Department of Education

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request 

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers ...........................................................................H-10

Summary of Changes ...........................................................................................................H-11

Authorizing Legislation..........................................................................................................H-12

Appropriations History...........................................................................................................H-13

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................H-15

Activities:

State grants:

Grants to States ...........................................................................................................H-18

Preschool grants ..........................................................................................................H-42

Grants for infants and families......................................................................................H-54

National activities:

State personnel development.......................................................................................H-65

Technical assistance and dissemination.......................................................................H-74

Personnel preparation..................................................................................................H-87

Parent information centers ...........................................................................................H-99

Educational technology, media, and materials............................................................H-110

Special Olympics education programs............................................................................H-121

State Tables*

*State tables reflecting final 2015 allocations and 2016 and 2017 estimates are posted on the Department’s Web 

page at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Appropriation s L angu age

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

Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004, [$12,976,858,000] $13,066,858,000, of which 

[$3,456,259,000] $3,536,259,000 shall become available on July 1, [2016] 2017, and shall 

remain available through September 30, [2017] 2018, and of which $9,283,383,000 shall 

become available on October 1, [2016] 2017, and shall remain available through September 30, 

[2017] 2018, for academic year [2016–2017] 2017-2018:

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 [2015] 2016, 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 [2015] 2016:

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(d), 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 reduced under section 

H-1
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 level of effort a local educational 

agency must meet under section 613(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the IDEA, in the year after it fails to maintain 

effort is the level of effort that would have been required in the absence of that failure and not 

the LEA's reduced level of expenditures:]

11 Provided further, That the Secretary may use funds 

made available for the State Personnel Development Grants program under part D, subpart 1 of 

H-2
IDEA to evaluate program performance under such subpart:

12 Provided further, That 

notwithstanding section 613(f)(1) of the IDEA, local educational agencies may also use funds 

that they reserve under section 613(f) to develop and implement coordinated, early intervening 

services for children ages 3 through 5, who have not been identified as needing special 

education and related services but who need additional developmental, academic, and 

behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment or participate in appropriate 

activities: 13 Provided further, That, with respect to children receiving services under the 

preceding proviso, and who have not yet entered kindergarten, the Secretary may waive the 

requirements of section 613(f)(4) of the IDEA: 14 Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 

643 of the IDEA, the Secretary may reserve up to $15,000,000 of the funds appropriated under 

section 644 of the IDEA to support grants to partnerships of public and private entities for model 

demonstration projects to increase early screening, evaluation and assessments, early 

intervention services, and other services, for infants and toddlers with disabilities and at-risk 

infants and toddlers who may otherwise not qualify for services under Part C of the IDEA in their 

State: 15 Provided further, That the Secretary may use funds reserved under the preceding 

proviso to support technical assistance and evaluation activities related to carrying out and 

assessing the performance of those grants: 16 Provided further, That each entity that receives a 

grant under the second preceding proviso may make subgrants, contracts, or otherwise 

distribute those funds on a competitive, targeted, or formula basis to public, private, and nonprofit entities, including local educational agencies and early intervention service providers, to 

carry out activities authorized under that proviso.

17 (Department of Education Appropriations 

Act, 2016)

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.

H-3
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

...[$12,976,858,000] $13,066,858,000, of 

which [$3,456,259,000] $3,536,259,000 shall 

become available on July 1, [2016] 2017, and 

shall remain available through September 30, 

[2017] 2018, and of which $9,283,383,000 

shall become available on October 1, [2016] 

2017, and shall remain available through 

September 30, [2017] 2018, for academic 

year [2016–2017] 2017-2018:

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 be available in 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 [2015] 2016, 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 

[2015] 2016:

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 2016 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 2016 appropriation.

H-4
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

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(d), 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.

H-5
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

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.

H-6
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

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.

11 [Provided further, That the level of effort a 

local educational agency must meet under 

section 613(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the IDEA, in the 

year after it fails to maintain effort is the level 

of effort that would have been required in the 

absence of that failure and not the LEA's 

reduced level of expenditures:]

This language clarified that the level of effort 

a LEA must meet under maintenance of 

effort requirements in section 613 of the 

IDEA, in the year after it fails to maintain 

effort, is the level of effort that would have 

been required in the absence of that failure 

and not the LEA's reduced level of 

expenditures. This language is no longer 

necessary because the Department 

published final regulations on April 28, 2015 

(80 FR 23643), that include this requirement.

H-7
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

12 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:

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.

13Provided further, That notwithstanding 

section 613(f)(1) of the IDEA, local 

educational agencies may also use funds 

that they reserve under section 613(f) to 

develop and implement coordinated, early

intervening services for children ages 3 

through 5, who have not been identified as 

needing special education and related 

services but who need additional 

developmental, academic, and behavioral 

support to succeed in a general education 

environment or participate in appropriate 

activities:

This language authorizes local educational 

agencies to reserve funds provided under the 

Grants to States and Preschool Grants to 

State programs for coordinated early 

intervening services for children ages three 

through five. 

14 Provided further, That, with respect to 

children receiving services under the 

preceding proviso, and who have not yet 

entered kindergarten, the Secretary may 

waive the requirements of section 613(f)(4) of 

the IDEA:

This language would provide the Secretary 

the authority to waive the reporting 

requirement for children who have not yet 

entered kindergarten receiving services 

under the 12th proviso.

H-8
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

15 Provided further, That, notwithstanding 

section 643 of the IDEA, the Secretary may 

reserve up to $15,000,000 of the funds 

appropriated under section 644 of the IDEA 

to support grants to partnerships of public 

and private entities for model demonstration 

projects to increase early screening, 

evaluation and assessments, early 

intervention services, and other services, for 

infants and toddlers with disabilities and atrisk infants and toddlers who may otherwise 

not qualify for services under Part C of the 

IDEA in their State:

This language allows the Secretary to 

reserve up to $15,000,000 of the funds 

appropriated for the Grants for Infants and 

Families program to support model 

demonstration projects designed to increase 

early screening, identification, early 

intervention, and other services to infants 

and toddlers with disabilities and at-risk 

infants and toddlers who do not qualify for 

Part C services in their State.

16 Provided further, That the Secretary may 

use funds reserved under the preceding 

proviso to support technical assistance and 

evaluation activities related to carrying out 

and assessing the performance of those 

grants:

This language allows the Secretary to use a 

portion of the funds reserved under the 14th

proviso for technical assistance and 

evaluation activities to assess the 

performance of the model demonstrations. 

17 Provided further, That each entity that 

receives a grant under the second preceding 

proviso may make subgrants, contracts, or 

otherwise distribute those funds on a 

competitive, targeted, or formula basis to 

public, private, and non-profit entities, 

including local educational agencies and 

early intervention service providers, to carry 

out activities authorized under that proviso.

This language authorizes grantees receiving 

funds under the 14th proviso to subgrant and 

subcontract with public, private, and nonprofit entities, including local educational 

agencies and early intervention service 

providers.

H-9
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2015 2016 2017

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation........................................................... $12,522,358 $12,976,858 $13,066,858

Advance:

Advance for succeeding fiscal year........................ -9,283,383 -9,283,383 -9,283,383

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

Total, budget authority.................................... 12,522,358 12,976,858 13,066,858

H-10
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2015..................................................................................................... $12,976,858

2016..................................................................................................... 13,066,858

Net change .................................................................................. +90,000

Increases: 2016 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Program: Increase in funding for Preschool Grants to States (IDEA B619), which would provide an estimated average per pupil 

increase of $46 for children with disabilities ages 3 through 5. $368,238 +$35,000

Program: Increase in funding for Grants for Infants and Families (Part C), 

which would increase the average State award by 

approximately $565,000 and provide up to $15 million to make 

competitive grants to partnerships of public and private entities 

to support community-based model demonstration projects. 

These model demonstration projects would focus on expanding 

early screening, referral, and early intervention services to 

infants and toddlers eligible for Part C and those who are at-risk, 

but not eligible for Part C and their families. 458,556 +45,000

Program: Increase in funding for Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

(Part D) to support grants to substantially increase the 

Administration’s investment in model demonstration projects to 

build the evidence-base for promising practices in critical areas 

such as interventions for students with autism that require 

intensive services and support. 44,345 +10,000

Total, increases +90,000

H-11
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-12

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016

Estimate footnote

2017

Authorized footnote

2017

Request

footnote

State Grants:

State grantsGrants to States (IDEA-B-611) Indefinite1 $11,912,8482 Indefinite1 $11,912,8482

State grantsPreschool grants (IDEA-B-619) Indefinite 368,238 Indefinite 403,238

State grantsGrants for infants and families (IDEA-C) 03 458,556 03 503,556

National activities:

National acti viti es State personnel development (IDEA-D-1) 03 41,630 03 41,630

National acti viti es Technical assistance and dissemination (IDEA-D-2-663) 03 44,345 03 54,345

National acti viti es Personnel preparation (IDEA-D-2-662) 03 83,700 03 83,700

National acti viti es Parent information centers (IDEA-D-3-671-673) 03 27,411 03 27,411

National acti viti es Educational Technology, Media, and Materials (IDEA-D-3-674) 03 30,047 03 30,047

Special Olympics education programs (SOSEA 3(a)) 04 10,0835 04 10,083

Total definite authorization 0 0

Total annual appropriation 12,976,858 13,066,858

Portion of request subject to reauthorization 750,772

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

$32,140 thousand for fiscal year 2016 and $32,663 thousand for fiscal year 2017. 2 Includes $20,000 thousand for technical assistance on State data collection in fiscal year 2016 and $21,000 thousand in fiscal year 2017. 3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in fiscal year 2017 through appropriations language. 4 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2010; continued funding is proposed for this program in fiscal year 2017 through appropriations language. 5 Funds for Special Olympics Education programs were included in Technical Assistance and Dissemination in the Department of Education Appropriation 

Act, 2015, and the Department of Education Appropriation Act, 2016.

H-12
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowancefootnote

Senate 

Allowancefootnote Appropriation

2008 $11,485,147 $12,362,831 $12,330,374 $11,993,684

(2008 Advance for 2009) (6,215,200) (6,641,982) (5,924,200) (6,856,444)

2009 12,335,943 12,587,920 1 12,511,631 1 12,579,677

(2009 Advance for 2010) (7,647,444) (8,592,383) (7,647,444) (8,592,383)

Recovery Act Supplemental 

(P.L. 111-5)

0 13,600,000 13,500,000 12,200,000

2010 12,579,677 12,579,677 12,587,856 2 12,587,035

(2010 Advance for 2011) (8,592,383) (8,592,383) (8,592,383) (8,592,383)

2011 12,846,190 12,564,953 3 12,787,035 2 12,526,672

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

Rescission (P.L. 112-74) (-16,240)4

2012 12,861,351 13,757,844 5 12,553,066 6 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 6 12,770,709 7 11,982,364

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

2014 12,657,307 N/A7 12,803,387 2 12,497,300

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

2015 12,600,627 N/A7 12,555,044 8 12,522,358

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

2016 12,822,358 13,024,510 

9 12,636,817 9 12,976,858

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

2017 13,066,858

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

1 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2009 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 2 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 3 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 4

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

(P.L. 112-10). 5 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill, and the level for the Senate allowance reflects 

Committee action only. 

H-13
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Appropriations History—continued

6 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. 7 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 8 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only. 9 The levels for 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.

H-14
Summary of R equ est

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Click here for accessible version 

Amount Percent

Special Education 

1. State grants:

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

Annual appropriation D 2,214,465 2,629,465 2,629,465 0 0.00%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 9,283,383 9,283,383 9,283,383 0 0.00%

Subtotal 11,497,848 11,912,848 11,912,848 0 0.00%

(b) Preschool grants (IDEA B-619) D 353,238 368,238 403,238 35,000 9.50%

(c) Grants for infants and families (IDEA C) D 438,556 458,556 503,556 45,000 9.81%

Subtotal, State grants 12,289,642 12,739,642 12,819,642 80,000 0.63%

2. National activities (IDEA D):

(a) State personnel development (Subpart 1) D 41,630 41,630 41,630 0 0.00%

(b) Technical assistance and dissemination (section 663) 1 D 44,345 44,345 54,345 10,000 22.55%

(c) Personnel preparation (section 662) D 83,700 83,700 83,700 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 30,047 30,047 0 0.00%

Subtotal 225,133 227,133 237,133 10,000 4.40%

3. Special Olympics education programs (Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act) D 7,583 10,083 10,083 0 0.00%

Total, Appropriation D 12,522,358 12,976,858 13,066,858 90,000 0.69%

Total, Budget authority D 12,522,358 12,976,858 13,066,858 90,000 0.69%

Current 3,238,975 3,693,475 3,783,475 90,000 2.44%

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

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program; FY = fiscal year 

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 Excludes funds for Special Olympics Education programs in fiscal years 2015 and 2016; these funds are shown on a separate line.

2017 President's Budget

2016 Compared to 2016 Appropriation

Account, Program and Activity Appropriation

Category 

Code

2015 

Appropriation

2017 President's 

Budget

H-15

H-15
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

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 2017 Budget Request for Special Education of $13.1 billion is aimed at 

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

with disabilities. 

The Administration requests $11.9 billion for the Grants to States program, level with the fiscal 

year 2016 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 $1,777 for each of the 6.7 million children with disabilities 

who are estimated to be served in 2017. The Federal contribution toward meeting the excess 

cost of special education and related services would be approximately 16 percent of the national 

average per pupil expenditures under this request.

The request of $403.2 million for Preschool Grants is a $35 million increase over the fiscal 

year 2016 level and would provide support to States and schools for providing special education 

services to children ages 3 through 5. Under the statute, local educational agencies (LEAs) 

may reserve up to 15 percent of the funds they receive under Part B of the IDEA to provide 

coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) to children in grades kindergarten through twelve

to help children who may need additional academic or behavioral support. The Administration is 

requesting additional flexibility to allow LEAs to provide CEIS to children ages 3 through 5. In 

addition to expanding the age range of students eligible for CEIS, the Administration is also 

requesting a waiver of some reporting requirements for children 3 through 5 in order to reduce 

burden on LEAs who opt to exercise this flexibility. 

The request of $503.6 million for Grants for Infants and Families is an increase of $45 million

from the fiscal year 2016 level. The additional funding for the Grants for Infants and Families 

program would provide additional assistance to States to help them implement statewide 

systems of early intervention services for children from birth through age 2. This request would 

also allow the Department to reserve $15 million to make competitive grants to partnerships of 

public and private entities to support community-based model demonstration projects. These 

model demonstration projects would focus on expanding early screening, referral, and early 

intervention services to infants and toddlers eligible for Part C and those who are at-risk but not 

eligible for Part C, and their families.

The $237.1 million request for National Activities programs would support 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 

Technical Assistance and Dissemination program would be funded at $54.3 million, a 

$10 million increase over the fiscal year 2016 level. This increase would be used to support

grants to substantially increase the Administration’s investment in model demonstration projects 

to build the evidence-base for promising practices in critical areas such as interventions for 

students with autism that require intensive services and support. For the other National 

Activities programs, the Administration’s 2017 Request provides funding at the 2016 level. The 

Summary of Request—continued 

H-16
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Special Olympics Education Programs would also be funded at the same level as in fiscal 

year 2016 ($10.08 million). In fiscal year 2016, funds for this program were appropriated under 

the Technical Assistance and Dissemination program.

H-17
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Activities:

State grants:

State grants: Grants to States

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: Indefinite 1, 2

Budget Authority:

Budget Authority 2016 f

o

o

t

n

o

t

e

s

2017 f

o

o

t

n

o

t

e

s

Change

Annual appropriation $2,629,465 $2,629,465 0

Advance for succeeding fiscal year 9,283,383 9,283,383 0

Total 11,912,848 11,912,848 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 2017 would be $32,663 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 2017 would be $146,052 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, 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 that they are not required to 

serve children aged 3 through 5 or 18 through 21 years 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 in the funding formula 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 

H-18
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

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 

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 LEAs. However, a portion of 

the funds may be used for State-level activities. Any funds not set aside 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 2017, the latter amount is estimated to be approximately $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.

Starting in 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 

H-19
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

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 

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, including State and local contributions, 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 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 shall be set 

aside for the Department of the Interior. It is estimated that the maximum amount authorized for 

fiscal year 2017 would be approximately $146 million. 

This 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 year 2017, 

school districts will use both the forward- and advance-funded amounts primarily during the 

2017-2018 school year.

H-20
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

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

for an additional year. Hence, States and local educational agencies (LEAs) will have until 

September 30, 2019, to obligate their fiscal year 2017 awards.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012.............................................................................. $11,577,855

2013................................................................................ 10,974,866

2014................................................................................ 11,472,848

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

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

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $11.9 billion in fiscal year 2017 for Grants to States to assist in 

covering the excess costs associated with providing special education and related services to 

children with disabilities and improving the quality of those services. The request is the same as

the fiscal year 2016 level.

Prior to the enactment of the IDEA, as many as 1 million children with disabilities were excluded 

from educational services. To remedy that, the IDEA guarantees that any child identified as 

having a disability that is covered by the IDEA will have access to a free appropriate public 

education in the least restrictive environment. The Grants to States program is aimed at 

assisting States and districts to meet that mandate. 

The request would assist all States in implementing improvement efforts identified in their State 

Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIP) in addition to providing special education and related 

services for children with disabilities. States submit SSIPs to the Department to evaluate their 

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

steps to improve State support systems and local service delivery systems.

In addition, the request level would maintain the Federal contribution toward offsetting the cost 

of special education and related services for children with disabilities to approximately 

16 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure (APPE) based on the anticipated 

growth of APPE in fiscal year 2017. This request would provide an average of $1,777 per child. 

This average is based on the assumption that the number of children aged 3 through 21 who 

will be served will remain constant at the 2014-2015 school year level of 6.7 million. 

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

with disabilities served outpaced the growth in the general population ages 3 through 21. 

Between 2006 and 2014, however, that count has fluctuated slightly from year to year, and the 

Department believes the population of children with disabilities will not change substantially in 

the near term. In the absence of more certain information, the Department has projected the 

numbers of children with disabilities expected to be served for fiscal years 2015 through 2017 at 

6.7 million, the same level as reported by States for the 2014-2015 school year. 

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 involved in, and make 

H-21
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

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

children have access to grade-level academic content, meet the same rigorous standards that 

have been established for all children to help prepare them for college and a career, and are

prepared to lead productive, independent adult lives to the maximum extent possible.

Results Driven Accountability (RDA)

In 2012, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) began developing a new 

accountability system, RDA, designed to improve State performance by emphasizing student 

outcomes. RDA shifted the focus of the Department’s monitoring efforts from compliance to 

improved results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities under Parts B and C of 

the IDEA (e.g., early childhood outcomes, performance on assessments and graduation rates). 

The Department recognizes the importance of States’ compliance with the statutory 

requirements of the IDEA, and will continue to ensure that States meet those obligations, 

however, the Department believes that focusing our monitoring and technical assistance efforts 

on significant areas of need identified by States, such as academic performance, will have the 

greatest impact on improving results for children with disabilities receiving services under the 

program.

In developing RDA, the Department worked extensively with States and other stakeholders to 

develop fair, results-driven performance measures; however, because RDA’s success is 

dependent on State-level capacity to evaluate data and thoughtfully modify or refine support and 

service-delivery systems at the local level, some States need technical assistance in 

transitioning to this new framework. Therefore, the Administration is investing more than 

$21 million in fiscal year 2017 in continuation awards for technical assistance centers through 

the IDEA Technical Assistance and Dissemination and the Technical Assistance to Improve 

State Data Capacity programs that help States improve their data quality and assist with the

implementation of SSIPs.

