90 FR 120 pgs. 26991-26998 - Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance on State Data Collection—Technical Assistance on State Data Collection—National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C Fiscal Data
Type: NOTICEVolume: 90Number: 120Pages: 26991 - 26998
Pages: 26991, 2699226993, 26994, 26995, 26996, 26997, 26998, FR document: [FR Doc. 2025-11607 Filed 6-24-25; 8:45 am]
Agency: Education Department
Official PDF Version: PDF Version
[top]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-National Technical Assistance Center To Improve State Capacity To Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C Fiscal Data
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) 2025 for a Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C Fiscal Data.
DATES:
Applications Available: June 25, 2025.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 25, 2025.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 25, 2025.
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 23, 2024 (89 FR 104528) and available at www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/23/2024-30488/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles D. Kniseley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A127, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-6313. Email: Charles.Kniseley@ed.gov.
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
[top] 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
Assistance Listing Number (ALN): 84.373F.
OMB Control Number: 1820-0028.
Priority: This competition includes one absolute priority. This priority is from the notice of final priority (NFP) for this program published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .
Absolute Priority: For FY 2025 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 Part B and Part C Fiscal Data.
Background:
The Department prioritizes supporting States in meeting the requirements of IDEA to collect, report, analyze, and use valid and reliable IDEA fiscal data; and assisting them in ensuring that funds are used consistent with IDEA requirements to implement effective programs and services that improve outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities and their families. While States have identified benefits to effectively collecting and using their fiscal data to meet the requirements under IDEA and ensure that they do not experience monetary consequences because of inaccurate data, they have expressed the need for support in building their knowledge and expertise to help ensure compliance with IDEA's fiscal data requirements, and to use the data to identify issues and improve State systems.
The Department has found that because of the complex nature and high-stakes need for meeting IDEA fiscal requirements, changes in Federal fiscal reporting requirements, modifications in State funding formulas, turnover in State staff, and organizational changes, States request and readily take advantage of TA activities devoted to the development and operationalization of IDEA fiscal policies and procedures, systems to collect and report complex IDEA fiscal data to improve IDEA programs, and strategies to address fiscal system needs.
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B and Part C Fiscal Data (Fiscal Data Center).
The Fiscal Data Center will provide TA to improve the capacity of States to meet the IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collection requirements under IDEA sections 618 and 642 and increase States' knowledge of the underlying IDEA fiscal requirements and calculations necessary to submit valid and reliable data for the following collections: (1) Maintenance of State Financial Support (MFS) in Section V of the IDEA Part B Annual State Application; (2) local educational agency (LEA) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS); (3) Description of Use of IDEA Part B Section 611 Funds reserved for State administration and other State-level activities in Section III of the IDEA Part B Annual State Application; (4) Description of Use of Federal IDEA Part C Funds for the Lead Agency (LA) and the Interagency Coordinating Council in Section III of the IDEA Part C Annual State Application; (5) IDEA Part C MOE requirements; (6) Restricted Indirect Cost Rate/Cost Allocation Plan Information in Sections III and IV of the IDEA Part C Annual State Application; and (7) Part C Subgranting, in Section III.F. of the Part C Annual State Application.
The Fiscal Data Center must be designed to achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data;
(b) Increased capacity of States to accurately perform calculations related to IDEA Part B and Part C statutory and regulatory fiscal requirements, and submit valid and reliable fiscal data under IDEA Part B and Part C;
(c) Improved State fiscal infrastructure to communicate and coordinate effective IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collections and reporting strategies among relevant State offices, including State educational agencies (SEAs), LAs and other State agencies, LEAs, schools, public charter schools that are LEAs, and early intervention services (EIS) programs or providers;
(d) Increased capacity of States to submit accurate and timely IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data, and enhance State validation procedures to prevent errors in State-reported IDEA fiscal data;
(e) Increased capacity of States to train personnel to meet the IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collection and reporting requirements under sections 616, 618, and 642 of IDEA; and
(f) Increased capacity of SEAs and LAs to work with LEAs, including public charter schools that are LEAs, and EIS programs or providers to analyze and use IDEA fiscal data to identify issues and address those issues through monitoring, TA, and partner involvement.
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
(a) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under "Significance," how the proposed project will-
(1) Address the current and emerging needs of States and local systems to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data. To meet this requirement, the applicant must-
[top] (i) Demonstrate knowledge of how SEAs, LAs, LEAs, including public charter schools that are LEAs, and EIS programs and providers are meeting IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collection and reporting requirements and the underlying statutory and regulatory fiscal requirements, as well
(ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to show the current capacity needs of SEAs, LAs, LEAs, including public charter schools that are LEAs, and EIS programs and providers to meet IDEA Part B and Part C fiscal data collection and reporting requirements; and
(2) Improve how SEAs and LAs use IDEA section 618 fiscal data as a means of both improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement, and indicate the likely magnitude or importance of the improvements.
(b) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under "Quality of the project design," how the proposed project will-
(1) 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;
(2) 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;
(3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based? 1 practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe-
Footnotes:
1 ?For the purposes of these requirements, "evidence-based" means the proposed project component is supported by one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that demonstrates a rationale (as such terms are defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
(i) The current research on the capacity of SEAs, LEAs, including public charter schools that are LEAs, LAs, and EIS providers to report and use IDEA Part B and Part C data submitted under section 616 and section 618, as a means of both improving data quality and identifying strengths and areas for improvement; and
(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
(4) 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 expand the knowledge base for States on-
(A) Fiscal data management and data system integration needed for IDEA Part B and Part C data collection and reporting;
(B) IDEA fiscal data validation that leads to improvements in the validity and reliability of fiscal data required by IDEA; and
(C) Effective ways to communicate fiscal data to local consumers ( e.g., parents, LEAs, including public charter schools that are LEAs, EIS programs or providers, the general public);
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA, 2 which must describe-
Footnotes:
2 ?"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.
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services;
(B) The products and services that the project proposes to make available;
(C) The development and maintenance of a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets or exceeds government- or industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and
(D) The expected reach and impact of universal, general TA;
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA, 3 which must describe-
Footnotes:
3 ?"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 products and services that the project proposes to make available; and
(C) The proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, including, at a minimum, an assessment of potential recipients' current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level;
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, 4 which must describe-
Footnotes:
4 ?"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 from a variety of settings and geographic distribution, that will receive the products and services;
(B) Its proposed approach to addressing States' challenges reporting high-quality IDEA fiscal data to the Department and the public, which should, at a minimum, include providing virtual and on-site consultation to the SEA or LA to-
( 1 ) Implement model practices for the management of IDEA data and data system integration policies, procedures, processes, and activities within the State;
( 2 ) Develop, use, or adapt tools to meet State-specific IDEA data needs;
( 3 ) Develop a sustainability plan for the State to continue the management of IDEA data and data system integration work in the future; and
( 4 ) Implement a cybersecurity plan to ensure a secure IDEA fiscal data system;
(C) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEAs and LAs 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 plan to prioritize States with the greatest need for intensive TA to receive products and services;
(E) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs and LAs to build or enhance training systems that include professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching;
[top] (F) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the education system ( e.g., SEAs, LAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, including public charter schools that are LEAs, local EIS programs and providers, and 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
(G) The expected impact of intensive, sustained TA; and
(v) How the proposed project will intentionally engage families of children with disabilities and individuals with disabilities in the development, implementation, and evaluation of its products and services across all levels of TA;
(5) 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, including the process by which the proposed project will collaborate with Department-funded centers (including privacy TA centers such as the DaSy Center that provides Department-funded TA on early childhood data privacy, and the Privacy Technical Assistance Center) and other federally funded TA centers to develop and implement a coordinated TA plan when they are involved in a State; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources, such as non-Federal funds and in-kind contributions, to achieve the intended project outcomes, to achieve the intended project outcomes; and
(6) Systematically disseminate information, products, and services to varied intended audiences. To address this requirement the applicant must describe-
(i) The variety of dissemination strategies the project will use throughout the five years of the project to promote awareness and use of its products and services;
(ii) How the project will tailor dissemination strategies across all planned levels of TA to ensure that products and services reach intended recipients, and those recipients can access and use those products and services;
(iii) How the project's dissemination plan is connected to the proposed outcomes of the project; and
(iv) How the project will evaluate and correct all digital products and external communications to ensure they meet or exceed government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under "Quality of the project evaluation or other evidence-building," describe how the project will develop an evaluation plan in consultation with, and to be implemented by, a third-party evaluator. 5 The evaluation plan must-
Footnotes:
5 ?A "third-party" evaluator is an independent and impartial program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have participated in the development or implementation of any project activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These questions must be related to the project's proposed logic model required under paragraph (b)(1)(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. In measuring progress of implementation across all levels of TA, the plan must include criteria for determining the extent to which the project's products and services reached intended recipients; data, including feedback from recipients, on how recipients used the products and services; and the impact of the products and services. The plan must also specify sources for data, and measures and instruments appropriate to the evaluation questions, including information on reliability and validity of the measures and associated instruments 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 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) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under "Adequacy of resources," how-
(1) The project will make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities;
(2) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities;
(3) The proposed project will have processes, resources, and funds in place to provide access for project staff, contractors, and partners, who require digital accessibility accommodations;? 6 and
Footnotes:
6 ?For information about digital accessibility and accessibility standards from Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, visit https://sites.ed.gov/idea/topic-areas/#Accessibility-Creating-Content.
(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.
(e) Describe, in the narrative section of the application under "Quality of the management plan,"-
(1) How 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) Allocations of key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) How 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;
(4) How the proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and
(5) How the proposed project will benefit from a variety 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:
[top] (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
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 three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project periods, provided that, if the meeting is conducted virtually, the project must reallocate unused travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period; and
(iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
(4) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing targeted and intensive TA to States; 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 a new award at the end of this award period, as appropriate.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d), 1442, 1482; Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).
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 (OMB) 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 Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) 34 CFR 300.702. (e) The NFP.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.
Estimated Available Funds: $3,900,000 in year one and $4,200,000 in years two through five.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2026 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $3,900,000 for a single budget period of 12 months in year one and $4,200,000 for a single budget period of 12 months in years two through five.
Estimated Number of Awards: 1.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 60 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; State lead agencies under Part C of the IDEA; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.
2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require cost sharing or matching.
b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ofo#Indirect-Cost-Division.
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 Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance.
3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under this competition may award subgrants-to directly carry out project activities described in its application-to the following types of entities: IHEs, nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application, and other public agencies. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application or that it selects through a competition under procedures established by the grantee, consistent with 34 CFR 75.708(b)(2).
4. Other General Requirements:
(a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
(b) Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2024 (89 FR 104528), and available at www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/23/2024-30488/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs, 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. Please note that, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we have shortened the standard 60-day intergovernmental review period in order to make awards by the end of FY 2025.
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.
[top] • 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
• 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 as follows:
(a) Significance (10 points).
The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the specific nature and magnitude of gaps or challenges are identified and the extent to which these gaps or challenges will be addressed by the services, supports, infrastructure, or opportunities described in the proposed project.
(2) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in systemic change that supports continuous, sustainable, and measurable improvement.
(b) Quality of the project design (35 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program.
(2) The quality of the logic model or other conceptual framework underlying the proposed project, including how inputs are related to outcomes.
(3) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge and an evidence-based project component.
(4) 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 build recipient and project capacity in ways that lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.
(5) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.
(c) Quality of the project evaluation or other evidence-building (20 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are thorough, feasible, relevant, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are designed to measure the fidelity of implementation of the project.
(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide performance feedback and provide formative, diagnostic, or interim data that is a periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quality data that are quantitative and qualitative.
(d) Adequacy of resources (15 points).
The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The adequacy of support for the project, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant or the lead applicant organization.
(2) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(3) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(e) Quality of the management plan (20 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(2) 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.
(3) The extent to which the key personnel in the project, when hired, have the qualifications required for the proposed project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project, and represent or have lived experiences of the target population.
(4) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality and accessible products and services from the proposed project for the target population.
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).
In the event there are two or more applications with the same final score, and there are insufficient funds to fully support each of these applications, the scores under selection criterion (b) Quality of the project design will be used as a tiebreaker. If the scores remain tied, then the scores under selection criterion (d) Adequacy of resources will be used to break the tie.
[top] 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
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), 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 System for Award Management's (SAM) Responsibility/Qualification reports (formerly referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)). You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in the Responsibility/Qualification reports in SAM.
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 SAM semiannually. Please review these requirements if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
6. In General: In accordance with the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance 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 also may notify you informally.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.
3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.
4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
5. Performance Measures: Performance Measures: For the purposes 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.
[top] • Program Performance Measure #3: The percentage of TA and dissemination products and services deemed by an
• 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 project meet needs identified by stakeholders and may require the project to report on such alignment in its annual and final performance reports.
6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; 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; and whether the continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal Government.
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, 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 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 www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.
Diana Diaz,
Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2025-11607 Filed 6-24-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P