[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39590-39615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16757]



[[Page 39589]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 129

July 6, 2011

Part III





Department of Education





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





Promise Neighborhoods Program; Implementation Grant Competition 
Applications for New Awards; Planning Grant Competition; Notices

  Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2011 / 
Notices  

[[Page 39590]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RIN 1855-ZA07
[CFDA: 84.215P]


Promise Neighborhoods Program

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) announces priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the legislative 
authority of the Fund for the Improvement of Education Program (FIE), 
title V, part D, subpart 1, sections 5411 through 5413 of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The 
Secretary may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for Promise Neighborhoods 
competitions for fiscal year (FY) 2011 and later years.
    We take this action to focus Federal assistance on projects that 
are designed to create a comprehensive continuum of solutions, 
including education programs and family and community supports, with 
great schools at the center. The continuum of solutions must be 
designed to significantly improve the educational and developmental 
outcomes of children and youth, from birth through college and to a 
career. We intend that these projects support organizations that focus 
on serving high-need neighborhoods, have a strategy to build a 
continuum of solutions, and have the capacity to achieve results.

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria are effective August 5, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Hodgdon, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4W220, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 453-6615 or by e-mail: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the 
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Program: The Promise 
Neighborhoods program is carried out under the legislative authority of 
the FIE, title V, part D, subpart 1, sections 5411 through 5413 of the 
ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7243-7243b). FIE supports nationally significant 
programs to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education 
at the State and local levels and to help all children meet challenging 
State academic content and student academic achievement standards.
    The purpose of the Promise Neighborhoods program is to 
significantly improve the educational and developmental outcomes of 
children and youth in our most distressed communities, and to transform 
those communities by--
    (1) Identifying and increasing the capacity of eligible 
organizations (as defined in this notice) that are focused on achieving 
results for children and youth throughout an entire neighborhood;
    (2) Building a complete continuum of cradle-through-college-to-
career solutions (continuum of solutions) (as defined in this notice) 
of both educational programs and family and community supports (both as 
defined in this notice), with great schools at the center. All 
solutions in the continuum of solutions must be accessible to children 
with disabilities (CWD) (as defined in this notice) and English 
learners (ELs) (as defined in this notice).
    (3) Integrating programs and breaking down agency ``silos'' so that 
solutions are implemented effectively and efficiently across agencies;
    (4) Developing the local infrastructure of systems and resources 
needed to sustain and scale up proven, effective solutions across the 
broader region beyond the initial neighborhood; and
    (5) Learning about the overall impact of the Promise Neighborhoods 
program and about the relationship between particular strategies in 
Promise Neighborhoods and student outcomes, including through a 
rigorous evaluation of the program.
    Applicable Program Regulations: The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 
81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria in the Federal Register on March 
10, 2011 (76 FR 13152) (NPP). That notice contained background 
information and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
    There are differences between the proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the NPP and these 
final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, as 
discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section elsewhere in 
this notice. Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 
37 parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In 
addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not 
directly related to the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.

    Note about General Comments and Comments Outside the Scope of 
the NPP:  We received many comments expressing general support or 
making general recommendations for this program. In most cases, 
these general comments and recommendations were similar to the 
comments that supported specific provisions or made specific 
recommendations for the program's proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, or selection criteria, which we discuss in the sections 
that follow. We, therefore, do not include a separate discussion of 
the general comments and recommendations.

    We also received a number of comments relating to issues that may 
have been discussed in communications from the Department or in the 
application and review process for the FY 2010 Promise Neighborhoods 
competition, but were not proposed as part of the NPP. These issues 
include: The length of discretionary grant periods, the application 
process, and technical assistance for applicants. We do not address 
comments on these issues here. We note, however, that information on 
these issues will be made available through other Department documents, 
including the notice inviting applications for this program.

General

    Comment: Two commenters made recommendations and requested 
clarification regarding whether implementation grantees must use funds 
for developing the administrative capacity of the eligible organization 
or whether they could use the funds to provide solutions for children 
and youth in the neighborhood. One commenter recommended that the 
Department provide maximum flexibility for applicants to determine how 
the funds are to be used and not require that funds be used to develop 
administrative capacity. Another commenter requested greater 
clarification about the percentage of implementation grant funds that 
could be used to develop administrative capacity, on the one hand, and 
to

[[Page 39591]]

provide solutions for children and youth, on the other.
    Discussion: The Department expects implementation grantees to use 
grant funds for two primary purposes: (1) To develop the administrative 
capacity necessary to successfully implement a continuum of solutions; 
and (2) to provide solutions within the continuum of solutions to 
children and youth in the neighborhood. We anticipate that a majority 
of implementation grant funds would be used to develop a grantee's 
administrative capacity and that other public and private sources would 
be used to provide solutions. However, we believe that each applicant 
is best positioned to determine the allocation of funds between the two 
purposes given its needs assessment and plans to build its 
organizational capacity.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: The Department seeks to clarify that Promise 
Neighborhoods planning and implementation grantees must take into 
consideration the unique needs of CWD, ELs, and their families in 
designing the planning process, conducting the needs assessment, 
identifying the continuum of services, and developing the 
implementation plan for Promise Neighborhoods.
    Changes: The Department has revised language throughout the notice 
of final priorities to highlight the importance of considering the 
unique needs of CWD, ELs, and their families in the planning for and 
implementation of a continuum of services designed to improve academic 
outcomes for all children and youth. References can be found in 
paragraph (4) of Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation 
Priority 1, Final Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 
4, and the definition of education programs. In addition, we have added 
definitions for both children with disabilities and English learners to 
the Final Definitions section of this notice. These definitions are 
consistent with how the terms are defined in the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the ESEA, and section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act.

Priorities

Priorities--General for Final Planning Priorities and Final 
Implementation Priorities

    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department not 
designate any priorities as competitive preference priorities. Two 
commenters recommended that if the Department designates priorities as 
competitive preference priorities, the number of competitive preference 
priorities to which an applicant may apply should be limited, or the 
competitive preference priorities should be used as tie breakers. Two 
of the commenters recommended designating priorities 4 through 8 as 
invitational priorities. Another commenter recommended eliminating 
priorities 4 through 8 altogether.
    Discussion: The Promise Neighborhoods program encourages a 
comprehensive continuum of solutions that are designed to dramatically 
improve academic and developmental outcomes for all children and youth, 
in our country's most distressed communities, and to transform those 
communities. Because we believe that the following components of a 
comprehensive continuum of solutions can significantly improve academic 
and developmental outcomes, we have included them as priorities: 
Provision of high-quality comprehensive local early learning networks, 
quality internet connectivity, access to the arts and humanities, 
availability of quality affordable housing, and family engagement in 
learning through adult education. In a given competition, we may use 
one or more of these priorities to focus Federal funds on components 
most in need of support. The decision to use these priorities as 
absolute, competitive preference or invitational will be made on a 
competition-by-competition basis. We announce these designations and 
the scoring methodology in the notice inviting applications.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters asked whether an applicant must meet 
Absolute Priority 1, Absolute Priority 2, or Absolute Priority 3, or 
whether an applicant could focus on only one priority among Priorities 
4 through 8.
    Discussion: Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications 
that meet either Absolute Priority 1, Absolute Priority 2, or Absolute 
Priority 3. In order to be considered for funding under the Promise 
Neighborhoods program, an applicant must meet all of the requirements 
in the absolute priority that it chooses to address. We announce 
designations for other priorities in notices inviting applications.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns that the absolute 
priorities for rural and tribal communities would disadvantage suburban 
communities. Another commenter recommended adding an absolute priority 
for small towns and mid-sized cities stating that these communities may 
have access to fewer resources than more urban areas.
    Discussion: We included Absolute Priorities 2 and 3 to focus on 
rural areas and Indian tribes because of the unique and daunting 
challenges faced by these communities. In 2004, more than one-fifth of 
the Nation's nearly 2,000 ``dropout factories,'' in which the 
graduation rate is less than 60 percent, were located in rural areas 
(Balfanz, R., and Letgers, N., Locating the Dropout Crisis: Which High 
Schools Produce the Nation's Dropouts? Johns Hopkins University, 2004.)
    Compared to white students, American Indian students have poorer 
academic outcomes and higher poverty rates (Institute for Education 
Sciences. Status and Trends in the Education of American Indians and 
Alaska Natives, 2008). American Indian and Alaska Native students, who 
could be among those served under Absolute Priority 3, have a 
graduation rate of less than 50 percent nationally (The Civil Rights 
Project. The Dropout/Graduation Crisis Among American Indian and Alaska 
Native Students: Failure to Respond Places the Future of Native Peoples 
at Risk, 2010). While we recognize the challenges faced by small towns 
and mid-sized cities, we decline to add an absolute priority focused on 
these communities because their challenges are not as severe as the 
challenges faced by students in rural and tribal communities.
    Changes: None.

Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1

Geographic Area and Need
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require a 
neighborhood to have a child poverty rate of 50 percent or more in 
order to be eligible for a Promise Neighborhood grant. The commenter 
stated that this threshold would demonstrate the severity of need in 
the neighborhood.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that a child poverty rate 
of 50 percent or more is an indicator of tremendous need in a 
neighborhood. However, poverty is only one indicator of need. 
Significant achievement gaps, the percentage of children with 
preventable health conditions, and the crime rate in a neighborhood 
could also be indicators of tremendous need. Applicants are in the best 
position to provide the information that is most relevant to 
establishing the need of the particular neighborhood that they propose 
to serve, and comprehensive information about indicators of need

[[Page 39592]]

will allow us to make thoughtful and informed grant decisions in light 
of the level of distress in the neighborhood.
    Changes: None.

Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1

Promise Neighborhood Plan
    Comment: One commenter expressed concerns about the severity of the 
specific types of interventions required for applicants proposing to 
work with persistently lowest-achieving and low-performing schools, 
especially the turnaround interventions required by the Race to the Top 
(RTT) program.
    Discussion: We require an applicant proposing to work with a 
persistently lowest-achieving school to include as part of its strategy 
one of the four school intervention models (turnaround model, restart 
model, school closure, or transformation model) described in Appendix C 
of the RTT notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2010 that 
was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2009 (74 FR 
59836, 59866). While applicants working with low-performing schools may 
implement one of these four school intervention models, these 
applicants are not required to do so. They have the flexibility to 
implement any interventions that are sufficiently ambitious, rigorous, 
and comprehensive to significantly improve academic and other outcomes 
for all students.
    We believe that the comprehensive education programs that Promise 
Neighborhoods grantees implement should be consistent with efforts to 
reform these schools carried out under other programs supported by the 
Department, such as the RTT and School Improvement Grants (SIG) 
programs.
    Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1 
provide for a structured yet flexible approach that is consistent with 
these programs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns and requested 
clarification regarding the entity that must implement school 
interventions. One commenter asked whether an applicant must implement 
the school interventions or whether another organization could 
implement the school interventions on its behalf. One commenter 
expressed concern that some charter schools may have difficulty forming 
partnerships with low-performing traditional public schools, and 
recommended that the Department eliminate the requirement that grantees 
serve at least one low-performing school or persistently lowest-
achieving school.
    Discussion: Promise Neighborhoods grantees are required to develop 
a complete continuum of cradle-through-college-to-career solutions over 
time in a neighborhood, and few if any single organization could 
directly implement all of the expected solutions within a complete 
continuum. For this reason, the program is designed to support 
applicants that partner with other organizations to provide this 
continuum of solutions. To clarify this, we are revising both Final 
Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1 to state that 
school interventions may be implemented by the applicant or one or more 
of its partners.
    With regard to the comment recommending that the Department 
eliminate the requirement that grantees serve at least one low-
performing school or persistently lowest-achieving school, we decline 
to make this change because we believe that Promise Neighborhoods must 
play an important role in turning around persistently-lowest achieving 
schools and improving low-performing schools.
    Changes: We have revised both Final Planning Priority 1 and Final 
Implementation Priority 1, paragraph (2)(b) to clarify that the school 
interventions in the strategy or plan to build a continuum of solutions 
may be implemented by the applicant or one of its partners. We added 
``(or one or more of its partners)'' to both Final Planning Priority 1 
and Final Implementation Priority 1, paragraph (2)(b) in reference to 
the entity that must implement the school interventions.
    Comment: One commenter recommended requiring the use of digital, 
multi-platform (e.g., public television, web-based, etc.) delivery 
models for early learning programs in the continuum of solutions.
    Discussion: We believe that applicants are best positioned to 
determine the specific solutions and the implementation of those 
solutions that most effectively address neighborhood needs, and 
therefore, decline to require that all grantees use digital, multi-
platform delivery models for early learning, as recommended by the 
commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended adding a new requirement within 
the education component of the continuum of solutions that focuses on 
family-school partnerships and family engagement in learning.
    Discussion: Family and community support for learning is a critical 
component of Promise Neighborhoods. For example, as specified in Tables 
1 and 2 in both Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation 
Priority 1, family and community member support for learning is one of 
the 10 core program results in a Promise Neighborhood, and Priority 8 
focuses on family engagement in learning through adult education. For 
this reason, we believe adding the requirement recommended by the 
commenter is unnecessary and therefore decline to add it.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding whether 
applicants are required to focus on children attending a target school 
or on all children in a neighborhood. The applicant asked whether 
students who attend a target school in the Promise Neighborhood, but 
live outside the neighborhood, could be served by a Promise 
Neighborhood project.
    Discussion: We agree that clarification about the students who can 
receive the complete continuum of solutions under a Promise 
Neighborhoods grant would be helpful, especially in light of the 
variations in attendance zone and school choice policies in many 
communities. Therefore, we are revising both Final Planning Priority 1 
and Final Implementation Priority 1 to clarify that the continuum of 
solutions must be designed to ensure that over time, (1) Children and 
youth in the neighborhood who attend the target school or schools have 
access to a complete continuum of solutions, and (2) as appropriate, 
children and youth in the neighborhood who do not attend the target 
school or schools have access to solutions within the continuum of 
solutions.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (2) in both Final Planning 
Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1 to clarify that the plan 
or strategy must ensure that, over time, a greater proportion of 
children and youth in the neighborhood who attend the target school or 
schools have access to a complete continuum of solutions, and ensure 
that over time, a greater proportion of children in the neighborhood 
who do not attend the target school or schools have access to solutions 
within the continuum of solutions. The plan or strategy must also 
ensure that students not living in the neighborhood who do attend the 
target school or schools have access to solutions within the continuum 
of solutions.

