Rule2024-16115
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Early Childhood IDEA Data
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 22, 2024
Effective
August 21, 2024
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities and requirements for the National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Early Childhood IDEA Data (Center) under the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program. The Department may use these priorities and these requirements in fiscal year (FY) 2024 and later years. We will use the priorities to award a cooperative agreement for a Center to provide technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States to meet the early childhood data collection and reporting requirements under Part B and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 140 (Monday, July 22, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58983-58991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-16115]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2024-OSERS-0001]
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection--National Technical
Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report,
Analyze, and Use Accurate Early Childhood IDEA Data
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities and requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces priorities
and requirements for the National Technical Assistance Center To
Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate
Early Childhood IDEA Data (Center) under the Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program. The Department may use these priorities
and these requirements in fiscal year (FY) 2024 and later years. We
will use the priorities to award a cooperative agreement for a Center
to provide technical assistance (TA) to improve the capacity of States
to meet the early childhood data collection and reporting requirements
under Part B and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA).
DATES: The priority and requirements are effective August 21, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Miceli, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 987-0135. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c984acbbacada0bda1e784a0aaaca5a089acade7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97daf2e5f2f3fee3ffb9dafef4f2fbfed7f2f3b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>.
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:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the
Secretary authority to reserve not more than one-half of one percent of
the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide
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
and 642 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 Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, 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.'' Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law
118-47, Div. D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
Assistance Listing Number: 84.373Z.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d),
1442; Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47,
Div. D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.
[[Page 58984]]
We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP)
for this program in the Federal Register on February 22, 2024 (89 FR
13294). That document contained background information and our reasons
for proposing the priority and requirements.
There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final
priority and requirements (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes section of this document. The most significant
change, as discussed below, is the elimination of the requirement for
an electronic open-source tool to assist States in linking and
integrating their Part C early intervention and Part B preschool
special education data with other data/data systems associated with
other Federal programs that support infants, toddlers, and young
children and their families.\1\ We are also adding expected outcome (i)
for the Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This NFP describes infants, toddlers and/or children with
disabilities as ``children with disabilities'' or ``young children
with disabilities'' to include children referred to both Parts C and
B of the IDEA, birth through age five.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, eight
parties submitted comments addressing the proposed priority and
requirements. We received one additional comment unrelated to the
priority.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the
applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general
comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed
priority and requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priority and requirements since publication of
the NPP follows. We received comments on a number of specific topics,
including the topics for TA. Each topic is addressed below.
General Comments
Comments: All commenters specifically expressed support for the
proposed Center, as it would improve State capacity for IDEA early
childhood data collection, analysis, and reporting.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with
the commenters that the Center funded under this program will provide
necessary and valuable TA to States to improve the capacity of States
to meet their IDEA early childhood data collection, analysis, and
reporting requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: The majority of commenters focused their comments on the
Department's directed question regarding the phased-in funding
strategy, which entails smaller initial awards followed by larger ones
in subsequent years. Many expressed reservations about this approach,
particularly in light of the expanded scope and obligations introduced
by Proposed Priority 2: Technical Assistance To Improve State Capacity
To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Child Find Data For
Infants and Toddlers. They highlighted concerns about the added
requirement to create an open-source electronic tool aimed at assisting
States in integrating their Part C early intervention and Part B
preschool special education data with other Federal program data
systems supporting infants, toddlers, and young children and their
families. The commenters also noted that the strategy would restrict
the Center's ability to offer comprehensive support to States. One
commenter suggested postponing intensive TA on data utilization for
Child Find processes until full funding could be secured, emphasizing
the need for additional financial resources to develop the open-source
electronic tool.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the feedback provided by
commenters regarding the necessity to align the scope and requirements
of these priorities with the available funding for this project. We
recognize the ongoing needs of States concerning the collection,
reporting, analysis, and use of IDEA Part C and Part B preschool
special education data. Consequently, any expansion of the scope and
requirements for these priorities should align to the most pressing
needs identified by States. To address the concerns raised by
commenters, the Department is refining the scope and requirements of
these priorities accordingly. Furthermore, we expect applicants to
propose suitable timelines for implementing general, targeted, and
intensive TA, taking into account the annual funding levels provided
for this project.
