Promise Neighborhoods Program, 39590-39615 [2011-16757]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39590-39615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16757]



[[Page 39589]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 129

July 6, 2011

Part III





Department of Education





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





Promise Neighborhoods Program; Implementation Grant Competition 
Applications for New Awards; Planning Grant Competition; Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2011 / 
Notices

[[Page 39590]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RIN 1855-ZA07
[CFDA: 84.215P]


Promise Neighborhoods Program

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) announces priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the legislative 
authority of the Fund for the Improvement of Education Program (FIE), 
title V, part D, subpart 1, sections 5411 through 5413 of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The 
Secretary may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for Promise Neighborhoods 
competitions for fiscal year (FY) 2011 and later years.
    We take this action to focus Federal assistance on projects that 
are designed to create a comprehensive continuum of solutions, 
including education programs and family and community supports, with 
great schools at the center. The continuum of solutions must be 
designed to significantly improve the educational and developmental 
outcomes of children and youth, from birth through college and to a 
career. We intend that these projects support organizations that focus 
on serving high-need neighborhoods, have a strategy to build a 
continuum of solutions, and have the capacity to achieve results.

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria are effective August 5, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Hodgdon, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4W220, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 453-6615 or by e-mail: pn2011@ed.gov.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the 
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Program: The Promise 
Neighborhoods program is carried out under the legislative authority of 
the FIE, title V, part D, subpart 1, sections 5411 through 5413 of the 
ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7243-7243b). FIE supports nationally significant 
programs to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education 
at the State and local levels and to help all children meet challenging 
State academic content and student academic achievement standards.
    The purpose of the Promise Neighborhoods program is to 
significantly improve the educational and developmental outcomes of 
children and youth in our most distressed communities, and to transform 
those communities by--
    (1) Identifying and increasing the capacity of eligible 
organizations (as defined in this notice) that are focused on achieving 
results for children and youth throughout an entire neighborhood;
    (2) Building a complete continuum of cradle-through-college-to-
career solutions (continuum of solutions) (as defined in this notice) 
of both educational programs and family and community supports (both as 
defined in this notice), with great schools at the center. All 
solutions in the continuum of solutions must be accessible to children 
with disabilities (CWD) (as defined in this notice) and English 
learners (ELs) (as defined in this notice).
    (3) Integrating programs and breaking down agency ``silos'' so that 
solutions are implemented effectively and efficiently across agencies;
    (4) Developing the local infrastructure of systems and resources 
needed to sustain and scale up proven, effective solutions across the 
broader region beyond the initial neighborhood; and
    (5) Learning about the overall impact of the Promise Neighborhoods 
program and about the relationship between particular strategies in 
Promise Neighborhoods and student outcomes, including through a 
rigorous evaluation of the program.
    Applicable Program Regulations: The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 
81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria in the Federal Register on March 
10, 2011 (76 FR 13152) (NPP). That notice contained background 
information and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
    There are differences between the proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the NPP and these 
final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, as 
discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section elsewhere in 
this notice. Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 
37 parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In 
addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not 
directly related to the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.

    Note about General Comments and Comments Outside the Scope of 
the NPP:  We received many comments expressing general support or 
making general recommendations for this program. In most cases, 
these general comments and recommendations were similar to the 
comments that supported specific provisions or made specific 
recommendations for the program's proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, or selection criteria, which we discuss in the sections 
that follow. We, therefore, do not include a separate discussion of 
the general comments and recommendations.

    We also received a number of comments relating to issues that may 
have been discussed in communications from the Department or in the 
application and review process for the FY 2010 Promise Neighborhoods 
competition, but were not proposed as part of the NPP. These issues 
include: The length of discretionary grant periods, the application 
process, and technical assistance for applicants. We do not address 
comments on these issues here. We note, however, that information on 
these issues will be made available through other Department documents, 
including the notice inviting applications for this program.

General

    Comment: Two commenters made recommendations and requested 
clarification regarding whether implementation grantees must use funds 
for developing the administrative capacity of the eligible organization 
or whether they could use the funds to provide solutions for children 
and youth in the neighborhood. One commenter recommended that the 
Department provide maximum flexibility for applicants to determine how 
the funds are to be used and not require that funds be used to develop 
administrative capacity. Another commenter requested greater 
clarification about the percentage of implementation grant funds that 
could be used to develop administrative capacity, on the one hand, and 
to

[[Page 39591]]

provide solutions for children and youth, on the other.
    Discussion: The Department expects implementation grantees to use 
grant funds for two primary purposes: (1) To develop the administrative 
capacity necessary to successfully implement a continuum of solutions; 
and (2) to provide solutions within the continuum of solutions to 
children and youth in the neighborhood. We anticipate that a majority 
of implementation grant funds would be used to develop a grantee's 
administrative capacity and that other public and private sources would 
be used to provide solutions. However, we believe that each applicant 
is best positioned to determine the allocation of funds between the two 
purposes given its needs assessment and plans to build its 
organizational capacity.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: The Department seeks to clarify that Promise 
Neighborhoods planning and implementation grantees must take into 
consideration the unique needs of CWD, ELs, and their families in 
designing the planning process, conducting the needs assessment, 
identifying the continuum of services, and developing the 
implementation plan for Promise Neighborhoods.
    Changes: The Department has revised language throughout the notice 
of final priorities to highlight the importance of considering the 
unique needs of CWD, ELs, and their families in the planning for and 
implementation of a continuum of services designed to improve academic 
outcomes for all children and youth. References can be found in 
paragraph (4) of Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation 
Priority 1, Final Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 
4, and the definition of education programs. In addition, we have added 
definitions for both children with disabilities and English learners to 
the Final Definitions section of this notice. These definitions are 
consistent with how the terms are defined in the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the ESEA, and section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act.

