1. (a) For applications submitted directly to CJD, staff members will review the applications for eligibility, reasonableness, and cost-effectiveness and give their funding recommendations to the executive director, who will render the final funding decision. Where a competitive selection process applies, a review group selected by the executive director reviews and ranks the applications by funding source. This review group may include staff members, inter-agency experts, and members of the Governor's Juvenile Justice Advisory Board.

2. (b) For applications submitted directly to CJD pursuant to §3.5(b), the executive director will decide whether to fund the application based upon the following factors:

   1. (1) the inherent value of the project's impact;
   2. (2) whether the project has the potential to be a model program; or
   3. (3) whether delaying the application would have a significant negative impact on the immediate need for the project.
3. (c) For applications submitted directly to a COG, the COG's executive committee and CJAC must review and prioritize the applications. The COG then must submit the prioritized applications to CJD. CJD will render funding decisions on these applications based upon the COG priorities, eligibility, reasonableness of the proposed project, and the availability of funding.
4. (d) For grants being renewed under §3.5(c), CJD will review the renewal documentation for eligibility, reasonableness, and cost effectiveness; will determine if the grantee is currently in good standing; and will make recommendations to the executive director. The executive director will make the final decision regarding grant renewals.
5. (e) For applications seeking funding through a COG from the State Criminal Justice Planning Fund, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Fund, or the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Fund, CJD will allocate funding to the COGs through a formula based upon population figures and crime rates. No set funding allocation exists for applications submitted to COGs that seek grants from other funding sources.

6. (f) During the staff review of an application, CJD may request that the applicant submit additional information necessary to complete grant review. CJD may request the applicant to provide any outstanding forms and documents to clarify or justify any part of the application, to disclose other funding sources related to the project, or to explain any proposed decrease in services by the grantee. Such requests for information, including the issuance of a preliminary review report, do not mean that CJD will fund an application.

   1. (1) If CJD needs additional information on an application submitted through a COG, CJD will send the report requesting the necessary information to the COG, and the applicant must provide the response to the COG by a COG-established deadline.
   2. (2) If CJD needs additional information on an application submitted directly to CJD, CJD will send the report directly to the applicant, and the applicant must provide a response by a CJD-established deadline.
7. (g) CJD will inform applicants of funding decisions on their grant applications through either a Statement of Grant Award or a notification of denial. For applications submitted to (but not recommended by) a COG, COG notification of a decision against funding serves as the notification of denial.
8. (h) All funding decisions made by the Executive Director are final and are not subject to appeal.

Source Note:The provisions of this §3.7 adopted to be effective February 24, 2000, 25 TexReg 1297; amended to be effective September 9, 2001, 26 TexReg 6645.