oppED-GRANTS-072518-002-cfda84.326-cid84-326X2018-1-instructions.pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202

FISCAL YEAR 2018

APPLICATION FOR NEW GRANTS UNDER THE

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA)

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND DISSEMINATION TO

IMPROVE SERVICES AND RESULTS FOR CHILDREN

WITH DISABILITIES

(CFDA 84.326)

APPLICATIONS FOR NEW AWARDS;

CENTER ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION

(CFDA 84.326X)

DATED MATERIAL: OPEN IMMEDIATELY

CLOSING DATE: AUGUST 13, 2018

FORM APPROVED —OMB NO. 1820-0028, EXP. DATE: 09/30/2019

http://www.ed.gov/

GRANT APPLICATION PACKAGE CFDA 84.326X

CONTENTS

Applicant Letter ...................................................................................................................... A1

Notice Inviting Applications .................................................................................................. B1

Federal Register Notice ...................................................................................................... B2

Grants.gov Submission Procedures and Tips for Applicants ............................................. B34

Priority Description and Selection Criteria........................................................................... C1

Center on Dispute Resolution, (CFDA 84.326X) ................................................................ C2

Selection Criteria and Format for the Applications for New Awards— Center on

Dispute Resolution, (CFDA 84.326X) Competition ........................................................... C23

General Information on Completing an Application ............................................................ D1

Application Transmittal Instructions and Requirements for Intergovernmental Review ..................................................................................................... E1

Appendix ................................................................................................................................ F1

Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs ................................................................. F2

State Single Points of Contact (SPOCs) ............................................................................. F3

Notice to All Applicants Ensuring Equitable Access and Application Forms and Instructions ......................................................................................................... G1

Part I: Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424)

Part II: Budget Information (Form 524)

Part III: Application Narrative

Part IV: Assurances and Certifications

Assurances—Non-Construction Programs

Certification Regarding Lobbying

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

Part V: Additional Information

DUNS Number Instructions

Grant Application Receipt Acknowledgement

Grant and Contract Funding Information

PAPERWORK BURDEN STATEMENT

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid

OMB control number for this information collection is 1820-0028. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 45 hours and 40 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to:

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, DC 20202-4651

If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to:

Office of Special Education Programs

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave. SW, PCP 5159

Washington, DC 20202-2600

APPLICANT LETTER

Dear Applicant:

This application packet contains information and the required forms for you to use in submitting a new application for funding under one program authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA). This packet covers one competition under the Technical Assistance and

Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities (CFDA 84.326) program—Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve

Services and Results for Children with Disabilities—Center on Dispute Resolution, (CFDA No.

84.326X).

Please take the time to review all of the applicable requirements, definitions, selection criteria, and application instructions thoroughly. An application will not be evaluated for funding if the applicant does not comply with all of the procedural rules that govern the submission of the application or if the application does not contain the information required. (EDGAR §75.216 (b) and (c)).

Please note the following:

• GRANTS.GOV APPLICATION SUBMISSION AND SAM REGISTRATION.

Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the

Grants.gov Apply site (www.Grants.gov). Please read carefully the Grants.gov Submission

Procedures and Tips for Applicants document included on page B-34, which includes helpful tips about submitting electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site. Grants.gov registration involves many steps including registration on SAM (www.sam.gov) which may take approximately one week to complete, but could take as many as several weeks to complete. You may begin working on your application while completing the registration process, but you cannot submit an application until all of the Registration steps are complete. Please note that once your SAM registration is active, it will take 24-48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov. You cannot submit an application through

Grants.gov until Grants.gov has received your SAM registration information. We strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with SAM and Grants.gov and strongly recommend that you register and submit early.

Applicants are required to upload .PDF files only in a read only, flattened format.

Please be aware that applications submitted to Grants.gov for the Department of Education will now be posted using Adobe forms. Information on computer and operating system compatibility with Adobe and links to download the latest version of Adobe are available on

Grants.gov. Please note that you must follow the Application Procedures as described in the

Federal Register notice announcing this grant competition. Information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically can also be found in section D-1 of this application package, Application Transmittal Instructions and Requirements for

Intergovernmental Review. Additional instructions for sending applications electronically are provided on page G-4, Application Forms and Instructions for Grants.gov Applications.

file:///C:/Users/Debra.Sturdivant/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/8WBIWOAI/www.Grants.gov http://www.sam.gov/

• MAXIMUM AWARD AMOUNT.

