243-20248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8556]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

45 CFR Part 2553

RIN 3045-AA52


Retired and Senior Volunteer Program Amendments

AGENCY: Corporation for National and Community Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service 
(Corporation) is issuing a final rule that sets forth a competitive 
process for selecting grant recipients for the Retired and Service 
Volunteer Program (RSVP), including performance measurement 
requirements, as required by the Domestic Volunteer Service Act (DVSA), 
as amended by the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act (Serve America 
Act) (Pub. L. 111-13) of April 21, 2009.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 11, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katharine Delo Gregg at (202) 606-6965 
([email protected]). The TDD/TTY number is (202) 606-3472. You may request 
this rule in an alternative format for the visually impaired.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background--The October 26, 2010, Proposed Rule

    On October 26, 2010, the Corporation published a proposed rule (45 
CFR part 2553) in the Federal Register (Vol. 75, No. 206) to regulate 
the competitive grantmaking process for the Retired and Senior 
Volunteer Program (RSVP).
    The proposed rule implements RSVP re-competition statutory 
requirements set forth in the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act 
(Serve America Act), which President Obama signed into law on April 21, 
2009. The Serve America Act reauthorizes and expands national service 
programs administered by the Corporation for National and Community 
Service (Corporation) by amending the National and Community Service 
Act of 1990 (NCSA) and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 
(DVSA).
    The Serve America Act amended the DVSA by requiring the Corporation 
to develop a competitive process for selecting grant recipients for the 
RSVP Program, beginning in fiscal year 2013. The competitive process, 
as directed by statute, will include the use of peer review panels with 
expertise in senior service and aging, site inspections, as 
appropriate, and evaluations of existing grantees. The amended statute 
requires that, beginning in fiscal year 2013, RSVP grants be awarded 
for a period of 3 years, with an option for renewal of 3 years if the 
grantee meets the performance measures established in its grant award, 
as well as complying with the terms and conditions of the grant.

60-Day Comment Period

    In the Federal Register of October 26, 2010 (45 CFR part 2553), the 
Corporation published the proposed rule, with a 60-day comment period. 
The Corporation received a total of 21 comments from twelve commenters, 
including one association that represents several hundred members. 
Comments are discussed in detail in Part III.
    In general, most of the comments supported the proposed 
regulations.

II. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The current competitive process for selecting RSVP grantees only 
occurs when there is new money above the appropriated base funding for 
RSVP grants. The future competitive process for selecting RSVP grantees 
will include the same elements specified in the amended DVSA that have 
been used for previous competitive processes. The elements specified in 
the amended DVSA are discussed below.
    A. Peer review panels [DVSA Sec.  201(e)(2)(B)(i); 45 CFR 
2553.71(b)]: As

[[Page 20244]]

