Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data To Address Significant Disproportionality, 48230-48237 [2023-15849]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48230-48237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15849]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance on State Data 
Collection--National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State 
Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data To 
Address Significant Disproportionality

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) 2023 for 
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection--National Technical 
Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, 
Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data to Address Significant 
Disproportionality, Assistance Listing Number 84.373E. This notice 
relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 
1820-0028.

DATES: 
    Applications Available: July 26, 2023.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 11, 2023.
    Pre-Application Webinar Information: No later than July 31, 2023, 
the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services will post 
details on pre-recorded informational webinars designed to provide 
technical assistance to interested applicants. Links to the webinars 
may be found at https://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 
www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-26554. Please note that these Common 
Instructions supersede the version published on December 27, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richelle Davis, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5076, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: 202-245-7401. 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 on 
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to 
meet the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data 
collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the program is 
authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the Secretary 
authority to reserve not more than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the amounts 
appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide technical 
assistance (TA) activities, where needed, to improve the 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, 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. In addition, 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, gives 
the Secretary authority to use funds reserved under section 611(c) of 
IDEA 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.'' Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 
117-328, Div. H, Title III, 136 Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).
    Priority: This competition includes one absolute 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.
    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:

National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To 
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data To Address 
Significant Disproportionality

    Background:
    Under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, States are required to collect, 
report, analyze, and use data regarding students with disabilities. 
These activities are intended to support improved educational results 
and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities, and to 
ensure that States meet IDEA requirements, with an emphasis on those 
requirements most closely related to improving educational results for 
children with disabilities. Additionally, IDEA section 618(d) requires 
States and the Department of the Interior to collect and examine data 
to determine if significant disproportionality on the basis of race and 
ethnicity is occurring in the State and the local educational agencies 
(LEAs) of the State with respect to (1) identification of children as 
children with disabilities, including by disability category; (2) 
placement of children with disabilities by educational settings; and 
(3) the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, 
including suspensions and expulsions. There are 98 separate factors for 
determining whether significant disproportionality exists in an LEA 
(i.e., 14 categories of analysis with respect to identification, 
placement, and disciplinary removal, cross-tabulated with seven racial 
and ethnic groups).
    In December 2016, the Department published a final rule \1\ on 
significant disproportionality in special education to further clarify 
the statute. The final rule established a standard methodology that 
State educational agencies (SEAs) must use to determine whether 
significant disproportionality on the

[[Page 48231]]

