Rule2022-17934
Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definition-Project Prevent Grant Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 19, 2022
Effective
September 19, 2022
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces final priorities, requirements, and a definition under the Project Prevent grant program, Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.184M. We may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, and definition for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2022 and later years. These final priorities and requirements are designed to fund local educational agencies (LEAs) impacted by community violence and expand the capacity of LEAs to implement community- and school-based strategies that prevent and mitigate the impact of community violence. The Department also defines "community violence" for purposes of the Project Prevent grant program.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 160 (Friday, August 19, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 160 (Friday, August 19, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50937-50945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17934]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2021-OESE-0122]
Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definition--Project Prevent
Grant Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, and definition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces final
priorities, requirements, and a definition under the Project Prevent
grant program, Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.184M. We may use one
or more of these priorities, requirements, and definition for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2022 and later years. These final
priorities and requirements are designed to fund local educational
agencies (LEAs) impacted by community violence and expand the capacity
of LEAs to implement community- and school-based strategies that
prevent and mitigate the impact of community violence. The Department
also defines ``community violence'' for purposes of the Project Prevent
grant program.
DATES: These priorities, requirements, and definition are effective
September 19, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole White, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E326, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453-6729. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8edefce1e4ebedfaa0defcebf8ebe0faceb2efaee6fcebe8b3" http: ed.gov">ed.gov</a>">Project.Prevent@<a href="http://ed.gov">ed.gov</a></a>.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Purpose of this Regulatory Action: Exposure of children and youth
to community violence, whether as victims, justice-involved youth, or
witnesses, is associated with long-term physical, psychological, and
emotional harms. Community violence, which is defined in this document,
is a significant public health, public safety, and community
infrastructure concern nationwide, and is a leading cause of death,
injury, and intergenerational trauma for people in the United States.
School programs facilitated by counselors, mental health providers, and
community leaders for students who have been exposed to or are at high
risk of involvement in community violence have been shown to help
students develop the social and emotional skills needed to navigate
difficult circumstances inside and outside of school, so that they are
able to problem solve, de-escalate conflict, and reengage in school.
These final priorities, requirements, and definition are aligned with
capacity-building approaches to addressing the harmful effects of
community violence.
Summary of the Major Provisions of this Regulatory Action: Through
this
[[Page 50938]]
regulatory action, we establish three priorities, program and
application requirements, and an associated definition.
Costs and Benefits: The final priorities, requirements, and
definition will impose minimal costs on entities that receive
assistance through the Department's discretionary grant programs.
Application submission and participation in a discretionary grant
program are voluntary. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on
applicants by the final priorities are limited to paperwork burden
related to preparing an application for a discretionary grant program
that uses one or more of the final priorities in its competition.
Because the costs of carrying out activities will be paid for with
program funds, the costs of implementation will not be a burden for any
eligible applicants, including small entities. We believe that the
benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs
because it will result in the submission of a greater number of high-
quality discretionary grant applications and supporting activities that
reflect the administration's education priorities.
Purpose of Program: The Project Prevent grant program provides
grants to LEAs to increase their capacity to implement community- and
school-based strategies to help prevent community violence and mitigate
the impacts of exposure to community violence. Project Prevent grant
funds allow LEAs to increase their capacity to identify, assess, and
serve students exposed to community violence, helping LEAs to (1) offer
affected students mental health services; (2) support conflict
management programs; and (3) implement other community- and school-
based strategies to help prevent community violence and to mitigate the
impacts of exposure to community violence.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7281.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and
definition (NPP) in the Federal Register on January 28, 2022 (87 FR
4522). The priorities included in the NPP were: Proposed Priority 1--
Addressing the Impacts of Community Violence; Proposed Priority 2--
Established Partnership with a Local Community-Based Organization; and
Proposed Priority 3--Supporting Children and Youth from Low-Income
Backgrounds. The NPP contained background information and our reasons
for proposing the priorities, requirements, and definition. There is no
difference between the proposed and final Priority 1. As discussed in
the Analysis of Comments and Changes section, we made a substantive
change to Priorities 2 and 3 and both substantive and editorial changes
to the application requirements and definition.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 33
parties submitted comments, which, in total, addressed all three of the
proposed priorities, as well as the requirements and definition. Three
comments were not relevant to the proposed priorities, requirements, or
definition and are not included in the discussions below. We group
major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes that the law
does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority.
