[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 97 (Friday, May 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27571-27583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10729]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With
Disabilities--Model Demonstration Projects To Improve Services and
Results for Infants, Toddlers, and Children With Disabilities
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice
inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2021 for
Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Services and Results for
Infants, Toddlers, and Children with Disabilities, Assistance Listing
Number 84.326M. This notice relates to the approved information
collection under OMB control number 1820-0028.
DATES:
Applications Available: May 21, 2021.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 20, 2021.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 20, 2021.
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For Absolute Priority 1: Yolanda Lusane, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5031A, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6545. Email:
[email protected].
For Absolute Priority 2: Tina Diamond, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6723. 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: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and
Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with
Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve
results for children with disabilities by providing technical
assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating
useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by
scientifically based research.
Priorities: This competition includes two absolute priorities and
one competitive preference priority. In accordance with 34 CFR
75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priorities are from allowable activities
specified in or otherwise authorized in sections 663 and 681(d) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1463,
1481(d)). The competitive preference priority is from the Department's
Administrative Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs published in
the Federal Register on March 9, 2020 (85 FR 13640) (Administrative
Priorities).
Absolute Priorities: For FY 2021 and any subsequent year in which
we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this
competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet either Absolute
Priority 1 or Absolute Priority 2. The Department may fund out of rank
order high-quality applications to ensure that at least three projects
are funded under each absolute priority. Applicants may apply under
both absolute priorities but must submit separate applications.
Applicants must clearly identify if the proposed project addresses
Absolute Priority 1 or Absolute Priority 2.
These priorities are:
Absolute Priority 1: Model Demonstration Projects to Develop
Identification, Screening, Referral, and Tracking Systems for Infants
and Toddlers.
Background:
[[Page 27572]]
Model demonstrations to improve early intervention, educational, or
transitional results for children with disabilities and their families
have been authorized under the IDEA since the law's inception. For the
purposes of this priority, a model is a set of existing evidence-based
practices,\1\ including interventions and implementation strategies
(i.e., core model components), that research suggests will improve
outcomes for children, families, personnel,\2\ administrators, or
systems, when implemented with fidelity. Model demonstrations involve
investigating the degree to which a given model can be implemented and
sustained in real-world settings, by staff employed in those settings,
while achieving outcomes similar to those attained under research
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means the
proposed project component is supported by promising evidence, which
is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in
improving a ``relevant outcome'' (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), based
on a relevant finding from one of the sources identified under
``promising evidence'' in 34 CFR 77.1.
\2\ As defined by section 651(b) of IDEA, the term ``personnel''
means special education teachers, regular education teachers,
principals, administrators, related services personnel,
paraprofessionals, and early intervention personnel serving infants,
toddlers, preschoolers, or children with disabilities, except where
a particular category of personnel, such as related services
personnel, is identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDEA Part C requires States to have a comprehensive child find
system in place so that all infants and toddlers with disabilities in
the State who are eligible for early intervention services are
identified, located, and evaluated (34 CFR 303.302). The comprehensive
child find system must be coordinated with other State agencies who
serve young children and must focus on early identification of infants
and toddlers with disabilities and those at risk for developmental
delays. And it must include a system for making referrals to
appropriately identify infants and toddlers with disabilities who need
early intervention services. There is a strong evidence base
demonstrating that the earlier infants and toddlers with, and at risk
for, disabilities are identified and served, the better the outcomes
for the child, the family, and the educational and social systems that
serve them (McCoy et al., 2017). Missed opportunities within the child
find system can have short- and long-term effects. Infants and toddlers
who are not expeditiously identified may not receive services critical
to helping meet developmental milestones in a timely manner, resulting
in a delay or absence of foundational skills needed for later academic
success.
While States receiving funding under IDEA Part C are required to
have a comprehensive child find system in place, data suggest that
these systems are not being implemented as effectively or equitably as
they should be. Recent IDEA section 618 (20 U.S.C. 1418) child count
data for IDEA Part C showed that nationally 3.48 percent of infants and
toddlers are receiving services under IDEA, but the percentage of
infants and toddlers served varies across States from 0.85 percent to
10.05 percent. Early childhood professionals argue that the percentage
of infants and toddlers served by some States under IDEA Part C is too
low, considering that the prevalence of developmental delays has been
estimated at 13 percent for young children (Rosenberg et al., 2008) and
that approximately 14 percent of school-age children with disabilities
are served under IDEA Part B.
Many developmental concerns, delays, and disabilities can be
identified early, from birth through age two. However, when delays and
disabilities are identified at later ages, interventions can become
less effective and more costly over time. Studies show, for example,
that despite signs often being present by 12-18 months of age, the
typical age of diagnosis for autism spectrum disorder is 4 years of age
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). In addition, there
are groups of children that are less likely to be identified, located,
and evaluated for IDEA Part C. The IDEA section 618 child count data
collection show that American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Black
or African American infants and toddlers are less likely than those in
other racial/ethnic groups to be identified and served under IDEA Part
C. Results of a study by Feinberg et al. (2011) showed that at 24
months of age, Black children were 5 times less likely to receive IDEA
Part C services than white children.
Of particular concern are infants and toddlers who reside in
underserved communities and may lack access to quality child care and
experience barriers to accessing routine medical care, which can
negatively impact developmental screening and referrals, as screenings
are typically conducted by pediatricians and in early childhood
programs. Infants and toddlers especially vulnerable to developmental
or behavioral issues are those negatively affected by the social
determinants of health and other adverse childhood or family
experiences such as poverty, racism, and toxic stress, including
exposure to abuse, neglect, parental drug or alcohol use, and foster
care (Lipkin & Macias, 2020). There are data that suggest, however,
that more vulnerable children, such as those in the child welfare
system or in Early Head Start, are underrepresented in receiving IDEA
Part C services (Rosenberg et al., 2013). The novel coronavirus 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic has added to the difficulty of implementing an
effective and equitable comprehensive child find system. State IDEA
Part C early intervention systems reported a significant drop in the
number of infants and toddlers being referred to their programs (IDEA
Infant and Toddler Coordinators Association, 2021).
