Proposed Priority-National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research-Improving Methods of Evaluating Return on Investment for the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program, 29701-29705 [2014-12041]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 100 (Friday, May 23, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29701-29705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12041]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter III

[Docket ID ED-2014-OSERS-0023; CFDA Number: 84.133A-10]


Proposed Priority--National Institute on Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research--Improving Methods of Evaluating Return on 
Investment for the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program

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

ACTION: Proposed priority.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services proposes a priority under the Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program administered by 
the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 
(NIDRR). Specifically, this notice proposes a priority for a Disability 
and Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP) on Improving Methods of 
Evaluating Return on Investment for the State Vocational Rehabilitation 
(VR) Services Program. The Assistant Secretary may use this priority 
for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take this 
action to focus research attention on areas of national need. We intend 
this priority to contribute to improved employment outcomes for 
individuals with disabilities.

[[Page 29702]]


DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``Are you new to the site?''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address 
them to Marlene Spencer, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 
Avenue SW., Room 5133, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 
20202-2700.

    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to 
include in their comments only information that they wish to make 
publicly available.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marlene Spencer. Telephone: (202) 245-
7532 or by email: marlene.spencer@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: This notice of proposed priority is in 
concert with NIDRR's Long-Range Plan (Plan). The Plan, which was 
published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2013 (78 FR 20299), can 
be accessed on the Internet at the following site: www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/policy.html.
    Through the implementation of the currently approved Plan, NIDRR 
seeks to: Identify a need for research and training in a number of 
areas. To address this need, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve the quality 
and utility of disability and rehabilitation research; (2) foster an 
exchange of research findings, expertise, and other information to 
advance knowledge and understanding of the needs of individuals with 
disabilities and their family members, including those from among 
traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine effective 
practices, programs, and policies to improve community living and 
participation, employment, and health and function outcomes for 
individuals with disabilities of all ages; (4) identify research gaps 
and areas for promising research investments; (5) identify and promote 
effective mechanisms for integrating research and practice; and (6) 
disseminate research findings to all major stakeholder groups, 
including individuals with disabilities and their families in formats 
that are appropriate and meaningful to them.
    This notice proposes a priority that NIDRR intends to use for a 
DRRP competition in FY 2014 and possibly later years. However, nothing 
precludes NIDRR from publishing additional priorities, if needed. 
Furthermore, NIDRR is under no obligation to make an award using this 
priority. The decision to make an award will be based on the quality of 
applications received and available funding.
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
this proposed priority. To ensure that your comments have maximum 
effect in developing the final priority, we urge you to identify 
clearly the specific topic that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this 
proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could 
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving 
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about this notice in Room 5133, 550 12th Street SW., PCP, 
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week, except Federal 
holidays.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and 
conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related 
activities, including international activities, to develop methods, 
procedures, and rehabilitation technology, that maximize the full 
inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, 
family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals 
with disabilities, especially individuals with the most significant 
disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized 
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).

Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects

    The purpose of NIDRR's DRRPs, which are funded through the 
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is 
to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the 
Rehabilitation Act by developing methods, procedures, and 
rehabilitation technologies that advance a wide range of independent 
living and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, 
especially individuals with the most significant disabilities. DRRPs 
carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as 
specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: Research, 
training, demonstration, development, utilization, dissemination, and 
technical assistance.
    An applicant for assistance under this program must demonstrate in 
its application how it will address, in whole or in part, the needs of 
individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds (34 CFR 
350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant may take to meet this 
requirement are found in 34 CFR 350.40(b). Additional information on 
the DRRP program can be found at:www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#DRRP.
    Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(a).
    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.
    PROPOSED PRIORITY:
    This notice contains one proposed priority.
    Improving Methods of Evaluating Return on Investment for the State 
Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program (VR Program)
Background
    Under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 
(Rehabilitation Act), States receive Federal grants for 78.7 percent of 
the cost to operate a comprehensive VR program. This State-operated 
program is designed to assess, plan, develop, and provide VR services

[[Page 29703]]

