In reviewing applications submitted under this subchapter, the appropriate Federal officer shall consider—
(1)the relative cost and effectiveness of the proposed project or activity in carrying out purposes for which the requested grant or contract is authorized to be made,
(2)the extent to which such project or activity will incorporate new or innovative techniques,
(3)the increase in capacity of the State or the public or nonprofit private agency, organization, institution, or individual involved to provide services to address the illicit use of drugs by runaway and homeless youth,
(4)the extent to which such project or activity serves communities which have high rates of illicit drug use by juveniles (including runaway and homeless youth),
(5)the extent to which such project or activity will provide services in geographical areas where similar services are unavailable or in short supply, and
(6)the extent to which such project or activity will increase the level of services, or coordinate other services, in the community available to eligible youth.
(b) Competitive process
(1)Applications submitted under this subchapter shall be selected for approval through a competitive process to be established by rule by the appropriate Federal officer. As part of such a process, such officer shall publish a notice in the Federal Register—
(A)announcing the availability of funds to carry out this subchapter,
(B)stating the general criteria applicable to the selection of applicants to receive such funds, and
(C)describing the procedures applicable to submitting and reviewing applications for such funds.
(2)As part of such process, each application referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to peer review by individuals (excluding officers and employees of the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services) who have expertise in the subject matter related to the project or activity proposed in such application.
(c) Expedited review
The appropriate Federal officer shall expedite the consideration of an application referred to in subsection (a) of this section if the applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the  such officer, that the failure to expedite such consideration would prevent the effective implementation of the project or activity set forth in such application.
 So in original. The word “the” probably should not appear.
This subchapter, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(A), was in the original “this part” and was translated as reading “this chapter” to reflect the probable intent of Congress because subtitle B of title III of Pub. L. 100–690, which comprises subchapters I to III of this chapter, does not contain parts.
1989—Subsec. (b)(1)(B). Pub. L. 101–204, § 1001(b)(1)(A), inserted “stating” before “the general criteria”.
Subsec. (b)(1)(C). Pub. L. 101–204, § 1001(b)(1)(B), substituted “describing” for “a description of”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101–204, § 1001(b)(2), substituted “such officer” for “Administrator”.
The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 3, 2012, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc.
The most recent Classification Table update that we have noticed was Tuesday, August 13, 2013
An empty table indicates that we see no relevant changes listed in the classification tables. If you suspect that our system may be missing something, please double-check with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.
Description of Change
Statutes at Large
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.