As the Department continues to shift to an RDA framework, States, lead agencies, districts, and 

early childhood providers will need support on multiple fronts to identify, prioritize, and 

implement evidence-based practices to improve results for children with disabilities. The 

Administration, in turn, will continue to support States through targeted efforts by assisting in the 

identification and development of evidence-based practices as well as enhancing State systems 

of support. The Administration’s requested $10 million investment in new model demonstration

projects under the Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) program will help build the 

evidence base for promising practices to improve results for children with disabilities. The funds 

requested under the Grants to States program and the $10 million investments in the TA&D 

program would provide needed support to States and lead agencies. These investments will be 

used to enhance State-wide 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 local education agencies and early childhood providers 

have additional resources to provide high quality direct services to children with disabilities and 

their families. 

FY 2017 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 

H-22
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

under section 616(i) of the IDEA, and the allocation provided to the Bureau of Indian Education. 

However, the Administration is no longer requesting language for the Local Educational Agency 

(LEA) MOE requirement.

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 

IDEA directs the Department to reduce that State’s award under the Special Education Grants 

to States program. In 2012, the Department reduced Kansas’ award under this provision and 

has denied the waiver requests of South Carolina and New Mexico. Under IDEA, the 

Department does not have authority to redistribute or otherwise spend any funds made 

available as a result of such a reduction. 

As in previous years, the Administration proposes appropriations language that would (1) allow 

the Department to redistribute reductions to other States and (2) mitigate the ongoing impact of 

a reduction on a State’s future year awards. Without the language, any funds reduced from a 

State’s award would revert to Treasury at the end of the period of availability. The proposed 

language 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. Additionally, because of the way 

that the formula for determining State allocations operates, a State’s award in any year 

depends, in part, on the amount the State received in the prior year. Without this additional 

language, a reduction in a State’s award taken in any 1 year could have long-lasting impacts on 

that State’s award, depending on the growth in the Grants to States appropriation and the size 

of the reduction in the individual State’s award.

As in fiscal year 2016, the Administration also proposes appropriations language that would 

provide additional flexibility in enforcing MOE requirements while protecting the services 

provided to students with disabilities supported with Federal funds. Specifically, the proposed 

language would allow the Department, for a State’s failure to meet MOE in any fiscal year, to: 

(1) spread out the reductions in awards due to a State’s failure to meet MOE over a maximum of 

5 years; (2) reduce the maximum State set-aside by the same percentage as the reduction in 

the State’s overall award; and (3) either recover non-Federal (State) funds in the amount of the 

State’s MOE shortfall under the recovery of funds provision in section 452 of the General 

Education Provisions Act (GEPA), or reduce the State’s IDEA grant. 

Under the IDEA, in any year for which a State fails to meet the MOE requirement, the 

Department must reduce that State’s award in 1 fiscal year, and cannot spread the penalty over 

a number of years. The Department is concerned that, due to the potential size of future 

reductions as a percentage of overall State awards, services provided to students with 

disabilities will be adversely affected, particularly those supported with Federal funds. By 

providing the Department the authority to spread out the penalty over a maximum of 5 years, 

the Department hopes to limit the direct impact on students with disabilities in any given year.

Under current law, in a year in which the Department has reduced a State’s award due to an 

MOE violation, a State can pass on the entire reduction in its IDEA funding to LEAs. Providing 

H-23
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

the Department the authority to proportionally reduce the maximum available State set-aside by 

the same percentage as the reduction in the overall State award would directly impact State 

entities for failing to maintain financial support. For example, a 30 percent reduction in a State’s 

award would result in a 30 percent reduction in the maximum amount that can be set-aside by 

the State for State-level activities. 

When LEAs have fewer Federal funds available for expenditure, children with disabilities may 

receive reduced services. By exercising the flexibility of either recovering State funds or 

reducing the State’s IDEA grant, the Department can mitigate the impact of a reduction in funds 

on services for children with disabilities.

Local Educational Agency Maintenance of Effort

The IDEA requires LEAs to provide, through a combination of local or State support, at least the 

same level of special education funding provided in the previous fiscal year. The Administration

is proposing to remove language clarifying that the level of effort an LEA must meet under 

maintenance of effort requirements in the year after it fails to maintain effort is the level of effort 

that would have been required in the absence of that failure and not the LEA’s reduced level of 

expenditures. This language is no longer necessary because the Department published final 

regulations, on April 28, 2015 (80 FR 23643), that include this requirement.

Technical Assistance

The IDEA emphasizes improving results for children with disabilities through the collection and 

use of performance data. The law requires each State to develop a State Performance Plan 

that includes measurable and rigorous targets in a number of key monitoring areas: free 

appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment; disproportionate representation 

of children in special education based on race and ethnicity; and State exercise of general 

supervision authority in areas such as child find, monitoring, mediation, and transition. Each 

State has supervisory responsibility over the provision of special education and related services 

to children with disabilities within its jurisdiction, to ensure that the requirements in the IDEA are 

met. State performance data are collected through Annual Performance Reports. 

The IDEA authorizes the Department to use a portion of Grants to States funds to provide 

technical assistance to States to improve their capacity to meet these data collection 

requirements. In general, the Department uses these funds to improve data quality, to drive 

data use, and inform program improvement at the State and local levels. The 2017 Request 

includes $21 million for such technical assistance, an increase of $1 million more than the 

amount that would be set aside for this purpose at the fiscal year 2016 level. The request would 

include funds for a planned new National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood 

Longitudinal Data Systems, which would support States in developing and using their early 

childhood data systems. The request would also cover the continuation costs for several 

existing Centers including: the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Data 

Capacity to Accurately Collect and Report IDEA Data, which provides technical assistance to 

States and local educational agencies on improving their data collection and analytic processes 

in order to promote use of data to drive program improvement; the Fiscal Technical Assistance 

Center, which provides technical assistance to States to improve the reporting of fiscal data; 

and the Data Management Center, which works with States to improve system architecture to 

ensure IDEA data can be used with other data collections to improve results for students with 

H-24
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

disabilities. In addition, these funds would be used to support a contract to provide logistical 

support and quality control of State-reported data to ensure its accuracy and improve data 

quality.

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

expand the authority of the Department 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 expanded authority enacted through appropriations language in 

fiscal year 2016, 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 that the fiscal year 2017 Budget 

Request include special appropriations language limiting the amount of funding required to be 

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. The IDEA requires that 1.2 percent of the funds appropriated for Grants to States be 

provided to Interior for serving Indian children with disabilities, regardless of the number of 

children served by Interior. At the request level, the uncapped allocation to Interior would 

provide an average of approximately $22,878 for each child with a disability it served in the fall 

of 2014, which is nearly 13 times the average amount per child that States would receive. At 

the fiscal year 2017 Request level with the cap, Interior would receive about 8.3 times the 

average amount per child that States would receive, which translates into an average of 

$14,751 for each child with a disability, or about 133 percent of the national average per pupil 

expenditure (APPE) compared to 16 percent of the APPE for States overall.

H-25
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015

Footnote

2016

Footnote

2017

Footnote

Formula grants:

Formula grants to States $11,350,014 $11,757,795 $11,756,795

Formula grants to Outlying Areas 34,246 34,304 34,304

Grants to Freely Associated States 6,579 6,579 6,579

Department of the Interior 94,009 94,170 94,170

 Subtotal, formula grants 11,484,848 11,892,848 11,891,848

Technical Assistance (TA): 0 0 0

IDEA Assessment Center 0 1,000 1,000

IDEA Data Validation Contract 1,573 493 455

Early Childhood Data 1,9251 4,5692 6,500

Fiscal Data Center 3,200 3,200 3,200

IDEA Data Management Center 03 2,500 2,500

TA Center on State Data 6,302 4 8,238 5 7,305

Peer review 0 0 40

 Subtotal, TA 13,0006 20,0007 21,000

Total program funding 11,497,848 11,912,848 11,912,848

Number of children with disabilities 

served ages 3 through 21 6,690,7618 6,690,7618 6,690,7618

Average Federal share per child 

(whole dollars) $1,7178 $1,7778 $1,7778

Average per pupil expenditure 

(APPE) (whole dollars) $10,9368 $11,1188 $11,1378

Federal funding as a percentage of 

APPE 16%8 16%8 16%8

1 Excludes $6,496 thousand of fiscal year 2014 funds obligated in fiscal year 2015. 2 Excludes $1,925 thousand of fiscal year 2015 carry-over funds the Department plans to obligate in fiscal year 

2016.3 Excludes $2,500 thousand of fiscal year 2014 funds obligated in fiscal year 2015. 4 Excludes $198 thousand of fiscal year 2014 funds obligated in fiscal year 2015. 5 Excludes $84 thousand of fiscal year 2016 carry-over funds the Department plans to obligate in fiscal year 

2017.6 The Department carried over $1,925 thousand of the remaining fiscal year 2015 multi-year appropriation into 

fiscal year 2016. 7 The Department plans to carry over $84 thousand of the remaining fiscal year 2016 multi-year appropriation 

into fiscal year 2017. 8 Estimate, based on State-reported cumulative total for children served in the fall of 2014; however, this does 

not include the child count for Wyoming or BIE.

H-26
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

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

Basis:

School 

Year

2011-2012

Percent

School 

Year

2011-2012

Number

School 

Year

2012-2013

Percent

School 

Year

2012-2013

Number

School 

Year

2013-2014

Percent

School 

Year

2013-2014

Number

Graduating with 

regular diploma 39.7% 250,575 41.9% 257,982 42.18% 258,969

Graduating through 

certification 8.5% 53,910 9.2% 56,399 8.64% 53,031

Transferred to 

regular education 10.2% 64,637 9.4% 57,639 9.21% 56,552

Dropped out, or 

moved but not 

known to have 

continued in 

education 12.7% 80,427 12.1% 74,502 11.77% 72,251

Moved, but known 

to have continued 

in education 27.9% 175,709 26.5% 162,887 27.23% 167,187

Reaching 

maximum age for 

services and 

other reasons 0.9% 5,565 0.9% 5,839 0.97% 5,935

Total 100.0% 630,823 100.0% 615,248 100.00% 613,921

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.

H-27
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

History of Children Served and Program Funding – FYs 1987 through 2017

Fiscal Year

Children Served 

(thousands)

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 6,691 11,497,848 1

1,717 16%

2016 6,691 11,912,848 1

1,777 16%

2017 6,691 11,912,848 1

1,777 16%

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 in 2016, 

and $21,000 in 2017. 2 Includes funds available in fiscal year 2009 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5). 

H-28
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

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 2017 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

2007 35% 36%

2009 37 34

2011 39 32

2013 40 28

2015 40 30

2017 40

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

on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2007 33% 33%

2009 35 36

2011 37 35

2013 38 31

2015 38 28

2017 38

H-29
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

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 of Indian 

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

assessment. No comparable NAEP assessments were scheduled for mathematics in 2012 and

2014.

Fourth-grade Reading: NAEP defines “Basic” for students participating in the fourth-grade 

reading assessment as follows: “Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be 

able to locate relevant information, make simple inferences, and use their understanding of the 

text to identify details that support a given interpretation or conclusion. Students should be able 

to interpret the meaning of a word as it is used in the text.” 

Reading scores, measured every 2 years, increased slightly but have fallen short of their targets 

since 2009 after moderate increases over the course of the previous 4 years. The data show 

that the majority of students with disabilities do not meet or exceed even the Basic levels of 

achievement at any of the grade levels tested. Likewise, students with disabilities score well 

below other students. On the 2015 fourth-grade reading assessment, only 30 percent of 

students with disabilities scored at or above Basic, while 73 percent of other 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 are important to keep in mind when considering the performance of students 

with disabilities because increases in performance accompanied by reductions in students with 

disabilities tested might simply reflect higher exclusion rates among lower functioning students. 

Between 1998 (the first year accommodations were permitted) and 2015, the exclusion rate for 

students with disabilities on fourth-grade reading assessments dropped from 42 percent to 

13 percent. In 2010, the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) released a policy 

statement setting a goal for no more than 15 percent exclusion of students with disabilities on 

NAEP assessments and began identifying national, State, and districts samples not meeting this 

goal in its reporting. In 2015, 7 States had exclusion rates of students with disabilities 

exceeding 15 percent on the fourth-grade reading assessment, down from 23 States in 2011. 

Note that these percentages only include students with disabilities who have been included in 

the NAEP testing sample. Students in schools specifically for children with disabilities are not 

included in the NAEP sample.

Eighth-grade Mathematics: NAEP defines “Basic” for students participating in the eighth-grade 

mathematics assessment as follows: “Eighth-graders performing at the Basic level should 

complete problems correctly with the help of structural prompts such as diagrams, charts, and 

graphs. They should be able to solve problems in all NAEP content areas through the 

appropriate selection and use of strategies and technological tools—including calculators, 

computers, and geometric shapes. Students at this level also should be able to use 

fundamental algebraic and informal geometric concepts in problem solving. As they approach 

the Proficient level, students at the Basic level should be able to determine which of the 

H-30
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

available data are necessary and sufficient for correct solutions and use them in problem 

solving. However, these eighth-graders show limited skill in communicating mathematically.” 

NAEP data for mathematics demonstrate slow progress. The performance of students with 

disabilities had improved steadily over baseline years and exceeded the 2009 target. However, 

since 2011, eighth-grade math scores decreased and did not meet the target. These decreases 

correspond with decreasing rates of exclusion, which could produce a more diverse sample of 

students with disabilities. The NAEP data also show that the majority of students with 

disabilities do not meet or exceed even the Basic levels of achievement at any of the grade 

levels tested. Likewise, students with disabilities score well below other students. On the 2015

math assessment, only 28 percent of eighth-graders with disabilities scored at or above Basic, 

while 76 percent of other eighth-grade students scored at or above Basic.

The NCES collects data on the percentage of students with disabilities who are excluded from 

the NAEP assessments because of their disabilities. Exclusion rates are important to keep in 

mind when considering the performance of students with disabilities because increases in 

performance accompanied by reductions in students with disabilities tested might simply reflect 

higher exclusion rates among lower functioning students. Between 2000 (the first year 

accommodations were permitted) and 2015, the exclusion rate on eighth-grade mathematics 

assessments dropped from 32 percent to 10 percent. NAGB’s 2010 policy statement regarding 

exclusion of students with disabilities also applied to the mathematics assessment. In 2015, 

zero States had exclusion rates of students with disabilities higher than 15 percent, down from 

19 States in 2011. Note that these percentages only include students with disabilities who have 

been included in the NAEP testing sample. Students in schools specifically for children with 

disabilities are not included in the NAEP sample.

Elementary and Secondary Education Measures

The Department has adopted four measures for the Special Education Grants to States 

program that are parallel with those used for the ESEA Title I Grants to Local Educational 

Agencies program. Data on the measures are collected annually through the Education Data 

Exchange Network (EDEN) and made available through EDFacts. Targets have been based on 

a straight-line trajectory toward the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) goal to have all children 

performing at proficient or advanced levels by 2014. With the passage of the ESSA, which 

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

2014, the Department plans to revise and set ambitious but realistic targets in 2016. 

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. 

H-31
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

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

2012 84.7% 42.2%

2013 92.4 37.4

2014 100 36

2015 100

2016 100

2017 TBD

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

2012 84.4% 41.8%

2013 92.2 36.0

2014 100 35

2015 100

2016 100

2017 TBD

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

2012 7.4 28.1

2013 3.6 28.3

2014 0 28.8

2015 0

2016 0

2017 TBD

H-32
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

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

2012 6.9 26.4

2013 3.4 26.9

2014 0 27.1

2015 0

2016 0

2017 TBD

Additional information: States improved their performance with respect to students with 

disabilities on State mathematics and reading assessments between 2008 and 2010. However, 

since 2013, State scores regressed in both reading and mathematics. The data suggested 

States were making some progress in ensuring that students with disabilities who participate in 

State reading and math assessments were reasonably well-equipped to perform on these 

assessments, but that progress decreased and was not substantial enough to keep up with the 

increasing targets to bring all students with disabilities to proficiency by 2014. It should also be 

noted that fewer than half of students with disabilities scored at the proficient or advanced levels 

in reading and math on State assessments (36 percent and 35 percent, respectively). 

The two previous tables indicate that there continue to be significant 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 

(28.8 percentage points and 27.1 percentage points, respectively). The scores among students 

with disabilities over the past few years have increased those gaps. 

Because definitions of proficient and advanced vary across States, the national data presented 

here, which simply aggregates State data, may not give a clear or entirely meaningful picture of 

student achievement. In addition, students with the most significant cognitive disabilities may 

take alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards, and students 

with disabilities whose disability has precluded them from achieving grade-level proficiency may 

take alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. Under 

NCLB, States could include scores from these assessments for the purposes of adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) decisions, but only up to a cap of 3 percent of the total population tested, a 

maximum of 2 percent from alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards 

and a maximum of 1 percent from alternate assessments based on alternate achievement 

standards. In 2014, approximately 16 percent of students with disabilities in grades 3 through 8 

were tested in math and reading using an alternate assessment (including those based on 

modified achievement standards and alternate achievement standards). In fiscal year 2015, the 

Department published final regulations which eliminated the ability of States to use alternative 

assessments based on modified achievement standards. In addition, the ESSA codified the 

elimination of these assessments. These rules will be effective in the 2016-17 school year. 

H-33
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

Objective: Secondary school students will complete high school prepared for postsecondary 

education and/or competitive employment.

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

graduate from high school with a regular high school diploma.

Year Target Actual

2012 62.0% 63.9%

2013 63.0 65.1

2014 64.0 66.1

2015 65.0

2016 66.0

2017 67.0

Additional information: From 2008 to 2014, States successfully increased their graduation 

rates among students with disabilities and exceeded the targets for the graduation rate during 

the past 8 years for which data are available. However, there have been significant changes to 

reporting requirements for graduation and dropout rates over the last 4 years.

The instructions States received from the Department for calculating and submitting their 

graduation and dropout rates changed substantially in 2009. Previously, States used various 

methods of defining and calculating graduates and dropouts. Beginning in 2009, through their 

Annual Performance Reports (APR), States were asked to report using the calculation and 

timeline required under the 2008 Title I ESEA regulations. The graduation rate under ESEA is a 

cohort rate that defines a graduate as someone who receives a diploma in 4 years and adjusts 

for transfers in and out of the school. Students who receive modified diplomas or GEDs do not 

count as graduates in this calculation. States may receive permission from the Department to 

report data on cohorts of different lengths of time (such as a 5- or 6-year cohort). 

The new graduation rate calculation requires States to track students using a longitudinal data 

system, which not all States have fully implemented. Most States complied with the new 

requirements for reporting graduation rate data in 2009. Only 9 States reported graduation 

rates using previous methods with data compiled under Section 618 of the IDEA. In the 

2010-11 through 2013-14 school-years, all but 4 States used the new methods for calculating 

their graduation rates. 

For the 2010-11 school-year, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education eliminated the 

State-reported data element "dropout" from the Consolidated State Performance Report for all 

students and subgroups due to substantial concerns with the validity and usability of the data. 

In an attempt to reduce the reporting burden of States, they are no longer required to report this 

data element.

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 that had individualized education 

H-34
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

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 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 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

2013 Baseline 73.4%

2014 74.0% 76.3

2015 74.5

2016 75.0

2017 75.0

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 data on postsecondary outcomes and set baseline data in 2014, and States met the 

target in 2014. However, States continue to struggle to collect a representative sample in their 

surveys which represent the data for this measure. Response rates ranged from 14.2 percent 

to 100 percent, with an average response rate of 49 percent. In addition, only one State 

reported a representative respondent group representative of all five subgroups, which include 

disability, gender, race/ethnicity, age, and exit status. In fiscal year 2014, the Department 

funded the National Technical Assistance Center on Improving Transition to Postsecondary 

Education and Employment for Students With Disabilities, which will continue to work with 

States to improve their data quality and postsecondary outcomes for individuals with disabilities. 

