Grants to States To Improve Management of Drug and Violence Prevention Programs, 34107-34109 [05-11653]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 112 / Monday, June 13, 2005 / Notices
ATTN: DP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road,
Stop 2533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–
6221, or the Privacy Act Officer of the
particular DLA field activity involved.
Official mailing addresses are published
as an appendix to DLA’s compilation of
systems of records notices.
Individuals should provide their full
name, Social Security Number, current
address, telephone number, and office
or organization where currently
assigned, if applicable.
RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
Individuals seeking access to
information about themselves contained
in this system of records should address
written inquiries to the Privacy Act
Officer, Defense Logistics Agency,
ATTN: DP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road,
Stop 2533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–
6221, or the Privacy Act Officer of the
particular DLA field activity involved.
Official mailing addresses are published
as an appendix to DLA’s compilation of
systems of records notices.
Individuals should provide their full
name, Social Security Number, current
address, telephone number, and office
or organization where currently
assigned, if applicable.
CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:
The DLA rules for accessing records,
for contesting contents and appealing
initial agency determinations are
contained in 32 CFR part 323, or may
be obtained from the Privacy Act
Officer, Headquarters, Defense Logistics
Agency, ATTN: DP, 8725 John J.
Kingman Road, Stop 2533, Fort Belvoir,
VA 22060–6221.
RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
Existing DLA and DFAS databases.
EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:
None.
[FR Doc. 05–11634 Filed 6–10–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Grants to States To Improve
Management of Drug and Violence
Prevention Programs
Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities and
requirements.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy
Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free
Schools announces priorities and
requirements under the Safe and DrugFree Schools and Communities Act
(SDFSCA) National Programs for Grants
to States to Improve Management of
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:45 Jun 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
Drug and Violence Prevention Programs.
We may use one or more of these
priorities and requirements for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2005
and later years. We take this action to
focus Federal financial assistance on an
identified national need. We intend the
priorities and requirements to facilitate
the development, enhancement, or
expansion of the capacity of States and
other entities that receive SDFSCA State
Grants program funds to collect,
analyze, and use data to improve the
management of drug and violence
prevention programs.
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities
and requirements are effective July 13,
2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maria Worthen, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
room 3E234, Washington, DC 20202–
6450. Telephone: (202) 205–5632 or via
Internet: maria.worthen@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), you may call
the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–
800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities may
obtain this document in an alternative
format (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on
request to the contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
States and
their local communities are
implementing a variety of programs,
activities, and strategies designed to
prevent youth drug use and violence in
schools. Just as policymakers, education
professionals, and parents seek reliable
information about student academic
progress, stakeholders also need
sufficient information and data to assess
the nature of youth drug and violence
prevention problems in their
communities, select research-based
approaches to preventing these
problems, and determine whether these
prevention efforts are successful.
The U.S. Department of Education
currently requires States to collect and
report data on youth drug and violence
prevention problems and prevention
efforts through a uniform management
information and reporting system
(UMIRS) that States must establish
under section 4112(c)(3) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended by the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (ESEA)
(20 U.S.C. 7112(c)(3)). States also need
to use objective data about school safety
to meet the Unsafe School Choice
Option (USCO) requirements in section
9532 of the ESEA.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34107
States and local communities face
several challenges in implementing
these requirements and, in turn,
operating and managing effective drug
and violence prevention programs.
These challenges may include:
• Lack of standardized collection
instruments and definitions both within
and across States;
• Lack of expertise related to
collecting data about youth drug use
and violence;
• Lack of time and other resources to
support high-quality data collection and
analysis in these areas;
• Unfavorable community and media
reaction to high rates of youth drug use
and violence that discourages full and
accurate reporting; and
• Negative consequences for
administrators whose schools have high
rates of drug use or violent incidents.
The Department proposed the
priorities and requirements announced
in this notice to provide support to
States to explore strategies that help
them address each of these challenges
so that they can enhance their capacity
to collect and use data to assess and
improve implementation of their drug
and violence prevention programs.
We published a notice of proposed
priorities and requirements for this
program in the Federal Register on
March 9, 2005 (70 FR 11623).