Priorities

Priorities--General for Final Planning Priorities and Final 
Implementation Priorities

    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department not 
designate any priorities as competitive preference priorities. Two 
commenters recommended that if the Department designates priorities as 
competitive preference priorities, the number of competitive preference 
priorities to which an applicant may apply should be limited, or the 
competitive preference priorities should be used as tie breakers. Two 
of the commenters recommended designating priorities 4 through 8 as 
invitational priorities. Another commenter recommended eliminating 
priorities 4 through 8 altogether.
    Discussion: The Promise Neighborhoods program encourages a 
comprehensive continuum of solutions that are designed to dramatically 
improve academic and developmental outcomes for all children and youth, 
in our country's most distressed communities, and to transform those 
communities. Because we believe that the following components of a 
comprehensive continuum of solutions can significantly improve academic 
and developmental outcomes, we have included them as priorities: 
Provision of high-quality comprehensive local early learning networks, 
quality internet connectivity, access to the arts and humanities, 
availability of quality affordable housing, and family engagement in 
learning through adult education. In a given competition, we may use 
one or more of these priorities to focus Federal funds on components 
most in need of support. The decision to use these priorities as 
absolute, competitive preference or invitational will be made on a 
competition-by-competition basis. We announce these designations and 
the scoring methodology in the notice inviting applications.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters asked whether an applicant must meet 
Absolute Priority 1, Absolute Priority 2, or Absolute Priority 3, or 
whether an applicant could focus on only one priority among Priorities 
4 through 8.
    Discussion: Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications 
that meet either Absolute Priority 1, Absolute Priority 2, or Absolute 
Priority 3. In order to be considered for funding under the Promise 
Neighborhoods program, an applicant must meet all of the requirements 
in the absolute priority that it chooses to address. We announce 
designations for other priorities in notices inviting applications.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns that the absolute 
priorities for rural and tribal communities would disadvantage suburban 
communities. Another commenter recommended adding an absolute priority 
for small towns and mid-sized cities stating that these communities may 
have access to fewer resources than more urban areas.
    Discussion: We included Absolute Priorities 2 and 3 to focus on 
rural areas and Indian tribes because of the unique and daunting 
challenges faced by these communities. In 2004, more than one-fifth of 
the Nation's nearly 2,000 ``dropout factories,'' in which the 
graduation rate is less than 60 percent, were located in rural areas 
(Balfanz, R., and Letgers, N., Locating the Dropout Crisis: Which High 
Schools Produce the Nation's Dropouts? Johns Hopkins University, 2004.)
    Compared to white students, American Indian students have poorer 
academic outcomes and higher poverty rates (Institute for Education 
Sciences. Status and Trends in the Education of American Indians and 
Alaska Natives, 2008). American Indian and Alaska Native students, who 
could be among those served under Absolute Priority 3, have a 
graduation rate of less than 50 percent nationally (The Civil Rights 
Project. The Dropout/Graduation Crisis Among American Indian and Alaska 
Native Students: Failure to Respond Places the Future of Native Peoples 
at Risk, 2010). While we recognize the challenges faced by small towns 
and mid-sized cities, we decline to add an absolute priority focused on 
these communities because their challenges are not as severe as the 
challenges faced by students in rural and tribal communities.
    Changes: None.

Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1

Geographic Area and Need
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require a 
neighborhood to have a child poverty rate of 50 percent or more in 
order to be eligible for a Promise Neighborhood grant. The commenter 
stated that this threshold would demonstrate the severity of need in 
the neighborhood.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that a child poverty rate 
of 50 percent or more is an indicator of tremendous need in a 
neighborhood. However, poverty is only one indicator of need. 
Significant achievement gaps, the percentage of children with 
preventable health conditions, and the crime rate in a neighborhood 
could also be indicators of tremendous need. Applicants are in the best 
position to provide the information that is most relevant to 
establishing the need of the particular neighborhood that they propose 
to serve, and comprehensive information about indicators of need

[[Page 39592]]

will allow us to make thoughtful and informed grant decisions in light 
of the level of distress in the neighborhood.
    Changes: None.

Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1

Promise Neighborhood Plan
    Comment: One commenter expressed concerns about the severity of the 
specific types of interventions required for applicants proposing to 
work with persistently lowest-achieving and low-performing schools, 
especially the turnaround interventions required by the Race to the Top 
(RTT) program.
    Discussion: We require an applicant proposing to work with a 
persistently lowest-achieving school to include as part of its strategy 
one of the four school intervention models (turnaround model, restart 
model, school closure, or transformation model) described in Appendix C 
of the RTT notice inviting applications for new awards for FY 2010 that 
was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2009 (74 FR 
59836, 59866). While applicants working with low-performing schools may 
implement one of these four school intervention models, these 
applicants are not required to do so. They have the flexibility to 
implement any interventions that are sufficiently ambitious, rigorous, 
and comprehensive to significantly improve academic and other outcomes 
for all students.
    We believe that the comprehensive education programs that Promise 
Neighborhoods grantees implement should be consistent with efforts to 
reform these schools carried out under other programs supported by the 
Department, such as the RTT and School Improvement Grants (SIG) 
programs.
    Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1 
provide for a structured yet flexible approach that is consistent with 
these programs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns and requested 
clarification regarding the entity that must implement school 
interventions. One commenter asked whether an applicant must implement 
the school interventions or whether another organization could 
implement the school interventions on its behalf. One commenter 
expressed concern that some charter schools may have difficulty forming 
partnerships with low-performing traditional public schools, and 
recommended that the Department eliminate the requirement that grantees 
serve at least one low-performing school or persistently lowest-
achieving school.
    Discussion: Promise Neighborhoods grantees are required to develop 
a complete continuum of cradle-through-college-to-career solutions over 
time in a neighborhood, and few if any single organization could 
directly implement all of the expected solutions within a complete 
continuum. For this reason, the program is designed to support 
applicants that partner with other organizations to provide this 
continuum of solutions. To clarify this, we are revising both Final 
Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1 to state that 
school interventions may be implemented by the applicant or one or more 
of its partners.
    With regard to the comment recommending that the Department 
eliminate the requirement that grantees serve at least one low-
performing school or persistently lowest-achieving school, we decline 
to make this change because we believe that Promise Neighborhoods must 
play an important role in turning around persistently-lowest achieving 
schools and improving low-performing schools.
    Changes: We have revised both Final Planning Priority 1 and Final 
Implementation Priority 1, paragraph (2)(b) to clarify that the school 
interventions in the strategy or plan to build a continuum of solutions 
may be implemented by the applicant or one of its partners. We added 
``(or one or more of its partners)'' to both Final Planning Priority 1 
and Final Implementation Priority 1, paragraph (2)(b) in reference to 
the entity that must implement the school interventions.
    Comment: One commenter recommended requiring the use of digital, 
multi-platform (e.g., public television, web-based, etc.) delivery 
models for early learning programs in the continuum of solutions.
    Discussion: We believe that applicants are best positioned to 
determine the specific solutions and the implementation of those 
solutions that most effectively address neighborhood needs, and 
therefore, decline to require that all grantees use digital, multi-
platform delivery models for early learning, as recommended by the 
commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended adding a new requirement within 
the education component of the continuum of solutions that focuses on 
family-school partnerships and family engagement in learning.
    Discussion: Family and community support for learning is a critical 
component of Promise Neighborhoods. For example, as specified in Tables 
1 and 2 in both Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation 
Priority 1, family and community member support for learning is one of 
the 10 core program results in a Promise Neighborhood, and Priority 8 
focuses on family engagement in learning through adult education. For 
this reason, we believe adding the requirement recommended by the 
commenter is unnecessary and therefore decline to add it.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding whether 
applicants are required to focus on children attending a target school 
or on all children in a neighborhood. The applicant asked whether 
students who attend a target school in the Promise Neighborhood, but 
live outside the neighborhood, could be served by a Promise 
Neighborhood project.
    Discussion: We agree that clarification about the students who can 
receive the complete continuum of solutions under a Promise 
Neighborhoods grant would be helpful, especially in light of the 
variations in attendance zone and school choice policies in many 
communities. Therefore, we are revising both Final Planning Priority 1 
and Final Implementation Priority 1 to clarify that the continuum of 
solutions must be designed to ensure that over time, (1) Children and 
youth in the neighborhood who attend the target school or schools have 
access to a complete continuum of solutions, and (2) as appropriate, 
children and youth in the neighborhood who do not attend the target 
school or schools have access to solutions within the continuum of 
solutions.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (2) in both Final Planning 
Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1 to clarify that the plan 
or strategy must ensure that, over time, a greater proportion of 
children and youth in the neighborhood who attend the target school or 
schools have access to a complete continuum of solutions, and ensure 
that over time, a greater proportion of children in the neighborhood 
who do not attend the target school or schools have access to solutions 
within the continuum of solutions. The plan or strategy must also 
ensure that students not living in the neighborhood who do attend the 
target school or schools have access to solutions within the continuum 
of solutions.

[[Page 39593]]

Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1

Needs Assessment, Segmentation Analysis, and Indicators
    Comment: A number of commenters recommended that we require 
additional results and indicators that focus on areas such as the arts, 
life-long learning opportunities, out-of-school learning activities, 
discipline referrals, access to learning materials, volunteer and 
community service, age-appropriate functioning for four-year-olds, 
regular school attendance, and access to primary care providers; or 
populations such as high school graduates who need remediation and 
students who participate in the child welfare system. One commenter 
asked the Department to clarify whether applicants have flexibility to 
substitute required indicators.
    Discussion: Regarding the request that we require additional 
results and indicators on specific topics, grantees, in addition to 
being required to collect data for the needs assessment that includes 
education and family and community support program indicators 
prescribed by the Department, may also develop their own family and 
community support project indicators. These grantee-developed project 
indicators may focus on the areas and populations mentioned by the 
commenters. In addition, eligible applicants may use intermediate 
variables that are strongly correlated with the required program and 
project indicators. These intermediate variables may also include 
variables on the areas and populations mentioned by the commenters 
(e.g., immunization rates could be an intermediate variable with regard 
to the result that students are healthy). While we recognize the 
importance of the topics mentioned by the commenters, we believe 
providing flexibility to grantees to select indicators is more 
appropriate than requiring additional specific indicators. In response 
to the request for clarification, applicants are not allowed to 
substitute required indicators for this program. Our framework allows 
for flexibility and ensures that Promise Neighborhood projects across 
the country are comprehensive in their approach and can be evaluated in 
a consistent manner by using the set of required indicators.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended changing one of the indicators 
related to family and community support of learning. Specifically, the 
commenters recommended that the indicator regarding the number and 
percent of parents or family members who report that they read to their 
child three or more times a week begin at the birth of the child, not 
when the child turns six months, to encourage good habits from the very 
beginning of a child's life.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter about the importance of 
reading to children very early in their lives and, therefore, are 
revising the indicator to focus on children from birth to kindergarten 
entry, instead of six months to kindergarten entry.
    Changes: In both Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation 
Priority 1, in the indicators found in Table 2, which measures the 
number and percent of family members who report that they read to their 
child three or more times a week, we have replaced ``six months to 
kindergarten entry'' with ``birth to kindergarten entry.''
    Comment: One commenter recommended changing the indicator related 
to students who are healthy. Specifically, the commenter recommended 
separating the indicator into an indicator for the number and percent 
of children who participate in at least 60 minutes of exercise and an 
indicator for the number and percent of children who consume five or 
more servings of fruits and vegetables daily. According to the 
commenter, this would allow grantees to demonstrate progress in 
achieving changes in diet, exercise, or both.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that disaggregating the 
data for this indicator would provide more valuable data for the 
grantees and the community. We, therefore, are revising the indicator 
accordingly.
    Changes: In both Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation 
Priority 1, we have revised the indicator related to students who are 
healthy by creating two separate indicators: (1) The number and percent 
of children who participate in at least 60 minutes of moderate to 
physical activity daily, and (2) the number and percent of children who 
consume five or more servings of fruits and vegetables daily.
    Comment: Three commenters requested clarification and additional 
information regarding how the Department defines specific terms used in 
the indicators. One commenter asked how the Department defines ``access 
to broadband internet.'' Another commenter asked for clarification 
regarding the frequency and ``dosage'' of several indicators, including 
the indicator for parents encouraging their children to read books. A 
third commenter requested additional information about the definition 
of ``medical home,'' as it relates to the ``students are healthy'' 
result.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that greater clarification 
and specificity regarding some of the terms used in the indicators 
could ensure more consistent data collection across the Promise 
Neighborhoods grantees. The Department anticipates contracting with a 
national evaluator or other entity to provide technical assistance to 
Promise Neighborhoods grantees for data collection and to develop data 
definitions. It is our goal, at a minimum, to make that technical 
assistance available on the Promise Neighborhoods program Web site for 
use by grantees, applicants, and other organizations.
    Changes: None.

Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1

Experience, Lessons Learned, Capacity Building, and Data System
    Comment: Several commenters recommended adding more explicit 
references to the inclusion of parents and family members in 
applicants' descriptions of their experiences and lessons learned, and 
how applicants will build capacity, including in collecting, analyzing, 
and using data. Some commenters recommended requiring applicants to 
describe their experiences and plans to work with the neighborhood and 
its residents, including parents and families. The commenters 
recommended that applicants describe their experience and plans to make 
Promise Neighborhoods data accessible to parents, families, and 
community residents, in addition to program partners, researchers, and 
evaluators.
    Discussion: We agree that systemic family and community engagement 
is a critical component of school reform and neighborhood 
revitalization in Promise Neighborhoods. Therefore, we are adding more 
specific references to family and community involvement in the planning 
and implementation process to elevate their role in the program.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (4)(a) and (b)(ii) of Final 
Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1 to require 
applicants to describe their experience and plans to work with parents 
and families, including families with children or other family members 
with disabilities or ELs, during planning and implementation, as well 
as to share data with parents and families.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended adding specific

[[Page 39594]]

individuals and entities as required partners and members of the 
governing or advisory board for a Promise Neighborhoods project. One 
commenter recommended requiring applicants to work in partnership with 
community organizations, local businesses, and other entities that have 
the capacity to contribute to a partnership and that have a proven 
track record as a partner. Another commenter recommended requiring the 
involvement of parents and families on the Promise Neighborhoods 
governing board or advisory board.
    Discussion: The individuals and entities described by the 
commenters may very well be appropriate partners or board members for a 
Promise Neighborhoods project. We believe that the requirements for 
board membership and partners are sufficiently prescriptive to foster a 
successful Promise Neighborhood project, but broad enough to allow 
applicants, who are best positioned to select their partners and board 
members, the flexibility to choose the board members and partners that 
they believe can best meet the needs of the neighborhood they propose 
to serve.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding whether a 
partner's financial and programmatic commitments, as described in the 
memorandum of understanding, may include in-kind commitments. The 
commenter noted that some partners, such as schools, would not be able 
to contribute resources other than in-kind supports.
    Discussion: A partner's financial and programmatic commitments may 
include in-kind commitments. Additional information on matching funds, 
including in-kind contributions, can be found under the cost-sharing 
and matching section of this notice, and in the Department's 
regulations at 34 CFR 74.23 and 80.24.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require 
solutions that are culturally appropriate for residents in the 
neighborhood.
    Discussion: As included in the background section of the NPP, one 
of the activities for planning grantees is to develop a plan and build 
community support for and involvement in the development of the plan. 
In addition, significant community involvement is required with regard 
to the governing board's or advisory board's decision-making and is 
integral to the planning and implementation process, as shown by the 
focus on family and community supports. Moreover, we define 
developmentally appropriate early learning measures to mean, in part, 
that the measures are designed and validated for use with children 
whose ages, cultures, languages spoken at home, socioeconomic status, 
abilities and disabilities, and other characteristics are similar to 
those of the children with whom the assessments will be used. We 
believe these provisions help to ensure that the continuum of solutions 
in a Promise Neighborhood meet the needs of and are linguistically and 
culturally appropriate for neighborhood residents, including ELs and 
CWD. In addition, we believe increasing the emphasis on community 
involvement in the development of the plan will increase the assurance 
that solutions are culturally appropriate and relevant for neighborhood 
residents.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (2) of Final Planning Priority 1 
and Final Implementation Priority 1 to clarify that one of the required 
activities during the planning phase is to build community support for 
and involvement in the development of the plan.

