[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25339-25355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09749]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter IV

[CFDA Number: 84.420A; Docket ID ED-2015-OCTAE-0095]


Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria--Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth

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

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult 
Education (Assistant Secretary) announces priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria under the Performance Partnership 
Pilots (P3) for Disconnected Youth competition. The Assistant Secretary 
may use the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria for competitions for fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years. We 
take this action in order to support the identification of strong and 
effective pilots that are likely to achieve significant improvements in 
educational, employment, and other key outcomes for disconnected youth.

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria are effective May 31, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Braden Goetz, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11141, PCP, Washington, DC 
20202. Telephone: (202) 245-7405 or by email: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Assistant Secretary 
announces

[[Page 25340]]

priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the 
Performance Partnership Pilots (P3) for Disconnected Youth competition. 
The Assistant Secretary may use the priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for competitions for fiscal year 
(FY) 2015 and later years. We take this action in order to support the 
identification of strong and effective pilots that are likely to 
achieve significant improvements in educational, employment, and other 
key outcomes for disconnected youth.

Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action

    This regulatory action announces 13 priorities, 7 application 
requirements, 4 program requirements, 13 definitions, and 7 selection 
criteria that may be used for P3 competitions for FY 2015 and later 
years.
    Costs and Benefits: The Department of Education (Department) 
believes that the benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any 
associated costs, which we believe will be minimal. The potential costs 
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have 
determined as necessary for administering P3. The benefits of the 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are that 
they would promote the efficient and effective use of the P3 authority. 
Please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis in this notice of final 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NFP) for 
a more detailed discussion of costs and benefits.
    Purpose of Program: P3, first authorized by Congress for FY 2014 by 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (2014 Appropriations Act) and 
reauthorized for FY 2015 by the Consolidated and Further Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2015 (2015 Appropriations Act) and for FY 2016 by 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (2016 Appropriations Act) 
(together, the Acts), authorize the Departments of Education, Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development,\1\ and 
Justice,\2\ the Corporation for National and Community Service and the 
Institute of Museum and Library Services (collectively, the Agencies), 
to enter into Performance Partnership Agreements (performance 
agreements) with State, local, or tribal governments to provide 
additional flexibility in using certain of the Agencies' discretionary 
funds, including competitive and formula grant funds, across multiple 
Federal programs. The authority enables pilot sites to test innovative, 
outcome-focused strategies to achieve significant improvements in 
educational, employment, and other key outcomes for disconnected youth 
using new flexibility to blend existing Federal funds and to seek 
waivers of associated program requirements. Section 526(a)(2), Division 
H of the 2014 Appropriations Act states that `` `[t]o improve outcomes 
for disconnected youth' means to increase the rate at which individuals 
between the ages of 14 and 24 (who are low-income and either homeless, 
in foster care, involved in the juvenile justice system, unemployed, or 
not enrolled in or at risk of dropping out of an educational 
institution) achieve success in meeting educational, employment, or 
other key goals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department of Housing and Urban Development was first 
authorized to enter into performance agreements by the 2016 
Appropriations Act.
    \2\ The Department of Justice was first authorized to enter into 
performance agreements by the 2015 Appropriations Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Program Authority: Section 524 of Division G and section 219 of 
Division B of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations 
Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235) and section 219 of Division B, section 525 
of Division H, and section 242 of Division L of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113).
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) in the Federal Register on 
October 22, 2015 (80 FR 63975). That notice contained background 
information and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. In response to 
public comment, this notice reduces burden on applicants by removing 
several application requirements that had been proposed in the NPP. 
This NFP also revises the priority for disconnected youth who are 
unemployed and out-of-school (Priority 4) to limit the priority to 
those unemployed and out-of-school youth who face significant barriers 
to accessing education and employment. Additionally, this NFP revises 
the priorities for projects designed to improve outcomes for 
subpopulations of high-need disconnected youth (i.e., youth who are 
unemployed and out of school, youth who are English Learners (ELs), 
youth with a disability, homeless youth, youth in foster care, youth 
involved in the justice system, and youth who are immigrants or 
refugees) to specify that, in order to meet the priority, a project 
must serve the particular subpopulation identified in the priority and 
be likely to result in significantly better educational or employment 
outcomes for the subpopulation. Finally, this NFP establishes an 
additional priority for projects that serve disconnected youth who are 
pregnant or parenting and that are likely to result in significantly 
better educational or employment outcomes for such youth.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 11 
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria.
    We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not 
address technical and other minor changes.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.

General

    Comment: One commenter recommended that we streamline and simplify 
the application process to permit applicants to submit brief letters 
that describe their requests for waivers in lieu of a formal 
application that meets the requirements and addresses the selection 
criteria proposed in the NPP. Two commenters expressed concern about 
the length of the selection process that identified the FY 2014 P3 
pilots; one of these commenters recommended that, going forward, pilots 
be selected within one month of the application deadline.
    Discussion: We acknowledge the commenters' concerns about the 
length and structure of the application and selection processes. In 
fact, many of the changes from the first competition that were proposed 
in the NPP were intended to streamline and simplify those processes. As 
we note later in our discussion of the comments on the proposed 
application requirements, the NFP makes additional changes to the 
application requirements with that same goal. We believe this will make 
the application process clearer and easier for applicants, and also 
shorten the timeline for the selection process.
    However, we also note the importance of a thorough review of 
applications and engagement with potential pilots to ensure we collect 
all information required to complete a performance agreement. Such a 
review is critical to meeting the statutory conditions on granting 
waivers and awarding pilots. Some of the concerns raised by commenters 
will be addressed as the Agencies and the field gain experience with P3 
and need not necessarily be addressed through rulemaking.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 25341]]

Priorities

    Comment: One commenter expressed opposition to the proposed 
priorities for special populations, such as youth who are ELs, 
contending that they would make the application process too 
complicated.
    Discussion: We want to clarify the purpose of the priorities for 
different special populations. The statutory definition of disconnected 
youth for P3 is broad and includes youth who are at risk of dropping 
out in addition to youth who fall into other categories of eligible 
youth, such as those who are not employed or enrolled in school. The 
general purpose of these priorities is to focus attention on 
subpopulations of disconnected youth with great needs who might 
otherwise not be served or to address particular challenges that 
communities face in reaching these populations. The priorities are 
intended as options for use in future P3 competitions. The Agencies may 
choose which, if any, of the priorities included in this NFP are 
appropriate for a particular P3 competition and how the priority or 
priorities would apply. For example, a priority may be used as an 
absolute priority. This means that applicants that propose projects 
under that priority must address it to be eligible to be selected as a 
pilot. A priority could also be used as a competitive preference 
priority. This means that applicants who propose projects addressing 
that priority could receive additional points for their applications.
    We acknowledge the commenter's general concern that a large number 
of priorities may make the application process more complicated. For 
that reason, although we publish seven priorities for different 
subpopulations in this NFP, we do not intend to use all of the 
subpopulation priorities in a single year's competition. Instead, for 
each year in which we hold a competition, we would likely choose no 
more than a few high-need subpopulations to emphasize.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A commenter recommended that the special populations 
described by the proposed priorities be identified as illustrative 
examples of populations that could be served by a P3 project, rather 
than set out as priorities. The commenter was concerned that some 
subpopulations of disconnected youth were not included among the 
priorities proposed in the NPP. A second commenter noted that there is 
a significant number of disconnected youth who meet more than one of 
the proposed subpopulation priorities and expressed concern that 
applicants would be limited to serving only the subpopulation 
identified in a particular priority. The commenter encouraged us to 
affirm that applicants could serve youth with characteristics described 
by multiple priorities, such as, for example, a project that proposed 
to serve youth who have been involved in the justice system and who 
also are immigrants or refugees.
    Discussion: We understand the commenters' concerns and wish to 
emphasize that the purpose of the subpopulation priorities is to create 
incentives for applicants to serve disconnected youth with great needs 
who might otherwise not be served or who may be difficult to reach. The 
use of the priorities in a given competition would not bar applicants 
from serving other disconnected youth who are included within the 
statutory definition of the term. Even if we were to use one of the 
subpopulation priorities as an absolute priority, the effect would be 
to require applicants to demonstrate how they will ensure that the 
subpopulation receives services. However, pilots would not be required 
to exclusively serve that subpopulation. Applicants also could serve 
youth with characteristics described by multiple priorities, such as, 
for example, a project that proposed to serve youth who have been 
involved in the justice system and who also are immigrants or refugees.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the number of subpopulation 
priorities be reduced to focus on youth with the greatest needs.
    Discussion: As we explained in the NPP, all of the specific 
subpopulations for which we proposed priorities in the NPP have great 
needs. It may be a matter of opinion, perspective, or local 
circumstances to say which subpopulation has the greatest needs. 
Therefore there is ample reason to encourage P3 pilots to use 
innovative approaches and flexibility to overcome the challenges these 
subpopulations face and generate improved outcomes for these youth. For 
example, in proposing a priority for youth who are ELs, we pointed out 
that the average cohort graduation rate for ELs was only 61 percent for 
the 2012-13 school year, while the national average cohort graduation 
rate for all youth was 81 percent. Similarly, in proposing a priority 
for youth who are homeless, we noted that these young people experience 
higher rates of acute and chronic physical illness and have higher 
rates of mental illness and substance abuse than their peers who have 
stable housing. We also noted that the high mobility associated with 
homelessness also disrupts the education of these youth, placing them 
at greater risk of falling behind and dropping out of school.
    We agree, however, that the priority for disconnected youth who are 
unemployed and out-of-school (Priority 4) should be amended to ensure 
that it is focused on those youth within this subpopulation who have 
the most significant needs. We note that a recent analysis of 2014 
Current Population Survey (CPS) data found that, while youth ages 16 to 
24 who were neither employed nor enrolled in school were more likely 
than their peers to be poor in 2014, a majority of these youth (56 
percent) did not live in poverty in that same year.\3\ Consequently, we 
believe it is appropriate to limit the priority to those unemployed and 
out-of-school youth who face significant barriers to education and 
employment. Such barriers could include, for example, having one or 
more disabilities or having been in the justice system. The same 
analysis of 2014 CPS data found that about one-third (34 percent) of 
youth ages 16 to 24 who were neither employed nor enrolled in school in 
2014 reported that illness or disability was a major reason why they 
did not work. Involvement with the justice system is another example of 
a significant barrier to education and employment for youth who are 
neither employed nor enrolled in school. Many youth involved with the 
justice system face significant barriers to accessing the education and 
training they need to achieve independence and reintegrate into the 
community because the education and training available to them through 
correctional facilities, as well as upon release, often does not meet 
their needs.\4\ For older youth involved with the adult criminal 
justice system, having a criminal record can severely limit the ability 
to secure employment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Fernandes, A.L. (2015). Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16 to 
24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or in School. Congressional 
Research Service Report No. R40535. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40535.pdf.
    \4\ See, for example, Juvenile Justice Students Face Barriers to 
High School Graduation and Job Training (2010). Report No. 10-55. 
Tallahassee, FL: Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government 
Accountability, the Florida Legislature, Retrieved from: 
www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1055rpt.pdf.
    \5\ See, for example, Pager, D.P. and Western, B. (2009). 
Investigating Prisoner Reentry: The Impact of Conviction Status on 
the Employment Prospects of Young Men: Final Report to the National 
Institute of Justice. Document No.: 228584. Retrieved from: 
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228584.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: We have revised Priority 4 to limit it to apply to youth 
who are unemployed and out-of-school and who