Except for minor technical revisions,
and a change to the requirements
described in the Analysis of Comments
and Changes section, there are no
differences between the notice of
proposed priorities and requirements
and this notice of final priorities and
requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the
notice of proposed priorities and
requirements, three parties submitted
comments on the proposed priorities
and requirements. An analysis of the
comments and of any changes in the
priorities and requirements since
publication of the notice of proposed
priorities and requirements follows.
Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes or
any suggested changes that the Secretary
is not authorized to make under the
applicable statutory authority.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that Federal agencies,
including the U.S. Department of
Education and the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) in the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, that share
common program goals should develop
a common set of outcome measures for
drug and violence prevention programs
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
34108
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 112 / Monday, June 13, 2005 / Notices
that could be used by all Federal
agencies that implement these
programs.
Discussion: While we find merit in
the commenter’s suggestion and are
working with other Federal agencies,
including SAMHSA, on the issue of
common outcome measures, we believe
that the recommendation is beyond the
scope of this program. The Grants to
States to Improve Management of Drug
and Violence Prevention Programs
initiative is specifically designed to help
States meet the UMIRS requirements.
These provisions require each State to
develop an information management
and reporting system for its schools and
communities and to define alcohol and
drug-related offenses in a manner
consistent with each State’s criminal
code. While common outcome measures
are a desirable goal, we do not believe
that we can mandate specific outcome
measures that would apply to all States
or to all Federal agencies implementing
drug and violence prevention programs
through these priorities and
requirements.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the requirement
concerning a Memorandum of
Understanding between the authorized
representatives for the State educational
agency (SEA) and the State agency
receiving the Governor’s portion of
SDFSCA State Grants program funds be
streamlined. The commenter suggested
that a letter from the SEA and State
Agency indicating their agreement to
conduct the activities proposed in the
application, including the roles and
responsibilities of each agency would
assume, would be sufficient.
The commenter also expressed a
concern that sufficient resources
available under this grant program
might not be provided to permit a State
to meet all of the requirements of the
absolute priority and recommended that
States be allowed to focus on a subset
of these requirements if available
resources are not sufficient to fully
address all of the grant goals.
Discussion: The requirement for a
Memorandum of Understanding is not
intended to impose a significant
additional burden on applicants.
Instead, the requirement is designed to
ensure that necessary participants for
the project participate in project
development, agree upon their roles and
responsibilities, and have the support of
senior leadership for the project. We
agree, however, that the approach
suggested by the commenter may make
development of an application simpler
for some applicants.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:45 Jun 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
In response to the commenter’s
second concern, language in the priority
provides applicants with some
flexibility in developing their projects.
Specifically, the priority provides for
the support of projects to ‘‘develop,
enhance, or expand capacity’’. Thus an
applicant could focus on one, or more
of these areas. Applicants should plan
projects that reflect their existing efforts
in the area and, while projects must
address the six required sub-elements,
the balance between the level of effort
focused on required activities may be
very different among successful
applicants, depending on the previous
investments made by an applicant.
Changes: In response to this
comment, we have modified the
requirement concerning a Memorandum
of Understanding for this competition to
permit applicants to submit a
memorandum of understanding, letters,
or other documentation that contains
the required information. No change
concerning the scope of the priority was
made in response to this comment.
Comment: One commenter proposed
that, in addition to requirements
contained in the notice of proposed
priority and requirements, applicants
also be required to (1) list methods by
which the applicant can address the
issue of irregular reporting of UMIRS
data collection; (2) document methods
for assisting local educational agencies
in standardizing the reporting of
intervention data; (3) describe methods
of reporting interventions for persistent
student attendance and behavior
problems, and methods used to address
challenges for standardizing these data;
(4) describe a plan for persuading local
educational agencies about the value of
high-quality truancy and intervention
data for analysis; and (5) describe
methods for motivating local
educational agencies to make
appropriate referrals for students at risk
due to severe attendance or behavior
problems. These proposed
modifications would be consistent with
the commenter’s State laws and
procedures concerning truancy and
interventions designed to address
truancy, and could potentially support
that State’s approach to this issue by
providing needed funding.
Discussion: While the commenter’s
underlying concerns parallel many of
the more general requirements that were
included in the notice of proposed
priority and requirements for the
program (such as using data collected
under the UMIRS system to assess need,
selecting appropriate interventions,
monitoring progress toward
performance measures, and
disseminating information about youth
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
drug use and violence to the public), we
do not have any basis to request that all
applicants meet all of these
requirements. Applicants, however, are
free to include this information to
support their applications.