Many commenters expressed general support for all of the proposed
priorities.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, and definition since
publication of the NPP follows.
General Comments
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department provide
targeted outreach to LEAs that have less awareness about Project
Prevent and less capacity to complete the grant application.
Discussion: The Department appreciates this comment. To garner a
diverse pool of applicants, the Department routinely assists potential
applicants by offering technical assistance and pre-application
workshops, and, as needed, responding to frequently asked questions.
This information is made available on the program web page referenced
in the Notice Inviting Applications and included in the Department's
outreach. General resources about applying for a Department of
Education grant are available on the Department's website at <a href="https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grants-apply.html?src=ft">https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grants-apply.html?src=ft</a>. Program-specific
information, including pre-application materials, are available for
Project Prevent at <a href="https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/safe-supportive-schools/project-prevent-grant-program/">https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/safe-supportive-schools/project-prevent-grant-program/</a>.
Changes: None.
Comment: In addition to the existing priorities, one commenter
suggested creating new priorities. Specifically, the commenter
suggested priorities for eliminating police in schools and establishing
alternatives for school safety.
Discussion: The Department fully acknowledges the concerns
underlying this comment. The Department believes applicants are in the
best position to determine whether and how to address the impacts of
community violence by developing partnerships with law enforcement that
are effective, inclusive, and free from bias.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended adding a program requirement
that holds LEAs accountable if they fail to, among other things,
provide services that improve coordination of intervention programs,
provide high-quality training, develop and implement transformative
justice approaches, protect the privacy of individuals, adopt policies
to prevent the perpetuation of discrimination, and involve a broad
group of community stakeholders. The commenter recommended increased
oversight, withholding of funds, or denial of continuation awards if
LEAs failed to meet these goals.
Discussion: All grantees are bound by applicable law regarding
privacy and non-discrimination. In addition, the Department agrees that
accountability for grant implementation is essential. We believe that
the Department's existing procedures and administrative requirements
adequately address these concerns. For example, grantees are held
accountable to goals and objectives in their approved applications. In
addition to routine monitoring by a Federal project officer throughout
the award period, grantees must submit annual reports to the Department
that provide details on implementation, budget, and evaluation of the
program. Through continuous monitoring and review of submitted reports
and documentation, the Department determines if a grantee has made
substantial progress toward meeting its goals and objectives.
Determination of substantial progress determines whether an LEA will
receive a continuation award.
Changes: None.
Priority 1--Addressing the Impacts of Community Violence
Comment: Some commenters stated that mental health services offered
to students should explicitly prioritize students' access to developing
social, self-regulation, and problem-solving skills.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the suggestion that mental
health services offered to students should prioritize skills needed to
regulate emotions and problem solve. We believe the proposed
application requirements already allow for this skill development.
Specifically, application
[[Page 50939]]
requirement (d)(1)(i) requires applicants to propose strategies and
interventions that enhance student knowledge and interpersonal and
emotional skills regarding positive behavior such as communication and
problem-solving; empathy; and conflict management, de-escalation, and
mediation.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that mental health awareness
education should be included in the language of the notice. Several
commenters stated that mental health services for students and families
should be included and emphasized in Priority 1. One commenter
suggested making mental health services available privately, outside of
school.
Discussion: The Department agrees that mental health services are
integral to helping students and communities address the impacts of
community violence. The Department also agrees that students should be
screened for mental health needs, and that services should be
administered in a manner that is equitable and inclusive, including
culturally and linguistically competent, and does not cause further
harm. In light of existing provisions that already give applicants the
flexibility to address the commenters' concerns, the Department does
not believe that further specificity regarding specific skills or
specific targeted groups is necessary. For example, although paying for
private mental health services is not an allowable expense under this
program, this program allows grantees to engage in activities to raise
awareness about the positive impacts of mental health education, and
mental health services for students that are integrated into a school's
overall program, including appropriate screening for these services,
are allowable and encouraged.
Changes: The Department has also added language to application
requirements (c)(2), (c)(5), (d)(1), and (e)(3)(i) and (ii) that
emphasizes the importance of cultural and linguistic competence in
activities, programs, and practices.
Comment: One commenter suggested including reference to minority,
rural, and recent refugee populations in Priority 1 given their
increased vulnerability to mental health issues. Another commenter
recommended project activities that are culturally tailored to address
mental health issues.
