[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54056-54073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19294]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Performance Partnership Pilots

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Overview Information:
    Performance Partnership Pilots
    Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 
2016.

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

    Dates:
    Applications Available: August 15, 2016.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: September 29, 2016.

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

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 31, 2016.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: December 28, 2016.

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: Performance Partnership Pilots (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), enable 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.
    Background: The Acts authorize the Departments of Education (ED or 
the Department), Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing 
and Urban Development (HUD),\1\ and Justice (DOJ),\2\ the Corporation 
for National and Community Service (CNCS), and the Institute of Museum 
and Library Services (IMLS) (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,\3\ including competitive 
and formula grant funds, across multiple Federal programs. Entities 
that seek to participate in these pilots will be required to commit to 
achieving significant improvements in outcomes for disconnected youth 
in exchange for this new flexibility. The authorizing statute 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 2016 Appropriations Act authorizes HUD to enter into 
performance agreements with respect to FY 2016 Homeless Assistance 
Grants.
    \2\ DOJ's Office of Justice Programs was first authorized to 
enter into performance agreements by the 2015 Appropriations Act.
    \3\ Discretionary funds are funds that Congress appropriates on 
an annual basis, rather than through a standing authorization. They 
exclude ``entitlement'' (or mandatory) programs such as Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, most Foster Care IV-E programs, 
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants, and Temporary Assistance to 
Needy Families (TANF). Discretionary programs administered by the 
Agencies support a broad set of public services, including 
education, job training, health and mental health, and other low-
income assistance programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Government and community partners have invested considerable 
attention and resources to meet the needs of disconnected youth. 
However, practitioners, youth advocates, and others on the front lines 
of service delivery have observed that flexibility can be a key tool to 
address certain programmatic and administrative obstacles to achieving 
meaningful improvements in education, employment, health, and well-
being for these young people.
    P3 tests the hypothesis that additional flexibility for States, 
local governments, and tribes, in the form of blending funds and 
waivers of certain programmatic requirements, can help overcome some of 
the significant hurdles that States, local governments, and tribes face 
in providing intensive, comprehensive, and sustained service pathways 
and improving outcomes for disconnected youth. For example, P3 can be 
used to better coordinate and align the multiple systems that serve 
youth. P3 may help address the ``wrong pockets'' problem, where 
entities that observe improved outcomes or other benefits due to an 
intervention are unable to use Federal funds to support that 
intervention due to program restrictions. P3 flexibility may also allow 
the testing of an innovative approach to help build additional evidence 
about what works. If this hypothesis proves true, providing necessary 
and targeted flexibility to remove or overcome these hurdles will help 
to achieve significant benefits for disconnected youth, the communities 
that serve them, and the involved agencies and partners.
    The statutory definition of ``disconnected youth'' specifically 
identifies several high-need subpopulations of low-income youth, 
including youth who are homeless, youth in foster care, youth involved 
in the juvenile justice system, and youth who are unemployed or not in 
school or at risk of dropping out. We wish to note that there are a 
number of other high-need subpopulations of disconnected youth who are 
not specifically enumerated in statute but are also at risk of dropping 
out. For example, English learners (ELs) are at great risk of dropping 
out; the average cohort graduation rate for ELs during the 2013-14 
school year was only 62.6 percent, while the national average cohort

[[Page 54057]]

graduation rate for all youth was 82.3 percent. Similarly, the average 
cohort graduation rate for youth with a disability receiving special 
education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA) was significantly lower than that of youth who did 
not receive services under IDEA: 63.1 percent during the 2013-14 school 
year.\4\ Immigrants and refugees are another high-need subpopulation at 
great risk of dropping out. In 2014, the status dropout rate of 
immigrant youth ages 16 to 24 was 12 percent, compared with 8 percent 
for children of foreign-born parents, and 6 percent for children with 
native-born parents.\5\ Students in foster care also are at great risk 
of dropping out. A 2014 study that examined cross-sectional data on 
California students who were in foster care at some point during the 
2009-10 school year found that the single-year dropout rate for 
California students in foster care was more than 8 percent, nearly 
three times higher than the statewide dropout rate (3 percent).\6\ 
Applicants wishing to serve a subpopulation of disconnected youth not 
otherwise named in the statutory definition---such as the examples 
above--should consider whether that subpopulation faces an elevated 
risk of dropping out based on sound research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EDFacts/Consolidated State Performance Report, School Year 
2013-14. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2013-14.asp.
    \5\ Child Trends Data Bank (2015). High School Dropout Rates. 
Retrieved from www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/01_Dropout_Rates.pdf.
    \6\ Wiegmann, W., et al. (2014). The Invisible Achievement Gap 
Part 2: How the Foster Care Experiences of California Public School 
Students Are Associated with Their Education Outcomes. Retrieved 
from www.stuartfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IAGpart2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FY 2016 Funds

    This notice invites applications for a third round of pilots as 
authorized by the 2016 Appropriations Act. That act extended the P3 
authority to allow pilots to blend and/or seek waivers under eligible 
FY 2016 funds from programs at ED, DOL, HHS, CNCS, IMLS, HUD, and DOJ.

