Applications for New Awards; School Climate Transformation Grant Program-Local Educational Agency Grants, 26829-26835 [2019-12101]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; School Climate Transformation Grant Program—Local Educational Agency Grants Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2019 for the School Climate Transformation Grant Program—Local Educational Agency Grants, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.184G. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1894–0006. DATES: Applications Available: June 10, 2019. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 22, 2019. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 18, 2019. ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-201902-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlette KyserPegram. Telephone: (202) 453–6732. Email: LEA.SCTG19@ed.gov. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 8339. SUMMARY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Full Text of Announcement khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES I. Funding Opportunity Description Purpose of Program: The School Climate Transformation Grant Program—Local Educational Agency Grants (SCTG–LEA) provides competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to develop, enhance, or expand systems of support for, and technical assistance to, schools implementing a multi-tiered system of support, for improving school climate. Background: School climate plays a critical role in the potential success and school experiences of a student. Students who learn in positive learning environments are more likely to improve academically, participate more fully in the classroom, and develop skills that will help them be successful VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 in school and in life. Recent studies on school climate have focused on the many different elements and indicators of the overall quality of a school’s climate, and its relationship to academic and behavioral outcomes.1 Accordingly, in 2014, the Department developed a school climate survey resource, called the ED School Climate Survey tool (EDSCLS), to assist States, local districts, and schools to collect and access data related to their school climate. This tool focuses on three content domains: (1) Engagement (which encompasses cultural and linguistic competence, relationships, and school participation), (2) safety (which encompasses emotional safety, physical safety, bullying/cyberbullying, substance abuse, and emergency readiness/management), and (3) environment, including physical environment, instructional environment, physical health, mental health, and discipline.2 In April 2019, the Department released a Parent and Educator Guide to School Climate Resources (Guide) document. The purpose of the Guide is to provide general information about the concept of school climate improvement, suggestions for leading an effective school climate improvement effort, and additional resources for those interested in more information.3 Implementing a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) framework is one strategy schools can use to address their school climate concerns. MTSS frameworks are designed to assist schools in providing the appropriate level of instruction and intervention for their students. The successful implementation of an MTSS can support many areas of students’ needs including academic growth and achievement, behavior, and social and emotional needs. In schools with healthy learning environments, students tend to score higher on standardized tests.4 Conversely, researchers find that students who perceive personal victimization and unfairness in school are generally less engaged, and schools 1 Wang, M.T. & Degol, J.L. (2016). School Climate: A Review of the Construct, Measurement, and Impact on Student Outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 315–352. 2 National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments. ED School Climate Surveys. Retrieved from: https:// safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/edscls/measures. 3 Access the Parent and Educator Guide to School Climate Resources (Guide) at: https://www2.ed.gov/ policy/elsec/leg/essa/essaguidetoschoolclimate 041019.pdf. 4 MacNeil, A.J., Prater, D.L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73–84. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 26829 where students report more hostility have lower student engagement and lower academic achievement.5 Furthermore, data from the 2015 School Crime Supplement shows that students experiencing bullying or criminal victimization rate their schools’ overall climate lower.6 We also note that multitiered behavioral frameworks, such as positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), that were the focus of the previous School Climate Transformation Grants LEA competition in fiscal year 2014, are an example of an MTSS that research shows can help improve overall school climate and safety.7 In March 2018, the President emphasized a national need to examine the safety and security of our schools. He also appointed a Federal Commission on School Safety.8 In December 2018, the Federal Commission on School Safety released a final report on its work. The report offers recommendations for States, local communities, and the Federal government on strategies for improving school safety.9 Under the SCTG–LEA program, grantees may use funds to support activities directly linked with some of those recommendations as they develop local approaches to address a wide range of school climate issues through implementation of evidencebased practices for improving school engagement, safety, and environment for all students. Moreover, LEAs that implement these school climate improvement efforts as part of a coordinated strategy will enhance their ability to achieve the goals and objectives of both this program and others that are included in the coordinated effort. A coordination of all programs that use evidence-based practices for improving school engagement, safety, and environment for all students will facilitate interagency partnerships and strategies to address 5 Ripski, M.B., & Gregory, A. (2009). Unfair, unsafe, and unwelcome: Do high school students’ perceptions of unfairness, hostility, and victimization in school predict engagement and achievement? Journal of School Violence, 8(4), 355– 375. 6 National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Measuring School Climate Using the 2015 School Crime Supplement: Technical Report. Institute of Education Sciences, Retrieved from: https:// nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018098.pdf. 7 Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Thornton, L.A., & Leaf, P.J. (2009). Altering School Climate through School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a Group-Randomized Effectiveness Trial. Prevention Science. 8 See www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/ president-donald-j-trump-taking-immediateactions-secure-schools/. 9 Report available at: https://www2.ed.gov/ documents/school-safety/school-safety-report.pdf. E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES 26830 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices school climate issues in a comprehensive manner. Through this program, the Department will prioritize supporting certain communities that may uniquely benefit from implementing a multitiered system of support. In particular, the Department is establishing an absolute priority for an LEA that is a rural LEA (as defined in this notice) or serves a Tribal community. The Department is also establishing a separate absolute priority for an LEA that is in a Qualified Opportunity Zone (as defined in this notice). Priorities: This competition includes four absolute priorities and three competitive preference priorities. We are establishing the absolute priorities and Competitive Preference Priority 3 for the FY 2019 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(ii), Competitive Preference Priorities 1 and 2 are from the Department’s Notice of Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096). Absolute Priorities: For FY 2019 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet Absolute Priority 1 and one of Absolute Priorities 2, 3, or 4. Note: The Secretary intends to create three funding slates for SCTG applications—one for applications that meet Absolute Priorities 1 and 2, a separate slate for applications that meet Absolute Priorities 1 and 3, and a third slate for applications that meet Absolute Priorities 1 and 4. As a result, the Secretary may fund applications out of the overall rank order. The Secretary anticipates awarding at least 15 grants from among applicants that meet Absolute Priorities 1 and 2 and at least 15 grants from applicants that meet Absolute Priorities 1 and 3, provided applications of sufficient quality are submitted, but the Secretary is not bound by these estimates. Applicants must clearly identify the specific absolute priorities that the proposed project addresses. These priorities are: Absolute Priority 1—Improving School Climate. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 Projects designed to develop, enhance, or expand systems of support for, and technical assistance to, schools implementing a multi-tiered system of support for improving school climate, which may include a multi-tiered behavioral framework, by using evidence-based efforts that are designed to foster safety; promote supportive academic, disciplinary, and physical environments; and/or encourage and maintain respectful, trusting, and caring relationships throughout the school community. Absolute Priority 2—LEAs that are rural LEAs or serve a federally recognized Tribe. An LEA, including a BIE-funded school, meets this absolute priority if it provides evidence that it meets one of the following criteria: (1) It is a rural LEA, as defined in this notice; or (2) it predominantly serves members of one federally recognized Tribe. In determining whether a charter school LEA meets criteria (1) of this absolute priority, we consider where the school is located, regardless of where the students it serves live. Absolute Priority 3—LEAs that include a Qualified Opportunity Zone. An LEA meets this priority if it includes, as a portion of the area served by the LEA, a Qualified Opportunity Zone under section 1400Z–1 of the Internal Revenue Service Code, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, as defined in this notice. In determining whether a charter school LEA meets this absolute priority, we consider where the school is located, regardless of where the students it serves live. Absolute Priority 4—LEAs that are not rural LEAs, do not include Qualified Opportunity Zones, and do not serve a Tribe. An LEA meets this absolute priority if it indicates in its application that it is not a rural LEA, as defined in this notice, does not serve a Qualified Opportunity Zone, and does not predominantly serve members of one federally recognized Tribe. Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2019 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(1) we award up to an additional two points for Competitive Preference Priority 1, up to an additional three points for Competitive Preference Priority 2, and up to an additional five points for Competitive Preference Priority 3, depending on how well the application meets each of Competitive Preference Priorities 1, 2, and 3. Applications may PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 address any one or more of the competitive preference priorities, for a maximum of 10 competitive preference priority points. An applicant must clearly indicate in the abstract section of its application each competitive preference priority under which it is applying. These priorities are: Competitive Preference Priority 1— Protecting Freedom of Speech and Encouraging Respectful Interactions in a Safe Educational Environment. (0 to 2 points) Projects that are designed to develop positive learning environments that promote strong relationships among students and school personnel to help prevent bullying, violence, and disruptive actions that diminish the opportunity for each student to receive a high-quality education. Competitive Preference Priority 2— Fostering Knowledge and Promoting the Development of Skills That Prepare Students To Be Informed, Thoughtful, and Productive Individuals and Citizens. (0 to 3 points) Projects that are likely to improve student academic performance and better prepare students for employment, responsible citizenship, and fulfilling lives, including by preparing children or students to do one or more of the following: (i) Develop positive personal relationships with others. (ii) Develop determination, perseverance, and the ability to overcome obstacles. (iii) Develop self-esteem through perseverance and earned success. (iv) Develop problem-solving skills. (v) Develop self-regulation in order to work toward long-term goals. Competitive Preference Priority 3— Opioid Abuse and Prevention. (0 to 5 points) Applications that propose a highquality plan to implement opioid abuse prevention and mitigation strategies. The plan must describe how the LEA will use funds to implement evidencebased strategies for preventing opioid abuse by students, and/or address the mental health needs of students who are negatively impacted by family or community members who are (or have been) abusers. The plan may also include providing technical assistance to, or support for, schools that implement or plan to implement highquality approaches to opioid abuse prevention such as the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) approach supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices Applicants that receive competitive preference points under this priority and are ultimately awarded an SCTG– LEA grant will finalize and implement the high-quality plan described in response to this priority post-award. Requirements: We are establishing these program requirements and application requirements for the FY 2019 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). Program Requirements: Each grantee must implement a project that builds LEA capacity for supporting schools implementing evidence-based efforts to improve school climate by— (a) Developing, enhancing, or expanding systems of support for, and technical assistance to, schools implementing a multi-tiered system of support for improving school climate by using evidence-based efforts that are designed to foster safety; promote supportive academic, disciplinary, and physical environments; and/or encourage and maintain respectful, trusting, and caring relationships throughout the school community; (b) Improving the skills of LEA personnel to assist schools’ efforts to improve school climate through, for example, policies, funding, professional development, coaching, and coordination of providing services and implementing programs; (c) Improving the quality, accessibility, and usefulness of any relevant districtwide data collection and analysis related to data-based decision making in areas related to improved school climate; (d) Defining what it means to implement the multi-tiered system of support with fidelity and determining annually the extent to which the impacted schools are implementing such model with fidelity, for example, by using a tool or rubric to review implementation; (e) Encouraging the use of evidencebased practices and reliable and valid tools and processes for evaluating the fidelity of efforts related to improved school climate; and (f) Coordinating LEA efforts with appropriate Federal, State, and local resources. Application Requirements: The applicant must— (a) Describe the current efforts by the LEA to support schools implementing evidence-based efforts that are designed to foster safety; promote a supportive academic, disciplinary, and physical environment; and/or encourage and VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 maintain respectful, trusting, and caring relationships throughout the school community; (b) Describe how the LEA used the EDSCLS or similar assessment tool to help determine program needs and will use the EDSCLS or similar assessment tool for program decision making and improvements; (c) Describe its plan to build, improve, or enhance LEA capacity to provide effective training, technical assistance, and support to schools related to implementing evidence-based efforts that are designed to foster safety; promote a supportive academic, disciplinary, and physical environment; and/or encourage and maintain respectful, trusting, and caring relationships throughout the school community, including— (1) When