Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities-Center on Dispute Resolution, 7415-7423 [2023-02340]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7415-7423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02340]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With 
Disabilities--Center on Dispute Resolution

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

[[Page 7416]]


ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice 
inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2023 for a 
Center on Dispute Resolution, Assistance Listing Number 84.326X. This 
notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control 
number 1820-0028.

DATES: 
    Applications Available: February 3, 2023.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 4, 2023.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: June 20, 2023.
    Pre-Application Webinar Information: No later than February 8, 
2023, OSERS will post pre-recorded informational webinars designed to 
provide technical assistance (TA) to interested applicants. The 
webinars may be found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html.

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 December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs. Please note that these Common Instructions supersede 
the version published on December 27, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carmen Sanchez, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5044 Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6595. Email: 
[email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with 
Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve 
results for children with disabilities by providing TA, supporting 
model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and 
implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based 
research.
    Priority: This competition includes one absolute priority. In 
accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable 
activities specified in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 
1481(d)).
    Absolute Priority: For FY 2023 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:
    Center on Dispute Resolution.
    Background:
    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) includes 
procedural safeguards that are designed to protect the rights of 
children with disabilities and their parents and to provide parents 
with mechanisms for resolving, at the earliest point in time, disputes 
with those who provide services to children with disabilities through 
IDEA--State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies 
(LEAs), schools, Part C State lead agencies (LAs), and early 
intervention service (EIS) providers. The procedural safeguards include 
the opportunity to seek a timely resolution of disputes about 
establishing a child's eligibility under IDEA and providing a free 
appropriate public education (FAPE) to an eligible child or the 
appropriate early intervention services to infants and toddlers with 
disabilities and their families. Thus, IDEA encourages constructive 
relationships between parents of children with disabilities and those 
who provide services to children with disabilities by facilitating open 
communication between the parents and these entities and encouraging 
early resolution of disputes so that disagreements do not escalate, 
become adversarial, or result in a delay in identifying and providing 
needed services to eligible children. IDEA's dispute resolution 
procedures \1\ include provisions for State complaints, mediation, due 
process complaints, and resolution sessions, as described below. These 
procedures provide an important means of ensuring that the educational 
or early intervention needs of children with disabilities are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The IDEA requirements for dispute resolution are in sections 
615 and 639 of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1415 and 1439). The corresponding 
regulations are in 34 CFR 300.151 through 300.153; 34 CFR 300.500 
through 300.519; and 34 CFR 303.430 through 303.449.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    State Complaints. IDEA's State complaint procedures permit parents 
and other interested individuals or organizations to file a complaint 
with the SEA or LA to seek resolution of any alleged violations of 
IDEA.
    Mediation. In mediation, a neutral third party facilitates the 
resolution of disputes without the need for an adversarial hearing. 
Thus, mediation is more likely to foster positive relationships between 
families, educators, and EIS providers than due process hearings 
(Government Accountability Office, 2003).
    Due Process Hearings. In due process hearings, an impartial, 
knowledgeable decision-maker resolves disputes. Due process hearings 
can be costly, time consuming, and contentious, and may damage 
relationships between the parties.
    Resolution Session. The resolution session requirement applies to 
all IDEA Part B due process complaints and to those IDEA Part C due 
process complaints filed in a State that has elected to adopt the Part 
B due process hearing procedures. The LEA or the LA convenes a meeting 
with the parents and relevant members of the child's individualized 
education program (IEP) or individualized family service plan (IFSP) 
Team to provide the parents and the agency responsible for providing 
service to a child with an opportunity to resolve the complaint and 
avoid a due process hearing.
    Early Resolution Practices. In addition to these methods of dispute 
resolution specifically required under IDEA, there are a variety of 
informal or ``early resolution'' practices that can be used to resolve 
disputes.
    Each SEA and LA is responsible for annually reporting data on 
dispute resolution activity to the Office of Special Education Programs 
(OSEP) to help determine the extent to which States effectively 
implement dispute resolution practices. An analysis of national data 
trends in dispute resolution conducted by the Center for Appropriate 
Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) shows over the past 11 
years increases in the formal dispute mechanisms of due process 
complaints and resolution sessions, with the highest increases during 
the past two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Written State complaints 
have remained relatively steady over the same period, while there has 
been a significant decline in mediation requests during the pandemic 
after years of growth. The rise of virtual dispute resolution options, 
particularly for less adversarial options such as facilitated IEP Team 
meetings and mediation, is a promising by-product of the circumstances 
posed by the pandemic (CADRE, 2022). However, OSEP's most