[[Page 39593]]

Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1

Needs Assessment, Segmentation Analysis, and Indicators
    Comment: A number of commenters recommended that we require 
additional results and indicators that focus on areas such as the arts, 
life-long learning opportunities, out-of-school learning activities, 
discipline referrals, access to learning materials, volunteer and 
community service, age-appropriate functioning for four-year-olds, 
regular school attendance, and access to primary care providers; or 
populations such as high school graduates who need remediation and 
students who participate in the child welfare system. One commenter 
asked the Department to clarify whether applicants have flexibility to 
substitute required indicators.
    Discussion: Regarding the request that we require additional 
results and indicators on specific topics, grantees, in addition to 
being required to collect data for the needs assessment that includes 
education and family and community support program indicators 
prescribed by the Department, may also develop their own family and 
community support project indicators. These grantee-developed project 
indicators may focus on the areas and populations mentioned by the 
commenters. In addition, eligible applicants may use intermediate 
variables that are strongly correlated with the required program and 
project indicators. These intermediate variables may also include 
variables on the areas and populations mentioned by the commenters 
(e.g., immunization rates could be an intermediate variable with regard 
to the result that students are healthy). While we recognize the 
importance of the topics mentioned by the commenters, we believe 
providing flexibility to grantees to select indicators is more 
appropriate than requiring additional specific indicators. In response 
to the request for clarification, applicants are not allowed to 
substitute required indicators for this program. Our framework allows 
for flexibility and ensures that Promise Neighborhood projects across 
the country are comprehensive in their approach and can be evaluated in 
a consistent manner by using the set of required indicators.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended changing one of the indicators 
related to family and community support of learning. Specifically, the 
commenters recommended that the indicator regarding the number and 
percent of parents or family members who report that they read to their 
child three or more times a week begin at the birth of the child, not 
when the child turns six months, to encourage good habits from the very 
beginning of a child's life.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter about the importance of 
reading to children very early in their lives and, therefore, are 
revising the indicator to focus on children from birth to kindergarten 
entry, instead of six months to kindergarten entry.
    Changes: In both Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation 
Priority 1, in the indicators found in Table 2, which measures the 
number and percent of family members who report that they read to their 
child three or more times a week, we have replaced ``six months to 
kindergarten entry'' with ``birth to kindergarten entry.''
    Comment: One commenter recommended changing the indicator related 
to students who are healthy. Specifically, the commenter recommended 
separating the indicator into an indicator for the number and percent 
of children who participate in at least 60 minutes of exercise and an 
indicator for the number and percent of children who consume five or 
more servings of fruits and vegetables daily. According to the 
commenter, this would allow grantees to demonstrate progress in 
achieving changes in diet, exercise, or both.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that disaggregating the 
data for this indicator would provide more valuable data for the 
grantees and the community. We, therefore, are revising the indicator 
accordingly.
    Changes: In both Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation 
Priority 1, we have revised the indicator related to students who are 
healthy by creating two separate indicators: (1) The number and percent 
of children who participate in at least 60 minutes of moderate to 
physical activity daily, and (2) the number and percent of children who 
consume five or more servings of fruits and vegetables daily.
    Comment: Three commenters requested clarification and additional 
information regarding how the Department defines specific terms used in 
the indicators. One commenter asked how the Department defines ``access 
to broadband internet.'' Another commenter asked for clarification 
regarding the frequency and ``dosage'' of several indicators, including 
the indicator for parents encouraging their children to read books. A 
third commenter requested additional information about the definition 
of ``medical home,'' as it relates to the ``students are healthy'' 
result.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that greater clarification 
and specificity regarding some of the terms used in the indicators 
could ensure more consistent data collection across the Promise 
Neighborhoods grantees. The Department anticipates contracting with a 
national evaluator or other entity to provide technical assistance to 
Promise Neighborhoods grantees for data collection and to develop data 
definitions. It is our goal, at a minimum, to make that technical 
assistance available on the Promise Neighborhoods program Web site for 
use by grantees, applicants, and other organizations.
    Changes: None.

Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1

Experience, Lessons Learned, Capacity Building, and Data System
    Comment: Several commenters recommended adding more explicit 
references to the inclusion of parents and family members in 
applicants' descriptions of their experiences and lessons learned, and 
how applicants will build capacity, including in collecting, analyzing, 
and using data. Some commenters recommended requiring applicants to 
describe their experiences and plans to work with the neighborhood and 
its residents, including parents and families. The commenters 
recommended that applicants describe their experience and plans to make 
Promise Neighborhoods data accessible to parents, families, and 
community residents, in addition to program partners, researchers, and 
evaluators.
    Discussion: We agree that systemic family and community engagement 
is a critical component of school reform and neighborhood 
revitalization in Promise Neighborhoods. Therefore, we are adding more 
specific references to family and community involvement in the planning 
and implementation process to elevate their role in the program.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (4)(a) and (b)(ii) of Final 
Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1 to require 
applicants to describe their experience and plans to work with parents 
and families, including families with children or other family members 
with disabilities or ELs, during planning and implementation, as well 
as to share data with parents and families.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended adding specific

[[Page 39594]]

individuals and entities as required partners and members of the 
governing or advisory board for a Promise Neighborhoods project. One 
commenter recommended requiring applicants to work in partnership with 
community organizations, local businesses, and other entities that have 
the capacity to contribute to a partnership and that have a proven 
track record as a partner. Another commenter recommended requiring the 
involvement of parents and families on the Promise Neighborhoods 
governing board or advisory board.
    Discussion: The individuals and entities described by the 
commenters may very well be appropriate partners or board members for a 
Promise Neighborhoods project. We believe that the requirements for 
board membership and partners are sufficiently prescriptive to foster a 
successful Promise Neighborhood project, but broad enough to allow 
applicants, who are best positioned to select their partners and board 
members, the flexibility to choose the board members and partners that 
they believe can best meet the needs of the neighborhood they propose 
to serve.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding whether a 
partner's financial and programmatic commitments, as described in the 
memorandum of understanding, may include in-kind commitments. The 
commenter noted that some partners, such as schools, would not be able 
to contribute resources other than in-kind supports.
    Discussion: A partner's financial and programmatic commitments may 
include in-kind commitments. Additional information on matching funds, 
including in-kind contributions, can be found under the cost-sharing 
and matching section of this notice, and in the Department's 
regulations at 34 CFR 74.23 and 80.24.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require 
solutions that are culturally appropriate for residents in the 
neighborhood.
    Discussion: As included in the background section of the NPP, one 
of the activities for planning grantees is to develop a plan and build 
community support for and involvement in the development of the plan. 
In addition, significant community involvement is required with regard 
to the governing board's or advisory board's decision-making and is 
integral to the planning and implementation process, as shown by the 
focus on family and community supports. Moreover, we define 
developmentally appropriate early learning measures to mean, in part, 
that the measures are designed and validated for use with children 
whose ages, cultures, languages spoken at home, socioeconomic status, 
abilities and disabilities, and other characteristics are similar to 
those of the children with whom the assessments will be used. We 
believe these provisions help to ensure that the continuum of solutions 
in a Promise Neighborhood meet the needs of and are linguistically and 
culturally appropriate for neighborhood residents, including ELs and 
CWD. In addition, we believe increasing the emphasis on community 
involvement in the development of the plan will increase the assurance 
that solutions are culturally appropriate and relevant for neighborhood 
residents.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (2) of Final Planning Priority 1 
and Final Implementation Priority 1 to clarify that one of the required 
activities during the planning phase is to build community support for 
and involvement in the development of the plan.

Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1

Evaluation
    Comment: Several commenters requested clarification and made 
recommendations regarding the evaluation process. One commenter asked 
for information about the process the Department will use in selecting 
a national evaluator and the timing of that selection. Three commenters 
requested clarification and made recommendations regarding components 
of the evaluation, including the use of comparison groups. A final 
commenter requested clarification regarding whether Promise 
Neighborhood grant funds could be used to conduct the evaluation and 
needs assessments, including for the early learning indicators.
    Discussion: The Department anticipates contracting with a national 
evaluator or other entity to provide technical assistance to Promise 
Neighborhoods grantees for data collection and to create the conditions 
for a rigorous national evaluation. We expect grantees to work with the 
Department and with the national evaluator or other entity to ensure 
that data collection and program design are consistent with plans to 
conduct a rigorous national evaluation of the Promise Neighborhoods 
program and are adding this as a requirement in Final Planning Priority 
1 and Final Implementation Priority 1. The Department expects to award 
a contract for this work through a process that is separate from the 
awarding of planning and implementation grants. The timing and design 
of the evaluation is currently under development. With regard to the 
comment about the use of Promise Neighborhoods grant funds, activities 
conducted by grantees related to evaluations and needs assessments are 
allowable uses of Promise Neighborhoods grant funds.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (5) of both the Final Planning 
Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1 to clarify that 
applicants must describe their commitment to work with the Department 
and with a national evaluator for Promise Neighborhoods or another 
entity designated by the Department.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require 
Promise Neighborhoods applicants to describe how they will engage 
institutions of higher education (IHEs) in research and evaluation.
    Discussion: While IHEs may bring tremendous resources to a Promise 
Neighborhoods project, including in the areas of research and 
evaluation, we do not believe the recommended change is needed in order 
for IHEs to become involved in a Promise Neighborhoods project. IHEs 
are eligible, on their own, to apply for a Promise Neighborhood grant. 
Moreover, beyond requiring an applicant to coordinate with a public 
elementary and secondary school located in the geographic area it 
proposes to serve, we believe that applicants are best positioned to 
determine their partners.
    Changes: None.

Final Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4

Comprehensive Local Early Learning Network
    Comment: Several commenters made recommendations and expressed 
concerns about references to specific early learning settings in both 
Final Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4--
Comprehensive Local Early Learning Network. One commenter recommended 
that we add a separate competitive preference priority to encourage 
formal coordination between Promise Neighborhoods and the Head Start 
and Early Head Start programs. Another commenter recommended explicitly 
including private child care providers in Final Planning Priority 4 and 
Final Implementation Priority 4. Yet another commenter expressed 
concern that the

[[Page 39595]]

requirement to integrate formal early education and care in a Promise 
Neighborhoods project may not be realistic given cutbacks in funding 
for early education at the Federal and State levels.
    Discussion: Final Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation 
Priority 4 encourage proposals and plans that include Head Start and 
Early Head Start. We do not believe that a separate priority is 
necessary to coordinate with Head Start because the priorities already 
include Head Start programs as one of the early learning services. The 
Department continues to work with other Federal agencies, including the 
Department of Health and Human Services, to identify additional 
opportunities to align programs, including through the Race to the 
Top--Early Learning Challenge program.
    With regard to the recommendation to include private child care 
providers in Priority 4, we agree that private child care providers 
should be included in both Final Planning Priority 4 and Final 
Implementation Priority 4 and are making this change accordingly.
    Although the Department recognizes that the current fiscal climate 
may constrain Federal, State, and local financial support for early 
learning, we expect applicants to propose early learning networks that 
work across existing funded programs in a variety of early learning 
settings, including formal care (school-based or private providers) and 
family, friend, or neighbor care that is currently operating in the 
neighborhood. This important work to improve quality in existing 
programs has the potential to improve short-term and long-term 
educational and developmental outcomes for students.
    Changes: We have revised both Final Planning Priority 4 and Final 
Implementation Priority 4 to include ``child care providers licensed by 
the State, including public and private providers and center-based 
care'' among the list of early learning services and programs that 
applicants can propose to coordinate in its Promise Neighborhood.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: After internal review, we determined that the 
requirement that proposals include various early learning services and 
programs should be clarified to increase the emphasis on service and 
program integration focused on enhancing quality.
    Changes: We have revised the language in Final Planning Priority 4 
and Final Implementation Priority 4 to clarify that proposals integrate 
various early learning services and programs to enhance the quality of 
those services and programs.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended requiring applicants who 
address Priority 4 to focus on early literacy and numeracy skills for 
young people.
    Discussion: We agree that early literacy and numeracy are critical 
areas of cognitive development for young children. Paragraph (2)(a) of 
Final Planning Priority 1 and paragraph (2)(a)(i) of Final 
Implementation Priority 1 require applicants to include in their 
continuum of solutions high-quality learning programs and services 
designed to improve outcomes across multiple domains of early learning. 
Although we define multiple domains of learning to include language and 
literacy development, as well as cognition and general knowledge, 
including mathematical knowledge, we believe Final Planning Priority 4 
and Final Implementation Priority 4 should more explicitly reference 
the multiple domains of early learning and are changing the language in 
Priority 4 accordingly.
    Changes: We have revised the second sentence in Final Planning 
Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4 for both planning and 
implementation grants, which relates to an applicant's plan for a 
comprehensive local learning network, to focus on improving outcomes 
across multiple domains of early learning. As defined in this notice, 
the term ``multiple domains of early learning'' includes early literacy 
and numeracy.
    Comment: One commenter recommended expanding Final Planning 
Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4 to ensure that the early 
learning network includes innovative digital programs available on 
multiple platforms (e.g., public television, web-based) and in multiple 
locations (e.g., at home, at school, and at other community locations).
    Discussion: The Department believes that early learning programs 
offer a significant opportunity to provide accessible, digital 
programming to young children and their families and that we should 
reference such opportunities in Final Planning Priority 4 and Final 
Implementation Priority 4 to create an incentive for applicants to 
innovate in this area. We, therefore, are revising the priorities to 
require that an applicant's proposal or plan for a comprehensive early 
learning network describe how the project will provide, to the extent 
practicable, early learning opportunities on multiple platforms and in 
multiple locations (e.g., at home, at school, and at other community 
locations). These early learning opportunities must be fully accessible 
to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who are blind 
or have low vision; otherwise, the plans must describe how 
accommodations or modifications will be provided to ensure that the 
benefits of the early learning opportunities are provided to 
individuals with disabilities in an equally effective and equally 
integrated manner.
    Changes: We have added language to Final Planning Priority 4 and 
Final Implementation Priority 4 to clarify that the plan must describe 
how the project will provide, to the extent practicable, accessible 
early learning opportunities on multiple platforms (e.g., public 
television, web-based) and in multiple locations (e.g., at home, at 
school, and at other community locations).
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department acknowledge 
the two distinct time periods within the early learning portion of the 
continuum--birth to preschool and kindergarten through the third grade. 
The commenter recommended that we give applicants addressing Final 
Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4 the flexibility 
to address the early learning continuum in stages, rather than all at 
once.
    Discussion: We believe that it is important to maintain the focus 
on a comprehensive and continuous early learning network from birth 
through third grade rather than distinguishing two separate periods. 
Without a comprehensive focus on early learning, there is a risk of 
fragmentation of work and results. However, as we discuss in the 
response to comments related to Planning Grant Priority 1, we are 
revising paragraph (2) in both Planning Priority 1 and Implementation 
Priority 1 to require applicants to describe how they will plan to 
ensure that the children have, over time, access to the complete 
continuum of solutions.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters noted that the qualifications for early 
learning personnel vary by State and requested clarification about the 
necessary qualifications for the individual responsible for overseeing 
and coordinating the early learning initiatives.
    Discussion: Considering the variation in State early learning 
certifications, we do not believe additional specificity about the 
types of certification is appropriate in this program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: After internal review, we determined that the 
requirement that the applicant designate an individual to

[[Page 39596]]

oversee and coordinate the early learning initiatives and provide 
applicable documentation should be clarified to ensure that the 
individual has experience with ``high-quality'' programs and services.
    Changes: We have revised the language in Final Planning Priority 4 
and Final Implementation Priority 4 to clarify that the documentation 
the applicant provides must demonstrate that the individual designated 
to oversee the early learning initiatives or the individual hired to 
carry out those responsibilities possesses the appropriate State 
certification and has experience and expertise in managing and 
administering high-quality early learning programs, including in 
coordinating across various high-quality early learning programs and 
services.

Final Planning Priority 5 and Final Implementation Priority 5

Quality Internet Connectivity
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department create an 
absolute priority focused on developing programs that promote student 
engagement, learning, and digital literacy, as well as neighborhood 
communication and networking, via access to broadband internet and 
digital television.
    Discussion: Broadband internet access is a critical learning tool 
to prepare students for college and careers in the digital age, which 
is why we included it as a priority. We believe this priority will 
create an incentive for applicants to expand access to broadband 
internet, which will create the conditions for engagement, learning, 
and digital literacy, as well as neighborhood communication and 
networking. The decision to use this priority as absolute, competitive 
preference or invitational will be made on a competition-by-competition 
basis. For each competition, we announce these designations in the 
notice inviting applications.
    Since June 13, 2009, all full-power U.S. stations have broadcast 
digital-only signals; we do not believe further incentive is needed to 
encourage use of digital television. Therefore, we did not include 
digital television as part of Final Planning Priority 5 or Final 
Implementation Priority 5.
    Changes: None.