Final Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1

Evaluation
    Comment: Several commenters requested clarification and made 
recommendations regarding the evaluation process. One commenter asked 
for information about the process the Department will use in selecting 
a national evaluator and the timing of that selection. Three commenters 
requested clarification and made recommendations regarding components 
of the evaluation, including the use of comparison groups. A final 
commenter requested clarification regarding whether Promise 
Neighborhood grant funds could be used to conduct the evaluation and 
needs assessments, including for the early learning indicators.
    Discussion: The Department anticipates contracting with a national 
evaluator or other entity to provide technical assistance to Promise 
Neighborhoods grantees for data collection and to create the conditions 
for a rigorous national evaluation. We expect grantees to work with the 
Department and with the national evaluator or other entity to ensure 
that data collection and program design are consistent with plans to 
conduct a rigorous national evaluation of the Promise Neighborhoods 
program and are adding this as a requirement in Final Planning Priority 
1 and Final Implementation Priority 1. The Department expects to award 
a contract for this work through a process that is separate from the 
awarding of planning and implementation grants. The timing and design 
of the evaluation is currently under development. With regard to the 
comment about the use of Promise Neighborhoods grant funds, activities 
conducted by grantees related to evaluations and needs assessments are 
allowable uses of Promise Neighborhoods grant funds.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (5) of both the Final Planning 
Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1 to clarify that 
applicants must describe their commitment to work with the Department 
and with a national evaluator for Promise Neighborhoods or another 
entity designated by the Department.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require 
Promise Neighborhoods applicants to describe how they will engage 
institutions of higher education (IHEs) in research and evaluation.
    Discussion: While IHEs may bring tremendous resources to a Promise 
Neighborhoods project, including in the areas of research and 
evaluation, we do not believe the recommended change is needed in order 
for IHEs to become involved in a Promise Neighborhoods project. IHEs 
are eligible, on their own, to apply for a Promise Neighborhood grant. 
Moreover, beyond requiring an applicant to coordinate with a public 
elementary and secondary school located in the geographic area it 
proposes to serve, we believe that applicants are best positioned to 
determine their partners.
    Changes: None.

Final Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4

Comprehensive Local Early Learning Network
    Comment: Several commenters made recommendations and expressed 
concerns about references to specific early learning settings in both 
Final Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4--
Comprehensive Local Early Learning Network. One commenter recommended 
that we add a separate competitive preference priority to encourage 
formal coordination between Promise Neighborhoods and the Head Start 
and Early Head Start programs. Another commenter recommended explicitly 
including private child care providers in Final Planning Priority 4 and 
Final Implementation Priority 4. Yet another commenter expressed 
concern that the

[[Page 39595]]

requirement to integrate formal early education and care in a Promise 
Neighborhoods project may not be realistic given cutbacks in funding 
for early education at the Federal and State levels.
    Discussion: Final Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation 
Priority 4 encourage proposals and plans that include Head Start and 
Early Head Start. We do not believe that a separate priority is 
necessary to coordinate with Head Start because the priorities already 
include Head Start programs as one of the early learning services. The 
Department continues to work with other Federal agencies, including the 
Department of Health and Human Services, to identify additional 
opportunities to align programs, including through the Race to the 
Top--Early Learning Challenge program.
    With regard to the recommendation to include private child care 
providers in Priority 4, we agree that private child care providers 
should be included in both Final Planning Priority 4 and Final 
Implementation Priority 4 and are making this change accordingly.
    Although the Department recognizes that the current fiscal climate 
may constrain Federal, State, and local financial support for early 
learning, we expect applicants to propose early learning networks that 
work across existing funded programs in a variety of early learning 
settings, including formal care (school-based or private providers) and 
family, friend, or neighbor care that is currently operating in the 
neighborhood. This important work to improve quality in existing 
programs has the potential to improve short-term and long-term 
educational and developmental outcomes for students.
    Changes: We have revised both Final Planning Priority 4 and Final 
Implementation Priority 4 to include ``child care providers licensed by 
the State, including public and private providers and center-based 
care'' among the list of early learning services and programs that 
applicants can propose to coordinate in its Promise Neighborhood.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: After internal review, we determined that the 
requirement that proposals include various early learning services and 
programs should be clarified to increase the emphasis on service and 
program integration focused on enhancing quality.
    Changes: We have revised the language in Final Planning Priority 4 
and Final Implementation Priority 4 to clarify that proposals integrate 
various early learning services and programs to enhance the quality of 
those services and programs.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended requiring applicants who 
address Priority 4 to focus on early literacy and numeracy skills for 
young people.
    Discussion: We agree that early literacy and numeracy are critical 
areas of cognitive development for young children. Paragraph (2)(a) of 
Final Planning Priority 1 and paragraph (2)(a)(i) of Final 
Implementation Priority 1 require applicants to include in their 
continuum of solutions high-quality learning programs and services 
designed to improve outcomes across multiple domains of early learning. 
Although we define multiple domains of learning to include language and 
literacy development, as well as cognition and general knowledge, 
including mathematical knowledge, we believe Final Planning Priority 4 
and Final Implementation Priority 4 should more explicitly reference 
the multiple domains of early learning and are changing the language in 
Priority 4 accordingly.
    Changes: We have revised the second sentence in Final Planning 
Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4 for both planning and 
implementation grants, which relates to an applicant's plan for a 
comprehensive local learning network, to focus on improving outcomes 
across multiple domains of early learning. As defined in this notice, 
the term ``multiple domains of early learning'' includes early literacy 
and numeracy.
    Comment: One commenter recommended expanding Final Planning 
Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4 to ensure that the early 
learning network includes innovative digital programs available on 
multiple platforms (e.g., public television, web-based) and in multiple 
locations (e.g., at home, at school, and at other community locations).
    Discussion: The Department believes that early learning programs 
offer a significant opportunity to provide accessible, digital 
programming to young children and their families and that we should 
reference such opportunities in Final Planning Priority 4 and Final 
Implementation Priority 4 to create an incentive for applicants to 
innovate in this area. We, therefore, are revising the priorities to 
require that an applicant's proposal or plan for a comprehensive early 
learning network describe how the project will provide, to the extent 
practicable, early learning opportunities on multiple platforms and in 
multiple locations (e.g., at home, at school, and at other community 
locations). These early learning opportunities must be fully accessible 
to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who are blind 
or have low vision; otherwise, the plans must describe how 
accommodations or modifications will be provided to ensure that the 
benefits of the early learning opportunities are provided to 
individuals with disabilities in an equally effective and equally 
integrated manner.
    Changes: We have added language to Final Planning Priority 4 and 
Final Implementation Priority 4 to clarify that the plan must describe 
how the project will provide, to the extent practicable, accessible 
early learning opportunities on multiple platforms (e.g., public 
television, web-based) and in multiple locations (e.g., at home, at 
school, and at other community locations).
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department acknowledge 
the two distinct time periods within the early learning portion of the 
continuum--birth to preschool and kindergarten through the third grade. 
The commenter recommended that we give applicants addressing Final 
Planning Priority 4 and Final Implementation Priority 4 the flexibility 
to address the early learning continuum in stages, rather than all at 
once.
    Discussion: We believe that it is important to maintain the focus 
on a comprehensive and continuous early learning network from birth 
through third grade rather than distinguishing two separate periods. 
Without a comprehensive focus on early learning, there is a risk of 
fragmentation of work and results. However, as we discuss in the 
response to comments related to Planning Grant Priority 1, we are 
revising paragraph (2) in both Planning Priority 1 and Implementation 
Priority 1 to require applicants to describe how they will plan to 
ensure that the children have, over time, access to the complete 
continuum of solutions.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters noted that the qualifications for early 
learning personnel vary by State and requested clarification about the 
necessary qualifications for the individual responsible for overseeing 
and coordinating the early learning initiatives.
    Discussion: Considering the variation in State early learning 
certifications, we do not believe additional specificity about the 
types of certification is appropriate in this program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: After internal review, we determined that the 
requirement that the applicant designate an individual to