The additional requirements
recommended may support the existing
statutory and regulatory framework in
the commenter’s State, but there is
tremendous variation across the States
in terms of how school attendance
information is collected and used. In
developing priorities and requirements
for a grant competition that is designed
to benefit all States, we believe that the
more general approach that we have
taken establishes appropriate core
requirements that are still flexible
enough to address needs in any of the
States.
The commenter’s concerns also
focused heavily on a single aspect of the
UMIRS requirements—truancy rates,
and related interventions. While school
attendance information is an important
component of any statewide data
collected to support the management of
youth drug and violence prevention
programs, focusing too heavily on this
one aspect of the significantly more
comprehensive system that is required
would detract from the program’s core
goals.
Change: None.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use one or more of these priorities or
requirements, we invite applications through
a notice in the Federal Register. When
inviting applications, we designate each
priority as absolute, competitive preference,
or invitational. The effect of each type of
priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute
priority we consider only applications that
meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a
competitive preference priority we give
competitive preference to an application by
either (1) awarding additional points,
depending on how well or the extent to
which the application meets the competitive
priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the
competitive priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the
priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational
priority we are particularly interested in
applications that meet the invitational
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the invitational
priority a competitive or absolute preference
over other applications (34 CFR
75.105)(c)(1)).
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 112 / Monday, June 13, 2005 / Notices
Priorities and Requirements
Absolute Priority—Developing,
Enhancing, or Expanding the Capacity
of States and Other Entities That
Receive SDFSCA State Grants Funds To
Collect, Analyze, and Use Data To
Improve the Management of Drug and
Violence Prevention Programs
This priority supports projects to
develop, enhance, or expand the
capacity of States and other entities that
receive SDFSCA State Grants program
funds to collect, analyze, and use data
to improve the management of drug and
violence prevention programs. At a
minimum, applicants must propose
projects to develop, enhance, or expand
the capacity of the State educational
agency (SEA), the State agency
administering the Governor’s funding
under the SDFSCA State Grants
program, and local educational agencies
and community-based organizations
that receive SDFSCA State Grants
program funding.
Specifically, projects must be
designed to:
(a) Include activities designed to
expand the capacity of local recipients
of SDFSCA funds to use data to assess
needs, establish performance measures,
select appropriate interventions,
monitor progress toward established
performance measures, and disseminate
information about youth drug use and
violence to the public;
(b) Collect data that, at a minimum,
meet the requirements of the Uniform
Management Information and Reporting
System (UMIRS) described in section
4112(c)(3) of the ESEA;
(c) Operate with the aid of a
technology-based system for analyzing
and interpreting school crime and
violence data;
(d) Be consistent with the State’s
Performance-Based Data Management
Initiative (PBDMI) strategy and produce
data that can be transmitted to the U.S.
Department of Education via the
Department’s Education Data Exchange
Network (EDEN) project, which
facilitates the transfer of information
from State administrative records to the
Department to satisfy reporting
requirements for certain programs
administered by the Department,
including the SDFSCA State Grants
program;
(e) Be an enhancement to, or capable
of merging data with, the State’s student
information system if such exists or if
the State does not yet have a statewide,
longitudinal student data system, the
project should include the capacity to
merge with such a system in the future;
and
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:45 Jun 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
(f) Include validation and verification
activities at the State and sub-State
recipient levels designed to ensure the
accuracy of data collected and reported.
Competitive Preference Priority—Use of
Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
Definitions
The collection of incident data for
projects under the absolute priority will
be done in a manner consistent with the
definitions and protocols developed
under the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s UCR program.
Requirements
Eligibility of Applicants: Eligible
applicants for this program are limited
to State educational agencies (SEAs) or
other State agencies administering the
SDFSCA State Grants program.
Memorandum of Understanding or
Other Documentation of Participation:
Applicants must include documentation
in the form of a memorandum of
understanding or a letter in their
application that outlines project roles
and responsibilities of the participants
and that contains:
1. The signatures of:
a. The authorized representative(s) for
the SEA, and
b. The authorized representative(s) for
the State agency (or agencies) receiving
the Governor’s portion of SDFSCA State
Grants program funding for the State.
2. Evidence that the proposal has been
reviewed by, and has the approval of,
the State’s chief information officer
(CIO) and/or chief technology officer
(CTO). The CIO and/or CTO may sign
the required memorandum of
understanding, or may provide a letter
including the required assurance.
