To  determine the extent to which Promise grants enabled collaboration at the  local level, we used GAO’s prior work on enhancing collaboration in  interagency groups as criteria. We  received responses from all 48 grantees. 1). Types of Grants

The Promise program relies on a two-phase strategy for awarding grants,  which includes both one-year planning grants and three- to five-year  implementation grants. Education’s Grant Strategy Aligns with Promise Goals, but Education Has Not Clearly Communicated Expectations for Planning Grants

		Grant Requirements Enabled Education to Identify Organizations with Potential to Coordinate Student Services

The planning and implementation grant activities that Education  developed for the Promise program generally align with Education’s goal  of significantly improving the educational and developmental outcomes of  children and youth in the nation’s most distressed communities. According to Education officials, the planning grant award process  enabled them to identify community-based organizations in distressed  neighborhoods with the potential to effectively coordinate the continuum  of services for students living in the neighborhood. Through a separate competition, Education identified organizations that  application reviewers determined were most ready to implement their  plans. However, Education did not communicate clearly to planning  grantees about the probability of receiving an implementation grant and  its expectations for grantees to continue their efforts without  implementation funding. 4). Some grantees also said there was a disconnect between the planning  and the implementation grant application processes. Education officials told us that they viewed the  planning grant activities as useful in themselves. For example, they told  us that the planning process offers rich data and begins the process of  bringing together partners and breaking down silos. However, Education did not require grantees to  have matching funds in-hand before submitting their applications. Promise Neighborhoods Program Coordinates with Some Programs with Related Goals but Has No Inventory of Related Programs

		Promise Program Coordinates Closely with Some Related Federal Programs to Align Grants

In an effort to target its resources and align the Promise program goals  with those of other place-based initiatives, the Promise program  coordinates closely with a limited number of federal programs within  Education and with other federal programs as part of the White House  Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (NRI).The NRI is an interagency  coordinating body that aligns place-based programs run by HUD, HHS,  Justice, and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) (see fig. 5). In coordinating within Education and with NRI, Education’s efforts are  focused on ensuring that grants are mutually reinforcing. These  coordination activities include aligning goals, developing common  performance measures where there are common purposes, and sharing  technical assistance resources in areas where programs address similar  issues or fund similar activities. However, Education has not developed an inventory of federal programs  that could contribute to Promise program goals that it could share with  planning and implementation grantees and use to make its own decisions  about coordination across agencies. Further, Education lacks complete  information to inform decisions about future federal coordination efforts  and identify potential fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. Education requires implementation grantees to report annually on their  performance using 15 indicators. In addition, Promise grantees are required to develop a longitudinal data  system to collect information on the individuals served, services provided  in the cradle-to-career continuum, and the related outcomes.are expected to use the longitudinal data to evaluate their programs on an   Grantees  ongoing basis and make adjustments to their strategies and services, as  discussed later in this report. In commenting on a draft of this report, Education stated it must  first conduct a systematic examination of the reliability and validity of the  data to determine whether it can be used for a descriptive study and a  restricted-use data set. Grantees Collaborate to Deliver a Range of Services

Grantees and partners provided examples of how they have collaborated  through the Promise grant to deliver services and supports that are  intended to improve educational and developmental outcomes. 2. 3. Develop a plan to use the data collected from grantees to conduct a  national evaluation of the program. The survey  included questions about the clarity and helpfulness of the application and  peer review process, challenges sustaining efforts after the end of the  planning grant, coordination of federal resources, collaboration with local  organizations and associated challenges, the extent to which local  coordination reduced duplication, overlap and fragmentation, if at all, the  mechanisms organizations use to track the results of their efforts, the  results of the grants, and the helpfulness of Education’s guidance and  resources for the program. We also interviewed Education officials and technical  assistance providers, as well as other experts who have worked with  Promise grant applicants, such as the Promise Neighborhoods Institute. To determine how well the structure of Education’s Promise  Neighborhoods grant program aligns with program goals and how  Education selected grantees, using Education’s goals for the Promise  program as criteria, we reviewed Education reports on place-based  strategies; relevant Federal Register notices; and application guidance  and training materials, including both the guidance available to applicants  and to the peer reviewers regarding the technical evaluation/grant  selection process.
Why GAO Did This Study

