PART 34—OJJDP COMPETITION AND PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES 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 § 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. Federal Register (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. § 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 (g) Assistance awards under section 241(f). § 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. § 34.4 Additional competitive application requirements and procedures. (a) Applications for grants. (b) Cooperative arrangements. (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. (d) Applicant's performance on prior award. (e) Applicant's fiscal integrity. (f) Disposition of applications. (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. (h) Effective date of approved grant. Subpart B—Peer Review § 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. § 34.101 Exceptions to applicability. The assistance and procurement contract situations specified in § 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. § 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 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”. § 34.103 Definition. Peer review § 34.104 Use of peer review. (a) Peer review for competitive and noncompetitive applications. (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. § 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 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. § 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. § 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. § 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”. § 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”. § 34.110 Management of peer reviews. A technical support contractor may assist in managing the peer review process. § 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]