FR Doc 04-12208
[Federal Register: May 28, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 30793-30799]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28my04-144]
[[Page 30793]]
Download: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VI
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools; Overview Information; Mentoring
Programs; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2004; Notices
[[Page 30794]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
RIN 1865-ZA00
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools--Mentoring Programs
AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities, requirements, and selection
criteria under the Mentoring Program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Deputy Under Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools
announces final priorities, requirements, and selection criteria under
the Mentoring Program. The Deputy Under Secretary will use these
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria for a competition in
FY 2004 and may use them in later years.
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities are effective July 7, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Earl Myers, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E254, Washington, DC 20202-
6450. Telephone: (202) 708-8846. E-mail address: earl.myers@ed.gov, or
Bryan Williams, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., room 3E259, Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone: (202) 260-2391.
E-mail address: bryan.williams@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We published a notice of proposed
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria for this program in
the Federal Register on March 15, 2004 (69 FR 12138).
In response to the comments received, this notice of final
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria contains significant
changes from the notice of proposed priorities. We have revised the
proposed definition of school-based mentoring; added a new factor to
the selection criterion ``Quality of the Project Design'' and revised
the point distribution within that criterion; and changed the proposed
Application Requirement for community-based organizations. We fully
explain these changes in the Appendix--Analysis of Comments and Changes
found elsewhere in this notice.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these final priorities, requirements, and
selection criteria, we invite applications through a notice in the
Federal Register. A notice inviting applications for new awards
under this program for FY 2004 is published elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register.
Absolute Priority
This priority supports projects that address the academic and
social needs of children with the greatest need through school-based
mentoring programs and activities and provide these students with
mentors. These programs and activities must serve children with the
greatest need in one or more grades 4 through 8 living in rural areas,
high-crime areas, or troubled home environments, or who attend schools
with violence problems.
Competitive Preference Priority
We will award five additional points to a consortium of eligible
applicants that includes either: (a) At least one local educational
agency (LEA) and at least one community-based organization (CBO) that
is not a school and that provides services to youth and families in the
community; or (b) at least one private school that qualifies as a
nonprofit CBO and at least one other CBO that is not a school, and that
provides services to youth and families in the community.
The consortium must designate one member of the group to apply for
the grant, unless the consortium is itself eligible as a partnership
between a LEA and a nonprofit CBO.
To receive this competitive preference, the applicant must clearly
identify the agencies that comprise the consortium and must include a
detailed plan of their working relationship and of the activities that
each member will perform, including a project budget that reflects the
contractual disbursements to the members of the consortium. For the
purpose of this priority, a ``consortium'' means a group application in
accordance with the provisions of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129.
Eligibility Requirements for All Applicants
To be eligible for funding, an applicant must include in its
application an assurance that it will: (1) Establish clear, measurable
performance goals; and (2) collect and report to the Department data
related to the established Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) performance indicators for the Mentoring Programs grant
competition. We will reject any application that does not contain this
assurance.
Application Requirements for CBOs
To be eligible for funding, each CBO must include in its
application an assurance that: (a) It is an eligible applicant under
the definitions provided in the application package; (b) timely and
meaningful consultation with an LEA or private school has taken place
during the design and/or development of the proposed program; (c) LEA
or private school staff will participate in the identification and
referral of students to the CBO's proposed program; and (d) the LEA or
private school will participate in the collection of data related to
the established GPRA performance measures for the Mentoring Programs
grant competition.
Definitions
(1) The term ``school-based mentoring'' means mentoring activities
that are closely coordinated with schools, including involving
teachers, counselors, and other school staff in the identification and
referral of students, and that are focused on improved academic
achievement, reduced student referrals for disciplinary reasons,
increased bonding to school, and positive youth development. (2) The
term ``core academic subjects'' means English, reading or language
arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government,
economics, arts, history, and geography.
Performance Measures
We have identified the following key GPRA performance measures for
assessing the effectiveness of this program: (1) The percentage of
student/mentor matches that are sustained for a period of twelve months
will increase; (2) The percentage of mentored students who demonstrate
improvement in core academic subjects as measured by grade point
average after 12 months will increase; and (3) The percentage of
mentored students who have unexcused absences from school will
decrease.
Selection Criteria
The Deputy Under Secretary will use the following selection
criteria to evaluate applications under this competition. The maximum
score for all of these criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for
each criterion is indicated in parentheses.
