out-prone students. These changes merit attention as a product outcome as much as a score on a standardized achievement test, particularly in determining conditions necessary for project replication in other situations.

(3) Project planners should also insure that all target groups participating in the program are included in the statement of performance objectives. In too many instances, there is a tendency for planners to develop objectives only for target student groups. However, a dropout prevention program, in order to be comprehensive, should not be focused exclusively on students. Teachers, administrator, and community residents are often the recipients of program treatment or activities, and changes in their performance are, therefore, appropriate goals for program planners' consideration.

(20 U.S.C. 887(b)(3); 45 CFR 124.5(c))

Sec. 6.4 Development of objectives.

In order to assist the project manager in developing adequate measurable performance objectives, the following questions relating to each of the basic management functions have been included as suggestions for eliciting the type of information that will be useful in this task.

(a) Planning and organizing. (1) Was the needs assessment conducted by a broadly based planning group which provided a variety of perspectives on the problem?

(2) Where individuals and groups to be affected by the project's operation involved in the planning of activities which will affect them?

(3) Are the needs assessment data reflected in the project priorities and component activities?

(4) Were alternative approaches to meeting specified needs considered?

(5) Were special efforts made to gain the support of individuals or groups whose anticipated reaction to the program is negative or neutral?

(6) Were performance objectives for both product outcomes and operational processes established for each component?

(7) Were work breakdown structures and work flow networks developed for each component and the entire project?

(8) Were the needs for technical assistance identified and the appropriate services secured and utilized?

(9) Were alternative resources identified in the event that selected contractors, consultants, or suppliers did not provide services according to specifications?

(b) Installing and operating. (1) Did important prerequisite actions such as staff training take place before component activities were initiated?

(2) Were all staff positions filled in time for program operation to begin as planned and on schedule?

(3) Were student selection and scheduling procedures completed so that students were ready to enter program activities on the target date?

(4) Were the services and products of contractors provided according to specifications so that component activities could begin as planned?

(5) Were the facilities readied for operation on schedule and were the equipment and materials available to the project staff when needed?

(6) Was sufficient authority delegated so that project staff could carry out its responsibilities effectively?

(7) Did the project director have the decision-making authority necessary to carry out program plans and did he exercise his authority effectively?

(8) When performance deficiencies were noted, did the project director take prompt and decisive corrective action?

(9) Did the project director receive the needed support of services, personnel, and leadership from within the school system, and did he effectively utilize available resources?

(10) Were staff positions developed and assigned so that the workload was allocated reasonably?

(c) Communicating. (1) Did program staff provide the director with timely information on problems so that solutions could be developed and implemented as quickly as possible?

(2) Did the staff organizational pattern facilitate communication (i) among the project staff, (ii) between staff and school system administration, and (iii) between project staff and the community groups?

(3) Did the project director consult with those to be affected by a change in the program plan and allow for feedback and further modification before the revised plan was implemented:

(4) Were the types of media selected for communication purposes determined by the type of information to be presented and the specific target audience?

(5) Did the communication system provide a mechanism for the continuous flow of ideas and suggestions from those involved with and concerned about the project to the project director?

(6) Was a mechanism established for the periodic review and dissemination of information about the status of the project?

(d) Evaluating. (1) Was technical assistance utilized effectively in the development of evaluation procedures when identified areas of weakness existed?

(2) Were the evaluation responsibilities clearly assigned?

(3) Were evaluation techniques and instruments determined as an integral part of the performance objective development process?

(4) Were the baseline data secured prior to the initiation of program activities which might affect the validity of evaluation data? (5) Were the evaluation procedures coordinated with the program verification process?

(6) Were the evaluation findings utilized appropriately by the project staff in adjusting or modifying program operations to correct problems?

(20 U.S.C. 887(b)(3); 45 CFR 124.5(c))

PART 7-COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION DESIGN

Sec. 7.1 Purpose.

(a) A comprehensive evaluation design through which the school system can assess the degree to which the project objectives have been achieved is an integral part of the overall program design. (See section 124.5(c) of the regulations.) The purpose of the evaluation is to determine how well each component and the entire project function within the established framework of time, cost, and objectives. If well planned and operated, the evaluation system should result in information which communicates clearly whether the standards of performance specified in the objectives have been met to a degree greater than, equal to, or less than the predetermined standards and why. The task of designing the evaluation plan is both complex and multifaceted. Each component and the total project involves the evaluation of product, operational process, and management process goals.