The competitions included in this package have maximum award amounts. Please refer to the specific information for the priority/competition to which you are submitting an application (i.e., Section B of this package) for detailed budget information for the total grant period requested.

Please be advised that for the priority in this package, the maximum award amount covers all project costs including indirect costs.

• RECOMMENDED PAGE LIMITS AND LINE SPACING OF APPLICATION NARRATIVE.

The competitions included in this package limit the Part III Application Narrative to a recommended number of double-spaced pages. This recommended page limitation and double-line spacing applies to all material presented in the application narrative. This recommended double-line spacing applies to all titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots, and logic models included in the application narrative. (Please refer to the specific recommendations on page limits for the priority/competition to which you are submitting an application, Section B of this package).

• FORMAT FOR OTHER SECTIONS OF THE APPLICATION.

Additional information regarding formatting applications has been included on Pages D-3 and D-4 of the “General Information on Completing an Application” section of this package.

Appendix A: Reviewers will be instructed to review the content of Appendix A as they do the application narrative. Reviewers will not be required to review any other appendices.

Charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots and logic models that provide information directly relating to the application requirements for the narrative should be the only items included in Appendix A. Appendix A should not be used for supplementary information. Please note that charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots, and logic models can be single-spaced when placed in an Appendix A.

Abstract: For the application Abstract, applicants should use the template located at:

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/oseptad/applicant.html.

• ABSOLUTE PRIORITY.

This competition includes one absolute priority. The Department will use peer reviewers to review and score applications on the selection criteria.

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/oseptad/applicant.html

• Prior to the peer review, Department staff will determine if an application has met the absolute priority and is eligible for peer review. An application that has not met the absolute priority will not be considered for funding and may not be reviewed.

• PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS IN RESEARCH.

The discretionary grant Application Form SF-424 requires applicants to indicate whether they plan to conduct research involving human subjects at any time during the proposed project period. The Protection of Human Subjects in Research Attachment is an integral part of the SF-424 form. It includes information that applicants need to complete the protection of human subjects item and, as appropriate, to provide additional information to the

Department regarding human subjects research projects. Additional information on completing the protection of human subjects item is also available and can be accessed on the internet at:

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/gcsindex.html www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/humansub.html

• RESPONSE TO GPRA.

As required by the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act (GPRA) of 2010 the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has developed a strategic plan for measuring GPRA performance. The program included in this announcement is authorized under Part D - National Activities to Improve Education of Children with Disabilities of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Projects funded under this competition are required to submit data on GPRA performance measures as directed by OSEP. See Performance

Measures included in the Priority Description section of this application package. Applicants are encouraged to consider this information when preparing their applications.

• COPIES OF THE APPLICATION.

Unless you qualify for an exception in accordance with the instructions found in the Notice inviting applications, you must submit your application electronically. Therefore, you do not need to submit paper copies of the application. If you are granted an exception, current

Government-wide policy requires that an original and two paper copies need to be submitted. Please note: If an application is recommended for funding and a grant award is issued, we will contact the applicant to request an electronic copy of the application in MS

Word or a PDF file. The Department is moving toward an electronic grant filing system and an electronic copy of all applications that are being funded will facilitate this effort.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

OSEP also provides information on developing performance measures and logic models at https://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel to assist you in preparing a quality application.

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/gcsindex.html http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/humansub.html https://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel

For information about other U.S. Department of Education grant and contract opportunities, we encourage you to use the Department's grant information web page which can be accessed on the internet at:

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/grants/grants.html

We appreciate your efforts to improve the provision of services for individuals with disabilities.

Sincerely, /s/

Lawrence J. Wexler, Ed.D.

Directory

Research to Practice Division

Office of Special Education Programs http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/grants/grants.html

B-1

NOTICE INVITING APPLICATIONS

B-2

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE

4000-01-U

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve

Services and Results for Children with Disabilities Program—Center on Dispute

Resolution

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of

Education.

ACTION: Notice.

Overview Information:

Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with

Disabilities Program—Center on Dispute Resolution.

Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.326X.

Dates:

Applications Available: July 13, 2018.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 13, 2018.

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 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf

B-3

For Further Information Contact:

Tina Diamond

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Room 5136, Potomac Center Plaza

Washington, DC 20202-5076.

Telephone: (202) 245-6674.

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.

Priority:

In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481(d)).

Absolute Priority:

For FY 2018 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR

75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

Center on Dispute Resolution.

