26692 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

RIN 1865–ZA04 

Safe Schools/Healthy Students 

Program 

AGENCY: Office of Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of final priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools announces priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions under the Safe Schools/ 

Healthy Students program. The 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and 

Drug-Free Schools may use these 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criteria, and definitions for competitions 

in fiscal year (FY) 2007 and later years. 

We take this action to focus Federal 

financial assistance on safe, respectful, 

and drug-free learning environments 

and healthy childhood development, as 

well as to support the implementation 

and enhancement of integrated, 

comprehensive, community-wide plans 

designed to meet these goals. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions are effective June 11, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Dorsey, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 3E336, Washington, DC 20202– 

6200. Telephone: (202) 708–4674 or via 

e-mail: karen.dorsey@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call 

the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

obtain this document in an alternative 

format (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Safe 

Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) grant 

program draws on the best practices of 

the education, justice, social service, 

and mental health systems to provide a 

continuum of activities, curricula, 

programs and services designed to 

increase protective factors and reduce 

risk as an effective way to promote 

healthy child development and address 

the problems of school violence and 

alcohol and other drug abuse. 

Key to the SS/HS grant program is 

creating and implementing a 

comprehensive plan that addresses 

specific needs, gaps, or weaknesses in 

services and builds on available 

resources and services. Creating and 

implementing the comprehensive plan 

allows an applicant to prevent youth 

drug use and violence, promote safe 

environments and prosocial skills, and 

provide for healthy child development. 

The establishment in this notice of 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criteria, and definitions is designed to 

describe more clearly our vision for this 

important initiative and provide 

prospective applicants with additional 

insight into the program and its 

requirements. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criteria, and definitions for this program 

in the Federal Register on February 27, 

2007 (72 FR 8704). 

Except for minor editorial and 

technical revisions, there are no 

differences between the notice of 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

selection criteria, and definitions and 

this notice of final priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

In response to our invitation in the 

notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions, five parties submitted 

comments. An analysis of the comments 

follows. 

Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes or 

suggested changes we are not authorized 

to make under the applicable statutory 

authority. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that community 

organizations be allowed to apply 

directly for an SS/HS grant. The 

commenter expressed concern that by 

limiting eligibility to local educational 

agencies (LEAs), the Department would 

exclude some communities from 

receiving much needed Federal 

resources. The commenter noted that 

while schools are interested in having 

an intervention implemented, that 

interest wanes when they discover that 

they have to be the entity applying for 

funding because they feel they are 

unable to commit the necessary time 

and resources to coordinate, manage, 

and implement a grant. 

Discussion: The U.S. Departments of 

Education, Health and Human Services, 

and Justice initially designed the SS/HS 

initiative in response to direction from 

Congress. The conference committee 

report that accompanied the initial 

funding appropriated for SS/HS in FY 

1999 instructed the Federal agencies to 

‘‘promote safe learning environments for 

students’’ through competitive grants 

‘‘to local educational agencies for 

developing community-wide 

approaches to creating safe and drugfree schools * * *’’ (House of 

Representatives Report 105–825, to 

accompany H.R. 4328, Making Omnibus 

Consolidated and Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal 

Year 1999). 

The SS/HS initiative recognizes the 

importance of community partners in 

creating a comprehensive, coordinated 

plan for meeting the initiative’s very 

broad goals, as demonstrated by the 

requirement that every application 

include a partnership among a local 

school district, a local public mental 

health authority, and local law 

enforcement and juvenile justice 

entities. However, we continue to 

believe that an LEA is the entity best 

positioned to take the lead in 

developing and implementing a 

comprehensive set of strategies and 

activities that significantly improves the 

school environment and climate. 

Community-based organizations are 

often well suited to implement effective 

prevention programs for students and 

families and can be an important 

partner in a SS/HS project, but these 

organizations may lack the level of 

control and oversight of school settings 

needed to implement effective, 

comprehensive school-based projects. 