of 2013, RSVP grant applications will be reviewed by blended peer 
review panels that will include members with specialized expertise in 
senior service and aging, as well as Corporation staff, who will offer 
their expert opinions concerning each application. The use of blended 
peer review panels is well established at the Corporation and is 
currently part of the process of selecting grantees for other programs 
such as AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve America. The Corporation also 
has considerable experience in using outside reviewers with expertise 
in senior service and aging on selection panels for Senior Corps 
grants, including RSVP. The Corporation's existing processes for 
announcing peer review opportunities, registering potential reviewers, 
selecting reviewers for particular competitions, managing review 
panels, and considering peer review opinions in making the final 
selection of grantees will be adapted to meet the requirements for RSVP 
grant competitions.
    B. Site inspections [DVSA Sec.  201(e)(2)(B)(ii); 45 CFR 
2553.71(b)]: As appropriate, on-going RSVP grant applicants or proposed 
project sites may be visited by Corporation representatives as part of 
the competitive selection process. While such site inspections would 
normally not be needed, circumstances could arise during the grantee 
selection process where on-site observations or meetings might be 
helpful, for example, in clarifying aspects of an application or 
validating the capacity of an organization to administer a federal 
grant.
    C. Performance Measures, Outcomes, and Other Criteria [DVSA 
Sec. Sec.  201(e)(2)(B)(v) and 201(g); 45 CFR 2553.12(l) and Subpart 
J]: As a part of the competitive process, the Corporation will develop 
performance measures, outcomes, and other criteria that will be used in 
the evaluation of applicants. The performance measures will be 
established in the Notification of Funding Availability and may be 
different than those incorporated in current grants. These performance 
measures, outcomes, and criteria will reflect the different needs of 
rural and urban communities. These performance measures, outcomes, and 
criteria will be used in conducting the competitive process and in 
developing assessment reports as described in paragraph D, below.
    Pursuant to section 201(g)(2)(A) & (B) of the Serve America Act, 
prior to Fiscal Year 2014 that is, the first year after initiation of 
the competitive process, the performance measures, outcomes, and other 
criteria established for the competitive process may not be updated or 
modified, except when the Corporation determines that a performance 
measure, outcome, or criterion has become operationally problematic. In 
such cases, after consulting with RSVP project directors, sponsor 
executives, and others as appropriate, and notifying the authorizing 
committees, the Corporation may eliminate that performance measure, 
outcome, or criterion, or modify it.
    D. Assessments of existing RSVP projects [DVSA Sec. Sec.  201(f) 
and (g); 45 CFR 2553(f)]: The Corporation has set up a mechanism for 
consulting with RSVP project directors during the development and 
implementation of the assessment process. All existing RSVP grants will 
receive a report from the Corporation in a standardized format that 
assesses program strengths and weaknesses in a way that can assist the 
grantee with program improvement. This report will guide the 
Corporation's training and technical assistance for the project. The 
standardized report will, in addition to assessing the program's 
strengths and weaknesses, include:
    1. An assessment of the extent to which the grantee meets or 
exceeds the performance measures, outcomes, and other criteria 
established for its grant;
    2. An assessment of whether the project has adequately addressed 
the needs of the population and community it serves;
    3. An assessment of the grant's efforts to collaborate with other 
community organizations, units of government, and entities providing 
services to seniors;
    4. An assessment of the project's compliance with requirements for 
appropriate use of Federal funds, based on use of a protocol for fiscal 
management; and
    5. An assessment of whether the project is in conformity with 
eligibility, outreach, enrollment, and other RSVP programmatic 
requirements.
    To the maximum extent practicable, the report for each project will 
take into account input received from individuals who are knowledgeable 
about RSVP, including current or former employees of the Corporation 
and representatives of the communities served by RSVP volunteers.
    The process of assessing existing RSVP grants will begin in Fiscal 
Year 2010 and run through Fiscal Year 2012, with the objective of 
completing the assessment and resulting training and technical 
assistance prior to conducting the initial cycle of grant competitions 
in Fiscal Year 2013.
    E. Maintenance of volunteers and geographic service areas [DVSA 
Sec.  201(e)(2)(B)(iv)]: The Corporation will ensure that (a) grants 
awarded as a result of the competitive selection process beginning in 
Fiscal Year 2013 are for at least the same number of volunteers 
annually as were supported for the service area during the previous 
grant cycle and (b) maintain a similar program distribution as was 
maintained during the previous grant cycle. In addition, the 
Corporation will minimize any disruption to RSVP volunteers that might 
result from implementing the competitive process of grantee selection.
    F. Program Termination [DVSA Sec.  201(g)(3); 45 CFR 2553.31]: 
Until 2013, the Corporation will continue to initiate termination or 
denial of an application for refunding in the event that a grantee does 
not meet one or more of the performance measures, outcomes, and other 
criteria established as described above. Any such termination or denial 
of refunding will follow the notification and due process currently 
followed in such cases, in accordance with Section 412 of the DVSA, as 
implemented by 45 CFR part 1206 Grants and Contracts--Suspension and 
Termination and Denial of Application for Refunding, except that after 
initiation of competition in FY 2013, the provisions governing denial 
of refunding will not apply to a grant that has been competed in 
accordance with 45 CFR 2553.71, and where the grantee has also 
completed its optional three-year renewal term.
    G. Technical Assistance [DVSA Sec.  201(h) and (j); 45 CFR 
2553.71(f)]: The Corporation will develop procedures for providing 
technical assistance, including regular monitoring visits, to assist 
grantees in meeting the established performance measures, outcomes, and 
criteria. One component of such technical assistance, which was 
launched in October 2009, is an online resource guide available at 
http://www.nationalserviceresources.org/rsvp-online-resource-guide. The 
Corporation updates this online guide from time to time with examples 
of high-performing RSVP projects and other information.
    H. Grant Extension for Purpose of New Competition [DVSA Sec.  
201(i); 2553.71(e)]: To minimize disruption to volunteers and services, 
if a grantee fails to meet one or more of the established performance 
measures, outcomes, and other criteria, the Corporation will continue 
to fund the current grantee for up to 12 months if the competition for 
a replacement sponsor has not resulted in a replacement sponsor. During 
those 12 months, the Corporation will conduct a new competition to 
serve the geographic area served by the current