B-4

Background:

The mission of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is to improve early childhood, educational, and employment outcomes and raise expectations for all people with disabilities, their families, their communities, and the Nation. This priority is consistent with Supplemental Priority 1 in the Secretary’s Final Supplemental Priorities and

Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096) (Supplemental Priorities)--Empowering Families and Individuals To Choose a High-Quality Education That Meets Their Unique Needs; and Supplemental Priority 5--Meeting the Unique Needs of Students and Children With Disabilities and/or Those With Unique Gifts and Talents.

IDEA includes procedural safeguards that are designed to protect the rights of children with disabilities and their parents and to provide parents with mechanisms for resolving, at the earliest point in time, disputes with those who provide services to children with disabilities (State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), schools, Part C State lead agencies, and early intervention service (EIS) providers). The procedural safeguards include the opportunity to seek a timely resolution of disputes about establishing a child’s eligibility under IDEA and providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to an eligible child or the appropriate EIS to infants and toddlers with disabilities. Thus, IDEA encourages constructive relationships between parents of children with disabilities and those who provide services to children with disabilities by facilitating open communication between the parents and these entities and encouraging early resolution of disputes so that disagreements do not escalate and become adversarial and result in a delay in identifying, and providing needed services to, eligible children. IDEA’s dispute resolution procedures include provisions for State complaints, mediation, due process complaints, and resolution sessions, as described below.

State Complaints. IDEA’s State complaint procedures permit parents and other interested individuals or organizations to file a complaint with the SEA or Part C State lead agency to seek resolution of any alleged violations of IDEA. The goal of the State complaint procedures is to resolve disputes while avoiding costly or time-consuming due process hearings (34 CFR

300.151 through 300.153 - Part B regulations; 34 CFR 303.432 through 303.434 – Part C regulations). The State complaint procedures provide an important means of ensuring that the educational or early intervention needs of children with disabilities are met (34 CFR 300.151 and 303.432).

B-5

Mediation. In response to increasing numbers of due process complaints under Part B of IDEA, Congress amended IDEA in 1997 to require SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to make mediation available, at a minimum, whenever a due process complaint is filed. In 2004, Congress further amended section 615(e) of IDEA to allow parties to use mediation to resolve disputes involving any matter under IDEA, not just those matters that are the subject of a due process complaint, thus making mediation available at any time and on any matter under IDEA.

(This amendment also applies to Part C through section 639(a)(8) of IDEA.) In mediation, the goal is for a neutral third party to facilitate the resolution of disputes without the need for an adversarial hearing. Thus, mediation is more likely than due process hearings to foster positive relationships between families and educators and EIS providers (Government Accountability

Office, 2003).

Due Process Hearings. In due process hearings, IDEA requires that an impartial, knowledgeable decision-maker resolve disputes. While due process hearings are an important protection, they can be costly, time-consuming, and contentious, and they may damage relationships between the parties involved in the dispute.

Resolution Session. The 2004 amendments to IDEA added a requirement for a resolution session prior to a due process hearing. The resolution session requirement applies to all IDEA

Part B due process complaints and to those IDEA Part C due process complaints filed in a State that has elected to adopt the Part B-type due process hearing procedures in 34 CFR 303.440 through 303.449. Under section 615(f)(1)(B) of IDEA, the LEA (or in the case of IDEA Part C, under 34 CFR 303.442, the State lead agency) must convene a meeting with the parents and relevant members of the child’s individualized education program (IEP) or individualized family service plan (IFSP) team who have specific knowledge of the facts identified in the complaint.

This provides the parents and the agency responsible for providing service to a child with an opportunity to resolve the complaint and avoid a due process hearing.

Early Resolution Practices. In addition to these methods of dispute resolution specifically required under IDEA, there are a variety of informal or “early resolution” practices that can be used to resolve disputes at the school or district level and avoid time-consuming and costly litigation.

B-6

Each SEA and Part C State lead agency is responsible for annually reporting data on dispute resolution activity to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to help determine the extent to which States effectively implement dispute resolution practices. The data collected by

OSEP include information on the timeliness of State complaint reports and due process hearing decisions, the percentage of due process complaints that were resolved through settlement agreements, and mediations resulting in agreements.