and how often the applicant plans to conduct technical assistance activities; (2) How the applicant plans to garner buy-in from participants and other stakeholders; and (3) The estimated number of schools that will be assisted; and (d) Describe how the proposed project will address the needs of schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement under section 1111(d)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), and schools identified for targeted support and improvement under section 1111(d)(2) of the ESEA. Definitions: We are establishing the definitions of ‘‘Qualified Opportunity Zone’’ and ‘‘rural local educational agency’’ in this notice for the FY 2019 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). The definition of ‘‘local educational agency’’ is from 20 U.S.C. 7801(30). The definition of ‘‘multi-tiered system of support’’ is from section 8101(33) of the ESEA. The definitions of ‘‘demonstrates a rationale,’’ ‘‘evidence-based,’’ ‘‘experimental study,’’ ‘‘logic model,’’ ‘‘moderate evidence,’’ ‘‘project component,’’ ‘‘promising evidence,’’ ‘‘quasi-experimental design study,’’ ‘‘relevant outcome,’’ ‘‘strong evidence,’’ and ‘‘What Works Clearinghouse Handbook’’ are from 34 CFR 77.1. These definitions are: Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project’s logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes. Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by one PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 26831 or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that demonstrates a rationale. Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbook: (i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group). (ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes. (iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case (e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment. Local educational agency (LEA) means— (i) A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools; (ii) Any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school; (iii) An elementary school or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education but only to the extent that including the school makes E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES 26832 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act with the smallest student population, except that the school shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any State educational agency other than the Bureau of Indian Education; (iv) Educational service agencies and consortia of those agencies; or (v) The State educational agency in a State in which the State educational agency is the sole educational agency for all public schools. Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project (i.e., the active ‘‘ingredients’’ that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes. Moderate evidence means that there is evidence of effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following: (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ‘‘strong evidence base’’ or ‘‘moderate evidence base’’ for the corresponding practice guide recommendation; (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ‘‘positive effect’’ or ‘‘potentially positive effect’’ on a relevant outcome based on a ‘‘medium to large’’ extent of evidence, with no reporting of a ‘‘negative effect’’ or ‘‘potentially negative effect’’ on a relevant outcome; or (iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that— (A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations; (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome; (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and (D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement. Multi-tiered system of support means a comprehensive continuum of evidence-based, systemic practices to support a rapid response to students’ needs, with regular observation to facilitate data-based instructional decision making. Note: For purposes of this notice a multi-tiered behavioral framework such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports falls under this definition. Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers). Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following: (i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a ‘‘strong evidence base’’ or ‘‘moderate evidence base’’ for the corresponding practice guide recommendation; (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a ‘‘positive effect’’ or ‘‘potentially positive effect’’ on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a ‘‘negative effect’’ or ‘‘potentially negative effect’’ on a relevant outcome; or (iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that— (A) Is an experimental study, a quasiexperimental design study, or a welldesigned and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias (e.g., a study using regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group); and (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome. Qualified Opportunity Zone means a Qualified Opportunity Zone, as designated by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1400Z–1 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 115– PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 97). To demonstrate that it meets Absolute Priority 3 by being located in a Qualified Opportunity Zone, an applicant must provide the census tract number of the Qualified Opportunity Zone(s) in which it proposes to provide services. A list of Qualified Opportunity Zones is available at: www.cdfifund.gov/ Pages/Opportunity-Zones.aspx. Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation (e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbook. Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program. Rural local educational agency means a local educational agency that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title V, Part B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may determine whether a particular district is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the Department’s website at https:// www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/ eligibility.html. Note: For the purposes of this competition, in order to qualify as a rural LEA under this definition, an LEA must have been eligible for fiscal year 2018 or 2019 SRSA or RLIS funds. Strong evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following: (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ‘‘strong evidence base’’ for the corresponding practice guide recommendation; (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ‘‘positive effect’’ on a relevant outcome based on a ‘‘medium to large’’ extent of evidence, with no reporting of a ‘‘negative effect’’ or ‘‘potentially negative effect’’ on a relevant outcome; or E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices (iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that— (A) Meets WWC standards without reservations; (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome; (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and (D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement. What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (WWC Handbook) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see 34 CFR 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the Handbook documentation. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and requirements. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant competition for this program under Title IV, part F, subpart 3 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7281) and therefore qualifies for this exemption. In order to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the priorities and requirements under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. These priorities and requirements will apply to the FY 2019 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 Program Authority: Subpart 3 of Title IV, Part F of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7281). Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The Supplemental Priorities. II. Award Information Type of Award: Discretionary grants. Estimated Available Funds: $40,000,000. Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2020 and subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition. Estimated Range of Awards: $100,000 to $750,000 per year for up to 5 years. Estimated Average Size of Awards: $500,000. Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $750,000 for a single budget period of 12 months. Estimated Number of Awards: 80. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Project Period: Up to 60 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. Eligible Applicants: (a) LEAs, or consortia of LEAs, as defined by section 8101(30) of the ESEA. (b) The Secretary limits eligibility under this discretionary grant competition to LEAs that have never received a grant under SCTG–LEA. 2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching. 3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 26833 which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application. 2. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition. 3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice. V. Application Review Information 1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum score for all selection criteria is 100 points. The points or weights assigned to each criterion are indicated in parentheses. Non-Federal peer reviewers will evaluate and score each application program narrative against the following selection criteria: (a) Need for project. (15 points) (1) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. (2) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses. (b) Significance. (15 points) (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population. (c) Quality of the project design. (20 points) (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. (2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors: (i) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project objectives. (15 points) (ii) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES 26834 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices established for the competition. (5 points) (d) Quality of the project services. (30 points) (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. (2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services. (e) Quality of the project evaluation. (20 points) (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors: (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. (10 points) (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (10 points) 2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant’s use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality. In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 this program the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200 subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible. 4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS. Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000. VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20. 4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b). (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/ fund/grant/apply/appforms/ appforms.html. 5. Performance Measures: The Department has established the following Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 performance measures for SCTG–LEA: (a) The number of training and/or technical assistance events to support implementation with fidelity provided annually by LEAs to schools implementing a multi-tiered system of support. (b) Number and percentage of schools annually that report an improved school E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1 khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices climate based on the results of the EDSCLS or similar tool. (c) Number and percentage of schools annually that are implementing a multitiered system of support framework with fidelity. (d) Number and percentage of schools annually that are implementing opioid abuse prevention and mitigation strategies. (e) Number and percentage of schools that report an annual decrease in suspensions and expulsions related to possession or use of alcohol. (f) Number and percentage of schools that report an annual decrease in suspensions and expulsions related to possession or use of other drugs. These measures constitute the Department’s indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures. This data will be considered by the Department in making continuation awards. Consistent with 34 CFR 75.591, grantees funded under this program shall comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department or an evaluator selected by the Department. 6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee’s approved application. In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). VII. Other Information Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:56 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department. Frank T. Brogan, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. [FR Doc. 2019–12101 Filed 6–7–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 26835 DC 20585. Telephone: (301) 903–2151. Email: James.Joyce@em.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As DOE stated in the October 10 Notice and as this Supplemental Notice reiterates, DOE interprets this statutory term to mean that not all wastes from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel (reprocessing wastes) are HLW. DOE interprets the statutory term such that some reprocessing wastes may be classified as not HLW (non-HLW) and may be disposed of in accordance with their radiological characteristics. This Supplemental Notice provides additional explanation of DOE’s interpretation as informed by public review and comment and further consideration by DOE following the October 10 Notice. DOE has not made, and does not presently propose, any changes or revisions to current policies, legal requirements or agreements with respect to HLW. Decisions about whether and how this interpretation of HLW will apply to existing wastes and whether such wastes may be managed as non-HLW will be the subject of subsequent actions. I. Background DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Supplemental Notice Concerning U.S. Department of Energy Interpretation of High-Level Radioactive Waste Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: In this Supplemental Notice, the U.S. Department of Energy (Department or DOE) supplements and updates its 2018 Request for Public Comment on the U.S. Department of Energy Interpretation of High-Level Radioactive Waste, published in the Federal Register on October 10, 2018 (October 10 Notice), concerning its interpretation of the statutory term ‘‘high-level radioactive waste’’ (HLW) as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. ADDRESSES: This Federal Register Notice (Notice) is available on the Department’s website at: https:// www.energy.gov/em/high-levelradioactive-waste-hlw-interpretation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Joyce, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of Waste and Materials Management (EM–4.2), 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The Department sought public comments on its HLW interpretation through its Request for Public Comment on the U.S. Department of Energy Interpretation of High-Level Radioactive Waste, 83 FR 50909 (October 10, 2018). The 90-day public comment period, including a 30-day extension to submit comments, invited public input in order to better understand stakeholder perspectives, and sought to increase transparency and enhance public understanding of DOE’s views of its legal authority. DOE received a total of 5,555 comments, roughly 360 of which were distinct, unrepeated comments, from a variety of stakeholders: Members of the public, Native American tribes, members of Congress, numerous state and local governments, and one federal agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). All input is important to the process and all comments were carefully and fully considered by DOE. DOE is issuing this Supplemental Notice to provide the public additional information about its HLW interpretation, informed by public comments. This interpretation does not change or revise any current policies, legal requirements, or agreements with respect to HLW. Decisions about whether and how this interpretation of HLW will apply to existing wastes and whether such wastes may be managed as non-HLW will be the subject of subsequent actions. The following E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26829-26835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12101]



