Safe Schools/Healthy Students Program; Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.184J and 84.184L, 9562-9572 [2011-3788]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9562-9572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3788]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Safe Schools/Healthy Students Program; Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.184J and 84.184L

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
proposes priorities,

[[Page 9563]]

requirements, and definitions under the Safe Schools/Healthy Students 
(SS/HS) program. The Assistant Deputy Secretary may use one or more of 
these priorities, requirements, and definitions for competitions in 
fiscal year (FY) 2011 and later years. We take this action to focus 
Federal financial assistance on supporting school and community 
partnerships in their efforts to develop and coordinate integrated 
systems that create safe, drug-free, and respectful environments for 
learning and to promote the behavioral health \1\ of children and 
youth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``behavioral health'' is used in this document as a 
general term to encompass the promotion of emotional and mental 
health and the prevention of mental illness and substance abuse 
disorders.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Karen Dorsey, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 10061, Potomac 
Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-6450.
    If you prefer to send your comments by e-mail, use the following 
address: Karen.dorsey@ed.gov. You must include the term Safe Schools/
Healthy Students Comments in the subject line of your electronic 
message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Dorsey. Telephone: (202) 245-
7858 or by e-mail: Karen.dorsey@ed.gov.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the 
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, and 
definitions, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed 
priority, requirement, and definition that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of 
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed 
priorities, requirements, and definitions. Please let us know of any 
further ways we could 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 this notice in room 10061, 550 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal 
holidays. Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: To support school and community partnerships in 
their efforts to develop, coordinate, and implement a comprehensive 
plan of evidence-based programs, effective policies, and innovative 
strategies that create safe, drug-free, and respectful environments for 
learning and promote the behavioral health of children and youth.

    Program Authority: Section 4121 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, as amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7131); Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa); and the Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 5614(b)(4)(e) and 5781 et 
seq.)

    Program Background: We published a notice of final priorities, 
requirements, selection criteria, and definitions for this program 
(2007 NFP) in the Federal Register on May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26692). The 
2007 NFP contained background information and our reasons for the 
particular priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and 
definitions established in that notice; the priorities, requirements, 
selection criteria, and definitions announced in the 2007 NFP were used 
for the FY 2007, FY 2008, and FY 2009 SS/HS competitions.
    In this notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and 
definitions (NPP), we propose priorities, requirements, and definitions 
that would replace the priorities, requirements, and definitions that 
we established in the 2007 NFP. While some of the priorities, 
requirements, and definitions included in this NPP are completely new, 
others are based--at least in part--on the priorities, requirements, 
and definitions reflected in the 2007 NFP. With the priorities, 
requirements, and definitions proposed in this notice, the program-
specific selection criteria established in the 2007 NFP are no longer 
needed. For this reason, we do not propose program-specific selection 
criteria in this NPP.

Proposed Priorities

    This notice contains three proposed priorities.

Background

    Since 1999 the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human 
Services, and Justice have collaborated on the Safe Schools/Healthy 
Students (SS/HS) grant program to support school and community 
partnerships in implementing an integrated, comprehensive community-
wide plan designed to create safe, respectful, and drug-free school 
environments and to promote ``prosocial'' skills and healthy childhood 
development. Since its inception, the intent of the SS/HS program has 
been that SS/HS grantees would draw from the best practices and 
research in education, behavioral health, law enforcement, and juvenile 
justice in developing a comprehensive plan of activities, curricula, 
programs, and services to address issues that adversely affect the 
learning environment and healthy childhood development.
    In the 1999 grant application for this program, we articulated the 
following three important program goals for SS/HS:
    (1) Helping students develop the skills and emotional resilience 
necessary to promote positive mental health, engage in prosocial 
behavior, and prevent violent behavior and drug use.
    (2) Ensuring that all students who attend the targeted schools are 
able to learn in safe, disciplined, and drug-free environments.
    (3) Helping develop an infrastructure that will institutionalize 
and sustain integrated services after Federal funding has ended.
    Over the years, we have revised and added to the absolute priority, 
program requirements, program-specific selection criteria, and the 
definitions that we established for the SS/HS program in 1999. 
Specifically, the absolute priority was refined in 2004 and 2007; 
program-specific selection criteria were revised in 2001, 2004, and 
2007; and other minor revisions were made to clarify requirements and 
to enhance the SS/HS comprehensive plan development in 2004 and 2007. 
These revisions enhanced the implementation of the program while 
maintaining the intent, as described in 1999, of funding school and 
community partnerships to implement an integrated, comprehensive 
community-wide plan designed to create safe, respectful, and drug-free 
school environments and to promote prosocial skills and healthy 
childhood development.
    In large part the success of SS/HS grantees assessed since 2005 
demonstrates that the first two of the

[[Page 9564]]

