Safe Schools/Healthy Students, 8704-8709 [E7-3404]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8704
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 27, 2007 / Notices
with microcomputers and dial-up lines.
Off-line storage is kept on disks.
Records on magnetic tapes and hard
copy data are kept in secured rooms or
in locked cabinets for operator access
and user pickup. Backup magnetic tapes
are kept in a vault.
RETRIEVABILITY:
Records are kept alphabetically by
Company and Class. Records can be
retrieved from data base by selection of
any data element, i.e., name, address,
alpha code, six digit candidate number,
or Social Security Number, etc.
SAFEGUARDS:
RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy,
121 Blake Road, Annapolis, MD 21402–
5000.
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
Individuals seeking to determine
whether information about themselves
is contained in this system should
address written inquiries to the
Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy,
121 Blake Road, Annapolis, MD 21402–
5000.
Written requests should contain full
name, company, class, and any personal
identifier, such as a Social Security
Number.
RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
Visitor control. Records are kept in
locked cabinets or in secured rooms.
Computer records are safeguarded
through selective file access, signing of
Privacy Act forms, passwords, RAM
systems, program passwords, user
controls, encoding and port controls.
Disk and tape storage is in a secure
room. Backup systems on magnetic
tapes are secured in fire proof vault in
Ward Hall.
On-line computer records are
destroyed one year after the
midshipman’s class graduates or the
midshipman is separated.
Performance records are retained by
the Performance Officer for two years
after the midshipman’s class graduates,
and then destroyed. Backup systems on
magnetic tapes and disks are kept in
secure storage and destroyed two years
after the midshipman’s class graduates.
Files relative to midshipmen separated
involuntarily, including by qualified
resignation, are retained for two years
after the midshipman’s class graduates,
or three years from the date of
separation, whichever date is later, and
then destroyed.
Official transcripts and records files
are kept indefinitely by the Registrar on
microfilm, computer files, magnetic
tapes, and hard copy. A tape is sent to
the National Archives two years after
class graduates to be stored as a national
disaster recovery measure. Electronic
Admissions information is available via
AIS for the class of 1999 to present.
Electronic Admissions Applications are
available via Automated Information
System(AIS) for the class of 2009 to
present. Counseling and Guidance
Research data are kept by the
Professional Development Research
Coordinator indefinitely. Nomination
and appointment files are retained for
varying lengths of time.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:
15:22 Feb 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
Individuals seeking access to
information about themselves contained
in this system should address written
inquiries to the Superintendent, U.S.
Naval Academy, 121 Blake Road,
Annapolis, MD 21402–5000.
Written requests should contain full
name, company, class, and any personal
identifier, such as a Social Security
Number.
CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:
The Navy’s rules for accessing
records, and for contesting contents and
appealing initial agency determinations
are published in Secretary of the Navy
Instruction 5211.5; 32 CFR part 701; or
may be obtained from the system
manager.
RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
Individuals, midshipman,
supervisors, Registrar, instructors,
professors, officers, midshipman
personal history/performance record,
midshipman autobiography, Record of
Emergency Data (NAVPERS 601–2),
Statement of Personal History (DD Form
398), Aptitude History Record (Form
1610–105), Midshipman Summary
Sheet, Certificate of Release or
Discharge From Active Duty (DD Form
214), Military Performance Board
Results, Letters of Probation,
Midshipmen Performance Evaluation
Reports (Form 54A), Medical Reports,
Clinical Psychologist Reports, Excused
Squad Chits (Form 6320/20), Conduct
Card (Form 1690/91C), Letters of
Commendation, Counseling and
Guidance Interview and Data Records,
Letters of Congressmen, parents, etc.,
and copies of replies thereto, transcripts
from high school or prior college,
Review Board Records, and Record of
Disclosure (Privacy Act).
EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:
None.
[FR Doc. E7–3304 Filed 2–26–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
RIN 1865–ZA04
Safe Schools/Healthy Students
Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities,
requirements, selection criteria, and
definitions.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Departments of
Education (ED), Health and Human
Services (HHS), and Justice (DOJ) issue
this notice to propose priorities,
requirements, selection criteria, and
definitions for the Safe Schools/Healthy
Students (SS/HS) Initiative. We propose
this action to focus Federal financial
assistance on safe, disciplined, and
drug-free learning environments and
healthy childhood development. We
intend the priorities to support the
implementation and enhancement of
integrated, comprehensive communitywide plans that create safe and drug-free
schools and promote healthy childhood
development. The Assistant Deputy
Secretary may use these proposed
priorities, requirements, selection
criteria, and definitions for competitions
in fiscal year (FY) 2007 and later years.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before March 29, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about
these proposed priorities, requirements,
selection criteria, and definitions to
Karen Dorsey, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
room 3E336, Washington, DC 20202–
6450. If you prefer to send your
comments through the Internet, use the
following address:
Karen.Dorsey@ed.gov.
Please include the following in the
subject line of all e-mails, ‘‘Comments
on SS/HS NPP.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Dorsey. Telephone (202) 708–
4674 or via Internet:
Karen.Dorsey@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:
Invitation To Comment
We invite you to submit comments
regarding the proposed priorities,
requirements, selection criteria, and
E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM
27FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 27, 2007 / Notices
definitions. To ensure that your
comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities,
requirements, selection criteria, and
definitions, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific proposed priority,
requirement, selection criterion, or
definition your comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866
and its overall requirements of reducing
regulatory burden that might result from
the proposed priorities, requirements,
selection criteria, and definitions. Please
let us know of any further opportunities
we should take to reduce potential costs
or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient
administration of the program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about these proposed priorities,
requirements, selection criteria, and
definitions in room 3E316 at 400
Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
4 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Assistance to Individuals With
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record
On request, we will supply an
appropriate aid, such as a reader or
printer magnifier, to an individual with
a disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for these proposed priorities,
requirements, selection criteria, and
definitions. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
We will announce the final priorities,
requirements, selection criteria, and
definitions in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final
priorities, requirements, selection
criteria, and definitions after
considering responses to this notice and
other information available to the
Department. This notice does not
preclude us from proposing or funding
additional priorities, other selection
criteria, or other requirements, or
changing definitions, subject to meeting
applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use these priorities, we will invite
applications through a notice in the Federal
Register. 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)).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Feb 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 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)).
