[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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: ed.gov">Project.Prevent@ed.gov.
    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 https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grants-apply.html?src=ft. Program-specific 
information, including pre-application materials, are available for 
Project Prevent at https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/safe-supportive-schools/project-prevent-grant-program/.
    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\ https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/files/corporal-punishment-dcl-11-22-2016.pdf.
    \2\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5766273/.
    \3\ Discipline [verbar] National Center on Safe Supportive 
Learning Environments (NCSSLE) (ed.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 www.govinfo.gov. 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 
www.federalregister.gov. 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