Discussion: The Department agrees that certain populations are
particularly vulnerable to community violence and its impacts, and that
activities and interventions must be available in a manner that is
equitable and inclusive and responsive to the cultural and linguistic
diversity of the student population.
Changes: The Department has added language to application
requirement (d)(1)(i), stating that interventions and activities must
be available to all students in a school in a manner that is equitable
and inclusive. The Department has also added language to application
requirements (c)(2), (c)(5), (d)(1), and (e)(3)(i) and (ii) that
emphasizes the importance of cultural and linguistic competence in
activities, programs, and practices.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that applicants commit to
dedicated restorative practices, and one commenter suggested applicants
commit to social emotional learning programming.
Discussion: The Department agrees that restorative practices as
well as social emotional learning programming can be components of an
effective program to mitigate community practices. Because both
restorative practices and social emotional learning are allowable
activities under this program, the Department does not believe any
changes are necessary.
Changes: None.
Priority 2--Established Partnership With a Local Community-Based
Organization (CBO)
Comment: One commenter recommended requiring that CBOs demonstrate
a history of school and community engagement. The commenter further
recommended requiring a detailed plan that describes how the CBO will
communicate and collaborate with schools on programming and how it will
engage authentically with the target community. Additionally, the
commenter suggested adding key engagement strategies or shared values
between the LEA applicant and CBO that all applicants should address as
part of program implementation. One commenter recommended that the
Department take into consideration the barriers that exist in obtaining
memoranda of agreement/memoranda of understanding (MOAs/MOUs) in
certain communities. One commenter suggested requiring that MOAs/MOUs
be made available and accessible to the public. One commenter suggested
evaluations of partner organizations to ensure they are suited for the
work they will be doing.
Discussion: The Department agrees that an effective LEA/CBO
partnership requires a detailed plan to engage the target community.
The Department does not agree that changes to the requirements are
needed, because the program's application requirements already require
applicants to describe how they intend to work collaboratively with
CBOs to achieve shared project goals and objectives. Applications are
peer-reviewed and scored based on how well they address application
requirements. Moreover, LEAs have the discretion to choose their CBO
partners based on LEA needs and the approved application, and thus are
in best position to determine what historical level of school and
community engagement is appropriate in the LEA/CBO relationship.
While the Department understands that barriers to obtaining MOAs/
MOUs sometimes exist, we believe the benefit of having MOAs/MOUs
outweighs these barriers. We will make every attempt, when conducting
grant competitions, to offer a longer application window so that
applicants have time to secure partnerships that will yield the highest
results. Finally, we encourage grantees to make their MOAs/MOUs
available and accessible to the public. We believe this should be
discretionary, rather than mandatory, because the program application
already requires applicants to describe LEA and CBO roles and
responsibilities with respect to the goals and objectives of the
approved application.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended stating specifically that
nonprofit organizations can be considered local CBOs for purposes of
this program.
Discussion: The Department appreciates this comment and agrees it
would be helpful to clarify that local CBOs include nonprofit
organizations. The Department will use the definition of ``community-
based organization'' from section 8101(5) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended.
Changes: The Department has incorporated the ESEA definition of
``community-based organization'' into Priority 2.
Priority 3--Supporting Children and Youth From Low-Income Backgrounds
Comments: Three commenters remarked on the potential impact of
Priority 3. Specifically, these commenters suggested modifying Priority
3 to use poverty data at the school level instead of Small Area Income
and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) data, which is at the LEA level.
According to the commenters, setting the low-income classification at
the school level instead of the LEA level may allow for more targeted
grant funding.
[[Page 50940]]
Discussion: We thank the commenters for this suggestion. Although
SAIPE data is not available at the school level and we are unable to
identify another source of data that we think is uniform across LEAs,
we agree that averaging poverty rates across an LEA might exclude LEAs
with high poverty rates in individual schools.
Changes: We have added a new level to Priority 3, to include
proposed projects in which at least 20 percent of the students enrolled
in the LEA that will be served by the proposed project are from
families with an income below the poverty line. This new level is
intended to reduce the effects of any masking that might be caused by
averaging poverty rates across the LEA.