Discussion of Proposed Priorities
Proposed Priority 1—Comprehensive
Plan
Background
The Safe Schools/Healthy Students
(SS/HS) grant program draws on the
best practices of the education, justice,
social service, and mental health
systems to provide a continuum of
activities, curricula, programs, and
services designed to increase protective
factors and reduce risk as an effective
way to promote healthy child
development and address the problems
of school violence and alcohol and other
drug abuse.
Key to the SS/HS grant program is the
creation and implementation of a
comprehensive plan that addresses
specific needs, gaps, or weaknesses in
services, and builds on available
resources and services. Creating and
implementing the comprehensive plan
allows an applicant to prevent youth
drug use and violence, promote safe
environments and prosocial behaviors,
and provide for healthy child
development.
In previous years, the required
comprehensive plan has included six
elements. The proposed priority for the
program has been revised to include five
elements. We propose this change in
order to reduce overlap between the
required elements.
Proposed Priority 1—Comprehensive
Plan
This proposed priority would support
the projects of local educational
agencies (LEAs) proposing to implement
an integrated, comprehensive
community-wide plan designed to
create safe, respectful, and drug-free
school environments and promote
prosocial skills and healthy childhood
development. Plans must focus
activities, curricula, programs, and
services in a manner that responds to
the community’s existing needs, gaps, or
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8705
weaknesses in areas related to the five
comprehensive plan elements:
• Element One—Safe School
Environments and Violence Prevention
Activities.
• Element Two—Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Other Drug Prevention Activities.
• Element Three—Student
Behavioral, Social, and Emotional
Supports.
• Element Four—Mental Health
Services.
• Element Five—Early Childhood
Social and Emotional Learning
Programs.
Proposed Priority 2—LEAs That Have
Not Previously Received a Grant or
Services Under the Safe Schools/
Healthy Students Initiative
Background
In recent fiscal years, we have limited
eligibility for SS/HS grants to LEAs that
had not previously received an SS/HS
grant. We limited eligibility for awards
in this way in an effort to maximize the
opportunity for as many LEAs as
possible to receive SS/HS funding. We
now propose eliminating this absolute
restriction on LEA eligibility, and,
instead, propose to establish a priority
for LEAs that have not previously
received funding under the SS/HS
program. We believe that this approach
addresses the needs of LEAs that have
not previously received SS/HS funding
while still permitting prior recipients
that need additional resources in order
to fully achieve their goals to have an
opportunity to compete for another
award. We do not intend this change to
apply to prior recipients of SS/HS grants
that have a current active grant under
the program.
Proposed Priority 2—LEAs That Have
Not Previously Received a Grant or
Services Under the Safe Schools/
Healthy Students Initiative
Under this proposed priority, we
would give priority to applications from
LEAs that have not yet received a grant
under this program as an applicant or as
a member of a consortium. In order for
a consortium application to be eligible
under this priority, no member of the
LEA consortium may have received a
grant or services under this program as
an applicant or as a member of a
consortium applicant.
Discussion of Proposed Requirements
Background
SS/HS applicants from prior
competitions and former SS/HS grantees
have suggested that we clarify or modify
certain SS/HS application requirements.
These include: eligibility requirements
E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM
27FEN1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
8706
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 27, 2007 / Notices
that prohibit former SS/HS grantees
from reapplying for SS/HS funding; the
requirement that an application include
two memoranda in order to be
forwarded to peer review; the use of the
National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD)
school locale codes to establish
maximum funding amounts that
applicants may request; and the limits
on the amount of funds that grantees
may use for certain project activities.
We have carefully considered this
input, and propose several new or
modified program requirements. First,
we propose eliminating the restriction
on eligibility for former SS/HS grantees.
We believe that in some instances, for
example in the case of very large LEAs,
additional resources may be required to
fully implement their comprehensive
plan and achieve their goals. However,
to ensure that former SS/HS grantees
that wish to apply for additional
funding are targeting different school
sites or target populations, we propose
that LEAs that have previously received
an SS/HS grant include the following
assurance as part of their application.
This assurance would state that the
scope of work included in the current
SS/HS application is new and that
funding, if awarded, will not be used to
sustain previously funded activities,
curricula, programs, and services
provided to a population served by the
first SS/HS grant.
We also propose changes in funding
limits established for applicants.
Previously, we used locale code
designations from the NCES Common
Core of Data to determine maximum
award sizes. Because that approach has
produced some unintended results, we
propose using enrollment size in order
to establish maximum grant award
amounts. We believe that this approach
better matches funding needs with
maximum grant amounts.
Instead of two memoranda of
agreement (MOAs) that have been
required in previous competitions, we
propose that a single, preliminary MOA
be submitted with the application. This
preliminary MOA would be more
general in nature than those required in
previous competitions. We propose that
the preliminary MOA must be signed by
the authorized representatives of the
LEA, the local public mental health
authority, the local law enforcement
agency, and the local juvenile justice
agency—the required SS/HS partners.
Because SS/HS projects for a
consortium of LEAs often involve
multiple local public mental health, law
enforcement, and/or juvenile justice
partners, we propose that applications
submitted by a consortium be signed by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Feb 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
the authorized representative for each
LEA included in the consortium, and
authorized representatives for the
corresponding required SS/HS partners
for each member LEA. We also propose
that the preliminary MOA must
demonstrate the support and
commitment of the required SS/HS
partners to implement and sustain the
project.
We propose that applicants include
information in the preliminary MOA
that supports the selection of the
identified local public mental health,
law enforcement, and juvenile justice
partners. The preliminary MOA must
name a core management team,
comprised of senior representatives
from the required partners, and detail
how the team would support the project
director in the day-to-day management
of the project. The preliminary MOA
must also describe how multiple and
diverse sectors of the community,
including parents and students, have
been and will continue to be involved
in the design, implementation, and
continuous improvement of the project.
Finally, we propose that applicants
submit a logic model as an attachment
to the preliminary MOA. The logic
model, a graphic representation of the
project in chart format, would identify
needs or gaps with the corresponding
goals, objectives, activities, partners’
roles, outcomes, and method for
measuring outcomes for each of the SS/
HS elements. The core management
team discussion and the logic model
attachment would serve to clarify the
roles of the SS/HS required partners as
they relate to project planning,
management, implementation,
evaluation, and communication.