Final Planning Priority 7 and Final Implementation Priority 7

Quality Affordable Housing
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department expand 
Final Planning Priority 7 and Final Implementation Priority 7 to 
include applicants that have submitted an application through Choice 
Neighborhoods or Hope VI, or that are working on affordable housing 
generally, rather than restricting the priority to applicants that have 
been awarded grants under the Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI program 
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
    Discussion: Applicants that were the subject of an affordable 
housing transformation pursuant to a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI 
grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
during FY 2009 or later years may address Final Planning Priority 7 and 
Final Implementation Priority 7. We are limiting the priority to 
applicants that have undergone or are undergoing this affordable 
housing transformation supported by Choice Neighborhoods or a HOPE VI 
grant because these applicants have met evidence-based criteria as 
determined by HUD and will be ready to integrate quality, affordable 
housing into their Promise Neighborhood. Moreover, focusing the 
priority in this manner supports the goal of Promise Neighborhoods to 
break down agency ``silos'' at the Federal and local levels, by 
aligning investments from the Promise Neighborhoods and Choice 
Neighborhoods or HOPE VI programs. While we decline to expand the 
priority 7 to include applicants who have applied for but not received 
a Choice Neighborhoods or Hope VI grant, we want to point out that 
applicants working on affordable housing generally in their 
neighborhood may also identify a housing solution to address the 
``students live in stable communities'' result described in Final 
Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1, so long as the 
solution otherwise meets the requirements in this notice.
    Changes: None.

Final Planning Priority 8 and Final Implementation Priority 8

Family Engagement in Learning Through Adult Education
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department be more 
explicit about the connection between adult education and family 
engagement in Final Planning Priority 8 and Final Implementation 
Priority 8. Specifically, the commenter recommended that these 
priorities be revised to put a greater emphasis on parent and family 
partnerships to support improving educational outcomes.
    Discussion: The Department acknowledges the importance of family 
engagement in education and learning. We believe that Final Planning 
Priority 8 and Final Implementation Priority 8 sufficiently address 
this issue by focusing on coordinated services, which may include 
programs that provide training and opportunities for family members to 
support student learning.
    Changes: None.

Implementation Grant Priority 1

Continuum of Solutions
    Comment: Several commenters made recommendations and requested 
guidance regarding the timeline for developing the continuum of 
solutions. Another commenter requested guidance about how many 
solutions should be implemented in year one and over time. Two 
commenters recommended that the Department require applicants for 
implementation grants to provide information on their startup and 
``phasing'' strategy to build the continuum of solutions.
    Discussion: Because implementation grantees will build a complete 
continuum over time, we agree that we should be more explicit about 
requiring an implementation applicant to include in its proposal its 
strategy for developing the continuum. We are adding language in 
Implementation Priority 1 to make this clear. We believe that 
applicants are best positioned to determine the timing of the phasing 
strategy to build the continuum of solutions, and therefore, decline to 
provide guidance on how many solutions should be implemented in year 
one and over time.
    Changes: We have revised Implementation Priority 1 to require 
applicants to describe in an appendix to the application how and when 
during the implementation process the solution will be made available 
to children and youth in the geographic area to be served.
    Comment: Several commenters requested clarification and expressed 
concerns about the expected ``penetration rate'' of solutions, that is, 
the percentage of all children of the same group within the 
neighborhood proposed to be served by each solution. Another commenter 
requested clarification and guidance about setting benchmarks for 
penetration rates. One commenter expressed concern regarding the 
requirement that implementation applicants ensure that each child in 
the neighborhood receives appropriate services. The commenter 
recommended that applicants be encouraged to

[[Page 39597]]

emphasize their plans for growth in the penetration rate over time.
    Discussion: Based on the needs assessment and segmentation 
analysis, an applicant may determine that not every child in the 
neighborhood needs every solution in its continuum of solutions. 
Moreover, a 100 percent penetration rate for children and youth in the 
neighborhood receiving solutions is difficult, if not impossible, to 
achieve, especially in year one of implementation. We believe that 
applicants will be best positioned to determine the penetration rate of 
solutions and, therefore, decline to provide guidance on benchmarks for 
the penetration rate of solutions. However, we believe it would be 
helpful to require applicants for implementation grants to describe 
their annual goals for increasing the penetration rate over time and 
are changing Final Implementation Priority 1 accordingly.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (3) of Final Implementation 
Priority 1 to clarify that implementation applicants must describe how 
they will ensure that children in the neighborhood receive the 
appropriate services. While not necessarily every child will receive 
services, specific groups of children (i.e., CWD and ELs) must not be 
excluded from the plan. We have also revised paragraph (2) of Final 
Implementation Priority 1 to require implementation applicants to 
describe their goals to increase the penetration rate over time.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department acknowledge 
the long-term nature of the work required to transform neighborhoods. 
Specifically, they stated that the ultimate success of Promise 
Neighborhoods will require the use of both short-term and long-term 
goals to measure progress.
    Discussion: We agree that the difficult work of dramatically 
improving the quality of education and transforming distressed 
neighborhoods demand both a sense of urgency and sufficient time to 
implement change properly. Given this reality, it is important to 
measure success using short-term and long-term goals.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (2) of Final Implementation 
Priority 1 to acknowledge that, considering the time and urgency 
required to dramatically improve outcomes of children and youth in our 
most distressed neighborhoods and to transform those neighborhoods, an 
applicant must establish both short-term and long-term goals against 
which it will measure its progress.
    Comment: One applicant expressed concern that reviewers would use 
per-child cost estimates for providing solutions to make comparisons 
among applicants and to make scoring decisions.
    Discussion: The Department directs peer reviewers to score 
applications against the established selection criteria and not to make 
comparisons among and between applications.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the requirement that 
implementation applicants establish annual goals for improving systems, 
such as changes in policies, environments, or organizations that affect 
children and youth in the neighborhood. The commenter stated that 
setting annual goals for improving systems can be distracting to the 
short-term work that must happen in the neighborhood.
    Discussion: Changes in the neighborhood and systems change may 
happen concurrently. Alignment of the Promise Neighborhoods strategy 
with a local educational agency's (LEA) school turnaround effort 
supported by SIG funds in neighborhood schools is an example of an 
annual goal for improving systems that may directly support short-term 
work that must happen in the neighborhood.
    Changes: None.

Implementation Grant Priority 1

Needs Assessment, Segmentation Analysis, and Indicators
    Comment: None
    Discussion: After internal review, we noted that the NPP 
encouraged, but did not require implementation applicants to describe 
how they collected data for educational and family and community 
support indicators. We intend to require applicants to describe their 
data collection process because data collection is a critical component 
of a successful Promise Neighborhood.
    Changes: We changed ``should'' to ``must'' to specify that an 
applicant for an implementation grant is required to describe how it 
collected data for educational and family and community support 
indicators.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we require applicants to 
describe how the implementation of solutions will work at the 
individual level. The commenter also recommended that the Department 
require applicants to describe how they will help children, youth, and 
families navigate multiple public systems and obtain the full benefits 
of the continuum of solutions.
    Discussion: An implementation applicant will be required to 
describe how it is using its needs assessment and segmentation analysis 
to ensure that children in the neighborhood receive appropriate 
services from the continuum of solutions. An effective needs assessment 
and segmentation analysis will create the conditions for effective 
targeting and service delivery that meet the individual needs of 
residents, and thus reduce the need for the residents to navigate 
multiple public systems. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary 
to include the additional requirement recommended by the commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that implementation applicants 
be required only to demonstrate that they have collected data on a 
majority of the indicators and that they be allowed to identify 
indicators for which they will have the data in hand by the end of the 
planning or early implementation phase. Another commenter expressed 
concerns about the financial and time costs of collecting the required 
data.
    Discussion: Implementation applicants are required to describe how 
they collected data on the indicators described in Table 1 and Table 2 
in Final Implementation Priority 1 for the needs assessment. Paragraph 
(3) of Final Implementation Priority 1 requires applicants to describe 
how the data were used to ensure that children receive the appropriate 
services from the continuum of solutions. Implementation applicants 
must accurately describe their needs assessment and segmentation 
analysis process. Under the design of the Promise Neighborhoods 
program, applicants are expected to complete a rigorous needs 
assessment during the planning phase and collect baseline data during 
the first year of implementation. Data collection and management is a 
critical component of Final Implementation Priority 1, and we decline 
to loosen our requirements in this area as requested by the commenter.
    While we appreciate the costs associated with the required data 
collection, activities associated with data collection and management 
are eligible uses of Promise Neighborhoods grant funds. Moreover, we 
believe that the costs and time involved in the required data 
collection and management activities are necessary to the overall 
success of Promise Neighborhoods.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 39598]]

Implementation Priority 1

Experience, Lessons Learned, Capacity Building, and Data System
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that implementation applicants 
describe the progress they have made on developing their longitudinal 
data systems and linking their systems to school-based, LEA, and State 
data systems. One of the commenters recommended that the Department 
support the implementation of longitudinal data systems that build on 
existing systems, rather than the creation of new systems. In light of 
the challenges in integrating student-level data from multiple sources, 
especially while abiding by privacy laws and requirements, another 
commenter recommended that applicants explain their progress in 
integrating student-level data from multiple sources. One commenter 
requested information regarding the Department's expectations for 
having the applicant's longitudinal data system in operation at the 
time the application is submitted or a grant is awarded.
    Discussion: We expect that the data systems managed by 
implementation applicants will be at different stages of development. 
We agree with the commenters that applicants should have the 
flexibility to build upon an existing data system or create a new 
system, and are changing paragraph (4)(b) in the Implementation 
Priority 1 accordingly. We also believe that each implementation 
applicant should describe its progress in implementing its longitudinal 
data system, including the progress it has made in linking its system 
to school-based, LEA, and State data systems, and integrating student-
level data from multiple sources. We will revise Implementation 
Priority 1 accordingly.
    Changes: We have added language to paragraph (4)(b)(i) in 
Implementation Priority 1 to require an implementation applicant to 
describe progress toward developing and implementing its data system 
and in integrating student-level data from multiple sources. We also 
have added language to paragraph (4)(b)(ii) of this priority to require 
each implementation applicant to describe how it has linked or made 
progress to link its longitudinal data system to school-based, LEA, and 
State data systems.

Final Implementation Priority 4

Comprehensive Local Early Learning Network
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: After internal review, we noted that the NPP 
encouraged, but did not require the implementation plan for a high-
quality and comprehensive local early learning network to reflect input 
from a broad range of stakeholders. We intend to require the plan to 
reflect such input because we believe that diverse viewpoints will 
strengthen the final product.
    Changes: We changed ``should'' to ``must'' to specify that the 
implementation plan for a high-quality and comprehensive local early 
learning network is required to reflect input from a broad range of 
stakeholders.

Implementation Optional Supplemental Funding Opportunity

    Comment: Several commenters expressed their support for the 
Optional Supplemental Funding Opportunity from the Department of 
Justice (DOJ) and recommended that the Department require similar 
alignment with other programs and initiatives, both within the 
Department of Education and with other Federal agencies.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that it is important to 
create opportunities for alignment and funding opportunities among 
multiple programs and Federal agencies and will continue pursuing such 
opportunities in the future. Moreover, paragraph (4)(e) in the Planning 
Priority 1 and Implementation Priority 1 require applicants to describe 
their experience integrating funding streams from multiple sources. We 
believe this approach better supports organizations pursuing 
comprehensive, cradle-through-college-to-career strategies to 
revitalize neighborhoods.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the Optional 
Supplemental Funding Opportunity to provide more flexibility in an 
implementation applicant's public safety plans. Specifically, the 
commenter recommended allowing applicants to pursue public safety 
strategies that include prevention, intervention, enforcement, or a 
focus on the reentry of offenders, instead of the Department requiring 
all of these four strategies.
    Discussion: The Department anticipates providing additional details 
regarding the Optional Supplemental Funding Opportunity in the NIA. The 
NIA will likely include further direction to applicants regarding the 
areas to be addressed in and the uses of funds to pursue a 
comprehensive public safety strategy, including whether or not an 
applicant must address all four strategies.
    Changes: None.

Requirements

Planning and Implementation Grants Requirements

Eligible Applicants
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department allow all 
eligible entities, not only FY 2010 Promise Neighborhoods planning 
grantees, to submit applications for implementation grants.
    Discussion: Eligible applicants for implementation grants are not 
restricted to grantees that received FY 2010 Promise Neighborhoods 
planning grants. Applicants that did not compete for or receive a 
planning grant may compete for an implementation grant alongside FY 
2010 planning grantees. While all eligible entities will be able to 
apply for implementation grants, communities that have effectively 
carried out the planning activities described in the FY 2010 notice 
inviting applications, whether independently or through a Promise 
Neighborhoods planning grant, are likely to be well-positioned with the 
plan, commitments, data, and demonstrated organizational leadership and 
capacity necessary to develop a quality application for an 
implementation grant.
    Changes: None.

Other Requirements

    Comment: One commenter recommended limiting the indirect cost rates 
that Promise Neighborhoods grantees can include in their budgets to 20 
percent or less of the grant amount.
    Discussion: The Department does not believe it is necessary to 
adopt the commenters' suggestion because it is not aware of any 
evidence that there is a link between indirect cost rates that are 20 
percent or higher and problems with grantee performance for the Promise 
Neighborhoods program, or any other discretionary grant program 
administered by this agency. Federal agencies, including the 
Department, carefully negotiate indirect cost rates with grantees and 
believe that the negotiated rates are appropriate. Thus, grantees are 
allowed to spend up to that negotiated amount.
    Changes: None.

Matching

Planning and Implementation Grants Matching

    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department provide more 
information about potential match sources, including eligible and 
ineligible sources.
    Discussion: Additional information on matching funds, including in-
kind

[[Page 39599]]

contributions, can be found in the Department's regulations at 34 CFR 
74.23 and 80.24. In addition, the Department expects to issue a 
``frequently asked questions'' guidance document that will provide 
information on requirements, such as the matching funds requirement.
    Changes: None.

Implementation Grants Matching

    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department reduce the 
private match requirement for implementation applicants proposing to 
serve rural and tribal communities from 10 percent to 5 percent.
    Discussion: The Department's decision that implementation 
applicants demonstrate a private-sector match of at least 10 percent of 
the total amount of Federal funds requested is based on the 
determination that this amount of private support is a strong indicator 
of the potential for sustaining the proposed project over time. 
However, the Department understands the concerns raised by the 
commenters and points out that we will permit applicants to count in-
kind contributions towards the 10 percent private sector matching 
requirement and to request a waiver of the matching requirement in the 
most exceptional circumstances. In addition, rural and tribal 
implementation applicants are only required to provide half the amount 
of total matching funds (50 percent versus 100 percent).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department reconsider the 
100 percent match requirement for implementation grants and instead 
consider a scaled approach that would increase the matching percentage 
required over time.
    Discussion: The implementation grant match may include resources 
(cash or in-kind donations) from Federal, State, and local public 
agencies, philanthropic organizations, private businesses, or 
individuals. The Department believes that this allows sufficient 
flexibility for applicants to secure the full 100 percent match. We 
also note that rural and tribal applicants for implementation grants 
are only required to obtain a 50 percent match.
    Changes: None.