For State IDEA Part C systems to meet the mandate for comprehensive
child find systems, they need to engage in evidence-based approaches
and models to equitably identify, locate, and evaluate infants and
toddlers with disabilities. Components of evidence-based models include
robust identification, developmental screening, referral, and tracking
systems. Such models should include systematic developmental screening
with standardized screeners for all young children at critical ages.
Screening results should be shared across service sectors, and families
referred to, and supported in following up with, other systems if there
is a developmental concern. Families should be monitored to make sure
their infants and toddlers are getting the services and supports that
they need to thrive. Evidence-based models should also include State
and local infrastructure to support collaboration across agencies and
to examine their data to understand, based on the eligibility criteria
for IDEA Part C, how many infants and toddlers should be enrolled in
services versus are enrolled and which groups of underserved infants
and toddlers should be targeted for more focused outreach to address
equity concerns.
While evidence-based components of child find systems exist within
IDEA Part C systems, model demonstration projects are needed to further
refine the key components of child find systems and demonstrate how to
bring together identification, screening, referral, and tracking
practices to serve infants and toddlers with disabilities and those at
risk for developmental delays more effectively and equitably. These
model demonstration projects will also identify specific implementation
strategies and the system supports needed to implement the models in
high-need communities to address especially vulnerable infants and
toddlers affected by the social determinants of health and adverse
childhood or family experiences. These system supports will include how
aspects of the models can
[[Page 27573]]
be delivered remotely, creating efficiencies, and building community
capacity to implement a comprehensive child find system.
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative
agreements to establish and operate evidence-based model demonstration
projects. The models must implement identification, screening,
referral, and tracking systems across health, early care and education,
and social service systems that serve and support infants and toddlers
and their families within a local community.
The models must address the infrastructure (e.g., implementation
teams, data systems) and ongoing supports needed to foster the
development, implementation, and evaluation of identification,
screening, referral, and tracking systems that effectively serve
infants and toddlers with, and at risk for, disabilities and their
families within a local community.
The models must demonstrate methods for identifying evidence-based
strategies, to be delivered both in-person and remotely, for equitably
identifying, screening, referring, and tracking infants and toddlers
with, and those at risk for, disabilities within local communities to
ensure a focused outreach to typically underserved families and
especially vulnerable infants and toddlers affected by social
determinants of health and adverse childhood or family experiences.
The models must capture information about challenges to
implementation and determine what system supports may assist in meeting
those challenges. Additionally, the models must use State and local
data, including identification, referral, and tracking data, to provide
information about how agencies within a community are collaborating to
implement the model and how the implementation is impacting child find
services under IDEA Part C. Specifically, the models must use data to
examine how many infants and toddlers should be enrolled in IDEA Part C
services versus are enrolled within a community. The models must also
examine their impact on how families with infants and toddlers with
disabilities are able to access other service delivery systems. The
model demonstration projects must assess how models can--
Improve the capacity of local systems to use evidence-
based practices, both in-person and remotely, to equitably identify,
screen, refer, and track infants and toddlers with, and at risk for,
disabilities;
Improve the infrastructure of local systems to increase
equitable and appropriate referrals to Part C at younger ages;
Improve collaboration across local programs and systems so
that infants and toddlers with, or at risk for, disabilities are
connected to appropriate high-quality services that result in improved
outcomes for children and families within the community; and
Improve the understanding of how local systems reduce
barriers to, and support, the effective and equitable implementation of
aspects of the model.
Applicants must propose models that meet the following
requirements:
(a) The model's core intervention components must include--
(1) Identification, screening, referral, and tracking practices
that are evidence-based;
(2) Procedures to accurately record the number of infants and
toddlers with disabilities that are identified, screened, referred, and
tracked to compare to the number that should be identified, screened,
referred, and tracked based on State and local data for the community
being served;
(3) Procedures for building collaboration and agreements between
health, early care and education, and social service systems that serve
and support infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families
within the community;
(4) Methods for implementing equitable identification, screening,
referral, and tracking practices across systems;
(5) Strategies for identifying typically underserved families and
vulnerable infants and toddlers such as those impacted by social
determinants of health and other adverse childhood or family
experiences such as poverty, racism, and toxic stress, including
exposure to abuse, neglect, parental drug or alcohol use, or
homelessness; those who are part of the child welfare system or a ward
of the State; and those who do not have a medical home or access to
child care;
(6) Methods for measuring the impact of the model, including
fidelity measures on the implementation of the practices, data on
services being accessed by infants and toddlers with disabilities and
their families, data on timeliness and appropriateness of referrals to
IDEA Part C, data on the demographics of infants and toddlers referred
to IDEA Part C; and child and family outcomes in the community; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Applicants must ensure the confidentiality of individual
student data, consistent with the Confidentiality of Information
regulations under both Part B and Part C of IDEA. These are codified
for IDEA Part C in 34 CFR 303.400-303.417 and for IDEA Part B in 34
CFR 300.610-300.627. The IDEA Part B and C confidentiality
regulations, respectively, incorporate different definitions,
requirements, and exceptions than those under section 444 of the
General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g), commonly known
as the ``Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act'' (FERPA). The
IDEA regulations also include several provisions that are
specifically related to infants, toddlers, and children with
disabilities receiving services under IDEA and provide protections
and other requirements beyond the FERPA regulations. Therefore,
examining the IDEA requirements first is the most effective and
efficient way to meet the confidentiality requirements of both IDEA
and FERPA for children with disabilities. Applicants should also be
aware of State laws or regulations concerning the confidentiality of
individual records. See studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/ferpaidea-cross-walk and https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/understanding-confidentiality-requirements-applicable-idea-early-childhood-programs-faq. Questions regarding IDEA confidentiality
regulations can be directed to the OSEP State contact and questions
regarding FERPA can be directed to the Student Privacy Policy Office
(SPPO) at https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/contact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Measures of the model's social validity, i.e., measures of
system administrators, personnel, and families' satisfaction with the
model components, processes, and outcomes;
(8) Procedures to refine the model based on the ongoing fidelity
measures on the implementation of the practices, the data collected on
which infants and toddlers and their families are accessing services
and which services they are or are not accessing, and child and family
outcomes in the community; and
(9) Procedures to share data across systems within the community
and at the State level so that the data can be used to remove barriers
to, and support the implementation and sustainability of, the
identification, screening, referral, and tracking systems.