We also propose that grantees be
required to submit a final MOA. The
final MOA would provide an
opportunity for successful applicants to
update and revise the information
included in the preliminary MOA
furnished with the application,
including information about the
selection of partners, updates to the
statement of support and commitment
provided by the required SS/HS
partners, the final roster of the core
management team, any needed revisions
to the process for including multiple
and diverse sectors of the community in
project implementation, and the final
logic model. We also propose that the
final MOA include descriptive
information about partner financial
responsibility for services and other
issues including quality, accountability
and coordination of services. We
propose that the final MOA must also
detail the procedures to be used for
referral, treatment, and follow-up for
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
children and adolescents needing
mental health services. The final MOA
must also include an assurance that the
local public mental health authority will
provide administrative control and/or
oversight of the delivery of mental
health services. We believe that these
additional requirements, when
implemented, will increase the
likelihood of project success. The final
MOA must be signed by the authorized
representatives of each of the required
partners and be submitted
approximately six months after the
award is made.
We also propose that grantees use at
least seven percent of their grant award
amount to conduct a local evaluation.
SS/HS projects are unusually complex,
and require a broad range of evaluation
activities, including process, formative,
and outcome evaluations in order to
supply the information needed for
effective management and project
improvement.
Finally, we propose to limit a
grantee’s use of grant funds for costs
associated with security equipment,
security personnel, and minor
remodeling of school facilities to
improve school safety, to no more than
10 percent of the total budget for each
year. Expenditures for security
equipment and personnel will have
limited impact on school safety absent
a comprehensive approach.
Accordingly we propose the following
requirements:
Proposed Requirements
Application and Eligibility. We
propose that an applicant must meet the
following requirements:
Proposed Requirement 1: ProgramSpecific Assurance for Former SS/HS
Grant Recipients
For those LEAs that have received
funds or services (or for those LEA
consortia that include a member LEA
that has received funds or services)
under the SS/HS program, a programspecific assurance must be submitted as
part of the SS/HS application. All
participating LEAs in a proposed
consortium project must sign this
program-specific assurance. The
assurance must state that the scope of
work included in the current SS/HS
application is new and that funding, if
awarded, will not be used to sustain
previously funded activities, curricula,
programs, and services to a population
served by the first SS/HS grant.
Applications from prior SS/HS grant
recipients (or from a consortium that
includes an LEA that has previously
received SS/HS funds or services) that
do not include the program-specific
E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM
27FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 27, 2007 / Notices
assurance would be rejected and not
considered for funding.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Proposed Requirement 2: Funding
Limits for Applicants
We propose that an applicant’s
request for funding must not exceed the
following maximum amounts, based on
student enrollment data. Specifically,
we propose that the maximum amount
an applicant may request for any of the
project’s four 12-month budget periods
would be: $2,250,000 for an LEA with
at least 35,000 students; $1,500,000 for
an LEA with at least 5,000 students but
less than 35,000 students; and $750,000
for an LEA with less than 5,000
students; and that in applying these
maximums, applicants must use the
most recent student enrollment data
from the National Center for Education
Statistics’ (NCES) Common Core of Data
(CCD) as posted on the NCES Web site.
In the case of consortium applicants, the
maximum funding request is based on
combined student enrollment data for
the participating LEAs. Bureau of Indian
Affairs schools not included in the
NCES database and requesting grant
funds that exceed $750,000 for any of
the project’s four 12-month periods
must provide documentation of
enrollment data.
Proposed Requirement 3: Preliminary
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
We propose that each applicant must
include in its application a preliminary
MOA that is signed by the authorized
representatives of the LEA, the local
public mental health authority, the local
law enforcement agency, and the local
juvenile justice agency—the required
SS/HS partners. For consortium
applicants, the preliminary MOA must
be signed by each member LEA and the
corresponding required SS/HS partners
for each member LEA. Additionally, the
preliminary MOA must:
(a) Include information that supports
the selection of each identified SS/HS
required partner that has signed the
preliminary MOA;
(b) demonstrate the support and
commitment of the required SS/HS
partners to implement and sustain the
project if funded;
(c) name a core management team of
senior representatives from the required
partners, and clearly define how each
member of the team will support the
project director in the day-to-day
management of the project;
(d) describe how multiple and diverse
sectors of the community, including
parents and students, have been and
will continue to be involved in the
design, implementation, and continuous
improvement of the project; and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Feb 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
(e) include, as an attachment, a logic
model (a graphic representation of the
project in chart format) that identifies
needs or gaps and connects those needs
or gaps with corresponding project
goals, objectives, activities, partners’
roles, outcomes, and outcome measures
for each of the SS/HS elements.
Applications that do not include the
preliminary MOA signed by the
authorized representatives of each of the
required partners (the LEA, local public
mental health authority, local law
enforcement agency, and local juvenile
justice agency) and the logic model
would be rejected and not considered
for funding.
Proposed Requirement 4: Final
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
If funded, grant recipients must
complete a final MOA. The final MOA
must be signed by the SS/HS partners—
the authorized representatives for the
LEA, the local public mental health
authority, the local law enforcement
agency, and the local juvenile justice
agency. For consortium applicants, the
final MOA must be signed by each
member LEA and the corresponding
required SS/HS partners for each
member LEA. The final MOA must also
include the following:
(a) Information that supports the
selection of each identified SS/HS
required partner that has signed the
final MOA;
(b) any needed revisions to the
statement of support and commitment
for each of the required SS/HS partners
to implement and sustain the project;
(c) a final roster of the core
management team of senior
representatives from the required SS/HS
partners, that clearly defines how each
member of the team will support the
project director in the day-to-day
management of the project;
(d) any needed revisions to the
process for including multiple and
diverse sectors of the community in the
implementation and continuous
improvement of the project;
(e) a final logic model that identifies
needs or gaps and connects those needs
or gaps with corresponding project
goals, objectives, activities, partners’
role, outcomes, and outcome measures
for each of the SS/HS elements;
(f) a description of each partner’s
financial responsibility for the services
that it will provide along with the
conditions and terms of responsibility
for those services, including quality,
accountability, and coordination of
services as they relate to achieving the
goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
project;
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8707
(g) a description of the procedures to
be used for referral, treatment, and
follow-up for children and adolescents
in need of mental health services and an
assurance that the local public mental
health authority will provide
administrative control and/or oversight
of the delivery of mental health services;
and
(h) any other necessary revisions to
information furnished in the
preliminary MOA.
Proposed Funding Restrictions
Proposed Funding Restriction 1: We
propose that no less than seven percent
of a grantee’s budget for each year must
be used to support costs associated with
local evaluation activities.
Proposed Funding Restriction 2: We
propose that no more than 10 percent of
the total budget for each project year
may be used to support costs associated
with security equipment, security
personnel, and minor remodeling of
school facilities to improve school
safety.
