Part A: Justification i

Evaluation of the IDEA Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination Program: Phase II

Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission

PART A: Justification

Contract ED-04-CO-0059/0032

June 24, 2014

Prepared for

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

Prepared by

Westat
Part A: Justification ii

Contents 

Evaluation of the IDEA Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program: Phase II

Introduction................................................................................................................................ 3

Overview.................................................................................................................................... 3

Evaluation Questions ................................................................................................................. 3

Sampling Design........................................................................................................................ 3

Data Collection Procedures........................................................................................................ 3

Analytic Approach ...................................................................................................................... 3

Part A: Justification ..........................................................................................................11

A.1 Explanation of Circumstances That Make Collection of Data Necessary................11

A.2 How the Information Will Be Collected, by Whom, and For What Purpose .............11

A.3 Use of Improved Information Technology to Reduce Burden..................................12

A.4 Efforts to Identify and Avoid Duplication .................................................................12

A.5 Efforts to Minimize Burden on Small Business or Other Entities.............................12

A.6 Consequences of Less-Frequent Data Collection...................................................13

A.7 Special Circumstances Requiring Collection of Information in a Manner Inconsistent 

with Section 1320.5(d)(2) of the Code of Federal Regulations................................13

A.8 Federal Register Comments and Persons Consulted Outside the Agency .............13

A.9 Payments to Respondents .....................................................................................13

A.10 Assurance of Confidentiality ...................................................................................14

A.11 Questions of a Sensitive Nature .............................................................................15

A.12 Estimates of Respondent Burden...........................................................................15

A.13 Estimates of the Cost Burden to Respondents .......................................................16

A.14 Estimates of Annualized Government Costs ..........................................................16

A.15 Changes in Hour Burden........................................................................................16

A.16 Time Schedule, Publication, and Analysis Plan......................................................16

A.17 Display of Expiration Date for OMB Approval .........................................................18

A.18 Exceptions to Certification Statement.....................................................................18

References ......................................................................................................................19
Part A: Justification 3

INTRODUCTION

Overview

Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) specifies that the TA&D Program 

will provide technical assistance, support model demonstration projects, disseminate useful 

information, and implement activities that are supported by scientifically based research (IDEA 

2004, P.L. 108-446 Part D Section 663, 118 Stat. 2781). The federal government has been 

funding projects that provide technical assistance related to the education of individuals with 

disabilities for four decades, and the TA&D Program assumed its current structure with the 1997 

reauthorization of IDEA. The TA&D Program awards grants in multiple subprogram areas, with 

grants ranging in size from approximately $65,000 per year to approximately $2.8 million per 

year. Program grantees are located throughout the U.S. and recipients include institutions of 

higher education, for-profit organizations and private nonprofit institutes and organizations.

Under contract with the National Center for Education Evaluation (NCEE) in the Institute of 

Education Sciences (IES) at the U. S. Department of Education (ED), Westat completed an 

evaluation of 27 national centers that were funded under the TA&D Program, referred to in this 

application as Phase I of the National Evaluation. Under Phase I, data were obtained from 

TA&D center Project Directors; State Special Education Directors; and state-level staff who 

oversaw or were involved with providing technical assistance in numerous areas. Phase I of the 

evaluation provided detailed information about project activities, need for TA, and satisfaction 

with TA received in these specified areas (Daley, Fiore, Bollmer, Nimkoff & Lysy, 2013). 

While robust and detailed information was obtained about national technical assistance and 

dissemination activities, Phase I of the Evaluation provided only minimal information about the 

State Deaf-Blind Projects. Children who are deafblind represent the quintessence of the 

populations that gave rise to special education: they are an extremely low incidence population, 

challenged as learners, and difficult to instruct under traditional conditions. In recognition of the 

unique needs of this population, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires that the 

Secretary reserve a portion of IDEA Part D funds each year to address the needs of children 

with deafblindness (see section 682(d)(1)(A) of IDEA, 20 U.S.C. 1482(d)). The combined 52 

projects make up approximately one-fifth of the annual expenditure for the TA&D Program. In 

collaboration with the National Center on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB), these projects play a central 

role in providing TA to families, professionals and paraprofessionals who serve children with 

deafblindness. And, while funded since the 1960s under various authorities, a formal evaluation 

of the State Deaf-Blind Projects has not, to our knowledge, ever been conducted.

In October 2013, a new set of 52 State Deaf-Blind Projects were awarded. These projects are 

each five years and range in size from $65,000 per year to $575,000 per year. As per the 

priority identified for these projects, they provide direct, targeted, and intensive TA to staff in 

LEAs, schools, EIS providers, and classrooms, where children who are deaf-blind are served. 

