[Title 28 CFR 34]
[Code of Federal Regulations (annual edition) - July 1, 2002 Edition]
[Title 28 - JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION]
[Chapter I - DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE]
[Part 34 - OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
28JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION12002-07-012002-07-01falseOJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES34PART 34JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATIONDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 34--OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES--Table of Contents
Subpart A--Competition
Sec.
34.1 Purpose and applicability.
34.2 Exceptions to applicability.
34.3 Selection criteria.
34.4 Additional competitive application requirements and procedures.
Subpart B--Peer Review
34.100 Purpose and applicability.
34.101 Exceptions to applicability.
34.102 Peer review procedures.
34.103 Definition.
34.104 Use of peer review.
34.105 Peer review methods.
34.106 Number of peer reviewers.
34.107 Use of Department of Justice staff.
34.108 Selection of reviewers.
34.109 Qualifications of peer reviewers.
34.110 Management of peer reviews.
34.111 Compensation.
Subpart C--Emergency Expedited Review [Reserved]
Authority: Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974,
as amended, (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.).
Source: 55 FR 39234, Sept. 25, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A--Competition
Sec. 34.1 Purpose and applicability.
(a) This subpart of the regulation implements section 262(d)(1) (A)
and (B) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.). This provision requires that
project applications, selected for categorical assistance awards under
part C--National Programs shall be selected through a competitive
process established by rule by the Administrator, OJJDP. The statute
specifies that this process must include announcement in the Federal
Register of the availability of funds for assistance programs, the
general criteria applicable to the selection of applications for
assistance, and a description of the procedures applicable to the
submission and review of assistance applications.
(b) This subpart of the regulation applies to all grant, cooperative
agreement, and other assistance awards selected by the Administrator,
OJJDP, or the Administrator's designee, under part C--National Programs,
of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as
amended, except as provided in the exceptions to applicability set forth
below.
Sec. 34.2 Exceptions to applicability.
The following are assistance and procurement contract award
situations that OJJDP considers to be outside the scope of the section
262(d)(1) competition requirement:
(a) Assistance awards to initially fund or continue projects if the
Administrator has made a written determination that the proposed program
is not within the scope of any program announcement expected to be
issued, is otherwise eligible for an award, and the proposed project is
of such outstanding merit, as determined through peer review under
subpart B of this part, that an assistance award without competition is
justified (section 262(d)(1)(B)(i));
(b) Assistance awards to initially fund or continue training
services to be funded under part C, section 244, if the Administrator
has made a written determination that the applicant is uniquely
qualified to provide proposed training services and other qualified
sources are not capable of providing such services (section
262(d)(1)(B)(ii));
(c) Assistance awards of funds transferred to OJJDP by another
Federal agency to augment authorized juvenile justice programs,
projects, or purposes;
(d) Funds transferred to other Federal agencies by OJJDP for program
purposes as authorized by law;
(e) Procurement contract awards which are subject to applicable
Federal laws and regulations governing the procurement of goods and
services for the benefit and use of the government;
(f) Assistance awards from the 5% ``set aside'' of Special Emphasis
funds under section 261(e); and
[[Page 501]]
(g) Assistance awards under section 241(f).
Sec. 34.3 Selection criteria.
(a) All individual project applications will, at a minimum, be
subject to review based on the extent to which they meet the following
general selection criteria:
(1) The problem to be addressed by the project is clearly stated;
(2) The objectives of the proposed project are clearly defined;
(3) The project design is sound and contains program elements
directly linked to the achievement of project objectives;
(4) The project management structure is adequate to the successful
conduct of the project;
(5) Organizational capability is demonstrated at a level sufficient
to successfully support the project; and
(6) Budgeted costs are reasonable, allowable and cost effective for
the activities proposed to be undertaken.
(b) The general selection criteria set forth under paragraph (a) of
this section, may be supplemented for each announced competitive program
by program-specific selection criteria for the particular part C
program. Such announcements may also modify the general selection
criteria to provide greater specificity or otherwise improve their
applicability to a given program. The relative weight (point value) for
each selection criterion will be specified in the program announcement.
Sec. 34.4 Additional competitive application requirements and procedures.
(a) Applications for grants. Any applicant eligible for assistance
may submit on or before such submission deadline date or dates as the
Administrator may establish in program announcements, an application
containing such pertinent information and in accordance with the forms
and instructions as prescribed therein and any additional forms and
instructions as may be specified by the Administrator. Such application
shall be executed by the applicant or an official or representative of
the applicant duly authorized to make such application and to assume on
behalf of the applicant the obligations imposed by law, applicable
regulations, and any additional terms and conditions of the assistance
award. The Administrator may require any applicant eligible for
assistance under this subpart to submit a preliminary proposal for
review and approval prior to the acceptance of an application.
(b) Cooperative arrangements. (1) When specified in program
announcements, eligible parties may enter into cooperative arrangements
with other eligible parties, including those in another State, and
submit joint applications for assistance.