[[Page 26829]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; School Climate Transformation Grant 
Program--Local Educational Agency Grants

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice 
inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2019 for the School Climate 
Transformation Grant Program--Local Educational Agency Grants, Catalog 
of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.184G. This notice 
relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 
1894-0006.

DATES: 
    Applications Available: June 10, 2019.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 22, 2019.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an 
application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to 
Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the 
Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at 
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlette KyserPegram. Telephone: (202) 
453-6732. Email: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The School Climate Transformation Grant 
Program--Local Educational Agency Grants (SCTG-LEA) provides 
competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to develop, 
enhance, or expand systems of support for, and technical assistance to, 
schools implementing a multi-tiered system of support, for improving 
school climate.
    Background: School climate plays a critical role in the potential 
success and school experiences of a student. Students who learn in 
positive learning environments are more likely to improve academically, 
participate more fully in the classroom, and develop skills that will 
help them be successful in school and in life. Recent studies on school 
climate have focused on the many different elements and indicators of 
the overall quality of a school's climate, and its relationship to 
academic and behavioral outcomes.\1\ Accordingly, in 2014, the 
Department developed a school climate survey resource, called the ED 
School Climate Survey tool (EDSCLS), to assist States, local districts, 
and schools to collect and access data related to their school climate. 
This tool focuses on three content domains: (1) Engagement (which 
encompasses cultural and linguistic competence, relationships, and 
school participation), (2) safety (which encompasses emotional safety, 
physical safety, bullying/cyberbullying, substance abuse, and emergency 
readiness/management), and (3) environment, including physical 
environment, instructional environment, physical health, mental health, 
and discipline.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Wang, M.T. & Degol, J.L. (2016). School Climate: A Review of 
the Construct, Measurement, and Impact on Student Outcomes. 
Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 315-352.
    \2\ National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments. ED 
School Climate Surveys. Retrieved from: https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/edscls/measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April 2019, the Department released a Parent and Educator Guide 
to School Climate Resources (Guide) document. The purpose of the Guide 
is to provide general information about the concept of school climate 
improvement, suggestions for leading an effective school climate 
improvement effort, and additional resources for those interested in 
more information.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Access the Parent and Educator Guide to School Climate 
Resources (Guide) at: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essaguidetoschoolclimate041019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Implementing a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) framework is 
one strategy schools can use to address their school climate concerns. 
MTSS frameworks are designed to assist schools in providing the 
appropriate level of instruction and intervention for their students. 
The successful implementation of an MTSS can support many areas of 
students' needs including academic growth and achievement, behavior, 
and social and emotional needs. In schools with healthy learning 
environments, students tend to score higher on standardized tests.\4\ 
Conversely, researchers find that students who perceive personal 
victimization and unfairness in school are generally less engaged, and 
schools where students report more hostility have lower student 
engagement and lower academic achievement.\5\ Furthermore, data from 
the 2015 School Crime Supplement shows that students experiencing 
bullying or criminal victimization rate their schools' overall climate 
lower.\6\ We also note that multi-tiered behavioral frameworks, such as 
positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), that were the 
focus of the previous School Climate Transformation Grants LEA 
competition in fiscal year 2014, are an example of an MTSS that 
research shows can help improve overall school climate and safety.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ MacNeil, A.J., Prater, D.L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects 
of school culture and climate on student achievement. International 
Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73-84.
    \5\ Ripski, M.B., & Gregory, A. (2009). Unfair, unsafe, and 
unwelcome: Do high school students' perceptions of unfairness, 
hostility, and victimization in school predict engagement and 
achievement? Journal of School Violence, 8(4), 355-375.
    \6\ National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Measuring 
School Climate Using the 2015 School Crime Supplement: Technical 
Report. Institute of Education Sciences, Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018098.pdf.
    \7\ Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Thornton, L.A., & Leaf, P.J. 
(2009). Altering School Climate through School-Wide Positive 
Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a Group-
Randomized Effectiveness Trial. Prevention Science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2018, the President emphasized a national need to examine 
the safety and security of our schools. He also appointed a Federal 
Commission on School Safety.\8\ In December 2018, the Federal 
Commission on School Safety released a final report on its work. The 
report offers recommendations for States, local communities, and the 
Federal government on strategies for improving school safety.\9\ Under 
the SCTG-LEA program, grantees may use funds to support activities 
directly linked with some of those recommendations as they develop 
local approaches to address a wide range of school climate issues 
through implementation of evidence-based practices for improving school 
engagement, safety, and environment for all students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-taking-immediate-actions-secure-schools/.
    \9\ Report available at: https://www2.ed.gov/documents/school-safety/school-safety-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, LEAs that implement these school climate improvement 
efforts as part of a coordinated strategy will enhance their ability to 
achieve the goals and objectives of both this program and others that 
are included in the coordinated effort. A coordination of all programs 
that use evidence-based practices for improving school engagement, 
safety, and environment for all students will facilitate interagency 
partnerships and strategies to address