three program goals, stated in 1999 application, are being met. A 
recently completed 5-year evaluation of SS/HS found that the projects 
resulted in--
     Fewer students witnessing violence;
     Fewer students involved in violent incidents;
     More teachers and students feeling safer at school and in 
the community;
     More than 80 percent of school staff reporting reductions 
in alcohol and other drug use among their students; and
     Increased access for students to mental health services.
    We do not have similar data to support that the third program goal 
identified in 1999, developing an infrastructure that will 
institutionalize and sustain integrated services after Federal funding 
has ended, is achieving similar success.
    In an effort to improve the success of SS/HS grantees and increase 
the likelihood that positive outcomes are sustained after the grant 
period, we reviewed quantitative and qualitative data from applicants, 
current grantees, and prior grantees and discussed with our Federal 
partners how the SS/HS grant program could be changed to increase and 
sustain positive outcomes among grantees. Feedback from current and 
former grantees and reviews of SS/HS qualitative and quantitative 
evaluation data revealed: (1) Shortcomings in the SS/HS program design 
as it relates to sustaining successful outcomes; (2) certain common 
characteristics shared by those grantees with successful long-term 
outcomes; and (3) the need for applicants to have more time to complete 
the SS/HS grant application.
    On the first point regarding shortcomings in the SS/HS program 
design, many grantees stated that the absolute priority on 
comprehensive plans used in the 2007 competition (the 2007 
Comprehensive Plan Priority) did not encourage using SS/HS Federal 
grant funds to support, facilitate, and create ``systems change'' in 
child- and family-serving agencies in the community or leveraging 
existing resources in such agencies. Instead, in meeting the 2007 
Comprehensive Plan Priority, many grantees focused only on the set of 
activities, curricula, programs, and services they described in their 
comprehensive plan. By doing so, they did not experience any of the 
benefits that systems change can bring to the community or appreciate 
the importance of developing an infrastructure that will 
institutionalize and sustain integrated services after Federal funding 
has ended.
    To meet the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Priority, applicants under this 
program have been required to submit plans that 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.
    While all applications to date have included a detailed 
comprehensive plan related to these SS/HS elements, only some of the 
SS/HS grantees have been able to sustain their respective school-
community partnerships after the project ended. These sustained school-
community partnerships resulted in the following successful qualitative 
long-term outcomes:
     Greater community support and awareness of issues that 
affect the healthy development of children.
     Data-driven decision-making.
     Changes in school, community-based organization, and local 
government policies, procedures, and practices to better serve children 
and their families.
     Unprecedented local collaboration that enables and 
encourages lasting changes.
     Sustaining activities, curricula, services, and programs 
after the grant project ends.
    On the second point, grantee data and discussions with prior 
grantees have revealed common characteristics among those grantees that 
have demonstrated the successful long-term outcomes outlined in the 
previous paragraph. One common characteristic being that when grantees 
and their partner agencies incorporated a range of strategies--
including capacity building, collaboration and partnership, policy 
change and development, systems change and integration, and the use of 
technology--in their SS/HS comprehensive plan they had successful long-
term outcomes. While the activities, curricula, programs, and services 
that grantees carry out as part of their SS/HS projects were key, 
successful long-term outcomes were not as likely to result when they 
occurred in isolation from other strategies.
    Other common characteristics of grantees with successful long-term 
outcomes were: They used existing community partnerships to support the 
development of the SS/HS application; community assessment data was 
used by the partnership to complete the application; and the community 
partnership facilitated the implementation of the project. A soon to be 
released national cross-site evaluation report on the 2005 and 2006 SS/
HS grantees states that the value of the partnerships developed or 
enhanced through the SS/HS grant should not be understated and that 
grantees with higher functioning partnerships were associated with 
greater improvements reported by school staff.
    Finally, we heard from many applicants that completing the 
application was very labor intensive and greatly exceeded the 26 hours 
that we estimated it would take to complete the application. Applicants 
stated that without a preexisting community partnership, there was not 
sufficient time between the date of publication in the Federal Register 
of the notice inviting applications for new awards and the deadline for 
transmittal of applications to solicit partners, negotiate a memorandum 
of agreement, search existing data sources, gather needed data, and 
complete the application.
    For these reasons, we are proposing three priorities in this 
notice. The first priority responds to the findings regarding the need 
to: (a) Focus on the importance of developing an infrastructure that 
will be institutionalized and that will sustain integrated services 
after Federal funding has ended, and (b) build on what we know about 
projects that have had successful long-term outcomes. Specifically, in 
Proposed Priority 1, we propose to require applicants to include, in 
their SS/HS comprehensive plan, the use of a range of strategies--such 
as capacity building, collaboration and partnership, policy change and 
development, systems change and integration, and the use of 
technology--along with a description of the specific activities, 
curricula, programs, and services that will be implemented. To 
acknowledge and support the value of a proactive partnership among key 
child, family, and community agencies in the planning process, we also 
propose within Proposed Priority 1 a focus on the collaborative 
community process.
    To address burden and time issues required to complete an 
application, the Department will use a two-tiered application process 
that includes a pre-application phase and a full application phase. The 
Department will invite all eligible applicants to submit a pre-

[[Page 9565]]

application, which will require less cost, effort, and time to respond 
to than submitting a full application. The Department then will invite 
only those applicants with the highest-scoring pre-applications to 
submit a full application. To align with the two-tier application 
process we are proposing two priorities: One for the pre-application 
phase and one for the full application phase. Only those applicants 
invited to submit a full application would be required to meet the full 
application priority (Proposed Priority 2).
    In Proposed Priorities 1 and 2, we include a description of the 
five SS/HS program elements. The substance of these elements remains 
largely unchanged from how we have described these elements in the 
past. To align with the age continuum we have re-ordered the elements 
to begin with early childhood-related activities. We have revised the 
titles of the elements to be positive and action-oriented. Also, we 
have heard from grantees that behavioral, social, and emotional 
supports are frequently addressed by curricula, programs and services 
related to early childhood social and emotional learning and 
development; drug, alcohol, and violence prevention; and mental health 
elements. Thus, we propose to eliminate the element titled ``Student 
Behavioral, Social, and Emotional Supports'' and include behavioral and 
emotional supports in the mental health element. Finally we have added 
the element ``Connecting families, schools, and communities.'' This 
element was included in the 2005 absolute priority and was then 
eliminated in the 2007 absolute priority. We believe there is a need to 
renew focus on the collective and individual benefits that can result 
by engaging families, schools, and communities in responding to issues 
related to alcohol and drug use, antisocial behavior, and violence.
    Finally, as noted earlier in this notice, the proposals reflected 
in this notice incorporate some of the priorities and requirements 
established in the 2007 NFP. Proposed Priority 3 is one such priority. 
This priority, which focuses on applications from LEAs that have not 
received a grant or services under the SS/HS program, comes directly 
from the 2007 NFP. It was established in conjunction with the 
broadening of eligibility to LEAs who had previously received an SS/HS 
award. We established this priority in the 2007 NFP because we 
recognized that previous SS/HS grantees may have had experiences with 
the SS/HS program that give them a competitive advantage. We continue 
to believe that it is appropriate for the Department to give priority 
to applications from LEAs that have not yet received a SS/HS grant; 
this proposed priority would level the playing field for novice 
applicants. For this reason, we include this priority in this NPP.