(2) A joint application made by two or more applicants for
assistance may have separate budgets corresponding to the programs,
services and activities performed by each of the joint applicants or may
have a combined budget. If joint applications present separate budgets,
the Administrator may make separate awards, or may award a single
assistance award authorizing separate amounts for each of the joint
applicants.
(c) Evaluation of applications submitted under part C of the Act.
All applications filed in accordance with Sec. 34.1 of this subpart for
assistance with part C--National Programs funds shall be evaluated by
the Administrator through OJJDP and other DOJ personnel (internal
review) and by such experts or consultants required for this purpose
that the Administrator determines are specially qualified in the
particular part C program area covered by the announced program (peer
review). Supplementary application review procedures, in addition to
internal review and peer review, may be used for each competitive part C
program announcement. The program announcement shall clearly state the
application review procedures (peer review and other) to be used for
each competitive part C program announcement.
(d) Applicant's performance on prior award. When the applicant has
previously received an award from OJJDP or another Federal agency, the
applicant's noncompliance with requirements applicable to such prior
award as reflected in past written evaluation reports and memoranda on
performance, and the completeness of required submissions, may be
considered by the Administrator. In any case where the
[[Page 502]]
Administrator proposes to deny assistance based upon the applicant's
noncompliance with requirements applicable to a prior award, the
Administrator shall do so only after affording the applicant reasonable
notice and an opportunity to rebut the proposed basis for denial of
assistance.
(e) Applicant's fiscal integrity. Applicants must meet OJP standard
of fiscal integrity (see OJP M 7100.1C, par. 24 and OJP HB 4500.2B, par.
48 a and b).
(f) Disposition of applications. On the basis of competition and
applicable review procedures completed pursuant to this regulation, the
Administrator will either:
(1) Approve the application for funding, in whole or in part, for
such amount of funds, and subject to such conditions as the
Administrator deems necessary or desirable for the completion of the
approved project;
(2) Determine that the application is of acceptable quality for
funding, in that it meets minimum criteria, but that the application
must be disapproved for funding because it did not rank sufficiently
high in relation to other applications approved for funding to qualify
for an award based on the level of funding allocated to the program; or
(3) Reject the application for failure to meet the applicable
selection criteria at a sufficiently high level to justify an award of
funds, or for other reason which the Administrator deems compelling, as
provided in the documentation of the funding decision.
(g) Notification of disposition. The Administrator will notify the
applicant in writing of the disposition of the application. A signed
Grant/Cooperative Agreement form will be issued to notify the applicant
of an approved project application.
(h) Effective date of approved grant. Federal financial assistance
is normally available only with respect to obligations incurred
subsequent to the effective date of an approved assistance project. The
effective date of the project will be set forth in the Grant/Cooperative
Agreement form. Recipients may be reimbursed for costs resulting from
obligations incurred before the effective date of the assistance award,
if such costs are authorized by the Administrator in the notification of
assistance award or subsequently in writing, and otherwise would be
allowable as costs of the assistance award under applicable guidelines,
regulations, and award terms and conditions.
Subpart B--Peer Review
Sec. 34.100 Purpose and applicability.
(a) This subpart of the regulation implements section 262(d)(2) of
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended.
This provision requires that projects funded as new or continuation
programs selected for categorical assistance awards under part C--
National Programs shall be reviewed before selection and thereafter as
appropriate through a formal peer review process. Such process must
utilize experts (other than officials and employees of the Department of
Justice) in fields related to the technical and/or subject matter of the
proposed program.
(b) This subpart of the regulation applies to all applications for
grants, cooperative agreements, and other assistance awards selected by
the Administrator, OJJDP, for funding under part C--National Programs
that are being considered for competitive and noncompetitive (including
continuation) awards to begin new project periods, except as provided in
the exceptions to applicability set forth below.
Sec. 34.101 Exceptions to applicability.
The assistance and procurement contract situations specified in
Sec. 34.2 (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of subpart A of this part are
considered by OJJDP to be outside the scope of the section 262(d) peer
review requirement as set forth in this subpart.
Sec. 34.102 Peer review procedures.
The OJJDP peer review process is contained in an OJJDP ``Peer Review
Guideline,'' developed in consultation with the Directors and other
appropriate officials of the National Science Foundation and the
National Institute of Mental Health. In addition to specifying
substantive and procedural matters related to the peer review process,
the ``Guideline'' addresses such issues
[[Page 503]]
as standards of conduct, conflict of interest, compensation of peer
reviewers, etc. The ``Guideline'' describes a process that evolves in
accordance with experience and opportunities to effect improvements. The
peer review process for all part C--National Programs assistance awards
subject to this regulation will be conducted in a manner consistent with
this subpart as implemented in the ``Peer Review Guideline''.
Sec. 34.103 Definition.
Peer review means the technical and programmatic evaluation by a
group of experts (other than officers and employees of the Department of
Justice) qualified by training and experience to give expert advice,
based on selection criteria established under subpart A of this part, in
a program announcement, or as established by the Administrator, on the
technical and programmatic merit of assistance.
Sec. 34.104 Use of peer review.
(a) Peer review for competitive and noncompetitive applications. (1)
For competitive applications, each program announcement will indicate
the program specific peer review procedures and selection criteria to be
followed in peer review for that program. In the case of competitive
programs for which a large number of applications is expected,
preapplications (concept papers) may be required. Preapplications will
be reviewed by qualified OJJDP staff to eliminate those pre-applications
which fail to meet minimum program requirements, as specified in a
program announcement, or clearly lack sufficient merit to qualify as
potential candidates for funding consideration. The Administrator may
subject both pre-applications and formal applications to the peer review
process.
(2) For noncompetitive applications, the general selection criteria
set forth under subpart A of this part may be supplemented by program
specific selection criteria for the particular part C program.
Applicants for noncompetitive continuation awards will be fully informed
of any additional specific criteria in writing.
(b) When formal applications are required in response to a program
announcement, an initial review will be conducted by qualified OJJDP
staff, in order to eliminate from peer review consideration applications
which do not meet minimum program requirements. Such requirements will
be specified in the program announcement. Applications determined to be
qualified and eligible for further consideration will then be considered
under the peer review process.
(c) Ratings will be in the form of numerical scores assigned by
individual peer reviewers as illustrated in the OJJDP ``Peer Review
Guideline.'' The results of peer review under a competitive program will
be a relative aggregate ranking of applications in the form of ``Summary
Ratings.'' The results of peer review for a noncompetitive new or
continuation project will be in the form of numerical scores based on
criteria established by the Administrator.
(d) Peer review recommendations, in conjunction with the results of
internal review and any necessary supplementary review, will assist the
Administrator's consideration of competitive, noncompetitive,
applications and selection of applications for funding.
(e) Peer review recommendations are advisory only and are binding on
the Administrator only as provided by section 262(d)(B)(i) for
noncompetitive assistance awards to programs determined through peer
review not to be of such outstanding merit that an award without
competition is justified. In such case, the determination of whether to
issue a competitive program announcement will be subject to the exercise
of the Administrator's discretion.
Sec. 34.105 Peer review methods.
(a) For both competitive and noncompetitive applications, peer
review will normally consist of written comments provided in response to
the general selection criteria established under subpart A of this part
and any program specific selection criteria identified in the program
announcement or otherwise established by the Administrator, together
with the assignment of numerical values. Peer review may be conducted at
meetings with peer reviewers held under OJJDP oversight, through mail
reviews, or a
[[Page 504]]
combination of both. When advisable, site visits may also be employed.
The method of peer review anticipated for each announced competitive
program, including the evaluation criteria to be used by peer reviewers,
will be specified in each program announcement.
(b) When peer review is conducted through meetings, peer review
panelists will be gathered together for instruction by OJJDP, including
review of the OJJDP ``Peer Review Guideline''. OJJDP will oversee the
conduct of individual and group review sessions, as appropriate. When
time or other factors preclude the convening of a peer review panel,
mail reviews will be used. For competitive programs, mail reviews will
be used only where the Administrator makes a written determination of
necessity.
Sec. 34.106 Number of peer reviewers.
The number of peer reviewers will vary by program (as affected by
the volume of applications anticipated or received). OJJDP will select a
minimum of three peer reviewers (qualified individuals who are not
officers or employees of the Department of Justice) for each program or
project review in order to ensure a diversity of backgrounds and
perspectives. In no case will fewer than three reviews be made of each
individual application.
Sec. 34.107 Use of Department of Justice staff.
OJJDP will use qualified OJJDP and other DOJ staff as internal
reviewers. Internal reviewers determine applicant compliance with basic
program and statutory requirements, review the results of peer review,
and provide overall program evaluation and recommendations to the
Administrator.
Sec. 34.108 Selection of reviewers.
The Program Manager, through the Director of the OJJDP program
division with responsibility for a particular program or project will
propose a selection of peer reviewers from an extensive and varied pool
of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention experts for approval by
the Administrator. The selection process for peer reviewers is detailed
in the OJJDP ``Peer Review Guideline''.
Sec. 34.109 Qualifications of peer reviewers.
The general reviewer qualification criteria to be used in the
selection of peer reviewers are:
(a) Generalized knowledge of juvenile justice or related fields; and
(b) Specialized knowledge in areas or disciplines addressed by the
applications to be reviewed under a particular program.
(c) Must not have a conflict of interest (see OJP M7100.1C, par.
94).
Additional details concerning peer reviewer qualifications are provided
in the OJJDP ``Peer Review Guideline''.
Sec. 34.110 Management of peer reviews.
A technical support contractor may assist in managing the peer
review process.
Sec. 34.111 Compensation.
All peer reviewers will be eligible to be paid according to
applicable regulations and policies concerning consulting fees and
reimbursement for expenses. Detailed information is provided in the
OJJDP ``Peer Review Guideline''.
Subpart C--Emergency Expedited Review [Reserved]