Discussion of Proposed Selection
Criteria
Background
The SS/HS grant program was created
to provide Federal financial assistance
to school districts and communities to
promote ongoing partnerships as a way
of enhancing and expanding their
existing activities relating to youth
violence prevention and healthy child
development. Since the original
competition in FY 1999, four additional
competitions have been held (FY 2001,
FY 2002, FY 2004 and FY 2005). Our
experience with administering these
competitions, including feedback from
peer reviewers, applicants, and funded
grantees, demonstrates the need to use
program-specific selection criteria that
will better identify applications for SS/
HS funding that are most likely to
produce successful SS/HS projects. We
believe these refinements will
contribute to our on-going efforts to
improve the initiative.
Proposed Selection Criteria
We propose the following selection
criteria for this program:
1. Community Assessment
(a) The extent to which the applicant
describes individual, family, school,
and community risk and protective
factors that relate to the five SS/HS
elements and will be addressed by the
project.
(b) The extent to which the applicant
describes student problem behaviors as
they relate to the five SS/HS elements
and how they will be addressed by the
project.
E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM
27FEN1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
8708
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 27, 2007 / Notices
(c) The extent to which the applicant
identifies, in the project narrative and
the logic model, needs and gaps related
to the five SS/HS elements that are not
addressed by current services and
programs.
2. Goals and Objectives
(a) The extent to which the
applicant’s project narrative and logic
model specify one or more goals for
each of the five SS/HS elements, and the
goals are clearly linked to the needs and
gaps identified in the community
assessment.
(b) The extent to which the objectives
identified in the applicant’s project
narrative and logic model are
measurable and linked to each of the
stated goals.
3. Project Design
(a) The extent to which the
applicant’s project narrative and logic
model propose activities, curricula,
programs, and services that will address
each of the goals and objectives of the
proposed project.
(b) The extent to which activities,
curricula, programs, and services
proposed by the applicant are evidencebased or reflect current research and
effective practice, and are appropriate
for the age and developmental levels,
gender, and cultural diversity of the
target population.
4. Evaluation
(a) The extent to which the
applicant’s project narrative describes a
plan for regularly monitoring program
implementation, and identifies process
measures that the applicant will use to
assess the quality and completeness of
the activities planned under the grant.
(b) The extent to which the
applicant’s project narrative and logic
model identify outcomes that are clearly
linked to the identified objectives and
activities for the project, and specify
how outcomes will be measured.
5. Management
(a) The extent to which the applicant
describes a management plan adequate
to achieve objectives of the proposed
program on time and within budget,
including clearly defined
responsibilities of partners, staff, and
contracted service providers, and
milestones for accomplishing project
tasks.
(b) The extent to which the applicant
provides, in the project narrative and
preliminary MOA, information about
any preexisting partnership involving
the required SS/HS partners, and that
partnership’s accomplishments directly
related to the five SS/HS elements.
(c) The extent to which the applicant
describes, in the project narrative and in
the preliminary MOA, a core
management team that is appropriate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Feb 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
and adequate to achieve the project’s
objectives and support the project
director in day-to-day management of
the project.
(d) The extent to which the applicant
describes, in the project narrative and in
the preliminary MOA, how multiple
and diverse sectors of the community,
including students and families, have
been and will continue to be involved
in the design, implementation, and
continuous improvement of the project.
(e) The extent to which the applicant
describes a plan to develop data systems
that will be used to support decision
making processes established for the
grant, including the use of technology.
6. Budget
The extent to which the proposed
budget and budget narrative correspond
to the project design and are reasonable
in relation to the numbers of students
and staff, and the identified objectives
to be achieved.
Additional Selection Factor
We propose to consider geographic
distribution and diversity of activities
addressed by the projects in selecting an
application for an award.
Proposed Definitions
Several important terms associated
with this competition are not defined in
the statute. We propose the following
definitions:
1. Authorized representative—We
propose defining the term authorized
representative as the official within an
organization with the legal authority to
give assurances, make commitments,
enter into contracts, and execute such
documents on behalf of the organization
as may be required by the U.S.
Department of Education (the
Department), including certification that
commitments made on grant proposals
will be honored and that the applicant
agrees to comply with the Department’s
regulations, guidelines, and policies.
2. Local juvenile justice agency—We
propose defining the term local juvenile
justice agency as an agency or entity at
the local level that is officially
recognized by State or local government
to address juvenile justice issues in the
communities to be served by the grant.
Examples of juvenile justice agencies
include: juvenile justice task forces;
juvenile justice centers; juvenile or
family courts; juvenile probation
agencies; and juvenile corrections
agencies.
3. Local law enforcement agency—We
propose defining the term local law
enforcement agency as the agency (or
agencies) that has law enforcement
authority for the LEA. Examples of local
law enforcement agencies include:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
municipal, county, and State police;
tribal police and councils; and sheriffs’
departments.
4. Local public mental health
authority—We propose defining the
term local public mental health
authority as the entity legally
constituted (directly or through contract
with the State mental health authority)
to provide administrative control or
oversight of mental health services
delivery within the community.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of proposed priorities,
requirements, selection criteria, and
definitions 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
this regulatory action 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 regulatory action we
have determined that the benefits of the
proposed regulatory action 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA)
Certain sections of the proposed
priorities, requirements, and selection
criteria for the SS/HS grant program
contain information collection
requirements already approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under OMB control number
1865–0004 (1890–0001). The
Department does not believe the
proposed priorities, requirements, and
selection criteria will change the current
approved burden for 1865–0004 (1890–
0001). However, as required by the PRA,
the Department is submitting 1865–0004
(1890–0001) to OMB for a revised
information collection clearance
concurrently with the publication of
this notice of proposed priorities,
requirements, selection criteria, and
definitions.
The current absolute priority for the
SS/HS grant program includes six
elements that an applicant’s
comprehensive plan must address. This
notice proposes to reduce the elements
from six to five. While this notice
proposes two new requirements, it
proposes to eliminate a current
E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM
27FEN1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 27, 2007 / Notices
requirement that applicants submit a
MOA for mental health services. Also,
we are proposing fewer programspecific selection criteria. The current
approved information collection
contains seven selection criteria with a
total of 25 sub-criteria to which
applicants must respond. We are
proposing six selection criteria, with
only 15 sub-criteria. All changes to the
priorities, requirements and selection
criteria are responsive to comments and
suggestions we received from previous
applicants and grantees.
