PKG00253782-instructions.pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202

FISCAL YEAR 2019

APPLICATION FOR NEW GRANTS UNDER THE

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA)

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ON STATE DATA COLLECTION

(CFDA 84.373)

APPLICATIONS FOR NEW AWARDS;

NATIONAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER

TO IMPROVE STATE CAPACITY TO COLLECT,

REPORT, ANALYZE, AND USE ACCURATE IDEA

PART B DATA

(CFDA 84.373Y)

DATED MATERIAL: OPEN IMMEDIATELY

CLOSING DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2019

FORM APPROVED—OMB NO. 1894-0006, EXP. DATE: 1/31/2021

http://www.ed.gov/

GRANT APPLICATION PACKAGE CFDA 84.373Y

CONTENTS

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

Federal Register Notices ....................................................................................................... B1

Notice of Final Priority ........................................................................................................ B2

Notice Inviting Applications ............................................................................................... B25

Grants.gov Submission Procedures and Tips for Applicants ............................................. B50

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

National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data (CFDA 84.373Y) ......................................... C2

Selection Criteria and Format for the Applications for New Awards— National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data (CFDA 84.373Y) Competition .................................. C15

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

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

Application Transmittal Instructions .................................................................................... E2

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) ............................................................ G6

Part II: Budget Information (Form 524) ............................................................................. G21

Part III: Application Narrative ............................................................................................ G27

Part IV: Assurances and Certifications .............................................................................. G28

Assurances—Non-Construction Programs ........................................................... G28

Certification Regarding Lobbying .......................................................................... G31

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities ........................................................................... G32

Part V: Additional Information ........................................................................................... G33

DUNS Number Instructions ................................................................................... G33

Grant Application Receipt Acknowledgement ........................................................ G33

Grant and Contract Funding Information ............................................................... G33

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 collection is 1894-0006. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 45 hours and 40 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, please contact the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Discretionary Grant Programs, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Potomac Center Plaza, room 5008C, Washington D.C. 20202-5076 or by phone at 202- 245-7542.

A1

APPLICANT LETTER

A2

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 on State Data Collection (CFDA 84.373) program—Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance on State Data Collection—National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data (CFDA No. 84.373Y).

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-50, 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 any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in either Portable Document Format (PDF) or Microsoft Word.

However, it is recommended that applicants upload files as read-only flattened PDFs.

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 E of this application package, Application Transmittal Instructions and Requirements for Intergovernmental Review.

Additional instructions for sending applications electronically are provided on page E-2, Application Forms and Instructions for Grants.gov Applications.

http://www.sam.gov/

A3

• MAXIMUM AWARD AMOUNT.

The competition included in this package has a maximum award amount. 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 competition included in this package limits the Part III Application Narrative to a recommended number of double-spaced pages. This recommended page limit 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, and screen shots 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/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html

• ABSOLUTE PRIORITY.

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

• 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 https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html

A4 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. 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.

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.

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

A5

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

B-1

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

B-2

NOTICE OF FINAL PRIORITY

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2019-OSERS-0001]

Final Priority and Requirements--Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program- -National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data

AGENCY:

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education.

ACTION:

Final priority and requirements.

[Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.373Y]

SUMMARY:

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority and requirements under the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program. The Assistant Secretary may use this priority and these requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2019 and later years. We take this action to focus attention on an identified national need to provide technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This center, CFDA number 84.373Y, will support States in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best analyze and use their data to establish and meet high expectations for each child with a disability and would customize its TA to meet each State’s specific needs.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

This priority and these requirements are effective September 11, 2019.