(1) Need for the Project. (10 points)
In determining the need for the proposed project, the following
factor is considered:
[[Page 30795]]
The magnitude and severity of problems that will be addressed by
the project, including the number of youth to be served who: (i) Are at
risk of educational failure or dropping out of school, (ii) are
involved in criminal, delinquent, or gang activities, or (iii) lack
strong, positive role models. (10 points)
(2) Quality of the Project Design. (30 points)
In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project,
the following factors are considered:
(a) The degree to which the applicant proposes a high-quality
mentoring project that provides for, but is not limited to: (1) A low
student-to-mentor ratio (one-to-one, where practicable), (2) frequent
contacts between mentors and the children they mentor; and (3)
mentoring relationships of 12 months or more duration. (10 points)
(b) The quality of mentoring services that will be provided,
including the quality of services designed to improve academic
achievement in core academic subjects, strengthen school bonding (i.e.,
positive commitment and attachment to school), and promote pro-social
norms and behaviors, and the resources, if any, that the eligible
entity will dedicate to providing children with opportunities for job
training or postsecondary education. (5 points)
(c) The capability of each eligible entity to implement its
mentoring program effectively, and the degree to which parents,
teachers, community-based organizations, and the local community have
participated, or will participate, in the design and implementation of
the proposed mentoring project. (5 points)
(d) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes
a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, including
new research, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the
use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful
achievement of project objectives. (10 points)
(3) Quality of the Management Plan. (35 points)
In determining the quality of the management plan, the following
factors are considered:
(a) The quality of the system that will be used to manage and
monitor mentor reference checks, including, at a minimum, child and
domestic abuse record checks and criminal background checks. (10
points)
(b) The quality of the training that will be provided to mentors,
including orientation, follow-up, and support of each match between
mentor and child. (10 points)
(c) The quality of the applicant's plan to recruit and retain
mentors, including outreach, criteria for recruiting mentors,
terminating unsuccessful matches, and replacing mentors, if necessary.
(5 points)
(d) The extent to which the applicant provides a comprehensive plan
to match mentors with students, based on the needs of the children,
including criteria for matches, and the extent to which teachers,
counselors, and other school staff are involved. (5 points)
(e) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates the ability to
carefully monitor and support the mentoring matches, including
terminating matches when necessary and reassigning students to new
mentors, and the degree to which the mentoring program will continue to
serve children from the 9th grade through graduation from secondary
school, as needed. (5 points)
(4) Quality of Project Personnel. (10 points)
In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary
considers:
The qualifications and relevant training of key staff, including
time commitments, and experience in mentoring services and case
management. (10 points)
(5) Quality of the Project Evaluation. (15 points)
In determining the quality of the evaluation, the following factors
are considered:
(a) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback to the Department, grantees, and mentors, and
permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended
outcomes, including the GPRA performance measures for the Mentoring
Programs grant competition. (5 points)
(b) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and
qualitative data on the GPRA performance measures for the Mentoring
Programs grant competition. (10 points)
Executive Order 12866
This notice of final priorities, requirements, and selection
criteria has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and
benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the notice of final priorities,
requirements, and selection criteria are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have determined as necessary for
administering this program effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria we have determined that the
benefits of the final priorities justify the costs.
We summarized the costs and benefits in the notice of proposed
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Applicable Regulations: 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82,
84, 85, 86, 97, 98, 99 and 299.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR Part 86 apply to institutions of
higher education only.
Electronic Access To This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this
Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister
.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO) toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the
Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
You may also view this document in text or PDF at the following
site: http://www.ed.gov/programs/dvpmentoring/applicant.html.
Note: 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 on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html
.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.184B Office of
Safe and Drug-Free Schools--Mentoring Programs)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7140.
[[Page 30796]]
Dated: May 26, 2004.
Deborah A. Price,
Deputy Under Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
Appendix--Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to the invitation in the notice of proposed
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria, 182 parties
submitted comments. An analysis of the comments and of any changes
since publication of the notice of proposed priorities,
requirements, and selection criteria follows, grouped by major
issues according to subject.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes,
and suggested changes we are not authorized to make under the
applicable statutory authority.
Absolute Priority
Comment: Over 150 commenters stated that the Department should
not limit the program to school-based mentoring programs.
Discussion: The proposed priority is consistent with the program
statute, which directs the Secretary to give priority to school-
based mentoring programs.