Proposed Priority 1: Pre-Application--Partnership Capacity and 
Community Collaboration

    Under this proposed priority, an eligible applicant would be 
required to demonstrate its community's capacity to use a collaborative 
process to conduct a community needs assessment and use the data 
collected to design an SS/HS comprehensive plan (as defined in this 
notice) related to the following five comprehensive plan elements:
    Element One: Promoting early childhood social and emotional 
learning and development.
    Element Two: Promoting mental, emotional, and behavioral health.
    Element Three: Connecting families, schools, and communities.
    Element Four: Preventing and reducing alcohol, tobacco, and other 
drug use.
    Element Five: Creating safe and violence-free schools.
    To demonstrate capacity, an applicant would be required to describe 
in its pre-application (1) how required SS/HS partners will engage 
community members, community organizations, and students and their 
families to collaborate and participate in a community assessment; and 
(2) how each partner would support an SS/HS planning and design process 
to gather qualitative and quantitative descriptive information about 
their efforts to develop and coordinate integrated systems that create 
safe, drug-free, and respectful environments for learning and promote 
the behavioral health of children and youth.

Proposed Priority 2: Full Application--SS/HS Comprehensive Plan

    Under this proposed priority, each eligible applicant selected by 
the Secretary to submit a full application under this program would be 
required to assess its community's existing needs and gaps and submit, 
as part of its full application, a comprehensive plan (as defined in 
this notice) for creating safe, drug-free, and respectful environments 
for learning and promoting the behavioral health of children and youth. 
The comprehensive plan, must address the following five elements:
    Element One: Promoting early childhood social and emotional 
learning and development.
    Element Two: Promoting mental, emotional, and behavioral health.
    Element Three: Connecting families, schools, and communities.
    Element Four: Preventing and reducing alcohol, tobacco, and other 
drug use.
    Element Five: Creating safe and violence-free schools.

Proposed Priority 3: Pre-Application and Full Application--LEAs That 
Have Not Previously Received a Grant or Services Under the SS/HS 
Program

    Under this priority, we propose to give priority to applications 
from LEAs that have not yet received a grant under the SS/HS 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.

Types of Priorities

    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational 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 (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the 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 priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Proposed Requirements

    The Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes the following requirements 
for pre-applications and full applications under this program. We may 
apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which this 
program is in effect.

[[Page 9566]]

Proposed Requirements--Pre-Application

Proposed Pre-Application Requirement 1--Eligible Applicant

    Background: In 1999 local educational agencies (LEAs) were the only 
eligible applicants. In 2004, an eligibility requirement was 
established that limited eligibility to LEAs or a consortium of LEAs 
that had never received SS/HS funds (69 FR 30756). In the 2007 NFP we 
broadened eligibility to include prior grantees, provided that they did 
not currently have an active SS/HS project. We also stated that prior 
grantees could not serve the same schools or sub-regions with a 
subsequent grant that they served with a previous SS/HS grant. We do 
not propose to change the eligibility requirements established in FY 
2007 for the pre-application. Accordingly, Proposed Pre-application 
Requirement 1--Eligible Applicant would incorporate these requirements.

Proposed Pre-Application Requirement 1--Eligible Applicant

    An eligible applicant is (1) an LEA that is not an active SS/HS 
grantee and is not a member of an active SS/HS consortium grant, or (2) 
a consortium of LEAs, none of which are active SS/HS grantees. For the 
purpose of this eligibility requirement, a grant is considered active 
until the end of the grant's project or funding period, including any 
extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's authority to 
obligate funds.
    Additionally, former SS/HS grant recipients (i.e., LEAs that 
previously received funds or services, or consortia of LEAs that 
include one or more LEAs that previously received funds or services 
under the SS/HS program) must submit a program-specific assurance 
stating that, if awarded, the project will not serve those schools or 
sub-regions served by a previous SS/HS grant. Applications from prior 
SS/HS grant recipients (or from a consortium that includes one or more 
LEAs that previously received SS/HS funds or services) that do not 
include the program-specific assurance will not be considered for 
funding.

Proposed Pre-Application Requirement 2--Required SS/HS Partners

    Background: Since 1999, early childhood social and emotional 
learning and development has been one of the core elements of the SS/HS 
program. The Federal partners included early childhood social and 
emotional development as a component of the SS/HS program because they 
believed that, based on the large body of research about the 
development of young children, promoting social and emotional 
development of children should be part of a broader strategy to improve 
the quality of early learning programs.
    Research shows that children who enter kindergarten without 
adequate capacity to develop social relationships, to focus their 
attention on tasks, to effectively communicate their emotions or 
empathize with peers, or to solve social conflicts or problems are more 
likely to experience academic difficulties and peer rejection during 
their elementary school years (Hemmeter, et al., 2006).
    SS/HS grantees have long suggested that an early childhood partner 
at the local community level is a critically important ally in 
implementing an SS/HS comprehensive plan. For this reason, we are 
proposing to require applicants to identify, as part of their pre-
applications, an early childhood agency (as defined in this notice) 
along with the other required SS/HS partners--a local juvenile justice 
agency, a local law enforcement agency, and a local public mental 
health authority.

