Request for Applications Under the Office of Community Services' FY 1995 Demonstration Partnership Program (DPP)

Federal RegisterApr 12, 1995

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

SUMMARY: The Office of Community Services (OCS) announces that, based

on availability of funds, applications will be accepted for grants

pursuant to the Secretary's authority under section 408(a) (Pub. L. 99-

425), of the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986 as amended.

CLOSING DATE: The closing date for submission of applications is June

12, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Community Services,

Administration for Children and Families, Division of Community

Demonstration Programs, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Fifth Floor,

Washington, DC 20447, Attention: Richard Saul, (202) 401-9347.

This Announcement is accessible on the OCS Electronic Bulletin

Board for downloading through your computer modem by calling 1-800-627-

8886. For assistance in accessing the Bulletin Board, a Guide to

Accessing and Downloading is available from Ms. Minnie Landry at (202)

401-5309.

Table of Contents

Part I. Introduction

A. Legislative Authority

B. Eligibility

C. Definition of Terms

Part II. Background Information

A. Project Periods and Budget Periods

B. Availability of Funds and Grant Amounts

C. Matching Funds

D. Prohibition on the Use of Funds

E. Program Beneficiaries

F. Sub-Contracting or Delegating Projects

G. Maintenance of Effort

H. Multiple Submittals and Multiple Grants

Part III. Program Priority Areas

1.0 General Demonstration Projects (Approximately $2.4 million

available)

2.0 Replication Projects (Approximately $1.5 million available,

including Urban Youth project)

3.0 EZ/EC Continuous Improvement Grants (Maximum of $1,000,000

available)

4.0 Urban Youth Projects (Up to $2.5 million available,

including Replication project)

Part IV. Application Elements and Review Criteria

A. Program Elements, Review and Assessment Criteria for

Applications under Priority Areas 1.0 and 4.0

B. Special Program Elements, Review and Assessment Criteria for

Applications for Replication Projects under Priority Area 2.0

C. Program Elements, Review and Assessment Criteria for

Applications for EZ/EC Continuous Improvement Grants under Priority

Area 3.0

Part V. Application Procedures

A. Availability of Forms

B. Application Submission

C. Intergovernmental Review

D. Application Consideration

E. Criteria for Screening Applications

Part VI. Instructions for Completing Application Forms

A. SF-424--Application for Federal Assistance

B. SF-424A--Budget Information--Non-Construction Programs

C. SF-424B--Assurances--Non-Construction

Part VII. Contents of Application

Part VIII. Post-Award Information and Reporting Requirements

Part I. Introduction

A. Legislative Authority

Section 408 of the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986, as

amended (Pub. L. 99-425), entitled Demonstration Partnership Agreements

Addressing the Needs of the Poor, authorizes the Secretary to make

grants to eligible entities in order to stimulate the development of

new approaches to provide for greater self-sufficiency of the poor, to

test and evaluate such new approaches, to disseminate project results

and evaluation findings, and for the development and implementation of

new and innovative approaches to deal with particularly critical needs

or problems of the poor which are common to a number of communities.

Additionally, the legislation provides for grants to demonstrate new

approaches to dealing with the problems caused by entrenched, chronic

unemployment and lack of economic opportunities for urban youth.

Proposed projects must be carried out in partnership with other

organizations or institutions, public or private, which can be local,

regional or national in character, and should, through these

partnerships, strengthen the community's socio-economic infrastructure

and the integration, coordination, and redirection of community

resources to support progress toward self-sufficiency. Projects must

include plans and funding for a third party evaluation which can lead

to replication of successful programs.

This solicitation is requesting applications with proposal

narratives of not more than twenty (20) pages (accompanied by the usual

forms and appropriate appendices) on the basis of which funding

decisions will be made.

B. Eligibility

Eligible entities for these grants are all current recipients of

Community Services Block Grant funds which are officially designated as

Community Action Agencies or Community Action Programs under Section

673(1) of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act, and which meet

all the requirements under Section 675(c)(3) of that Act; and

organizations serving migrant and seasonal farmworkers which received

CSBG funding in Fiscal Year 1994.

In order to establish eligibility, the application must contain a

letter signed by the State Director of the Community Services Block

Grant program certifying that the applicant is an ``eligible entity''

as defined in Section C below and that it has the capacity to operate

the proposed project.

C. Definition of Terms

For purposes of this Announcement, the following definitions apply:

--Budget Period: The term ``budget period'' refers to the interval of

time into which a multi-year period of assistance (project period) is

usually divided for budgetary and funding purposes. (In the case of

grants under this Announcement, project and budget periods may run

concurrently for up to three years)

--Case Management: For purposes of this Announcement, case management

includes but is not limited to: assessment of the client's needs,

development of a holistic, comprehensive service plan, and delivery of

the most efficient and effective mix of services and support in the

implementation of that plan.

--Eligible entity: Any organization which is officially designated as a

community action agency or a community action program under Section

673(1) of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act, and meets all

the requirements under Section 675(c)(3) of the CSBG Act. All

``eligible entities'' are current recipients of Community Services

Block Grant funds, including organizations serving migrant and seasonal

farmworkers which received [[Page 18669]] CSBG funding in the previous

fiscal year (FY 1994). In those cases where ``eligible entity'' status

is unclear, final determination will be made by OCS/ACF.

--Family: For purposes of this Notice, family includes the definition

of nuclear family, as well as the inclusion of household members and/or

the extended family.

--Hypothesis: An assumption made in order to test its validity. It

should assert a relationship between an intervention and an outcome on

a target population. For example, there will be a significant increase

in the proportion of (target population) making progress toward self-

sufficiency (outcome) who receive and/or participate in (intervention)

as compared to those who do not. The outcome must be measurable.

--Innovative project: One that departs from or significantly modifies

past program practices and tests a new approach(es).

--Intervention: Any planned activity within a project that is intended

to produce changes in the target population or the environment, and can

be formally evaluated.

--Outcome evaluation: An assessment of measured results designed to

provide a valid determination of the net effects attributable to the

intervention. An outcome evaluation will produce and interpret findings

related to whether the intervention produced desirable changes and its

potential for replicability. It should answer the question, ``Did this

program work?''

--Partnership: A formal negotiated arrangement between an eligible

entity and another organization (or organizations) that provides for

substantive collaborative policy and service provision roles for each

of the partners in the planning and conduct of the project, the results

of which should be better integration of resources and services

delivery at the community level.

--Process evaluation: Descriptive information that is gathered on the

development and implementation of a program/intervention that may serve

as a document for replicating the program elsewhere. The evaluation

should also identify problems that occurred and how they were dealt

with and recommend improved means of future implementation. It should

answer the question: ``How was the program carried out?'' In concert

with the outcome evaluation, it should also help explain, ``Why did

this program work/not work?''

--Project period: The term ``project period'' refers to the total time

for which a project is approved for support, including any extensions.

