[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41012-41020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14072]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection--IDEA Data Management Center
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice
inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2020 for an
IDEA Data Management Center, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) number 84.373M. This Center will respond to State needs as
States integrate their Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) Part B data required to meet the data collection requirements in
section 616 and section 618 of IDEA, including information collected
through the IDEA State Supplemental Survey, into their longitudinal
data systems. This will improve the capacity of States to collect,
report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part B data to establish and
meet high expectations for each child with a disability. The Data
Management Center will help States address challenges with data
management procedures and data systems architecture and better meet
current and future IDEA Part B data collection and reporting
requirements. This notice relates to the approved information
collection under OMB control number 1894-0006.
DATES:
Applications Available: July 8, 2020.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 24, 2020.
ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an
application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to
Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bae, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5016C, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington,
DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-8272. Email: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the
Secretary the authority to reserve not more than \1/2\ of 1 percent of
the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide
TA activities authorized under section 616(i), where needed, to improve
the
[[Page 41013]]
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 (from funds reserved under section
611(c)), 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,
the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act,
2019; and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 give the
Secretary authority to use funds reserved under section 611(c) to
``administer and carry out other services and activities to improve
data collection, coordination, quality, and use under parts B and C of
the IDEA.'' Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2019; Div. B, Title III of Public Law 115-245; 132 Stat. 3100
(2018). Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020; Div. A, Title
III of Public Law 116-94; 133 Stat. 2590 (2019).
Priority: This priority is from the notice of final priority and
requirements (NFP) for this program published elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register.
Background
The purpose of this priority is to establish a TA center to provide
TA to improve States' capacity to collect, report, analyze, and use
high-quality IDEA Part B data (including IDEA section 618 Part B data
and section 616 Part B data) by enhancing, streamlining, and
integrating their IDEA Part B data into the State's longitudinal data
systems.\1\ The Data Management Center's work will comply with the
privacy and confidentiality protections in the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and IDEA. The Data Management Center
will not provide the Department with access to child-level data and
will further ensure that such data is de-identified, as defined in 34
CFR 99.31(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A State's longitudinal data system is a State-managed
repository of longitudinal, linked, unit record data with
connections across programs and sectors to support a comprehensive,
integrated view of students, schools, and programs, and may also
refer to other statewide data systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A majority of States have State longitudinal data systems, but,
until recently, very few of those systems integrated IDEA Part B data.
Integrating State longitudinal data systems with IDEA Part B data is a
complex issue. Specifically, in the IDEA State Supplemental Survey in
school year (SY) 2015-16, only 18 of 60 Part B reporting entities
responded that all their special education data was in their statewide
longitudinal data system, rising to 23 Part B reporting entities in SY
2018-19. Therefore, many Part B reporting entities are still not
integrating their IDEA Part B data with their States' longitudinal data
systems. This lack of integration reduces States' ability both to make
full use of their data and to meet changing reporting needs.
States are seeing the value of integrating IDEA Part B data into
their State longitudinal data systems. Doing so allows States to
standardize data collected across programs, assists in meeting Federal
reporting requirements, provides additional information on the
participation in other programs by children with disabilities, and
supports program improvement.
Currently, most students with disabilities are educated in the same
settings as students without disabilities; however, the majority of
States continue to separate disability and special education related
data from other data collected on students (e.g., demographics,
assessment data). Some States are using separate data collections to
meet the reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA
(e.g., discipline, assessment, educational environments) rather than
including all data elements needed for Federal reporting in their State
longitudinal data systems. At the same time, various programs,
districts, and State educational agencies (SEAs) are using different
collection processes to gather data for their required data
submissions, resulting in different degrees of reliability in the data
collected.
These situations hinder the States' capacity both to collect and
report valid and reliable data on children with disabilities to the
Secretary and to the public, which is specifically required by IDEA
sections 616(b)(2)(B)(i), 616(b)(2)(C)(ii), and 618(a), and to meet
IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements under sections
616 and 618 of IDEA.