Change: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concern about the elimination 

of the previous SS/HS eligibility 

requirement that barred former SS/HS 

grant recipients from applying for a 

second SS/HS grant. One commenter 

felt that this change might reduce the 

number of awards made to small, rural 

districts. Specifically, the commenter 

was concerned that small, rural districts 

may be unable to compete with larger 

LEAs that frequently have dedicated 

resources for grant writing. 

The other commenter asserted that the 

advantages realized by receiving a 

SS/HS grant, including the ability to 

leverage additional resources, are so 

significant that previous recipients 

should not be eligible to compete for 

another SS/HS grant. 

Discussion: In developing the notice 

of proposed priorities, requirements, 

selection criteria, and definitions, we 

carefully considered whether or not to 

eliminate the restriction on eligibility 

for previous SS/HS grantees. The 

proposal to eliminate the restriction was 

based in significant part on the unique 

needs of LEAs with very large 

enrollments or States and territories 

whose governance structure includes 

only a single LEA. In these cases, SS/HS 

funds from a single grant, though 

significant, were not sufficient to reach 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 26693 

all schools and sub-regions in the LEA. 

We believe that eliminating this 

restriction provides an opportunity for 

an LEA to compete for additional 

support to realize its goal of creating a 

safer learning environment for all of its 

schools or sub-regions. To ensure that 

former SS/HS grant recipients do not 

receive new SS/HS awards to sustain 

their original projects, we proposed to 

require that former SS/HS grant 

recipients submit a program-specific 

assurance stating that if awarded, the 

project will not serve those schools or 

sub-regions that were served by the first 

SS/HS project. 

Additionally, we recognize that all 

previous grantees, not just large LEAs 

with dedicated grant-writing personnel, 

have experience with the initiative that 

may assist them in preparing 

competitive grant applications. In an 

effort to level the playing field and 

balance the interests of small, large, 

rural, and urban LEAs, as well as those 

of prior SS/HS grant recipients and of 

LEAs that have not yet received a SS/ 

HS grant, we plan to award a preference 

for LEAs that have not received a SS/HS 

grant. Our experience with other grant 

competitions suggests that this strategy 

generally helps novice applicants 

compete effectively with entities that 

have previously received grants and 

implemented discretionary grant 

projects. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that an educational service agency 

(ESA) that has previously received a 

SS/HS grant on behalf of several of its 

member districts be able to apply on 

behalf of other LEAs that were not part 

of the previous SS/HS project. This 

commenter also requested that the ESA 

be able to implement with the new 

LEAs the same activities previously 

implemented as part of a prior SS/HS 

grant received by the ESA. Finally, the 

commenter requested that ESAs that 

have previously received a SS/HS grant 

and are submitting a new application on 

behalf of LEAs not served by the prior 

grant be considered new applicants 

under Priority 2. 

Discussion: The notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criteria, and definitions did not propose 

to continue the prohibition on an LEA 

receiving a second SS/HS grant that was 

established in the notice of final 

priorities for the program published in 

the Federal Register on May 28, 2004 

(69 FR 30756). Instead, through Priority 

2, we proposed to establish a priority for 

LEAs that have not previously received 

a SS/HS grant at any time. This 

preference is designed to help level the 

playing field for applicants that have 

not previously received SS/HS funding 

given that prior recipients will now be 

allowed to compete for funding. 

We are not restricting the ability of an 

ESA to propose programs used in a 

previous SS/HS project, provided that 

different LEAs are being served under 

the new SS/HS project. 

Priority 1 does not address the issue 

of whether or not an applicant is a prior 

recipient or a new applicant for SS/HS 

funding. Priority 2 provides a priority 

for new applicants, but ESAs that have 

previously received a SS/HS grant 

would not be considered new 

applicants, even if their applications 

were designed to serve LEAs that had 

not received services under a previous 

SS/HS project. The priority is designed 

to help applicants that have not 

received SS/HS funds compete 

effectively with prior recipients that 

have had the advantage of designing and 

implementing a successful SS/HS 

project. Permitting an ESA with a prior 

SS/HS grant award to be eligible under 

this priority (even when it would 

implement activities in new schools or 

LEAs) would run counter to our 

objective in establishing Priority 2 

because those ESAs have used a 

previous grant to gain experience that 

they can build upon in serving new 

schools and LEAs. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we change the application 

requirements and definitions to require 

that applicants for SS/HS funds 

demonstrate the participation in their 

projects of local agencies working to 

prevent substance abuse. Specifically, 

the commenter recommended that the 

application requirement for a 

preliminary memorandum of agreement 

(MOA) be modified to require the 

addition of a local substance abuse 

prevention agency as a partner or, 

alternatively, that the local behavioral 

health authority be included if a single 

authority is responsible for both mental 

health and substance abuse services. 