Eligible Applicants
Discussion: One commenter recommended expanding the definition of
eligible applicants to include CBOs or nonprofit organizations in
partnership with LEAs, noting that there is only one eligible applicant
in Hawaii and Puerto Rico due to the structure of their educational
system. The commenter believes these entities are unfairly
disadvantaged from receiving Federal competitive grants.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's suggestion
but does not agree to expand eligible applicants to include CBOs. Given
the central role that schools play in their communities and the
activities we envision for Project Prevent grantees, we believe LEAs
are best positioned to be the eligible applicants for this program. An
LEA has direct, daily contact with students and is uniquely positioned,
through Federal and State laws, to impact student services.
Changes: None.
Application Requirements
Comment: Several commenters suggested that this program should
explicitly outline how applicant proposals will address implicit biases
in referring students for services.
Discussion: The Department agrees that referring and screening
students for mental health services should be carried out in a manner
that is equitable and inclusive, including culturally and
linguistically competent and identity-safe, and does not cause further
harm. We have added language to the application requirements to address
this comment.
Changes: The Department has added language to application
requirement (c)(3), requiring applicants to describe how they will
screen students in a manner that minimizes bias and stereotypes.
Comment: One commenter stated that, in finalizing the application
requirements, specifically the ``project activities,'' the Department
should include specific references to LGBTQ+ students, BIPOC students,
and students with disabilities.
Discussion: The Department recognizes that equity in education
should provide all students, from all backgrounds, with the resources
and supports they need to succeed and thrive in our society. The
Department has implemented the two changes described below to address
the commenter's concerns.
Changes: Application requirement (d)(1)(i) has been revised to
require that interventions and activities are available to all students
in a school, in a manner that is equitable and inclusive, including
culturally and linguistically competent. Additionally, language has
been added to application requirements (c)(2), (c)(5), (d)(1), and
(e)(3)(i) and (ii) that emphasizes the importance of activities,
programs, and practices that are ``culturally and linguistically
competent'' and that these services should be supported by increasing
the diversity of staff, including hiring staff from underrepresented
backgrounds.
Comment: One commenter recommended requiring applicants to
demonstrate a racial equity framework such that people with lived
experiences or those who historically have been excluded become the
center of program development, policy, and research.
Discussion: The Department agrees that an equitable and unbiased
education should be provided to all students, with the resources and
supports they need to succeed and thrive in our society. The Department
continues to work to ensure that every student feels supported in the
classroom and in all educational environments. In several places, the
application requires that project activities serve, and are inclusive
of, all students. Additionally, selection criteria for this program
will be designed to ensure equal access and treatment for eligible
project participants who are members of groups that have been
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, age, or disability. The Department agrees that further
general emphasis on equity and inclusion would be helpful and modified
the application requirements to reiterate that project activities must
be available and administered to all students in a manner that is
equitable and inclusive, and culturally and linguistically competent.
Changes: The Department has revised (c)(2), (d)(1), and (d)(1)(i)
of the application requirements to clarify that programs and practices
must include interventions and activities that are available to all
students in a manner that is equitable and inclusive.
Comment: Several commenters emphasized that project activities
should be evidence- or research-based.
Discussion: The Department agrees that programs, practices, and
treatment for mental health services should be rooted in evidence and
believes the language in the final priorities can be strengthened by
adding references to ``evidence-based'' in section (c) of the
application requirements.
Changes: The Department has added ``evidence-based'' to application
requirements (c)(2) and (c)(5).
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Department provide a
template for an LEA/CBO agreement.
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendation to include a template
for the MOA/MOU between LEAs and CBOs but decline to provide this type
of document in the NFP. The NPP states that the MOA/MOU must clearly
define the roles, responsibilities, and resources that each entity will
bring to the partnership. Resources and technical assistance regarding
what an MOA/MOU should contain will be provided to applicants in the
Notice Inviting Applications, and the Department will provide technical
assistance webinars for potential applicants. Therefore, it is not
necessary to add a template for an MOA/MOU to the application
requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that there be a formal mechanism
for community feedback during the selection of community partners and
throughout the duration of the project. For example, the commenter
suggested using qualitative data, such as a survey of families and
community members, to understand the impacts of community violence and
violence mitigation efforts.
Discussion: The Department appreciates this suggestion and agrees
that ongoing community feedback is integral to the success of the
project and facilitates successful stakeholder buy-in. The Department
has modified the application requirements to require applicants to
describe how they will utilize a formal mechanism for community
feedback at various stages of the project.