[[Page 20245]]

grantee and reach out to other potential sponsors. The current grantee 
will be eligible for the new competition and, during the 12-month 
period, the Corporation may continue to provide training and technical 
assistance in meeting established performance measures.
    All provisions of part 2553 not modified by the amendments 
described below will remain in effect, including the provision in Sec.  
2553(a) that a ``Corporation grant may be awarded to fund up to 90 
percent of the total project cost in the first year, 80 percent in the 
second year, and 70 percent in the third and succeeding years.'' Thus, 
the Corporation will continue to require that a current grantee 
applying for a new grant must contribute from non-Corporation funds at 
least 30 percent of the total project cost. A new applicant, on the 
other hand, will be required to contribute 10 percent in the first year 
of the grant, 20 percent in the second year, and 30 percent in the 
third and succeeding years.

III. Comments and Response

    Of the 21 comments received, the vast majority of the comments 
pertained to clarification of the implementation of the proposed 
regulation but generally supported the regulation. The comments and our 
responses are set forth below.
    Comment: Seven comments stated that specifying the ``blended peer 
review panels that will include members with specialized expertise in 
senior service'' is insufficient and encouraged the Corporation to 
utilize peer reviewers with specialized knowledge applicable to RSVP 
grants.
    Response: The Corporation agrees and will engage peer review 
panelists that possess the appropriate expertise and knowledge base to 
meet the requirements of the SAA, and to participate in a robust and 
transparent competitive review process.
    Comment: Seven comments suggested that site inspections be preceded 
by prior notice, as well as explicitly state that the purpose of the 
site visits is constructive, and not intended to be an evaluation of 
the particular program.
    Response: The Corporation will clarify that the site inspections 
are a part of the competitive review intended to assist the Corporation 
during competition in clarifying aspects of an application or 
validating the capacity of an organization to administer a Federal 
grant, as well as other elements of the application review process, and 
are not part of technical assistance nor intended as a continuous 
improvement tool.
    Comment: Twelve comments expressed concern that the development of 
performance measures would not be consistent with the Corporation's 
larger goals, nor would they reflect grantees' specific circumstances 
and local needs.
    Response: The Corporation agrees that coordination between national 
standard measures and grantee initiated measures is essential. The 
Corporation's new strategic plan will help to inform how the overall 
performance measures will fit within a structure of national and local 
measures.
    Comment: Nine comments suggested that if the Corporation consults 
meaningfully with grantees when providing the required pre-competition 
assessment, the process will go more smoothly and the results will be 
better. In addition, the process will be more efficient and more widely 
supported if the report for each project includes input not only from 
Corporation but from community representatives who actually work with, 
and benefit from, RSVP as well.
    Response: The Corporation agrees with this comment, as the process 
for disseminating the pre-competition assessments to existing RSVP 
grantees includes one-on-one consultation between state program 
officers and grantee project directors, occurring upon the grantee's 
receipt of the assessment, and is designed to ensure the grantee 
receives appropriate technical assistance to maximize the effectiveness 
of the assessment. Additionally, the Community Stakeholder Survey was 
provided to all current grantees as a tool to measure how effectively 
an RSVP project builds meaningful, interactive community partnerships 
and identifies and addresses community needs from the perspective of 
the project's community stakeholders. The survey is designed to be 
completed by the group whom the grantee feels is the most appropriate.
    Comment: Four comments stated support of the Corporation's 
intention to enroll at least the same number of volunteers as were 
supported during the previous grant cycle, but also inquired about the 
sponsor's corresponding responsibilities. Specifically, a commenter 
expressed concern about a sponsor's program responsibilities with 
regard to maintaining the number of volunteers, stating that the 
proposed language misinterprets Congressional intent in that the 
commenter believes the language in the statute is directed to the 
Corporation, not to the program sponsor.
    Response: The Corporation believes that, as the grant-making 
entity, it has the responsibility and authority to require a program 
sponsor that is being replaced by a subsequent program sponsor to 
maintain the current requirements concerning the maintenance of 
volunteers and geographic service areas. The Corporation also maintains 
that the statutory requirement is not mutually exclusive, in that both 
the Corporation and project sponsors who are being replaced by 
subsequent sponsors have separate, independent responsibilities, in 
regard to the implementation of the competitive process, to ``make 
every effort to minimize the disruption to volunteers.'' Therefore, 
Sec.  2553.23(i) is merely the Corporation's implementation of this 
Congressional mandate.
    Comment: Six comments stated that grantees should be able to work 
with the Corporation on the substance of the technical assistance 
provided to grantees.
    Response: The Corporation agrees with this comment and has 
convened, and will continue to convene, a working group of project 
directors to consult on many aspects of preparing for competition, 
including technical assistance.
    Comment: Six comments disagreed with the level of non-Corporation 
matching funds, which requires current grantees to maintain their 
required matching funds at a minimum of 30 percent of the total project 
cost.
    Response: The proposed policy of requiring non-Corporation matching 
funds to be at a minimum of 30 percent of the total project cost when 
the incumbent is awarded another grant reflects an internal alignment 
with Corporation policy. The underlying rationale for the policy is 
that the incumbent has already achieved a level of program operations 
that supports the grant. New applicants are provided a comparable 
opportunity to achieve the same level of program operations.

