[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50324-50330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18031]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2016-OSERS-0022; CFDA Number: 84.421B.]
Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definition--Disability
Innovation Fund--Transition Work-Based Learning Model Demonstrations
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, and definition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services announces priorities, requirements, and a
definition under the Disability Innovation Fund (DIF) Program. The
Assistant Secretary may use these priorities, requirements, and
definition for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2016 and later years.
The Assistant Secretary takes this action to identify, develop,
implement, and evaluate work-based learning models that are supported
by evidence and will help students with disabilities prepare for
postsecondary education and competitive integrated employment. The
models must be delivered through a coordinated system of transition
services.
DATES: The priorities, requirements, and definition are effective
October 9, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RoseAnn Ashby, U.S. Department of
Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration, 400 Maryland Avenue
SW., Room 5057, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800.
Telephone: (202) 245-7258, or by email: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the DIF Program, as provided by
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), is to
support innovative activities aimed at improving the outcomes of
``individuals with disabilities,'' as defined in section 7(20)(A) of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act) (29
U.S.C. 705(20)(A)).
Program Authority: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L.
113-235).
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and
definitions (NPP) for this competition in the Federal Register on April
13, 2016 (81 FR 21808). That notice contained background information
and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities, requirements,
and definitions.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 10
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements,
and definitions. We group major issues according to subject. 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 priorities.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, and definitions since
publication of the NPP follows.
Priority 1
General
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon review of the requirements for proposed Priority
1, we became aware that to ensure the replicability of the project
model, we needed to clarify that the proposed project design must be
replicable in similar contexts and settings and implemented at multiple
local sites.
Changes: We have specified in the first sentence in paragraph (a)
of the requirements for Priority 1 that the proposed project design
must be replicable in similar contexts and settings. For emphasis, we
also moved the requirement that the model be implemented at multiple
local sites from the end of proposed paragraph (b) to the end of
paragraph (a). In addition,
[[Page 50325]]
we clarified in paragraph (a) of the requirements of Priority 1 that
evidence of strong theory is required for the project design.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon review of Priority 1, we became aware that we
needed to eliminate possible confusion about what is meant by the word
``effective'' and more accurately reflect the purpose of Priority 1.
The term ``effective'' in the context of education research and
evaluation usually means that a high-quality study was conducted to
assess the effectiveness of an intervention. While the purpose of
Priority 1 is to build the evidence base and identify and demonstrate
work-based learning interventions that are supported by evidence for
students with disabilities, the priority does not require that the
proposed interventions to be implemented under the project's model be
supported by a specific level of effectiveness determined by a high-
quality study. Accordingly, we believe that the term ``supported by
evidence'' more accurately reflects the intent of the priority.
Changes: We have replaced the word ``effective'' with ``supported
by evidence'' throughout the priority and requirements when referring
to the applicant's proposed strategies, model, or project.
Comments: None.
Discussion: Upon further review of the notice, we removed the
second sentence in paragraph (i)(2) of Requirements for Priority 1
because the summative evaluation is not an effectiveness evaluation and
would not statistically prove the effectiveness of the model. Also, the
intent of this sentence was redundant with paragraph (j) of the
requirements for Priority 1.
Changes: We deleted the second sentence in paragraph (i)(2) under
the Requirements for Priority 1.
Eligible Applicants and Partners
Comment: One commenter stated that eligible applicants should
include secondary schools and school districts. The commenter indicated
that secondary schools are developing many great programs to provide
career pathways and successful transitions to college and careers for
students with disabilities.
Discussion: We recognize the importance of the partnerships between
State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies and secondary schools or
school districts in implementing strategies designed to successfully
transition students with disabilities to college and careers. However,
the purpose of Priority 1 is to identify models that State VR agencies
will be able to replicate. We believe that the best way to accomplish
this objective is to require the applicant to be a State VR agency
working in collaboration with other key partners. This will allow the
VR agency to make use of the expertise and experience of multiple
partners and to implement models in multiple settings. Each applicant
is required to develop a partnership, and chief among these partners
are local educational agencies (LEAs).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked that the Department include national
and community-based nonprofit organizations as eligible applicants.