Changes: The Department is adjusting the scope of these priorities
and requirements to align with the funding available for this Center by
eliminating the requirement for an open-source tool and narrowing the
scope of TA associated with data integration to primarily focus on the
sharing, linking, or integrating of IDEA Part C early intervention and
IDEA Part B preschool special education data.
Integrating Early Childhood Data Systems
Comments: Two commenters expressed approval for incorporating an
open-source electronic tool to aid States in linking and integrating
their Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education
data with other data/data systems associated with other Federal
programs that support infants, toddlers, and young children and their
families. However, several commenters voiced concerns regarding the
inclusion of this requirement in Priority 1. They pointed out that
creating such a tool would demand significant project resources and a
substantial commitment of State staff, which may currently be
unfeasible. Moreover, one commenter provided evidence suggesting that
this tool is not a top priority for State staff compared to other
aspects of these priorities.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the feedback provided on the
open-source electronic tool to assist States in linking and integrating
their Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education
data with other data/data systems associated with other Federal
programs that support infants, toddlers, and young children and their
families. We agree with the commenters that the development of the
open-source electronic tool should be omitted from the requirements of
these priorities to align the scope of this center with the most
pressing needs identified by States.
Changes: We removed the requirement for an open-source electronic
tool from Priority 1.
Comments: Several commenters suggested modifications to the scope
and expected outcomes of the TA concerning the enhancement,
streamlining, and integration of statewide, child-level early childhood
data systems. One commenter stated that many States have a considerable
amount of work to do before they are able to integrate and/or link data
outside of the IDEA Part C early intervention and Part B preschool
special education programs. Another commenter noted that, while TA is
an important component to the data integration work, States must also
have State leadership support, support of other programs and agencies,
as well as necessary staff, financial resources, and data capacity to
plan for and accomplish the complexities involved in this type of data
integration. This commenter noted that States expressed that the
expected outcome related to data system integration was of lower
priority to Part C early intervention programs. They
[[Page 58985]]
noted that given the current challenges and priorities of Part C lead
agencies, data integration for many States remains aspirational at this
point. For these reasons, commenters suggested to focus this TA on--(1)
data sharing and linking between the IDEA Part C early intervention
program and IDEA Part B preschool special education programs; and (2)
States' readiness to engage in TA related to linking or integrating
Part C and Part B preschool special education data with other
statewide, child-level early learning data systems (e.g., early
childhood integrated data systems (ECIDS)).
Discussion: The Department acknowledges that States vary in their
levels of interest, capability, and commitment to share, link, or
integrate their Part C and Part B preschool special education data with
data from other early learning data systems. Additionally, we recognize
that engaging in TA regarding data sharing, linking, and integrating
requires a significant commitment of State staff and resources.
Moreover, we appreciate the feedback indicating that data sharing,
linking, and integrating with other early learning data systems is a
lower priority for Part C and Part B preschool special education
programs at this time. We also appreciate the recommendation to assess
the readiness of States to engage in TA on this topic. Consequently, we
are refining the scope of Priority 1 in light of these considerations.
Changes: The Department has removed expected outcome (e) concerning
State capacity to utilize available integrated or linked Part C early
intervention and Part B preschool special education data and/or early
childhood integrated data systems to analyze high-quality data on the
participation and outcomes of infants, toddlers, and children with
disabilities served under IDEA who may also participate in other
programs.
Additionally, we have made the following revisions:
<bullet> Expected outcome (c) in Priority 1 now emphasizes
increasing the number of States with plans to share, link, or integrate
data, specifically considering the linking of Part C early intervention
and Part B preschool special education data.
<bullet> Expected outcome (e) in Priority 1 now concentrates on
enhancing States' readiness to engage in data sharing, linking, or
integration activities among Part C and Part B preschool special
education data/systems and other statewide longitudinal and early
learning data/systems. This includes data/systems associated with child
care, Early Head Start, Head Start, publicly funded preschool, and home
visiting programs.
<bullet> Expected outcome (f) in Priority 1 now centers on data
management policies and procedures, encompassing data sharing, linking,
and integration, as well as data system integration activities. These
policies and procedures aim to facilitate the collection, reporting,
analysis, and use of high-quality IDEA Part C early intervention and
Part B preschool special education data.