basis of race and ethnicity is occurring in the State and its LEAs. The 
final rule also clarified the requirements for the review of policies, 
practices, and procedures when significant disproportionality is 
identified, and it requires LEAs to identify the factors contributing 
to the significant disproportionality and address them, including by 
reserving 15 percent of their IDEA Part B funds for comprehensive 
coordinated early intervening services (CCEIS). SEAs were required to 
begin implementing the regulation by reporting on significant 
disproportionality beginning in 2020 for the 2018-2019 school year.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The full text of the final rule can be found at 81 FR 92376 
(https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/19/2016-30190/assistance-to-states-for-the-education-of-children-with-disabilities-preschool-grants-for-children). Please also see 
Significant Disproportionality Essential Questions and Answers at 
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/significant-disproportionality-qa-03-08-17.pdf for additional information on significant 
disproportionality requirements.
    \2\ On July 3, 2018, the Department postponed the date for 
States to comply with these regulations until July 1, 2020. On March 
7, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of 
Columbia vacated the Department's delay. Council of Parent Attorneys 
and Advocates, Inc. v. DeVos, 365 F. Supp. 3d 28 (D.D.C. 2019). The 
regulations took effect immediately after that judicial decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since that time, the IDEA section 618 data reported by SEAs in the 
Maintenance of Effort Reduction and Coordinating Early Intervening 
Services collection (which include the number of LEAs required to 
reserve 15 percent of their IDEA Part B funds due to being identified 
as having significant disproportionality) \3\ reflected the following: 
For school year (SY) 2018-2019 (reported by SEAs in May 2020), SEAs 
reported that 417 LEAs, across 31 States, were required to reserve 15 
percent of their IDEA Part B funds due to significant 
disproportionality. Over the following two school years, the IDEA 
section 618 data submitted by SEAs reflected an increase in both the 
number of LEAs identified with significant disproportionality and the 
overall number of States that identified LEAs. For SY 2020-2021 (the 
most recent IDEA section 618 data available, reported by SEAs in May 
2022), SEAs identified 825 LEAs, across 39 States, with significant 
disproportionality. While this number represents only 5 percent of all 
LEAs in the country, it is a significant increase from the number of 
LEAs identified in SY 2018-2019. Of the 825 LEAs identified in SY 2020-
2021, 648 LEAs had not been identified with significant 
disproportionality in the previous two school years and 99 LEAs had 
been repeatedly identified in all three reporting years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An LEA that is identified as having significant 
disproportionality must reserve 15 percent of its IDEA, Part B funds 
to provide CCEIS. Please see questions C-3-1 to C-3-10 in 
Significant Disproportionality Essential Questions and Answers at 
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/significant-disproportionality-qa-03-08-17.pdf for more information on CCEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's analysis of the above data--i.e., the simultaneous 
increase in the number of LEAs identified by the State for the first 
time and the number of LEAs that have continued to be identified with 
significant disproportionality--is that SEAs have varying needs for TA 
to correctly use their IDEA data to both identify and address 
significant disproportionality in their LEAs. In particular, SEAs with 
LEAs that have been identified as having significant disproportionality 
in multiple years may require additional TA to assist LEAs in 
conducting more robust root cause analyses, including using various 
data to identify and address the factors contributing to the 
significant disproportionality. In addition, SEAs with LEAs newly 
identified as having significant disproportionality may require 
additional TA on how to support LEAs, whether in reviewing their 
policies, practices, and procedures in the area in which the 
significant disproportionality was identified, or in conducting a 
robust root cause analysis to identify and address factors contributing 
to the significant disproportionality.
    Additionally, based on a review of IDEA Part B State Performance 
Plans (SPPs)/Annual Performance Reports (APRs) submitted by SEAs since 
2016, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has found 
multiple instances of States confusing the methodologies used to 
calculate significant disproportionality with those used to calculate 
data under SPP/APR Indicator 4 (Suspension/Expulsion) and SPP/APR 
Indicators 9 and 10 (Disproportionate Representation). While there may 
be some similarities in these data sets and methodologies, the data 
analysis required for each is different and based on separate, distinct 
provisions of IDEA. The significant disproportionality provision in 
IDEA section 618(d) requires SEAs to determine whether significant 
disproportionality on the basis of race and ethnicity is occurring in 
the State and its LEAs, as it relates to identification, placement, and 
discipline. In contrast, the reporting under SPP/APR Indicator 4 is 
based on IDEA section 612(a)(22), which requires SEAs to identify 
significant discrepancies, including by race and ethnicity, in the 
rates of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with 
disabilities among the LEAs in the State or compared to rates for 
nondisabled children in those LEAs. SPP/APR Indicator 9 is based on 
IDEA section 616(a)(3)(C) and requires SEAs to identify LEAs with 
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special 
education and related services that is the result of inappropriate 
identification. SPP/APR Indicator 10, also based on IDEA section 
616(a)(3)(C), requires SEAs to identify LEAs with disproportionate 
representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability 
categories that is the result of inappropriate identification. In 
addition to providing data that is not valid and reliable to the 
Department, SEA confusion with implementing the methodologies for 
significant disproportionality and Indicators 4, 9, and 10, may lead to 
incorrect identification or non-identification of significant 
disproportionality, significant discrepancy, and disproportionate 
representation. OSEP has determined that SEAs, and LEAs through their 
work with SEAs, require additional assistance and resources to help 
them (1) collect high-quality data and analyze it according to the 
SEA's standard methodology; (2) understand what their significant 
disproportionality data mean in relation to data collected under IDEA, 
section 616; (3) conduct root cause analysis of the data to identify 
the potential causes and contributing factors of the significant 
disproportionality; (4) evaluate policies, practices, and procedures 
that may be contributing to the significant disproportionality; (5) 
make changes, including through the expenditure of IDEA funds for 
CCEIS, in any policy, practice, or procedure, and address any other 
factors, identified as contributing to the significant 
disproportionality; and (6) to provide data in timely, usable, 
accessible, and understandable formats for parents, families, 
advocates, and other stakeholders.
    To meet the array of complex challenges regarding the collection, 
reporting, analysis, and use of data by States, OSEP published an NFP 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register to establish and 
operate the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State 
Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data to 
Address Significant Disproportionality.
    Priority:
    The purpose of the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve 
State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Data 
to Address Significant Disproportionality (Center) is to promote equity 
by improving State capacity to accurately collect, report, analyze, and 
use section 618 data to address issues of significant 
disproportionality. The Center will also work to increase the capacity 
of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with