IV. Effective Dates

    The final rule takes effect July 11, 2011.

V. Regulatory Procedures

Executive Order 12866

    The Corporation has determined that this rule is not an 
``economically significant'' rule within the meaning of E.O. 12866 
because it is not likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more, or an adverse and material effect on a 
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal 
government or communities; (2) the creation of a serious inconsistency 
or interference with an

[[Page 20246]]

action taken or planned by another agency; (3) a material alteration in 
the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) 
the raising of novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
E.O. 12866. It is, however, a significant rule and has been reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with E.O. 12866.

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, 
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. 
This rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory action'' 
although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of E.O. 
12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605 
(b), the Corporation certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This regulatory action will not result in (1) an annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or 
prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local 
government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse 
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to 
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. 
Therefore, the Corporation has not performed the initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis that is required under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., for major rules that are expected to have 
such results.

Unfunded Mandates

    For purposes of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, as well as Executive Order 12875, this 
regulatory action does not contain any federal mandate that may result 
in increased expenditures in either federal, state, local, or tribal 
governments in the aggregate, or impose an annual burden exceeding $100 
million on the private sector.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains no information collection requirements and is 
therefore not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism, prohibits an agency from 
publishing any rule that has Federalism implications if the rule either 
imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local 
governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state 
law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements 
of section 6 of the Executive Order. The rule does not have any 
Federalism implications, as described above.

List of Subjects in Part 2553

    Aged, Grant programs--social programs, Volunteers.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Corporation for 
National and Community Service amends 45 CFR part 2553 as follows:

PART 2553--THE RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM

0
1. The authority citation for part 2553 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4950 et seq.


0
2. Amend Sec.  2553.12 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (l) through (r) as paragraphs (m) through 
(s) respectively; and
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (l) to read as follows:


Sec.  2553.12  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (l) Performance measures. Indicators intended to help determine the 
impact of an RSVP project on the community, including the volunteers. 
Performance measures currently include, but are not limited to, the 
following performance indicators:
    (1) Output indicator. The amount or units of service that RSVP 
volunteers have completed, or the number of people the project has 
served. An output indicator does not provide information on benefits or 
other changes in the lives of the volunteers or the people served.
    (2) Outcome indicator. Specifies a change that has occurred in the 
lives of the people served or the volunteers. It is an observable and 
measurable indication of whether or not a project is making progress 
toward its outcome target.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  2553.23 by adding new paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  2553.23  What are a sponsor's program responsibilities?

* * * * *
    (i) Minimize any disruption to RSVP volunteers when one sponsor is 
replaced by another as a result of relinquishment, denial of refunding, 
or recompetition of a grant.
    (j) Make every effort to meet such performance measures as may be 
established for the RSVP project by mutual agreement.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  2553.31 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  2553.31  What are the rules on suspension, termination and denial 
of refunding of grants?

* * * * *
    (c) Beginning in FY 2013, the procedures for suspension and 
termination of RSVP grants, which are specified in 45 CFR part 1206, 
shall continue to apply, but the procedures in part 1206 applicable to 
denial of refunding of an RSVP grantee shall not apply to any grant 
awarded through the competitive process described in Sec.  2553.71 of 
this part.
* * * * *


0
5. Revise Sec.  2553.71 to read as follows:


Sec.  2553.71  What is the process for application and award of a 
grant?

