Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definition-Disability Innovation Fund-Transition Work-Based Learning Model Demonstrations, 50324-50330 [2016-18031]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50324-50330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18031]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2016-OSERS-0022; CFDA Number: 84.421B.]


Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definition--Disability 
Innovation Fund--Transition Work-Based Learning Model Demonstrations

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

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, and definition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services announces priorities, requirements, and a 
definition under the Disability Innovation Fund (DIF) Program. The 
Assistant Secretary may use these priorities, requirements, and 
definition for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2016 and later years. 
The Assistant Secretary takes this action to identify, develop, 
implement, and evaluate work-based learning models that are supported 
by evidence and will help students with disabilities prepare for 
postsecondary education and competitive integrated employment. The 
models must be delivered through a coordinated system of transition 
services.

DATES:  The priorities, requirements, and definition are effective 
October 9, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RoseAnn Ashby, U.S. Department of 
Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration, 400 Maryland Avenue 
SW., Room 5057, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. 
Telephone: (202) 245-7258, or by email: roseann.ashby@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: The purpose of the DIF Program, as provided by 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), is to 
support innovative activities aimed at improving the outcomes of 
``individuals with disabilities,'' as defined in section 7(20)(A) of 
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act) (29 
U.S.C. 705(20)(A)).
    Program Authority: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 
113-235).
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and 
definitions (NPP) for this competition in the Federal Register on April 
13, 2016 (81 FR 21808). That notice contained background information 
and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities, requirements, 
and definitions.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 10 
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, 
and definitions. We group major issues according to subject. 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 general comments 
that raised concerns not directly related to the priorities.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, and definitions since 
publication of the NPP follows.

Priority 1

General

    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon review of the requirements for proposed Priority 
1, we became aware that to ensure the replicability of the project 
model, we needed to clarify that the proposed project design must be 
replicable in similar contexts and settings and implemented at multiple 
local sites.
    Changes: We have specified in the first sentence in paragraph (a) 
of the requirements for Priority 1 that the proposed project design 
must be replicable in similar contexts and settings. For emphasis, we 
also moved the requirement that the model be implemented at multiple 
local sites from the end of proposed paragraph (b) to the end of 
paragraph (a). In addition,

[[Page 50325]]

we clarified in paragraph (a) of the requirements of Priority 1 that 
evidence of strong theory is required for the project design.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon review of Priority 1, we became aware that we 
needed to eliminate possible confusion about what is meant by the word 
``effective'' and more accurately reflect the purpose of Priority 1.
    The term ``effective'' in the context of education research and 
evaluation usually means that a high-quality study was conducted to 
assess the effectiveness of an intervention. While the purpose of 
Priority 1 is to build the evidence base and identify and demonstrate 
work-based learning interventions that are supported by evidence for 
students with disabilities, the priority does not require that the 
proposed interventions to be implemented under the project's model be 
supported by a specific level of effectiveness determined by a high-
quality study. Accordingly, we believe that the term ``supported by 
evidence'' more accurately reflects the intent of the priority.
    Changes: We have replaced the word ``effective'' with ``supported 
by evidence'' throughout the priority and requirements when referring 
to the applicant's proposed strategies, model, or project.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Upon further review of the notice, we removed the 
second sentence in paragraph (i)(2) of Requirements for Priority 1 
because the summative evaluation is not an effectiveness evaluation and 
would not statistically prove the effectiveness of the model. Also, the 
intent of this sentence was redundant with paragraph (j) of the 
requirements for Priority 1.
    Changes: We deleted the second sentence in paragraph (i)(2) under 
the Requirements for Priority 1.