[[Page 25342]]

face significant barriers to accessing education and employment.
    Comment: One commenter recommended we limit the applicability of 
the proposed priorities for subpopulations of disconnected youth to 
projects that would be likely to result in significant changes in the 
outcomes of the particular subpopulations identified in the priorities. 
Another commenter expressed support for the first commenter's proposal, 
but also recommended that we consider either limiting the subpopulation 
priorities to projects that would exclusively or principally serve 
these subpopulations or allow applicants to focus their applications on 
not more than one subpopulation identified in the priorities.
    Discussion: We acknowledge the first commenter's suggestion that we 
limit the applicability of the priorities for subpopulations of 
disconnected youth to projects that would be likely to result in 
significant changes in the outcomes of the particular subpopulations 
they identify. We agree with the commenter. We disagree with the second 
commenter's recommendation that we revise the subpopulation priorities 
to require that projects principally or exclusively serve the 
subpopulations addressed in the priority because such a requirement may 
result in approaches that inappropriately segregate youth with special 
needs from their peers and reinforce program ``silos'' that P3 is 
intended to help communities break down. However, in the event that one 
of these subpopulation priorities is used as a competitive preference 
priority, we do think it would be appropriate to consider the extent to 
which an applicant would serve the particular subpopulation in 
assessing how well an application meets the priority. An applicant that 
proposed to serve a small number or percentage of the subpopulation 
could receive fewer points than an applicant that proposed to serve a 
larger number or percentage of the youth identified in the priority. We 
also acknowledge the second commenter's suggestion that we allow 
applicants to focus their applications on only one of the 
subpopulations identified in the priorities. We can accomplish that 
result without additional rulemaking. Should we decide to include two 
or more of the subpopulation priorities in any future P3 competition, 
we would have the opportunity to limit applicants to selecting only one 
of the priorities.
    Changes: We have revised the priorities for the subpopulations of 
high-need disconnected youth (i.e., youth who are unemployed and out of 
school, youth who are ELs, youth with a disability, homeless youth, 
youth in foster care, youth involved in the justice system, and youth 
who are immigrants or refugees) to specify that, in order to meet the 
priority, a project must both serve the particular subpopulation 
identified in the priority and be likely to result in significantly 
better educational or employment outcomes for the particular 
subpopulation identified in the priority. Peer reviewers will determine 
whether or the extent to which an applicant meets the priority based on 
the evidence an applicant includes in its application.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we establish a priority for 
urban communities with high rates of poverty and unemployment that have 
experienced violent protests in recent years.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that there are numerous 
urban communities with high rates of poverty, unemployment, and 
violence that would benefit from P3. However, the 2016 Appropriations 
Act requires that pilots selected for FY 2015 and FY 2016 by the 
Agencies include ``communities that have recently experienced civil 
unrest.'' This provision makes it unnecessary to use rulemaking to 
ensure such communities receive priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that we establish a priority 
for projects that serve disconnected youth who are parents, including, 
particularly, projects that implement strategies that address the needs 
of both the parent and the child.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that a priority for 
disconnected youth who are pregnant or parenting is appropriate because 
these adolescents and their children are at high risk for adverse 
outcomes. Adolescent childbearing, for example, significantly reduces 
the likelihood of the mother's earning a regular high school diploma, 
or completing at least two years of postsecondary education by age 
30.\6\ Teenage parenting also has negative consequences for fathers; 
they, too, are less likely to earn a high school diploma, and they 
complete fewer years of schooling than their non-parenting peers.\7\ We 
also agree that two-generation strategies--that is, strategies that 
simultaneously address the needs of the parent and the needs of the 
child--can have great merit. To preserve the freedom of applicants to 
innovate and the flexibility inherent to P3, however, we do not believe 
a priority for disconnected youth who are pregnant or parenting should 
specify that two-generation strategies must always be used to address 
the priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Hoffman, S.D. (2008). Updated Estimates of the Consequences 
of Teen Childbearing for Mothers. In: Hoffman, S.D., and Maynard, 
R.A., eds. Kids Having Kids: Economic and Social Consequences of 
Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press: 74-92.
    \7\ Fletcher, J.M. and Wolfe, B.L. (2012). The effects of 
teenage fatherhood on young adult outcomes. Economic Inquiry, 50 
(1), 182-201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: We have established a priority (now Priority 11) for 
pilots that are likely to result in significantly better educational or 
employment outcomes for disconnected youth who are pregnant or 
parenting.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for establishing a 
priority for applicants whose State government had also agreed to 
provide flexibility to support implementation of the project.
    Discussion: We recognize that flexibility from State and local 
requirements can be crucial to the successful implementation of a 
pilot. For that reason, the NFP includes the Application Requirement 
(c)(1)(A), which requires that an applicant provide written assurance 
that it has received any and all necessary state, local, or tribal 
flexibility, or will receive such flexibility within 60 days of being 
designated a pilot. However, we decline to create a separate priority 
for an applicant whose State has provided flexibility. We believe that 
the commenter's primary concern is whether the project design can be 
implemented effectively and will improve outcomes for disconnected 
youth. We do not believe there is additional benefit to a pilot that is 
able to implement effectively the pilots as designed due to a State 
government granting additional flexibility compared to one that has 
that ability regardless of State flexibility.
    Changes: None.
    Commenter: One commenter recommended that we establish a priority 
for projects that would be carried out by a partnership between a 
State, local, or tribal government and one or more non-governmental 
entities with experience and expertise in providing services to the 
population of youth who would be served.
    Discussion: We agree that non-governmental entities can play 
valuable roles in the design, governance, and implementation of P3 
pilots, but we decline to establish the recommended priority because we 
wish to preserve the flexibility of State, local, and tribal 
governments to innovate. For an initiative like P3 that seeks to 
provide State, local, and tribal governments greater flexibility in how 
they deliver