Areas of State Need
Comments: Several commenters recommended the inclusion of
additional areas of State need associated with the IDEA section 616
data (as modified by IDEA section 642), including early childhood and
family outcomes data, data to be reported on the new general
supervision indicator, and data for the State Systemic Improvement Plan
(SSIP). Additionally, commenters provided support for providing TA
around Part C child find data and analyses, including defining,
collecting, and using data to improve the processes for identifying
young children eligible for IDEA services and to monitor equitable
access to early intervention services.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the need for this Center to
increase State capacity to collect, report, analyze and use Part C
child find data, early childhood and family outcomes data, general
supervision data, and program improvement data. These areas align with
the following indicators that State Part C Programs report under the
IDEA section 616 data: Indicator 3 (Early Childhood Outcomes),
Indicator 4 (Family Outcomes), Indicators 5 and 6 (Child Find),
Indicator 11 (SSIP), and Indicator 12 (General Supervision). This
Center will provide TA in these areas as they relate to the collection,
reporting, analysis, and use of the IDEA section 616 data under
expected outcome (a) of Priority 1.
Changes: The Department inserted a footnote to clarify the data
reported under IDEA section 616 in expected outcome (a) of Priority 1.
Comments: Two commenters expressed the need for this Center to
provide TA to support State capacity to participate in the
Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) process.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges the necessity of enhancing
State capacity to collect, report, analyze and use data for evidence-
based monitoring protocols within the DMS process. DMS is a cyclical
monitoring process that focuses on States' general supervision systems.
General supervision encompasses each State's responsibility to ensure
that the State and its subgrantees and contractors meet the
requirements of IDEA. These requirements include improving educational
results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities, and
early intervention results and functional outcomes for all infants and
toddlers with disabilities. Additionally, public agencies must meet the
program requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA, with a particular
emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to
improving early intervention results for infants and toddlers with
disabilities and educational results for children with disabilities.
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) identifies data,
including the State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report
(APR), as one of the four components of general supervision that is
examined in the DMS process. Consequently, we have incorporated an
expected outcome related to strengthening State capacity to collect,
report, analyze, and use data, demonstrating State-level implementation
of IDEA policies and procedures.
Changes: The Department inserted expected outcome (i) in Priority 1
to build State capacity to collect, report, analyze, and use Part C
early intervention and Part B preschool special education data to
improve State IDEA data analyses regarding results and functional
outcomes for all infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities to
demonstrate and improve how public agencies meet the program
requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA, with a particular emphasis on
those requirements that are most closely related to improving early
intervention results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and
educational results for children with disabilities as monitored by the
Department via its DMS process.
Comments: Two commenters suggested a specific focus on building
State capacity in the area of data leadership.
Discussion: The Department agrees that there is a need to build
State capacity in data leadership. Data leaders are expected to create
a culture of data use in their programs, facilitate and promote
building the capacity of staff and stakeholders to use data, and
enhance the data infrastructure needed to improve the management of
Part C and Part B preschool special education data through the entire
life cycle.
Changes: The Department revised expected outcome (g) in Priority 1
to
[[Page 58986]]
include building State capacity to address data leadership training
needs.
Components for TA
Comments: One commenter suggested a need for the Center to offer
cross-State connections and learning opportunities and another
commenter suggested adding a requirement for the Center to host a data
conference.
Discussion: The Department agrees there is a need for the Center to
offer cross-State training opportunities. We think that expected
outcome (g) in Priority 1, which requires the Center to facilitate both
in-person and virtual cross-State training for data leaders and
personnel in State and local programs and agencies, effectively
addresses this need. Applicants should propose the type(s) of cross-
State training opportunities they believe are most effective and
efficient to build State capacity to collect, report, analyze, and use
the Part C and Part B preschool special education data.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that there should be an
intentional focus on equitable data collection, analysis, and use
within these priorities.
Discussion: The Department agrees that there is a need to build
State capacity to collect, report, analyze, and use Part C and Part B
preschool special education data to support equitable identification,
access, services, outcomes, and impact of early intervention and
preschool special education and related services on infants, toddlers,
and young children receiving services under IDEA. Additionally, we
think the expected outcome (h) in Priority 1 and the expected outcomes
(b), (c), and (d) in Priority 2 address this need.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
This document contains two final priorities.
Priority 1: National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State
Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Early Childhood
IDEA Data
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to
establish and operate a National Technical Assistance Center to Improve
State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Early
Childhood IDEA Data (Center).