[[Page 7417]]

recent analysis of State annual performance reports (APRs) shows that 
the average agreement rates for resolution meetings and mediations have 
trended downward in the last three years (OSEP, 2022).
    In addition, a Government Accountability Office (2019) study of 
five SEAs showed dispute resolution options differed across districts 
with varying demographics, with a greater portion of high-income 
districts having more dispute resolution activity than low-income 
districts, as well as fewer predominantly Black or Hispanic districts 
having dispute resolution activity. However, predominantly Black or 
Hispanic districts with dispute resolution activity had higher rates 
than predominantly White districts in their States (Government 
Accountability Office, 2019). OSEP-funded Parent Training and 
Information Centers and Community Parent Resource Centers (collectively 
``parent centers'') have noted that lack of awareness of dispute 
resolution options is prevalent among underserved populations due to 
language, access, or economic barriers. Additionally, the field has 
raised concerns about confusion among parents and professionals 
regarding how IDEA's dispute resolution options interact with dispute 
resolution procedures under other Federal laws protecting children with 
disabilities, such as those prescribed in 34 CFR 104.7 and 104.36 to 
implement section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
    SEAs, LAs, and parent centers continue to require TA on effective 
dispute resolution strategies, particularly as the COVID-19 pandemic 
and its aftermath affect dispute resolution options and change dispute 
resolution systems. In addition, there is a greater awareness of the 
need for equitable and culturally and linguistically competent dispute 
resolution systems that are responsive to the needs of all families, 
and an increased understanding of other federally required dispute 
resolution systems that protect the rights of all children with 
disabilities. The Center will build on existing knowledge to increase 
the capacity of SEAs and LAs to respond effectively to the dispute 
resolution challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic; develop equitable 
and culturally and linguistically competent dispute resolution systems; 
and promote local implementation of equitable early resolution 
practices.
    This absolute priority will advance the Secretary's priorities 
related to promoting equity in student access to educational resources 
and opportunities, and meeting students' social, emotional, and 
academic needs.
    Priority:
    The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to 
establish and operate a Center on Dispute Resolution (Center). This 
Center will provide TA to SEAs, LAs, and OSEP-funded parent centers to 
support them in working with LEAs and EIS service providers to improve 
the implementation of the range of dispute resolution options, 
including methods of dispute resolution required under the IDEA, and 
early resolution practices.
    The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected 
outcomes:
    (a) Increased body of knowledge and dissemination of knowledge on 
exemplary dispute prevention and dispute resolution practices to meet 
the needs of parents in resolving disputes, including culturally and 
linguistically responsive practices, and the interaction of IDEA 
dispute resolution systems with dispute resolution systems required by 
other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities;
    (b) Increased capacity of SEAs and LAs to support local 
implementation of effective and equitable early resolution practices to 
resolve disputes and thereby decrease requests for State complaints and 
due process hearings;
    (c) Increased capacity of SEAs and LAs to collect, report, and use 
high-quality dispute resolution data;
    (d) Improved capacity of LEAs and EIS providers, through their work 
with SEAs and LAs, to equitably implement a range of dispute resolution 
options, including methods of dispute resolution required under IDEA 
and early resolution practices; and
    (e) Improved capacity of OSEP-funded parent centers to provide 
culturally and linguistically competent TA to parents on the range of 
effective dispute resolution options.
    In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered 
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application 
and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address gaps or weaknesses in State or local performance under 
and compliance with dispute resolution requirements to meet the dispute 
resolution needs of SEA and LA personnel, and LEA and EIS providers 
(through the SEA and LA), as well as the needs of parents, including 
those from underserved \2\ populations who may be less likely to 
utilize dispute resolution due to language, access, or economic 
barriers. To meet this requirement the applicant must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Underserved parents include: parents living in poverty; 
parents of color; parents who are members of a federally or State 
recognized Indian Tribe; parents who are English learners; parents 
who experience a disability; disconnected parents; technologically 
unconnected parents; migrant parents; parents experiencing 
homelessness or housing insecurity; lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
transgender, queer or questioning, or intersex (LGBTQI+) parents; 
foster parents; parents without documentation of immigration status; 
parents impacted by the justice system, including formerly 
incarcerated parents and parents of children in the juvenile justice 
system; parents in need of improving their basic skills or with 
limited literacy; and military- or veteran-connected parents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of exemplary and equitable dispute 
resolution practices that will assist SEAs and LAs in working with LEA 
and EIS providers to improve dispute resolution, especially practices 
that will assist agencies, SEAs, and LAs in meeting performance targets 
specified in their State Performance Plan, implementing effective and 
culturally and linguistically competent dispute resolution systems and 
practices in accordance with IDEA dispute resolution requirements;
    (ii) Present information about the current level of implementation 
of exemplary and equitable dispute resolution practices by SEAs and 
LAs, especially practices that will assist agencies in meeting 
performance targets and implementing effective and culturally and 
linguistically competent dispute resolution systems and practices in 
accordance with IDEA dispute resolution requirements; and
    (iii) Present national, State, or local data on the financial and 
administrative burden of involvement in dispute resolution and discuss 
strategies for minimizing these burdens for all parties involved;
    (2) Improve outcomes in dispute resolution system performance for 
SEAs and LAs, and increase the implementation of early resolution 
practices by LEAs and EIS providers;
    (3) Increase the understanding by SEAs, LAs, LEAs and EIS providers 
(through the SEAs and LAs), as well as parents, of the interaction of 
IDEA dispute resolution systems with dispute resolution systems 
required by other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with 
disabilities; and
    (4) Improve communication between parents and education 
professionals to minimize conflict and increase the use of 
collaborative problem-solving and dispute resolution practices that are 
culturally and linguistically competent.