Changes: The Department has added application requirement (b)(4),
stating that applicants must describe how they will utilize a formal
mechanism for community feedback during the selection process and
throughout the duration of program activities.
[[Page 50941]]
Comments: Three commenters noted the positive impact that mentoring
and peer-to-peer activities can have on reducing the harmful impacts of
community violence. One commenter suggested explicitly including after-
school programming and summer activities as project activities.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the project activity
recommendations. We agree that mentoring, peer-to-peer activities,
after-school programming, and summer activities can create positive
outcomes for students impacted by community violence. Effective and
engaging summer and after-school programming especially are critical to
the reduction of youth involvement in community violence. Because these
types of activities already are allowable under Project Prevent and
applicants may propose them in their proposed grant applications, we
are not making any changes in response to these comments.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters suggested that greenspaces and the
physical infrastructure of a community play a pivotal role in
mitigating community violence.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges data showing that properly
designed and maintained outdoor greenspaces and physical
infrastructures have the potential to mitigate violent crime (Mardelle
Shepley, 2019). Activities related to minor remodeling of greenspaces
and physical infrastructures, excluding construction, are allowable
activities under this program, and applicants may integrate them into
their proposed grant applications. For this reason, we are not making
any changes in response to these comments.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested including measures to mitigate
public sector divestment in communities plagued by violence.
Discussion: The Department recognizes the recommendation on how to
further mitigate community violence. While there are a number of ways
to address community violence and its impacts, we believe direct
services and training are more consistent with the statutory authority
for Project Prevent in 20 U.S.C. 7281(a)(1)(B), which is to provide
funds for ``activities to improve students' safety and well-being.''
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested prohibiting the use of corporal
punishment and restraint and seclusion in project activities.
Discussion: The Department finds the use of corporal punishment to
be harmful, ineffective, and often disproportionately applied to
students of color and students with disabilities, and has long called
on States to eliminate the practice.\1\ As of 2022, the practice is
illegal in 31 States and the District of Columbia.\2\ While the
Department does not have authority over State or local school
discipline policies, research does not support corporal punishment,
seclusion, or restraint as evidence-based practices for reducing trauma
and mitigating violence. Research further shows that these ineffective
practices can have lasting negative impacts on students.\3\ Therefore,
we do not believe these methods are permissible within the range of
evidence-based practices and programs described in section (e) of the
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ <a href="https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/files/corporal-punishment-dcl-11-22-2016.pdf">https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/files/corporal-punishment-dcl-11-22-2016.pdf</a>.
\2\ <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5766273/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5766273/</a>.
\3\ Discipline [verbar] National Center on Safe Supportive
Learning Environments (NCSSLE) (<a href="http://ed.gov">ed.gov</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: Nine commenters urged the Department to reconsider
including references to law enforcement in the application
requirements. These commenters noted that collaboration with law
enforcement is harmful when there is a major distrust of law
enforcement, especially among students of color and marginalized
groups.
Discussion: The Department understands the concern raised by
commenters and agrees that inclusion of law enforcement partners may
not be suitable for all proposed projects. While there are projects
where collaboration with law enforcement can be effective in reducing
community violence, there may also be projects that choose not to
partner with law enforcement based on their needs and project
objectives, and as referenced by commenters, other factors and
considerations. These are decisions that are best made at the community
level based on formal community feedback and by applicants.
Partnerships and collaboration with law enforcement are allowable, but
not required, activities under Project Prevent. The Department believes
applicants are in the best position to determine whether and how a
partnership with law enforcement could address the impacts of community
violence in ways that develop trusting relationships and that are
effective, inclusive, and free from bias, and accordingly removed the
reference to law enforcement from one of the two application
requirements where it was proposed, and where it remains, the activity
is allowable but not required.
Changes: The Department removed the reference to law enforcement
from application requirement (a)(2). Collaboration with law enforcement
remains an allowable, but not required activity, in the project
activity section.
Comments: One commenter suggested that law enforcement partnership
be explicitly referenced in Priorities 1 and 2.
Discussion: Partnerships and collaborations with law enforcement
are allowable but not required activities under Project Prevent. The
Department believes the applicant is best suited to determine whether
collaboration with law enforcement is appropriate, and how to utilize
such a partnership to address the impacts of community violence in ways
that develop trusting relationships that are effective, inclusive, and
free from bias.
