Office of Elementary and Secondary EducationSafe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National ProgramsFederal ActivitiesState and Regional Coalition Grant Competition To Prevent High-Risk Drinking Among College Students

SUMMARY: The Secretary announces a final priority, eligible applicants,

and selection criteria for fiscal year (FY) 1999 and, at the discretion

of the Secretary, for subsequent years under the Safe and Drug-Free

Schools and Communities National Programs--Federal Activities--State

and Regional Coalition Grant Competition to Prevent High-Risk Drinking

Among College Students. The Secretary takes this action to focus

Federal financial assistance on an identified national need. This

competition seeks to reduce and prevent high-risk drinking among

college students by funding State or regional coalitions for a two-year

period to bring together institutions of higher education (IHEs) to

share ideas and develop, implement, and evaluate collaborative

strategies.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities take effect July 16, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Light, Safe and Drug-Free

Schools Program, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20202-6123. Telephone: (202) 260-3954. FAX (202) 260-

7767. Internet: http://www.ed.gov/OESE/SDFS.

Individuals who use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD)

may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

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.

Note: This notice of final priority does not solicit

applications. A notice inviting applications under this competition

is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: High-risk drinking, including ``binge''

drinking, continues to affect the health, learning, and safety of

college students. Excessive use of alcohol has resulted in deaths,

serious injuries, vandalism, and sexual assault on college campuses.

There is strong evidence that environmental factors, including alcohol

availability, high-risk alcohol use norms, and the restrictiveness of

State drunk driving laws, play a major role in student alcohol use.

Different IHEs may have high-risk drinking problems that are affected

by similar environmental concerns; therefore, developing partnerships

with other IHEs can provide a forum to develop common solutions as well

as a mechanism to create the ``critical mass'' of concerned

stakeholders needed to influence broader environmental changes. The

recent development of a number of IHE coalitions across the country

suggests that such partnerships may be an effective method for IHEs

with common environmental concerns to build local capacity to address

high-risk drinking within their campus-communities. In addition, these

efforts can have an impact within a larger community context, such as

geographic regions within States (e.g., a large metropolitan area),

similar institutions within States (e.g., all public universities), or

institutions in States that share common borders. This competition

seeks to encourage these collaborative efforts and evaluate their

effectiveness so that other IHEs may adopt effective strategies.

This notice contains a final priority, eligible applicants, and

related selection criteria for fiscal year 1999 and subsequent years.

Under this absolute priority, the Secretary may make awards for up to

24 months.

On April 20, 1999, the Secretary published the proposed priorities

for this competition in a Notice of Proposed Priority in the Federal

Register (64 FR 19347-19349). In response to the comments received, the

Secretary made no modifications, as noted in the following section--

Analysis of Comments and Changes--of this notice of final priorities.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

In response to the Secretary's invitation to comment on the

proposed priorities, the Department received two responses from

institutions of higher education. Most of the comments were related to

the proposed selection criteria, which were selected from the

established selection criteria published in the Education Department

General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). An analysis of the

comments, organized by topic, follows:

Focus of Priority

Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority include not only

binge drinking, but also other patterns of abusive drinking that have

negative consequences for student life. The commenter indicated that

other patterns of abusive drinking are seen at historically Black IHEs.

Discussion: The existing language in the priority is specifically

designed to include a range of high-risk drinking problems. Although

``binge'' drinking is a significant type of high-risk drinking, the

priority would not preclude a focus on other types of abusive drinking.

Changes: None.

Selection Criteria--Need for Project

Comment: One commenter proposed points be reassigned under this

criterion to place more emphasis on identifying and addressing gaps and

weaknesses in services, rather than on the magnitude and severity of

the problem to be addressed, in order to reflect the amount of

additional work required by applicants to identify gaps and weaknesses.

Discussion: The points assigned for this selection criterion are

intended to place greater emphasis on the magnitude and severity of the

high-risk drinking problem to be addressed by the coalition. Because of

the limited funds available for this initiative, emphasis is placed on

directing funds to areas with the greatest need.

Changes: None.

Selection Criteria--Significance and Quality of the Project Design

Comment: One commenter proposed that the subcriterion under Quality

of the Project Design addressing capacity building be combined with the

subcriterion under Significance addressing system change and

improvement. The commenter suggested that system change, by definition,

will build capacity and yield results beyond the period of Federal

financial assistance.

Discussion: These subcriteria were selected to address two

different, but related, aspects of project impact. Capacity building

may not necessarily lead to system change and improvement, and system

change and improvement may not necessarily include capacity building.

Therefore, both of these selection criteria help select projects that

have the greatest potential to continue the work of the project after

the Federal project period ends.

Changes: None.

Selection Criteria--Quality of Project Design

Comment: One commenter suggested that the number of points be

increased under the subcriterion addressing clearly specified and

measurable goals, objectives and outcomes, because the

[[Page 32365]]

organization's goals, objectives and outcomes have a major impact on

the functioning of the project. In addition, this commenter proposed

that this subcriterion be expanded to include proposed activities for

achieving the stated goals, objectives and outcomes.

Discussion: Clearly specified and measurable goals, objectives and

outcomes are an important part of the design of a project; however, the

quality of the content of the goals, objectives and outcomes is most

important to the design of projects under this program, and is

therefore more heavily weighted. The subcriterion on the extent to

which the design of the project reflects up-to-date knowledge from

research and effective practice will allow reviewers to assess the

quality of the project goals, objectives and outcomes, including the

proposed project activities.