Homeless Assistance Act Grants

    The 2016 Appropriations Act authorizes the inclusion in P3 of 
McKinney-Vento Act Homeless Assistance Grants administered by HUD, 
including the Continuum of Care (CoC) Program and Emergency Solutions 
Grant Program (ESG), in up to 10 CoCs. The CoC Program is designed to 
assist individuals (including unaccompanied youth) and families 
experiencing homelessness and to provide the services needed to help 
such individuals move into housing, with the goal of long-term 
stability.\7\ In local communities, the group tasked with carrying out 
the responsibilities of the CoC Program for a defined geographic area, 
including ensuring that all resources used to prevent and end 
homelessness within that geographic area are allocated strategically, 
is called the CoC. This group consists of a coalition of community 
stakeholders with an interest in preventing and ending homelessness.
    The Agencies expect that pilots that include Homeless Assistance 
Grant funding will include their local CoC's input and engagement in 
identifying gaps and needs in the community for housing and serving 
disconnected youth experiencing homelessness. The Agencies further 
expect that the pilots will address these CoC-identified needs and that 
the CoCs will have approved the use of grant funds for this purpose.

Absolute Priorities

    For purposes of this competition, absolute priorities create 
separate categories for scoring and considering applications. 
Applicants must select one of these absolute priorities. Because a 
diverse group of communities could benefit from P3, we include absolute 
priorities for applications that propose to serve disconnected youth in 
one or more rural communities only (Absolute Priority 2), applications 
that propose to serve disconnected youth in one or more Indian tribal 
communities (Absolute Priority 3), and applications that propose to 
serve disconnected youth in other communities (Absolute Priority 1). P3 
is intended, through a demonstration, to identify effective strategies 
for serving disconnected youth. We are aware such strategies may differ 
across environments and wish to test the authority in a variety of 
settings.
    In this FY 2016 competition, we are also including an absolute 
priority for communities that have experienced recent civil unrest 
(Absolute Priority 4), consistent with requirements of the 2016 
Appropriations Act. Though the economy has recovered strongly in many 
places, many communities continue to struggle with high youth 
unemployment, low graduation rates, and crime. These and other 
continuing challenges can manifest in different instances of civil 
unrest, such as large protests or instances of civil disobedience, 
increases in self-directed or interpersonal violence in concentrated 
areas, or civic disorder prompted by a public health emergency. In 
response to the priority, an applicant should describe the instance(s) 
of civil unrest, including (1) a description of the civil unrest that 
occurred in the community or communities it intends to serve; and (2) 
the date or dates the civil unrest occurred. We include this priority 
in the FY 2016 P3 competition in the hopes that P3 flexibilities, 
including waivers and the blending of funds, will empower communities 
to improve educational and employment outcomes for disconnected youth 
in these communities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only 
applications that meet Absolute Priority 1, 2, 3, or 4.

Competitive Preference Priorities

    Competitive preference priorities allow applicants to receive extra 
points for satisfying certain criteria.

Competitive Preference Priority 1

    In addition to the absolute priorities, we also include four 
competitive preference priorities. We include a competitive preference 
priority for projects that are likely to result in significantly better 
educational or employment outcomes for those disconnected youth who are 
neither employed nor enrolled in education and who also face 
significant barriers to accessing education and employment. Involvement 
with the justice system is an 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.\8\ For older youth involved with the adult criminal justice 
system, having a criminal record can severely limit the ability to 
secure employment.\9\ Reconnecting these young people to education and 
employment is a national imperative, and including this priority as a 
competitive preference priority will create incentives for applicants 
and

[[Page 54058]]

communities to design projects to serve this hard-to-reach population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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.
    \9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Competitive Preference Priority 2