[[Page 25343]]

services to disconnected youth, it would be inappropriately 
prescriptive to specify how and with which entities a pilot must engage 
to deliver services. We also note that this NFP includes a selection 
criterion that would evaluate applicants based on the strength and 
capacity of the proposed pilot partnership, which can include non-
governmental entities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that each of the proposed 
priorities for subpopulations of disconnected youth be amended to 
include a requirement that projects provide career assessment and/or 
vocational evaluation services.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that career assessment and 
advising may be helpful to disconnected youth in identifying and 
pursuing their career goals. However, amending each of the 
subpopulation priorities to mandate the provision of such services 
would be inconsistent with P3's focus on increasing the flexibility of 
State, local, and tribal governments to innovate and design new 
solutions to improve the outcomes of disconnected youth.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that we establish a priority 
for projects that serve a Promise Zone.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that a priority for 
projects that serve a Promise Zone has great merit. We note, however, 
that the Department already established such a priority in an NFP that 
was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17035). 
Because it has already been established, this priority may be used in 
any appropriate discretionary grant competition carried out by the 
Department in FY 2014 and subsequent years.
    Changes: None.
    Final Priority 2--Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in 
Rural Communities.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for establishing a 
priority for projects that serve rural communities only.
    Discussion: We acknowledge the commenter's support.
    Changes: None.
    Final Priority 3--Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in 
Tribal Communities
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the proposed priority 
for projects that serve disconnected youth who are members of one or 
more State- or federally-recognized Indian tribal communities and that 
represent a partnership that includes one or more State- or federally-
recognized Indian tribes.
    Discussion: We acknowledge the commenter's support.
    Changes: None.
    Final Priority 5--Improving Outcomes for Youth Who are English 
Learners.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed support for the proposed priority 
for projects that serve disconnected youth who are ELs.
    Discussion: We acknowledge the commenters' support.
    Changes: None.
    Final Priority 7--Improving Outcomes for Homeless Youth.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed support for the proposed priority 
for projects that are designed to improve outcomes for disconnected 
youth who are homeless youth.
    Discussion: We acknowledge the commenters' support.
    Changes: None.
    Final Priority 10--Improving Outcomes for Youth Who are Immigrants 
or Refugees.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed support for the proposed priority 
for projects that are designed to improve outcomes for disconnected 
youth who are immigrants or refugees.
    Discussion: We acknowledge the commenters' support.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that we revise the priority for 
immigrants or refugees to exclude individuals who have J-1 or F-1 
visas.
    Discussion: Individuals who are visiting the United States 
temporarily with a J-1 or F-1 visa are not immigrants. The J-1 and F-1 
visas are nonimmigrant visas that are issued to individuals who have a 
permanent residence outside the U.S. and who wish to visit the U.S. on 
a temporary basis. J-1 visa holders participate temporarily in work-and 
study-based exchange visitor programs, while F-1 visa holders attend, 
on a full-time basis, a university or college, high school, private 
elementary school, seminary, conservatory, language training program, 
or other academic institution.
    Changes: None.
    Final Priority 12--Work-Based Learning Opportunities.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the proposed priority 
for projects that provide disconnected youth with paid work-based 
learning opportunities and encouraged us to require all projects to 
offer paid work-based learning opportunities to the youth they serve 
during the summer months. Another commenter expressed concern about the 
proposed priority, contending that work experience opportunities may 
not be readily available in communities with high rates of 
unemployment, that not all youth may be ready to participate in a work-
based learning opportunity because they have an intellectual 
disability, and that some projects may serve younger youth who are not 
old enough to work. The commenter conceded, however, that these 
exceptions are areas where P3 pilot may be most needed.
    Discussion: Although we acknowledge the first commenter's support 
for the priority and agree that paid work-based learning is an 
important intervention for disconnected youth, we decline to require 
all projects to offer paid work-based learning opportunities during the 
summer months in order to preserve the flexibility inherent to P3. 
However, we do agree that it is appropriate to revise the priority to 
specify that an applicant must provide paid work-based learning to all 
of the disconnected youth it proposes to serve in order to meet the 
priority. We understand the second commenter's concerns about the 
difficulty of securing paid work-based learning opportunities in areas 
with high unemployment, but believe that applicants can overcome these 
difficulties with some creativity and determination in their project 
designs, including by establishing partnerships with employers and 
other non-governmental entities. We do not share the commenter's view 
that work-based learning may not be appropriate for some youth with 
disabilities; we believe that all youth with disabilities can 
participate in, and benefit from, work-based learning if they are 
provided the right accommodations and supports. With respect to the 
concern about younger youth who are not old enough to work, we note 
that youth must be at least 14 years of age to be included within P3's 
statutory definition of disconnected youth. Under regulations issued by 
the Department of Labor to implement the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
youth who are age 14 may work outside school hours in various non-
manufacturing, non-mining, non-hazardous jobs under certain 
conditions.\8\ Moreover, we note that work-based learning opportunities 
can include job shadowing and internships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 29 CFR part 570--Child Labor Regulations, Orders, and 
Statements of Interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: We have revised the priority to specify that an applicant 
must provide paid work-based learning to all

[[Page 25344]]

of the disconnected youth it proposes to serve in order to meet the 
priority.
    Final Priority 13--Site-Specific Evaluation.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed support for our proposal to 
consolidate what had been two priorities for site-specific evaluation, 
one for randomized controlled trials and another for evaluations that 
use a quasi-experimental design, into a single priority.
    Discussion: We acknowledge the commenters' support.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed opposition to the proposed 
priority for applications that propose to conduct independent 
evaluations of their programs or specific components of their programs. 
Both commenters argued that the priority would be duplicative because a 
national evaluation of P3 is now underway. One of the commenters also 
expressed concern that projects would not implement high-quality 
evaluations because applicants lacked expertise in carrying out 
evaluations.
    Discussion: We disagree with the commenters that a priority for 
site-specific evaluations would be duplicative of the national 
evaluation of P3 that is being carried out by the U.S. Department of 
Labor. We believe that promoting independent evaluations that focus 
exclusively on the implementation of a particular pilot is important 
because such studies are likely to yield valuable insights that might 
be missed by a national evaluation that examines the implementation and 
outcomes of all of the pilots. Moreover, we note that the national 
evaluation is focused on the first cohort of P3 pilots and it is not 
yet known to what extent the Agencies will support additional national 
evaluations to examine the experiences of subsequent cohorts. We do not 
share the commenter's concern about applicants' lack of expertise in 
evaluation because applicants may seek out others with this expertise 
to assist them in designing and carrying out an independent evaluation. 
Applicants that do not have expertise in evaluation or obtain it from 
other sources are unlikely to meet the priority because the assessment 
of the extent to which an applicant meets the priority will be based 
on, among other factors, the applicant's demonstrated expertise in 
planning and conducting an evaluation using a randomized controlled 
trial or quasi-experimental design.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority for site-
specific evaluation be amended to require the evaluation to examine the 
types of career assessment services provided, the outcomes of those 
services, how many of the assessments' recommendations were followed, 
and the outcomes of those recommendations.
    Discussion: We decline to mandate that the evaluation examine 
career assessment services because not all projects may include such 
services.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we identified a typographical 
error in the second sentence of the proposed priority for site-specific 
evaluation. The second sentence of this priority used the term ``quasi-
experimental evaluation study.'' The correct term, which is defined in 
the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (34 CFR 
77.1) is ``quasi-experimental design study.''
    Changes: We have changed the reference to ``quasi-experimental 
evaluation'' in the second sentence of the priority to ``quasi-
experimental design study.''

Application Requirements

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that proposed Application 
Requirement (b), Statement of Need for a Defined Target Population, was 
similar to one of the proposed selection criteria. The commenter 
encouraged us either to clarify how the two provisions differed or to 
delete one of them. Another commenter contended that several proposed 
application requirements were duplicative because they sought 
information that applicants must provide in responding to the proposed 
selection criteria. That commenter recommended that we limit the 
application requirements to essential information that is not addressed 
by the selection criteria.
    Discussion: The commenters are correct that several of the proposed 
application requirements sought narratives that applicants would have 
provided in responding to the proposed selection criteria. We proposed 
these application requirements in an effort to ensure that applicants 
provide this information so that reviewers can assess it in scoring the 
selection criteria. However, we acknowledge the concerns of the 
commenters that these proposed application requirements appear 
duplicative and are confusing rather than helpful.
    Changes: We have revised four application requirements to remove 
requirements for narrative text that would be assessed by one or more 
of the selection criteria. The revisions we made in response to these 
comments are:
     In Application Requirement (b), Statement of Need for a 
Defined Target Population, we have removed the requirement that the 
applicant provide a narrative description of the target population. We 
have retained the requirement that the applicant complete Table 1 and 
specify the target population(s) for the pilot, including the range of 
ages of youth who will be served and the number of youth who will be 
served over the course of the pilot. We have also retitled the 
requirement ``Target Population.''
     In Application Requirement (d), Project Design, we have 
removed the requirement that the applicant submit a narrative that 
describes the project, the needs of the target population, the 
activities or changes in practice that will be implemented, why the 
requested flexibility is necessary to implement the pilot, how the 
requested flexibility will enable the applicant to implement changes in 
practice, and the proposed length of the pilot. We have retained the 
requirement that the applicant submit a logic model and, consequently, 
we have renamed Application Requirement (d) ``Logic Model.''
     We have deleted Application Requirement (e), Work Plan and 
Project Management.
     In Application Requirement (g), Budget and Budget 
Narrative (formerly Application Requirement (h)), we have revised the 
requirement to refer only to the budget and to require only the 
completion of Table 5. We have removed the requirement to provide a 
narrative regarding the amount and use of start-up funds, the proposed 
uses of funds named in Table 5, and the amount and sources of any non-
Federal funds that may be used in the pilot. In addition, Table 5 has 
been revised to remove the rows that asked applicants to break out, for 
pilots proposed for multiple years, the amount and source of Federal 
funds that would be used in each calendar year of the project.
    Comment: One commenter urged us to require applicants to provide 
evidence that the parties involved in the proposed project's 
implementation show evidence of prior collaboration through in-kind 
commitments, braided funding, or shared services.
    Discussion: We decline to impose the recommended requirement 
because it would be duplicative. The extent to which partners in the 
proposed project have successfully collaborated to improve outcomes for 
disconnected youth in the past is among the factors assessed by 
Selection Criterion (e)(1).