Efficiency Measure

The Department previously collected data through its program monitoring files to determine the 

average number of workdays between the completion of a site visit and the Office of Special 

Education Program's (OSEP) response to the State. In 2010, the last year the Department 

collected this data, the Department reduced the number of days to issue responses to 66 days, 

far exceeding its target of 79 days, by revising its reporting format to remove extraneous 

descriptions and text that is not relevant to the findings. 

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. Beginning in 2016, OSEP will begin conducting site visits using a revised, 

risk-based approach to monitoring. Under this revised system, the Department again plans on 

H-35
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

establishing a target number of days from completion of the site visit to OSEP’s response to the 

State. However, the Department does not expect data for the 2016 site visits to be available 

until 2017.

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 

are being used to conduct an independent evaluation of the program. As required by the IDEA, 

the IDEA National Assessment 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:

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

Outcomes for Children and Youth with Disabilities (Patterns)” (see 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104005/index.asp), 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. Among 

the data sources used for the study are the NAEP data from State academic assessments of 

children with disabilities, data submitted by States to the Department pursuant to section 618 of 

the IDEA, population counts by State and year from the NCES Common Core of Data and the 

National Vital Statistics System, and data gathered from four national longitudinal studies of 

children with disabilities (National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study, Pre-Elementary 

Education Longitudinal Study, Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study, and National 

Longitudinal Transition Study-2).

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 (Holt, McGrath, and Herring 2007) that showed almost 50 percent 

of children eligible in kindergarten were no longer eligible for services by third grade. 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 confirms data presented above that children with disabilities are performing 

increasingly well on NAEP tests, but that they are still far behind their non-disabled peers. 

H-36
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

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. Data collection included three surveys of State administrators: (1) IDEA Part B 

administrators responsible for programs providing special education services to school-aged 

children with disabilities ages 6-21; (2) IDEA Part B section 619 coordinators who oversee 

preschool programs for children with disabilities ages 3-5; and (3) IDEA Part C coordinators who 

are responsible for early intervention programs serving infants and toddlers. A fourth survey 

collected district level data from a nationally representative sample of local special education 

administrators about preschool and school-age programs for children with disabilities ages 3-21. 

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. Three percent of districts are 

required to use CEIS due to significant disproportionality and 11 percent of districts are 

voluntarily implementing CEIS. Of the districts that implement CEIS, it is 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) is also widespread, and is being 

used in 71 percent of districts nationally. Similar to CEIS, RtI is 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.

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

personnel. Almost 90 percent of special education teachers meet 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 working 

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

use 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, is to provide professional 

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

Finally, the study found that dispute resolution events are 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 has been steady at about 21 requests per 10,000 students, but 

the frequency of due process hearings completed has 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 

H-37
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

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. The study compared two different samples: a “reference 

sample” of schools representative of elementary schools in the 13 states and an “impact 

sample” of 146 elementary schools with three or more years of implementing RtI 

approaches in reading. This study attempted to address the following research questions:

• How did the prevalence of RtI practices differ between a representative reference sample of 

schools and schools selected for the impact evaluation? To what extent were impact 

sample schools implementing more RtI practices than the reference sample schools? How

do special education identification rates in the impact sample compare with rates for the 

states as a whole?

• To what extent did schools place students in tiers as suggested by earlier RtI models? To 

what extent did schools adjust tier placement during the school year? To what extent is 

there variation in how schools organize reading services for specific reading levels? To 

what extent were services for students reading below grade level more intense than for 

students reading at or above grade level?

• For students who fell just below school-determined standards for each grade on screening 

tests: What were the effects on reading achievement of actual assignment to receive 

reading intervention services in addition to core instruction? What is the extent of variation 

in estimated impacts across RtI schools? How is the estimated impact associated with 

certain school features or student characteristics?

This study compared the intensity of RtI services provided to elementary reading groups, in 

grades 1 through 3, at different reading levels within. The study measured the extent to which 

support is more intense for students reading below grade level compared to students at or 

above grade level. In addition, for those students who fell just below school-determined 

standards for each grade on screening tests, the study investigated the impacts of reading 

intervention services.

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 

H-38
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

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 

in-correct 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 the RtI may be effective in improving student outcomes in other subjects 

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 

increasingly important 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) but also 

includes a small sample of students without disabilities to enable direct comparisons of students 

with and without individualized education programs (IEPs). The study collected baseline data in 

H-39
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

the spring of 2012 through the summer of 2013 on a nationwide sample of youth, and is 

expected to be released in 2016. 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? 

• 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 places emphasis on transition services focused on 

improving the academic and functional achievement of students with disabilities in order 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 National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 (NLTS 2012). The NLTS 

2012 sample included a group of over 12,000 students ages 13 to 21 (in December 2011), 

including a small sample of students without disabilities.

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 

H-40
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

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

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

The evaluation relied on existing data and surveys of school principals in 2010 and 2011. Key 

outcomes for this study aligned with the outcomes identified in section 664 of the IDEA, which 

relate to: academic achievement (including reading and mathematics); participation in the 

general education curriculum; receipt of special education services; receipt of such services in 

the least restrictive appropriate environment; and grade transitions.

The study used descriptive statistics to examine patterns of school accountability across States 

and over time, and examined how school practices varied with respect to school accountability 

for the SWD subgroup. Data sources for the evaluation included extant data from the 

Department of Education's EDFacts database and 2011 surveys of principals and special 

education designees from elementary and middle schools in 12 states. 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 and is available at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154006/. 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 schools to report moving students with disabilities from selfcontained 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.

H-41
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$368,238 $403,238 +$35,000

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) who 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. Under the formula, 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. 

H-42
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

The other 15 percent is distributed based on the relative percentage of children aged 3 

through 5 in each State who are living in poverty. The formula provides several floors and 

ceilings regarding the amount a State can receive in any year. 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: (1) the percent the appropriation grew above the prior year, minus 1.5 percent, or, 

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

minimum increase in State allocations of 1/3 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 of growth 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 is no radical shift 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 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 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, including 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 to 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 preliteracy, 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, to continue service coordination or 

case management for families who receive services under Part C. 

Numbers of Children Served

The number of children served under this program increased slightly from 744,741 in fiscal 

year 2014 to 753,038 in fiscal year 2015. The increase is consistent with trends since 2009. 

H-43
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

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 predicts that the number of children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 will remain at 

the 2015 level for fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012...................................................................................$372,646

2013.....................................................................................353,238

2014.....................................................................................353,238

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

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

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $403.2 million for the Preschool Grants program. The request 

would increase funding for this program by $35 million over the fiscal year 2016 level, and 

provide an average of $535 per child, $46 more per child than in fiscal year 2016. These 

averages are based on the assumption that the number of children aged 3 through 5 who will be 

served will remain constant at the 2015 level of 753,038. 

These funds are paired with those available under the Grants to States program under IDEA, 

Part B. The Administration is requesting $11.9 billion for the Grants to States program for fiscal 

year 2017, which will provide an average of $1,777 per child. Funding under Preschool Grants 

supplements the funds provided to States under the Grants to States program, which serves

children with disabilities ages 3 through 21, including all children served under the Preschool 

Grants program. 

This is the only Federal program dedicated to preschool-aged children with disabilities. 

Consistent with the Administration’s focus on school readiness and expanding the availability of 

high quality preschool options for all, this request will provide a much needed increase in 

resources to support activities for young children with disabilities. 

Administration’s Early Learning Agenda

The Administration believes high quality early learning is critical to the future success of all 

children, including children with disabilities, and that improved coordination among State and 

Federal early learning programs will lead to improved services and results. The fiscal year 2017 

Request includes several new and continuing investments that support this goal. The request 

provides $503.6 million, a $45 million increase for the IDEA Grants for Infants and Families 

program. This increase would be used to provide services designed to lessen the needs of 

infants and toddlers with disabilities in the future and to ensure that very young children with 

disabilities receive the supports and services they need to prepare them to enter formal 

education. The IDEA Preschool Grants to States program also supports the inclusion of young 

children with disabilities in State early learning programs and federally funded programs, such 

as Head Start and child care programs supported under the Department of Health and Human 

Services’ Child Care and Development Block Grants. States frequently use the IDEA Preschool 

Grants program State-level set-aside funds to ensure that children with disabilities are included 

H-44
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

in State early learning programs and programs operated or supported by other Federal 

programs.

Coordinated Early Intervening Services

IDEA currently allows LEAs to reserve up to 15 percent of their Part B allocations for 

Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS). These services, which are designed for 

students who need additional academic and behavioral supports to succeed in a general 

education environment but are not currently identified as needing special education or related 

services, are currently available to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular 

emphasis on students in kindergarten through grade three). Given the promising outcomes 

related to early intervention, the Administration is proposing appropriations language to expand 

access to CEIS to children ages 3 through 5, which we believe will encourage LEAs to use 

CEIS funds to develop high quality, inclusive preschool programs. In addition to expanding 

access to CEIS, the Administration is requesting appropriations language to provide the 

Department the authority to waive the reporting requirements for CEIS for children ages 3 

through 5 who are not in kindergarten. The Administration believes reducing the reporting 

burden in this way will encourage LEAs to establish CEIS programs for this age range. 

Moreover, this will allow LEAs to focus on providing expanded services to preschool-age 

children while the Department works to build the capacity of States to report accurate early 

learning data in future years.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Number of Children Served 753,038 753,038 753,038

Share per child (whole 

dollars) $469 $489 $535

NOTES: States may, at their discretion, provide 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 served by the 

States who are 2 years old at the time of the count, but will turn 3 during the school year. 

These are estimates based on State-reported cumulative total for children served in the fall of 2014. 

H-45
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

History of Children Served and Program Funding

Fiscal Year Children Served

(thousands)

footnote

Appropriation

(dollars in thousands)

Footnote

Federal

Share per Child

(whole dollars)

footnote

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 7383373,351 508

2012 7453372,646 500

2013 7493353,238 472

2014 7453353,238 474

2015 7533353,238 469

2016 7533368,238 489

2017 7533403,238 535

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 not eligible to receive Preschool Grant 

awards.

H-46
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

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 2017 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

2012 81% 79%

2013 82 81

2014 83 80

2015 84

2016 84

2017 84

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

2012 81% 80%

2013 82 80

2014 83 80

2015 84

2016 84

2017 84

H-47
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

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

2012 81% 77%

2013 82 80

2014 83 79

2015 84

2016 84

2017 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. The Department, with the assistance of the Early 

Childhood Technical Assistance Center (a grantee competitively funded under the IDEA, Part D 

Technical Assistance and Dissemination program), uses these data to assess outcomes for 

children served through this program. Measuring growth in these outcomes, especially for 

preschool aged children, requires a significant investment of time and technical assistance at 

both the Federal and State levels to ensure that the data collected are valid, reliable, and 

meaningful.

The Department has been deliberate in developing these measures due to the challenges of 

assessing program performance based on growth in early childhood outcomes, especially for 

children with disabilities. In 2005, States began developing systems for collecting entry and exit 

data on children with disabilities who receive services through the preschool program and 

remain in the program for at least 6 months. The Department has made substantial investments 

in technical assistance to States to improve data quality since 2010, when all States were 

required to report complete entry and exit data for a full cohort of children with disabilities aged 

3 through 5 for the first time.

The quality of the data States reported in their APRs since February 2011 has demonstrated 

marked improvement, and the sample of States with the highest quality data increased from 

39 to 42 out of 59 States and jurisdictions in 2014. To help determine an appropriate baseline 

for these three measures, a weighted data set was derived from these 42 States, excluding 

States that had high proportions of missing data, anomalous outcomes, or were known to have 

other data quality or collection issues. The targets for these measures were established, in part, 

based on the outcomes of the sample of States with high quality data. Within this smaller 

sample of States, nearly 80 percent of preschoolers demonstrated substantially increased rates 

of growth by the time they exited the program in each measure category: 80 percent in the 

acquisition and use of knowledge, 81 percent in positive social-emotional skills, and 79 percent 

in the use of appropriate behavior. These results represent a slight decrease from the 

2014 school year and do not meet the targets set for each category; however, this decrease 

may be attributed to a larger sample and increased reporting. As States have improved their 

data collection, the number of children served by this program for whom outcome data are 

reported has increased substantially each year.

H-48
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

States are engaged in implementing strategies to identify and improve the accuracy of local 

data collections, and have indicated that they believe the data will be useful in their program 

improvement efforts. The Department acknowledges that some data quality issues still exist, 

particularly with regard to missing data. The extent of missing data is difficult to determine 

because States do not report on the number of children exiting the program. Furthermore, 

States may be unable to collect exit data for all children (e.g., due to a move to another State, 

withdrawal from the program without prior notice, or death). Through its technical assistance 

investments, the Department continues to work with the States to resolve implementation 

issues, improve the validity and reliability of reported data, and use these data to inform 

program improvements.

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

2013 Baseline 43.5%

2014 44 44

2015 45

2016 46

2017 46

Additional information: This measure replaced a previous measure on the extent to which 

children with disabilities receive their special education services in regular education settings. 

The earlier measure required States to report the percentage of children with disabilities (aged 3 

through 5) who receive special education and related services in a regular early learning 

program at least 80 percent of the time; however, the Department revised the Preschool 

Educational Environment reporting categories to better assess the inclusive experiences of 

preschool children with disabilities. In addition, the Department received feedback that the 

previous Preschool Educational Environments reporting categories were challenging to report 

on and provided little information regarding the inclusive experiences of children with disabilities 

in regular early childhood programs. 

In the new measure, the Department simplified data collection and reduced the reporting burden 

by removing the requirement to report the proportion of time that a child spends each week in a 

regular early childhood program. The revised data collection is designed to obtain information 

on where children receive the majority (at least 50 percent) of their special education and 

related services. The first collection of preschool educational environment data using the new 

form was the 2010-11 school year, with the first data were reported in the Annual Performance 

Reports in February 2013. The Department developed a baseline in 2014 and met the target 

set for 2014.

The Department is using technical assistance providers such as the IDEA Data Center, the 

National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, and the National Center for Systemic 

Improvement to assist States in collecting the preschool educational environments data, and is 

providing additional technical assistance through mechanisms such as presentations at the 

annual State data managers’ conference and other meetings, along with the provision of 

H-49
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

“Frequently Asked Questions” documents and a data dictionary 

(http://www.ideadata.org/docs/bdatadictionary.pdf).

The Department also created the National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early 

Childhood Longitudinal Data Systems in 2012. This center provides technical assistance on 

developing and expanding statewide longitudinal data systems that incorporate data required 

under Sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The center works intensively with 10-12 States in four 

main areas of data collection: defining data elements, acquiring data, validating data, and using 

data to examine validity and program improvement. The center also coordinates with other 

Department initiatives related to data systems and early learning, including Race To the Top 

Early Learning Challenge Fund and the Statewide Longitudinal Data System grant program.

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

2012 41 44

2013 42 43

2014 45 44

2015 46

2016 47

2017 47

Additional information: The Department exceeded its target for fiscal years 2010 through 

2013; however, performance has decreased by one State since a high of 45 in 2011. 

Forty four States meet the 90 percent requirement ensuring their full time equivalent special 

education teachers of children ages 3 to 5 are fully certified in the areas in which they are 

teaching. This measure includes the 50 States, D.C., Puerto Rico, the Outlying Areas and the 

Bureau of Indian Education. 

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has made a number of investments 

designed to assist States in preparing a sufficient number of qualified preschool special 

education personnel. In 2012, the Department established an Early Childhood Personnel 

Center to improve professional development for personnel working with children with disabilities 

birth through age 5 and their families. This Center helps to address State-identified needs for 

highly qualified personnel in special education, related services, early intervention, and regular 

education to work with infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities and ensure that those 

personnel have the necessary skills and knowledge, derived from practices that have been 

determined through scientifically based research and experience, to be successful in serving 

those children.

Efficiency Measure

The Department previously collected data through its program monitoring files to determine the 

average number of workdays between the completion of a site visit and the Office of Special 

Education Program's (OSEP) response to the State. In 2010, the last year the Department 

collected this data, the Department reduced the number of days to issue responses to 66 days, 

H-50
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

far exceeding its target of 79 days, by revising its reporting format to remove extraneous 

descriptions and text that is not relevant to the findings. 

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 /APR process, fiscal monitoring, and its work with State dispute resolution 

systems. Beginning in 2016, OSEP will begin conducting site visits using a revised, risk-based 

approach to monitoring. Under this revised system, the Department again plans on establishing 

a target number of days from completion of the site visit to OSEP’s response to the State. 

However, the Department does not expect data for the 2016 site visits to be available until 2017.

Other Performance Information

Pre-Elementary Longitudinal Study (PEELS) (http://www.peels.org): The PEELS study involved 

a nationally representative sample of children, 3 to 5 years of age when they entered the study, 

with diverse disabilities who are receiving preschool special education services in a variety of 

settings. The study answered questions such as: 

• What are the characteristics of children receiving preschool special education? 

• What services do they receive and in what settings? Who provides these services?

• What child, family, community, and system factors are associated with the services children 

receive and the results they attain? 

• What are the transitions like between early intervention (programs for children from birth to 

3 years old) and preschool, and between preschool and elementary school? 

• To what extent do the children participate in activities with other children their age who are 

not receiving preschool special education services? To what extent are preschool special 

education graduates included in general elementary education classes and related 

activities? 

• What short- and long-term results do children achieve in preschool, kindergarten, and early 

elementary school? 

Results from the PEELs Study

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.

H-51
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

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 

was designed to address two PEELS specific research questions: 

• How do children who received preschool special education services perform over time on 

assessments of receptive vocabulary and math skills?

• How does their receptive vocabulary and math performance vary over time by primary 

disability category?

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) (https://nces.ed.gov/ecls). 

This program involves two complementary cohort studies, a Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) and a 

Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K), that focus on 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 

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. The children in the ECLS-K cohort were 

H-52
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

5 years of age in school year 2006-07, when the first kindergarten data collection was 

conducted. During this collection, the majority of children in the cohort were age-eligible for 

kindergarten, although all sample children were evaluated, regardless of kindergarten 

enrollment status. Since about a quarter of the cohort were not age-eligible for kindergarten 

until fall 2007, a second kindergarten data collection was fielded in 2007 to measure the 

kindergarten experiences of these children. The first ECLS-K study followed children through 

the cohort’s eighth grade year in school year 2008-09. The final data for the 8th and final year 

of data collection was released in July 2009. A new study, the Early Childhood Longitudinal 

Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K:2011) replaces the original ECLS-K and will be 

an ongoing study sponsored by NCES. The ECLS-K: 2011 will provide descriptive information 

on children's status at entry to school, their transition into school, and their progression through 

the elementary grades.

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 

nonpoor 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.

.

H-53
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part C)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$458,556 $503,556 +$45,000

1

 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Grants for Infants and Families program (Part C) awards formula grants to the 50 States, 

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 and making early intervention services available to children with 

disabilities, aged birth through 2, and their families. Under the program, States are responsible 

for ensuring that appropriate early intervention services are made available to all eligible birththrough-2-year-olds with disabilities and their families, including Indian children and families who 

reside on reservations geographically located in the 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 allocated under this program can be used to: (1) maintain and implement 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 services that are otherwise available; (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. 