The proposed changes to the
information collection do not change
the estimated 26 hours needed to review
the instructions, search existing data
sources, gather needed data, prepare
and review responses. The elimination
of one of the elements in the absolute
priority and the elimination of 10 subcriteria provide more than enough time
for applicants to respond to new
requirements (i.e., signatures on the
program-specific assurance and
completing a logic model).
In this notice, we are proposing a
priority for LEAs that have not
previously received a grant or services
under the SS/HS Initiative. To receive
priority, applicants will be required to
submit a program-specific assurance.
This new information collection
requirement is primarily cosmetic, as
the application will include a form
requiring the authorized representative’s
signature for the applicant; for
consortium applicants it would require
the signatures from the authorized
representative from all participating
LEAs, but again, the elimination of the
sub-criteria more than offsets this.
The current approved information
collection requires applicants to submit
two different MOAs with the
application. We are proposing that
applicants be required to submit a single
preliminary MOA with the application
and a final MOA to be submitted post
award. The proposed collection does
require submission of a logic model, but
this requirement adds little burden as
the applicant need only present a subset
of the narrative information in a chart
format.
If you want to comment on the
proposed information collection
requirements, send your comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer
for U.S. Department of Education by email to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or
by fax to (202) 395–6974. You may also
send a copy of these comments to the
Department contact named in the
addresses section of this notice.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Feb 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of the
proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
action for this program.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well
as other Department of Education
documents published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet
at the following site: https://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.
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: 84.184L Safe Schools/Healthy
Students)
Program Authority: Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act (20 U.S.C.
7131); Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
290aa); and Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 5614(b)(4)(e) and
5781 et seq.).
Dated: February 22, 2007.
Deborah Price,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and DrugFree Schools.
[FR Doc. E7–3404 Filed 2–26–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
Publication of State Plan Pursuant to
the Help America Vote Act
U.S. Election Assistance
Commission (EAC).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to sections
254(a)(11)(A) and 255(b) of the Help
America Vote Act (HAVA), Pub. L. 107–
252, the U.S. Election Assistance
Commission (EAC) hereby causes to be
published in the Federal Register
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8709
material changes to the HAVA State
plan previously submitted by Kentucky.
DATES: This notice is effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bryan Whitener, telephone 202–566–
3100 or 1–866–747–1471 (toll-free).
SUBMIT COMMENTS: Any comments
regarding the plans published herewith
should be made in writing to the chief
election official of the individual State
at the address listed below.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
24, 2004, the U.S. Election Assistance
Commission published in the Federal
Register the original HAVA State plans
filed by the fifty states, the District of
Columbia and the Territories of
American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 69 FR
14002. HAVA anticipated that States,
Territories and the District of Columbia
would change or update their plans
from time to time pursuant to HAVA
section 254(a)(11) through (13). HAVA
sections 254(a)(11)(A) and 255 require
EAC to publish such updates. EAC has
not previously published an update to
the Kentucky State plan.
The submission from Kentucky
addresses material changes in the State
budget of its previously submitted State
plan and, in accordance with HAVA
section 254(a)(12), provides information
on how the State succeeded in carrying
out its previous State plan. the
submission addresses material changes
to the budget based on the amount of
funds actually received by the state and
not on the authorized amounts. The
revised state plan gives a detailed
description of how the State has met the
requirements of Title III as supporting
documentation for a certification filed
with the EAC under HAVA
§ 251(b)(2)(A).
Upon the expiration of thirty days
from February 27, 2007, Kentucky will
be eligible to implement the material
changes addressed in the plan that is
published herein, in accordance with
HAVA section 254(a)(11)(C).
EAC notes that the plan published
herein has already met the notice and
comment requirements of HAVA section
256, as required by HAVA section
254(a)(11)(B). EAC wishes to
acknowledge the effort that went into
revising this State plan and encourages
further public comment, in writing, to
the State election official listed below.
Chief State Election Officials
Kentucky
Ms. Sarah Ball Johnson, Executive
Director, Kentucky State Board of
Elections, 140 Walnut Street, Frankfort,
E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM
27FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8704-8709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3404]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
RIN 1865-ZA04
Safe Schools/Healthy Students
AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, requirements, selection
criteria, and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Departments of Education (ED), Health and Human Services
(HHS), and Justice (DOJ) issue this notice to propose priorities,
requirements, selection criteria, and definitions for the Safe Schools/
Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative. We propose this action to focus
Federal financial assistance on safe, disciplined, and drug-free
learning environments and healthy childhood development. We intend the
priorities to support the implementation and enhancement of integrated,
comprehensive community-wide plans that create safe and drug-free
schools and promote healthy childhood development. The Assistant Deputy
Secretary may use these proposed priorities, requirements, selection
criteria, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2007 and
later years.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 29, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed priorities,
requirements, selection criteria, and definitions to Karen Dorsey, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E336,
Washington, DC 20202-6450. If you prefer to send your comments through
the Internet, use the following address: Karen.Dorsey@ed.gov.
Please include the following in the subject line of all e-mails,
``Comments on SS/HS NPP.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Dorsey. Telephone (202) 708-4674
or via Internet: Karen.Dorsey@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:
Invitation To Comment
We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priorities,
requirements, selection criteria, and
[[Page 8705]]
definitions. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, selection
criteria, and definitions, we urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement, selection criterion, or definition your
comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirements of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed
priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and definitions. Please
let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce
potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the
effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed priorities, requirements, selection
criteria, and definitions in room 3E316 at 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
printer magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for these proposed priorities, requirements,
selection criteria, and definitions. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
We will announce the final priorities, requirements, selection
criteria, and definitions in a notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and
definitions after considering responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude
us from proposing or funding additional priorities, other selection
criteria, or other requirements, or changing definitions, subject to
meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these priorities, we will invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register. 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 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)).
Discussion of Proposed Priorities
Proposed Priority 1--Comprehensive Plan
Background
The Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) grant program draws on
the best practices of the education, justice, social service, and
mental health systems to provide a continuum of activities, curricula,
programs, and services designed to increase protective factors and
reduce risk as an effective way to promote healthy child development
and address the problems of school violence and alcohol and other drug
abuse.
Key to the SS/HS grant program is the creation and implementation
of a comprehensive plan that addresses specific needs, gaps, or
weaknesses in services, and builds on available resources and services.
Creating and implementing the comprehensive plan allows an applicant to
prevent youth drug use and violence, promote safe environments and
prosocial behaviors, and provide for healthy child development.
In previous years, the required comprehensive plan has included six
elements. The proposed priority for the program has been revised to
include five elements. We propose this change in order to reduce
overlap between the required elements.
Proposed Priority 1--Comprehensive Plan
This proposed priority would support the projects of local
educational agencies (LEAs) proposing to implement an integrated,
comprehensive community-wide plan designed to create safe, respectful,
and drug-free school environments and promote prosocial skills and
healthy childhood development. Plans must focus activities, curricula,
programs, and services in a manner that responds to the community's
existing needs, gaps, or weaknesses in areas related to the five
comprehensive plan elements:
Element One--Safe School Environments and Violence
Prevention Activities.
Element Two--Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Prevention
Activities.
Element Three--Student Behavioral, Social, and Emotional
Supports.
Element Four--Mental Health Services.
Element Five--Early Childhood Social and Emotional
Learning Programs.
Proposed Priority 2--LEAs That Have Not Previously Received a Grant or
Services Under the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative
Background
In recent fiscal years, we have limited eligibility for SS/HS
grants to LEAs that had not previously received an SS/HS grant. We
limited eligibility for awards in this way in an effort to maximize the
opportunity for as many LEAs as possible to receive SS/HS funding. We
now propose eliminating this absolute restriction on LEA eligibility,
and, instead, propose to establish a priority for LEAs that have not
previously received funding under the SS/HS program. We believe that
this approach addresses the needs of LEAs that have not previously
received SS/HS funding while still permitting prior recipients that
need additional resources in order to fully achieve their goals to have
an opportunity to compete for another award. We do not intend this
change to apply to prior recipients of SS/HS grants that have a current
active grant under the program.
Proposed Priority 2--LEAs That Have Not Previously Received a Grant or
Services Under the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative
Under this proposed priority, we would give priority to
applications from LEAs that have not yet received a grant under this
program as an applicant or as a member of a consortium. In order for a
consortium application to be eligible under this priority, no member of
the LEA consortium may have received a grant or services under this
program as an applicant or as a member of a consortium applicant.
Discussion of Proposed Requirements
Background
SS/HS applicants from prior competitions and former SS/HS grantees
have suggested that we clarify or modify certain SS/HS application
requirements. These include: eligibility requirements
[[Page 8706]]
that prohibit former SS/HS grantees from reapplying for SS/HS funding;
the requirement that an application include two memoranda in order to
be forwarded to peer review; the use of the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) school locale
codes to establish maximum funding amounts that applicants may request;
and the limits on the amount of funds that grantees may use for certain
project activities.
We have carefully considered this input, and propose several new or
modified program requirements. First, we propose eliminating the
restriction on eligibility for former SS/HS grantees. We believe that
in some instances, for example in the case of very large LEAs,
additional resources may be required to fully implement their
comprehensive plan and achieve their goals. However, to ensure that
former SS/HS grantees that wish to apply for additional funding are
targeting different school sites or target populations, we propose that
LEAs that have previously received an SS/HS grant include the following
assurance as part of their application. This assurance would state that
the scope of work included in the current SS/HS application is new and
that funding, if awarded, will not be used to sustain previously funded
activities, curricula, programs, and services provided to a population
served by the first SS/HS grant.
We also propose changes in funding limits established for
applicants. Previously, we used locale code designations from the NCES
Common Core of Data to determine maximum award sizes. Because that
approach has produced some unintended results, we propose using
enrollment size in order to establish maximum grant award amounts. We
believe that this approach better matches funding needs with maximum
grant amounts.
Instead of two memoranda of agreement (MOAs) that have been
required in previous competitions, we propose that a single,
preliminary MOA be submitted with the application. This preliminary MOA
would be more general in nature than those required in previous
competitions. We propose that the preliminary MOA must be signed by the
authorized representatives of the LEA, the local public mental health
authority, the local law enforcement agency, and the local juvenile
justice agency--the required SS/HS partners.
Because SS/HS projects for a consortium of LEAs often involve
multiple local public mental health, law enforcement, and/or juvenile
justice partners, we propose that applications submitted by a
consortium be signed by the authorized representative for each LEA
included in the consortium, and authorized representatives for the
corresponding required SS/HS partners for each member LEA. We also
propose that the preliminary MOA must demonstrate the support and
commitment of the required SS/HS partners to implement and sustain the
project.
We propose that applicants include information in the preliminary
MOA that supports the selection of the identified local public mental
health, law enforcement, and juvenile justice partners. The preliminary
MOA must name a core management team, comprised of senior
representatives from the required partners, and detail how the team
would support the project director in the day-to-day management of the
project. The preliminary MOA must also describe how multiple and
diverse sectors of the community, including parents and students, have
been and will continue to be involved in the design, implementation,
and continuous improvement of the project.
Finally, we propose that applicants submit a logic model as an
attachment to the preliminary MOA. The logic model, a graphic
representation of the project in chart format, would identify needs or
gaps with the corresponding goals, objectives, activities, partners'
roles, outcomes, and method for measuring outcomes for each of the SS/
HS elements. The core management team discussion and the logic model
attachment would serve to clarify the roles of the SS/HS required
partners as they relate to project planning, management,
implementation, evaluation, and communication.
We also propose that grantees be required to submit a final MOA.
The final MOA would provide an opportunity for successful applicants to
update and revise the information included in the preliminary MOA
furnished with the application, including information about the
selection of partners, updates to the statement of support and
commitment provided by the required SS/HS partners, the final roster of
the core management team, any needed revisions to the process for
including multiple and diverse sectors of the community in project
implementation, and the final logic model. We also propose that the
final MOA include descriptive information about partner financial
responsibility for services and other issues including quality,
accountability and coordination of services. We propose that the final
MOA must also detail the procedures to be used for referral, treatment,
and follow-up for children and adolescents needing mental health
services. The final MOA must also include an assurance that the local
public mental health authority will provide administrative control and/
or oversight of the delivery of mental health services. We believe that
these additional requirements, when implemented, will increase the
likelihood of project success. The final MOA must be signed by the
authorized representatives of each of the required partners and be
submitted approximately six months after the award is made.
We also propose that grantees use at least seven percent of their
grant award amount to conduct a local evaluation. SS/HS projects are
unusually complex, and require a broad range of evaluation activities,
including process, formative, and outcome evaluations in order to
supply the information needed for effective management and project
improvement.
