PKG00253807-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

EARLY CHILDHOOD IDEA DATA

(CFDA 84.373Z)

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 84.373Z

CONTENTS

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

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

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

Notice Inviting Applications ............................................................................................... B27

Grants.gov Submission Procedures and Tips for Applicants ............................................. B54

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

National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Early Childhood IDEA Data (CFDA 84.373Z) .......................... 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 Early Childhood IDEA Data (CFDA 84.373Z) Competition ................... C16

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 Early Childhood IDEA Data (CFDA No.

84.373Z).

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-54, 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.

http://www.sam.gov/

A3

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

• 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.

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

A4

• 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. 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-0075]

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

[Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number 84.373Z.]

AGENCY:

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

ACTION:

Final priority and requirements.

SUMMARY:

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a funding 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 requirements under Parts C and B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This center, CFDA Number 84.373Z, will support States in collecting, reporting, and determining how to best analyze and use their data to establish and meet high expectations for all people with disabilities 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:

Meredith Miceli, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, room 5141, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6028. Email:

Meredith.Miceli@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. 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, 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 the 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 the 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 Pub. Law 115-141; 132 Stat. 745 (2018).

mailto:Meredith.Miceli@ed.gov

B-4

Program Authority:

20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), and 1442; Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2018; Div. H, Title III of Pub. 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 8059) (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, 14 parties submitted comments on the proposed priority and requirements.

Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. 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: Several commenters were supportive of the notice of proposed priority and requirements for this program as it was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2019.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters’ support.

B-5

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 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, 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

B-6 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 their 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 technical assistance 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.

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: We considered this requirement based on 2 CFR 200.414(c)(1), which allows a Federal awarding agency to use an indirect cost rate different from the negotiated rate when

B-7 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 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 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

B-8 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.

TOPICS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Comment: One commenter highlighted the need for the proposed center to support States in their data collection initiatives and to give States the leeway to identify issues that are particular to the State and its population.

Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenter, and believes that the center is already designed to support this objective. This center will design and provide TA on collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using high-quality IDEA Part C early intervention data and IDEA Part B preschool special education data based on needs identified by the States. States will have the opportunity to engage in TA with the center in various ways (i.e., universal TA, targeted TA, and intensive TA). Through these different levels of TA, this center will be able to meet specific State requests for assistance related to collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using high-quality IDEA Part C early intervention data and IDEA Part B preschool special education data.

Changes: None.

POTENTIAL DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS

Comment: One commenter voiced a concern that the resources generated by the proposed center may overlap with the resources provided by other Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded TA centers. They highlighted the importance of clarifying each entity’s role and

B-9 reducing duplication of services to help States to make more efficient use of resources and cut costs.

Discussion: The Department agrees any overlap in the scopes of TA centers should be minimized and duplication should be avoided. The Department has redefined the scope of this center, as well as the scope of the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data, CFDA number 84.373Y, in order to minimize unnecessary overlap. Where similar topics are within scope for multiple TA centers, we believe that effective communication and collaboration among these centers will prevent duplication and assist States in efficiently identifying, accessing, and using resources provided by these centers.

Changes: We have revised the purpose of priority to remove TA on the section 618, Part B Child Count and Educational Environments data for children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 from the scope of this center. This TA will be provided by the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data, CFDA number 84.373Y. In addition, we revised paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(F) of the requirements to require applicants to propose a plan for collaborating and coordinating with the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data, and other Department-funded TA investments. Applicants must propose how they will align complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and services with other TA centers to meet the purposes of this priority and to develop and implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a State. 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.

SIGNIFICANT DISPROPORTIONALITY

Comment: One commenter noted the States’ continued need for data-related TA on significant disproportionality.

Discussion: States typically use Part B Child Count, Part B Educational Environment, and Part B Discipline data to analyze significant disproportionality. Since these data are outside of the scope of this priority, this center will not provide TA on this topic.

Changes: None.

DIVISION OF ACTIVITIES BETWWEEN 84.373Y AND 84.373Z

Comment: One commenter 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 IDEA Part B Data, CFDA number 84.373Y. The commenter stated that splitting

B-10 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 commenter’s 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 IDEA Part B Data, CFDA number 84.373Y, is appropriate for other IDEA data.

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 this center 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 this center provide TA on these 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 the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data, CFDA number 84.373Y will allow States to obtain TA on IDEA data submitted via EDFacts from a single center. 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. 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.

Changes: None.

B-11

SUPPORT FOR LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES

Comment: One commenter asked how this funding opportunity will benefit students from low income families.

Discussion: As specified by 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. This center’s primary audiences and recipients of TA will be State level staff who work with the IDEA Part B preschool special education programs and IDEA Part C early intervention programs. This center will not provide direct services to children with disabilities. This center will facilitate, support, and encourage the States use of data to improve IDEA program for all infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities served under IDEA.

Changes: None.

DATA COLLECTION UNDER IDEA

Comment: 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.

DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES

Comment: 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

B-12 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 Parts B and C of IDEA.

Changes: None.