[[Page 48232]]

SEAs, to use their data to conduct robust root cause analyses and 
identify evidence-based strategies for effectively using funds reserved 
for CCEIS.
    The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected 
outcomes:
    (a) Increased capacity of SEAs to analyze and use their data 
collected and reported under section 618 of IDEA to accurately identify 
significant disproportionality in the State and the LEAs of the State;
    (b) Increased capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with 
SEAs, to use data collected and reported under section 618 of IDEA, as 
well as other available data, to conduct root cause analyses in order 
to identify the potential causes and contributing factors of an LEA's 
significant disproportionality;
    (c) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with 
SEAs, to review and, as necessary, revise policies, practices, and 
procedures identified as contributing to significant 
disproportionality, and to address any other factors identified as 
contributing to the significant disproportionality;
    (d) Improved capacity of SEAs to assist LEAs, as needed, in using 
data to drive decisions related to the use of funds reserved for CCEIS;
    (e) Increased capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with 
SEAs, to use data to address disparities revealed in the data they 
collect;
    (f) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with 
SEAs, to accurately collect, report, analyze, and use data related to 
significant disproportionality and apply the State methodology for 
identifying significant disproportionality, including distinguishing 
data collected under section 616 of IDEA (specifically, SPP/APR 
Indicator 4 (Suspension/Expulsion) and SPP/APR Indicators 9 and 10 
(Disproportionate Representation);
    (g) Increased capacity of SEAs to use data to evaluate their own 
methodology for identifying significant disproportionality;
    (h) Improved capacity of SEAs to assist LEAs to engage parents, 
families, advocates, and other stakeholders to use data to address 
disparities revealed in the data they collect; and
    (i) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with 
SEAs, to provide data in timely, usable, accessible, and understandable 
formats for parents, families, advocates, and other stakeholders.
    In addition, to be considered for funding under this competition, 
applicants must meet the following requirements:
    Applicants must--
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address State challenges in collecting, analyzing, reporting, 
and using their data collected under section 618 of IDEA to correctly 
identify and address significant disproportionality. To meet this 
requirement the applicant must--
    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA data collections, including data 
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, as well as the 
requirements related to significant disproportionality in section 
618(d) of IDEA;
    (ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to 
demonstrate the capacity needs of SEAs, and LEAs through their work 
with SEAs, to analyze and use their data collected under section 618 of 
IDEA to identify and address significant disproportionality;
    (iii) Describe how SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, are 
currently analyzing and using their data collected under section 618 of 
IDEA to identify and address significant disproportionality; and
    (iv) Present information about the difficulties SEAs, and LEAs 
through their work with SEAs, including a variety of LEAs such as urban 
and rural LEAs and charter schools that are LEAs, have in collecting, 
reporting, analyzing, and using their IDEA section 618 data to address 
significant disproportionality; and
    (2) Result in improved IDEA data collection, reporting, analysis, 
and use in identifying and addressing significant disproportionality.
    (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 products and services meet the needs of the 
intended recipients of the grant;
    (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 current research and make use of evidence-based 
practices (EBPs).\4\ To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of these requirements, ``evidence-based 
practices'' (EBPs) means, at a minimum, demonstrating a rationale 
(as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) based on high-quality research findings 
or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention 
is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) The current capacity of SEAs to use IDEA section 618 data to 
correctly identify significant disproportionality and assist LEAs as 
they conduct root cause analyses and review LEA policies, practices, 
and procedures;
    (ii) Current research on effective practices to address 
disproportionality, particularly through the provision of CCEIS; and
    (iii) 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 
the capacity needs of SEAs, and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to 
collect, report, analyze, and use IDEA section 618 data in a manner 
that correctly identifies and addresses significant disproportionality 
in States and LEAs;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\5\ which must