[[Page 39596]]

oversee and coordinate the early learning initiatives and provide 
applicable documentation should be clarified to ensure that the 
individual has experience with ``high-quality'' programs and services.
    Changes: We have revised the language in Final Planning Priority 4 
and Final Implementation Priority 4 to clarify that the documentation 
the applicant provides must demonstrate that the individual designated 
to oversee the early learning initiatives or the individual hired to 
carry out those responsibilities possesses the appropriate State 
certification and has experience and expertise in managing and 
administering high-quality early learning programs, including in 
coordinating across various high-quality early learning programs and 
services.

Final Planning Priority 5 and Final Implementation Priority 5

Quality Internet Connectivity
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department create an 
absolute priority focused on developing programs that promote student 
engagement, learning, and digital literacy, as well as neighborhood 
communication and networking, via access to broadband internet and 
digital television.
    Discussion: Broadband internet access is a critical learning tool 
to prepare students for college and careers in the digital age, which 
is why we included it as a priority. We believe this priority will 
create an incentive for applicants to expand access to broadband 
internet, which will create the conditions for engagement, learning, 
and digital literacy, as well as neighborhood communication and 
networking. The decision to use this priority as absolute, competitive 
preference or invitational will be made on a competition-by-competition 
basis. For each competition, we announce these designations in the 
notice inviting applications.
    Since June 13, 2009, all full-power U.S. stations have broadcast 
digital-only signals; we do not believe further incentive is needed to 
encourage use of digital television. Therefore, we did not include 
digital television as part of Final Planning Priority 5 or Final 
Implementation Priority 5.
    Changes: None.

Final Planning Priority 7 and Final Implementation Priority 7

Quality Affordable Housing
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department expand 
Final Planning Priority 7 and Final Implementation Priority 7 to 
include applicants that have submitted an application through Choice 
Neighborhoods or Hope VI, or that are working on affordable housing 
generally, rather than restricting the priority to applicants that have 
been awarded grants under the Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI program 
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
    Discussion: Applicants that were the subject of an affordable 
housing transformation pursuant to a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE VI 
grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
during FY 2009 or later years may address Final Planning Priority 7 and 
Final Implementation Priority 7. We are limiting the priority to 
applicants that have undergone or are undergoing this affordable 
housing transformation supported by Choice Neighborhoods or a HOPE VI 
grant because these applicants have met evidence-based criteria as 
determined by HUD and will be ready to integrate quality, affordable 
housing into their Promise Neighborhood. Moreover, focusing the 
priority in this manner supports the goal of Promise Neighborhoods to 
break down agency ``silos'' at the Federal and local levels, by 
aligning investments from the Promise Neighborhoods and Choice 
Neighborhoods or HOPE VI programs. While we decline to expand the 
priority 7 to include applicants who have applied for but not received 
a Choice Neighborhoods or Hope VI grant, we want to point out that 
applicants working on affordable housing generally in their 
neighborhood may also identify a housing solution to address the 
``students live in stable communities'' result described in Final 
Planning Priority 1 and Final Implementation Priority 1, so long as the 
solution otherwise meets the requirements in this notice.
    Changes: None.

Final Planning Priority 8 and Final Implementation Priority 8

Family Engagement in Learning Through Adult Education
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department be more 
explicit about the connection between adult education and family 
engagement in Final Planning Priority 8 and Final Implementation 
Priority 8. Specifically, the commenter recommended that these 
priorities be revised to put a greater emphasis on parent and family 
partnerships to support improving educational outcomes.
    Discussion: The Department acknowledges the importance of family 
engagement in education and learning. We believe that Final Planning 
Priority 8 and Final Implementation Priority 8 sufficiently address 
this issue by focusing on coordinated services, which may include 
programs that provide training and opportunities for family members to 
support student learning.
    Changes: None.