to eligible individuals with disabilities, consistent with their 
strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities, 
interests, and informed choice. State VR agencies provide a wide range 
of services designed to enable individuals with disabilities to prepare 
for, obtain, and retain, gainful employment. Individuals with a 
physical or mental impairment that results in a substantial barrier to 
employment and who can benefit from and require VR services to prepare 
for, secure, retain, or regain employment are eligible to receive VR 
services. However, State VR agencies must give priority to individuals 
with the most significant disabilities if they cannot provide services 
to all eligible individuals.
    Program services are tailored to the specific needs of the 
individual through an individualized plan for employment (IPE) in order 
to achieve his or her employment outcome. The VR Program may provide a 
variety of services, including, but not limited to, counseling, 
assessment, career development that includes job readiness training, 
vocational training, job coaching, on-the-job training and supports, 
assistive technology, transportation, and job placement.
    In FY 2013, $3.029 billion in Federal funds were allocated to State 
VR agencies to administer the VR Program. Nationally, there are about 1 
million individuals in various phases of the VR process within the VR 
system and about 580,000 individuals exit the program annually. Of the 
approximately 323,300 who exited the program after receiving services 
under an IPE in FY 2012, 180,216 exited with an employment outcome, 91 
percent of whom were individuals with significant disabilities. The 
extent to which programs and services lead to effective results is 
important both in terms of improving employment outcomes for 
individuals with disabilities and justifying current and future 
investments.
    Return-on-investment (ROI) is a performance measure used to 
evaluate the efficiency of an investment program, and it is calculated 
by dividing the benefits by the costs of the investment. Models 
investigating Federal and State investments and results are important 
given current and future budget conditions. Over the years, ROI studies 
have examined outcomes of the VR Program in relation to expended 
Federal and State funds. However, there are limitations in the use of 
findings from previous studies on VR Program effectiveness because they 
did not take into account all of the factors that may have an impact on 
ROI results. For example, previous studies did not account for specific 
services and disability subpopulations, potential selection bias (e.g., 
limiting the analysis to individuals who received services rather than 
all who enter the VR system), long-term outcomes and employment 
retention, recurring episodes of VR participation, and relevant 
demographic, service, and benefit program factors. In addition, the 
full range of costs, including Federal administrative costs, have not 
been taken into account in most VR ROI models. Changing economic 
conditions and their relative impacts on VR Program effectiveness are 
also not reflected in current ROI research.
    While recent methodological research has included some of the 
important elements missing from earlier studies (Dean, 2013a and 
2013b), there is a need to build on these advances to improve ROI 
measurement of the VR Program and to create a standard approach for 
applying the ROI tool in VR settings. Expanding what is known about the 
effectiveness of the VR Program will provide policymakers, 
administrators, counselors, and consumers with information necessary to 
better allocate resources for individuals within specific disability 
subpopulations. The proposed priority aims at addressing this need.

References

Dean, D., Schmidt, R., Pepper, J., and Stern, S. (2013a). The 
effects of Vocational Rehabilitation on people with mental illness. 
Retrieved from: https://people.virginia.edu/~sns5r/resint/vocrehstf/
vocrehmi.pdf.
Dean, D., Schmidt, R., Pepper, J., and Stern, S. (2013b). The 
effects of Vocational Rehabilitation on people with cognitive 
disabilities. Retrieved from: https://people.virginia.edu/~sns5r/
resint/vocrehstf/vocrehci.pdf.
Hollenbeck, Kevin and Wei-Jang Huang (2006). Net Impact and Benefit 
Cost Estimates of the Workforce Development System in Washington 
State. MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Retrieved 
from https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023 
&context=up--technicalreports.
Kisker, E., G. Strech, J. Vetter, and C. Foote (2008). Evaluating 
Rehabilitation Services in Oklahoma: An Analysis of Program Impacts 
and of Benefits/Costs. Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitative 
Services.
Wilhelm, S. and J. Robinson (2010). Utah State Office of 
Rehabilitation Economic Impact Study. The University of Utah Center 
for Public Policy and Administration.
Proposed Priority
    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority under NIDRR's Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs) program on Improving Methods 
of Evaluating Return on Investment for the State VR Services Program.
    The DRRP must contribute to improving the ROI methodologies 
available to assess the impact of the VR Program on employment outcomes 
of individuals with disabilities by:
    (a) Developing or expanding valid, innovative, and replicable ROI 
model(s) for assessing the VR Program and the services it provides. 
These model(s) must include variables such as costs associated with 
individuals who enter the agency but leave without receiving services, 
costs related to specific services so VR agencies can better consider 
ROI when determining services that lead to better outcomes, estimates 
of State and Federal expenditures incurred as part of the VR Program 
administration and service delivery system, characteristics of 
disability subpopulations, long-term outcomes extending years after 
exit from the VR Program, and information on general economic 
conditions. These models must use rigorous methods, including the use 
of a comparison group to determine the effect of the VR program.
    (b) Testing the model(s) in at least eight State VR agencies with 
varying characteristics (e.g., urban/rural, with/without waitlists) to 
determine its replicability, including determining what data are 
necessary to make the model(s) successful and evaluating the data 
quality and data availability in selected sites. The final number of 
sites must be approved by NIDRR. In carrying out this requirement, we 
want the successful applicant to clarify a process for ensuring access 
to Social Security data and earnings data as required to assess long-
term impact of the VR program.
    (c) Developing and disseminating recommended standards for 
conducting ROI studies of the VR Program.
    (d) Producing and disseminating training materials to support the 
VR Program in using the model(s).
    (e) Making the underlying data available so others can learn from 
and replicate the findings, without compromising personally 
identifiable information. Data availability will conform to all 
security requirements of identified sources.
    (f) Working with an advisory board made up of ROI, VR, and research 
methodology experts to ensure the findings are relevant, replicable, 
and sound.
Types of Priorities
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each

[[Page 29704]]

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 Priority
    We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priority after considering 
responses to this notice and other information available to the 
Department. 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 this priority, 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 proposed 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 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 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 this proposed priority only upon a reasoned 
determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among 
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that 
would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the 
Department believes that this proposed priority is consistent with the 
principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would 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 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.
    The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects 
and Centers Program have been well established over the years. Projects 
similar to the new DRRP have been completed successfully, and the new 
DRRP, established consistently with the proposed priority, is expected 
to improve the lives of individuals with disabilities and generate 
through research and development, disseminate, and promote the use of 
new information that would improve our understanding of how VR services 
improve the employment outcomes of individuals with disabilities.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the Grants and Contracts 
Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 
Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. 
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
    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 Adobe 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

[[Page 29705]]

your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: May 20, 2014.
Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 2014-12041 Filed 5-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P