States with fragmented data systems are also more likely to have
missing or duplicate data. For example, if a State collects and
maintains data on disciplinary removals of students with disabilities
in a special education data system but maintains data on the
demographics of all students in another data system, the State may not
be able to accurately match all data on disciplinary removals with the
demographic data needed to meet IDEA Part B data collection and
reporting requirements.
In addition, States with fragmented data systems often lack the
capacity to cross-validate related data elements. For example, if the
data on the type of statewide assessment in which students with
disabilities participate is housed in one database and the grade in
which students are enrolled is housed in another, the State may not be
able to accurately match the assessment data to the grade-level data to
meet the Federal reporting requirements, including IDEA Part B
reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA.
Finally, the demand from States for support from the currently
funded Data Management Center to assist them in integrating their IDEA
Part B data within the States' longitudinal data system far exceeds the
number of States that could be served by the current center. Ten States
have received support from the current center while 28 additional
States have indicated interest in integrating their IDEA Part B data
with their State longitudinal data systems. In addition to the interest
in integrating data, about 10 percent of States reported to the
National Center for Education Statistics through the State longitudinal
data program that they do not yet have non-EDFacts special education
reporting and are interested in, or are working towards, this
functionality. About one-third of States reported that they do not yet
have IDEA Part B data integrated into their systems and are interested
in or are working on developing this functionality.
In addition, this priority includes an indirect cost cap that is
the lesser of the grantee's actual indirect costs as determined by the
grantee's negotiated indirect cost rate agreement with its cognizant
Federal agency and 40 percent of the grantee's modified total direct
cost (MTDC) base. We believe this cap 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 Part B of IDEA and to ultimately
benefit programs serving
[[Page 41014]]
children with disabilities. The Department has done an analysis of the
indirect cost rates for all current TA 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 (TDC). We recognize that, dependent on the structure of the
investment and activities, the MTDC base could be much smaller than the
TDC, 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. This would account 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 analysis, it appears that those
entities would likely be 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 the Office of
Special Education Program's (OSEP's) grantees. Setting an indirect cost
rate cap of 40 percent would be in line with the majority of
applicants' existing negotiated rates with the cognizant Federal
agency.
This priority aligns with two priorities from the Secretary's Final
Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant
Programs, published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR
9096): Priority 2: Promoting Innovation and Efficiency, Streamlining
Education With an Increased Focus on Improving Student Outcomes, and
Providing Increased Value to Students and Taxpayers; and Priority 5:
Meeting the Unique Needs of Students and Children With Disabilities
and/or Those With Unique Gifts and Talents.
Awards under this competition must be made and operated in a manner
consistent with nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S.
Constitution and the Federal civil rights laws.
Absolute Priority: For FY 2020 and any subsequent year in which we
make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this
competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.
This priority is:
IDEA Data Management Center.
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to
establish and operate an IDEA Data Management Center (Data Management
Center). The Data Management Center will respond to State needs as
States integrate their IDEA Part B data required to meet the data
collection requirements in section 616 and section 618 of IDEA,
including information collected through the IDEA State Supplemental
Survey, into their longitudinal data systems. This will improve the
capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality
IDEA Part B data to establish and meet high expectations for each child
with a disability. The Data Management Center will help States address
challenges with data management procedures and data systems
architecture and better meet current and future IDEA Part B data
collection and reporting requirements. The Data Management Center's
work will comply with the privacy and confidentiality protections in
FERPA and IDEA. The Data Management Center will not provide the
Department with access to child-level data and will further ensure that
such data is de-identified, as defined in 34 CFR 99.31(b)(1).
The Data Management Center must be designed to achieve, at a
minimum, the following expected outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of States to integrate IDEA Part B data
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA within their longitudinal
data systems;
(b) Increased use of IDEA Part B data within States by developing
products to allow States to report their special education data to
various stakeholders (e.g., policymakers, school personnel, local and
State school boards, local educational agency (LEA) administrators,
researchers, charter school authorizers, parents and advocates, Indian
Tribes and Tribal organizations) through their longitudinal data
systems;
(c) Increased number of States that use data governance and data
management procedures to increase their capacity to meet the IDEA Part
B reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
(d) Increased capacity of States to utilize their State
longitudinal data systems to collect, report, analyze, and use high-
quality IDEA Part B data (including data required under sections 616
and 618 of IDEA); and
(e) Increased capacity of States to use their State longitudinal
data systems to analyze high-quality data on the participation and
outcomes of children with disabilities across various Federal programs
(e.g., IDEA, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, as amended (ESEA)) in order to improve IDEA programs and the
outcomes of children with disabilities.