Technology-Based System: Each
application is required to include a
proposal for a technology-based system
for collecting, analyzing, and
interpreting school crime and violence
data. Grant funds may be used in a
variety of ways to support this system,
including updating an existing
infrastructure, conducting basic
planning, and capacity building.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of final priorities and
requirements has been reviewed in
accordance with Executive Order 12866.
Under the terms of the order, we have
assessed the potential costs and benefits
of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with
the notice of final priorities and
requirements are those resulting from
statutory requirements and those we
have determined as necessary for
administering this program effectively
and efficiently.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34109
In assessing the potential costs and
benefits—both quantitative and
qualitative—of this notice of final
priorities and requirements, we have
determined that the benefits of the
proposed priorities justify the costs.
We have also determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program. Electronic
Access to This Document: You may
view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF) on the Internet at the
following site: www.ed.gov/news/
fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site. If you have questions about
using PDF, call the U.S. Government
Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–
888–293–6498; or in the Washington,
DC, area at (202) 512–1530.
You may also view this document in
text or PDF at the following site:
https://www.ed.gov/programs/
dvpstatemanagement/applicant.html.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Number 84.184R Grants to States to Improve
Management of Drug and Violence
Prevention Programs)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131.
Dated: June 8, 2005.
Deborah A. Price,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and DrugFree Schools.
[FR Doc. 05–11653 Filed 6–10–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–U
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 112 (Monday, June 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34107-34109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11653]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Grants to States To Improve Management of Drug and Violence
Prevention Programs
AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools
announces priorities and requirements under the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) National Programs for Grants to
States to Improve Management of Drug and Violence Prevention Programs.
We may use one or more of these priorities and requirements for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2005 and later years. We take this
action to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified national
need. We intend the priorities and requirements to facilitate the
development, enhancement, or expansion of the capacity of States and
other entities that receive SDFSCA State Grants program funds to
collect, analyze, and use data to improve the management of drug and
violence prevention programs.
DATES: Effective Date: These priorities and requirements are effective
July 13, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Worthen, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E234, Washington, DC 20202-
6450. Telephone: (202) 205-5632 or via Internet: maria.worthen@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: States and their local communities are
implementing a variety of programs, activities, and strategies designed
to prevent youth drug use and violence in schools. Just as
policymakers, education professionals, and parents seek reliable
information about student academic progress, stakeholders also need
sufficient information and data to assess the nature of youth drug and
violence prevention problems in their communities, select research-
based approaches to preventing these problems, and determine whether
these prevention efforts are successful.
The U.S. Department of Education currently requires States to
collect and report data on youth drug and violence prevention problems
and prevention efforts through a uniform management information and
reporting system (UMIRS) that States must establish under section
4112(c)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (ESEA) (20 U.S.C.
7112(c)(3)). States also need to use objective data about school safety
to meet the Unsafe School Choice Option (USCO) requirements in section
9532 of the ESEA.
States and local communities face several challenges in
implementing these requirements and, in turn, operating and managing
effective drug and violence prevention programs. These challenges may
include:
Lack of standardized collection instruments and
definitions both within and across States;
Lack of expertise related to collecting data about youth
drug use and violence;
Lack of time and other resources to support high-quality
data collection and analysis in these areas;
Unfavorable community and media reaction to high rates of
youth drug use and violence that discourages full and accurate
reporting; and
Negative consequences for administrators whose schools
have high rates of drug use or violent incidents.
The Department proposed the priorities and requirements announced
in this notice to provide support to States to explore strategies that
help them address each of these challenges so that they can enhance
their capacity to collect and use data to assess and improve
implementation of their drug and violence prevention programs.
We published a notice of proposed priorities and requirements for
this program in the Federal Register on March 9, 2005 (70 FR 11623).
Except for minor technical revisions, and a change to the
requirements described in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section,
there are no differences between the notice of proposed priorities and
requirements and this notice of final priorities and requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed priorities
and requirements, three parties submitted comments on the proposed
priorities and requirements. An analysis of the comments and of any
changes in the priorities and requirements since publication of the
notice of proposed priorities and requirements follows.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes or
any suggested changes that the Secretary is not authorized to make
under the applicable statutory authority.