Definitions

Planning and Implementation Grants Definitions

Education Programs
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: After internal review, we believe the Department must 
be more explicit about the requirement that the standards with which 
high-quality early learning programs must align are ``State early 
learning and development'' standards, as appropriate, to provide 
clarity and consistency for grantees.
    Changes: We are revising paragraph (1) of the definition of 
education programs to clarify that high-quality early learning programs 
must align with ``State early learning and development'' standards, as 
appropriate.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require 
applicants to describe how solutions will help young people through 
college and into their career.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the end of the cradle-
through-college-to-career solutions is a critical area of focus for 
Promise Neighborhoods. This is especially true considering the 
challenges faced by many first-generation college students from 
distressed neighborhoods and in light of the Administration's goal that 
the United States lead the world in the proportion of college graduates 
by 2020. Therefore, we are revising the definition of education 
programs to focus on the transition through college and into the 
workforce.
    Changes: We have added a new paragraph (f) in the definition of 
education programs that specifies that education programs include 
programs that support college students, including CWD and ELs, from the 
neighborhood to transition to college, persist in their academic 
studies, graduate, and transition into the workforce.
Family and Community Supports
    Comment: Several commenters recommended changing the definition of 
family and community supports to ensure that there is a more extensive 
and systemic role for family and community engagement in education.
    Discussion: We agree that strategies for family and community 
engagement in education must be integrated throughout the work of 
Promise Neighborhoods and, therefore, are revising the definition of 
family and community supports to make this clear.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (4) in the definition of family 
and community supports by adding language stating that family and 
community supports includes family and community engagement programs 
that are systemic, integrated, sustainable, and continue through a 
student's transition from K-12 school to college and career. In 
addition, we have added language to specify that these programs also 
include programs that support the engagement of families in early 
learning programs and services; programs that provide guidance on how 
to navigate through a complex school system and advocacy for more and 
improved learning opportunities; and programs that promote 
collaboration with educators and community organizations to improve 
opportunities for healthy development and learning.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that applicants partner with 
organizations, such as television and radio stations that are able to 
distribute information about solutions through the Promise 
Neighborhoods.
    Discussion: The definition of family and community supports 
includes programs that provide for the use of such community resources 
as libraries, museums, and local businesses to support improved student 
education outcomes. We agree with the commenter and will include 
television and radio stations as additional examples of community 
resources that can be used to support and distribute information about 
the Promise Neighborhood efforts and are making this change to the 
definition of family and community supports.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of family and community 
supports to include local television and radio stations as additional 
examples of community resources that can support and align with family 
and community engagement programs.
Indian Tribe
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department expand the 
definition of Indian tribe to include additional Alaskan ``tribes.''
    Discussion: In the NPP, the Department proposed to define the term 
Indian tribe to include any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, 
nation, pueblo, village or community that the Secretary of the Interior 
acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe, 25 U.S.C. 479a and 479a-1. 
This proposed definition was consistent with the definition we used in 
the 2010 Promise Neighborhoods competition. However, we agree with the 
commenter that this definition should include Alaskan tribes and, for 
this reason, are revising the definition to include any Alaska Native 
village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established 
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. 1601.
    Changes: We have changed the definition of Indian tribe to include: 
Any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined 
in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 
43 U.S.C. 1601, et seq., that is recognized as eligible for the special 
programs and

[[Page 39600]]

services provided by the United States to Indians because of their 
status as Indians. Also, we now specify in the definition of Indian 
tribe that the term ``Indian'' means a member of an Indian tribe.
Neighborhood
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department expand a 
Promise Neighborhood to include ``affinity groups.''
    Discussion: The Promise Neighborhoods program is focused on 
geographically defined areas. Although we provide flexibility in how 
applicants define geographically-defined areas, which may be 
noncontiguous, geographical proximity and the need to serve a high 
percentage of children and youth within the geographic areas are 
important components of the program. Affinity groups, which we 
interpret to mean a group of people having a common interest or goal or 
acting together for a specific purpose, may not always be 
geographically-defined.
    Changes: None.
Neighborhood Assets
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise the 
definition of neighborhood assets so that the reference to ``social 
assets'' specifically includes parents and families.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that parents and families are 
important neighborhood assets. We did not intend to exclude them but 
merely implied their inclusion in ``community.'' However, we believe 
that specifically including parents and families in this definition 
will emphasize their importance as examples of social assets and are 
making this change in the definition of neighborhood assets.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (5) in the definition of 
neighborhood assets to include ``partnerships with youth, parents, and 
families'' as an example of social assets that establish well-
functioning social interactions.
Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department broaden the 
definition of persistently lowest-achieving schools to include the 
bottom 10 percent of lowest-performing schools.
    Discussion: The definition of persistently lowest achieving schools 
is consistent with the definition used in the Department's RTT and SIG 
programs. We believe that using the same definition across these 
programs ensures that the comprehensive education programs implemented 
in Promise Neighborhoods are consistent with efforts to reform low-
performing schools under other programs supported by the Department. 
Additionally, an applicant may also propose to serve, through a Promise 
Neighborhoods grant, low-performing schools (as defined in the notice) 
that are not also persistently lowest-achieving schools, which could 
include a school in the neighborhood that is in the bottom 10 percent 
of lowest performing schools in the State.
    Changes: None.
School Climate Needs Assessment
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department modify the 
definition of school climate needs assessment to include one or more 
needs assessment tools. In particular the commenter requested that we 
revise the definition to explicitly require the needs assessment to 
assess the needs of different stakeholders, including students, staff, 
parents, families, and the community.
    Discussion: The Department recognizes the potential difficulty in 
obtaining the views of multiple stakeholders regarding school climate 
using a single tool. However, we believe that requiring applicants to 
include students, staff, parents, families, and the community in its 
needs assessment, as recommended by the commenter, would significantly 
increase implementation costs. This increase in costs would result from 
additional costs associated with ensuring consistency in the use of the 
tool across Promise Neighborhoods sites. Applicants may choose to add 
stakeholders and tools to perform the school climate needs assessment, 
but at a minimum must use an evaluation tool that measures the extent 
to which the school setting promotes or inhibits academic performance 
by collecting perception data from individuals, which could include 
students, staff, or families.
    Changes: None.
Strong Evidence
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the definitions of 
strong evidence and moderate evidence, as well as the reference to best 
available evidence.
    Discussion: The tiered levels of evidence reflect the Department's 
efforts to balance the need to cultivate new programs with support for 
existing programs that have proven to be effective.
    Changes: None.

Selection Criteria

General--Selection Criteria

    Comment: One commenter recommended that we reorganize the selection 
criteria categories to include project design, schools, neighborhood 
experience, data and indicators, funding, and project significance.
    Discussion: Each Promise Neighborhood project must have several 
core features: Significant need in the neighborhood for the grant 
services, a strategy to build a continuum of solutions with strong 
schools at the center, and the capacity to achieve results. We believe 
the selection criteria are best organized to align with these core 
features. Thus, the ``need for project'' criterion aligns with the 
absolute priority requirement that applicants describe the need in the 
neighborhood. The ``quality of project design'' and ``quality of 
project services'' criteria align with the absolute priority 
requirement that applicants describe a strategy to build a continuum of 
solutions with strong schools at the center. The ``quality of the 
management plan'' criterion aligns with the absolute priority 
requirement that applicants describe their capacity to achieve results.
    Changes: None.

Planning and Implementation Grants Selection Criterion

Planning and Implementation Grants Selection Criterion 4--Quality of 
Management Plan

    Comment: One commenter recommended that the quality of management 
plan criterion be revised to require applicants to describe how the 
applicant will hold partners accountable for outcomes.
    Discussion: We agree that holding partners accountable for 
performance is critical to realizing the program's vision that all 
children and youth growing up in Promise Neighborhoods have access to 
great schools and strong systems of family and community support that 
will prepare them to attain an excellent education and successfully 
transition to college and a career. Therefore, we are changing the 
criterion accordingly.
    Changes: We have revised the quality of management plan selection 
criterion paragraph (b)(iii) for planning and implementation applicants 
to require applicants to describe in their memorandum of understanding 
``a system for holding partners accountable.'' A similar change was 
made in paragraph (4)(d) of Final Planning Priority 1 and Final 
Implementation Priority 1.

[[Page 39601]]

Implementation Grants Selection Criteria

Implementation Grants Selection Criterion 2--Quality of Project Design

    Comment: Two commenters recommended that the selection criteria 
emphasize the quality and likely success of the plan, including how an 
applicant included neighborhood residents in its development.
    Discussion: The selection criteria for implementation grants 
address the quality and success of the planning process, which includes 
resident engagement. Specifically, peer reviewers will use selection 
criterion (2)(b)(iv), quality of the project design, to judge 
applicants' experiences in integrating high-quality programs into the 
continuum of solutions, including during the planning process. In 
addition, peer reviewers will use selection criterion (4)(b)(i), 
quality of the management plan, to judge the applicants' work with 
neighborhood residents. Therefore, we do not believe a change in the 
selection criteria, as recommended by the commenters, is necessary.
    Changes: None.

Implementation Grants Selection Criterion 3--Quality of Project 
Services

    Comment: Two commenters recommended that implementation applicants 
describe their goals for improvement, as measured by the indicators.
    Discussion: We agree that Promise Neighborhoods should establish 
goals for improving outcomes for children and youth over time and are 
revising the selection criterion for quality of project services, as 
well as Implementation Grant Priority 1 so that there is a clear focus 
on an applicant's improvement in achieving results as measured by the 
required indicators.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (3)(b)(iii) in the quality of 
project services selection criterion by replacing the word ``changes'' 
with the word ``improvement.'' Under paragraph (3)(b)(iii) we measure 
the extent to which the applicant describes clear, annual goals for 
growth on indicators. We also have revised Implementation Grant 
Priority 1, paragraph (3)(c) to require applicants to describe how it 
will collect clear, annual goals for growth on indicators.

Implementation Grants Selection Criterion 4--Quality of Management Plan

    Comment: One commenter requested clarification about how an 
applicant's efforts to sustain and scale-up its program will be 
evaluated under the selection criteria.
    Discussion: Applicants are required to describe their experience, 
lessons learned, and a plan to build capacity in several areas, 
including creating and strengthening formal and informal partnerships 
to sustain and scale up what works. Peer reviewers will consider an 
applicant's description of its partnerships to sustain and scale up as 
part of the quality of the management plan under paragraph (4)(b)(iii) 
of the selection criteria.
    Changes: None.

Final Priorities

Final Planning Grant Priority 1 (Absolute): Proposal To Develop a 
Promise Neighborhood Plan

    To meet this priority, an applicant must submit a proposal for how 
it will plan to create a Promise Neighborhood. This proposal must 
describe the need in the neighborhood, a strategy to build a continuum 
of solutions, and the applicant's capacity to achieve results. 
Specifically, an applicant must--
    (1) Describe the geographically defined area \1\ (neighborhood) to 
be served and the level of distress in that area based on indicators of 
need and other relevant indicators. Applicants may propose to serve 
multiple, non-contiguous geographically defined areas. In cases where 
target areas are not contiguous, the applicant must explain its 
rationale for including non-contiguous areas;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the purposes of this notice, the Department uses the 
terms ``geographic area'' and ``neighborhood'' interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Describe how it will plan to build a continuum of solutions 
based on the best available evidence including, where available, strong 
or moderate evidence (as defined in this notice) designed to 
significantly improve educational outcomes and to support the healthy 
development and well-being of children and youth in the neighborhood. 
The applicant must also describe how it will build community support 
for and involvement in the development of the plan. The plan must be 
designed to ensure that over time, children and youth in the 
neighborhood who attend the target school or schools have access to a 
complete continuum of solutions, and ensure, as appropriate, that 
children and youth in the neighborhood who do not attend the target 
school or schools have access to solutions within the continuum of 
solutions. The plan must also ensure that students not living in the 
neighborhood who attend the target school or schools have access to 
solutions within the continuum of solutions.
    The success of the applicant's strategy to build a continuum of 
solutions will be based on the results of the project, as measured 
against the project indicators defined in this notice and described in 
Table 1 and Table 2. In its strategy, the applicant must describe how 
it will determine which solutions within the continuum of solutions to 
implement, and must include--
    (a) High-quality early learning programs and services designed to 
improve outcomes across multiple domains of early learning (as defined 
in this notice) for children from birth through third grade;
    (b) Ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive education reforms that 
are linked to improved educational outcomes for children and youth in 
preschool through the 12th grade. Public schools served through the 
grant may include persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in 
this notice) or low-performing schools (as defined in this notice) that 
are not also persistently lowest-achieving schools. An applicant (or 
one or more of its partners) may serve an effective school or schools 
(as defined in this notice) but only if the applicant (or one or more 
of its partners) also serves at least one low-performing school (as 
defined in this notice) or persistently lowest-achieving school (as 
defined in this notice). An applicant must identify in its application 
the public school or schools that would be served and the current 
status of reforms in the school or schools, including, if applicable, 
the type of intervention model being implemented. In cases where an 
applicant operates a school or partners with a school that does not 
serve all students in the neighborhood, the applicant must partner with 
at least one additional school or schools that also serves students in 
the neighborhood. An applicant proposing to work with a persistently 
lowest-achieving school must include as part of its strategy one of the 
four school intervention models (turnaround model, restart model, 
school closure, or transformation model) described in Appendix C of the 
Race to the Top (RTT) notice inviting applications for new awards for 
FY 2010 that was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2009 
(74 FR 59836, 59866).
    An applicant proposing to work with a low-performing school must 
include, as part of its strategy, ambitious, rigorous, and 
comprehensive interventions to assist, augment, or replace schools, 
which may include implementing one of the four school

[[Page 39602]]

intervention models, or may include another model of sufficient 
ambition, rigor, and comprehensiveness to significantly improve 
academic and other outcomes for students. An applicant proposing to 
work with a low-performing school must include an intervention that 
addresses the effectiveness of teachers and leaders and the school's 
use of time and resources, which may include increased learning time 
(as defined in this notice);

    Note regarding school reform strategies: So as not to penalize 
an applicant for proposing to work with an LEA that has implemented 
rigorous reform strategies prior to the publication of this notice, 
an applicant is not required to propose a new reform strategy in 
place of an existing reform strategy in order to be eligible for a 
Promise Neighborhoods planning grant. For example, an LEA might have 
begun to implement improvement activities that meet many, but not 
all, of the elements of a transformation model of school 
intervention. In this case, the applicant could propose, as part of 
its Promise Neighborhood strategy, to work with the LEA as the LEA 
continues with its reforms.

    (c) Programs that prepare students to be college- and career-ready; 
and
    (d) Family and community supports (as defined in this notice).
    To the extent feasible and appropriate, the applicant must 
describe, in its plan, how the applicant and its partners will leverage 
and integrate high-quality programs, related public and private 
investments, and existing neighborhood assets into the continuum of 
solutions.
    An applicant must also describe in its plan how it will identify 
Federal, State, or local policies, regulations, or other requirements 
that would impede its ability to achieve its goals and how it will 
report on those impediments to the Department and other relevant 
agencies.
    As part of the description of how it will plan to build a continuum 
of solutions, the applicant must describe how it will participate in, 
organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice (as 
defined in this notice) for Promise Neighborhoods.
    (3) Specify how it will conduct a comprehensive needs assessment 
and segmentation analysis of children and youth in the neighborhood 
during the planning grant project period and explain how it will use 
this needs assessment and segmentation analysis to determine the 
children with the highest needs and ensure that those children receive 
the appropriate services from the continuum of solutions. In this 
explanation of how it will use the needs assessment and segmentation 
analysis, the applicant must identify and describe in the application 
both the educational indicators and the family and community support 
indicators that the applicant will use in conducting the needs 
assessment during the planning year. During the planning year, the 
applicant must--
    (a) Collect data for the educational indicators listed in Table 1 
and use them as both program and project indicators;
    (b) Collect data for the family and community support indicators in 
Table 2 and use them as program indicators; and
    (c) Collect data for unique family and community support 
indicators, developed by the applicant, that align with the goals and 
objectives of projects and use them as project indicators or use the 
indicators in Table 2 as project indicators.