Change: To allow for greater flexibility, we have revised the
definition of ``school-based mentoring'' to mean mentoring
activities that are closely coordinated with schools, including
involving teachers, counselors, and other school staff in the
identification and referral of students, and that are focused on
improved academic achievement, reduced student referrals for
disciplinary reasons, increased bonding to school, and positive
youth development.
Comment: Five commenters supported limiting the priority to
school-based mentoring.
Discussion: We agree that school-based mentoring is an effective
strategy to address the statutory goals of the program.
Change: None.
Comment: Four commenters recommended that the Department not
limit the program to students in grades 4 through 8.
Discussion: The transition from childhood to adolescence is a
particularly critical developmental time in a young person's life.
Children often initiate harmful behaviors, such as using alcohol,
tobacco, and other drugs, in the middle school years, and one
consequence of this early initiation is that they are more likely to
develop future patterns of harmful behavior. Given the need for
additional support during this vulnerable time, we believe that it
is beneficial to focus prevention strategies on youth making the
transition from middle school to high school.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that we should target schools with
high dropout rates, as well as high rates of students eligible for
free and reduced lunch, and low-income areas.
Discussion: Our target population is consistent with the program
statute, which requires the Secretary to give priority to each
eligible entity that serves children with the greatest need living
in rural areas, high-crime areas, or troubled home environments, or
who attend schools with violence problems.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that it is not always an
improvement to build on the infrastructure and support available in
school settings. The commenter contended that community-based
organizations also have infrastructure and support that can be built
upon while allowing CBOs to specialize in the area of focus:
mentoring.
Discussion: We agree that effective mentoring can occur in a
variety of settings. In response to the statutory requirement to
focus on youth who are most at risk of educational failure, dropping
out of school, or involvement in criminal or delinquent activities
or who lack strong positive role models, we have determined that the
focus of this program should be on school-based mentoring programs.
Change: As discussed elsewhere in this Analysis of Comments and
Changes section, to allow for greater flexibility, we have revised
the definition of ``school-based mentoring.''
Comment: One commenter questioned why we are focusing services
on youth who are most at risk of educational failure, dropping out
of school, or involvement in criminal or delinquent activities, or
who lack strong positive role models when mentoring research
consistently demonstrates that mentoring works when it is used as
prevention.
Discussion: Our focus is dictated by the statutory purpose of
the Mentoring Programs as stated in section 4130 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. The purpose is to
make assistance available to promote mentoring programs for children
with greatest need, meaning a child who is at risk of educational
failure, dropping out of school, or involvement in criminal or
delinquent activities, or who lacks strong positive role models.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter objected to our goal of sustaining
mentoring matches for 12 months or more and encourages us to use six
months as the standard.
Discussion: The program statute directs us to take into
consideration the degree to which the eligible entity can ensure
that mentors will develop longstanding relationships with the
children they mentor. Preliminary findings from those who are
involved in mentoring strongly suggest that duration is a critical
factor to the success of any mentoring relationship, and we do not
believe that a period of less than 12 months is of sufficient
duration to qualify as a longstanding relationship.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that it would be a mistake to force
projects to focus primarily on academic needs of children.
Discussion: The absolute priority requires applicants to focus
on both the academic and social needs of children.
Change: None.
Competitive Preference Priority
Comment: Four commenters recommended that we give a competitive
preference priority to novice applicants.
Discussion: A competitive preference was offered for novice
applicants in the mentoring program competition in 2002. This year
the competitive preference priority will award five additional
points to a consortium of eligible applicants that includes either:
(a) At least one LEA and at least one CBO that is not a school and
that provides services to youth and families in the community; or
(b) at least one private school that qualifies as a nonprofit CBO
and at least one CBO that is not a school and that provides services
to youth and families in the community.
We hope that this collaborative approach will result in diverse
and effective mentoring programs rooted in the community and able to
call upon multiple sources of support. Novice applicants may still
qualify for the competitive preference points by entering into
partnerships as described.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that partnering with an LEA places
an administrative burden on community-based organizations, and
recommended that the competitive preference priority be revised to
allow community-based organizations the option to partner with a
school within an LEA.
Discussion: To qualify as a consortium, a group must be
comprised of entities that are eligible applicants under the
program. Under the authorizing statute for Mentoring Programs, only
local educational agencies and nonprofit, community-based
organizations are eligible applicants. Schools within LEAs are not
eligible applicants.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter objected to the competitive preference
for consortia and noted that many CBOs can provide quality mentoring
services without entering into partnerships with LEAs.