[[Page 7418]]

    (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 of the grant's TA;
    (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: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and 
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.
    (4) Be based on IDEA requirements for dispute resolution systems, 
including the interaction of IDEA dispute resolution systems with 
dispute resolution systems required by other Federal laws protecting 
the rights of children with disabilities, and current research, and 
make use of evidence-based \3\ practices (EBPs). To meet this 
requirement, the applicant must describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For the purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means, 
at a minimum, evidence that demonstrates 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 effective and culturally and 
linguistically competent dispute resolution practices;
    (ii) The current research on early resolution EBPs;
    (iii) The current research about adult learning principles and 
implementation science that will inform the proposed TA; and
    (iv) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and 
practices 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--
    (A) Special education and early intervention dispute resolution and 
culturally and linguistically competent dispute resolution;
    (B) Annual State and national dispute resolution trends; and
    (C) The interaction of IDEA dispute resolution systems with dispute 
resolution systems required by other Federal laws protecting the rights 
of children with disabilities;
    (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, a description 
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make 
available, and the expected impact of those 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, a description 
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make 
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under 
this approach; and
    (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 local level;
    (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; and
    (7) Develop a dissemination plan that describes how the applicant 
will systematically distribute information, products, and services to 
varied intended audiences, using a variety of dissemination strategies, 
to promote awareness and use of the Center's products and services.
    (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.\6\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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 this notice;
    (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;

[[Page 7419]]

