[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39812-39819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17181]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection--National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State
Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The mission of the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is to improve early childhood,
educational, and employment outcomes and raise expectations for all
people with disabilities, their families, their communities, and the
Nation. As such, the Department of Education (Department) is issuing a
notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2019
for a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data, Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.373Y. This notice relates
to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1894-
0006.
DATES:
Applications available: August 12, 2019.
Deadline for transmittal of applications: September 11, 2019.
Pre-application webinar information: No later than August 19, 2019,
OSERS will post pre-recorded informational webinars designed to provide
technical assistance (TA) to interested applicants.
Pre-application Q & A blog: No later than August 19, 2019, OSERS
will open a blog where interested applicants may post questions about
the application requirements for this competition and where OSERS will
post answers to the questions received. OSERS will not respond to
questions unrelated to the application requirements for this
competition. The blog will remain open until September 3, 2019. After
the blog closes, applicants should direct questions to the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an
application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to
Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf.
The pre-application webinars may be found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html.
The pre-application Q & A blog may be found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5025A, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5108. Telephone: (202) 245-7401. Email:
[email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Full Text of Announcement.
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: Section 616 of the IDEA requires States to
submit to the Department, and make available to the public, a State
performance plan (SPP) and an annual performance report (APR) with data
on how each State implements both Parts B and C of the IDEA to improve
outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
Section 618 of the IDEA requires States to submit to the Department,
and make available to the public, quantitative data on infants,
toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities who are receiving early
intervention and special education services under IDEA. The purpose of
the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program is to improve
the capacity of States to meet IDEA data collection and reporting
requirements under Sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA.
[[Page 39813]]
Funding for the program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA,
which gives the Secretary the authority to reserve up to \1/2\ of 1
percent of the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year
to provide TA activities, where needed, to improve the capacity of
States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under
Parts B and C of IDEA. The maximum amount the Secretary may reserve
under this set-aside for any fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively
adjusted by the rate of inflation. Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the
Secretary to review the data collection and analysis capacity of States
to ensure that data and information determined necessary for
implementation of section 616 of IDEA are collected, analyzed, and
accurately reported to the Secretary. It also requires the Secretary to
provide TA, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the
data collection requirements, which include the data collection and
reporting requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. Additionally,
Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 gives the
Secretary authority to use funds reserved under section 611(c) to
``carry out services and activities to improve data collection,
coordination, quality, and use under Parts B and C of the IDEA.''
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018; Div. H, Title III of Public Law
115-141; 132 Stat. 745 (2018).
Priority: This priority is from the notice of final priority and
requirements for this program published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
Background: The Department has reviewed the data collection and
analysis capacity of States to ensure that IDEA data are being
collected and accurately reported to the Department and the public.
Specifically, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has
reviewed and analyzed information from multiple sources, including Data
Quality Reviews conducted by OSEP to evaluate the accuracy of section
618 data, written and oral communication with States through the data
quality process, and State-initiated requests for TA. The Department's
assessment is that States have varying needs for TA to improve their
data collection capacity and their ability to ensure data are accurate
and can be reported to the Department and the public. States also need
TA to help them improve their capacity to analyze and use data so they
can provide more accurate information about their efforts to improve
implementation of IDEA and more accurately target future improvement
activities in their State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs) submitted
as part of their State Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports
(SPPs/APRs).
To meet the array of complex challenges regarding the collection,
reporting, analysis, and use of data by States, OSEP is issuing this
priority to establish and operate the National Technical Assistance
Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use
Accurate IDEA Part B Data.
This center will focus attention on an identified national need to
provide TA to improve the capacity of States to meet the data
collection and reporting requirements under Part B of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This center will support States
in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best analyze and use
their data to establish and meet high expectations for each child with
a disability and will customize its TA to meet each State's specific
needs.
This priority aligns with two priorities from the Supplemental
Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs, published
in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096): Priority 2:
Promoting Innovation and Efficiency, Streamlining Education With an
Increased Focus on Student Outcomes, and Providing Increased Value to
Students and Taxpayers; and Priority 5: Meeting the Unique Needs of
Students and Children With Disabilities and/or Those With Unique Gifts
and Talents.
Projects under this program must be operated in a manner consistent
with nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution
and the Federal civil rights laws.
Absolute Priority: For FY 2019 and any subsequent year in which we
make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this
competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.
This priority is: National Technical Assistance Center to Improve
State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part
B Data.
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to
establish and operate the National Technical Assistance Center to
Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate
IDEA Part B Data (Data Center).
The Data Center will provide TA to help States better meet current
and future IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements,
improve data quality, and analyze and use section 616, section 618, and
other IDEA data (e.g., State Supplemental Survey-IDEA) to identify and
address programmatic strengths and areas for improvement. This Data
Center will focus on providing TA on collecting, reporting, analyzing,
and using Part B data on children with disabilities ages 3 through 21
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, including Part B data on
children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 required under section 618
of IDEA for the Part B Child Count and Educational Environments data
collection and under section 616 for indicators in the IDEA Part B SPP/
APR that solely use the EDFacts data as the source for reporting, such
as Indicator B-5 (Preschool Least Restrictive Environment). However,
the Data Center will not provide TA on Part B data required under
section 616 of IDEA for Indicators B7 (Preschool Outcomes) and B12
(Early Childhood Transition); TA on collecting, reporting, analyzing,
and using Part B data associated with children with disabilities ages 3
through 5 for these indicators would be provided by the National IDEA
Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood Data Systems, CFDA
number 84.373Z.
The Data Center must be designed to achieve, at a minimum, the
following expected outcomes:
(a) Improved State data infrastructure by coordinating and
promoting communication and effective data governance strategies among
relevant State offices, including State educational agencies (SEAs),
local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools to improve the quality
of IDEA data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
(b) Increased capacity of States to submit accurate and timely
data, to enhance current State validation procedures, and to prevent
future errors in State-reported IDEA Part B data;
(c) Improved capacity of States to meet the data collection and
reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA by addressing
personnel training needs, developing effective tools (e.g., training
modules) and resources (e.g., documentation of State data processes),
and providing in-person and virtual opportunities for cross-State
collaboration about data collection and reporting requirements that
States can use to train personnel in schools, programs, agencies, and
districts;
(d) Improved capacity of SEAs and LEAs, in collaboration with SEAs,
to collect, analyze, and use both SEA and LEA IDEA data to identify
programmatic strengths and areas for improvement, address root causes
of poor performance towards outcomes, and evaluate progress towards
outcomes;
[[Page 39814]]
(e) Improved IDEA data validation by using results from data
reviews conducted by the Department to work with States to generate
tools that can be used by States to lead to improvements in the
validity and reliability of data required by IDEA and enable States to
communicate accurate data to local consumers (e.g., parents, school
boards, the general public); and
(f) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and
use high-quality IDEA Part B data.
Requirements: The following requirements are from the NFP.
Applicants must--
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B
data collection and reporting requirements and to increase their
capacity to analyze and use section 616 and section 618 data as a means
of both improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths
and areas for improvement. To meet this requirement the applicant
must--
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy
initiatives about IDEA Part B data collection and reporting
requirements and knowledge of State and local data collection systems,
as appropriate;
(ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to
demonstrate the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B
data collection and reporting requirements and use section 616 and
section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement; and
(iii) Describe how SEAs and LEAs are currently meeting IDEA Part B
data collection and reporting requirements and using section 616 and
section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must describe how it will--
(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and
information; and
(ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the
intended recipients of the grant;
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended
outcomes of the proposed project;
(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A)
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any
empirical support for this framework;
Note: The following websites provide more information on logic
models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel
and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.
(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidenced-based
\1\ practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means
the proposed project component is supported, at a minimum, by
evidence that demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1),
where a key project component included in the project's logic model
is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the
project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The current research on the capacity of SEAs and LEAs to report
and use data, specifically section 616 and section 618 data, as a means
of both improving data quality and identifying strengths and areas for
improvement; and
(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and
EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant
must describe--
(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on
the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B data collection
and reporting requirements and SEA and LEA analysis and use of sections
616 and 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and
identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\2\ which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time,
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This
category of TA also includes information or products, such as
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the
TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\3\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the local level;
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive,\4\ sustained TA, which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome.
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program,
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEA and LEA
personnel to work with the project, including their commitment to the
initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current
infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at
the SEA and LEA levels;
(C) Its proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a
primary focus on meeting the needs of States with known ongoing data
quality issues, as measured by OSEP's review of
[[Page 39815]]
the quality of the IDEA sections 616 and 618 data;
(D) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction
with SEAs) to build or enhance training systems related to the IDEA
Part B data collection and reporting requirements that include
professional development based on adult learning principles and
coaching;
(E) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, and
families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and
that there are systems in place to support the capacity needs of SEAs
and LEAs to meet Part B data collection and reporting requirements
under sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA; and
(F) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with
Department-funded TA investments and Institute of Education Sciences/
National Center for Education Statistics research and development
investments, where appropriate, in order to align complementary work
and jointly develop and implement products and services to meet the
purposes of this priority;
(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration;
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to
achieve the intended project outcomes.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party
evaluator.\5\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have
participated in the development or implementation of any project
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions,
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these requirements;
(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as
well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
(3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate
that the data will be available annually for the APR; and
(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation
with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the
implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel'' how--
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or
disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities;
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated results and benefits, and funds will be spent in a way that
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes; and
(5) How the applicant will ensure that it will recover the lesser
of: (a) Its actual indirect costs as determined by the grantee's
negotiated indirect cost rate agreement with its cognizant Federal
agency; and (b) 40 percent of its modified total direct cost (MTDC)
base as defined in 2 CFR 200.68.
Note: The MTDC is different from the total amount of the grant.
Additionally, the MTDC is not the same as calculating a percentage of
each or a specific expenditure category. If the grantee is billing
based on the MTDC base, the grantee must make its MTDC documentation
available to the program office and the Department's Indirect Cost
Unit. If a grantee's allocable indirect costs exceed 40 percent of its
MTDC as defined in 2 CFR 200.68, the grantee may not recoup the excess
by shifting the cost to other grants or contracts with the U.S.
