1. (1) The project was postmarked on or before the due date;
2. (2) The project contains all essential parts, including (a) original copy, original signature of authorized official, (appropriate number of copies), signed assurances, approval by the Board of Education, data information, narrative, supporting documentation and appropriate budget forms; and

3. (3) Nonpublic involvement or sign-off per instructions are followed.

   (b) Category II—General criteria for all projects.

   Where appropriate, and according to grant type and status:

4. (1) The planning process.

   1. (i) appropriate groups and individuals involved are represented. Among those to be involved might be students, parents, school personnel, nonprofit private school representatives, including those with low incomes, and others broadly representative of the cultural and educational resources of the area to be served;
   2. (ii) specific planning events were documented that reflected adequate planning for the proposed projects;
   3. (iii) the best available talents and resources were utilized, including a description of contributions by agencies and organizations.

5. (2) Need.

   1. (i) the need is fundamentally educational, rather than financial, and reflects State priorities and programs designated for part C;
   2. (ii) the need for the program at the local level is documented;
   3. (iii) the target population is clearly identified and the program offered is appropriate to participants.
6. (3) Objectives. The objectives are clearly stated and, where appropriate, measurable.

7. (4) Activities.

   1. (i) activities are clearly stated and indicate time lines, due dates and persons participating in the activities;
   2. (ii) the equipment and materials which will facilitate achieving the stated objectives show a direct relationship to the proposed budget;
   3. (iii) work descriptions give clear pictures of what it will take to get the job done.
8. (5) Evaluation. The proposal contains evaluation strategies based on appropriate methodology which will provide evidence to determine the extent to which the behavior of the participants has been improved. The evaluation strategy appears to be reasonable for evaluating the activities and objectives.
9. (6) Budget. Provisions for budget of expenditures are adequate and appropriate; staff, facilities, equipment, and materials make a contribution to facilitating the achievement of stated objectives. The budget should not generally exceed the capacity of the district to continue support of the program after Federal funds are discontinued.

10. (7) Equitable distribution.

    1. (i) in the preparation of instructions to districts, the categories which have been established based on fiscal year 1976-78 program priority needs will be announced to the field. This will assure the continuation of equitable distribution among assessed needs of the past;
    2. (ii) instructions will specify those need areas where proposals will be expressly solicited and funded for urban, suburban and rural areas. This will assure equitable distribution among these categories;
    3. (iii) in addition, the technical assistance referred to in section 2302.33 of this Part will assure small and poor districts of special consideration for replication funding.

11. (c) Category III—General criteria for developer, validation, demonstration/replication grants.

    1. (1) Developer grants are those which develop new programs aimed at common needs and may be prepared as multi-year or continuation grants. Initially, the applicant would have to make a case that the program is based on the best known research, would be cost-effective and could be adopted by others if successful. There would be increased emphasis on evaluation of developer grants and increased supervision to assure developers are producing usable products. The applicant of a developer grant would be expected to serve as a demonstrator, if validated. The life of these grants would be from one to five years, depending upon their nature.

    2. (2) Criteria for developer projects:

       1. (i) evidence that the project is designed to demonstrate solutions to identified educational needs and will substantially increase the educational opportunities of children;
       2. (ii) the proposed solution is capable of solving the problem described and is cost-effective in terms of the district's ability to continue said program after initial costs are reduced or eliminated. The cost per pupil should be reasonable when compared to programs of a similar nature. Sources of funds to continue the program when title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act support ends are identified;
       3. (iii) there is an awareness of information concerning similar programs, relevant research findings, and views of recognized experts. The solution offers potential for improving existing programs and practices. The programs and practices to be changed or replaced are clearly identified;
       4. (iv) the project is innovative, i.e., new to the district;
       5. (v) there is a close relationship of the proposed program to the educational thrusts of the State as previously established;
       6. (vi) the program is likely to receive wide acceptance in similar educational settings;
       7. (vii) there is evidence presented that the cost of adopting the program in other districts, after development in the developer district, is a reasonable one;
       8. (viii) the district agrees to serve as a demonstration district if the project is validated.
    3. (3) Validation grants are one to two-year grants to cover evaluation costs for the purpose of validating an already existing program where there is not enough hard data for validation, and where it is believed the program might meet a priority need and meet validation standards. If appropriate, the applicant agrees to serve as a demonstrator if successfully validated.

    4. (4) Criteria for validation grant applicants:

       1. (i) determine and document the effectiveness/success of the program in operation;
       2. (ii) provide adequate information on the resource specifications of the ongoing program in such program areas as start-up costs, management costs, and operational costs per learner and per total program;
       3. (iii) provide evidence of the ongoing program's exportability, i.e., evidence that the ongoing program or practice is feasible to communicate to other school districts and can be adopted/adapted by other school districts with similar needs and environments.
    5. (5) Demonstration grants are given to validated programs to enable them to inform, assist, and train potential adopters. In general, any validated program is eligible for a demonstration grant. Which ones are funded will depend on needs and priorities. Those having developer grants will not have an obligation to disseminate. This will take place only on separate grants after validation. These grants may run from one to three years depending upon their success and effectiveness.

    6. (6) Criteria for demonstration grants. Though the validation exercise will have determined subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iv) of this paragraph, the program or practice to be demonstrated will be judged whether it is exemplary, as generally characterized by:

       1. (i) the extent the proposed demonstration program constitutes a comprehensive means of meeting a critical local or statewide educational need that is common to all or several school districts;
       2. (ii) the extent of the availability of those components required to implement the approach, including material products, training, detailed documentation regarding needs addressed, target population characteristics, staffing, institutional setting, parent and community involvement, objectives, procedures, activities, evaluation design, outcomes, and costs;
       3. (iii) the extent to which a wide range of school districts would find the approach practicable for adoption/adaption relative to instructional methodology, materials, equipment and facilities, management scheduling, and assessment;
       4. (iv) the availability of statistically significant evidence that in any previous implementation of the approach with comparable groups, the approach demonstrated a high degree of success in the achievement of its major objectives, and has been formally validated.
    7. (7) Replication supplementary grants are small grants to aid a district, especially the less-able-to-compete, to adopt or adapt a national (JDRP) or State demonstration project. These grants pay start-up costs and, generally, not operating costs. They test whether validated (developer-demonstrator) projects are actually transferable. These are scattered among the various regions and types of districts in the State.

    8. (8) Criteria for replication supplementary grants:

       1. (i) the extent to which the applicant agency provides evidence that it has a concentration of students with deficiencies in the area of the educational practice to be adopted/adapted;
       2. (ii) the extent to which the district can provide the necessary human and material resources using local (or State) funds to implement the exemplary program;
       3. (iii) the extent to which the application describes a workable plan for adopting/adapting the exemplary program;
       4. (iv) the extent to which the application presents a cohesive plan to initiate evaluation of the effect, implementation and design of the exemplary program, meeting the standards for a validation grant.

(a) Category I—Criteria for screening.