    Note: Planning grant applicants are not required to propose 
solutions in their applications; however, they are required to 
describe how they will identify solutions, including the use of 
available evidence, during the planning year that will result in 
improvements on the project indicators.


 Table 1--Education Indicators and Results They Are Intended to Measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Indicator                             Result
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- and % of children birth to      Children enter kindergarten
 kindergarten entry who have a place where   ready to succeed in school.
 they usually go, other than an emergency
 room, when they are sick or in need of
 advice about their health.
-- and % of three-year-olds and
 children in kindergarten who demonstrate
 at the beginning of the program or school
 year age-appropriate functioning across
 multiple domains of early learning (as
 defined in this notice) as determined
 using developmentally appropriate early
 learning measures (as defined in this
 notice).
-- & % of children, from birth to
 kindergarten entry, participating in
 center-based or formal home-based early
 learning settings or programs, which may
 include Early Head Start, Head Start,
 child care, or preschool.
-- & % of students at or above     Students are proficient in
 grade level according to State              core academic subjects.
 mathematics and reading or language arts
 assessments in at least the grades
 required by the ESEA (3rd through 8th and
 once in high school).
--Attendance rate of students in 6th, 7th,  Students successfully
 8th, and 9th grade.                         transition from middle
                                             school grades to high
                                             school.
--Graduation rate (as defined in this       Youth graduate from high
 notice).                                    school.
-- & % of Promise Neighborhood     High school graduates obtain
 students who graduate with a regular high   a postsecondary degree,
 school diploma, as defined in 34 CFR        certification, or
 200.19(b)(1)(iv), and obtain                credential.
 postsecondary degrees, vocational
 certificates, or other industry-
 recognized certifications or credentials
 without the need for remediation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 2--Family and Community Support Indicators and Results They Are
                          Intended To Measure:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Indicator                             Result
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- & % of children who             Students are healthy.
 participate in at least 60 minutes of
 moderate to vigorous physical activity
 daily; and.
-- & % of children who consume
 five or more servings of fruits and
 vegetables daily; or.
--possible third indicator, to be
 determined (TBD) by applicant.
-- & % of students who feel safe   Students feel safe at school
 at school and traveling to and from         and in their community.
 school, as measured by a school climate
 needs assessment (as defined in this
 notice); or.
--possible second indicator, TBD by
 applicant.
--Student mobility rate (as defined in      Students live in stable
 this notice); or.                           communities.
--possible second indicator, TBD by
 applicant.

[[Page 39603]]

 
--For children birth to kindergarten        Families and community
 entry, the  and % of parents or    members support learning in
 family members who report that they read    Promise Neighborhood
 to their child three or more times a        schools.
 week;
--For children in kindergarten through the
 eighth grade, the  and % of
 parents or family members who report
 encouraging their child to read books
 outside of school; and
--For children in the ninth through
 twelfth grades, the  and % of
 parents or family members who report
 talking with their child about the
 importance of college and career; or
--possible fourth indicator TBD by
 applicant.
-- & % of students who have        Students have access to 21st
 school and home access (and % of the day    century learning tools.
 they have access) to broadband internet
 (as defined in this notice) and a
 connected computing device; or
--possible second indicator TBD by
 applicant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note: The indicators in Table 1 and Table 2 are not intended to 
limit an applicant from collecting and using data for additional 
indicators. Examples of additional indicators are--
    (i) The  and % of children who participate in high-
quality learning activities during out-of-school hours or in the 
hours after the traditional school day ends;
    (ii) The  and % of children who are suspended or 
receive discipline referrals during the school year;
    (iii) The share of housing stock in the geographically defined 
area that is rent-protected, publicly assisted, or targeted for 
redevelopment with local, State, or Federal funds; and
    (iv) The  and % of children who are homeless or in 
foster care and who have an assigned adult advocate.


    Note: While the Department believes there are many programmatic 
benefits of collecting data on every child in the proposed 
neighborhood, the Department will consider requests to collect data 
on only a sample of the children in the neighborhood for some 
indicators so long as the applicant describes in its application how 
it would ensure the sample would be representative of the children 
in the neighborhood.

    (4) Describe the experience and lessons learned, and describe how 
the applicant will build the capacity of its management team and 
project director in all of the following areas:
    (a) Working with the neighborhood and its residents, including 
parents and families that have children or other family members with 
disabilities or ELs, as well as with the school(s) described in 
paragraph (2) of this priority; the LEA in which the school or schools 
are located; Federal, State, and local government leaders; and other 
service providers.
    (b) Collecting, analyzing, and using data for decision-making, 
learning, continuous improvement, and accountability. The applicant 
must describe--
    (i) Its proposal to plan to build, adapt, or expand a longitudinal 
data system that integrates student-level data from multiple sources in 
order to measure progress on educational and family and community 
support indicators for all children in the neighborhood, disaggregated 
by the subgroups listed in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA;
    (ii) How the applicant will link the longitudinal data system to 
school-based, LEA, and State data systems; make the data accessible to 
parents, families, community residents, program partners, researchers, 
and evaluators while abiding by Federal, State, and other privacy laws 
and requirements; and manage and maintain the system;
    (iii) How the applicant will use rapid-time (as defined in this 
notice) data both in the planning year and, once the Promise 
Neighborhood strategy is implemented, for continuous program 
improvement; and
    (iv) How the applicant will document the planning process, 
including by describing lessons learned and best practices;
    (c) Creating formal and informal partnerships, for such purposes as 
providing solutions along the continuum of solutions and attaining 
resources to sustain and scale up what works. An applicant, as part of 
its application, must submit a preliminary memorandum of understanding, 
signed by each organization or agency with which it would partner in 
planning the proposed Promise Neighborhood. The preliminary memorandum 
of understanding must describe--
    (i) Each partner's financial and programmatic commitment; and
    (ii) How each partner's existing vision, theory of change (as 
defined in this notice), theory of action (as defined in this notice), 
and existing activities align with those of the proposed Promise 
Neighborhood strategy;
    (d) The governance structure proposed for the Promise Neighborhood, 
including a system for holding partners accountable, how the eligible 
entity's governing board or advisory board is representative of the 
geographic area proposed to be served (as defined in this notice), and 
how residents of the geographic area would have an active role in the 
organization's decision-making; and
    (e) Securing and integrating funding streams from multiple public 
and private sources from the Federal, State, and local level. Examples 
of public funds include Federal resources from the U.S. Department of 
Education, such as the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program 
and title I of the ESEA, and from other Federal agencies, such as the 
U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban 
Development, Justice, Labor, and Treasury.
    (5) Describe the applicant's commitment to work with the 
Department, and with a national evaluator for Promise Neighborhoods or 
another entity designated by the Department, to ensure that data 
collection and program design are consistent with plans to conduct a 
rigorous national evaluation of the Promise Neighborhoods program and 
of specific solutions and strategies pursued by individual grantees. 
This commitment must include, but need not be limited to--
    (a) Ensuring that, through memoranda of understanding with 
appropriate entities, the national evaluator and the Department have 
access to relevant program and project data (e.g., administrative data 
and program and project indicator data), including data on a quarterly 
basis if requested by the Department;
    (b) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, an 
evaluation strategy, including identifying a credible comparison group; 
and
    (c) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, a plan 
for identifying and collecting reliable and valid baseline data for 
both program participants and a designated comparison group of non-
participants.

Final Planning Grant Priority 2 (Absolute): Promise Neighborhoods in 
Rural Communities

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to develop a plan 
for

[[Page 39604]]

implementing a Promise Neighborhood strategy that (1) meets all of the 
requirements in Absolute Priority 1; and (2) proposes to serve one or 
more rural communities only.

Final Planning Grant Priority 3 (Absolute): Promise Neighborhoods in 
Tribal Communities

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to develop a plan 
for implementing a Promise Neighborhood strategy that (1) meets all of 
the requirements in Absolute Priority 1; and (2) proposes to serve one 
or more Indian tribes (as defined in this notice).

Final Planning Grant Priority 4: Comprehensive Local Early Learning 
Network

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to develop a plan 
to expand, enhance, or modify an existing network of early learning 
programs and services to ensure that they are high-quality and 
comprehensive for children from birth through the third grade. The plan 
must also ensure that the network establishes a high standard of 
quality across early learning settings and is designed to improve 
outcomes across multiple domains of early learning. Distinct from the 
early learning solutions described in paragraph (2) of Absolute 
Priority 1, this priority supports proposals to develop plans that 
integrate various early learning services and programs in the 
neighborhood in order to enhance the quality of such services and 
programs, i.e., school-based early learning programs; locally- or 
State-funded preschool programs; Early Head Start and Head Start; the 
local child care resource and referral agency, if applicable; 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) services and 
programs; services through private providers; home visiting programs; 
public and private child care providers that are licensed by the State, 
including public and private providers and center-based care; and 
family, friend, or neighbor care in the Promise Neighborhood.
    The local early learning network must address or incorporate 
ongoing State-level efforts regarding the major components of high-
quality early learning programs and services, such as State early 
learning and development standards, program quality standards, 
comprehensive assessment systems, workforce and professional 
development systems, health promotion, family and community engagement, 
a coordinated data infrastructure, and a method of measuring, 
monitoring, evaluating, and improving program quality. For example, an 
applicant might address how the Promise Neighborhoods project will use 
the State's early learning standards, as applicable, and the Head Start 
Child Development and Early Learning Framework (Framework), as 
applicable, to define the expectations of what children should know and 
be able to do before entering kindergarten. The Framework is available 
on the Office of Head Start's Web site at: http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/ecdh/eecd/Assessment/Child%20Outcomes/HS_Revised_Child_Outcomes_Framework.pdf. Similarly, an applicant that 
addresses this priority must discuss, where applicable, how it would 
align with the State's Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), as 
applicable, professional development and workforce infrastructure, and 
other appropriate State efforts. In addition, the proposal must 
describe how the project will provide, to the extent practicable, early 
learning opportunities on multiple platforms (e.g., public television, 
web-based) and in multiple locations (e.g., at home, at school, and at 
other community locations.)

    Note regarding accessibility of early learning programs and 
services: These early learning opportunities must be fully 
accessible to individuals with disabilities, including individuals 
who are blind or have low vision; otherwise, the plans must describe 
how accommodations or modifications will be provided to ensure that 
the benefits of the early learning opportunities are provided to 
children and youth with disabilities in an equally effective and 
equally integrated manner.

    The proposal to develop a plan for a high-quality and comprehensive 
local early learning network must describe the governance structure and 
how the applicant will use the planning year to plan solutions that 
address the major components of high-quality early learning programs 
and services as well as establish goals, strategies, and benchmarks to 
provide early learning programs and services that result in improved 
outcomes across multiple domains of early learning (as defined in this 
notice). An applicant addressing this priority must designate an 
individual responsible for overseeing and integrating the early 
learning initiatives and must include a resume or position description 
and other supporting documentation to demonstrate that the individual 
designated, or individual hired to carry out those responsibilities, 
possesses the appropriate State certification, and has experience and 
expertise in managing and administering high-quality early learning 
programs, including in coordinating across various high-quality early 
learning programs and services.

Final Planning Grant Priority 5: Quality Internet Connectivity

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to develop a plan 
to ensure that almost all students in the geographic area proposed to 
be served have broadband Internet access (as defined in this notice) at 
home and at school, the knowledge and skills to use broadband Internet 
access effectively, and a connected computing device to support 
schoolwork.

Final Planning Grant Priority 6: Arts and Humanities

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to develop a plan 
to include opportunities for children and youth to experience and 
participate actively in the arts and humanities in their community so 
as to broaden, enrich, and enliven the educational, cultural, and civic 
experiences available in the neighborhood. Applicants may propose to 
develop plans for offering these activities in school and in out-of-
school settings and at any time during the calendar year.

Final Planning Grant Priority 7: Quality Affordable Housing

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to serve 
geographic areas that were the subject of an affordable housing 
transformation pursuant to a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant 
awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development during 
FY 2009 or later years. To be eligible under this priority, the 
applicant must either (1) be able to demonstrate that it has received a 
Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant or (2) provide, in its 
application, a memorandum of understanding between it and a partner 
that is a recipient of Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant. The 
memorandum must indicate a commitment on the part of the applicant and 
partner to coordinate planning and align resources to the greatest 
extent practicable.

Final Planning Grant Priority 8: Family Engagement in Learning Through 
Adult Education

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to develop a plan 
that is coordinated with adult education providers serving neighborhood 
residents, such as those funded through the Adult Education and Family 
Literacy Act, as amended. Coordinated services may include adult basic 
and secondary education and programs that provide training and 
opportunities for

[[Page 39605]]

family members and other members of the community to support student 
learning and establish high expectations for student educational 
achievement. Examples of services and programs include preparation for 
the General Education Development (GED) test; English literacy, family 
literacy, and work-based literacy training; or other training that 
prepares adults for postsecondary education and careers or supports 
adult engagement in the educational success of children and youth in 
the neighborhood.

Final Implementation Grant Priorities

Final Implementation Grant Priority 1 (Absolute): Submission of Promise 
Neighborhood Plan

    To meet this priority, an applicant must submit a plan to create a 
Promise Neighborhood. The plan must describe the need in the 
neighborhood, a strategy to build a continuum of solutions, and the 
applicant's capacity to achieve results. Specifically, an applicant 
must--
    (1) Describe the geographically defined area \2\ (neighborhood) to 
be served and the level of distress in that area based on indicators of 
need and other relevant indicators. The statement of need in the 
neighborhood must be based, in part, on results of a comprehensive 
needs assessment and segmentation analysis (as defined in this notice). 
Applicants may propose to serve multiple, non-contiguous geographically 
defined areas. In cases where target areas are not contiguous, the 
applicant must explain its rationale for including non-contiguous 
areas;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For the purposes of this notice, the Department uses the 
terms ``geographic area'' and ``neighborhood'' interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Describe the applicant's strategy for building a continuum of 
solutions over time that addresses neighborhood challenges as 
identified in the needs assessment and segmentation analysis. The 
applicant must also describe how it has built community support for and 
involvement in the development of the plan. The continuum of solutions 
must be based on the best available evidence including, where 
available, strong or moderate evidence (as defined in this notice), and 
be designed to significantly improve educational outcomes and to 
support the healthy development and well-being of children and youth in 
the neighborhood. The strategy must be designed to ensure that over 
time, a greater proportion of children and youth in the neighborhood 
who attend the target school or schools have access to a complete 
continuum of solutions, and must ensure that over time, a greater 
proportion of children and youth in the neighborhood who do not attend 
the target school or schools have access to solutions within the 
continuum of solutions. The strategy must also ensure that, over time, 
students not living in the neighborhood who attend the target school or 
schools have access to solutions within the continuum of solutions.
    The success of the applicant's strategy to build a continuum of 
solutions will be based on the results of project, as measured against 
the project indicators as defined in this notice and described in Table 
1 and Table 2. In its strategy, the applicant must propose clear and 
measurable annual goals during the grant period against which 
improvements will be measured using the indicators. The strategy must--
    (a) Identify each solution that the project will implement within 
the proposed continuum of solutions, and must include--
    (i) High-quality early learning programs and services designed to 
improve outcomes across multiple domains of early learning (as defined 
in this notice) for children from birth through third grade;
    (ii) Ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive education reforms that 
are linked to improved educational outcomes for children and youth in 
preschool through the 12th grade. Public schools served through the 
grant may include persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in 
this notice) or low-performing schools (as defined in this notice) that 
are not also persistently lowest-achieving schools. An applicant (or 
one or more of its partners) may serve an effective school or schools 
(as defined in this notice) but only if the applicant (or one or more 
of its partners) also serves at least one low-performing school (as 
defined in this notice) or persistently lowest-achieving school (as 
defined in this notice). An applicant must identify in its application 
the public school or schools it would serve and describe the current 
status of reforms in the school or schools, including, if applicable, 
the type of intervention model being implemented. In cases where an 
applicant operates a school or partners with a school that does not 
serve all students in the neighborhood, the applicant must partner with 
at least one additional school that also serves students in the 
neighborhood. An applicant proposing to work with a persistently 
lowest-achieving school must include in its strategy one of the four 
school intervention models (turnaround model, restart model, school 
closure, or transformation model) described in Appendix C of the Race 
to the Top (RTT) notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 
2010 that was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2009 
(74 FR 59836, 59866).
    An applicant proposing to work with a low-performing school must 
include in its strategy ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive 
interventions to assist, augment, or replace schools, which may include 
implementing one of the four school intervention models, or may include 
another model of sufficient ambition, rigor, and comprehensiveness to 
significantly improve academic and other outcomes for students. An 
applicant proposing to work with a low-performing school must include 
in its strategy an intervention that addresses the effectiveness of 
teachers and leaders and the school's use of time and resources, which 
may include increased learning time (as defined in this notice);

    Note regarding school reform strategies:  So as not to penalize 
an applicant for proposing to work with an LEA that has implemented 
rigorous reform strategies prior to the publication of this notice, 
an applicant is not required to propose a new reform strategy in 
place of an existing reform strategy in order to be eligible for a 
Promise Neighborhoods implementation grant. For example, an LEA 
might have begun to implement improvement activities that meet many, 
but not all, of the elements of a transformation model of school 
intervention. In this case, the applicant could propose, as part of 
its Promise Neighborhood strategy, to work with the LEA as the LEA 
continues with its reforms.