    We include a competitive preference priority for projects that 
provide all disconnected youth served by the project with paid work-
based learning opportunities because addressing the employment needs of 
disconnected youth is critical to improving their well-being and 
preparing them for lives as productive adults. We note as well that new 
evidence indicates that the benefits of work-based learning 
opportunities extend beyond improving the employment outcomes of youth. 
A recent evaluation of the summer work and learning opportunity program 
offered by New York City for youth ages 14 through 21, which selected 
participants using a randomized lottery, found that, within five to 
eight years after participation, the incarceration and mortality rates 
of participants were significantly lower than those of their peers who 
were not selected to participate in the program.\10\ For youth who are 
not enrolled in school, year-round employment, and not just employment 
during the summer, is critically important. Under this competitive 
preference priority, the work-based learning opportunities must be 
integrated with academic and technical instruction because research 
suggests that work experience must be combined with academic and 
technical training in order to have a positive impact on the employment 
and earnings outcomes of youth.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Gelber, A., Isen, A. and Kessler, J.B. (2014). The Effects 
of Youth Employment: Evidence from New York City Summer Youth 
Employment. Program Lotteries. NBER Working Paper No. 20810. 
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
    \11\ Sattar, S. (2010). Evidence Scan of Work Experience 
Programs. Oakland, CA: Mathematica Policy Research. See also Roder, 
A. and Elliott, M. (2014). Sustained Gains: Year-Up's Continued 
Impact on Young Adults' Earnings. New York, NY: Economic Mobility 
Corporation, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Competitive Preference Priority 3

    This competition also includes a competitive preference priority 
for projects that are designed to serve and coordinate with a federally 
designated Promise Zone. Promise Zone designees have committed to 
establishing comprehensive, coordinated approaches in order to ensure 
that America's most vulnerable children succeed from cradle to career. 
Twenty-two Promise Zones have been designated. They are located in: Los 
Angeles, California; Sacramento, California; San Diego, California; 
South Los Angeles, California; Hartford, Connecticut; Southwest Florida 
Regional Planning Commission in Glades County, Hendry County, and the 
Immokalee Community in Collier County; Atlanta, Georgia; Evansville, 
Indiana; Indianapolis, Indiana; the Southeastern Kentucky Highlands in 
Kentucky; Minneapolis, Minnesota; St. Louis and St. Louis County, 
Missouri; Camden, New Jersey; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, 
Rollete County, North Dakota; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico; the South 
Carolina Low Country; the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation of the Oglala 
Sioux Tribe, South Dakota; Nashville, Tennessee; San Antonio, Texas; 
and the Spokane Tribe of Indians, Washington. The Promise Zone 
designation is designed to assist local leaders in creating jobs, 
increasing economic activity, improving educational opportunities, 
leveraging private investment, and reducing violent crime in high-
poverty urban, rural, and tribal communities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For additional information on Promise Zones, see 
www.hudexchange.info/programs/promise-zones/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Competitive Preference Priority 4

    This competition also includes a competitive preference priority 
for applicants that plan to conduct independent impact evaluations of 
at least one service-delivery or operational component of their pilots 
(site-specific evaluation), in addition to participating in any 
national P3 evaluation, which is discussed in the Program Requirements 
section of this notice. In proposing these site-specific impact 
evaluations, applicants should use the strongest possible designs and 
research methods and use high-quality administrative data in order to 
maximize confidence in the evaluation findings and minimize the costs 
of conducting these evaluations. Federal start-up funds and blended 
funds may be used to finance these evaluations.
    Priorities: This competition includes four absolute priorities, 
four competitive preference priorities, and three invitational 
priorities. Absolute Priorities 1, 2, and 3 and Competitive Preference 
Priorities 1, 2, and 4 are from the notice of final priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program 
published on April 28, 2016 in the Federal Register (81 FR 25339) (P3 
NFP). Absolute Priority 4 is from section 525(b) of Division H of the 
2016 Appropriations Act. Competitive Preference Priority 3 is from the 
notice of final priority--Promise Zones, published in the Federal 
Register on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17035) (Promise Zones NFP).
    Absolute Priorities: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which 
we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this 
competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet Absolute Priority 
1, 2, 3, or 4.

    Note: Applicants must indicate in the Appendix section of their 
applications, under ``Other Attachments Form,'' whether they are 
applying under Absolute Priority 1, Absolute Priority 2, Absolute 
Priority 3, or Absolute Priority 4. An applicant that applies under 
Absolute Priority 2, Absolute Priority 3, or Absolute Priority 4, 
but is not eligible for funding under that absolute priority, will 
be considered for funding under Absolute Priority 1.

