Safe Schools/Healthy Students Program, 26692-26697 [E7-9043]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 90 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26692-26697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9043]



[[Page 26691]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Education





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Safe Schools/Healthy Students Program--Notice of Final Priorities, 
Requirements, Selection Criteria, and Definitions; and Notice Inviting 
Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007; Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / 
Notices

[[Page 26692]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RIN 1865-ZA04


Safe Schools/Healthy Students Program

AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final priorities, requirements, selection criteria, 
and definitions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
announces priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and definitions 
under the Safe Schools/Healthy Students program. The Assistant Deputy 
Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools may use these priorities, 
requirements, selection criteria, and definitions for competitions in 
fiscal year (FY) 2007 and later years. We take this action to focus 
Federal financial assistance on safe, respectful, and drug-free 
learning environments and healthy childhood development, as well as to 
support the implementation and enhancement of integrated, 
comprehensive, community-wide plans designed to meet these goals.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and 
definitions are effective June 11, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Dorsey, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E336, Washington, DC 20202-
6200. Telephone: (202) 708-4674 or via e-mail: 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: 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 creating and implementing 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 
skills, and provide for healthy child development.
    The establishment in this notice of priorities, requirements, 
selection criteria, and definitions is designed to describe more 
clearly our vision for this important initiative and provide 
prospective applicants with additional insight into the program and its 
requirements.
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
selection criteria, and definitions for this program in the Federal 
Register on February 27, 2007 (72 FR 8704).
    Except for minor editorial and technical revisions, there are no 
differences between the notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
selection criteria, and definitions and this notice of final 
priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and definitions.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed priorities, 
requirements, selection criteria, and definitions, five parties 
submitted comments. An analysis of the comments follows.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes or 
suggested changes we are not authorized to make under the applicable 
statutory authority.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that community organizations be 
allowed to apply directly for an SS/HS grant. The commenter expressed 
concern that by limiting eligibility to local educational agencies 
(LEAs), the Department would exclude some communities from receiving 
much needed Federal resources. The commenter noted that while schools 
are interested in having an intervention implemented, that interest 
wanes when they discover that they have to be the entity applying for 
funding because they feel they are unable to commit the necessary time 
and resources to coordinate, manage, and implement a grant.
    Discussion: The U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human 
Services, and Justice initially designed the SS/HS initiative in 
response to direction from Congress. The conference committee report 
that accompanied the initial funding appropriated for SS/HS in FY 1999 
instructed the Federal agencies to ``promote safe learning environments 
for students'' through competitive grants ``to local educational 
agencies for developing community-wide approaches to creating safe and 
drug-free schools * * *'' (House of Representatives Report 105-825, to 
accompany H.R. 4328, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999).
    The SS/HS initiative recognizes the importance of community 
partners in creating a comprehensive, coordinated plan for meeting the 
initiative's very broad goals, as demonstrated by the requirement that 
every application include a partnership among a local school district, 
a local public mental health authority, and local law enforcement and 
juvenile justice entities. However, we continue to believe that an LEA 
is the entity best positioned to take the lead in developing and 
implementing a comprehensive set of strategies and activities that 
significantly improves the school environment and climate. Community-
based organizations are often well suited to implement effective 
prevention programs for students and families and can be an important 
partner in a SS/HS project, but these organizations may lack the level 
of control and oversight of school settings needed to implement 
effective, comprehensive school-based projects.
    Change: None.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concern about the elimination of 
the previous SS/HS eligibility requirement that barred former SS/HS 
grant recipients from applying for a second SS/HS grant. One commenter 
felt that this change might reduce the number of awards made to small, 
rural districts. Specifically, the commenter was concerned that small, 
rural districts may be unable to compete with larger LEAs that 
frequently have dedicated resources for grant writing.
    The other commenter asserted that the advantages realized by 
receiving a SS/HS grant, including the ability to leverage additional 
resources, are so significant that previous recipients should not be 
eligible to compete for another SS/HS grant.
    Discussion: In developing the notice of proposed priorities, 
requirements, selection criteria, and definitions, we carefully 
considered whether or not to eliminate the restriction on eligibility 
for previous SS/HS grantees. The proposal to eliminate the restriction 
was based in significant part on the unique needs of LEAs with very 
large enrollments or States and territories whose governance structure 
includes only a single LEA. In these cases, SS/HS funds from a single 
grant, though significant, were not sufficient to reach

[[Page 26693]]

all schools and sub-regions in the LEA. We believe that eliminating 
this restriction provides an opportunity for an LEA to compete for 
additional support to realize its goal of creating a safer learning 
environment for all of its schools or sub-regions. To ensure that 
former SS/HS grant recipients do not receive new SS/HS awards to 
sustain their original projects, we proposed to require that former SS/
HS grant recipients submit a program-specific assurance stating that if 
awarded, the project will not serve those schools or sub-regions that 
were served by the first SS/HS project.
    Additionally, we recognize that all previous grantees, not just 
large LEAs with dedicated grant-writing personnel, have experience with 
the initiative that may assist them in preparing competitive grant 
applications. In an effort to level the playing field and balance the 
interests of small, large, rural, and urban LEAs, as well as those of 
prior SS/HS grant recipients and of LEAs that have not yet received a 
SS/HS grant, we plan to award a preference for LEAs that have not 
received a SS/HS grant. Our experience with other grant competitions 
suggests that this strategy generally helps novice applicants compete 
effectively with entities that have previously received grants and 
implemented discretionary grant projects.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that an educational service agency 
(ESA) that has previously received a SS/HS grant on behalf of several 
of its member districts be able to apply on behalf of other LEAs that 
were not part of the previous SS/HS project. This commenter also 
requested that the ESA be able to implement with the new LEAs the same 
activities previously implemented as part of a prior SS/HS grant 
received by the ESA. Finally, the commenter requested that ESAs that 
have previously received a SS/HS grant and are submitting a new 
application on behalf of LEAs not served by the prior grant be 
considered new applicants under Priority 2.
    Discussion: The notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
selection criteria, and definitions did not propose to continue the 
prohibition on an LEA receiving a second SS/HS grant that was 
established in the notice of final priorities for the program published 
in the Federal Register on May 28, 2004 (69 FR 30756). Instead, through 
Priority 2, we proposed to establish a priority for LEAs that have not 
previously received a SS/HS grant at any time. This preference is 
designed to help level the playing field for applicants that have not 
previously received SS/HS funding given that prior recipients will now 
be allowed to compete for funding.
    We are not restricting the ability of an ESA to propose programs 
used in a previous SS/HS project, provided that different LEAs are 
being served under the new SS/HS project.
    Priority 1 does not address the issue of whether or not an 
applicant is a prior recipient or a new applicant for SS/HS funding. 
Priority 2 provides a priority for new applicants, but ESAs that have 
previously received a SS/HS grant would not be considered new 
applicants, even if their applications were designed to serve LEAs that 
had not received services under a previous SS/HS project. The priority 
is designed to help applicants that have not received SS/HS funds 
compete effectively with prior recipients that have had the advantage 
of designing and implementing a successful SS/HS project. Permitting an 
ESA with a prior SS/HS grant award to be eligible under this priority 
(even when it would implement activities in new schools or LEAs) would 
run counter to our objective in establishing Priority 2 because those 
ESAs have used a previous grant to gain experience that they can build 
upon in serving new schools and LEAs.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we change the application 
requirements and definitions to require that applicants for SS/HS funds 
demonstrate the participation in their projects of local agencies 
working to prevent substance abuse. Specifically, the commenter 
recommended that the application requirement for a preliminary 
memorandum of agreement (MOA) be modified to require the addition of a 
local substance abuse prevention agency as a partner or, alternatively, 
that the local behavioral health authority be included if a single 
authority is responsible for both mental health and substance abuse 
services. The commenter felt that requiring the inclusion of such 
agencies would enhance efforts to prevent youth violence and promote 
healthy youth development.
    The commenter also suggested that the contents of the required 
final MOA be expanded to include details about the procedures to be 
used for referral, treatment, and follow-up for students receiving 
substance abuse services. Additionally, the commenter proposed 
definitions for the terms ``local substance abuse prevention agency'' 
and/or ``behavioral health authority,'' and requested that the 
Department apply these definitions to the SS/HS program.
    Discussion: As stated by the commenter, local substance abuse 
prevention agencies and/or behavioral health authorities exist in many 
localities, but this is not true for every community and every State. 
Some States and many localities do not have independent substance abuse 
prevention agencies but combine responsibilities for substance abuse 
prevention, intervention, and treatment with behavioral health, mental 
health, public health, or even child welfare. Because of the variation 
in State and local government structures, we would not easily be able 
to determine if local agencies for substance abuse prevention exist in 
each applicant's jurisdiction and, thus, we would not be able to make 
an accurate and efficient determination regarding an applicant's 
eligibility.
    Applicants are required to address, in their preliminary and final 
MOAs among the required SS/HS partners, as well as in their responses 
to the selection criteria, how multiple and diverse sectors of the 
community have been and will continue to be involved in the design, 
implementation, and continuous improvement of the project. Those LEAs 
situated in localities with a separate local substance abuse prevention 
agency could include the separate local substance abuse prevention 
agency in their Comprehensive Plan and as a SS/HS partner and describe 
the participation of that agency in their application. The final MOA 
from a partnership that includes a separate local substance abuse 
prevention agency could also include details about the proposed 
procedures to be used for referral, treatment, and follow-up for 
students receiving substance abuse services to be provided by or 
coordinated by the local substance abuse prevention agency.
    Change: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: The notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
selection criteria, and definitions proposed that previous SS/HS grant 
recipients be allowed to compete for additional SS/HS funding provided 
that the applicants submit a program-specific assurance with their 
grant applications. In this assurance, an applicant would state that 
the scope of work contained in the grant application is new and that 
funding, if awarded, will not be used to sustain activities, programs, 
curricula, or services provided to a population during the first SS/HS 
grant.
    Although we did not receive any comments about the proposed 
assurance, we were contacted by some

[[Page 26694]]

LEAs that have previously received a SS/HS grant award, seeking 
clarification about the proposed assurance. Based on these contacts, we 
believe that the language for the assurance proposed in the notice of 
proposed priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and definitions 
may not have clearly conveyed our intent.
    Our rationale for eliminating the restriction on eligibility that 
prohibited recipients of a SS/HS grant from applying for a subsequent 
grant is that, despite the size of SS/HS grants, some very large LEAs 
were not eligible to apply for sufficient funding to design and 
implement a comprehensive SS/HS plan district-wide and that such LEAs 
would not have been able to include all of their schools or sub-regions 
in their first SS/HS projects. Our intent was to provide an opportunity 
for these LEAs to implement activities, curricula, programs, and 
services to those schools or sub-regions that were not served by the 
first SS/HS project. We did not intend to limit the activities, 
programs, curricula, or services that can be included in a new 
application for schools not previously served, nor did we intend this 
to provide an opportunity for prior recipients to ``redo'' a SS/HS 
project in the schools and sub-regions that were served by the first 
SS/HS project.
    We expect current and former SS/HS grantees to use the resources 
provided by the SS/HS initiative (direct grant funds as well as 
technical assistance resources) and their strong community partnerships 
to create the system and institutional changes needed to sustain SS/HS 
activities, curricula programs, and services after Federal funding has 
ended.
    Change: We have modified the text of the assurance to clarify our 
intent in requiring this assurance. 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 must submit a 
program-specific assurance as part of the SS/HS application. That 
assurance must state that, if awarded, the project will not serve those 
schools or sub-regions that were served by the first SS/HS project.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through 
a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting applications we 
designate a 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)).

