In determining the selection criteria to evaluate applications submitted in a grant competition, the Secretary may select one or more of the following criteria and may select from among the list of optional factors under each criterion. The Secretary may define a selection criterion by selecting one or more specific factors within a criterion or assigning factors from one criterion to another criterion.
(a) Need for the project. (1) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The data presented (including a comparison to local, State, regional, national, or international data) that demonstrates the issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates the magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project.
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project will provide support, resources, or services; or otherwise address the needs of the target population, including addressing the needs of underserved populations most affected by the issue, challenge, or opportunity, to be addressed by the proposed project and close gaps in educational opportunity.
(iv) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving or otherwise addressing the needs of underserved populations.
(v) The extent to which the specific nature and magnitude of gaps or challenges are identified and the extent to which these gaps or challenges will be addressed by the services, supports, infrastructure, or opportunities described in the proposed project.
(vi) The extent to which the proposed project will prepare individuals from underserved populations for employment in fields and careers in which there are demonstrated shortages.
(b) Significance. (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the proposed project is relevant at the national level.
(ii) The significance of the problem or issue as it affects educational access and opportunity, including the underlying or related challenges for underserved populations.
(iii) The extent to which findings from the project's implementation will contribute new knowledge to the field by increasing knowledge or understanding of educational challenges, including the underlying or related challenges, and effective strategies for addressing educational challenges and their effective implementation.
(iv) The potential contribution of the proposed project to improve the provision of rehabilitative services, increase the number or quality of rehabilitation counselors, or develop and implement effective strategies for providing vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities.
(v) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in systemic change that supports continuous, sustainable, and measurable improvement.
(vi) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study, including the extent to which the contributions may be used by other appropriate agencies, organizations, institutions, or entities.
(vii) The potential for generalizing from the findings or results of the proposed project.
(viii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local, State, regional, or national capacity to provide, improve, sustain, or expand training or services that address the needs of underserved populations.
(ix) The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of innovative and effective strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.
(x) The extent to which the proposed project is innovative and likely to be more effective compared to other efforts to address a similar problem.
(xi) The likely utility of the resources (such as materials, processes, techniques, or data infrastructure) that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for effective use in a variety of conditions, populations, or settings.
(xii) The extent to which the resources, tools, and implementation lessons of the proposed project will be disseminated in ways to the target population and local community that will enable them and others (including practitioners, researchers, education leaders, and partners) to implement similar strategies.
(xiii) The potential effective replicability of the proposed project or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation by a variety of populations or settings.
(xiv) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially contributions toward improving teaching practice and student learning and achievement.
(xv) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in employment, independent living services, or both, as appropriate.
(xvi) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project that demonstrate its impact for the targeted underserved populations in terms of breadth and depth of services.
(xvii) The extent to which the proposed project introduces an innovative approach, such as a modification of an evidence-based project component to serve different populations, an extension of an existing evidence-based project component, a unique composition of various project components to explore combined effects, or development of an emerging project component that needs further testing.
(c) Quality of the project design. (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program.
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project demonstrates meaningful community engagement and input to ensure that the project is appropriate to successfully address the needs of the target population or other identified needs and will be used to inform continuous improvement strategies.
(iii) The quality of the logic model or other conceptual framework underlying the proposed project, including how inputs are related to outcomes.
(iv) The extent to which the proposed project's logic model or other conceptual framework was developed based on engagement of a broad range of community members and partners.
(v) The extent to which the proposed project proposes specific, measurable targets, connected to strategies, activities, resources, outputs, and outcomes, and uses reliable administrative data to measure progress and inform continuous improvement.
(vi) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to enable successful achievement of project objectives.
(vii) The quality of the proposed demonstration design, such as qualitative and quantitative design, and procedures for documenting project activities and results for underserved populations.
(viii) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including valid and reliable information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project.
(ix) The extent to which the proposed development efforts include adequate quality controls, continuous improvement efforts, and, as appropriate, repeated testing of products.
(x) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates that it is designed to build capacity and yield sustainable results that will extend beyond the project period.
(xi) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects the most recent and relevant knowledge and practices from research and effective practice.
(xii) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to meeting program purposes and requirements and serving the target population.