B-3

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, room 5025A, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7401. Email:

Richelle.Davis@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:

Purpose of Program:

Section 616 of the IDEA requires States to submit to the Department, and make available to the public, a State performance plan (SPP) and an annual performance report (APR) with data on how each State implements both Parts B and C of the IDEA to improve outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. Section 618 of the IDEA requires States to submit to the Department, and make available to the public, quantitative data on infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities who are receiving early intervention and special education services under IDEA. The purpose of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements under Sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA to collect, analyze, and report the data used to prepare the SPP/APR. Funding for the program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the Secretary the authority to reserve up to 1/2 of 1 percent of the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide TA activities, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA. The maximum amount the Secretary may reserve under this set-aside for any fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of inflation. Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review the data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information determined necessary for implementation of section 616 of IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements, which include the data collection and reporting requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. Additionally, Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 gives the Secretary authority to use funds reserved under section 611(c) to “carry out services and activities to improve data collection, coordination, quality, and use under Parts B and C of the IDEA.” Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018; Div. H, Title III of Public Law 115-141; 132 Stat.

745 (2018).

mailto:Richelle.Davis@ed.gov

B-4

Program Authority:

20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1442, and the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2018; Div. H, Title III of Public Law 115-141, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018; 132 Stat.

745 (2018).

Applicable Program Regulations:

34 CFR 300.702.

We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements for this program in the Federal Register on March 6, 2019 (84 FR 8054) (the NPP). The NPP contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular priority and requirements.

There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final priority and requirements (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this notice. The most significant of these changes, as discussed below, is the addition of an indirect cost rate cap to the final requirements.

Public Comment:

In response to our invitation in the NPP, 12 parties submitted comments on the proposed priority and requirements.

Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not address comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priority and requirements.

Analysis of Comments and Changes:

An analysis of the comments and changes in the priority and requirements since publication of the NPP follows. OSERS received comments on a number of specific topics from the proposed cap on the maximum allowable indirect cost rate to the topics for technical assistance. Each topic is addressed below.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Comments: One commenter specifically expressed support for the proposed center, and a number of other commenters noted the positive impact of the valuable TA they received from centers previously funded under this program.

B-5

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with the commenters.

Centers, like the proposed center, funded under this program provide necessary and valuable TA to the States.

Changes: None.

Comments: None.

Discussion: As discussed in the NPP, the Department is particularly concerned about maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of this investment. Given the purpose of the program, we believe a critical lever to meeting this goal is to ensure that TA is appropriately targeted to recipients with a known and ongoing need for support in reporting, analyzing, and using high quality IDEA data. As such, the Department is adding a requirement that applicants describe their proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a particular focus on meeting the needs of States with ongoing data quality issues.

Changes: The final priority includes a requirement for applicants to describe their proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients.

INDIRECT COST RATE

Comments: A number of commenters agreed with the purpose of the indirect cost cap, which is to maximize funds that go directly to provide TA to States to improve their capacity to meet the IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. These same commenters, however, believed that setting a cap on indirect costs would not achieve this goal and that it may negatively impact the program. They noted that indirect costs support a wide variety of purchases and activities, including, but not limited to, facilities, information technology (IT) services, and support personnel. Further, a subset of these commenters stated that a cap on indirect cost rates would limit competition, reduce the number of qualified applicants, and likely degrade the quality of TA services provided to States. Specifically, some of these commenters stated that a cap could make it cost prohibitive for small businesses to compete for the grant, as they could not absorb any unrecovered indirect costs. Additionally, it would make it harder for applicants to attract and retain qualified personnel, thus depressing the quality of services provided to States.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the stakeholder input it received in response to the specific directed question on the indirect cost cap proposal but disagrees that it would have a negative impact on the program. Regarding potential impact, the Department has done an analysis of the indirect cost rates for all current technical assistance centers funded under the Technical Assistance and Dissemination and Technical Assistance on State Data Collection programs as well as other grantees that are large, midsize and small businesses and small nonprofit organizations and has found that, in general, total indirect costs charged on these grants by these entities were at or below 35 percent of total direct costs. We recognize that, B-6 dependent on the structure of the investment and activities, the modified total direct cost (MTDC) base could be much smaller than the total direct cost, which would imply a higher indirect cost rate than those calculated here. The Department arrived at a 40 percent rate to address some of that variation. Such a change accounts for a 12 percent variance between TDC and MTDC. However, we note that, in the absence of a cap, certain entities would likely charge indirect cost rates in excess of 40 percent of MTDC. Based on our review, it appears that those entities would likely be larger for-profit and nonprofit organizations, but these organizations appear to be outliers when compared to the majority of other large businesses as well as the entirety of OSEP’s grantees. Setting an indirect cost rate cap of 40 percent is in line with the majority of applicants’ existing negotiated rates with the cognizant Federal agency.