Changes: None.
Comments: Four commenters encouraged language that prioritizes
collaboration with appropriately trained supportive services to address
students' and communities' needs. Two commenters suggested that support
personnel for grant activities include occupational therapists.
Discussion: Application requirements allow for the hiring and
inclusion of appropriate school and support personnel to implement
program activities. Applicants may propose to hire and include school
and support personnel who are appropriate to their proposed grant
applications. In response to the commenters' recommendations, and to
ensure applicant discretion is clear, we modified the application
requirements to give applicants more flexibility to choose which school
and support personnel best meet their students' and communities' needs,
and to take diversity and inclusion into account in planning activities
and hiring staff.
Changes: We modified application requirement (c)(2) to give
applicants more flexibility to choose which school and support
personnel best meet their students' and communities' needs, and to take
diversity and inclusion into account in planning activities and hiring
staff.
Comments: Two commenters recommended requiring diversity and
inclusion in the hiring and retention of culturally competent social
workers, counselors, psychologists, and mental health professionals.
Two additional commenters advocated for assurances concerning racial
equity in hiring personnel.
[[Page 50942]]
Discussion: The Department agrees that any efforts to diversify
project personnel can have a significant impact on the success of
program activities and build relationships with students served by the
program. Application requirement (c)(2) has been revised in two ways,
to confirm both that applicants have the flexibility to hire
appropriate school support personnel, and that staff hiring must be
diverse.
Changes: The Department has added language in application
requirement (c)(2) to affirm that applicants have the flexibility to
improve the range, availability, and quality of culturally and
linguistically competent, inclusive, and evidence-based school-based
mental health services by increasing the diversity of staff positions
(e.g., school and clinical psychologists, school counselors, school
social workers, or occupational therapists) or other appropriate school
support personnel, and by hiring diverse staff.
Definition
Comments: The Department received a number of comments on the
proposed definition of ``community violence.'' Three commenters
suggested that the proposed definition of community violence include
interpersonal, familial, and self-harm acts of violence. One commenter
suggested that the definition of community violence include intentional
acts committed in public areas. One commenter believes the Department's
definition of community violence is insufficient and suggested,
instead, the World Health Organization's definition. One commenter
suggested revising the definition of community violence to expressly
include group-based, bias-related, and sexual violence. One commenter
questioned the Department's authority to define community violence at
all.
Discussion: We appreciate the recommendations regarding the
definition of community violence. To more closely align our work with
that of other Federal agencies, the Department acknowledges that this
definition would be improved by clarifying that the definition covers
intentional acts of violence committed in public areas. Self-inflicted
acts of harm are not interpersonal, so they do not match a more widely
understood definition of community violence. While familial violence is
interpersonal and can be associated with community-level violence,
familial violence alone does not amount to community violence.
Changes: The Department has modified the definition of community
violence to be ``exposure to intentional acts of interpersonal violence
(e.g., firearm injuries, assaults, and homicides) committed in public
areas by individuals outside the context of a familial or romantic
relationship.''
Priority 1--Addressing the Impacts of Community Violence.
Projects that implement community- and school-based strategies to
help prevent community violence and mitigate the impacts of children
and youth's exposure to community violence in collaboration with local
CBOs (e.g., local civic or community service organizations, local
faith-based organizations, or local foundations or nonprofit
organizations) and include community and family engagement in the
implementation of the strategies.
Priority 2--Established Partnership with a Local Community-Based
Organization.
An application that includes at least one MOA or MOU signed by the
authorized representative of a local community-based organization (as
defined in section 8101(5) of the ESEA) that agrees to partner with the
applicant on the proposed project and provide resources or administer
services that are likely to substantially contribute to positive
outcomes for the proposed project. The MOA or MOU must clearly
delineate the roles and responsibilities of each entity.
Priority 3--Supporting Children and Youth from Low-Income
Backgrounds.
In its application, an applicant must demonstrate, based on SAIPE
data from the U.S. Census Bureau or, for an LEA for which SAIPE data
are not available, the same State-derived equivalent of SAIPE data that
the State uses to make allocations under part A of title I of the ESEA,
one or more of the following:
(a) At least 20 percent of the students enrolled in the LEA to be
served by the proposed project are from families with an income below
the poverty line.
