Department of Education

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request 

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................H-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes.......................................................................H-4

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers .............................................................................H-9

Summary of Changes ...........................................................................................................H-10

Authorizing Legislation..........................................................................................................H-11

Appropriations History...........................................................................................................H-12

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................H-14

Activities:

State grants:

Grants to States ........................................................................................................H-16

Preschool grants .......................................................................................................H-35

Grants for infants and families ...................................................................................H-44

National activities:

State personnel development ....................................................................................H-52

Technical assistance and dissemination....................................................................H-58

Personnel preparation ...............................................................................................H-66

Parent information centers.........................................................................................H-77

Educational technology, media, and materials...........................................................H-85

Special Olympics education programs ............................................................................H-94

State Tables*

State tables reflecting final 2018 allocations and 2019 and 2020 estimates are posted on the 

Department’s webpage at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-1

Appropriations Language

For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [and the Special 

Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004], [$13,468,728,000] $13,451,145,000, of which 

[$3,942,129,000] $3,101,409,000 shall become available on July 1, [2019] 2020, and shall 

remain available through September 30, [2020] 2021, and of which [$9,283,383,000] 

$10,124,103,000 shall become available on October 1, [2019] 2020, and shall remain available 

through September 30, [2020] 2021, for academic year [2019-2020] 2020-2021:

1 Provided, That 

the amount for section 611(b)(2) of the IDEA shall be equal to the lesser of the amount available 

for that activity during fiscal year [2018] 2019, increased by the amount of inflation as specified 

in section 619(d)(2)(B) of the IDEA, or the percent change in the funds appropriated under 

section 611(i) of the IDEA, but not less than the amount for that activity during fiscal year [2018] 

2019:

2

 Provided further, That the Secretary shall, without regard to section 611(d) of the IDEA, 

distribute to all other States (as that term is defined in section 611(g)(2)), subject to the third 

proviso, any amount by which a State's allocation under section 611, from funds appropriated 

under this heading, is reduced under section 612(a)(18)(B), according to the following: 85 

percent on the basis of the States' relative populations of children aged 3 through 21 who are of 

the same age as children with disabilities for whom the State ensures the availability of a free 

appropriate public education under this part, and 15 percent to States on the basis of the States' 

relative populations of those children who are living in poverty: 3 Provided further, That the 

Secretary may not distribute any funds under the previous proviso to any State whose reduction 

in allocation from funds appropriated under this heading made funds available for such a 

distribution:4 Provided further, That the States shall allocate such funds distributed under the 

second proviso to local educational agencies in accordance with section 611(f):5 Provided 

further, That the amount by which a State's allocation under section 611(d) of the IDEA is 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-2

reduced under section 612(a)(18)(B) and the amounts distributed to States under the previous 

provisos in fiscal year 2012 or any subsequent year shall not be considered in calculating the 

awards under section 611(d) for fiscal year 2013 or for any subsequent fiscal years:6 Provided 

further, That, notwithstanding the provision in section 612(a)(18)(B) regarding the fiscal year in 

which a State's allocation under section 611(d) is reduced for failure to comply with the 

requirement of section 612(a)(18)(A), the Secretary may apply the reduction specified in section 

612(a)(18)(B) over a period of consecutive fiscal years, not to exceed five, until the entire 

reduction is applied:7 Provided further, That the Secretary may, in any fiscal year in which a 

State's allocation under section 611 is reduced in accordance with section 612(a)(18)(B), 

reduce the amount a State may reserve under section 611(e)(1) by an amount that bears the 

same relation to the maximum amount described in that paragraph as the reduction under 

section 612(a)(18)(B) bears to the total allocation the State would have received in that fiscal 

year under section 611(d) in the absence of the reduction: 8 Provided further, That the 

Secretary shall either reduce the allocation of funds under section 611 for any fiscal year 

following the fiscal year for which the State fails to comply with the requirement of section 

612(a)(18)(A) as authorized by section 612(a)(18)(B), or seek to recover funds under section 

452 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1234a):

9

 Provided further, That the 

funds reserved under 611(c) of the IDEA may be used to provide technical assistance to States 

to improve the capacity of the States to meet the data collection requirements of sections 616 

and 618 and to administer and carry out other services and activities to improve data collection, 

coordination, quality, and use under parts B and C of the IDEA:10 Provided further, That the 

Secretary may use funds made available for the State Personnel Development Grants program 

under part D, subpart 1 of IDEA to evaluate program performance under such subpart:

11

 

Provided further, That States may use funds reserved for other State-level activities under 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-3

sections 611(e)(2) and 619(f) of the IDEA to make subgrants to local educational agencies, 

institutions of higher education, other public agencies, and private non-profit organizations to 

carry out activities authorized by those sections:

12 Provided further, That, notwithstanding 

section 643(e)(2)(A) of the IDEA, if 5 or fewer States apply for grants pursuant to section 643(e) 

of such Act, the Secretary shall provide a grant to each State in an amount equal to the 

maximum amount described in section 643(e)(2)(B) of such Act: 13 Provided further, That if 

more than 5 States apply for grants pursuant to section 643(e) of the IDEA, the Secretary shall 

award funds to those States on the basis of the States' relative populations of infants and 

toddlers except that no such State shall receive a grant in excess of the amount described in 

section 643(e)(2)(B) of such Act.

14 (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2019.)

NOTE

Each language provision that is followed by a footnote reference is explained in the Analysis of Language 

Provisions and Changes document which follows the appropriations language.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-4

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1...[$13,468,728,000] $13,451,145,000, of 

which [$3,942,129,000] $3,101,409,000 shall 

become available on July 1, [2019] 2020, and 

shall remain available through September 30, 

[2020] 2021, and of which [$9,283,383,000] 

$10,124,103,000 shall become available on 

October 1, [2019] 2020, and shall remain 

available through September 30, [2020] 

2021, for academic year [2019-2020] 2020-

2021:

This language provides for funds to be 

appropriated on a forward-funded basis for a 

portion of the Grants to States program, and 

all of the Preschool Grants, and Grants for 

Infants and Families programs. The 

language also provides that a portion of the 

Grants to States funds are for an advance 

appropriation that becomes available for 

obligation on October 1 of the fiscal year 

following the year of the appropriation. 

2 Provided, That the amount for section 

611(b)(2) of the IDEA shall be equal to the 

lesser of the amount available for that activity 

during fiscal year [2018] 2019, increased by 

the amount of inflation as specified in section 

619(d)(2)(B) of the IDEA, or the percent 

change in the funds appropriated under 

section 611(i) of the IDEA, but not less than 

the amount for that activity during fiscal year 

[2018] 2019:

This language limits the amount of funds 

required to be transferred to the Department 

of the Interior under the Grants to States 

program to the lesser of an amount equal to 

the amount transferred to the Department of 

the Interior in 2019 plus inflation or the 

percent change in the appropriation for the

Grants to States program. This language 

also clarifies that in the event of a decrease 

or no change in the appropriation for the 

Grants to States program, the amount of 

funds required to be transferred to the 

Department of the Interior remains level with

the amount they received under the fiscal 

year 2019 appropriation.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

H-5

Language Provision Explanation

3 Provided further, That the Secretary shall, 

without regard to section 611(d) of the IDEA, 

distribute to all other States (as that term is 

defined in section 611(g)(2)), subject to the 

third proviso, any amount by which a State’s 

allocation under section 611, from funds 

appropriated under this heading, is reduced 

under section 612(a)(18)(B), according to the 

following: 85 percent on the basis of the 

States’ relative populations of children aged 

3 through 21 who are of the same age as 

children with disabilities for whom the State 

ensures the availability of a free appropriate 

public education under this part, and 15 

percent to States on the basis of the States’ 

relative populations of those children who are 

living in poverty:

This language authorizes the Department to 

reallocate funds that are reduced from a 

State’s award as a result of a failure to meet 

the maintenance of State financial support 

requirements of section 612 of the IDEA and 

requires that those funds be distributed to 

other States on the basis of their relative 

populations of children in the age ranges for 

which a State ensures a free appropriate 

public education and those children living in 

poverty.

4Provided further, That the Secretary may 

not distribute any funds under the previous 

proviso to any State whose reduction in 

allocation from funds appropriated under this 

heading made funds available for such a 

distribution:

This language ensures that any State 

receiving a reduction in their section 611 

allocation as a result of not meeting the 

maintenance of State financial support 

requirements of section 612 of the IDEA 

does not receive funds redistributed as a

result of another State’s failure to meet those 

same requirements.

5 Provided further, That the States shall 

allocate such funds distributed under the 

second proviso to local educational agencies 

in accordance with section 611(f):

This language requires States to distribute 

the funds received under the second proviso 

to local educational agencies without 

reserving a portion of those funds for Statelevel activities.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

H-6

Language Provision Explanation

6 Provided further, That the amount by which 

a State’s allocation under section 611(d) of 

the IDEA is reduced under section 

612(a)(18)(B) and the amounts distributed to 

States under the previous provisos in fiscal 

year 2012 or any subsequent year shall not 

be considered in calculating the awards 

under section 611(d) for fiscal year 2013 or 

for any subsequent fiscal years:

This language allows the Department to 

calculate a State’s allocation under section 

611(d) in future years without regard to 

reductions in awards made as a result of a 

failure to meet the maintenance of State 

financial support requirements in section 612. 

This language mitigates the potential longterm impact of one-time reductions in 

awards.

7 Provided further, That, notwithstanding the 

provision in section 612(a)(18)(B) regarding 

the fiscal year in which a State's allocation 

under section 611(d) is reduced for failure to 

comply with the requirement of section 

612(a)(18)(A), the Secretary may apply the 

reduction specified in section 612(a)(18)(B) 

over a period of consecutive fiscal years, not 

to exceed five, until the entire reduction is 

applied:

This language permits the Secretary to 

spread out a reduction from a State’s award 

as a result of a failure to meet the 

maintenance of State financial support 

requirements of section 612 of the IDEA over 

a maximum of 5 years.

8 Provided further, That the Secretary may, in 

any fiscal year in which a State's allocation 

under section 611 is reduced in accordance 

with section 612(a)(18)(B), reduce the 

amount a State may reserve under section 

611(e)(1) by an amount that bears the same 

relation to the maximum amount described in 

that paragraph as the reduction under 

section 612(a)(18)(B) bears to the total

allocation the State would have received in 

that fiscal year under section 611(d) in the 

absence of the reduction:

This language permits the Secretary to 

reduce the maximum State set-aside for 

State administration by the same percentage 

as the reduction in the State’s overall IDEA 

section 611 grant.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

H-7

Language Provision Explanation

9 Provided further, That the Secretary shall 

either reduce the allocation of funds under 

section 611 for any fiscal year following the 

fiscal year for which the State fails to comply 

with the requirement of section 612(a)(18)(A) 

as authorized by section 612(a)(18)(B), or 

seek to recover funds under section 452 of 

the General Education Provisions Act (20 

U.S.C. 1234a):

This language permits the Secretary to: 

(1) seek to recover non-Federal (State) funds 

in the amount of the State’s failure to meet 

the maintenance of State financial support 

requirements of section 612 under the 

recovery of funds provision in section 452 of 

the General Education Provisions Act, or 

(2) reduce the State’s IDEA section 611 

grant. 

10Provided further, That the funds reserved 

under 611(c) of the IDEA may be used to 

provide technical assistance to States to 

improve the capacity of the States to meet 

the data collection requirements of sections 

616 and 618 and to administer and carry out 

other services and activities to improve data 

collection, coordination, quality, and use 

under parts B and C of the IDEA:

This language authorizes the Department to 

use funds available under section 611(c) to 

provide technical assistance and support to 

States on a broad range of issues, including 

compliance with applicable privacy laws and 

appropriate coordination and linking of 

information within and across Federal, State 

and local data systems for the unique needs 

of students with disabilities and their families 

and the purposes of the IDEA programs and 

data collections.

11Provided further, That the Secretary may 

use funds made available for the State 

Personnel Development Grants program 

under part D, subpart 1 of IDEA to evaluate 

program performance under such subpart:

This language permits the Secretary to use 

funds appropriated for the State Personnel 

Development Grants program under Part D 

of the IDEA to evaluate program 

performance.

12 Provided further, That States may use 

funds reserved for other State-level activities 

under sections 611(e)(2) and 619(f) of the 

IDEA to make subgrants to local educational 

agencies, institutions of higher education, 

other public agencies, and private non-profit 

organizations to carry out activities 

authorized by those sections

This language permits States to subgrant 

funds that they reserve for “Other State-level 

activities” under the Grants to States and 

Preschool Grants to States programs.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

H-8

Language Provision Explanation

13 Provided further, That, notwithstanding 

section 643(e)(2)(A) of the IDEA, if 5 or fewer 

States apply for grants pursuant to section 

643(e) of such Act, the Secretary shall 

provide a grant to each State in an amount 

equal to the maximum amount described in 

section 643(e)(2)(B) of such Act:

In years in which five or fewer States apply 

for funding under the State Incentive Grants 

program under Part C of the IDEA, this 

language would allow the Department to 

provide all States that apply 20 percent of the 

funds reserved for the program.

14 Provided further, That if more than 5 

States apply for grants pursuant to section 

643(e) of the IDEA, the Secretary shall award 

funds to those States on the basis of the 

States' relative populations of infants and 

toddlers except that no such State shall 

receive a grant in excess of the amount 

described in section 643(e)(2)(B) of such Act.

In years in which more than five States apply 

for funding under the State Incentive Grants 

program under Part C of the IDEA, this 

language would allow the Department to 

ensure that all funds are allocated to eligible 

States on the relative basis of the number of 

infants and toddlers in each State.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-9

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2018 2019 2020

Discretionary:

Discretionar yAppropriation.............................................................. $13,336,184 $13,468,728 $13,451,145

Total, discretionary appropriation...................... 13,336,184 13,468,728 13,451,145

Advance:

Advance for succeeding fiscal year..........................-9,283,383 -9,283,383 -10,124,103

Advance from prior year .......................................... 9,283,383 9,283,383 9,283,383

Total, budget authority...................................... 13,336,184 13,468,728 12,610,425
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-10

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2019..................................................................................................... $13,468,728

2020........................................................................................................... 13,451,145

Net change ........................................................................................

-17,583

Decreases: 2019 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Elimination of funding for the Special Olympics Education 

programs $17,583 -$17,583

Net change -17,583
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-11

H-11

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2019

Authorized

Footnote

2019footnote

2020

Authorizedfootnote

2020

Request

footnote

State Grants:

State grantsGrants to States (IDEA-B-611)................................................... Indefinite1 $12,364,3922

Indefinite1 $12,364,3922

State grantsPreschool grants (IDEA-B-619) .................................................. Indefinite 391,120 Indefinite 391,120

State grantsGrants for infants and families (IDEA-C)..................................... 0

3 470,000 03 470,000

National activities:

National acti viti es State personnel development (IDEA-D-1) .................................. 0

3 38,630 03 38,630

National acti viti es Technical assistance and dissemination 

(IDEA-D-2-663) ................................................................... 0

3 44,345 03 44,345

National acti viti es Personnel preparation (IDEA-D-2-662) ...................................... 0

3 87,200 03 87,200

National acti viti es Parent information centers (IDEA-D-3-671-673)......................... 0

3 27,411 03 27,411

National acti viti es Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

(IDEA-D-3-674) ................................................................... 0

3 28,047 03 28,047

Special Olympics education programs (SOSEA 3(a)) ..................... Indefinite 17,583 Indefinite 0

Total definite authorization ........................................................ 0 0

Total annual appropriation ........................................................ 13,468,728 13,451,145

Portion of request subject to reauthorization ............................. 695,633

 

1

Funding for technical assistance on State data collection is limited to $25,000 thousand adjusted for inflation. This amount is estimated to be $34,092 thousand 

for fiscal year 2019 and $34,843 thousand for fiscal year 2020.

2

Includes $20,000 thousand for technical assistance on State data collection in fiscal year 2019 and $10,000 thousand in fiscal year 2020.

3

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in fiscal year 2020 through appropriations language.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-12

H-12

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate

to Congress

House 

Allowance footnote

Senate 

Allowance footnote Appropriation

2011 12,846,190 12,564,953 1 12,787,035 12,526,672 2

2011 Advance for 2012 (8,592,383) (8,592,383) (8,592,383) (8,592,383)

Rescission (P.L. 112-74) (-16,240)

2012 12,861,351 13,757,844 3 12,553,066 3 12,640,709

(2012 Advance for 2013) (9,433,103) (8,592,383) (8,592,383) (9,283,383)

2013 12,687,307 12,640,709 4 12,770,709 4 11,982,364

2013 Advance for 2014 (10,124,103) (9,283,383) (9,283,383) (9,283,383)

2014 12,657,307 N/A5 12,803,387 12,497,300

2014 Advance for 2015 (10,124,103) (9,283,383) (9,283,383)

2015 12,600,627 N/A5 12,555,044 6 12,522,358

2015 Advance for 2016 (10,124,103) (9,283,383) (9,283,383)

2016 12,822,358 13,024,510 

7 12,636,817 7 12,976,858

2016 Advance for 2017 (9,283,383) (9,283,383) (9,283,383) (9,283,383)

2017 13,066,858 13,406,517813,066,858813,001,315

2017 Advance for 2018 (9,283,383) (9,283,383) (9,283,383) (9,220,340)

2018 12,942,125 13,251,691 913,066,858913,038,6819

2018 Advance for 2019 (10,124,103) (9,283,383) (9,283,383) (9,283,383)

 

1

The level for the House allowance reflects the House passed full-year continuing resolution.

2

The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(P.L. 112-10).

3

The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill and the level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate 

Committee action only.

4

The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee.

5

The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action.

6

The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only.

7

The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2016 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 114th Congress only through the House Committee and Senate Committee.

8

The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2017 

appropriations bill.

9

The level for the House allowance reflects floor action on the Omnibus appropriations bill; the Senate allowance 

reflects Committee action on the regular annual 2018 appropriations bill; the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141).
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

H-13

Year

Budget 

Estimate

to Congress

House 

Allowance footnote

Senate 

Allowance footnote Appropriation

2019 $13,051,776 13,422,65110 13,493,684 13,468,728

2019 Advance for 2020 (10,124,103) (9,283,383) (9,283,383) (9,283,383)

2020 $13,451,145

2020 Advance for 2021 (10,124,103)

 

10 The levels for the House and Senate allowance reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2019 appropriations 

bill; the Appropriation reflects enactment of the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and 

Education Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-245).
H-14

Summary of R equest

Click here for accessible version

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2020 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Amount Percent

 1. State grants:

(a) Grants to States (IDEA B-611)

Annual appropriation D 2,994,465 3,081,009 2,240,289 (840,720) -27.29%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year 1 D 9,283,383 9,283,383 10,124,103 840,720 9.06%

Subtotal 12,277,848 12,364,392 12,364,392 0 0.00%

(b) Preschool grants (IDEA B-619) D 381,120 391,120 391,120 0 0.00%

(c) Grants for infants and families (IDEA C) D 470,000 470,000 470,000 0 0.00%

Subtotal, State grants 13,128,968 13,225,512 13,225,512 0 0.00%

 2. National activities (IDEA D):

(a) State personnel development (subpart 1) D 38,630 38,630 38,630 0 0.00%

(b) Technical assistance and dissemination (section 663) D 44,345 44,345 44,345 0 0.00%

(c) Personnel preparation (section 662) D 83,700 87,200 87,200 0 0.00%

(d) Parent information centers (sections 671-673) D 27,411 27,411 27,411 0 0.00%

(e) Educational technology, media, and materials (section 674) D 28,047 28,047 28,047 0 0.00%

Subtotal, National activities 222,133 225,633 225,633 0 0.00%

 3. Special Olympics education programs (Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act) D 15,083 17,583 0 (17,583) -100.00%

D 13,366,184 13,468,728 13,451,145 (17,583) -0.13%

Total, Budget authority D 13,366,184 13,468,728 12,610,425 (858,303) -6.37%

Current 4,082,801 4,185,345 3,327,042 (858,303) -20.51%

Prior year's advance 9,283,383 9,283,383 9,283,383 0 0.00%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 The amount for Advance for succeeding fiscal year in the 2020 President's Budget column is increased to account for the proposed elimination of advances in Supporting Effective 

Instruction State Grants in the School Improvement Programs account.