    (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 APR; 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 and quality of project personnel,'' 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, to 
include those with legal expertise in special education dispute 
resolution;
    (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to 
carry out the proposed activities; and
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits.
    (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.
    (f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant 
must--
    (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 virtual planning meeting 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' or other OSEP 
conference in Washington, DC during each year of the project period; 
and
    (iii) One annual two-day trip 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 
5 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) Ensure that annual project progress toward meeting project 
goals is posted on the project website; and
    (6) 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 intended TA recipients during the transition 
to a new award at the end of this award period, as appropriate.
    References:

Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education 
(CADRE). (2022). Trends in dispute resolution under the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). CADRE. www.cadreworks.org/resources/cadre-materials/2020-21-dr-data-summary-national.
Government Accountability Office. (2003). Numbers of formal disputes 
are generally low and States are using mediation and other 
strategies to resolve conflicts (GAO Publication No. 03-897). 
Government Printing Office.
Government Accountability Office. (2019). IDEA dispute resolution 
activity in selected States varied based on school districts' 
characteristics (GAO Publication No. 20-22). Government Printing 
Office.
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). (2022). 2022 Part B FFY 
2020 SPP/APR Indicator Analysis Booklet. OSEP. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/PartB-IndicatorAnalysis-FFY2020.pdf.

    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure 
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested 
parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section 
681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the 
APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.
    Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner 
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal 
civil rights laws.
    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.
    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: $750,000.
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2024 from the list of 
unfunded applications from this competition.
    Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $750,000 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.

[[Page 7420]]

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; State LAs under Part C of the IDEA; 
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. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require 
cost sharing or matching.
    b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an 
unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding 
indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please 
see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.
    c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include 
any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All 
administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to 
Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform 
Guidance.
    3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under 
this competition may award subgrants--to directly carry out project 
activities described in its application--to the following types of 
entities: institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations 
suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application, and 
other public agencies. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it 
has identified in an approved application or that it selects through a 
competition under procedures established by the grantee, consistent 
with 34 CFR 75.708(b)(2).
    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 December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs, which contain requirements and information on how to 
submit an application. Please note that these Common Instructions 
supersede the version published on December 27, 2021.
    2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to 
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under 
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this 
competition.
    3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative 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 the cover sheet; the 
budget section, including the narrative budget justification; 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 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.
    (c) Quality of the project evaluation (20 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.

[[Page 7421]]

    (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.
    (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 key project personnel.
    (ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
    (iii) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, 
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the 
lead applicant organization.
    (iv) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in 
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
    (v) 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 (20 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 
are 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 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 
200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department 
conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 
200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions, and under 2 CFR 
3474.10, 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 200.206(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.
    6. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and 
Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal 
laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and 
consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting 
applications in accordance with:
    (a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering 
results based on the program objectives through an objective process of 
evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
    (b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video 
surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 
200.216);
    (c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to 
maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United 
States (2 CFR 200.322); and

[[Page 7422]]

    (d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest 
extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program 
goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

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: For the purposes of Department reporting 
under 34 CFR 75.110, we have established a set of performance measures, 
including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on 
various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical 
Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for 
Children with Disabilities 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 Special 
Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services 
deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be of 
high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or 
practice.
     Program Performance Measure #3: The percentage of all 
Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and 
services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to 
be useful in improving educational or early intervention policy or 
practice.
     Program Performance Measure #4: The cost efficiency of the 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination 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.
     Long-term Program Performance Measure: The percentage of 
States receiving Special Education Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination services regarding scientifically or evidence-based 
practices for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities 
that successfully promote the implementation of those practices in 
school districts and service agencies.
    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 to report on such alignment in 
its 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, whether 
the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving 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: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an 
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an 
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text 
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
    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.

[[Page 7423]]

Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can 
limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Katherine Neas,
Deputy Assistant Secretary. Delegated the authority to perform the 
functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of 
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2023-02340 Filed 2-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P