The Center will provide TA to (1) improve State capacity to
collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part C early
intervention data (including IDEA section 618 Part C data and IDEA
section 616 Part C data) and IDEA Part B preschool special education
data on children with disabilities; and (2) enhance and streamline Part
C and Part B preschool special education data systems by sharing,
linking, and integrating statewide, child-level early childhood data
(including Part C and Part B preschool special education data) to
improve the analyses of IDEA data to address critical policy questions
that will facilitate program improvement, improve compliance
accountability, and improve outcomes or results for children served
under Part C and Part B preschool special education programs. These
Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data
systems must allow the States to (1) effectively and efficiently
respond to all IDEA-related data submission requirements (e.g., Part C
section 616 and 618 data and Part B preschool special education data);
(2) improve the analyses of IDEA data to respond to critical policy
questions that will facilitate program improvement and compliance
accountability; and (3) comply with applicable privacy requirements,
including the privacy and confidentiality requirements under Parts B
and C of IDEA and applicable provisions of the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and its regulations at 34 CFR
part 99.\2\ The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following
expected outcomes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Center must review the need for additional resources
(with input from the Department) and disseminate existing resources
developed by the Department, such as: (1) Understanding the
Confidentiality Requirements Applicable to IDEA Early Childhood
Programs (October 2016); (2) IDEA/FERPA Crosswalk (Surprenant &
Miller, August 24, 2022)(<a href="https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/resource_document/file/IDEA-FERPA%20Crosswalk_08242022.pdf">https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/resource_document/file/IDEA-FERPA%20Crosswalk_08242022.pdf</a>); (3) Webinars such as Navigating
IDEA and FERPA To Protect Privacy in Today's Early Childhood World
(September 22, 2023); and (4) Data sharing agreement template (at
<a href="https://dasycenter.org/us-dept-ed-shares-idea-data-sharing-mou-template/">https://dasycenter.org/us-dept-ed-shares-idea-data-sharing-mou-template/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and
use high-quality IDEA Part C early intervention data (including IDEA
section 616 Part C data \3\ and section 618 Part C data \4\);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The IDEA section 616 Part C data includes Indicators 1
through 12 as discussed in the Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)
and Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator Measurement Table.
\4\ The IDEA section 618 Part C data includes Part C Child Count
and Settings data collection, Part C Exiting data collection, and
the Part C Dispute Resolution data collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and
use high-quality IDEA Part B preschool special education data;
(c) Increased number of States with plans to share, link, or
integrate Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special
education data (that comply with all applicable privacy laws) and use
such shared, linked, or integrated Part C early intervention and Part B
preschool special education data to improve program compliance and
accountability;
(d) Increased number of States that use their Part C early
intervention and Part B preschool special education data system to
identify and answer critical State-determined policy questions to drive
program improvement, improve results for children with disabilities,
and improve compliance accountability;
(e) Increased number of States who consider engaging in data
sharing, linking, or integration activities related to Part C and Part
B preschool special education data/data systems to other statewide
longitudinal and early learning data/data systems (e.g., Early Head
Start, Head Start, child care, publicly funded preschool, and home
visiting programs) and identify how to enable such sharing, linkages,
or integration so that it would comply with all applicable privacy
laws;
(f) Increased capacity of States to implement and document Part C
early intervention and Part B preschool special education data
management policies and procedures, including data sharing, linking,
and integration activities, used to collect, report, analyze, and use
high-quality IDEA Part C early intervention and Part B preschool
special education data;
(g) Increased capacity of States to address data leadership and
personnel training needs to collect, report, analyze, and use the Part
C early intervention and Part B preschool special education data
collection through development of effective tools and resources, as
well as providing opportunities for in-person and virtual cross-State
training for data leaders and personnel in State and local programs and
agencies to collect, report, analyze, and use Part C early intervention
and Part B preschool special education;
(h) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and
use Part C and Part B preschool special education data to support
equitable identification, access, services, outcomes, and impact of
early intervention and preschool special education and related services
on infants, toddlers, and young children receiving services under IDEA;
and
(i) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and
use Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special education
data to improve State IDEA data analyses regarding results
[[Page 58987]]
and functional outcomes for all infants, toddlers, and young children
with disabilities to demonstrate and improve how public agencies meet
the program requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA, with a particular
emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to
improving early intervention results for infants and toddlers with
disabilities and educational results for children with disabilities as
monitored by OSEP via its Differentiated Monitoring and Support
process.
