[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20243-20248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8556]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
45 CFR Part 2553
RIN 3045-AA52
Retired and Senior Volunteer Program Amendments
AGENCY: Corporation for National and Community Service.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service
(Corporation) is issuing a final rule that sets forth a competitive
process for selecting grant recipients for the Retired and Service
Volunteer Program (RSVP), including performance measurement
requirements, as required by the Domestic Volunteer Service Act (DVSA),
as amended by the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act (Serve America
Act) (Pub. L. 111-13) of April 21, 2009.
DATES: This final rule is effective July 11, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katharine Delo Gregg at (202) 606-6965
([email protected]). The TDD/TTY number is (202) 606-3472. You may request
this rule in an alternative format for the visually impaired.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background--The October 26, 2010, Proposed Rule
On October 26, 2010, the Corporation published a proposed rule (45
CFR part 2553) in the Federal Register (Vol. 75, No. 206) to regulate
the competitive grantmaking process for the Retired and Senior
Volunteer Program (RSVP).
The proposed rule implements RSVP re-competition statutory
requirements set forth in the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
(Serve America Act), which President Obama signed into law on April 21,
2009. The Serve America Act reauthorizes and expands national service
programs administered by the Corporation for National and Community
Service (Corporation) by amending the National and Community Service
Act of 1990 (NCSA) and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973
(DVSA).
The Serve America Act amended the DVSA by requiring the Corporation
to develop a competitive process for selecting grant recipients for the
RSVP Program, beginning in fiscal year 2013. The competitive process,
as directed by statute, will include the use of peer review panels with
expertise in senior service and aging, site inspections, as
appropriate, and evaluations of existing grantees. The amended statute
requires that, beginning in fiscal year 2013, RSVP grants be awarded
for a period of 3 years, with an option for renewal of 3 years if the
grantee meets the performance measures established in its grant award,
as well as complying with the terms and conditions of the grant.
60-Day Comment Period
In the Federal Register of October 26, 2010 (45 CFR part 2553), the
Corporation published the proposed rule, with a 60-day comment period.
The Corporation received a total of 21 comments from twelve commenters,
including one association that represents several hundred members.
Comments are discussed in detail in Part III.
In general, most of the comments supported the proposed
regulations.
II. Discussion of the Final Rule
The current competitive process for selecting RSVP grantees only
occurs when there is new money above the appropriated base funding for
RSVP grants. The future competitive process for selecting RSVP grantees
will include the same elements specified in the amended DVSA that have
been used for previous competitive processes. The elements specified in
the amended DVSA are discussed below.
A. Peer review panels [DVSA Sec. 201(e)(2)(B)(i); 45 CFR
2553.71(b)]: As
[[Page 20244]]
of 2013, RSVP grant applications will be reviewed by blended peer
review panels that will include members with specialized expertise in
senior service and aging, as well as Corporation staff, who will offer
their expert opinions concerning each application. The use of blended
peer review panels is well established at the Corporation and is
currently part of the process of selecting grantees for other programs
such as AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve America. The Corporation also
has considerable experience in using outside reviewers with expertise
in senior service and aging on selection panels for Senior Corps
grants, including RSVP. The Corporation's existing processes for
announcing peer review opportunities, registering potential reviewers,
selecting reviewers for particular competitions, managing review
panels, and considering peer review opinions in making the final
selection of grantees will be adapted to meet the requirements for RSVP
grant competitions.
B. Site inspections [DVSA Sec. 201(e)(2)(B)(ii); 45 CFR
2553.71(b)]: As appropriate, on-going RSVP grant applicants or proposed
project sites may be visited by Corporation representatives as part of
the competitive selection process. While such site inspections would
normally not be needed, circumstances could arise during the grantee
selection process where on-site observations or meetings might be
helpful, for example, in clarifying aspects of an application or
validating the capacity of an organization to administer a federal
grant.
C. Performance Measures, Outcomes, and Other Criteria [DVSA
Sec. Sec. 201(e)(2)(B)(v) and 201(g); 45 CFR 2553.12(l) and Subpart
J]: As a part of the competitive process, the Corporation will develop
performance measures, outcomes, and other criteria that will be used in
the evaluation of applicants. The performance measures will be
established in the Notification of Funding Availability and may be
different than those incorporated in current grants. These performance
measures, outcomes, and criteria will reflect the different needs of
rural and urban communities. These performance measures, outcomes, and
criteria will be used in conducting the competitive process and in
developing assessment reports as described in paragraph D, below.