    These priorities are:
    Absolute 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.
    Absolute 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.
    Absolute 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.
    Absolute Priority 4--Improving Outcomes for Disconnected Youth in 
Communities that Have Recently Experienced Civil Unrest.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a pilot that is 
designed to improve outcomes for disconnected youth in one or more 
communities that have recently experienced civil unrest.
    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2016 and any subsequent 
year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications 
from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference 
priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional 
five points to an application based on how well the application meets 
Competitive Preference Priority 1, an additional three points to an 
application that meets

[[Page 54059]]

Competitive Preference Priority 2, an additional two points to an 
application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 3, and up to an 
additional 10 points to an application based on how well the 
application meets Competitive Preference Priority 4.
    Applicants may address more than one of the competitive preference 
priorities. An applicant must identify in the Appendix section of its 
application, under ``Other Attachments Form,'' the priority or 
priorities it addresses.
    Competitive Preference Priority 1--Improving Outcomes for Youth Who 
Are Unemployed and Out of School (Up to 5 points).
    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.
    Competitive Preference Priority 2--Work-Based Learning 
Opportunities (0 or 3 points).
    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.
    Competitive Preference Priority 3--Promise Zones (0 or 2 points).
    This priority is for projects that are designed to serve and 
coordinate with a federally designated Promise Zone.
    Competitive Preference Priority 4--Site-Specific Evaluation (Up to 
10 points).
    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 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.
    Invitational Priorities:
    For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from 
the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these 
priorities are invitational priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do 
not give an application that meets these invitational priorities a 
competitive or absolute preference over other applications.
    Invitational Priority 1--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.
    Invitational Priority 2--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.
    Invitational Priority 3--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.
    Application Requirements:
    The application requirements for this competition are from the P3 
NFP. All applicants must meet these application requirements in order 
to be considered

[[Page 54060]]

for funding and selection as a pilot. The applicants are expected to 
provide the information specified in the application requirements and 
address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate 
application in the form of an application narrative of no more than 45 
pages. With the exception of the memorandum of understanding or letter 
of commitment described in application requirement (e)(2) and the 
assurance described in application requirement (c)(2), applicants must 
provide the documents or information specified in the application 
requirements in the applications they are required to submit by October 
31, 2016. To reduce burden on applicants, we require only top-scoring 
applicants to submit the memorandum of understanding or letter of 
commitment described in application requirement (e)(2) and the 
assurance described in application requirement (c)(2). We will notify 
top-scoring applicants by telephone and email following the peer 
review. These applicants will be directed to transmit the memorandum of 
understanding or letter of commitment required by application 
requirement (e)(2) and the assurance described in application 
requirement (c)(2) to [email protected] within 21 calendar days 
of the notification.
    (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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU16.021

    (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,\13\ 
at least one of which must be administered (in whole or in part) by a 
State, local, or tribal government.\14\ 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 not limited to: 
Blending of funds and changes to align eligibility requirements, 
allowable uses of funds, and performance reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Applicants are encouraged to consult the list of examples 
of programs that are potentially eligible for inclusion in pilots in 
the application package.
    \14\ 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU16.022


    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

[[Page 54061]]

approve such flexibility within 60 days of an applicant's designation 
as a pilot finalist; \15\ or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Only top-scoring applicants notified by ED must submit this 
written assurance. The assurance must be transmitted to 
[email protected] by no later than 21 calendar days of the 
applicant's notification by ED that is a top-scoring applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Only top-scoring applicants notified by ED must submit the 
memorandum of understanding or letter of commitment. This document 
must be transmitted to [email protected] by no later than 21 
calendar days of the applicant's notification by ED that it is a 
top-scoring applicant.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU16.023


    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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 54062]]


                            Employment Domain
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Outcome measure                     Interim indicator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustained Employment...................   Unsubsidized
                                          employment at time periods
                                          after exit from the program.
                                          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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU16.024


[[Page 54063]]


    (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\18\ pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Applicants are encouraged to consult the list of examples 
of programs that are potentially eligible for inclusion in pilots in 
the application package.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU16.025


    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.

    Program Requirements:
    The program requirements for this competition are from the P3 NFP.
    (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 3, as well as 
those selected in subsequent rounds.\19\ Each P3 pilot must participate 
fully in any federally sponsored P3 evaluation activity, including the 
national 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The initiation of any federally sponsored national P3 
evaluation activities is dependent upon the availability of 
sufficient funds and resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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

[[Page 54064]]

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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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.
    Applicants are advised that the Agencies expect to make the 
performance agreements available to the public.
    Definitions: The following definitions are from the P3 NFP, the 
2014 Appropriations Act, and 34 CFR 77.1.
    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)).
    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 as 
evidence to support an applicant's proposed reforms.
    Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-
specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the 
proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active 
``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the 
relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key 
components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.
    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

[[Page 54065]]

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.
    Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that 
attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a 
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important 
respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can 
meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards (as defined in this 
notice) with reservations (but not What Works Clearinghouse Evidence 
Standards without reservations).
    Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random 
assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or 
districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment 
group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The 
estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between 
the average outcome for the treatment group and for the control group. 
These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What 
Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards (as defined in this notice) 
without reservations.
    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.
    What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards means the standards set 
forth in the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook 
(Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link: //
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.