The commenter felt that requiring the 

inclusion of such agencies would 

enhance efforts to prevent youth 

violence and promote healthy youth 

development. 

The commenter also suggested that 

the contents of the required final MOA 

be expanded to include details about the 

procedures to be used for referral, 

treatment, and follow-up for students 

receiving substance abuse services. 

Additionally, the commenter proposed 

definitions for the terms ‘‘local 

substance abuse prevention agency’’

and/or ‘‘behavioral health authority,’’

and requested that the Department 

apply these definitions to the SS/HS 

program. 

Discussion: As stated by the 

commenter, local substance abuse 

prevention agencies and/or behavioral 

health authorities exist in many 

localities, but this is not true for every 

community and every State. Some 

States and many localities do not have 

independent substance abuse 

prevention agencies but combine 

responsibilities for substance abuse 

prevention, intervention, and treatment 

with behavioral health, mental health, 

public health, or even child welfare. 

Because of the variation in State and 

local government structures, we would 

not easily be able to determine if local 

agencies for substance abuse prevention 

exist in each applicant’s jurisdiction 

and, thus, we would not be able to make 

an accurate and efficient determination 

regarding an applicant’s eligibility. 

Applicants are required to address, in 

their preliminary and final MOAs 

among the required SS/HS partners, as 

well as in their responses to the 

selection criteria, how multiple and 

diverse sectors of the community have 

been and will continue to be involved 

in the design, implementation, and 

continuous improvement of the project. 

Those LEAs situated in localities with a 

separate local substance abuse 

prevention agency could include the 

separate local substance abuse 

prevention agency in their 

Comprehensive Plan and as a SS/HS 

partner and describe the participation of 

that agency in their application. The 

final MOA from a partnership that 

includes a separate local substance 

abuse prevention agency could also 

include details about the proposed 

procedures to be used for referral, 

treatment, and follow-up for students 

receiving substance abuse services to be 

provided by or coordinated by the local 

substance abuse prevention agency. 

Change: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: The notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criteria, and definitions proposed that 

previous SS/HS grant recipients be 

allowed to compete for additional 

SS/HS funding provided that the 

applicants submit a program-specific 

assurance with their grant applications. 

In this assurance, an applicant would 

state that the scope of work contained 

in the grant application is new and that 

funding, if awarded, will not be used to 

sustain activities, programs, curricula, 

or services provided to a population 

during the first SS/HS grant. 

Although we did not receive any 

comments about the proposed 

assurance, we were contacted by some 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES2
26694 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 

LEAs that have previously received a 

SS/HS grant award, seeking clarification 

about the proposed assurance. Based on 

these contacts, we believe that the 

language for the assurance proposed in 

the notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions may not have clearly 

conveyed our intent. 

Our rationale for eliminating the 

restriction on eligibility that prohibited 

recipients of a SS/HS grant from 

applying for a subsequent grant is that, 

despite the size of SS/HS grants, some 

very large LEAs were not eligible to 

apply for sufficient funding to design 

and implement a comprehensive SS/HS 

plan district-wide and that such LEAs 

would not have been able to include all 

of their schools or sub-regions in their 

first SS/HS projects. Our intent was to 

provide an opportunity for these LEAs 

to implement activities, curricula, 

programs, and services to those schools 

or sub-regions that were not served by 

the first SS/HS project. We did not 

intend to limit the activities, programs, 

curricula, or services that can be 

included in a new application for 

schools not previously served, nor did 

we intend this to provide an 

opportunity for prior recipients to 

‘‘redo’’ a SS/HS project in the schools 

and sub-regions that were served by the 

first SS/HS project. 