Eligible Applicants and Partners

    Comment: One commenter stated that eligible applicants should 
include secondary schools and school districts. The commenter indicated 
that secondary schools are developing many great programs to provide 
career pathways and successful transitions to college and careers for 
students with disabilities.
    Discussion: We recognize the importance of the partnerships between 
State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies and secondary schools or 
school districts in implementing strategies designed to successfully 
transition students with disabilities to college and careers. However, 
the purpose of Priority 1 is to identify models that State VR agencies 
will be able to replicate. We believe that the best way to accomplish 
this objective is to require the applicant to be a State VR agency 
working in collaboration with other key partners. This will allow the 
VR agency to make use of the expertise and experience of multiple 
partners and to implement models in multiple settings. Each applicant 
is required to develop a partnership, and chief among these partners 
are local educational agencies (LEAs).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked that the Department include national 
and community-based nonprofit organizations as eligible applicants. 
Although work-based learning is carried out at the local level, the 
commenter indicated that the bulk of the work--recruiting individuals 
with disabilities, connecting individuals to community work-based 
learning experiences, and providing follow-along supports--is actually 
done by service providers. In addition, the commenter stated that 
limiting eligible applicants to State VR agencies would narrow the 
ability of the Department to evaluate specific strategies with 
different populations in different parts of the country. The commenter 
explained that a national organization could, for example, operate a 
multi-community, multi-State demonstration to effectively evaluate 
work-based learning strategies on a large and diverse scale.
    Discussion: We recognize the important role that service providers 
play in facilitating and supporting work-based learning experiences in 
the community. Nevertheless, as discussed earlier, we have decided to 
limit eligible applicants to State VR agencies because the purpose of 
Priority 1 is to identify models that State VR agencies will be able to 
replicate. Limiting applicants to State VR agencies will not narrow the 
ability of the Department to evaluate specific strategies with 
different populations in different parts of the country. Rather than 
having one national grant with multiple local sites, we elected to have 
multiple grants, each of which may propose variations in the 
evaluations conducted. These may require different methodologies and 
may lead to different, but nonetheless comparable, findings for 
specific populations in a variety of contexts.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Given the emphasis on coordinated systems, interagency 
collaboration, and effective intervention at an individual and local 
level, one commenter asked whether the Department anticipates funding 
projects at a local or State level. The commenter further asked whether 
the Department will fund multiple-State consortia in this competition.
    Discussion: The Department understands the importance of 
coordinated systems, interagency collaboration, and effective 
intervention at the individual, local, and State levels. While the 
eligible applicant is the State VR agency, the projects themselves 
would be carried out at the local level in collaboration with LEAs or, 
where appropriate, State educational agencies (SEAs) and other local 
partners. Given the limited funds that are available for this 
competition, we will only be able to support a small number of 
projects, depending on their scope and intensity. Funding multiple-
State consortia would further limit the number of projects awarded and 
the number and variety of work-based learning models that they will 
produce.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the required partners 
specifically be expanded to include disability service providers. The 
commenter listed several places in the requirements for Priority 1 
where the term ``disability service providers'' should be included 
because the commenter wanted disability service providers to be 
involved in as many aspects of the project as possible.
    Discussion: We recognize the important role that disability service 
providers and other community service providers play in assisting 
students with disabilities to achieve their educational and employment 
goals. Thus, the requirement to establish partnerships in developing 
and implementing a project's model in paragraph (c) of the requirements 
for Priority 1 includes ``providers or other agencies that are critical 
to the development of work-based learning experiences in integrated 
settings for students with disabilities.'' However, we believe that 
applicants should have the flexibility to determine which providers 
these are, as well as the extent to which disability service providers 
or other agencies are critical to the development of work-based 
learning experiences in the community.
    Changes: None.

Target Population

    Comment: One commenter asked for clarification as to how Priority 1 
will address the needs of out-of-school youth and young adults.
    Discussion: The focus of this priority is students with 
disabilities. We believe that out-of-school youth and young adults 
would benefit from successful work-based learning opportunities that

[[Page 50326]]

are developed and evaluated through these priorities; however, the 
narrower scope of these models, focusing specifically on students with 
disabilities, will help to ensure the rigorous evaluation of the 
models.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department revise 
Priority 1 to require applicants to develop and implement project 
designs that improve outcomes for students with disabilities, including 
low-incidence populations such as students who are deaf or hard of 
hearing. The commenter would also establish partnerships with entities 
or specific individuals with expertise in developing, evaluating, and 
disseminating innovative strategies for serving individuals from low-
incidence populations, including students who are deaf or hard of 
hearing.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's interest in 
ensuring that the projects funded under this priority are designed to 
address work-based learning experiences for students with low-incidence 
disabilities. Nothing precludes an applicant from proposing to serve 
individuals from low-incidence populations, such as students who are 
deaf or hard of hearing. However, the Department declines to require 
all applicants to design projects to serve any specific disability 
population or place greater importance on serving one population over 
another under these priorities.
    Changes: None.

