[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 34, Volume 3]
[Revised as of July 1, 2008]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 34CFR606.22]

[Page 242]
 
                           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
    (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]