Comment: One commenter recommended that Federal agencies, including
the U.S. Department of Education and the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, that share common program goals should
develop a common set of outcome measures for drug and violence
prevention programs
[[Page 34108]]
that could be used by all Federal agencies that implement these
programs.
Discussion: While we find merit in the commenter's suggestion and
are working with other Federal agencies, including SAMHSA, on the issue
of common outcome measures, we believe that the recommendation is
beyond the scope of this program. The Grants to States to Improve
Management of Drug and Violence Prevention Programs initiative is
specifically designed to help States meet the UMIRS requirements. These
provisions require each State to develop an information management and
reporting system for its schools and communities and to define alcohol
and drug-related offenses in a manner consistent with each State's
criminal code. While common outcome measures are a desirable goal, we
do not believe that we can mandate specific outcome measures that would
apply to all States or to all Federal agencies implementing drug and
violence prevention programs through these priorities and requirements.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the requirement concerning
a Memorandum of Understanding between the authorized representatives
for the State educational agency (SEA) and the State agency receiving
the Governor's portion of SDFSCA State Grants program funds be
streamlined. The commenter suggested that a letter from the SEA and
State Agency indicating their agreement to conduct the activities
proposed in the application, including the roles and responsibilities
of each agency would assume, would be sufficient.
The commenter also expressed a concern that sufficient resources
available under this grant program might not be provided to permit a
State to meet all of the requirements of the absolute priority and
recommended that States be allowed to focus on a subset of these
requirements if available resources are not sufficient to fully address
all of the grant goals.
Discussion: The requirement for a Memorandum of Understanding is
not intended to impose a significant additional burden on applicants.
Instead, the requirement is designed to ensure that necessary
participants for the project participate in project development, agree
upon their roles and responsibilities, and have the support of senior
leadership for the project. We agree, however, that the approach
suggested by the commenter may make development of an application
simpler for some applicants.
In response to the commenter's second concern, language in the
priority provides applicants with some flexibility in developing their
projects. Specifically, the priority provides for the support of
projects to ``develop, enhance, or expand capacity''. Thus an applicant
could focus on one, or more of these areas. Applicants should plan
projects that reflect their existing efforts in the area and, while
projects must address the six required sub-elements, the balance
between the level of effort focused on required activities may be very
different among successful applicants, depending on the previous
investments made by an applicant.
Changes: In response to this comment, we have modified the
requirement concerning a Memorandum of Understanding for this
competition to permit applicants to submit a memorandum of
understanding, letters, or other documentation that contains the
required information. No change concerning the scope of the priority
was made in response to this comment.
Comment: One commenter proposed that, in addition to requirements
contained in the notice of proposed priority and requirements,
applicants also be required to (1) list methods by which the applicant
can address the issue of irregular reporting of UMIRS data collection;
(2) document methods for assisting local educational agencies in
standardizing the reporting of intervention data; (3) describe methods
of reporting interventions for persistent student attendance and
behavior problems, and methods used to address challenges for
standardizing these data; (4) describe a plan for persuading local
educational agencies about the value of high-quality truancy and
intervention data for analysis; and (5) describe methods for motivating
local educational agencies to make appropriate referrals for students
at risk due to severe attendance or behavior problems. These proposed
modifications would be consistent with the commenter's State laws and
procedures concerning truancy and interventions designed to address
truancy, and could potentially support that State's approach to this
issue by providing needed funding.
Discussion: While the commenter's underlying concerns parallel many
of the more general requirements that were included in the notice of
proposed priority and requirements for the program (such as using data
collected under the UMIRS system to assess need, selecting appropriate
interventions, monitoring progress toward performance measures, and
disseminating information about youth drug use and violence to the
public), we do not have any basis to request that all applicants meet
all of these requirements. Applicants, however, are free to include
this information to support their applications.
The additional requirements recommended may support the existing
statutory and regulatory framework in the commenter's State, but there
is tremendous variation across the States in terms of how school
attendance information is collected and used. In developing priorities
and requirements for a grant competition that is designed to benefit
all States, we believe that the more general approach that we have
taken establishes appropriate core requirements that are still flexible
enough to address needs in any of the States.
The commenter's concerns also focused heavily on a single aspect of
the UMIRS requirements--truancy rates, and related interventions. While
school attendance information is an important component of any
statewide data collected to support the management of youth drug and
violence prevention programs, focusing too heavily on this one aspect
of the significantly more comprehensive system that is required would
detract from the program's core goals.