Implementation Grant Priority 1

Continuum of Solutions
    Comment: Several commenters made recommendations and requested 
guidance regarding the timeline for developing the continuum of 
solutions. Another commenter requested guidance about how many 
solutions should be implemented in year one and over time. Two 
commenters recommended that the Department require applicants for 
implementation grants to provide information on their startup and 
``phasing'' strategy to build the continuum of solutions.
    Discussion: Because implementation grantees will build a complete 
continuum over time, we agree that we should be more explicit about 
requiring an implementation applicant to include in its proposal its 
strategy for developing the continuum. We are adding language in 
Implementation Priority 1 to make this clear. We believe that 
applicants are best positioned to determine the timing of the phasing 
strategy to build the continuum of solutions, and therefore, decline to 
provide guidance on how many solutions should be implemented in year 
one and over time.
    Changes: We have revised Implementation Priority 1 to require 
applicants to describe in an appendix to the application how and when 
during the implementation process the solution will be made available 
to children and youth in the geographic area to be served.
    Comment: Several commenters requested clarification and expressed 
concerns about the expected ``penetration rate'' of solutions, that is, 
the percentage of all children of the same group within the 
neighborhood proposed to be served by each solution. Another commenter 
requested clarification and guidance about setting benchmarks for 
penetration rates. One commenter expressed concern regarding the 
requirement that implementation applicants ensure that each child in 
the neighborhood receives appropriate services. The commenter 
recommended that applicants be encouraged to

[[Page 39597]]

emphasize their plans for growth in the penetration rate over time.
    Discussion: Based on the needs assessment and segmentation 
analysis, an applicant may determine that not every child in the 
neighborhood needs every solution in its continuum of solutions. 
Moreover, a 100 percent penetration rate for children and youth in the 
neighborhood receiving solutions is difficult, if not impossible, to 
achieve, especially in year one of implementation. We believe that 
applicants will be best positioned to determine the penetration rate of 
solutions and, therefore, decline to provide guidance on benchmarks for 
the penetration rate of solutions. However, we believe it would be 
helpful to require applicants for implementation grants to describe 
their annual goals for increasing the penetration rate over time and 
are changing Final Implementation Priority 1 accordingly.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (3) of Final Implementation 
Priority 1 to clarify that implementation applicants must describe how 
they will ensure that children in the neighborhood receive the 
appropriate services. While not necessarily every child will receive 
services, specific groups of children (i.e., CWD and ELs) must not be 
excluded from the plan. We have also revised paragraph (2) of Final 
Implementation Priority 1 to require implementation applicants to 
describe their goals to increase the penetration rate over time.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department acknowledge 
the long-term nature of the work required to transform neighborhoods. 
Specifically, they stated that the ultimate success of Promise 
Neighborhoods will require the use of both short-term and long-term 
goals to measure progress.
    Discussion: We agree that the difficult work of dramatically 
improving the quality of education and transforming distressed 
neighborhoods demand both a sense of urgency and sufficient time to 
implement change properly. Given this reality, it is important to 
measure success using short-term and long-term goals.
    Changes: We have revised paragraph (2) of Final Implementation 
Priority 1 to acknowledge that, considering the time and urgency 
required to dramatically improve outcomes of children and youth in our 
most distressed neighborhoods and to transform those neighborhoods, an 
applicant must establish both short-term and long-term goals against 
which it will measure its progress.
    Comment: One applicant expressed concern that reviewers would use 
per-child cost estimates for providing solutions to make comparisons 
among applicants and to make scoring decisions.
    Discussion: The Department directs peer reviewers to score 
applications against the established selection criteria and not to make 
comparisons among and between applications.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the requirement that 
implementation applicants establish annual goals for improving systems, 
such as changes in policies, environments, or organizations that affect 
children and youth in the neighborhood. The commenter stated that 
setting annual goals for improving systems can be distracting to the 
short-term work that must happen in the neighborhood.
    Discussion: Changes in the neighborhood and systems change may 
happen concurrently. Alignment of the Promise Neighborhoods strategy 
with a local educational agency's (LEA) school turnaround effort 
supported by SIG funds in neighborhood schools is an example of an 
annual goal for improving systems that may directly support short-term 
work that must happen in the neighborhood.
    Changes: None.

Implementation Grant Priority 1

Needs Assessment, Segmentation Analysis, and Indicators
    Comment: None
    Discussion: After internal review, we noted that the NPP 
encouraged, but did not require implementation applicants to describe 
how they collected data for educational and family and community 
support indicators. We intend to require applicants to describe their 
data collection process because data collection is a critical component 
of a successful Promise Neighborhood.
    Changes: We changed ``should'' to ``must'' to specify that an 
applicant for an implementation grant is required to describe how it 
collected data for educational and family and community support 
indicators.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we require applicants to 
describe how the implementation of solutions will work at the 
individual level. The commenter also recommended that the Department 
require applicants to describe how they will help children, youth, and 
families navigate multiple public systems and obtain the full benefits 
of the continuum of solutions.
    Discussion: An implementation applicant will be required to 
describe how it is using its needs assessment and segmentation analysis 
to ensure that children in the neighborhood receive appropriate 
services from the continuum of solutions. An effective needs assessment 
and segmentation analysis will create the conditions for effective 
targeting and service delivery that meet the individual needs of 
residents, and thus reduce the need for the residents to navigate 
multiple public systems. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary 
to include the additional requirement recommended by the commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that implementation applicants 
be required only to demonstrate that they have collected data on a 
majority of the indicators and that they be allowed to identify 
indicators for which they will have the data in hand by the end of the 
planning or early implementation phase. Another commenter expressed 
concerns about the financial and time costs of collecting the required 
data.
    Discussion: Implementation applicants are required to describe how 
they collected data on the indicators described in Table 1 and Table 2 
in Final Implementation Priority 1 for the needs assessment. Paragraph 
(3) of Final Implementation Priority 1 requires applicants to describe 
how the data were used to ensure that children receive the appropriate 
services from the continuum of solutions. Implementation applicants 
must accurately describe their needs assessment and segmentation 
analysis process. Under the design of the Promise Neighborhoods 
program, applicants are expected to complete a rigorous needs 
assessment during the planning phase and collect baseline data during 
the first year of implementation. Data collection and management is a 
critical component of Final Implementation Priority 1, and we decline 
to loosen our requirements in this area as requested by the commenter.
    While we appreciate the costs associated with the required data 
collection, activities associated with data collection and management 
are eligible uses of Promise Neighborhoods grant funds. Moreover, we 
believe that the costs and time involved in the required data 
collection and management activities are necessary to the overall 
success of Promise Neighborhoods.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 39598]]