    (iii) Programs that prepare students to be college- and career-
ready; and
    (iv) Family and community supports (as defined in this notice).
    To the extent feasible and appropriate, the applicant must 
describe, in its plan, how the applicant and its partners will leverage 
and integrate high-quality programs, related public and private 
investments, and existing neighborhood assets into the continuum of 
solutions. An applicant must also include in its application an 
appendix that summarizes the evidence supporting each proposed solution 
and describes how the solution is based on the best available evidence, 
including, where available, strong or moderate evidence (as defined in 
this notice). An applicant must also describe in the appendix how and 
when--during the implementation process--the solution will be 
implemented; the partners that will participate in the implementation 
of each solution (in any case in which the applicant does not implement 
the solution directly); the estimated per-child cost, including 
administrative costs, to implement each solution; the

[[Page 39606]]

estimated number of children, by age, in the neighborhood who will be 
served by each solution and how a segmentation analysis was used to 
target the children and youth to be served; and the source of funds 
that will be used to pay for each solution. In the description of the 
estimated number of children to be served, the applicant must include 
the percentage of all children of the same age group within the 
neighborhood proposed to be served with each solution, and the annual 
goals required to increase the proportion of children served to reach 
scale over time.
    An applicant must also describe in its plan how it will identify 
Federal, State, or local policies, regulations, or other requirements 
that would impede its ability to achieve its goals and how it will 
report on those impediments to the Department and other relevant 
agencies.
    As appropriate, considering the time and urgency required to 
dramatically improve outcomes of children and youth in our most 
distressed neighborhoods and to transform those neighborhoods, 
applicants must establish both short-term and long-term goals to 
measure progress.
    As part of the description of its strategy to build a continuum of 
solutions, the applicant must also describe how it will participate in, 
organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for 
Promise Neighborhoods;
    (b) Establish clear, annual goals for evaluating progress in 
improving systems, such as changes in policies, environments, or 
organizations that affect children and youth in the neighborhood. 
Examples of systems change could include a new school district policy 
to measure the results of family and community support programs, a new 
funding resource to support the Promise Neighborhoods strategy, or a 
cross-sector collaboration at the city level to break down municipal 
agency ``silos'' and partner with local philanthropic organizations to 
drive achievement of a set of results; and
    (c) Establish clear, annual goals for evaluating progress in 
leveraging resources, such as the amount of monetary or in-kind 
investments from public or private organizations to support the Promise 
Neighborhoods strategy. Examples of leveraging resources are securing 
new or existing dollars to sustain and scale up what works in the 
Promise Neighborhood or integrating high-quality programs in the 
continuum of solutions. Applicants may consider, as part of their plans 
to scale up their Promise Neighborhood strategy, serving a larger 
geographic area by partnering with other applicants to the Promise 
Neighborhoods program from the same city or region;
    (3) Explain how it used its needs assessment and segmentation 
analysis to determine the children with the highest needs and explain 
how it will ensure that children in the neighborhood receive the 
appropriate services from the continuum of solutions. In this 
explanation of how it used the needs assessment and segmentation 
analysis, the applicant must identify and describe in its application 
the educational indicators and family and community support indicators 
that the applicant used to conduct the needs assessment. Whether or not 
the implementation grant applicant received a Promise Neighborhoods 
planning grant, the applicant must describe how it--
    (a) Collected data for the educational indicators listed in Table 1 
and used them as both program and project indicators;
    (b) Collected data for the family and community support indicators 
in Table 2 and used them as program indicators; and
    (c) Collected data for unique family and community support 
indicators, developed by the applicant, that align with the goals and 
objectives of the project and used them as project indicators or used 
the indicators in Table 2 as project indicators.
    An applicant must also describe how it will collect at least annual 
data on the indicators in Tables 1 and 2; establish clear, annual goals 
for growth on indicators; and report those data to the Department.

 Table 1--Education Indicators and Results They Are Intended To Measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Indicator                             Result
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- and % of children birth to      Children enter kindergarten
 kindergarten entry who have a place where   ready to succeed in school.
 they usually go, other than an emergency
 room, when they are sick or in need of
 advice about their health.
-- and % of three-year-olds and
 children in kindergarten who demonstrate
 at the beginning of the program or school
 year age-appropriate functioning across
 multiple domains of early learning (as
 defined in this notice) as determined
 using developmentally appropriate early
 learning measures (as defined in this
 notice).
-- & % of children, from birth to
 kindergarten entry, participating in
 center-based or formal home-based early
 learning settings or programs, which may
 include Early Head Start, Head Start,
 child care, or preschool.
-- & % of students at or above     Students are proficient in
 grade level according to State              core academic subjects.
 mathematics and reading or language arts
 assessments in at least the grades
 required by the ESEA (3rd through 8th and
 once in high school).
--Attendance rate of students in 6th, 7th,  Students successfully
 8th, and 9th grade..                        transition from middle
                                             school grades to high
                                             school.
--Graduation rate (as defined in this       Youth graduate from high
 notice)..                                   school.
-- & % of Promise Neighborhood     High school graduates obtain
 students who graduate with a regular high   a postsecondary degree,
 school diploma, as defined in 34 CFR        certification, or
 200.19(b)(1)(iv), and obtain                credential.
 postsecondary degrees, vocational
 certificates, or other industry-
 recognized certifications or credentials
 without the need for remediation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 2--Family and Community Support Indicators and Results They Are
                           Intended To Measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Indicator                             Result
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- & % of children who participate in    Students are healthy.
 at least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous
 physical activity daily; and
-- & % of children who consume five or
 more servings of fruits and vegetables daily;
 or
--possible third indicator, to be determined
 (TBD) by applicant..

[[Page 39607]]

 
-- & % of students who feel safe at      Students feel safe at
 school and traveling to and from school, as       school and in their
 measured by a school climate needs assessment     community.
 (as defined in this notice); or
--possible second indicator, TBD by applicant.
--Student mobility rate (as defined in this       Students live in
 notice); or                                       stable communities.
--possible second indicator, TBD by applicant.
--For children birth to kindergarten entry, the   Families and community
  and % of parents or family members      members support
 who report that they read to their child three    learning in Promise
 or more times a week;                             Neighborhood schools.
--For children in the kindergarten through
 eighth grades, the  and % of parents
 or family members who report encouraging their
 child to read books outside of school; and
--For children in the ninth through twelfth
 grades, the  and % of parents or
 family members who report talking with their
 child about the importance of college and
 career; or
--possible fourth indicator TBD by applicant.
-- & % of students who have school and   Students have access
 home access (and % of the day they have access)   to 21st century
 to broadband internet (as defined in this         learning tools.
 notice) and a connected computing device; or
--possible second indicator TBD by applicant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note: The indicators in Table 1 and Table 2 are not intended to 
limit an applicant from collecting and using data for additional 
indicators. Examples of additional indicators are--
    (i) The  and % of children who participate in high-
quality learning activities during out-of-school hours or in the 
hours after the traditional school day ends;
    (ii) The  and % of students who are suspended or 
receive discipline referrals during the year;
    (iii) The share of housing stock in the geographically defined 
area that is rent-protected, publicly assisted, or targeted for 
redevelopment with local, State, or Federal funds; and
    (iv) The  and % of children who are homeless or in 
foster care and who have an assigned adult advocate.


    Note:  While the Department believes there are many programmatic 
benefits of collecting data on every child in the proposed 
neighborhood, the Department will consider requests to collect data 
on only a sample of the children in the neighborhood for some 
indicators so long as the applicant describes in its application how 
it would ensure the sample would be representative of the children 
in the neighborhood;

    (4) Describe the experience and lessons learned, and describe how 
the applicant will build the capacity of its management team and 
project director in all of the following areas:
    (a) Working with the neighborhood and its residents, including 
parents and families that have children or other members with 
disabilities or ELs, as well as with the schools described in paragraph 
(2) of this priority; the LEA in which the school or schools are 
located; Federal, State, and local government leaders; and other 
service providers.
    (b) Collecting, analyzing, and using data for decision-making, 
learning, continuous improvement, and accountability. The applicant 
must describe--
    (i) Progress towards developing, launching, and implementing a 
longitudinal data system that integrates student-level data from 
multiple sources in order to measure progress on educational and family 
and community support indicators for all children in the neighborhood, 
disaggregated by the subgroups listed in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of 
the ESEA;
    (ii) How the applicant has linked or made progress to link the 
longitudinal data system to school-based, LEA, and State data systems; 
made the data accessible to parents, families, community residents, 
program partners, researchers, and evaluators while abiding by Federal, 
State, and other privacy laws and requirements; and managed and 
maintained the system;
    (iii) How the applicant has used rapid-time (as defined in this 
notice) data in prior years and, how it will continue to use those data 
once the Promise Neighborhood strategy is implemented, for continuous 
program improvement; and
    (iv) How the applicant will document the implementation process, 
including by describing lessons learned and best practices.
    (c) Creating and strengthening formal and informal partnerships, 
for such purposes as providing solutions along the continuum of 
solutions and committing resources to sustaining and scaling up what 
works. Each applicant must submit, as part of its application, a 
memorandum of understanding, signed by each organization or agency with 
which it would partner in implementing the proposed Promise 
Neighborhood. The memorandum of understanding must describe--
    (i) Each partner's financial and programmatic commitment; and
    (ii) How each partner's existing vision, theory of change (as 
defined in this notice), theory of action (as defined in this notice), 
and current activities align with those of the proposed Promise 
Neighborhood;
    (d) The governance structure proposed for the Promise Neighborhood, 
including a system for holding partners accountable, how the eligible 
entity's governing board or advisory board is representative of the 
geographic area proposed to be served (as defined in this notice), and 
how residents of the geographic area would have an active role in the 
organization's decision-making.
    (e) Integrating funding streams from multiple public and private 
sources from the Federal, State, and local level. Examples of public 
funds include Federal resources from the U.S. Department of Education, 
such as the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program and title I 
of the ESEA, and from other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. 
Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban 
Development, Justice, Labor, and Treasury.
    (5) Describe the applicant's commitment to work with the 
Department, and with a national evaluator for Promise Neighborhoods or 
another entity designated by the Department, to ensure that data 
collection and program design are consistent with plans to conduct a 
rigorous national evaluation of the Promise Neighborhoods program and 
of specific solutions and strategies pursued by individual grantees. 
This commitment must include, but need not be limited to--
    (a) Ensuring that, through memoranda of understanding with 
appropriate entities, the national evaluator and the Department have 
access to relevant program and project data sources (e.g., 
administrative data and program and project indicator data), including 
data on a quarterly basis if requested by the Department;

[[Page 39608]]

    (b) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, an 
evaluation strategy, including identifying a credible comparison group 
(as defined in this notice); and
    (c) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, a plan 
for identifying and collecting reliable and valid baseline data for 
both program participants and a designated comparison group of non-
participants.

Final Implementation Grant Priority 2 (Absolute): Promise Neighborhoods 
in Rural Communities

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to implement a 
Promise Neighborhood strategy that (1) meets all of the requirements in 
Absolute Priority 1; and (2) serves one or more rural communities only.

Final Implementation Grant Priority 3 (Absolute): Promise Neighborhoods 
in Tribal Communities

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to implement a 
Promise Neighborhood strategy that (1) meets all of the requirements in 
Absolute Priority 1; and (2) serves one or more Indian tribes (as 
defined in this notice).

Final Implementation Grant Priority 4: Comprehensive Local Early 
Learning Network

    To meet this priority, applications must include plans that propose 
to expand, enhance, or modify an existing network of early learning 
programs and services to ensure that they are high-quality and 
comprehensive for children from birth through the third grade. The plan 
must also ensure that the network establishes a high standard of 
quality across early learning settings and is designed to improve 
outcomes across multiple domains of early learning. Distinct from the 
early learning solutions described in paragraph (2) of Absolute 
Priority 1, this priority supports implementation plans that integrate 
various early learning services and programs in the neighborhood, i.e., 
school-based early learning programs in order to enhance the quality of 
such services and programs; locally- or State-funded preschool 
programs; Early Head Start and Head Start programs; the local child 
care resource and referral agency, if applicable; IDEA services and 
programs; services through private providers; home visiting programs; 
child care providers licensed by the State, including public and 
private providers and center-based care; and family, friend, or 
neighbor care in the Promise Neighborhood.
    The early learning network must address or incorporate ongoing 
State-level efforts regarding the major components of high-quality 
early learning programs and services, such as State early learning and 
development standards, program quality standards, comprehensive 
assessment systems, workforce and professional development systems, 
health promotion, family and community engagement, a coordinated data 
infrastructure, and a method of measuring, monitoring, evaluating, and 
improving program quality. For example, an applicant might address how 
the Promise Neighborhoods project will use the State's early learning 
standards, as applicable, and the Head Start Child Development and 
Early Learning Framework (Framework), as applicable, to define the 
expectations of what children should know and be able to do before 
entering kindergarten. The Framework is available on the Office of Head 
Start's Web site at: http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/ecdh/eecd/Assessment/Child%20Outcomes/HS_Revised_Child_Outcomes_Framework.pdf. Similarly, an applicant that addresses this priority 
must discuss, where applicable, how it would align with the State's 
Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS), as applicable, 
professional development and workforce infrastructure, and other 
appropriate State efforts. In addition, the plan must include, to the 
extent practicable, early learning opportunities on multiple platforms 
(e.g., public television, web-based, etc.) and in multiple locations 
(e.g., at home, at school, and at other community locations).

    Note regarding accessibility of early learning programs and 
services:  These early learning opportunities must be fully 
accessible to individuals with disabilities, including individuals 
who are blind or have low vision; otherwise, the plans must describe 
how accommodations or modifications will be provided to ensure that 
the benefits of the early learning opportunities are provided to 
children and youth with disabilities in an equally effective and 
equally integrated manner.