In addition, the Data Management Center must provide a range of
targeted and general TA products and services for improving States'
capacity to report high-quality IDEA Part B data required under
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA through their State longitudinal data
systems. Such TA should include, at a minimum--
(a) In partnership with the Department, supporting, as needed, the
implementation of an existing open source electronic tool to assist
States in building EDFacts data files and reports that can be submitted
to the Department and made available to the public. The tool must
utilize Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) and meet all States'
needs associated with reporting the IDEA Part B data required under
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;
(b) Developing and implementing a plan to maintain the appropriate
functionality of the open source electronic tool described in paragraph
(a) as changes are made to data collections, reporting requirements,
file specifications, and CEDS (such as links within the system to
include TA products developed by other OSEP/Department-funded centers
or contractors);
(c) Conducting TA on data governance to facilitate the use of the
open source electronic tool and providing training to State staff to
implement the open source electronic tool;
(d) Revising CEDS ``Connections'' \2\ to calculate metrics needed
to report the IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and 618 of
IDEA;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A Connection is a way of showing which CEDS data elements
might be necessary for answering a data question. For users who have
aligned their data systems to CEDS, States will be able to utilize
these Connections via the Connect tool to see which data elements,
in their own systems, would be needed to answer any data question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Identifying other outputs (e.g., reports, Application
Programming Interface, new innovations) of an open source electronic
tool that can support reporting by States of IDEA Part B data to
different stakeholder groups (e.g., LEAs, charter schools, legislative
branch, parents);
(f) Supporting the inclusion of other OSEP/Department-funded TA
centers' products within the open source electronic tool or building
connections that allow the SEAs to pull IDEA Part B data efficiently
into the other TA products;
(g) Supporting a user group of States that are using an open source
electronic
[[Page 41015]]
tool for reporting IDEA Part B data required under sections 616 and 618
of IDEA; and
(h) Developing products and presentations that include tools and
solutions to challenges in data management procedures and data system
architecture for reporting the IDEA Part B data required under sections
616 and 618 of IDEA.
Application Requirements: For FY 2020 and any subsequent year in
which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this
competition, the following application requirements from the NFP apply.
Applicants must--
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address State challenges associated with State data management
procedures, data systems architecture, and building EDFacts data files
and reports for timely reporting of the IDEA Part B data to the
Department and the public. To meet this requirement the applicant
must--
(i) Present applicable national, State, or local data demonstrating
the difficulties that States have encountered in the collection and
submission of valid and reliable IDEA Part B data;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational and technical
issues and policy initiatives relating to IDEA Part B data collections
and EDFacts file specifications for the IDEA Part B data collections;
and
(iii) Present information about the current level of implementation
of integrating IDEA Part B data within State longitudinal data systems
and the reporting of high-quality IDEA Part B data to the Department
and the public.
(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 services and products meet the needs of the
intended recipients for TA and information;
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
(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 evidence-based
practices (EBPs).\3\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For the purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based
practices'' means practices that, at a minimum, demonstrate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The current research on data collection strategies, data
management procedures, and data systems architecture; 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
States' data management processes and data systems architecture;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\4\ which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time,
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This
category of TA also includes information or products, such as
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the
TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\5\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
(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 State and local levels;
(C) Its proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a
primary focus on meeting the needs of Developing Capacity States; \6\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Developing Capacity States'' are defined as States that
have a data system that does not include linkages between special
education data and other early childhood and K-12 data. Projects
funded under this focus area will focus on helping such States
develop those linkages to allow for more accurate and efficient
reporting, analysis, and use of IDEA Part B data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(D) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with
other OSEP-funded centers and other federally funded TA centers to
develop and implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a
State; and
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\7\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome.