An analysis of national data trends in dispute resolution conducted by the Center for Appropriate

Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) shows declines in processes, such as written

State complaints and due process complaints, and increases in the use of collaborative approaches, such as mediation and IEP facilitation (CADRE, 2017). However, OSEP’s most recent analysis of Annual Performance Reports (APRs) shows that States continue to fall short of their targets for agreement rates in resolution sessions. A survey of State officials indicated that a lack of public awareness about early resolution practices presents a challenge to expanding their use, which demonstrates a need for additional technical assistance (TA), dissemination of information, and coordination with parent organizations (Government

Accountability Office, 2014). OSEP-funded parent TA providers have noted that this lack of awareness is prevalent among vulnerable populations due to language, informational, or economic barriers.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate a

Center on Dispute Resolution (Center). This Center will provide TA to SEAs, Part C State lead agencies, and OSEP-funded parent centers to improve the implementation of all of the dispute resolution practices required under IDEA, along with any optional early resolution strategies that may be available. The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Increased capacity of SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to support local implementation of effective early resolution practices to resolve disputes and thereby decrease State complaints and due process complaints;

(b) Increased capacity of SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to collect, report, and use high-quality dispute resolution data;

B-7

(c) Increased body of knowledge on dispute prevention and exemplary dispute resolution practices to meet the dispute resolution needs of parents and families, including those from vulnerable populations who may be less likely to access dispute resolution due to language, informational, or economic barriers;

(d) Improved access for hearing officers to information on emerging issues related to special education and early intervention dispute resolution;

(e) Improved ability of SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to implement a range of dispute resolution options, including methods of dispute resolution required under IDEA and early resolution practices and to support SEAs and Part C State lead agencies in ensuring that dispute resolution options are not affected by administrative constraints (e.g., staffing or target agreement rates for mediation agreements and resolution sessions);

(f) Improved capacity of OSEP-funded parent centers to provide TA on the range of effective dispute resolution options;

(g) Increased knowledge of OSEP-funded parent centers, parents, and families about school choice as it relates to due process and procedural safeguards under IDEA; and

(h) An annual analysis of State and national trends and other data about dispute resolution to determine the extent to which SEAs and Part C State lead agencies have--

(i) Met the required timelines when resolving State complaints and issuing due process hearing decisions;

(ii) Used resolution meetings and mediation to successfully resolve disputes between parents and LEAs or EIS providers; and

(iii) Implemented effective methods of early dispute resolution.

In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will--

(1) Address gaps or weaknesses in State or local dispute resolution performance and compliance to meet the dispute resolution needs of SEA and Part C State lead agency

B-8 personnel, as well as the needs of parents and families, including those from vulnerable populations who may be less likely to access dispute resolution due to language, informational, or economic barriers. To meet this requirement the applicant must--

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of exemplary dispute resolution practices that will assist SEAs and

Part C State lead agencies in improving dispute resolution, especially practices that will assist agencies in meeting compliance and performance targets and implementing effective early resolution practices;

(ii) Present information about the current level of implementation of exemplary dispute resolution practices in SEAs and Part C State lead agencies, especially practices that will assist agencies in meeting compliance and performance targets and implementing effective early resolution practices; and

(iii) Present national, State, or local data on the financial and administrative burden of involvement in dispute resolution and discuss strategies for minimizing these burdens for all parties involved.

(2) Improve outcomes in dispute resolution compliance and performance for SEAs and Part C

State lead agencies and increase the implementation of early resolution practices.

(3) Improve communication between parents and families and education professionals to minimize conflict and increase the use of collaborative problem-solving and dispute resolution practices.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Project

Services,” how the proposed project will--

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will--

(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and information; and

(ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the intended recipients of the grant;

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide--

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

B-9

(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in this notice) by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;

(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;

Note: The following websites provide more information on logic models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.

(4) Be based on current research on effective dispute resolution practices, provide services that assist SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to comply with IDEA requirements, and draw from the knowledge base of effective early resolution evidence-based (as defined in this notice) practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe--

(i) The current research on effective dispute resolution practices, including early resolution

EBPs;

(ii) The current research about adult learning principles and implementation science that will inform the proposed TA; and

(iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;

(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--

(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base in special education dispute resolution;

B-10

(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,1 which must identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description of the products and services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected impact of those products and services under this approach;

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,2 which must identify--

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description of the products and services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected impact of those products and services under this approach; and

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the dispute resolution needs and readiness of potential

TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level; and

(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,3 which must identify--

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description of the products and services that the Center proposes

“Universal, general TA” means TA and information provided to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This category of TA also includes information or products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also considered universal, general TA.

“Targeted, specialized TA” means TA services based on needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively individualized. A relationship is established between the TA recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can also be considered targeted, specialized TA.

3 “Intensive, sustained TA” means TA services often provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA center staff and the TA recipient. “TA services” are defined as negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome. This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program, practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.