(xiii) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to any absolute priority or absolute priorities used in the competition.
(xiv) The extent to which the proposed project will integrate or build on ideas, strategies, and efforts from similar external projects to improve relevant outcomes, using existing funding streams from other programs or policies supported by community, State, and Federal resources.
(xv) The extent to which the proposed project is informed by similar past projects implemented by the applicant with demonstrated results.
(xvi) The extent to which the proposed project will include coordination with other Federal investments, as well as appropriate agencies and organizations providing similar services to the target population.
(xvii) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards and increased social, emotional, and educational development for students, including members of underserved populations.
(xviii) The extent to which the proposed project includes explicit plans for authentic, meaningful, and ongoing community member and partner engagement, including their involvement in planning, implementing, and revising project activities for underserved populations.
(xix) The extent to which the proposed project includes plans for consumer involvement.
(xx) The extent to which performance feedback and formative data are integral to the design of the proposed project and will be used to inform continuous improvement.
(xxi) The extent to which fellowship recipients or other project participants are to be selected on the basis of academic excellence.
(xxii) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the resources to operate the project beyond the project period, including a multiyear financial and operating model and accompanying plan; the demonstrated commitment of any partners; demonstration of broad support from community members and partners (such as State educational agencies, teachers' unions, families, business and industry, community members, and State vocational rehabilitation agencies) that are critical to the project's long-term success; or a plan for capacity-building by leveraging one or more of these types of resources.
(xxiii) The extent to which there is a plan to incorporate the project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the applicant beyond the end of the project period.
(xxiv) The extent to which the proposed project will increase efficiency in the use of time, staff, money, or other resources in order to improve results and increase productivity.
(xxv) The extent to which the proposed project will integrate with, or build on, similar or related efforts in order to improve relevant outcomes, using nonpublic funds or resources.
(xxvi) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale that is aligned with the purposes of the grant program.
(xxvii) The extent to which the proposed project represents implementation of the evidence cited in support of the proposed project with fidelity.
(xxviii) The extent to which the applicant plans to allocate a significant portion of its requested funding to the evidence-based project components.
(xxix) The strength of the commitment from key decision-makers at proposed implementation sites.
(xxx) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by promising evidence.
(d) Quality of project services. (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equitable and adequate access and participation for project participants who experience barriers based on one or more of the following: economic disadvantage; gender; race; ethnicity; color; national origin; disability; age; language; migration; living in a rural location; experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity; involvement with the justice system; pregnancy, parenting, or caregiver status; and sexual orientation. This determination includes the steps developed and described in the form Equity For Students, Teachers, And Other Program Beneficiaries (OMB Control No. 1894-0005) (section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1228a)).
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project were determined with input from the community to be served to ensure that they are appropriate and responsive to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries, including underserved populations, of those services.
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by the target population that it is intended to serve.
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge and an evidence-based project component.
(iv) The likely benefit to the intended recipients, as indicated by the logic model or other conceptual framework, of the services to be provided.
(v) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to build recipient and project capacity in ways that lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.
(vi) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are likely to provide long-term solutions to alleviate the personnel shortages that have been identified or are the focus of the proposed project.
(vii) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to meaningful improvements in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous and relevant standards.
(viii) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to meaningful improvements in early childhood and family outcomes.
(ix) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to meaningful improvements in the skills and competencies necessary to gain employment in high-quality jobs, careers, and industries or build capacity for independent living.
(x) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners, including those from underserved populations, to maximize the effectiveness of project services.
(xi) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.
(xii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are focused on recipients, community members, or project participants that are most underserved as demonstrated by the data relevant to the project.
(e) Quality of the project personnel. (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has project personnel or a plan for hiring of personnel who are members of groups that have historically encountered barriers, or who have professional or personal experiences with barriers, based on one or more of the following: economic disadvantage; gender; race; ethnicity; color; national origin; disability; age; language; migration; living in a rural location; experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity; involvement with the justice system; pregnancy, parenting, or caregiver status; and sexual orientation.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the project director or principal investigator, when hired, has the qualifications required for the project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project and experience in designing, managing, or implementing similar projects for the target population to be served by the project.