    As funds become available, the Corporation solicits applications 
for RSVP grants from eligible organizations through a competitive 
process.
    (a) What are the application requirements for an RSVP grant? An 
applicant must:
    (1) Submit required information determined by the Corporation.
    (2) Demonstrate compliance with any applicable requirements 
specified in the Notice of Funding Availability or Notice of Funding 
Opportunity.
    (b) What process does the Corporation use to select new RSVP 
grantees? (1) The Corporation reviews and determines the merits of an 
application by its responsiveness to published guidelines and to the 
overall purpose and objectives of the program. In conducting its review 
during the competitive process, the Corporation considers the input and 
opinions of those serving on a peer review panel, including members 
with expertise in

[[Page 20247]]

senior service and aging, and may conduct site inspections, as 
appropriate.
    (2) The selection process includes:
    (i) Determining whether an application complies with the 
application requirements, such as deadlines, eligibility, and 
programmatic requirements, including performance measurement 
requirements;
    (ii) Applying published selection criteria, as stated in the 
applicable Notice of Funding Availability or Notice of Funding 
Opportunity, to assess the quality of the application;
    (iii) Applying any applicable priorities or preferences, as stated 
in the applicable Notice of Funding Availability or Notice of Funding 
Opportunity;
    (iv) Ensuring innovation and geographic, demographic, and 
programmatic diversity across the Corporation's RSVP grantee portfolio; 
and
    (v) Identifying the applications that most completely respond to 
the published guidelines and offer the highest probability of 
successfully carrying out the overall purpose and objectives of the 
program.
    (c) How is a grant awarded? (1) Subject to the availability of 
funds, the award will be documented by a Notice of Grant Award (NGA).
    (2) The Corporation and the sponsoring organization are parties to 
the NGA. The NGA will document the sponsor's commitment to fulfill 
specific programmatic objectives and financial obligations. It will 
document the extent of the Corporation's obligation to provide 
assistance to the sponsor.
    (d) What happens if the Corporation rejects an application? The 
Corporation will return to the applicant an application that is not 
approved for funding, informing the applicant of the Corporation's 
decision.
    (e) For what period of time does the Corporation award a grant? The 
Corporation awards an RSVP grant for a specified period that is 3 years 
in duration with an option for a grant renewal of 3 years, if the 
grantee's performance and compliance with grant terms and conditions 
are satisfactory. The Corporation will use the Denial of Refunding 
procedures set forth in 45 CFR part 1206 to deny funding to a grantee 
when the Corporation determines that the grant should not be renewed 
for an additional 3 years.
    (f) What assistance in preparation for competitive award of all 
RSVP grants will the Corporation provide to sponsors who have 
previously received a grant and whose grants are expiring in fiscal 
year 2011, 2012, or 2013? (1) For each grant expiring in fiscal years 
2011, 2012, or 2013, the Corporation will evaluate the grant, to the 
maximum extent practicable, in fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, 
respectively.
    (2) The evaluation will give particular attention to the different 
needs of rural and urban projects, including those serving Native 
American communities, and will evaluate the extent to which the sponsor 
meets or exceeds performance measures, outcomes, and other criteria 
established by the Corporation.
    (3) To the maximum extent practicable, the Corporation will ensure 
that each evaluation is conducted by a review team made up of trained 
individuals who are knowledgeable about RSVP, including current or 
former employees of the Corporation and representatives of communities 
served by RSVP volunteers, who will provide their input and opinions 
concerning each grant.
    (4) The Corporation will use the evaluation findings as the basis 
for providing recommendations for program improvement, and for the 
provision of training and technical assistance.
    (5) The evaluation will assess:
    (i) The project's strengths and areas in need of improvement;
    (ii) Whether the project has adequately addressed population and 
community-wide needs;
    (iii) The efforts of the project to collaborate with other 
community-based organizations, units of government, and entities 
providing services to seniors, taking into account barriers to such 
collaboration that such programs may encounter;
    (iv) The project's compliance with the program requirements for the 
appropriate use of Federal funds as embodied in a protocol for fiscal 
management;
    (v) To what extent the project is in conformity with the 
eligibility, outreach, enrollment, and other requirements for RSVP 
projects; and
    (vi) The extent to which the project is achieving other measures of 
performance developed by the Corporation, in consultation with the 
review team.

