2021-10729.pdf

27571 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 97 / Friday, May 21, 2021 / Notices following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;

(3) is the estimate of burden accurate;

(4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Application for Flexibility for Equitable Per-pupil Funding.

OMB Control Number: 1810–0734.

Type of Review: An extension without change of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State and Local Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 10.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 560.

Abstract: This is a request to collect critical information for the Application for Flexibility for Equitable Per-pupil Funding, the instrument through which local educational agencies (LEAs) apply for flexibility to consolidate eligible Federal funds and State and local education funding based on weighted per-pupil allocations for low-income and otherwise disadvantaged students.

This program allows LEAs to consolidate funds under the following Federal education programs: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA); Title I, Part A Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies; Title I, Part C Education of Migratory Children; Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 Local Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk; Title II Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High-quality Teachers, Principals, or Other School Leaders;

Title III Language Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students; Title IV, Part A Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants; Title VI, Part B Rural Education Initiative. On December 10, 2015, the programs above were reauthorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The Flexibility for Equitable Per-pupil Funding under section 1501 of the ESEA allows the U.S. Department of Education (Department) to offer an LEA the opportunity to consolidate funds under the above-listed programs to support the LEA in creating a single school funding system based on weighted per-pupil allocations for low-income and otherwise disadvantaged students, with attendant flexibility in using those funds.

Dated: May 18, 2021.

Juliana Pearson, PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance Governance and Strategy Division, Office of Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

[FR Doc. 2021–10768 Filed 5–20–21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

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:

Yolanda.Lusane@ed.gov.

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:

Christina.Diamond@ed.gov.

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:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 May 20, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1jb el l o n

D S

K

JL

S W

7X 2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S http://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf http://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf mailto:Christina.Diamond@ed.gov mailto:Yolanda.Lusane@ed.gov

27572 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 97 / Friday, May 21, 2021 / Notices

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.

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.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 May 20, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1jb el l o n

D S

K

JL

S W

7X 2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S

27573 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 97 / Friday, May 21, 2021 / Notices

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.

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.

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

(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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 May 20, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1jb el l o n

D S

K

JL

S W

7X 2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/contact https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/understanding-confidentiality-requirements-applicable-idea-early-childhood-programs-faq https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/understanding-confidentiality-requirements-applicable-idea-early-childhood-programs-faq https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/understanding-confidentiality-requirements-applicable-idea-early-childhood-programs-faq https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/understanding-confidentiality-requirements-applicable-idea-early-childhood-programs-faq

27574 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 97 / Friday, May 21, 2021 / Notices

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.

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.

8 See the IES Cost Analysis Starter Kit at https:// ies.ed.gov/seer/cost_analysis.asp.

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);

(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

(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.

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

(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—

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 May 20, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1jb el l o n

D S

K

JL

S W

7X 2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S https://ies.ed.gov/seer/cost_analysis.asp https://ies.ed.gov/seer/cost_analysis.asp http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel https://www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework https://www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework https://www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework https://www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework

27575 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 97 / Friday, May 21, 2021 / Notices

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.

(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.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 May 20, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1jb el l o n

D S

K

JL

S W

7X 2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation

27576 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 97 / Friday, May 21, 2021 / Notices

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.

(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.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 May 20, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1jb el l o n

D S

K

JL

S W

7X 2P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

27577 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 97 / Friday, May 21, 2021 / Notices

15 For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘behavioral’’ refers to attendance, discipline referrals, safety infractions, suspensions and expulsions, and dropout rates.

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.

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.

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—

• 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…