    Program Authority: Section 219 of Division B, section 525 of 
Division H, and section 242 of Division L of the 2016 Appropriations 
Act.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 
97, 98, and 99, and such other regulations as the Agencies may apply 
based on the programs included in a particular pilot. (b) The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide 
Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted 
and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) 
The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit 
Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and 
amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The 
Promise Zones NFP. (e) The P3 NFP.

    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants 
except federally recognized Indian tribes.

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.
    Estimated Available Funds: Up to $2,000,000.
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from 
the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
    Estimated Range of Awards: $200,000 to $250,000.
    Estimated Average Size of Award: $200,000.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 10.

    Note: The Agencies are not bound by any estimates in this 
notice. ED may supplement one or more awards above the amount 
requested in the application if funds remain after ED has made 
awards to all of the pilots.

    Project Period: Not to extend beyond September 30, 2020.

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: The lead applicant must be a State, local, 
or tribal government entity, represented by a Chief Executive, such as 
a governor, mayor, or other elected leader, or the head of a State, 
local, or tribal agency.
    2. Cost-Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost-
sharing or matching.
    3. Eligible Subgrantees: (a) Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a 
grantee may award subgrants--to directly carry out project activities 
described in its application--to the following types of entities: State 
governmental agencies; local governmental agencies, including LEAs; 
tribal governmental agencies; institutions of higher education; and 
nonprofit organizations.
    (b) The grantee may only award subgrants to entities it has 
identified in an approved application.

IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: Braden Goetz, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11141, Potomac 
Center Plaza (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.
    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application 
package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, 
or compact disc) by contacting either of the program contact persons 
listed in this section.
    2. a. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements 
concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you 
must submit, are in the application package for this competition.
    Notice of Intent to Submit an Application: September 14, 2016.

    Note: Submission of a notice of intent to apply is optional. We 
will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing 
applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that 
intend to apply under this competition. Therefore, we strongly 
encourage each potential applicant to notify us of the applicant's 
intent to apply by emailing to [email protected] the 
following information: (1) The applicant organization's name and 
address and (2) the absolute priority the applicant intends to 
address. Applicants that do not submit a notice of intent to apply 
may still submit an application.


[[Page 54066]]


    Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, 
provide the information specified in the application requirements and 
address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your 
application. You must limit the application narrative to no more than 
45 pages, using the following standards:
     A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1'' 
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
     Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) 
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, 
footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
     Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller 
than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
     Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 
Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font 
(including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
    The page limit for the application narrative does not apply to the 
budget and budget narrative, the assurances and certifications, the 
abstract, the absolute and competitive preference priorities, the 
resumes, the summary evaluation plan and supplementary evaluation 
budget narrative for applicants responding to Competitive Preference 
Priority 4, the evaluation commitment form, or the letters of 
commitment and memoranda of understanding. However, the page limit does 
apply to all of the application narrative section.
    Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application narrative 
that exceed the page limit.
    b. Submission of Proprietary Information:
    Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications 
for P3, your application may include business information that you 
consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define ``business information'' 
and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that 
information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under 
Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as 
amended).
    Because we plan to make successful applications available to the 
public, and may make all applications available, you may wish to 
request confidentiality of business information.
    Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your 
application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure 
under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your 
application, under ``Other Attachments Form,'' please list the page 
number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional 
information, please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
    3. Submission Dates and Times:
    Applications Available: August 15, 2016.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: September 29, 2016.

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

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 31, 2016.
    Applications must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov 
Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) 
about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format 
by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the 
electronic submission requirement, please refer to Other Submission 
Requirements in section IV of this notice.
    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the 
deadline requirements.
    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or 
auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact 
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII 
of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or 
auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the 
application process, the individual's application remain subject to all 
other requirements and limitations in this notice.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: December 28, 2016.
    4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about 
Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 
12372 is in the application package for this competition.
    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification 
Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the 
Department of Education, you must--
    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a 
Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award 
Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the 
Government's primary registrant database;
    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information 
while your application is under review by the Department and, if you 
are awarded a grant, during the project period.
    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the 
following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be 
created within one to two business days.
    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or 
organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. 
If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal 
Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a 
new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business 
days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the 
completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. 
Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial 
assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow 
sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We 
strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note: Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 
hours before you can access the information in, and submit an 
application through, Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make 
any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with 
your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update 
your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further 
assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in 
SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov 
Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.
    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, 
you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized 
Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with 
Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the 
following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.
    7. Other Submission Requirements:
    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted 
electronically unless you qualify for an