Government, unless specifically authorized by legislation. The grantee
must use non-Federal revenue sources to pay for such unrecovered costs.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel,
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors
will be allocated to the project and how these allocations are
appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to
recipients; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers,
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and
operation.
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant
must--
(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines,
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative;
(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC,
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff
during each subsequent year of the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' meeting in
Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;
[[Page 39816]]
(iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP.
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate
design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for
accessibility;
(5) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the
continuity of services to States during the transition to this new
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate; and
(6) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing
targeted and intensive TA to States.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1442, and
the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2018; Div. H, Title III
of Public Law 115-141, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018; 132 Stat.
745 (2018).
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86,
97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to
Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in
2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department
in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part
200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR
part 3474. (d) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR 300.702. (e)
The NFP.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants
except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of
higher education (IHEs) only.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.
Estimated Available Funds: $6,500,000.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2020 from the list of
unfunded applications from this competition.
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $6,500,000 for a
single budget period of 12 months.
Estimated Number of Awards: 1.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 60 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including public charter
schools that operate as LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public
agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and
outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit
organizations.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost
sharing or matching.
3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award
subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities
described in its application. Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may
contract for supplies, equipment, and other services in accordance with
2 CFR part 200.
4. Other: (a) Recipients of funding under this competition must
make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified
individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
(b) Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect
to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute
priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of
individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning,
implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of
IDEA).
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of
Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal
Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which
contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.
2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However,
under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to
make an award by the end of FY 2019.
3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of
the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection
criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend
that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 70 pages
and (2) use the following standards:
A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1''
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch)
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier,
Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover
sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget
justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the
abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for
completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority
requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support,
or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to
all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables,
figures, graphs, and screen shots.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition
are from 34 CFR 75.210. and are as follows:
(a) Significance (10 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed
project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services,
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be
addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude
of those gaps or weaknesses.
(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project.
(b) Quality of project services (35 points).
[[Page 39817]]
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be
provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and
sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for
eligible project participants who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(ii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of
that framework.
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the
proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and
effective practice.
(iv) The extent to which the training or professional development
services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient
quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice
among the recipients of those services.
(v) The extent to which the TA services to be provided by the
proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the
use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project
resources.
(vi) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project.
(c) Quality of the project evaluation (15 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes.
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and
qualitative data to the extent possible.
(d) Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel (15
points).
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the
proposed project and the quality of the personnel who will carry out
the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary
considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for
employment from persons who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director or principal investigator.
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of key project personnel.
(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
(iv) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience,
and independence, of the evaluator.
(v) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the
lead applicant organization.
(vi) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(vii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the
proposed project.
(viii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to
the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed
project.
(e) Quality of the management plan (25 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for
the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the
proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks.
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed
project.
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project.
(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of
services, or others, as appropriate.
2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition,
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past,
the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain
competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as
peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel
requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional
constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department
has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions,
applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and
selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make
it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that
greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers
for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of
interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness
of the review process, while permitting panel members to review
applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also
have submitted applications.
4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR
200.205, before awarding grants under
[[Page 39818]]
this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by
applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific
conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a
grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a
history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other
management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200,
subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is
otherwise not responsible.
5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this
competition to receive an award that over the course of the project
period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently
$250,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your
integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal
awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before we make
an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that
is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as
the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
(FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may
review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal
agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the
Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity
information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal
funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally,
also.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding,
we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy requirements in the application
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable
Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you
are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to
openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in
part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of
modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those
modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent
that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or
other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works.
Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must
have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This
dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your
application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional
information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR
3474.20.
4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition,
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual
performance report that provides the most current performance and
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting,
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, the Department has established a set of
performance measures that are designed to yield information on various
aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program. These measures are:
Program Performance Measure #1: The percentage of
technical assistance and dissemination products and services deemed to
be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified
or individuals with appropriate expertise to review the substantive
content of the products and services.
Program Performance Measure #2: The percentage of
technical assistance and dissemination products and services deemed by
an independent review panel of qualified experts or members of the
target audiences to be of high relevance to educational and early
intervention policy or practice.
Program Performance Measure #3: The percentage of all
technical assistance and dissemination products and services deemed by
an independent review panel of qualified experts or members of the
target audiences to be useful in improving educational or early
intervention policy or practice.
Program Performance Measure #4: The cost efficiency of the
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program includes the
percentage of milestones achieved in the current annual performance
report period and the percentage of funds spent during the current
fiscal year.
The measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and
grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by
OSEP.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's
performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department
(34 CFR 75.590).
6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR
75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee
has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of
the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is
consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the
Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the
performance targets in the grantee's approved application.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers
whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in
its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
VII. Other Information
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format
(e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by
[[Page 39819]]
contacting the Management Support Services Team, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5074A, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD
or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at
the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Johnny W. Collett,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2019-17181 Filed 8-7-19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P