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program,
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, which must be Developing Capacity
States, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive
the products and services under this approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to address States' challenges associated
with integrating IDEA Part B data within State longitudinal data
systems and to report high-quality IDEA Part B data to the Department
and the public, which should, at a minimum, include providing on-site
consultants to SEAs to--
(1) Model and document data management and data system
[[Page 41016]]
integration policies, procedures, processes, and activities within the
State;
(2) Support the State's use of an open source electronic tool and
provide technical solutions to meet State-specific data needs;
(3) Develop a sustainability plan for the State to maintain the
data management and data system integration work in the future; and
(4) Support the State's cybersecurity plan in collaboration, to the
extent appropriate, with the Department's Student Privacy Policy Office
and its Privacy Technical Assistance Center;
(C) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the SEAs 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 State and
local district levels;
(D) Its proposed plan to prioritize Developing Capacity States with
the greatest need for intensive TA to receive products and services;
(E) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build or enhance
training systems that include professional development based on adult
learning principles and coaching;
(F) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, districts, local
programs, families) to ensure that there is communication between each
level and that there are systems in place to support the collection,
reporting, analysis, and use of high-quality IDEA Part B data, as well
as State data management procedures and data systems architecture for
building EDFacts data files and reports for timely reporting of the
IDEA Part B data to the Department and the public; and
(G) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate and
coordinate with other OSEP-funded centers and other Department-funded
TA investments, such as the Institute of Education Sciences/National
Center for Education Statistics research and development investments,
where appropriate, to develop and implement a coordinated TA plan; and
(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to
achieve the intended project outcomes.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party
evaluator.\8\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have
participated in the development or implementation of any project
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions,
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these requirements;
(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as
well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
(3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate
that the data will be available annually for the State Performance
Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) and at the end of Year 2 for
the review process; and
(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation
with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the
implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of resources,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or
disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities;
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated results and benefits, and how funds will be spent in a way
that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes; and
(5) The applicant will ensure that it will recover the lesser of:
(A) Its actual indirect costs as determined by the grantee's negotiated
indirect cost rate agreement with its cognizant Federal agency; and (B)
40 percent of its modified total direct cost (MTDC) base as defined in
2 CFR 200.68.
Note: The MTDC is different from the total amount of the grant.
Additionally, the MTDC is not the same as calculating a percentage
of each or a specific expenditure category. If the grantee is
billing based on the MTDC base, the grantee must make its MTDC
documentation available to the program office and the Department's
Indirect Cost Unit. If a grantee's allocable indirect costs exceed
40 percent of its MTDC as defined in 2 CFR 200.68, the grantee may
not recoup the excess by shifting the cost to other grants or
contracts with the U.S. Government, unless specifically authorized
by legislation. The grantee must use non-Federal revenue sources to
pay for such unrecovered costs.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel,
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to
recipients; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers,
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and
operation.
[[Page 41017]]
(f) Address the following application requirements:
(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines,
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative;
(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC,
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff
during each subsequent year of the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in
Washington, DC, during each year of the project period; and
(iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP;
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate
design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for
accessibility;
(5) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the
continuity of services to States during the transition to this new
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate; and
(6) Budget to provide intensive, sustained TA to at least 25
States.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1442; the
Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act,
2019, Div. B, Title III of Public Law 115-245, 132 Stat. 3100 (2018);
and Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Div. A, Title III of
Public Law 116-94, 133 Stat. 2590 (2019).
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86,
97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to
Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in
2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department
in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part
200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR
part 3474. (d) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR 300.702. (e)
The NFP.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants
except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of
higher education (IHEs) only.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.
Estimated Available Funds: $2,700,000.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2021 from the list of
unfunded applications from this competition.
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $2,700,000 for a
single budget period of 12 months.
Estimated Number of Awards: 1.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice.
