Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-IDEA Data Management Center, 41012-41020 [2020-14072]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[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