[[Page 54067]]

exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in 
this section.
    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.
    Applications for grants under the P3 program, CFDA number 84.420A, 
must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov 
Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to 
download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and 
then upload and submit your application. You may not email an 
electronic copy of a grant application to us.
    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format 
unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of 
the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no 
later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written 
statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these 
exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that 
is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in 
this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.
    You may access the electronic grant application for P3 at 
www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application 
package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the 
CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.420, not 
84.420A).
    Please note the following:
     When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find 
information about submitting an application electronically through the 
site, as well as the hours of operation.
     Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time 
stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must 
be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as 
otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if 
it is received--that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov 
system--after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application 
deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply 
with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from 
Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application 
because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 
4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
     The amount of time it can take to upload an application 
will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the 
application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we 
strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline 
date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
     You should review and follow the Education Submission 
Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are 
included in the application package for this competition to ensure that 
you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov 
system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures 
pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 
system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and 
procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please 
refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.
     You will not receive additional point value because you 
submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you 
if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your 
application in paper format.
     You must submit all documents electronically, including 
all information you typically provide on the following forms: The 
Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of 
Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information--Non-
Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and 
certifications.
     You must upload any narrative sections and all other 
attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable 
Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or 
fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, 
non-modifiable PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a 
password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note 
that this could result in your application not being considered for 
funding because the material in question--for example, the project 
narrative--is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For 
that reason it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload 
all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material 
from other formats to PDF.
     Your electronic application must comply with any page-
limit requirements described in this notice.
     After you electronically submit your application, you will 
receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that 
contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates 
receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov 
will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all 
the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors 
(such as submission of your application by someone other than a 
registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an 
attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will 
be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you 
must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.
    Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the 
Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you 
an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.
    These emails do not mean that your application is without any 
disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully 
validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application 
requirements as specified in this notice and in the application 
instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure 
to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to 
submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant 
eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your 
submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.
     We may request that you provide us original signatures on 
forms at a later date.
    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues 
with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting 
your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov 
Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a 
Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.
    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your 
application on the application deadline date because of technical 
problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension 
until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to 
enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand 
delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing 
instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

[[Page 54068]]

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC 
time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this 
notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you 
experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk 
Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a 
technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that 
problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will 
contact you after a determination is made on whether your application 
will be accepted.

    Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply 
only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the 
Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed 
to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before 
the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem 
you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an 
exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your 
application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application 
through the Grants.gov system because--
     You do not have access to the Internet; or
     You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to 
the Grants.gov system; and
     No later than two weeks before the application deadline 
date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the 
application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business 
day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement 
to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception 
prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be 
postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline 
date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must 
receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the 
application deadline date.
    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Braden Goetz, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11141, PCP, 
Washington, DC 20202. FAX: (202) 245-7838.
    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the 
mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice.
    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.
    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a 
commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail 
the original and two copies of your application, on or before the 
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:

    U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, 
Attention: CFDA Number 84.420A, LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the 
U.S. Postal Service.
    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial 
carrier.
    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the 
U.S. Department of Education.
    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do 
not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
    (1) A private metered postmark.
    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated 
postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your 
local post office.

    We will not consider applications postmarked after the application 
deadline date.
    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.
    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper 
application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original 
and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the 
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:

    U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, 
Attention: CFDA Number 84.420A, 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, 
Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily 
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except 
Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you 
mail or hand deliver your application to the Department--

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and--if not provided by the 
Department--in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix 
letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your 
application; and
    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification 
of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this 
notification within 15 business days from the application deadline 
date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application 
Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria. The selection criteria for this competition 
and any subsequent year for which we make awards from the list of 
unfunded applications from this competition are from the P3 NFP.
    The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the 
parentheses next to the criterion. An applicant may earn up to 100 
points based on the selection criteria. An applicant's final score will 
include both points awarded based on selection criteria and also any 
points awarded for the competitive preference priorities.

Selection Criteria

    (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 from 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 (5 points).

    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

[[Page 54069]]

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 (10 points); 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) (10 
points).
    (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 (10 points);

    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 interventions 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 (5 points);

    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 (5 points).
    (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 (10 points).

    Note: If the program manager or other key personnel are already 
on staff, the applicant 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 (10 
points);
    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 (5 points).