We expect current and former SS/HS 

grantees to use the resources provided 

by the SS/HS initiative (direct grant 

funds as well as technical assistance 

resources) and their strong community 

partnerships to create the system and 

institutional changes needed to sustain 

SS/HS activities, curricula programs, 

and services after Federal funding has 

ended. 

Change: We have modified the text of 

the assurance to clarify our intent in 

requiring this assurance. LEAs that have 

received funds or services (or for those 

LEA consortia that include a member 

LEA that has received funds or services) 

under the SS/HS program must submit 

a program-specific assurance as part of 

the SS/HS application. That assurance 

must state that, if awarded, the project 

will not serve those schools or subregions that were served by the first 

SS/HS project. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

When inviting applications we designate a 

priority as absolute, competitive preference, 

or invitational. The effect of each type of 

priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by either (1) Awarding 

additional points, depending on how 

well or the extent to which the 

application meets the competitive 

priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 

selecting an application that meets the 

competitive priority over an application 

of comparable merit that does not meet 

the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

invitational priority. However, we do 

not give an application that meets the 

invitational priority a competitive or 

absolute preference over other 

applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Priorities 

Priority 1—Comprehensive Plan 

This priority supports projects of 

LEAs proposing to implement an 

integrated, comprehensive communitywide plan designed to create safe, 

respectful, and drug-free school 

environments and promote prosocial 

skills and healthy childhood 

development. Plans must focus 

activities, curricula, programs, and 

services in a manner that responds to 

the community’s existing needs, gaps, or 

weaknesses in areas related to the five 

comprehensive plan elements: 

• Element One—Safe School 

Environments and Violence Prevention 

Activities. 

• Element Two—Alcohol, Tobacco, 

and Other Drug Prevention Activities. 

• Element Three—Student 

Behavioral, Social, and Emotional 

Supports. 

• Element Four—Mental Health 

Services. 

• Element Five—Early Childhood 

Social and Emotional Learning 

Programs. 

Priority 2—LEAs That Have Not 

Previously Received a Grant or Services 

Under the Safe Schools/Healthy 

Students Initiative 

Under this priority, we give priority to 

applications from LEAs that have not 

yet received a grant under this program 

as an applicant or as a member of a 

consortium. In order for a consortium 

application to be eligible under this 

priority, no member of the LEA 

consortium may have received a grant or 

services under this program as an 

applicant or as a member of a 

consortium applicant. 

Application and Eligibility 

Requirements 

The applicant must meet the 

following requirements: 

1. Program-Specific Assurances for 

Former SS/HS Grant Recipients. For 

those LEAs that have previously 

received funds or services (or for those 

LEA consortia that include a member 

LEA that has received funds or services) 

under the SS/HS program, a programspecific assurance must be submitted as 

part of the SS/HS application. All 

participating LEAs in a proposed 

consortium project must sign this 

program-specific assurance. The 

assurance must state that, if awarded, 

the project will not serve those schools 

or sub-regions served by the first SS/HS 

project. Applications from prior SS/HS 

grant recipients (or from a consortium 

that includes an LEA that has 

previously received SS/HS funds or 

services) that do not include the 

program-specific assurance will be 

rejected and not considered for funding. 

2. Funding Limits for Applicants. An 

applicant’s request for funding must not 

exceed the following maximum 

amounts, based on student enrollment 

data, for any of the project’s four 12- 

month budget periods: $2,250,000 for an 

LEA with at least 35,000 students; 

$1,500,000 for an LEA with at least 

5,000 students but fewer than 35,000 

students; and $750,000 for an LEA with 

fewer than 5,000 students. In applying 

these maximums, applicants must use 

the most recent student enrollment data 

from the National Center for Education 

Statistics’ (NCES) Common Core of Data 

(CCD) as posted on the NCES Web site. 

In the case of consortium applicants, the 

maximum funding request is based on 

the combined student enrollment data 

for the participating LEAs. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Indian 

Education-funded schools that are not 

included in the NCES database and 

request grant funds that exceed 

$750,000 for any of the project’s four 12- 

month budget periods must provide 

documentation of enrollment data. 