Implementation Priority 1

Experience, Lessons Learned, Capacity Building, and Data System
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that implementation applicants 
describe the progress they have made on developing their longitudinal 
data systems and linking their systems to school-based, LEA, and State 
data systems. One of the commenters recommended that the Department 
support the implementation of longitudinal data systems that build on 
existing systems, rather than the creation of new systems. In light of 
the challenges in integrating student-level data from multiple sources, 
especially while abiding by privacy laws and requirements, another 
commenter recommended that applicants explain their progress in 
integrating student-level data from multiple sources. One commenter 
requested information regarding the Department's expectations for 
having the applicant's longitudinal data system in operation at the 
time the application is submitted or a grant is awarded.
    Discussion: We expect that the data systems managed by 
implementation applicants will be at different stages of development. 
We agree with the commenters that applicants should have the 
flexibility to build upon an existing data system or create a new 
system, and are changing paragraph (4)(b) in the Implementation 
Priority 1 accordingly. We also believe that each implementation 
applicant should describe its progress in implementing its longitudinal 
data system, including the progress it has made in linking its system 
to school-based, LEA, and State data systems, and integrating student-
level data from multiple sources. We will revise Implementation 
Priority 1 accordingly.
    Changes: We have added language to paragraph (4)(b)(i) in 
Implementation Priority 1 to require an implementation applicant to 
describe progress toward developing and implementing its data system 
and in integrating student-level data from multiple sources. We also 
have added language to paragraph (4)(b)(ii) of this priority to require 
each implementation applicant to describe how it has linked or made 
progress to link its longitudinal data system to school-based, LEA, and 
State data systems.

Final Implementation Priority 4

Comprehensive Local Early Learning Network
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: After internal review, we noted that the NPP 
encouraged, but did not require the implementation plan for a high-
quality and comprehensive local early learning network to reflect input 
from a broad range of stakeholders. We intend to require the plan to 
reflect such input because we believe that diverse viewpoints will 
strengthen the final product.
    Changes: We changed ``should'' to ``must'' to specify that the 
implementation plan for a high-quality and comprehensive local early 
learning network is required to reflect input from a broad range of 
stakeholders.

Implementation Optional Supplemental Funding Opportunity

    Comment: Several commenters expressed their support for the 
Optional Supplemental Funding Opportunity from the Department of 
Justice (DOJ) and recommended that the Department require similar 
alignment with other programs and initiatives, both within the 
Department of Education and with other Federal agencies.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that it is important to 
create opportunities for alignment and funding opportunities among 
multiple programs and Federal agencies and will continue pursuing such 
opportunities in the future. Moreover, paragraph (4)(e) in the Planning 
Priority 1 and Implementation Priority 1 require applicants to describe 
their experience integrating funding streams from multiple sources. We 
believe this approach better supports organizations pursuing 
comprehensive, cradle-through-college-to-career strategies to 
revitalize neighborhoods.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we revise the Optional 
Supplemental Funding Opportunity to provide more flexibility in an 
implementation applicant's public safety plans. Specifically, the 
commenter recommended allowing applicants to pursue public safety 
strategies that include prevention, intervention, enforcement, or a 
focus on the reentry of offenders, instead of the Department requiring 
all of these four strategies.
    Discussion: The Department anticipates providing additional details 
regarding the Optional Supplemental Funding Opportunity in the NIA. The 
NIA will likely include further direction to applicants regarding the 
areas to be addressed in and the uses of funds to pursue a 
comprehensive public safety strategy, including whether or not an 
applicant must address all four strategies.
    Changes: None.

Requirements

Planning and Implementation Grants Requirements

Eligible Applicants
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department allow all 
eligible entities, not only FY 2010 Promise Neighborhoods planning 
grantees, to submit applications for implementation grants.
    Discussion: Eligible applicants for implementation grants are not 
restricted to grantees that received FY 2010 Promise Neighborhoods 
planning grants. Applicants that did not compete for or receive a 
planning grant may compete for an implementation grant alongside FY 
2010 planning grantees. While all eligible entities will be able to 
apply for implementation grants, communities that have effectively 
carried out the planning activities described in the FY 2010 notice 
inviting applications, whether independently or through a Promise 
Neighborhoods planning grant, are likely to be well-positioned with the 
plan, commitments, data, and demonstrated organizational leadership and 
capacity necessary to develop a quality application for an 
implementation grant.
    Changes: None.

Other Requirements

    Comment: One commenter recommended limiting the indirect cost rates 
that Promise Neighborhoods grantees can include in their budgets to 20 
percent or less of the grant amount.
    Discussion: The Department does not believe it is necessary to 
adopt the commenters' suggestion because it is not aware of any 
evidence that there is a link between indirect cost rates that are 20 
percent or higher and problems with grantee performance for the Promise 
Neighborhoods program, or any other discretionary grant program 
administered by this agency. Federal agencies, including the 
Department, carefully negotiate indirect cost rates with grantees and 
believe that the negotiated rates are appropriate. Thus, grantees are 
allowed to spend up to that negotiated amount.
    Changes: None.

Matching

Planning and Implementation Grants Matching

    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department provide more 
information about potential match sources, including eligible and 
ineligible sources.
    Discussion: Additional information on matching funds, including in-
kind

[[Page 39599]]

contributions, can be found in the Department's regulations at 34 CFR 
74.23 and 80.24. In addition, the Department expects to issue a 
``frequently asked questions'' guidance document that will provide 
information on requirements, such as the matching funds requirement.
    Changes: None.

Implementation Grants Ma