    The implementation plan for a high-quality and comprehensive local 
early learning network must describe the governance structure and the 
major components of high-quality early learning programs and services 
as well as include goals, strategies, and benchmarks to provide early 
learning programs and services that result in improvements across 
multiple domains of early learning. The plan must result from a needs 
assessment and segmentation analysis (as defined in this notice) and 
must reflect input from a broad range of stakeholders. An application 
addressing this priority must designate an individual responsible for 
overseeing and coordinating the early learning initiatives and must 
include a resume or position description and other supporting 
documentation to demonstrate that the individual designated, or 
individual hired to carry out those responsibilities, possesses the 
appropriate State certification, and has experience and expertise in 
managing and administering high-quality early learning programs, 
including in coordinating across various high-quality early learning 
programs and services.

Final Implementation Grant Priority 5: Quality Internet Connectivity

    To meet this priority, an applicant must ensure that almost all 
students in the geographic area proposed to be served have broadband 
internet access (as defined in this notice) at home and at school, the 
knowledge and skills to use broadband internet access effectively, and 
a connected computing device to support schoolwork.

Final Implementation Grant Priority 6: Arts and Humanities

    To meet this priority, an applicant must include in its plan 
opportunities for children and youth to experience and participate 
actively in the arts and humanities in their community so as to 
broaden, enrich, and enliven the educational, cultural, and civic 
experiences available in the neighborhood. Applicants may include plans 
for offering these activities in school and in out-of-school settings 
and at any time during the calendar year.

Final Implementation Grant Priority 7: Quality Affordable Housing

    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to serve 
geographic areas that were the subject of an affordable housing 
transformation pursuant to a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant 
awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development during 
FY 2009 or later years. To be eligible under this priority, the 
applicant must either (1) be able to demonstrate that it has received a 
Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant or (2) provide, in its 
application, a memorandum of understanding between it and a partner 
that is a recipient of a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI grant. The 
memorandum must indicate a commitment on the part of the applicant and 
partner to coordinate implementation and align resources to the 
greatest extent practicable.

[[Page 39609]]

Final Implementation Grant Priority 8: Family Engagement in Learning 
Through Adult Education

    To meet this priority, an applicant must include plans that are 
coordinated with adult education providers serving neighborhood 
residents, such as those funded through the Adult Education and Family 
Literacy Act, as amended. Coordinated services may include adult basic 
and secondary education and programs that provide training and 
opportunities for family members and other members of the community to 
support student learning and establish high expectations for student 
educational achievement. Examples of services and programs include 
preparation for the General Education Development (GED) test; English 
literacy, family literacy, and work-based literacy training; or other 
training that prepares adults for postsecondary education and careers, 
or supports adult engagement in the educational success of children and 
youth in the neighborhood.

Optional Supplemental Funding Opportunity

    The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) intends to provide an 
optional, supplemental funding opportunity for Promise Neighborhoods 
implementation grantees with plans that propose to analyze and resolve 
public safety concerns associated with violence, gangs, and illegal 
drugs utilizing strategies that include prevention, intervention, 
enforcement, and reentry of offenders back into communities upon 
release from prison and jail. Under this opportunity, DOJ, through an 
interagency agreement with the Department of Education, would provide 
additional funds to some Promise Neighborhoods implementation grantees. 
Specifically, DOJ would consider supporting Promise Neighborhoods 
grantees with plans that align with local leadership in implementing 
and sustaining innovative solutions that incorporate evidence and 
research into local program and policy decisions to address and reduce 
persistent crime. Additional information about this optional funding 
opportunity will be provided to Promise Neighborhoods implementation 
grantees after grant awards are announced.

Types of Priorities

    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Final Requirements

    The Department establishes the following eligibility requirements 
for the Promise Neighborhoods program. We may apply one or more of 
these requirements in any year in which we conduct a competition for 
this program.
    1. Eligible Applicants: To be eligible for a grant under this 
competition, an applicant must be an eligible organization (as defined 
in this notice). For purposes of Absolute Priority 3: Promise 
Neighborhoods in Tribal Communities, an eligible applicant is an 
eligible organization that partners with an Indian tribe or is an 
Indian tribe that meets the definition of an eligible organization.
    2. Cost-Sharing or Matching:
    (a) Planning grants. To be eligible for a planning grant under this 
competition, an applicant must demonstrate that it has established a 
commitment from one or more entities in the public or private sector, 
which may include Federal, State, and local public agencies, 
philanthropic organizations, private businesses, or individuals, to 
provide matching funds for the planning process. An applicant for a 
planning grant must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations for the 
planning process equal to at least 50 percent of its grant award, 
except that an applicant proposing a project that meets Absolute 
Priority 2: Promise Neighborhoods in Rural Communities or Absolute 
Priority 3: Promise Neighborhoods in Tribal Communities must obtain 
matching funds or in-kind donations equal to at least 25 percent of the 
grant award.
    (b) Implementation Grants. To be eligible for an implementation 
grant under this competition, an applicant must demonstrate that it has 
established a commitment from one or more entities in the public or 
private sector, which may include Federal, State, and local public 
agencies, philanthropic organizations, private businesses, or 
individuals, to provide matching funds for the implementation process. 
An applicant for an implementation grant must obtain matching funds or 
in-kind donations equal to at least 100 percent of its grant award, 
except that an applicant proposing a project that meets Absolute 
Priority 2: Promise Neighborhoods in Rural Communities or Absolute 
Priority 3: Promise Neighborhoods in Tribal Communities must obtain 
matching funds or in-kind donations equal to at least 50 percent of the 
grant award.
    Eligible sources of matching include sources of funds used to pay 
for solutions within the continuum of solutions, such as Head Start 
programs, initiatives supported by the LEA, or public health services 
for children in the neighborhood. At least 10 percent of an 
implementation applicant's total match must be cash or in-kind 
contributions from the private sector, which may include philanthropic 
organizations, private businesses, or individuals.
    (c) Planning and Implementation Grants. Both planning and 
implementation applicants must demonstrate a commitment of matching 
funds in the applications. The applicants must specify the source of 
the funds or contributions and in the case of a third-party in-kind 
contribution, a description of how the value was determined for the 
donated or contributed goods or service. Applicants must demonstrate 
the match commitment by including letters in their applications 
explaining the type and quantity of the match commitment with original 
signatures from the executives of organizations or agencies providing 
the match. The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching 
requirement in the most exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case 
basis.
    An applicant that is unable to meet the matching requirement must 
include in its application a request to the Secretary to reduce the 
matching requirement, including the amount of the requested reduction, 
the total remaining match contribution, and a statement of the basis 
for the request. An applicant should review the Department's cost-
sharing and cost-matching regulations, which include specific 
limitations in 34 CFR 74.23 applicable to non-profit organizations and 
institutions of higher education and 34 CFR 80.24 applicable to State, 
local,

[[Page 39610]]

and Indian tribal governments, and the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) cost principles regarding donations, capital assets, 
depreciations and allowable costs. These circulars are available on 
OMB's Web site at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html.

Final Definitions

    We establish the following definitions for this program. We may 
apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this 
program is in effect.
    Broadband internet access means internet access sufficient to 
provide community members with the internet available when and where 
they need it and for the uses they require.
    Children with disabilities or CWD means individuals who meet the 
definition of child with a disability in 34 CFR 300.8, infant or 
toddler with a disability in 34 CFR 300.25, handicapped person in 34 
CFR 104.3(j), or disability as it pertains to an individual in 42 
U.S.C. 12102.
    Community of practice means a group of grantees that agrees to 
interact regularly to solve a persistent problem or improve practice in 
an area that is important to them and the success of their projects. 
Establishment of communities of practice under Promise Neighborhoods 
will enable grantees to meet, discuss, and collaborate with each other 
regarding grantee projects.
    Continuum of cradle-through-college-to-career solutions or 
continuum of solutions means solutions that--
    (1) Include programs, policies, practices, services, systems, and 
supports that result in improving educational and developmental 
outcomes for children from cradle through college to career;
    (2) Are based on the best available evidence, including, where 
available, strong or moderate evidence (as defined in this notice);
    (3) Are linked and integrated seamlessly (as defined in this 
notice); and
    (4) Include both education programs and family and community 
supports.
    Credible comparison group includes a comparison group formed by 
matching project participants with non-participants based on key 
characteristics that are thought to be related to outcomes. These 
characteristics include, but are not limited to: (1) Prior test scores 
and other measures of academic achievement (preferably the same 
measures that will be used to assess the outcomes of the project); (2) 
demographic characteristics, such as age, disability, gender, English 
proficiency, ethnicity, poverty level, parents' educational attainment, 
and single- or two-parent family background; (3) the time period in 
which the two groups are studied (e.g., the two groups are children 
entering kindergarten in the same year as opposed to sequential years); 
and (4) methods used to collect outcome data (e.g., the same test of 
reading skills administered in the same way to both groups).
    Developmentally appropriate early learning measures means a range 
of assessment instruments that are used in ways consistent with the 
purposes for which they were designed and validated; appropriate for 
the ages and other characteristics of the children being assessed; 
designed and validated for use with children whose ages, cultures, 
languages spoken at home, socioeconomic status, abilities and 
disabilities, and other characteristics are similar to those of the 
children with whom the assessments will be used; and used in compliance 
with the measurement standards set forth by the American Educational 
Research Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association 
(APA), and the National Council for Measurement in Education (NCME) in 
the 1999 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.
    Education programs means programs that include, but are not limited 
to--
    (1) High-quality early learning programs or services designed to 
improve outcomes across multiple domains of early learning for young 
children. Such programs must be specifically intended to align with 
appropriate State early learning and development standards, practices, 
strategies, or activities across as broad an age range as birth through 
third grade so as to ensure that young children enter kindergarten and 
progress through the early elementary school grades demonstrating age-
appropriate functioning across the multiple domains;
    (2) For children in preschool through the 12th grade, programs, 
inclusive of related policies and personnel, that are linked to 
improved educational outcomes. The programs--
    (a) Must include effective teachers and effective principals;
    (b) Must include strategies, practices, or programs that encourage 
and facilitate the evaluation, analysis, and use of student 
achievement, student growth (as defined in this notice), and other data 
by educators, families, and other stakeholders to inform decision-
making;
    (c) Must include college- and career-ready standards, assessments, 
and practices, including a well-rounded curriculum, instructional 
practices, strategies, or programs in, at a minimum, core academic 
subjects as defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA, that are aligned 
with high academic content and achievement standards and with high-
quality assessments based on those standards; and
    (d) May include creating multiple pathways for students to earn 
regular high school diplomas (e.g., using schools that serve the needs 
of over-aged, under-credited, or other students with an exceptional 
need for flexibility regarding when they attend school or the 
additional supports they require; awarding credit based on demonstrated 
evidence of student competency; or offering dual-enrollment options); 
and
    (3) Programs that prepare students for college and career success, 
which may include programs that--
    (a) Create and support partnerships with community colleges, four-
year colleges, or universities and that help instill a college-going 
culture in the neighborhood;
    (b) Provide dual-enrollment opportunities for secondary students to 
gain college credit while in high school;
    (c) Provide, through relationships with businesses and other 
organizations, apprenticeship opportunities to students;
    (d) Align curricula in the core academic subjects with requirements 
for industry-recognized certifications or credentials, particularly in 
high-growth sectors;
    (e) Provide access to career and technical education programs so 
that individuals can attain the skills and industry-recognized 
certifications or credentials for success in their careers;
    (f) Help college students, including CWD and ELs from the 
neighborhood to transition to college, persist in their academic 
studies in college, graduate from college, and transition into the 
workforce; and
    (g) Provide opportunities for all youth (both in and out of school) 
to achieve academic and employment success by improving educational and 
skill competencies and providing connections to employers. Such 
activities may include opportunities for on-going mentoring, supportive 
services, incentives for recognition and achievement, and opportunities 
related to leadership, development, decision-making, citizenship, and 
community service.
    Effective school means a school that has--
    (1) Significantly closed the achievement gaps between subgroups of 
students (as identified in section

[[Page 39611]]

1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA) within the school or district; or
    (2)(a) Demonstrated success in significantly increasing student 
academic achievement in the school for all subgroups of students (as 
identified in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA) in the school; 
and (b) made significant improvements in other areas, such as 
graduation rates (as defined in this notice) or recruitment and 
placement of effective teachers and effective principals.
    Eligible organization means an organization that--
    (1) Is representative of the geographic area proposed to be served 
(as defined in this notice);
    (2) Is one of the following:
    (a) A nonprofit organization that meets the definition of a 
nonprofit under 34 CFR 77.1(c), which may include a faith-based 
nonprofit organization.
    (b) An institution of higher education as defined by section 101(a) 
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
    (c) An Indian tribe (as defined in this notice);
    (3) Currently provides at least one of the solutions from the 
applicant's proposed continuum of solutions in the geographic area 
proposed to be served; and
    (4) Operates or proposes to work with and involve in carrying out 
its proposed project, in coordination with the school's LEA, at least 
one public elementary or secondary school that is located within the 
identified geographic area that the grant will serve.
    English learners or ELs means individuals who meet the definition 
of limited English proficient, as defined in section 9101(25) of the 
ESEA.
    Family and community supports means--
    (1) Child and youth health programs, such as physical, mental, 
behavioral, and emotional health programs (e.g., home visiting 
programs; Early Head Start; programs to improve nutrition and fitness, 
reduce childhood obesity, and create healthier communities);
    (2) Safety programs, such as programs in school and out of school 
to prevent, control, and reduce crime, violence, drug and alcohol use, 
and gang activity; programs that address classroom and school-wide 
behavior and conduct; programs to prevent child abuse and neglect; 
programs to prevent truancy and reduce and prevent bullying and 
harassment; and programs to improve the physical and emotional security 
of the school setting as perceived, experienced, and created by 
students, staff, and families;
    (3) Community stability programs, such as programs that--
    (a) Increase the stability of families in communities by expanding 
access to quality, affordable housing, providing legal support to help 
families secure clear legal title to their homes, and providing housing 
counseling or housing placement services;
    (b) Provide adult education and employment opportunities and 
training to improve educational levels, job skills and readiness in 
order to decrease unemployment, with a goal of increasing family 
stability;
    (c) Improve families' awareness of, access to, and use of a range 
of social services, if possible at a single location;
    (d) Provide unbiased, outcome-focused, and comprehensive financial 
education, inside and outside the classroom and at every life stage;
    (e) Increase access to traditional financial institutions (e.g., 
banks and credit unions) rather than alternative financial institutions 
(e.g., check cashers and payday lenders);
    (f) Help families increase their financial literacy, financial 
assets, and savings; and
    (g) Help families access transportation to education and employment 
opportunities;
    (4) Family and community engagement programs that are systemic, 
integrated, sustainable, and continue through a student's transition 
from K-12 school to college and career. These programs may include 
family literacy programs and programs that provide adult education and 
training and opportunities for family members and other members of the 
community to support student learning and establish high expectations 
for student educational achievement; mentorship programs that create 
positive relationships between children and adults; programs that 
provide for the use of such community resources as libraries, museums, 
television and radio stations, and local businesses to support improved 
student educational outcomes; programs that support the engagement of 
families in early learning programs and services; programs that provide 
guidance on how to navigate through a complex school system and how to 
advocate for more and improved learning opportunities; and programs 
that promote collaboration with educators and community organizations 
to improve opportunities for healthy development and learning; and
    (5) 21st century learning tools, such as technology (e.g., 
computers and mobile phones) used by students in the classroom and in 
the community to support their education. This includes programs that 
help students use the tools to develop knowledge and skills in such 
areas as reading and writing, mathematics, research, critical thinking, 
communication, creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
    Graduation rate means the four-year or extended-year adjusted 
cohort graduation rate as defined by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1).

