FR Doc 05-13495
[Federal Register: July 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 39254-39259]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07jy05-40]
Download: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Grants for School-Based Student Drug-Testing Programs
AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final eligibility and application requirements,
priorities, and selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools
announces eligibility and application requirements, priorities, and
selection criteria for the School-Based Student Drug-Testing program.
We may use these requirements, priorities, and selection criteria for
competitions in fiscal year 2005 and later years. We take this action
to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified national need.
We intend for these requirements, priorities, and selection criteria to
increase the use of drug testing as a means to deter student drug use.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These requirements, priorities, and selection criteria
are effective August 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robyn L. Disselkoen or Sigrid Melus,
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20202-6450. Telephone: (202) 260-3954. E-mail: OSDFSdrugtesting@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Drug abuse interferes with a student's
ability to learn and disrupts the orderly environment necessary for
academic achievement. Although drug use among America's youth has
declined in recent years, far too many young people continue to use
illegal drugs. The Department of Education, through these requirements,
priorities, and selection criteria, is encouraging schools and
communities to consider the use of mandatory random and voluntary
student drug-testing programs as a tool to support other drug-
prevention efforts.
We published a notice of proposed eligibility and application
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria for this program in
the Federal Register on April 21, 2005 (70 FR 20739).
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed eligibility
and application requirements, priorities, and selection criteria, nine
parties submitted comments. Three other comments did not address the
proposed eligibility and application requirements, priorities, and
selection criteria and are not discussed here. An analysis of the
comments and of any changes in the eligibility and application
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria since publication of
the notice of proposed eligibility and application requirements,
priorities, and selection criteria follows.
We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not
address technical and other minor changes and suggested changes the law
does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority.
Eligibility Requirements
Comment: One commenter suggested that State educational agencies be
able to apply for grant funds.
Discussion: Eligible applicants for this competition include public
and private entities. To the extent that a State educational agency
meets the definition of a public entity and all other requirements of
the competition, it may apply.
Change: None.
Priority 1--Mandatory Random and Voluntary Student Drug-Testing
Programs
Comments: Two commenters expressed confusion over the wording in
option 3 of Priority 1. In the second paragraph, under option 3, we
stated that schools that proposed a voluntary drug-testing program
could not prohibit students who did not consent to be drug tested from
participating in school or extracurricular activities. Both commenters
requested that we insert the word ``only'' in the sentence as follows:
``applicants who propose only voluntary drug testing * * *'' to clarify
that the last paragraph of Priority 1 applies only to option 3,
regarding voluntary drug testing, and not to options 1 or 2, mandatory
random testing.
Discussion: We agree that the wording in the second paragraph under
option 3 could confuse some readers. We intend that the wording apply
only to students in a voluntary testing program even when applicants
propose projects that combine voluntary and mandatory random
components.
Change: We have merged the first and second paragraphs under option
3 to indicate clearly that the requirement applies only to a voluntary
drug-testing program.
[[Page 39255]]
Comment: One commenter stated that it is unreasonable to limit a
drug-testing program to only one grade in a school with many grades.
Discussion: Priority 1 specifies that a drug-testing program may be
implemented in one or more grades 6 through 12. Applicants are free to
implement a drug-testing program in as many grades from 6 through 12 as
they choose.
Change: None.
Priority 2--National Evaluation of Mandatory Random Student Drug-
Testing Programs
Comments: Two commenters questioned why Priority 2 does not permit
applicants to have a program that includes both mandatory random and
voluntary drug testing.
Discussion: We are establishing the restrictions in Priority 2 as
part of the national evaluation requirements. The goal of the national
evaluation is to study the effects of mandatory random drug testing on
a sample of students. Students who volunteer to be drug tested may not
be using drugs to the same degree as those for whom drug testing is
mandatory. Therefore, allowing schools in the evaluation to have both a
voluntary and a mandatory random program would likely make it more
difficult to identify the impact of mandatory random programs.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the clear delineation of the
effect of mandatory random drug testing may be less than expected in
the proposed research design because of the requirement that all
applicants show desire and commitment for a program that will reduce
drug use, regardless of whether a program is implemented. The commenter
believes that schools that are committed to implementing drug testing
will always have a better result, regardless of the intervention, than
a school that knows it is always going to be a control.