Priority 2: Technical Assistance To Improve State Capacity To Collect,
Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate Child Find Data for Infants and
Toddlers
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund TA to increase the capacity
of States to collect, report, analyze, and use available data to
improve the Part C child find data they report through their Part C
SPP/APR.
The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected
outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and
use available data to improve the root cause analysis of their Part C
child find data (including IDEA section 616 Part C data for indicators
C5 and C6 and section 618 Part C data);
(b) Increased number of States that have the capacity to identify,
for children served under IDEA Part C, other data they may collect
(such as number of infants and toddlers referred, screened, evaluated,
eligible, and enrolled in early intervention services under Part C) by
various characteristics of the child, including race, ethnicity, home
language, gender, socio-economic status, and geographic location;
(c) Increased number of States that have the capacity to conduct a
root cause analysis of available child find data to better identify
disparities among demographic groups and potential barriers to
enrollment in early intervention services under Part C of IDEA; and
(d) Increased number of States that have the capacity to use their
IDEA and non-IDEA Part C child find data to improve their IDEA child
find processes at the State and local program levels.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities or requirements, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority and these requirements, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Final Requirements
The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for
this program. In addition to the program requirements contained in both
priorities, to be considered for funding applicants must meet the
application and administrative requirements. We may apply these
requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
Requirements:
Applicants must--
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address State challenges associated with early childhood data
management and data sharing, linking, and integration, including
implementing early childhood data system integration and improvements;
enhancing and streamlining Part C early intervention and Part B
preschool special education data systems to respond to critical policy
questions; using ECIDS for program improvement and compliance
accountability for Part C early intervention and Part B preschool
special education programs; reporting high-quality IDEA Part C data
(including IDEA section 616 Part C data and section 618 Part C data)
and IDEA Part B preschool special education data to the Department and
the public; and analyzing Part C child find data to improve equitable
access to Part C early intervention services. To meet this requirement
the applicant must--
(i) Present applicable national, State, or local data demonstrating
the challenges of States to implement effective early childhood data
management policies and procedures and data sharing, linking, and
integration activities, including integrating early childhood data
systems across IDEA programs, other early learning programs, and other
educational programs for school-aged students; link Part C and Part B
preschool special education program data; use their Part C and Part B
preschool special education data systems to respond to critical State-
determined policy questions for program improvement and compliance
accountability; and collect, report, analyze, and use Part C child find
data to improve equitable access to Part C early intervention services;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational and technical
issues and policy initiatives relating to early childhood data
management and data sharing, linking, and integration; data use; data
privacy; Part C IDEA sections 616 and 618 data; Part C child find data;
Part B preschool special education data; and Part C and Part B
preschool special education data systems; and
(iii) Present information about the current level of implementation
of sharing, linking, and integrating Part C and Part B preschool
special education data; sharing, linking, or integrating Part C and/or
Part B preschool special education data systems with other early
learning data systems; using Part C and Part B preschool special
education data systems to respond to critical State-determined policy
questions; and collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using high-quality
IDEA Part C data (including IDEA section 616 Part C data and section
618 Part C data) and IDEA Part B preschool special education data; and
(2) Improve early childhood data management policies and procedures
and data sharing, linking, and integration practices to: collect,
report, and analyze high-quality Part C and Part B preschool special
education data (including Part C child find data); share, link, or
integrate Part C and Part B preschool special education data; share,
link, or integrate these data with data on children participating in
other early learning programs and data on school-aged children; and use
robust early childhood data systems to improve the analyses of IDEA
data to the extent these analyses answer critical State-determined
policy questions. Include
[[Page 58988]]
the likely magnitude or importance of the improvements.
(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: <a href="https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf">https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf</a> and
<a href="http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework">www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework</a>.