3. Preliminary MOA. Each applicant 

must include in its application a 

preliminary MOA that is signed by the 

authorized representatives of the LEA, 

the local juvenile justice agency, the 

local law enforcement agency, and the 

local public mental health authority—

the required SS/HS partners. For 

consortium applicants, the preliminary 

MOA must be signed by the authorized 

representatives of each member LEA 

and by the authorized representatives of 

each corresponding required SS/HS 

partner for each member LEA. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 26695 

Additionally, the preliminary MOA 

must: 

(a) Include information that supports 

the selection of each identified SS/HS 

required partner that has signed the 

preliminary MOA; 

(b) Demonstrate the support and 

commitment of the required SS/HS 

partners to implement and sustain the 

project if funded; 

(c) Name a core management team of 

senior representatives from the required 

partners, and clearly define how each 

member of the team will support the 

project director in the day-to-day 

management of the project; 

(d) Describe how multiple and diverse 

sectors of the community, including 

parents and students, have been and 

will continue to be involved in the 

design, implementation, and continuous 

improvement of the project; and 

(e) Include, as an attachment, a logic 

model (a graphic representation of the 

project in chart format) that identifies 

needs or gaps and connects those needs 

or gaps with corresponding project 

goals, objectives, activities, partners’

roles, outcomes, and outcome measures 

for each of the SS/HS elements. 

Applications that do not include the 

preliminary MOA signed by the 

authorized representatives of each of the 

required SS/HS partners (the LEA, the 

local juvenile justice agency, the local 

law enforcement agency, and the local 

public mental health authority) and the 

logic model will be rejected and not 

considered for funding. 

4. Final MOA. If funded, grant 

recipients must complete a final MOA. 

The final MOA must be signed by the 

authorized representatives of the LEA, 

the local juvenile justice agency, the 

local law enforcement agency, and the 

local public mental health authority—

the required SS/HS partners. For 

consortium applicants, the final MOA 

must be signed by the authorized 

representative for each member LEA 

and the authorized representative for 

each of the corresponding required SS/ 

HS partners for each member LEA. The 

final MOA must also include the 

following: 

(a) Information that supports the 

selection of each identified SS/HS 

required partner that has signed the 

final MOA; 

(b) Any needed revisions to the 

statement of support and commitment 

for each of the required SS/HS partners 

to implement and sustain the project; 

(c) A final roster of the core 

management team of senior 

representatives from the required SS/HS 

partners that clearly defines how each 

member of the team will support the 

project director in the day-to-day 

management of the project; 

(d) Any needed revisions to the 

process for involving multiple and 

diverse sectors of the community in the 

implementation and continuous 

improvement of the project; 

(e) A final logic model that identifies 

needs or gaps and connects those needs 

or gaps with corresponding project 

goals, objectives, activities, partners’

roles, outcomes, and outcome measures 

for each of the SS/HS elements; 

(f) A description of each partner’s 

financial responsibility for the services 

that it will provide, along with the 

conditions and terms of responsibility 

for those services, including the quality, 

accountability, and coordination of 

services as they relate to achieving the 

goals, objectives, and outcomes of the 

project; 

(g) A description of the procedures to 

be used for referral, treatment, and 

follow-up for children and adolescents 

in need of mental health services and an 

assurance that the local public mental 

health authority will provide 

administrative control and/or oversight 

of the delivery of mental health services; 

and 

(h) Any other necessary revisions to 

information furnished in the 

preliminary MOA. 

Funding Restrictions: The funding 

restrictions for this program are: 

1. No less than seven percent of a 

grantee’s budget for each year must be 

used to support costs associated with 

local evaluation activities. 

2. No more than 10 percent of the 

total budget for each project year may be 

used to support costs associated with 

security equipment, security personnel, 

and minor remodeling of school 

facilities to improve school safety. 

Selection Criteria 

The selection criteria for this program 

are: 

1. Community Assessment 

(a) The extent to which the applicant 

describes individual, family, school, 

and community risk and protective 

factors that relate to the five SS/HS 

elements and that will be addressed by 

the project. 