(ii) The extent to which the key personnel in the project, when hired, have the qualifications required for the proposed project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project, and represent or have lived experiences of the target population.
(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
(iv) The extent to which the proposed project team maximizes diverse perspectives, for example by reflecting the lived experiences of project participants, or relevant experience working with the target population.
(v) The extent to which the proposed planning, implementing, and evaluating project team are familiar with the assets, needs, and other contextual considerations of the proposed implementation sites.
(f) Adequacy of resources. (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of support for the project, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant or the lead applicant organization.
(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served, the depth and intensity of services, and the anticipated results and benefits.
(v) The extent to which the costs of the proposed project would permit other entities to replicate the project.
(vi) The level of initial matching funds or other commitment from partners, indicating the likelihood for potential continued support of the project after Federal funding ends.
(vii) The potential for the purposes, activities, or benefits of the proposed project to be institutionalized into the ongoing practices and programs of the applicant, agency, or organization and continue after Federal funding ends.
(g) Quality of the management plan. (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(ii) The adequacy of plans for ensuring the use of quantitative and qualitative data, including meaningful community member and partner input, to inform continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality and accessible products and services from the proposed project for the target population.
(iv) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
(v) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives, including those from underserved populations, are brought to bear in the design, implementation, operation, evaluation, and improvement of the proposed project, including those of parents, educators, community-based organizations, civil rights organizations, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.
(h) Quality of the project evaluation or other evidence-building. (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are thorough, feasible, relevant, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are appropriate to the context within which the project operates and the target population of the proposed project.
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are designed to measure the fidelity of implementation of the project.
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quality data that are quantitative and qualitative.
(v) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide guidance for quality assurance and continuous improvement.
(vi) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide performance feedback and provide formative, diagnostic, or interim data that is a periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(vii) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing and potential implementation in other settings.
(viii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards without reservations, as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks.
(ix) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards with or without reservations, as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks.
(x) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias (such as regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group) to assess the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes.
(xi) The extent to which the evaluation employs an appropriate analytic strategy to build evidence about the relationship between key project components, mediators, and outcomes and inform decisions on which project components to continue, revise, or discontinue.
(xii) The quality of the evaluation plan for measuring fidelity of implementation, including thresholds for acceptable implementation, to inform how implementation is associated with outcomes.
(xiii) The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a dissemination strategy that is likely to promote others' learning from the project.
(xiv) The extent to which the evaluator has the qualifications, including the relevant training, experience, and independence, required to conduct an evaluation of the proposed project, including experience conducting evaluations of similar methodology as proposed and with evaluations for the proposed population and setting.
(xv) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes sufficient resources to conduct the project evaluation effectively.
(xvi) The extent to which the evaluation will access and link high-quality administrative data from authoritative sources to improve evaluation quality and comprehensiveness.
(i) Strategy to scale. (1) The Secretary considers the applicant's strategy to effectively scale the proposed project for recipients, community members, and partners, including to underserved populations.
(2) In determining the applicant's strategy to effectively scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The quality of the strategies to reach scale by expanding the project to new populations or settings.
(ii) The applicant's capacity (such as qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity), together with any project partners, to bring the proposed project effectively to scale on a national or regional level during the grant period.
(iii) The applicant's capacity (such as qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity), together with any project partners, to further develop and bring the proposed project effectively to scale on a national level during the grant period, based on the findings of the proposed project.
(iv) The quality of the mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information and resources on its project to support further development, adaptation, or replication by other entities to implement project components in additional settings or with other populations.
(v) The extent to which there is unmet demand for broader implementation of the project that is aligned with the proposed level of scale.
(vi) The extent to which there is a market of potential entities that will commit resources toward implementation.
(vii) The quality of the strategies to scale that take into account and are responsive to previous barriers to expansion.
(viii) The quality of the plan to deliver project services more efficiently at scale and maintain effectiveness.
(ix) The quality of the plan to develop revenue sources that will make the project self-sustaining.
(x) The extent to which the project will create reusable data and evaluation tools and techniques that facilitate expansion and support continuous improvement.
[89 FR 70322, Aug. 29, 2024]