Priorities

Priority 1--Comprehensive Plan

    This priority supports projects of 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.

Priority 2--LEAs That Have Not Previously Received a Grant or Services 
Under the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative

    Under this priority, we 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.

Application and Eligibility Requirements

    The applicant must meet the following requirements:
    1. Program-Specific Assurances for Former SS/HS Grant Recipients. 
For those LEAs that have previously 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, if awarded, the project will 
not serve those schools or sub-regions served by the first SS/HS 
project. 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 assurance 
will be rejected and not considered for funding.
    2. Funding Limits for Applicants. An applicant's request for 
funding must not exceed the following maximum amounts, based on student 
enrollment data, for any of the project's four 12-month budget periods: 
$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 fewer than 35,000 students; and 
$750,000 for an LEA with fewer than 5,000 students. 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 the combined 
student enrollment data for the participating LEAs. Department of the 
Interior, Bureau of Indian Education-funded schools that are not 
included in the NCES database and request grant funds that exceed 
$750,000 for any of the project's four 12-month budget periods must 
provide documentation of enrollment data.
    3. Preliminary MOA. Each applicant must include in its application 
a preliminary MOA that is signed by the authorized representatives of 
the LEA, the local juvenile justice agency, the local law enforcement 
agency, and the local public mental health authority--the required SS/
HS partners. For consortium applicants, the preliminary MOA must be 
signed by the authorized representatives of each member LEA and by the 
authorized representatives of each corresponding required SS/HS partner 
for each member LEA.

[[Page 26695]]

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 SS/HS partners (the 
LEA, the local juvenile justice agency, the local law enforcement 
agency, and the local public mental health authority) and the logic 
model will be rejected and not considered for funding.
    4. Final MOA. If funded, grant recipients must complete a final 
MOA. The final MOA must be signed by the authorized representatives of 
the LEA, the local juvenile justice agency, the local law enforcement 
agency, and the local public mental health authority--the required SS/
HS partners. For consortium applicants, the final MOA must be signed by 
the authorized representative for each member LEA and the authorized 
representative for each of 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 involving 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' roles, 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 the 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.
    Funding Restrictions: The funding restrictions for this program 
are:
    1. No less than seven percent of a grantee's budget for each year 
must be used to support costs associated with local evaluation 
activities.
    2. 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.

Selection Criteria

    The selection criteria for this program are:

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 that 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.
    (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 
to which 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 the 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 the preliminary MOA, information about any preexisting 
partnership involving the required SS/HS partners and about 
accomplishments of that partnership that are 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

[[Page 26696]]

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 to the identified objectives to be 
achieved.

Additional Selection Factors

    The following factors may be considered in selecting an application 
for an award: (1) Geographic distribution; and (2) diversity of 
activities addressed by the projects.

Definitions

    1. Authorized representative means-- 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 means--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 means--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 means--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 final 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 the notice of final priorities, 
requirements, selection criteria, and definitions 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, requirements, 
selection criteria, and definitions, we have determined that the 
benefits of this 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.
    We fully discussed the costs and benefits in the notice of proposed 
priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and definitions.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    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 has 
submitted 1865-0004 (1890-0001) to OMB for a revised information 
collection clearance.
    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 establishes two new requirements, we have eliminated the 
requirement that applicants submit a MOA for mental health services. 
Also, we have established 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. In this notice, we have established six selection criteria, 
with only 15 sub-criteria.
    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 have established 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 requiring 
applicants to submit a single preliminary MOA with the application and 
a final MOA 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 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.

[[Page 26697]]

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may view this document, as well as all 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.
    You may also view this document in text at the following sites: 
https://www.ed.gov/programs/dvpsafeschools/applicant.html. https://
www.sshs.samhsa.gov.

    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.)

    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: May 4, 2007.
Deborah A. Price,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
[FR Doc. E7-9043 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P