Pursuant to section 201(g)(2)(A) & (B) of the Serve America Act,
prior to Fiscal Year 2014 that is, the first year after initiation of
the competitive process, the performance measures, outcomes, and other
criteria established for the competitive process may not be updated or
modified, except when the Corporation determines that a performance
measure, outcome, or criterion has become operationally problematic. In
such cases, after consulting with RSVP project directors, sponsor
executives, and others as appropriate, and notifying the authorizing
committees, the Corporation may eliminate that performance measure,
outcome, or criterion, or modify it.
D. Assessments of existing RSVP projects [DVSA Sec. Sec. 201(f)
and (g); 45 CFR 2553(f)]: The Corporation has set up a mechanism for
consulting with RSVP project directors during the development and
implementation of the assessment process. All existing RSVP grants will
receive a report from the Corporation in a standardized format that
assesses program strengths and weaknesses in a way that can assist the
grantee with program improvement. This report will guide the
Corporation's training and technical assistance for the project. The
standardized report will, in addition to assessing the program's
strengths and weaknesses, include:
1. An assessment of the extent to which the grantee meets or
exceeds the performance measures, outcomes, and other criteria
established for its grant;
2. An assessment of whether the project has adequately addressed
the needs of the population and community it serves;
3. An assessment of the grant's efforts to collaborate with other
community organizations, units of government, and entities providing
services to seniors;
4. An assessment of the project's compliance with requirements for
appropriate use of Federal funds, based on use of a protocol for fiscal
management; and
5. An assessment of whether the project is in conformity with
eligibility, outreach, enrollment, and other RSVP programmatic
requirements.
To the maximum extent practicable, the report for each project will
take into account input received from individuals who are knowledgeable
about RSVP, including current or former employees of the Corporation
and representatives of the communities served by RSVP volunteers.
The process of assessing existing RSVP grants will begin in Fiscal
Year 2010 and run through Fiscal Year 2012, with the objective of
completing the assessment and resulting training and technical
assistance prior to conducting the initial cycle of grant competitions
in Fiscal Year 2013.
E. Maintenance of volunteers and geographic service areas [DVSA
Sec. 201(e)(2)(B)(iv)]: The Corporation will ensure that (a) grants
awarded as a result of the competitive selection process beginning in
Fiscal Year 2013 are for at least the same number of volunteers
annually as were supported for the service area during the previous
grant cycle and (b) maintain a similar program distribution as was
maintained during the previous grant cycle. In addition, the
Corporation will minimize any disruption to RSVP volunteers that might
result from implementing the competitive process of grantee selection.
F. Program Termination [DVSA Sec. 201(g)(3); 45 CFR 2553.31]:
Until 2013, the Corporation will continue to initiate termination or
denial of an application for refunding in the event that a grantee does
not meet one or more of the performance measures, outcomes, and other
criteria established as described above. Any such termination or denial
of refunding will follow the notification and due process currently
followed in such cases, in accordance with Section 412 of the DVSA, as
implemented by 45 CFR part 1206 Grants and Contracts--Suspension and
Termination and Denial of Application for Refunding, except that after
initiation of competition in FY 2013, the provisions governing denial
of refunding will not apply to a grant that has been competed in
accordance with 45 CFR 2553.71, and where the grantee has also
completed its optional three-year renewal term.
G. Technical Assistance [DVSA Sec. 201(h) and (j); 45 CFR
2553.71(f)]: The Corporation will develop procedures for providing
technical assistance, including regular monitoring visits, to assist
grantees in meeting the established performance measures, outcomes, and
criteria. One component of such technical assistance, which was
launched in October 2009, is an online resource guide available at
http://www.nationalserviceresources.org/rsvp-online-resource-guide. The
Corporation updates this online guide from time to time with examples
of high-performing RSVP projects and other information.