Work-based Learning Experiences

    Comment: One commenter recommended that work performed through 
work-based learning experiences be financially compensated. For 
example, the commenter stated that internships and apprenticeships 
should be paid work experiences.
    Discussion: We are aware that research in this field indicates that 
paid work experiences result in better employment outcomes for youth 
with disabilities than do unpaid work experiences. Therefore, paragraph 
(e) of the requirements for Priority 1 requires that at least one of a 
student's work experiences be a paid experience. While we encourage 
grantees to arrange for paid work experiences whenever possible, we do 
not want to preclude a grantee from providing an unpaid work-based 
learning experience that would be beneficial and appropriate to the 
student's goals, particularly in instances where a paid work experience 
is unavailable.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that the proposed requirements for 
Priority 1 should include an increased emphasis on engaging people with 
disabilities in innovation, similar to investments in science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) skills, such as 
``creativity/making'' skills and entrepreneurial skills.
    Discussion: We agree that students with disabilities should be 
exposed to a wide variety of work-based learning experiences, including 
those in innovative fields (i.e., STEM) and those involving 
entrepreneurship skills. Work-based learning experiences supported 
under this priority should take into consideration the student's career 
interests and goals, which may include some of the innovative fields 
and entrepreneurship skills that the commenter described, as well as 
information about labor market demand and career pathways. We disagree 
with the commenter, however, that we should emphasize innovation and 
entrepreneurship above other areas of career focus because that would 
unnecessarily limit both the scope of the projects proposed and the 
work-based learning experiences available to students with 
disabilities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that it is critically important 
that any work-based learning program funded and evaluated by the 
Department include access to programs that ensure that work 
disincentives created by receiving benefits and assistance under 
Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Insurance do 
not prevent young adults with disabilities from seeking employment.
    Discussion: We agree that a grantee may implement strategies or 
activities that address potential work disincentives that discourage a 
student with a disability from seeking employment. Nothing in Priority 
1 would preclude an applicant from forming partnerships with other 
providers or programs that work in this area.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that instead of including 
transportation as an optional support service in paragraph (g) of the 
requirements for Priority 1, the Department require grantees to provide 
transportation education and travel training within their 
demonstrations. The commenter stated that adding a specific project 
requirement for transportation education would ensure that individuals 
participating in the demonstration projects have access to and know how 
to use transportation, both in the short-term (during their work-based 
learning opportunities) and in the long-term (when they transition into 
employment or post-secondary education). The commenter added that in 
the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2015, Congress highlighted the importance of transportation in 
transition outcomes and directed the Department to collaborate with 
transportation experts and implement transportation strategies.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that transportation services, 
including education and travel training, are important services and can 
help many students with disabilities succeed in work-based learning. 
Transportation services are not optional, as the commenter suggested. 
Paragraph (g) of the requirements for Priority 1 requires the applicant 
to identify and provide support services, including transportation 
services, needed to ensure the student's success in participating in 
work-based learning experiences. The phrase ``as appropriate'' in the 
context of this requirement does not make a project's provision of 
transportation services optional. Rather, we recognize that not all 
project participants will require transportation services or the same 
types of transportation services. Projects are required to provide 
transportation services to all students with disabilities who may 
require such services to be successful in their work-based learning 
experiences. However, to address the commenters' concerns, we have 
modified paragraph (g) to make it clear that transportation services 
may include transportation education and travel training.
    Changes: We have modified paragraph (g) in the requirements for 
Priority 1 to include transportation education and travel training as 
examples of transportation services that may be provided to ensure the 
student's success in participating in work-based learning experiences.

Other

    Comment: One commenter expressed concerns about the scope of the 
data required to be collected and specifically requested that data be 
collected on the type of assistive technology used by participants and 
the assistive technologies requested but not acquired.
    Discussion: We agree that assistive technology allows many students 
with disabilities to achieve their education and employment goals and 
that providing access to assistive technology is a necessary element of 
any transition model. In recognition of assistive

[[Page 50327]]