(b) As one of his primary management responsibilities, the project director oversees the design and implementation of the evaluation plan. Many districts may find it necessary to hire consultants or to seek the help of an outside technical assistance group for the planning, installation, or operation of the evaluation system, particularly if the program requires newly developed instruments or techniques.

(20 U.S.C. 887(b)(3))

Sec. 7.2 Components.

The evaluation design (briefly discussed in section 2.4) to be presented in the formal application should include at least the following components. Although the following suggestions are not comprehensive, they may serve as a general guide for the description of each component.

(a) Performance to be measured. (1) The formation of the evaluation design is inextricably linked to the development of performance objectives. (Part 6) If performance objectives are developed both for prod

uct outcomes and for operational and management processes, a major part of the task will be accomplished, since the expected behaviors, the measurement instruments, the conditions of measurement, and the minimum levels of acceptable performance should be specified within these objectives. (2) Following a careful review of the objectives to verify that each one contains the basic elements (section 6.3), those responsible for designing the evaluation should assist the project planners in strengthening any objectives which require greater specificity, refinement, or the addition of omitted elements.

(b) Measurement instruments and techniques. (1) The evaluation instrument for each objective should be identified and described briefly. Standardized tests, questionaires, rating scales, interviews, observation schedules, and interest inventories may be among the instruments selected. It is recommended that the instruments be matched as closely as possible to the objectives and that the validity and reliability of each instrument be ascertained prior to its use. If new instruments are to be developed, a plan for their design and pretesting should be included.

(2) (i) Since the validity of the evaluation process may be affected if the appropriate prerequisite data on the target population are not secured or available at the beginning of the program, baseline data on ability and achievement levels, socio-economic status, attitudes, and other characteristics of project participants may be needed in many cases for accurate measurement of the attainment of project performance objectives.

(ii) The process of establishing baseline data is a task of some magnitude and requires skill on the part of project planners. Questions of appropriateness of objectives, timeliness of collection, sensitivity or responsiveness to short-term change, reliability and objectivity of data, and comparability of data-gathering situations are some of the considerations which program planners may take into account as they formulate their evaluation designs.

(3) In the case of process evaluation, program planners should consider various approaches toward establishing a standard against which operational and management processes can be measured. For example, (i) Does the process exist? (ii) Is the process the most effective one known as compared with the best practice, determined by recognized authorities? (iii) Is the process more effective than similar processes used in other school system projects or operations?

(4) The evaluation techniques should also be described clearly. Those who design the evaluation should determine whether traditional pretest and post-test techniques may be used to measure some of the objectives,

for example, and if so, on what basis the scores and ratings will be evaluated.

(c) Data collection procedures. It is suggested that the plan for the collection of evaluation data should cover the appropriate budget period and should include the complete evaluation schedule, the target populations to be measured, those responsible for arranging and administering the measurements, and any conditions of measurement not specified in the objectives. Procedures for the selection and training of testers, observers, or interviewers should be described. Charts and diagrams may prove to be helpful tools in the planning and organization of data collection procedures and in the coordination of these procedures with the plans for periodic reviews of the data by the independent educational accomplishment auditor.

(20 U.S.C. 887(b)(3); 45 CFR 124.5(c))

PART 8-EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM VERIFICATION

Sec. 8.1 Purpose.

An educational program verification is an external evaluation by qualified outside technical personnel who are not directly involved in the planning or operation of the project. The verification is designed (a) to verify the results of the evaluation of an educational program and (b) to assess the appropriateness of evaluation procedures for determining the effectiveness of program procedures. Assuming that the evaluation is complete, relevent, and valid and that it includes procedures for assessing product, process, and program management, an educational verification should provide an added measure of objectivity for the conclusions reached through the evaluation process, and may also identify weaknesses in the evaluation procedures and offer ideas for correcting such weaknesses in succeeding phases of the project.

(20 U.S.C. 887(b)(3); 45 CFR 124.5(d))

Sec. 8.2 Suggested procedures.

