[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39736-39744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17215]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2019-OSERS-0001]
Final Priority and Requirements--Technical Assistance on State
Data Collection Program--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
(OSERS), Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.373Y.]
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services announces a priority and requirements under the
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program. The Assistant
Secretary may use this priority and these requirements for competitions
in fiscal year (FY) 2019 and later years. We take this action to focus
attention on an identified national need to provide technical
assistance (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, CFDA number
84.373Y, 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 would customize its
TA to meet each State's specific needs.
DATES: This priority and these requirements are effective September 11,
2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5025A, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7334. 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:
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 to collect,
analyze, and report the data used to prepare the SPP/APR. 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
[[Page 39737]]
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).
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 Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.
We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements for
this program in the Federal Register on March 6, 2019 (84 FR 8054) (the
NPP). The NPP contained background information and our reasons for
proposing the particular priority and requirements.
There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final
priority and requirements (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes section of this notice. The most significant of
these changes, as discussed below, is the addition of an indirect cost
rate cap to the final requirements.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 12
parties submitted comments on the proposed priority and requirements.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address comments that raised concerns not directly
related to the proposed priority and requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
changes in the priority and requirements since publication of the NPP
follows. OSERS received comments on a number of specific topics from
the proposed cap on the maximum allowable indirect cost rate to the
topics for technical assistance. Each topic is addressed below.
General Comments
Comments: One commenter specifically expressed support for the
proposed center, and a number of other commenters noted the positive
impact of the valuable TA they received from centers previously funded
under this program.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with
the commenters. Centers, like the proposed center, funded under this
program provide necessary and valuable TA to the States.
Changes: None.
Comments: None.
Discussion: As discussed in the NPP, the Department is particularly
concerned about maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of this
investment. Given the purpose of the program, we believe a critical
lever to meeting this goal is to ensure that TA is appropriately
targeted to recipients with a known and ongoing need for support in
reporting, analyzing, and using high quality IDEA data. As such, the
Department is adding a requirement that applicants describe their
proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a particular focus
on meeting the needs of States with ongoing data quality issues.
Changes: The final priority includes a requirement for applicants
to describe their proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients.
Indirect Cost Rate
Comments: A number of commenters agreed with the purpose of the
indirect cost cap, which is to maximize funds that go directly to
provide TA to States to improve their capacity to meet the IDEA data
collection and reporting requirements. These same commenters, however,
believed that setting a cap on indirect costs would not achieve this
goal and that it may negatively impact the program. They noted that
indirect costs support a wide variety of purchases and activities,
including, but not limited to, facilities, information technology (IT)
services, and support personnel. Further, a subset of these commenters
stated that a cap on indirect cost rates would limit competition,
reduce the number of qualified applicants, and likely degrade the
quality of TA services provided to States. Specifically, some of these
commenters stated that a cap could make it cost prohibitive for small
businesses to compete for the grant, as they could not absorb any
unrecovered indirect costs. Additionally, it would make it harder for
applicants to attract and retain qualified personnel, thus depressing
the quality of services provided to States.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the stakeholder input it
received in response to the specific directed question on the indirect
cost cap proposal but disagrees that it would have a negative impact on
the program. Regarding potential impact, the Department has done an
analysis of the indirect cost rates for all current technical
assistance centers funded under the Technical Assistance and
Dissemination and Technical Assistance on State Data Collection
programs as well as other grantees that are large, midsize and small
businesses and small nonprofit organizations and has found that, in
general, total indirect costs charged on these grants by these entities
were at or below 35 percent of total direct costs. We recognize that,
dependent on the structure of the investment and activities, the
modified total direct cost (MTDC) base could be much smaller than the
total direct cost, which would imply a higher indirect cost rate than
those calculated here. The Department arrived at a 40 percent rate to
address some of that variation. Such a change accounts for a 12 percent
variance between TDC and MTDC. However, we note that, in the absence of
a cap, certain entities would likely charge indirect cost rates in
excess of 40 percent of MTDC. Based on our review, it appears that
those entities would likely be larger for-profit and nonprofit
organizations, but these organizations appear to be outliers when
compared to the majority of other large businesses as well as the
entirety of OSEP's grantees. Setting an indirect cost rate cap of 40
percent is in line with the majority of applicants' existing negotiated
rates with the cognizant Federal agency. Therefore, we do not believe
that the cap we are setting in these final requirements would
negatively impact the majority of entities' ability to recover indirect
costs.
Regarding commenters' concerns that a cap on indirect costs would
limit competition and reduce the number of qualified applicants, it is
not clear how a cap would do so. The cap included in the final
requirements does not limit the pool of eligible applicants because
most entities' indirect cost rates are below the cap we are setting.