Education's Promise Neighborhoods program is a competitive grant program with goals to improve educational and developmental outcomes for children in distressed neighborhoods. The grants fund community-based organizations' efforts to work with local partners to develop and evaluate a cradle-to-career continuum of services in a designated geographic footprint. As it is one of several federal programs using this model GAO was asked to review the program.
This report examines: (1) the extent to which Education's strategy for awarding grants aligns with program goals; (2) how Education aligns Promise Neighborhoods efforts with other related programs; (3) how Education evaluates grantees' efforts; and (4) the extent to which grants have enabled collaboration at the local level, and the results of such collaboration.
GAO reviewed Federal Register notices, applications, and guidance; surveyed all 48 grantees on the application process, coordination of resources, collaboration, and early results; visited 11 grantees selected based on geography and grant type; and interviewed Education officials and technical assistance providers.

What GAO Found

The Department of Education (Education) used a two-phase strategy for awarding Promise Neighborhoods (Promise) grants, and aligned grant activities with program goals. Education awarded 1-year planning grants to organizations with the potential to effectively align services for students in their respective neighborhoods. Planning grants were generally intended to enhance the grantees' capacity to plan a continuum of services. Through a separate competition, Education awarded 5-year implementation grants to organizations that demonstrated they were most ready to implement their plans. However, Education did not communicate clearly to grantees about its expectations for the planning grants and the likelihood of receiving implementation grants. As a result, some grantees experienced challenges sustaining momentum in the absence or delay of implementation grant funding.
The Promise program coordinates with related federal efforts primarily through a White House initiative that brings together neighborhood grant programs at five federal agencies. The Promise program's efforts are focused on ensuring that grants are mutually reinforcing by aligning goals, developing common performance measures, and sharing technical assistance resources. While Promise grantees incorporate a wide range of federal programs in their local strategies, Education coordinates with a more limited number of federal programs. Officials told us that they do this to avoid spreading program resources too thin. Further, Education did not develop an inventory of the federal programs that share Promise goals, a practice that could assist grantees; help officials make decisions about interagency coordination; and identify potential fragmentation, overlap, and duplication.
Education requires Promise grantees to develop information systems and collect extensive data, but it has not developed plans to evaluate the program. Specifically, implementation grantees must collect data on individuals they serve, services they provide, and related outcomes and report annually on multiple indicators. However, Education stated it must conduct a systematic examination of the reliability and validity of the data to determine whether it will be able to use the data for an evaluation. Absent an evaluation, Education cannot determine the viability and effectiveness of the Promise program's approach.
The Promise grant enabled grantees and their partners to collaborate in ways that align with leading practices GAO previously identified for enhancing collaboration among interagency groups including establishing common outcomes, leveraging resources, and tracking performance. For example, Education required grantees to work with partners to develop common goals and a plan to use existing and new resources to meet identified needs in target areas. Grantees were also required to leverage resources by committing funding from multiple sources. Implementation grantees were required to collect and use data to track performance. Some planning grantees used a leading collaborative strategy not required by Education that produced early benefits. For example, several grantees and partners told us they completed easily achievable projects during the planning year to help build momentum and trust. Grantees told us that collaboration yielded benefits, including deeper relationships with partners, such as schools, as well as the ability to attract additional funding. However, grantees also said they faced some challenges collaborating with partners, particularly in overcoming privacy concerns related to data collection.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Education communicate grant expectations more clearly, identify federal resources that can contribute to the program's goals, and develop a strategy for evaluation. In commenting on a draft of this report, Education outlined the steps it will take to respond to recommendations.