H. Grant Extension for Purpose of New Competition [DVSA Sec.
201(i); 2553.71(e)]: To minimize disruption to volunteers and services,
if a grantee fails to meet one or more of the established performance
measures, outcomes, and other criteria, the Corporation will continue
to fund the current grantee for up to 12 months if the competition for
a replacement sponsor has not resulted in a replacement sponsor. During
those 12 months, the Corporation will conduct a new competition to
serve the geographic area served by the current
[[Page 20245]]
grantee and reach out to other potential sponsors. The current grantee
will be eligible for the new competition and, during the 12-month
period, the Corporation may continue to provide training and technical
assistance in meeting established performance measures.
All provisions of part 2553 not modified by the amendments
described below will remain in effect, including the provision in Sec.
2553(a) that a ``Corporation grant may be awarded to fund up to 90
percent of the total project cost in the first year, 80 percent in the
second year, and 70 percent in the third and succeeding years.'' Thus,
the Corporation will continue to require that a current grantee
applying for a new grant must contribute from non-Corporation funds at
least 30 percent of the total project cost. A new applicant, on the
other hand, will be required to contribute 10 percent in the first year
of the grant, 20 percent in the second year, and 30 percent in the
third and succeeding years.
III. Comments and Response
Of the 21 comments received, the vast majority of the comments
pertained to clarification of the implementation of the proposed
regulation but generally supported the regulation. The comments and our
responses are set forth below.
Comment: Seven comments stated that specifying the ``blended peer
review panels that will include members with specialized expertise in
senior service'' is insufficient and encouraged the Corporation to
utilize peer reviewers with specialized knowledge applicable to RSVP
grants.
Response: The Corporation agrees and will engage peer review
panelists that possess the appropriate expertise and knowledge base to
meet the requirements of the SAA, and to participate in a robust and
transparent competitive review process.
Comment: Seven comments suggested that site inspections be preceded
by prior notice, as well as explicitly state that the purpose of the
site visits is constructive, and not intended to be an evaluation of
the particular program.
Response: The Corporation will clarify that the site inspections
are a part of the competitive review intended to assist the Corporation
during competition in clarifying aspects of an application or
validating the capacity of an organization to administer a Federal
grant, as well as other elements of the application review process, and
are not part of technical assistance nor intended as a continuous
improvement tool.
Comment: Twelve comments expressed concern that the development of
performance measures would not be consistent with the Corporation's
larger goals, nor would they reflect grantees' specific circumstances
and local needs.
Response: The Corporation agrees that coordination between national
standard measures and grantee initiated measures is essential. The
Corporation's new strategic plan will help to inform how the overall
performance measures will fit within a structure of national and local
measures.
Comment: Nine comments suggested that if the Corporation consults
meaningfully with grantees when providing the required pre-competition
assessment, the process will go more smoothly and the results will be
better. In addition, the process will be more efficient and more widely
supported if the report for each project includes input not only from
Corporation but from community representatives who actually work with,
and benefit from, RSVP as well.
Response: The Corporation agrees with this comment, as the process
for disseminating the pre-competition assessments to existing RSVP
grantees includes one-on-one consultation between state program
officers and grantee project directors, occurring upon the grantee's
receipt of the assessment, and is designed to ensure the grantee
receives appropriate technical assistance to maximize the effectiveness
of the assessment. Additionally, the Community Stakeholder Survey was
provided to all current grantees as a tool to measure how effectively
an RSVP project builds meaningful, interactive community partnerships
and identifies and addresses community needs from the perspective of
the project's community stakeholders. The survey is designed to be
completed by the group whom the grantee feels is the most appropriate.
Comment: Four comments stated support of the Corporation's
intention to enroll at least the same number of volunteers as were
supported during the previous grant cycle, but also inquired about the
sponsor's corresponding responsibilities. Specifically, a commenter
expressed concern about a sponsor's program responsibilities with
regard to maintaining the number of volunteers, stating that the
proposed language misinterprets Congressional intent in that the
commenter believes the language in the statute is directed to the
Corporation, not to the program sponsor.
Response: The Corporation believes that, as the grant-making
entity, it has the responsibility and authority to require a program
sponsor that is being replaced by a subsequent program sponsor to
maintain the current requirements concerning the maintenance of
volunteers and geographic service areas. The Corporation also maintains
that the statutory requirement is not mutually exclusive, in that both
the Corporation and project sponsors who are being replaced by
subsequent sponsors have separate, independent responsibilities, in
regard to the implementation of the competitive process, to ``make
every effort to minimize the disruption to volunteers.'' Therefore,
Sec. 2553.23(i) is merely the Corporation's implementation of this
Congressional mandate.