Further, regarding the impact on the quality of TA services provided to
States, we have no information indicating a direct correlation between
an entity's negotiated indirect cost rate and its ability to attract
and retain qualified personnel and thus their ability to provide high-
quality TA services to States. Based on our analysis, there are many
OSEP grantees that are able to effectively carry out project activities
required by their individual grants with negotiated indirect cost rates
under the cap included in the final requirements. Further, the
Department's peer review process is intended to assess the ability of
various applicants to provide high-quality TA to States. Finally, we do
not believe the cap we are setting in these final requirements would
result in an amount of unrecovered costs that would deter most
prospective applicants. The prospective applicants could look at the
[[Page 39738]]
indirect cost cap prior to applying and either choose to absorb
unrecovered costs or opt not to apply.
In light of these considerations, we have determined that placing
an indirect cost cap that is the lesser of the percentage approved by
the grantee's cognizant Federal agency and 40 percent for this priority
is appropriate as it maximizes the availability of funds for the
primary TA purposes of this priority, which is to improve the capacity
of States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under
Parts B and C of IDEA and to ultimately benefit programs serving
children with disabilities.
Changes: Paragraph (d)(5) of the final requirements now includes an
indirect cost cap that is the lesser of the percentage approved by the
grantee's cognizant Federal agency and a cap of 40 percent on the
reimbursement of indirect costs.
Comments: A number of commenters expressed concerns that many of
the most qualified organizations could not compete because once
indirect cost rates are set by, and audited by, a cognizant agency,
they cannot be lowered for a single project.
Discussion: Our analysis of indirect cost rates took into account 2
CFR 200.414(c)(1), which allows a Federal awarding agency to use an
indirect cost rate different from the negotiated rate when required by
Federal statute or regulation or when approved by a Federal awarding
agency head based on documented justification when the Federal awarding
agency implements, and makes publicly available, the policies,
procedures, and general decision making criteria that their programs
will follow to seek and justify deviations from negotiated rates.
Federal discretionary grantees have historically been reimbursed for
indirect costs at the rate that each grantee negotiates with its
cognizant Federal agency, and we believe that use of the negotiated
rate is appropriate for most grants in most circumstances. However,
because funding for this program comes from funds reserved by the
Department that would otherwise be allocated to States under Part B
(which applies a restricted indirect cost rate to State grantees), we
determined that using an indirect cost rate different from the
negotiated rate was appropriate since it would maximize the funds
available to provide TA to States to improve their capacity to meet the
IDEA data collection and reporting requirements.
Changes: None.
Comments: Numerous commenters expressed concerns that the
implementation of an indirect cost rate limit would not impact each
vendor equally or result in equal savings to the government, as
categories of indirect costs vary across vendors.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concerns and recognize
that a cap on the indirect cost rate, although it would apply equally
to all applicants, may be more difficult for particular entities to
meet, particularly those with high negotiated indirect cost rates.
However, as noted above, our analysis indicates that the rate
established in the final requirements would not appear to create
unreasonable burdens for many applicants. Further, it was not the
Department's intention to institute a limit on the reimbursement of
indirect costs by specific cost category, but rather to apply it as a
percentage of MTDC. We have clarified in the final requirements that
the limit applies to MTDC as defined in 2 CFR 200.68. As the MTDC is
applied to the total direct costs of the grant, each grantee's MTDC
will include direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits,
materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000
of each subaward, thus ensuring equity across vendors.
Changes: The final requirement clarifies that the 40 percent
maximum indirect cost rate is applied to MTDC as defined in 2 CFR
200.68.
Comments: Two commenters provided alternatives to setting a cap.
One commenter proposed gauging competitiveness based on a vendor's
total price in combination with the proposed quality and level of
effort. A second commenter suggested that the program add a cost share
requirement in lieu of an indirect cost cap. The commenter suggested
that a modest cost share may not impact vendor economics to the same
degree as a cap on indirect costs.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' suggestions.
Regarding gauging competitiveness based on a vendor's total price in
combination with the proposed quality and level of effort, this may
represent a viable approach for contract procurement, but does not lend
itself to making discretionary grant awards. Regarding the second
commenter's recommendation to add a cost share requirement, the nature
of the funding source for this program does not allow for a cost
sharing requirement and, in addition, could have the unintended
consequence of eliminating small businesses.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter advocated for the Department to provide
clarification and guidance to States on what should be covered by
indirect cost rates and how to determine appropriate indirect cost
rates. Additionally, a second commenter suggested the Department allow
States the flexibility to determine and justify funds allocated to
indirect costs.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' suggestions.
We were not proposing a cap on the indirect cost rates for State
formula grants. Clarification or guidance on what is or is not an
indirect cost can be obtained from the indirect cost office of the
applicant's cognizant Federal agency.
Changes: None.
Data Collection Under IDEA
Comments: A commenter recommended that the Department collect data
on students who identify in a gender-neutral category, use a different
language/communication system, or are born in the United States but do
not speak English as their first language, and on their socioeconomic
status, parental English fluency, and parents' highest educational
level.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, this
priority does not address the data collection and reporting
requirements for States under IDEA. The EDFacts information collection
package (OMB control number 1850-0925), which would more squarely
address these issues, was published in the Federal Register on April 8,
2019 (84 FR 13913). It addressed the IDEA Section 618 Part B data
collection requirements and was open for public comment from April 8,
2019 to May 8, 2019.
Changes: None.
Significant Disproportionality
Comments: Some commenters noted that the proposed center did not
include anything in its scope or focus related to TA on significant
disproportionality. Commenters spoke to the continued need for data-
related TA on significant disproportionality.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' concerns. At
this time, however, the Department does not wish to emphasize specific
IDEA sections 618 and 616 Part B data collection and reporting
requirements that the proposed center would be required to address.
Applicants will be required to demonstrate knowledge of current
educational issues and policy initiatives (e.g., significant
disproportionality) about IDEA Part B data collection and reporting
requirements and knowledge of State and local data collection systems,
as appropriate. The Center would be expected to provide TA designed to
[[Page 39739]]
meet the needs of States. Therefore, to the extent that particular TA
recipients require support for any of the sections 618 and 616 Part B
data collection or reporting requirements, the Center would provide the
needed TA.
Changes: None.
Involvement of the State Educational Agency (SEA) in TA Efforts
Comments: Some commenters requested that we require the proposed
center to work with the SEA when providing TA to local educational
agencies (LEAs) within the State in order to ensure TA aligns with the
State's requirements.
Discussion: The Department agrees with commenters on the need to
include SEAs when TA is provided to an LEA within a State. We added
language to the priority to clarify that TA to LEAs must occur in
collaboration with the SEA.
Changes: We added language to paragraph (d) of the list of expected
outcomes in the priority to require the Center to collaborate with the
SEA in providing TA to LEAs.
Cross-State Collaboration
Comments: A number of commenters requested further clarification
about expectations for cross-State collaboration, and three commenters
suggested the Department require the proposed center to support a State
data manager advisory board.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenters regarding the
importance of cross-State collaboration. Expectations for such
collaboration were already included in paragraph (c) in the list of
expected outcomes in the proposed priority, which the Department
believes fully addresses the commenters' concerns.
Consequently, we do not believe an advisory board is necessary, and
anticipate that the funded center would engage established data groups
to determine the data manager needs as appropriate.
Changes: None.
Targeted Technical Assistance
Comment: One commenter recommended expanding the provision of
targeted TA to States.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenter regarding the
continued need to provide additional targeted TA to States. Targeted TA
to groups of States on specific data processes and data collections is
not only valuable to the State but also an efficient way to provide TA.
Changes: We revised what is now paragraph (f)(7) of the
requirements to clarify that 50 percent of the grant award must go to
support both targeted and intensive TA to States.
Division of Activities Between 84.373Y and 84.373Z
Comment: Several commenters voiced a concern with splitting the
responsibilities of providing TA on the IDEA Part B preschool special
education data between the proposed center and the National Technical
Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report,
Analyze, and Use Accurate Early Childhood IDEA Data, CFDA number
84.373Z. The commenters stated that splitting the responsibilities
regarding the IDEA Part B preschool special education data across the
two centers may require Part B data managers to work with both centers
in order to improve the quality of their IDEA Part B preschool special
education data.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' concerns.
The Department believes that including IDEA Part B preschool special
education data in the scope of this center makes sense for some of the
IDEA data and including IDEA Part B preschool special education data in
the scope of the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State
Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Early Childhood
IDEA Data, CFDA number 84.373Z, is appropriate for other IDEA data.
The Department believes that including the IDEA Part B preschool
special education data required under IDEA section 618 (including the
section 618, Part B Child Count and Educational Environments data) and
those preschool data required under IDEA section 616 for indicators in
the IDEA Part B State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/
APR) that solely use the EDFacts data as the source for reporting, such
as Indicator B-5 (Preschool Least Restrictive Environment), within the
scope of this center will allow a State to obtain TA on IDEA data
submitted via EDFacts from a single center. This structure that
specifies more distinct portfolios of the centers (i.e., less overlap)
will make it easier for States to work with the two centers. Since a
State Part B data manager plays a significant role in submitting the
IDEA data on children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 and children
with disabilities ages 6 through 21 via EDFacts, the data manager will
be able to access TA on these data through a single center. Finally,
this will allow States to receive TA on IDEA data-related topics and
analyses that are supported by and use IDEA section 618 data submitted
via EDFacts.