technology's importance, paragraph (h) of the requirements for Priority 
1 requires the project to identify and provide or arrange for 
accommodations or assistive technology needed to ensure the student's 
success in participating in work-based learning experiences. The 
purpose of these priorities is to evaluate the extent to which the 
project's model of coordinated work-based learning practices and 
strategies helps ensure that students with disabilities are prepared 
for postsecondary education and competitive integrated employment. 
Thus, we would expect grantees to document the services and supports 
provided to project participants, including the provision of assistive 
technology. However, we are not requiring grantees to evaluate the use 
of specific assistive technology because we expect the types of 
assistive technology used will vary with the needs of project 
participants. Therefore, there is no need to increase the scope of the 
required data collection described in paragraph (j) of Priority 1 to 
document whether the assistive technology requested by participants was 
acquired.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked that the Department make outcome data 
aggregated from the transition work-based learning model demonstrations 
publicly available so researchers and service providers nationwide can 
benefit from and create new best-practice strategies from this relevant 
information. This commenter observed that the DIF-funded demonstrations 
will represent one of the most significant and coordinated efforts to 
study models supported by evidence to improve transition outcomes.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter and will require grantees 
to make outcome data available to the Department in order to publish 
such data on the National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training 
Materials (NCRTM) and other publicly available sources so that 
successful practices may be shared and available for replication.
    Changes: We have added a new paragraph (k) to the requirements for 
Priority 1 to require grantees to provide outcome data to the 
Department for publication through the NCRTM.

Priorities 2 and 3

    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Upon review of Priority 2, we became aware that we 
needed to clarify the requirement that at least one component of the 
proposed project must be supported by evidence of promise.
    Change: We have revised Priority 2 by requiring evidence of promise 
for at least one key component and at least one relevant outcome in the 
logic model for their proposed project and made conforming changes to 
the application requirements.
    Comment: A commenter observed that Priority 3 outlined multiple 
approaches to determine the quality of evidence but also stated that 
the field would better benefit from controlled studies of 
interventions. The commenter asked whether the Department intends for 
these projects to incorporate randomized control treatment designs.
    Discussion: We are not requiring a randomized control treatment 
design but also do not want to discourage applicants from proposing 
this type of design. We have revised Priority 3 and its associated 
requirements to clarify that proposed evaluations designed to produce 
evidence of effectiveness and likely to meet the What Works 
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards, such as a randomized control 
treatment design, are also permitted. In short, we would encourage 
applicants to use the most appropriate and strongest research design to 
answer their research questions.
    Changes: We have revised Priority 3 and paragraph (b) of its 
associated requirements to state that an applicant may propose an 
evaluation design that, if well implemented, is likely to meet the What 
Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards.

Final Priorities

    Priority 1: Transition Work-Based Learning Model Demonstrations.
    We give priority to model demonstration projects designed to 
identify, develop, implement, and evaluate work-based learning models 
that are supported by evidence and will help ensure that students with 
disabilities are prepared for postsecondary education and competitive 
integrated employment. The model demonstration projects must provide 
work-based learning experiences, supported by evidence, in integrated 
settings, in coordination with other transition services, including 
pre-employment transition services, to students with disabilities, 
through State VR agencies, in collaboration with LEAs or, where 
appropriate, SEAs and other local partners.
    Priority 2: Evidence of Promise Supporting the Proposed Model.
    We give priority to applicants who propose projects supported by 
evidence of promise for at least one key component and at least one 
relevant outcome in the logic model for their proposed project.
    Priority 3: Project Evaluation Designed to Meet the What Works 
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards.
    We give priority to applicants that propose to conduct a rigorous 
and well-designed evaluation of their completed model demonstration 
project that, if the research design is well implemented, would meet 
the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards.
    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 announces the following project 
requirements for this competition. We may apply one or more of these 
requirements in any year in which this competition is in effect. Each 
of the following sets of requirements corresponds to one of the 
priorities.
    Requirements for Priority 1:
    To be considered for funding under Priority 1, applicants must 
describe their plans to carry out the following project requirements--
    (a) Develop and implement a project design replicable in similar 
contexts and settings that is supported by strong theory. The model 
must be implemented at multiple local sites to ensure its 
replicability;
    (b) Develop and implement a project demonstrating practices and 
strategies that are supported by evidence in the use of work-based 
learning experiences in integrated settings within the local community 
to prepare students with disabilities for postsecondary education and 
competitive integrated employment;

[[Page 50328]]

