[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39446-39448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19549]



[[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

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

[[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__S<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d0b9bdbda390b5b4feb7bfa6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8d1d5d5cbf8dddc96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>. 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>