Discussion: Community-based organizations are not required to
enter into partnerships with LEAs to be eligible for funding. If
they choose to do so, they are eligible for an additional five
points under the competitive preference priority.
Change: None.
Eligibility Requirements
Comment: One commenter proposed, as an eligibility requirement,
that all applicants provide statistics to show a decrease in out-of-
school suspensions.
Discussion: We expect that one outcome of effective mentoring
programs will be a decrease in suspensions from school. We do not
think, however, that applicants need to demonstrate, in advance of
receiving a grant, that this reduction has already occurred.
Change: None.
Application Requirements for CBOs
Comment: One commenter stated that each community-based
organization that is eligible to apply for funding should have the
option to submit a letter of agreement to participate, either from
an LEA or from a single school.
Discussion: Because the focus of the program is school-based
mentoring, it is necessary to ensure that all applicants have the
appropriate authorization to carry out their program in conjunction
with a school.
Change: We have revised the Application Requirements for
Community-based Organizations to require each applicant to
[[Page 30797]]
provide an assurance that: (a) It is an eligible applicant under the
definitions provided in the application package; (b) timely and
meaningful consultation with an LEA or private school has taken
place during the design and/or development of the proposed program;
(c) LEA or private school staff will participate in the
identification and referral of students to the CBO's proposed
program; and (d) the LEA or private school will participate in the
collection of data related to the established GPRA performance
measures for the Mentoring Programs grant competition.
Definitions
Comment: One party recommended that transitional youth be
included as a focus of the program, including youth ages 17-21.
Discussion: The program statute limits program services to youth
that have not yet graduated from secondary school. Youth that are
beyond this age are not eligible.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested adding the following
characteristics to the definition of at-risk youth: emotionally
depressed, uninspired intellectually, and those trying to survive
desperate living conditions.
Discussion: This program is designed to assist children with the
greatest need. The definition of a child with the greatest need is
provided in the statute authorizing this program.
Change: None.
Comment: Five commenters recommended changes to the definition
of ``school-based mentoring.'' One recommended that the definition
include mentoring that is initiated at and accountable to a school
site and that has a declared academic goal (or outcomes). Another
suggested that mentoring be permitted at CBO training facilities and
on field trips. A third commenter asked that mentoring programs not
be restricted to activities on school grounds. The fourth commenter
recommended revising the definition of school-based mentoring to say
``including activities on school grounds.'' The last commenter
recommends that the definition of school-based mentoring be changed
to uncouple it from ``site-based mentoring.''
Discussion: We concur with the recommendations to allow greater
flexibility in the location of program activities.
Change: As discussed elsewhere in this Analysis of Comments and
Changes section, we have revised the definition of the term
``school-based mentoring'' to provide more flexibility for mentoring
services.
Comment: One commenter stated that a conflict in the priorities
is created by requiring activities to occur on school grounds and
also requiring them to continue for at least 12 months. This will
increase the administrative burden placed on schools by requiring
them to stay open for mentoring activities during the summer months.
Discussion: We have revised the definition of school-based
mentoring to allow applicants greater flexibility in implementing
program activities at locations other than school grounds.
Change: The definition of the term ``school-based mentoring''
has been revised as described elsewhere in this Analysis of Comments
and Changes section of this notice.
Performance Measures
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department place
less emphasis on academic performance in the GPRA performance
measures for the program.
Discussion: One of the statutory purposes of the Mentoring
Programs is to improve the academic performance of children with the
greatest need. Therefore, we have determined that academic
improvement is a key performance measure for assessing the
effectiveness of the Mentoring Programs.
Change: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that the GPRA performance
measure on student/mentor matches be revised from a period of time
of twelve months to a period of time of nine months or longer.
Discussion: Preliminary evidence from individuals who are
involved in mentoring strongly suggests that one characteristic of
positive mentoring relationships is significant duration. Therefore,
while the academic school year in most parts of the country lasts
nine months, applicants will be encouraged to propose programs that
will result in mentoring relationships of significant duration,
meaning those that last at least 12 months. Our view is that
relationships sustained for a period of 12 months or longer is a key
performance measure for assessing the effectiveness of the Mentoring
Program.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that the 12-month tracking
requirement could present a challenge in districts where students
tend to be very transient.