Proposed Pre-Application Requirement 2--Required SS/HS Partners

    Under this proposed requirement, each applicant must identify, in 
its pre-application, each of the following as required SS/HS partners: 
An early childhood agency, a local juvenile justice agency, a local law 
enforcement agency, and a local public mental health authority (as 
these terms are defined in this notice).

Proposed Pre-Application Requirement 3--Letters of Commitment

    Background: Traditionally SS/HS has required applicants to submit a 
memorandum of agreement (MOA) signed by the required SS/HS partners. 
The overall purpose of the MOA has been to demonstrate the support and 
commitment of the required SS/HS partners. We have learned from 
successful SS/HS grantees that key to the SS/HS partnership is the 
internal capacity and level of commitment of each of the required SS/HS 
partners. We also learned that some applicants have difficulty 
obtaining signatures from one or more required SS/HS partners on an 
MOA.
    We propose to replace the requirement that an applicant include an 
MOA in its application with a requirement that an applicant include, as 
part of its pre-application, letters of commitment. We would require 
the letters of commitment provide evidence of the SS/HS partners' 
collective and individual capacity, commitment, leadership, and 
resources to conduct the community assessment and develop an SS/HS 
comprehensive plan if the applicant is invited to submit a full 
application.

Proposed Pre-Application Requirement 3--Submit Letters of Commitment 
From Required SS/HS Partners

    Each applicant must include in its pre-application letters of 
commitment from each of the required SS/HS partners--an early childhood 
agency, a local juvenile justice agency, a local law enforcement 
agency, and a local public mental health authority (as these terms are 
defined in this notice). The applicant-LEA must also submit a letter of 
commitment. Each letter of commitment must be signed by the agency or 
authority's authorized representative (as defined in this notice). For 
consortium applicants, each member LEA must include a letter of 
commitment, and the corresponding required SS/HS partners for each 
member LEA must also include a letter of commitment.
    Each letter of commitment must include information that (1) 
supports the selection of the agency or authority as a required SS/HS 
partner; (2) outlines the organizational capacity of the agency or 
authority and its commitment to the SS/HS project; (3) describes the 
resources available to support the pre-application process; (4) details 
past experience with collecting and using data for decision-making; (5) 
documents past experience with building relationships and engaging 
community members in child- and youth-focused programs; and (6) 
describes what the partner's role will be in conducting the community 
assessment and in developing an SS/HS comprehensive plan if the 
applicant is invited to submit a full application.

Proposed Pre-Application Requirement 4--Community Overview

    Background: As previously discussed in this notice, some applicants 
commented during the last SS/HS grant competition, that the amount of 
time provided applicants to complete the application period was not 
sufficient for applicants to conduct a thorough community assessment. 
The Federal partners agree and propose to require applicants to submit, 
as part of the pre-application, a community overview (as defined in 
this notice) rather than a thorough community assessment. The community 
overview would be based on readily available data and would not require 
a significant financial or time

[[Page 9567]]

investment by an applicant or its partners.

Proposed Pre-Application Requirement 4--Community Overview

    Each applicant must include, as part of its pre-application, a 
community overview (as defined in this notice) on the community to be 
targeted and served by the proposed SS/HS project. The information in 
the community overview must be related to the five SS/HS elements, as 
described in this notice.

Proposed Pre-Application Requirement 5--Description of the 
Collaborative Community Assessment Process

    Background: As previously discussed, a common characteristic among 
SS/HS projects that have demonstrated successful long-term outcomes is 
that the projects used a collaborative community assessment and 
planning process when developing the SS/HS application. By engaging the 
required SS/HS partners and other community organizations, community 
members, and students and their families in the assessment process 
(i.e., the identification of issues and needs, including risk and 
protective factors of the students, their families, and the community), 
applicants have been able to achieve greater buy-in and support for the 
project's implementation and success.
    SS/HS applicants have told us that time can be a restricting factor 
in conducting a comprehensive community assessment. By design, the pre-
application process would require that an applicant describe only the 
process to be used to conduct a community assessment. Only applicants 
with the highest-scoring pre-applications would be required to conduct 
the community assessment, and additional time would be provided for 
those applicants to conduct the assessment.

Proposed Pre-Application Requirement 5--Description of the 
Collaborative Community Assessment Process

    Each applicant must include, as part of its pre-application, a 
description of how the SS/HS partners will engage community 
organizations, community members, as well as students and their 
families, in the (1) community assessment, (2) analysis of the data 
collected through the assessment, and (3) decision-making process to 
create a SS/HS comprehensive plan (as defined in this notice) if the 
applicant is invited to submit a full application.

Proposed Pre-Application Requirement 6--Statement of Accuracy and 
Veracity

    Background: The SS/HS application process involves a wide range of 
individuals, organizations, local governments, and other community-
based agencies. As the lead applicant and the potential grantee, it is 
important that the authorized representative of the applicant-LEA be 
knowledgeable and up to date on the details of the SS/HS application.

Proposed Pre-Application Requirement 6--Statement of Accuracy and 
Veracity

    In the pre-application, each applicant must include a program-
specific ``statement of accuracy and veracity'' assurance that has been 
signed by the LEA's authorized representative. The program-specific 
assurance must attest that the data, statements, and other information 
included in the pre-application are true, complete, and accurate and do 
not contain false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims.

Proposed Requirements--Full Application

Proposed Full Application Requirement 1--Eligibility

    Background: The Department proposes to limit eligibility to submit 
a full application to those applicants that scored highly during the 
pre-application phase of this competition. With this two-tiered 
application process, the Department will review a rank-order list of 
highest-scoring pre-applications and from that list will invite a 
select number of applicants to submit a full application. By 
implementing this process, the Department seeks to limit the number of 
applicants that are required to provide extensive information in their 
applications to those applicants that receive high scores after 
providing a lesser amount of information in a pre-application.