[[Page 48233]]

identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``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,\6\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``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; 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; 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, 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 SEA personnel 
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 SEA level;
    (C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build or enhance 
training systems related to the use of IDEA section 618 data to 
correctly identify and address significant disproportionality that 
include professional development based on adult learning principles and 
coaching;
    (D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, and 
families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and 
that there are systems in place to support the capacity needs of SEAs, 
and LEAs through their work with SEAs, to collect, report, analyze, and 
use IDEA section 618 data to correctly identify and address significant 
disproportionality; and
    (E) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with 
Department-funded projects, including those providing data-related 
support to States (e.g., the IDEA Data Center, the Center for IDEA 
Fiscal Reporting, the National Center for Systemic Improvement) and 
equity-related support to States (e.g., Center on Positive Behavioral 
Interventions and Supports, Regional Equity Assistance Centers), where 
appropriate, in order to align complementary work and jointly develop 
and implement products and services to meet the purposes of this 
priority;
    (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, or 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 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; and
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits, and funds will be spent in a way that 
increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by 
reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
    (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

[[Page 48234]]

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:
    (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, or 
virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting 
in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the OSEP project officer and 
other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
    Note: The project must reallocate unused travel funds no later than 
the end of the third quarter if the kick-off or planning meetings are 
conducted virtually.

    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, or virtually, during each year of the project period; 
and

    Note: The project must reallocate unused travel funds no later 
than the end of the third quarter of each budget period if the 
conference is conducted virtually.

    (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 
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; and
    (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.
    Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:
    In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth 
and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 
75.253(a), including--
    (a) The recommendations of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts 
with knowledge and experience in data collection and significant 
disproportionality. This review will be conducted during a one-day 
intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the second 
year of the project period;
    (b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of 
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the 
project; and
    (c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's 
products and services and the extent to which the project's products 
and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to 
result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.
    Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards 
or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive 
carryover balances or a failure to make substantial progress. The 
Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and 
substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue 
funding accordingly.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d), 
1442; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, Div. 
H, Title III, 136 Stat. 4459, 4891 (2022).

    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. (d) The NFP. (e) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR 
part 300.

    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: $1,500,000 in year one, $2,500,000 in 
year two, and $3,500,000 in years three through five.
    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 $1,500,000 for a 
single budget period of 12 months in year one, $2,500,000 for a single 
budget period of 12 months in year two, and $3,500,000 for a single 
budget period of 12 months in years three through five.

    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; State lead agencies under Part C of 
IDEA; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs 
under State law; institutions of higher education (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

[[Page 48235]]

described in its application--to the following types of entities: IHEs, 
nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed 
in the application, and 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, on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 
75045), and available at www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-26554, 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. 
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under 
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this 
competition. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental 
review in order to make an award by the end of FY 2023.
    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.
    (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.

[[Page 48236]]

    (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 
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
    (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

[[Page 48237]]

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 purpose of Department reporting 
under 34 CFR 75.110, 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 TA and 
dissemination products and services deemed to be of high quality by an 
independent review panel of experts qualified or individuals with 
appropriate expertise to review the substantive content of the products 
and services.
     Program Performance Measure #2: The percentage of TA 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 TA and 
dissemination products and services deemed by an independent review 
panel of qualified experts or members of the 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 the needs identified 
by stakeholders and may require the Center 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, 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. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2023-15849 Filed 7-24-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P