While the projects all share similar features, there is also variability in the structure, specific 

activities, and population served, as well as in other areas. Phase II of the Evaluation will 

include two questionnaires that are designed to describe this variability as well as better 

understand the population of providers who work with students with deafblindness in school and 

related settings. A State Deaf-Blind Project grantee questionnaire will yield detailed descriptive 

information about projects, including the topic areas on which they focus, the technical 

assistance services provided by the projects and to whom they provide these services, and the 
Part A: Justification 4

collaborative relationships in which the projects engage. A questionnaire administered to service 

providers who are known to have worked with children with deafblindness will offer information 

about the needs that these individuals have for technical assistance to support children with 

deafblindness and their families. A short set of questions administered to service providers who 

have received targeted technical assistance from the projects will allow an assessment of 

satisfaction with individualized, direct, and intensive TA services provided by the projects. The 

evaluation questions appear below.

Evaluation Questions

1) What technical assistance and dissemination activities do State Deaf-Blind Projects 

provide and how does this vary across the states?

a. What types of technical assistance and dissemination activities do projects provide?

b. To what extent do projects focus on the specific initiatives promoted by NCDB?1

c. To whom do projects provide TA? 

d. How do projects determine which children are eligible for and who will receive TA services?

2) How do State Deaf-Blind Projects collaborate across the program, within their 

individual states, and with other TA providers?

a. Within the network of projects, with whom do projects collaborate and in what ways?

b. Outside the network of State Deaf-Blind Projects, with which other TA providers do projects 

collaborate and in what ways?

3) What are the needs for TA among service providers of children who are deafblind and 

how do needs vary? 

a. What are the needs for TA among service providers? 

b. How does need for TA vary by individual characteristics of service providers? 

c. How does need for TA vary by characteristics of service providers’ settings?

4) How satisfied are service providers with services provided by the State Deaf-Blind 

Projects?

a. How does service provider satisfaction with TA vary across projects?

b. How does service provider satisfaction vary based on characteristics of the project? 

c. How does satisfaction with TA vary by characteristics of service providers? 

d. How does satisfaction with TA vary by characteristics of service providers’ settings?

Data to address the research questions above will come primarily through the two

questionnaires, and we will use project proposals as an extant data source to provide some 

descriptive information about the projects.

Sampling Design

A detailed discussion of our sampling design is provided in the Supporting Statement for 

Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, Part B of this package. Exhibit A-1 provides a summary

of the sample populations proposed for this study, and Exhibit A-2 shows the relationship 

between the Provider sample and the TA Recipient sample.

 

1

The relevant NCDB initiatives are: Early identification and referral, Intervener services, Transition, Family 

engagement, Literacy, and Technology solutions.
Part A: Justification 5

Exhibit A-1. Main Study Components and Proposed Sample

Survey Name Sample

Grantee 

Questionnaire

Project directors of all 52 State Deaf-Blind Projects, with assistance from key staff as they deem necessary.

Provider 

Questionnaire

TA Recipient 

Supplement

Providers who are designated by the district special education director as having provided at least weekly 

services to 6-21 year old children and youth with deafblindness.

A subset of Providers who self-report or are identified by the State Deaf-Blind Project as having received

targeted assistance from the project to serve a child or youth between the ages of 6-21. The TA Recipient 

Supplement consists of a short set of questions focused on experiences with the projects. 

Exhibit A-2. Relationship of the Provider and TA Recipient Samples

Data Collection Procedures

Data collection instruments for the State Deaf-Blind Project Grantee Questionnaire and the 

Provider Questionnaire and TA Recipient Supplement are included in Appendices A and B.

Exhibit A-3 provides an overview of the data collection procedures for this evaluation.

Exhibit A-3. Summary of Data Collection Procedures

Sample Description Data Collection Timeline

Grantees  List of schools at which children were served based on the 2013 

NCDB Child Count, used to construct the Provider sampling frame.

 List of providers who received child-specific specific technical 

assistance during since October 2013, used to inform the Provider 

sample and TA Recipient sub-sample

 Web-based survey (Grantee Questionnaire)

Upon OMB approval

Upon OMB approval

Fall 2014

Providers  Web-based survey (Provider Questionnaire) 2014-15 School year

TA Recipients  Web-based survey supplement (TA Recipient Supplement) 2014-15 School year

Providers of services to children 

and youth with deafblindness

Provider Sample

Providers identified by district special 

education directors and projects

TA Recipient Sample

Providers identified by DeafBlind Projects as receiving 

child-specific TA from the 

project or who self-identify as

receiving targeted TA in 2013-

14 or 2014-15.
Part A: Justification 6

Analytic Approach

This evaluation is intended to provide descriptive data about the State Deaf-Blind Projects, need 

for assistance among providers who work with this population, and satisfaction with technical 

assistance that is received by providers from the projects. Consistent with this, analyses will 

consist primarily of percentages, means, and frequencies, similar to the analyses conducted in 

Phase I of this evaluation. Since the Grantee data is a census of that population, there is no 

need for calculation of standard errors or confidence intervals. For the Provider and TA 

Recipient data, which will be collected by sampling (with the TA Recipient sample selected with 

certainty), we will present the standard error of an estimate. The respondent survey data for the 

provider sample will be weighted by a base weight (the inverse of sampling probability). 