0
6. Add a new Subpart J to read as follows:
Subpart J--Performance Measures
Sec.
2553.100 What is the purpose of this subpart?
2553.101 What is the purpose of performance measurement?
2553.102 What performance measurement information must be part of an 
application for funding under RSVP?
2553.103 Who develops the performance measures?
2553.104 What performance measures must be submitted to the 
Corporation and how are these submitted?
2553.105 How are performance measures approved and documented?
2553.106 How does a sponsor report performance measures to the 
Corporation?
2553.107 What must a sponsor do if it cannot meet its performance 
measures?
2553.108 When may a sponsor change a project's performance measures?
2553.109 What happens if a sponsor fails to meet the performance 
measures included in the Notice of Grant Award (NGA)?

Subpart J--Performance Measurement


Sec.  2553.100  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart sets forth the minimum performance measurement 
requirements for Corporation-funded Retired and Senior Volunteer 
Program (RSVP) projects.


Sec.  2553.101  What is the purpose of performance measurement?

    The purpose of performance measurement is to strengthen the RSVP 
project and foster continuous improvement. Reporting on performance 
measures is used by the Corporation as part of assessing the impact of 
the project on the community and on the accomplishment of the 
objectives established in the Corporation's Strategic Plan. In 
addition, as part of the competitive process, performance measures are 
used to assess how an applicant for a grant approaches the design of 
volunteer activities and the measurement of their impact on community 
needs.


Sec.  2553.102  What performance measurement information must be part 
of an application for funding under RSVP?

    An application to the Corporation for funding under RSVP must 
contain:
    (a) Performance measures.
    (b) Estimated performance data for the project years covered by the 
application.
    (c) Actual performance data, where available, for the preceding 
completed project year.


Sec.  2553.103  Who develops the performance measures?

    (a) An applicant is responsible for developing its own project-
specific performance measures.
    (b) In addition, the Corporation may establish performance measures 
that will apply to all Corporation-sponsored RSVP projects, which 
sponsors will be responsible for meeting.


Sec.  2553.104  What performance measures must be submitted to the 
Corporation and how are these submitted?

    (a) An applicant for Corporation funds is required to submit at 
least one of each

[[Page 20248]]

of the following types of performance measures as part of their 
application. The Corporation will provide standard forms.
    (1) Output indicators.
    (2) Outcome indicators.
    (b) An applicant must also submit any uniform performance measures 
the Corporation may establish for all applicants.
    (c) The Corporation may specify additional requirements relating to 
performance measures on an annual basis in program guidance and related 
materials.


Sec.  2553.105  How are performance measures approved and documented?

    (a) The Corporation reviews and approves performance measures for 
all applicants that apply for funding from the Corporation.
    (b) An applicant must follow Corporation-provided guidance and 
formats provided when submitting performance measures.
    (c) Final performance measures, as negotiated between the applicant 
and the Corporation, will be documented in the Notice of Grant Award 
(NGA).


Sec.  2553.106  How does a sponsor report performance measures to the 
Corporation?

    The Corporation will set specific reporting requirements, including 
frequency and deadlines, concerning performance measures established in 
the grant award. A sponsor is required to report on the actual results 
that occurred when implementing the grant and to regularly measure the 
project's performance.


Sec.  2553.107  What must a sponsor do if it cannot meet its 
performance measures?

    Whenever a sponsor finds it is not on track to meet its performance 
measures, it must develop a plan to get back on track or submit a 
request to the Corporation to amend its performance measures. The 
request must include all of the following:
    (a) Why the project is not on track to meet its performance 
requirements;
    (b) How the project has been tracking performance measures;
    (c) Evidence of corrective steps taken;
    (d) Any new proposed performance measures; and
    (e) A plan to ensure that the project will meet the new proposed 
measure(s).


Sec.  2553.108  When may a sponsor change a project's performance 
measures?

    Performance measures may be changed only if the Corporation 
approves the sponsor's request to do so.


Sec.  2553.109  What happens if a sponsor fails to meet the performance 
measures included in the Notice of Grant Award (NGA)?

    If a sponsor fails to meet a target performance measure established 
in the NGA, the Corporation will negotiate a period of no more than one 
year for meeting the performance measure. At that point, if the sponsor 
still fails to meet the performance measure, the Corporation may take 
one or more of the following actions:
    (a) Reduce the amount of the grant;
    (b) Suspend, terminate, or deny refunding of the grant, in 
accordance with the provisions of Section 2553.31 of this part;
    (c) Take this information into account in assessing any application 
from the organization for a new grant or augmentation of an existing 
grant under any program administered by the Corporation;
    (d) Amend the terms of any Corporation grant to the organization; 
or
    (e) Take other actions that the Corporation deems appropriate.

    Dated: April 5, 2011.
Wilsie Y. Minor,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-8556 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050-28-P