    (c) Establish partnerships with the LEA or, as appropriate, the 
SEA, institutions of higher education, employers, and providers or 
other agencies that are critical to the development of work-based 
learning experiences in integrated settings for students with 
disabilities. At a minimum, the partnership must include 
representatives from the LEA, workforce training providers (e.g., 
American Job Centers), and employers who will collaborate to develop 
and provide opportunities (such as internships, short-term employment, 
and apprenticeships) for students with disabilities served under the 
project;
    (d) Provide career exploration and counseling to assist students in 
identifying possible career pathways (as defined in this notice) and 
the relevant work-based learning experiences;
    (e) Develop work-based learning experiences in integrated settings, 
at least one of which must be a paid experience, that--
    (1) Provide exposure to a wide range of work sites to help students 
make informed choices about career selections;
    (2) Are appropriate for the age and stage in life of each 
participating student, ranging from site visits and tours, job 
shadowing, service learning, apprenticeships, and internships;
    (3) Are structured and linked to classroom or related instruction;
    (4) Use a trained mentor to help structure the learning at the 
worksite;
    (5) Include periodic assessment and feedback as part of each 
experience; and
    (6) Fully involve students with disabilities and, as appropriate, 
their representative in choosing and structuring their experiences;
    (f) Provide instruction in employee rights and responsibilities, as 
well as positive work skills, habits, and behaviors that foster success 
in the workplace;
    (g) Identify and provide support services, as appropriate, 
including transportation services (e.g., transportation education and 
travel training), that are needed to ensure the student's success in 
participating in work-based learning experiences;
    (h) Identify and provide or arrange for accommodations or assistive 
technology needed to ensure the student's success in participating in 
work-based learning experiences;
    (i) Develop and implement a plan to measure the model demonstration 
project's performance and outcomes. A detailed and complete evaluation 
plan must include--
    (1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's 
logic model, that--
    (i) Includes evaluation questions, source(s) for data, a timeline 
for data collection, and analysis plans;
    (ii) Shows how the outcome (e.g., postsecondary education and 
competitive integrated employment) and implementation data will be used 
separately or in combination to improve the project during the 
performance period; and
    (iii) Outlines how these data will be reviewed by project staff, 
when they will be reviewed, and how they will be used during the course 
of the project to adjust the model or its implementation to increase 
the model's usefulness, replicability in similar contexts and settings, 
and potential for sustainability; and
    (2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect 
and analyze data on students and their outcomes over time, both for 
students with disabilities served by the project and for students with 
disabilities in a comparison group not receiving project services.
    (j) Collect data necessary to evaluate the outcomes of the project, 
including the progress of the project in achieving its goals and 
outcomes, which, at a minimum, must include:
    (1) The relevant available RSA-911 Case Service Report data for 
each student in the project;
    (2) The number of students in the work-based learning project;
    (3) The number of students in the project who complete at least one 
work-based learning experience;
    (4) The number of work-based learning experiences that each student 
completes during the project;
    (5) The types of work-based learning experiences in which students 
participated;
    (6) The number of students who attain a recognized post-secondary 
credential and the type of credentials attained;
    (7) The number of students who obtain competitive integrated 
employment; and
    (8) An unduplicated count of students who obtain a recognized 
postsecondary credential and competitive integrated employment.
    (k) Make outcome data available to the Department for publication 
through the National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training 
Materials.
    To be considered for funding under Priority 1, an applicant also 
must provide the following with its application:
    (a) A detailed review of the literature that describes the evidence 
base for the proposed demonstration project, its components, and 
strategies for work-based learning experiences for students with 
disabilities;
    (b) A logic model;
    (c) A description of the applicant's plan for implementing the 
project, including a description of--
    (1) A cohesive, articulated model of partnership and coordination 
among the participating agencies and organizations;
    (2) The coordinated set of practices and strategies that are 
supported by evidence in the use and development of work-based learning 
models that are aligned with employment, training, and education 
programs and reflect the needs of employers and of students with 
disabilities; and
    (3) How the proposed project will--
    (i) Involve employers in the project design and in partnering with 
project staff to develop integrated job shadowing, internships, 
apprenticeships, and other paid and unpaid work-based learning 
experiences that are designed to increase the preparation of students 
with disabilities for postsecondary education and competitive 
integrated employment;
    (ii) Conduct outreach activities to identify students with 
disabilities whom the work-based learning experiences would enable them 
to achieve competitive integrated employment; and
    (iii) Identify innovative strategies, including development, 
implementation, and evaluation of approved models, methods, and 
measures that will increase the preparation of students with 
disabilities for postsecondary education and competitive integrated 
employment;
    (d) A description of the methods and criteria that will be used to 
select the site(s) at which the project activities will be implemented;
    (e) Documentation (e.g., letter of support or draft agreement) that 
the State VR agency has specific agreements with its partners in the 
development and implementation of the project;
    (f) A plan for evaluating the project's performance, including an 
evaluation of the practices and strategies implemented by the project, 
in achieving project goals and objectives.
    Specifically, the evaluation plan must include a description of--
    (1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's 
logic model that includes the following:
    (i) The key questions to be addressed by the project evaluation and 
the appropriateness of the methods for how each question will be 
addressed;
    (ii) How the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable

[[Page 50329]]

performance data on relevant outcomes, particularly postsecondary and 
competitive integrated employment outcomes, including the source(s) for 
the data and the timeline for data collection;
    (iii) A clear and credible analysis plan, including a proposed 
sample size and minimum detectable effect size that aligns with the 
expected project impact, and an analytic approach for addressing the 
research questions; and
    (iv) How the key components of the project, as well as a measurable 
threshold for acceptable implementation and outcome data, will be 
reviewed and used to improve the project;
    (2) A summative evaluation plan, including--
    (i) How the outcomes and implementation data collected by the 
project will be used, separately or in combination, to demonstrate that 
the goals of the model were met;
    (ii) How the outcomes for students with disabilities served by the 
project will be compared with the outcomes of students with 
disabilities not receiving project services.
    (g) A plan for systematic dissemination of project findings, 
templates, resources, and knowledge gained that will assist State and 
local VR and educational agencies in adapting or replicating the model 
work-based learning demonstration developed and implemented by the 
project, which could include elements such as development of a Web 
site, resources (e.g., toolkits), community of practice, and 
participation in national and State conferences;
    (h) An assurance that the employment goal for all students served 
under Priority 1 will be competitive integrated employment, including 
customized or supported employment; and
    (i) An assurance that the project will collaborate with other work-
based learning initiatives.

Requirements for Priority 2

    To meet Priority 2, applicants must meet the following 
requirements:
    (a) Applicants must identify and include a detailed discussion of 
up to two cited studies that meet the evidence of promise standard for 
at least one key component and at least one relevant outcome in the 
logic model for the proposed project. Both the critical component(s) 
and relevant outcome(s) must be specified for each study cited.
    (b) The full names and links for the citations submitted for this 
priority must be provided on the Abstract and Information page of the 
application, or the full text of each study cited must be provided.
    (c) Applicants must specify on the Abstract and Information page 
the findings in the studies that are cited as evidence of promise for 
the key component(s) and relevant outcome(s) and ensure that the 
citations and links are from publicly or readily available sources. 
Studies of fewer than 10 pages may be attached in full under Other 
Attachments in Grants.gov.

Requirements for Priority 3

    To meet Priority 3, applicants must describe in their applications 
how they would meet the following competition requirements:
    (a) Conduct an independent evaluation (as defined in this notice) 
of its project. This evaluation must estimate the impact of the project 
on a relevant outcome.
    (b) Use an evaluation design that, if well implemented, is likely 
to meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards.
    (c) Make broadly available the results of any evaluations it 
conducts of its funded activities, digitally and free of charge, 
through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or informal (e.g., 
newsletters) mechanisms. The grantee must also ensure that the data 
from its evaluation are made available to third-party researchers 
consistent with applicable privacy requirements.
    (d) Cooperate on an ongoing basis with any technical assistance 
provided by the Department or its contractor and comply with the 
requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the 
Department.

Final Definitions

    We announce one new definition for use in connection with the 
priorities. The remaining definitions listed in the NPP and used in the 
final priorities and requirements in this notice are established 
defined terms in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), 
the Rehabilitation Act, or 34 CFR part 77 and are provided in the 
notice inviting applications published elsewhere in this issue of the 
Federal Register. Specifically, the definitions for the terms 
``evidence of promise,'' ``logic model,'' ``randomized controlled 
trial,'' ``relevant outcome,'' ``quasi-experimental design study,'' and 
``strong theory'' are from 34 CFR part 77.
    Definition:
    The Assistant Secretary announces the following definition for this 
competition. We may apply this definition in any year in which this 
program is in effect.
    Independent evaluation means an evaluation that is designed and 
carried out independent of, and external to, the grantee but in 
coordination with any employees of the grantee who develop a process, 
product, strategy, or practice that is currently being implemented as 
part of the grant's activities.
    This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use these priorities, requirements and this 
definition, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal 
Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely 
to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with

[[Page 50330]]

obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account--among other 
things and to the extent practicable--the costs of cumulative 
regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, and 
definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits 
justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. 
Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this 
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 
13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    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 2016.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document 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. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 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.

    Dated: July 26, 2016.
Sue Swenson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 2016-18031 Filed 7-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P