H-54
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

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 

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 having 

a lead agency designated with the responsibility for the coordination and administration of funds 

and 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 to coordinate payment for early intervention 

services from Federal, State, local, and private sources, including public and private insurance 

coverage. These include Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), 

Social Security Disability Insurance and 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 an educational component that promotes school 

readiness and incorporates pre-literacy, language, and numeracy skills and provide 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 of Education 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 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 also 

includes authority for the Department to reserve 15 percent of the amount above $460 million 

for a State Incentive Grants program. The purpose of this program is to provide funding to 

H-55
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

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 State Incentive 

Grants in a fiscal year. In fiscal year 2009, due to the addition of funds from the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the total of funds appropriated for Part C exceeded the 

$460 million level. The States that opted to extend their provision of Part C services beyond 

age 3 received additional funds through this program, and had until September 30, 2011, to 

expend these funds. The appropriation for fiscal years 2010 through 2016 did not exceed 

$460 million, so the Department did not have authority to award State Incentive Grants in any of 

these fiscal years. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands)

2012................................................................................... 442,710

2013................................................................................... 419,653

2014................................................................................... 438,498

2015................................................................................... 438,556

2016................................................................................... 458,556

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $503.6 million for the Part C program for fiscal year 2017, a 

$45 million increase over the fiscal year 2016 level. Consistent with the Administration’s focus 

on expanding the availability of essential school-readiness and preschool options for all 

children, the requested amount would support increased access to high-quality early childhood 

programs for children with disabilities. These funds would support early intervention programs 

that provide services to infants and toddlers with disabilities that are designed to mitigate the 

need for more extensive services in the future and ensure that they receive the supports and 

services that they need to prepare them to enter formal education. 

At the requested level, the average State award would be approximately $9.2 million. These 

funds will help States enhance their systems for identifying infants and toddlers with disabilities 

and determining appropriate services, and facilitate better coordination with other programs 

serving young children. 

In addition, because the requested level is above the statutory $460.0 million trigger, the 

Administration would be able to make State Incentive Grants to States under section 643(e) of 

the IDEA to promote and facilitate the implementation of policies allowing parents of children 

with disabilities to choose the continuation of early intervention services for their children until 

they are eligible to enter elementary school. Continuation of early intervention, when 

implemented well, provides for a seamless transition between services provided at the very first 

stages of a child’s development and those services provided during the more formalized, 

structured environment of early education and elementary school. The Administration believes 

that these incentive grants, ranging in size based on the number of children in the State (up to a 

maximum of $1.15 million), will encourage a number of additional States to begin to offer this 

flexibility to parents and families.

H-56
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

Early Intervention Model Demonstration Projects

Investment in the early stages of a child’s life and education can pay enormous dividends in the 

future. These dividends accrue not only to the child served, but also to the school districts that 

will later serve these children and to the public, because early intervention reduces the need for 

costlier supports later on, and improves student achievement and outcomes.

1

 Interventions to 

reach infants and toddlers at risk of not attaining key developmental milestones may be 

especially powerful.2

 For example, early detection and intervention for children with autism has 

shown promise in reducing the subsequent need for more intensive services.3

To establish and implement evidence-based models of collaborative, place-based systems that 

support positive developmental outcomes for infants and toddlers with disabilities, those who 

are developmentally at-risk, and their families, the Administration is requesting a $15 million set 

aside within the Part C program to make competitive grants to public and private entities for 

model demonstration projects. These model demonstration projects would focus on innovative 

approaches to expanding early screening, referral, and early intervention services to infants and 

toddlers eligible for Part C and those who are at-risk but not eligible for Part C and their families, 

such as State and local interagency collaboration, public-private partnerships, and Pay for 

Success models. These projects would test and evaluate whether expanded screening 

practices and provision of early intervention services to at-risk infants and toddlers have a 

positive impact on interim outcomes, such as social-emotional, language and communication, 

and behavioral skills, and longer-term outcomes including the need for intensive services upon 

school enrollment. The Administration believes that such projects can serve to build strong 

collaboration between Part C programs and other agencies and programs serving young 

children with disabilities, including home visiting programs such as the Maternal, Infant, and 

Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program supported by the Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

1 See, for example: Heckman, J. J., Moon, S. H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P. A., Yavitz, A. (2010). A New cost-benefit 

and rate of return analysis for the Perry Preschool Program: A Summary. National Bureau of Economic Research 

Working Paper 16180. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16180. 

Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., White, B. A. B., Ou, S., & Robertson, D. L. (2011). Age 26 cost-benefit analysis of 

the Child-Parent Center early education program. Child Development, 82(1), 379 404. 

Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The 

High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research 

Foundation, 14. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. 

http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=219 2 See, for example: Heckman, J. J. and D. V. Masterov (2007). The productivity argument for investing in

young children. Review of Agricultural Economics 29 (3), 446–493.

Deming, D. (2009). Early childhood intervention and life-cycle skill development: Evidence from Head Start. 

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(3), 111-134. 3 See, for example: Baranek, J.T., Watson, L.R., Turner-Brown, L., Field, S.H., Crais, L.R., Wakeford, L., Little, 

L.M., & Reznick, J.S. (2014). Preliminary efficacy of Adapted Responsive Teaching for infants at risk of autism 

spectrum disorder in a community sample. Autism Research and Treatment, 2015.

Dawson, G., Rogers, S., Munson, J., Smith, M., Winter, J., Greenson, J., Donaldson, A., & Varley, J. (2010). 

Randomized, controlled trial of an intervention for toddlers with autism: the Early Start Denver Model. Pediatrics, 

125(1), e17-e23. 

H-57

 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

The Administration expects that this funding level would support approximately five grants 

across five States and 10 to 15 sites for a period of 4 years each. Eligible applicants would be 

partnerships consisting of: (1) a State Part C lead agency; (2) two to three partner sites in high 

need communities within the State; (3) an institution of higher education or other research 

organization with expertise in evidence-based community-wide screening approaches, 

evidence-based models for providing early intervention services, and implementation science; 

and (4) a philanthropic or private funder. Applicants would be required to provide 15 percent 

matching non-Federal funds for the Federal funds received.

Applicants would be required to outline an evidence-based model for expanding early screening 

and services to address the developmental and educational needs of infants and toddlers with 

disabilities, those who are at-risk, and their families in two to three communities in the State. 

States would have the flexibility to develop models that meet local needs; however, the State 

Part C system would remain at the center of any such model.

In Year 1, partnerships would hire staff and begin to implement the model in a primary site, build 

partnerships, expand screenings community-wide, and build the necessary data systems to 

monitor progress and implement program improvement and evaluation processes. In Years 

2 and 3, partnerships would refine their models based on performance data and implement the 

refined model in one to two additional sites in the State. In Year 4, partnerships would continue 

to refine the model, participate in evaluation activities, and, if the model is successful, plan for 

long-term financial support of the intervention, such as State or local funding, public/private 

partnerships, or pay for success-type financing.

The Administration expects the model demonstration projects to generate high-quality, robust 

screening and intervention programs that will have lasting positive effects on at-risk, 

underserved children.

The Administration is also requesting authority to use a portion of the set-aside funds to support 

technical assistance and evaluation activities for these model demonstration projects.

Administration’s Early Learning Agenda

The Administration believes high quality early learning is critical to the future success of all 

children, including children with disabilities, and that improved coordination among State and 

Federal early learning programs will lead to improved services and results. The fiscal year 2017 

request includes several new and continuing investments that support this goal. The request 

provides $403.2 million for the IDEA Preschool grants program, a $35.0 million increase over 

the fiscal year 2016 level. This increase would be used to provide special education and related 

services to children with disabilities ages three through five. The IDEA Preschool Grants to 

States program also supports the inclusion of young children with disabilities in State early

learning programs and federally funded programs, such as Head Start and child care programs 

supported under the Department of Health and Human Services’ Child Care and Development 

Block Grants. States frequently use the IDEA Preschool Grants program State-level set-aside 

funds to ensure that children with disabilities are included in State early learning programs and 

programs operated or supported by other Federal programs.

H-58
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Range in size of awards to States:

Smallest State regular Part C award1, 2 $2,149 $2,247 $2,447

Average State regular Part C award1 $8,265 $8,644 $9,209

Largest State regular Part C award1 $52,545 $54,954 $58,440

Children served 352,000 352,000 352,000

1 The calculations exclude funds for the Outlying Areas or 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 1⁄2 of 

1 percent of the amount available to States after the reservations for the Outlying Areas and the Bureau of Indian 

Education are excluded. 

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 2017 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

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

2012 67% 66%

2013 69 66

2014 69 65

2015 70

2016 70

2017 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 

H-59
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

language/communication and early literacy) who substantially increased their rate of growth by 

the time they exited the program.

Year Target Actual

2012 71% 72%

2013 73 71

2014 73 71

2015 75

2016 76

2017 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

2012 71% 73%

2013 73 71

2014 73 72

2015 75

2016 77

2017 77

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 Part C program. The Department, with the assistance of its grantee, the Early 

Childhood Technical Assistance Center, uses these data to assess outcomes for children 

served through this program. Measuring growth in these outcomes, especially for infants and 

toddlers, requires a significant investment of time and technical assistance at both the Federal 

and State levels to ensure that the data collected are valid, reliable, and meaningful. The 

Department has been deliberate in developing these measures due to the challenges of 

assessing program performance based on growth in early childhood outcomes, especially for 

children with disabilities. While three States have received approval from the Department to 

collect data for a representative sample of the children they serve through the Part C program, 

all other States are responsible for reporting data on all children served. 

Since States first starting reporting data on this measure in February of 2010 (providing data on 

program year 2009), there has been a marked improvement in data quality, with 41 States 

submitting high quality data in 2014 (for program year 2013), up from only 19 States in 2010. 

States have indicated that they believe data on these measures will be useful in their program 

improvement efforts. States are engaged in implementing quality control systems to identify 

and improve the accuracy of local data. The Department acknowledges that some data quality 

issues persist, particularly concerning missing data. In some instances, States may be unable 

to collect exit data for all children (e.g., due to a move to another State, withdrawal from the 

program without prior notice, or death). Through its technical assistance investments, the 

Department continues to work with the States to resolve implementation issues, improve the 

validity and reliability of reported data, and use these data to inform program improvements.

H-60
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

At this time, it is difficult to determine trends with such a small number of data points and 

changes in the quality of data being submitted by States. As data quality continues to improve, 

results reported on these measures will converge with actual performance in the field. 

However, at this time, it is not possible to accurately determine whether actual performance is 

above, below, or equal to the results presented above. Data for fiscal year 2015 are expected 

to be available in fall 2016.

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

2012 27 28

2013 27 30

2014 28 31

2015 30

2016 32

2017 32

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 2014, 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; 

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.

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 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. Data for fiscal year 2015 are expected to be available in fall 2016.

H-61
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

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

2012 32 44

2013 42 41

2014 45 44

2015 45

2016 46

2017 46

Additional information: The State lead agencies responsible for the implementation of these 

programs report data on the numbers of infants and toddlers with disabilities served under the 

Grants for Infants and Families program annually to the Department through their APRs. The 

Department sets the 2 percent threshold for this measure using data from the U.S. Census 

bureau on the percentage of infants and toddlers with disabilities in the general population. 

Through its monitoring and technical assistance efforts, the Department helps States enhance 

their child find systems to ensure that they are appropriately identifying and serving eligible 

toddlers with disabilities. The Department believes that these efforts are partially responsible for 

the improved performance of States under this measure over the past 5 years. Data for fiscal 

year 2015 are expected to be available in fall 2016.

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

2012 93 95%

2013 94 95

2014 95 96

2015 95

2016 95

2017 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. In 2001, 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, so 

performance on this indicator has improved dramatically in the past 13 years (by 20 percentage 

points). To assist States to continue to improve their performance in this area, the Department 

provides technical assistance and disseminates information on effective home visits and other 

practices related to providing services in natural settings. 

Efficiency Measures

The Department previously collected data through its program monitoring files to determine the 

average number of workdays between the completion of a site visit and the Office of Special 

Education Program's (OSEP) response to the State. In 2010, the last year the Department 

collected this data, the Department reduced the number of days to issue responses to 66 days, 

H-62
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

far exceeding its target of 79 days, by revising its reporting format to remove extraneous 

descriptions and text that is not relevant to the findings. 

The Department did not conduct regular site visits to States from 2011 through 2014. 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. Beginning in 2016, OSEP will begin conducting site visits using a revised, 

risk-based approach to monitoring. Under this revised system, the Department again plans on 

establishing a target number of days from completion of the site visit to OSEP’s response to the 

State. However, the Department does not expect data for the 2016 site visits to be available 

until 2017.

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 study provides data on the early development of 

these children, their preparation for school, and key transitions experienced by these children 

during the early childhood years. The study includes detailed data on the physical, cognitive, 

social, and emotional development of these children. 

Analyses of the data collected through this study have provided important demographic 

information on infants and toddlers with disabilities. For example, the ECLS-B data collection 

over-sampled moderately low and very low birth weight children because low birth weight was 

believed to be associated with developmental issues, including a variety of disabilities. This 

relationship was confirmed by the study. The Department anticipates that further analyses 

associated with the study may provide additional information about children’s health and 

development that is relevant to children with disabilities. More information on this study is 

available on the NCES Web site at: http://nces.ed.gov/ECLS/birth.asp.

In July 2011, IES published the final report for the “IDEA National Assessment Implementation 

Study.” The report from the congressionally mandated study provides a national picture of State 

agency implementation of early intervention programs for infants and toddlers under Part C of 

IDEA, and both State and school district implementation of special education programs for 

preschool- and school-age children under Part B of IDEA. 

H-63
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

The study was based on surveys of State agency directors and a nationally representative 

sample of district special education directors conducted in 2009. The 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).

The final report for the “IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study” is available on the 

IES Web site at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114026/index.asp..

H-64
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities:

National activities: State personnel development

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 1) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$41,630 $41,630 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The State Personnel Development (SPD) program provides grants 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. Each State must spend at least 

90 percent of its funds on professional development activities, including the recruitment and 

retention of qualified special education teachers. No more than 10 percent of the State’s funds 

can be spent on State 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 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. 

The factors used to determine the ultimate amount of each competitive award are: the amount 

H-65
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

of funds available; the relative population of the State or Outlying Area; the types of activities 

proposed, alignment of proposed activities with the State’s personnel standards, alignment of 

proposed activities with the State’s plan and application under sections 1005 and 2101(d) of the 

ESEA, and the use, as appropriate, of evidence-based programs and research. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012 .....................................................................................$43,917

2013 .......................................................................................41,630

2014 .......................................................................................41,630

2015 .......................................................................................41,630

2016 .......................................................................................41,630

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $41.6 million for the State Personnel Development (SPD) grants 

program to assist State educational agencies to improve results for children with disabilities 

through the delivery of high quality instruction and the recruitment and retention of effective and 

qualified personnel. The request, which is the same as the fiscal year 2016 level, would support 

18 continuation awards, 23 new awards, and performance evaluation activities. As in fiscal year 

2016, the Administration is requesting appropriations language in the 2017 Budget that would 

provide the Administration with the authority to use SPD funds under section 655 of IDEA to 

carry out performance evaluation activities. SPD is the only program within Part D of IDEA that 

does not have the 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 for personnel preparation and professional development identified in the 

State’s Personnel Development Plan. Projects 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, 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 Administration 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. 

1 Teacher Shortage Areas Nationwide Listing, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 

March 2015: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.pdf

H-66
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

Activities funded through the SPD program 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 evidence-based instruction; 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.

Funding Priorities

To improve the outcomes of children with disabilities, the Administration plans to focus the 

program’s resources in fiscal year 2017 to support projects that: 1) provide evidence-based 

professional development activities that increase implementation of effective practices; and 

2) provide on-going assistance to personnel who have received SPD-supported professional 

development, including assisting local educational agencies (LEAs) to build upon systems that 

support implementation of effective practices. Such activities would ensure that personnel 

receive the necessary support to use the acquired knowledge and skills to implement practices 

with fidelity. New projects funded in fiscal year 2017 will be required to use technology to 

provide more efficient and effective ongoing professional development, including to personnel in 

rural areas and to other populations that are less likely to receive comprehensive professional 

development. The SPD program has worked to expand the use of technology that can assist 

projects in becoming more effective and efficient in their delivery of professional development. 

With the increased emphasis on ongoing professional development and coaching, increased 

use of technology is necessary if SPD grantees are to work with more than a few sites and/or 

work with schools in rural areas.

Teacher quality is one of the most important factors in improving student achievement and 

eliminating achievement gaps between our neediest students and their more advantaged peers. 

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. The SPD program 

provides funding for professional development to improve the knowledge and skills of special 

education and regular education teachers serving children with disabilities. Specifically, SPD 

funds are used to provide training in effective interventions. Examples of such interventions 

include positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve student behavior in the 

classroom, scientifically based 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

The SPD program also supports States in developing and implementing strategies that are 

effective in promoting the recruitment and retention of qualified special education teachers. 

These include strategies 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 

H-67
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

incentives, to retain special education teachers who have a record of success in helping 

students with disabilities. 

Listed below are examples of how States are using SPD funds to improve the knowledge and 

skills of teachers serving children with disabilities. 

• Illinois SPD funds support the implementation of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) 

which focus on curricula, instruction, intervention, and assessment in grades K-12 in math 

and reading at the school and district level. Twenty-seven of the cohort 1 schools, or 

50 percent of the cohort, demonstrated an improvement in the placement of students with 

Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) in less restrictive educational environments from 

2011 to 2014. The actual performance exceeds the established target of 40 percent by 

10 percentage points. Illinois also works with Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) to 

ensure teachers they prepare are ready to implement MTSS. The Illinois SPD assessed 

149 student teachers from seven of the nine IHE programs. The results show that 92 

percent of the student teachers indicated they had gained knowledge of MTSS from 

assignments and/or field placements required in their courses.

• Montana SPD funds also support the implementation of MTSS. The initial SPD cohort of 

schools reduced the percentage of students that require more intensive interventions from 

24.6 percent in Year 3 to 18.8 percent in Year 4. Montana has also demonstrated increases 

in reading and math scores in those schools following a response to intervention model. In 

math, student scores averaged an 11 percent improvement over a 4-year period from 

2008 to 2012.

• Colorado SPD funds support the implementation of positive behavioral interventions and 

supports (PBIS) in elementary and middle schools and demonstrated an average decrease 

of 14.7 percent in out-of-school suspensions in those schools from 2012 to 2014.

H-68
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015Footnote2016

Footnote

2017 

Project funding:

Project fundi ng: New SPD awards $9,203 $8,785 $23,147

Project fundi ng: Continuation SPD awards 32,4181,2 32,633218,414

Project fundi ng: Performance evaluation 0 203 60

Project fundi ng: Peer review of new award applications 9 9 9

Total funding 41,630 41,630 41,630

Average award (whole dollars) 1,067 1,070 1,014

Number of awards:

Number of awards: New 9 9 23

Number of awards: Continuation 30 31 18

Total awards 39 40 41

1

 About $1,209 thousand of FY 2014 funds were used to support project continuation costs in FY 2015. 2 About $1,388 thousand of FY 2015 funds will be used to support FY 2016 continuations. 

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 

2017 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.

In fiscal year 2011, the Department revised its measures to better align with the current focus of 

the professional development provided by the program. The measures are based on the belief 

that no intervention practice, no matter what its evidence base, is likely to be learned and 

H-69
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

adopted if the methods and strategies used to teach or train personnel are not themselves 

effective. The new measures were implemented in the project year that began October 1, 2011, 

for SPD cohorts funded in fiscal year 2011 and beyond. Performance data and other 

information reported in 2012 through 2014 were used to refine the measures, methodology, and 

scoring. The Department used data reported in 2012 through 2014 to develop baseline targets 

in the fall of 2015. The actual data and targets for these measures will reflect the performance 

in the year the initiative took place, in this case the year the initiative was implemented or 

delivered.

Measure: The percentage of SPD-funded initiatives that meet the benchmarks for use of 

evidence-based professional development practices in years 2 to 5.

Year Target Actual

2015 Baseline 72.4%

2016 70%

2017 70

Additional information: In 2015, this measure applied to all SPD grants in their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th

years of funding. In 2015, Twenty-nine 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 eligible SPD grants. The contractor commissioned two 

reviewers with expertise in special education, PD, and program evaluation to assess the extent 

to which the SPD grant PD initiatives selected for review utilized evidence-based PD practices. 