Proposed Full Application Requirement 1--Eligibility

    In order to be eligible to submit a full application for the SS/HS 
program, an eligible applicant must receive an invitation from the 
Department to submit a full application. The Department will make 
invitations based on the highest-scoring pre-applications.

Proposed Full Application Requirement 2--Required SS/HS Partners

    Background: Consistent with the reasons provided in the background 
section for Proposed Requirement: Pre-application 2--Required SS/HS 
Partners, we are proposing to require applicants to identify an early 
childhood agency as one of their required SS/HS partners.

Proposed Full Application Requirement 2--Required SS/HS Partners

    Under this proposed requirement, each applicant must identify, in 
its full application, each of the following as required SS/HS partners: 
an early childhood agency, a local juvenile justice agency, a local law 
enforcement agency, and a local public mental health authority (as 
these terms are defined in this notice).

Proposed Full Application Requirement 3--Letters of Commitment From 
Required SS/HS Partners

    Background: As previously described, we propose requiring pre-
application applicants to submit letters of commitment from required 
SS/HS partners. We propose that full application applicants submit 
letters of commitment again, as part of the full application. The 
letters of commitment with the full application would reconfirm the 
commitment of each of the required partners and address any changes 
(such as changes in leadership, staffing, or other resources that may 
diminish or increase the capacity of the required partners to support 
the SS/HS comprehensive plan) made since submitting the pre-
application.

Proposed Full Application Requirement 3--Letters of Commitment From 
Required SS/HS partners

    Each applicant must include, in its full application, letters of 
commitment from each of the required SS/HS partners--an early childhood 
agency, a local juvenile justice agency, a local law enforcement 
agency, and a local public mental health authority (as defined in this 
notice). The applicant-LEA must also submit a letter of commitment. 
Each letter of commitment must be signed by the agency or authority's 
authorized representative (as defined in this notice). For consortium 
applicants, each member LEA must include a letter of commitment, and 
the corresponding required SS/HS partners for each member LEA must 
include a letter of commitment.
    Each letter of commitment must include information that (1) 
supports the selection of the agency or authority as a required SS/HS 
partner; (2) outlines the organizational capacity of the agency or 
authority and its commitment to the SS/HS project; (3) describes the 
resources available to support the full application process; (4) 
details past experience with collecting and using data for decision-
making; (5) documents

[[Page 9568]]

past experience with building relationships and engaging community 
members in child- and youth-focused programs; and (6) describes the 
partner's role in conducting the community assessment and in developing 
an SS/HS comprehensive plan.
    In addition, the letters of commitment included in the full 
application must include a description of any changes (since submitting 
the pre-application) in leadership, staffing, or other resources that 
may diminish or increase the capacity of the required partners to 
support the SS/HS comprehensive plan.

Proposed Full Application Requirement 4--Logic Model

    Background: Beginning in 2007, SS/HS applicants have been required 
to submit a ``logic model'' as part of their applications. The logic 
model is a graphic representation, by each SS/HS element, of key 
information included in the comprehensive plan narrative. Many 
applicants have stated that constructing the logic model helped 
organize and conceptualize the SS/HS comprehensive plan.
    Additionally, we believe that requiring a logic model has helped 
applicants and reviewers to compare the identified community's needs 
and gaps with: (1) Goals and objectives; (2) proposed activities, 
curricula, programs, and services; (3) partners' roles; and (4) outcome 
measures. In addition, the logic model has helped applicants and 
reviewers to evaluate the extent to which the applicant's goals; 
objectives; proposed activities, curricula, programs, and services; 
partners' roles; and outcome measures were appropriate and reasonable.

Proposed Full Application Requirement 4--Logic Model

    Each applicant must include a logic model with its full 
application. The logic model must represent the SS/HS comprehensive 
plan in a chart format, by element, that depicts: (1) The needs and 
gaps identified in the community assessment; (2) goals that are 
responsive to the identified needs and gaps; (3) goal-related 
objectives that are specific, measurable, appropriate, and timely; (4) 
activities, curricula, programs, and services that are responsive to 
the identified needs and gaps and are appropriate for the population to 
be served; (5) each required partner's role and evidence of its strong 
commitment to the project; and (6) process and outcome measures that 
will adequately evaluate the project and provide data for continuous 
improvement of the project.

Proposed Full Application Requirement 5--Description of Community 
Assessment Process

    Background: A proposed requirement of the pre-application is a plan 
for conducting a collaborative community assessment and a description 
of how the SS/HS partners would engage community organizations, 
community members, students, and their families in the analysis of data 
and in the design of the SS/HS comprehensive plan, if invited to submit 
a full application. Because invited applicants will have additional 
time to conduct the community assessment and prepare the full 
application, we believe it would be appropriate to require them to 
provide a more detailed description of the community assessment process 
and findings from the assessment at this stage of the application 
process.

Proposed Full Application Requirement 5--Description of Collaborative 
Community Assessment Process

    Each applicant must include, as part of its full application, a 
description of the collaborative community assessment process used to 
design the SS/HS comprehensive plan. The description must explain how 
the required SS/HS partners engaged community organizations, community 
members, and students and their families in the community assessment, 
analysis of the data collected through the assessment, and decision-
making process used to prepare the full application.

Proposed Full Application Requirement 6--Statement of Accuracy and 
Veracity

    Background: As previously stated in this notice, the SS/HS 
application process involves a broad array of individuals, 
organizations, local governments, and other community-based agencies. 
As the lead applicant and the potential grantee, it is important that 
the authorized representative of the applicant-LEA be knowledgeable and 
up to date on the details of the SS/HS application. Accordingly, we 
propose requiring that each applicant include, in its full application, 
a statement attesting to the manner in which the grant application was 
developed and the veracity of the data included in the application.