[[Page 26830]]

school climate issues in a comprehensive manner.
    Through this program, the Department will prioritize supporting 
certain communities that may uniquely benefit from implementing a 
multi-tiered system of support. In particular, the Department is 
establishing an absolute priority for an LEA that is a rural LEA (as 
defined in this notice) or serves a Tribal community. The Department is 
also establishing a separate absolute priority for an LEA that is in a 
Qualified Opportunity Zone (as defined in this notice).
    Priorities: This competition includes four absolute priorities and 
three competitive preference priorities. We are establishing the 
absolute priorities and Competitive Preference Priority 3 for the FY 
2019 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards 
from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in 
accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions 
Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). In accordance with 34 CFR 
75.105(b)(2)(ii), Competitive Preference Priorities 1 and 2 are from 
the Department's Notice of Final Supplemental Priorities and 
Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs (Supplemental Priorities), 
published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096).
    Absolute Priorities: For FY 2019 and any subsequent year in which 
we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this 
competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet Absolute Priority 
1 and one of Absolute Priorities 2, 3, or 4.
    Note: The Secretary intends to create three funding slates for SCTG 
applications--one for applications that meet Absolute Priorities 1 and 
2, a separate slate for applications that meet Absolute Priorities 1 
and 3, and a third slate for applications that meet Absolute Priorities 
1 and 4. As a result, the Secretary may fund applications out of the 
overall rank order. The Secretary anticipates awarding at least 15 
grants from among applicants that meet Absolute Priorities 1 and 2 and 
at least 15 grants from applicants that meet Absolute Priorities 1 and 
3, provided applications of sufficient quality are submitted, but the 
Secretary is not bound by these estimates. Applicants must clearly 
identify the specific absolute priorities that the proposed project 
addresses.
    These priorities are:
    Absolute Priority 1--Improving School Climate.
    Projects designed to develop, enhance, or expand systems of support 
for, and technical assistance to, schools implementing a multi-tiered 
system of support for improving school climate, which may include a 
multi-tiered behavioral framework, by using evidence-based efforts that 
are designed to foster safety; promote supportive academic, 
disciplinary, and physical environments; and/or encourage and maintain 
respectful, trusting, and caring relationships throughout the school 
community.
    Absolute Priority 2--LEAs that are rural LEAs or serve a federally 
recognized Tribe.
    An LEA, including a BIE-funded school, meets this absolute priority 
if it provides evidence that it meets one of the following criteria: 
(1) It is a rural LEA, as defined in this notice; or (2) it 
predominantly serves members of one federally recognized Tribe. In 
determining whether a charter school LEA meets criteria (1) of this 
absolute priority, we consider where the school is located, regardless 
of where the students it serves live.
    Absolute Priority 3--LEAs that include a Qualified Opportunity 
Zone.
    An LEA meets this priority if it includes, as a portion of the area 
served by the LEA, a Qualified Opportunity Zone under section 1400Z-1 
of the Internal Revenue Service Code, as amended by the Tax Cuts and 
Jobs Act, as defined in this notice. In determining whether a charter 
school LEA meets this absolute priority, we consider where the school 
is located, regardless of where the students it serves live.
    Absolute Priority 4--LEAs that are not rural LEAs, do not include 
Qualified Opportunity Zones, and do not serve a Tribe.
    An LEA meets this absolute priority if it indicates in its 
application that it is not a rural LEA, as defined in this notice, does 
not serve a Qualified Opportunity Zone, and does not predominantly 
serve members of one federally recognized Tribe.
    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2019 and any subsequent 
year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications 
from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference 
priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(1) we award up to an additional 
two points for Competitive Preference Priority 1, up to an additional 
three points for Competitive Preference Priority 2, and up to an 
additional five points for Competitive Preference Priority 3, depending 
on how well the application meets each of Competitive Preference 
Priorities 1, 2, and 3. Applications may address any one or more of the 
competitive preference priorities, for a maximum of 10 competitive 
preference priority points. An applicant must clearly indicate in the 
abstract section of its application each competitive preference 
priority under which it is applying.
    These priorities are:
    Competitive Preference Priority 1--Protecting Freedom of Speech and 
Encouraging Respectful Interactions in a Safe Educational Environment. 
(0 to 2 points)
    Projects that are designed to develop positive learning 
environments that promote strong relationships among students and 
school personnel to help prevent bullying, violence, and disruptive 
actions that diminish the opportunity for each student to receive a 
high-quality education.
    Competitive Preference Priority 2--Fostering Knowledge and 
Promoting the Development of Skills That Prepare Students To Be 
Informed, Thoughtful, and Productive Individuals and Citizens. (0 to 3 
points)
    Projects that are likely to improve student academic performance 
and better prepare students for employment, responsible citizenship, 
and fulfilling lives, including by preparing children or students to do 
one or more of the following:
    (i) Develop positive personal relationships with others.
    (ii) Develop determination, perseverance, and the ability to 
overcome obstacles.
    (iii) Develop self-esteem through perseverance and earned success.
    (iv) Develop problem-solving skills.
    (v) Develop self-regulation in order to work toward long-term 
goals.
    Competitive Preference Priority 3--Opioid Abuse and Prevention. (0 
to 5 points)
    Applications that propose a high-quality plan to implement opioid 
abuse prevention and mitigation strategies. The plan must describe how 
the LEA will use funds to implement evidence-based strategies for 
preventing opioid abuse by students, and/or address the mental health 
needs of students who are negatively impacted by family or community 
members who are (or have been) abusers. The plan may also include 
providing technical assistance to, or support for, schools that 
implement or plan to implement high-quality approaches to opioid abuse 
prevention such as the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to 
Treatment (SBIRT) approach supported by the U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration.

[[Page 26831]]