To standardize the review, the program office provided the reviewers with an electronic copy of 

a worksheet describing each PD initiative in terms of (1) Selection, (2) Training, (3) Coaching, 

(4) Performance Assessment, and (5) Facilitative Administrative Support/Systems Intervention 

with the SPD Evidence-based Professional Development Components Rubric, which reviewers 

used to assess the extent to which the SPD PD initiatives implemented evidence-based PD 

practices.

The calculation of this measure is as follows: Number of SPD funded PD initiatives in their 2nd, 

3rd, or 4th year of implementation that meet their respective benchmarks for use of evidencebased PD practices divided by the total number of SPD PD initiatives in their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year 

of implementation reviewed times 100. For fiscal year 2015, the number of SPD PD initiatives 

meeting their respective benchmarks/number of SPD PD initiatives reviewed x 100 = (21/29) x 

100 = 72.4 percent.

H-70
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

Measure: The percentage of SPD-funded initiatives that meet the benchmark for improvement 

in implementation in their third through fifth years.

Year Target Actual

2015 Baseline 58%

2016 60%

2017 60

Additional information: In 2015, 15 of the 30 initiatives were in their 3rd or 4th year of 

implementation and therefore subject to the benchmarks defined by the program office.

The calculation of this measure is as follows. Number of SPD funded PD initiatives in their 3rd 

or 4th year of implementation that meet their benchmark for improvement in implementation of 

evidence-based PD practices divided by the total number of SPD funded PD initiatives in their 

3rd or 4th year of implementation reviewed times 100.

Three of the 15 grantees had plans in place to measure the fidelity of implementation of 

evidence-based practices within their PD initiatives but reviewers agreed that their plans did not 

include measurement within the APR reporting period. Their targets were set for one or more 

years in the future. Reviewers attached the label “Not Applicable” in these three cases and 

these grants were not included in the 2015 result. Therefore, the number of PD initiatives 

reviewed to which the measure applied was 12. For fiscal year 2015, the number of SPD PD 

initiatives meeting their respective benchmarks/number of SPD PD initiatives reviewed x 100 = 

(7/12) x 100 = 58 percent. 

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%

2017 85

Additional information: Grantees submit data describing the cost of the fidelity activities 

designed to sustain individual initiatives divided by the total cost of all professional development 

activities carried out for that initiative. Targets for each initiative are set in conjunction with the 

grantee, and expert panels review the data to determine whether the grantee has met the target 

for spending on that initiative within 5 percent of the target. 

In 2015, this measure applied to all SPD grants in their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years of funding. An 

outside contractor used a random sampling process to select 1 PD initiative for review from 

each of 29 eligible SPD grants. The contractor commissioned two reviewers with expertise in 

special education, PD, program evaluation, and finance to extract cost data for each PD 

initiative under review from the APR and calculate the percentage of SPD grants that met their 

targets for the use of funds to sustain evidence-based practices. To standardize the review, the 

program office provided the reviewers with an electronic copy of each APR along with the set of 

benchmarks in the form of questions that identify whether or not the grantee met their target for 

use of funds for sustainability. 

H-71
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

In 2015, 29 of the 30 initiatives were in their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year of implementation and were 

therefore subject to the benchmark defined by the program office. The calculation of this 

measure is as follows: Number of SPD funded PD initiatives in their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year of 

implementation that meet the grantee benchmark for using funds to support sustainability 

divided by the total number of SPD PD initiatives in their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year of implementation 

reviewed times 100.

For 2015, the number of SPD initiatives meeting their respective benchmark/number of SPD 

initiatives reviewed x 100 = (26/29) x 100 = 90 percent.

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.

Measure: The percentage of SPD grant-funded projects that meet targets for retention of 

special education teachers. 

Three SPD grantees, Oregon, Maine and Kansas State Education Agencies (SEAs), have an 

objective related to teacher retention in their application and thus respond to this measure. The 

following information describes their data collection process and their progress in reaching the 

related objective. Oregon obtains data through districts receiving subgrants. Kansas tracks

teachers through an annual, State-administered survey. Maine has a service obligation with the 

teachers it supports, and obtains data by working with IHEs that prepare the teachers. Two of 

the three grantees met their target for percent of teachers retained (KS, OR). All three grantees 

had set a target that 80 percent or more of supported teachers would be retained.

Oregon Department of Education: The 2011-2016 Oregon SPD grant is ensuring continuity 

for the Speech-Language Pathology (SLP) Scholarship Program with the introduction of district 

mentorship subgrant awards. In 2013, 12 scholarships were awarded to aspiring SLPs who 

also were assigned district SLP mentors in Oregon schools. Current SLP scholarship recipients 

are still in their 2-3 year SLP Master’s degree program and will not complete their required two 

years of post-licensure work until they graduate. Of the 12 2013 SLP graduates, 10 have 

remained employed in Oregon schools as SLPs after completing the required 2 years of 

employment in Oregon districts. For the individuals that are not employed as SLPs in Oregon, 

one is working in another position in an Oregon district and the other is working as an SLP in a 

Washington district. The 2-year retention rate in 2014 was 8 out of 11.

Maine Department of Education: Eighty-five percent of those highly qualified special 

education teachers who have participated in SPD grant-supported special education retention 

activities will remain as special education teachers employed within the State of Maine two 

years after their initial provisional certification. As Maine completed its SPD grant, funded in the 

2014-2015 school year, 40 SPD grant-funded scholarship recipients will have completed their 

service obligation and indicated that they will continue in their current positions as special 

educators. Of the remaining 19 SPD grant scholarship recipients, 4 have moved into 

repayment, 1 is unable to repay the funds, while 11 continue to take courses. Of the remaining 

recipients, 2 are preparing to become teachers for the visually impaired and 1 is preparing to 

become an orientation & mobility specialist. They will begin their service obligation January 

2017.

H-72
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE): Eighty percent of teachers that participated 

in the SPD Grant – Early Career Special Educator Mentoring remain as special education 

teachers two years after their initial participation. Mentees are tracked through an annual 

survey, which is administered to mentees in February/March of each year. When necessary, 

additional data and data verification is obtained from the project lead and KSDE. Of the 

67 mentees that participated during the 2012-2013 school year, 55 mentees (82.1 percent) 

returned to a special education position in Kansas in 2014-15. Five mentees (7.5 percent) 

switched to general education positions; one mentee (1.5 percent) is now working in an 

alternative education program; one mentee (1.5 percent) is now working in a neighboring State; 

and one mentee (1.5 percent) is now working as an English language learner (ELL) instructor. 

The remaining four mentees’ (6.0 percent) current positions are unknown.

H-73
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 2, Section 663)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2016 footn2017 Change

$44,3452$54,345 +$10,000

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017. 2 Excludes $10,083 thousand for the Special Olympics education program. 

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 providing educators, 

policymakers, other service providers, and the parents and families of children with disabilities 

with information on effective practices for meeting the needs of children with disabilities and 

their families. 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 the IDEA, including the practices of professionals and others involved in providing 

services that promote academic achievement and improve results for children with disabilities. 

A majority of the grants currently funded under the TA & D program support technical 

assistance centers that focus on a particular topic, population, or age range, such as early 

intervening services, dispute resolution, early childhood, college- and career-readiness, and 

positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve results for children with disabilities. 

Most centers use a service model that provides three levels of technical assistance: 

intensive/sustained, targeted/specific, and general/universal. At the intensive/sustained level, a 

handful 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 and can be one-time or short-term 

events such as consultation services or presentations at conferences. The centers also provide 

general/universal technical assistance services that permit a broader audience to access 

information and services through presentations, newsletters, or research syntheses that are 

made available on center websites. 

Most activities supported through this program are designed to address the needs of a variety of 

audiences. While these audiences vary, in general, they include teachers, related services 

personnel, early intervention personnel, administrators, parents, and individuals with disabilities. 

H-74
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

In addition to facilitating the adoption of model practices, TA & D activities promote the 

application of knowledge to improve practice by: determining areas where technical assistance 

and information are needed, preparing or 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 technical assistance and dissemination activities supported through this program are based 

on the best information available. One source of the scientifically based research findings that 

are used to inform technical assistance and dissemination activities is the What Works 

Clearinghouse in the Institute of Education Sciences. This is particularly true in cases where 

there is alignment between the topical focus of a center and work being supported through the 

What Works Clearinghouse, such as dropout prevention. 

The duration of awards varies with the award's purpose. 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

2012..................................................................................... $46,7811

2013....................................................................................... 44,3452

2014....................................................................................... 44,3452 

2015....................................................................................... 44,3452

2016....................................................................................... 44,3453

1 Excludes $8,000 thousand used to support the Special Olympics. 2 Excludes $7,583 thousand used to support the Special Olympics. 3 Excludes $10,083 thousand used to support the Special Olympics.

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2017, the Administration is requesting $54.3 million for the Technical Assistance 

and Dissemination (TA&D) program, an increase of $10 million over the fiscal year 2016 level. 

Approximately half of the funds requested, $31.2 million, would be used to support continuation 

costs and $21.3 million would be used to fund new competitions. The request would provide 

$10 million for grants to substantially increase the Administration’s investment in model 

demonstration projects to build the evidence-base for promising practices in critical areas such 

as interventions for students with autism that require intensive services and support. 

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. These activities have successfully facilitated 

the adoption and spread of evidence-based practices such as positive behavioral interventions 

and supports, which have been implemented in more than 21,000 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.

H-75
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

Model Demonstration Projects

As States refine their systems and use data to identify areas for improvement in their State 

Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs), a required component of the Administration’s Results 

Driven Accountability (RDA) 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. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of interventions that have demonstrated 

success in school settings, particularly for students who require intensive individualized 

attention. In order to bridge the gap from research studies in controlled environments to schoollevel implementation, beginning in fiscal year 2017 the Administration proposes to provide

$10 million per year for 4 years for new model demonstration projects. 

The growing field of implementation science suggests that effective implementation — including 

an understanding of how to accommodate variations inherent in the different contexts in which 

programs are implemented, can be just as important as identifying evidence-based practices in 

the first place. Few schools or programs can successfully implement evidence-based practices 

without detailed implementation strategies. Research studies, however, do not typically 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 effective implementation of interventions in areas of critical need. For 

example, in 2011, OSEP funded a cohort of model demonstration projects focused on 

addressing some of the most serious challenges relating to serving English Language Learners 

(ELLs) who are or may be students with disabilities. The projects entailed the development and 

implementation of culturally responsive literacy interventions as well as effective methods of 

identifying ELLs with or at risk of having a disability. The cohort includes models using a 

Response to Intervention framework to improve literacy outcomes for ELLs and to help teachers 

appropriately identify students with disabilities. Some schools are using two-way dual language 

(Spanish/English) programs, and others are English Immersion or Transitional programs. To 

date, the average scores on reading achievement at model demonstration sites are higher and 

statistically significant compared to the average scores at non-model schools. Overall, the 

reading scores are higher across grades at all model demonstration sites. In year 3, in the 

model demonstration sites, the percentage of students requiring more intensive intervention in 

first grade decreased from 49 percent to 17 percent and second grade students from 83 percent 

to 33 percent.

This new model demonstration investment will address critical areas of need in special 

education and early intervention that align with goals identified in SSIPs, such as: aligning and 

adapting instruction for students with significant disabilities; enhancing effective supports for

secondary transition; providing effective services for targeted groups of children such as those 

with emotional disturbance and autism spectrum disorders. The Administration plans to fund 

eight cohorts of model demonstrations at $1.2 million annually. The focus areas for model 

demonstrations will be selected based on emerging areas of research, needs identified by 

TA&D centers, and input from the special education field. Cohorts would include schools and 

districts in varied settings ranging from rural to urban in order to identify and address the 

implementation challenges of students throughout the country. The Administration will also fund 

a Model Demonstration Coordinating Center to assist the projects in structuring their summative 

and formative evaluations to effectively disseminate lessons learned during implementation. 

H-76
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

This Center will document and describe effective implementation strategies in order to 

disseminate and scale up practices that have demonstrated their effectiveness. 

Additional Technical Assistance Activities

The Administration’s technical assistance investments focus on meeting the needs of States 

and LEAs that serve children with disabilities and include support in priority areas such as: 

early learning, post-secondary transition, and support for low incidence disabilities like deafblindness. The Administration takes a number of factors into consideration when funding 

technical assistance centers including: meeting statutory requirements, the needs of the field, 

and the risk of duplication across programs. Investments in this program are required to 

coordinate with the Comprehensive Centers, the Regional Educational Laboratories and other 

relevant Administration investments. Consistent with the Administration’s past work to support 

State efforts to use evidence-based implementation in building State capacity, this request 

includes $11.3 million for new awards in fiscal year 2017 that will focus on specific areas of 

need. 

For example, the Administration plans to fund a new Early Childhood Technical Assistance 

Center at $4.5 million, which will provide technical assistance to States to help them develop 

early childhood data systems for children with disabilities. This Center will focus on helping 

States develop the capacity to use data to improve early learning outcomes, to enable more 

data-based decision making, and to support programs or practices with strong or moderate 

evidence of effectiveness. 

In addition, the Administration plans to fund a new center called the School-Wide Integrated 

Framework for Transformation (SWIFT) Center at $4.9 million. The SWIFT Center will offer 

schools, States and districts the ability to build capacity to scale up and sustain new practices 

for schoolwide inclusive reform in urban, rural and high-need schools in grades K-8 for students 

with disabilities. This Center will focus on improving the knowledge and skills of classroom 

educators to implement inclusive schoolwide reform; increase the capacity of schools to 

implement fully inclusive reform in academic, extracurricular, and school-based settings; and 

increase family and community engagement in schoolwide reform. 

Finally, the Administration plans to fund a new State Implementation and Scaling-up of 

Evidence-based Practices Center at $1.1 million, which will focus on building State capacity to 

scale up evidence-based practices. This Center will collaborate with States to align efforts 

across general and special education to build State capacity to implement and sustain 

education reforms with fidelity. 

Continuation funding would be provided for a variety of projects, including those that focus on 

particular topics, age ranges of children, and student needs or disabilities. These include, for 

example: 

Projects focusing on specialized technical assistance

Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) – CADRE provides 

State Education Agencies (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 the State Systematic Improvement Plan indicators 

H-77
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

related to dispute resolution. CADRE helps ensure that parents and families get the information 

they need about various methods for resolving disputes and helps avoid costly adversarial due 

process hearings. 

Projects focusing on supporting State’s Transition to Results Driven Accountability

National Center for Systemic Improvement (NCSI) – NCSI provides States with technical 

assistance to support LEAs and local early intervention service providers in improving 

educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities. NCSI is also 

supporting States in the development of their SSIPs, which are a required component of RDA. 

NCSI works collaboratively with other OSEP-funded TA centers to focus on areas such as 

special education fiscal management, early-childhood programs, and postsecondary transition. 

Projects focusing on children with disabilities by age or grade

The National Technical Assistance Center on Transition (NTACT) – NTACT assists SEAs, 

LEAs, State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies, and VR service providers to implement 

evidence-based and promising practices ensuring students with disabilities, including those with 

significant disabilities, graduate prepared for success in postsecondary education and 

employment.

Projects focusing on children with particular needs

Deaf-Blindness Projects – The Department supports State and multi-State projects providing 

technical assistance on services for children who are both deaf and blind. The Department also 

supports a coordinating center that provides technical assistance to State and multi-State 

projects.

For more information on the OSEPs technical assistance centers, visit: http://www.tadnet.org/. 

H-78
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015footnote2016footnote2017footnote

Program Funding:

Specialized technical assistance and 

dissemination:

Specialized technical assistance and dissemi nation:New 0 $3,8151 $4,900

Specialized technical assistance and dissemi nation: Continuations $10,335 7,235 5,770

Specialized technical assistance and dissemi nation: Subtotal 10,335 11,050 10,670

Model demonstration centers:

Model demonstration centers: New 1,5872 1,200 10,000

Model demonstration centers: Continuations 1,196 812 2,400

Model demonstration centers: Subtotal 2,783 2,012 12,400

National Center for Systemic Improvement:

Regional/F eder al Resource Centers: Continuations 8,772 8,772 8,772 

Regional/F eder al Resource Centers: Subtotal 8,772 8,772 8,772

Early childhood technical assistance:

Earl y childhood technical assistance: New 0 0 4,500

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Continuations 4,500 4,500 0

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Subtotal 4,500 4,500 4,500

Secondary, transition and postsecondary technical 

assistance:

Secondar y, transiti on and postsecondar y technical assistance:New 0 1,300 0

Secondar y, transiti on and postsecondar y technical assistance:Continuations 3,400 2,100 3,400

Secondar y, transiti on and postsecondar y technical assistance:Subtotal 3,400 3,400 3,400

Technical assistance for children who are both deaf 

and blind:

Technical assistance for children who ar e both deaf and blind: Continuations 11,350 11,350 11,350

Technical assistance for children who ar e both deaf and blind: Subtotal 11,350 11,350 11,350

1 About $715 thousand of fiscal year 2016 funds will be used to pay 2017 continuation costs.

2 About $388 thousand of fiscal year 2015 funds will be used to pay 2016 continuation costs.

H-79
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (continued)

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015footnote

2016footnote

2017footnote

Transfers to Elementary and Secondary

Education for comprehensive centers: Transfers to El ementar y and Secondar y 

 Education for compr ehensi ve centers: New 0 0 $750 Transfers to El ementar y and Secondar y 

 Education for compr ehensi ve centers: Continuations $750 $750 0

Subtotal 750 750 750

Federal technical assistance; technical assistance 

on data analysis; State, and Federal information 

exchange; other:

 F eder al infor mation exchange; other: State Implementation and Scaling-up of

Evidence-based Practices Center (grant) 1,100 1,100 1,100

 F eder al infor mation exchange; other: Analysis, Communications, Dissemination, and 

Meetings contract 621 606 623

 F eder al infor mation exchange; other: Performance Measures contract 92 134 94

 F eder al infor mation exchange; other: Center to Improve Project Performance contract 145 100 116

 F eder al infor mation exchange; other: Annual Report to Congress contract 467 481 480

 on data anal ysis; State, and F eder al infor mation exchange; other: Subtotal 2,425 2,421 2,413

 sistance; technical assistance on data anal ysis; State, and F eder al infor mation exchange; other: New, Subtotal 0 0 1,100

 sistance; technical assistance on data anal ysis; State, and F eder al infor mation exchange; other: Continuations, Subtotal 2,425 2,421 1,313

Peer review of new award applications 30 90 90

Total program funding:

Total pr ogram fundi ng: New 1,587 6,315 21,250

Total pr ogram fundi ng: Continuations 42,728 37,940 33,005

Total pr ogram fundi ng: Peer review 30 90 90

Total pr ogram fundi ng: Total 44,345144,3452

54,345

1 Excludes $7,583 thousand for the Special Olympics. 2 Excludes $10,083 thousand for the Special Olympics.

H-80
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

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 2017 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.

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 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 

an effort to make measures relating to technical assistance and dissemination activities more 

consistent Departmentwide. However, the measures 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. Since fiscal year 

2010, the total number of TA&D centers funded under this program has been cut in half, from 

26 to 13 Centers. These targets do not reflect a reduced expectation for program performance; 

rather they are lower due to the reduced number of products and services available for review. 

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 that follow, data are collected and 

analyzed by a contractor, using expert panels of reviewers who assess grant implementation by 

reviewing a sample of products and services developed by grantees. Products and services are 

reviewed against a listing of evidence-based practices in key target areas that the Department 

has identified as critical. The sample of grantees included in this measure for each year 

consists of approximately 13 TA&D centers and 10 State Deaf-Blind programs. Each TA&D 

center included in the sample submits a list of every new product and service from the previous 

year, from which one new product and service are selected to be reviewed. Each State DeafBlind grantee included in the sample is asked to submit a list of every new service from the 

H-81
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

previous year, from which one product is selected to be reviewed. Products and services are 

divided into the categories of policy and practice. Items that are considered to be in the area of 

practice are reviewed by the science panel, and policy items are reviewed by the State 

representative stakeholder panel. 