Finally, we propose to limit a grantee's use of grant funds for
costs associated with security equipment, security personnel, and minor
remodeling of school facilities to improve school safety, to no more
than 10 percent of the total budget for each year. Expenditures for
security equipment and personnel will have limited impact on school
safety absent a comprehensive approach.
Accordingly we propose the following requirements:
Proposed Requirements
Application and Eligibility. We propose that an applicant must meet
the following requirements:
Proposed Requirement 1: Program-Specific Assurance for Former SS/HS
Grant Recipients
For those LEAs that have received funds or services (or for those
LEA consortia that include a member LEA that has received funds or
services) under the SS/HS program, a program-specific assurance must be
submitted as part of the SS/HS application. All participating LEAs in a
proposed consortium project must sign this program-specific assurance.
The assurance must state that the scope of work included in the current
SS/HS application is new and that funding, if awarded, will not be used
to sustain previously funded activities, curricula, programs, and
services to a population served by the first SS/HS grant. Applications
from prior SS/HS grant recipients (or from a consortium that includes
an LEA that has previously received SS/HS funds or services) that do
not include the program-specific
[[Page 8707]]
assurance would be rejected and not considered for funding.
Proposed Requirement 2: Funding Limits for Applicants
We propose that an applicant's request for funding must not exceed
the following maximum amounts, based on student enrollment data.
Specifically, we propose that the maximum amount an applicant may
request for any of the project's four 12-month budget periods would be:
$2,250,000 for an LEA with at least 35,000 students; $1,500,000 for an
LEA with at least 5,000 students but less than 35,000 students; and
$750,000 for an LEA with less than 5,000 students; and that in applying
these maximums, applicants must use the most recent student enrollment
data from the National Center for Education Statistics' (NCES) Common
Core of Data (CCD) as posted on the NCES Web site. In the case of
consortium applicants, the maximum funding request is based on combined
student enrollment data for the participating LEAs. Bureau of Indian
Affairs schools not included in the NCES database and requesting grant
funds that exceed $750,000 for any of the project's four 12-month
periods must provide documentation of enrollment data.
Proposed Requirement 3: Preliminary Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
We propose that each applicant must include in its application a
preliminary MOA that is signed by the authorized representatives of the
LEA, the local public mental health authority, the local law
enforcement agency, and the local juvenile justice agency--the required
SS/HS partners. For consortium applicants, the preliminary MOA must be
signed by each member LEA and the corresponding required SS/HS partners
for each member LEA. Additionally, the preliminary MOA must:
(a) Include information that supports the selection of each
identified SS/HS required partner that has signed the preliminary MOA;
(b) demonstrate the support and commitment of the required SS/HS
partners to implement and sustain the project if funded;
(c) name a core management team of senior representatives from the
required partners, and clearly define how each member of the team will
support the project director in the day-to-day management of the
project;
(d) describe how multiple and diverse sectors of the community,
including parents and students, have been and will continue to be
involved in the design, implementation, and continuous improvement of
the project; and
(e) include, as an attachment, a logic model (a graphic
representation of the project in chart format) that identifies needs or
gaps and connects those needs or gaps with corresponding project goals,
objectives, activities, partners' roles, outcomes, and outcome measures
for each of the SS/HS elements.
Applications that do not include the preliminary MOA signed by the
authorized representatives of each of the required partners (the LEA,
local public mental health authority, local law enforcement agency, and
local juvenile justice agency) and the logic model would be rejected
and not considered for funding.
Proposed Requirement 4: Final Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
If funded, grant recipients must complete a final MOA. The final
MOA must be signed by the SS/HS partners--the authorized
representatives for the LEA, the local public mental health authority,
the local law enforcement agency, and the local juvenile justice
agency. For consortium applicants, the final MOA must be signed by each
member LEA and the corresponding required SS/HS partners for each
member LEA. The final MOA must also include the following:
(a) Information that supports the selection of each identified SS/
HS required partner that has signed the final MOA;
(b) any needed revisions to the statement of support and commitment
for each of the required SS/HS partners to implement and sustain the
project;
(c) a final roster of the core management team of senior
representatives from the required SS/HS partners, that clearly defines
how each member of the team will support the project director in the
day-to-day management of the project;
(d) any needed revisions to the process for including multiple and
diverse sectors of the community in the implementation and continuous
improvement of the project;
(e) a final logic model that identifies needs or gaps and connects
those needs or gaps with corresponding project goals, objectives,
activities, partners' role, outcomes, and outcome measures for each of
the SS/HS elements;
(f) a description of each partner's financial responsibility for
the services that it will provide along with the conditions and terms
of responsibility for those services, including quality,
accountability, and coordination of services as they relate to
achieving the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the project;
(g) a description of the procedures to be used for referral,
treatment, and follow-up for children and adolescents in need of mental
health services and an assurance that the local public mental health
authority will provide administrative control and/or oversight of the
delivery of mental health services; and
(h) any other necessary revisions to information furnished in the
preliminary MOA.
Proposed Funding Restrictions
Proposed Funding Restriction 1: We propose that no less than seven
percent of a grantee's budget for each year must be used to support
costs associated with local evaluation activities.
Proposed Funding Restriction 2: We propose that no more than 10
percent of the total budget for each project year may be used to
support costs associated with security equipment, security personnel,
and minor remodeling of school facilities to improve school safety.
Discussion of Proposed Selection Criteria
Background
The SS/HS grant program was created to provide Federal financial
assistance to school districts and communities to promote ongoing
partnerships as a way of enhancing and expanding their existing
activities relating to youth violence prevention and healthy child
development. Since the original competition in FY 1999, four additional
competitions have been held (FY 2001, FY 2002, FY 2004 and FY 2005).
Our experience with administering these competitions, including
feedback from peer reviewers, applicants, and funded grantees,
demonstrates the need to use program-specific selection criteria that
will better identify applications for SS/HS funding that are most
likely to produce successful SS/HS projects. We believe these
refinements will contribute to our on-going efforts to improve the
initiative.
Proposed Selection Criteria
We propose the following selection criteria for this program:
1. Community Assessment
(a) The extent to which the applicant describes individual, family,
school, and community risk and protective factors that relate to the
five SS/HS elements and will be addressed by the project.
(b) The extent to which the applicant describes student problem
behaviors as they relate to the five SS/HS elements and how they will
be addressed by the project.
[[Page 8708]]
(c) The extent to which the applicant identifies, in the project
narrative and the logic model, needs and gaps related to the five SS/HS
elements that are not addressed by current services and programs.
