[Federal Register: July 22, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 140)]
[Notices]
[Page 39445-39448]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22jy98-110]
[[Page 39445]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education--Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities National Programs--Grants to Institutions of
Higher Education; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for
Fiscal Year 1998 and Validation Competition; Notice
[[Page 39446]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Programs--
Grants to Institutions of Higher Education (Validation Competition)
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of Final Priorities and Selection Criteria for Fiscal
Year 1998.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final priorities and selection
criteria for fiscal year (FY) 1998 under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities (SDFSC) National Programs Grants to Institutions of
Higher Education (IHEs) Validation Competition. The Secretary takes
this action to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified
national need. The priorities are intended to increase knowledge by
validating and disseminating effective model programs and strategies to
promote the safety of students attending IHEs by preventing violent
behavior and the illegal use of alcohol and other drugs by college
students.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities take effect August 21, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Safe and Drug-Free Schools
Program, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Ave., SW, Room
604 Portals, Washington, D.C. 20202-6123. Telephone: (202) 260-3954. E-
Mail Karmon__Simms@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunication
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.,
Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
Note: This notice of final priorities does not solicit
applications. A notice inviting applications under this competition
is published in a separate notice in this issue of the Federal
Register.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 9, 1998, the Secretary published the
proposed priorities for this competition in a notice in the Federal
Register (63 FR 31586). No comments were received, and the Secretary
has made no modifications.
Priorities
Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act of 1994, the Secretary gives an absolute preference to
applications that meet one or all of the following priorities. The
Secretary funds under this competition only applications that meet one
or all of these absolute priorities:
Absolute Priority 1
Correcting misperceptions of student alcohol and other drug use
among a large or influential subpopulation of students attending
institutions of higher education.
Applicants must:
(1) Identify one large or influential student subpopulation (e.g.
student athletes, members of fraternities and sororities) who will
receive the intervention;
(2) Justify the selection of the subpopulation, and design the
intervention, based on an assessment of objective data (such as needs
assessments, student use surveys, assessment of students' dispositions
toward drug use);
(3) Propose activities designed to correct misperceptions of this
subpopulation about levels of student campus alcohol and drug use,
student alcohol and drug use norms, and the consequences of student
alcohol and drug use;
(4) Use a campus and community coalition to plan and implement the
project;
(5) Develop measurable goals and objectives linked to the
identified needs;
(6) Use a qualified evaluator to implement a rigorous evaluation of
the project using outcomes-based (summative) performance indicators in
addition to process (formative) measures, that document strategies used
and measure the effectiveness of the program or strategy in reducing
student drug use and violent behavior, and utilize a reference group or
comparison group at the grantee's own or similar campus;
(7) Share information about their projects with Department of
Education staff or their agents in order to assist grantees in the
development of an evaluation strategy and to coordinate cross project
site comparisons;
(8) Demonstrate ability to start the project within 60 days after
receiving Federal funding in order to maximize the time available to
show impact or prepare an article for publication within the grant
period; and
(9) Provide statistics and information on crimes occurring on
campus, especially liquor law violations, drug abuse violations, and
weapons possession; and, at the request of the Secretary, coordinate
with any report being prepared under section 204(a)(4)(B) of the
Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act on policies, procedures
and practices which have proven effective in the reduction of campus
crime.
Absolute Priority 2
Assess the impact of an existing or new consortium (such as
coalitions and other partnerships at the community, State, or regional
levels) on limiting illegal alcohol and other drug use, and preventing
intoxication and violence.
Applicants must:
(1) Establish a new, or expand an existing consortium at the
community, State, or regional level by working together in partnership
with key stakeholders to share information and to impact campus and
public policy;
(2) Demonstrate evidence of commitment of consortium members and
explain how the IHE will create or sustain opportunities for members to
meet and work together on a regular basis;
(3) Describe proposed consortium activities and justify how such
activities will bring about improvements in drug prevention programs
and policies affecting AOD use decisions, and violence on campus;
(4) Provide criteria for membership, and how any potential
expansion of membership would be carried out if additional individuals
or organizations seek to join the consortium;
(5) Develop measurable goals and objectives for consortia linked to
identified needs;
(6) Use prevention approaches that research or evaluation has shown
to be effective in preventing or reducing violent behavior or the
illegal use of alcohol and other drugs;
(7) Use a qualified evaluator to design and implement a rigorous
evaluation of the project using outcomes-based (summative) performance
indicators in addition to process (formative) measures that documents
strategies used and measures the effectiveness of the consortium;
(8) Share information about their projects with Department of
Education staff or their agents in order to assist grantees in the
development of an evaluation strategy and to coordinate cross project
sites;
(9) Design a program based on assessment of objective data (such as
needs assessments, student use surveys, assessments of students'
dispositions toward drug use, environmental assessments);
(10) Demonstrate the ability to start the project within 60 days
after receiving Federal funding in order to maximize the time available
to show impact within the grant period; and
(11) At the request of the Secretary, coordinate with any report
being prepared under section 204(a)(4)(B) of the Student Right-to-Know
and Campus Security Act on policies, procedures and practices which
have proven
[[Page 39447]]
effective in the reduction of campus crime.
Absolute Priority 3
Disseminate knowledge of existing model programs, new prevention
theories, or new application of theories, theoretical models, or
conceptual approaches (theories) to alcohol and other drug or violence
prevention or both.
Applicants must:
(1) If proposing to disseminate knowledge on an existing model
program, (a) document how the program was proven effective by
explaining the needs assessment, implementation, evaluation, and
outcomes of the program; (b) document how the model program effectively
changed the campus and/or community; (c) explain how the model program
advanced prevention thinking and activities; (d) discuss the type of
institution(s) and student demographics to which the model program
would be most replicable or adaptable; and (e) provide a timeline for
the submission of the draft and final papers with appropriate
attachments.
(2) If proposing a new theory or approach, (a) provide evidence
that the theory/approach is based on an assessment of objective data
(such as needs assessments, student use surveys, assessment of student
dispositions toward drug use, statistics and information on crimes
occurring on campus(es); (b) document how the theory/approach can be
applied effectively to change the campus and/or community; (c)explain
how the theory/approach will advance prevention thinking and
activities; (d) discuss the type of institution(s) and student
demographics to which the theory would be most replicable or adaptable;
and (e) provide a timeline for the submission of the draft and final
papers with appropriate attachments;
(3) Provide a letter of support from the applicant's direct
supervisor and demonstrate the ability to start the project within 30
days after receiving Federal funding in order to maximize the time
available to prepare an article for publication within the grant
period; and
(4) At the request of the Secretary, coordinate with any report
being prepared under section 204(a)(4)(B) of the Student Right-to-Know
and Campus Security Act on policies, procedures and practices which
have proven effective in the reduction of campus crime.
Selection Criteria for Absolute Priority 1 and Absolute Priority 2
(a)(1) The Secretary uses the following selection criteria to
evaluate applications for new grants under this competition.
(2) The maximum score for all of these criteria is 100 points.
(3) The maximum score for each criterion or factor under that
criterion is indicated in parentheses.
(b) The criteria.
(1) Need for project. (10 points)
(i) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the need for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(A) The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by the
proposed project (5 points)
(B) 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. (5 points)
(2) Significance. (10 points)
(i) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed
project.
(ii) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(A) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the
development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the
field of study. (5 points)
(B) The potential replicability of the proposed project or
strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation
in a variety of settings. (5 points)
(3) Quality of the project design. (20 points)
(i) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the
proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(A) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(5 points)
(B) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of
that framework. (10 points)
(C) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects
up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice. (5 points)
(4) Quality of the project personnel. (10 points)
(i) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will
carry out the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(A) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for
employment from persons who are members of groups that have
traditionally been under represented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability. (2 points)
(B) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of key project personnel. (8 points)
(5) Adequacy of resources. (10 points)
(i) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the
proposed project.
(ii) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(A) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(5 points)
(B) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the
number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and
benefits. (5 points)
(6) Quality of the management plan. (15 points)
(i) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for
the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the management plan for the
proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(A) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks. (5 points)
(B) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project. (5 points)
(C) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including
those of students, faculty, parents, the business community, a variety
of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of
services, or others, as appropriate. (5 points)
(7) Quality of the project evaluation. (25 points)
(i) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(A) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and
[[Page 39448]]
appropriate to the goals, objectives and outcomes of the proposed
project. (10 points)
(B) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes. (5 points)
(C) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and
qualitative data to the extent possible. (10 points)
Selection Criteria for Absolute Priority 3
(1) Need for project. (10 points)
(i) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the need for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(A) The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by the
proposed project. (5 points)
(B) 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. (5 points)
(2) Significance. (25 points)
(i) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed
project.
(ii) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(A) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the
development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the
field of study. (5 points)
(B) The extent to which the proposed project involves the
development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on,
or are alternatives to, existing strategies. (15 points) (C) The
potential replicability of the proposed project or strategies,
including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation in a
variety of settings. (5 points)
(3) Quality of the project design. (20 Points)
(i) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the
proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(A) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(5 points)
(B) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of
that framework. (10 points)
(C) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects
up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice. (5 points)
(4) Quality of the project personnel. (20 points)
(i) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will
carry out the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the project personnel, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(A) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for
employment from persons who are members of groups that have
traditionally been under represented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability. (2 points)
(B) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of key project personnel. (18 points)
(5) Adequacy of resources. (10 points)
(i) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the
proposed project.
(ii) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the costs are
reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and the
anticipated results and benefits. (10 points)
(6) Quality of the management plan. (15 points)
(i) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for
the proposed project.
(ii) In determining the quality of the management plan for the
proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following
factors:
(A) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, time lines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks. (5 points)
(B) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project. (5 points)
(C) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including
those of students, faculty, parents, the business community, a variety
of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of
services, or others, as appropriate. (5 points)
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The objective of the
Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
Electronic Access To This Document
Anyone may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or
portable document format (pdf) on the World Wide Web at either of the
following sites:
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
To use the pdf you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with
Search, which is available free at either of the preceding sites. If
you have questions about using the pdf, call the U.S. Government
Printing officer toll free at 1-888-293-6498.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed above. Government
Printing Office toll free at 1-888-293-6498.
Anyone may also view these documents in text copy only on an
electronic bulletin board of the Department. Telephone: (202) 219-1511
or, toll free, 1-800-222-4922. The documents are located under Option
G--Files/Announcements, bulletins and Press Releases.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7132.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.184H Safe and
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act National Programs--Grants to
Institutions of Higher Education Program)
Dated: July 17, 1998.
Gerald N. Tirozzi,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 98-19549 Filed 7-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P