Department of Education

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request 

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers .............................................................................H-8

Summary of Changes .............................................................................................................H-9

Authorizing Legislation..........................................................................................................H-10

Appropriations History...........................................................................................................H-11

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................H-13

Activities:

State grants:

Grants to States ........................................................................................................H-15

Preschool grants .......................................................................................................H-39

Grants for infants and families ...................................................................................H-50

National activities:

State personnel development....................................................................................H-59

Technical assistance and dissemination....................................................................H-66

Personnel preparation ...............................................................................................H-78

Parent information centers.........................................................................................H-90

Educational technology, media, and materials.........................................................H-100

Special Olympics education programs ..........................................................................H-112

State Tables* 

State tables reflecting final 2017 allocations and 2018 and 2019 estimates are posted on the 

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

H-1

Appropriation s L angu age

For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), $13,051,776,000, of 

which $2,705,539 shall become available on July 1, 2019, and shall remain available through 

September 30, 2020, and of which $10,124,103,000 shall become available on October 1, 2019, 

and shall remain available through September 30, 2020, for academic year 2019-2020:

1

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

amount available for that activity during fiscal year 2018, increased by the amount of inflation as 

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

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

2018:

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 
H-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

452 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1234a) 9 Provided further, That the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 

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

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

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

carry out activities authorized by those sections. 12
H-3

NOTES

A full-year 2018 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, 

the budget assumes this account is operating under the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 (Division D of P.L. 115–

56, as amended). The amounts included for 2018 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

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

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

H-4

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

...$13,051,776,000, of which $2,705,539,000 

shall become available on July 1, 2019, and 

shall remain available through September 30, 

2020, and of which $10,124,103,000 shall 

become available on October 1, 2019, and 

shall remain available through September 30, 

2020, for academic year 2019-2020:

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 2018, increased by the 

amount of inflation as specified in section 

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

change in the funds appropriated under 

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

the amount for that activity during fiscal year 

2018:

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 2018 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 2018 appropriation.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

H-5

Language Provision Explanation

3 Provided further, That the Secretary shall, 

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

distribute to all other States (as that term is 

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

third proviso, any amount by which a State’s 

allocation under section 611, from funds 

appropriated under this heading, is reduced 

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

following: 85 percent on the basis of the 

States’ relative populations of children aged 

3 through 21 who are of the same age as 

children with disabilities for whom the State 

ensures the availability of a free appropriate 

public education under this part, and 15 

percent to States on the basis of the States’ 

relative populations of those children who are 

living in poverty:

This language authorizes the Department to 

reallocate funds that are reduced from a 

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

the maintenance of State financial support 

requirements of section 612 of the IDEA and 

requires that those funds be distributed to 

other States on the basis of their relative 

populations of children in the age ranges for 

which a State ensures a free appropriate 

public education and those children living in 

poverty. 

4Provided further, That the Secretary may 

not distribute any funds under the previous 

proviso to any State whose reduction in 

allocation from funds appropriated under this 

heading made funds available for such a 

distribution:

This language ensures that any State 

receiving a reduction in their section 611 

allocation as a result of not meeting the 

maintenance of State financial support 

requirements of section 612 of the IDEA 

does not receive funds redistributed as a 

result of another State’s failure to meet those 

same requirements.

5 Provided further, That the States shall 

allocate such funds distributed under the 

second proviso to local educational agencies 

in accordance with section 611(f):

This language requires States to distribute 

the funds received under the second proviso 

to local educational agencies without 

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

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

H-6

Language Provision Explanation

6 Provided further, That the amount by which 

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

the IDEA is reduced under section 

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

States under the previous provisos in fiscal 

year 2012 or any subsequent year shall not 

be considered in calculating the awards 

under section 611(d) for fiscal year 2013 or 

for any subsequent fiscal years:

This language allows the Department to 

calculate a State’s allocation under section 

611(d) in future years without regard to 

reductions in awards made as a result of a 

failure to meet the maintenance of State 

financial support requirements in section 612. 

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

awards.