Therefore, we do not believe that the cap we are setting in these final requirements would negatively impact the majority of entities’ ability to recover indirect costs.

Regarding commenters’ concerns that a cap on indirect costs would limit competition and reduce the number of qualified applicants, it is not clear how a cap would do so. The cap included in the final requirements does not limit the pool of eligible applicants because most entities’ indirect cost rates are below the cap we are setting. Further, regarding the impact on the quality of TA services provided to States, we have no information indicating a direct correlation between an entity’s negotiated indirect cost rate and its ability to attract and retain qualified personnel and thus their ability to provide high-quality TA services to States. Based on our analysis, there are many OSEP grantees that are able to effectively carry out project activities required by their individual grants with negotiated indirect cost rates under the cap included in the final requirements. Further, the Department’s peer review process is intended to assess the ability of various applicants to provide high-quality TA to States. Finally, we do not believe the cap we are setting in these final requirements would result in an amount of unrecovered costs that would deter most prospective applicants. The prospective applicants could look at the indirect cost cap prior to applying and either choose to absorb unrecovered costs or opt not to apply.

In light of these considerations, we have determined that placing an indirect cost cap that is the lesser of the percentage approved by the grantee’s cognizant Federal agency and 40 percent for this priority is appropriate as it maximizes the availability of funds for the primary TA purposes of this priority, which is to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA and to ultimately benefit programs serving children with disabilities.

Changes: Paragraph (d)(5) of the final requirements now includes an indirect cost cap that is the lesser of the percentage approved by the grantee’s cognizant Federal agency and a cap of 40 percent on the reimbursement of indirect costs.

B-7

Comments: A number of commenters expressed concerns that many of the most qualified organizations could not compete because once indirect cost rates are set by, and audited by, a cognizant agency, they cannot be lowered for a single project.

Discussion: Our analysis of indirect cost rates took into account 2 CFR 200.414(c)(1), which allows a Federal awarding agency to use an indirect cost rate different from the negotiated rate when required by Federal statute or regulation or when approved by a Federal awarding agency head based on documented justification when the Federal awarding agency implements, and makes publicly available, the policies, procedures, and general decision making criteria that their programs will follow to seek and justify deviations from negotiated rates. Federal discretionary grantees have historically been reimbursed for indirect costs at the rate that each grantee negotiates with its cognizant Federal agency, and we believe that use of the negotiated rate is appropriate for most grants in most circumstances. However, because funding for this program comes from funds reserved by the Department that would otherwise be allocated to States under Part B (which applies a restricted indirect cost rate to State grantees), we determined that using an indirect cost rate different from the negotiated rate was appropriate since it would maximize the funds available to provide TA to States to improve their capacity to meet the IDEA data collection and reporting requirements.

Changes: None.

Comments: Numerous commenters expressed concerns that the implementation of an indirect cost rate limit would not impact each vendor equally or result in equal savings to the government, as categories of indirect costs vary across vendors.

Discussion: We appreciate the commenters’ concerns and recognize that a cap on the indirect cost rate, although it would apply equally to all applicants, may be more difficult for particular entities to meet, particularly those with high negotiated indirect cost rates. However, as noted above, our analysis indicates that the rate established in the final requirements would not appear to create unreasonable burdens for many applicants. Further, it was not the Department’s intention to institute a limit on the reimbursement of indirect costs by specific cost category, but rather to apply it as a percentage of MTDC. We have clarified in the final requirements that the limit applies to MTDC as defined in 2 CFR 200.68. As the MTDC is applied to the total direct costs of the grant, each grantee’s MTDC will include direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each subaward, thus ensuring equity across vendors.

