[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 34, Volume 3]
[Revised as of July 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 34CFR607.22]

[Page 243-244]
 
                           TITLE 34--EDUCATION
 
                         DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
 
PART 607--STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONS PROGRAM--Table of Contents
 
            Subpart C--How Does the Secretary Make an Award?
 
Sec. 607.22  What are the selection criteria for development grants?

    The Secretary uses the following criteria to evaluate applications 
for development grants:
    (a) Quality of the applicant's comprehensive development plan. 
(Total: 30 points) The extent to which--
    (1) The strengths, weaknesses, and significant problems of the 
institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal 
stability are clearly and comprehensively analyzed and result from a 
process that involved major constituencies of the institution. (12 
points);
    (2) The goals for the institution's academic programs, institutional 
management, and fiscal stability are realistic and based on 
comprehensive analysis. (5 points);
    (3) The objectives stated in the plan are measurable, related to 
institutional goals, and, if achieved, will contribute to the growth and 
self-sufficiency of the institution (5 points);
    (4) The plan clearly and comprehensively describes the methods and 
resources the institution will use to institutionalize practice and 
improvements developed under the proposed project, including, in 
particular, how operational costs for personnel, maintenance, and 
upgrades of equipment will be paid with institutional resources (8 
points).
    (b) Quality of activity objectives. (Total: 10 points) The extent to 
which the objectives for each activity are--
    (1) Realistic and defined in terms of measurable results (5 points); 
and
    (2) Directly related to the problems to be solved and to the goals 
of the comprehensive development plan (5 points).
    (c) Quality of implementation strategy. (Total: 25 points) The 
extent to which--
    (1) The implementation strategy for each activity is comprehensive 
(10 points);
    (2) The rationale for the implementation strategy for each activity 
is clearly described and is supported by the results of relevant studies 
or projects (10 points); and
    (3) The timetable for each activity is realistic and likely to be 
attained (5 points).
    (d) Quality of key personnel. (Total: 10 points) The extent to 
which--
    (1) The past experience and training of key professional personnel 
are directly related to the stated activity objectives (7 points); and
    (2) The time commitment of key personnel is realistic (3 points).
    (e) Quality of project management plan. (Total: 10 points) The 
extent to which--
    (1) Procedures for managing the project are likely to ensure 
efficient and effective project implementation (5 points); and
    (2) The project coordinator and activity directors have sufficient 
authority to conduct the project effectively, including access to the 
president or chief executive officer (5 points).
    (f) Quality of evaluation plan. (Total: 10 points) The extent to 
which--
    (1) The data elements and the data collection procedures are clearly 
described and appropriate to measure the

[[Page 244]]

attainment of activity objectives and to measure the success of the 
project in achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan (5 
points); and
    (2) The data analysis procedures are clearly described and are 
likely to produce formative and summative results on attaining activity 
objectives and measuring the success of the project on achieving the 
goals of the comprehensive development plan (5 points).
    (g) Budget. (Total: 5 points) The extent to which the proposed costs 
are necessary and reasonable in relation to the project's objectives and 
scope.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 
1840-0114)

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1057-1059, 1066-1069f)

[59 FR 41924, Aug. 15, 1994]