[[Page 25345]]

Additionally, the recommended requirement is inappropriately 
prescriptive. To be effective, collaboration need not always involve 
in-kind commitments, braided funding, or shared services.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter commended us for giving applicants some 
flexibility in selecting the indicators and outcome measures that would 
be used to evaluate their projects, but suggested that we establish a 
small, common set of outcome measures that all pilots would use. The 
commenter recommended that we make placement and retention in school 
and/or placement and retention in employment required outcome measures 
for all pilots.
    Discussion: As the commenter acknowledged, both the interventions 
implemented and the populations served can be diverse across P3 
projects, making it difficult to identify appropriate indicators and 
outcome measures that should apply to all projects. We do see merit, 
however, in having a menu of indicators and outcome measures from which 
applicants may choose so that similar projects use common indicators 
and outcome measures, facilitating comparisons in performance across 
the P3 pilots.
    Changes: We have added a menu of indicators and outcome measures to 
redesignated Application Requirement (f). Applicants may choose from 
this menu, or propose alternative indicators and outcome measures if 
they describe why those are more appropriate for their proposed 
projects. Applicants may propose additional measures and indicators 
that are not included among the options we identify, so long as they 
select at least one indicator and one outcome measure in the domain of 
education and at least one indicator and outcome measure in the domain 
of employment. Applicants may also propose additional measures and 
indicators outside of the education and employment domains such as 
well-being, including health, housing, recidivism, or other outcomes 
and are encouraged to do so where such outcomes are central to the 
proposed pilot.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: One of the outcome measures we proposed in Application 
Requirement (f) was ``community college completion.'' Upon further 
review, we determined that it would be more appropriate and inclusive 
to refer more generally to college completion so that pilots would have 
the option of measuring and setting targets for the completion of 
degree and certificate programs offered by four-year colleges and 
universities, as well as those offered by community colleges.
    Changes: We substituted the phrase ``college completion'' for 
``community college completion'' in Application Requirement (f).
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we noted that the text of 
Application Requirement (b) did not conform to the headings in Table 1 
in two instances. First, the text of Application Requirement (b) 
instructed applicants to include the ``range of ages of youth'' while 
the heading for column 2 in Table 1 was ``age range.'' Second, the text 
of Application Requirement (b) instructed applicants to provide the 
``number of youth who will be served annually,'' while the header for 
column 3 in Table 1 was ``Estimated Number of Youth Served Over the 
Course of the Pilot.''
    Changes: We revised the text of Application Requirement (b) so that 
it conforms to the headings of Table 1. We have substituted ``age 
range'' for ``range of ages of youth'' and ``estimated number of youth 
served over the course of the pilot'' for ``number of youth who will be 
served annually.''
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: In the NPP, the note accompanying Table 2 in 
Application Requirement (c)(1) (Federal requests for flexibility, 
including waivers) instructed applicants to indicate in the column for 
the name of grantee whether the grantee was a State, local, or tribal 
government. Upon further review, we determined that this note also 
should include a reference to non-governmental entities, if applicable. 
This change is appropriate because, while only State, local, or tribal 
governments may submit a P3 application, they may request waivers on 
behalf of non-governmental entities that are their partners in order to 
implement their pilots.
    Changes: We have added ``or non-governmental entity'' to the note 
accompanying Table 2 in Application Requirement (c)(1).
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we noted that Table 2 in 
Application Requirement (c)(1) (Federal requests for flexibility, 
including waivers) was titled ``Requested Waivers.'' However, the 
requirement refers more generally to requests for flexibility, 
including waivers.
    Changes: As a result, we have retitled Table 2 ``Requested 
Flexibility.''
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we concluded that, for clarity, 
Table 5 in Application Requirement (g) should include a column that 
requests the name of the grantee that is the recipient of the specified 
funds and that the reference to ``applicant or its partners'' should be 
changed to ``the grantee.'' These changes are important because the 
recipient of funds may not always be the applicant.
    Changes: We have added to Table 5 in Application Requirement (g) a 
column that requests the name of the grantee that is the recipient of 
the specified funds and changed to reference to ``applicants and its 
partners'' to the ``grantee.''
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we noted that the text of 
Application Requirement (g)(1)(A) was incomplete because it did not 
specify the content of the fifth and sixth columns in the accompanying 
Table 5.
    Changes: We revised Application Requirement (g)(1)(A) to specify 
the information to be provided in these columns: the Federal fiscal 
year of the award (column 5) and whether the grant has already been 
awarded (column 6).
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we impose a program 
requirement that would mandate that intake personnel or case workers 
involved in a P3 project seek to obtain a youth's school records, if 
feasible, to avoid spending unnecessary time and resources on assessing 
the youth's academic skills.
    Discussion: We agree that projects should seek school records where 
feasible so that time and money are not wasted on unnecessary 
reassessments of youth's skills. However, we decline to mandate this 
practice because it would be inappropriately prescriptive for an 
initiative like P3 that seeks to increase State, local, and tribal 
flexibility to innovate. We also wish to avoid establishing detailed 
procedural requirements or other mandates for how projects must be 
carried out so that we can focus on assessing P3 projects on the basis 
of the outcomes they achieve for youth, rather than how they deliver 
services to youth.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we require P3 projects to 
assess the career interests, aptitudes and goals of participants, as 
well as compel projects to offer work-based career assessment 
strategies as one option for such assessments.
    Discussion: We agree that assessing the career interests, 
aptitudes, and goals of youth is worthwhile, but we decline to impose 
the mandate recommended by the commenter so that we can preserve the 
freedom of State, local, and tribal governments to innovate. We do not 
believe it is appropriate to compel

[[Page 25346]]