FUNDS FOR TARGETED AND INTENSIVE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Comment: None.

Discussion: As a result of our further review of the proposed priority and requirements and public comments received for the two notices of proposed priority under the TA on State Data Collection program published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2019, we realized that the requirement to use 50 percent of the funds for intensive, sustained TA needed to be updated to align with the requirement in the priority establishing the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data, CFDA number 84.373Y. The Department believes that aligning the two priorities, whenever possible, will allow for more efficient collaborations and will allow the centers funded under these two priorities to provide a clear and seamless set of TA services related to collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using high-quality IDEA data on infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities, birth through age 21, to States.

Changes: We have changed the requirement to use 50 percent of the funds for intensive, sustained TA to a requirement to use 50 percent of funds for targeted and intensive TA to States.

FINAL PRIORITY:

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

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

The Center will focus on providing TA on collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using Part C data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA and Part B data on children with disabilities, ages 3 through 5, required under section 616 of IDEA for those indicators that are not solely based on IDEA section 618 data (e.g., Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicators B7 (Preschool Children with Improved Outcomes) and B12 (Transition Between Part C and Part B). The Center will provide TA to (1) improve States’ capacity to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part C data (including IDEA section 618 Part C data and IDEA section 616 Part C

B-13 data) and IDEA Part B preschool special education data; and (2) enhance, streamline, and integrate statewide, child-level early childhood data systems (including Part C and Part B preschool special education data systems) to address critical policy questions that will facilitate program improvement, improve compliance accountability, and improve outcomes or results for children served under Part C and Part B preschool special education programs. These Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data systems must allow the States to: (1) effectively and efficiently respond to all IDEA-related data submission requirements (e.g., Part C section 616 and 618 data and Part B preschool special education data); (2) respond to critical policy questions that will facilitate program improvement and compliance accountability;

and (3) comply with applicable privacy requirements, including the confidentiality requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA, the Privacy Rule under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (45 CFR part 160 and subparts A and E of part 164), and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and its regulations at 34 CFR part 99.

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

(a) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part C data (including IDEA section 616 Part C data and section 618 Part C data);

(b) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part B preschool special education data;

(c) Increased number of States that use their Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data system to answer critical State-determined policy questions to drive program improvement, improve results for children with disabilities, and improve compliance accountability;

(d) Increased number of States with integrated or linked Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data;

(e) Increased number of States that use linked or integrated early childhood data to improve program compliance and accountability;

(f) Increased number of States with data system integration plans that allow for the linking of Part C and Part B preschool special education data as well as linking to other statewide longitudinal and early learning data systems and that comply with all applicable privacy laws;

(g) Increased capacity of States to implement and document Part C and Part B preschool special education data management policies and procedures and data system integration activities and to develop a sustainability plan to continue this data management and data system integration work in the future; and

B-14

(h) Increased capacity of States to address personnel training needs to meet the Part C and Part B preschool special education data collection and reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA through development of effective tools (e.g., training modules) and resources (e.g., new Part C Data Managers resources), as well as providing opportunities for in-person and virtual cross-State collaboration about Part C data (required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA) and Part B preschool special education data collection and reporting requirements that States can use to train personnel in local programs and agencies.

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)).

FINAL REQUIREMENTS

The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of 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--

B-15

(1) Address State challenges associated with early childhood data management and data system integration, including implementing early childhood data system integration and improvements; enhancing and streamlining Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data systems to respond to critical policy questions; using ECIDS for program improvement and compliance accountability for Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education programs; and reporting high-quality IDEA Part C data (including IDEA section 616 Part C data and section 618 Part C data) and IDEA Part B preschool special education data to the Department and the public. To meet this requirement the applicant must--

(i) Present applicable national, State, or local data demonstrating the challenges of States to implement effective early childhood data management policies and procedures and data system integration activities, including integrating early childhood data systems across IDEA programs, other early learning programs, and other educational programs for school-aged students; linking Part C and Part B preschool special education program data; and using their Part C and Part B preschool special education data systems to respond to critical State-determined policy questions for program improvement and compliance accountability;

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational and technical issues and policy initiatives relating to early childhood data management and data system integration, data use, data privacy, Part C IDEA sections 616 and 618 data, Part B preschool special education data, and Part C and Part B preschool special education data systems; and

(iii) Present information about the current level of implementation of integrating or linking Part C and Part B preschool special education data systems; integrating or linking Part C and/or Part B preschool special education data systems with other early learning data systems; using Part C and Part B preschool special education data systems to respond to critical State-determined policy questions; and collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using high-quality IDEA Part C data (including IDEA section 616 Part C data and section 618 Part C data) and IDEA Part B preschool special education data; and

(2) Improve early childhood data management policies and procedures and data system integration activities used to collect, report, and analyze high-quality Part C and Part B preschool special education data; to integrate or link Part C and Part B preschool special education data systems as well as integrate or link these data with data on children participating in other early learning programs and data on school-aged children; and to develop and use robust early childhood data systems to answer critical State-determined policy questions and indicate the likely magnitude or importance of the improvements.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of project services,”…