Special Education 

Total, Appropriation

Cat 

Code

2018 

Appropriation 

2019 

Appropriation

2020 

President's 

Budget

2020 President's Budget Compared 

to 2019 Appropriation

H-14
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

H-15

Summary of Request

The Administration is committed to ensuring that all children, including students with disabilities, 

have an equal opportunity to participate in a high quality education; are expected to perform to 

high levels; and, to the maximum extent possible, are prepared to lead productive, independent 

lives. The fiscal year 2020 President’s request for Special Education of $13.5 billion is aimed at 

making this goal a reality by helping States and school districts improve results for children with 

disabilities. This request is a decrease of $17.6 million from the fiscal year 2019 appropriation.

The Administration requests $12.4 billion for the Grants to States program, the same as the 

fiscal year 2019 appropriation, to assist States and schools in covering the excess costs of 

providing special education and related services to children with disabilities ages 3 through 21. 

The request would provide an average of $1,758 for each of the 7.0 million children with 

disabilities who are estimated to be served in 2020. Under this request, the Federal contribution 

toward meeting the excess cost of special education and related services would be 

approximately 13 percent of the national average per pupil expenditures.

The request of $391.1 million for Preschool Grants would assist States and schools in

providing special education services to children ages 3 through 5. The request of $470.0 million 

for Grants for Infants and Families would provide assistance to States to help them implement 

statewide systems of early intervention services for children from birth through age 2. Both 

requests are level with the fiscal year 2019 appropriation.

The $225.6 million request for National Activities programs would maintain support at the 

fiscal year 2019 level for a variety of technical assistance, dissemination, training, and other 

activities to help States, local educational agencies, parents, and others in improving results for 

children with disabilities. The Administration’s request eliminates funding for the Special 

Olympics Education Programs.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-16

State grants: Grants to States

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B, Section 611)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: Indefinite 1, 2

Budget Authority:

Budget Authority 2019 2020 Change

Annual appropriation $3,081,009 $2,240,289 -$840,720

Advance for succeeding fiscal year 9,283,383 10,124,103 +840,720

Total 12,364,392 12,364,392 0

1

Section 611(c) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act limits technical assistance activities to 

$25,000 thousand, increased by the amount of inflation from year to year. It is estimated that the maximum amount 

authorized for fiscal year 2020 would be $34,843 thousand.

2

Section 611(b)(2) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires that from the funds appropriated for 

Grants to States, 1.226 percent shall be set aside for the Department of the Interior. It is estimated that the maximum 

amount authorized for fiscal year 2020 would be $151,587 thousand.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Grants to States program provides formula grants to assist the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Department of the Interior, the Outlying Areas, and the Freely 

Associated States in meeting the excess costs of providing special education and related 

services to children with disabilities. In order to be eligible for funding, States must serve all 

children with disabilities between the ages of 3 through 21, except they are not required to serve 

children aged 3 through 5 or 18 through 21 if services are inconsistent with State law or practice 

or the order of any court. A State that does not provide a free appropriate public education 

(FAPE) to children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 cannot receive base payment funds 

attributable to this age group or any funds under the Preschool Grants program.

Funding Formula – Funds are allocated among States in accordance with a variety of factors, as 

outlined under section 611(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). First, 

each State is allocated an amount equal to the amount that it received for fiscal year 1999. If 

the total program appropriation increases over the prior year, 85 percent of the remaining funds 

are allocated based on the number of children in the general population in the age range for 

which the States guarantee FAPE to children with disabilities. Fifteen percent of the remaining 

funds are allocated based on the number of children living in poverty that are in the age range 

for which the States guarantee FAPE to children with disabilities.

The IDEA also includes several maximum and minimum allocation requirements that are 

triggered when the amount available for distribution to States increases. The amount that any 

single State’s allocation may increase from one year to the next is capped at the amount the 

State received in the prior year multiplied by the sum of 1.5 percent and the percentage 

increase in the total amount appropriated for Part B of IDEA from the prior year. The maximum 

amount that any State may receive in any single fiscal year is calculated by multiplying the 

number of children with disabilities ages of 3 through 21 served during the 2004-2005 academic 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-17

year in that State by 40 percent of the annual per pupil expenditure, adjusted by the rate of 

annual change in the sum of 85 percent of the children aged 3 through 21 for whom that State 

ensures FAPE and 15 percent of the children living in poverty. Because there are multiple caps, 

in any single year, the “effective cap” on any single State’s allocation is the lowest cap for that 

State.

If the amount available for allocation to States remains the same from one year to the next, 

States receive the same level of funding as in the prior year. If the amount available for 

allocation to States decreases from the prior year, any amount available for allocation to States 

above the 1999 level is allocated based on the relative increases in funding that the States 

received between 1999 and the prior year. If there is a decrease below the amount allocated for 

1999, each State’s allocation is ratably reduced from the 1999 level.

Most of the Federal funds provided to States must be passed on to local educational agencies 

(LEAs). However, a portion of the funds may be used for State-level activities. Any funds not 

reserved by the State must be passed through to LEAs. These sub-State allocations are made 

in a fashion similar to that used to allocate funds among States when the amount available for 

allocation to States increases.

State Administration – A State may reserve for State administration up to the greater of the 

maximum amount the State could reserve for State administration from fiscal year 2004 funds, 

or $800,000, increased by inflation as reflected by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 

Consumers. For fiscal year 2019, the latter amount is estimated to be approximately 

$1.1 million.

Other State Activities – A State may also reserve funds for a variety of other State-level 

activities such as monitoring, enforcement, addressing personnel needs, and providing technical 

assistance to LEAs. One authorized activity involves allocating set-aside funds to support a risk 

pool, or high-cost fund, that is used to assist LEAs in meeting the costs of serving high-need, 

high-cost children. If a State opts to use State-level funds for a risk pool, it must use 10 percent 

of the funds it reserves for other State-level activities for this purpose. Federal funds set aside 

by a State must be distributed to LEAs or consortia of LEAs to address the needs of specific 

high-cost children.

Since 2007, the amount that a State may set aside for other State-level activities is based on a 

percentage of its total allocation for 2006, increased for inflation. The percentage is based on 

whether the State opts to use funds for a risk pool and the amount of funds that the State sets 

aside for administration. If the State opts to use funds for a risk pool and the State sets aside 

$850,000 or less for administration, the percentage is 10.5 percent. If the State opts to use 

funds for a risk pool and the State sets aside more than $850,000 for administration, the 

percentage is 10 percent. If the State opts not to use funds for a risk pool and the State sets 

aside $850,000 or less for administration, the percentage is 9.5 percent. If the State opts not to 

use funds for a risk pool and the State sets aside more than $850,000 for administration, the 

percentage is 9 percent.

Maintenance of Effort – The IDEA also requires each State to maintain its level of State financial 

support for special education and related services from one year to the next. This requirement 

is commonly referred to as the State maintenance of effort, or MOE. However, the IDEA allows 

any State that provided 100 percent of the non-Federal costs of special education services in 

the 2003-2004 school year, or any subsequent year, to reduce its level of expenditures by up to 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-18

50 percent of any increase in its allocation under the Grants to States program over the prior 

year. The Department may prohibit a State from exercising this authority if it is determined that 

a State is not adequately carrying out its responsibilities under the IDEA.

The IDEA also contains a local “maintenance of effort” requirement. Under this requirement, 

each LEA must maintain its total expenditures on special education from one year to the next. 

The standard for determining whether this MOE requirement has been met is that the LEA 

actually expends, in total or per capita, an equal or greater amount of local, or State and local, 

funds in each subsequent year. However, in any fiscal year that an LEA’s IDEA Part B subgrant 

allocation exceeds the amount that the LEA received in the previous fiscal year, the IDEA also 

permits certain LEAs to reduce the level of support otherwise required by this local maintenance 

of effort requirement by up to 50 percent of any increase in their Part B allocation. LEAs taking 

advantage of this flexibility must use any funds that otherwise would have been used for the 

education of children with disabilities to support activities that are authorized under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended. Also, if a State 

educational agency (SEA) determines that an LEA is not meeting the requirements of Part B, 

including meeting targets in the State’s performance plan, the SEA must prohibit that LEA from 

reducing its level of support.

Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) – LEAs typically may use up to 15 percent of 

their allocation, less any amount used to reduce that LEA’s maintenance of effort level, for early 

intervening services. Early intervening services generally address the needs of students who 

require additional academic and behavioral supports to succeed but who are not identified as 

needing special education. If an SEA determines that an LEA has significant disproportionality 

on the basis of race in the identification of children as children with disabilities, in particular 

disability categories, in placement in particular educational settings, or in discipline, the SEA 

must require the LEA to use the full 15 percent for comprehensive coordinated early intervening 

services. 

The IDEA requires awards to the Freely Associated States of the Pacific Basin (Palau, the 

Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands) to be the same 

amounts that they received from the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

The IDEA also authorizes the Department to set aside a portion of the Grants to States 

appropriation to provide technical assistance to improve the capacity of States to meet data 

collection requirements necessary for the implementation of the program.

IDEA requires that, from the funds appropriated for Grants to States, 1.226 percent must be set 

aside for the Department of the Interior to meet the need for assistance for the education of 

children with disabilities aged 5 through 21, inclusive, on reservations and enrolled in 

elementary and secondary schools for Indian children operated or funded by that Department. 

It is estimated that the maximum amount authorized for fiscal year 2019 would be approximately 

$152 million. 

Grants to States is a forward-funded program that includes advance appropriations. A portion 

of the funds becomes available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are 

appropriated, and remains available for Federal obligation for 15 months. The remaining funds 

become available on October 1 of the following fiscal year and remain available for Federal 

obligation for 12 months, expiring at the same time as the forward-funded portion. For fiscal 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-19

year 2020, school districts will use both the forward- and advance-funded amounts primarily

during the 2020-2021 school year.

Both forward-funded and advance funds remain available for obligation at State and local levels 

for an additional year. Hence, States and LEAs will have until September 30, 2022, to obligate 

their fiscal year 2020 awards.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015........................................................................ .... $11,497,848

2016.......................................................................... .... 11,912,848

2017.......................................................................... .... 11,939,805

2018.......................................................................... .... 12,277,848

2019.......................................................................... .... 12,364,392

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests $12.4 billion for Grants to States, the same as 

the fiscal year 2019 level. The request would maintain the Federal government’s commitment 

to support States and local educational agencies in providing special education and related 

services to an estimated 7.0 million students with disabilities nationwide in 2020. 

Prior to the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as many as 

1 million children with disabilities were excluded from educational services. The IDEA requires 

that States and school districts provide any child identified as having a disability covered by the 

Act with access to a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The 

Grants to States program is aimed at assisting States and districts in meeting this mandate.

The request would assist all States in providing special education and related services for 

children with disabilities. In 2018, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 

(OSERS) released the “OSERS Rethink” framework designed to focus its work and to raise 

expectations and improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities. As part of the framework, 

OSERS is working in partnership with States to identify, prioritize, and implement evidencebased strategies intended to improve outcomes for children with disabilities, including efforts 

identified in State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIP). As part of the Department’s Results 

Driven Accountability (RDA) framework, States submit SSIPs to the Department to evaluate 

their results for children with disabilities, their capacity to improve those results, and the steps 

necessary to improve State support systems and local service delivery systems. OSERS is 

emphasizing the flexibility States have in using funds reserved for other State-level activities to 

support a wide range of activities, including to enhance implementation of their SSIPs. The 

Department estimates that States would be allowed to reserve approximately $52 million more 

for such activities in fiscal year 2020 than they could in fiscal year 2018. The Department 

intends to work with States by providing technical assistance to help States leverage these 

additional funds to best support their implementation of State-directed reforms designed to 

improve outcomes for children with disabilities. 

The request would provide an average of $1,758 per child with a disability. This average is 

based on the assumption that the number of children aged 3 through 21 who will be served will 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-20

continue to increase through 2020 to approximately 7.0 million. The Federal share toward 

offsetting the cost of special education and related services for children with disabilities would 

be approximately 13 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure (APPE) based on the 

anticipated growth of APPE through fiscal year 2020.

From 1975, when the IDEA was enacted, through 2005, the rate of growth in the number of 

children with disabilities served outpaced the rate of growth in the general population aged 3 

through 21. In the 2004-2005 school year, the number of children served peaked at 6.8 million, 

and this number generally declined through the 2011-2012 school year to a low of 

6.5 million. Since that time, the number of children with disabilities served under the IDEA has 

generally increased, with an all-time high of 6.9 million children being served in the 2017-2018 

school year. In estimating future trends in the number of children served under the IDEA, the 

Department uses a rolling three-year average growth rate. Using this methodology, the 

Department estimates that approximately 7.0 million children with disabilities will be served in 

fiscal year 2020.

One of the primary objectives of the Grants to States program is to improve the quality of the 

education provided to children with disabilities so that they can be educated in, and make 

progress in, the general education curriculum. This includes helping to ensure that eligible 

children have access to challenging grade-level academic content; meet the same rigorous 

standards that have been established for all children to help prepare them for college or 

careers; and are prepared to lead productive, independent adult lives to the maximum extent 

possible.

The funds requested under the Grants to States program and the National Activities programs 

would help enhance Statewide technical assistance, professional development, or other 

coordinated activities across a broad range of service providers; build the evidence base for 

promising interventions; and ensure that LEAs and early childhood providers have additional 

resources to provide high quality, direct services to children with disabilities and their families.

FY 2020 Proposed Appropriations Language 

The Administration is proposing to continue appropriations language provided in previous years 

regarding State maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements, the technical assistance set-aside 

under section 616(i) of the IDEA, and the allocation provided to the Department of the Interior. 

In addition, the Administration is proposing appropriations language initially included in the 

Fiscal Year 2019 President’s Budget to provide States with greater flexibility to more efficiently 

distribute funds they reserve for Other State-level Activities.

State Maintenance of Effort

The IDEA requires each State to make available for special education and related services at 

least as much funding as it did in the prior year. If a State fails to maintain its fiscal support for 

special education and related services and does not receive a waiver of the requirement, the 

Department is required to reduce that State’s award under the Special Education Grants to 

States program. Appropriations language first provided in fiscal year 2013 and continued in the 

current request would allow the Department to provide these funds to other States that have not 

had their awards reduced as a result of a failure to maintain financial support for special 

education and related services, so that these funds are used to offset the additional costs of 

providing services to students who qualify for services under the IDEA in those States. The 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-21

proposed language also provides continued flexibility in enforcing MOE requirements while 

protecting the services supported with Federal funds. 

Technical Assistance

As in previous years, the Administration is proposing appropriations language that would allow

the Department to continue to administer and carry out other services and activities to improve 

data collection, coordination, quality, and use under parts B and C of the IDEA. This language 

would maintain the existing authority enacted through appropriations language in fiscal 

year 2019, which is currently being used in several of the Department’s technical assistance 

investments. 

Department of the Interior Set-Aside

Consistent with previous years, the Administration proposes appropriations language limiting 

the amount of funding provided to the Department of the Interior (Interior). The language would 

limit funding for Interior to the prior year’s funding level plus the lesser of inflation or the 

percentage change in the appropriation for the Grants to States program. In the event of a 

decrease or no change in the appropriation for the Grants to States program or deflation, the 

amount of funds to be transferred to Interior would remain level with the amount Interior 

received in the prior fiscal year. At the request level, the uncapped allocation to Interior would 

provide an average of approximately $24,119 for each child with a disability served in the fall of 

2017, which is more than 13 times the average amount per child with a disability that States 

would receive. With the proposed cap, Interior would receive per child about 8.8 times the 

average amount that States would receive, which translates into an average of $15,513 for each 

child with a disability, or about 119 percent of the national APPE compared to 13 percent of the 

APPE for States overall.

Other State-Level Activities Subgranting Authority

Under section 611(e)(2) of the IDEA, States are allowed to reserve a portion of their allocations 

under the Grants to States program to carry out State-level activities including, but not limited to: 

monitoring, enforcement, and complaint investigation; providing support and direct services, 

including technical assistance, personnel preparation, and professional development and 

training; and assisting LEAs in delivering positive behavioral interventions and supports. For 

many of the required and authorized uses of these funds, States have historically found that 

subgranting is a more efficient and effective way to manage these funds and carry out the 

activities prescribed in the statute. However, 34 CFR §76.50(b) prohibits grantees from making 

subgrants unless explicitly authorized to do so by the statute. As such, the current statute and 

regulations require States to engage in potentially costly and time-consuming direct expenditure 

of funds or negotiation and management of contracts, both of which can divert limited State 

resources away from effective management of other parts of the Grants to States program. 

Therefore, the Administration is requesting appropriations language that would allow States to 

subgrant funds that they reserve under section 611(e)(2) of the IDEA to promote the efficient 

use of both State and Federal resources. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-22

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018

footnote

2019

footnote

2020

footnote

Formula grants:

Formula grants to States $12,119,147 $12,202,300 $12,212,300

Formula grants to Outlying Areas $34,304 $38,011 $38,011

Grants to Freely Associated 

States $6,579 $6,579 $6,579

Department of the Interior $96,818 $97,500 $97,500

Subtotal, formula grants $12,256,848 $12,344,392 $12,354,392

Technical Assistance $21,0001

 $20,000 2 $10,000 3

Total program funding $12,277,848 $12,364,392 $12,364,392

Number of children with disabilities 

served ages 3 through 21 4 6,904,232 6,974,617 7,028,993

Average Federal share per child 

(whole dollars) 4$1,775 $1,770 $1,758

Average per pupil expenditure (APPE) 

(whole dollars) 4$12,537 $12,793 $13,084

Federal funding as a percentage of 

APPE 414% 14% 13%

 

1

The Department carried over $15,565 thousand of the remaining fiscal year 2018 multiyear appropriation into fiscal 

year 2019.

2

The Department plans to carry over $13,797 thousand of the remaining fiscal year 2019 multiyear appropriation into 

fiscal year 2020.

3

The Department plans to carry over $2,097 thousand of the remaining fiscal year 2020 multiyear appropriation into 

fiscal year 2021.

4

Estimate.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-23

Basis for Leaving Special Education for Youth with Disabilities Ages 14 and Older

Basis:

School 

Year

2014-2015

Percent

School 

Year

2014-2015

Number

School 

Year

2015-2016

Percent

School 

Year

2015-2016

Number

School 

Year

2016-2017

Percent

School 

Year

2016-2017

Number

Graduating with 

regular diploma 45.2% 252,172 44.9% 269,246 45.7% 278,704

Graduating through 

certification 6.7% 37,590 7.1% 42,590 7.0% 42,682

Transferred to 

regular education 9.7% 53,999 9.3% 56,113 10.3% 62,465

Dropped out, or 

moved but not 

known to have 

continued in 

education 11.6% 64,850 11.2% 67,305 11.1% 67,753

Moved, but known 

to have continued 

in education 25.6% 142,847 26.5% 158,889 24.9% 151,589

Reaching 

maximum age for 

services and 

other reasons 1.1% 6,054 1.0% 6,284 1.0% 6,173

Total 100.0% 557,512 100.0% 600,427 100.0% 609,366

Source: Annual data collection from States by OSERS and through the Education Data Exchange Network 

(EDEN)/EDFacts.

NOTE: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-24

History of Children Served and Program Funding—FYs 1987 through 2020

Fiscal Year

Children Served 

(thousands)

footnotes

Appropriation

footnote (dollars in thousands)

footnote

Federal 

Share Per Child

(whole dollars)

footnote

Percentage 

of APPE

footnote

1987 4,167 $1,338,000 $321 9%

1988 4,236 1,431,737 338 9%

1989 4,347 1,475,449 339 8%

1990 4,419 1,542,610 349 8%

1991 4,567 1,854,186 406 9%

1992 4,727 1,976,095 418 8%

1993 4,896 2,052,728 419 8%

1994 5,101 2,149,686 421 8%

1995 5,467 2,322,915 425 8%

1996 5,629 2,323,837 413 7%

1997 5,806 3,107,522 535 9%

1998 5,978 3,807,700 636 11%

1999 6,133 4,310,700 701 11%

2000 6,274 4,989,685 793 12%

2001 6,381 6,339,685 991 14%

2002 6,483 7,528,533 1,159 15%

2003 6,611 8,874,398 1,340 17%

2004 6,723 10,068,106 1,495 18%

2005 6,820 10,589,746 1

1,558 18%

2006 6,814 10,582,961 1

1,551 18%

2007 6,796 10,782,961 1

1,584 17%

2008 6,718 10,947,511 1

1,609 17%

2009 6,599 22,805,211 1, 2

3,453233%2

2010 6,614 11,505,211 1

1,736 16%

2011 6,558 11,465,960 1

1,745 16%

2012 6,543 11,577,855 1

1,766 16%

2013 6,574 10,974,866 1 1,674 15%

2014 6,593 11,472,848 1

1,743 16%

2015 6,697 11,497,848 1

1,715 15%

2016 6,814 11,812,848 1

1,745 15%

2017 6,808 12,002,848 1

1,760 15%

2018 6,904 12,277,848 1

1,775 14%

2019 6,9743

12,327,848 11,770

3

14%3

2020 7,0293

12,327,848 11,758

3

13%

3

 

NOTE: The Federal share per child is calculated from IDEA Part B Grants to States funding, excluding amounts 

available for studies and evaluations or technical assistance, as applicable.

1

Includes $10,000 thousand for technical assistance activities in 2005, $15,000 thousand in 2006 through 2009 and 

2014, $25,000 thousand in 2010 through 2012, $23,693 thousand in 2013, $13,000 in 2015, $20,000 thousand in 

2016, $21,400 thousand in 2017, $21,000 thousand in 2018, $20,000 thousand in 2019, and $10,000 in 2020.

2

Includes funds available in fiscal year 2009 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5).

3

Estimate
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-25

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 

year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: Ensure all children with disabilities served under the IDEA have available to them 

a free appropriate public education to help them meet challenging standards and prepare 

them for independent living and postsecondary education and/or competitive 

employment by assisting State and local educational agencies and families. 

Objective: All children with disabilities will meet challenging standards as determined by 

national and State assessments with accommodations as appropriate.

National Assessment of Educational Progress Measures 

Measure: The percentage of fourth-grade students with disabilities scoring at or above Basic 

on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading.

Year Target Actual

2009 37% 34%

2011 39 32

2013 40 31

2015 40 33

2017 40 32

2019 40

Measure: The percentage of eighth-grade students with disabilities scoring at or above Basic 

on the NAEP in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2009 35% 36%

2011 37 35

2013 38 34

2015 38 32

2017 38 30

2019 38

Additional information: As defined for purposes of NAEP, “students with disabilities” includes 

any student classified by a school as having a disability, including children who receive services 

under a Section 504 plan. These measures include data for “national public” schools only. 

“National public” is defined as: “public schools only. Includes charter schools; excludes Bureau 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-26

of Indian Education schools and Department of Defense Education Activity schools.” NAEP is a 

biennial assessment. 

Students with disabilities score well below other students on NAEP assessments. On the 2017

fourth-grade reading assessment, only 32 percent of students with disabilities scored at or 

above Basic, while 72 percent of other students scored at or above Basic. On the 2017 math 

assessment, only 30 percent of eighth-graders with disabilities scored at or above Basic, while 

75 percent of other eighth-grade students scored at or above Basic.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) collects data on the percentage of students 

with disabilities who are excluded from the NAEP assessments because of their disabilities. 

Exclusion rates have declined over the past 20 years, which may partly explain the continuing 

low scores of students with disabilities.

Elementary and Secondary Education Measures

Data on the following measures are collected annually through the Education Data Exchange 

Network and made available through EDFacts. Targets have been based on a straight-line 

trajectory toward the No Child Left Behind goal to have all children performing at proficient or 

advanced levels by 2014. With the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which 

reauthorized ESEA, and the removal of the statutory requirement of 100 percent proficiency by 

2014, the Department established new and ambitious targets based on actual performance 

reported by States.

The first two measures focus on the percentages of students with disabilities scoring at the 

proficient or advanced levels in grades 3 through 8 on State reading and mathematics 

assessments. The other two measures focus on the differences between the percentages of 

students with disabilities in grades 3 through 8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on 

State reading and mathematics assessments and the percentage of all students in grades 

3 through 8 scoring at these levels. 

Measure: The percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or 

advanced levels on State reading assessments.

Year Target Actual

2015 100% 22%

2016 100 21

2017 Baseline

2018 Baseline

2019 Baseline

2020 35
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-27

Measure: The percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or 

advanced levels on State mathematics assessments.

Year Target Actual

2015 100% 22%

2016 100 22

2017 Baseline

2018 Baseline

2019 Baseline

2020 35

Measure: The difference between the percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 

scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State reading assessments and the percentage 

of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State reading 

assessments.

Year Target Actual

2015 0 30

2016 0 31

2017 Baseline

2018 Baseline

2019 Baseline

2020 20

Measure: The difference between the percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 

scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State mathematics assessments and the 

percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State 

mathematics assessments.

Year Target Actual

2015 0 26

2016 0 28

2017 Baseline

2018 Baseline

2019 Baseline

2020 20

Additional information: Despite progress with respect to the performance of students with 

disabilities on State reading and mathematics assessments through 2013, results declined

substantially in 2015 with the implementation of new State assessments in the 2014-2015 

academic year. However, as evidenced by data collected under the latter two measures above, 

the gaps between the percent of students with disabilities scoring at proficient or advanced 

levels on State assessments in reading and math and the percent of all students scoring at the 

proficient or advanced levels remained relatively consistent, demonstrating that the drop in 

performance on the first two measures captures a wider phenomenon than one only affecting 

students with disabilities. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-28

Measure: The percentage of students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) who 

graduate from high school with a regular high school diploma.

Year Target Actual

2015 65.0% 69.9%

2016 66.0 70.1

2017 68.0

2018 70.0

2019 72.0

2020 72.0

Additional information: Performance on this measure has improved consistently over the past 

5 years, with a total increase of 6.2 percentage points during that period. However, the 

graduation rate for students with IEPs still lags behind all students, who graduated high school 

at a rate of 84 percent in the 2015-2016 school year. 

Postsecondary Outcomes

One of the purposes of the IDEA is to help prepare children with disabilities for further 

education, employment, and independent living. In 2011, the Department developed an 

indicator on employment and postsecondary education. This indicator tracks the median 

percentage of students who are no longer in secondary school who had individualized education 

programs (IEPs) in effect at the time they left school, and were: a) enrolled in higher education 

within 1 year of leaving high school; b) enrolled in higher education or were competitively 

employed within 1 year of leaving high school; or, c) enrolled in higher education or in some 

other postsecondary education or training program, or were competitively employed or in some 

other form of employment, within 1 year of leaving high school. Data for this indicator is 

collected directly from the States on an annual basis. The Department believes that this is a 

critical indicator for the program, since it is a reflection of the ultimate results of efforts to provide 

special education under the Grants to States program. 

Measure: The median percentage of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in 

effect at the time they left school, and were enrolled in higher education or in some other 

postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other 

employment within 1 year of leaving high school.

Year Target Actual

2015 74.5 77.5%

2016 75.0 77.6

2017 76.0

2018 78.0

2019 80.0

2020 80.0

Additional information: The Department collected baseline data in fall 2011 and 2012 and 

identified numerous data quality and collection issues across States. The Department worked 

with States to provide technical assistance to identify improvement activities to produce 

meaningful and reliable data on postsecondary outcomes and set baseline data in 2014, and 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-29

States met the target in that year. However, States continue to struggle to collect a 

representative sample in the surveys through which data for this measure are collected. The 

Department continues to work with States to improve the reliability of their data on this measure.

Efficiency Measure

Measure: The average number of days between the completion of a site visit and the Office of 

Special Education Programs’ (OSEP) response to the State.

Year Target Actual

2016 Baseline 171

2017 Baseline 143

2018 Baseline 276

2019

2020

Additional information: The Department did not conduct regular site visits to States from 

2011 through 2015. During that time, OSEP continued to meet its statutory monitoring 

responsibilities through the State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

process, fiscal monitoring, and its work with State dispute resolution systems. In 2016, OSEP 

began conducting site visits using a risk-based approach to monitoring. In 2018, OSEP 

conducted 11 site visits (7 Part B and 4 Part C). To date, OSEP has issued eight responses 

(5 Part B and 3 Part C) with an average response time of 276 days (337 days for Part B and 

175 days for Part C). The remaining three responses will be issued more than 90 days after the 

completion of the site visit. In that year, response times for all but one site visit exceeded the 

average from the prior year. In 2010, the average response time was 66 workdays. (Note that 

data reported for 2016 through 2018 reflects total days, not just workdays). The Department will 

establish targets for this measure after sufficient baseline data are available, which is expected 

in spring 2020.

Other Performance Information

IDEA National Assessment

Section 664 of the IDEA requires the Department to conduct a national assessment of activities 

carried out with Federal funds. To implement this requirement, funds requested for the Special 

Education Studies and Evaluation program in the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) account 

were used to conduct an independent evaluation of the program. This evaluation addresses the 

extent to which States, districts, and schools are implementing the IDEA programs and services 

to promote a free appropriate public education for children with disabilities in the least restrictive 

environment possible and in partnership with parents. The National Assessment will also 

address the effectiveness of the IDEA programs and services in promoting the developmental 

progress and academic achievement of children with disabilities. The National Assessment 

includes the following activities:
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-30

Analytic Support: A report published in January 2010, “Patterns in the Identification of and 

Outcomes for Children and Youth with Disabilities (Patterns)”1, provided a synthesis of existing 

evidence and new analyses of extant data sources to address research questions for the IDEA 

National Assessment, targeting three topic areas: (1) identification of children for early 

intervention and special education, (2) declassification of children for early intervention and 

special education services, and (3) developmental and academic outcomes for children with 

disabilities. 

From 1997 to 2005, the percent of children aged 6 to 17 served under IDEA increased from 

12.3 to 12.9. The percentage varies by race/ethnicity, with a low of 6.3 percent for Asian 

children served under IDEA up to a high of 16.7 percent for Black children. There is also 

variation by State, ranging from 9.9 percent up to 18.6 percent. From 1997 to 2005, the largest 

increases by disability type were in the areas of autism and developmental delay. Autism 

showed a 400 percent increase among children ages 10 to17 years, and developmental delay 

showed an almost 2,000 percent increase among children ages 3 to 9 years. The study cited 

research on declassification that showed almost 50 percent of children eligible in kindergarten 

were no longer eligible for services by third grade.2 Children with speech/language impairment 

are the most likely to be declassified within 2 years (34 percent). Declassified children had 

higher literacy and math outcomes than children who continued to receive services under IDEA.

The Patterns study found that children with disabilities were performing well on NAEP tests but 

that they are still far behind their non-disabled peers. Children with disabilities also have a 

much larger range of performance on the NAEP exam than do children without disabilities. 

State assessment data point to a wide array of outcomes and standards for proficiency. In 4th 

grade math and reading, the percentage of children with disabilities who scored proficient or 

above on a State’s assessment ranged from just less than 10 percent up to 80 percent. 

Implementation Study: The final report for the IDEA National Assessment Implementation 

Study was published in July 2011. This study collected data from State agencies and school 

districts to address implementation questions for the IDEA National Assessment in four broad 

areas targeted for this study: (1) services to young children with disabilities; (2) identification of 

children and youth with disabilities; (3) efforts to promote positive developmental and 

educational outcomes for children and youth with disabilities; and (4) dispute resolution 

and mediation. 

The study specifically focused on implementation related to new or revised provisions from the 

2004 reauthorization of IDEA. One such provision, Coordinated Early Intervening Services 

(CEIS), allows districts to use up to 15 percent of their Part B funds to provide services to 

children not yet identified as in need of special education. Of the districts that implement CEIS, 

funds were used at the elementary school level in 93 percent of districts and focuses on literacy 

instruction in 84 percent of districts. The study found that the use of Response to Intervention 

(RtI) was also widespread, and was being used in 71 percent of districts nationally. Similar to 

CEIS, RtI was most commonly used in elementary schools and in reading/language arts. 

However, only 41 percent of districts reported using IDEA funds for RtI, while 80 percent of 

districts reported using their own general funds.

 

1

see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104005/index.asp

2 Holt, McGrath, and Herring 2007
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-31

The study looked at qualifications and distribution of “highly qualified” special education 

personnel. Almost 90 percent of special education teachers met their State’s definition of highly 

qualified, but States range from 56 percent to 100 percent. Districts reported difficultly finding 

qualified personnel for secondary schools, particularly those trained in math and in working with 

students with emotional disturbances and with autism. The most common method districts used

to increase the qualifications of their staff, implemented by 64 percent of all districts and 

76 percent of districts facing routine shortages of quality applicants, was to provide professional 

development. No other approach was used by more than 25 percent of districts.

Finally, the study found that dispute resolution events were very infrequent, with 23 or fewer 

events for every 10,000 students served between 2004 and 2008. The number of due process 

hearing requests over that time was steady at about 21 requests per 10,000 students, but the 

frequency of due process hearings completed decreased from 3.36 hearings per 

10,000 students in 2004 to 1.61 hearings in 2008.

Impact Evaluation of Response to Intervention Strategies: Response to Intervention (RtI) is a 

multi-step approach to providing early and more intensive intervention and monitoring within the 

general education setting. In principle, RtI begins with research-based instruction and 

behavioral support provided to students in the general education classroom, followed by 

screening of all students to identify those who may need systematic progress monitoring, 

intervention, or support. Students who are not responding to the general education curriculum 

and instruction are provided with increasingly intense interventions through a "multi-tiered" 

system, and they are frequently monitored to assess their progress and inform the choice of 

future interventions, including possibly special education for students determined to have a 

disability. The IDEA permits some Part B special education funds to be used for "early 

intervening services" such as RtI and also permits districts to use RtI to inform decisions 

regarding a child's eligibility for special education.

The RtI evaluation employed a quasi-experimental design to examine the natural variations in 

elementary school reading instruction, intervention, and support in schools that may already be 

implementing RtI in 13 States. We note that concerns have been raised in the field regarding 

the strength of the research design of this study, particularly its focus on students just below 

reading proficiency and not those with moderate or significant needs.

The final report found that, for the 2011-12 school year, schools implementing three or more 

years of RtI approaches in reading provided more support to students reading below grade-level 

standards than those reading at or above grade-level standards. For those students reading 

just below the grade-level standards (as measured by a school-determined eligibility cut point 

on a screening test) in Grade 1, RtI reading interventions did not improve reading outcomes, but 

actually produced negative impacts (e.g., lower scores compared to the initial screening test) for 

such students. For Grades 2 and 3, the estimated effects on reading outcomes were not 

statistically significant. Researchers stated that some plausible factors that may be related to 

negative impacts of assignment to intervention on some Grade 1 students include: (1) false or 

incorrect identification of students for intervention, (2) mismatch between reading intervention 

and the instructional needs of students near the cut point, and (3) poor alignment between 

reading intervention and core reading instruction. Overall, the study found that the estimated 

impacts of reading interventions on reading outcomes vary significantly across schools. It is 

also worth noting that this study focused on a very specific population in one subject area and 

did not assess whether RtI may be effective in improving student outcomes in other subjects 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-32

areas and grade levels, or whether RtI elementary literacy interventions may be effective for 

students performing well below grade-level standards.

Other Studies: The Department sponsored the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) 

and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) to provide nationally representative 

information about secondary-school-age youth who were receiving special education services in 

1985 and 2000, respectively. Data collection consisted of telephone interviews or mail surveys 

with youth or the youth’s parents if the youth were not able to respond themselves. The 

National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER), in a September 2010 report, 

“Comparisons Across Time of the Outcomes of Youth With Disabilities up to 4 Years After High 

School”, compared the changes in outcomes among youth in the NLTS and NLTS2 who had 

been out of high school for up to 4 years. The report focused on changes in rates of 

postsecondary education, employment, engagement in either postsecondary education or 

employment, household circumstances, and community integration. Researchers also 

compared outcomes of youth with disabilities to the general population and across subgroups 

including disability category, gender, race/ethnicity, household income, high school completion 

status, and length of time since leaving high school.

According to the NCSER report, youth with disabilities were more likely to have enrolled in 

postsecondary education within 4 years of leaving high school in 2005 than in 1990. Almost half 

(46 percent) of all youth with disabilities had spent some time in postsecondary education in 

2005. The rate of youth with disabilities who were currently enrolled in postsecondary education 

and/or employed was 86 percent in 2005, a 21 percentage-point increase over 1990. This 

increase is likely attributable to an increase in youth who were concurrently enrolled in 

postsecondary education and employed, given that rates of engagement in only one of these 

activities did not change significantly over that period of time. The report also illustrated the 

connection between high school completion and postsecondary outcomes, as high school 

completers had significant and positive changes between 1990 and 2005 in a greater number of 

outcome measures than non-completers. Youth with disabilities from low-income households 

increased their postsecondary enrollment rate by 16 percentage points to 35 percent in 2005, 

but a significant enrollment gap remains between the highest and lowest income households. 

Similarly, in 2005, youth with disabilities enrolled in postsecondary education at a rate well 

below the general population, specifically, 46 percent compared to 63 percent.

The National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 (NLTS 2012) is the third in a series examining 

the characteristics and school experiences of a nationally representative sample of youth with 

disabilities. NLTS 2012 focuses on students ages 13 to 21 (in December 2011). It also includes 

a small sample of students without disabilities and of those on 504 plans to enable direct 

comparisons of students with and without IEPs. The study collected baseline data in the spring 

of 2012 through the summer of 2013 on a nationwide sample of youth. The study is addressing 

such questions as:

 What are the personal, family, and school characteristics of youth with disabilities in public 

schools across the country? 

 What regular education, special education, transition planning, and other relevant services 

and accommodations do youth with disabilities receive? 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-33

 How do the services and accommodations differ from those of youth not served under IDEA, 

including those identified for services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act? 

 How do the services and accommodations for youth with disabilities vary with the 

characteristics of youth? 

 How much have the services and accommodations of youth with disabilities changed over 

time? 

Post-High School Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities: Helping students, particularly those with 

disabilities, to complete high school prepared to pursue postsecondary education or begin 

productive jobs is a national priority. IDEA emphasizes transition services focused on improving 

the academic and functional achievement of students with disabilities to facilitate their transition 

from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary education and employment. The 

study, awarded in 2015, will address such questions as:

 To what extent do youth with disabilities who receive special education services under IDEA 

make progress through high school compared with other youth, including those identified for 

services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act? For students with disabilities, has high 

school course taking and completion rates changed over the past few decades?

 Are youth with disabilities achieving the post-high school outcomes envisioned by IDEA, and 

how do their college, training, and employment rates compare with those of other youth?

 How do these high school and postsecondary experiences and outcomes vary by student 

characteristics, including their disability category, age, sex, race/ethnicity, English Learner 

status, income status, and type of high school attended (including regular public school, 

charter school, career/technical school, special education school, or other State or 

Federally-operated institution)?

This new study will utilize administrative records data to follow a sample of youth with disabilities 

beyond high school. The sample for this study will focus on the youth who participated in the 

baseline study of the NLTS 2012. 

Study of School Accountability for Students with Disabilities: As part of the IDEA National 

Assessment, IES studied changes in student outcomes after schools adopted programs focused 

on improving academic outcomes for students with disabilities. The focus of the study was on 

comparing outcomes for students with disabilities in elementary and middle schools identified 

for improvement with corresponding outcomes in schools not identified for improvement but still 

accountable for the performance of students with disabilities (SWD).

An interim report was released in May 2012; an update with information through the 

200910 school year was released in October 2013; and a third report that provided the results 

of analysis of 2011 survey data on school practices in 12 States was released in February 

2015.1 The study found that, when surveyed in 2011, elementary schools accountable for the 

SWD subgroup were 15.8 percentage-points more likely than never-accountable elementary 

 

1

See http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154006/
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-34

schools to report moving students with disabilities from self-contained settings to regular 

classrooms over the previous 5 years. Middle schools accountable for the SWD subgroup were 

16.7 percentage-points more likely than never-accountable middle schools to report moving 

students with disabilities from self-contained settings to regular classrooms over the previous 

5 years.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-35

State grants: Preschool grants

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B, Section 619)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$391,120 $391,120 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Preschool Grants program provides formula grants to States, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico for the provision of special education and related services for children with 

disabilities aged 3 through 5. In order to be eligible for these grants, States must serve all 

eligible children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 and have an approved application under 

Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A State that does not make a 

free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to all children with disabilities aged 3 

through 5 cannot receive funds under this program or funds attributable to this age range under 

the Grants to States program. Currently, all States have provided assurances to the 

Department that they are making FAPE available to all children aged 3 through 5 with 

disabilities.

At their discretion, States may include preschool-aged children who are experiencing 

developmental delays (as defined by the State and as measured by appropriate diagnostic 

instruments and procedures) and need special education and related services. If consistent 

with State policy, State and local educational agencies also may use funds received under this 

program to provide FAPE to 2-year olds with disabilities who will turn 3 during the school year.

IDEA requires that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated 

with children who are not disabled. Removal of children with disabilities from the regular 

educational environment is only warranted when the nature or severity of the disability of a child 

is such that education in regular classes, with the use of supplementary aids and services, is not 

possible. However, States are not required to provide public preschool programs for the 

general population. For this reason, preschool-aged children with disabilities are served in a 

variety of settings, including public or private preschool programs, regular kindergarten, Head 

Start programs, and child care facilities.

Funding Formula

Funds are distributed to eligible entities through a formula based on general population and 

poverty. Each State is first allocated an amount equal to its fiscal year 1997 allocation. For any 

year in which the appropriation is greater than the prior year level, 85 percent of the funds 

above the fiscal year 1997 level are distributed based on each State’s relative percentage of the 

total number of children aged 3 through 5 in the general population. The other 15 percent are 

distributed based on the relative percentage of children aged 3 through 5 in each State who are 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-36

living in poverty. The formula provides several floors and ceilings regarding the amount a State 

can receive in any year. When appropriations increase, no State can receive less than it 

received in the prior year. In addition, every State must receive an increase equal to the higher 

of either: (1) the percent the appropriation increased over the prior year, minus 1.5 percent, or, 

(2) 90 percent of the percentage increase over the prior year. The formula also provides for a 

minimum increase in State allocations of one-third of 1 percent of the increase in the 

appropriation over the base year and places a ceiling on how much the allocation to a State 

may increase. Specifically, no State may be allocated an increase above the prior year greater 

than the percent increase in the appropriation from the prior year plus 1.5 percent.

These provisions help ensure that every State receives a part of any increase, and that there 

are no radical shifts in resources among the States. States must distribute the bulk of their 

grant awards to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs).

This is a forward-funded program. Funds become available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal 

year in which they are appropriated and remain available for Federal obligation for 15 months, 

through September 30 of the following year.

State-Level Activities

States may retain a portion of funds allocated to them in any given year for State-level activities. 

More specifically, the amount that may be used for State-level activities is capped at an amount 

equal to 25 percent of the amount they received under the program for fiscal year 1997 under 

the Preschool Grants program, adjusted upward by the lesser of the rate of increase in the 

State’s allocation or the rate of inflation. Likewise, the amount that may be used for 

administration is limited to 20 percent of the funds available to a State for State-level activities. 

These funds may also be used for the administration of the Grants for Infants and Families 

program (Part C).

State-level activities include a wide range of activities that are critical to effective administration 

of the program, including: (1) support services, such as establishing and implementing a 

mediation process, which may benefit children with disabilities younger than 3 or older than 5, 

as long as those services also benefit children with disabilities aged 3 through 5; (2) direct 

services for children eligible under this program; (3) activities at the State and local level to meet 

the goals established by the State for the performance of children with disabilities in the State; 

and (4) a supplement for the development and implementation of a statewide coordinated 

services system designed to improve results for children and families, including children with 

disabilities and their families. This supplement cannot exceed 1 percent of the amount received 

by the State under this program for a fiscal year. The State may also use its set-aside funds to 

provide early intervention services. These services must include an educational component that 

promotes school readiness and incorporates pre-literacy, language, and numeracy skills. In 

addition, such services must be provided, in accordance with the Grants for Infants and Families 

program, to children who are eligible for services under the Preschool Grants program and who 

previously received services under Part C until such children enter or are eligible to enter 

kindergarten and, at a State’s discretion, may include continued service coordination or case 

management for families who received such services under Part C.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-37

Numbers of Children Served

The number of children served under this program increased slightly from 762,802 in fiscal year 

2016 to 773,595 in fiscal year 2017. The increase is consistent with trends since 2009. The 

variations in the total number of children served make it difficult to forecast the number of 

children being served in future fiscal years. In the absence of better information, the 

Department assumes that the number of children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 will remain 

at the 2017 level for fiscal years 2018 through 2020.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015............................................................................ $353,238

2016.............................................................................. 368,238

2017.............................................................................. 368,238

2018.............................................................................. 381,120

2019.............................................................................. 391,120

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests $391.1 million for the Preschool Grants 

program, the same as the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. The request would provide an 

average of $506 per eligible child, based on the assumption that the number of children ages 

3 through 5 who will be served will remain constant at the 2017 level of 773,595. These funds 

supplement funding available under the Grants to States program under IDEA, Part B, for which 

the Department is requesting $12.4 billion in fiscal year 2020 to help States and local 

educational agencies serve children with disabilities ages 3 through 21.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Number of Children Served 773,595 773,595 773,595

Share per child (whole dollars) $493 $506 $506

NOTES: States may, at their discretion, provide a free appropriate public education to 2-year olds who will turn 3 

during the school year. However, the figures for the number of children served do not include children who are 2 

years old at the time of the count, but will turn 3 during the school year.

The numbers of children served are estimates based on fiscal year 2017.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-38

History of Children Served and Program Funding

Fiscal Year

Children Served

(thousands)

Appropriation

(dollars in thousands)

Federal

Share per Child

(whole dollars)

1988 288 $201,054 $698

1989 322 247,000 767

1990 352 251,510 715

1991 367 292,766 7981

1992 398 320,000 804

1993 441 325,773 739

1994 479 339,257 709

1995 522 360,265 689

1996 549 360,409 656

1997 562 360,409 642

1998 572 373,985 654

1999 575 373,985 651

2000 589 390,000 662

2001 599 390,000 652

2002 617 390,000 632

2003 647 387,465 599

2004 680 387,699 571

2005 702 384,597 548

2006 704 380,751 546

2007 714 380,751 533

2008 710 374,099 527

2009 709 774,09921,092

2010 732 374,099 511

2011 738 3373,351 508

2012 745 3372,646 500

2013 749 3353,238 472

2014 745 3353,238 474

2015 753 3353,238 469

2016 763 3368,238 483

2017 760 3 368,238 485

2018 773 3 381,120 493

2019 773 3, 4391,120 506

2020 773 3, 4391,120 506

 

1

Beginning in fiscal year 1991, the IDEA required that services be made available to all eligible children with 

disabilities aged 3 through 5 as a condition for receiving funding for children in this age range under the Grants to 

States program.

2

These figures include funds provided under the Recovery Act in fiscal year 2009.

3

Beginning in fiscal year 2011, this table reports the number of children served by the 50 States, District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico. Prior fiscal years also include the number of children served in the Outlying Areas, Freely 

Associated States, and the Bureau of Indian Education, which are no longer eligible to receive Preschool Grant 

awards.

4

Estimate based on number of children served in fiscal year 2018.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-39

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 

year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: To help preschool children with disabilities enter school ready to succeed by 

assisting States in providing special education and related services.

Objective: Preschool children with disabilities will receive special education and related 

services that result in increased skills that enable them to succeed in school.

Measure: The percentage of children who entered the program below age expectations in 

positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships) who substantially increased their 

rate of growth by the time they exited the program.

Year Target Actual

2015 84% 80%

2016 84 81

2017 84

2018 84

2019 84

2020 85

Measure: The percentage of children who entered the program below age expectations in 

acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early 

literacy) who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program.

Year Target Actual

2015 84% 80%

2016 84 81

2017 84

2018 84

2019 84

2020 85
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-40

Measure: The percentage of children who entered the program below age expectations in the 

use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs who substantially increased their rate of 

growth by the time they exited the program.

Year Target Actual

2015 84% 79%

2016 84 79

2017 84

2018 84

2019 84

2020 84

Additional information: Through their Annual Performance Reports (APRs), States report on 

the cognitive, social-emotional, and behavioral development of children with disabilities served 

through the Preschool Grants program.

In 2016, States maintained or improved performance across all three domains: positive 

social/emotional skills, acquisition and use of knowledge, and the use of appropriate behavior. 

While performance on these metrics did not meet established targets in 2016, the Department 

believes that continued work on the part of States to improve service delivery for young children 

with disabilities, combined with improved data collection, analysis, and use, will lead to 

continued improvement over time.

Measure: The percentage of children with disabilities (ages 3 through 5) attending a regular 

early childhood program and receiving the majority of hours of special education and related 

services in the regular early childhood program.

Year Target Actual

2015 45% 45%

2016 46 45

2017 46 45

2018 46

2019 50

2020 50

Additional information: The results in 2017 (44.9 percent) represent a slight decrease in 

performance from 2016 (45.2 percent). Overall performance on this measure has been stable 

for the past four years.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-41

Measure: The number of States with at least 90 percent of special education teachers of 

children with disabilities ages 3 to 5 who are fully certified in the areas in which they are 

teaching.

Year Target Actual

2015 46 45

2016 47 41

2017 47

2018 47

2019 47

2020 47

Additional information: While performance on this measure had increased for three 

consecutive years, the number of States meeting the 90 percent threshold in the 2016-2017 

academic year declined from the prior year. This measure includes the 50 States, D.C., Puerto 

Rico, the Outlying Areas and the Bureau of Indian Education.

Efficiency Measure

Measure: The average number of days between the completion of a site visit and the Office of 

Special Education Programs’ (OSEP) response to the State.

Year Target Actual

2016 Baseline 171

2017 Baseline 143

2018 276

2019

2020

Additional information: The Department did not conduct regular site visits to States from 

2011 through 2015. During that time, OSEP continued to meet its statutory monitoring 

responsibilities through the State Performance Plan (SPP)/APR process, fiscal monitoring, and 

its work with State dispute resolution systems. In 2016, OSEP began conducting site visits 

using a risk-based approach to monitoring. In 2018, OSEP conducted 11 site visits (7 Part B 

and 4 Part C). To date, OSEP has issued eight responses (5 Part B and 3 Part C) with an 

average response time of 276 days (337 days for Part B and 175 days for Part C). The 

remaining three responses will be issued more than 90 days after the completion of the site 

visit. In that year, response times for all but one site visit exceeded the average from the prior 

year. In 2010, the average response time was 66 workdays. (Note that data reported for 2016 

through 2018 reflects total days, not just workdays). The Department will establish targets for 

this measure after sufficient baseline data are available, which is expected in spring 2020.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-42

Other Performance Information

Pre-Elementary Longitudinal Study (PEELS)1

In October 2010, the National Center for Special Education Research released the report, 

“Access to Educational and Community Activities for Young Children with Disabilities.” As 

reported in parent interviews, participation in community activities such as sports, organized 

clubs, art, and music varied significantly by type of disability and by household income. 

Children from households with annual incomes greater than $40,000 participated in sports with 

greater frequency than children from households with lower incomes. Children of parents who 

perceived their neighborhood to be unsafe or who reported that their transportation did not meet 

their families’ needs were significantly less likely to participate in extracurricular activities. 

Parents also reported on educational settings, and 69 percent said they sent their children to 

full-day kindergarten. Children from high-wealth districts and those from suburban settings were 

less likely to attend full-day kindergarten than their peers.

In a survey of kindergarten teachers, 73 percent of teachers reported that the regular education 

classroom was the main setting for children receiving special education services. This inclusion 

rate was significantly higher in very large districts (91 percent) than districts of other sizes, and 

significantly higher in rural districts (86 percent) than in suburban or urban districts. Children in 

very low wealth districts were less likely to have regular classrooms as their main setting 

(59 percent) compared to all other districts. On average, children spent 17.1 hours per week in 

regular classrooms and 7.1 hours in special education settings.

Teachers also reported on modifications and accommodations provided to children with 

disabilities. Overall, teachers reported using unmodified grade-level materials in 44 percent of 

cases, while 14 percent of children received specialized materials or curricula. There was no 

significant variation in these data across district size or wealth. The study also found that 

children who received special education services in a regular classroom were in classrooms in 

which, on average, 82 percent of students were nondisabled.

In August 2011, the latest report from this study was released, “A Longitudinal View of the 

Receptive Vocabulary and Math Achievement of Young Children with Disabilities.” This report 

found that children who received preschool special education services showed growth each 

year in vocabulary and mathematics; however, growth slowed in both math and vocabulary as 

they got older. Children’s performance varied across assessments and across subgroups 

defined by disability. At age 3, children with a speech or language impairment had higher 

average scores than those with developmental delays. At age 10, the gap between these 

subgroups persisted, and there were no statistically significant differences in growth rates 

between subgroups.

Other Studies

The Department also is investing in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study program through the 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).2 This program involves two complementary 

cohort studies, a Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) and a Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K), that focus on 

 

1

See http://www.peels.org

2

See https://nces.ed.gov/ecls
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-43

children’s early school experiences. The ECLS-K has followed the kindergarten class of 1998-

99 through eighth grade. The ECLS-K provides descriptive information on children’s status at 

entry to school and their transition into school, and their progression through middle school. 

The ECLS-B is designed to follow children from age 9 months through kindergarten. It focuses 

on health, development, early care, and education during the formative years of children born in 

2001. These studies also are providing data on outcomes experienced by children with 

disabilities participating in preschool programs and baseline data on outcomes experienced by 

nondisabled children.

OSEP, and subsequently the National Center on Special Education Research, have sponsored 

a special education questionnaire for teachers in the ECLS-K Study and the collection of more 

extensive data on children with disabilities and their programs, including the identification of, 

receipt of services for, and use of special equipment for a number of disabling conditions that 

may interfere with a sampled child’s ability to learn. 

Data from ECLS-K on demographic and school characteristics indicate that for the cohort of 

students beginning kindergarten in 1998, specific learning disabilities and speech or language 

impairments were the most prevalent primary disabilities. The percentage of the student cohort 

receiving special education grew from 4.1 percent in kindergarten to 11.9 percent of students in 

fifth grade. The results also indicate that higher percentages of boys than girls, and of poor 

students than non-poor students, received special education. About 12 percent of students 

receive special education in at least one of the grades: kindergarten, first, and third grade, 

including 16 percent of boys, 8 percent of girls, 18 percent of poor children, and 10 percent of 

non-poor children. One in three students who receive special education in early grades first 

receive special education in kindergarten. Half of those who begin special education in 

kindergarten are no longer receiving special education by third grade. In addition to students’ 

gender and poverty status, results are presented separately for other student and school 

characteristics, including race/ethnicity, school, urbanicity, region, and poverty concentration.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-44

State grants: Grants for infants and families

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part C)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$470,000 $470,000 0

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2020 

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Grants for Infants and Families program (Part C) awards formula grants to the 50 States, 

the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Department of the Interior, and Outlying Areas to 

assist them in implementing statewide systems of coordinated, comprehensive, 

multidisciplinary, interagency programs. Under the program, States are responsible for ensuring 

that appropriate early intervention services are made available to all eligible birth-through-2-

year-olds with disabilities and their families, including Indian children and families who reside on 

reservations geographically located within a State. Infants and toddlers with disabilities are 

defined as children who: (1) are experiencing developmental delays, as measured by 

appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in one or more of the following five areas: 

cognitive development, physical development, communication development, social or emotional 

development, or adaptive development; or (2) have a diagnosed physical or mental condition 

that has a high probability of resulting in developmental delay. Within statutory limits, States 

define “developmental delay” and have the discretion to provide services to infants and toddlers 

who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays if they do not receive appropriate 

early intervention services.

Funds can be used to: (1) implement and maintain the statewide system described above; (2) 

fund direct early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families 

that are not otherwise provided by other public or private sources; (3) expand and improve 

existing services; (4) provide a free appropriate public education, in accordance with Part B of 

the IDEA, to children with disabilities from their third birthday to the beginning of the following 

school year; (5) continue to provide early intervention services to children with disabilities from 

their third birthday until such children enter or are eligible to enter kindergarten or elementary 

school; and (6) initiate, expand, or improve collaborative efforts related to identifying, evaluating, 

referring, and following up on at-risk infants and toddlers in States that do not provide direct 

services for these children.

The IDEA requires that early intervention services be provided, to the maximum extent 

appropriate, in natural environments. The natural environment includes the home and 

community settings where children would be participating if they did not have a disability. These 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-45

services can be provided in another setting only when early intervention cannot be achieved 

satisfactorily for the infant or toddler in a natural environment. Each child’s individualized family 

service plan (IFSP) must contain a statement of the natural environments in which early 

intervention services will be provided, including a justification of the extent, if any, to which the 

services will not be provided in a natural environment.

The statewide system also must comply with additional statutory requirements, including 

designating a lead agency with responsibility for the coordination and administration of funds, 

and developing and maintaining a State Interagency Coordinating Council to advise and assist 

the lead agency. One of the purposes of the Part C program is to assist States in coordinating

payment for early intervention services from Federal, State, local, and private sources, including 

public and private insurance coverage. These sources include Medicaid, the State Children’s 

Health Insurance Program, Supplemental Security Income, and Early Head Start.

The IDEA gives States the discretion to extend eligibility for Part C services to children with 

disabilities who are eligible for services under section 619 and who previously received services 

under Part C, until such children enter or are eligible under State law to enter kindergarten or 

elementary school, as appropriate. The Act further stipulates that any Part C programs serving 

children aged 3 or older must provide both: (1) an educational component that promotes school 

readiness and incorporates pre-literacy, language, and numeracy skills; and (2) a written 

notification to parents of their rights regarding the continuation of services under Part C and 

eligibility for services under section 619.

Funding Formula

Allocations are based on the number of children in the general population aged birth through 

2 years in each State. The Department uses data provided by the United States Census Bureau 

in making this calculation. No State can receive less than 0.5 percent of the funds available to 

all States, or $500,000, whichever is greater. The Outlying Areas may receive not more than 1 

percent of the funds appropriated. The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education, 

receives 1.25 percent of the aggregate of the amount available to all States. Interior must pass 

through all the funds it receives to Indian tribes, tribal organizations, or consortia for the 

coordination of early intervention services on reservations with Interior schools. Tribes and tribal 

organizations can use the funds they receive to provide (1) help to States in identifying Indian 

infants and toddlers with disabilities, (2) parent training, and (3) early intervention services.

This is a forward-funded program. Funds become available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal 

year in which they are appropriated and remain available for 15 months, through September 30 

of the following year.

State Incentive Grants

In any fiscal year in which the appropriation for Part C exceeds $460 million, the statute includes 

authority for the Department to reserve 15 percent of the amount above $460 million for a State 

Incentive Grants (SIG) program. The purpose of this program is to provide funding to assist 

States that have elected to extend eligibility for Part C services to children with disabilities aged 

3 years until entrance into kindergarten or elementary school, or for a portion of this period. No 

State can receive more than 20 percent of the amount available for SIG in a fiscal year. In fiscal 

years 2018 and 2019, the total of funds appropriated for Part C exceeded the $460 million level. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-46

For fiscal year 2018, the two States that opted to extend their provision of Part C services 

beyond age 3 received additional funds through this program and have until September 30, 

2020 to expend these funds. The Department anticipates that at least two States will opt to 

extend the provision of Part C services in fiscal year 2019. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands)

2015 ......................................................................................$438,556

2016 ........................................................................................458,556

2017 ........................................................................................458,556

2018 ........................................................................................470,000

2019 ........................................................................................470,000

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests $470.0 million for the Grants for Infants and 

Families (Part C) program, the same as the fiscal year 2019 level. These funds would continue 

to support early intervention programs that provide services to infants and toddlers with 

disabilities. Such programs are also generally designed to mitigate the need for more extensive 

services in the future and ensure that infants and toddlers with disabilities receive the supports 

and services they need to prepare them to enter formal education.

These funds would also help States address the growing population of infants and toddlers 

likely to require early intervention services due to the rise in opioid addiction. A 2016 report from 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that from 1999 to 2013, the number of 

babies born addicted to opioids increased by almost 300 percent in the 28 States included in the 

study, putting them at a higher risk for developmental delays or disabilities that affect 

educational outcomes and life opportunities.

1

At the requested level, the median State award would be just under $5.7 million, with a 

minimum award of approximately $2.3 million and a largest award of $55.0 million. These funds 

will help States maintain their systems for identifying infants and toddlers with disabilities,

determining appropriate services, and facilitating coordination with other programs serving 

young children.

State Incentive Grants

Under Section 643(e), the amount of SIG funds provided to States is based on the number of 

infants and toddlers in the State compared to the number of infants and toddlers in all States 

receiving SIG funds. However, no State may receive more than 20 percent of the amount 

reserved for SIG in a fiscal year. The IDEA contains no SIG provision for redistributing funds 

made available as a result of the imposition of the 20 percent cap. As a result, in any year in 

which a State’s population of infants and toddlers is more than 20 percent of the infants and 

toddlers in States receiving SIG funds, the Department does not have the authority to 

redistribute the remaining reserved funds among the other participating States not limited by the 

 

1

See https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/pdfs/mm6531a2.pdf
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-47

cap. Any funds reserved for SIG that cannot be allocated in accordance with section 643(e) are 

distributed among all States in accordance with the Part C statutory formula in section 643(a) 

through (d).

In fiscal year 2018, the total amount of funds appropriated for Part C exceeded the $460 million 

level by $10 million, leading the Department to reserve $1.5 million for SIG. The two States that 

participated in SIG received a total of $462,414 in SIG funding; one State received $300,000 

(20 percent of the amount reserved), while the second State received only $162,414 in SIG 

funds due to its small population of infants and toddlers relative to the total population of infants 

and toddlers in the two States. As a result, the Department was unable to distribute $1,037,586 

of the funds reserved for SIG, and these funds were distributed among all States in accordance 

with the statutory formula. 

The Administration proposes appropriations language that would allow the Department to 

maximize the amount of funds distributed for SIG and provide a stronger incentive for States 

with small to medium populations to participate. Had the proposed appropriations language 

been in place in fiscal year 2018, the Department would have redistributed an additional 

$137,586 to the second State for SIG, providing $300,000 to each participating State, and 

distributing $900,000 among all States in accordance with the Part C statutory formula. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Range in size of awards to States: 1

Rang e in size of awar ds to States: Smallest State regular Part C award 2$2,302 $2,301 $2,301

Rang e in size of awar ds to States: Average State regular Part C award $8,861 $8,861 $8,861

Rang e in size of awar ds to States: Largest State regular Part C award $55,507 $54,983 $54,968

Children served 3388,694 388,694 388,694

 

1

The calculations exclude funds for the Outlying Areas and the Department of the Interior.

2

IDEA, section 643(c)(2) provides for a minimum allocation to States of the greater of $500,000 or one half of 

1 percent of the amount available to States after the reservations for the Outlying Areas and the Bureau of Indian 

Education are excluded.

3

Estimates.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 

year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-48

Goal: To enhance the development of infants and toddlers (birth to three) with disabilities 

and support families in meeting the special needs of their child.

Objective: The functional development of infants and toddlers will be enhanced by early 

intervention services.

Measure: The percentage of infants and toddlers who entered the program below age 

expectations in positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships) who substantially 

increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program.

Year Target Actual

2015 70% 66%

2016 70 65

2017 70 66

2018 70

2019 70

2020 70

Measure: The percentage of infants and toddlers who entered the program below age 

expectations in acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early 

language/communication and early literacy) who substantially increased their rate of growth by 

the time they exited the program.

Year Target Actual

2015 75% 71%

2016 76 71

2017 76 72

2018 76

2019 76

2020 76

Measure: The percentage of infants and toddlers who entered the program below age 

expectations in the use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs who substantially 

increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program.

Year Target Actual

2015 75% 73%

2016 77 72

2017 77 74

2018 77

2019 77

2020 77

Additional information: Data are from the States’ Annual Performance Reports (APRs).Two 

States have current approval from the Department to collect data for a representative sample of 

the children they serve through the Part C program; all other States report data on all children 

served.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-49

Objective: All infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families will receive early 

intervention services in natural environments that meet their individual needs.

Measure: The number of States that serve at least 1 percent of infants in the general population 

under age 1 through Part C.

Year Target Actual

2015 30 33

2016 32 36

2017 32 37

2018 34

2019 36

2020 37

Additional information: For a number of years, only 24 or 25 States served at least 1 percent 

of infants in the general population under the age of 1. The program made progress from 2012 

through 2017, exceeding its targets. The 1 percent threshold for this measure is based on data 

collected by the U.S. Census bureau on prevalence rates for 5 conditions: 0.4 percent - severe 

mental retardation1; 0.2 percent - hearing impairment; 0.1 percent - visual impairment; 

0.2 percent - physical conditions (spina bifida, cerebral palsy, etc.); and 0.1 percent - autism. 

State lead agencies responsible for the implementation of these programs report data annually 

to the Department through their APRs on the numbers of infants and toddlers with disabilities 

served under the Grants for Infants and Families program. Through its monitoring and technical 

assistance efforts, the Department is working with States to ensure that they are appropriately 

identifying and serving all eligible infants with disabilities and expects the number of States 

serving at least 1 percent of infants in the general population under age 1 to increase further as 

a result.

Measure: The number of States that serve at least 2 percent of infants and toddlers in the 

general population, birth through age 2, through Part C.

Year Target Actual

2015 45 45

2016 46 47

2017 46 48

2018 47

2019 47

2020 48

Additional information: Data are submitted by States in their APRs. 

 

1 Consistent with P.L. 111-256, the Department uses the term “intellectual disabilities” instead of “mental retardation,” 

but we have retained the term here to permit verification of the data that were used to set the threshold.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-50

Measure: The percentage of children receiving age-appropriate early intervention services in 

the home or in programs designed for typically developing peers.

Year Target Actual

2015 95% 96%

2016 95 97

2017 95 97

2018 95

2019 95

2020 95

Additional information: State lead agencies report annually to the Department on the settings 

in which children receive services provided under the Part C program. Current performance 

represents a significant improvement since 2001, when States reported that only 76 percent of 

children receiving early intervention services through the Part C program were served in the 

home or in programs designed for typically developing peers.

Efficiency Measures

Measure: The average number of days between the completion of a site visit and the Office of 

Special Education Programs’ (OSEP) response to the State.

Year Target Actual

2016 Baseline 171

2017 Baseline 143

2018 Baseline 276

2019 Baseline

2020 Baseline

Additional information: In 2016, OSEP began conducting site visits using a risk-based 

approach to monitoring. In 2018, OSEP conducted 11 site visits (7 Part B and 4 Part C). To 

date, OSEP has issued eight responses (five Part B and three Part C) with an average 

response time of 276 days (337 days for Part B and 175 days for Part C). The remaining three 

responses will be issued more than 90 days after the completion of the site visit. In that year, 

response times for all but one site visit exceeded the average from the prior year. The 

Department will establish targets for this measure after sufficient baseline data are available, 

which is expected in spring 2020.

Other Performance Information

Through the “Early Childhood Longitudinal Study - Birth Cohort” (ECLS-B), the National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES) collected longitudinal data on a nationally representative sample 

of 14,000 children from their birth in 2001 through their entry into kindergarten. Approximately 

75 percent of the sample entered kindergarten in fall 2006, with the remaining 25 percent 

entering in the following year. The ECLS-B provides data on the early development of these 

children, their preparation for school, and key transitions experienced by these children during 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-51

the early childhood years. The study includes detailed data on the physical, cognitive, social, 

and emotional development of these children.1

In July 2011, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) published the final report for the “IDEA 

National Assessment Implementation Study.”2 This congressionally mandated study provides a 

national picture of State agency implementation of early intervention programs for infants and 

toddlers under Part C of IDEA, as well as both State and school district implementation of 

special education programs for preschool- and school-age children under Part B of IDEA.

The study was based on surveys of State agency directors and a nationally representative 

sample of district special education directors conducted in 2009. Key findings relating to the Part 

C program include:

 Referral and identification—The most common outreach activity reported by States was the 

development and/or dissemination of written materials for pediatricians and other health 

care providers, followed by Web-based dissemination and outreach to child care providers. 

States reported family members and primary healthcare providers as the most frequent 

sources of referral to the Part C program.

 Coordination and transition between IDEA programs—At the time the surveys were 

conducted, States reported supporting the transition of young children with disabilities from 

the Part C program to preschool services under section 619 of Part B, but no States 

reported expanding Part C services to serve eligible children with disabilities until they enter 

kindergarten. Forty-six States reported having different coordinators for the Part C and 

Preschool programs, but 67 percent of Part C coordinators reported meeting at least 

monthly with the coordinator for the Preschool program.

 Financing—For the 37 States that provided this information, the average percentage of early 

intervention services funding that came from the Part C program in fiscal year 2009 was 

21 percent. Twenty-three States indicated that State early intervention services funding 

represented the largest source of funding for early intervention services for infants and 

toddlers with disabilities. The largest sources of funding in other States were: Part C 

(8 States), Medicaid/Title XIX (8 States), local municipality or county funds (4 States), and 

Part B (1 State).

 

1 More information is available at: http://nces.ed.gov/ECLS/birth.asp

2

See http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114026/index.asp
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-52

National activities: State personnel development

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 1) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$38,630 $38,630 0

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2020

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The State Personnel Development (SPD) program makes competitive awards to help State 

educational agencies (SEAs) reform and improve their systems for personnel preparation and 

professional development of individuals providing early intervention, educational, and transition 

services to improve results for children with disabilities.

The SPD program focuses on professional development needs, and each State grantee must 

spend at least 90 percent of its funds on professional development activities, including the 

recruitment and retention of qualified special education teachers. The remaining 10 percent of 

the State’s funds is available for State-level activities, such as reforming special education and 

regular education teacher certification (including recertification) or licensing requirements and 

carrying out programs that establish, expand, or improve alternative routes for State certification 

of special education teachers.

Awards are based on State personnel development plans that identify and address State and 

local needs for the preparation and professional development of personnel who serve infants, 

toddlers, preschoolers, or children with disabilities, as well as individuals who provide direct 

supplementary aids and services to children with disabilities. Plans must be designed to enable 

the State to meet the personnel requirements in Parts B and C (section 612(a)(14)) and 

section 635(a)(8) and (9)) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These plans 

must also be integrated and aligned, to the maximum extent possible, with State plans and 

activities under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Grants are made on a competitive basis for any fiscal year in which the amount appropriated for 

the SPD program is less than $100 million. However, if the amount appropriated is $100 million 

or greater, funds would be distributed as formula grants, with allotments based on the relative 

portion of the funds the State received under Part B of IDEA. Competitive awards are made for 

periods of 1 to 5 years with minimum awards to States of not less than $500,000 and not less 

than $80,000 for Outlying Areas. The maximum award that can be made to States is $4 million 

per fiscal year. Factors used to determine the amount of each competitive award are: the 

amount of funds available; the relative population of the State or Outlying Area; the types of 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-53

activities proposed; alignment of proposed activities with the State’s personnel standards; 

alignment of proposed activities with the State’s consolidated ESEA Title I and Title II plans; and

as appropriate, the use of evidence-based programs and research.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015................................................................................. .... 41,630

2016................................................................................. .... 41,630

2017................................................................................. .... 38,630

2018................................................................................. .... 38,368

2019................................................................................. .... 38,368

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests $38.6 million for the SPD grants program, the 

same as the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. This request would support approximately 

$10.1 million in new awards and $28.5 million in continuation awards. The request includes 

appropriations language that would provide authority to use SPD funds under section 655 of 

IDEA to carry out evaluation activities, including support for improved grantee evaluations. SPD 

is the only program within Part D of IDEA that does not have statutory authority to use funds to 

evaluate program performance. 

Personnel shortages and inadequately trained teachers in special education are among the 

most pressing and chronic problems facing the field.1 SPD projects assist in addressing critical 

State and local needs to improve personnel preparation, induction to the local educational 

agency (LEA), and ongoing professional development identified in the State’s Personnel 

Development Plan. Projects provide personnel with the knowledge and skills to meet the needs 

and improve the performance and achievement of infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and children 

with disabilities and to meet the State’s performance goals established in accordance with 

section 612(a)(15) of the IDEA. Support for special education personnel preparation activities is 

also provided through the Personnel Preparation program, under which the Department makes 

competitive awards—primarily to institutions of higher education—to help States train and 

employ adequate numbers of fully certified personnel to serve children with disabilities. 

SPD activities are intended to support statewide strategies to prepare, recruit, and retain 

teachers who are qualified under IDEA and the (ESEA. Qualified teachers generally: (1) meet 

the applicable State certification and licensure requirements (including any requirements for 

certification obtained through alternative routes); (2) are prepared to deliver instruction 

supported by evidence; and (3) are effective in improving outcomes for children with disabilities. 

States must collaborate and seek the input of teachers, principals, parents, administrators, 

paraprofessionals, and other school personnel when developing SPD activities.

Research shows that effective teaching is integral to improving the academic achievement of 

students who are at greatest risk of not meeting high academic standards; for this reason, SPD 

funds are used to provide training in effective interventions. Examples include positive 

 

1

Teacher Shortage Areas Nationwide Listing, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 

August 2016: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.pdf
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-54

behavioral interventions and supports to improve student behavior in the classroom, evidencebased reading instruction, early and appropriate interventions to identify and help children with 

disabilities, effective instruction for children with low-incidence disabilities, and strategies for 

successful transitioning to postsecondary opportunities. Funds also assist States in utilizing 

classroom-based techniques to assist children prior to referral for special education.

Personnel Recruitment and Retention

In addition to effective interventions, the SPD program supports States in developing and 

implementing effective strategies for the recruitment and retention of qualified special education 

teachers, such as teacher mentoring provided by exemplary special education teachers, 

principals, or superintendents; induction and support for special education teachers during their 

first 3 years of employment as teachers; and providing incentives, including financial incentives, 

to retain special education teachers who have a track record of success in helping students with 

disabilities. 

The following examples of projects first awarded in fiscal year 2012 illustrate how SPD funds 

are improving the knowledge and skills of teachers serving children with disabilities: 

 The California SPD grant, Project READ, focused on secondary literacy strategies. By the 

end of Year 4, 36 sites (88 percent) reached full implementation of their secondary literacy 

strategies. The number of all students who “Met or Exceeded” standards for the statewide 

English Language Arts assessment increased at 31 sites (76 percent), while “Not Met” 

decreased at 28 sites (68 percent). For students with disabilities, “Met or Exceeded” 

increased at 21 sites (52 percent), while “Not Met” decreased at 26 sites (65 percent).

 The Maryland SPD grant similarly raised the number of special education students who 

“Met or Exceeded” State standards. Four out of eight grades (50 percent) increased in the 

percentage of special education students who “Met” or “Exceeded” standards. Additionally, 

seven of the eight grades decreased the percentage special education students “Partially” or 

“Not Meeting” expectations. The Maryland SPD grant also increased family engagement for 

students with disabilities; 75 percent of family members responding to a survey indicated 

that their level of involvement had increased over the past 2 years.

 In New Mexico, 94 percent of families in schools implementing a tiered model of academic 

and behavioral supports with fidelity “agreed” or “strongly agreed” on a survey that they 

participated meaningfully in processes and procedures related to the multi-tiered model.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018

footnotes

2019

footnote

2020

footnote

Project funding:

New 0 0 $10,049

Continuations SPD awards $38,5771$38,5771$28,519

 

1

The fiscal year 2018 continuation awards total includes approximately $2,201 thousand in fiscal year 2018 funds for 

support of fiscal year 2019 continuation costs.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-55

Performance evaluation $53 $53 $53

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 0 $9

Total funding $38,630 $38,630 $38,630

Average award $1,171 $1,171 $1,134

Number of awards:

New 0 0 10

Continuation 33 33 24

Total awards 33 33 34

 

1

The fiscal year 2019 continuation awards total includes approximately $1,141 thousand in fiscal year 2019 funds for 

support of fiscal year 2020 continuation costs.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of results is based on the 

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 

year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program. 

Goal: To assist State educational agencies in reforming and improving their systems for 

providing educational, early intervention, and transitional services, including their 

systems of professional development, technical assistance, and dissemination of 

knowledge about best practices, to improve results for children with disabilities. 

Objective 1: Provide personnel with the knowledge and skills to meet the needs of, and 

improve the performance and achievement of, infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and children with 

disabilities. 

Objective 2: Improve the quality of professional development available to meet the needs of 

personnel serving infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.

Objective 3: Implement strategies that are effective in meeting the requirements of section 

612(a)(14) of IDEA to take measurable steps to retain highly qualified personnel in areas of 

greatest need to provide special education and related services.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-56

Measure: The percentage of SPD-funded initiatives that meet the benchmarks for use of 

evidence-based professional development practices over time. 

Year Target Actual

2015 Baseline 72%

2016 70% 75

2017 70 92

2018 77 86

2019 82

2020 85

Additional information: In 2018, 41 initiatives were subject to the benchmarks defined by the 

program office. An outside contractor used a random sampling process to select one 

professional development (PD) initiative for review from each of 29 randomly selected SPD 

grants. Of the 29 SPD grants reviewed, a total of 24, or 86 percent, were determined to “meet 

their respective benchmarks for use of evidence-based PD practices.” 

Measure: The percentage of SPD-funded initiatives that meet the benchmark for improvement 

in implementation over time.

Year Target Actual

2015 Baseline 58%

2016 60% 74

2017 60 72

2018 65 55

2019 70

2020 70

Additional information: Of the 22 PD initiatives in their third year of implementation in 2018, a 

total of 12, or 55 percent, were deemed to “meet the benchmark for improvement of evidencebased PD practices.”

Measure: The percentage of initiatives that meet targets for their use of funds to sustain SPDsupported practices.

Year Target Actual

2015 Baseline 90%

2016 85% 78

2017 85 83

2018 85 90

2019 85

2020 85

Additional information: Grantee-submitted data describing the cost of the fidelity activities 

designed to sustain individual initiatives is used to support this measure. Targets for each 

initiative are set in conjunction with the grantee. Expert panels review the data to determine 

whether the grantee has met the target for spending on that initiative within 5 percent of the 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-57

target. In 2018, this measure applied to all SPD grants in their second through final years of 

funding. 

Measure: The percentage of SPD grant-funded projects that meet targets for retention of 

special education teachers. 

Additional information: Beginning in the 2016 report, the information for this measure has 

been provided qualitatively. 

Some SPD grantees have special education teacher retention as a goal and are required to 

report the number of qualified special education teachers who remain as special education 

teachers two or more years following their initial participation in grant activities and the total 

number of teachers who participated in grant activities designed for teacher retention at least 

two years prior to the annual performance reporting period (APR). 

In 2017, this measure applied to five SPD grants. An outside contractor commissioned two 

reviewers with expertise in special education, PD, and program evaluation to assess the extent 

to which each grantee had met their respective target for retaining special education teachers. 

The program office used a standardized rubric to determine whether or not each grantee met 

their benchmark for retaining special education teachers after their participation in grant 

activities. Reviewers extracted data from the APR to complete the rubric and then discussed 

their individual assessments until reaching consensus on each grantee’s response to each 

question.

In 2017, of the five SPG grants listing teacher retention as a goal, three met their target for 

teacher retention.

Given the low number of grants listing teacher retention as a goal, the Administration will no 

longer report on this measure through the annual budget justifications beginning in 2021. 

However, the Department will continue to monitor the progress of these grantees toward 

meeting their benchmarks.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-58

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 2, Section 663)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$44,345 $44,345 0

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2020

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) program is the Department’s primary 

vehicle under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for identifying, providing, and 

disseminating information on effective practices to educators, policymakers, service providers, 

and families of children with disabilities. The program makes competitive awards to provide 

technical assistance, support model demonstration projects, disseminate useful information, and 

implement activities that are supported by scientific research. These awards are intended to 

improve services provided under IDEA, promote academic achievement, and improve results for 

children with disabilities.

The majority of TA&D program investments support national and regional technical assistance 

centers that are intended to support the field in implementing Parts B and C of IDEA by

expanding the use of evidence-based and promising practices. Centers focus on a variety of 

critical topics, such as behavior, assessment, inclusive practices, secondary transition, literacy, 

and early childhood education. Most centers use a service model that provides three levels of 

technical assistance: (1) intensive, sustained; (2) targeted, specific; and (3) general, universal. 

At the intensive, sustained level, a small number of States receive on-site, ongoing planned 

assistance designed to reach an outcome desired by the recipient. Through targeted, specific 

services, centers support activities based on the topical or technical needs common to multiple 

recipients. Targeted, specific services can include one-time or short-term events, such as 

consultation services or presentations at conferences. The centers also provide general, 

universal technical assistance services that are intended to help broader audiences access 

information and services through presentations, newsletters, or research syntheses that are 

made available on center websites. Activities supported through this program are designed to 

address the needs of a variety of audiences, including teachers, related service personnel, early 

intervention personnel, administrators, parents, and individuals with disabilities. 

The TA&D program also funds model demonstration projects that evaluate the implementation 

of research findings in typical settings. Models that are found to be effective can then be 

promoted by the network of TA&D centers. In recent years, the program also has sought to 

leverage existing resources through improved collaboration and coordination with other related,

Federally funded technical assistance and dissemination activities. TA&D activities promote the 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-59

application of knowledge to improve practice by: determining areas where technical assistance 

and information are needed, ensuring that materials are prepared in formats that are 

appropriate for a wide variety of audiences, making technical assistance and information 

accessible to consumers, and promoting communication links among consumers. 

The duration of awards varies with the award's purpose, though most individual awards are 

made for a period of 5 years.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

footnote

2015....................................................................................... 44,3451

2016....................................................................................... 44,3451

2017....................................................................................... 44,3451

2018....................................................................................... 44,3451

2019....................................................................................... 44,3451

1

Excludes funding for the Special Olympics program, which is discussed elsewhere in this account.

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests $44.3 million for the TA&D program, the same 

as the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. Nearly all funds ($43.1 million) would be used to support 

continuation awards for grants and contracts made in prior years. 

TA&D activities support the application of knowledge to improve practices among professionals 

and others involved in providing services that promote academic achievement and improve 

results for children with disabilities. Through TA&D, the Department focuses on identifying and 

disseminating evidence-based practices and building capacity at the State and local levels to 

implement, sustain, and scale-up such practices, thereby improving results for children with 

disabilities. These activities have successfully facilitated the expanded use of evidence-based 

practices such as positive behavioral interventions and supports, which have been implemented 

in nearly 26,000 schools nationwide; and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, which have been 

implemented and widely used throughout the country as a framework for delivering 

differentiated instruction.

Model Demonstration Projects

As States refine their systems for administering and providing special education and related 

services and use data to identify areas for improvement in their State Systemic Improvement 

Plans (SSIPs), which are a required component of the Department’s Results Driven 

Accountability framework, there is growing demand for evidence-based interventions that can 

be implemented in schools to help meet the specific needs of children with disabilities. While 

TA&D has made significant contributions to this effort over the years, there continues to be a 

critical need for interventions that have demonstrated success in a variety of school settings, 

particularly in non-traditional public school settings (e.g., charters, magnets, virtual schools) and 

in private schools. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-60

Just as important, the growing field of implementation science suggests that fidelity of

implementation—including an understanding of how to accommodate variations inherent in the 

different educational settings in which programs are implemented—can be as critical as 

identifying evidence-based practices in the first place. Few schools or programs can 

successfully implement evidence-based practices effectively without detailed implementation 

strategies. Research studies, however, do not often address what it takes to implement and 

sustain a practice in typical early intervention, preschool, classroom, and school settings. 

Model demonstrations are an effective and efficient way to bridge the gap between existing 

research and the implementation of interventions in areas of critical need. The focus areas for 

model demonstrations are selected based on emerging areas of research, needs identified by 

the Department, and input from the special education field. The fiscal year 2020 request will 

provide $1.2 million for new model demonstration awards and $3.6 million to fund nine 

continuation awards that help address areas such as improving mathematics and English 

language arts outcomes of students with disabilities in inclusive public schools, including charter 

schools. Cohorts also will identify and address the implementation challenges across a variety 

of choice environments throughout the country. For more information on model demonstration 

project continuations, see below.

Additional Technical Assistance Activities

The Department’s technical assistance investments focus on meeting the needs of States and 

local educational agencies (LEAs) that serve children with disabilities and include support in 

priority areas such as early learning, post-secondary transition, and low-incidence disabilities 

like deaf-blindness. The Department takes a number of factors into consideration when funding 

technical assistance centers including: meeting statutory requirements; addressing the needs of 

the field (including States, LEAs, parents and families, and other disability stakeholders); and 

avoiding duplication across programs. Projects and centers funded under this program are 

required to coordinate with other relevant technical assistance investments funded by the 

Department. 

Approximately $39.5 million in the fiscal year 2020 request will support continuation awards for 

a variety of technical assistance and dissemination projects under this program, including:

1

 

 Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports 

(PBIS)—helps State educational agencies (SEAs) and LEAs successfully implement and 

sustain PBIS practices and policies, which support the use of evidence-based 

interventions for students with the most significant behavioral challenges that interfere 

with their ability to fully participate in the learning environment.

 National Center for Dispute Resolution—provides SEAs and Part C Lead Agencies with 

resources that can help them effectively implement a range of dispute resolution options, 

including strategies that other SEAs and Part C Lead Agencies use to address SSIP 

indicators related to dispute resolution. This center helps ensure parents and families 

receive the information they need about various methods for resolving disputes and 

avoid costly adversarial due process hearings.

 

1

For more information on the OSEP TA&D investments, visit: www.OSEPideasthatwork.org.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-61

 Postsecondary Education Center for Individuals who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing—

supports postsecondary education through collaborations with postsecondary 

institutions, SEAs, LEAs, State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies, VR service 

providers, and other relevant organizations and public agencies to more effectively 

address the postsecondary, vocational, technical, continuing, and adult education needs 

of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. Of the remaining fiscal year 2020

continuation funds requested, $200,000 will be transferred to the Office of Career, 

Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) to continue support for an interagency 

technical assistance investment to improve academic, employment, and behavioral 

outcomes for justice-involved youth. Approximately $1.1 million would support new and 

continuing contracts for peer review, performance evaluation, reporting, and 

dissemination.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Program Funding:

Model demonstration centers:

Model demonstration centers: New $1,200 $1,200 $1,200

Model demonstration centers: Continuations 3,466 3,142 3,576

Model demonstration centers: Subtotal 4,666 4,342 4,776

Behavior:

New 1,850 0 0

Regional/Feder al Resource Centers: Continuations 1,100 2,950 2,950

Regional/Feder al Resource Centers: Subtotal 2,950 2,950 2,950

Early childhood:

Earl y childhood technical assistance: New 0 0 0

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Continuations 3,400 5,400 5,400

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Subtotal 3,400 5,400 5,400

Assessment:

Earl y childhood technical assistance: New 0 0 0

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Continuations 1,000 1,000 1,000

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Subtotal 1,000 1,000 1,000

Inclusive Practices:

Earl y childhood technical assistance: New 1,350 6,772 0

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Continuations 13,834 7,202 13,541

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Subtotal 15,184 13,974 13,541

Secondary transition:

Secondar y, transiti on and postsecondar y technical assistance: New 0 2,100 0

Secondar y, transiti on and postsecondar y technical assistance: Continuations 3,400 1,300 3,400

Secondar y, transiti on and postsecondar y technical assistance: Subtotal 3,400 3,400 3,400
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-62

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Technical assistance for children who are 

both deaf and blind:

New Technical assistance for chil dren who ar e both deaf and blind $11,100 0 0

Continuations Technical assistance for children who are both deaf and bli nd: 0 $11,100 $11,100

Subtotal Technical assistance for chil dren who ar e both deaf and blind: 11,100 11,100 11,100

Transfers to Elementary and Secondary 

Education for comprehensive centers:

New tr ansfers to el ementar y and secondar y educati on for compr ehensi ve centers 0 0 0

Continuations transfers to elementar y and secondar y education for compr ehensi ve centers 750 750 750

Subtotal 750 750 750

Transfers to Career, Technical, and Adult 

Education for corrections collaboration:

New tr ansfers to career, technical and adul t education for corrections coll aboration 0 0 0

Continuations transfers to career, technical and adult educati on for corr ecti ons collabor ation 200 200 200

Subtotal transfers to career, technical and adul t education for corrections coll aboration 200 200 200

National Activities

New nati onal acti vi ties 350 410 0

Continuations national acti vities 1,182 749 1,158

Subtotal 1,532 1,159 1,158

Peer review of new award applications 163 70 70

Total program funding:

New 15,850 10,482 1,200

Continuations 28,332 33,793 43,075

Peer review 163 70 70

Total 44,345 44,345 44,345

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 

year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program. 

Goal: To assist States and their partners in systems improvement through the 

integration of scientifically-based practices. 

Objective 1: States and other recipients of Special Education Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination program services will implement scientifically or evidence-based practices for 

infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-63

Objective 2: Improve the quality of Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

projects.

Objective 3: The Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination program will 

identify, implement, and evaluate evidence-based models to improve outcomes for infants, 

toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.

Five performance measures were developed for the Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

program. Three of these measures are annual measures, and two are long-term.

Annual Performance Measures

The three annual measures deal with the quality, relevance, and usefulness of products and 

services funded by the program. These measures were developed as part of an effort to make 

measures relating to technical assistance and dissemination activities more consistent 

Department-wide but have been adapted to reflect the unique purposes of the TA&D program. 

Targets for 2016 and beyond were revised in 2015 to reflect reductions in the number of 

grantees in the program due to consolidations. Consequently, the targets are lower due to the 

reduced number of unique products and service reviewed, and not because of lower 

performance expectations. The actual data and targets for these measures reflect the 

performance in the year that the activity took place; in this case, the year the product or service 

was developed or delivered. 

For each of the three annual performance measures, expert panels review a sample of products 

and services developed by grantees against a listing of evidence-based practices in areas the 

Department has identified as critical. The sample of grantees included in this measure for each 

year consists of TA&D centers in their second year or later and 10 State Deaf-Blind programs. 

The expert panels review and score all products and services based on an OSEP-designed 

rubric that is specific to each performance measure, rating the products and services on the 

extent to which they meet the measure’s performance indicators. Scores are weighted by the 

size of the investment in each program area reviewed.

Measure: The percentage of Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services 

deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified to review the 

substantive content of the products and services.

Year Target Actual

2015 95% 77%

2016 90 75

2017 90 72

2018 90

2019 90

2020 90

Additional information: Expert panels review all products and services and score them based 

on a rubric that assesses the extent to which the content of these materials is: evidence-based, 

valid, complete, and up-to-date. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-64

Based on the most recent data available for products and services developed with fiscal 

year 2017 funds, the program fell substantially short of the target, with only 23 out of 32 

products and services meeting the standard for high quality (i.e., 72 percent). The Department 

plans to address this shortfall by providing enhanced monitoring for grantees that receive lower 

scores that will include recommendations to improve the quality of their products and services.

Measure: The percentage of Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services 

deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be of high relevance to 

educational and early intervention policy or practice.

Year Target Actual

2015 95% 93%

2016 90 100

2017 90 97

2018 90

2019 93

2020 93

Additional information: Expert panels review the products and services and score them 

based on a rubric that assesses the extent to which the content of materials is responsive to 

priority issues, including challenges confronting the target groups. 

Overall performance under this measure has been strong in every year for which data have 

been collected. Thirty one of the 32 products and services in the sample from fiscal year 2017 

met the standard for high relevance. 

Measure: The percentage of all Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

products and services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be useful 

to improve educational or early intervention policy or practice.

Year Target Actual

2015 95% 93%

2016 90 86

2017 90 91

2018 90

2019 90

2020 90

Additional information: Expert panels review the products and services and score them 

based on a rubric that assesses the extent to which the content of materials can be easily and 

quickly adopted or adapted by the target group, and the likelihood that the product or service, if 

adopted, will produce the desired result. Based on the most recent data available on products 

and services from fiscal year 2017, the program met the target, with 29 out of 32 products and 

services meeting the standard for high usefulness. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-65

Long-term Performance Measures

The Department established two long-term measures for this program. Data for the long-term 

measures are collected every 2 years. 

Measure: The percentage of effective evidence-based program models developed by model 

demonstration projects that are promoted to States and their partners through the TA&D 

Network. 

In 2010, the Department developed this new long-term pilot measure because the previous 

measure did not provide meaningful data for program improvement. This new measure will 

provide the Department valuable data on how well model demonstration projects are 

disseminating effective practices, a key component of this program. In November 2012, the 

Department began collecting the new data using a revised methodology. It will use the results to 

continue to refine the measure and set performance targets for future years. The Department is 

analyzing the data to ensure the establishment of an appropriate baseline, and expects to 

publish results for 2014 through 2018 in the 2021 President’s Budget Request.

Measure: The percentage of school districts and service agencies receiving technical 

assistance and dissemination services regarding scientifically or evidence-based practices for 

infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities that implement those practices.

Year Target Actual

2011 86%

2013 86% 83

2015 86 100

2017 86 100

2019 83

Additional information: Experts review data from States that have received intensive 

technical assistance from OSEP TA&D Centers in six focus areas. These areas include 

assessment, literacy, behavior, instructional strategies, early intervention, secondary transition, 

and inclusive practices. Performance has improved significantly since 2009, the first year data 

were collected for this measure, when 79 percent of districts and agencies sampled were 

implementing evidence-based practices for which they received technical assistance.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-66

National activities: Personnel preparation

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 2, Sections 661 and 662)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$87,200 $87,200 0

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2020

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Personnel Preparation program helps meet State-identified needs for adequate numbers of 

fully certified personnel to serve children with disabilities by supporting competitive awards to:

 provide research-based training and professional development to prepare special education, 

related services, early intervention, and regular education personnel to work with children 

with disabilities;

 ensure that those personnel are fully qualified, and possess the skills and knowledge that 

are needed to serve children with disabilities; and

 ensure that regular education teachers have the necessary knowledge and skills to provide 

instruction to students with disabilities in regular education classrooms.

In addition, the Department is required by statute to make competitive grants that support 

training activities in a few high priority areas, including personnel development, beginning 

special educators, personnel to serve children with low incidence disabilities, and leadership 

personnel. These grants are typically 5 years in length.

Personnel Development: This broad authority requires the Department to support at least one 

of the following activities:

 promoting partnerships and collaborative personnel preparation and training between 

institutions of higher education (IHEs) and local educational agencies (LEAs);

 developing, evaluating, and disseminating innovative models for the recruitment, 

induction, retention, and assessment of teachers;

 providing continuous training and professional development to support special education 

and general education teachers and related services personnel;

 developing and improving programs for paraprofessionals to become special educators;

 promoting instructional leadership and improved collaboration between general and 

special education;
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-67

 supporting IHEs with minority enrollments of not less than 25 percent; and 

 developing and improving programs to train special educators to develop expertise in 

autism spectrum disorders.

Beginning Special Educators: The Department is also required to provide support to beginning 

special educators. Specifically, the Department is required to make at least one award to: 

(a) enhance and restructure existing teacher education programs or develop teacher education 

programs that prepare special education teachers by incorporating an extended clinical learning 

opportunity, field experience, or supervised practicum (e.g., an additional 5th year), or (b) create 

and support teacher-faculty partnerships between LEAs and IHEs (e.g., professional 

development schools) that provide high-quality mentoring and induction opportunities with 

ongoing support for beginning special educators or in-service support and professional 

development opportunities.

Personnel to Serve Children with Low Incidence Disabilities: Awards to support personnel to 

serve children with low-incidence disabilities are designed to help ensure the availability of highquality personnel by providing financial aid as an incentive for the pursuit of careers in special 

education, related services, and early intervention. Under this authority, the term “low incidence 

disabilities” primarily refers to visual or hearing impairments and significant intellectual 

disabilities; however, beginning in fiscal year 2014, the Department expanded the definition to 

include persistent and severe learning and behavioral problems that need the most intensive 

individualized supports. In carrying out this authority, the Department is required to support 

activities that benefit children with low incidence disabilities, such as: preparing personnel; 

providing personnel from various disciplines with interdisciplinary training that will contribute to 

improvements in early intervention and educational outcomes for children with low incidence 

disabilities; preparing personnel in the innovative uses of technology to enhance educational 

outcomes for children with low incidence disabilities, and to improve communication with 

parents.

Leadership Personnel: Leadership preparation activities focus on improving results for students 

with disabilities by ensuring that leadership personnel in both regular and special education 

have the skills and training to help students with disabilities achieve to high standards. Under 

this authority, leadership personnel may include teacher preparation and related service faculty, 

administrators, researchers, supervisors, and principals. Authorized activities include preparing 

personnel at the graduate, postgraduate, and doctoral levels, and providing interdisciplinary 

training for various types of leadership personnel.

All Personnel Preparation competitions emphasize the value of incorporating best practices as 

determined through research, evaluations, and experience. These include practices related to 

personnel training and professional development as well as the provision of special education, 

related services, and early intervention services.

While individuals and students are not eligible for awards under the Personnel Preparation 

program, many grantees are required to use at least 65 percent of their award(s) for student 

support (e.g. tuition, stipends, and payment of fees). Students who receive financial assistance 

from projects funded under the program are required to pay back such assistance, either by 

working for a period of time after they complete their training in the area(s) for which they 

received training, or by making a cash repayment to the Federal Government. In recent years, 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-68

approximately half of the total funding available under the program has been used to directly 

support student scholarships. 

A significant percentage of the grants awarded through this program go to IHEs to provide 

scholarships to train additional special education and early intervention personnel. However, 

the Department also makes awards to centers under this program. Unlike awards that provide 

support for scholarships, which are designed primarily to increase the supply of personnel, 

center-based awards tend to focus on enhancing the quality of work in a particular topical area 

through such activities as professional development, technical assistance, partnerships, or the 

development and dissemination of materials and best practices. 

Additional support for personnel preparation activities is provided through the State Personnel 

Development Grants program, under which the Department makes competitive awards to help 

SEAs reform and improve in-service training and professional development activities for 

teachers, including the recruitment and retention of special education teachers. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015............................................................................... .... $83,700

2016................................................................................. .... 83,700

2017................................................................................. .... 83,700

2018................................................................................. .... 83,700

2019................................................................................. .... 87,200

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests $87.2 million for the Personnel Preparation 

program, the same as the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. Of the funds requested, 

approximately $14.9 million (including peer review costs) would be used for new projects, and 

$72.3 million would support the continuation of grants made in prior years. 

Program Funding Priorities

The Department is exploring how funds available to support new activities under this program 

can be targeted to support human capital systems that prepare, recruit, support, evaluate, 

compensate, and retain effective educators. Administration priorities in this area include 

partnering with States, LEAs, and grantees under the program to: ensure teachers enter the 

classroom with the necessary skills to be effective; address inequities in the distribution of 

effective teachers; and alleviate ongoing personnel shortages of teachers and principals who 

are prepared to provide evidence-based services for children with disabilities.

Since fiscal year 2017, the Department has required preparation programs supported under this 

program to plan and implement interdisciplinary programs that prepare scholars in two or more 

graduate programs in either (a) special education or early intervention and one or more related 

services, or (b) two or more related services, with a focus on shared coursework, group 

assignments, and coordinated field experiences. These requirements will be continued in new 

competitions in fiscal year 2020. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-69

The funds available through this program are primarily used to support ongoing development of 

best practices, improvements in the quality of training offered, and the scholarship support for 

training additional special education, related services, and leadership personnel in high priority 

areas, including low incidence disabilities.

Data on Personnel Shortages

Available data relating to personnel shortages in special education, including State-reported 

data outlining the percentage of special education teachers fully certified in States and Outlying 

Areas, strongly support the need for continued Federal investment. Persistent shortages of 

qualified personnel have been reported since the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) in 1975. While many States and LEAs across the country experience 

personnel shortages, recruiting and retaining qualified special educators is particularly 

challenging for schools, especially those in high-poverty districts. Data from “Teacher Quality 

Under No Child Left Behind: Final Report,” illustrate this challenge. According to this study, 

completed by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) for the Department in January 2009, 

approximately one-half of all districts in the country reported difficulty attracting highly qualified 

special education teachers in the 2006-2007 school year, while 90 percent of high-poverty 

districts reported the same difficulty.

1

The most recent National Assessment of IDEA, published in 2011, also found that 51 percent of 

district Part B special education administrators reported that their districts routinely had difficulty 

finding qualified special education applicants over the past 3 years, and approximately 5 percent 

of full-time preschool-age and school-age special education teacher positions were left vacant in 

the 2008-2009 academic year.

2

Since those studies were published, States continue to report shortages of special education 

staff at higher rates than almost any other subject area specialization.

3

While the funds available through this program are by no means sufficient to resolve ongoing 

shortages in special education nationwide, they have played a critical role in increasing the 

supply of personnel in specific areas where the demand for additional staff are especially 

critical, such as in the area of low incidence disabilities at both the K-12 and postsecondary

levels. Further, 81 percent of fiscal year 2016 degree/certification recipients supported under 

this program were employed in a high-need school district.

 

1

See http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/nclb-final/index.html

2

See http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114026/pdf/20114026.pdf

3

See http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.pdf
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-70

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Program Funding:

Low incidence disabilities 

grants:

New Low incidence disabilities grants $500 $3,900 0

Continuations Low incidence disabilities grants 3,905 976 $6,100

Subtotal Low incidence disabilities grants 4,405 4,876 6,100

Leadership training grants:

New Low incidence disabilities grants 3,829 7,000 4,270

Continuations Low incidence disabilities grants 15,941 16,353 15,854

Subtotal Low incidence disabilities grants 19,770 23,353 20,124

Training improvement grants:

Continuations Program improvement grants 5,450 5,450 5,450

Subtotal Program improvement grants 5,450 5,450 5,450

Early childhood grants:

NewEarly childhood grants 900 0 0

Continuations Early childhood grants 2,000 2,899 2,899

Subtotal Early childhood grants 2,900 2,899 2,899

Pre-service training grants

New Other personnel development grants 9,108 11,500 10,250

Continuations Other personnel development grants 39,911 36,898 40,205

Subtotal Other personnel development grants 49,019 48,398 50,455

National Activities:

New 143 760 0

Continuations national activities 1,734 1,097 1,772

Subtotal national activities 1,877 1,857 1,772

Peer review of new award 

applications 281 368 400

Total Program Funding:

New total program funding 14,479 23,160 14,520

Continuations total program funding 68,940 63,672 72,280

Peer review of new award 

applications 281 368 400

Total 83,700 87,200 87,200
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-71

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 

year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: To prepare service providers and leadership personnel in areas of critical need 

who are highly qualified to improve outcomes for children with disabilities. 

Objective 1: Improve the curricula of IDEA training programs to ensure that personnel 

preparing to serve children with disabilities are knowledgeable and skilled in practices that 

reflect the current knowledge base. 

Objective 2: Increase the supply of teachers and service providers who are highly qualified for 

and serve in positions for which they are trained.

Objective 3: Enhance the efficiency of the expenditure of Federal dollars under the program.

Annual Performance Measures

The program has five annual performance measures. All five of these measures are designed 

to provide information on various aspects of program quality, including scholars who receive 

funding through the program. These measures are:

Measure: Percentage of projects that incorporate scientifically- or evidence-based practices in 

their curricula.

Year Target Actual

2015 90% 95%

2016 90 95

2017 90

2018 90

2019 90

2020 90

Additional Information: Data are collected and analyzed by a contractor using a panel of five 

to seven experts, who review a randomly selected sample of grantee course syllabi submitted 

by funded applicants in the same cohort of grantees. 

In the fiscal year 2016 review, 20 syllabi from fiscal year 2016 personnel development grantees 

were included from the following types of projects: early childhood (4 syllabi scored), leadership 

(8 syllabi scored), and low incidence (8 syllabi scored). Only one grant (in the low incidence 

area) did not meet the established standard for incorporating scientifically- or evidence-based 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-72

practices in their curricula. In fiscal year 2017, new personnel development grantees were 

allowed the option of one year to develop new curricula to meet the interdisciplinary focus of 

that competition; consequently, performance data for the 2017 cohort are not expected until fall 

2019.

Measure: Percentage of scholars who exit training programs prior to completion due to poor

academic performance.

Year Target Actual

2015 1.9% 1.3%

2016 1.9 1.0

2017 1.9

2018 1.9

2019 1.9

2020 1.9

Additional Information: Grantees submit data annually through the Department Personnel 

Preparation Data Report Web-based data collection.

1

 No calculation is necessary. 

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who are working in the area(s) for which 

they are trained upon program completion.

Year Target Actual

2015 85% 91%

2016 85 94

2017 85

2018 85

2019 85

2020 85

Additional Information: In January 2015, the Department changed its data collection for this 

measure to a new online survey instrument which is intended to increase data reliability and 

validity. 

Data for 2016 do not include 869 scholars who have not yet entered employment records into 

the system. The Department is taking proactive steps to resolve the issues with missing data in 

this measure. The contractor is still in the process of fully implementing its procedures for 

following up with non-responsive program completers. In addition, the contractor is continuing 

to work to ensure that all program completers have access to the online survey instrument. 

 

1

see: http://www.oseppdp.ed.gov
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-73

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who are employed in high-need 

districts.

Year Target Actual

2015 Baseline 88%

2016 85% 81

2017 85

2018 85

2019 85

2020 85

Additional information: In calculating this measure, the Department uses employment 

records submitted by scholars and matches that employment data to school districts in the 

Common Core of Data, which were then classified as high-need using free and reduced-price 

lunch data.

In 2016, 1,593 scholars completed their programs and 424 were employed in high-need 

districts. As noted above, to date, 869 of those scholars have not yet entered data into the data 

collection system. Of the remainder, 190 scholars did not work in a school district, but worked 

in some other type of organization (e.g., a clinic, hospital, or State or Federal education 

agency). 

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who are rated as effective by their 

employers.

Year Target Actual

2015 Baseline 80%

2016 80% 82

2017 80

2018 80

2019 80

2020 80

Additional information: In 2016, 514 scholars were rated as effective by their employers. The 

denominator for this measure includes scholars who did not report employment after their 

program (6 scholars in 2016), scholars whose employment records had not been verified by 

their employers (105 scholars in 2016), scholars who had been deemed as “less than effective” 

or “ineffective” by their employer (4 scholar in 2016), and scholars who had been deemed 

“effective” by their employer (514 scholars in 2016). 

Long-Term Performance Measures

The program currently has one long-term measure that is designed to provide information on 

the quality of the program by looking at the skills of scholars supported with program funds. The 

Department also is currently piloting a new long-term outcome measure – the percentage of 

degree/certification recipients who are employed in the field of special education for at least 2

years – that is not expected to be in place until fall 2019 at the earliest.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-74

Measure: Percentage of scholars completing Special Education Personnel Preparation funded 

training programs who are knowledgeable and skilled in evidence-based practices for children 

with disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2015 90% 96%

2016 90 98

2017 90

2018 90

2019 90

2020 90

Additional Information: Grantees submit data annually through the Department Personnel 

Preparation Data Report Web-based data collection.1 This measure presents information on the 

percentage of scholars completing programs who passed an independent exam, such as the 

Praxis II, that is designed to assess the knowledge and skills of special educators. 

Efficiency Measures

Measure: The Federal cost per degree or certification program recipient working in the area(s) 

in which they were trained upon program completion.

Year Target Actual

2015 $25,000 $35,851

2016 30,000 38,928

2017 32,500 43,149

2018 32,500

2019 32,500

2020 32,500

Additional Information: Results on this measure have increased over the last five years, far 

exceeding the growth in average graduate tuition. From fiscal year 2011 through fiscal 

year 2017, average graduate tuition increased by approximately 23 percent, according to data 

from the National Center on Education Statistics.

2 During that same time period, the average 

Federal cost per degree or certification recipient increased by approximately 93 percent. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2018, the Department began to include matching requirements in some 

of their training competitions to address this increase. 

 

1

See: http://www.oseppdp.ed.gov

2 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System (IPEDS), "Fall Enrollment Survey" (IPEDS-EF:89-99); "Completions Survey" (IPEDS-C:90-99); "Institutional 

Characteristics Survey" (IPEDS-IC:89-99); IPEDS Fall 2000 through Fall 2016, Institutional Characteristics 

component; and IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2017, Fall Enrollment component. (This table was prepared June 

2018.)
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-75

Other Performance Information

At the end of fiscal year 2007, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) awarded a $2.8 million, 

4-year contract for the evaluation of the Personnel Development Program. The evaluation 

included two separate components: a study of IHEs that have applied for funds to train 

personnel under the program, and a study of the national centers funded under the 

program. The study of the national centers included all 12 of the centers funded between 2001 

and 2008.

The study1 made the following determinations about fiscal year 2006 and 2007 competitions.

 Certain types of applicants tended to be more successful than other types.

o Public IHEs were more successful than private IHEs (37 percent versus 32 percent).

o Doctorate-granting IHEs were more successful than non-doctorate-granting IHEs 

(38 percent versus 25 percent).

o Minority institutions were more successful than non-minority institutions (38 percent 

versus 34 percent).

 Fifty-three percent of funded applicants proposed new courses of study.

 Seventy-three percent of grant funds were used for monetary support for scholars in funded 

training programs for which scholar stipends were required, with 88 percent of enrolled 

students receiving monetary support (averaging $11,558 per scholar).

 By the 2008-2009 academic year, on average, 17 scholars per program had completed their 

training program, with 86 percent receiving State-issued credentials and 46 percent 

receiving a master’s or education specialist degree. 

The study also assessed the work of national centers funded under this program between fiscal 

years 2001 and 2007. 

 Of the “signature” products/services of these centers:

o seventy-seven percent were “high” or “very high” quality; and

o eighty-two percent were “high” or “very high” relevance/usefulness.

 Of the “non-signature” products/services of these centers:

o Seventy-three percent were “high” or “very high” quality; and 

o Sixty-eight percent were “high” or “very high” relevance/usefulness. 

The study also examined the costs of various products and services provided by the centers, 

where possible. The largest number of products and services identified were presentations and 

webinars (47 percent of all identified). Only 10 of 12 centers were able to provide individualized 

costs for products and services, and they reported them for 51 percent of the total produced by 

 

1

See http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20144007
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-76

all 12 centers. The largest share of costs reported by the centers was for 69 conferences, 

institutes, or workshops, totaling 48 percent of the identified costs. These included centerproduced events for the purposes of training recipients, providing general TA, or disseminating 

information to targeted recipients.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-77

National activities: Parent information centers

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 3, Sections 671-673)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$27,411 $27,411 0

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2020 

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Parent Information Centers program is one of the primary vehicles under the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for providing information and training to parents of 

children with disabilities. The program supports competitive awards to help ensure that:

 children with disabilities and their parents receive training and information designed to assist 

these children in meeting developmental and functional goals and challenging academic 

achievement goals, and in being prepared to lead productive independent adult lives;

 children with disabilities and their parents receive training and information on their rights, 

responsibilities, and protections under IDEA, in order to develop the skills necessary to 

participate effectively in planning and decision-making relating to early intervention, 

educational, and transitional services; and

 parents receive coordinated and accessible technical assistance and information to assist 

them in improving early intervention, educational, and transitional services and results for 

their children and families.

The IDEA authorizes three types of competitive projects: parent training and information 

centers, community parent resource centers, and technical assistance for parent centers. The 

award period for these projects is typically 5 years.

Parent training and information centers must serve parents of children of all ages (birth to 26) 

and all types of disabilities. Awards are made only to parent organizations as defined by IDEA. 

The training and information provided by the centers must meet the needs of parents of children 

with disabilities living in areas served by the centers, particularly underserved parents and 

parents of children who may be inappropriately identified. At least one award for a parent 

training and information center must be made in each State, subject to the receipt of acceptable 

applications. Large and heavily populated States typically have multiple centers that serve 

designated counties.

The centers also play an important role in dispute resolution by sharing information on the 

benefits of alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation, which States are 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-78

required to make available under IDEA and which can help avoid costly litigation. Parent center 

staff attend or facilitate more than 1,700 alternative dispute resolution sessions every year. As 

part of that role, parent centers are required to meet with parents to explain the IDEA-mandated 

mediation process. In States where parent centers provide this service, they typically do so 

through contracts with State educational agencies.

The Department allocates funds to parent centers through a formula based on three weighted 

indicators of need: State population of ages 0 to 26 (85 percent), child poverty (10 percent), and 

rural school enrollment (5 percent), with most centers receiving a minimum of $200,000. No 

center will receive a reduction of more than 20 percent below the amount of their fiscal year 

2014 grant. When the appropriation for the program increases, this formula ensures that centers 

in States with the greatest need and the lowest per capita funding receive more funds.

Community parent resource centers are parent training and information centers in smaller 

geographically defined areas. They are operated by local parent organizations that help ensure 

underserved parents of children with disabilities, including low-income parents, parents of 

children who are English learners, and parents with disabilities, have the training and 

information they need to enable them to participate effectively in helping their children. 

Community parent resource centers are required to establish cooperative partnerships with the 

parent training and information centers in their States.

Parent technical assistance centers are authorized to assist parent training and information 

centers and community parent resource centers in areas such as coordinating parent training 

efforts, disseminating evidence-based research and information, and ensuring the effective use 

of technology. These technical assistance services enhance the capacity of parent centers to 

serve parents effectively. The parent technical assistance center network maintains a website 

with a wide variety of information and materials for parents and professionals, as well as a 

directory of the parent centers.

1

 Two technical assistance centers provide assistance to parent 

information centers so that they can better meet the needs of military families and Native 

American families respectively.

An applicant for a parent center grant must be a parent organization that has a board of 

directors, the majority of which must consist of parents of children with disabilities under the age 

of 26. The board must also include individuals with disabilities and individuals working in the 

fields of special education, related services, or early intervention. The parent and professional 

members of the board must be broadly representative of the population to be served, including 

low-income parents and parents of English learners.

In addition to providing direct resources for parents and families, parent centers also act as 

referral points to other resources such as those available under the Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination program, which coordinates its activities with Parent Information Centers to 

ensure that parents participating in parent training projects, as well as other parents, have 

access to valid information that is designed to address their needs.

 

1

See http://www.parentcenterhub.org/
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-79

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015.................................................................................... $27,411

2016...................................................................................... 27,411

2017...................................................................................... 27,411

2018...................................................................................... 27,411

2019...................................................................................... 27,411

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests $27.4 million for the Parent Information 

Centers program, the same as the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. This request would support 

awards for a total of 98 Centers, including 64 Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs), 

29 continuing Community Parent Resource Centers (CPRCs), and 5 continuing Technical 

Assistance Centers. 

Together, the PTIs, CPRCs, and Technical Assistance Centers provide training and information 

to more than one million parents and professionals each year. Family involvement in children’s 

learning is critical to ensuring the provision of high quality education and related services that 

promote positive educational and life outcomes. Decades of research show that positive schoolfamily partnerships can effectively involve families in their children’s learning and improve 

student achievement.

1 Studies show that all families can take concrete steps that significantly 

help their children succeed in school, regardless of their income, education, disability status, or 

knowledge of the English language.2

The training and information provided by the PTIs help ensure that parents and families have 

the knowledge and skills to help their children with disabilities succeed. In addition to helping 

parents and families to better understand the nature of their children’s disabilities and their 

educational and developmental needs, the centers provide training and information on how 

parents and families can work with professionals serving their children. For parents of schoolaged children, this includes participating with administrators and teachers in the development of 

their child’s individualized education programs, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). For parents of infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services, 

this means participating with a multidisciplinary team in the development of individualized family 

service plans. 

Parent centers use a variety of mechanisms to share information with parents and families, and 

professionals, including websites, one-on-one support, telephone call-in numbers, training 

workshops, and dissemination of written materials. In recent years, the Department’s Office of 

 

1 Henderson, A.T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family and community 

connections on student learning. Austin, TX: Southwest Education Development Laboratory

(https://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf).

2

See Lisa Boonk, Hieronymus J.M. Gijselaers, Henk Ritzen, Saskia Brand-Gruwel (2018). A review of the 

relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement. Educational Research Review 24, 

10–30 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X18301027); S. Wilder (2014). Effects of parental 

involvement on academic achievement: a meta-synthesis. Educational Review 66:3, 377-397

(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131911.2013.780009?src=recsys).
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-80

Special Education Programs has worked with the Parent Centers to improve their websites and 

make their resources available in languages other than English, particularly Spanish.

1

 

According to data collected by the parent centers, families receiving services report a high 

degree of satisfaction with the services they receive and an increase in their capacity to 

effectively support their children.

The Department is considering extending by one year the 24 PTIs that are scheduled to be 

competed in fiscal year 2019 so that all 64 of the PTI awards can be consolidated into a single 

competition in fiscal year 2020. This consolidation would reduce the Department’s 

administrative burden and allow the Department to align the PTI competition with the 

Rehabilitation Services Parent Information and Training competition. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018

20

17 

fo

ot

no

tes 2019

2

0

1

8 

fo

ot

n

ot

e

s 2020

Program Funding:

Parent Training & Information 

Centers:

New: Parent Training & Info Centers 0 $7,464 2$13,912 1

Continuations : Parent Trai ning & Info C enters $21,210 313,416 7,464

Subtotal: Par ent Trai ning & Info C enters 21,210 20,880 21,376

Community Parent Resource 

Centers:

New: Community Parent Resource Centers 0 0 0

Continuations: Communi ty Par ent R esource C enters 2,900 2,900 2,900

Subtotal: Community Parent Resource Centers 2,900 2,900 2,900

Technical Assistance Centers:

New 2,800 0 0

Continuations: Technical Assistance 0 2,852 42,748

Subtotal: Technical Assistance 2,800 2,852 2,748

Total Program Funding:

New: Total 2,800 7,464 13,912

Continuations: Total 24,110 19,168 13,112

Other (contracts, 

supplements): 477 733 327

Peer Review of new award 

applications 24 46 60

 

1

For examples, see http://parentcenterhub.org/osep-spanish-glossary/ and 

http://www.parentcenterhub.org/resourcelibrary/

2

The Department is considering extending by one year the 24 PTIs that are scheduled to be competed in fiscal year 

2019. If the awards are extended, $20,880 thousand will be used to fund continuation awards in fiscal year 2019 and 

$21,376 thousand will be used to fund new awards in fiscal year 2020.

3

Includes $501 thousand in fiscal year 2018 funds used to pay fiscal year 2019 continuation costs.

4

Includes $52 thousand in fiscal year 2019 funds used to pay fiscal year 2020 continuation costs.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-81

Total 27,411 27,411 27,411

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Number of Projects:

Parent Training & Information 

Centers:

New: Parent Training & Info Centers 0 24 140 1

Continuations: Parent Training & Info 64 40 24

Community Parent Resource 

Centers:

New: Community Parent Resource Centers 0 0 0

Continuations: Community Parent Resource Centers 29 29 29

Technical Assistance Centers:

New 5 0 0

Continuations: Technical 

Assistance

0 5 5

Total number of projects:

New: Total 5 24 40

Continuations: Total 93 74 58

Total 98 98 98

 

1

The Department is considering extending by one year the 24 PTIs that are scheduled to be competed in fiscal year 

2019. If the awards are extended, there will be 64 continuation awards in fiscal year 2019 and 64 new awards in fiscal 

year 2020.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 

year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: To provide training and information to parents of children with disabilities.

Objective 1: Improve the quality of parent training and information projects.

Objective 2: Parents served by Special Education Parent Information Centers will be 

knowledgeable about their IDEA rights and responsibilities.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-82

Objective 3: Parents served by Special Education Parent Information Centers will be able to 

advocate for scientifically or evidence-based practices for their child.

Six performance measures have been developed for the Parent Information Centers program. 

There are three annual measures, two long-term measures, and one efficiency measure.

Annual Performance Measures

The three annual measures deal with the quality, relevance, and usefulness of products and 

services provided by the program. These measures were developed as part of a crossdepartmental effort to make measures relating to technical assistance and dissemination 

activities more consistent Department-wide. However, the measures were adapted to reflect the 

unique purposes of the Parent Information Centers program. Targets for 2012 through 2020

were established based on performance data from 2007 to 2017. The measures are:

Measure: The percentage of materials disseminated by Parent Training and Information Center 

Program projects deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts 

qualified to review the substantive content of the products or services.

Year Target Actual

2015 97% 93%

2016 97 93

2017 93 100

2018 93 86

2019 93

2020 93

Additional Information: Data are collected and analyzed by a contractor, using expert panels 

of reviewers who assess grant implementation by reviewing a randomly selected sample of 

materials disseminated by centers for the purpose of training and informing parents.

Measure: The percentage of Parent Training and Information Center Program products and 

services deemed to be of high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or practice 

by an independent review panel of qualified experts with appropriate expertise to review the 

substantive content of the products or services.

Year Target Actual

2015 97% 90%

2016 97 93

2017 93 100

2018 93 97

2019 93

2020 93

Additional Information: As with the performance measure above, data are collected and 

analyzed by a contractor, using panels of special education parent stakeholders to review a 

randomly selected sample of materials disseminated by centers for the purpose of training and 

informing parents.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-83

Measure: The percentage of all Parent Training and Information Center Program products and 

services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be useful to improve 

educational or early intervention policy or practice.

Year Target Actual

2015 97% 93%

2016 97 93

2017 93 100

2018 93 93

2019 93

2020 93

Additional Information: Data are collected and analyzed by a contractor, using panels of 

special education parent stakeholders to review a randomly selected sample of materials.

Long-Term Performance Measures

Two new long-term measures have been developed for the program. Data are collected every 

2 years through an Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)-supported survey of parents 

who received services from the parent centers. Baseline data were collected in fiscal year 2017.

Measure: The percentage of parents receiving Special Education Parent Information Centers 

services who report having enhanced capacity to work with schools and service providers 

effectively in meeting the needs of their children.

Year Target Actual

2017 90%

2019 TBD

Additional Information: Data for the measure are collected by the parent centers every two 

years by mail, on-line survey, or telephone interview from 1 percent of the parents served by 

each center. Baseline data for this measure were collected in 2017. Targets will be established 

in late 2019.

Measure: The percentage of parents receiving Special Education Parent Information Centers 

services who report enhanced knowledge of IDEA rights and responsibilities.

Year Target Actual

2017 94%

2019 TBD

Additional Information: Data for the measure are collected by the parent centers every two 

years by mail, on-line survey, or telephone interview from 1 percent of the parents served by 

each center. Baseline data for this measure were collected in 2017. Targets will be established 

in late 2019.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-84

Efficiency Measure

Measure: An index of the Federal cost per unit of output provided by the Special Education 

Parent Training and Information Centers.

Year Target Actual

2015 1.1 1.6

2016 1.1 0.8

2017 1.1 0.8

2018 1.1 0.5

2019 1.1

2020 1.1

Additional Information: The efficiency measure for the PTIs program is “the index of federal 

cost per unit of output.” The calculation of the Federal index of cost per unit of technical 

assistance is the total Federal cost of PTI grant funding for a given fiscal year divided by the 

sum of the numbers of parents and professionals receiving technical assistance during that 

fiscal year. The Department notes that it is difficult to attribute increases or decreases under this 

measure to the Federal share of funds due to the variability in other sources of funding. The 

result is expressed as an index of cost rather than a cost in dollars.

For fiscal year 2018, the index of .52 was arrived at by dividing the total funding ($27,411,000) 

by the total number of services provided to parents, youth and professionals (52,613,850). Of 

this count, 98 percent were attributable to website hits (9,382,247), social media hits 

(31,711,822) and newsletter dissemination (10,609,580). The remaining 2 percent were 

attributable to direct assistance through letters, telephone calls and email exchanges (573,986); 

participation in trainings (326,626), and extended assistance through attendance or participation 

in IEP meetings, mediation sessions, and resolution sessions (9,589).

Due to the overwhelming proportion of outputs attributable to website hits, social media hits, and 

newsletter dissemination compared to the number of parents and professionals otherwise

served by grantees, the Department is considering revising this measure or including an 

additional measure to provide a more descriptive representation of the cost per output. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-85

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 3, Section 674)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$28,047 $28,047 0

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2020

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program is the primary source of support for 

accessible technology and media-related activities under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). The program supports two broad categories of activities – accessible 

technology and educational media and materials. 

Technology activities are generally designed to promote the development, demonstration, and 

use of accessible technology. The technology component of the program also supports 

research on using technology to improve outcomes for students with disabilities, and technical 

assistance and dissemination activities to enhance the use of technology by students, parents, 

and teachers. Media and materials activities focus on closed captioning, video description, 

timely provision of books and other educational materials in accessible formats, and other 

activities to improve access to education for students with disabilities.

The 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 expanded the range of 

media that must be closed captioned and updated accessibility standards to include emerging 

Internet and mobile technologies. However, significant gaps in captioning coverage remain. 

The Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program helps ensure educational media 

that are not otherwise required to be made accessible are available to students with disabilities. 

For example, mandatory captioning only applies to broadcast television, not to video broadcast 

solely over the Internet or video produced for classroom viewing. Funding for this program helps 

to fill these critical gaps in the accessibility of learning content and materials by supporting the 

captioning and nationwide distribution of thousands of titles of educational media each year.

Video description is used to make video and other media with visual content accessible for 

people who are blind or visually impaired. Audio-narrated descriptions of key visual elements in 

a video or television program are inserted into natural pauses in the spoken dialogue, 

supplementing the regular audio track of the program by providing additional context. Federal 

law requires television broadcast stations affiliated with the top four commercial broadcasting 

corporations (ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC) and licensed to the top 60 Designated Market Areas 

(i.e., unique, county-based geographic areas designated by The Nielsen Company, a television 

audience measurement service based on television viewership) and the five most watched nonbroadcast networks to provide 50 hours of video description per calendar quarter. The video 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-86

description must be of prime time or children's television programming. All other video 

programming, including educational materials intended for use in the classroom and 

increasingly popular Internet media, are not subject to description requirements. The funds 

available through this program play a critical role in filling these gaps. The IDEA requires that 

description and captioning funds be used only for programs that are suitable for use in 

classroom settings, and program funds may not be used to describe or caption news programs, 

even when they are suitable for use in classrooms. 

Educational materials activities include the preparation of electronic files suitable for efficient 

conversion into specialized accessible formats. The educational materials provided by this 

program are intended to support students’ access to the general curriculum and participation in 

statewide assessments. The single largest grant in this program provides funding for the 

production and distribution of textbooks and other educational materials in accessible formats to 

students with visual impairments and other print disabilities. Due to recent advances in digital 

technologies, these activities can be accomplished more efficiently than ever before. 

The Department makes competitive awards for projects throughout the fiscal year. The duration 

of awards typically varies from 3 to 5 years. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015...................................................................................... 28,047

2016...................................................................................... 30,047

2017...................................................................................... 28,047

2018...................................................................................... 28,047

2019...................................................................................... 28,047

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests $28.0 million for the Educational Technology, 

Media, and Materials program, the same as the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. This request 

would provide approximately $4.8 million for 9 new awards and approximately $22.7 million for 

20 continuation projects. The remaining funding would support program evaluation and peer 

review activities. 

Projects funded under the program support improved access to and participation in the general 

education curriculum, developmentally appropriate activities for preschool children, and 

statewide assessments. By supporting research on and dissemination of accessible 

instructional materials and technology, this program helps ensure students with disabilities 

receive a free appropriate public education, consistent with the requirements of the IDEA. The

program also funds innovations in accessible technologies and broadens the understanding of 

how technology can be used effectively to increase academic achievement. The Department

believes increased access and participation results in higher expectations and improved 

outcomes for children with disabilities. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-87

Educational Technology

The request includes $12.0 million for Technology activities, which promote the development, 

demonstration, and use of accessible technology. In fiscal year 2020, at least $1.6 million will 

support three new Stepping Up Technology Implementation awards, and $7.1 million will 

support nine continuing Stepping Up projects. These model demonstration grants validate and 

scale up promising technology-based products or interventions, such as curriculum materials, 

accessible products, and instructional methodologies. The remaining $3.1 million would be 

used for continuation awards in the areas of technical assistance and dissemination and 

projects for individuals with deafness.

Educational Media and Materials

Media and materials investments include a variety of activities designed to provide educational 

content, such as textbooks, in accessible formats for individuals with disabilities, particularly 

deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals and blind or other visually impaired individuals. In fiscal year 

2020, $15.6 million would be allocated to these activities. 

The request for educational media and materials includes approximately $2 million to support 

new awards for projects to provide access—through video description and captioning—to 

television programs appropriate for use in classroom settings and not otherwise required to be 

captioned by the Federal Communications Commission. These projects fill in the gaps for an 

increasingly large amount of content that is not currently covered under Federal accessibility 

policies, and help ensure that as much educational programming as possible is accessible to 

students with visual or hearing impairments. An additional $1.2 million would be used to support 

a center dedicated to conducting a comprehensive review of industry accessibility standards, 

ensuring that new and emerging technologies are fully accessible to students with disabilities. 

Additionally, the IDEA requires the Administration to support the National Instructional Materials 

Access Center (NIMAC), which is awarded noncompetitively to the American Printing House for 

the Blind. The NIMAC1is a national electronic file repository that makes electronic files that 

comply with the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS) available for the 

production of print instructional materials in specialized formats. NIMAC receives source files 

from textbook publishers and provides these files to State and local educational agencies for 

use in producing materials in accessible media, such as braille, audio, and digital text. The 

request includes $650,000 for a continuation award for this project in fiscal year 2020.

 

1

See http://www.nimac.us/
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-88

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 Footnote 2019 Footnote 2020footnote

Program Funding:

Technology:

Technolog y: Research:

Newtechnol ogy research $1,499 $1,800 $1,617

Continuations technol ogy research 6,949 7,554 7,191

Subtotal technolog y: research 8,448 9,354 8,808

Technolog yTechnical assistance and dissemination:

Newtechnolog y: technical assistance and dissemi nation 2,149 0 0

Continuationstechnolog y: technical assistance and dissemi nation 0 2,149 2,149

Subtotal technolog y: technical assistance and dissemi nation 2,149 2,149 2,149

Technolog yProjects to address the postsecondary, 

vocational, technical, and adult 

education needs of individuals with 

deafness:

NewTechnolog y: Pr ojects to addr ess the postsecondar y, vocational, technical, and adult educati on needs of i ndi vi duals wi th deafness: 0 0 0

Continuations Technolog y: Pr ojects to addr ess the postsecondar y, vocati onal, technical , and adult educati on needs of i ndi vi duals wi th deafness: 1,000 1,000 1,000

Subtotal Technolog y: Pr ojects to addr ess the postsecondar y, vocational, technical, and adult educati on needs of indi vi duals with deafness: 1,000 1,000 1,000

Subtotal, Technology:

New program funding subtotal , technolog y 3,648 1,800 1,617

Continuations program funding subtotal , technolog y 7,949 10,703 10,340

Subtotal program fundi ng subtotal, technolog y 11,297 12,503 11,957

Media and Materials:

Medi a and materials Captioned and described accessible 

media:

New media and materials: captioned & described accessibl e medi a 0 0 2,000

Continuations medi a and materials: captioned & described accessi ble media 4,500 3,494 1,998

Subtotal media and materials: captioned & described accessibl e medi a 4,500 3,494 3,998

Medi a and materials: Books and other instructional materials 

in accessible formats:

New medi a and materials: books and other instructi onal materials in accessi ble formats 0 1,200 1,200

Continuations medi a and materials: books and other instructional materials in accessibl e formats 10,795 9,700 9,700

Subtotal media and materials: books and other i nstr ucti onal materials i n accessibl e for mats 10,795 10,900 10,900

Medi a and materials: National Instructional Materials Access 

Center (NIMAC) – Statutory earmark:

New Medi a and materials: National Instructional Materials Access C enter (NIM AC) – Statutor y ear mar k 0 0 0

Continuations Media and materials: nati onal i nstr ucti onal materials access center statutor y ear mar k 650 650 650

Subtotal Media and materials: nati onal i nstructional materi als access center statutor y ear mar k 650 650 650
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-89

Output Measures 2018 Footnote 2019 Footnote 2020footnote

Subtotal, Media and Materials:

New program funding subtotal, Media and materials 0 $1,200 $3,200

Continuations program funding subtotal, Media and materials $15,946 13,844 12,350

Subtotal program funding subtotal, Media and materials 15,946 15,044 15,550

Other (e.g. program evaluation contracts):

New other 0 221 0

Continuations other 448 230 448

Subtotal, Other, other 448 451 448

Peer review of new award applications: 56 50 92

Total Program Funding:

New total program funding 3,648 3,221 4,817

Continuations total program funding 24,343 24,777 23,138

Peer review 56 49 92

Total program funding 28,047 28,047 28,047

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Annual Performance Measures

The three annual measures deal with the relevance, quality, and usefulness of products and 

services provided by the program.

For each of the three annual performance measures that follow, a contractor collects and 

analyzes data based on input from two panels of subject matter experts. Panels review a 

sample of products and services developed by grantees against a listing of evidence-based 

practices in key target areas the Department has identified as critical. The sample of grantees 

included in this measure for each year consists of projects from across all areas of this program. 

Products and services are divided into the categories of policy and practice.

Panels of experts review and score all products and services based on an OSEP-designed 

rubric that is specific to each performance measure, rating the products and services on the 

extent to which they meet the measure’s performance indicators. 

In assessing the performance under each measure, panels of six to eight experts reviewed a 

sample of products and services from the program’s projects.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-90

Goal: To promote the development, demonstration, and use of accessible technology 

and media services to improve results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with 

disabilities.

Objective: Improve the quality of products produced by projects in the Special Education 

Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program. 

Measure: The percentage of Educational Technology, Media, and Materials projects judged to 

be of high relevance to improving outcomes of infants, toddlers, children and youth with 

disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2015 94% 91%

2016 94 100

2017 94 100

2018 94

2019 90

2020 90

Measure: The percentage of Educational Technology, Media, and Materials projects judged to 

be of high quality.

Year Target Actual

2015 94% 86%

2016 94 100

2017 94 79

2018 94

2019 90

2020 90

Additional Information: The percentage of products judged to be of high quality decreased 

significantly in fiscal year 2017. Of the 14 products reviewed in the sample, only 11 were 

reported to be of high quality. The Department is currently reviewing performance under this 

measure to determine potential causes for the poor results and is working directly with grantees 

whose products were deemed not to be of high quality. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-91

Measure: The percentage of Special Education Educational Technology, Media, and Materials 

projects and services judged by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be useful in 

improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2015 94% 96%

2016 94 100

2017 94 93

2018 94

2019 90

2020 90

Additional information: In fiscal year 2017, 13 of 14 products and services reviewed were 

found to be highly useful. 

Long-Term Performance Measures

The following two long-term measures have been developed for the program to provide 

information about the potential impacts of the projects’ products and services on the target 

population. Data are reported every two years for these measures because evidence about 

outcomes of the target population may take more than 1 year to collect, report, and analyze. 

Objective: Investments in the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program will 

develop and validate current and emerging technologies that incorporate scientifically or 

evidence-based materials and services.

Measure: The percentage of Special Education Educational Technology, Media, and Materials 

projects that validate their products and services.

Year Target Actual

2012 70% 70%

2014 72 100

2016 72 75

2018 75

2020 75

Additional information: This measure only includes projects that have entered the 

dissemination phase of their grants or completed the final year of their grants and submitted a 

final report. Three of the four projects that were rated in the 2016 data collection submitted 

acceptable evidence of validity.

Objective: Investments in the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program will make 

available for widespread use validated, evidence-based technologies to improve results for 

infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-92

Measure: The percentage of Special Education Educational Technology, Media, and Materials 

projects that make validated technology products and services available for widespread use. 

Year Target Actual

2013 95% 50%

2015 95 100

2017 95

2019 95

Additional information: Due to the small number of projects (4 in 2013 and 3 in 2015) that are 

subject to this measure, minor changes in the number of projects that submit acceptable 

evidence can cause large drops in the reported percentages; consequently, the Administration 

plans to reconsider this measure or develop more appropriate targets for 2019 reporting.

Efficiency Measures

The Administration established two efficiency measures for the Educational Technology, Media, 

and Materials program. The two measures provide data on accessible book distribution and on 

video captioning and description projects, respectively. The Administration recently eliminated a 

measure on the efficiency of research projects due to concerns about the transparency and 

validity of the measure’s calculation methodology.

Measure: The Federal cost per download from the accessible educational materials production 

and distribution project funded by the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program. 

Year Target Actual

2015 $5.0 $4.1

2016 5.0 5.4

2017 5.0 4.9

2018 4.0

2019 4.0

Additional Information: In fiscal year 2017, there were 1,696,251 accessible materials product 

downloads while the total funding for the grantee (Bookshare, Inc.) was $8,394,862, for an 

average of $4.95 per download.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-93

Measure: The Federal cost per hour of video description funded by the Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials program.

Year Target Actual

2015 $1,669 $2,335

2016 1,669 2,151

2017 2,000 2,306

2018 2,000

2019 2,000

2020 2,000

Additional information: The cost of an hour of media description increased in fiscal year 2017, 

but is still below the average cost in fiscal year 2015 and prior years.
H-94

Special Olympics education programs

(Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004, Section 3(a))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$17,583 0 -$17,583

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004 authorizes the Department of 

Education to make discretionary grant awards to the Special Olympics to support activities in a 

number of areas related to the Special Olympics. The Department of Education is authorized to 

make awards for:

1. Activities to promote the expansion of Special Olympics, including activities to increase 

the participation of individuals with intellectual disabilities within the United States; and

2. The design and implementation of Special Olympics education programs, including 

character education and volunteer programs that support the purposes of the Special 

Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004, that can be integrated into classroom 

instruction and are consistent with academic content standards.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015................................................................................... .... 7,583

2016................................................................................. .... 10,083

2017................................................................................. .... 12,583

2018................................................................................. .... 15,083

2019................................................................................. .... 17,583

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

Consistent with the fiscal year 2018 and 2019 budget requests, the fiscal year 2020 request 

does not include funds for the Special Olympics education programs because they are more 

appropriately supported with State, local, or private funds. The elimination of funding for this 

program will also allow the Department to provide strong support for State formula grant 

programs—including Special Education Grants to States—while maintaining the fiscal discipline 

required to meet the President’s deficit reduction goals.

Special Olympics is a well-established nonprofit organization with a broad network of program 

volunteers and supporters. The organization provides worthwhile activities such as the Special 

Olympics National Youth Activation Demonstration (Unified Champion Schools, previously 

referred to as Project UNIFY), a national youth sports demonstration and education program. 

While the Administration strongly supports the mission of Special Olympics, it does not believe 
H-95

Federal funding is necessary for the successful operation of these programs, particularly since 

the organization reported approximately $113.4 million in revenue from its individual and 

corporate donors in fiscal year 2017.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Unified Champion Schools

Project UN IFY :Number of funded State programs 49 49 0

Project UN IFY :Number of schools participating 6,493 7,000 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Targets for 2020 are not included because 

funding for this program is proposed for elimination.

Goal: To increase the inclusion and awareness of students with intellectual disabilities.

Objective: The Special Olympics will improve awareness about students with intellectual 

disabilities.

Measure: The percent of school liaisons who report that Unified Champion Schools helps raise 

awareness about students with intellectual disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2015 67% 68%

2016 67 71

2017 67 72

2018 70 76

2019 70

Additional information: Data are collected by external evaluators who survey school liaisons 

at the end of each program year. School liaisons are volunteers, typically teachers, who 

administer Special Olympics programming at the school level. Special Olympics includes those 

survey responses that indicate the program “made a big difference” (scores of 4 or 5 on the 

survey’s Likert scale) in the numerator used to calculate the actual performance. 
H-96

Measure: The percent of school liaisons who report that Unified Champion Schools increases 

opportunities for students with intellectual disabilities to be involved in school activities.

Year Target Actual

2015 61% 65%

2016 61 65

2017 61 67

2018 61 76

2019 61

Additional information: Data are collected by external evaluators who survey school liaisons 

at the end of each program year. School liaisons are volunteers, typically teachers, who 

administer Special Olympics programming at the school level. Special Olympics includes those 

survey responses that indicate the program “made a big difference” (scores of 4 or 5 on the 

survey’s Likert scale) in the numerator used to calculate actual performance data. 

Objective: The Special Olympics will increase opportunities for K-12 students with intellectual 

disabilities to participate in inclusive school activities.

Measure: The number of schools participating in Unified Champion Schools.

Year Target Actual

2015 2,500 3,686

2016 4,000 4,451

2017 4,500 5,453

2018 5,000 6,493

2019 6,800

Measure: The number of schools participating in a Unified Champion Schools High Activation 

Program.

Year Target Actual

2015 1,150 1,685

2016 1,725 3,005

2017 1,765 3,748

2018 3,500 4,998

2019 4,500

Additional information: Increased funding has allowed Special Olympics to rapidly increase 

the number of participating schools in recent years. High Activation schools feature a higher 

intensity and variety of activities, and, therefore, are likely to have a larger impact on 

participating students. Building Bridges schools offer fewer activities and generally include 

schools that are new to the program.
H-97

Efficiency Measures

Objective: The Special Olympics will develop efficient programs at the national, State, and 

school level.

Measure: The average total Federal cost per school.

Year Target Actual

2015 $3,033 $2,057

2016 3,033 1,703

2017 3,033 1,849

2018 2,500 1,938

2019 2,500

Measure: The percent of Federal funds spent on administration.

Year Target Actual

2015 20% 22%

2016 20 20

2017 20 19

2018 20

2019 20

Additional information: These two measures provide basic information on the efficiency of the 

program. The program exceeded the targets for Federal cost per school in 2015-2018, and 

exceeded the target for the percent of Federal funds spent on administration in 2017, showing 

an increase in program efficiency. Data for the percent of Federal funds spent on administration 

in 2018 will be available in March 2019.

Other Performance Information

In 2014, external evaluators from the University of Massachusetts conducted a formative 

evaluation of Project UNIFY (now referred to as Unified Champion Schools). Data from surveys 

of school liaisons in 1,509 schools indicate that Project UNIFY did not demonstrate causal 

impact on the attitudes and behaviors of participating students toward individuals with 

intellectual disabilities. The evaluators commented that the effect of Project UNIFY may be 

limited by the self-selection into the program by students who already have positive attitudes 

and behaviors. It is difficult to avoid this self-selection effect because participation in Special 

Olympics activities is voluntary and non-random. The project’s impact on academic outcomes 

was not measured, because improving academic achievement is not the primary goal of this 

program.

The formative evaluation also found that the majority of school staff involved with the project 

believe that Project UNIFY helped raise awareness about students with intellectual disabilities, 

increased interaction between students with and without intellectual disabilities, and increased 

the confidence of students with intellectual disabilities.