(b) The extent to which the applicant 

describes student problem behaviors as 

they relate to the five SS/HS elements 

and how they will be addressed by the 

project. 

(c) The extent to which the applicant 

identifies, in the project narrative and 

the logic model, needs and gaps related 

to the five SS/HS elements that are not 

addressed by current services and 

programs. 

2. Goals and Objectives 

(a) The extent to which the 

applicant’s project narrative and logic 

model specify one or more goals for 

each of the five SS/HS elements and to 

which the goals are clearly linked to the 

needs and gaps identified in the 

community assessment. 

(b) The extent to which the objectives 

identified in the applicant’s project 

narrative and logic model are 

measurable and linked to each of the 

stated goals. 

3. Project Design 

(a) The extent to which the 

applicant’s project narrative and logic 

model propose activities, curricula, 

programs, and services that will address 

each of the goals and objectives of the 

proposed project. 

(b) The extent to which activities, 

curricula, programs, and services 

proposed by the applicant are evidencebased or reflect current research and 

effective practice, and are appropriate 

for the age and developmental levels, 

gender, and cultural diversity of the 

target population. 

4. Evaluation 

(a) The extent to which the 

applicant’s project narrative describes a 

plan for regularly monitoring program 

implementation and identifies process 

measures that the applicant will use to 

assess the quality and completeness of 

the activities planned under the grant. 

(b) The extent to which the 

applicant’s project narrative and logic 

model identify outcomes that are clearly 

linked to the identified objectives and 

activities for the project, and specify 

how outcomes will be measured. 

5. Management 

(a) The extent to which the applicant 

describes a management plan adequate 

to achieve the objectives of the proposed 

program on time and within budget, 

including clearly defined 

responsibilities of partners, staff, and 

contracted service providers, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks. 

(b) The extent to which the applicant 

provides, in the project narrative and 

the preliminary MOA, information 

about any preexisting partnership 

involving the required SS/HS partners 

and about accomplishments of that 

partnership that are directly related to 

the five SS/HS elements. 

(c) The extent to which the applicant 

describes, in the project narrative and in 

the preliminary MOA, a core 

management team that is appropriate 

and adequate to achieve the project’s 

objectives and support the project 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES2
26696 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 

director in day-to-day management of 

the project. 

(d) The extent to which the applicant 

describes, in the project narrative and in 

the preliminary MOA, how multiple 

and diverse sectors of the community, 

including students and families, have 

been and will continue to be involved 

in the design, implementation, and 

continuous improvement of the project. 

(e) The extent to which the applicant 

describes a plan to develop data systems 

that will be used to support decision 

making processes established for the 

grant, including the use of technology. 

6. Budget 

The extent to which the proposed 

budget and budget narrative correspond 

to the project design and are reasonable 

in relation to the numbers of students 

and staff and to the identified objectives 

to be achieved. 

Additional Selection Factors 

The following factors may be 

considered in selecting an application 

for an award: (1) Geographic 

distribution; and (2) diversity of 

activities addressed by the projects. 

Definitions 

1. Authorized representative means—

the official within an organization with 

the legal authority to give assurances, 

make commitments, enter into 

contracts, and execute such documents 

on behalf of the organization as may be 

required by the U.S. Department of 

Education (the Department), including 

certification that commitments made on 

grant proposals will be honored and that 

the applicant agrees to comply with the 

Department’s regulations, guidelines, 

and policies. 

2. Local juvenile justice agency 

means—an agency or entity at the local 

level that is officially recognized by 

State or local government to address 

juvenile justice issues in the 

communities to be served by the grant. 

Examples of juvenile justice agencies 

include: juvenile justice task forces; 

juvenile justice centers; juvenile or 

family courts; juvenile probation 

agencies; and juvenile corrections 

agencies. 

3. Local law enforcement agency 

means—the agency (or agencies) that 

has law enforcement authority for the 

LEA. Examples of local law enforcement 

agencies include: municipal, county, 

and State police; tribal police and 

councils; and sheriffs’ departments. 