Proposed Full Application Requirement 6--Statement of Accuracy and 
Veracity

    In the full application, each applicant must include a program-
specific ``statement of accuracy and veracity'' assurance that has been 
signed by the LEA's authorized representative. The program-specific 
assurance must attest that the data, statements, and other information 
included in the application are true, complete, and accurate and do not 
contain false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims. The 
assurance must also attest that the collaborative process was carried 
out, as described in the pre-application, or, if there were changes, 
describe how the community assessment process differed from the process 
described in the pre-application.

Proposed Full Application Requirement 7--Funding Request

    Background: In the most recent SS/HS competitions, the Department 
used student enrollment data to establish maximum annual grant award 
amounts, as follows: $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. Several small, rural, and Tribal LEAs stated that it is 
erroneous to assume smaller LEAs require less funding to implement an 
SS/HS comprehensive plan and argued that costs associated with serving 
their student populations are as much or more than the costs of 
providing services in larger, more densely populated areas (due in part 
to, for example, distance, lack of municipal infrastructure, and 
limited service providers).
    We, therefore, are proposing to increase the award amounts 
available to smaller LEAs.

Proposed Full Application Requirement 7--Funding Request

    Applicants may request no more funding than the established maximum 
amount. Based on student enrollment data for the participating LEAs, 
the request for funding in a full application must not exceed the 
following maximum amounts for any of the project's four 12-month budget 
periods:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Maximum funding request not to
               Enrollment                            exceed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fewer than 15,000 students.............  $1 million per year [for a
                                          total of $4 million].
15,000-49,999 students.................  $1.5 million per year [for a
                                          total of $6 million].
50,000 or more students................  $2 million per year [for a
                                          total of $8 million].
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 9569]]

    To determine the maximum funding request, 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 (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch). In the case of 
consortium applicants, the maximum funding request is based on the 
combined student enrollment data for all participating LEAs.
    If a Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education-funded 
school that is not included in the NCES database requests grant funds 
that exceed $1 million for any of the project's four 12-month budget 
periods, it must provide documentation of student enrollment data from 
the Native American Student Information System.

Proposed Full Application Requirement 8--Post-Award Requirements

    Background: Federal SS/HS grant monitors have found that SS/HS 
grantees were sometimes unclear about grant expectations and 
requirements following the award of the grant. We propose to clearly 
identify the following post-award requirements relating to: (1) The 
full-time SS/HS project director; (2) the minimum evaluation and data 
requirements at the national and grantee level; (3) the submission of a 
signed memorandum of agreement (MOA) within six months of receipt of 
the grant award notice; and (4) the development of a communications and 
outreach plan that uses social marketing (as defined in this notice) 
principles and techniques.
    Full-time project director. Former grantees have told us that due 
to the complexity and comprehensiveness of the SS/HS project, a full-
time SS/HS project director is essential to, and a strong predictor of, 
a project's success. Federal program monitors agree with this 
assessment. In addition to overseeing the implementation of all SS/HS 
grant activities, the project director is responsible for fiscal 
management, ensuring timely submission of performance reports, assuring 
compliance with appropriate Department of Education and Federal grant 
regulations and requirements, and coordinating with local partners and 
community members. Having a single, full-time person assume these 
responsibilities will improve coordination and accountability between 
the Federal program monitor and the grantee.
    Evaluation and data requirements. The regular availability of 
performance data is necessary for providing SS/HS Federal partners with 
data needed to demonstrate the progress of the SS/HS grant program and 
report to Congress; demonstrate a grantee's progress and determine 
continuation funding; and inform a grantee's continuous improvement 
process. We have encouraged grantees to make evaluation an integral 
part of their SS/HS planning and implementation activities and since 
1999 have required that grantees set aside a portion of their award to 
support evaluation activities. Based on the feedback we have received 
from former grantees and SS/HS grant monitors, we have found that 
guidance and technical assistance in the area of evaluation 
expectations is not enough, and that timely data collection and 
reporting is a challenge for some funded grantees. We, therefore, 
propose a revised set of post-award requirements relating to data 
collection and reporting.
    First, we propose that each applicant include in its full 
application an assurance that, if granted a SS/HS award, the grantee 
and required SS/HS partners will participate in SS/HS national 
evaluation efforts. Second, we propose requiring grantees to submit to 
the Department a report on local evaluation activities and results at 
least annually and at the conclusion of the grant. Finally, we propose 
that grantees submit semi-annual performance data as needed to support 
one of the SS/HS Federal partners' performance data systems, currently 
known as the Transformation Accountability System (TRAC). (Unlike other 
SS/HS performance data, TRAC data need to be updated semi-annually at 
the Federal level.)
    MOA. In 1999, applicants were required to include two written 
agreements signed by the required SS/HS partners. The first agreement 
delineated the roles and responsibilities of all of the required 
partners. The second agreement outlined the referral, treatment, and 
follow-up process for providing mental health services to children and 
youth. In 2007 the requirement changed and applicants were required to 
submit a preliminary MOA with the application and, if funded, a final 
MOA was required post award. In this notice, we propose to require 
applicants to include letters of commitment with the pre-application 
and, if selected, with the full application. However, we do not propose 
to eliminate the post-award requirement that grantees submit a final 
MOA (as defined in this notice) to the Department within six months of 
receipt of the grant award notice.
    Finally, the SS/HS program established funding restrictions in 1999 
related to the local evaluation requirement (that at least five percent 
of the total grant award each year be used by a grantee for evaluating 
its project) and the limit on expenditures for costs of security 
equipment, security personnel, and minor remodeling of school 
facilities to improve safety (no more than 10 percent of each year's 
total award). The set-aside for the local evaluation was changed to 
seven percent in 2001; the funding restrictions related to security 
equipment, security personnel, and minor remodeling has not changed 
since 1999. Under this proposed requirement the funding restrictions 
would remain the same. However, we would restrict funding as it relates 
to another grant activity, communications and outreach.
    Communications and outreach plan. We have seen how communications 
and social marketing efforts can greatly support the programmatic goals 
and objectives of SS/HS projects. A communications and outreach plan, 
developed by the grantee, presents strategies to: (1) Garner community 
support of and participation in the proposed project; (2) develop key 
messages that promote healthy childhood development and prevention of 
violence and substance abuse; and (3) regularly update the community, 
partners, staff, and students about the proposed project's progress. 
For this reason, we propose to require applicants to develop a 
communications and outreach plan and a communications and outreach 
budget to support and implement the plan. Under these proposed 
requirements, the communications and outreach budget must use no less 
than two percent of each year's award and will be subject to approval 
by the Department if an award is made.