Discussion: There may be a larger difference in the incidence of
substance use for schools that desire, and have implemented, a
mandatory random drug-testing program compared to schools that are not
interested in and not implementing such a program. However, that
difference will reflect both the true impact of implementing the
program and the selection bias of schools that choose to adopt those
programs; randomly assigning schools that are similarly motivated
better isolates the effect of the program.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter wanted us to include the explicit statement
that grantees that participate in the national evaluation must also
agree to cooperate fully in the contractor's separate Institutional
Review Board (IRB) requirements in order to comply with Department of
Education regulations and human research protection procedures.
Discussion: Grantees whose sites are selected for the national
evaluation are not required to have IRB approval for their activities
in support of the national evaluation. The national evaluator only--not
the grantees--will conduct the research activities, including survey
administration and obtaining parental permission. The grantees will
facilitate communication between the national evaluator and the parents
and/or students by, for example, providing brochures and contact
information for the contractor, but they will not be involved in
conducting the research or speaking on behalf of the national
evaluator.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter argued that for the funded projects to
constitute a valid research sample, there needs to be harmonization of
policies and procedures, such as the number of tests and frequency of
testing for each student.
Discussion: We do not think that policies and procedures need to be
harmonized in order to produce a valid research sample. Implementation
of modestly different mandatory random drug-testing programs by
different school districts will not affect the validity of the study,
provided that the evaluation is understood as estimating the impact of
the average program as implemented by the average school district in
the study. (Even if the program model adopted were identical across
districts, the districts would almost certainly differ in some aspects
of their implementation of the program, making complete harmonization
of policies and procedures impossible.) Nonetheless, we are concerned
that, for the treatment schools and control schools to be comparable
for the sake of the evaluation, the matched schools within each
district will need to be committed, prior to random assignment, to
implementing the same policies and procedures with regard to drug
testing.
Change: We have added a requirement to Priority 2 that applicants
develop and implement mandatory random student drug-testing policies
and procedures that are carried out consistently in all schools
selected to implement drug testing.
Comment: One commenter stated that two matched schools will be
insufficient for a valid research sample due to requirements for
statistical power analysis and problems with ``nesting'' and
differences from site to site. The commenter suggested that 75 to 100
schools should be involved with this research design, following one
cohort of 9th- and 10th-graders over two years.
Discussion: We do not agree with the basic premise that 75 to 100
schools are needed in the research design because we have designed the
study to detect a 10.2 percent reduction in the 30-day prevalence of
illicit drug use. In order to detect this effect, we need 30 schools.
Our assumptions for the study design are: (1) A two-tailed test at 80
percent power and a 5 percent statistical significance; (2) an R2 value
of 0.50 because of the use of prior student drug use as a covariate;
(3) a non-random sample of 30 schools with random assignment of 15
schools to receive the intervention and 15 schools to serve as
controls; (4) a sample size of 200 students per school with an 80
percent response rate, and (5) an intra-class correlation coefficient
of 0.05. We estimate that this design would generate minimum detectable
effects (MDE) of approximately 0.17 standard deviation for continuous
outcomes, and 7.8 percent for binary outcomes where the control group
mean is 30 percent. Because the sample of schools is purposive, and
statistically generalizing beyond this sample is not valid, we have
calculated the power with a fixed-effects, rather than random effects,
framework. Under our assumptions, the sample of 30 schools would be
sufficient to detect the reduction of 10.2 percent in the 30-day
prevalence of use of any illicit drug. If the true impact were smaller
than the MDE, that would not challenge the validity of the study, only
its precision in detecting smaller impacts from drug-testing programs.
Change: None.
Comment: A commenter stated that the statistical design of the
evaluation raises serious issues of confidentiality following from
identification of specific individuals for the evaluation component
each year. The evaluation, according to the commenter, will require the
development of separate lists of students eligible for the mandatory
random drug-testing program and students who are not eligible, as well
as lists of students in the corresponding groups at the control school.
Subsequently, in the commenter's example, for each of two
implementation years, 100 students in the random testing pool and 100
students not in the pool, and 200 students at the control schools, will
be selected from the lists to respond to the evaluation questionnaire.
[[Page 39256]]
Discussion: The national evaluator responsible for data collection
will respect the confidentiality of all student records and take
necessary measures to ensure the security of the data. Surveying
students during school hours would not pose a problem because students'
responses to the survey would remain confidential. The fact that
students are voluntarily participating in the study would not
necessarily be private, but this issue is present in all of our studies
involving sampling of students for data collection in school settings.
Students subject to drug testing in Priority 2 will be athletes and
students in competitive extracurricular activities. The study will be
carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil
Rights Amendment (PPRA).
Change: We have added a requirement to the application requirements
that all applicants must provide a written assurance that all proposed
activities will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of
FERPA and PPRA.
Comment: One commenter stated that schools need to assist in
obtaining parental consent as part of their participation in the
national evaluation.
Discussion: In the notice of proposed eligibility and application
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria, we proposed a general
requirement that schools cooperate with the evaluation, which we
believe would include cooperating with the national evaluator to obtain
parental consent. We agree, however, that the requirement should
specifically include support by schools of the evaluator's efforts to
obtain all required parental consent.
Change: We are adding a requirement in Priority 2 that applicants
that agree to participate in the national evaluation provide an
assurance that they will cooperate with the national evaluator in
obtaining parental consent for student participation in surveys the
national evaluator will administer in all of the selected schools
(control and experimental).
Comment: One commenter suggested that schools need to require
mandatory random testing for the entire academic year for all eligible
students, not just during one sports season, for example. Testing only
during the season of sports participation reduces the positive effects
of random student drug testing on illegal drug use significantly.
Discussion: We agree that testing of athletes and students in
extracurricular activities during the entire academic year is important
to maintaining the deterrent effects of drug testing.
Change: We have added language that requires grantees under
Priority 2 to institute a policy of mandatory random drug testing for
the entire academic year in the schools selected to implement drug
testing, and to ensure, to the extent feasible, that all students who
participate in the drug-testing program remain in the random drug-
testing pool for the entire academic year.
Application Requirements
Comment: One commenter noted that the current language concerning
confidentiality of drug test results indicating that a student is
taking legal medications would prohibit a medical review officer from
communicating necessary information to authorized school officials
regarding a positive drug test.
Discussion: As part of the general application requirements,
applicants must provide a written assurance that all positive drug
tests will be reviewed by a certified medical review officer.
Applicants must also provide a plan to ensure the confidentiality of
drug-testing results, including a provision that prohibits the party
conducting the drug tests from disclosing to school officials any
information about a student's use of legal medications. The medical
review officer would confirm with parents whether a student's positive
drug test resulted from a legal medication. If so, the medical review
officer would report the test result as a negative for illegal drugs.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we not exclude from this
competition recipients or beneficiaries of a prior grant in 2003 under
the Department's Demonstration Grants for Student Drug-Testing
competition.
Discussion: Congress appropriated funds in FY 2005 to expand
student drug-testing programs. It is our intent to extend Federal
funding for student drug-testing programs to as many new school
districts as possible. Allowing current grantees to compete for these
funds would decrease the total number of school districts that could
receive Federal support to implement a student drug-testing grant.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we include text stating
that the implementation of a mandatory random drug-testing or voluntary
drug-testing program be governed by already approved policies.
Discussion: The requirements in this notice of final eligibility
and application requirements, priorities, and selection criteria will
govern student drug-testing programs funded through this program. These
requirements represent the necessary components of a student drug-
testing program with a drug testing policy, and LEAs should incorporate
these components into their own drug-testing policy. We encourage LEAs
to develop student drug-testing policies before beginning drug testing
but do not require that an LEA have a policy as a prerequisite for
receiving a grant award. LEAs need time to develop a student drug-
testing policy that has been reviewed and accepted by their school
administrators and school boards before it can be implemented.
Change: None.
Comments: Two commenters expressed concern about the ten percent
cap on the cost of site-based evaluations.
Discussion: We believe that the ten percent cap on site-based
evaluations will provide grantees with sufficient funds to carry out
their local evaluation. We estimate the average size of an award as
$200,000, up to $20,000 of which could be used to carry out a local
evaluation that reports on the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) performance measures and specific program goals and objectives.
Change: None.
Selection Criteria: General
Comment: One commenter recommended that the performance target of
the reduction of drug use by five percent should only be tied to
program implementation in years two and three.
Discussion: We understand that progress in the first year may be
minimal while the grantee collects baseline data. We think it
important, however, for grantees to report annually on progress in
meeting the performance targets, as well as their project goals and
objectives. This information is necessary to help us assess if grantees
are making progress and to determine technical assistance needs.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we award student drug-
testing grants on a first-come, first-serve basis for applicants that
use a standard pre-approved, drug-testing program.
Discussion: We cannot provide a standard drug-testing program for
all applicants to use because each applicant must design a program that
best suits the needs and requirements of its individual community.
Variations in State laws and local policies must be factored into each
individual program. Moreover, each applicant must provide an assurance
that legal counsel has
[[Page 39257]]
reviewed the proposed program and advised the applicant that the
program activities do not appear to violate established constitutional
principles or State and Federal requirements related to implementing a
student drug-testing program.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that LEAs funded through this
program be required to have a strong evaluation design for their local
efforts. The commenter contended that grantees should commit to
cooperating with a national evaluation of the student drug-testing
program, which addresses such issues as: (1) The reduction of the
prevalence of drug use among students, (2) the effectiveness of a
random program compared to a voluntary program, (3) how other
coexisting strategies affect the reduction of drug use, and (4) if
there are any unintended consequences linked to drug testing.
Discussion: Under Priority 2 we will carry out a national
evaluation of student-drug testing programs designed to measure the
effectiveness of this strategy across all implementation sites. We
think that evaluating mandatory drug testing programs will yield better
information about drug testing as an effective deterrent than in
comparing mandatory random to voluntary drug-testing programs. Priority
1 requires all grantees to conduct site-based evaluations on program
effectiveness using objective performance measures related to the
outcomes of the project and the Government Performance and Results Act
performance measure on the incidence of drug use in the past month and
past year. Issues such as a comparison of mandatory random to voluntary
drug testing may be part of local evaluations.
Change: None.
Selection Criteria: Project Personnel
Comment: Two commenters asked whether a grantee under this program
may hire specific project personnel such as a social worker and a
prevention coordinator.
Discussion: Grant funds may be used to pay for staff who implement
and carry out the drug-testing program. When a student tests positive
for drug use, staff may be paid for reasonable time spent counseling
the student, conducting a drug abuse assessment, and referring a
student to drug treatment services. No funds may be used to pay for
drug abuse treatment services. Within these parameters, we believe that
decisions on specific staff to hire and to pay under the grant should
be left to individual grantees.
Change: None.
Scope of Program
Comment: Several commenters suggested that we broaden the scope of
the overall grant competition. One commenter asked us to ensure that
appropriate health and mental heath programs are in place before
student drug testing takes place; one commenter asked us to allow funds
to be used for general drug prevention activities or training in
addition to drug testing; and another asked us to expand the program so
that students in co-curricular activities could be drug tested.
Discussion: We understand the importance of providing assistance to
students who test positive for substance abuse, which is why the
program requires that applicants provide a comprehensive plan for
referring students who are identified as drug users through the testing
program to a student assistance program, counseling, or drug treatment.
The drug-testing program will be part of an existing, comprehensive
drug prevention program in the schools to be served. We want funds for
this program to be used for drug testing and not for drug prevention
curricula or other prevention programs that can be funded from other
sources. The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act State
Grants, for example, provide funds to LEAs to implement prevention
programs that are responsive to local needs.
We have limited the scope of the random drug-testing programs to
students involved in athletics and competitive, school-sponsored,
extracurricular activities because drug-testing programs for these
students generally are consistent with established constitutional
principles. Programs for students in co-curricular activities have not
yet received the same level of judicial scrutiny.
Change: None.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these eligibility and
application requirements, priorities, or selection criteria, we
invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register. When
inviting applications, we designate each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational. The effect of each priority
is as follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority we give competitive preference to an application by either
(1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent
to which the application meets the competitive priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the
competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that
does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over
other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Eligibility Requirements
We are limiting eligibility for grants to local educational
agencies (LEAs) and public and private entities.
Priorities
Priority 1--Mandatory Random and Voluntary Student Drug-
Testing Programs
Under this priority, we will provide Federal financial assistance
to eligible applicants to develop and implement, or expand, school-
based mandatory random or voluntary drug-testing programs for students
in one or more grades 6 through 12. Any drug-testing program conducted
with funds awarded under this priority must be limited to one or more
of the following:
(1) Students who participate in the school's athletic program;
(2) Students who are engaged in competitive, extracurricular,
school-sponsored activities; and
(3) A voluntary drug-testing program for students who, along with
their parent or guardian, have provided written consent to participate
in a random drug-testing program. Applicants that propose voluntary
drug testing for students who, along with their parent or guardian,
provide written consent, must not prohibit students who do not consent
from participating in school or extracurricular activities.
Priority 2--National Evaluation of Mandatory Random Student
Drug-Testing Programs
Under this priority, we will provide Federal financial assistance
to eligible applicants to develop and implement school-based mandatory
random drug-testing programs for students in one or more grades 6
through 12.
Any drug-testing program conducted with funds awarded under this
priority must be limited to one or more of the following:
(1) All students who participate in the school's athletic program;
and
(2) All students who are engaged in competitive, extracurricular,
school-sponsored activities.
Applicants for this priority must propose drug testing in two or
more schools within the same LEA that do not have an existing drug-
testing program in
[[Page 39258]]
operation. Drug testing must include, at a minimum, students in three
or more grades from 9 through 12. In addition, applicants for this
priority must:
(1) Not have a voluntary testing component proposed as part of
their program;
(2) Provide an assurance that the schools randomly assigned to not
begin mandatory random drug testing will not implement any drug-testing
program for the duration of the national evaluation;
(3) Agree to cooperate with all data collection activities that the
national evaluation will conduct in all the schools;
(4) Develop and implement mandatory random drug-testing policies
and procedures to be carried out consistently in all schools selected
to implement drug testing;
(5) Institute a policy of mandatory random drug-testing for the
entire academic year in the schools selected to implement drug testing;
(6) Ensure that, to the extent feasible, all students who
participate in the drug-testing program remain in the random drug-
testing pool for the entire academic year; and
(7) Agree to participate in the national evaluation and provide an
assurance that the applicant will cooperate with the national evaluator
in obtaining parental consent for student participation in surveys that
the national evaluator will administer in all the selected schools
(control and experimental).
At the time of the grant award, the Department of Education's
evaluator will randomly assign the schools either to receive the
intervention (mandatory random drug testing) or not receive the
intervention (no mandatory random drug testing). The evaluator will
collect outcome data in both sets of schools.
Application Requirements: The following requirements apply to all
applications submitted under this program:
(1) Applicants may not submit more than one application for an
award under this program.
(2) Applicants may not have been the recipient or beneficiary of a
grant in 2003 under the Department of Education Demonstration Grants
for Student Drug-Testing competition.
(3) Non-LEA applicants must submit a letter of agreement to
participate from an LEA. The letter must be signed by the applicant and
an authorized representative of the LEA. Letters of support are not
acceptable as evidence of the required agreement.
(4) Funds may not be used for the following purposes:
(a) Student drug tests administered under suspicion of drug use;
(b) Incentives for students to participate in programs;
(c) Drug treatment; or
(d) Drug prevention curricula or other prevention programs.
(5) Applicants must:
(a) Identify a target population and demonstrate a significant need
for drug testing within the target population;
(b) Explain how the proposed drug-testing program will be part of
an existing, comprehensive drug prevention program in the schools to be
served;
(c) Provide a comprehensive plan for referring students who are
identified as drug users through the testing program to a student
assistance program, counseling, or drug treatment if necessary;
(d) Provide a plan to ensure the confidentiality of drug-testing
results, including a provision that prohibits the party conducting drug
tests from disclosing to school officials any information about a
student's use of legal medications;
(e) Limit the cost of site-based evaluations to no more than 10
percent of total funds requested;
(f) Provide written assurances of the following:
(i) That results of student drug tests will not be disclosed to law
enforcement officials;
(ii) That results of student drug tests will be destroyed when the
student graduates or otherwise leaves the LEA or private school
involved;
(iii) That all positive drug tests will be reviewed by a certified
medical review officer;
(iv) That legal counsel has reviewed the proposed program and
advised that the program activities do not appear to violate
established constitutional principles or State and Federal requirements
related to implementing a student drug-testing program; and
(v) That all proposed activities will be carried out in accordance
with the requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA).
Selection Criteria: The Secretary will select from the following
those criteria and factors that will be used to evaluate applications
under any competition conducted under this program.
Note: The maximum score for all of these criteria is 100 points.
The points or weights assigned to each criterion are in the
application package for this competition.
(1) Need for Project.
(a) The documented magnitude of student drug use in schools to be
served by the drug-testing program, including the nature, type, and
frequency, if known, of drugs being used by students in the target
population; and
(b) Other evidence of student drug use, such as reports from
parents, students, school staff, or law enforcement officials.
(2) Significance.
(a) The extent to which the proposed project includes a thorough,
high-quality review of Federal and State laws and relevant Supreme
Court decisions related to the proposed student drug-testing program;
(b) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates school and
community support for the student drug-testing program and has included
a diversity of perspectives such as those of parents, counselors,
teachers, and school board members, in the development of the drug-
testing program; and
(c) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the student drug-testing program.
(3) Quality of Project Design.
(a) The extent to which the project will be based on up-to-date
knowledge from research and effective practice, including the
methodology for the random selection of students to be tested and
procedures outlining the collection, screening, confirmation, and
review of student drug tests by a certified medical review officer;
(b) The extent to which the applicant identifies the drugs for
which it plans to test and includes a rationale for the type of testing
device it plans to use for each drug test;
(c) The quality of the applicant's plan to develop and implement a
drug-testing program that includes--
(i) Detailed procedures for responding to a positive drug test,
including parental notification and referral to student assistance
programs, drug education, or formal drug treatment, if necessary; and
(ii) Clear consequences for a positive drug test.
(4) Management Plan.
(a) The extent to which the applicant describes appropriate chain-
of-custody procedures for test samples and demonstrates a commitment to
use labs certified by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) to process student drug tests; and
(b) The quality of the applicant's plan to ensure confidentiality
of drug test results, including limiting the number of school officials
who will have access to student drug-testing records.
(5) Quality of Project Evaluation.
(a) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use
of
[[Page 39259]]
objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended
outcomes of the project; and
(b) The quality of the applicant's plan to collect data on the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance measure
established by the Department for this program and to report these data
to the Department.
Note: The Department has established the following GPRA
performance measure for the School-Based Student Drug Testing
program: the reduction of the incidence of drug use in the past
month and past year. The Secretary has set an overall performance
target that calls for the prevalence of drug use by students in the
target population to decline by five percent annually.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of final requirements, priorities, and selection
criteria has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and
benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the notice of final
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria are those we have
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this notice of final requirements, priorities, and
selection criteria, we have determined that the benefits of the final
requirements, priorities, and selection criteria justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
We summarized the costs and benefits of this regulatory action in
the notice of proposed eligibility and application requirements,
priorities, and selection criteria.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html
.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131.
Dated: July 5, 2005.
Deborah A. Price,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
[FR Doc. 05-13495 Filed 7-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P