(a) Program examiners. Soon after a preapplication proposal is selected for further development, the applicant should contact and establish liaison with one or more prospective educational program examiners. When the district has tentatively selected an examiner, arrangements should be made for services to be provided by him during the developmental period. If the local educational agency has been awarded a developmental grant, some of the funds from this grant can be used to pay for the services of an examiner on a consultant basis.

(b) Preliminary procedures. (1) As one of the first of his activities during the developmental period, the examiner should familiarize himself thoroughly with the intent

and policies of the dropout prevention program and with the proposed objectives and project activities which the applicant presented in the preapplication proposal. The local district should provide all pertinent documents to the examiner early in the developmental period.

(2) (i) A major function of the examiner during this developmental period is his conduct of an examination of the proposed evaluation system to determine whether it provides a basis for an adequate educational verification of the project. The examiner should determine, for example, whether the baseline data, the types of instruments to be used, and the quantity of evaluation data to be collected are adequate and whether instruments and procedures are included for the evaluation of product, operational process, and management process objectives.

(ii) While the examination is being conducted, the outside examiner should work closely with the prospective project evaluator as well as with the planning director and his staff. The examiner should be given draft materials for the formal proposal as they are developed and copies of specific evaluation instruments as they are selected or designed. In making his critique of the proposed evaluation design, the examiner must be careful to maintain objectivity and detachment, lest he later find himself in the position of auditing his own work. Designing and modifying the evaluation system is not his function.

(3) The verification plan and a performance contract for the operational period also should be developed during the developmental period.

(c) Evaluation of documents. (1) Throughout the project period, the local school district should provide the examiner with project evaluation documents at scheduled times. Prior to his onsite visits, the examiner needs adequate time for a detailed analysis of the evaluation documents, the formulation of questions to be raised with the project director and the evaluator, and the determination of the specific sampling to be conducted during the visit. In turn, the local educational agency will generally need time to arrange and confirm with the examiner his onsite visit schedule. Since it is obvious that the examiner cannot possibly examine all of the project evaluative data, he will need to work largely from tabulations, data analyses, and written interpretations and summaries of the evaluation made available to him by the local educational agency during the project period.

(2) In addition to providing the examiner with the evaluation reports, the local educational agency should submit to him a description of the data analysis techniques and procedures used by the project evaluator, any recommendations for revisions of the evaluation design which have been pro

posed as a result of a particular phase of the evaluation cycle, and any recommendations for program modifications which have been suggested as a result of the evaluation.

(d) Onsite visits. (1) The examiner's review of the written documents prior to his visit will establish a framework for the scope and emphases of his onsite work, which may consist largely of spot checking and sampling what has been reported in the documents. The critique of the evaluation reports is an important preliminary activity, but it is through the onsite visits that the examiner can actually verify the results of the evaluation and assess the appropriateness of the evaluation procedures.

(2) Before concluding his onsite visit, the examiner should discuss any major discrepancy findings with the local educational agency, so that procedures for their correction and for appropriate follow-up activities by the examiner can be established as soon as possible. If, for example, some phase of the evaluation had not been completed on schedule and, therefore, could not be verified, the examiner might plan to verify that phase at a later date; or if the procedures for some phase of the evaluation are to be modified substantially, a reexamination of that phase might be appropriate at some time prior to the next regularly scheduled complete verification.

(e) Reports. (1) The major task of the examiner after he completes his onsite visit is the preparation of verification reports, which should include his comments, critiques and recommendations with regard to the project evaluation.

(2) It is recommended that an interim and a final report be written initially as draft documents, to be presented to and discussed with the local educational agency prior to formal submission to the appropriate local personnel and in turn to the Office of Education. Provision for a meeting to discuss the draft audit report would enable both the examiner and the local educational agency to raise final questions concerning its content, accuracy, and completeness. The meeting can serve as the occasion for a review of the entire educational program verification process and the degree to which both have fulfilled their responsibilities. (20 U.S.C. 887(b)(3); 45 CFR 124.5(d))

PART 9-DISSEMINATION

Sec. 9.1 Purpose.