Discussion: We agree that potential transience is a factor that
can affect results. However we believe that building longstanding
relationships, meaning those that last at least 12 months, is an
appropriate goal and one that is consistent with the findings from
the research on mentoring.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter proposed that ED clarify whether
``unexcused absences'' means unexcused absence from school or from
mentoring meetings.
Discussion: We intend this term to mean unexcused absence from
school.
Change: We have revised the performance measure to clarify the
meaning of unexcused absences.
Comment: One commenter recommended adding ``an increased
percentage of students develop positive attitudes toward school/
learning'' and ``an increased percentage of students develop higher
levels of self-confidence.''
Discussion: These characteristics are usually associated with
sustained mentoring matches and improvements in academic
achievement; therefore, we do not think it necessary to include them
as specific elements within the performance measures.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended developing optional GPRA
measures for all seven of the statutory goals for the Mentoring
Program in addition to the three established core GPRA measures. The
commenter also recommended that we award bonus points to programs
seeking to address the additional statutory goals.
Discussion: We have established GPRA performance measures that
we believe are aligned with what will be typical for most grants,
and that will help determine program effectiveness in terms of
outcomes. For the Department to be able to report on GPRA measures
for this program, grantees must use the same performance measures,
and data must be consistently collected and reported across program
sites. Offering ``optional'' performance measures would likely
prevent this.
Additionally, evaluating a program that potentially addresses
all seven statutory goals is likely to require an extremely complex
and rigorous design, which may be very difficult for certain
applicants to accomplish, particularly those with limited
experience. We do not believe that this is in the best interests of
the program. It is not Departmental policy to award ``bonus''
points; however, this year we are proposing one competitive
preference priority under which we will award five additional points
to a consortium of eligible applicants, which we believe will be
more beneficial as it is likely to result in more diverse and
effective programs.
Change: None.
Selection Criteria
Several commenters proposed changes to the selection criteria
and/or the points assigned to each scoring factor. The suggestions
are grouped according to the specific selection criterion addressed.
Need for the Project
Comment: One commenter recommended that this criterion include,
among the students to be served by the project, a focus on students
with a history of behavioral and/or academic problems in school.
Discussion: The criterion as drafted is sufficiently broad to
permit applicants to discuss behavioral and/or academic problems in
school as part of their discussion of the need for the project.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended increasing to 40 the number
of points awarded for need for the project, and awarding remaining
points to the other criteria as follows: Quality of the Program
Design, 20 points; Quality of the Management Plan, 20 points;
Quality of Project Evaluation, 10 points, and Quality of Project
Personnel, 10 points. The commenter believes that those communities
with the greatest need ought to have the greatest opportunity to
receive the benefits of the proposed projects.
Discussion: As with any prevention strategy, mentoring is most
effective when programs are based on proven strategies and practice.
At a minimum, a well-designed mentoring program should provide clear
goals and objectives, as well as strong policies and procedures for
the management of all program operations, including volunteer
screening, structured activities for mentors and youth, and ongoing
training and supervision for all matches. Revising the
[[Page 30798]]
point values for the selection criteria in the manner recommended
would make these critical factors less important in selecting
grantees. We believe that it is appropriate to stress the importance
of quality program design and management.
Change: None.
Quality of the Project Design
Comment: One commenter recommended having mentors available to
students throughout the school day.
Discussion: Applicants are free to propose a level of mentoring
services that meets the needs of the students they will serve.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended moving scoring factors (2)(a)
and 2(c) out of Quality of the Project Design and into Quality of
the Management Plan, and giving 30 points to the remaining factor
2(b).
Discussion: Scoring factors (2)(a) and (2)(c) are important
components of program design and should remain under that heading.
They are intended to emphasize the important role each plays in the
development of an effective mentoring program.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended allowing mentoring programs
to build to full capacity of mentees over a period of time. Such
flexibility would, according to the commenter, permit building a
core group of mentees who could assist in introducing other young
people to the program.
Discussion: Applicants may propose to phase in the number of
mentoring matches over the three-year life of the project.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that applicants be required
to cite the literature, models, and other program materials used in
the development of project design. Another commenter recommended
that the selection criteria be expanded to give value to innovative
approaches based on new research findings.
Discussion: We agree that a thoughtful conceptual design is
important to project success. We have added a scoring factor to the
Quality of the Project Design criterion.
Change: We added the following scoring factor to this criterion:
The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a
thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature (including
new research), a high-quality plan for project implementation, and
the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful
achievement of project objectives. (10 points)
The overall point value for this criterion will remain 30
points. To accommodate the additional scoring factor, we have
revised the point values for 2(b) and 2(c) from 10 points each to 5
points each.