2. Goals and Objectives
(a) The extent to which the applicant's project narrative and logic
model specify one or more goals for each of the five SS/HS elements,
and the goals are clearly linked to the needs and gaps identified in
the community assessment.
(b) The extent to which the objectives identified in the
applicant's project narrative and logic model are measurable and linked
to each of the stated goals.
3. Project Design
(a) The extent to which the applicant's project narrative and logic
model propose activities, curricula, programs, and services that will
address each of the goals and objectives of the proposed project.
(b) The extent to which activities, curricula, programs, and
services proposed by the applicant are evidence-based or reflect
current research and effective practice, and are appropriate for the
age and developmental levels, gender, and cultural diversity of the
target population.
4. Evaluation
(a) The extent to which the applicant's project narrative describes
a plan for regularly monitoring program implementation, and identifies
process measures that the applicant will use to assess the quality and
completeness of the activities planned under the grant.
(b) The extent to which the applicant's project narrative and logic
model identify outcomes that are clearly linked to the identified
objectives and activities for the project, and specify how outcomes
will be measured.
5. Management
(a) The extent to which the applicant describes a management plan
adequate to achieve objectives of the proposed program on time and
within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities of partners,
staff, and contracted service providers, and milestones for
accomplishing project tasks.
(b) The extent to which the applicant provides, in the project
narrative and preliminary MOA, information about any preexisting
partnership involving the required SS/HS partners, and that
partnership's accomplishments directly related to the five SS/HS
elements.
(c) The extent to which the applicant describes, in the project
narrative and in the preliminary MOA, a core management team that is
appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's objectives and
support the project director in day-to-day management of the project.
(d) The extent to which the applicant describes, in the project
narrative and in the preliminary MOA, how multiple and diverse sectors
of the community, including students and families, have been and will
continue to be involved in the design, implementation, and continuous
improvement of the project.
(e) The extent to which the applicant describes a plan to develop
data systems that will be used to support decision making processes
established for the grant, including the use of technology.
6. Budget
The extent to which the proposed budget and budget narrative
correspond to the project design and are reasonable in relation to the
numbers of students and staff, and the identified objectives to be
achieved.
Additional Selection Factor
We propose to consider geographic distribution and diversity of
activities addressed by the projects in selecting an application for an
award.
Proposed Definitions
Several important terms associated with this competition are not
defined in the statute. We propose the following definitions:
1. Authorized representative--We propose defining the term
authorized representative as the official within an organization with
the legal authority to give assurances, make commitments, enter into
contracts, and execute such documents on behalf of the organization as
may be required by the U.S. Department of Education (the Department),
including certification that commitments made on grant proposals will
be honored and that the applicant agrees to comply with the
Department's regulations, guidelines, and policies.
2. Local juvenile justice agency--We propose defining the term
local juvenile justice agency as an agency or entity at the local level
that is officially recognized by State or local government to address
juvenile justice issues in the communities to be served by the grant.
Examples of juvenile justice agencies include: juvenile justice task
forces; juvenile justice centers; juvenile or family courts; juvenile
probation agencies; and juvenile corrections agencies.
3. Local law enforcement agency--We propose defining the term local
law enforcement agency as the agency (or agencies) that has law
enforcement authority for the LEA. Examples of local law enforcement
agencies include: municipal, county, and State police; tribal police
and councils; and sheriffs' departments.
4. Local public mental health authority--We propose defining the
term local public mental health authority as the entity legally
constituted (directly or through contract with the State mental health
authority) to provide administrative control or oversight of mental
health services delivery within the community.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of proposed priorities, requirements, selection
criteria, and definitions 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 this regulatory action 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 regulatory action we have determined that the
benefits of the proposed regulatory action 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
Certain sections of the proposed priorities, requirements, and
selection criteria for the SS/HS grant program contain information
collection requirements already approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 1865-0004 (1890-0001). The
Department does not believe the proposed priorities, requirements, and
selection criteria will change the current approved burden for 1865-
0004 (1890-0001). However, as required by the PRA, the Department is
submitting 1865-0004 (1890-0001) to OMB for a revised information
collection clearance concurrently with the publication of this notice
of proposed priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and
definitions.
The current absolute priority for the SS/HS grant program includes
six elements that an applicant's comprehensive plan must address. This
notice proposes to reduce the elements from six to five. While this
notice proposes two new requirements, it proposes to eliminate a
current
[[Page 8709]]
requirement that applicants submit a MOA for mental health services.
Also, we are proposing fewer program-specific selection criteria. The
current approved information collection contains seven selection
criteria with a total of 25 sub-criteria to which applicants must
respond. We are proposing six selection criteria, with only 15 sub-
criteria. All changes to the priorities, requirements and selection
criteria are responsive to comments and suggestions we received from
previous applicants and grantees.
The proposed changes to the information collection do not change
the estimated 26 hours needed to review the instructions, search
existing data sources, gather needed data, prepare and review
responses. The elimination of one of the elements in the absolute
priority and the elimination of 10 sub-criteria provide more than
enough time for applicants to respond to new requirements (i.e.,
signatures on the program-specific assurance and completing a logic
model).
In this notice, we are proposing a priority for LEAs that have not
previously received a grant or services under the SS/HS Initiative. To
receive priority, applicants will be required to submit a program-
specific assurance. This new information collection requirement is
primarily cosmetic, as the application will include a form requiring
the authorized representative's signature for the applicant; for
consortium applicants it would require the signatures from the
authorized representative from all participating LEAs, but again, the
elimination of the sub-criteria more than offsets this.
The current approved information collection requires applicants to
submit two different MOAs with the application. We are proposing that
applicants be required to submit a single preliminary MOA with the
application and a final MOA to be submitted post award. The proposed
collection does require submission of a logic model, but this
requirement adds little burden as the applicant need only present a
subset of the narrative information in a chart format.
If you want to comment on the proposed information collection
requirements, send your comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of
Education by e-mail to OIRA--DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395-
6974. You may also send a copy of these comments to the Department
contact named in the addresses section of this notice.
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 strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination and review of the proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
action for this program.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
https://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.
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: 84.184L Safe
Schools/Healthy Students)
Program Authority: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
Act (20 U.S.C. 7131); Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa);
and Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (42 U.S.C.
5614(b)(4)(e) and 5781 et seq.).
Dated: February 22, 2007.
Deborah Price,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
[FR Doc. E7-3404 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