(b) At least 25 percent of the students enrolled in the LEA to be
served by the proposed project are from families with an income below
the poverty line.
(c) At least 30 percent of the students enrolled in the LEA to be
served by the proposed project are from families with an income below
the poverty line.
(d) At least 35 percent of the students enrolled in the LEA to be
served by the proposed project are from families with an income below
the poverty line.
(e) At least 40 percent of the students enrolled in the LEA to be
served by the proposed project are from families with an income below
the poverty line.
(f) At least 45 percent of the students enrolled in the LEA to be
served by the proposed project are from families with an income below
the poverty line.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. 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 (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the 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 priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Requirements
The following are one program requirement and several application
requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these
requirements in any year in which the program is in effect.
Program Requirement:
Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants for this program are LEAs,
as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(30).
Application Requirements:
(a) Severity and magnitude of the problem; identification of
schools to be served by the proposed project. Applicants must--
(1) Identify the schools proposed to be served by project
activities;
(2) Collaborate and coordinate with CBOs to describe the community
violence that affects students in those schools utilizing data such as
incidents of community violence, gun crime, and other violent crime,
rates of child abuse and neglect, and other school and community crime
and safety data, including on a per capita basis (such as homicides per
100,000 persons); prevalence of risk factors associated with violence-
related injuries and deaths; findings from student mental health
screenings or assessments, school climate surveys, and student
engagement surveys; demographic data provided by U.S. Census surveys;
and other relevant data and information; and
(3) Provide a comparison of the school and community data cited to
similar
[[Page 50943]]
data at the State or local level, if available.
(b) Collaboration and coordination with community-based
organizations. Applicants must--
(1) Describe how they intend to work collaboratively with CBOs to
achieve project goals and objectives;
(2) Provide evidence of collaboration and coordination through
letters of support, MOAs, or MOUs from at least one CBO;
(3) Describe how they will use grant program funds to supplement,
rather than supplant, existing or new efforts to reduce community
violence and mitigate the direct and indirect effects of community
violence on students; and
(4) Describe how they utilized a formal mechanism (e.g., surveys of
families and community members) to obtain community feedback during the
process of identifying CBOs with which to partner or collaborate, and
the formal mechanism that will be utilized throughout the duration of
the project to gather feedback on the impact of project activities.
(c) Project activities. Applicants must propose to conduct three or
more of the following:
(1) Appropriately tailored professional development opportunities
for LEA and school mental health staff (e.g., counselors,
psychologists, and social workers); other specialized instructional
support personnel; and other school staff, as appropriate, on how to
screen for and respond to violence-related trauma and implement
appropriate school-based interventions to help prevent community
violence and mitigate the impacts of children's and youth's exposure to
community violence.
(2) Activities designed to improve the range, availability, and
quality of culturally and linguistically competent, inclusive, and
evidence-based school-based mental health services by increasing the
number and diversity of staff positions (e.g., school and clinical
psychologists, school counselors, school social workers, or
occupational therapists) or other appropriate school support personnel,
and by hiring staff who are diverse and reflective of the community,
with expertise or training in violence prevention, trauma-informed
care, and healing-centered strategies, and who are qualified to respond
to the mental and behavioral health needs of students who have
experienced trauma as a result of exposure to community violence.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ All strategies to increase the diversity of providers must
comply with applicable Federal civil rights laws, including Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Training for school staff (e.g., teachers, administrators,
specialized instructional support personnel, and support staff),
community partners, youth, and families on the effects of exposure to
community violence, the importance of screening students, how to screen
students exposed to community violence in a manner that minimizes and
eliminates bias and stereotypes, and how to provide interventions.
(4) Developing or improving processes to better target services to
students who are exposed to community violence and to assess such
students who may be experiencing mental, social, emotional, or
behavioral challenges as a result of this exposure.
(5) Enhancing linkages between LEA mental health services and
community mental health systems to help ensure affected students
receive referrals to treatment that is culturally and linguistically
competent and evidence-based, as appropriate.
(6) Undertaking activities in collaboration and coordination with
law enforcement to address community violence affecting students, to
support victims' rights, and to promote public safety.