The Department believes that including the IDEA Part B preschool
special education data required under IDEA Section 616 for Indicators
B-7 (Preschool Outcomes) and B-12 (Early Childhood Transition) within
the scope for the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State
Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Early Childhood
IDEA Data, CFDA number 84.373Z, is appropriate because it will
facilitate better linkages between the Part C data and the IDEA Part B
preschool special education data on children with disabilities and the
inclusion of the Part C and IDEA Part B preschool special education
data in the Early Childhood Integrated Data Systems (ECIDS). This will
allow for enhanced opportunities to improve the quality of data States
are collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using related to children's
transition from the Part C early intervention program to the Part B
preschool special education program. In addition, due to the
similarities in the type of data required under IDEA section 616 for
Indicator C-3 (Infant and Toddler Outcomes) in the Part C SPP/APR and
Indicator B-7 (Preschool Outcomes) in the Part B SPP/APR, it is more
efficient to have the center funded under CFDA number 373Z provide TA
on these data.
Changes: We have revised the purpose of the priority to include TA
on the section 618, Part B Child Count and Educational Environments
data for children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 and preschool data
required under IDEA 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), in the
scope of this center.
Definition of Evidence-Based Practices
Comments: One commenter stated that the definition of evidence-
based practices (EBPs) used in the proposed requirements does not align
with the highest level of available evidence, and that EBP is a dynamic
process that requires ongoing evaluation.
Discussion: We understood the commenter to be recommending a higher
level of evidence than required in the proposed requirements. We agree
with the commenter regarding the importance of ensuring the provision
of effective TA to States; however, we do not agree that the definition
of EBPs used in the proposed requirements is insufficient. We are
continually reviewing the effectiveness of services provided by our
federally funded TA
[[Page 39740]]
centers. We believe that the definition of EBPs used in the proposed
requirements--the definition in 34 CFR 77.1--is well established and
provides the necessary standards against which high-quality services
may be judged for the purposes of making an award and monitoring the
implementation of TA to improve the capacity of States to meet the data
collection and reporting requirements under Part B of IDEA.
Changes: None.
Final Priority:
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.
Priority:
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 will 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 SEAs, 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;
(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.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for
this program. We may apply these requirements in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Requirements:
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--
[[Page 39741]]
(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 of 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; and
(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 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; and
(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
[[Page 39742]]
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 at the end of
Year 2 for the review process; 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;
(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.
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities or requirements, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year
in which we choose to use this priority and these requirements, we
invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to
result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the
[[Page 39743]]
President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive
order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as
not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under Executive Order 13771, for each new rule that the Department
proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and that
imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two
deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2019, any new incremental costs
associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the
elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because the
proposed regulatory action is not significant, the requirements of
Executive Order 13771 do not apply.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the final priority and requirements only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that this regulatory action does not impose
significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in this
program is voluntary. While this action does impose some requirements
on participating grantees that are cost-bearing, the Department expects
that applicants for this program will include in their proposed budgets
a request for funds to support compliance with such cost-bearing
requirements. Therefore, costs associated with meeting these
requirements are, in the Department's estimation, minimal.
The Department believes that these benefits to the Federal
government outweigh the costs associated with this action.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department believes that the priority and requirements are
needed to administer the program effectively.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The final priority and requirements contain information collection
requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-
0006; the final priority and requirements do not affect the currently
approved data collection.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this final regulatory action would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small
Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define proprietary
institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and
operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total
annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as
small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not
dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined
as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing
a population below 50,000.
The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect
are SEAs; LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under
State law; institutions of higher education (IHEs); other public
agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and
outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit
organizations. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the
final priority and requirements will be limited to paperwork burden
related to preparing an application and that the benefits of this final
priority and these final requirements will outweigh any costs incurred
by the applicant.
Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection
program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priority and
requirements will impose no burden on small entities unless they
applied for funding under the program. We expect that in determining
whether to apply for Technical Assistance on State Data Collection
program funds, an eligible entity would evaluate the requirements of
preparing an application and any associated costs, and weigh them
against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical
Assistance on State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity
would probably apply only if it determines that the likely benefits
exceed the costs of preparing an application.
We believe that the final priority and requirements will not impose
any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the
entity would face in the absence of the final action. That is, the
length of the applications those entities would submit in the absence
of the final regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an
application will likely be the same.
[[Page 39744]]
This final regulatory action will not have a significant economic
impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it would be
able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under
this program.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
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. 2019-17215 Filed 8-7-19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P