Changes: None.

Selection Criteria--Quality of the Project Personnel and Quality of

the Management Plan

Comment: One commenter suggested that the Quality of the Project

Personnel criterion and the Quality of the Management Plan criterion be

combined and renamed ``management and organizational capability.''

Discussion: The selection criteria Quality of Project Personnel and

Quality of the Management Plan need to be handled separately because

they address different aspects of an application. For example, an

applicant could have well qualified personnel but the management plan

may be poorly designed or written. Both the plan and personnel are

critical to the success of the grant.

Changes: None.

Selection Criteria--Quality of the Management Plan

Comment: One commenter proposed that the subcriterion on bringing a

diversity of perspectives to bear on the operation of the proposed

project be expanded to specify which faculty/student leaders should be

included. This commenter also suggested that this subcriterion include

both receiving input from and providing information to key

stakeholders.

Discussion: Applicants are encouraged to bring a wide variety of

perspectives to the operation of their proposed projects. The specific

individuals who are included may vary depending on the project goals

and design. This subcriterion does not preclude applicants from both

receiving input from and providing information to key stakeholders.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested a subcriterion be included to

require a one-page organization chart to graphically portray the

management structure of the project.

Discussion: Illustrating the management structure with an

organization chart is deemed to be the prerogative of the applicant.

Changes: None.

Selection Criteria--Adequacy of Resources

Comment: One commenter proposed that a criterion be added that

addresses the level of networking between the applicant and members of

national, statewide and regional college consortiums and related

collaborations.

Discussion: The level of networking by applicants will vary

depending on the design and scope of their projects.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested the expansion of the subcriterion

on reasonable costs by adding that the proposed budget be complete,

detailed, and allowable. This commenter also suggested that this

criterion require a description of how non-Federal resources will be

utilized.

Discussion: Administration of Federal grants is governed by Federal

cost principles that will be referenced in the application package

information. These cost principles provide information on allowable

costs. In addition, applicants will be required to submit a budget form

and narrative detailing their plans for the use of funds.

Changes: None.

Absolute Priority

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 the following priority. The Secretary funds

under this competition only applications that meet the following

absolute priority:

Implement and Evaluate the Impact of a State or Regional Coalition to

Develop Strategies for Reducing and Preventing High-Risk Drinking Among

College Students

Applicants proposing a project under this priority must:

(1) Propose to expand an existing or establish a new State or

regional coalition of IHEs and other relevant organizations that

includes key stakeholders who will have an impact on the development

and implementation of State, local, and campus policies and programs to

reduce and prevent high-risk drinking;

(2) Explain how coalition members will work together on a regular

basis, including meeting to discuss common problems and share effective

strategies;

(3) Use community collaboration prevention approaches, including

involvement of students, that research or evaluation has shown to be

effective in preventing or reducing high-risk drinking;

(4) Use a qualified evaluator to design and implement an 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 coalition;

(5) 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

(6) Share information about their projects with the Department of

Education or its agents.

Eligible Applicants

Eligible applicants under this competition are IHEs, consortia of

IHEs, and other public and private nonprofit organizations.

Selection Criteria

The following selection criteria will be used to evaluate

applications for new grants under this competition. The maximum score

for all of these criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each

criterion or factor under that criterion is indicated in parentheses.

(1) Need for project (15 points)

In determining the need for the proposed project, the following

factors are considered:

(a) The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by the

proposed project. (10 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 (14 points)

In determining the significance of the proposed project, the

following factors are considered:

(a) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system

change or improvement. (10 points)

(b) The potential replicability of the proposed project or

strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation

in a variety of settings. (4 points)

(3) Quality of the project design (15 Points)

In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project,

the following factors are considered:

(a) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be

achieved

[[Page 32366]]

by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (4

points)

(b) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects

up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice. (6 points)

(c) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build

capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of

Federal financial assistance. (5 points)

(4) Quality of the project personnel (15 points)

In determining the quality of project personnel, the following

factors are considered:

(a) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for

employment from persons who are members of groups that have

traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national

origin, gender, age, or disability. (3 points)

(b) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,

of key project personnel. (12 points)

(5) Adequacy of resources (16 points)

In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project,

the following factors are considered:

(a) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in

the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.

(8 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. (4 points)

(c) The potential for continued support of the project after

Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated

commitment of appropriate entities to such support. (4 points)

(6) Quality of the management plan (14 points)

In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed

project, the following factors are considered:

(a) 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. (10 points)

(b) 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. (4 points)

(7) Quality of the project evaluation (11 points)

In determining the quality of the evaluation, the following factors

are considered:

(a) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,

feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives and outcomes of the

proposed project. (4 points)

(b) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide

performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward

achieving intended outcomes. (3 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. (4 points)

Intergovernmental Review

This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order

12372 and the regulations of 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 this 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 Office toll free at 1-888-293-6498.

Note: The official version of this document is the document

published in the Federal Register.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic assistance Number 84.184H, Safe and

Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Programs--Federal

Activities--State and Regional Coalition Grant Competition to

Prevent High-Risk Drinking Among College Students)

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7131.

Judith Johnson,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.

[FR Doc. 99-15324 Filed 6-15-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P