An effective dissemination program is vital to the success of the Dropout Prevention Program and to the success of each project. Since the Dropout Prevention Program is a demonstration program which seeks to develop models that can be emulated and adapted across the Nation, it is important that validated information about

these projects be widely disseminated. The educational community should be made aware of these projects and their progress so that successful approaches and solutions can be shared, mistakes avoided, and cooperative efforts stimulated. The general public should also be made aware of these efforts to find solutions to the school dropout problem, since public understanding of the project and support for it are essential to its continuation and expansion.

(20 U.S.C. 887(a); 45 CFR 124.16)

APPENDIX A-DROPOUT PREVENTION
PROJECTS

MODIFIED APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND FUNDING CRITERIA FOR FISCAL YEAR 1976 (a) Funding criteria. In awarding grants from fiscal year 1976 funds for Dropout Prevention projects pursuant to Pub. L. 89–10, section 807 (20 U.S.C. 887) and Title 45 CFR Part 124, the Commissioner of Education will give priority to projects which rank high based on the criteria set forth in Title 45 Part 100a and section 100a.26, and Part 124, section 124.15, and which, in addition, are designed to assist dropout and potential dropout students in selecting and pursuing gainful careers. With respect to the project's potential for assisting dropout and potential dropout students in selecting and pursuing gainful careers, the following factors will be considered:

(1) The extent to which the project provides for integration into the applicant's existing academic curriculum of career-oriented subject matter, career counseling, and occupational placement;

(2) The adequacy of the applicant's proposal for developing career-oriented curriculum materials, techniques for implementing these materials, and career-oriented field experiences for students;

(3) The extent to which the project provides for consultation with parents with respect to project activities;

(4) The extent to which the project provides for consultation by the applicant with a cross-section of business, industrial, and community leaders and representatives of educational institutions with respect to career developments;

(5) The extent to which the project provides for the contribution by the business and industrial community with respect to occupational placement, technical advice, and funds;

(6) The extent to which the project's model is susceptible of being adopted by other local educational agencies;

(7) The extent to which the applicant will consult with organizations and associations (in addition to those listed in items (4) and (5)) which have demonstrated experience in one or more of items (1) through (6). (20 U.S.C. 887)

(b) Modified application procedure.

Applicants for grants to be funded pursuant to Pub. L. 89-10, section 807 from fiscal year 1976 appropriations are not required to submit a preapplication proposal as set forth in Title 45 CFR, Part 124, sections 124.3 and 124.4. Grants under section 807 from fiscal year 1976 appropriations will be awarded to local educational agencies only upon submission to the Commissioner of an application for assistance which has been approved by the appropriate State agency as required by Title 45 CFR Part 124, section 124.4, and which meets the requirements of Title 45 CFR Part 124, sections 124.5 and 124.6.

(20 U.S.C. 887, 1221c(a))

§ 127.1 Scope and purpose.

(a) The regulations set forth in this part are applicable to demonstration project grants under Section 808 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, to improve school health and nutrition services and activities for children from low-income families.

(b) Grants may be made under this part to local educational agencies and, under exceptional circumstances, to nonprofit private educational organizations to support demonstration projects designed to improve health and nutrition services in public and private

(1) By more effectively coordinating programs providing such services so that:

(i) Project target school personnel, parents, and community service providers jointly develop a comprehensive school based system of assessment and response to the health, nutrition and related educational needs of children from low-income families;

(ii) The school plays a major role in implementing a design for the early detection and removal of health- and nutrition-related barriers to a child's optimum development; and

(iii) The community service providers, particularly federally-assisted health, mental health, and nutrition programs, become an integral part of the response system by more effectively focusing the delivery of their services to children from low-income families; and (2) By providing supplemental health and nutrition services when necessary.

(d) Projects assisted under this part shall be designed for continuous operation throughout the calendar year, except where local conditions warrant a partial reduction of services under the program during the summer months.

(e) Assistance provided under this part is subject to applicable provisions contained in Subchapter A of this chapter (relating to fiscal, administrative, property management, and other matters).

(20 U.S.C. 887a; Sen. Rept. No. 634, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. 60 (1970))

§ 127.2 Definitions.

As used in this part:

"Children and Youth Project" means a center providing pediatric services which is supported by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under the authority of Section 509 of Title V of the Social Secu