    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 (10 points);
    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 (10 points); 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 (5 points).
    (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. (5 
points)
    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants 
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, 
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past 
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as 
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and 
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider 
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or 
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary 
requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil 
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities 
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of

[[Page 54070]]

Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
    The Department will screen applications that are submitted in 
accordance with the requirements in this notice, and will determine 
which applications are eligible to be read based on whether they have 
met the eligibility and application requirements established by this 
notice.
    The Department will use reviewers with knowledge and expertise on 
issues related to improving outcomes for disconnected youth to score 
the selection criteria. The Department will thoroughly screen all 
reviewers for conflicts of interest to ensure a fair and competitive 
review.
    Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation of, and 
score the assigned applications, based on the seven selection criteria 
listed in the Selection Criteria section of this notice.
    In reviewing applications, all reviewers will score Competitive 
Preference Priority 1 (Improving Outcomes for Youth Who Are Unemployed 
and Out of School), while reviewers with expertise in evaluation will 
score Competitive Preference Priority 4 (Site-Specific Evaluation). The 
Department will assign three points for Competitive Preference Priority 
2 (Work-Based Learning Opportunities) if the application proposes to 
provide all disconnected youth that will be served by the project with 
paid work-based learning opportunities, such as opportunities during 
the summer, which are integrated with academic and technical 
instruction. If you address Competitive Preference Priority 3, provide 
a HUD Form 50153 (Certification of Consistency with Promise Zone Goals 
and Implementation) that has been signed by an authorized Promise Zone 
official.
    Technical scoring. Reviewers will read, prepare a written 
evaluation, and assign a technical score to the applications assigned 
to their panel, using the selection criteria provided in this notice, 
Competitive Preference Priorities 1 and 4, and the scoring rubric in 
Appendix B.
    ED will then prepare a rank order of applications based on their 
technical scores.
    Flexibility, including blending of funds and other waivers. Using 
this rank order, representatives of the Agencies that administer 
programs under which flexibility in Federal requirements is sought will 
evaluate whether the flexibility, including blending of funds and other 
waivers requested by top-scoring applicants, meets the statutory 
requirements for Performance Partnership Pilots and is otherwise 
appropriate. For example, if an applicant is seeking flexibility under 
programs administered by HHS and DOL, its requests for flexibility will 
be reviewed by HHS and DOL officials. Applicants may be asked to 
participate in an interview at this point in the process in order to 
clarify requests for flexibility and other aspects of their proposals.
    For applicants that propose to include funds from FY 2016 
competitive grants that have already been awarded, the flexibility 
review may include consideration of whether the scope, objectives, and 
target populations of the existing competitive grant award(s) are 
sufficiently and appropriately aligned with the proposed pilot. Any 
changes in terms and conditions of the existing competitive grant 
award(s) required for pilot purposes must be justified by the 
applicant. The Agencies will review those requests on a case-by-case 
basis.
    If 25 or fewer eligible applications are received, the technical 
scoring and reviews of flexibility requests may be conducted 
concurrently.
    Selecting finalists. Agency officials may recommend the selection 
of up to 10 projects as Performance Partnership Pilots. In accordance 
with 34 CFR 75.217(d) and in consultation with the other Agencies, the 
Secretary will select finalists after considering the rank ordering, 
the recommendations of the Agencies that administer the programs for 
which the applicants are seeking flexibility, and other information 
including an applicant's performance and use of funds and compliance 
history under a previous award under any Agency program. In selecting 
pilots, the Agencies may consider high-ranking applications meeting 
Absolute Priority 2, Absolute Priority 3, and Absolute Priority 4 
separately to ensure that there is a diversity of pilots. In addition, 
as required by the Acts, each pilot must meet all statutory criteria.
    For each finalist, ED and any other Agencies implicated in the 
pilot will negotiate a performance agreement. If a performance 
agreement cannot be finalized for any applicant, an alternative 
applicant may be selected as a finalist instead. The recommended 
projects will be considered finalists until performance agreements are 
signed by all parties, and pilot designation will be awarded only after 
finalization and approval of each finalist's performance agreement.
    3. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 
200.205, before awarding grants under this competition ED conducts a 
review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the 
Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate 
circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or 
grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory 
performance; has a financial or other management system that does not 
meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the 
conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your 
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award 
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to 
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, 
also.
    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, 
we notify you.
    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify 
administrative and national policy requirements in the application 
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable 
Regulations section of this notice.
    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of 
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and 
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also 
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding 
commitments under the grant.
    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, 
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and 
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply 
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final 
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the 
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual 
performance report that provides the most current performance and 
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance 
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, 
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
    (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee 
with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In 
this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

[[Page 54071]]

    4. Performance Measures: As described earlier in this notice, 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 must indicate the source of the data for each 
outcome measure and interim indicator, the proposed frequency of 
collection, and the methodology used to collect the data. Outcome 
measures and interim indicators, along with the required reporting 
frequency for each, will be outlined in P3 performance agreements.