Project Period: Up to 60 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including public charter
schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public
agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and
outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit
organizations.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost
sharing or matching.
3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award
subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities
described in its application. Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may
contract for supplies, equipment, and other services in accordance with
2 CFR part 200.
4. Other General Requirements:
(a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive
efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with
disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
(b) Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect
to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute
priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of
individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning,
implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of
IDEA).
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of
Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal
Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which
contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.
2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However,
under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to
make an award by the end of FY 2020.
3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of
the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection
criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend
that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 70 pages
and (2) use the following standards:
A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1''
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch)
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier,
Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover
sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget
justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the
abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for
completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority
requirements, the resumes, the reference
[[Page 41018]]
list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the
recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative,
including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen
shots.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition
are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are listed below:
(a) Significance (10 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed
project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services,
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be
addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude
of those gaps or weaknesses.
(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project.
(b) Quality of project services (35 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be
provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and
sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for
eligible project participants who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(ii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of
that framework.
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the
proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and
effective practice.
(iv) The extent to which the training or professional development
services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient
quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice
among the recipients of those services.
(v) The extent to which the TA services to be provided by the
proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the
use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project
resources.
(vi) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project.
(c) Quality of the project evaluation (15 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes.
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and
qualitative data to the extent possible.
(d) Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel (15
points).
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the
proposed project and the quality of the personnel who will carry out
the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary
considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for
employment from persons who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director or principal investigator.
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of key project personnel.
(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
(iv) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience,
and independence, of the evaluator.
(v) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the
lead applicant organization.
(vi) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(vii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the
proposed project.
(viii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to
the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed
project.
(e) Quality of the management plan (25 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for
the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the
proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks.
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed
project.
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project.
(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
is brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of
services, or others, as appropriate.
2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition,
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past,
the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain
competitions because so many individuals who are
[[Page 41019]]
eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The
standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have
placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers.
Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary
grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more
groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This
procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers
by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to
serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have
conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence,
and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to
review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which
they also have submitted applications.
4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR
200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department
conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR
3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in
appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the
applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of
unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system
that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not
fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not
responsible.
5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this
competition to receive an award that over the course of the project
period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently
$250,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your
integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal
awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before we make
an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that
is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as
the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
(FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may
review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal
agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the
Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2
CFR part 200, appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity
information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2
CFR part 200, appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal
funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally,
also.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding,
we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy requirements in the application
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable
Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you
are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to
openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in
part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of
modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those
modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent
that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or
other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works.
Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must
have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This
dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your
application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional
information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR
3474.20.
4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition,
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual
performance report that provides the most current performance and
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting,
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance
Modernization Act of 2010, the Department has established a set of
performance measures that are designed to yield information on various
aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program. These measures are:
Program Performance Measure 1: The percentage of technical
assistance and dissemination products and services deemed to be of high
quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified to review
the substantive content of the products and services.
Program Performance Measure 2: The percentage of technical
assistance and dissemination products and services deemed by an
independent review panel of qualified experts or members of the target
audiences to be of high relevance to educational and early intervention
policy or practice.
Program Performance Measure 3: The percentage of all
technical assistance and dissemination products and services deemed by
an independent review panel of qualified experts or members of target
audiences to be useful in improving educational or early intervention
policy or practice.
Program Performance Measure 4: The cost efficiency of the
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program includes the
percentage of milestones achieved in the current annual performance
report period and the percentage of funds spent during the current
fiscal year.
The measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and
grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by
OSEP.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's
performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department
(34 CFR 75.590).
The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the
products and services provided by the Center meet needs identified by
stakeholders and may require the Center
[[Page 41020]]
to report on such alignment in their annual and final performance
reports.
6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR
75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee
has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of
the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is
consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the
Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the
performance targets in the grantee's approved application.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers
whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in
its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
VII. Other Information
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format
(e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to
the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at
the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Mark Schultz,
Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Delegated the
authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 2020-14072 Filed 7-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P