We anticipate that some providers serve more than one school and that a very small number of 

providers may be nominated to complete the survey by more than one district administrator. All 

respondents will be instructed to complete the survey only once and only one response will be 

considered an eligible unit for weighting.

Below, the letters PQ indicates data come from participant responses to the Provider 

Questionnaire and RS indicates that data come from participant responses to the TA Recipient 

Supplement. GQ indicates that data come from the Grantee Questionnaire.

For some questions, the use of open-ended responses is warranted, and two types of openended questions appear in these instruments. The use of the “Other” option in closed-ended 

questions allows for the wide heterogeneity in respondents and respondent experiences that we 

anticipate. For example, the majority of providers may work in a setting that fits into the 

categories described in PQ #3. However, a provider who evenly splits her time in two settings, 

or a provider who works in classroom in which half the students are typically developing and half 

are students with disabilities will need the ability to explain this. The standard approach to 

dealing with ‘Other’ responses is to upcode them as appropriate, and to provide the responses 

in a descriptive manner otherwise. The other type of open-ended question are items for which 

closed-ended responses are not possible to develop, because the answer is unknown and 

closed-ended responses cannot be developed (such as the way in which projects make 

decisions about who will receive child-specific TA), or where they would not be an effective way 

to obtain information (such as describing key activities or products of the grantees). Analysis of 

these questions will involve developing themes and codes tied to these themes. We will use the 

software program Dedoose for analysis of these data, which has built-in capabilities to establish 

reliability for coding and other analytic tools. 

In addition to open-ended data, this study will involve data of different types: both categorical 

and continuous variables, which we may choose to analyze as categorical variables in some 

situations. There are also constructs for which we may consider combining multiple indicators to 

create a single variable for analytic purposes, although we will also present the descriptive data 

either in the body or appendices of the report. These are:

 Extent of experience with deafblindness (derived from PQ #6, 7a, 8, 10, 12, 21)

 Extent of experience with the project (derived from RS #25, 27, 28)

A decision about whether to proceed in this direction will be made in consultation with ED and 

Technical Working Group members.
Part A: Justification 7

We provide a brief description for planned analyses for each evaluation question in the following 

section. Exhibit A-4 presents each source of data that will be used to address each of the 

evaluation questions and sub-questions for this data collection.

Exhibit A-4. Evaluation Questions and Corresponding Survey/Questionnaire/Interview 

Items

Evaluation Question 

and Sub-Question Data collection tool

1. What technical assistance and dissemination activities do State Deaf-Blind Projects provide and how does this 

vary across the states?

a. What types of technical assistance and dissemination activities do 

projects provide?

Grantee Questionnaire

b. To what extent do projects focus on the specific initiatives promoted 

by NCDB?

Grantee Questionnaire

c. To whom do projects provide TA? Grantee Questionnaire

TA Recipient Supplement

d. How do projects determine which children are eligible for and who will 

receive TA services?

Grantee Questionnaire

2. How do State Deaf-Blind Projects collaborate across the program, within their individual states, and with other TA 

providers?

a. Within the network of projects, with whom do projects collaborate and 

in what ways?

Grantee Questionnaire

b. Outside the network of State Deaf-Blind Projects, with which other TA 

providers do projects collaborate and in what ways?

Grantee Questionnaire

3. What are the needs for TA among service providers of children who are deafblind and how do needs vary? 

a. What are the needs for TA among service providers? Provider Questionnaire 

b. How does need for TA vary by individual characteristics of service 

providers? 

Provider Questionnaire 

c. How does need for TA vary by characteristics of service providers’ 

settings? 

Provider Questionnaire 

4. How satisfied are service providers with services provided by the State Deaf-Blind Projects?

a. How does service provider satisfaction with TA vary across projects? TA Recipient Supplement

b. How does service provider satisfaction vary based on dimensions or 

characteristics of the project? 

TA Recipient Supplement

c. How does satisfaction with TA vary by characteristics of service 

providers? 

TA Recipient Supplement

d. How does satisfaction with TA vary by characteristics of service 

providers’ settings?

TA Recipient Supplement

RQ1a. What types of technical assistance and dissemination activities do projects 

provide?

Frequencies will be used to describe the following, based on Grantee report:

 Products and services provided by the project (GQ #10, #11)

 Topics for which their project provides TA (GQ #21, #22)

 Activities undertaken by the project in the area of system capacity development (GQ 

#19)

 Whether projects participate in a state-level task force or advisory committee (GQ #20)
Part A: Justification 8

Analysis of GQ #12, which asks grantees to describe signature products or activities, will be 

coded using standard qualitative coding techniques described above. Similarly, data from GQ 

#13 will be used to describe challenges reported by the projects in providing services to 

children, youth and families.

RQ1b. How do projects determine which children are eligible for and who will receive 

TA services?

We will address this question using data from three items within the Grantee questionnaire:

 The percentage of students who access services through different processes (GQ #8)

 Frequency of responses to GQ #9, which asks grantees to report how true are different 

barriers to providing services for their state. 

RQ1c. To whom do projects provide TA?

Frequencies will be used to address this sub-question using two sources of data:

 Children and youth served in different age groups since October 2013 (GQ #5; using GQ 

#4 to provide the denominator)

 TA recipients served through TA, as reported by the grantees (GQ #6, #7)

 Descriptive characteristics of all respondents identified as recipients of targeted TA (PS 

#1-12)

RQ1d. To what extent do projects focus on the specific initiatives promoted by NCDB?2

Frequencies will be used to report whether grantees have engaged or plan to engage in a series 

of specific activities tied to each of the five NCDB initiatives. (GQ #15-20)

RQ2a. Within the network of projects, with whom do projects collaborate and in what 

ways?

To examine collaboration within the network of State Deaf-Blind Projects, we will draw from GQ 

#23-33. The primary analytic tool will be Social Network Analysis (SNA), using data from GQ 

#23. SNA is a set of methods for gathering and analyzing data on the relationships within a

network such as the State Deaf-Blind Projects. In SNA terminology, a network is a set of 

members, actors, or nodes; a relationship defines the connections, ties, or lines that exist 

between members. Relationships build from dyads – a connection between two members of the 

network. As connections (ties) build between members, a structure develops that can be 

measured. Sociograms visually depict relationship structures, and quantitative measures 

provide details. Each relationship has its own relationship structure, which may or may not be 

similar to other relationship structures for a network. 

Understanding a relationship structure generally requires multiple SNA measures. Some are 

individual measures because they capture information about each member in a network. Others 

are network measures because they capture information about the entire relationship structure. 

Each relationship on the network has its own measures. For our analysis of the State Deaf-Blind 

Project network, we will rely on several indicators, which are likely to include density (the extent 

to which members are connecting to each other), cliques (subgroups of at least three members

who directly connect to each other), Freeman Centrality (a measure of the popularity of each 

 

2

The relevant NCDB initiatives are: Early identification and referral, Intervener services, Transition, Family 

engagement, Literacy, and Technology solutions.
Part A: Justification 9

network member within a particular relationship structure), components (a network measure of 

structural cohesion), and centralization (a network measure of the diffusion or spread of the 

SNA is only possible if all members of a network provide responses about all other members. 

Our question about collaboration among projects is structured in a way to permit effective SNA 

and describe collaboration among the State Deaf-Blind Projects.

RQ2b. Outside the network of State Deaf-Blind Projects, with which other TA providers 

do projects collaborate and in what ways?

We will not be able to use SNA to address RQ2b, because it requires that all members in a 

network are able to provide responses about all other members, whereas our data to address 

this question will be based only on Grantee report in GQ #34, where we will present the

frequency of responses.

RQ3a. What are the needs for TA among service providers? 

To address this question, we will present the needs for TA (PQ #16) among providers and 

provide descriptive data on where providers usually turn for TA (PQ #19). 

RQ3b. How does need for TA vary by individual characteristics of service providers? 

We will collect information from providers that will allow us to analyze need for TA by the 

following provider characteristics:

 Profession (PQ #1)

 Number of children with deafblindess worked with throughout career (PQ #8)

 Years of experience (PQ #9)

 Educational background (PQ #11)

 Degree to which provider feels knowledgeable about deafblindness (PQ #12)

RQ3c. How does need for TA vary by characteristics of service providers’ settings?

We will collect information from providers that will allow us to analyze need for TA by the 

following provider characteristics:

 Primary type of setting (PQ #3)

 If the provider works in a special school (PQ #4) and degree of clustering of students 

with deafblindness within the district (information obtained from the sample frame)

 Setting of students with deafblindness (PQ #14)

 Level of functioning of students (PQ #15)

 Physical distance from project location (using GPS coordinates)

 Characterization of the school according to rural/remoteness

RQ4a. How does service provider satisfaction with TA vary across projects?

Satisfaction will be measured through items 31 and 32 of the TA Recipient Supplement. We will

average responses for each dimension of satisfaction across TA recipients from each project to 

provide a mean rating for each of the 10 components of satisfaction in item 31, as well as an 

overall mean satisfaction based on item 32. These means will be displayed by state. Overall 

satisfaction with TA (RS #32) will be used in conjunction with each of the variables listed below,

either using t-tests where there are two groups, or ANOVAs where there are more than two 

groups. In some cases, we will consolidate data to create appropriate analysis groups, for 

example, in the case of profession we will provide descriptive data on the specializations but 

may collapse all related service providers into one group. At this time, we do not plan to use the 
Part A: Justification 10

satisfaction items as a scale, but we will explore this option during the analysis period. For 

satisfaction items, only providers who have received targeted TA answer questions about 

satisfaction. Analyses of satisfaction items will include all providers who are identified or selfidentify as receiving targeted TA from a State Deaf-Blind Project.

RQ4b. How does service provider satisfaction vary based on characteristics of the 

project? 

Using RS #32, we are able to examine satisfaction in conjunction with the following aspects of 

each project:

 Project funding level (Obtained from the proposal; we can choose to use this as either a 

continuous or categorical variable)

 Project FTEs dedicated to the project work (Obtained from the proposals; we can 

choose to use this as either a continuous or categorical variable)

 Whether the project is housed in the SEA, IHE or other location (GQ #1, categorical)

 Model of TA delivery (GQ #2, categorical)

RQ4c. How does satisfaction with TA vary by characteristics of service providers? 

We will collect information from providers that will allow us to analyze satisfaction by the 

following TA recipient characteristics:

 Profession (RS #1)

 Education level (RS #11)

 Years of experience (RS #9; we can choose to use this as either a continuous or

categorical variable)

 Experience with deafblindness

o Degree to which provider feels knowledgeable about deafblindness (RS #12, 

continuous)

o Number of children with deafblindness throughout career (RS #8, we can choose 

to use this as either a continuous or categorical variable)

 Experience with the project

o Setting in which assistance was delivered (RS #26)

o Additional services received from project (RS #21; we can choose to use this as 

either a continuous or categorical variable)

o Length of contact with project (TQ #27)

o Recency of contact with project (TQ #28)

RQ4d. How does satisfaction with TA vary by characteristics of service providers’ 

settings?

We will analyze satisfaction by the following TA recipient characteristics:

 Primary type of setting (RS #3)

 Whether the provider works in a special school (RS #4)

 Physical distance from project location (using GPS coordinates)
Part A: Justification 11

Part A: Justification

This package requests approval for a data collection for the second phase of the National 

Evaluation of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) Program. Data collection will 

focus on gathering relevant information on the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)-

funded State Deaf-Blind Project grantees and from eligible and actual providers served by these 

projects. 

A.1 Explanation of Circumstances That Make Collection of Data 

Necessary

The National Evaluation of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) Program is part 

of the National Assessment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 

2004 (hereafter referred to as the National Assessment) being conducted by NCEE. Section 

664b of IDEA 2004 requires the National Assessment to evaluate “the effectiveness of schools, 

local educational agencies, States, other recipients of assistance under this title, and the 

Secretary in achieving the purposes of this title,” by: (i) improving the academic achievement of

children with disabilities and their performance on regular statewide assessments as compared 

to nondisabled children, and the performance of children with disabilities on alternate 

assessments; (ii) improving the participation of children with disabilities in the general education 

curriculum; (iii) improving the transitions of children with disabilities at natural transition points; 

(iv) placing and serving children with disabilities, including minority children, in the least 

restrictive environment appropriate; (v) preventing children with disabilities, especially children 

with emotional disturbances and specific learning disabilities, from dropping out of school; and 

(vi) addressing the reading and literacy needs of children with disabilities. To date, NCEE has 

awarded five other contracts to support studies that are part of the National Assessment. Of the 

National Assessment studies, this evaluation is the only one that is focused on the role of the 

TA&D Program and its relation to implementation of IDEA.

A.2 How the Information Will Be Collected, by Whom, and For What 

Purpose

The data collected for Phase II of the National Evaluation of the TA&D Program will be used by 

ED to report to Congress as part of the National Assessment. Failure to collect these data may 

result in ED being unable to adequately report to Congress on the National Assessment. 

Additionally, if this evaluation were not completed, ED and Congress would not have an 

accurate understanding of the relationship between the State Deaf-Blind Projects and early 

intervention/special education policy and practices. The information from the evaluation will 

assist Congress in the reauthorization of the IDEA and to further improve early intervention and 

special education services with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes for children with 

disabilities. 

This data collection will provide unique, detailed data on local needs for technical assistance in 

the area of deafblindness; the services provided by the TA&D State Deaf-Blind Projects; the 

extent of collaboration among the State Deaf-Blind projects; the technical assistance services 

that local providers receive from State Deaf-Blind Project grantees; and how satisfied they are 

with these services. These data are not currently available from other sources but are 

necessary in order to accurately understand and improve upon the role that the TA&D Program 
Part A: Justification 12

plays in supporting state agencies in their implementation of IDEA for students with 

deafblindness. 

A.3 Use of Improved Information Technology to Reduce Burden

All questionnaires will be administered using web-based surveys so they are easily accessible 

to respondents. Administration of web-based surveys enables reduced burden through complex 

skip patterns that are invisible to respondents, as well as prefilled information based on 

responses to previous items when appropriate. In addition, web-based surveys allow for 

multiple respondents to easily complete the various modules of the survey. Additional costs 

associated with data entry are not incurred as the respondent enters data while completing the 

survey, leading to improved data quality as well. The nature of data entry in web-based surveys 

also leads to decreased costs associated with processing and increased data collection speed. 

Paper and phone survey options will be offered to respondents as part of the nonresponse 

follow-up effort and will be available to any respondent who prefers a paper mode. Any followup questions that are needed for clarification will take place through email and telephone to 

eliminate any requirements for participant travel. 

A.4 Efforts to Identify and Avoid Duplication

The detailed information to be collected through these instruments does not currently exist 

within ED or other agencies in a systematic format. Any relevant data that do exist will be 

obtained from OSEP and will be used in addition to the data collected through the instruments. 

For example, grantee proposals from the State Deaf-Blind Projects have been obtained, and 

information from these documents as well as project websites will be used to supplement the 

data collected through the questionnaires, as appropriate. Descriptive information about schools 

is available from the Common Core of Data, eliminating the need to ask respondents questions 

about their school characteristics. However, these sources alone do not provide the systematic 

data required to completely address the evaluation questions, and therefore a new data 

collection is needed. 

A.5 Efforts to Minimize Burden on Small Business or Other Entities

No small businesses will be involved as respondents. Every effort has been and will be made to 

minimize the burden on State Deaf-Blind Project grantees and local provider staff. We have 

obtained the grant proposals for each State Deaf-Blind Project, and will extract information from 

these documents so that we do not have to ask this information from projects. Extracted 

information will include:

 Project funding amount from ED

 Number of full time staff associated with the project

 Number of part time staff associated with the project

 Total FTEs supported through the grant

 Total FTEs supported through external sources

Also as described in section A.3, we will administer questionnaires via the web, so they will be 

easily accessible to respondents. Burden will be reduced with the use of prefilled information 

based on responses to previous items when appropriate. We are also attempting to reducing 

burden on the providers by identifying individuals who work most closely with students with 

deafblindness, as opposed to having an individual with limited direct contact with this population 

complete the survey.
Part A: Justification 13

A.6 Consequences of Less-Frequent Data Collection

The data collection will occur only once. If the data collection is not completed, OMB, 

administrators, policymakers, and the public will not have systematic data about the activities of 

the State Deaf-Blind Projects.

A.7 Special Circumstances Requiring Collection of Information in a 

Manner Inconsistent with Section 1320.5(d)(2) of the Code of 

Federal Regulations

There are no special circumstances associated with this data collection.

A.8 Federal Register Comments and Persons Consulted Outside the 

Agency

The data collection instruments were developed by the evaluation research team led by Westat,

under the direction of the IES COR. The TA&D State Deaf-Blind Project Questionnaire was 

tested with 9 individuals familiar with state projects. The Provider Questionnaire and TA

Recipient Supplement were tested with 9 school and district-level providers to examine the 

survey items and assess potential burden. These procedures informed our time estimates and 

the comments from the pilot test respondents were addressed in the revised instruments. 

Group and individual calls were held with Technical Working Group members during December

2013 and January 2014 to discuss the evaluation design and the data collection activities and 

instruments. Members of the TWG include:

 John Killoran, Western Oregon University

 Mark Schalock, National Center on Deaf-Blindness

 Robbie Blaha, retired director of the Texas Deaf-Blind Project

 Kathleen Scoggins, retired director of the Washington Deaf-Blind Project

A.9 Payments to Respondents

There will be no payments made to State Deaf-Blind Project grantees.

The Provider Questionnaire and TA Recipient Supplement are the sole source of data for 

Evaluation Questions 3 and 4; therefore it is important to achieve a high response rate. Studies 

have shown that when used appropriately, incentives are a cost-effective means of significantly 

increasing response rates (e.g., Dillman, 2000). Surveys that use incentives can result in lower 

costs than those that do not, since expensive follow-up can be minimized through the up-front 

investment of the incentives. Moreover, the use of an incentive was strongly recommended by 

both our Technical Working Group members and the individuals who assisted with cognitive 

testing. 

To boost the survey response rate and to compensate for respondents’ time, the study has 

planned to provide incentives for respondents of the Provider Questionnaire and TA Recipient
Part A: Justification 14

Supplement. The planned incentive amount is $20 per respondent for a maximum total cost of 

$55,000, assuming 2,750 providers complete the survey. The amount of incentive planned for 

the survey respondents is consistent with that proposed in the NCEE memo Guidelines for 

Incentives for NCEE Evaluation Studies, dated March 22, 2005, and is consistent with other EDfunded studies. 