Changes: The final requirement clarifies that the 40 percent maximum indirect cost rate is applied to MTDC as defined in 2 CFR 200.68.

Comments: Two commenters provided alternatives to setting a cap. One commenter proposed gauging competitiveness based on a vendor’s total price in combination with the proposed

B-8 quality and level of effort. A second commenter suggested that the program add a cost share requirement in lieu of an indirect cost cap. The commenter suggested that a modest cost share may not impact vendor economics to the same degree as a cap on indirect costs.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters’ suggestions. Regarding gauging competitiveness based on a vendor’s total price in combination with the proposed quality and level of effort, this may represent a viable approach for contract procurement, but does not lend itself to making discretionary grant awards. Regarding the second commenter’s recommendation to add a cost share requirement, the nature of the funding source for this program does not allow for a cost sharing requirement and, in addition, could have the unintended consequence of eliminating small businesses.

Changes: None.

Comments: One commenter advocated for the Department to provide clarification and guidance to States on what should be covered by indirect cost rates and how to determine appropriate indirect cost rates. Additionally, a second commenter suggested the Department allow States the flexibility to determine and justify funds allocated to indirect costs.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters’ suggestions. We were not proposing a cap on the indirect cost rates for State formula grants. Clarification or guidance on what is or is not an indirect cost can be obtained from the indirect cost office of the applicant’s cognizant Federal agency.

Changes: None.

DATA COLLECTION UNDER IDEA

Comments: A commenter recommended that the Department collect data on students who identify in a gender-neutral category, use a different language/communication system, or are born in the United States but do not speak English as their first language, and on their socioeconomic status, parental English fluency, and parents’ highest educational level.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comment; however, this priority does not address the data collection and reporting requirements for States under IDEA. The EDFacts information collection package (OMB control number 1850-0925), which would more squarely address these issues, was published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2019 (84 FR 13913). It addressed the IDEA Section 618 Part B data collection requirements and was open for public comment from April 8, 2019 to May 8, 2019.

Changes: None.

SIGNIFICANT DISPROPORTIONALITY

B-9

Comments: Some commenters noted that the proposed center did not include anything in its scope or focus related to TA on significant disproportionality. Commenters spoke to the continued need for data-related TA on significant disproportionality.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters’ concerns. At this time, however, the Department does not wish to emphasize specific IDEA sections 618 and 616 Part B data collection and reporting requirements that the proposed center would be required to address.

Applicants will be required to demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy initiatives (e.g., significant disproportionality) about IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements and knowledge of State and local data collection systems, as appropriate. The Center would be expected to provide TA designed to meet the needs of States. Therefore, to the extent that particular TA recipients require support for any of the sections 618 and 616 Part B data collection or reporting requirements, the Center would provide the needed TA.

Changes: None.

INVOLVEMENT OF THE STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) IN TA EFFORTS

Comments: Some commenters requested that we require the proposed center to work with the SEA when providing TA to local educational agencies (LEAs) within the State in order to ensure TA aligns with the State’s requirements.

Discussion: The Department agrees with commenters on the need to include SEAs when TA is provided to an LEA within a State. We added language to the priority to clarify that TA to LEAs must occur in collaboration with the SEA.

Changes: We added language to paragraph (d) of the list of expected outcomes in the priority to require the Center to collaborate with the SEA in providing TA to LEAs.

CROSS-STATE COLLABORATION

Comments: A number of commenters requested further clarification about expectations for cross-State collaboration, and three commenters suggested the Department require the proposed center to support a State data manager advisory board.

Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenters regarding the importance of cross- State collaboration. Expectations for such collaboration were already included in paragraph (c) in the list of expected outcomes in the proposed priority, which the Department believes fully addresses the commenters’ concerns.