(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based \5\
practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For purposes of these requirements, ``evidence-based''
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 research on early childhood data management and
data sharing, linking, and integration, and related EBPs; and
(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and
EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant
must describe--
(i) How it proposes to identify and develop the knowledge base on
early childhood data management and data system integration;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\6\ which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``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) The proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\7\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``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;
(B) The proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the State and local level; and
(C) The process by which the proposed project will collaborate with
OSEP-funded centers and other federally funded TA centers to develop
and implement a coordinated TA plan when the work of the center or
centers overlaps with the proposed project; and
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\8\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``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 addressing States' challenges
associated with limited resources to engage in early childhood data
sharing, linking, and integration and enhancement activities that
streamline the established Part C and Part B preschool special
education data systems to respond to critical policy questions and to
report high-quality IDEA data to the Department and the public, which
must, at a minimum, include providing on-site consultants to the State
lead agency (LA) or State educational agency (SEA) to--
(1) Model and document data management and data sharing, linking,
and integration policies, procedures, processes, and activities within
the State;
(2) Develop and adapt tools and provide technical solutions to meet
State-specific data needs; and
(3) Develop a sustainability plan for the State to continue the
data management and data sharing, linking, and integration work in the
future;
(C) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of State LA and
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 State and local levels;
(D) Its proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a
primary focus on meeting the needs of States with known ongoing data
quality issues, as measured by OSEP's review of the quality of the IDEA
sections 616 and 618 data;
(E) Its proposed plan for assisting State LAs and SEAs to build or
enhance training systems that include professional development based on
adult learning principles and coaching;
(F) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education system (e.g., State LAs, SEAs, regional TA providers,
districts, local programs, families) to ensure that there is
communication between each level and that there are systems in place to
support the collection, reporting, analysis, and use of high-quality
IDEA Part C data (including IDEA section 616 Part C data, section 618
Part C data, and Part C child find data) and IDEA Part B preschool
special education data as well as early childhood data management and
data system integration; and
[[Page 58989]]
(G) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with the
National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to
Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data, the Early
Childhood Technical Assistance Center, other Department-funded TA
investments, other federally funded TA investments, and Institute of
Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics research
and development investments, where appropriate, in order to align
complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and
services to meet the purposes of this priority and to develop and
implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a State; and
(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to
achieve the intended project outcomes.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party
evaluator.\9\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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 application and
administrative 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 annual performance
report (APR) and at the end of Year 2; and
(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation
with a ``third-party'' evaluator, as well as the costs associated with
the implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of resources,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or
disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities;
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated results and benefits and 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 to the project 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 planning meeting in
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff
during each subsequent year of the project period.
(ii) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC,
during each year of the project period, provided that, if the
conference is conducted virtually, the project must reallocate unused
travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget
period.
(iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP;
(3) Provide an assurance that the project will--
(i) Reallocate unused travel funds no later than the end of the
third quarter if the kick-off or planning meetings are conducted
virtually; and
(ii) Within 30 days of receipt of the award, participate in a post-
award teleconference between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's
project director or other authorized representative;
(4) 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;
(5) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing
targeted and intensive TA to States;
(6) Provide an assurance that it will maintain a high-quality
website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or
industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and
[[Page 58990]]
(7) 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 these new
award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more
(adjusted every three years by the Administrator of Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic
product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal
governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles set
forth in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
(as amended by Executive Order 14094). Pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a ``major rule,'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the final priorities and requirements only on a
reasoned determination that their benefits justify the costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that this regulatory action does not impose
significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in this
program is voluntary. While this action does impose some requirements
on participating grantees that are cost-bearing, the Department expects
that applicants for this program will include in their proposed budgets
a request for funds to support compliance with such cost-bearing
requirements. Therefore, costs associated with meeting these
requirements are, in the Department's estimation, minimal.
The Department believes that these benefits to the Federal
Government outweigh the costs associated with this action.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The final priorities, including requirements, contain information
collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1820-0028; the final priorities, including requirements, do not
affect the currently approved data collection.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect
are LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under State
law; institutions of higher education; other public agencies; private
nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas;
Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations. We
believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by these final
priorities and requirements will be limited to paperwork burden related
to preparing an application and that the benefits will outweigh any
costs incurred by applicants.
Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection
program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priorities and
requirements impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for
funding under the program. We expect that in determining whether to
apply for Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program funds,
an eligible entity will evaluate the requirements of preparing an
application and any associated costs and weigh them against the
benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical Assistance on
State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity will apply only
if it
[[Page 58991]]
determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an
application.
We believe that the final priorities and requirements will not
impose any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant
than the entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That
is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in the
absence of this final regulatory action and the time needed to prepare
an application would likely be the same.
This final regulatory action would not have a significant economic
impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it will be
able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under
this program.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document 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, 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 <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other Department documents 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 Department documents published in the Federal
Register by using the article search feature at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a>. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dant[eacute] Allen,
Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2024-16115 Filed 7-18-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 22, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.