Proposed Full Application Requirement 8--Post-Award Requirements

    Each applicant invited to submit a full application will 
acknowledge post-award requirements by including the following in its 
application:
    (1) An assurance that a single, full-time (as defined in this 
notice) project director will be hired to manage and provide leadership 
for the proposed SS/HS project. The project director will be considered 
key personnel.
    (2) A statement signed by the required SS/HS partners agreeing to 
comply with the SS/HS evaluation requirements, including: (a) 
Submission of baseline data prior to implementing grant activities, 
curricula, programs or services and no later than 6 months after 
receipt of the grant award notice; (b) submission of an evaluation plan 
within 6 months of receipt of the grant award notice; (c) submission of 
annual and final evaluation reports (as defined in

[[Page 9570]]

this notice); (d) participation in national SS/HS evaluation 
activities; and (e) collection and semi-annual submission of TRAC data.
    (3) A statement signed by the authorized representative of the 
applicant-LEA, committing to submit an MOA (as defined in this notice) 
within 6 months of receipt of the grant award notice. For consortium 
applicants, the statement must be signed by the authorized 
representative of the LEA serving as the applicant.
    (4) A statement signed by the authorized representative of the 
applicant-LEA, committing to submit a communications and outreach plan 
and a communications and outreach budget within six months of receipt 
of the grant award notice. For consortium applicants, the statement 
must be signed by the authorized representative of the LEA serving as 
the applicant.
    Funding Restrictions: The proposed funding restrictions for this 
program are:
    (1) Not less than 7 percent of the total budget for each project 
year must be used to support costs associated with local evaluation 
activities.
    (2) Not 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.
    (3) Not less than 2 percent of the total budget for each project 
year must be used to support costs associated with the communications 
and outreach plan.

Additional Selection Factors

    Background: Since 1999 the applicants for SS/HS have been diverse, 
in geographic location and in activities addressed by the projects. We 
have funded at least one SS/HS project in 49 States and in the District 
of Columbia. All funded SS/HS projects included at least one activity, 
curricula, program, or service for each of the identified five 
elements. We propose additional selection factors to ensure continued 
diversity of funded projects.

Proposed Additional Selection Factors

    We propose to consider geographic distribution and diversity of 
activities addressed by the projects in selecting an application for an 
award.

Proposed Definitions

    Background: Several important terms associated with this 
competition are not defined in the statute. Additionally, some 
important terms are defined in various ways in the field (depending on 
the discipline) and across communities. To ensure that all required SS/
HS partners have a clear understanding of the SS/HS program and 
requirements, we propose to define a select number of terms important 
for applicants to understand when responding to the proposed priorities 
and requirements and submitting a pre-application or a full application 
under this program.
    Among the terms we propose to define in this notice is the term 
comprehensive plan, which we have defined in other notices for this 
program. We are proposing to revise this definition based on feedback 
we have received from grantees and questions received from applicants 
during the competition. Specifically, we intend to clarify that the 
comprehensive plan, as used in this competition, is the applicant's 
response to the selection criteria. Additionally, we hope to focus on 
the range of strategic actions that can be included in the 
comprehensive plan along with the selected activities, curricula, 
programs, and services. Finally, we intend to require applicants to use 
a community-specific data-driven approach in creating a comprehensive 
plan. For example, many grantees with successful long-term outcomes 
highly rate the use of good practice and judgment when selecting which 
evidence-based activities, curricula, and programs to include in their 
SS/HS comprehensive plan. They have stated that the outcomes of 
evidence-based activities, curricula, programs, and services were best 
when the age and developmental level of the targeted population were 
taken into consideration and when cultural and linguistic competency 
was reflected in all activities, curricula, programs, and services. The 
Federal partners had assumed that applicants considered the age and 
developmental levels, gender, and cultural diversity of populations to 
be served; to ensure that this is done in future SS/HS projects, we 
propose to include this consideration as part of the definition for 
comprehensive plan.