Consequently, we do not believe an advisory board is necessary, and anticipate that the funded center would engage established data groups to determine the data manager needs as appropriate.

B-10

Changes: None.

TARGETED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Comment: One commenter recommended expanding the provision of targeted TA to States.

Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenter regarding the continued need to provide additional targeted TA to States. Targeted TA to groups of States on specific data processes and data collections is not only valuable to the State but also an efficient way to provide TA.

Changes: We revised what is now paragraph (f)(7) of the requirements to clarify that 50 percent of the grant award must go to support both targeted and intensive TA to States.

DIVISION OF ACTIVITIES BETWEEN 84.373Y AND 84.373Z

Comment: Several commenters voiced a concern with splitting the responsibilities of providing TA on the IDEA Part B preschool special education data between the proposed center and the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Early Childhood IDEA Data, CFDA number 84.373Z. The commenters stated that splitting the responsibilities regarding the IDEA Part B preschool special education data across the two centers may require Part B data managers to work with both centers in order to improve the quality of their IDEA Part B preschool special education data.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters’ concerns. The Department believes that including IDEA Part B preschool special education data in the scope of this center makes sense for some of the IDEA data and including IDEA Part B preschool special education data in the scope of the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Early Childhood IDEA Data, CFDA number 84.373Z, is appropriate for other IDEA data.

The Department believes that including the IDEA Part B preschool special education data required under IDEA section 618 (including the section 618, Part B Child Count and Educational Environments data) and those preschool data required under IDEA section 616 for indicators in the IDEA Part B State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) that solely use the EDFacts data as the source for reporting, such as Indicator B-5 (Preschool Least Restrictive Environment), within the scope of this center will allow a State to obtain TA on IDEA data submitted via EDFacts from a single center. This structure that specifies more distinct portfolios of the centers (i.e., less overlap) will make it easier for States to work with the two centers.

Since a State Part B data manager plays a significant role in submitting the IDEA data on children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 and children with disabilities ages 6 through 21 via EDFacts, the data manager will be able to access TA on these data through a single center.

B-11

Finally, this will allow States to receive TA on IDEA data-related topics and analyses that are supported by and use IDEA section 618 data submitted via EDFacts.

The Department believes that including the IDEA Part B preschool special education data required under IDEA Section 616 for Indicators B-7 (Preschool Outcomes) and B-12 (Early Childhood Transition) within the scope for the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Early Childhood IDEA Data, CFDA number 84.373Z, is appropriate because it will facilitate better linkages between the Part C data and the IDEA Part B preschool special education data on children with disabilities and the inclusion of the Part C and IDEA Part B preschool special education data in the Early Childhood Integrated Data Systems (ECIDS). This will allow for enhanced opportunities to improve the quality of data States are collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using related to children’s transition from the Part C early intervention program to the Part B preschool special education program. In addition, due to the similarities in the type of data required under IDEA section 616 for Indicator C-3 (Infant and Toddler Outcomes) in the Part C SPP/APR and Indicator B-7 (Preschool Outcomes) in the Part B SPP/APR, it is more efficient to have the center funded under CFDA number 373Z provide TA on these data.

Changes: We have revised the purpose of the priority to include TA on the section 618, Part B Child Count and Educational Environments data for children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 and preschool data required under IDEA section 616 for indicators in the IDEA Part B SPP/APR that solely use the EDFacts data as the source for reporting, such as Indicator B-5 (Preschool Least Restrictive Environment), in the scope of this center.

DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES

Comments: One commenter stated that the definition of evidence-based practices (EBPs) used in the proposed requirements does not align with the highest level of available evidence, and that EBP is a dynamic process that requires ongoing evaluation.