--Self-sufficiency: A condition where an individual or family, by

reason of employment, does not need and is not eligible for, public

assistance.

Part II. Background Information

A. Project Periods and Budget Periods

(See Part I, C, Definitions)

Project and budget periods for all DPP projects will be for a

minimum of 30 months and a maximum of 36 months. These will consist of:

1. A six-month start-up period during which project staff can be

hired, agreements with Project Partners will be finalized, the Third

Party Evaluator will be brought on board, and the final Project

Evaluation Plan will be completed with the assistance of the approved

evaluator and the OCS Evaluation Technical Assistance Contractor. This

start-up period should be used to refine the project implementation

plan and budget to reflect any changes in the evaluation strategy; and

during this period the Project Director and the Evaluator will

participate in a workshop conference with staff of OCS and the TA

contractor;

2. A twenty-four month (2 year) operational period during which the

project implementation plan will be carried out; and

3. A close-out period of up to six months for completion of the

final evaluation and report, and any planned dissemination of project

results. To insure funding stability throughout the project period,

proposed projects must have sufficient non-OCS funds committed so that,

combined with FY 95 OCS grant funds, grantees will have sufficient

resources to complete their proposed projects and final evaluations.

[Note: Where grantees can show that a significant improvement in the

extent or validity of evaluation findings will be the result, projects

may receive refunding after the two-year operational period, on a

competitive basis and subject to the availability of funds, in an

amount not to exceed 80 per cent of the original grant for continuation

of the project for an additional period of up to thirty (30) months (a

start-up period not being required).]

B. Availability of Funds and Grant Amounts

The total appropriated amount for the FY 1995 Demonstration

Partnership Program is $7,977,000, of which approximately $7,000,000

will be available for grants pursuant to this Announcement to support

new general project grant awards, replication projects, EZ/EC

Continuous Improvement grants, and projects directed at the problems of

urban youth.

1. For priority areas 1.0 General Projects and 2.0 Replication

Projects grant requests will be considered for an amount up to $350,000

in OCS funds for the total budget/project period of up to thirty-six

months, except that, of the four suggested Replication Projects under

Priority Area 2.0, one will be considered an Urban Youth Project with a

maximum grant amount of $500,000, as explained in Part III, below.

2. For priority area 3.0 EZ/EC Continuous Improvement Projects

grant requests will be considered for an amount not to exceed $50,000.

The project/budget periods for these grants may be up to thirty-six

months.

3. For priority area 4.0 Urban Youth Projects grant requests will

be considered for an amount up to $500,000 for the total project/budget

period of up to 36 months.

C. Matching Funds

An applicant is required to obtain commitment of at least one

private or public sector dollar or equivalent in-kind contribution for

each dollar of OCS funds awarded for all priority categories except 4.0

Urban Youth. Thus, if an applicant is requesting $250,000 in OCS funds,

at least $250,000 worth of additional resources must be committed to

the project from private or public sector sources. For Urban Youth

Projects, Priority Area 4.0, OCS will fund 80% of the total cost of

each project, that is, 80% of the total of the federal and non-federal

shares. This means that the match must be 25% of the OCS grant. Thus,

if an applicant is requesting $500,000 in OCS funds, which represents

80% of the total project cost, that total cost will amount to $625,000,

and the match 20% of that total, or $125,000, which is 25% of the

$500,000 OCS grant amount.

Public sector resources that can be counted toward the minimum

match include funds from State and local governments, and funds from

various block grants allocated to the States by the Federal Government

providing the authorizing legislation for these grants permits such

use. (Note, for example, that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)

funds may be counted as matching funds; CSBG funds may not.)

Funds identified by the applicant as those to be counted toward the

minimum match requirement may be in the form of grantee-incurred costs,

cash, or third-party in-kind contributions fairly valued. OCS is

recommending [[Page 18670]] that at least 50% of the match be provided

by the proposed partners through the delivery of specific services or

resources to the client population. Such resources must be definitely

committed or contingent only upon receipt of an OCS grant, and must be

applied to specific project activities within the OCS-approved project

and used only for project purposes for the duration of the OCS grant.

The firm commitment of the specific amounts of matching funds and/or

the dollar value of third-party in-kind contributions must be

documented in the project application. Documentation of matching funds

must be in the form of letters of commitment or intent to commit from

the donor, contingent only upon receipt of OCS grant funds.

If any part of match is to be used as a revolving loan fund, those

funds must be cash, specifically set-aside for eligible low-income

recipients of the project.

Funds expended prior to the approved OCS starting date for a grant

cannot be considered as matching funds.

D. Prohibition on the Use of Funds

The use of funds for the purchase or construction of real property

is prohibited.

E. Program Beneficiaries

Projects proposed for funding under this announcement must result

in direct benefits to low-income persons whose incomes are no more than

125% of the DHHS poverty income guidelines as defined in the most

recent Annual Revision of Poverty Income Guidelines published by DHHS.

Attachment C to this Notice is an excerpt from the guidelines

currently in effect. Annual revisions of these guidelines are normally

published in February or early March of each year. These revised

guidelines may be obtained at public libraries, Congressional offices,

or by writing the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. These Guidelines are also

accessible on the OCS Electronic Bulletin Board for downloading through

your computer modem by calling 1-800-627-8886. For assistance in

accessing the Bulletin Board, a Guide to Accessing and Downloading is

available from Ms. Minnie Landry at (202) 401-5309.

No other government agency or privately defined poverty guidelines

are applicable for the determination of low-income eligibility for this

OCS program.

F. Sub-Contracting or Delegating Projects

An applicant will not be funded where the proposal is for a grantee

to act as a straw-party, that is, to act as a mere conduit of funds to

a third party without performing a substantive role itself. This

prohibition does not bar subcontracting or subgranting for specific

services or activities needed to conduct the project.

G. Maintenance of Effort

The activities funded under this program announcement must be in

addition to, and not in substitution for, activities previously carried

on without Federal assistance. Also, funds or other resources currently

devoted to activities designed to meet the needs of the poor within a

community, area, or State must not be reduced in order to provide the

required matching contributions. When legislation for a particular

block grant permits the use of its funds as match, the applicant must

show that it has received a real increase in its block grant allotment

and must certify that other anti-poverty programs will not be scaled

back to provide the match required for this project. A signed

certificate of Maintenance of Effort must be included with the

application (see Attachment J).

H. Multiple Submittals and Multiple Grants

In accordance with the statutory provision that limits grants to

any eligible entity to one in any given fiscal year, no eligible

applicant will receive more than one grant pursuant to this

Announcement.

Part III. Program Priority Areas

1.0 General Demonstration Projects (Approximately $2.4 Million

Available)

For Fiscal Year 1995 OCS plans to fund approximately seven General

Demonstration Projects at $350,000 or less each.

Applications submitted under this category must focus on developing

new and innovative ways of promoting individual and family self-

sufficiency among the poor within the context of the communities in

which they live. The applicant will be expected to propose solutions

that show promise of increasing self-sufficiency and that depart from

or modify conventional approaches used by eligible entities. At a

minimum, every individual should achieve an economic self-sufficiency

goal appropriate to their age group. For adult populations (18 years of

age or more) that goal should include a job which will allow

individuals to provide for basic needs with the potential for career

development that will lead to self-sufficiency within a reasonable

period of time, enrollment in an educational program which will lead to

such a job, or interim goals on the ladder to self-sufficiency.

While self-sufficiency implies reliance on one's own initiative and

abilities, such a transformation cannot occur independently of the

context of the relationships, resources, and institutions in the

surrounding community. OCS understands the importance to self-

sufficiency of such community resources as adequate child care, safe

and affordable housing, accessible medical care, good transportation,

adequate municipal services and other elements of the community's

socioeconomic infrastructure. Also important to real progress toward

self-sufficiency is readily available and empathetic help in accessing

these institutional resources and the emotional support networks that

enable people to overcome adversity and move ahead.

Accordingly, OCS is interested in demonstrations of strategies that

offer real promise of transforming the lives of poor individuals and

families in part by improving the community infrastructure and the

workings of the community's service institutions. Applications should

include partnerships with organizations which are providers of services

within the community and one of the goals of the partnerships should be

a developing shift of focus within these organizations from one of

client maintenance to client transformation, and a growing recognition

of the value of the agency's services as investments in their clients'

communities.

In the spirit of ``local initiative'' OCS looks forward to

innovative proposals that grow out of the experience of community

action and the needs of the applicants' clientele and communities, and

that will make the fruits of local creativity available broadly to

others seeking solutions to similar problems.

At the same time, OCS is again interested in receiving applications

that propose a realistic plan for harnessing self-sufficiency support

activities to Environmental Justice and Sustainable Community

Development initiatives in ways which will offer the poor opportunities

for long term career development as well as improving the supportive

economic infrastructure and facilities of the community. (See

Attachment A for a fuller discussion of Environmental Justice and

Sustainable Community Development.)

For the purposes of this Announcement, programs falling within the

rubric of Environmental Justice and [[Page 18671]] Sustainable

Community Development might include community-based job and career

development around lead abatement in low-income dwellings; in clean-up

of toxic wastes or leaking underground storage tanks; in holistic

``livable house'' treatment of low-income dwellings which would combine

lead abatement with weatherization and the mitigation of other hazards

such as asbestos or radon; in the installation and maintenance of

alternative and renewable energy technologies in the homes of the poor;

in recycling; in the exploitation of new and non-traditional uses of

agricultural crops and products; in forest or watershed restoration; in

urban pesticide programs designed to reduce the use of toxic pesticides

in low income urban communities through Integrated Pest Management and

similar techniques; or in the launching of enterprises involving new

and non-polluting manufacturing or other commercial methodologies which

can provide needed goods and services in ways which are non-polluting

and consistent with sustainable community development.

When, in addition, these community-based improvement initiatives

capitalize upon significant new public programs or private market

forces that offer good potential for continuing financial support of

these activities, the initiatives have reasonable chances of growing

and prospering, thereby offering additional jobs to entry-level workers

and career prospects to employees who perform well. Applications that

offer a sound plan for capitalizing upon such public and/or private

market forces to provide real employment and career opportunities for

low-income individuals will be especially welcome.

Applications which propose initiatives involving activities which

will expose program participants or community residents to toxic or

poisonous substances, including, but not limited to, lead paint or

dust, asbestos, toxic wastes, radon gas, or toxic pesticides, must

include, as an appendix to the application, specific assurances that

all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations for the

protection of workers and community residents will be strictly adhered

to.

Applications which include job and career development dependent on

the securing of contracts for services or successful marketing of goods

and/or services must include assurance that such contracts will be

forthcoming or assurance based on market surveys or other means that

sufficient markets for the proposed goods or services exist to promise

a reasonable expectation of project success. Where the development and

management of a new business venture are a major focus of the proposed

work plan, applicant must provide assurance that such activities will

be under the direction of a person or persons having business

experience, and the application must include, as an appendix, a

Business Plan based on the outline included as Attachment B to this

Announcement.

The interventions that applicants propose for this program should

be multi-dimensional in nature in order to provide the kind of

comprehensive approach needed as an effective basis for individual

transformation. They should, where appropriate, address both individual

and family progress toward self-sufficiency, and may also involve two

or more generations as both providers and beneficiaries of project

services.

2.0 Replication Projects (Approximately $1.5 Million Available,

Including 1 Urban Youth Project)

The Demonstration Partnership Program is required by its

authorizing legislation to invest at least 10% (but no more than 25%)

of its appropriation to replicate, in additional geographic areas,

previously funded programs that have demonstrated a significant

potential for dealing with particularly critical needs or problems of

the poor that exist in a number of communities.

For Fiscal Year 1995 OCS plans to fund up to three general

replication projects at up to $350,000 each, and one replication urban

youth project at up to $500,000, for a total of up to approximately

$1,500,000. OCS seeks to stimulate, with these grants, additional

experimentation and application of approaches that seem to offer

special promise in fostering social and economic self-sufficiency among

a variety of low-income people.

The eligibility, match requirements, and time frame for General

Replication Projects are the same as for General Demonstration

Projects; for Urban Youth Replication Projects they are the same as for

Urban Youth Projects.

For FY 1995, OCS has identified four previously funded

Demonstration Partnership Projects that have, in their design and

implementation, demonstrated a significant potential for dealing

successfully with a number of critical needs and problems of poor

people in differing circumstances. The four projects are:

A. Micro-Enterprise Development Program (MEDP), [Now called the

Neighborhood Economic Development Self-Employment Program (NEDSEP)],

Philadelphia, sponsored by the Mayor's Office of Community Services,

which has successfully carried out a project of Micro-Enterprise/Self-

Employment development, supported by training and technical assistance,

comprehensive case management, and peer counselling, among homeless

residents of a North Philadelphia low-income neighborhood. Project

partners included the Philadelphia County Assistance Office, the

Philadelphia Private Industry Council (PIC), the Minority Business

Enterprise Council, the Philadelphia Office of Services for Homeless

and Adults, the Service Corps of Retired Executives, and the Beech

Consortium, a consortium of 45 local private and public organizations.

The Philadelphia Project can be reached through: Rosalind Johnson,

Project Manager, Mayor's Office of Community Services, 1608 N. Carlisle

St., Philadelphia, PA 19121, (215) 978-5930.

B. The Success Connection, Yakima, Washington, sponsored by Yakima

Valley Opportunities Industrialization Center, which has successfully

carried out a project of Case Management, support groups, skills

training, and family involvement for Hispanic at risk teen-age children

of Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker families in the Yakima Valley. In

partnership with the state Migrant Education Services, Central

Washington University, and local school districts, the project reduced

truancy and drop-out rates, increased school attendance and

achievement, developed employment opportunities, and encouraged post-

secondary schooling among participating youth. The success of the

program has led to the State of Washington's decision to support its

implementation State-wide. The Yakima Project can be reached through:

Mr. Henry Beauchamp, Executive Director, Yakima Valley OIC, 815

Fruitvale Blvd., Yakima, WA 98902, (509) 839-2717.

C. Homeless Opportunity Project, Bath, Maine, sponsored by Coastal

Economic Development, Inc., which has combined three innovative

components into a successful program to foster self-sufficiency among

the homeless poor. These include a shelter-based job training program,

a system-wide change in delivery of services to an integrated case-

management approach, and an assessment instrument which can be used in

the design of individualized development plans for program

participants. Project partners include the area's homeless shelter and

three other local non-profit providers, Shoreline Community Mental

Health Systems, the Addiction Resource [[Page 18672]] Center, and the

United Way of Mid-Coast Maine. The Maine Project can be reached

through: Jessica Harnar, Executive Director, Coastal Economic

Development, Inc., 39 Andrews Road, Bath, ME 04530, (207) 442-7963.

D. Step-Up Young Father Mentor Program, Phoenix, Arizona, sponsored

by the City of Phoenix Human Services Department in partnership with

the Valley Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Arizona, which has successfully

brought ``Big Brother'' mentoring to youthful, largely minority (62%

Hispanic, 20% Black, 4% Native American) fathers, between the ages of

16 and 22, as part of a comprehensive program of education, pre-

employment and skills training, and case management/family development

services to enable them to assume greater responsibility for their

families. This is the first time that the Big Brother organization

nationally has worked with this age group. Additional project partners

include the Centers for Advancement of Educational Practices, City of

Phoenix Parks, Recreation and Library Dept., Maricopa County Community

Colleges, and City of Phoenix Employment and Training. The Phoenix

project can be reached through: William Chipman, Project Director, 1250

South 7th Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602) 262-6907.

OCS is interested in replicating each of these programs in a

geographically different but appropriate setting.

The Philadelphia project design should function effectively in

another large urban setting with a substantial homeless population. It

would seem well suited to a city which has received designation as an

Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community, where activities pursuant to

the EZ/EC Strategic Plan could stimulate markets for project

participants' enterprises.

The Yakima project design should be tried with Hispanic Farmworker

populations in another section of the country, perhaps in California or

the Southwest.

The Maine project design should be tried with homeless populations

in another rural setting, perhaps in a more economically depressed

community to test its applicability to higher concentrations of

homeless.

The Phoenix project design should function effectively with

minority urban youth in a community with an active Big Brothers/Big

Sisters or comparable organization willing to participate as an active

partner in the project. In the case of the Phoenix project, the

replication project will be considered an Urban Youth project for

purposes of grant amount (up to $500,000) and match requirement (25% of

the OCS grant amount); but proposals will be reviewed under the

Priority Area 2.0 Replication Project Elements and Review Criteria.

In each case, the application for a Replication Project should

provide for an extensive site visit or site visits by key staff to the

project to be replicated (Host Project), during which such staff can

receive orientation training and actually serve a brief apprenticeship

in the program. In addition, provision should be made for a site visit

by staff of the Host Project to the Replication Project during the

first year of its operations. The proposed Project Budget should make

provision for the costs of such site visits/apprenticeships, as well as

for appropriate consulting fees for staff of the Host Project; and the

application should include, as an appendix, a Memorandum of

Understanding or Letter of Agreement between the applicant and the Host

Project setting forth training/apprenticeship undertakings and the

attendant financial arrangements.

3.0 EZ/EC Continuous Improvement Grants (Maximum of $1,000,000

Available)

OCS in FY 1994 made approximately 115 $10,000 DPP grants to CAA's

involved locally with developing Strategic Plans for submission to the

Departments of HUD and Agriculture seeking designation as Empowerment

Zones or Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC). The purpose was to strengthen

CAA involvement in the local planning process so as to assure the

fullest possible participation of low-income residents of the affected

communities.

OCS in FY 1995 is interested in making a number of ``Continuous

Improvement'' grants to CAA's or eligible farmworker organizations

which had and have major involvement in the planning and implementation

of these Strategic Plans in their communities. The purpose of these

grants will be to continue to support the involvement of low income

residents in the improvement and implementation of these Strategic

Plans through activities which will seek to develop innovative ways to

increase the self-sufficiency of the poor. Another important purpose of

the grants will be to assist grantees to establish or participate in

the establishment of a system of information and data collection that

will track the activities carried out and identify those which develop

and implement new and innovative approaches to deal with particularly

critical needs or problems of the poor which are common to a number of

communities, including new approaches to dealing with the problems

caused by entrenched, chronic unemployment and lack of economic

opportunities for urban youth.

OCS proposes, therefore, to fund up to 20 grants of up to $50,000

apiece, for a maximum total of approximately $1,000,000, to enable

applicants eligible for the Demonstration Partnership Program to

participate in the continuous planning and improvement, and to monitor

the implementation, of these Strategic Plans at the local level. OCS

hopes these grants will enable grant recipients, through the collection

and use of information about strategic planning, implementation and

performance, to influence the shape and priorities of these

initiatives, and to make possible the closer monitoring of progress at

the local community level.

Each grant under this Priority Area will be for up to $50,000. As

with Priority Areas 1.0 and 2.0, a 100% match will be required, which

can be in cash or in-kind fairly valued, and the operational project

time frame for these Continuous Improvement projects is two years, with

up to six additional months for start-up and six months after the

operational period to complete evaluation and reporting.

OCS expects the project funds to be used to facilitate

participation of low income residents and to expand the grantee's human

and/or technical resources, which with OCS support will enable it to

broaden its involvement in the implementation and monitoring of the

Strategic Plan. Applicants are encouraged to contact their State

Corporation for National Service Offices and/or their State

Commissioner for National Service to discuss possible national service

participation in their projects (e.g. Americorps-VISTA, Americorps USA,

National Senior Service Corps, Learn and Serve). Such participation

could provide two or more volunteers to support the work of the planner

and assist staff in the Continuous Improvement project.

Applicants for these Continuous Improvement grants should represent

communities that have developed EZ/EC Strategic Plans and are

proceeding to implement them, either with or without the support of

designation as an Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community. OCS hopes to

make grants to at least two communities that did not receive EZ/EC

designation. But in all cases applicants must provide evidence of close

working relationships with those involved in the EZ/EC planning and/or

implementation process, the local nominating officials, and the other

agencies and resources that participated in the development of the

community's strategic plan document. Special emphasis should also be

given in [[Page 18673]] applications to establishing and documenting

working relationships with additional data collection and analysis

resources such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities and

Minority Institutions with strong ties to the low-income community.

4.0 Urban Youth Projects (up to $2.5 Million Available, Including 1

Replication Project)

For FY 1995, OCS expects to award five or six grants of up to

$500,000 for a total of up to $2.5 million for projects that propose to

demonstrate new approaches to dealing with the problems caused by

entrenched, chronic unemployment and lack of economic opportunities for

urban youth, between 10 and 25 years of age. As noted above, under

Priority Area 2.0, these could include one Urban Youth Project for

replication of the Step-Up Young Father Mentor Program in Phoenix,

Arizona.

The authorizing legislation provides that ``demonstrations shall

include such initiatives as peer counseling, mentoring, development of

job skills, assistance with social skills, community services, family

literacy, parenting skills, opportunities for employment or

entrepreneurship, and other services designed to assist such at-risk

youth to continue their education, to secure meaningful employment, to

perform community service, or to pursue other productive alternatives

within the community.''

OCS recognizes that greater self-sufficiency and productivity among

urban youth will not occur in isolation of new innovative approaches to

address the conditions that prevent dependency. Urban youth, between

the ages of ten (10) and twenty-five (25), experience a number of

systemic conditions that prohibit the achievement of self-sufficiency

and independence as they grow into adulthood.

Over two-thirds of urban youth are born to unmarried women.

Nationally, families consisting of children in households headed by

unmarried females rose from some 10 percent in 1960 to over 35 percent

today, according to the Joint Center for Economic Studies. This

development alone has serious economic implications. The growth in

female-headed families contributes significantly to the overall

deepening of poverty among urban children.

Declines in economic opportunities play at least as great a part in

increasing the prevalence of poverty as the change in family structure.

The growing prevalence and geographic concentration of urban youth tend

to be associated with poor schools, high public social service usage,

greater exposure to crime, and fewer employment options.

Urban males who grow up in poor, mother-only families appear to be

at special risk for a variety of problems. They are at special risk of

becoming alienated and marginalized adults.

Today's urban youth find themselves and their parent(s) caught in a

downward shift from working poor (mother-only) families to dependent

poor (mother-only) families. They are not only subject to greater

economic deprivation, but they:

--Are very likely to be unemployed and on public assistance;

--Grow up with few material or educational resources;

--Are likely to engage in substance abuse and/or criminal activities;

--Lack guidance from responsible adults to teach them how to respect

themselves and others while they track through adolescence to

adulthood;

--Are at special risk for a variety of behavioral problems;

--Are too often inclined to detach themselves from parental authority;

and,

--Are likely to assert themselves in gangs and street cultures that

support a flamboyant lifestyle through illicit trafficking.

Applicants are encouraged to develop cooperative learning

partnerships of the type that will blend regular classroom curriculum

and instructions with stay-in-school programs (including college

programs) and the world of work. Innovative concepts might include

ideas built around matching scholarship and grant funds offered from

other public and private sources to promising low income urban youth.

Projects might also include requests for funds to support

diversified occupation projects (projects designed to bridge the gap

between school-based programs and the world of work). Envisioned is the

promotion of joint projects between local public schools and private

sector businesses to develop partial or after school and weekend job

apprenticeships or placement opportunities for urban youth. Projects

seeking to develop opportunities around computer technology repair

work, machine tool manufacturing, and career development in the areas

of abatement of environmental hazards and pollution are encouraged.

The target group of disadvantaged youth should not be considered in

isolation from the community in which they live. Applicants should seek

to involve partners in their project that make possible a

comprehensive, holistic approach to individual, family, and community

development; including agencies that can assist with parenting,

housing, family mentoring, vocational training, day care,

transportation, apprenticeships and employment, and interventions in

violent situations. OCS is interested, for this set-aside as well as

for the other grants, in demonstrations that test the targeting and

delivery of these and other services to the disadvantaged youths and

their urban neighborhoods and that employ computer workstations and

similar strategies for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of

the delivery of those services.

Applicants should identify any barriers that might hinder efforts

by the project team/partnership to help members of the target

population become self-sufficient and include in their proposals

specific plans to counteract them. OCS is particularly interested in

partnerships that propose creative ways to deal with problems of

individual and group violence, including violence as a response to

conditions in families and communities that have been subjected to

historical patterns of oppression. OCS feels that to assure the safety

of all program participants and staff it is essential that such

programs be closely coordinated with local law enforcement agencies.

Where projects propose to work with youth 10 to 15 years of age,

applicants should consider the stages of youth development and seek to

counter unhealthy influences on that development by strengthening this

population's sense of community through project activities. It is

important, in this regard, that project-related contacts and activities

be frequent and intense enough to make a positive impact on

participating youths. Applications that include linkages with national

and local organizations with significant experience in this issue are

encouraged.

Applicants seeking guidance on program design, availability of

resources, or the identification of persons or organizations in their

communities that can provide additional guidance, support, and

expertise in the areas of disadvantaged youth and violence prevention

may wish to contact one of the following persons for information and

assistance:

Clifton Mitchell, Chief, Special Projects Branch, Center for Substance

Abuse Treatment, 5515 Security Lane, Rockwall II, 7th Floor, Rockville,

MD 20852, (301) 443-6533 [[Page 18674]]

Warren W. Hewitt, Jr., Director, Division of Clinical Programs, Center

for Substance Abuse Treatment, 55-5 Security Lane, Rockwall II, 7th

Floor, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 443-8160

Dr. Donald Vereen, M.D., M.P.H., Special Assistant to the Director,

National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, 5600

Fishers Lane, Room 10-05, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-6480

Timothy Thornton, Associate Director for Youth Programs, Division of

Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

(NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Atlanta,

GA 30341, (404) 488-4646

Marilyn Silver, Information Specialist, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, Department of

Justice, 633 Indiana Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20531, (202) 616-3551

James Breiling, PhD., Violence and Traumatic Stress Research Branch,

National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Parklawn Bldg. Room 10C-24,

5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-3728

Part IV. Application Elements and Review Criteria

The ultimate goals of the projects to be funded under the

Demonstration Partnership Program are to realize, through project

interventions, significant improvements in the social and economic

self-sufficiency of members of the communities served, to evaluate the

effectiveness of these interventions and of the project design through

which they were implemented, and thus to make possible the replication

of successful programs. As noted above, OCS intends to make the awards

of all the above grants on the basis of brief, concise applications.

The elements and format of these applications, along with the review

criteria that will be used to judge them, will be outlined in this

Part.

In order to simplify the application preparation and review

process, OCS seeks to keep grant proposals cogent and brief.

Applications with project narratives (excluding appendices) of more

than 20 letter-sized pages of 12 c.p.i. type or equivalent on a single

side will not be reviewed for funding. Applicants should prepare and

assemble their project description using the following outline of

required project elements. They should, furthermore, build their

project concept, plans, and application description upon the guidelines

set forth for each of the project elements.

For each of the Project Elements or Sub-Elements below there is at

the end of the discussion a suggested number of pages to be devoted to

the particular element or sub-element. These are suggestions only; but

the applicant must remember that the overall Project Narrative cannot

be longer than 20 pages.

The competitive review of proposals will be based on the degree to

which applicants:

(1) Incorporate each of the Elements and Sub-Elements below into

their proposals, so as to:

(2) Describe convincingly a project that will develop and implement

new and innovative approaches to address particularly critical needs or

problems of the poor;

(3) In ways that appear likely to increase their self-sufficiency;

and

(4) Test and evaluate such approaches so as to make possible

replication of a successful program.

A. Program Elements, Review and Assessment Criteria for Applications

Under Priority Areas 1.0 and 4.0

Element I. Organizational Experience and Capability

(Weight of 0 to 5 points in proposal review.)

Applicants should cite their organization's capability and relevant

experience in developing and operating programs which deal with poverty

problems similar to those to be addressed by the proposed project. They

should also cite the organization's experience in collaborative

programming and operations which involve evaluations and data

collection. While the proposed project management team will be

identified and described elsewhere in the application, applicants

should identify agency executive leadership in this section and briefly

describe their involvement in the proposed project and provide

assurance of their commitment to its successful implementation. An

important indicator of the applicant organization's capability will be

the certification to that effect by the State CSBG Director in the

required letter of eligibility certification. (See Part I. B.,

Eligibility, above.)

Applicants should use no more than 2 pages for this element.

Element II. Project Theory, Design, and Plan

(Total Weight of 0-25 points in proposal review)

OCS seeks to learn from the application why and how the project as

proposed is expected to lead to significant improvements in individual

and family self-sufficiency.

Applicants are urged to design and present their project in terms

of a conceptual cause-effect framework. In the following paragraphs a

``logic model'', or framework is described, that suggests a way to

present a project so as to show the ``logic'' of the cause-effect

relations between project activities and project results. Applicants

don't have to use the exact ``logic model'' language described; but it

is important to present the project in a way that makes clear the

cause-effect relationship between what the project plans to do and the

results it expects to achieve.

Sub-Element II(a). Description of Target Population, Analysis of

Need, and Project Assumptions. (Weight of 0-10 points in application

review)

The ``logic model'' begins with identifying the underlying

assumptions about the program. These are the beliefs on which the

proposed program is built: the assumptions about the needs of the

client population to be served; about the current services available to

those clients, and where and how they fail to meet their needs; about

why the proposed services or interventions are appropriate, and will

meet those needs; and about the impact the proposed interventions will

have on the clients.

In other words, the underlying assumptions of the program are the

applicant's analysis of the needs and problems to be addressed by the

project, and the applicant's theory of how its proposed interventions

will address those needs and problems to achieve the desired result.

Thus a strong application is based upon a clear description of the

needs and problems to be addressed and a persuasive understanding of

the causes of those problems.

In this sub-element of the proposal the applicant should precisely

identify the target population to be served. The geographic area to be

impacted should then be briefly highlighted, selectively emphasizing

the socioeconomic/poverty and other data that are relevant to the

project design. Applicants for environmental justice projects, for

instance, might include as much data about neighborhood pollution and

recycling markets as they do about poverty conditions.

The needs of this target population should then be clearly defined,

and the applicant should state its underlying assumptions about how

these needs can be addressed by the proposed project.

Applicants should use no more than 2 pages for this application

sub-element.

Sub-Element II(b). Project Strategy and Design Framework:

Interventions, [[Page 18675]] Outcomes, and Goals (Weight of 0-10

points in proposal review.)

To continue with the ``logic model'':

The underlying assumptions concerning client needs and the theory

of how they can be effectively addressed, which are discussed above,

lead in the project design to the conduct of a variety of project

activities or interventions, each of which is assumed to result in

immediate changes, or outcomes.

The immediate changes lead to intermediate outcomes; and the

intermediate outcomes lead to the final project goals.

So in this sub-element the applicant should describe the major

activities, or interventions, which are to be carried out to address

the needs and problems identified in the previous sub-element. And it

should discuss the immediate changes, or outcomes, which are expected

to result. These are the results expected from each service or

intervention immediately after it is provided. For example, a job

readiness training program might be expected to result in clients

having increased knowledge of how to apply for a job, improved grooming

for job interviews, and improved job interview skills. Or peer

mentoring coupled with training in dispute settlement might be expected

to result in young urban clients acquiring skills useful in avoiding

violent confrontations.

At the next level are the intermediate outcomes which result from

these immediate changes. Often an intermediate project outcome is the

result of several immediate changes resulting from a number of related

interventions such as training and mentoring. Intermediate project

outcomes should be expressed in measurable changes in knowledge,

attitudes, behavior, or status/condition. In the above examples, the

immediate changes achieved by the job readiness program could be

expected to lead to intermediate outcomes of client employment and

increased income. The acquisition of dispute settlement skills, coupled

with mentoring, could be expected to result in the actual avoidance of

confrontation and violence.

Finally, the application should describe how the achievement of

these intermediate outcomes will be expected to lead to the attainment

of the project goals: Employment, new careers in environmental clean-

up, successful business ventures, enrollment in post secondary

education, or whatever they may be. Applicants must remember that if

the major focus of the project is to be the development and start-up of

a new business, then a Business Plan which follows the outline in

Attachment B to this announcement must be submitted as an appendix to

the Proposal.

Applicants don't have to use the exact ``logic model'' terminology

described above, but it is important to describe the project in a way

that makes clear the expected cause-and-effect relationship between

what the project plans to do--the activities or interventions, the

changes that are expected to result, and how those changes will lead to

achievement of the project goals of greater self-sufficiency.

This design section should cover no more than 3 pages of the

proposal.

Sub-Element II(c). Work Plan (Weight of 0-5 points in proposal

review).

Once the project strategy and design framework are established, the

applicant should present the highlights of a work plan for the project.

The plan should explicitly tie into the project design framework and

should be feasible, i.e., capable of being accomplished with the

resources and partners available. The plan should briefly describe the

key project tasks, and show the timelines and major milestones for

their implementation. Critical issues or potential problems that might

affect the achievement of project objectives should be explicitly

addressed, with an explanation of how they would be overcome, and how

the objectives will be achieved notwithstanding any such problems. The

plan should be presented in such a way that it can be correlated with

the budget narrative included earlier in the application.

The applicant should use no more than 2 pages for this part of this

proposal element.

Applicant may be able to use a simple Gantt or time line chart to

convey the work plan in minimal space.

Element III. Project Partnerships

(Weight of 0-15 points in the proposal review.)

Suitable project partners are a required component of the

Demonstration Partnership Program, and are critical to the kind of

service concentration and systemic change envisioned by OCS. Project

partners should have skills, resources, and experience that complement

those of the applicant, so that the partnership is stronger than its

individual parts. Applicants should use this section to identify their

project partners, describe the roles that they have agreed to play, and

document that at least 50% of the matching funds will be provided by

these partners through the delivery of specific services or resources

to the target population.

The application should include, in an appendix, commitment letters

from, or Partnership Agreements with these proposed partners signed by

the executive of the partnering entity. These documents should describe

the role of the partner in the project, including the relevant skills

of the partner, the services to be provided, and the resources and

levels of effort to be provided to the project.

Applicants should use no more than 3 pages for this proposal

element (plus the Partnership Agreement(s) in the appendix).

Element IV. Project Innovations

(Weight of 0 to 10 points in the proposal review.)

Applicant should briefly describe the ways in which the proposed

project represents a new and innovative approach or approaches to

provide for greater self-sufficiency of the poor and/or to deal with

particularly critical needs or problems of the poor that are common to

a number of communities. Innovation can be in the characteristics of

the target population to be served, or the needs to be addressed; the

kinds of activities, or interventions, that will be carried out; the

ways in which they will be carried out; new and different combinations

of activities or interventions that will be implemented; or in the

settings in which the project will function: e.g. new and innovative

types of work or businesses or institutions in which the project will

function.

Applicants should use no more than 1 page for this proposal

element.

Element V. Project Management and Organization

(Weight of 0 to 10 points in the proposal review.)

While the experience of agency leadership is important to project

success, the caliber of day-to-day project management is critical.

Applicants should identify the Project Director and other key staff

they feel are especially important to the success of the project, and

include resumes as an appendix to the proposal. Where the staff have

not been identified, a position description should be included in the

appendix. The application should describe their relevant capabilities

for managing this multi-faceted project, with emphasis placed on

successful management experience in directing both on-budget and

leveraged resources to create community conditions capable of

supporting effective interventions and transforming lives. This

individuals' commitment and planned level-of-effort [[Page 18676]] to

the project should be specified. Project proposals will be assessed,

for this element, on the relevant experience, capabilities, commitment

and planned level of effort to the project of the Project Director and

key staff members as described in the application.

Applicants should also, in this section, describe (and diagram if

necessary) the organization of the project. The relationships among the

Project Director and the key officials in the applicant and partnering

organizations should be depicted, and the project-related authorities

and responsibilities of these key actors should be made clear.

Applicants should use no more than 2 pages for this proposal

element (plus the resumes and/or position descriptions in the

appendix).

Element VI. Project Budget

(Weight of 0-5 points in the proposal review.)

Applicants will be required to submit Federal budget forms with

their proposals to provide basic applicant and project information (SF

424) and information about how Federal and other project funds will be

used (424A). In addition to and immediately following the completed

Federal budget forms, applicants must submit a Budget Narrative, or

explanatory budget information. This Budget Narrative is not considered

a part of the Project Narrative, and does not count as part of the

twenty pages; but rather is included in the application following the

budget forms.

The budget narrative should briefly explain the adequacy of the

Federal and match funds to accomplish project purposes, should explain

the source and nature of matching funds, and should identify and

briefly explain any imbalances between level of activities undertaken

and project funds expended. Applicants should nonetheless use no more

than two or three pages for this proposal element (not including the

federal budget forms).

Resources in addition to the required matching amounts are

encouraged by OCS, both to augment project resources and to strengthen

the basis for continuing partnerships to benefit the target community.

The amounts of such resources beyond the required match, their

appropriateness to the project design, and the likelihood that they

will continue beyond the project time frame will be taken into account

in judging the application.

Element VII. Project Evaluation

(Weight of 0-15 points in the proposal review.)

Sound evaluations are essential to the Demonstration Partnership

Program. OCS requires applicants to include in their applications a

well thought through outline of an evaluation plan for their project.

The outline should explain how the applicant proposes to answer the key

questions about how effectively the project is being/was implemented

(the Process Evaluation) and whether and why/why not the project

activities, or interventions achieved the expected outcomes and goals

of the project (the Outcome Evaluation).

Applicants are not being asked to submit a complete and final

Evaluation Plan as part of their proposal; but they must include:

(1) A well thought through outline of an evaluation plan which

identifies the principal cause-and-effect relationships to be tested,

and which demonstrates the applicant's understanding of the role and

purpose of both Process and Outcome Evaluations (see previous

paragraph);

(2) The identity and qualifications of the proposed third party

evaluator, or if not selected, the qualifications which will be sought

in choosing an evaluator, which must include successful experience in

evaluating social service delivery programs, and the planning and/or

evaluation of programs designed to foster self-sufficiency in low

income populations; and

(3) A commitment to the selection of a third-party evaluator

approved by OCS, and to completion of a final evaluation design and

plan, in collaboration with the approved evaluator and the OCS

Evaluation Technical Assistance Contractor during the six-month start-

up period of the project, if funded.

Applicants should ensure, above all, that the evaluation outline

presented is consistent with their project design. A clear project

framework of the type recommended earlier identifies the key project

assumptions about the target populations and their needs, and the

hypotheses, or expected cause-effect relationships to be tested in the

project: that the proposed project activities, or interventions, will

address those needs in ways that will lead to the achievement of the

project goals of self-sufficiency. It also identifies in advance the

most important process and outcome measures that will be used to

identify performance success and expected changes in individual

participants, the grantee organization, and the community.

For these reasons, the evaluator that the applicant expects to work

with should be involved--at least briefly but substantively--in the

development of the project design and proposal.

The applicant should use no more than 3 pages for this proposal

element, plus the Resume or Position Description for the evaluator,

which should be in an Appendix.

Element VIII. Significant and Beneficial Impact

(Weight of 0-10 points in the proposal review.)

OCS seeks, with its Demonstration Partnership Program, to use a

modest amount of money to support innovative approaches that will

create significant benefits for low-income individuals, families, and

communities. Accordingly, it intends to make grants that have a strong

likelihood of creating beneficial impacts both within the project

communities and, through wide dissemination of useful project results

and findings, in other communities facing similar challenges.

The proposed project is expected to lead to tangible achievements

toward individual and family self-sufficiency and, as a result,

verifiable reductions in the incidence of poverty in the targeted

community. Applicants should summarize, in this section, the beneficial

impacts that they propose to make in that community, their expectations

for the continuation of those benefits beyond the project's life, and

the kind of information that they expect to share with OCS and the

social service/community development fields from their demonstration

project. Project proposals will be assessed, for this element, on the

likely value of the project to the target community over time--given

the proposed outcomes and the likelihood that they will be realized--

and to the larger community of CSBG grantees across the nation.

Applicants should use no more than 1 page for this proposal

element. The score for the element will be based to some extent on the

coherence and feasibility of the entire application.

Element IX. Community Empowerment Consideration

(Weight of 0-5 points in proposal review.)

Special consideration will be given to applicants who are located

in areas which are characterized by poverty and other indicators of

socio-economic distress such as a poverty rate of at least 20%,

designation as an Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community, high levels

of unemployment, and a high incidence of violence, gang activity,

crime, or drug use. If such is the case, applicants should document

that they [[Page 18677]] were involved in the preparation and planned

implementation of a comprehensive community-based strategic plan to

achieve both economic and human development in an integrated manner and

how the proposed project supports the goal(s) of that plan. (0-5

points)

Applicants should use no more than 1 page for this proposal

element.

B. Special Program Elements, Review and Assessment Criteria for

Applications for Replication Projects Under Priority Area 2.0

The Project Narrative should begin with the statement that the

proposal is for a replication project in priority area 2.0, and

identify which of the projects described in Part II is to be

replicated. Note that proposals for replication of the Philadelphia;

Yakima, Washington; and Bath, Maine projects are limited to a maximum

grant amount of $350,000 with a 100% match, similar to General

Demonstrations under Priority Area 1.0. Proposals for replication of

the Phoenix project will, for purposes of grant amount and match

requirement, be considered Urban Youth Projects under Priority Area 4.0

with a maximum grant amount of $500,000 and a required match of 25% of

the OCS grant amount. In all other respects, proposals for replication

of the Phoenix project should follow the elements and criteria of this

Sub-Part, which follow.

Element I. Organizational Experience and Capability

(Weight of 0 to 5 points in proposal review.)

[This element should be the same as under Priority Areas 1.0 and 4.0,

and should take no more than 2 pages of the Project Narrative.]

Element II. Project Theory, Design, and Plan

(Total Weight of 0-25 points in proposal review.)

OCS seeks to learn from this element of the application why and how

the project as proposed is expected to lead to significant improvements

in individual and family self-sufficiency.

Applicants may find it helpful to design and present their project

in terms of a conceptual cause-effect framework. A ``logic model'' that

may be helpful is developed in the following paragraphs.

Sub-Element II(a). Description of Target Population, Analysis of

Need, and Project Assumptions. (Weight of 0-10 points in application

review.)

The ``logic model'' begins with identifying the underlying

assumptions about the program. These are the beliefs on which the

proposed program is built: The assumptions about the needs of the

client population to be served; about the current services available to

those clients, and where and how they fail to meet their needs; about

why the proposed services or interventions are appropriate, and will

meet those needs; and about the impact the proposed interventions will

have on the clients.

In other words, the underlying assumptions of the program are the

applicant's analysis of the needs and problems to be addressed by the

project, and the applicant's theory of how its proposed interventions

will address those needs and problems to achieve the desired result. In

this sub-element of the proposal the applicant should precisely

identify the target population to be served. The geographic area to be

impacted should then be briefly highlighted, selectively emphasizing

the socioeconomic/poverty and other data that are relevant to the

project design.

The needs of this target population should then be clearly defined,

with particular attention to whether and how the characteristics and

needs of this target population appear to differ from those of the

project being replicated (the Host Project). The applicant should state

its underlying assumptions about how these needs can be addressed by

the proposed project, including its assumptions about any modifications

to the design and interventions of the Host Project that it believes

are needed to address such differences.

Applicants should use no more than 2 pages for this application

sub-element.

Sub-Element II(b). Project Strategy and Work Plan: Interventions,

Outcomes, and Goals. (Weight of 0-15 points in proposal review.)

To continue with the ``logic model'':

The underlying assumptions concerning client needs and the theory

of how they can be effectively addressed, which are discussed above,

lead in the project design to the conduct of a variety of project

activities or interventions, each of which is assumed to result in

immediate changes, or outcomes.

The immediate changes lead to intermediate outcomes; and the

intermediate outcomes lead to the final project goals.

In this sub-element, applicants for replication projects under

Priority Area 2.0 should explain the strategy and design of the project

being replicated (the Host Project), and how they plan to implement

and/or adapt the activities, or interventions of the Host Project to

the particular needs of the new target population and the setting of

the replication project, as described in the previous sub-element. The

applicant should describe the immediate changes expected to result from

the project activities, or interventions, and how they can lead to

intermediate outcomes, and in turn to attainment of the final project

goals.

Again, applicants don't have to use this exact terminology, but it

is important to describe the project in a way that makes clear the

expected cause-and-effect relationship between what the project plans

to do--the activities or interventions, the changes that are expected

to result, and how those changes will lead to achievement of the

project goals of greater self-sufficiency.

Finally, the applicant should present the highlights of a work plan

for the project patterned after the work plan of the Host Project, and

highlight any differences from that plan. It should explicitly tie into

the project design framework and should be feasible, i.e., capable of

being accomplished with the resources and partners available. The plan

should briefly describe the key project tasks, and show the timelines

and major milestones for their implementation. Critical issues or

potential problems that might affect the achievement of project

objectives should be explicitly addressed, with an explanation of how

they would be overcome, and how the objectives will be achieved

notwithstanding any such problems. The plan should be presented in such

a way that it can be correlated with the budget narrative developed

later in the application.

The applicant should use no more than 4 pages for this proposal

sub-element. Applicant may be able to use a simple Gantt or time line

chart to convey the work plan in minimal space.

Element III. Project Partnerships

(Weight of 0-30 points in the proposal review.)

Sub-element III(a). Arrangements with Host Project. (Weight of 0-15

points in the proposal review.)

Applicant must have made arrangements with the project to be

replicated (the Host Project) for an extensive site visit or site

visits by key staff to the Host Project, during which such staff can

receive orientation training and actually serve a brief apprenticeship

in the program. In addition, provision should be made for a site visit

by staff of the Host Project to the Replication Project during the

first year of its operations.

In this sub-element applicant should briefly describe the steps

that it has taken to learn about the design, work plan, and findings of

the Host Project, and the arrangements that have been

[[Page 18678]] made for site visits and/or apprenticeships. The

proposed Project Budget should make provision for the costs of such

site visits/apprenticeships, as well as for appropriate consulting fees

for staff of the Host Project; and the application should include, as

an appendix, a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement

between the applicant and the Host Project setting forth training/

apprenticeship undertakings and the attendant financial arrangements.

Applicants should use no more than 3 pages for this proposal

element (plus the Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement

with the Host Project, which should be in an Appendix).

Sub-element III(b). Project Partnerships. (Weight of 0-15 points in

the proposal review.)

Suitable project partners are a required component of the

Demonstration Partnership Program, and are critical to the kind of

service concentration and systemic change envisioned by OCS. Project

partners should have skills, resources, and experience that complement

those of the applicant, so that the partnership is stronger than its

individual parts. Applicants should use this section to identify their

project partners, describe the roles that they have agreed to play, and

document that at least 50% of the required match will be provided by

these partners through the delivery of specific services or resources

to the target population.

The application should include, in an appendix, commitment letters

from, or Partnership Agreements with these proposed partners signed by

the executive of the partnering entity. These documents should describe

the role of the partner in the project, including the relevant skills

of the partner, the services to be provided, and the resources and

levels of effort to be provided to the project.

Applicants should use no more than 2 pages for this proposal

element (plus the Partnership Agreement(s) in the Appendix).

Element IV. Project Management and Organization

(Weight of 0 to 10 points in the proposal review.)

[This element should be the same as Element V under Priority Areas 1.0

and 4.0 and should take no more than 2 pages of the Project Narrative]

Element V. Project Budget