(b) The model's core implementation components must include--
(1) Criteria and strategies for selecting \4\ and recruiting sites,
which include the health, early care and education, and social service
systems in a local community, including approaches to introducing the
model to, and promoting the model among, site participants.\5\
Applicants are encouraged to choose sites in a variety of communities
(e.g., urban, rural, suburban) that are comprised of typically
underserved families and vulnerable populations of infants and toddlers
(e.g., those impacted by social
[[Page 27574]]
determinants of health and other adverse childhood or family
experiences such as poverty, racism, and toxic stress, including
exposure to abuse, neglect, parental drug or alcohol use, or
homelessness; those who are part of the child welfare system or a ward
of the State; and those who do not have a medical home or access to
child care);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For factors to consider when selecting model demonstration
sites, the applicant should refer to Assessing Sites for Model
Demonstration: Lessons Learned for OSEP Grantees at mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf. The document also
contains a site assessment tool.
\5\ For factors to consider when preparing for model
demonstration implementation, the applicant should refer to
Preparing for Model Demonstration Implementation at mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_PreparationStage_Brief_Apr2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) A lag site implementation design, which allows for model
development and refinement at the first site in year one of the project
period, with sites two and three implementing a revised model based on
data from the first site beginning in subsequent project years;
(3) A professional development component that includes a strategy
to work with administrators and personnel, to enable sites to implement
the identification, screening, referral, and tracking model with
fidelity; and
(4) Measures of the results of the professional development
required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(c) The core strategies for sustaining the model must include--
(1) Procedures and materials that permit current and future site-
based staff to replicate or appropriately tailor and sustain the model
at any site; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For a guide on documenting model demonstration sustainment
and replication, the applicant should refer to Planning for
Replication and Dissemination From the Start: Guidelines for Model
Demonstration Projects (Revised) at mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_ReplicationBrief_SEP2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Guidelines and procedures to--
(i) Help administrators support equitable identification,
screening, referral, and tracking systems;
(ii) Determine the identification, screening, referral, and
tracking practices that can be delivered remotely;
(iii) Establish collaboration agreements among agencies and
systems;
(iv) Collect and analyze data to identify typically underserved
families and vulnerable populations of infants and toddlers within
communities and examine IDEA Part C child find practices;
(v) Provide a continuum of child and family support services across
health, early care and education, and social service systems; and
(vi) Collect data regarding the connection among identification,
screening, referral, and tracking strategies used, the fidelity of the
implementation of practices, the services delivered, and child and
family outcomes; and communicate regularly about the data at the local
and State levels;
(3) Strategies for the grantee to develop a manual, toolkit, and
other resources for disseminating information on the final version of
the model by the end of the grant period, such as developing easily
accessible online products that specify model core components critical
for improving outcomes, professional development materials, fidelity
measures, key outcomes from the model (e.g., increases in the equity of
referrals), and implementation procedures for disseminating the model
and its components; and
(4) Strategies for the grantee to assist State and local health,
early care and education, and social service systems within the State
to scale up a model and its components.
To be considered for funding under this absolute priority,
applicants must meet the requirements contained in this priority.
Application Requirements:
An applicant must include in its application--
(a) A detailed review of the literature addressing the proposed
evidence-based model or its implementation components and the proposed
processes to improve equitable identification, screening, referral, and
tracking systems within a site;
(b) A logic model \7\ that depicts, at a minimum, the goals,
activities, outputs, and outcomes (described in paragraph (a) under the
heading Priority) of the proposed model demonstration project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a
framework that identifies key project components of the proposed
project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to
be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the
theoretical and operational relationships among the key project
components and relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The following websites provide resources for constructing
logic models: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework;
(c) A description of the activities and measures to be incorporated
into the proposed model demonstration project (i.e., the project
design) to develop equitable identification, screening, referral, and
tracking systems, including a timeline of how and when the components
are introduced within the model. A detailed and complete description
must include the following:
(1) Each of the identification, screening, referral, and tracking
system components.
(2) The existing and proposed measures of fidelity of the
implementation of evidence-based identification, screening, referral,
and tracking practices; services being accessed by infants and toddlers
with disabilities and their families; timeliness and appropriateness of
referrals to IDEA Part C; demographics of infants and toddlers referred
to IDEA Part C; and child and family outcomes in the community, as well
as social validity measures. The measures must be described as
completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and included, when
available, in Appendix A.
(3) Each of the implementation components, including, at a minimum,
those listed under paragraph (b) under the heading Priority. The
existing or proposed implementation fidelity measures must be described
as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and included,
when available, in Appendix A. In addition, this description must
include--
(i) Demographics (e.g., race and ethnicity, social economic status,
primary home language) of the families of infants and toddlers with
disabilities, including the health, early care and education, and
social services that they receive, who live within the local
communities that have been identified and successfully recruited as
implementation sites for the purposes of this application using the
selection and recruitment strategies described in paragraph (b)(1)
under the heading Priority;
Note: Applicants are encouraged to identify, to the extent
possible, the sites willing to participate in the applicant's model
demonstration. Final site selection will be determined in consultation
with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer
following the kick-off meeting described in paragraph (f)(1) of these
application requirements; and
(ii) The lag site implementation design for implementation
consistent with the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) under the heading
Priority.
(4) Each of the strategies to promote sustaining and replicating
the model, including, at a minimum, those listed under paragraph (c)
under the heading Priority.