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. Data for each indicator are 

calculated by dividing the number of TA&D center products and services that received an 

average quality rating of six or better, out of nine possible points, by the total number of TA&D 

products and services reviewed. The Department performs the same calculation for the 

services provided by State Deaf-Blind grantees, assigns weights to each of these calculations to 

correspond to the proportion of total program funds expended in each area, and then adds the 

figures together to produce an overall quality rating for the program. The specific rubric used to 

assess products and services for each measure is identified below in the Additional Information 

section following the Measure.

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

2012 92% 100%

2013 94 81

2014 95 91.4

2015 95

2016 90

2017 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. Specifically, the panels assess the quality of the materials on 

the following dimensions: (1) Substance (Does the product reflect the best of current research 

and theory or policy guidance, as demonstrated by a scientifically- or evidence-based approach, 

a solid conceptual framework, appropriate citations and other evidence of conceptual 

soundness?); and (2) Communication (Does the product have clarity in its presentation, as 

evidenced by being free of editorial errors, appropriately formatted, and well organized?). The 

total score for any individual product or service reviewed is the sum of the two quality dimension 

sub-scores. The Department considers any individual product or service that receives a total 

score of six or higher out of nine possible points to be of high quality.

In 2016, due to the change in the number of centers funded, the Department adjusted the 

targets for this program in order to produce more valid and appropriate results. Based on the 

most recent data available, in 2014, the program fell short of the target with 31 out of 35

products and services meeting the standard for high quality; however, this performance exceeds 

the targets adjusted for 2016 and beyond. The Department will monitor any individual grantees 

that receive lower scores more aggressively to improve program performance and ensure that 

these grantees take steps to improve the quality of their products and services.

H-82
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

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

2012 95% 94%

2013 95 94

2014 95 97

2015 95

2016 90

2017 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 is responsive to 

priority issues, including challenges confronting the target groups. Specifically, the rubric is 

designed to yield ratings on the basis of the following three dimensions related to relevance:

(1) Need (Does the content of the material attempt to solve an important problem or critical 

issue?); (2) Pertinence (Does the content of the material match the problem or issue facing the 

target group or groups?); and (3) Reach (To what extent is the content of the material applicable 

to diverse populations within the target group?). The total score for any individual product or 

service reviewed is the sum of the three quality dimension sub-scores. High relevance for any 

individual product or service is defined as a total score of six or higher of nine possible points.

Overall performance under this measure has been strong in every year for which data have 

been collected. Based on the most recent data available, in 2014, the program exceeded the 

target with 34 out of 35 products and services meeting the standard for high relevance. The 

Department seeks to maintain the high levels of performance for this measure and will monitor 

any individual grantees that receive lower scores more aggressively to improve program 

performance and ensure that these grantees take steps to improve the relevance of their 

products and services.

H-83
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

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

2012 92% 83%

2013 95 84

2014 95 94.3

2015 95

2016 90

2017 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. Specifically, the rubric is designed to yield ratings on 

the basis of the following three dimensions related to usefulness: (1) Ease (Does the content of 

the product or service description address a problem or issue in an easily understood way, with 

directions or guidance regarding how a problem or issue can be addressed?); (2) Replicability 

(Is it likely that the information derived from the product or service will eventually be used by the 

target group to achieve the benefit intended?); and (3) Sustainability (Is it likely that the 

information derived from the product or service will eventually be used in more than one setting 

successfully over and over again to achieve the intended benefit?). The total score for any 

individual product or service reviewed is the sum of the three quality dimension sub-scores. 

High usefulness for any individual product or service is defined as a total score of six or higher 

of nine possible points.

In 2016, due to the change in the number of centers funded, the Department adjusted the 

targets for this program to produce more valid and appropriate results. Based on the most 

recent data available, in 2014, the program fell short of the target with 33 out of 35 products and 

services meeting the standard for high usefulness; however, this performance exceeds the 

targets adjusted for 2016 and beyond. To ensure that grantees continue to improve their 

performance under this indicator, the Department will monitor more aggressively any individual 

grantees that receive relatively lower scores to improve program performance and ensure that 

they take steps to improve over time.

Long-term 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, and will use the results 

to continue to refine the measure and set performance targets for future years. 

H-84
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

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

2009 79%

2011 86

2013 86% 83

2015 86 100

2017 86

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. Scientifically or evidence-based practices are defined as practices that 

have been demonstrated as effective within multiple settings through rigorous studies that 

document similar outcomes, and State implementation is defined as having practitioners within 

some portion of the school district or service agency use the practice. For additional information 

on the Department’s definition of evidence see 34 CFR 77.1. 

In 2009, the first year data were collected for this measure, 79 percent of districts and agencies 

sampled were implementing evidence-based practices. In 2011, this figure increased to 

86 percent of districts and agencies sampled. In 2015, the Department met the target with 7 out 

of 7 States implementing evidence-based practices for which they received technical 

assistance. 

Efficiency Measures

In 2008, the Department developed a common efficiency measure for OSEP programs that 

provide technical assistance. After collecting multiple years of data and attempting multiple 

methodologies to examine efficiency, the Department struggled to produce reliable results. Due 

to the varied technical assistance provided by the Department, data was unstable from year to 

year. Therefore, the Department has decided to stop using this efficiency measure. While the 

Department is no longer attempting to measure the efficiency of the technical assistance 

provided by the TA&D network, the Department will continue to monitor grantees to ensure that 

they are meeting project goals and milestones on time and on budget. 

Other Performance Information

In August 2009, as part of the ongoing National Assessment of IDEA, the Institute of Education 

Sciences (IES) launched a 5-year evaluation of the IDEA TA&D program and various technical 

assistance activities that are currently supported under the other IDEA, Part D programs, such 

as centers that provide technical assistance on specific topical areas. The initial goals of this 

evaluation were to inform policymakers and practitioners about: (1) the nature of the technical 

assistance services provided by TA&D grantees; (2) the experiences of SEAs and LEAs that 

interact with such grantees; (3) the implementation of practices recommended by such 

grantees, and (d) whether implementation of recommended practices is associated with 

improved outcomes for children and youth with disabilities. 

H-85
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

Initial data collection and analysis revealed limitations of the data, so the objectives of the 

evaluation were revised to determine: (1) the needs and uses for TA&D services; (2) what 

services are seen as most helpful in contributing to the improvement of key student outcomes;

(3) the perceived barriers to local level implementation; (4) how TA&D grantees identify their 

clients, assess their needs, and develop and maintain their relationship with clients; and (5) the 

extent to which assistance from TA&D grantees relate to implementation of special education 

policies and practices that support the implementation of IDEA. The evaluation addresses 

these research questions using data gathered from OSEP, through EDFacts, and through new 

surveys of TA&D grantees, SEA officials responsible for IDEA implementation, and school 

district special education directors. 

In October 2013, IES released an interim report, the “National Evaluation of the IDEA Technical 

Assistance & Dissemination Program.” Technical assistance providers most commonly 

reported providing technical assistance on the topics of “parent and family involvement,” and 

“data systems and use of data for improvement.” Recipients of technical assistance identified 

General Supervision/Monitoring, early childhood transition, special education finance, and 

Response to Intervention as the topics for which they had the greatest need for technical 

assistance in the 2010–11 school year. In addition, this analysis found some potential 

duplication of services provided by technical assistance providers; however, this analysis was 

unable to establish whether such cases were indicators of inefficiency or of complementary and 

coordinated services. 

The report found that 71 percent of technical assistance recipients had a "very satisfactory" 

overall experience. On average, customers receiving high intensity technical assistance were 

significantly more satisfied than those receiving lower intensity technical assistance 

(i.e., infrequent training and consultation or Web-only support). The final report is now

scheduled to be published in 2016, rather than 2014 as previously reported.

H-86
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 2, Sections 661 and 662) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$83,700 $83,700 0

1

 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017.

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.

The Department is required to make competitive grants that support training activities in a few 

high priority areas, including: general personnel development and preparing beginning special 

educators, personnel serving 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: (a) promoting partnerships and collaborative personnel preparation 

and training between institutions of higher education (IHEs) and local educational 

agencies (LEAs), (b) developing, evaluating, and disseminating innovative models for the 

recruitment, induction, retention, and assessment of teachers, (c) providing continuous training 

and professional development to support special education and general education teachers and 

related services personnel, (d) developing and improving programs for paraprofessionals to 

become special educators, (e) promoting instructional leadership and improved collaboration 

between general and special education, (f) supporting IHEs with minority enrollment of not less 

than 25 percent, and (g) developing and improving programs to train special educators to 

develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders.

H-87
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

Beginning Special Educators. The Department also is 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 

quality personnel in this area by providing financial aid as an incentive to 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 Administration expanded the definition to 

also 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; and 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 a variety of different personnel, such as 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, 

approximately half of the program’s total funding have been used to directly support student 

scholarships. 

A large majority of grants awarded through this program goes to IHEs to provide scholarships to 

train additional special education and early intervention personnel. However, the Department 

H-88
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

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 

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. A variety of 

other programs administered by the Department also make competitive awards that support 

training and professional development activities that are designed to improve the effectiveness 

of teachers, including special education personnel.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012.............................................................. ................$88,299

2013.............................................................. ..................83,700

2014.............................................................. ..................83,700

2015.............................................................. ..................83,700

2016.............................................................. ..................83,700

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2017, the Administration requests $83.7 million for the Personnel Preparation 

program, level with the fiscal year 2016 amount. Of this amount, approximately $22.0 million 

would be used for new projects and $61.7 million would support the continuation of grants made 

in prior years. Approximately $9.3 million of the funding for new projects in fiscal year 2017

would be used to support training for special education and early intervention personnel, and 

approximately $3.5 million would be used to support the training of special education leadership 

personnel. The remaining additional funding would be used to support national technical 

assistance centers focused on improving the professional development of special education 

personnel.

Program Funding Priorities

The Administration continues to explore how funds available to support new activities under this 

program can be better targeted to support human capital systems that prepare, recruit, support, 

evaluate, compensate and retain effective educators,. Administration priorities in this area 

include: ensuring teachers enter the classroom with the necessary skills to be effective; 

addressing inequities in the distribution of effective teachers; implementing high quality teacher 

and principal evaluation and support systems; alleviating ongoing personnel shortages of 

teachers and principals who are prepared to provide evidence-based services for children with 

disabilities; and improving the quality of teacher pre-service preparation programs through the 

use of data on the effectiveness of graduates in the classroom.

Since fiscal year 2011, the Department has required preparation programs supported under this 

program to track the impact that program completers had on students after they completed their 

H-89
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

training and entered the field. Specifically, grantees are required, during their project periods, to 

track impacts on student growth and social, emotional, and academic development, as 

appropriate. These requirements will be continued in new competitions in fiscal year 2017. 

In fiscal year 2012, the Department also funded a new technical assistance center to assist 

States and institutions of higher education in evaluating and improving personnel preparation 

programs by using data on outcomes for students with disabilities. Fiscal year 2016 is the final 

year of funding for this center.

The funds available through this program are primarily used to support on-going development of 

best practices, improvements in the quality of training offered and the training of additional 

special education, related services, and leadership personnel in high priority areas, including 

training personnel to provide services to students with 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 in this area. Persistent 

shortages of qualified personnel have been reported since the enactment of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1975. While States and local educational agencies across 

the country experience personnel shortages, recruiting and retaining special educators is 

particularly challenging for schools in high-poverty districts. Data from “Teacher Quality Under 

No Child Left Behind: Final Report,” illustrate the challenge. According to this study, completed 

by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) for the Department in January 2009, 

approximately 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 (see http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/nclbfinal/index.html). 

According to data that States are required to report pursuant to Title II of the Higher Education 

Act (HEA), through the 2009-2010 academic year, more States reported shortages in special 

education personnel than in any other area. Forty-nine States, the District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, and Virgin Islands reported 

shortages in special education (see https://title2.ed.gov/TitleIIReport13.pdf). 

The National Assessment of IDEA 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 preschool-age and 

school-age special education teacher full-time positions were left vacant in the 2008-2009 

academic year (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114026/pdf/20114026.pdf).

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 postsecondary and K-12 

levels. 

H-90
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 footnote 2016 footnote 2017

Program Funding:

Low incidence disabilities grants:

New Low incidence disabilities grants $2,351 $4,117 $2,417

Continuations Low incidence disabilities grants 12,790 13,778 15,472

Subtotal Low incidence disabilities grants 15,141 17,895 17,889

Leadership training grants:

New Leadership training grants 3,750 3,250 4,408

Continuations Leadership training grants 14,123 114,988 213,867

Subtotal Leadership training grants 17,873 18,238 18,275

Minority institution grants:3

New Minority institution grants 1,899 1,952 1,952

Continuations Minority institution grants 8,686 8,503 8,498

Subtotal Minority institution grants 10,585 10,456 10,450

Program improvement grants:

New 0 0 6,500

Continuations Program improvement grants 9,088 6,500 0

Subtotal Program improvement grants 9,088 6,500 6,500

Early childhood grants:

New Early childhood grants 3,713 3,818 5,018

Continuations Early childhood grants 18,189 17,831 16,621

Subtotal Early childhood grants 21,902 21,649 21,639

Other personnel development grants:

New Other personnel development grants 1,277 1,313 1,313

Continuations Other personnel development grants 5,840 5,718 5,714

Subtotal Other personnel development grants 7,117 7,031 7,027

National Activities:

Continuations national activities 1,564 1,532 1,520

Subtotal national activities 1,564 1,532 1,520

Peer review of new award 

applications $430 $400 $400

H-91
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (continued)

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 footnote 2016 footnote 2017

Total Program Funding:

New total program funding 12,990 14,450 21,608

Continuations total program funding 70,280 68,850 61,692

Peer review of new award 

applications 430 400 400

Total 83,700 83,700 83,700

________________

1 The fiscal year 2015 continuation awards total includes approximately $647 thousand in fiscal year 2015 funds 

for support of fiscal year 2016 continuation costs. 2 The fiscal year 2016 continuation awards total includes approximately $879 thousand in fiscal year 2016 funds 

for support of fiscal year 2017 continuation costs. 3 This category includes awards to institutions with minority enrollments of not less than 25 percent. Under IDEA, 

Part D, Sec. 681(c)(2), the Department is required to reserve not less than 2 percent of the total amount of funds 

appropriated under Part D, subparts 2 and 3, for outreach and technical assistance activities for historically Black 

colleges and universities and IHEs with minority enrollments of not less than 25 percent.

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 2017 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.

Long-Term Performance Measures

The program has two long-term measures that are designed to provide information on the 

quality of the program by looking at the skills of scholars supported using program funds. 

H-92
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who maintain employment for 3 or more 

years in the area(s) for which they were trained and who are fully qualified under IDEA.

Additional Information: In recent years, the Department has found it difficult to accurately and 

meaningfully calculate and report data on this measure. As such, we are currently evaluating 

this measure and the available methodologies for accurately calculating it. The Department 

expects a revised measure or methodology to be in place by spring 2016.

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

2012 85% 80%

2013 85 81

2014 85

2015 90

2016 90

2017 90

Additional Information: Grantees submit data annually through the Department Personnel 

Preparation Data Report (PPD) Web-based data collection (see: http://www.oseppdp.ed.gov). 

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. This measure is calculated by dividing the total number of 

scholars who graduated in a given year and pass an exam demonstrating knowledge and skills 

in evidence-based practices for children with disabilities (1,197 students in fiscal year 2013) by 

the total number of students who completed training programs – including students who passed 

a test (1,197 students), students who did not take a test (168 students), and students who did 

not pass a test or whose testing status or results are missing or unknown (107 students). Data 

for fiscal year 2014 are expected to be available in fall 2016.

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:

H-93
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

Measure: Percentage of projects that incorporate scientifically- or evidence-based practices in 

their curricula.

Year Target Actual

2012 95% 89%

2013 90 82

2014 90 88

2015 90

2016 90

2017 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 50 percent of grantee course 

syllabi submitted by funded applicants in the same cohort of grantees. Syllabi, which are taken

from grantee applications, are reviewed by expert, content-specific panels for the inclusion of 

between five and seven scientifically or evidence-based practices in key target areas that have 

been identified by the Department as critical for all projects – including assessment, behavior, 

inclusive practices, instructional strategies, literacy, transition, and early childhood, as 

appropriate. The score for every individual syllabus is the sum of the evidence-based practices 

observable in that syllabus. In order to meet the standard for incorporating evidence-based 

practices, all evidence-based practice areas reviewed must be identifiable in the syllabus.

In the fiscal year 2015 review, 25 syllabi from fiscal year 2014 personnel development grantees 

were included from the following types of projects: early childhood (8 syllabi scored), leadership 

(8 syllabi scored), and low incidence (9 syllabi scored), including 3 syllabi from minority 

institutions. 

Measure: Percentage of scholars who exit training programs prior to completion due to poor 

academic performance.

Year Target Actual

2012 1.9% 1.6%

2013 1.9 1.3

2014 1.9

2015 1.9

2016 1.9

2017 1.9

Additional Information: Grantees submit data annually through the Department Personnel 

Preparation Data Report (PPD) Web-based data collection (see: http://www.oseppdp.ed.gov). 

No calculation is necessary. The data are taken directly from the PPD data collection. 

Approximately 1.3 percent of all scholars receiving program funds exited their training programs 

early due to poor academic performance in 2012, down from 1.9 percent, 1.7 percent, and 

1.6 percent in 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively. This measure is calculated by dividing the 

total number of scholars exiting their training program due to poor academic performance (n=21 

in 2013) and dividing it by the total number of scholars completing a training program (n=1,473 

H-94
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

in 2013) and the number of scholars exiting their training program prior to completion for any 

reason (n=147 in 2013). Data for fiscal year 2014 are expected to be available in fall 2016.

A low number of scholars exiting their training programs early could reflect either a strong 

recruitment effort by IHEs to ensure high quality students receive Federal scholarship funds or a 

strong student support network in programs receiving Federal funds. While there is still room 

for improvement, IHEs on average seem to be adequately ensuring that scholars do not exit 

training programs prior to completion due to poor academic performance. However, despite the 

reasonably strong performance of grantees on this measure, the Department believes that this 

measure is essential to maintain to ensure that grantees continue to maintain high standards 

when recruiting scholars.

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who are working in the area(s) for which 

they are trained upon program completion.

Year Target Actual

2012 84% 77%

2013 84 87

2014 85

2015 85

2016 85

2017 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. This measure is calculated by dividing the number of degree/certification recipients 

who are working in the areas for which they were trained upon program completion by the total 

number of degree/certification recipients who completed their program in that year, including 

those who were working in the field for which they were trained, those who are not working in 

the field for which they were trained, and those for whom data are missing. 

In 2013, 1,473 scholars completed their programs and 484 were reported as working in the field 

for which they were trained upon program completion. However, to date, 393 individuals do not 

yet have access to the new system and 552 of the 1,080 who do have access to the new 

system have not yet entered employment records and the contractor has been unable to 

establish contact. Largely due to the recent transition to this new data collection, the 

Department is missing data on approximately 70 percent (1,036 divided by 1,473) of 2013 

program completers. 

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. Data for fiscal 

year 2014 will be available in fall 2016.

H-95
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who are working in the area(s) for which 

they are trained upon program completion and who are fully qualified under IDEA.