Although work-based learning is carried out at the local level, the
commenter indicated that the bulk of the work--recruiting individuals
with disabilities, connecting individuals to community work-based
learning experiences, and providing follow-along supports--is actually
done by service providers. In addition, the commenter stated that
limiting eligible applicants to State VR agencies would narrow the
ability of the Department to evaluate specific strategies with
different populations in different parts of the country. The commenter
explained that a national organization could, for example, operate a
multi-community, multi-State demonstration to effectively evaluate
work-based learning strategies on a large and diverse scale.
Discussion: We recognize the important role that service providers
play in facilitating and supporting work-based learning experiences in
the community. Nevertheless, as discussed earlier, we have decided to
limit eligible applicants to State VR agencies because the purpose of
Priority 1 is to identify models that State VR agencies will be able to
replicate. Limiting applicants to State VR agencies will not narrow the
ability of the Department to evaluate specific strategies with
different populations in different parts of the country. Rather than
having one national grant with multiple local sites, we elected to have
multiple grants, each of which may propose variations in the
evaluations conducted. These may require different methodologies and
may lead to different, but nonetheless comparable, findings for
specific populations in a variety of contexts.
Changes: None.
Comment: Given the emphasis on coordinated systems, interagency
collaboration, and effective intervention at an individual and local
level, one commenter asked whether the Department anticipates funding
projects at a local or State level. The commenter further asked whether
the Department will fund multiple-State consortia in this competition.
Discussion: The Department understands the importance of
coordinated systems, interagency collaboration, and effective
intervention at the individual, local, and State levels. While the
eligible applicant is the State VR agency, the projects themselves
would be carried out at the local level in collaboration with LEAs or,
where appropriate, State educational agencies (SEAs) and other local
partners. Given the limited funds that are available for this
competition, we will only be able to support a small number of
projects, depending on their scope and intensity. Funding multiple-
State consortia would further limit the number of projects awarded and
the number and variety of work-based learning models that they will
produce.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the required partners
specifically be expanded to include disability service providers. The
commenter listed several places in the requirements for Priority 1
where the term ``disability service providers'' should be included
because the commenter wanted disability service providers to be
involved in as many aspects of the project as possible.
Discussion: We recognize the important role that disability service
providers and other community service providers play in assisting
students with disabilities to achieve their educational and employment
goals. Thus, the requirement to establish partnerships in developing
and implementing a project's model in paragraph (c) of the requirements
for Priority 1 includes ``providers or other agencies that are critical
to the development of work-based learning experiences in integrated
settings for students with disabilities.'' However, we believe that
applicants should have the flexibility to determine which providers
these are, as well as the extent to which disability service providers
or other agencies are critical to the development of work-based
learning experiences in the community.
Changes: None.
Target Population
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification as to how Priority 1
will address the needs of out-of-school youth and young adults.
Discussion: The focus of this priority is students with
disabilities. We believe that out-of-school youth and young adults
would benefit from successful work-based learning opportunities that
[[Page 50326]]
are developed and evaluated through these priorities; however, the
narrower scope of these models, focusing specifically on students with
disabilities, will help to ensure the rigorous evaluation of the
models.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department revise
Priority 1 to require applicants to develop and implement project
designs that improve outcomes for students with disabilities, including
low-incidence populations such as students who are deaf or hard of
hearing. The commenter would also establish partnerships with entities
or specific individuals with expertise in developing, evaluating, and
disseminating innovative strategies for serving individuals from low-
incidence populations, including students who are deaf or hard of
hearing.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's interest in
ensuring that the projects funded under this priority are designed to
address work-based learning experiences for students with low-incidence
disabilities. Nothing precludes an applicant from proposing to serve
individuals from low-incidence populations, such as students who are
deaf or hard of hearing. However, the Department declines to require
all applicants to design projects to serve any specific disability
population or place greater importance on serving one population over
another under these priorities.
Changes: None.
Work-based Learning Experiences
Comment: One commenter recommended that work performed through
work-based learning experiences be financially compensated. For
example, the commenter stated that internships and apprenticeships
should be paid work experiences.
