[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 34, Volume 3]

[Revised as of July 1, 2005]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 34CFR606.22]



[Page 227-228]

 

                           TITLE 34--EDUCATION

 

 CHAPTER VI--OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 

PART 606_DEVELOPING HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS PROGRAM--Table of 

Contents

 

             Subpart C_How Does the Secretary Make an Award?

 

Sec. 606.22  What are the selection criteria for development grants?



    The Secretary evaluates an application for a development grant on 

the basis of the criteria in this section.

    (a) Quality of the applicant's comprehensive development plan. The 

extent to which--

    (1) The strengths, weaknesses, and significant problems of the 

institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal 

stability are clearly and comprehensively analyzed and result from a 

process that involved major constituencies of the institution;

    (2) The goals for the institution's academic programs, institutional 

management, and fiscal stability are realistic and based on 

comprehensive analysis;

    (3) The objectives stated in the plan are measurable, related to 

institutional goals, and, if achieved, will contribute to the growth and 

self-sufficiency of the institution; and



[[Page 228]]



    (4) The plan clearly and comprehensively describes the methods and 

resources the institution will use to institutionalize practice and 

improvements developed under the proposed project, including, in 

particular, how operational costs for personnel, maintenance, and 

upgrades of equipment will be paid with institutional resources.

    (b) Quality of activity objectives. The extent to which the 

objectives for each activity are--

    (1) Realistic and defined in terms of measurable results; and

    (2) Directly related to the problems to be solved and to the goals 

of the comprehensive development plan.

    (c) Quality of implementation strategy. The extent to which--

    (1) The implementation strategy for each activity is comprehensive;

    (2) The rationale for the implementation strategy for each activity 

is clearly described and is supported by the results of relevant studies 

or projects; and

    (3) The timetable for each activity is realistic and likely to be 

attained.

    (d) Quality of key personnel. The extent to which--

    (1) The past experience and training of key professional personnel 

are directly related to the stated activity objectives; and

    (2) The time commitment of key personnel is realistic.

    (e) Quality of project management plan. The extent to which--

    (1) Procedures for managing the project are likely to ensure 

efficient and effective project implementation; and

    (2) The project coordinator and activity directors have sufficient 

authority to conduct the project effectively, including access to the 

president or chief executive officer.

    (f) Quality of evaluation plan. The extent to which--

    (1) The data elements and the data collection procedures are clearly 

described and appropriate to measure the attainment of activity 

objectives and to measure the success of the project in achieving the 

goals of the comprehensive development plan; and

    (2) The data analysis procedures are clearly described and are 

likely to produce formative and summative results on attaining activity 

objectives and measuring the success of the project on achieving the 

goals of the comprehensive development plan.

    (g) Budget. The extent to which the proposed costs are necessary and 

reasonable in relation to the project's objectives and scope.



(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 

1840-0114)



(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.)



[64 FR 70147, Dec. 15, 1999, as amended at 70 FR 13373, Mar. 21, 2005]