Change: None.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities or
requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal
Register. When inviting applications, we designate each priority as
absolute, competitive preference, or invitational. The effect of
each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority we give competitive preference to an application by either
(1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent
to which the application meets the competitive priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the
competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that
does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over
other applications (34 CFR 75.105)(c)(1)).
[[Page 34109]]
Priorities and Requirements
Absolute Priority--Developing, Enhancing, or Expanding the Capacity of
States and Other Entities That Receive SDFSCA State Grants Funds To
Collect, Analyze, and Use Data To Improve the Management of Drug and
Violence Prevention Programs
This priority supports projects to develop, enhance, or expand the
capacity of States and other entities that receive SDFSCA State Grants
program funds to collect, analyze, and use data to improve the
management of drug and violence prevention programs. At a minimum,
applicants must propose projects to develop, enhance, or expand the
capacity of the State educational agency (SEA), the State agency
administering the Governor's funding under the SDFSCA State Grants
program, and local educational agencies and community-based
organizations that receive SDFSCA State Grants program funding.
Specifically, projects must be designed to:
(a) Include activities designed to expand the capacity of local
recipients of SDFSCA funds to use data to assess needs, establish
performance measures, select appropriate interventions, monitor
progress toward established performance measures, and disseminate
information about youth drug use and violence to the public;
(b) Collect data that, at a minimum, meet the requirements of the
Uniform Management Information and Reporting System (UMIRS) described
in section 4112(c)(3) of the ESEA;
(c) Operate with the aid of a technology-based system for analyzing
and interpreting school crime and violence data;
(d) Be consistent with the State's Performance-Based Data
Management Initiative (PBDMI) strategy and produce data that can be
transmitted to the U.S. Department of Education via the Department's
Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) project, which facilitates the
transfer of information from State administrative records to the
Department to satisfy reporting requirements for certain programs
administered by the Department, including the SDFSCA State Grants
program;
(e) Be an enhancement to, or capable of merging data with, the
State's student information system if such exists or if the State does
not yet have a statewide, longitudinal student data system, the project
should include the capacity to merge with such a system in the future;
and
(f) Include validation and verification activities at the State and
sub-State recipient levels designed to ensure the accuracy of data
collected and reported.
Competitive Preference Priority--Use of Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
Definitions
The collection of incident data for projects under the absolute
priority will be done in a manner consistent with the definitions and
protocols developed under the Federal Bureau of Investigation's UCR
program.
Requirements
Eligibility of Applicants: Eligible applicants for this program are
limited to State educational agencies (SEAs) or other State agencies
administering the SDFSCA State Grants program.
Memorandum of Understanding or Other Documentation of
Participation: Applicants must include documentation in the form of a
memorandum of understanding or a letter in their application that
outlines project roles and responsibilities of the participants and
that contains:
1. The signatures of:
a. The authorized representative(s) for the SEA, and
b. The authorized representative(s) for the State agency (or
agencies) receiving the Governor's portion of SDFSCA State Grants
program funding for the State.
2. Evidence that the proposal has been reviewed by, and has the
approval of, the State's chief information officer (CIO) and/or chief
technology officer (CTO). The CIO and/or CTO may sign the required
memorandum of understanding, or may provide a letter including the
required assurance.
Technology-Based System: Each application is required to include a
proposal for a technology-based system for collecting, analyzing, and
interpreting school crime and violence data. Grant funds may be used in
a variety of ways to support this system, including updating an
existing infrastructure, conducting basic planning, and capacity
building.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of final priorities and requirements has been reviewed
in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order,
we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory
action.
The potential costs associated with the notice of final priorities
and requirements are those resulting from statutory requirements and
those we have determined as necessary for administering this program
effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this notice of final priorities and requirements,
we have determined that the benefits of the proposed priorities justify
the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program. Electronic Access to This Document: You may
view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: www.ed.gov/news/
fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
You may also view this document in text or PDF at the following
site: https://www.ed.gov/programs/dvpstatemanagement/applicant.html.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/
nara/
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.184R Grants to
States to Improve Management of Drug and Violence Prevention
Programs)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131.
Dated: June 8, 2005.
Deborah A. Price,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
[FR Doc. 05-11653 Filed 6-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-U