Year Target Actual

2012 80% 77%

2013 83 84

2014 83

2015 83

2016 83

2017 85

Additional Information: In January 2015, the Department also changed its data collection for 

this measure to an online survey instrument. This measure is calculated by dividing the total 

number of non-leadership degree recipients who were working in the area(s) for which they 

received training at the completion of the program and who are highly qualified by all degree 

recipients who were employed, who were not employed, and for whom the employment status 

was not known, minus students working in positions for which the State does not have 

certification or licensure requirements. Note that the population included in calculations for this 

measure differs from the population included in the previous measure. While the denominator 

in the previous measure included all students currently employed, not employed, and those for 

whom employment status was not known, the denominator for the new measure excludes 

students working in positions for which the State has no licensure or certification requirements. 

Additionally, scholars who received only an endorsement, as well as students who received 

leadership training, are excluded from all calculations because highly qualified status does not 

apply to these individuals.

In 2013, 1,473 scholars completed their programs and 381 were reported as working in the field 

for which they were trained upon program completion and were highly qualified. However, the 

denominator for this measure does not include scholars who do not have access to the system 

(393 scholars), scholars who have access to the system but have not submitted employment 

records (522 scholars), scholars funded under leadership projects (67 scholars), and scholars 

who were employed in States that do not have requirements for certification/licensure for the 

positions or certification/licensure is not applicable (27 scholars). 

As with the preceding measure, the Department continues to seek ways to address issues with 

missing data, including by implementing procedures to proactively follow-up with nonresponsive scholars and ensure that all scholars have timely access to the online survey 

instrument. Data for fiscal year 2014 will available in fall 2016.

H-96
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

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

2012 $25,000 $30,256

2013 25,000 35,726

2014 25,000

2015 25,000

2016 30,000

2017 30,000

Additional Information: This measure links directly to the program’s annual performance 

measures, and should enable comparisons across grantees or sub-sets of similar grantees. 

The Department is currently working with a contractor to analyze grantee-level results to identify 

high performing institutions that other grantees can look to as examples for improving program 

performance. Grantee-level data will also be used to compare the relative efficiency of program 

grantees, both in relation to one another as well as in relation to other Federal programs that 

provide graduate level scholarships. 

The data used to calculate this measure come from the Department’s PPD Web-based data 

collection. The cost per degree/certification program recipient is calculated for individual 

cohorts of grantees by dividing the sum of all project costs supported with Federal funds (across 

all years of each individual scholar’s training) ($44,585,504 in fiscal year 2013) by the number of 

degree recipients who successfully completed funded training programs closing in that year and 

who are fully qualified (1,248 in 2013). Results on this measure were higher in fiscal years 

2011, 2012, and 2013 than in previous years, but the Department believes these increased 

costs reflect the increased costs of college attendance, particularly at the graduate level.

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. The first was a study of IHEs that have applied for funds to 

train personnel under the program. This portion of the study was designed to: (1) collect 

descriptive data from all the funded and non-funded applicants to the fiscal year 2006 and fiscal 

year 2007 competitions (approximately 185 funded and 265 non-funded), and (2) document 

changes to the funded applicants’ courses of study. The second component of the evaluation 

was a study of the national centers funded under the program. This component of the 

evaluation was designed to: (1) document the products and services generated by the national 

centers; (2) produce a rough estimate of their costs; and (3) rate the quality, relevance, and 

usefulness of a sample of those products and services. The study of the national centers 

included all 12 of the centers funded between 2001 and 2008.

H-97
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

The study (see http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20144007) determined 

that, in the fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 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); and

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); and

• 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. They determined that:

• Of the “signature” products/services of these centers:

o Seventy-seven percent were “high” or “very high” quality;

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 

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.

H-98
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Parent information centers

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 3, Sections 671-673)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$27,411 $27,411 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017.

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 

cooperatively and effectively participate 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 training and information 

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. One center specifically serves the unique needs of 

military families and another center serves Native American families across the country.

H-99
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

The parent centers also play an important role in dispute resolution by explaining to parents the 

benefits of alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation, which States are 

required, by the IDEA, to make available. Parent center staff attend or facilitate over 1,000 

alternative dispute resolution sessions every year. These alternative methods of dispute 

resolution can help avoid costly litigation. 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 all centers receiving at least $200,000. No center will 

receive a reduction of more than 20 percent below the amount of their fiscal year 2007 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, 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.

Technical assistance is authorized to assist parent training and information centers, including 

community centers, in areas such as coordinating parent training efforts, disseminating 

scientifically based research and information, and 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 Web site with a wide 

variety of information and materials for parents and professionals, as well as a directory of the 

parent centers (http://www.parentcenternetwork.org/).

In order to receive an award for a parent center, the IDEA requires that applicants must be a 

parent organization that has a board of directors, the majority of which must consist of parents 

of children with disabilities. 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.

While parent centers serve as direct resources for parents and families, they also act as referral 

points to other resources such as those available under the Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination program and from the Institute of Education Sciences. Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination activities are coordinated with Parent Information Centers program activities 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.

H-100
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012 ................................................................................... $28,917

2013...................................................................................... 27,411

2014...................................................................................... 27,411

2015...................................................................................... 27,411

2016...................................................................................... 27,411

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s request of $27.4 million for fiscal year 2017 for the Parent Information 

Centers program, which is the same as the fiscal year 2016 level, would support continuation 

awards for a total of 104 Centers, including 65 Parent Training Information Centers (PTIs), 

30 Community Parent Resource Centers (CPRCs), and 9 Technical Assistance Centers. 

Together, these centers provide training and information to over one million parents and 

professionals each year. Family involvement in children's learning is critical to achieving high 

quality education. Decades of research show that positive school-family partnerships can 

effectively inform families about and involve families in their children's learning. 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.

The training and information provided by the PTIs help ensure that parents have the knowledge 

and skills to help their children with disabilities succeed. In addition to helping parents 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 can work with professionals 

serving their children. For parents of school-aged children, this includes participating with 

administrators and teachers in the development of their child’s individualized education 

programs (IEPs), as provided for by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). For 

parents of infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services, it means participating with a

multidisciplinary team in the development of individualized family service plans (IFSPs). Parent 

centers also serve as sources of information and training for hundreds of thousands of teachers 

and other professionals each year. 

Parent centers use a variety of mechanisms to share information with parents and 

professionals. These include Web sites, one-on-one support, telephone call-in numbers, 

training workshops, and dissemination of written materials. In recent years, the Office of 

Special Education Programs has worked with parent centers to improve their Web sites and 

make their resources available in languages other than English, particularly Spanish (see 

http://www.neparentcenters.org/glossary/index.html). 

H-101
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Program Funding:

Parent Training & Information Centers:

New: Parent Training & Info Centers $14,121 $200 0

Continuations : Parent Training & Info 

Centers 7,264 20,969 $21,169

Subtotal: Parent Training & Info 

Centers 21,385 21,169 21,169

Community Parent Resource Centers:

New: Community Parent 

Resource Centers 0 3,000 0

Continuations: Community Parent 

Resource Centers 2,800 0 3,000

Subtotal: Community Parent Resource 

Centers 2,800 3,000 3,000

Technical Assistance Centers:

Continuations: Technical 

Assistance 2,893 2,899 2,900

Subtotal: Technical Assistance 2,893 2,899 2,900

Other (contracts):

Continuations: Other 254 216 242

Subtotal: Other 254 216 242

Peer Review of new award applications 79 73 0

Total Program Funding:

New: Total 14,200 3,273 0

Continuations: Total 13,211 24,084 27,323

 Undistributed 0 54 88

Total 27,411 27,411 27,411

H-102
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (continued)

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Number of Projects (grants):

Parent Training & Information Centers:

New: Parent Training & Info Centers 40 1 0

Continuations: Parent Training & Info 23 64 65

Community Parent Resource Centers:

New: Community Parent Resource Centers 0 30 0

Continuations: Community Parent Resource Centers 28 0 30

Technical Assistance Centers:

Continuations: Technical Assistance 9 9 9

Total number of projects:

New: Total 40 31 0

Continuations: Total 60 73 104

Total 100 104 104

Other (contracts):

Continuations: Other 3 3 3

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 2017 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. 

Objective 3: Parents served by Special Education Parent Information Centers will be able to 

advocate for scientifically or evidence-based practices for their child.

H-103
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

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 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 Departmentwide. However, the measures were adapted to reflect the 

unique purposes of the Parent Information Centers program. Targets for 2012 through 2017 

were established based on performance data from 2007 to 2015. The measures are:

Measure: The percentage of materials used by Parent Information Centers projects that are 

deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of qualified experts or individuals 

with appropriate expertise to review the substantive content of the products and services.

Year Target Actual

2012 78% 96%

2013 80 100

2014 97 79.4

2015 97 93.3

2016 97

2017 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. In an effort 

to ensure that the sample materials reviewed in 2013 were representative of all grantees, 

1 service was drawn from a stratified random sample of CPRCs and PTIs, for a total of 

28 services reviewed. Prior to 2013, OSEP collected and analyzed data on this measure for 

both products and services. However, because the primary focus of CPRCs and PTIs is on the 

provision of services, beginning in 2013, the Department no longer collected information on 

products in order to more accurately reflect the work of these centers.

All services are reviewed and scored on the basis of a rubric, developed by the OSEP, that is 

designed to yield ratings on the extent to which the content of submitted materials is: evidencebased, valid, complete, and up-to-date. Specifically, the rubric is designed to yield ratings on 

the basis of the following two quality dimensions: (1) Substance (does the service reflect the 

best of current research and theory or policy guidance, as demonstrated by a scientifically or 

evidence-based approach, a solid conceptual framework, appropriate citations, and other 

evidence of conceptual soundness); and (2) Communication (does the service have clarity in its 

presentation, as evidenced by being free of errors, appropriately formatted, and well organized). 

The total score for any individual service reviewed is the sum of the two quality dimension subscores. High quality for any individual service is defined as a total score of six or higher of nine 

possible points. 

H-104
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

This measure is calculated by dividing the number of individual services that received an 

average quality rating of six or better (28 services) by the total number of services reviewed 

(30), multiplied by 100 percent. 

For 2015, 93 percent (28/30 = 0.933 x 100 percent = 93.3 percent) of services were deemed to 

be of high quality, which is an increase compared to 2014 but falls short of the target level. The 

Department continues to use the feedback from the expert panel (6 members on the panel in 

fiscal year 2015) to work with grantees to improve continuously their services. The target 

percentage for 2017 was lowered to adjust for a smaller number of projects.

Measure: The percentage of Parent Information Centers products and services deemed to be 

of high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or practice by an independent 

review panel of qualified members of the Parent Information Centers target audience. 

Year Target Actual

2012 96% 100%

2013 96 96.4

2014 97 85.3

2015 97 90

2016 97

2017 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 

disseminated by centers for the purpose of training and informing parents. In an effort to ensure 

that the sample materials reviewed in 2013 were representative, 1 service was drawn from a 

stratified random sample of CPRCs and PTIs, for a total of 28 services reviewed. Prior to 2013, 

OSEP collected and analyzed data on this measure for both products and services. However, 

because the primary focus of CPRCs and PTIs is on the provision of services, beginning 

in 2013, the Department no longer collected information on products in order to more accurately 

reflect the work of these centers.

All materials are reviewed and scored on the basis of a rubric, developed by OSEP, that is 

designed to yield ratings on the materials’ responsiveness to priority issues and challenges 

confronting the target groups. Specifically, the rubric is designed to yield ratings on the basis of 

the following three dimensions related to relevance: (1) Need (does the content of the material 

attempt to solve an important problem or critical issue); (2) Pertinence (does the content of the 

material match the problem or issue facing the target group or groups); and (3) Reach (to what 

extent is the content of the material applicable to diverse populations within the target group). 

The total score for any individual service reviewed is the sum of the three relevance dimension 

sub-scores. High relevance for any individual service is defined as a total score of six or higher 

of nine possible points.

This measure is calculated by dividing the number of individual services that received an 

average relevance rating of six or better (27 services) by the total number of services reviewed 

(30), multiplied by 100 percent. For fiscal year 2015, 90 percent (27/30 = 0.90 x 100 percent = 

90 percent) of services were deemed to be of high relevance.

H-105
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

Based on the most recent years of data it appears that program grantees generally do a good 

job of ensuring that products and services are of high relevance to education and early 

intervention policy or practice. The actual percentage of materials judged to be of high 

relevance did not meet the target, but increased over fiscal year 2014 findings. The Department 

is using feedback from the expert panel (6 panel members in fiscal year 2105) to advise 

grantees on ways to improve their services and maintain the high standard achieved in 2013. 

Measure: The percentage of all Parent Information Centers products and services deemed to 

be useful by target audiences to improve educational or early intervention policy or practice. 

Year Target Actual

2012 95% 100%

2013 96 92.9

2014 97 88.2

2015 97 93.3

2016 97

2017 93

Additional Information: Data are collected and analyzed by a contractor, using a panel of six 

to eight parent stakeholders who assess grant implementation by reviewing a randomly selected 

sample of materials disseminated by the centers. In an effort to ensure that the sample 

materials reviewed were representative, 1 service was drawn from a stratified random sample of 

28 CPRCs and PTIs, for a total of 28 services reviewed. Prior to 2013, OSEP collected and 

analyzed data on this measure for both products and services. However, because the primary 

focus of CPRCs and PTIs is on the provision of services, beginning in 2013, the Department no 

longer collected information on products in order to more accurately reflect the work of these 

centers.

All materials are reviewed and scored on the basis of a rubric, developed by OSEP, that is 

designed to yield ratings on the extent to which the content 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. Specifically, the rubric is designed to yield ratings on the basis of 

the following dimensions related to usefulness, which were updated in fiscal year 2015: (1) Ease 

(does the content of the service description address a problem or issue in an easily understood 

way, with directions or guidance regarding how a problem or issue can be addressed); and 

(2) Suitability (does the product or service provide the target audience(s) with information or 

resources that can be used again or in different ways to address the problem or issue). The 

total score for any individual service reviewed is the sum of the quality dimension sub-scores. 

High usefulness for any individual product or service is defined as a total score of six or higher 

of nine possible points. 

This measure is calculated by dividing the number of individual services that received an 

average usefulness rating of six or better (28 services) by the total number of services 

reviewed (30), multiplied by 100 percent. For fiscal year 2015, 93 percent (28/30 = 0.933 x 100 

percent = 93.3 percent) of services were deemed to be useful by target audiences. 

Based on the most recent years of data it appears that the program’s grantees generally 

produce products and services that are useful to target audiences. The actual percentage of 

H-106
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

materials judged to be useful increased over fiscal year 2014, but fell short of the target. The 

Department is using feedback from the expert panel (6 members on the panel in fiscal year 

2015) to work with grantees to improve their services and maintain the high standard achieved 

in previous fiscal years.

Long-Term Measures

Two long-term measures have been developed for the program. Data are collected every 

2 years through an OSEP-supported survey of parents who received services from the parent 

centers. In 2009, OSEP conducted an independent survey of the same population to test the 

validity of these measures. The survey found parents’ answers to questions were not 

significantly different from the original data and confirmed the accuracy of the data collection 

methods used for the following long-term measures:

Measure: The percentage of parents receiving Special Education Parent Information Centers 

services who promote scientifically or evidence-based practices for their infants, toddlers, 

children and youth.

Year Target Actual

2009 74% 79%

2011 75 77

2013 76 80.1

2015 77 77.5

2017 Set Baseline 

Additional Information: Data are collected by the parent centers every 2 years using 

telephone interviews with 25 randomly selected parent stakeholders per center. The National 

PTI Technical Assistance Center developed the survey. To calculate the measure, a weighted 

sum of the number of parents whose answers displayed an enhanced knowledge of evidencebased practices is divided by the total number of parents who responded to four relevant survey 

questions. Baseline data for this measure were first collected in 2007 and on the results of a 

validation study in 2009. Due to changes in data collection, targets were undefined for 2017. 

Based on the most recent years of data, it appears that program grantees do a reasonably good 

job of ensuring that parents receiving services from parent information centers promote 

evidence-based practices for their children. The Department uses the results of this measure 

and the annual quality measure to provide the centers with feedback on how they can better 

align their products and services with evidence-based practices. Starting in fiscal year 2017, 

the Department plans to update this measure to report: the percentage of parents receiving 

Special Education Parent Information Centers services who report enhanced knowledge of 

IDEA rights and responsibilities. 

H-107
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

Measure: The percentage of parents receiving Special Education Parent Information Centers 

services who report enhanced knowledge of IDEA rights and responsibilities.

Year Target Actual

2009 85% 90.5%

2011 87 84.5

2013 89 87.6

2015 91 88

2017 Set Baseline

Additional Information: Data are collected for this measure by the parent centers every 

2 years using telephone interviews with 25 randomly selected parent stakeholders per center. 

The National PTI Technical Assistance Center developed the survey. To calculate the 

measure, a weighted sum of the number of parents whose answers displayed an enhanced 

knowledge of IDEA rights and responsibilities is divided by the total number of parents who 

responded to three relevant survey questions. The targets were established based on results 

from the survey in prior years.

Data for this measure suggest that most of the parents receiving services from the grantees 

believe they enhanced their understanding of their rights and responsibilities under IDEA. 

However, while the actual percentage of parents who reported enhanced knowledge increased 

from last year, performance on this measure still fell below the target level. Starting in fiscal 

year 2017, the Department plans to update this measure to report: the percentage of parents 

receiving PTI services who report having enhanced capacity to work with schools and service 

providers effectively in meeting the needs of their children. 

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

2012 1.1 1.3

2013 1.1 1.2

2014 1.1 1.1

2015 1.1 1.6

2016 1.1

2017 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 across the four 

categories of technical assistance during that fiscal year. The result is expressed as an index of 

cost rather than a cost in dollars.

The program office maintains data on the amount of funding provided for Center grants each 

fiscal year. Data on the number of parents and professionals served by grantees is provided to 

H-108
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

the program office by the National Parent Information Center, which is funded by the program. 

The grantee is required to maintain these data and provide them to the program office each 

fiscal year. For fiscal year 2015, the index of 1.6 was arrived by dividing the total funding 

($27,411,000) by the total number of parents and professionals served (17,187,643).

H-109
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Educational technology, media, and 

materials

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 3, Section 674)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$30,047 $30,047 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017.

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 ensures 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 

H-110
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

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 

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 Administration makes 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)

2012................................................................ $29,588

2013................................................................ 28,047

2014................................................................ 28,047

2015................................................................ 28,047

2016................................................................ 30,047

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s request for fiscal year 2017 for the Educational Technology, Media, and 

Materials program is $30.0 million, the same as the fiscal year 2016 appropriation. This request 

would provide approximately $13.7 million for 13 new awards and approximately $16.3 million 

for 20 continuation projects. 

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 guaranteed under the IDEA. This program funds 

innovations in accessible technologies and broadens the understanding of how technology can 

be effectively utilized to increase academic achievement. The Administration believes 

increased access and participation results in higher expectations and improved outcomes for 

children with disabilities. 

H-111
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

Educational Technology

The request includes $14.0 million for Technology activities, which promote the development, 

demonstration, and use of accessible technology. This is accomplished primarily through 

research, for which at least $11.6 million is proposed, including $3.5 million to support six new 

Stepping Up Technology Implementation awards and $6.4 million for seven continuing Stepping 

Up projects. These model demonstration grants validate and scale up promising technologybased products or interventions, such as curriculum materials, accessible products, and 

instructional methodologies.

Of the $11.6 million requested to support research activities, $1.7 million will be used to fund a 

new Center to build on previous investments in online learning, as the most recent grant ended 

in 2015. The Center will focus on improving online learning experiences of students with 

disabilities through advances in accessible technologies and differentiated instruction practices.

In addition to research projects, the request for Technology activities includes $1.4 million for a 

continuation award to support technical assistance and dissemination activities carried out by 

the Center on Technology and Disability (http://ctdinstitute.org/). This Center is designed to 

increase the capacity of families and providers to advocate for, acquire, and implement effective 

assistive and instructional technology practices, devices, and services. 