B-11 to make available, and the expected impact of those products and services under this approach;

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the dispute resolution needs and readiness of SEAs, Part C State lead agencies, and parent centers to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability of the SEAs, Part C State lead agencies, and parent centers to build capacity at the local school district or program level;

(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to build or enhance training systems related to special education dispute resolution that include professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching; and

(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the education system (e.g., SEAs, Part C State lead agencies, regional TA providers, parents and families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there are systems in place to support the use of effective dispute resolution practices, including early resolution EBPs;

(6) Develop products and implement services that are impartial and maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes;

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and

(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” include an evaluation plan for the project as described in the following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must describe: measures of progress in implementation, including the criteria for determining the extent to which the project’s products and services have met the goals for reaching its target population; measures of intended outcomes or results of the project’s activities in order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals or objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model, have been met.

B-12

The applicant must provide an assurance that, in designing the evaluation plan, it will--

(1) Designate, with the approval of the OSEP project officer, a project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to work in collaboration with the Center to Improve Program and Project Performance (CIP3),4 the project director, and the OSEP project officer on the following tasks:

(i) Revise, as needed, the logic model submitted in the application to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and outcomes and to reflect any changes or clarifications to the model discussed at the kick-off meeting;

(ii) Refine the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in the application consistent with the logic model (e.g., prepare evaluation questions about significant program processes and outcomes; develop quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit both the collection of progress data, including fidelity of implementation, as appropriate, and the assessment of project outcomes; and identify analytic strategies); and

(iii) Revise, as needed, the evaluation plan submitted in the application such that it clearly--

(A) Specifies the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions, suggests analytic strategies for those data, provides a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and includes staff assignments for completing the plan;

(B) Delineates the data expected to be available by the end of the second project year for use during the project’s evaluation (3+2 review) for continued funding described under the heading Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project; and

(C) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project officer, with the assistance of CIP3, as needed, to specify the performance measures to be addressed in the project’s

Annual Performance Report;

The major tasks of CIP3 are to guide, coordinate, and oversee the design of formative evaluations for every large discretionary investment (i.e., those awarded $500,000 or more per year and required to participate in the 3+2 process) in OSEP’s Technical Assistance and Dissemination; Personnel Development; Parent Training and Information Centers; and Educational Technology, Media, and Materials programs. The efforts of CIP3 are expected to enhance individual project evaluation plans by providing expert and unbiased TA in designing the evaluations with due consideration of the project’s budget. CIP3 does not function as a third-party evaluator.

B-13

(2) Cooperate with CIP3 staff in order to accomplish the tasks described in paragraph (1) of this section; and

(3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section and implementing the evaluation plan.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project

Resources,” how--

(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project’s intended outcomes;

(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management

Plan,” how--

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project’s intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project’s intended outcomes;

B-14

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must--

(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:

(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the grantee’s project director or other authorized representative;

(ii) A two and one-half day project directors’ conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;

(iii) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and

(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting during the last half of the second year of the project period;

(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project’s intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;

B-15

(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and

(5) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to TA recipients during the transition to this new award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.

Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:

In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), as well as--

(a) The recommendation of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary.

This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;

(b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and

(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project’s products and services and the extent to which the project’s products and services are aligned with the project’s objectives and likely to result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.

References:

Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE). (2017). Trends in dispute resolution under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Eugene, OR: CADRE. Retrieved from www.cadreworks.org/sites/default/files/TrendsinDisputeResolution%20DEC17.pdf.

Government Accountability Office. (2003). Numbers of formal disputes are generally low and

States are using mediation and other strategies to resolve conflicts (GAO Publication

No. 03-897). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Government Accountability Office. (2014). Improved performance measures could enhance oversight of dispute resolution (GAO Publication No. 14-390). Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office.

B-16

Definitions:

The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1:

Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project’s logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that demonstrates a rationale.

Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not.

Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbook:

(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).

(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes.

(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case (e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment.

B-17

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.

Moderate evidence means that there is evidence of effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a

“medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

(iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the

Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that--

(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;

(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version

2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and

(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites.

B-18

Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs

(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement.

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).

Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

(iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that--

(A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias (e.g., a study using regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group); and

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome.

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation (e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbook.

B-19

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program.

Strong evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “strong evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

(iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 of the

WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that--

(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;

(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version

2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook; and

(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites.

Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs

(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this requirement.

B-20

What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (WWC Handbook) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1

(incorporated by reference, see 34 CFR 77.2).