(d) Evidence-based, culturally and linguistically competent, and
developmentally appropriate programs and practices. Applicants must--
(1) Describe the continuum of evidence-based, culturally and
linguistically competent, and developmentally appropriate (as defined
in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) programs and practices that will be implemented at
the school and community levels and how these programs and practices
will be organized to provide differentiated support based on student
need in an equitable and inclusive manner, free from bias, to help
break the cycle of community violence. These programs and practices
must include all of the following:
(i) Interventions and activities that are available to all students
in a school, in a manner that is equitable and inclusive, with the goal
of preventing negative or violent behavior (such as harassment,
bullying, fighting, gang participation, sexual assault, and substance
use) and enhancing student knowledge and interpersonal and emotional
skills regarding positive behavior (such as communication and problem-
solving, empathy, and conflict management, de-escalation, and
mediation).
(ii) Interventions and activities related to positive coping
techniques, anger management, conflict management, de-escalation,
mediation, promotion of positive behavior, and development of
protective factors.
(iii) Interventions and services, such as mentorship programming,
that target individual students who are at a higher risk for committing
or being a victim of violence.
(2) Describe the research and evidence supporting the proposed
programs and practices and the expected effects on the target
population.
(e) Framework for planning, implementation, and sustainability.
Applicants must--
(1) Describe how the proposed project is integrated and aligned
with the mission and vision of the LEA, including a description of the
relationship of the project to the LEA's existing school safety or
related plan;
(2) Describe the anticipated challenges to success of the project
and how they will be addressed, such as sustaining project
implementation beyond the availability of grant funds and mitigating
turnover at the LEA leadership, school leadership, and staff levels;
and
(3) Include a timeline of activities for--
(i) Planning that includes conducting a needs assessment that is
comprehensive and examines areas for improvement, both within the
school and the community, related to learning conditions that create a
safe and healthy environment for students; creating a logic model (as
defined in 34 CFR 77.1); completing resource mapping; selecting
evidence-based, culturally and linguistically competent, and
developmentally appropriate programs; developing evaluation plans; and
engaging community and school partners, families, and other
stakeholders;
(ii) Implementation that includes training on and execution of
evidence-based, culturally and linguistically competent, and
developmentally appropriate programs; continuing engagement with
stakeholders; communicating and collaborating strategically with
community partners; and evaluating program implementation; and
(iii) Sustainability that includes further developing and expanding
on the project's successes beyond the end of the grant, at the school
and community levels, in alignment with other related efforts.
(f) Planning period. Projects funded under this program may use up
to 12 months during the first year of the project period for program
planning. Applicants that propose a planning period must provide
sufficient justification for why this program
[[Page 50944]]
planning time is necessary, provide the intended outcomes of program
planning in Year 1, and include a description of the proposed
strategies and activities to be supported.
Final Definition
The Department establishes a definition of ``community violence''
for use in this program. We may apply it in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Community violence is intentional acts of interpersonal violence
(e.g., firearm injuries, assaults, and homicides) committed in public
areas by individuals outside the context of a familial or romantic
relationship.
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these priorities, requirements, and definition,
we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to
result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the final priorities, requirements, and definition
only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify
their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we
selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on an
analysis of anticipated costs and benefits, we believe that the
priorities, requirements, and definition are consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this final regulatory action does not
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with the Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this final regulatory action. The potential costs are
those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and
activities.
Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that this final regulatory action would not
impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in
our programs is voluntary, and costs can generally be covered with
grant funds. As a result, the priorities, requirements, and definition
would not impose any particular burden except when an entity
voluntarily elects to apply for a grant. The priorities, requirements,
and definition would help ensure that the Project Prevent grants
program selects high-quality applicants to implement activities that
meet the goals of the program. We believe these benefits would outweigh
any associated costs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this final regulatory action would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define
proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently
owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and
have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are
defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated
and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are
defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government
overseeing a population below 50,000.
The small entities that this final regulatory action would affect
are LEAs. Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible
entities, all are voluntary. Therefore, we do not believe that the
final priorities, requirements, and definition would significantly
impact small entities beyond the potential for increasing the
likelihood of their applying for, and receiving, competitive grants
from the Department.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The final priorities, requirements, and definition do not contain
any information collection requirements.
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
[[Page 50945]]
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.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will
provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich
Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file,
braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible
format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. At this site, you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of the Department published in
the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use
PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a>. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
James F. Lane,
Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary Delegated the Authority to
Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2022-17934 Filed 8-18-22; 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>Indexed from Federal Register on August 19, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.