4. Local public mental health 

authority means—the entity legally 

constituted (directly or through contract 

with the State mental health authority) 

to provide administrative control or 

oversight of mental health services 

delivery within the community. 

Executive Order 12866 

This notice of final priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions has been reviewed in 

accordance with Executive Order 12866. 

Under the terms of the order, we have 

assessed the potential costs and benefits 

of this regulatory action. 

The potential costs associated with 

the notice of final priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions are those resulting from 

statutory requirements and those we 

have determined as necessary for 

administering this program effectively 

and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this notice of final 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criteria, and definitions, we have 

determined that the benefits of this 

regulatory action justify the costs. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

We fully discussed the costs and 

benefits in the notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criteria, and definitions. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Certain sections of the proposed 

priorities, requirements, and selection 

criteria for the SS/HS grant program 

contain information collection 

requirements already approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

1865–0004 (1890–0001). The 

Department does not believe the 

proposed priorities, requirements, and 

selection criteria will change the current 

approved burden for 1865–0004 (1890–

0001). However, as required by the PRA, 

the Department has submitted 1865–

0004 (1890–0001) to OMB for a revised 

information collection clearance. 

The current absolute priority for the 

SS/HS grant program includes six 

elements that an applicant’s 

comprehensive plan must address. This 

notice proposes to reduce the elements 

from six to five. While this notice 

establishes two new requirements, we 

have eliminated the requirement that 

applicants submit a MOA for mental 

health services. Also, we have 

established fewer program-specific 

selection criteria. The current approved 

information collection contains seven 

selection criteria with a total of 25 subcriteria to which applicants must 

respond. In this notice, we have 

established six selection criteria, with 

only 15 sub-criteria. 

The proposed changes to the 

information collection do not change 

the estimated 26 hours needed to review 

the instructions, search existing data 

sources, gather needed data, prepare 

and review responses. The elimination 

of one of the elements in the absolute 

priority and the elimination of 10 subcriteria provide more than enough time 

for applicants to respond to new 

requirements (i.e., signatures on the 

program-specific assurance and 

completing a logic model). 

In this notice, we have established a 

priority for LEAs that have not 

previously received a grant or services 

under the SS/HS Initiative. To receive 

priority, applicants will be required to 

submit a program-specific assurance. 

This new information collection 

requirement is primarily cosmetic, as 

the application will include a form 

requiring the authorized representative’s 

signature for the applicant; for 

consortium applicants it would require 

the signatures from the authorized 

representative from all participating 

LEAs, but again, the elimination of the 

sub-criteria more than offsets this. 

The current approved information 

collection requires applicants to submit 

two different MOAs with the 

application. We are requiring applicants 

to submit a single preliminary MOA 

with the application and a final MOA 

submitted post award. The proposed 

collection does require submission of a 

logic model, but this requirement adds 

little burden as the applicant need only 

present a subset of the narrative 

information in a chart format. 

If you want to comment on the 

proposed information collection 

requirements, send your comments to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer 

for U.S. Department of Education by 

e-mail to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov 

or by fax to (202) 395–6974. You may 

also send a copy of these comments to 

the Department contact named in the 

addresses section of this notice. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Notices 26697 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may view this document, as well 

as all other Department of Education 

documents published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet 

at the following site: 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. 

You may also view this document in 

text at the following sites: http:// 

www.ed.gov/programs/dvpsafeschools/ 

applicant.html. http:// 

www.sshs.samhsa.gov. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 84.184L Safe Schools/Healthy 

Students Program.) 

Program Authority: Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools and Communities Act (20 U.S.C. 

7131); Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

290aa); and Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 5614(b)(4)(e) and 

5781 et seq.). 

Dated: May 4, 2007. 

Deborah A. Price, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and DrugFree Schools. 

[FR Doc. E7–9043 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools; 

Overview Information; Safe Schools/ 

Healthy Students Program; Notice 

Inviting Applications for New Awards 

for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.184L. 

Dates: Applications Available: May 

10, 2007. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: June 19, 2007. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review: August 20, 2007. 