A.10 Assurance of Confidentiality

Other than the names and contact information for the respondents, which is information typically 

already available in the public domain (i.e., district and school websites), no data collected will 

include information that could identify an individual respondent. In reporting, no State Deaf-Blind 

Project grantee staff and no providers will be named. No names and contact information will be 

released. 

An explicit statement regarding confidentiality will be communicated to all respondents. The 

following statement will be included in the cover letter of the State Deaf-Blind Project

Questionnaire:

Every effort will be made to protect the confidentiality of data collected through 

this study. Reports on this evaluation will not name individuals and will not 

include any information that could be used to identify individual respondents. We 

will not provide information that identifies you to anyone outside the study team.

ED, in the conduct of the study, will follow procedures for ensuring and maintaining participant 

privacy, consistent with the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. Title I, Part E, Section 183 

of this Act requires, “All collection, maintenance, use, and wise dissemination of data by the 

Institute” to “conform with the requirements of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, the 

confidentiality standards of subsection (c) of this section, and sections 444 and 445 of the 

General Education Provision Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g, 1232h).” These citations refer to the 

Privacy Act, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and the Protection of Pupil Rights 

Amendment. Respondents will be assured that confidentiality is maintained. Specific steps to 

guarantee confidentiality include the following:

 Identifying information about respondents (e.g., respondent name, email address, 

and telephone number) will at no point be stored in the same file as the survey data. 

Through the web-based system, those data will be automatically extracted into a 

separate file and will be password protected. A unique identification number for each 

respondent will be used for building raw data and analysis files.

 Participants will be referred to by unique identification number. Files containing more 

information will be password protected.

 Confidential materials will be printed on a printer located in a limited access field 

room. When printing documents that contain confidential information from shared 

network printers, authorized study staff will be present and retrieve the documents as 

soon as printing is complete.

 In public reports, findings will be presented in aggregate by type of respondent (e.g., 

special education teachers; occupational therapists). No reports will identify 

individual respondents. 
Part A: Justification 15

 Access to the sample files will be limited to authorized study staff only; no others will 

be authorized such access.

 All members of the study team will be briefed regarding confidentiality of the data 

and will sign a statement with the following information:

o I will not reveal the name, address, or other identifying information about any 

respondent to any person other than those directly connected to the study.

o I will not reveal the contents or substance of the responses of any identifiable 

respondent or informant to any person other than a member of the project 

staff, except for a purpose authorized by the project director or authorized 

designate.

o I will not contact any respondent or informant except as authorized by a 

member of the project staff.

o I will not release a dataset or findings from this project (including for 

unrestricted public use or for other, unrestricted uses) except in accordance 

with policies and procedures established by the project director or authorized 

designate.

 A control system will be in place, beginning at sample selection, to monitor the status 

and whereabouts of all data collection instruments during transfer, processing, 

coding, and data entry. This includes sign-in/sign-out sheets and the hand-carrying 

of documents by authorized project staff only.

 All data will be stored in secure areas accessible only to authorized staff members. 

Computer-generated output containing identifiable information will be maintained 

under the same conditions.

 When any hard copies containing confidential information are no longer needed, they 

will be shredded. 

A.11 Questions of a Sensitive Nature

The questions included on the data collection instruments for this study do not involve sensitive 

topics.

A.12 Estimates of Respondent Burden 

In all, responses will be required one time from a maximum total of 3,702 respondents (52

TA&D State Deaf-Blind Project Directors, 900 principals or special education directors who 

identify appropriate respondents, 1,250 service providers who work with students with 

deafblindness or their families, 1,500 providers who have received technical assistance from a 

State Deaf-Blind Project in 2013-14). We estimate that it will take respondents between 5 and 

45 minutes to complete each instrument. Total burden is 55,620 minutes or 927 hours (see 

Exhibit A-5 below for a breakdown of burden by respondent type).
Part A: Justification 16

Exhibit A-5. Estimates of Respondent Burden

a

Hourly rates are based on the 2012 national data from the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Occupational Employment and Wages

b

School principals/Special Education Directors provide contact information but are not true respondents in this study 

in that they provide no information that is used to address the Evaluation questions. While directed to principals, in 

some cases, the principal may forward the letter to the Special Education Director to complete.

A.13 Estimates of the Cost Burden to Respondents

There are no additional respondent costs associated with this data collection beyond the hour 

burden estimated in Item A12 (i.e., 45 minutes for the Grantee Questionnaire, 15 minutes for the 

Provider Questionnaire, and 5 minutes for the TA Recipient Supplement). There are no 

annualized capital/startup or ongoing operation and maintenance costs associated with 

collecting the information. 