The request also would provide $1 million for a continuation award that would focus on 

supporting successful strategies to recruit, enroll, retain, and provide instruction to students who 

are deaf or hard of hearing in postsecondary settings. This grant, awarded in fiscal year 2016,

would address the varying communication, technology, and learning needs and preferences of 

individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, to help ensure students have access to and can be 

successful in postsecondary settings. This project would be jointly supported with funds from 

the Personnel Preparation and Technical Assistance and Dissemination programs. Under IDEA 

section 682(d)(1)(B), the Administration is required to provide at least $4 million of the funds 

provided for programs authorized under subparts 2 and 3 of Part D of IDEA “to address the 

postsecondary, vocational, technical, continuing, and adult education needs of individuals with 

deafness.”

Educational Media and Materials

Media and materials includes a variety of activities targeted toward providing 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 

2017, $15.5 million would be allocated to these activities. 

The 2017 request for educational media and materials includes a total of $4 million for 

captioned and described accessible media. Of that amount, $2 million will support continuation 

awards for projects to provide access—through video description and captioning—to television 

programs appropriate for use in classroom settings and are not otherwise required to be 

captioned by the Federal Communications Commission. These projects fill in the gaps in 

Federal accessibility policies to ensure as many educational television programs as possible are 

accessible to students with visual or hearing impairments. The current grantee, the DIAGRAM 

Center (http://www.diagramcenter.org/), has developed new standards and open-source 

software for making digital images accessible for students with disabilities. Images and 

H-112
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

graphics are considerably more difficult to make accessible than basic text, but this Center’s 

innovative tools make creating and using accessible images easier, faster, and more cost 

effective. Administration investments in this area have made over 1,000 hours of programming 

accessible per year that would otherwise be unavailable to these students.

An additional $2 million would support a continuation award under the Described and Captioned 

Media Program (http://www.dcmp.org), which makes accessible media (video other than 

television) available at no cost to students. The support for video description of educational 

programming is essential for individuals with visual impairments because, unlike closed 

captioning, there are few Federal requirements for providing video descriptions. This project not 

only captions and describes educational media, but also efficiently distributes the media to 

schools via the Internet and other channels. In 2015, over 1,000 hours of educational video 

were described by grantees funded through this program. The current media library contains 

over 4,000 titles.

The 2017 request for educational media and materials includes a total of $10.9 million for 

accessible books and other instructional materials. Of that amount, about $8.5 million of the 

request would be available for a new Accessible Materials award in 2017 to support the 

development, production, and distribution of educational materials in accessible formats to 

students with visual impairments and other print disabilities, including those in traditionally 

underserved areas. The current grantee, Bookshare for Education (http://www.bookshare.org), 

has transformed the provision of educational materials in accessible formats nationwide and 

around the world by providing free educational media, including textbooks, much more 

efficiently and effectively than was previously possible. Nearly 400,000 titles are available to 

users in over 70 countries. Bookshare for Education reported over 1.5 million accessible 

materials product downloads in 2015, an increase of 2 percent over 2014 figures. The current 

grant is ending; a new fiscal year 2017 award will continue to build on the momentum in this 

area.

Approximately $1.2 million of this funding would provide continued support for a project awarded 

in fiscal year 2014 that provides technical assistance to States and other entities on the 

provision of books and other educational materials in accessible formats. Activities further 

support the widespread use of the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard 

(NIMAS), which sets clear guidelines for converting educational media into a variety of 

accessible formats for use by publishers, educational agencies, and students with disabilities. 

The request also includes $1.2 million for ongoing support of a grant project devoted to 

improving the accessibility of educational materials. The new software and hardware used to 

deliver educational content are often not accessible to students with disabilities, even as a 

greater portion of classroom materials are published digitally. These activities are designed to

address the issues and challenges related to the development, production, and dissemination of 

accessible educational materials. Activities of the current grant focus on ensuring infants, 

toddlers, and children who are blind or have print disabilities, as well as those with disabilities 

not traditionally associated with print disabilities, have full access to educational content, 

including graphic representations, in accessible formats.

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 NIMAC (http://www.nimac.us/) is a national electronic file repository that makes 

H-113
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

electronic files that comply with the 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. NIMAC contained nearly 42,000 

books and other items as of November 2015. The request includes $650,000 for a continuation 

award for this project in fiscal year 2017. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 Footnote2016 Footnote2017footnote

Program Funding:

Technology:

Technolog y: Research:

Newtechnol ogy research $1,000 $1,476 $5,182

Continuations technol ogy research 11,640 10,170 6,435

Subtotal technolog y: research 12,640 11,646 11,617

Technolog yTechnical assistance and dissemination:

Continuationstechnolog y: technical assistance and dissemi nation 1,435 1,435 1,435

Subtotal technolog y: technical assistance and dissemi nation 1,435 1,435 1,435

Technolog yProjects to address the postsecondary, 

vocational, technical, and adult 

education needs of individuals with 

deafness:

NewT echnolog 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 1,000 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 0 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 1,000 2,476 5,182

Continuations program funding subtotal , technolog y 14,075 11,605 8,870

Subtotal program fundi ng subtotal, technolog y 15,075 14,081 14,052

Media and Materials:

Medi a and materials Captioned and described accessible 

media:

New media and materials: captioned & described accessibl e medi a 1,999 2,000 0

Continuations medi a and materials: captioned & described accessi ble media 1,500 1,999 3,996

Subtotal media and materials: captioned & described accessibl e medi a 3,499 3,999 3,996

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 677 0 8,500

Continuations medi a and materials: books and other instructional materials in accessibl e formats 7,682 10,904 2,400

Subtotal media and materials: books and other i nstr ucti onal materials i n accessibl e for mats 8,359 10,904 10,900

H-114
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (continued)

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 Footnote2016 Footnote2017footnote

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 0 650 0

Continuations Media and materials: nati onal i nstr ucti onal materials access center statutor y ear mar k 649 0 650

Subtotal Media and materials: nati onal i nstructional materi als access center statutor y ear mar k 649 650 650

Subtotal, Media and Materials:

New program funding subtotal, Media and materials 2,676 2,650 8,500

Continuations program funding subtotal, Media and materials 9,831 12,903 7,046

Subtotal program funding subtotal, Media and materials 12,507 15,553 15,546

Other (e.g. program evaluation contracts):

Continuations other $365 $318 $354

Subtotal, Other, other 365 318 354

Peer review of new award applications: 100 95 95

Total Program Funding:

New total program funding 3,676 5,126 13,682

Continuations total program funding 24,271 24,826 16,270

Peer review 100 95 95

Total program funding 28,047 30,047 30,047

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 2017 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Seven performance measures have been developed for the Educational Technology, Media, 

and Materials program. Three of these measures are annual measures, two are long-term, and 

the last two are measures of efficiency.

Annual Measures

The three annual measures deal with the relevance, quality, and usefulness of products and 

services provided by the program.

H-115
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

In assessing the performance under each measure, panels of six to eight experts reviewed a 

sample of products from 23 of the program’s projects. Each project submitted a product or 

multiple products representative of the primary or typical products/services released by that 

grantee during the prior fiscal year. 

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

2012 97% 100%

2013 98 94

2014 94 93

2015 94 100

2016 94

2017 94

Additional information: All 23 of the selected products were assessed on whether the 

product content was responsive to priority issues and challenges confronting the target groups 

and judged on three dimensions of relevance: (1) Need—does the content of the material 

attempt to solve an important problem or critical issue; (2) Pertinence—does the content of the 

material match the problem or issue facing the target group or groups; and (3) Reach—is the 

content of the material applicable to diverse populations within the target group. Products and 

services receiving an average total panel rating of 6 or higher across the three criteria are 

deemed to be of high relevance.

In fiscal year 2015, the percentage of products judged to be of high relevance for this measure 

increased, exceeding the target level. The panel found all 23 products in the sample to be 

highly relevant for the intended users. 

Measure: The percentage of Educational Technology, Media, and Materials projects judged to 

be of high quality.

Year Target Actual

2012 97% 92%

2013 97 94

2014 94 89

2015 94 100

2016 94

2017 94

H-116
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

Additional Information: The quality dimensions measured are (1) Substance—does the 

product/service description reflect the best of current research and theory or policy guidance, as 

demonstrated by a scientifically or evidence-based approach, a solid conceptual framework, 

appropriate citations and other evidence of conceptual soundness; and (2) Communication—

does the product/service description have clarity in its presentation, as evidenced by being free 

of editorial errors, appropriately formatted, and well organized. All of the selected products are 

reviewed and scored on whether the product content is evidence-based, valid, complete, and 

up-to-date. Products and services that receive an average total panel rating of six or higher 

across the two criteria are deemed to be of high quality.

The percentage of products judged to be of high quality increased, exceeding the target in fiscal 

year 2015. Of the 23 products reviewed in the sample, all were reported to be of high quality. 

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

2012 97% 92%

2013 94 94

2014 94 79

2015 94 91

2016 94

2017 94

Additional information: All selected products were reviewed and scored on whether the 

product content could be easily and quickly adopted or adapted by the target group and produce 

the desired result. Specifically, the rubric is designed to yield ratings on the basis of the 

following dimensions related to usefulness, which were updated in fiscal year 2015: (1) Ease 

(does the content of the service description address a problem or issue in an easily understood 

way, with directions or guidance regarding how a problem or issue can be addressed?); and

(2) Suitability (does the product or service provide the target audience(s) with information or 

resources that can be used again or in different ways to address the problem or issue?). The 

total score for any individual service reviewed is the sum of the quality dimension sub-scores. 

High usefulness for any individual product or service is defined as a total score of six or higher 

of nine possible points.

Performance on this measure improved in fiscal year 2015, although the target was not met. 

The panel found 21 out of the 23 products in the sample to be highly useful. The Department 

considers the fiscal year 2014 drop in usefulness to be an outlier, and not indicative of a larger 

trend. 

Long-Term 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. Evidence about outcomes of the target population may take more than 1 year to 

become available; therefore, in fiscal year 2011, the Administration modified the data collection 

H-117
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

to every 2 years for both of these measures. As such, the Administration has no report for fiscal 

year 2015 under these long-term measures.

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

Additional information: Panelists individually assess the strength of the evidence supporting 

the case that each grantee’s products and services have resulted in improving outcomes of 

interest for children with disabilities on a 4-point scale defined differently for research grants and 

technology utilization and technical assistance grants. Grants receiving an average panel score 

of 2 or higher are determined as having validated their products and services.

For research grants, the scale is 3, signifying Superior (one or more well-designed randomized 

controlled trials, quasi-experiment, or single-subject research studies conducted by the project 

that support the case that the project’s products and services result in improving the outcomes 

of interest); 2, signifying Acceptable (any of the types of evidence described above with 

limitations that prevent a rating of 3); 1, signifying Low (any of the types of evidence described 

above, but with weaknesses of a substantial degree that result in an unconvincing case that the 

product or service results in improving the outcomes of interest); and 0, signifying Unacceptable 

(little or no evidence of results in improving the outcomes of interest).

For technical assistance and service grants, to receive a rating of 3, the project must meet one 

or more of the following standards: (1) a review of high-quality research that clearly applies to 

the project’s products and services and supports its efficacy in improving the outcomes of 

interest; (2) an evaluation study and/or qualitative study providing evidence that the project’s 

products and services result in improving the outcome of interest; (3) ratings of the project’s 

product and services obtained from users, focus groups, review panel, etc., when used in 

combination with a type of evidence such as (1) or (2) above; or (4) expert opinion derived from 

strong findings or theories in related areas and/or expert opinion buttressed by direct evidence. 

Additionally, the evidence must be of high technical quality and make a convincing case that the 

project’s products and services result in improving the outcomes of interest. For a rating of 2, 

the project may demonstrate any of the types of evidence described above with limitations that 

prevent a rating of 3. For a rating of 1, a project may demonstrate any of the types of evidence 

described above, but with weaknesses of a substantial degree that result in an unconvincing 

case that the product or service results in improving the outcomes of interest. For a rating of 0, 

a project demonstrates little or no evidence of results in improving the outcomes of interest.

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. Each of the four projects 

that were rated in the 2014 data collection submitted acceptable evidence of validity. 

H-118
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

Objective: Investments in the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program will 

make validated, evidence-based technologies to improve results for infants, toddlers, children 

and youth with disabilities available for widespread use. 

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

2012 100% 83%

2014 95 50

2016 95

Additional information: This measure evaluates the extent to which each project rated in the 

measure above as “validated” has submitted evidence of the availability of, and customer 

support for, their technology-based products and services. In fiscal year 2014, the panel 

reviewed evidence from four centers that entered the dissemination phase of their projects or 

completed the final year of their grants and submitted a final report. Two centers rated as 

“validated” submitted sufficient evidence of the availability of their products or services to the 

target population. By comparison, five of the six centers reviewed in 2012 were rated as 

“validated.” Due to the small number of projects that are eligible for this measure, minor 

changes in the number of projects that submit acceptable evidence can cause large drops in the 

reported percentages. As such, the Administration plans to reconsider this measure or develop 

more appropriate targets for 2016 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

2012 $5.5

2013 $5.5 5.0

2014 5.0 4.3

2015 5.0 4.2

2016 5.0

2017 5.0

Additional Information: One of the major activities supported by this program is the 

development, production, and distribution of educational books and materials in accessible 

formats to students with visual impairments and other print disabilities. The current grantee 

performing activities under the Administration’s accessible educational materials priority is 

Bookshare, Inc. This measure, new in 2011, is calculated as the annual amount of Federal 

H-119
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

funding for the project divided by the number of files downloaded from the project by eligible 

students or teachers and sponsors on behalf of eligible students. For example, in 2015: 

$6,500,000/1,546,022 = $4.20. After downloading these files, eligible students can access the 

content in specialized formats, such as audiobooks or braille. Bookshare is the most widely 

used accessible book producer and distributor in the country. This project works in conjunction

with other Administration-funded projects, such as the National Instructional Materials Access 

Center, to ensure eligible students have appropriate materials needed to access the general 

curriculum. 

Measure: The Federal cost per hour of video description funded by the Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials program.

Year Target Actual

2012 $1,962

2013 2,442

2014 $1,669 2,548

2015 1,669 2,469

2016 1,669

2017 2,000

Additional information: The educational media measure is calculated as the total amount of 

funding provided for description activities ($2.5 million in 2015) divided by the total number of 

hours of accessible described media produced (1012 hours in 2015). The cost of an hour of 

media description decreased from fiscal years 2014 to 2015. Recent advances in technology 

have increased automation in the descriptioning process. No target is shown for 2013, because 

the target in that year was based on incorrectly reported data. Targets in 2014 and subsequent 

years are based on corrected data.

H-120
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Special Olympics education programs

(Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004, Section 3(a))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined 1

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$10,083 $10,083 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2010; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004 authorizes the Departments of 

Education, State, and Health and Human Services 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)

2012 ......................................................................................$8,000

2013.........................................................................................7,583

2014.........................................................................................7,583

2015.........................................................................................7,583

2016.......................................................................................10,083

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests nearly $10.1 million for Special Olympics education programs, level 

with the fiscal year 2016 amount. The Administration’s request would support efforts to promote 

the expansion of Special Olympics and the design and implementation of Special Olympics 

education programs.

H-121
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Special Olympics education programs

The Special Olympics National Youth Activation Demonstration (Project UNIFY), a national 

youth sports demonstration and education program, is the major activity funded by this direct 

appropriation. In addition to sports and physical education in integrated settings, this project 

also provides opportunities for youth to participate in leadership development, service learning, 

and structured interpersonal communication and socialization activities. In general, Special 

Olympics program activities assist individuals with intellectual disabilities in becoming productive 

members of their communities by dispelling negative stereotypes and promoting positive and 

inclusive learning environments.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Project UNIFY

Number of funded State programs 43 47 47

Number of schools participating 3,676 3,786 3,886

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 2017 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. 

The Department collected data in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 to set targets for fiscal year 2014 

and beyond. 

Objective: The Special Olympics will increase the inclusion and awareness of students with 

intellectual disabilities.

Measure: The percent of school liaisons who report that Project UNIFY helps raise awareness 

about students with intellectual disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2012 65%

2013 66

2014 67% 72

2015 67 68

2016 67

2017 67

H-122
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Special Olympics education programs

Measure: The percent of school liaisons who report that Project UNIFY increases opportunities 

for students with intellectual disabilities to be involved in school activities.

Year Target Actual

2012 58%

2013 60

2014 61% 64

2015 61 65

2016 61

2017 61

Additional information: Data were reported for these measures starting in 2011. To collect

the data, Special Olympics engaged external evaluators to survey school liaisons at the end of 

the program year. School liaisons are volunteers, typically teachers, who administer Special 

Olympics programming at the school level. Their perceptions are not direct indicators of 

programmatic outcomes. However, they are informed by close experience with participating 

students and the Special Olympics organization. These annual measures provide perspectives 

on the level of success that the Special Olympics achieves in promoting positive and inclusive 

learning environments. The data indicate the program is improving the awareness of and 

opportunities for students with disabilities and has exceeded the targets in 2014 and 2015. 

Objective: The Special Olympics will promote the expansion of opportunities provided by 

Special Olympics programs for students with intellectual disabilities to participate in service 

learning, character education, and structured interpersonal communication and socialization 

activities that can be integrated into classroom instruction and are consistent with academic 

content standards.

Measure: The number of schools participating in Project UNIFY.

Year Target Actual

2012 2,150

2013 2,310

2014 2,400 3,076

2015 2,500 3,676

2016 4,000

2017 4.500

Measure: The number of schools participating in a Project UNIFY High Activation Program.

Year Target Actual

2012 924

2013 987

2014 1,056 1,413

2015 1,150 1,685

2016 1,725

2017 1,765

H-123
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Special Olympics education programs

Additional information: Special Olympics has aggressively expanded the reach of Project 

UNIFY during recent years to more than 3,686 locations in 43 States. There were 

1,083 elementary schools, 587 middle schools, and 1,675 high schools, and 342 other schools 

participating in Project UNIFY in 2015. The program exceeded the targets for this measure in 

fiscal years 2014 and 2015; therefore, the Department adjusted targets for 2016 and beyond. 

Schools typically offer programming at one of two intensity levels: High Activation or Building 

Bridges. 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. Schools with 

High Activation programs also generally require a greater commitment of resources. In 2015, 

46 percent of all participating schools were in the High Activation category, an increase of 3 

percent from 2014. 

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

2012 $3,758

2013 3,463

2014 $3,160 2,465

2015 3,033 2,057

2016 3,033

2017 3,033

Measure: The percent of Federal funds spent on administration.

Year Target Actual

2012 25%

2013 22

2014 20% 22

2015 20

2016 20

2017 20

Additional information: These two measures provide basic information on the efficiency of the 

program. The program did not meet the target for the percent of Federal funds spent on 

administration in 2014; however, the program met the targets for Federal cost per school in 

fiscal year 2014 and 2015. The measure on administrative costs includes administrative 

expenses at the State level and national level charged to the Federal grant. These 

administrative expenses pay for management, oversight, and coordination functions that make 

possible the ongoing implementation of programming in schools. Administrative costs vary 

among the Department’s grants with respect to the type of entity, activity performed, structure of 

the grantee, and the efficiency of the project’s operations. 

H-124
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Special Olympics education programs

Other Performance Information

In 2014, external evaluators from the University of Massachusetts conducted a formative 

evaluation of Project Unify. Data from surveys of school liaisons in 1,509 schools indicate that 

Project UNIFY does 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. The evaluation also demonstrated the 

value of robust Project UNIFY programs that implement and involve students in all three 

components of Project Unify—Inclusive Sports, Youth Leadership and Advocacy, and Whole 

School Engagement—as well as the unique impacts that individual Project UNIFY activities and 

components have on participating students. As such, future evaluations will focus on how 

Project UNIFY’s individual activities and components interrelate to form the most impactful 

program for schools and students.

H-125