Proposed Definitions

    The Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes the following definitions 
for this program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any 
year in which this program is in effect.
    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 organization agrees to 
comply with the Department's regulations, guidelines, and policies.
    Community assessment means an assessment developed through a 
planned and purposeful process of gathering, analyzing, and reporting 
current data and information about the characteristics and needs of 
children and youth, schools, and communities in which SS/HS services 
will be implemented, as well as the services or resources that are also 
currently available in the community to meet needs. The community 
assessment must include--
    (a) A description of the collaborative community assessment process 
used;
    (b) A description of the characteristics and demographics of the 
community, schools, children, youth, and families to be served;
    (c) A description of the individual, family, school, and community 
risk and protective factors that have an impact on the targeted 
population and that correspond to the five SS/HS elements described in 
this notice;
    (d) A description of the community's needs and gaps, including 
challenges related to the accessibility to, or quality of, services 
related to the five SS/HS elements described in this notice;
    (e) A description of problem behaviors exhibited by the children 
and youth to be served, including, but not limited to: (1) Classroom 
disruption, (2) drug and alcohol use, and (3) incidence of violent and 
aggressive behavior; and
    (f) A discussion regarding the availability of school and 
community-based mental health services.
    Community overview means general qualitative, descriptive, and 
anecdotal information about the community to be served by the proposed 
project. Information included in the community overview should come 
from readily available sources and must include, but is not limited 
to--
    (a) Size of LEA(s) to be served, including the number of students 
and school buildings in those LEA(s);
    (b) A description of the population (socio-economic, racial, ethnic 
characteristics) to be served;
    (c) A description of the risk and protective factors affecting the 
targeted population; and
    (d) A description of the existing services, unmet needs, and other 
challenges and barriers that are related to the five SS/HS elements 
described in this notice.
    Comprehensive plan means a narrative response to the selection 
criteria in the full application that draws from the results of the 
community assessment to describe the ways in which the community's 
existing

[[Page 9571]]

needs and gaps will be addressed within the following five SS/HS 
elements:
    Element One: Promoting early childhood social and emotional 
learning and development.
    Element Two: Promoting mental, emotional, and behavioral health.
    Element Three: Connecting families, schools, and communities.
    Element Four: Preventing and reducing alcohol, tobacco, and other 
drug use.
    Element Five: Creating safe and violence-free schools.
    The SS/HS comprehensive plan must reflect a range of strategic 
actions, such as capacity building, collaboration and partnership, 
policy change and development, systems change and integration, and use 
of technology. The comprehensive plan must include, but is not limited 
to--
    (a) An explanation of how data was used to develop the 
comprehensive plan;
    (b) Specific, measurable objectives of the proposed SS/HS project;
    (c) A description of the activities, curricula, programs, and 
services that will be implemented as part of the proposed SS/HS project 
to address the existing needs and gaps;
    (d) Information that demonstrates that the selected activities, 
curricula, programs, and services are evidence-based or reflect current 
research, are culturally and linguistically competent and are 
developmentally appropriate for the targeted population, and serve 
vulnerable and at-risk populations;
    (e) A description of how the required SS/HS partners will work 
together to share resources in order to achieve the community's goals 
and outcomes;
    (f) A description of how the program will expand the community's 
current capability to serve children, youth, and families;
    (g) A description of how the SS/HS program will be implemented and 
managed in a way that will increase efficiencies and communication 
across schools, parents, and the SS/HS partners;
    (h) A detailed management plan that addresses how the partners and 
others will make decisions, communicate, share information and 
resources, overcome barriers, monitor progress and use data for 
continuous improvement, increase the levels and intensity of 
collaboration, and plan for sustainability of the SS/HS program; and
    (i) A description of the evaluation planning process.
    Core management team means a team of senior-level representatives 
from each of the required SS/HS partners that provides support to the 
SS/HS project director in the day-to-day management of the project.
    Early childhood agency means a local or State government agency 
that addresses early learning and development issues in the communities 
to be served by the project. Examples of early childhood agencies 
include State childcare advisory boards, county childcare commissions 
or councils, State Advisory Councils on Early Childhood Education and 
Care, and the Governor's Office of Children and Families. Note: Local 
programs that provide early learning and development services to young 
children (e.g., child care programs and Head Start programs) would not 
meet this definition.
    Evaluation report means a report that focuses on the formative and 
summative evaluation of the local SS/HS activities, strategies, 
policies, and operations implemented each year of and at the end of the 
project. The report must include, but is not limited to--
    (a) A description of evaluation activities conducted during the 
year that includes information about--
    (i) The type of data collected;
    (ii) The methods used to collect data;
    (iii) The reliability of the data collection instruments used;
    (iv) The frequency with which data were collected;
    (v) The persons from whom data were collected;
    (vi) The number of persons who completed each data collection 
instrument; and
    (vii) The methods used to analyze data;
    (b) A description of the activities, services, strategies, 
programs, and policies implemented as part of the grantee's SS/HS 
project;
    (c) Information regarding the fidelity with which evidence-based 
programs were implemented as part of the grantee's SS/HS project;
    (d) A description of the processes and procedures followed to 
implement and operate components of the grantee's SS/HS project;
    (e) A description of SS/HS partners and the processes implemented 
to ensure collaboration among partners;
    (f) Information on changes in the level of collaboration and 
integration among the project's SS/HS partners;
    (g) A description of unanticipated obstacles encountered during the 
implementation of SS/HS activities, strategies, programs, and policies 
and how they were overcome;
    (h) Information on the number and demographic characteristics (age, 
gender, race, grade, and other relevant information such as disability 
status) of the children, youth, parents, and community stakeholders who 
participate in SS/HS activities, services, and programs;
    (i) A description of how and the frequency with which evaluation 
findings were shared with the local SS/HS project director and the core 
management team (as defined in this notice) to inform their decision-
making and to make changes to the project in order to achieve greater 
effectiveness;
    (j) A description of activities conducted to disseminate 
information about the grantee's SS/HS project to community 
stakeholders, including parents, school personnel, community leaders, 
and residents;
    (k) Data and analyses related to the SS/HS Government Performance 
and Results Act indicators and other locally-determined outcome 
indicators; and
    (l) Interpretations of findings, conclusions and recommendations.
    Full-time means working at least 240 days for every 12-month 
period.
    Local juvenile justice agency means an agency or entity at the 
local level that is officially recognized by the State or local 
government as responsible for addressing juvenile justice issues in the 
communities to be served by the proposed project. Examples of juvenile 
justice agencies include: Juvenile or family courts, juvenile probation 
agencies, and juvenile corrections agencies.
    Local law enforcement agency means the agency (or agencies) that is 
officially recogniz