A.14 Estimates of Annualized Government Costs

The estimated cost for this study, including development of a detailed study design, data 

collection instruments, justification package, data collection, data analysis, and report 

preparation, is $1,423,056 for the two years, or approximately $711,526 per year.

A.15 Changes in Hour Burden

Phase I of this evaluation has now been completed and we are requesting approval for phase II. 

We currently have 1,028 burden hours approved but will require only 927 burden hours for this 

portion of the study. Therefore, this request represents a reduction of 101 burden hours.

A.16 Time Schedule, Publication, and Analysis Plan 

Time Schedule

The schedule shown below in Exhibit A-6 displays the sequence of activities required to conduct 

the data collection activities, including key dates for activities related to instrument design, data 

collection, analysis, and reporting.

Respondent Total Sample 

Size

Time Estimate 

(minutes)

Total Hour 

Burden Hourly Ratea

Estimated Monetary 

Cost of Burden

State Deaf-Blind Project Director 52 45 39 $50 $1,950

School Principals/ 

Special Education Directorsb

900 5 75 $50 $3,750

Providers who are TA Recipients 1,500 20 500 $43 $21,500

Providers who are not TA 

Recipients 1,250 15 313 $43 $13,438

Total 3,702 -- 927 -- $40,638
Part A: Justification 17

Exhibit A-6. Time Schedule for Key Project Activities

Activities Date

Provider Questionnaire and TA Recipient Supplement fielded September 2014-March 2015

State Deaf-Blind Project Questionnaire administered October 2014

Analyze data March-June 2015

TWG meeting September 2015

First draft of report December 2015

Second draft of report February 2016

Final report July 2016

Publication 

For the final report, we will follow the principles of the Federal Plain Language Action and 

Information Network and adhere to the requirements of the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) Statistical Standards (2002), IES Style Guide (2005) and other IES guidance 

and requirements for public reporting. The Phase II final report will address the evaluation

questions and sub-questions using information from all three questionnaires, and will follow the 

format of the Phase I report. Namely, the report will start with highlights of the findings in an 

Executive Summary. The report will then provide a discussion of the context for understanding 

the findings, the data sources used and their limitations, the data collection methodology, the 

analyses conducted, and findings. The last chapter will include a one-page summary of each 

project using the same key variables in each profile, allowing for comparisons across projects.

Appendices will provide the questionnaires and detailed information on any data that are 

identified to be of interest primarily to special groups as opposed to by a broad set of 

stakeholders. An overview of the report appears in Exhibit A-7.

Exhibit A-7. Report Outline

Chapter Topic covered

Executive

Summary Study background and design, key findings by evaluation question

1 Study Background and Design

2 Characteristics of the Projects (RQ1)

3 Collaboration Among Projects (RQ2)

4 Characteristics of Providers and their Need for Technical Assistance (RQ3)

5 Satisfaction with Technical Assistance (RQ4)

6

Individual State Project Profiles 

(a 1-page summary of key data points, presented for each state)

Findings from the project will be presented using both tables and graphs, as appropriate to the 

data. An example of presentation in a table format appears in Exhibit A-8. In general, the 

presentation of information will be very similar to the Phase I report of this evaluation.
Part A: Justification 18

Question 14 reads, “In the area of Intervener Services, are any of the following activities part of 

your project? For each row, select one option.” Respondents indicate whether they have worked 

on this, plan to work on it, or if it is not part of their project for each of nine reasons. Responses 

with “other” are specified and will be examined separately.

Exhibit A-8. Example Table Shell: Activities Reported by Grantees Related to Intervener 

Services

Reason

Have worked on 

this since October 

2013

Have not worked on 

this yet, but plan to 

do so by

completion of 

project Not part of project

N % N % N %

a. Disseminate information intended 

to increase 

recognition/understanding of 

intervener services

b. Provide intervener 

training/professional development 

to interveners or people 

interested in becoming 

interveners

c. Provide training/professional 

development about intervener 

services to administrators and 

educational team members

d. Develop intervener learning 

modules

e. Participate in a credentialing 

process at the state level

f. Develop other products related to 

intervener services (e.g., 

definition, IEP guidelines)

g. Present webinars on intervener 

services

h. Pilot an intervener model in 

selected districts

i. Other

A.17 Display of Expiration Date for OMB Approval

All data collection instruments will display the expiration date for OMB approval.

A.18 Exceptions to Certification Statement

No exceptions are requested.
Part A: Justification 19

References

Daley, T. C., Fiore, T. A., Bollmer, J., Nimkoff, T., Lysy, C. 2013. National Evaluation of the 

IDEA Technical Assistance & Dissemination Program (NCEE 2014-4000). Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. [Available online at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144000/, last accessed 3/11/2014.]

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John 

Wiley.