Applicants that receive competitive preference points under this 
priority and are ultimately awarded an SCTG-LEA grant will finalize and 
implement the high-quality plan described in response to this priority 
post-award.
    Requirements: We are establishing these program requirements and 
application requirements for the FY 2019 grant competition and any 
subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded 
applications from this competition, in accordance with section 
437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
    Program Requirements: Each grantee must implement a project that 
builds LEA capacity for supporting schools implementing evidence-based 
efforts to improve school climate by--
    (a) Developing, enhancing, or expanding systems of support for, and 
technical assistance to, schools implementing a multi-tiered system of 
support for improving school climate by using evidence-based efforts 
that are designed to foster safety; promote supportive academic, 
disciplinary, and physical environments; and/or encourage and maintain 
respectful, trusting, and caring relationships throughout the school 
community;
    (b) Improving the skills of LEA personnel to assist schools' 
efforts to improve school climate through, for example, policies, 
funding, professional development, coaching, and coordination of 
providing services and implementing programs;
    (c) Improving the quality, accessibility, and usefulness of any 
relevant districtwide data collection and analysis related to data-
based decision making in areas related to improved school climate;
    (d) Defining what it means to implement the multi-tiered system of 
support with fidelity and determining annually the extent to which the 
impacted schools are implementing such model with fidelity, for 
example, by using a tool or rubric to review implementation;
    (e) Encouraging the use of evidence-based practices and reliable 
and valid tools and processes for evaluating the fidelity of efforts 
related to improved school climate; and
    (f) Coordinating LEA efforts with appropriate Federal, State, and 
local resources.
    Application Requirements: The applicant must--
    (a) Describe the current efforts by the LEA to support schools 
implementing evidence-based efforts that are designed to foster safety; 
promote a supportive academic, disciplinary, and physical environment; 
and/or encourage and maintain respectful, trusting, and caring 
relationships throughout the school community;
    (b) Describe how the LEA used the EDSCLS or similar assessment tool 
to help determine program needs and will use the EDSCLS or similar 
assessment tool for program decision making and improvements;
    (c) Describe its plan to build, improve, or enhance LEA capacity to 
provide effective training, technical assistance, and support to 
schools related to implementing evidence-based efforts that are 
designed to foster safety; promote a supportive academic, disciplinary, 
and physical environment; and/or encourage and maintain respectful, 
trusting, and caring relationships throughout the school community, 
including--
    (1) When and how often the applicant plans to conduct technical 
assistance activities;
    (2) How the applicant plans to garner buy-in from participants and 
other stakeholders; and
    (3) The estimated number of schools that will be assisted; and
    (d) Describe how the proposed project will address the needs of 
schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement under 
section 1111(d)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, as amended (ESEA), and schools identified for targeted support 
and improvement under section 1111(d)(2) of the ESEA.
    Definitions: We are establishing the definitions of ``Qualified 
Opportunity Zone'' and ``rural local educational agency'' in this 
notice for the FY 2019 grant competition and any subsequent year in 
which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this 
competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 
1232(d)(1). The definition of ``local educational agency'' is from 20 
U.S.C. 7801(30). The definition of ``multi-tiered system of support'' 
is from section 8101(33) of the ESEA. The definitions of ``demonstrates 
a rationale,'' ``evidence-based,'' ``experimental study,'' ``logic 
model,'' ``moderate evidence,'' ``project component,'' ``promising 
evidence,'' ``quasi-experimental design study,'' ``relevant outcome,'' 
``strong evidence,'' and ``What Works Clearinghouse Handbook'' are from 
34 CFR 77.1.
    These definitions are:
    Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in 
the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation 
findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve 
relevant outcomes.
    Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by 
one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, 
or evidence that demonstrates a rationale.
    Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare 
outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are 
otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment 
group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. 
Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, 
and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental 
studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g., 
sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression 
discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 
standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbook:
    (i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for 
example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the 
project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to 
receive the project component (the control group).
    (ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project 
component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning 
students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental 
education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of 
outcomes.
    (iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case 
(e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in 
the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to 
determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the 
treatment.
    Local educational agency (LEA) means--
    (i) A public board of education or other public authority legally 
constituted within a State for either administrative control or 
direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary 
schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school 
district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a 
combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a 
State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or 
secondary schools;
    (ii) Any other public institution or agency having administrative 
control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary 
school;
    (iii) An elementary school or secondary school funded by the Bureau 
of Indian Education but only to the extent that including the school 
makes

[[Page 26832]]

the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not 
provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does 
not have a student population that is smaller than the student 
population of the local educational agency receiving assistance under 
this Act with the smallest student population, except that the school 
shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any State educational 
agency other than the Bureau of Indian Education;
    (iv) Educational service agencies and consortia of those agencies; 
or
    (v) The State educational agency in a State in which the State 
educational agency is the sole educational agency for all public 
schools.
    Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a 
framework that identifies key project components of the proposed 
project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to be 
critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the 
theoretical and operational relationships among the key project 
components and relevant outcomes.
    Moderate evidence means that there is evidence of effectiveness of 
a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample 
that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that 
component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
    (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 
of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``strong evidence base'' or ``moderate 
evidence base'' for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 
or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``positive effect'' or 
``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant outcome based on a 
``medium to large'' extent of evidence, with no reporting of a 
``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative effect'' on a relevant 
outcome; or
    (iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design 
study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the 
WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 
of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that--
    (A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;
    (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive 
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;
    (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative 
effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a 
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 
of the WWC Handbook; and
    (D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, 
county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at 
least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies 
of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs 
(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this 
requirement.
    Multi-tiered system of support means a comprehensive continuum of 
evidence-based, systemic practices to support a rapid response to 
students' needs, with regular observation to facilitate data-based 
instructional decision making.
    Note: For purposes of this notice a multi-tiered behavioral 
framework such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports falls 
under this definition.
    Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, 
process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence 
may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of 
project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices 
for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).
    Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the 
effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant 
outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
    (i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a ``strong evidence 
base'' or ``moderate evidence base'' for the corresponding practice 
guide recommendation;
    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a 
``positive effect'' or ``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant 
outcome with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially 
negative effect'' on a relevant outcome; or
    (iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, 
that--
    (A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or 
a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with 
statistical controls for selection bias (e.g., a study using regression 
methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a 
comparison group); and
    (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive 
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome.
    Qualified Opportunity Zone means a Qualified Opportunity Zone, as 
designated by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1400Z-1 of 
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 
(Pub. L. 115-97). To demonstrate that it meets Absolute Priority 3 by 
being located in a Qualified Opportunity Zone, an applicant must 
provide the census tract number of the Qualified Opportunity Zone(s) in 
which it proposes to provide services. A list of Qualified Opportunity 
Zones is available at: www.cdfifund.gov/Pages/Opportunity-Zones.aspx.
    Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that 
attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a 
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important 
respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation 
(e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being 
compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet 
WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbook.
    Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) 
the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the 
specific goals of the program.
    Rural local educational agency means a local educational agency 
that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) 
program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized 
under Title V, Part B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may determine 
whether a particular district is eligible for these programs by 
referring to information on the Department's website at https://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligibility.html.
    Note: For the purposes of this competition, in order to qualify as 
a rural LEA under this definition, an LEA must have been eligible for 
fiscal year 2018 or 2019 SRSA or RLIS funds.
    Strong evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness 
of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample 
that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive 
that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
    (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 
of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``strong evidence base'' for the 
corresponding practice guide recommendation;
    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 
or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``positive effect'' on a 
relevant outcome based on a ``medium to large'' extent of evidence, 
with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative 
effect'' on a relevant outcome; or

[[Page 26833]]

    (iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC 
using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by 
the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, 
and that--
    (A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;
    (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive 
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;
    (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative 
effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a 
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 
of the WWC Handbook; and
    (D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, 
county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at 
least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies 
of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs 
(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this 
requirement.
    What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (WWC Handbook) means the 
standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards 
Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see 34 
CFR 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can 
meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with 
reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and 
intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of 
evidence as described in the Handbook documentation.
    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure 
Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties 
the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and requirements. 
Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from 
rulemaking requirements regulations governing the first grant 
competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. 
This is the first grant competition for this program under Title IV, 
part F, subpart 3 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7281) and therefore qualifies 
for this exemption. In order to ensure timely grant awards, the 
Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the priorities and 
requirements under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. These priorities and 
requirements will apply to the FY 2019 grant competition and any 
subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded 
applications from this competition.
    Program Authority: Subpart 3 of Title IV, Part F of the ESEA (20 
U.S.C. 7281).
    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 97, 
98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to 
Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 
2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department 
in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 
200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR 
part 3474. (d) The Supplemental Priorities.

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.
    Estimated Available Funds: $40,000,000.
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2020 and subsequent 
years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
    Estimated Range of Awards: $100,000 to $750,000 per year for up to 
5 years.
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $500,000.
    Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $750,000 for a 
single budget period of 12 months.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 80.
    Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
    Project Period: Up to 60 months.

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: (a) LEAs, or consortia of LEAs, as defined 
by section 8101(30) of the ESEA. (b) The Secretary limits eligibility 
under this discretionary grant competition to LEAs that have never 
received a grant under SCTG-LEA.
    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost 
sharing or matching.
    3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award 
subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities 
described in its application.

IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to 
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of 
Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal 
Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at 
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which 
contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.
    2. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about 
Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 
12372 is in the application package for this competition.
    3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this program are 
from 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum score for all selection criteria is 100 
points. The points or weights assigned to each criterion are indicated 
in parentheses. Non-Federal peer reviewers will evaluate and score each 
application program narrative against the following selection criteria:
    (a) Need for project. (15 points)
    (1) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, 
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be 
addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude 
of those gaps or weaknesses.
    (b) Significance. (15 points)
    (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed 
project.
    (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project is likely 
to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that 
address the needs of the target population.
    (c) Quality of the project design. (20 points)
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the 
proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes 
a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-
quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate 
methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project 
objectives. (15 points)
    (ii) The extent to which the proposed project represents an 
exceptional approach to the priority or priorities

[[Page 26834]]

established for the competition. (5 points)
    (d) Quality of the project services. (30 points)
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be 
provided by the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by 
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and 
sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for 
eligible project participants who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability.
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the extent to which the 
training or professional development services to be provided by the 
proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to 
lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those 
services.
    (e) Quality of the project evaluation. (20 points)
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be 
conducted of the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, 
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the 
proposed project. (10 points)
    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
achieving intended outcomes. (10 points)
    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants 
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, 
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past 
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as 
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and 
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider 
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or 
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary 
requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil 
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities 
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
    3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 
200.205, before awarding grants under this program the Department 
conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 
3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in 
appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the 
applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of 
unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system 
that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200 subpart D; has not 
fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not 
responsible.
    4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this 
competition to receive an award that over the course of the project 
period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently 
$250,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your 
integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal 
awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before we make 
an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that 
is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as 
the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System 
(FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may 
review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal 
agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.
    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active 
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the 
Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity 
information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal 
funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your 
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award 
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to 
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, 
also.
    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, 
we notify you.
    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify 
administrative and national policy requirements in the application 
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable 
Regulations section of this notice.
    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of 
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and 
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also 
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding 
commitments under the grant.
    3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you 
are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to 
openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in 
part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of 
modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those 
modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent 
that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or 
other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. 
Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant 
funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. 
This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your 
application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional 
information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 
3474.20.
    4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, 
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and 
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply 
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final 
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the 
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual 
performance report that provides the most current performance and 
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance 
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, 
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
    5. Performance Measures: The Department has established the 
following Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 performance 
measures for SCTG-LEA:
    (a) The number of training and/or technical assistance events to 
support implementation with fidelity provided annually by LEAs to 
schools implementing a multi-tiered system of support.
    (b) Number and percentage of schools annually that report an 
improved school

[[Page 26835]]

climate based on the results of the EDSCLS or similar tool.
    (c) Number and percentage of schools annually that are implementing 
a multi-tiered system of support framework with fidelity.
    (d) Number and percentage of schools annually that are implementing 
opioid abuse prevention and mitigation strategies.
    (e) Number and percentage of schools that report an annual decrease 
in suspensions and expulsions related to possession or use of alcohol.
    (f) Number and percentage of schools that report an annual decrease 
in suspensions and expulsions related to possession or use of other 
drugs.
    These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success 
for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant 
under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in 
conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project. 
Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and 
final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures. This 
data will be considered by the Department in making continuation 
awards.
    Consistent with 34 CFR 75.591, grantees funded under this program 
shall comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program 
conducted by the Department or an evaluator selected by the Department.
    6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 
75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee 
has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of 
the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is 
consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the 
Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the 
performance targets in the grantee's approved application.
    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers 
whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in 
its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil 
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities 
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

VII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format 
(e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to 
the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To 
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Frank T. Brogan,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2019-12101 Filed 6-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P