(5) The cost of the fully developed model and its implementation,
including the resources used by the model as well as their actual or
estimated costs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See the IES Cost Analysis Starter Kit at https://ies.ed.gov/seer/cost_analysis.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) A description of the evaluation activities and measures to be
incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project. A detailed
and complete description must include--
[[Page 27575]]
(1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's
logic model, that includes evaluation questions, sources of data, a
timeline for data collection, and analysis plans. The plan must show
how the outcome data (e.g., child, family, or systems measures, social
validity) and implementation data (e.g., fidelity, effectiveness of
professional development activities) will be used separately or in
combination to improve the project during the performance period. These
data will be reported in the annual performance report (APR). The plan
also must outline how these data will be reviewed by project staff,
when they will be reviewed, and how they will be used during the course
of the project to adjust the model or its implementation to increase
the model's usefulness, generalizability, and potential for
sustainability; and
(2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect
and analyze data on changes to child, family, or system outcomes over
time or relative to comparison groups that can be reasonably
attributable to project activities. The plan must show how the child,
family, or system outcome and implementation data collected by the
project will be used separately or in combination to demonstrate the
promise of the model.
(e) A plan to disseminate the results of the project, including the
findings that show the model had a beneficial effect on outcomes, the
final version of the implemented model, and its associated products
(such as curricula, professional development materials, implementation
procedures, measures and assessments, guides, and toolkits). The
dissemination plan must include the audiences who would most likely
benefit from implementing the model and detailed strategies for
reaching these audiences. In disseminating the results of the project,
grantees must, at a minimum: Collaborate with OSEP-funded TA centers,
publish in research and practitioner journals, and present at meetings
of professional associations. Grantees may also consider collaborating
with personnel preparation programs and OSEP-funded State Personnel
Development Grant projects; providing webinars, training sessions, or
workshops to State and local agencies; and engaging with other
federally funded TA centers, such as Head Start Training and Technical
Assistance Centers, research and development centers, research
networks, or Regional Educational Laboratories.
(f) A budget for attendance at the following:
(1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in
Washington, DC, or virtually, after receipt of the award.
(2) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, or
virtually, occurring twice during the project performance period.
(3) Four travel days spread across years two through four of the
project period to attend planning meetings, Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP, to be held in Washington, DC, or virtually.
Other Project Activities:
To meet the requirements of this priority, each project, at a
minimum, must--
(a) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with other
Department-funded projects, consistent with paragraph (e) under the
heading Application Requirements;
(b) Maintain ongoing telephone and email communication with the
OSEP project officer and the other model demonstration projects funded
under this priority;
(c) Provide information annually using a template that captures
descriptive data on project site selection and the process of
implementing the model in the sites.
Note: The following website provides more information about
implementation research: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation.
(d) If the project maintains a website, include relevant
information about the model, the intervention, and the demonstration
activities and ensure that the website meets government- or industry-
recognized standards for accessibility; and
(e) Ensure that annual progress toward meeting project goals is
posted on the project website.
Fifth Year of Project
The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond the initial 48
months to disseminate the results of the project if the grantee is
achieving the intended outcomes of the project (as demonstrated by data
gathered as part of the project evaluation) and making a positive
contribution to identifying the system supports needed to implement the
model. Each applicant must include in its application a plan for the
full 60-month period. The fifth year must be budgeted at $100,000. In
deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fifth year,
the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a),
including--
(a) The recommendations of a review team consisting of the OSEP
project officer and other experts selected by the Secretary. This
review will be held during the first half of the fourth year of the
project period;
(b) The success and timeliness with which the requirements of the
negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the
project; and
(c) The degree to which the project's activities have contributed
to changed practices and improved outcomes for children with
disabilities.
Absolute Priority 2: Model Demonstration Projects To Enhance
Social, Emotional, and Mental Health Services and Supports for Middle
or High School Youth With and at Risk for Disabilities.
Background:
Model demonstrations to improve early intervention, educational, or
transitional results for children with disabilities and their families
have been authorized under the IDEA since the law's inception. For the
purposes of this priority, a model is a set of existing evidence-based
practices,\9\ including interventions and implementation strategies
(i.e., core model components), that research suggests will improve
outcomes for children, families, personnel,\10\ administrators, or
systems, when implemented with fidelity. Model demonstrations involve
investigating the degree to which a given model can be implemented and
sustained in real-world settings, by staff employed in those settings,
while achieving outcomes similar to those attained under research
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means the
proposed project component is supported by promising evidence, which
is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in
improving a ``relevant outcome'' (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), based
on a relevant finding from one of the sources identified under
``promising evidence'' in 34 CFR 77.1.
\10\ As defined by section 651(b) of IDEA, the term
``personnel'' means special education teachers, regular education
teachers, principals, administrators, related services personnel,
paraprofessionals, and early intervention personnel serving infants,
toddlers, preschoolers, or children with disabilities, except where
a particular category of personnel, such as related services
personnel, is identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research shows that by seventh grade, 40 percent of students will
have experienced a mental health issue such as anxiety or depression
and that, each year, 13 to 20 percent of school-aged children and youth
meet the criteria for a mental health disorder (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2013). Suicide is the second leading cause of
death among persons aged 10-34 and health data show that the
percentages of adolescents not receiving preventive care such as well-
child checkups are higher for those ages 16-17 compared with those in
younger age groups
[[Page 27576]]
(Hedegaard et al., 2020; Black et al., 2016). For the purposes of this
priority, mental health includes emotional, psychological, and social
well-being. According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, mental health effects how we think, feel, and act and helps
determine how we handle stress, relate to others, and make healthy
choices (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). In schools,
we prioritize three critical and inter-related components of mental
health support: Social (how we relate to others), emotional (how we
feel), and behavioral (how we act) support to promote overall student
well-being positive learning outcomes (Chafouleas, 2020).
Students with disabilities are at a higher risk of experiencing a
mental health disorder than their non-disabled peers. For example, 60
percent of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) had at least one other mental, emotional, or behavioral disorder
(Danielson et al., 2018). Students with mental health disorders are
more likely to exhibit disruptive behavior, have chronic absences, have
poor academic performance, and drop out of school (Anderson & Cardoza,
2016). Students with both a disability and a mental health disorder
have increased risk of negative post-school outcomes such as a reduced
quality of life, unemployment, underemployment, and possibly prison as
well (Darney et al., 2013; Hawton et al., 2012). Furthermore, the
COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted the mental health of school-
aged children and youth, with 45 percent of parents with children in
grades kindergarten through 12 indicating that their child's mental
health is suffering (Calderon, 2020). Even though there is a growing
number of school-aged children exhibiting mental health concerns, it is
estimated that nearly 60 percent receive no treatment, which can be
attributed to lack of access and the stigma that comes with mental
health issues (National Association of School Psychologists, 2016).