VII. Agency Contact

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 TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-
8339.

VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format 
(e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to 
either of the program contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice.
    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 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.

    Dated: August 9, 2016.
Johan E. Uvin,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Delegated the Duties of the Assistant 
Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education.

Appendix A: Evaluation Commitment Form

Appendix B: Scoring Rubric

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

Appendix B: Scoring Rubric

    Reviewers will assign points to an application for each 
selection sub-criterion, as well as for Competitive Preference 
Priorities 1 (Improving Outcomes for Youth Who Are Unemployed and 
Out of School) and 4 (Site-Specific Evaluation). In awarding points 
for Competitive Preference Priority 1, reviewers will make case-by-
case determinations as to how well a particular application meets 
both parts of the priority. For example, more points may be awarded 
to an application proposing to serve a higher percentage of 
disconnected youth who are neither employed nor enrolled in 
education and who face significant barriers to accessing education 
and employment, and is likely to result in significantly better 
educational or employment outcomes for such youth based on the 
strength of the evidence base and/or logic model underlying the 
applicant's project design. ED will assign three points to an 
application for Competitive Preference Priority 2 (Work-Based 
Learning Opportunities) if the application proposes to

[[Page 54072]]

provide all disconnected youth that will be served by the project 
with paid work-based learning opportunities, such as opportunities 
during the summer, which are integrated with academic and technical 
instruction. ED will assign two points for Competitive Preference 
Priority 3 (Promise Zones) to an application if the application 
includes a HUD Form 50153 (Certification of Consistency with Promise 
Zone Goals and Implementation) that has been signed by an authorized 
Promise Zone official. In awarding points under Competitive 
Preference Priority 4 (Site-Specific Evaluation), reviewers will 
consider 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 
evaluation design study. To help promote consistency across and 
within the panels that will review P3 applications, the Department 
has created a scoring rubric for reviewers to aid them in scoring 
applications.
    The scoring rubric below shows the maximum number of points that 
may be assigned to each criterion, sub-criterion, and competitive 
preference priority.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Sub-criterion
        Selection criteria                points        Criterion points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Need for Project. In            .................                  5
 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
 within the past three years,
 using representative data on
 youth from 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......
(b) Need for Requested              .................                 20
 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:
(b)1. The strength and clarity of                  10  .................
 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
(b)2. The strength and quality of                  10  .................
 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  .................                 20
 the strength of the project
 design, we will consider:
(c)1. The strength and logic of                    10  .................
 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;
(c)2. The strength of the evidence                  5  .................
 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) as documented by
 citations to the relevant
 evidence that informed the
 applicant's design;
(c)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                  5  .................
     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          .................                 10
     anticipated barriers to
     implementation will be
     overcome.
(e) Partnership Capacity. In        .................                 15
 determining the strength and
 capacity of the proposed pilot
 partnership, we will consider the
 following factors--
(e)1. How well the applicant                       10  .................
 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;
(e)2. How well the applicant                        5  .................
 demonstrates that its proposal
 was designed with substantive
 input from all relevant
 stakeholders, including
 disconnected youth and other
 community partners.
(f) Data and Performance            .................                 25
 Management Capacity. In
 determining the strength of the
 applicant's data and performance
 management capacity, we will
 consider the following factors--
(f)1. The applicant's capacity to                  10  .................
 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;
(f)2. How well the proposed                        10  .................
 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

[[Page 54073]]

 
(f)3. How well the data sources                     5  .................
 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.    .................                  5
 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.
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................  .................                100
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Competitive preference priorities for applications         Points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competitive Preference Priority 1: 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                  5
     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...........................................
Competitive Preference Priority 2: Work-Based                          3
 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...............................
Competitive Preference Priority 3: Promise Zones.                      2
This priority is for projects that are designed to
 serve and coordinate with a federally designated
 Promise Zone........................................
Competitive Preference Priority 4: Site-Specific                      10
 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 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...........................
                                                      ------------------
    Total............................................                 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While case-by-case determinations will be made, the reviewers 
will be asked to consider the general ranges below as a guide when 
awarding points.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Quality of response
                       Maximum point value                       -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        Low           Medium           High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10..............................................................             0-2             3-7            8-10
5...............................................................             0-1             2-3             4-5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-19294 Filed 8-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P