Discussion: We are aware that research in this field indicates that
paid work experiences result in better employment outcomes for youth
with disabilities than do unpaid work experiences. Therefore, paragraph
(e) of the requirements for Priority 1 requires that at least one of a
student's work experiences be a paid experience. While we encourage
grantees to arrange for paid work experiences whenever possible, we do
not want to preclude a grantee from providing an unpaid work-based
learning experience that would be beneficial and appropriate to the
student's goals, particularly in instances where a paid work experience
is unavailable.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asserted that the proposed requirements for
Priority 1 should include an increased emphasis on engaging people with
disabilities in innovation, similar to investments in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) skills, such as
``creativity/making'' skills and entrepreneurial skills.
Discussion: We agree that students with disabilities should be
exposed to a wide variety of work-based learning experiences, including
those in innovative fields (i.e., STEM) and those involving
entrepreneurship skills. Work-based learning experiences supported
under this priority should take into consideration the student's career
interests and goals, which may include some of the innovative fields
and entrepreneurship skills that the commenter described, as well as
information about labor market demand and career pathways. We disagree
with the commenter, however, that we should emphasize innovation and
entrepreneurship above other areas of career focus because that would
unnecessarily limit both the scope of the projects proposed and the
work-based learning experiences available to students with
disabilities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asserted that it is critically important
that any work-based learning program funded and evaluated by the
Department include access to programs that ensure that work
disincentives created by receiving benefits and assistance under
Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Insurance do
not prevent young adults with disabilities from seeking employment.
Discussion: We agree that a grantee may implement strategies or
activities that address potential work disincentives that discourage a
student with a disability from seeking employment. Nothing in Priority
1 would preclude an applicant from forming partnerships with other
providers or programs that work in this area.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that instead of including
transportation as an optional support service in paragraph (g) of the
requirements for Priority 1, the Department require grantees to provide
transportation education and travel training within their
demonstrations. The commenter stated that adding a specific project
requirement for transportation education would ensure that individuals
participating in the demonstration projects have access to and know how
to use transportation, both in the short-term (during their work-based
learning opportunities) and in the long-term (when they transition into
employment or post-secondary education). The commenter added that in
the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2015, Congress highlighted the importance of transportation in
transition outcomes and directed the Department to collaborate with
transportation experts and implement transportation strategies.
Discussion: The Department agrees that transportation services,
including education and travel training, are important services and can
help many students with disabilities succeed in work-based learning.
Transportation services are not optional, as the commenter suggested.
Paragraph (g) of the requirements for Priority 1 requires the applicant
to identify and provide support services, including transportation
services, needed to ensure the student's success in participating in
work-based learning experiences. The phrase ``as appropriate'' in the
context of this requirement does not make a project's provision of
transportation services optional. Rather, we recognize that not all
project participants will require transportation services or the same
types of transportation services. Projects are required to provide
transportation services to all students with disabilities who may
require such services to be successful in their work-based learning
experiences. However, to address the commenters' concerns, we have
modified paragraph (g) to make it clear that transportation services
may include transportation education and travel training.
Changes: We have modified paragraph (g) in the requirements for
Priority 1 to include transportation education and travel training as
examples of transportation services that may be provided to ensure the
student's success in participating in work-based learning experiences.
Other
Comment: One commenter expressed concerns about the scope of the
data required to be collected and specifically requested that data be
collected on the type of assistive technology used by participants and
the assistive technologies requested but not acquired.
Discussion: We agree that assistive technology allows many students
with disabilities to achieve their education and employment goals and
that providing access to assistive technology is a necessary element of
any transition model. In recognition of assistive
[[Page 50327]]
technology's importance, paragraph (h) of the requirements for Priority
1 requires the project to identify and provide or arrange for
accommodations or assistive technology needed to ensure the student's
success in participating in work-based learning experiences. The
purpose of these priorities is to evaluate the extent to which the
project's model of coordinated work-based learning practices and
strategies helps ensure that students with disabilities are prepared
for postsecondary education and competitive integrated employment.
Thus, we would expect grantees to document the services and supports
provided to project participants, including the provision of assistive
technology. However, we are not requiring grantees to evaluate the use
of specific assistive technology because we expect the types of
assistive technology used will vary with the needs of project
participants. Therefore, there is no need to increase the scope of the
required data collection described in paragraph (j) of Priority 1 to
document whether the assistive technology requested by participants was
acquired.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked that the Department make outcome data
aggregated from the transition work-based learning model demonstrations
publicly available so researchers and service providers nationwide can
benefit from and create new best-practice strategies from this relevant
information. This commenter observed that the DIF-funded demonstrations
will represent one of the most significant and coordinated efforts to
study models supported by evidence to improve transition outcomes.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter and will require grantees
to make outcome data available to the Department in order to publish
such data on the National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training
Materials (NCRTM) and other publicly available sources so that
successful practices may be shared and available for replication.
Changes: We have added a new paragraph (k) to the requirements for
Priority 1 to require grantees to provide outcome data to the
Department for publication through the NCRTM.
Priorities 2 and 3
Comment: None.
Discussion: Upon review of Priority 2, we became aware that we
needed to clarify the requirement that at least one component of the
proposed project must be supported by evidence of promise.
Change: We have revised Priority 2 by requiring evidence of promise
for at least one key component and at least one relevant outcome in the
logic model for their proposed project and made conforming changes to
the application requirements.
Comment: A commenter observed that Priority 3 outlined multiple
approaches to determine the quality of evidence but also stated that
the field would better benefit from controlled studies of
interventions. The commenter asked whether the Department intends for
these projects to incorporate randomized control treatment designs.
Discussion: We are not requiring a randomized control treatment
design but also do not want to discourage applicants from proposing
this type of design. We have revised Priority 3 and its associated
requirements to clarify that proposed evaluations designed to produce
evidence of effectiveness and likely to meet the What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards, such as a randomized control
treatment design, are also permitted. In short, we would encourage
applicants to use the most appropriate and strongest research design to
answer their research questions.
Changes: We have revised Priority 3 and paragraph (b) of its
associated requirements to state that an applicant may propose an
evaluation design that, if well implemented, is likely to meet the What
Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards.
Final Priorities
Priority 1: Transition Work-Based Learning Model Demonstrations.
We give priority to model demonstration projects designed to
identify, develop, implement, and evaluate work-based learning models
that are supported by evidence and will help ensure that students with
disabilities are prepared for postsecondary education and competitive
integrated employment. The model demonstration projects must provide
work-based learning experiences, supported by evidence, in integrated
settings, in coordination with other transition services, including
pre-employment transition services, to students with disabilities,
through State VR agencies, in collaboration with LEAs or, where
appropriate, SEAs and other local partners.
Priority 2: Evidence of Promise Supporting the Proposed Model.
We give priority to applicants who propose projects supported by
evidence of promise for at least one key component and at least one
relevant outcome in the logic model for their proposed project.
Priority 3: Project Evaluation Designed to Meet the What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards.
We give priority to applicants that propose to conduct a rigorous
and well-designed evaluation of their completed model demonstration
project that, if the research design is well implemented, would meet
the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards.
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)).
Final Requirements
The Assistant Secretary announces the following project
requirements for this competition. We may apply one or more of these
requirements in any year in which this competition is in effect. Each
of the following sets of requirements corresponds to one of the
priorities.
Requirements for Priority 1:
To be considered for funding under Priority 1, applicants must
describe their plans to carry out the following project requirements--
(a) Develop and implement a project design replicable in similar
contexts and settings that is supported by strong theory. The model
must be implemented at multiple local sites to ensure its
replicability;
(b) Develop and implement a project demonstrating practices and
strategies that are supported by evidence in the use of work-based
learning experiences in integrated settings within the local community
to prepare students with disabilities for postsecondary education and
competitive integrated employment;
[[Page 50328]]
(c) Establish partnerships with the LEA or, as appropriate, the
SEA, institutions of higher education, employers, and providers or
other agencies that are critical to the development of work-based
learning experiences in integrated settings for students with
disabilities. At a minimum, the partnership must include
representatives from the LEA, workforce training providers (e.g.,
American Job Centers), and employers who will collaborate to develop
and provide opportunities (such as internships, short-term employment,
and apprenticeships) for students with disabilities served under the
project;
(d) Provide career exploration and counseling to assist students in
identifying possible career pathways (as defined in this notice) and
the relevant work-based learning experiences;
(e) Develop work-based learning experiences in integrated settings,
at least one of which must be a paid experience, that--
(1) Provide exposure to a wide range of work sites to help students
make informed choices about career selections;
(2) Are appropriate for the age and stage in life of each
participating student, ranging from site visits and tours, job
shadowing, service learning, apprenticeships, and internships;
(3) Are structured and linked to classroom or related instruction;
(4) Use a trained mentor to help structure the learning at the
worksite;
(5) Include periodic assessment and feedback as part of each
experience; and
(6) Fully involve students with disabilities and, as appropriate,
their representative in choosing and structuring their experiences;
(f) Provide instruction in employee rights and responsibilities, as
well as positive work skills, habits, and behaviors that foster success
in the workplace;
(g) Identify and provide support services, as appropriate,
including transportation services (e.g., transportation education and
travel training), that are needed to ensure the student's success in
participating in work-based learning experiences;
(h) Identify and provide or arrange for accommodations or assistive
technology needed to ensure the student's success in participating in
work-based learning experiences;
(i) Develop and implement a plan to measure the model demonstration
project's performance and outcomes. A detailed and complete evaluation
plan must include--
(1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's
logic model, that--
(i) Includes evaluation questions, source(s) for data, a timeline
for data collection, and analysis plans;
(ii) Shows how the outcome (e.g., postsecondary education and
competitive integrated employment) and implementation data will be used
separately or in combination to improve the project during the
performance period; and
(iii) Outlines how these data will be reviewed by project staff,
when they will be reviewed, and how they will be used during the course
of the project to adjust the model or its implementation to increase
the model's usefulness, replicability in similar contexts and settings,
and potential for sustainability; and
(2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect
and analyze data on students and their outcomes over time, both for
students with disabilities served by the project and for students with
disabilities in a comparison group not receiving project services.
(j) Collect data necessary to evaluate the outcomes of the project,
including the progress of the project in achieving its goals and
outcomes, which, at a minimum, must include:
(1) The relevant available RSA-911 Case Service Report data for
each student in the project;
(2) The number of students in the work-based learning project;
(3) The number of students in the project who complete at least one
work-based learning experience;
(4) The number of work-based learning experiences that each student
completes during the project;
(5) The types of work-based learning experiences in which students
participated;
(6) The number of students who attain a recognized post-secondary
credential and the type of credentials attained;
(7) The number of students who obtain competitive integrated
employment; and
(8) An unduplicated count of students who obtain a recognized
postsecondary credential and competitive integrated employment.
(k) Make outcome data available to the Department for publication
through the National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training
Materials.
To be considered for funding under Priority 1, an applicant also
must provide the following with its application:
(a) A detailed review of the literature that describes the evidence
base for the proposed demonstration project, its components, and
strategies for work-based learning experiences for students with
disabilities;
(b) A logic model;
(c) A description of the applicant's plan for implementing the
project, including a description of--
(1) A cohesive, articulated model of partnership and coordination
among the participating agencies and organizations;
(2) The coordinated set of practices and strategies that are
supported by evidence in the use and development of work-based learning
models that are aligned with employment, training, and education
programs and reflect the needs of employers and of students with
disabilities; and
(3) How the proposed project will--
(i) Involve employers in the project design and in partnering with
project staff to develop integrated job shadowing, internships,
apprenticeships, and other paid and unpaid work-based learning
experiences that are designed to increase the preparation of students
with disabilities for postsecondary education and competitive
integrated employment;
(ii) Conduct outreach activities to identify students with
disabilities whom the work-based learning experiences would enable them
to achieve competitive integrated employment; and
(iii) Identify innovative strategies, including development,
implementation, and evaluation of approved models, methods, and
measures that will increase the preparation of students with
disabilities for postsecondary education and competitive integrated
employment;
(d) A description of the methods and criteria that will be used to
select the site(s) at which the project activities will be implemented;
(e) Documentation (e.g., letter of support or draft agreement) that
the State VR agency has specific agreements with its partners in the
development and implementation of the project;
(f) A plan for evaluating the project's performance, including an
evaluation of the practices and strategies implemented by the project,
in achieving project goals and objectives.
Specifically, the evaluation plan must include a description of--
(1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's
logic model that includes the following:
(i) The key questions to be addressed by the project evaluation and
the appropriateness of the methods for how each question will be
addressed;
(ii) How the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable
[[Page 50329]]
performance data on relevant outcomes, particularly postsecondary and
competitive integrated employment outcomes, including the source(s) for
the data and the timeline for data collection;
(iii) A clear and credible analysis plan, including a proposed
sample size and minimum detectable effect size that aligns with the
expected project impact, and an analytic approach for addressing the
research questions; and
(iv) How the key components of the project, as well as a measurable
threshold for acceptable implementation and outcome data, will be
reviewed and used to improve the project;
(2) A summative evaluation plan, including--
(i) How the outcomes and implementation data collected by the
project will be used, separately or in combination, to demonstrate that
the goals of the model were met;
(ii) How the outcomes for students with disabilities served by the
project will be compared with the outcomes of students with
disabilities not receiving project services.
(g) A plan for systematic dissemination of project findings,
templates, resources, and knowledge gained that will assist State and
local VR and educational agencies in adapting or replicating the model
work-based learning demonstration developed and implemented by the
project, which could include elements such as development of a Web
site, resources (e.g., toolkits), community of practice, and
participation in national and State conferences;
(h) An assurance that the employment goal for all students served
under Priority 1 will be competitive integrated employment, including
customized or supported employment; and
(i) An assurance that the project will collaborate with other work-
based learning initiatives.
Requirements for Priority 2
To meet Priority 2, applicants must meet the following
requirements:
(a) Applicants must identify and include a detailed discussion of
up to two cited studies that meet the evidence of promise standard for
at least one key component and at least one relevant outcome in the
logic model for the proposed project. Both the critical component(s)
and relevant outcome(s) must be specified for each study cited.
(b) The full names and links for the citations submitted for this
priority must be provided on the Abstract and Information page of the
application, or the full text of each study cited must be provided.
(c) Applicants must specify on the Abstract and Information page
the findings in the studies that are cited as evidence of promise for
the key component(s) and relevant outcome(s) and ensure that the
citations and links are from publicly or readily available sources.
Studies of fewer than 10 pages may be attached in full under Other
Attachments in Grants.gov.
Requirements for Priority 3
To meet Priority 3, applicants must describe in their applications
how they would meet the following competition requirements:
(a) Conduct an independent evaluation (as defined in this notice)
of its project. This evaluation must estimate the impact of the project
on a relevant outcome.
(b) Use an evaluation design that, if well implemented, is likely
to meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards.
(c) Make broadly available the results of any evaluations it
conducts of its funded activities, digitally and free of charge,
through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or informal (e.g.,
newsletters) mechanisms. The grantee must also ensure that the data
from its evaluation are made available to third-party researchers
consistent with applicable privacy requirements.
(d) Cooperate on an ongoing basis with any technical assistance
provided by the Department or its contractor and comply with the
requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the
Department.
Final Definitions
We announce one new definition for use in connection with the
priorities. The remaining definitions listed in the NPP and used in the
final priorities and requirements in this notice are established
defined terms in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA),
the Rehabilitation Act, or 34 CFR part 77 and are provided in the
notice inviting applications published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register. Specifically, the definitions for the terms
``evidence of promise,'' ``logic model,'' ``randomized controlled
trial,'' ``relevant outcome,'' ``quasi-experimental design study,'' and
``strong theory'' are from 34 CFR part 77.
Definition:
The Assistant Secretary announces the following definition for this
competition. We may apply this definition in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Independent evaluation means an evaluation that is designed and
carried out independent of, and external to, the grantee but in
coordination with any employees of the grantee who develop a process,
product, strategy, or practice that is currently being implemented as
part of the grant's activities.
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these priorities, requirements and this
definition, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal
Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 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 $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create 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 novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
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
[[Page 50330]]
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 these final priorities, requirements, and
definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits
justify their 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 both 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.
Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34
CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make an
award by the end of FY 2016.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you
must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: July 26, 2016.
Sue Swenson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 2016-18031 Filed 7-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P