Although the primary purpose of schools is to deliver an effective
academic education, several studies of children's mental health have
acknowledged that American schools have become a primary source of
mental health services for youth. There is a strong evidence base
demonstrating that integrating school-based mental health services and
supports can improve academic, social and emotional, and behavioral
outcomes for students with and at risk for disabilities (Barry et al.,
2013; Hoover et al., 2019; Kern et al., 2017; Kutash et al., 2011).
Despite many children receiving mental health services from their
school, there is a limited body of research identifying how to
effectively provide those services within the school context.
Approximately 20 percent of children have documented mental health
needs that require intervention; however, only one-third of these
children receive any services. Experts attribute the gap between need
and treatment to the shortage of mental health providers and the
increase in the number of children requiring services. This gap is
significantly greater in rural communities where there is a lack of
child psychologists and school or community providers trained in mental
health awareness and intervention (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2018). Gaps in access to mental health services are also
prevalent in high-risk populations, including students with
disabilities; students of color; students in foster care; military-
connected youth; youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+); youth involved with the
juvenile justice system; and youth who are homeless or abusing
controlled substances. Although mental health services are provided in
schools, models are needed that demonstrate interagency coordination
(i.e., coordination among school-based services and community-based
resources, such as community mental health and primary care providers)
and coordinated service delivery \11\ of evidence-based school mental
health services and supports, including prevention, screening, data-
based decision making, and effective interventions that can be
implemented through approaches (e.g., schoolwide,\12\ targeted,\13\ and
intensive \14\) that can be scaled up to address the needs of high-risk
youth, with and at risk for disabilities, including those in rural
communities to improve educational, behavioral, and mental health
outcomes. The current system is ineffective and inefficient for many
students, families, and staff, with notable problems before the
pandemic and exacerbated as schools work to respond and recover from
COVID impacts. To address the current service delivery limitations,
there is increasing recognition of the need to move away from services
and supports characterized by ad-hoc involvement of mental health
system staff in schools toward approaches that clearly integrate
education and mental health systems. For example, within middle schools
and high schools, services and supports are often fragmentated because
those providing direct services to students, including teachers,
counselors, school psychologists, and social workers, are often siloed
and work in relative isolation from one another. Additionally,
information is needed to determine how aspects of the models can (1) be
delivered remotely to increase access to mental health services and
supports, either due to lack of access or during disasters (e.g., the
pandemic, hurricanes, etc.); (2) focus on integrating prevention,
universal screening, and targeted interventions in a school-based
setting; and (3) increase the capacity of schools to connect students
with mental health providers and specialized mental health
professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For the purposes of this priority, ``coordinated service
delivery'' refers to services and supports that integrate the
education and mental health systems by removing barriers to
accessing social, emotional, and school mental health in school and
the community.
\12\ For the purposes of this priority, ``schoolwide''
approaches refer to services and supports to benefit all children
and staff across all school settings.
\13\ For the purposes of this priority, ``targeted'' approaches
refer to services and supports provided to children who are not
successful receiving schoolwide approaches alone. These approaches
are more focused and intensive than schoolwide approaches, are often
time-limited, and are frequently applied in small group settings.
\14\ For the purposes of this priority, ``intensive'' approaches
refer to individualized approaches that are specifically designed to
address persistent difficulties. These approaches are implemented
with greater frequency and for an extended duration than is commonly
available in a typical classroom or early intervention setting or
require personnel to have knowledge and skills in identifying and
implementing multiple evidence-based interventions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative
agreements to establish and operate evidence-based model demonstration
projects. The models must establish and implement an evidence-based
integrated school mental health program to enhance social, emotional,
and mental health services and supports in middle school or high school
settings to support youth with and at risk for disabilities.
The models must address the infrastructure (e.g., implementation
teams) and ongoing supports needed to foster the development,
implementation, and evaluation of an integrated school mental health
services system to support youth with and at risk for disabilities.
The models must demonstrate methods for implementing school-based
prevention and universal interventions, early identification of youth
with mental health needs, and targeted and intensive school
interventions with coordinated service delivery in middle or high
schools. The models must use data to provide information about how
integrated school mental health services
[[Page 27577]]
and supports, including interagency coordination and coordinated
service delivery, can address the full continuum of student needs and
affect child academic, social and emotional, and behavioral \15\
outcomes for youth with and at risk for disabilities. The model
demonstration projects must assess how models can--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For the purposes of this priority, ``behavioral'' refers to
attendance, discipline referrals, safety infractions, suspensions
and expulsions, and dropout rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve the capacity of schools and school personnel to
identify and support youth with and at risk for disabilities,
particularly from underserved groups, who may benefit from or require
social, emotional, or mental health services and supports;
Establish, or support implementation of evidence-based
integrated school mental health services and supports, to include
prevention and intervention, that improve outcomes for youth with and
at risk for disabilities who may benefit from or require social,
emotional, or mental health services and supports;
Improve the capacity of the school and build
infrastructure to engage in interagency coordination and coordinated
service delivery to support youth with and at risk for disabilities who
may benefit from or require social, emotional, or mental health
services and supports; and
Improve understanding of barriers to interagency
coordination and coordinated service delivery, including lack of local
mental health providers, and how State agencies could reduce barriers
to, and support, development and implementation of integrated school
mental health services and supports for youth with and at risk for
disabilities.
Applicants must propose models that meet the following
requirements:
(a) The model's core intervention components must include--
(1) Integrated school social, emotional, and mental health services
and supports that are evidence-based;
(2) Ongoing measures of interagency coordination and coordinated
service delivery and academic, social and emotional, and behavioral
outcomes for youth with and at risk for disabilities who may benefit
from or require social, emotional, or mental health services and
supports;
(3) Professional development to support school personnel's
appropriate and timely use of universal screening and referral data to
inform the need for school mental health services and supports,
intensity, and frequency dependent on school and student needs;
(4) Procedures to refine the model based on the ongoing evaluation
of integrated school mental health services and supports, fidelity of
the implementation of evidence-based practices, and student academic,
social and emotional, and behavioral outcomes;
(5) Procedures for schools to share data and inform policy at a
central office, within the community, and at State levels so that the
data can be used to make decisions to remove barriers to, and support,
implementation and sustainability of integrated school mental health
services and supports; and
(6) Measures of the model's social validity, i.e., measures of
personnel, family, student, and administrator satisfaction with the
model components, processes, and outcomes.
(b) The model's core implementation components must include--
(1) Criteria and strategies for selecting \16\ and recruiting sites
and the proposed integrated mental health services and supports for
each site, including approaches to introducing the model to, and
promoting the model among, site participants.\17\ Applicants are
encouraged to choose sites from a variety of settings (e.g., urban,
tribal, rural, suburban) and populations (e.g., concentration of
students receiving free or reduced-price lunch); however, each project
must include at least three middle or at least three high schools, with
at least one being rural;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For factors to consider when selecting model demonstration
sites, the applicant should refer to Assessing Sites for Model
Demonstration: Lessons Learned for OSEP Grantees at mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf. The document also
contains a site assessment tool.
\17\ For factors to consider when preparing for model
demonstration implementation, the applicant should refer to
Preparing for Model Demonstration Implementation at mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_PreparationStage_Brief_Apr2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) A lag site implementation design, which allows for model
development and refinement at the first site in year one of the project
period, with sites two and three implementing a revised model based on
data from the first site beginning in subsequent project years;
(3) A professional development component that includes a strategy
to work with administrators, to enable site-based personnel to
implement, with fidelity, integrated school mental health services and
supports that are culturally responsive; and
(4) Measures of the results of the professional development
required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(c) The core strategies for sustaining the model must include--
(1) Procedures and materials that permit current and future site-
based staff to replicate or appropriately tailor and sustain the model
at any site; \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For a guide on documenting model demonstration sustainment
and replication, the applicant should refer to Planning for
Replication and Dissemination From the Start: Guidelines for Model
Demonstration Projects (Revised) at mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_ReplicationBrief_SEP2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Guidelines and procedures to--
(i) Help administrators support integrated school mental health
services and supports, interagency coordination, and coordinated
service delivery;
(ii) Provide professional development related to integrated school
mental health services and supports including interagency coordination
and coordinated service delivery to school personnel;
(iii) Collect data on the effectiveness of the integrated school
mental health services and supports, interagency coordination, and
coordinated service delivery, and impact of these services on student
academic, social and emotional, and behavioral outcomes;
(iv) Match the school mental health service and intensity of the
strategies based on school and student need; and
(v) Collect data regarding the increased access of mental health
services and supports; the types, frequency, and intensity of services;
demographics of students that received services; and the fidelity of
the implementation of the model, and communicate regularly about the
data at the local, regional (as appropriate), and State levels;
(3) Strategies for the grantee to develop a manual, toolkit, and
other resources for disseminating information on the final version of
the model by the end of the grant period, such as developing easily
accessible online products that specify model core components critical
for improving outcomes, professional development materials, fidelity
measures, key outcomes from the model, and implementation procedures
for disseminating the model and its components; and
(4) Strategies for the grantee to assist State agencies (e.g.,
State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies
(LEAs)) within the State to scale up a model and its components.
To be considered for funding under this absolute priority,
applicants must meet the requirements contained in this priority.
Application Requirements:
An applicant must include in its application--
(a) A detailed review of the literature addressing the proposed
evidence-based
[[Page 27578]]
model or its implementation components and the proposed processes to
establish and implement integrated school mental health services and
supports for middle or high school youth with and at risk for
disabilities;
(b) A logic model \19\ that depicts, at a minimum, the goals,
activities, outputs, and outcomes (described in paragraph (a) under the
heading Priority) of the proposed model demonstration project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means
a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed
project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to
be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the
theoretical and operational relationships among the key project
components and relevant outcomes. See 34 CFR 77.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The following websites provide resources for constructing
logic models: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework;
(c) A description of the activities and measures to be incorporated
into the proposed model demonstration project (i.e., the project
design) to develop and implement integrated school mental health
services and supports for youth with and at risk for disabilities,
including a timeline of how and when the components are introduced
within the model. A detailed and complete description must include the
following:
(1) Each of the integrated school mental health services and
support components.
(2) The existing and proposed measures of effectiveness of
integrated school mental health services and supports and interagency
coordination and coordinated service delivery; fidelity of the
implementation of evidence-based practices; cultural responsiveness of
integrated school mental health services and supports, education system
characteristics, and child outcomes, as well as social validity
measures. The measures must be described as completely as possible,
referenced as appropriate, and included, when available, in Appendix A.
(3) Each of the implementation components, including, at a minimum,
those listed under paragraph (b) under the heading Priority. The
existing or proposed implementation fidelity measures, including those
measuring the fidelity of the professional development strategy, must
be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and
included, when available, in Appendix A. In addition, this description
must include--
(i) Demographics, including, at a minimum, the settings of, and
children participating in, all of the implementation sites that have
been identified and successfully recruited for the purposes of this
application using the selection and recruitment strategies described in
paragraph (b)(1) under the heading Priority;
Note: Applicants are encouraged to identify, to the extent
possible, the sites willing to participate in the applicant's model
demonstration and if the project is working with middle or high school
sites. Final site selection will be determined in consultation with the
OSEP project officer following the kick-off meeting described in
paragraph (f)(1) of these application requirements; and
(ii) The lag site implementation design for implementation
consistent with the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) under the heading
Priority.
(4) Each of the strategies to promote sustaining and replicating
the model, including, at a minimum, those listed under paragraph (c)
under the heading Priority; and
(5) The cost of the fully developed model and its implementation,
including the resources used by the model as well as their actual or
estimated costs.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See the IES Cost Analysis Starter Kit at https://ies.ed.gov/seer/cost_analysis.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) A description of the evaluation activities and measures to be
incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project. A detailed
and complete description must include--
(1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's
logic model, that includes evaluation questions, sources of data, a
timeline for data collection, and analysis plans. The plan must show
how the outcome data (e.g., child, personnel, or systems measures,
social validity) and implementation data (e.g., fidelity, effectiveness
of professional development activities) will be used separately or in
combination to improve the project during the performance period. These
data will be reported in the annual performance report (APR). The plan
also must outline how these data will be reviewed by project staff,
when they will be reviewed, and how they will be used during the course
of the project to adjust the model or its implementation to increase
the model's usefulness, generalizability, and potential for
sustainability; and
(2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect
and analyze data on changes to child, teacher, service provider, or
system outcomes over time or relative to comparison groups that can be
reasonably attributable to project activities. The plan must show how
the child, personnel, or system outcome and implementation data
collected by the project will be used separately or in combination to
demonstrate the promise of the model.
(e) A plan to disseminate the results of the project, including the
findings that show the model had a beneficial effect on outcomes, the
final version of the implemented model, and its associated products
(such as curricula, professional development materials, implementation
procedures, measures and assessments, guides, and toolkits). The
dissemination plan must include the audiences who would most likely
benefit from implementing the model and detailed strategies for
reaching these audiences. In disseminating the results of the project,
grantees must, at a minimum: Collaborate with OSEP-funded TA centers,
publish in research and practitioner journals, and present at meetings
of professional associations. Grantees may also consider collaborating
with personnel preparation programs and OSEP-funded State Personnel
Development Grant projects; providing webinars, training sessions, or
workshops to State and local agencies; and engaging with other ED-
funded TA centers, such as comprehensive centers, research and
development centers, research networks, or Regional Educational
Laboratories.
(f) A budget for attendance at the following:
(1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in
Washington, DC, or virtually, after receipt of the award.
(2) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, or
virtually, occurring twice during the project performance period.
(3) Four travel days spread across years two through four of the
project period to attend planning meetings, Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP, to be held in Washington, DC, or virtually.
Other Project Activities:
To meet the requirements of this priority, each project, at a
minimum, must--
(a) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with other
Department-funded projects, consistent with paragraph (e) under the
heading Application Requirements;
(b) Maintain ongoing telephone and email communication with the
OSEP project officer and the other model demonstration projects funded
under this priority;
[[Page 27579]]
(c) Provide information annually using a template that captures
descriptive data on project site selection and the process of
implementing the model in the sites.
Note: The following website provides more information about
implementation research: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation.
(d) If the project maintains a website, include relevant
information about the model, the intervention, and the demonstration
activities and ensure that the website meets government- or industry-
recognized standards for accessibility; and
(e) Ensure that annual progress toward meeting project goals is
posted on the project website.
Fifth Year of Project
The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond the initial 48
months to disseminate the results of the project if the grantee is
achieving the intended outcomes of the project (as demonstrated by data
gathered as part of the project evaluation) and making a positive
contribution to identifying the system supports needed to implement the
model. Each applicant must include in its application a plan for the
full 60-month period. The fifth year must be budgeted at $100,000. In
deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fifth year,
the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a),
including--
(a) The recommendations of a review team consisting of the OSEP
project officer and other experts selected by the Secretary. This
review will be held during the first half of the fourth year of the
project period;
(b) The success and timeliness with which the requirements of the
negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the
project; and
(c) The degree to which the project's activities have contributed
to changed practices and improved outcomes for children with
disabilities.
Competitive Preference Priority: For FY 2021 and any subsequent
year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications
from this competition, this priority is a competitive preference
priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional five
points to an application that meets the competitive preference
priority.
This priority is:
Applications from New Potential Grantees (0 or 5 points).
(a) Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the
applicant has not had an active discretionary grant under the 84.326M
program, including through membership in a group application submitted
in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, five years before the deadline
date for submission of applications under the program.
(b) For the purpose of this priority, a grant or contract is active
until the end of the grant's or contract's project or funding period,
including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's or
contractor's authority to obligate funds.
References:
Anderson, M., & Cardoza, K. (2016, August 31). Mental health in
schools: A hidden crisis affecting millions of students. NPR.
www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/08/31/464727159/mental-health-in-schools-a-hidden-crisis-affecting-millions-of-students.
Barry, M.M., Clarke, A.M., Jenkins, R., & Patel, V. (2013). A
systematic review of the effectiveness of mental health promotion
interventions for young people in low and middle income countries.
BMC Public Health, 13, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-835.
Black, L.I., Nugent, C.N., & Vahratian, A. (2016). Access and
utilization of selected preventive health services among adolescents
aged 10-17 (NCHS Data Brief, No. 246). National Center for Health
Statistics. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db246.pdf.
Calderon, V.J. (2020). U.S. Parents Say COVID-19 Harming Child's
Mental Health. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/312605/parents-say-covid-harming-child-mental-health.aspx.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Mental health.
www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/index.htm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Mental health
surveillance among children--United States, 2005-2011. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, 62, 1-35. www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6202a1.htm?x_cid=su6202a1_w.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Providing access
to mental health services for children in rural areas: Policy brief.
www.cdc.gov/ruralhealth/child-health/images/Mental-Health-Services-for-Children-Policy-Brief-H.pdf.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Prevalence of
autism spectrum disorders among children aged 8 years: Autism and
developmental disorders monitoring network, 11 sites, United States,
2016. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 69 (4), 1-12.
Chafouleas, S. (2020, August). Four questions to ask now in
preparing your child for school. Psychology Today.
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/promoting-student-well-being/202008/4-questions-ask-now-in-preparing-your-child-school.
Darney, D., Reinke, W.M., Herman, K.C., Stormont, M., & Ialongo,
N.S. (2013). Children with co-occurring academic and behavior
problems in first grade: Distal outcomes in twelfth grade. Journal
of School Psychology, 51 (1), 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.09.005.
Danielson, M.L., Bitsko, R.H., Ghandour, R.M., Holbrook, J.R.,
Kogan, M.D., & Blumberg, S.J. (2018). Prevalence of parent-reported
ADHD diagnosis and associated treatment among U.S. children and
adolescents, 2016. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent
Psychology, 47 (2), 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2017.1417860.
Feinberg E., Silverstein M., Donahue S., & Bliss R. (2011). The
impact of race on participation in part C early intervention
services. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 32 (4),
284-291.
Hawton, K., Saunders, K., & O'Connor, R.C. (2012). Self-harm and
suicide in adolescents. The Lancet, 379, 2373-2382. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60322-5.
Hedegaard, H., Curtin, S.C., & Warner, M. (2020). Increase in
suicide mortality in the United States, 1999-2018 (NCHS Data Brief,
No. 362). National Center for Health Statistics. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db362-h.pdf.
Hoover, S., Lever, N., Sachdev, N., Bravo, N., Schlitt, J., Acosta
Price, O., Sheriff, L., & Cashman, J. (2019). Advancing
comprehensive school mental health: Guidance from the field.
National Center for School Mental Health. University of Maryland
School of Medicine. www.schoolmentalhealth.org/AdvancingCSMHS.
IDEA Infant and Toddler Coordinators Association. (2021, January
13). Presentation to the Office of Special Education Programs
[Unpublished report]. U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education Programs.
Kern, L., Mathur, S.R., Albrecht, S.F., Poland, S., Rozalski, M., &
Skiba, R.J. (2017). The need for school-based mental health services
and recommendations for implementation. School Mental Health, 9,
205-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-017-9216-5.
Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A.J., & Green, A.L. (2011). School-based
mental health programs for students who have emotional disturbances:
Academic and social-emotional outcomes. School Mental Health, 3,
191-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-011-9062-9.
Lipkin, P.H., Macias, M.M., & Council on Children with Disabilities,
Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. (2020).
Promoting Optimal Development: Identifying Infants and Young
Children With Developmental Disorders Through Developmental
Surveillance and Screening. Pediatrics, 145(1), e20193449. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-3449.
McCoy, D.C., Yoshikawa, H., Ziol-Guest, K.M., Duncan, G.J.,
Schindler, H.S., Magnuson, K., Yang, R., Koepp, A., & Shonkoff, J.P.
(2017). Impacts of early childhood education on medium- and long-
term educational outcomes. Educational Researcher, 46(8), 474-487.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2016). School-based
mental health
[[Page 27580]]
services: Improving student learning and well-being.
www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-and-podcasts/mental-health/school-psychology-and-mental-health/school-based-mental-health-services.
Rosenberg, S.A., Robinson, C.C., Shaw, E.F., & Ellison, M.C. (2013).
Part C early intervention for infants and toddlers: Percentage
eligible versus served. Pediatrics, 131(1), 38-46.
Rosenberg, S.A., Zhang, D., & Robinson, C.C. (2008). Prevalence of
developmental delays and participation in early intervention
services for young children. Pediatrics, 121, e1503-e1509.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested
parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section
681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the
APA inapplicable to the priorities in this notice.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.
Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal
civil rights laws.
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 Administrative Priorities.
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 agreements.
Estimated Available Funds: $2,400,000.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2022 from the list of
unfunded applications from this competition.
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $1,600,000 per
project for a project period of 60 months.
Note: Applicants must describe, in their applications, the amount
of funding being requested for each 12-month budget period. The fifth-
year budget period should be budgeted at $100,000.
Estimated Number of Awards: 6.
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; State lead agencies under Part C of
the IDEA; LEAs, including charter schools that are considered LEAs
under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit
organizations; outlying areas; freely associated States; Indian Tribes
or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.
2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require
cost sharing or matching.
b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an
unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding
indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please
see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.
c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include
any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All
administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to
Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform
Guidance.
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 General Requirements:
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.
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this
competition.
3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative 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 50 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 the cover sheet; the
budget section, including the narrative budget justification; 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 (15 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed
project.
[[Page 27581]]
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased
knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or
effective strategies;
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build
local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the
needs of the target population;
(iii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in
teaching and student achievement; and
(iv) The likely utility of the products (such as information,
materials, processes, or techniques) that will result from the proposed
project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a
variety of other settings.
(b) Quality of the project design (35 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the
proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, 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 the design of the proposed project
includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a
high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of
appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of
project objectives;
(iii) The quality of the proposed demonstration design and
procedures for documenting project activities and results;
(iv) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating
the proposed project will result in information to guide possible
replication of project activities or strategies, including information
about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the
project; and
(v) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous
improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.
(c) Adequacy of resources and quality of the management plan (25
points).
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources and the
quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the adequacy of resources and the quality of the
management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the
following factors:
(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the
lead applicant organization;
(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project;
(iii) 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;
(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;
(v) 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; and
(vi) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project.
(d) Quality of the project evaluation (25 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 will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes;
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
(iv) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about
effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other
settings; and
(v) 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.
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
200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department
conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR
200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions, and under 2 CFR
3474.10, 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
[[Page 27582]]
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 200.206(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.
6. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and
Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal
laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and
consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting
applications in accordance with--
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering
results based on the program objectives through an objective process of
evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video
surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the
National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR
200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to
maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United
States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest
extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program
goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
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.
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee
with additional funding for data collection, analysis, and reporting.
In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and reporting under 34 CFR
75.110, we have established a set of performance measures, including
long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various
aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Model Demonstration
Projects to Improve Services and Results for Infants, Toddlers, and
Children with Disabilities under the Technical Assistance and
Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children With
Disabilities program. These measures are--
Current Program Performance Measure: The percentage of
effective evidence-based program models developed by model
demonstration projects that are promoted to States and their partners
through the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network; and
Pilot Program Performance Measure: The percentage of
effective program models developed by model demonstration projects that
are sustained beyond the life of the model demonstration project.
The current program performance measure and the pilot program
performance measure 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, whether
the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving
[[Page 27583]]
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: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
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.
David Cantrell,
Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs. Delegated the
authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 2021-10729 Filed 5-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P