Comment: One commenter recommended revising this criterion to
include the development and maintenance of a program advisory board.
Discussion: We believe that this criterion sufficiently
addresses the involvement of parents, teachers, and other community
organizations in program implementation. We do not believe that
revising the criterion to require the development of an advisory
board would materially improve this measure.
Change: None.
Quality of Management Plan
Comment: One commenter recommended that criterion 3(d) be
revised to include the phrase ``based on the needs of the
children.''
Discussion: We believe that this criterion already addresses the
extent to which there is a comprehensive plan to match mentors with
students, based on the needs of the children.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that mentor reference checks
include at least one reference from a known community organization
or a respected community member.
Discussion: The guidelines for mentor reference checks are
minimum requirements directed by the statute. Applicants may propose
checks that exceed the minimum, including references from community
members or organizations.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the selection
criteria to include group mentoring. The commenter believes that a
team rather than an individual may sometimes be the best mentor for
a child.
Discussion: The authorizing statute calls for one-to-one
mentoring relationships, where practicable.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we clearly articulate
the requirement for grantees to develop a written policy and
procedure manual to guide staff work under their project.
Discussion: The approved grant application, the statute
authorizing the program, and applicable regulations govern the
conduct of the grant project. Therefore, the proposed policy and
procedure manual is not crucial for operation of the program.
However, applicants are strongly encouraged to develop written
policies and procedures to document how they will carry out their
project.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that applicants be required
to identify clearly the topics to be included in the training
provided to mentors, including specific training components that
will support academic requirements.
Discussion: Applicants may discuss training topics in relevant
sections of their grant application. We intend to provide national
training to grantees in order to ensure broad coverage of topics and
consistent content.
Change: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended that applicants be required
to outline the following: (a) Proposed representative mentor/mentee
activities; (b) the balance of school site-based activities versus
community-based activities, and (c) how the applicant will bridge
gaps in the school year calendar in order to facilitate matches that
last 12 or more months.
Discussion: We agree that these are important elements of
mentoring projects, and we think that a comprehensive, thorough
response to the scoring criteria will elicit this information.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that applicants be required
to outline initial plans for sustaining the project past the three
years of Federal funding.
Discussion: We agree that sustainability is an important
consideration. However, rather than assess a potential
sustainability plan that may be speculative at best, we believe that
it will be more beneficial to work directly with each grantee funded
under this program on sustainability as well as on other issues, as
a part of the overall training and technical assistance that we will
provide.
Change: None.
Quality of Project Personnel
Comment: One commenter recommended that we require the
submission of job descriptions for the program coordinators and
other key program staff.
Discussion: Resumes, when they are available, demonstrate the
skills and experience of key personnel the applicant has available
to help implement the project. Job descriptions, on the other hand,
indicate the skills and experience the applicant thinks are needed
and hopes to acquire. This speculative aspect to job descriptions
makes them a less useful tool for assessing the quality of project
personnel.
Change: None.
Quality of the Project Evaluation
Comment: One commenter recommended that applicants be required
to provide a standard for quality communication between program
coordinators and parents, and to include a ``Satisfaction
Inventory'' for participants and parents.
Discussion: The selection criteria are sufficiently broad to
permit applicants to use a variety of methods, including
satisfaction inventories, as part of their evaluation. We do not
think such inventories should be required, because they are measures
of how well participants liked the program and not measures of how
effective the program is in achieving the established performance
objectives established.
Change: None.
Comments: One commenter recommended augmenting local program
evaluation through the adoption or adaptation of existing data
collection tools to ensure the comparability and generalizability of
outcome data across programs. The commenter also recommended that we
give consideration to developing a national evaluation framework and
provide guidance for implementing the framework locally.
Discussion: We intend to provide technical assistance to
grantees on evaluation as well as on other topics throughout the
life of the grants.
Change: None.
Use of Funds
Comment: One commenter encouraged flexibility in recompense for
mentors, recognizing that not all suitable mentors have the funds to
support mentoring activities.
Discussion: The authorizing statute prohibits direct
compensation of mentors. Applicants, however, may request funds to
pay for allowable activities for the mentors and the children being
mentored as part of
[[Page 30799]]
the mentoring program. These funds must remain under the
administrative control of the grantee.
Change: None.
[FR Doc. 04-12208 Filed 5-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P