39446 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Notices

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 DrugFree 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

KarmonlSimms@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-toKnow 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Notices 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
39448 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 140 /Wednesday, July 22, 1998 / Notices

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