Full Text of Announcement 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

Purpose of Program: The Safe 

Schools/Healthy Students program 

(SS/HS) supports the implementation 

and enhancement of integrated, 

comprehensive community-wide plans 

that create safe and drug-free schools 

and promote healthy childhood 

development. 

Priorities: These priorities are from 

the notice of final priorities, 

requirements, selection criteria, and 

definitions for this program, published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

Absolute Priority: For FY 2007 and 

any subsequent year in which we make 

awards based on the list of unfunded 

applicants from this competition, this 

priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 

CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only those 

applications that meet this priority. 

This priority is: 

Comprehensive Plan 

This priority supports projects of local 

educational agencies (LEAs) proposing 

to implement an integrated, 

comprehensive community-wide plan 

designed to create safe, respectful, and 

drug-free school environments and 

promote prosocial skills and healthy 

childhood development. Plans must 

focus activities, curricula, programs, 

and services in a manner that responds 

to the community’s existing needs, gaps, 

or weaknesses in areas related to the 

five comprehensive plan elements: 

Element One—Safe School 

Environments and Violence Prevention 

Activities. 

Element Two—Alcohol, Tobacco, and 

Other Drug Prevention Activities. 

Element Three—Student Behavioral, 

Social, and Emotional Supports. 

Element Four—Mental Health 

Services. 

Element Five—Early Childhood 

Social and Emotional Learning 

Programs. 

Competitive Preference Priority: 

Within this absolute priority, we give 

competitive preference to applications 

that address the following priority. 

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we 

award an additional 5 points to an 

application that meets this priority. 

This priority is: 

LEAs That Have Not Previously 

Received a Grant or Services Under the 

Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative 

Under this priority, we give priority to 

applications from LEAs that have not 

yet received a grant under this program 

as an applicant or as a member of a 

consortium. In order for a consortium 

application to be eligible under this 

priority, no member of the LEA 

consortium may have received a grant or 

services under this program as an 

applicant or as a member of a 

consortium. 

Application Requirements: The 

following requirements apply to all 

applications submitted under this 

competition (Definitions for important 

terms associated with this competition 

can be found in the notice of final 

priorities, requirements, selection 

criteria, and definitions published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register.): 

(1) Program-Specific Assurances for 

Former SS/HS Grant Recipients. For 

those LEAs that have previously 

received funds or services (or for those 

LEA consortia that include a member 

LEA that has received funds or services) 

under the SS/HS program, a programspecific assurance must be submitted as 

part of the SS/HS application. All 

participating LEAs in a proposed 

consortium project must sign this 

program-specific assurance. The 

assurance must state that, if awarded, 

the project will not serve those schools 

or sub-regions that were served by the 

first SS/HS project. Applications from 

prior SS/HS grant recipients (or from a 

consortium that includes an LEA that 

has previously received SS/HS funds or 

services) that do not include the 

program-specific assurance will be 

rejected and not considered for funding. 

(2) Funding Limits for Applicants. An 

applicant’s request for funding must not 

exceed the following maximum 

amounts, based on student enrollment 

data, for any of the project’s four 

12-month budget periods: $2,250,000 for 

an LEA with at least 35,000 students; 

$1,500,000 for an LEA with at least 

5,000 students but fewer than 35,000 

students; and $750,000 for an LEA with 

fewer than 5,000 students. In applying 

these maximums, applicants must use 

the most recent student enrollment data 

from the National Center for Education 

Statistics’ (NCES) Common Core of Data 

(CCD) as posted on the NCES Web site. 

In the case of consortium applicants, the 

maximum funding request is based on 

the combined student enrollment data 

for the participating LEAs. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Indian 

Education-funded schools that are not 

included in the NCES database and 

request grant funds that exceed 

$750,000 for any of the project’s four 12- 

month budget periods must provide 

documentation of enrollment data. 

(3) Preliminary Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA). Each applicant must 

include in its application a preliminary 

MOA that is signed by the authorized 

representatives of the LEA, the local 

juvenile justice agency, the local law 

enforcement agency, and the local 

public mental health authority—the 

required SS/HS partners. For 

consortium applicants, the preliminary 

MOA must be signed by the authorized 

representative of each member LEA and 

by the authorized representative of each 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES2