[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