Alaska Native Education Program (ANEP) Technical Assistance Meeting September 2014

1. Alaska Native Education Program (ANEP)Technical Assistance MeetingSeptember 2014 Sylvia E. Lyles Valerie Randall Almita Reed

2. Agenda • Program Overview and Program Funding • Grants making process • Rules, policies, statutory requirements • Office of General Counsel’s roles/responsibilities • Selection criteria/grants making procedures • No harm to the public trust • Review of the competition • Reviewers, monitors, facilitators • Review process (over view) • Application review process • Competition scores • Review of the Selection Criteria (audience participation)

3. Program Overview and Program Funding • Eligible entities • Alaska Native organizations • Educational entities with experience in developing or operating Alaska Native education programs • Cultural entities and CBOs with experience in developing or offering programs to benefit Alaska Natives • Consortia of organizations and entities thus described • Basic purpose and description of the program • The impact of the ANO - Requirement to consult with an ANO; SEAs/LEAs must apply as a consortia • Funding level • Priority for Alaska Native Organizations • Types of projects

4. Grants making process - Rules, policies, statutory requirements • Basic grants making principles • The Notice Inviting Applications (NIA) establishes the rules for a competition – must be followed by all • Consistent application of grants making practices • No harm to the public trust • Grant scores awarded by independent reviewers with no influence or involvement by Federal employees • Scores are input into the G5 system and are calculated through the system • Statutory requirements must be applied and followed throughout the process • The Secretary approves all new awards

5. Grants making process - Rules, policies, statutory requirements (cont’d) Office of General Counsel’s roles/ responsibilities • Works with the program office to ensure statutory requirements are met • Reviews decisions made by the program office • Consults with senior leadership on policies that could impact grants making across the agency • Reviews the slate memo to ensure compliance • Participates in reviews conducted by the Office of the Inspector General Selection criteria/grants making procedures • Created through rule making or through the EDGAR • Used to select applicants • Established by policy and followed in all grants making processes across the agency No harm to the public trust

6. Review of the Competition • Reviewers, monitors, facilitators • Reviewers selected through a “call to the field” • No conflict of interest • Variety of experience – education, cultural, professional • Panel consists of a mix of novice, experienced reviewers, and researchers • Background in education and experience working with children • Review process (overview) • NIA and application package published (Jan-March) • Reviewers trained • Webinar(s) held with potential applicants • Technical Review Plan approved – describes how we will conduct the review • Competition held (electronic, on-site, or hybrid) – two-three weeks • Budgets reviewed and scores input into G5 • Slate memo prepared and approved through a comprehensive review process at ED

7. Review of the Competition (cont’d) • Application review process (what happens behind closed doors) • Cultural expert consulted • Reviewers assigned 7-10 applications • Reviewers convene to discuss each application and each criterion to reach consensus; enter scores and comments into the G5 system • Monitors/facilitators ensure all reviewers have an opportunity to participate; answer questions; ensure all reviewers are fulfilling their roles/responsibilities • Federal employees ensure comments represent or align to scores • Competition scores • Range from 100 to over 200, depending on a program’s criteria (normally 100-130 for ANEP) • Raw scores computed by the G5 system - slate of scores • Define the funding range – ED funds down the slate of scores until all funds are exhausted • May result in a tie – handled in a number of different ways, depending on many circumstances • ED may not fund pass a score of 85, depending on the total number of possible scores

8. Review of past selection criteria(audience participation) Alaska Native Education Program

9. Need for project (20) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses (20 points).

10. Need for the project (cont’d) • What information would you include in your application to demonstrate the need for the project? • Data that represents a gap • Description of the people who will be served and the current state of affairs • Evidence that a problem exists or that there is a need • Stated results or outcomes that the project will achieve to help improve the situation

11. Quality of the project design • How would you demonstrate quality of the project design? • Describe the project goals and objectives as they relate to the activities outlined in the application package • Align the measures to the project outcomes • State the indicators of success (how will you know you reached the goals?) • Describe the data to be collected, when it will be collected, and how it will be analyzed • Describe the business and educational practices that will drive implementation • Identify the theory/theories related to the practice

12. Quality of the project design (20 points) • In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors: • The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable (10 points). • The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c) (10 points).

13. Quality of project services (40 points) • In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age or disability (20 points). • In addition, the Secretary considers the extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services (20 points).

14. Quality of project services (cont’d) • Audience participation • How will you demonstrate in your application the quality of the project services that you propose to offer in your project?

15. Quality of the management plan Quality of the management plan (30 points) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors: • The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (15 points). • The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project (15 points).

16. Quality of the management plan (cont’d) • Describe the elements of your plan that demonstrates the quality of the management plan…

17. Question and Answers • Contact Ms. Almita Reed 202-260-1979 Email: almita.reed@ed.gov