Comment: Six comments stated that grantees should be able to work
with the Corporation on the substance of the technical assistance
provided to grantees.
Response: The Corporation agrees with this comment and has
convened, and will continue to convene, a working group of project
directors to consult on many aspects of preparing for competition,
including technical assistance.
Comment: Six comments disagreed with the level of non-Corporation
matching funds, which requires current grantees to maintain their
required matching funds at a minimum of 30 percent of the total project
cost.
Response: The proposed policy of requiring non-Corporation matching
funds to be at a minimum of 30 percent of the total project cost when
the incumbent is awarded another grant reflects an internal alignment
with Corporation policy. The underlying rationale for the policy is
that the incumbent has already achieved a level of program operations
that supports the grant. New applicants are provided a comparable
opportunity to achieve the same level of program operations.
IV. Effective Dates
The final rule takes effect July 11, 2011.
V. Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866
The Corporation has determined that this rule is not an
``economically significant'' rule within the meaning of E.O. 12866
because it is not likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or an adverse and material effect on a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal
government or communities; (2) the creation of a serious inconsistency
or interference with an
[[Page 20246]]
action taken or planned by another agency; (3) a material alteration in
the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
the raising of novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
E.O. 12866. It is, however, a significant rule and has been reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O.
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits,
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory action''
although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of E.O.
12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605
(b), the Corporation certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This regulatory action will not result in (1) an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or
prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local
government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
Therefore, the Corporation has not performed the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis that is required under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., for major rules that are expected to have
such results.
Unfunded Mandates
For purposes of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, as well as Executive Order 12875, this
regulatory action does not contain any federal mandate that may result
in increased expenditures in either federal, state, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or impose an annual burden exceeding $100
million on the private sector.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no information collection requirements and is
therefore not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, Federalism, prohibits an agency from
publishing any rule that has Federalism implications if the rule either
imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local
governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state
law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements
of section 6 of the Executive Order. The rule does not have any
Federalism implications, as described above.
List of Subjects in Part 2553
Aged, Grant programs--social programs, Volunteers.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Corporation for
National and Community Service amends 45 CFR part 2553 as follows:
PART 2553--THE RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for part 2553 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4950 et seq.
0
2. Amend Sec. 2553.12 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (l) through (r) as paragraphs (m) through
(s) respectively; and
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 2553.12 Definitions.
* * * * *
(l) Performance measures. Indicators intended to help determine the
impact of an RSVP project on the community, including the volunteers.
Performance measures currently include, but are not limited to, the
following performance indicators:
(1) Output indicator. The amount or units of service that RSVP
volunteers have completed, or the number of people the project has
served. An output indicator does not provide information on benefits or
other changes in the lives of the volunteers or the people served.
(2) Outcome indicator. Specifies a change that has occurred in the
lives of the people served or the volunteers. It is an observable and
measurable indication of whether or not a project is making progress
toward its outcome target.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 2553.23 by adding new paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2553.23 What are a sponsor's program responsibilities?
* * * * *
(i) Minimize any disruption to RSVP volunteers when one sponsor is
replaced by another as a result of relinquishment, denial of refunding,
or recompetition of a grant.
(j) Make every effort to meet such performance measures as may be
established for the RSVP project by mutual agreement.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 2553.31 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 2553.31 What are the rules on suspension, termination and denial
of refunding of grants?
* * * * *
(c) Beginning in FY 2013, the procedures for suspension and
termination of RSVP grants, which are specified in 45 CFR part 1206,
shall continue to apply, but the procedures in part 1206 applicable to
denial of refunding of an RSVP grantee shall not apply to any grant
awarded through the competitive process described in Sec. 2553.71 of
this part.
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec. 2553.71 to read as follows:
Sec. 2553.71 What is the process for application and award of a
grant?
As funds become available, the Corporation solicits applications
for RSVP grants from eligible organizations through a competitive
process.
(a) What are the application requirements for an RSVP grant? An
applicant must:
(1) Submit required information determined by the Corporation.
(2) Demonstrate compliance with any applicable requirements
specified in the Notice of Funding Availability or Notice of Funding
Opportunity.
(b) What process does the Corporation use to select new RSVP
grantees? (1) The Corporation reviews and determines the merits of an
application by its responsiveness to published guidelines and to the
overall purpose and objectives of the program. In conducting its review
during the competitive process, the Corporation considers the input and
opinions of those serving on a peer review panel, including members
with expertise in
[[Page 20247]]
senior service and aging, and may conduct site inspections, as
appropriate.
(2) The selection process includes:
(i) Determining whether an application complies with the
application requirements, such as deadlines, eligibility, and
programmatic requirements, including performance measurement
requirements;
(ii) Applying published selection criteria, as stated in the
applicable Notice of Funding Availability or Notice of Funding
Opportunity, to assess the quality of the application;
(iii) Applying any applicable priorities or preferences, as stated
in the applicable Notice of Funding Availability or Notice of Funding
Opportunity;
(iv) Ensuring innovation and geographic, demographic, and
programmatic diversity across the Corporation's RSVP grantee portfolio;
and
(v) Identifying the applications that most completely respond to
the published guidelines and offer the highest probability of
successfully carrying out the overall purpose and objectives of the
program.
(c) How is a grant awarded? (1) Subject to the availability of
funds, the award will be documented by a Notice of Grant Award (NGA).
(2) The Corporation and the sponsoring organization are parties to
the NGA. The NGA will document the sponsor's commitment to fulfill
specific programmatic objectives and financial obligations. It will
document the extent of the Corporation's obligation to provide
assistance to the sponsor.
(d) What happens if the Corporation rejects an application? The
Corporation will return to the applicant an application that is not
approved for funding, informing the applicant of the Corporation's
decision.
(e) For what period of time does the Corporation award a grant? The
Corporation awards an RSVP grant for a specified period that is 3 years
in duration with an option for a grant renewal of 3 years, if the
grantee's performance and compliance with grant terms and conditions
are satisfactory. The Corporation will use the Denial of Refunding
procedures set forth in 45 CFR part 1206 to deny funding to a grantee
when the Corporation determines that the grant should not be renewed
for an additional 3 years.
(f) What assistance in preparation for competitive award of all
RSVP grants will the Corporation provide to sponsors who have
previously received a grant and whose grants are expiring in fiscal
year 2011, 2012, or 2013? (1) For each grant expiring in fiscal years
2011, 2012, or 2013, the Corporation will evaluate the grant, to the
maximum extent practicable, in fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012,
respectively.
(2) The evaluation will give particular attention to the different
needs of rural and urban projects, including those serving Native
American communities, and will evaluate the extent to which the sponsor
meets or exceeds performance measures, outcomes, and other criteria
established by the Corporation.
(3) To the maximum extent practicable, the Corporation will ensure
that each evaluation is conducted by a review team made up of trained
individuals who are knowledgeable about RSVP, including current or
former employees of the Corporation and representatives of communities
served by RSVP volunteers, who will provide their input and opinions
concerning each grant.
(4) The Corporation will use the evaluation findings as the basis
for providing recommendations for program improvement, and for the
provision of training and technical assistance.
(5) The evaluation will assess:
(i) The project's strengths and areas in need of improvement;
(ii) Whether the project has adequately addressed population and
community-wide needs;
(iii) The efforts of the project to collaborate with other
community-based organizations, units of government, and entities
providing services to seniors, taking into account barriers to such
collaboration that such programs may encounter;
(iv) The project's compliance with the program requirements for the
appropriate use of Federal funds as embodied in a protocol for fiscal
management;
(v) To what extent the project is in conformity with the
eligibility, outreach, enrollment, and other requirements for RSVP
projects; and
(vi) The extent to which the project is achieving other measures of
performance developed by the Corporation, in consultation with the
review team.
0
6. Add a new Subpart J to read as follows:
Subpart J--Performance Measures
Sec.
2553.100 What is the purpose of this subpart?
2553.101 What is the purpose of performance measurement?
2553.102 What performance measurement information must be part of an
application for funding under RSVP?
2553.103 Who develops the performance measures?
2553.104 What performance measures must be submitted to the
Corporation and how are these submitted?
2553.105 How are performance measures approved and documented?
2553.106 How does a sponsor report performance measures to the
Corporation?
2553.107 What must a sponsor do if it cannot meet its performance
measures?
2553.108 When may a sponsor change a project's performance measures?
2553.109 What happens if a sponsor fails to meet the performance
measures included in the Notice of Grant Award (NGA)?
Subpart J--Performance Measurement
Sec. 2553.100 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart sets forth the minimum performance measurement
requirements for Corporation-funded Retired and Senior Volunteer
Program (RSVP) projects.
Sec. 2553.101 What is the purpose of performance measurement?
The purpose of performance measurement is to strengthen the RSVP
project and foster continuous improvement. Reporting on performance
measures is used by the Corporation as part of assessing the impact of
the project on the community and on the accomplishment of the
objectives established in the Corporation's Strategic Plan. In
addition, as part of the competitive process, performance measures are
used to assess how an applicant for a grant approaches the design of
volunteer activities and the measurement of their impact on community
needs.
Sec. 2553.102 What performance measurement information must be part
of an application for funding under RSVP?
An application to the Corporation for funding under RSVP must
contain:
(a) Performance measures.
(b) Estimated performance data for the project years covered by the
application.
(c) Actual performance data, where available, for the preceding
completed project year.
Sec. 2553.103 Who develops the performance measures?
(a) An applicant is responsible for developing its own project-
specific performance measures.
(b) In addition, the Corporation may establish performance measures
that will apply to all Corporation-sponsored RSVP projects, which
sponsors will be responsible for meeting.
Sec. 2553.104 What performance measures must be submitted to the
Corporation and how are these submitted?
(a) An applicant for Corporation funds is required to submit at
least one of each
[[Page 20248]]
of the following types of performance measures as part of their
application. The Corporation will provide standard forms.
(1) Output indicators.
(2) Outcome indicators.
(b) An applicant must also submit any uniform performance measures
the Corporation may establish for all applicants.
(c) The Corporation may specify additional requirements relating to
performance measures on an annual basis in program guidance and related
materials.
Sec. 2553.105 How are performance measures approved and documented?
(a) The Corporation reviews and approves performance measures for
all applicants that apply for funding from the Corporation.
(b) An applicant must follow Corporation-provided guidance and
formats provided when submitting performance measures.
(c) Final performance measures, as negotiated between the applicant
and the Corporation, will be documented in the Notice of Grant Award
(NGA).
Sec. 2553.106 How does a sponsor report performance measures to the
Corporation?
The Corporation will set specific reporting requirements, including
frequency and deadlines, concerning performance measures established in
the grant award. A sponsor is required to report on the actual results
that occurred when implementing the grant and to regularly measure the
project's performance.
Sec. 2553.107 What must a sponsor do if it cannot meet its
performance measures?
Whenever a sponsor finds it is not on track to meet its performance
measures, it must develop a plan to get back on track or submit a
request to the Corporation to amend its performance measures. The
request must include all of the following:
(a) Why the project is not on track to meet its performance
requirements;
(b) How the project has been tracking performance measures;
(c) Evidence of corrective steps taken;
(d) Any new proposed performance measures; and
(e) A plan to ensure that the project will meet the new proposed
measure(s).
Sec. 2553.108 When may a sponsor change a project's performance
measures?
Performance measures may be changed only if the Corporation
approves the sponsor's request to do so.
Sec. 2553.109 What happens if a sponsor fails to meet the performance
measures included in the Notice of Grant Award (NGA)?
If a sponsor fails to meet a target performance measure established
in the NGA, the Corporation will negotiate a period of no more than one
year for meeting the performance measure. At that point, if the sponsor
still fails to meet the performance measure, the Corporation may take
one or more of the following actions:
(a) Reduce the amount of the grant;
(b) Suspend, terminate, or deny refunding of the grant, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 2553.31 of this part;
(c) Take this information into account in assessing any application
from the organization for a new grant or augmentation of an existing
grant under any program administered by the Corporation;
(d) Amend the terms of any Corporation grant to the organization;
or
(e) Take other actions that the Corporation deems appropriate.
Dated: April 5, 2011.
Wilsie Y. Minor,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-8556 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050-28-P