Submitted applications will be reviewed for technical merit in accordance with specific review procedures established for this evaluation. Applicants that meet all eligibility criteria and submission requirements will be evaluated and rated according to the review criteria outlined below by an Interagency Peer Review Panel that represents the agencies collaborating in this Initiative.

It is the policy of the Agencies participating in this interagency national evaluation to use peer review to assess all competitive assistance applications and, on an optional basis, applications for continued funding beyond a program's original project period and noncompetitive awards to uniquely qualified applicants.

Peer review recommendations are advisory and do not bind the Administrators of the participating Agencies to make the recommended decision. However, the Administrators will give full consideration to peer review recommendations in selecting projects for awards.

In special circumstances, a grant application may require a second review. When a second review is required, the Administrators will determine whether the second review panel will include new reviewers, the original reviewers, or a combination of both. Circumstances that might necessitate a second review include:

• During the course of a review, prejudiced, misleading, or false information was presented to or used by the peer reviewers.

• A procedural error made the review process inconsistent with the solicitation, specific instructions to the applicants, or the competition and peer review regulations of the Agencies participating in this interagency national evaluation.

Peer Reviewer Approval. The Administrators of the Agencies approve qualified consultants to serve as peer reviewers for each application or group of applications.

Consultant Pool. Peer reviewers shall be selected from a pool of qualified consultants proposed by each Agency. Any individual with requisite expertise may be selected from the pool with approval of the Agency Administrators. Consultants are subcontractors employed by the Agencies. Consultant experts are continually added to the pool to maintain a wide range of experience; background; and ethnic, gender, and geographic representation.

An internal review of applications will be conducted by staff of the participating Agencies. This review will determine if the application complies with minimum program and statutory requirements. Applications that do not meet basic requirements will not be forwarded to a Peer Review Panel. Applicants whose proposals are rejected during the first internal review stage will be notified in writing of the reasons for the rejection. Examples of reasons for first-stage rejection may include, but are not limited to, applications proposing activities other than those called for in the solicitation and applications from agencies or organizations that do not possess the qualifications specified in the solicitation.

Selection Criteria. All Safe Schools/Healthy Students National Evaluation applications will be rated, at a minimum, on the extent to which they meet the general selection criteria listed below:

• The problem to be addressed by the project is clearly stated.

• The objectives of the proposed project are clearly defined and the outcomes are measurable.

• The project design is sound and contains program elements directly linked to the achievement of project objectives.

• The project management and overall organizational capability demonstrate the applicant's capacity to successfully operate and support the project.

• Budgeted costs are reasonable, allowable, and cost effective for the proposed activities.

• These criteria also can be enhanced to more clearly define the program requirements. The assigned points for each criterion are specified in the Safe Schools/Healthy Students National Evaluation solicitation.

National Evaluation of the Safe Schools/ Healthy Students Initiative	Due Date: July 21, 1999