applicants to provide particular types of services and interventions.
    Changes: None.
    Definitions:
    Comment: Two commenters expressed support for our proposal to base 
the definition of English learner on the definition of ``English 
language learner'' found in section 203 of the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act (WIOA) (29 U.S.C. 3272(7)). However, one of these 
commenters noted that the WIOA section 203 definition requires English 
language learners to be ``eligible individuals,'' which is defined by 
WIOA section 203(4) as individuals who are at least 16 years of age. 
This commenter urged us to affirm that the P3 definition of ``English 
learner'' includes youth as young as age 14.
    Discussion: We acknowledge the support for the definition. The 
second commenter is correct that an individual must be 16 years of age 
to meet the WIOA section 203 definition of ``English language 
learner.'' For this reason, we did not cross-reference the WIOA section 
203 definition in our proposed definition of the term ``English 
learner'' for P3, choosing instead to adapt the definition so that it 
would be suitable for P3 and include youth as young as age 14.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed support for our proposal to 
define the term ``homeless youth'' using the definition found in 
section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children 
and Youth Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)).
    Discussion: We acknowledge the commenters' support.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that the proposed 
definition of ``braided funding'' required revision. The definition we 
had originally proposed had indicated that braiding funds does not 
require a waiver. While this is true, it is possible that a waiver 
might facilitate a pilot's ability to braid funds, such as by aligning 
the eligibility requirements of two programs.
    Changes: We have amended the definition of ``braided funding'' to 
clarify that waivers may be used to support more effective or efficient 
braiding of funds.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that the proposed 
definition of ``waiver'' required revision. The definition we had 
originally proposed had indicated that a waiver provides relief from 
specific statutory, regulatory, or administrative requirements. In some 
instances, however, a waiver might waive a specific requirement in 
part, rather than eliminate it altogether. For example, a waiver could 
enable a pilot to increase the eligibility requirements of a program 
from 18 to 21 years old.
    Changes: We have amended the definition of waiver to indicate that 
a waiver may waive specific statutory, regulatory, or administrative 
requirements in whole or in part.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we identified a typographical 
error in the first sentence of the proposed definition of ``evidence-
based intervention.'' The first sentence of this definition used the 
term ``quasi-experimental studies.'' The correct term, which is defined 
in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (34 CFR 
77.1) is ``quasi-experimental design studies.''
    Changes: We have changed the reference to ``quasi-experimental 
studies'' in the first sentence of the definition to ``quasi-
experimental design studies.''
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: The NPP included a proposed definition for the term 
``evidence-based intervention,'' which was used in proposed Selection 
Criterion (c)(2). Since the publication of the NPP, the Every Student 
Succeeds Act (ESSA) (Pub. Law 114-95) was enacted into law. This Act, 
which authorizes most of the Department's elementary and secondary 
education programs, uses extensively the terms ``evidence-based'' and 
``evidence-based intervention.'' However, ESSA defines the term 
``evidence-based'' differently than we had proposed to define the term 
``evidence-based intervention'' in the NPP.
    Change: To prevent confusion with the ESSA definition of the term 
``evidence-based,'' we have changed the term ``evidence-based 
intervention'' in the Definitions section and in Selection Criterion 
(c)(2) to ``intervention based on evidence.''
    Selection Criteria:
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that disaggregated 
outcome data are not readily available for some ELs and youth who are 
immigrants or refugees, including, particularly, outcome data by 
nativity and ethnicity for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders 
(AAPIs). The commenters were concerned that applications that proposed 
to serve these populations would not score well under Selection 
Criterion (a), Need for Project, as a result.
    Discussion: We acknowledge the commenters' concerns about the 
limited availability of data on AAPIs that is disaggregated by nativity 
and ethnicity, but we note that, in part due to the efforts of the 
White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, such 
data are becoming increasingly available. For example, the U.S. 
Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics now disaggregates 
Current Population Survey estimates on labor force participation, 
employment, and unemployment for seven Asian groups. However, we 
recognize that there may still be instances where disaggregated data 
are difficult to obtain.
    Changes: We have added a sentence to the note accompanying 
Selection Criterion (a) clarifying that applicants may also refer to 
disaggregated data available through research, studies, or other 
sources that describe similarly situated populations as the one the 
applicant is targeting with its pilot.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that it was 
necessary to clarify that Selection Criterion (a) does not require 
applicants to submit the needs assessment to which the criterion 
refers. Applicants need only present data from a needs assessment that 
was conducted or updated in the past three years; the needs assessment 
itself does not need to be provided.
    Changes: We have added a note to accompany Selection Criterion (a) 
that indicates that applicants are not required to submit the needs 
assessment but that they should identify when the needs assessment was 
conducted or updated.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that it was 
necessary to replace the term ``a waiver'' in Selection Criterion 
(b)(1) with the broader term ``flexibility'' in order to make the text 
of the criterion consistent with its title.
    Changes: We have replaced the word ``waiver'' in Selection 
Criterion (b)(1) with the word ``flexibility.''
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that, for clarity, 
it was necessary to include in Selection Criterion (b)(1) and (2) 
cross-references to Table 2 because this is where an applicant 
identifies the requirements for which it is seeking flexibility.
    Changes: We have revised Selection Criterion (b) (1) and (2) to 
include cross-references to Table 2.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: As proposed in the NPP, Application Requirement (b) 
would have required that the needs assessment used to identify the 
needs of the target population to have been conducted or updated within 
the past three years. As

[[Page 25347]]

discussed above, in response to public comment, we have removed some of 
the requirements from proposed Application Requirement (b) because much 
of the information it sought also must be provided to respond to 
Selection Criterion (a), Need for Project.
    Changes: Because it is important that applicants provide recent 
data on the needs of the population(s) they propose to serve, we have 
revised Selection Criterion (a) to specify that the data provided in 
response to this selection criterion must be from a needs assessment 
conducted or updated within the past three years.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: In the NPP, Selection Criterion (c) referred to the 
``Statement of Need section'' and ``Need for Flexibility section.'' 
Upon further review, we determined that it was not clear that these 
were cross-references to the applicant's responses to Selection 
Criteria (a) and (b), respectively.
    Changes: We have revised Selection Criterion (c) to clarify that it 
refers to the applicant's responses to Selection Criteria (a) and (b).
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that it was 
necessary to revise Selection Criterion (c)(2) to clarify its meaning. 
As we had originally proposed it, this subcriterion was confusing with 
regard to the meaning of ``evidence'' and ``base.'' Further, we 
determined that the subcriterion's reference to ``relevant evidence'' 
was unclear.
    Changes: We have revised the subcriterion to eliminate the use of 
the word ``base'' as both a noun and a verb so that it now assesses 
``[t]he strength of the evidence supporting the pilot design, and 
whether the applicant proposes the effective use of interventions based 
on evidence and evidence-informed interventions (as defined in this 
notice).'' We also revised the subcriterion to clarify that evidence is 
relevant if it informed the applicant's design.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we determined that, for clarity, 
it was necessary to revise Selection Criterion (f) (2) and (3) to 
indicate that the information evaluated by these two subcriteria 
appears in Table 4.
    Changes: We have revised Selection Criterion (f) (2) and (3) to 
include cross-references to Table 4.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review, we found that Selection Criterion 
(g), Budget and Budget Narrative, may be confusing to applicants 
because the budget to which it refers is not clearly specified. The 
criterion could refer to the start-up grant funds requested by the 
applicant, the Federal funds that would be blended or braided in the 
proposed pilot, the non-Federal funds contributed by the applicant, or 
all of these sources of funds.
    Changes: We have revised Selection Criterion (g) to indicate that 
its scope includes all of the funds that will be used by a pilot, 
including the start-up grant funds, blended and braided funds, and any 
non-Federal resources contributed by the applicant.

Final Priorities

    Priority 1--Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that is 
designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth.
    Priority 2--Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in Rural 
Communities.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that is 
designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth in one or more 
rural communities (as defined in this notice) only.
    Priority 3--Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in Tribal 
Communities.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must (1) propose a pilot that 
is designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth who are members 
of one or more State- or federally-recognized Indian tribal 
communities; and (2) represent a partnership that includes one or more 
State- or federally-recognized Indian tribes.
    Priority 4--Improving Outcomes for Youth Who Are Unemployed and Out 
of School.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that--
    (1) will serve disconnected youth who are neither employed nor 
enrolled in education and who face significant barriers to accessing 
education and employment; and
    (2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or 
employment outcomes for such youth.
    Priority 5--Improving Outcomes for Youth Who are English Learners.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that--
    (1) will serve disconnected youth who are English learners (as 
defined in this notice); and
    (2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or 
employment outcomes for such youth.
    Priority 6--Improving Outcomes for Youth with a Disability.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that--
    (1) will serve disconnected youth who are individuals with a 
disability (as defined in this notice); and
    (2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or 
employment outcomes for such youth.
    Priority 7--Improving Outcomes for Homeless Youth.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that--
    (1) will serve disconnected youth who are homeless youth (as 
defined in this notice); and
    (2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or 
employment outcomes for such youth.
    Priority 8--Improving Outcomes for Youth in Foster Care.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that---
    (1) will serve disconnected youth who are or have ever been in 
foster care; and
    (2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or 
employment outcomes for such youth.
    Priority 9--Improving Outcomes for Youth Involved in the Justice 
System.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that--
    (1) will serve disconnected youth who are involved in the justice 
system; and
    (2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or 
employment outcomes for such youth.
    Priority 10--Improving Outcomes for Youth Who are Immigrants or 
Refugees.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that--
    (1) will serve disconnected youth who are immigrants or refugees; 
and
    (2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or 
employment outcomes for such youth.
    Priority 11--Improving Outcomes for Youth Who are Pregnant or 
Parenting.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that---
    (1) will serve disconnected youth who are pregnant or parenting; 
and
    (2) is likely to result in significantly better educational or 
employment outcomes for such youth.
    Priority 12--Work-Based Learning Opportunities.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that will 
provide all of the disconnected youth it proposes to serve with paid 
work-based learning opportunities, such as opportunities during the 
summer, which are integrated with academic and technical instruction.
    Priority 13--Site-Specific Evaluation.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to conduct an 
independent evaluation of the impacts on disconnected youth of its 
overall program or specific components of its program that is a 
randomized controlled

[[Page 25348]]

trial or a quasi-experimental design study. The extent to which an 
applicant meets this priority will be based on the clarity and 
feasibility of the applicant's proposed evaluation design, the 
appropriateness of the design to best capture key pilot outcomes, the 
prospective contribution of the evaluation to the knowledge base about 
serving disconnected youth (including the rigor of the design and the 
validity and generalizability of the findings), and the applicant's 
demonstrated expertise in planning and conducting a randomized 
controlled trial or quasi-experimental design study.
    In order to meet this priority, an applicant also must include the 
following two documents as separate attachments to its application:
    1. A Summary Evaluation Plan that describes how the pilot or a 
component of the pilot (such as a discrete service-delivery strategy) 
will be rigorously evaluated. The evaluation plan may not exceed eight 
pages. The plan must include the following:
     A brief description of the research question(s) proposed 
for study and an explanation of its/their relevance, including how the 
proposed evaluation will build on the research evidence base for the 
project as described in the application and how the evaluation findings 
will be used to improve program implementation;
     A description of the randomized controlled trial or quasi-
experimental design study methodology, including the key outcome 
measures, the process for forming a comparison or control group, a 
justification for the target sample size and strategy for achieving it, 
and the approach to data collection (and sources) that minimizes both 
cost and potential attrition;
     A proposed evaluation timeline, including dates for 
submission of required interim and final reports;
     A description of how, to the extent feasible and 
consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal privacy 
requirements, evaluation data will be made available to other, 
third[hyphen]party researchers after the project ends; and
     A plan for selecting and procuring the services of a 
qualified independent evaluator (as defined in this notice) prior to 
enrolling participants (or a description of how one was selected if 
agreements have already been reached). The applicant must describe how 
it will ensure that the qualified independent evaluator has the 
capacity and expertise to conduct the evaluation, including estimating 
the effort for the qualified independent evaluator. This estimate must 
include the time, expertise, and analysis needed to successfully 
complete the proposed evaluation.
    2. A supplementary Evaluation Budget Narrative, which is separate 
from the overall application budget narrative and provides a 
description of the costs associated with funding the proposed program 
evaluation component, and an explanation of its funding source--i.e., 
blended funding, start-up funding, State, local, or tribal government 
funding, or other funding (such as philanthropic). The budget must 
include a breakout of costs by evaluation activity (such as data 
collection and participant follow-up), and the applicant must describe 
a strategy for refining the budget after the services of an evaluator 
have been procured. The applicant must include travel costs for the 
qualified independent evaluator to attend at least one in-person 
conference in Washington, DC during the period of evaluation. All costs 
included in this supplementary budget narrative must be reasonable and 
appropriate to the project timeline and deliverables.
    The Agencies will review the Summary Evaluation Plans and 
Evaluation Budget Narratives and provide feedback to applicants that 
are determined to have met the priority and that are selected as 
pilots. After award, these pilots must submit to the lead Federal 
agency a detailed evaluation plan of no more than 30 pages that relies 
heavily on the expertise of a qualified independent evaluator. The 
detailed evaluation plan must address the Agencies' feedback and expand 
on the Summary Evaluation Plan.

    [Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1830-0575]

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)).

Requirements

Application Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary announces the following application 
requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these 
requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
    (a) Executive Summary. The applicant must provide an executive 
summary that briefly describes the proposed pilot, the flexibilities 
being sought, and the interventions or systems changes that would be 
implemented by the applicant and its partners to improve outcomes for 
disconnected youth.
    (b) Target Population. The applicant must complete Table 1, 
specifying the target population(s) for the pilot, including the age 
range of youth who will be served and the estimated number of youth who 
will be served over the course of the pilot.

                       Table 1--Target Population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated
                                                             number of
                                                           youth served
              Target population                Age range     over the
                                                           course of the
                                                               pilot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Flexibility, including waivers:
    1. Federal requests for flexibility, including waivers. For each 
program to be included in a pilot, the applicant must complete Table 2, 
Requested Flexibility. The applicant must identify two or more 
discretionary Federal programs that will be included in the pilot, at 
least one of which must be administered (in whole or in part) by a 
State, local, or tribal government.\9\ In table 2, the applicant must 
identify one or more program requirements that would inhibit 
implementation of the pilot and request that the requirement(s) be 
waived in whole or in part. Examples of potential waiver requests and 
other requests for flexibility include, but are

[[Page 25349]]

not limited to: blending of funds and changes to align eligibility 
requirements, allowable uses of funds, and performance reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Local governments that are requesting waivers of 
requirements in State-administered programs are strongly encouraged 
to consult with the State agencies that administer the programs in 
preparing their applications.

                                         Table 2--Requested Flexibility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Program
                                                   requirements    Statutory or       Name of        Blending
          Program name            Federal agency   to be waived     regulatory        program      funds?  (Yes/
                                                  in whole or in     citation         grantee           No)
                                                       part
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note:  Please note in ``Name of Program Grantee'' if the grantee 
is a State, local, or tribal government, or non-governmental entity.

    2. Non-Federal flexibility, including waivers. The applicant must 
provide written assurance that:
    A. The State, local, or tribal government(s) with authority to 
grant any needed non-Federal flexibility, including waivers, has 
approved or will approve such flexibility within 60 days of an 
applicant's designation as a pilot finalist; \10\ or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This includes, for example, for local governments, 
instances in which a waiver must be agreed upon by a State. It also 
includes instances in which waivers may only be requested by the 
State on the local government's behalf, such as waivers of the 
performance accountability requirements for local areas established 
in Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Non-Federal flexibility, including waivers, is not needed in 
order to successfully implement the pilot.
    (d) Logic Model. The applicant must provide a graphic depiction 
(not longer than one page) of the pilot's logic model that illustrates 
the underlying theory of how the pilot's strategy will produce intended 
outcomes.
    (e) Partnership Capacity and Management. The applicant must--
    1. Identify the proposed partners, including any and all State, 
local, and tribal entities and non-governmental organizations that 
would be involved in implementation of the pilot, and describe their 
roles in the pilot's implementation using Table 3. Partnerships that 
cross programs and funding sources but are under the jurisdiction of a 
single agency or entity must identify the different sub-organizational 
units involved.
    2. Provide a memorandum of understanding or letter of commitment 
signed by the executive leader or other accountable senior 
representative of each partner that describes each proposed partner's 
commitment, including its contribution of financial or in-kind 
resources (if any).

                         Table 3--Pilot Partners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Type of
                                           organization
                                          (state agency,
                                           local agency,  Description of
                 Partner                    community-    partner's role
                                               based       in the pilot
                                           organization,
                                             business)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note:  Any grantees mentioned in Table 2 that are not the lead 
applicant must be included in Table 3.

    (f) Data and Performance Management Capacity. The applicant must 
propose outcome measures and interim indicators to gauge pilot 
performance using Table 4. At least one outcome measure must be in the 
domain of education, and at least one outcome measure must be in the 
domain of employment. Applicants may specify additional employment and 
education outcome measures, as well as outcome measures in other 
domains of well-being, such as criminal justice, physical and mental 
health, and housing. Regardless of the outcome domain, applicants must 
identify at least one interim indicator for each proposed outcome 
measure. Applicants may apply one interim indicator to multiple outcome 
measures, if appropriate.
    Examples of outcome measures and interim indicators follow. 
Applicants may choose from this menu or may propose alternative 
indicators and outcome measures if they describe why their alternatives 
are more appropriate for their proposed projects.

                            Education Domain
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Outcome measure                     Interim indicator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High school diploma or equivalency        High school
 attainment.                              enrollment.
                                          Reduction in chronic
                                          absenteeism.
                                          Grade promotion.
                                          Performance on
                                          standardized assessments.
                                          Grade Point Average.
                                          Credit accumulation.
College completion.....................   Enrollment.
                                          Course attendance.
                                          Credit accumulation.
                                          Retention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Employment Domain
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Outcome measure                     Interim indicator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustained Employment...................   Unsubsidized
                                          employment at time periods
                                          after exit from the program.

[[Page 25350]]

 
                                          Median earnings at
                                          time periods after exit from
                                          the program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specific outcome measures and interim indicators the applicant 
uses should be grounded in its logic model, and informed by applicable 
program results or research, as appropriate. Applicants must also 
indicate the source of the data, the proposed frequency of collection, 
and the methodology used to collect the data.

            Table 4--Outcome Measures and Interim Indicators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Interim
             Domain                 Outcome measure      indicator(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education:
                                  Data Source:        Data Source:
                                  Frequency of        Frequency of
                                   Collection:         Collection:
                                  Methodology:        Methodology:
Employment:
                                  Data Source:        Data Source:
                                  Frequency of        Frequency of
                                   Collection:         Collection:
                                  Methodology:        Methodology:
Other:
                                  Data Source:        Data Source:
                                  Frequency of        Frequency of
                                   Collection:         Collection:
                                  Methodology:        Methodology:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (g) Budget and Budget Narrative.
    1. The applicant must complete Table 5 to provide the following 
budget information:
    A. For each Federal program, the grantee, the amount of funds to be 
blended or braided (as defined in this notice), the percentage of total 
program funding received by the grantee that the amount to be blended 
or braided represents, the Federal fiscal year of the award, and 
whether the grant has already been awarded; and
    B. The total amount of funds from all Federal programs that would 
be blended or braided under the pilot.

                                             Table 5--Federal Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Blended funds as a
                                             Amount of       percentage of     Federal fiscal    Grant already
    Program name           Grantee          funds to be     grantee's total     year of award    awarded? (Y/N)
                                              blended            award
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     ...................                  ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     ...................                  ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     ...................                  ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL BLENDED    ...................                  ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Program name           Grantee           Amount of     Braided funds as a  Federal fiscal    Grant already
                                            funds to be       percentage of     year of award       awarded?
                                              braided        grantee's total                               (Y/N)
                                                                  award
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     ...................                  ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     ...................                  ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     ...................                  ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL BRAIDED    ...................                  ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note:  Applicants may propose to expand the number of Federal 
programs supporting pilot activities using future funding beyond FY 
2016, which may be included in pilots if Congress extends the P3 
authority.


[Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1830-0575]

Program Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary announces the following program 
requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these 
requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
    (a) National evaluation. In addition to any site-specific 
evaluations that pilots may undertake, the Agencies may initiate a 
national P3 evaluation of the pilots selected in Round 2, as well as 
those selected in subsequent rounds.\11\ Each P3 pilot must participate 
fully in any federally sponsored P3 evaluation activity, including the 
national

[[Page 25351]]

evaluation of P3, which will consist of the analysis of participant 
characteristics and outcomes, an implementation analysis at all sites, 
and rigorous impact evaluations of promising interventions in selected 
sites. The applicant must acknowledge in writing its understanding of 
these requirements by submitting the form provided in Appendix A, 
``Evaluation Commitment Form,'' as an attachment to its application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The initiation of any federally sponsored national P3 
evaluation is dependent upon the availability of sufficient funds 
and resources.

[Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
number 1830-0575]

    (b) Community of practice. All P3 pilots must participate in a 
community of practice (as defined in this notice) that includes an 
annual in-person meeting of pilot sites (paid with grant funding that 
must be reflected in the pilot budget submitted) and virtual peer-to-
peer learning activities. This commitment involves each pilot site 
working with the lead Federal agency on a plan for supporting its 
technical assistance needs, which can include learning activities 
supported by foundations or other non-Federal organizations as well as 
activities financed with Federal funds for the pilot.
    (c) Consent. P3 pilots must secure necessary consent from parents, 
guardians, students, or youth program participants to access data for 
their pilots and any evaluations, in accordance with applicable 
Federal, State, local, and tribal laws. Applicants must explain how 
they propose to ensure compliance with Federal, State, local, and 
tribal privacy laws and regulations as pilot partners share data to 
support effective coordination of services and link data to track 
outcome measures and interim indicators at the individual level to 
perform, where applicable, a low-cost, high-quality evaluation.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ To the extent feasible and consistent with applicable 
privacy requirements, grantees must also ensure the data from their 
evaluations are made available to third[hyphen]party researchers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Performance agreement. Each P3 pilot, along with other non-
Federal government entities involved in the partnership, must enter 
into a performance agreement that will include, at a minimum, the 
following (as required by section 526(c)(2) of Division H of the 2014 
Appropriations Act):
    1. The length of the agreement;
    2. The Federal programs and federally-funded services that are 
involved in the pilot;
    3. The Federal discretionary funds that are being used in the 
pilot;
    4. The non[hyphen]Federal funds that are involved in the pilot, by 
source (which may include private funds as well as governmental funds) 
and by amount;
    5. The State, local, or tribal programs that are involved in the 
pilot;
    6. The populations to be served by the pilot;
    7. The cost[hyphen]effective Federal oversight procedures that will 
be used for the purpose of maintaining the necessary level of 
accountability for the use of the Federal discretionary funds;
    8. The cost[hyphen]effective State, local, or tribal oversight 
procedures that will be used for the purpose of maintaining the 
necessary level of accountability for the use of the Federal 
discretionary funds;
    9. The outcome (or outcomes) that the pilot is designed to achieve;
    10. The appropriate, reliable, and objective 
outcome[hyphen]measurement methodology that will be used to determine 
whether the pilot is achieving, and has achieved, specified outcomes;
    11. The statutory, regulatory, or administrative requirements 
related to Federal mandatory programs that are barriers to achieving 
improved outcomes of the pilot; and
    12. Criteria for determining when a pilot is not achieving the 
specified outcomes that it is designed to achieve and subsequent steps, 
including:
    i. The consequences that will result; and
    ii. The corrective actions that will be taken in order to increase 
the likelihood that the pilot will achieve such specified outcomes.

Definitions

    The Assistant Secretary announces 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.
    Blended funding is a funding and resource allocation strategy that 
uses multiple existing funding streams to support a single initiative 
or strategy. Blended funding merges two or more funding streams, or 
portions of multiple funding streams, to produce greater efficiency 
and/or effectiveness. Funds from each individual stream lose their 
award-specific identity, and the blended funds together become subject 
to a single set of reporting and other requirements, consistent with 
the underlying purposes of the programs for which the funds were 
appropriated.
    Braided funding is a funding and resource allocation strategy in 
which entities use existing funding streams to support unified 
initiatives in as flexible and integrated a manner as possible while 
still tracking and maintaining separate accountability for each funding 
stream. One or more entities may coordinate several funding sources, 
but each individual funding stream maintains its award-specific 
identity. Whereas blending funds typically requires one or more waivers 
of associated program requirements, braiding does not. However, waivers 
may be used to support more effective or efficient braiding of funds.
    Community of practice means a group of pilots that agrees to 
interact regularly to solve persistent problems or improve practice in 
an area that is important to them and the success of their projects.
    English learner means an individual who has limited ability in 
reading, writing, speaking, or comprehending the English language, 
and--
    (A) Whose native language is a language other than English; or
    (B) Who lives in a family or community environment where a language 
other than English is the dominant language.
    Evidence-informed interventions bring together the best available 
research, professional expertise, and input from youth and families to 
identify and deliver services that have promise to achieve positive 
outcomes for youth, families, and communities.
    Homeless youth has the same meaning as ``homeless children and 
youths'' in section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless 
Children and Youth Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)).
    Individual with a disability means an individual with any 
disability as defined in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102).
    An interim indicator is a marker of achievement that demonstrates 
progress toward an outcome and is measured at least annually.
    Interventions based on evidence are approaches to prevention or 
treatment that are validated by documented scientific evidence from 
randomized controlled trials, or quasi-experimental design studies or 
correlational studies, and that show positive effects (for randomized 
controlled trials and quasi-experimental design studies) or favorable 
associations (for correlational studies) on the primary targeted 
outcomes for populations or settings similar to those of the proposed 
pilot. The best evidence to support an applicant's proposed reform(s) 
and target population will be based on one or more randomized 
controlled trials. The next best evidence will be studies using a 
quasi-experimental design. Correlational analysis may also be used

[[Page 25352]]

as evidence to support an applicant's proposed reforms.
    Outcomes are the intended results of a program, or intervention. 
They are what applicants expect their projects to achieve. An outcome 
can be measured at the participant level (for example, changes in 
employment retention or earnings of disconnected youth) or at the 
system level (for example, improved efficiency in program operations or 
administration).
    A qualified independent evaluator is an individual who coordinates 
with the grantee and the lead Federal agency for the pilot, but works 
independently on the evaluation and has the capacity to carry out the 
evaluation, including, but not limited to: Prior experience conducting 
evaluations of similar design (for example, for randomized controlled 
trials, the evaluator will have successfully conducted a randomized 
controlled trial in the past); positive past performance on evaluations 
of a similar design, as evidenced by past performance reviews submitted 
from past clients directly to the awardee; lead staff with prior 
experience carrying out a similar evaluation; lead staff with minimum 
credential (such as a Ph.D. plus three years of experience conducting 
evaluations of a similar nature, or a Master's degree plus seven years 
of experience conducting evaluations of a similar nature); and adequate 
staff time to work on the evaluation.
    A rural community is a community that is served only by one or more 
local educational agencies (LEAs) that are currently eligible under the 
Department of Education's Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) 
program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized 
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as 
amended, or includes only schools designated by the National Center for 
Education Statistics (NCES) with a locale code of 42 or 43.
    A waiver provides flexibility in the form of relief, in whole or in 
part, from specific statutory, regulatory, or administrative 
requirements that have hindered the ability of a State, locality, or 
tribe to organize its programs and systems or provide services in ways 
that best meet the needs of its target populations. Under P3, waivers 
provide flexibility in exchange for a pilot's commitment to improve 
programmatic outcomes for disconnected youth consistent with underlying 
statutory authorities and purposes.

Selection Criteria

    The Assistant Secretary announces the following selection criteria 
for evaluating an application under this program. We may apply one or 
more of these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. 
In the notice inviting applications, the application package, or both 
we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each 
criterion.
    (a) Need for Project. In determining the need for the proposed 
project, we will consider the magnitude of the need of the target 
population, as evidenced by the applicant's analysis of data, including 
data from a comprehensive needs assessment conducted or updated in the 
past three years, using representative data on youth in the 
jurisdiction(s) proposing the pilot, that demonstrates how the target 
population lags behind other groups in achieving positive outcomes and 
the specific risk factors for this population.

    Note:  Applicants are encouraged to disaggregate these data 
according to relevant demographic factors such as race, ethnicity, 
gender, age, disability status, involvement in systems such as 
foster care or juvenile justice, status as pregnant or parenting, 
and other key factors selected by the applicant. If disaggregated 
data specific to the local population are not available, applicants 
may refer to disaggregated data available through research, studies, 
or other sources that describe similarly situated populations as the 
one the applicant is targeting with its pilot.


    Note:  Applicants do not need to include a copy of the needs 
assessment but should identify when it was conducted or updated.

    (b) Need for Requested Flexibility, Including Blending of Funds and 
Other Waivers. In determining the need for the requested flexibility, 
including blending of funds and other waivers, we will consider:
    1. The strength and clarity of the applicant's justification that 
each of the specified Federal requirements identified in Table 2 for 
which the applicant is seeking flexibility hinders implementation of 
the proposed pilot; and
    2. The strength and quality of the applicant's justification of how 
each request for flexibility identified in Table 2 (i.e., blending 
funds and waivers) will increase efficiency or access to services and 
produce significantly better outcomes for the target population(s).
    (c) Project Design. In determining the strength of the project 
design, we will consider:
    1. The strength and logic of the proposed project design in 
addressing the gaps and the disparities identified in the response to 
Selection Criterion (a) (Need for Project) and the barriers identified 
in the response to Selection Criterion (b) (Need for Requested 
Flexibility, Including Blending of Funds and Other Waivers). This 
includes the clarity of the applicant's plan and how the plan differs 
from current practices. Scoring will account for the strength of both 
the applicant's narrative and the logic model;

    Note:  The applicant's narrative should describe how the 
proposed project will use and coordinate resources, including 
building on participation in any complementary Federal initiatives 
or efforts.

    2. The strength of the evidence supporting the pilot design and 
whether the applicant proposes the effective use of intervention based 
on evidence and evidence-informed interventions (as defined in this 
notice) as documented by citations to the relevant evidence that 
informed the applicant's design;

    Note:  Applicants should cite the studies on interventions and 
system reforms that informed their pilot design and explain the 
relevance of the cited evidence to the proposed project in terms of 
subject matter and evaluation evidence. Applicants proposing reforms 
on which there are not yet evaluations (such as innovations that 
have not been formally tested or tested only on a small scale) 
should document how evidence or practice knowledge informed the 
proposed pilot design.

    3. The strength of the applicant's evidence that the project 
design, including any protections and safeguards that will be 
established, ensures that the consequences or impacts of the changes 
from current practices in serving youth through the proposed funding 
streams:
    A. Will not result in denying or restricting the eligibility of 
individuals for services that (in whole or in part) are otherwise 
funded by these programs; and
    B. Based on the best available information, will not otherwise 
adversely affect vulnerable populations that are the recipients of 
those services.
    (d) Work Plan and Project Management. In determining the strength 
of the work plan and project management, we will consider the strength 
and completeness of the work plan and project management approach and 
their likelihood of achieving the objectives of the proposed project on 
time and within budget, based on--
    1. Clearly defined and appropriate responsibilities, timelines, and 
milestones for accomplishing project tasks;
    2. The qualifications of project personnel to ensure proper 
management of all project activities;
    3. How any existing or anticipated barriers to implementation will 
be overcome.

    Note:  If the program manager or other key personnel are already 
on staff, the applicant

[[Page 25353]]

should provide this person's resume or curriculum vitae.


    Note:  Evaluation activities may be included in the timelines 
provided as part of the work plan.

    (e) Partnership Capacity. In determining the strength and capacity 
of the proposed pilot partnership, we will consider the following 
factors--
    1. How well the applicant demonstrates that it has an effective 
governance structure in which partners that are necessary to implement 
the pilot successfully are represented and have the necessary 
authority, resources, expertise, and incentives to achieve the pilot's 
goals and resolve unforeseen issues, including by demonstrating the 
extent to which, and how, participating partners have successfully 
collaborated to improve outcomes for disconnected youth in the past;
    2. How well the applicant demonstrates that its proposal was 
designed with substantive input from all relevant stakeholders, 
including disconnected youth and other community partners.

    Note:  Where the project design includes job training 
strategies, the extent of employer input and engagement in the 
identification of skills and competencies needed by employers, the 
development of the curriculum, and the offering of work-based 
learning opportunities, including pre-apprenticeship and registered 
apprenticeship, will be considered.

    (f) Data and Performance Management Capacity. In determining the 
strength of the applicant's data and performance management capacity, 
we will consider the following factors--
    1. The applicant's capacity to collect, analyze, and use data for 
decision-making, learning, continuous improvement, and accountability, 
and the strength of the applicant's plan to bridge any gaps in its 
ability to do so. This capacity includes the extent to which the 
applicant and partner organizations have tracked and shared data about 
program participants, services, and outcomes, including the execution 
of data-sharing agreements that comport with Federal, State, and other 
privacy laws and requirements, and will continue to do so;
    2. How well the proposed outcome measures, interim indicators, and 
measurement methodologies specified in Table 4 of the application 
appropriately and sufficiently gauge results achieved for the target 
population under the pilot; and
    3. How well the data sources specified in Table 4 of the 
application can be appropriately accessed and used to reliably measure 
the proposed outcome measures and interim indicators.
    (g) Budget and Budget Narrative. In determining the adequacy of the 
resources that will be committed to support the project, we will 
consider the appropriateness of expenses within the budget with regards 
to cost and to implementing the pilot successfully. We will consider 
the entirety of funds the applicant will use to support its pilot 
including start-up grant funds, blended and braided funds included in 
Table 5, and non-Federal funds, including in-kind contributions.
    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 priorities, 
requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    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 stated in the 
Executive order.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their 
benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. 
Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this 
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 
13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have

[[Page 25354]]

determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and 
activities.
    In this regulatory impact analysis we discuss the need for 
regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, net budget 
impacts, assumptions, limitations, and data sources, as well as 
regulatory alternatives we considered. The potential costs of the final 
priorities requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are the 
costs associated with preparing an application. We estimate that each 
applicant would spend approximately 80 hours of staff time to address 
the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria, prepare the application, and obtain necessary clearances. The 
total number of hours for all applicants will vary based on the number 
of applications. Based on the number of applications the Department 
received in response to the November 2014 notice inviting applications, 
we expect to receive approximately 55 applications. The total number of 
hours for all expected applicants is an estimated 4,400 hours. We 
estimate the total cost per hour of the staff who carry out this work 
to be $44.66 per hour, the mean hourly compensation cost for State and 
local government workers in September 2015. The total estimated cost 
for all applicants would be $196,504.
    The potential benefits of the final priorities requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria are that they would promote the 
efficient and effective use of the P3 authority. Implementation of 
these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
will help the Agencies identify pilots that will: (1) Serve 
disconnected youth with significant needs; (2) carry out effective 
reforms and interventions; and (3) be managed by strong partnerships 
with the capacity to collect, analyze, and use data for decision-
making, learning, continuous improvement, and accountability.
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (PRA) does not require you to respond to a collection of 
information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. We display 
the valid OMB control number assigned to the collections of information 
in this NFP at the end of the affected priorities and requirements.
    Priority 13 (Site-Specific Evaluation), Application Requirements 
(a) through (g), and Program Requirement (a) (National evaluation) 
contain information collection requirements. Under PRA, the Department 
has submitted a copy of these sections to OMB, as well as the related 
Information Collection Request (ICR) (the application package), for its 
review and approval. In accordance with the PRA, the OMB Control number 
associated with these collections of information and the related ICR is 
OMB Control number 1830-0575. OMB approval of these collections of 
information and the related ICR is expected at the time of publication 
of the NFP.
    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 compact disc) 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: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Johan E. Uvin,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Delegated the Duties of Assistant Secretary 
for Career, Technical, and Adult Education.

Appendix A: Evaluation Commitment Form

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

Commitment To Participate in Required Evaluation Activities

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

SIGNATURES

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

[[Page 25355]]

Date-------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

[Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1830-0575]

[FR Doc. 2016-09749 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P