    Note: This definition is not meant to prevent a grantee from 
also collecting information about the reasons why students do not 
graduate from the target high school, e.g., dropping out or moving 
outside of the school district for non-academic or academic reasons.

    Increased learning time means using a longer school day, week, or 
year to significantly increase the total number of school hours. This 
strategy is used to redesign the school's program in a manner that 
includes additional time for (a) instruction in core academic subjects 
as defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA; (b) instruction in other 
subjects and enrichment activities that contribute to a well-rounded 
education, including, for example, physical education, service 
learning, and experiential and work-based learning opportunities that 
are provided by partnering, as appropriate, with other organizations; 
and (c) teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional 
development within and across grades and subjects.
    Indian tribe means any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, 
pueblo, village or community that the Secretary of the Interior 
acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe, 25 U.S.C. 479a and 479a-1 or 
any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined 
in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 
43 U.S.C. 1601, et seq., that is recognized as eligible for the special 
programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because 
of their status as Indians. The term ``Indian'' means a member of an 
Indian tribe.
    Indicators of need means currently available data that describe--
    (1) Education need, which means--
    (a) All or a portion of the neighborhood includes or is within the 
attendance zone of a low-performing school that is a high school, 
especially one in which the graduation rate (as defined in this notice) 
is less than 60 percent or a school that can be characterized as low-
performing based on another proxy indicator, such as students' on-time 
progression from grade to grade; and
    (b) Other indicators, such as significant achievement gaps between 
subgroups of students (as identified in

[[Page 39612]]

section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA) within a school or LEA, high 
teacher and principal turnover, or high student absenteeism; and
    (2) Family and community support need, which means--
    (a) Percentages of children with preventable chronic health 
conditions (e.g., asthma, poor nutrition, dental problems, obesity) or 
avoidable developmental delays;
    (b) Immunization rates;
    (c) Rates of crime, including violent crime;
    (d) Student mobility rates;
    (e) Teenage birth rates;
    (f) Percentage of children in single-parent or no-parent families;
    (g) Rates of vacant or substandard homes, including distressed 
public and assisted housing; or
    (h) Percentage of the residents living at or below the Federal 
poverty threshold.
    Linked and integrated seamlessly, with respect to the continuum of 
solutions, means solutions that have common outcomes, focus on similar 
milestones, support transitional time periods (e.g., the beginning of 
kindergarten, the middle grades, or graduation from high school) along 
the cradle-through-college-to-career continuum, and address time and 
resource gaps that create obstacles for students in making academic 
progress.
    Low-performing schools means schools receiving assistance through 
title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
amended (ESEA), that are in corrective action or restructuring in the 
State, as determined under section 1116 of the ESEA, and the secondary 
schools (both middle and high schools) in the State that are equally as 
low-achieving as these Title I schools and are eligible for, but do not 
receive, Title I funds.
    Moderate evidence means evidence from previous studies with designs 
that can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high internal 
validity) but have limited generalizability (i.e., moderate external 
validity) or from studies with high external validity but moderate 
internal validity.
    Multiple domains of early learning means physical well-being and 
motor development; social-emotional development; approaches toward 
learning, which refers to the inclinations, dispositions, or styles, 
rather than skills, that reflect ways that children become involved in 
learning and develop their inclinations to pursue learning; language 
and literacy development, including emergent literacy; and cognition 
and general knowledge, which refers to thinking and problem-solving as 
well as knowledge about particular objects and the way the world works. 
Cognition and general knowledge include mathematical and scientific 
knowledge, abstract thought, and imagination.
    Neighborhood assets means--
    (1) Developmental assets that allow residents to attain the skills 
needed to be successful in all aspects of daily life (e.g., educational 
institutions, early learning centers, and health resources);
    (2) Commercial assets that are associated with production, 
employment, transactions, and sales (e.g., labor force and retail 
establishments);
    (3) Recreational assets that create value in a neighborhood beyond 
work and education (e.g., parks, open space, community gardens, and 
arts organizations);
    (4) Physical assets that are associated with the built environment 
and physical infrastructure (e.g., housing, commercial buildings, and 
roads); and
    (5) Social assets that establish well-functioning social 
interactions (e.g., public safety, community engagement, and 
partnerships with youth, parents, and families).
    Persistently lowest-achieving school means, as determined by the 
State--
    (1) Any school receiving assistance through Title I that is in 
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring and that--
    (a) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools 
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-
achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or
    (b) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate that is less 
than 60 percent over a number of years; and
    (2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not 
receive, Title I funds that--
    (a) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools 
or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are 
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of 
schools is greater; or
    (b) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate that is less 
than 60 percent over a number of years.
    Program indicators are indicators that the Department will use only 
for research and evaluation purposes and for which an applicant is not 
required to propose solutions.
    Project indicators are indicators for which an applicant proposes 
solutions intended to result in progress on the indicators.
    Public officials means elected officials (e.g., council members, 
aldermen and women, commissioners, State legislators, Congressional 
representatives, members of the school board), appointed officials 
(e.g., members of a planning or zoning commission, or of any other 
regulatory or advisory board or commission), or individuals who are not 
necessarily public officials, but who have been appointed by a public 
official to serve on the Promise Neighborhoods governing board or 
advisory board.
    Rapid-time, in reference to reporting and availability of locally-
collected data, means that data are available quickly enough to inform 
current lessons, instruction, and related education programs and family 
and community supports.
    Representative of the geographic area proposed to be served means 
that residents of the geographic area proposed to be served have an 
active role in decision-making and that at least one-third of the 
eligible entity's governing board or advisory board is made up of--
    (1) Residents who live in the geographic area proposed to be 
served, which may include residents who are representative of the 
ethnic and racial composition of the neighborhood's residents and the 
languages they speak;
    (2) Residents of the city or county in which the neighborhood is 
located but who live outside the geographic area proposed to be served, 
and who are low-income (which means earning less than 80 percent of the 
area's median income as published by the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development);
    (3) Public officials (as defined in this notice) who serve the 
geographic area proposed to be served (although not more than one-half 
of the governing board or advisory board may be made up of public 
officials); or
    (4) Some combination of individuals from the three groups listed in 
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this definition.
    Rural community means a neighborhood that--
    (1) Is served by an LEA that is currently eligible under the Small 
Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income 
School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA. 
Applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these 
programs by referring to information on the following Department Web 
sites. For the SRSA program: http://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible10/index.html. For the RLIS program: http://www.ed.gov/

[[Page 39613]]

programs/reaprlisp/eligible10/index.html; or
    (2) Includes only schools designated with a school locale code of 
42 or 43. Applicants may determine school locale codes by referring to 
the following Department Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/.
    School climate needs assessment means an evaluation tool that 
measures the extent to which the school setting promotes or inhibits 
academic performance by collecting perception data from individuals, 
which could include students, staff, or families.
    Segmentation analysis means the process of grouping and analyzing 
data from children and families in the geographic area proposed to be 
served according to indicators of need (as defined in this notice) or 
other relevant indicators.

    Note: The analysis is intended to allow grantees to 
differentiate and more effectively target interventions based on 
what they learn about the needs of different populations in the 
geographic area.

    Strong evidence means evidence from studies with designs that can 
support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high internal validity), 
and studies that, in total, include enough of the range of participants 
and settings to support scaling up to the State, regional, or national 
level (i.e., studies with high external validity).
    Student achievement means--
    (1) For tested grades and subjects:
    (a) A student's score on the State's assessments under the ESEA; 
and, as appropriate,
    (b) Other measures of student learning, such as those described in 
paragraph (2) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and 
comparable across classrooms and programs.
    (2) For non-tested grades and subjects: Alternative measures of 
student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-tests 
and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language 
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that 
are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.
    Student growth means the change in achievement data for an 
individual student between two or more points in time. Growth may also 
include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across 
classrooms.
    Student mobility rate is calculated by dividing the total number of 
new student entries and withdrawals at a school, from the day after the 
first official enrollment number is collected through the end of the 
academic year, by the first official enrollment number of the academic 
year.

    Note: This definition is not meant to limit a grantee from also 
collecting information about why students enter or withdraw from the 
school, e.g., transferring to charter schools, moving outside of the 
school district for non-academic or academic reasons.

    Theory of action means an organization's strategy regarding how, 
considering its capacity and resources, it will take the necessary 
steps and measures to accomplish its desired results.
    Theory of change means an organization's beliefs about how its 
inputs, and early and intermediate outcomes, relate to accomplishing 
its long-term desired results.

Final Selection Criteria

    We establish the following selection criteria for evaluating a 
planning and implementation grant application under the Promise 
Neighborhoods program. These criteria are designed to align with the 
absolute priority for planning and implementation grants. Thus, the 
``need for project'' criterion aligns with the absolute priority 
requirement that applicants describe the need in the neighborhood. The 
``quality of project design'' and ``quality of project services'' 
criteria align with the absolute priority requirement that applicants 
describe a strategy to build a continuum of solutions with strong 
schools at the center. The ``quality of the management plan'' criterion 
aligns with the absolute priority requirement that applicants describe 
their capacity to achieve results.
    In the notice inviting applications, the application package, or 
both, we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each 
criterion. We may apply one or more of these criteria in any year in 
which this program is in effect.

Final Planning Grants Selection Criteria

    The selection criteria for planning grant applicants are as 
follows:
    (1) Need for project.
    (a) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.
    (b) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary 
considers--
    (i) The magnitude or severity of the problems to be addressed by 
the proposed project as described by indicators of need and other 
relevant indicators; and
    (ii) The extent to which the geographically defined area has been 
described.
    (2) Quality of the project design.
    (a) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the 
proposed project.
    (b) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers--
    (i) The extent to which the continuum of solutions will be aligned 
with an ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive strategy for improvement 
of schools in the neighborhood;
    (ii) The extent to which the applicant describes a proposal to plan 
to create a complete continuum of solutions, including early learning 
through grade 12, college- and career-readiness, and family and 
community supports, without time and resource gaps that will prepare 
all children in the neighborhood to attain an excellent education and 
successfully transition to college and a career; and
    (iii) The extent to which solutions leverage existing neighborhood 
assets and coordinate with other efforts, including programs supported 
by Federal, State, local, and private funds.
    (3) Quality of project services.
    (a) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be 
provided by the proposed project.
    (b) In determining the quality of the project services, the 
Secretary considers--
    (i) The extent to which the applicant describes how the needs 
assessment and segmentation analysis, including identifying and 
describing indicators, will be used during the planning phase to 
determine each solution within the continuum; and
    (ii) The extent to which the applicant describes how it will 
determine that solutions are based on the best available evidence 
including, where available, strong or moderate evidence, and ensure 
that solutions drive results and lead to changes on indicators.
    (4) Quality of the management plan.
    (a) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for 
the proposed project.
    (b) In determining the quality of the management plan for the 
proposed project, the Secretary considers the experience, lessons 
learned, and proposal to build capacity of the applicant's management 
team and project director in all of the following areas--
    (i) Working with the neighborhood and its residents; the schools 
described in paragraph (2)(b) of Absolute Priority 1; the LEA in which 
those schools are located; Federal, State, and local government 
leaders; and other service providers;
    (ii) Collecting, analyzing, and using data for decision-making, 
learning,

[[Page 39614]]

continuous improvement, and accountability;
    (iii) Creating formal and informal partnerships, including the 
alignment of the visions, theories of action, and theories of change 
described in its memorandum of understanding, and creating a system for 
holding partners accountable for performance in accordance with the 
memorandum of understanding; and
    (iv) Integrating funding streams from multiple public and private 
sources, including its proposal to leverage and integrate high-quality 
programs in the neighborhood into the continuum of solutions.

Final Implementation Grants Selection Criteria

    The selection criteria for implementation grant applicants are as 
follows:
    (1) Need for project.
    (a) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.
    (b) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary 
considers--
    (i) The magnitude or severity of the problems to be addressed by 
the proposed project as described by indicators of need and other 
relevant indicators identified in part by the needs assessment and 
segmentation analysis; and
    (ii) The extent to which the geographically defined area has been 
described.
    (2) Quality of the project design.
    (a) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the 
proposed project.
    (b) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the continuum of solutions is aligned with 
an ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive strategy for improvement of 
schools in the neighborhood.
    (ii) The extent to which the applicant describes an implementation 
plan to create a complete continuum of solutions, including early 
learning through grade 12, college- and career-readiness, and family 
and community supports, without time and resource gaps, that will 
prepare all children in the neighborhood to attain an excellent 
education and successfully transition to college and a career, and that 
will significantly increase the proportion of students in the 
neighborhood that are served by the complete continuum to reach scale 
over time.
    (iii) The extent to which the applicant identifies existing 
neighborhood assets and programs supported by Federal, State, local, 
and private funds that will be used to implement a continuum of 
solutions.
    (iv) The extent to which the applicant describes its implementation 
plan, including clear, annual goals for improving systems and 
leveraging resources as described in paragraph (2) of Absolute Priority 
1.
    (3) Quality of project services.
    (a) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be 
provided by the proposed project.
    (b) In determining the quality of the project services, the 
Secretary considers--
    (i) The extent to which the applicant describes how the needs 
assessment and segmentation analysis, including identifying and 
describing indicators, were used to determine each solution within the 
continuum;
    (ii) The extent to which the applicant documents that proposed 
solutions are based on the best available evidence including, where 
available, strong or moderate evidence; and
    (iii) The extent to which the applicant describes clear, annual 
goals for improvement on indicators.
    (4) Quality of the management plan.
    (a) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for 
the proposed project.
    (b) In determining the quality of the management plan for the 
proposed project, the Secretary considers the experience, lessons 
learned, and proposal to build capacity of the applicant's management 
team and project director in all of the following areas--
    (i) Working with the neighborhood and its residents; the schools 
described in paragraph (2)(b) of Absolute Priority 1; the LEA in which 
those schools are located; Federal, State, and local government 
leaders; and other service providers;
    (ii) Collecting, analyzing, and using data for decision-making, 
learning, continuous improvement, and accountability, including whether 
the applicant has a plan to build, adapt, or expand a longitudinal data 
system that integrates student-level data from multiple sources in 
order to measure progress while abiding by privacy laws and 
requirements;
    (iii) Creating formal and informal partnerships, including the 
alignment of the visions, theories of action, and theories of change 
described in its memorandum of understanding, and creating a system for 
holding partners accountable for performance in accordance with the 
memorandum of understanding; and
    (iv) Integrating funding streams from multiple public and private 
sources, including its proposal to leverage and integrate high-quality 
programs in the neighborhood into the continuum of solutions.
    This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

    Executive Order 12866: Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary 
must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory 
action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely 
affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an 
``economically significant'' rule); (2) create serious inconsistency or 
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; 
(3) materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user 
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order. The Secretary has determined that this regulatory 
action is significant under section 3(f) of the Executive order.
    This notice has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 
12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential 
costs and benefits of this proposed regulatory action.
    The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are 
those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have 
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and 
efficiently.
    In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative 
and qualitative--of this regulatory action, we have determined that the 
benefits of the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria justify the costs.
    We have determined, also, that this regulatory action does not 
unduly

[[Page 39615]]

interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, 
as well as all other documents of this Department published in the 
Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To 
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: http://www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: June 29, 2011.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2011-16757 Filed 7-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P