Discussion: We understood the commenter to be recommending a higher level of evidence than required in the proposed requirements. We agree with the commenter regarding the importance of ensuring the provision of effective TA to States; however, we do not agree that the definition of EBPs used in the proposed requirements is insufficient. We are continually reviewing the effectiveness of services provided by our federally funded TA centers. We believe that the definition of EBPs used in the proposed requirements--the definition in 34 CFR 77.1--is well established and provides the necessary standards against which high-quality services may be judged for the purposes of making an award and monitoring the implementation of TA to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under Part B of IDEA.

Changes: None.

B-12

FINAL PRIORITY:

Technical Assistance on State Data Collection--National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data.

Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data (Data Center).

The Data Center will provide TA to help States better meet current and future IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements, improve data quality, and analyze and use section 616, section 618, and other IDEA data (e.g., State Supplemental Survey-IDEA) to identify and address programmatic strengths and areas for improvement. This Data Center will focus on providing TA on collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using Part B data on children with disabilities ages 3 through 21 required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, including Part B data on children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 required under section 618 of IDEA for the Part B Child Count and Educational Environments data collection and under section 616 for indicators in the IDEA Part B SPP/APR that solely use the EDFacts data as the source for reporting, such as Indicator B-5 (Preschool Least Restrictive Environment). However, the Data Center will not provide TA on Part B data required under section 616 of IDEA for Indicators B7 (Preschool Outcomes) and B12 (Early Childhood Transition); TA on collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using Part B data associated with children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 for these indicators will be provided by the National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood Data Systems, CFDA number 84.373Z.

The Data Center must be designed to achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Improved State data infrastructure by coordinating and promoting communication and effective data governance strategies among relevant State offices, including SEAs, LEAs, and schools to improve the quality of IDEA data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;

(b) Increased capacity of States to submit accurate and timely data, to enhance current State validation procedures, and to prevent future errors in State-reported IDEA Part B data;

(c) Improved capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA by addressing personnel training needs, developing effective tools (e.g., training modules) and resources (e.g., documentation of State data processes), and providing in-person and virtual opportunities for cross-State collaboration about data collection

B-13 and reporting requirements that States can use to train personnel in schools, programs, agencies, and districts;

(d) Improved capacity of SEAs and LEAs, in collaboration with SEAs, to collect, analyze, and use both SEA and LEA IDEA data to identify programmatic strengths and areas for improvement, address root causes of poor performance towards outcomes, and evaluate progress towards outcomes;

(e) Improved IDEA data validation by using results from data reviews conducted by the Department to work with States to generate tools that can be used by States to lead to improvements in the validity and reliability of data required by IDEA and enable States to communicate accurate data to local consumers (e.g., parents, school boards, the general public); and

(f) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part B data.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority:

Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority:

Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority:

Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.

However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

B-14

FINAL REQUIREMENTS

The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for this program. We may apply these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

Requirements:

Applicants must--

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

(1) Address the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements and to increase their capacity to analyze and use section 616 and section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement. To meet this requirement the applicant must--

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy initiatives about IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements and knowledge of State and local data collection systems, as appropriate;

(ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to demonstrate the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements and use section 616 and section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement; and

(iii) Describe how SEAs and LEAs are currently meeting IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements and using section 616 and section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of project services,” how the proposed project will--

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

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

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

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

B-15

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;

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

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

(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidenced-based1 practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe--

(i) The current research on the capacity of SEAs and LEAs to report and use data, specifically section 616 and section 618 data, as a means of both improving data quality and identifying strengths and areas for improvement; and

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

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

(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements and SEA and LEA analysis and use of sections 616 and 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement;

1 For the purposes of this priority, “evidence-based” means the proposed project component is supported, at a minimum, by evidence that demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), where a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

B-16

(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,2 which must identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach;

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,3 which must identify--

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive of the products and services under this approach; and

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level; and

(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive4, sustained TA, which must identify--

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach; and

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEA and LEA personnel to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the SEA and LEA levels;

2 “Universal, general TA” means TA and information provided to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff.