[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 1998)] [Notices] [Pages 31324-31329] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 98-15166] [[Page 31323]] _______________________________________________________________________ Part IV Department of Education _______________________________________________________________________ National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research: Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers Proposed Funding Priorities, Fiscal Years 1998-1999; Notice Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 / Notices [[Page 31324]] DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Notice of Proposed Funding Priorities for Fiscal Years 1998-1999 for Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes funding priorities for three Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs) under the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) for fiscal years 1998-1999. The Secretary takes this action to focus research attention on areas of national need. These priorities are intended to improve rehabilitation services and outcomes for individuals with disabilities. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 8, 1998. ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed priorities should be addressed to Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., room 3418, Switzer Building, Washington, D.C. 20202-2645. Comments may also be sent through the Internet: [email protected] You must include the term ``Employment Opportunities-RRTC's'' in the subject line of your electronic message. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle. Telephone: (202) 205- 5880. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD number at (202) 205-2742. Internet: Donna__N[email protected] Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding paragraph. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice contains proposed priorities under the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program for three RRTCs related to: employment opportunities for American Indians, community integration for persons with mental retardation, and policies affecting families of children with disabilities. These proposed priorities support the National Education Goal that calls for every adult American to possess the skills necessary to compete in a global economy. The authority for the Secretary to establish research priorities by reserving funds to support particular research activities is contained in sections 202(g) and 204 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 761a(g) and 762). The Secretary will announce the final priorities in a notice in the Federal Register. The final priorities will be determined by responses to this notice, available funds, and other considerations of the Department. Funding of a particular project depends on the final priority, the availability of funds, and the quality of the applications received. The publication of these proposed priorities does not preclude the Secretary from proposing additional priorities, nor does it limit the Secretary to funding only these priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements. Note: This notice of proposed priorities does not solicit applications. A notice inviting applications under this competition will be published in the Federal Register concurrent with or following the publication of the notice of final priorities. Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers The authority for RRTCs is contained in section 204(b)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 760-762). Under this program, the Secretary makes awards to public and private organizations, including institutions of higher education and Indian tribes or tribal organizations, for coordinated research and training activities. These entities must be of sufficient size, scope, and quality to effectively carry out the activities of the Center in an efficient manner consistent with appropriate State and Federal laws. They must demonstrate the ability to carry out the training activities either directly or through another entity that can provide that training. The Secretary may make awards for up to 60 months through grants or cooperative agreements. The purpose of the awards is for planning and conducting research, training, demonstrations, and related activities leading to the development of methods, procedures, and devices that will benefit individuals with disabilities, especially those with the most severe disabilities. Description of Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers RRTCs are operated in collaboration with institutions of higher education or providers of rehabilitation services or other appropriate services. RRTCs serve as centers of national excellence and national or regional resources for providers and individuals with disabilities and the parents, family members, guardians, advocates or authorized representatives of the individuals. RRTCs conduct coordinated, integrated, and advanced programs of research in rehabilitation targeted toward the production of new knowledge to improve rehabilitation methodology and service delivery systems, to alleviate or stabilize disabling conditions, and to promote maximum social and economic independence of individuals with disabilities. RRTCs provide training, including graduate, pre-service, and in- service training, to assist individuals to more effectively provide rehabilitation services. They also provide training including graduate, pre-service, and in-service training, for rehabilitation research personnel. RRTCs serve as informational and technical assistance resources to providers, individuals with disabilities, and the parents, family members, guardians, advocates, or authorized representatives of these individuals through conferences, workshops, public education programs, in-service training programs and similar activities. RRTCs disseminate materials in alternate formats to ensure that they are accessible to individuals with a range of disabling conditions. NIDRR encourages all Centers to involve individuals with disabilities and individuals from minority backgrounds as recipients of research training, as well as clinical training. The Department is particularly interested in ensuring that the expenditure of public funds is justified by the execution of intended activities and the advancement of knowledge and, thus, has built this accountability into the selection criteria. Not later than three years after the establishment of any RRTC, NIDRR will conduct one or more reviews of the activities and achievements of the Center. In accordance with the provisions of 34 CFR 75.253(a), continued funding depends at all times on satisfactory performance and accomplishment. Proposed General Requirements: The Secretary proposes that the following requirements apply to these RRTCs pursuant to these absolute priorities unless noted otherwise. An applicant's proposal to fulfill these proposed requirements will be assessed using applicable selection criteria in the peer review process: The RRTC must provide: (1) applied research experience; (2) training on research methodology; and (3) training to persons with disabilities and their families, service providers, and other appropriate parties in accessible formats [[Page 31325]] on knowledge gained from the Center's research activities. The RRTC must develop and disseminate informational materials based on knowledge gained from the Center's research activities, and disseminate the materials to persons with disabilities, their representatives, service providers, and other interested parties. The RRTC must involve individuals with disabilities and, if appropriate, their representatives, in planning and implementing its research, training, and dissemination activities, and in evaluating the Center. The RRTC must conduct a state-of-the-science conference and publish a comprehensive report on the final outcomes of the conference. The report must be published in the fourth year of the grant. Priorities Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the Secretary proposes to give an absolute preference to applications that meet the following priorities. The Secretary proposes to fund under this competition only applications that meet one of these absolute priorities. Proposed Priority 1: Employment Opportunities for American Indians Background On August 1, 1997, the U.S. population of American Indians, including Alaskan Native and Aleut, was 2.3 million. This population has the highest rate of disability of any racial or ethnic group. One in three American Indians aged 15 and over reports having a disability; about one in seven reports having a ``severe'' disability. One in two American Indians aged 65 or over has a severe disability (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census Facts For Native American Month, October, 1997). American Indians have the highest unemployment rates, the lowest family incomes, and highest percentage of people living below the poverty level (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Special Studies Series, P 23-189, pg. 51, July, 1995). The Nation's several hundred reservations have a 50 percent average unemployment rate (Kalt, J. ``Development Strategies for American Indians,'' Social Policy Research Bulletin, pg. 21, fall, 1996). In addition, American Indians have the most severe health problems of all U.S. groups, including the shortest life expectancy and highest infant mortality rate. American Indians experience alcohol and substance abuse, sensory impairment, diabetes mellitus, learning disabilities, fetal alcohol syndrome, and accidents and injuries at alarming rates when compared to the general population (U.S. General Accounting Office, Indian Health Service, Basic Services Mostly Available; Substance Abuse Problems Need Attention, GAO/HRD-93-48, April, 1993). American Indians have the Nation's highest school dropout rates and the lowest postsecondary attainment rates. Only 66 percent of American Indians have high school diplomas, compared to a 78 percent rate for whites and Asian-Americans (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Assessment of Vocational Education, Final Report to Congress, Volume IV Access to Programs and Services for Special Populations, pg. 70, July, 1994). Although some data on employment and on disability are available, there is little specific information on employment of American Indians with disabilities. In addition, although general disability rates are available for this population, there is little information on the distribution of disability within the population. Many factors may have an impact on the employment status of, and the delivery of, employment services to American Indians with disabilities. These factors include, but are not limited to health status, poverty, educational level, and availability of culturally relevant vocational rehabilitation services. State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies provide employment services to American Indians with disabilities who meet the eligibility criteria for the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program authorized by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the Act). In 1996, VR agencies assisted approximately 1600 American Indians with disabilities to achieve an employment outcome. However, data from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) indicate that American Indians served under the program achieve employment outcomes at a lower rate compared to other populations receiving vocational rehabilitation services (RSA Case Service Reports, RSA-911, 1991-1996). Geographic, cultural, language, and political factors affect the ability of State agencies to deliver services to this population, particularly those individuals residing on reservations. Approximately, one-third of American Indians live on reservations or trust lands. Most reservations have populations of less than one thousand and are located in rural areas. Many of these Indian communities are in isolated areas where poor roads and populations spread out over many miles. In addition, tribes are often sovereign political entities with specific powers of self-governance, thus affecting access to populations on reservations. In recognition of this problem, Congress amended the Act in 1978 to authorize grants for American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Service Projects (Section 130 Projects) to support tribal vocational rehabilitation programs. These discretionary grant projects, also administered by RSA, are awarded to the governing bodies of Indian tribes located on Federal and State reservations to provide VR services for American Indians who are individuals with disabilities residing on reservations. There are currently 39 such projects. Nearly two-thirds of American Indians live in urban areas. Much of the urban Indian population is assimilated and dispersed throughout urban census tracts, making it difficult for Vocational Rehabilitation agencies to identify and serve this population (The National Urban Indian Policy Coalition, Report to the White House Domestic Policy Council, April, 1995). The lack of culturally sensitive definitions of disability in national data collection efforts, such as the National Health Interview Survey or the Survey of Income and Program Participation, further complicates this problem. Cultural and language barriers significantly impede delivery of employment services, including vocational rehabilitation programs. There are 557 federally recognized tribes, speaking about 200 languages and dialects. Cultural barriers affect knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of disability and contemporary medical and health practices. In addition, concepts such as self-sufficiency, self-determination and self-advocacy may have very different meanings across Indian cultures. Proposed Priority 1 The Secretary proposes to establish a RRTC to improve the employment status of American Indians with disabilities. The RRTC shall: (1) Investigate and analyze existing data, demographic and other, relevant to disability and employment outcomes and recommend methodological improvements to enhance the usefulness and comprehensiveness of such data for the purpose of planning and evaluating employment services, including vocational rehabilitation services (as described in 34 CFR 361.48), for Indians with disabilities; [[Page 31326]] (2) Analyze existing employment and vocational rehabilitation service strategies for American Indians with disabilities and identify those that have produced successful employment outcomes, taking into consideration the actual employment opportunities that exist on and off the reservation, and examine how these strategies might be applied to the Section 130 Projects; (3) Develop and evaluate model employment services, including vocational rehabilitation services, for American Indians with disabilities, incorporating best practices from the review of existing services, taking into account cultural issues and reflecting needs of American Indians on and off the reservations as well as the Section 130 Projects; and (4) Disseminate both the recommendations for data collection improvements and the results of the evaluation of model employment services to a range of relevant audiences, using appropriate accessible formats. In carrying out the purposes of the priority, the RRTC must:As appropriate, carry out separate analyses for Indians with disabilities who live on the reservation and for those who live off the reservation; and Collaborate with the Section 130 Projects, and coordinate with the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service, the RRTC on Disability Statistics, and other entities carrying out related research or training activities. Proposed Priority 2: Community Integration for Persons with Mental Retardation Background Since 1965, NIDRR has supported research and demonstrations in the area of developmental disabilities, particularly in the area of mental retardation. During these years, researchers have addressed issues involving deinstitutionalization, special education, transition from school to work, supported employment and the overall supports persons with mental retardation need to live in the community. Based on the 1994-1995 National Health Interview Survey-Disability Supplement on adults living in the general household population and surveys of people in formal residential support programs, about .78 percent or 1,250,000 of the population of the U.S. can be identified as being limited in a major life activity and having a primary or secondary condition of mental retardation. Until the Disability Supplement survey was conducted, information was not available about individuals with mental retardation who are not participants in specialized programs, but live in the community with their families or on their own. Many persons with mental retardation and their families receive long-term services and supports through State developmental disability authorities (SDDAs) that are funded primarily by the State or Federal Medicaid program. According to the results of a recent membership survey conducted by the National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services (NASDDS), many SDDAs are currently designing or launching large scale system change initiatives. This is due, in part, to Medicaid reforms, managed care initiatives and budget constraints. Seventy-one percent of the respondents said that cost containment is a major factor prompting system change. The initiatives differ in their specifics but share several common themes: decentralizing authority to local managing entities; shifting to less categorical budgeting; promoting greater flexibility in the purchase and provision of community services and supports; and embracing self determination to define a new relationship between the system and individuals and their families (NASDDS, Community Services Reporter, pg. 3, Jan, 1998). Since 1981, the Medicaid Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) waiver has facilitated flexibility and service innovation. HCBS waivers afford States the flexibility to develop and implement creative alternatives to placing Medicaid eligible individuals in facilities such as nursing homes. The HCBS waiver program recognizes that many individuals at risk of being placed in a long-term care facility can be supported in their own homes and communities, preserving their independence and ties to family and friends at a cost no higher than that of institutional care. Services that may be provided in HCBS waiver programs are case management, homemaker services, home health aide services, personal care services, adult day health services, habilitation, and respite care. Other services States request may include transportation and meal services. States have the flexibility to design each waiver program and select the mix of waiver services that best meet the needs of the population they wish to serve. HCBS waiver services may be provided statewide or may be limited to specific geographic subdivisions. However, in the last several years, States have attempted to contain Medicaid spending through the application of managed care approaches. Long-term care services, including Medicaid-funded intermediate care facilities for persons with mental retardation and HCBS waiver services for persons with mental retardation, account for 35 percent of all Medicaid spending. Programs serving persons with mental retardation are not likely to be exempt from these cost containment measures (Center on Human Policy, Information Package on Managed Care and Long-term Supports for People with Developmental Disabilities, pg. 3, June, 1997). There is little information available on the use and outcomes of managed care practices in providing long-term supports to persons with mental retardation. Currently, States are implementing various models to consolidate health and long-term care services under one managed care organization. This approach is intended to be cost-effective and improve service coordination. Under some of these models, support networks for persons with mental retardation that now stand alone, could become subspecialty branches of larger care delivery systems (Ashbaugh, J. and Smith, G., ``MCARE Policy Brief, ``Integration of Health and Long-term Care Services: A Cure in Search of and Illness,'' No. 1, pg. 12, 1997). Some observers have voiced concern that the use of consolidated models may lead to reduced funding for services. Organizations representing persons with mental retardation have proposed integrated models that combine under a single umbrella organization, health and long-term supports in a configuration uniquely suitable for this population. Emerging practice suggests that people with mental retardation should play leading roles in determining the substance of their lives and that services should be developed as needed to support their preferences. For example, some current service delivery models may provide new options for individuals and their families to self manage their chosen services through vouchers, individual budgets or cash. The field is moving past traditional service delivery approaches to become more responsive to the demands of service recipients and to promote self determined lifestyles. Services developed around the specific needs and choices of an individual may produce better outcomes and cost savings. There are a number of emerging models for system redesign. Participant driven managed supports refer to a variety of strategies for administering [[Page 31327]] systems to increase their effectiveness and efficiency, while maintaining a commitment to community integration and self determination (Agosta, J., et al., ``MCARE Policy Brief,'' Developmental Disability Services at the Century's End: Facing the Challenges Ahead, No. 2, pg. 4, 1997). The consumer managed care approach assumes that consumers with limited budgets will spend more prudently in order to get the most value for their money and increase their use of natural supports in lieu of public supports. Accordingly, consumer choice will spawn a competitive market economy where those providers representing the most value to all consumers will survive (Smith, G. and Ashhbaugh, J., Managed Care and People with Developmental Disabilities: A Guidebook, pg. 8, 1996). Coupled with States' efforts toward containment of long-term care costs, most States have long waiting lists for services. Waiting lists are expected to grow in the future due to increased longevity and higher expectations of families. After examining State-by-State data regarding the status of requests for residential, day care, vocational and other community support services, a 1997 Arc study found that 218,000 requests for community-based support services remained unanswered. In addition to individuals living in institutions and nursing homes, these waiting lists include students exiting from special education programs and individuals living at home with caregivers. There is a need to understand the methods and procedures that States are using to provide community-based services, as well as to identify ways in which service systems can be redesigned to better respond to the needs of persons with mental retardation and their families. Residential direct care providers (e.g., group home staff members, foster family members, roommates in supported living arrangements) are the primary providers of support, training, supervision and personal assistance to persons with mental retardation in home and community settings (Larson, S. A., et al., ``Residential Services Personnel,'' Challenges for a Service System in Transition, pg. 313, 1994). In community residential settings, there have been few attempts to study the effects of staff orientation and in-service training programs on important outcomes for persons with mental retardation as well as on direct service personnel (Larson, S. A., ibid., pg. 326). As the service delivery system changes, training for these providers will be essential. In addition, it will be important to determine what training efforts contribute to the desired outcomes of fuller community participation and autonomy for persons with mental retardation. Proposed Priority 2 The Secretary proposes to establish an RRTC to improve community integration outcomes for individuals with mental retardation. The RRTC shall: (1) Investigate effective and cost-beneficial approaches to assist families to support members with mental retardation at home, or in homes of their own; (2) Describe and analyze efforts to redesign policy and services in selected State systems serving persons with mental retardation and their families; (3) Identify and analyze State policies and practices in the management of Medicaid resources that foster or impede access to supports and services; (4) Identify and analyze policies that foster or impede (e.g., result in individuals being placed on waiting lists for community-based services) the full participation and integration of persons with mental retardation into their communities; (5) Analyze the outcomes of the implementation of consumer- controlled services, personal assistance, and individual control-of- service purchasing in areas of quality of life and cost effectiveness; and (6) Identify outcomes of training for residential direct care providers and the long-term costs and benefits of specific training strategies. In carrying out the purposes of the priority, the RRTC must: coordinate with research and demonstration activities sponsored by the Health Care Financing Administration, the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, the Office of Disability, Aging, and Long- term Care Policy in the Department of Health and Human Services, and other entities carrying out related research or training activities. Proposed Priority 3: Policies Affecting Families of Children with Disabilities Background The 1992 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) estimates that 4 million children and adolescents, or 6.1 percent of the U.S. population under 18 years of age, have disabilities. The NHIS broadly defines disability to include any limitation in activity due to a chronic health condition or impairment. Among children under age five, 2 percent are limited in play activities and among children 5-17, 5.5 percent have school related disabilities. In addition, the NHIS estimates that 3.8 million families, or 5.5 percent of all families, contain one or more children with disabilities. Families of children with disabilities must interact with at least three large service systems: health care, human and social services, and educational systems. It is often difficult to assess the impact of policies, service systems, and service delivery practices because the organizational structures and the services provided under the auspices of public and private institutions vary. The integration and coordination of these systems can be inferred from the patterns of interagency relationships involving client referrals, information flows and resource exchanges (Morrissey, J.P., et al., ``Methods for System- Level Evaluations of Child Mental Health Service Networks'' Outcomes for Children and Youth with Behavioral and Emotional Disorders and Their Families: Programs and Evaluation Best Practices, pg. 299, 1998). For the purposes this priority, the policies affecting families of children with disabilities include, but are not limited to, those in the areas of health care (including mental health), human and social services (including legal systems such as juvenile services), and public and private education. Families of children with disabilities often need assistance with accessing and financing services, information about caring for their child, support from other families, community-based respite care, and case management services. Case management services are intended to ensure that services are delivered in an effective and efficient manner. Numerous models of case management currently exist. However, there is little extant research on the effectiveness, either at the family or system level, of case management services for families of children with disabilities. Numerous methodological problems limit the study of the complex service systems surrounding children with disabilities and their families. Current methods of measuring service coordination and examining roles in service delivery systems are not structured to assess the needs of children and their families (Koren, P. E., et al., ``Service Coordination in Children's Mental Health: An Empirical Study from the Caregivers Perspective,'' Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 5(3), pg. 164, 1997). Measurement issues become even more complex when the focus of a study moves from the individual and family level to the State and local service system level or when policy analysis is required. There is currently a shortage [[Page 31328]] of methods for assessing the interrelationship between Federal, State, and local policy, service systems, and outcomes for families of children with disabilities. The limited availability of data and methodological tools needed for scientific measurement of the impact of systemic and policy reforms on families of children with disabilities serves as a barrier to increasing our understanding of the relationship between policy and outcomes. Recent major changes in Federal policies for social services, child care, family preservation and support services, and related educational and health care services may be having profound impacts upon these families. Changes at the Federal level may be having an impact at the State and local level. However, little is known or documented about the effects of Federal policy changes on State and local service systems and families of children with disabilities. Under new Federal and State legislation, States have more flexibility to administer human service programs. Policymakers and legislators have new opportunities to shape integrated and flexible programs to better serve the needs of families and their children with and without disabilities. Some States are experimenting with a decategorization of State and Federal funding streams so that local communities can reshape their service systems through the use of vouchers. Some State and local agencies are conducting demonstrations of family support programs that decentralize public services for families of children with disabilities. The impact of devolution from a system with authority at the Federal level and management of public services at the State level, to a system of both authority and management at the local level has not been documented. Information is needed on these practices and other interventions, the family benefits associated with these policies and practices, and the consequences of practice and policy change in order to facilitate implementation of policies and programs that are sensitive to the needs of families of children with disabilities and to promote effective models of care for families of children with disabilities. In addition to policy changes in the social services arena, health care systems are changing rapidly the way they provide services to consumers. Families of children with disabilities, and the health care providers that serve them, are facing many challenges that differ from the coverage and access issues that are present for the general population. Even families of children with disabilities that use few medical services often require special knowledge or accommodations when they do access the health care system. Many States have little or no experience in assuring that their health care providers meet the specialized needs of families of children who have disabilities. These challenges are further complicated by the high cost of services for children with disabilities. Among children enrolled in Medicaid, the average per-person health care costs in 1992 were seven times higher for disabled than nondisabled children. Compared with nondisabled children in the general population, some disabled children use twice as many physician visits and five times as many ancillary services, such as physical therapy. Under current policies and practices, the potential exists to use medical necessity standards to prevent disabled children from receiving therapy or equipment when they need it to maintain existing levels of functioning (U.S. General Accounting Office, Medicaid Managed Care: Serving the Disabled Challenges States Programs, (GAO/HEHS Publication No. 96-136) pg. 16, 1996). Research is needed on health care policies and service delivery practices in order to develop longterm strategies to remove service delivery barriers that exist in the health care system and to facilitate establishment of policies that support access to services for families of children with disabilities. Frequently, children with disabilities who are participating in special education programs and their families have needs that are addressed by health care or social service agencies. As public schools' regular and special education programs restructure, opportunities may arise to expand successful service delivery strategies and develop new ones to fill in existing gaps in the service delivery systems. The development of integrated, community-based services for children with disabilities and their families is an essential component of this reform effort (Duchnowski, A. J., et al., ``Integrated and Collaborative Community Services in Exceptional Student Education,'' Special Education Practice: Applying the Knowledge, Affirming the Values and Creating the Future, pgs. 177-188, 1997). Many communities have begun initiatives to create more responsive family-centered service delivery systems. Mechanisms for interagency coordination at the State and local levels are necessary to ensure optimal service delivery conditions. Service coordination should involve linkages between education agencies, health care systems, and social services systems. In addition, due to the changing demographics of society, little is known about the influence of culture, ethnicity and socioeconomics on how families seek and receive services for their children with disabilities. Basic information sharing, coordination and collaboration between agencies that provide services to families of children with disabilities is limited. There is a need to evaluate current best practices in service delivery coordination and collaboration, develop a methodology for analyzing collaboration among agencies, establish principles for coordination and collaboration, and develop performance indicators that foster partnerships. Proposed Priority 3 The Secretary proposes to establish an RRTC to assess the impact of policies on service delivery and outcomes for families of children with disabilities. The RRTC shall: (1) Develop an analytical framework, including tools for assessing: family characteristics and policies, structure of service systems, service delivery processes, interagency coordination and collaboration, and outcomes for families with disabled children; (2) Using the methodology developed above, determine the effectiveness of specific policies, implementation strategies, service delivery procedures, and coordination practices in meeting the needs of families of children with disabilities; (3) Identify the impact of specific characteristics of interagency collaboration and coordination on families of children with disabilities; and (4) Assess the impact of specific policies on access to services of families from diverse cultural, linguistic, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. In carrying out these purposes, the RRTC must: Disseminate materials and coordinate research and training activities with the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, the Office of Policy and Planning in the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Special Education, the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council, and other entities carrying out related research or training activities; and Establish practical statistical methodologies and measurement tools that specifically assess the policies affecting families of children with disabilities. [[Page 31329]] Electronic Access to This Document Anyone may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or portable document format (pdf) on the World Wide Web at either of the following sites: http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm http://www.ed.gov/news.html To use the pdf you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with Search, which is available free at either of the preceding sites. If you have questions about using the pdf, call the U.S. Government Printing Office at (202) 512-1530 or, toll free at 1-888-293-6498. Anyone may also view these documents in text copy only on an electronic bulletin board of the Department. Telephone: (202) 219-1511 or, toll free, 1-800-222-4922. The documents are located under Option G--Files/Announcements, Bulletins and Press Releases. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Invitation to Comment: Interested persons are invited to submit comments and recommendations regarding these proposed priorities. All comments submitted in response to this notice will be available for public inspection, during and after the comment period, in Room 3424, Switzer Building, 330 C Street S.W., Washington, D.C., between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR Part 350. Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760-762. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 84.133B, Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers) Dated: June 3, 1998. Curtis L. Richards, Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. 98-15166 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-001-P