7 Provided further, That, notwithstanding the 

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

the fiscal year in which a State's allocation 

under section 611(d) is reduced for failure to 

comply with the requirement of section 

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

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

over a period of consecutive fiscal years, not 

to exceed five, until the entire reduction is 

applied:

This language permits the Secretary to 

spread out a reduction from a State’s award 

as a result of a failure to meet the 

maintenance of State financial support 

requirements of section 612 of the IDEA over 

a maximum of 5 years.

8 Provided further, That the Secretary may, in 

any fiscal year in which a State's allocation 

under section 611 is reduced in accordance 

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

amount a State may reserve under section 

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

relation to the maximum amount described in 

that paragraph as the reduction under 

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

allocation the State would have received in 

that fiscal year under section 611(d) in the 

absence of the reduction:

This language permits the Secretary to 

reduce the maximum State set-aside for 

State administration by the same percentage 

as the reduction in the State’s overall IDEA 

section 611 grant.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

H-7

Language Provision Explanation

9 Provided further, That the Secretary shall 

either reduce the allocation of funds under 

section 611 for any fiscal year following the 

fiscal year for which the State fails to comply 

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

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

seek to recover funds under section 452 of 

the General Education Provisions Act (20 

U.S.C. 1234a):

This language permits the Secretary to: 

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

in the amount of the State’s failure to meet 

the maintenance of State financial support 

requirements of section 612 under the 

recovery of funds provision in section 452 of 

the General Education Provisions Act, or 

(2) reduce the State’s IDEA section 611 

grant. 

10Provided further, That the funds reserved 

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

provide technical assistance to States to 

improve the capacity of the States to meet 

the data collection requirements of sections 

616 and 618 and to administer and carry out 

other services and activities to improve data 

collection, coordination, quality, and use 

under parts B and C of the IDEA:

This language authorizes the Department to 

use funds available under section 611(c) to 

provide technical assistance and support to 

States on a broad range of issues, including 

compliance with applicable privacy laws and 

appropriate coordination and linking of 

information within and across Federal, State 

and local data systems for the unique needs 

of students with disabilities and their families 

and the purposes of the IDEA programs and 

data collections.

11Provided further, That the Secretary may 

use funds made available for the State 

Personnel Development Grants program 

under part D, subpart 1 of IDEA to evaluate 

program performance under such subpart:

This language permits the Secretary to use 

funds appropriated for the State Personnel 

Development Grants program under Part D 

of the IDEA to evaluate program 

performance.

12 Provided further, That States may use 

funds reserved for other State-level activities 

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

IDEA to make subgrants to local educational 

agencies, institutions of higher education, 

other public agencies, and private non-profit 

organizations to carry out activities 

authorized by those sections

This language permits States to subgrant 

funds that they reserve for “Other State-level 

activities” under the Grants to States and 

Preschool Grants to States programs.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-8

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2017

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation...................................................... $13,001,315 0 $13,051,776

Discretionar y Annualized CR (P.L. 115-56, as amended) ........ 0 $13,038,681 0

Total, discretionary appropriation............... 13,001,315 13,038,681 13,051,776

Advance:

Advance for succeeding fiscal year................... -9,220,840 -9,283,383 -10,124,103

Advance from prior year ................................... 9,283,383 9,220,840 +9,283,383

Total, budget authority............................... 13,064,358 12,975,637 12,211,056
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-9

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2018 Annualized CR ................................................................ $13,038,681

2019......................................................................................... 13,051,776

Net change ...................................................................... +13,095

Increases:

2018

Annualized

CR base

Change 

from base

Program:

Increase funding to reflect the President’s Budget request to 

fund the IDEA State Grant and National Activities programs at 

FY 2017 enacted levels. This amount would restore cuts 

resulting from the 0.6791 percent across-the-board reduction 

included in the FY 2018 Annualized CR Level. $13,038,681 +25,592

Decreases:

2018

Annualized

CR base

Change 

from base

Program:

Elimination of funding for the Special Olympics Education 

program $12,497 -$12,497

Net change +13,095
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-10

H-10

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2018

Authorized

Footnote

2018

Annualized CRfootnote

2019

Authorizedfootnote

2019

Request

footnote

State Grants:

State grantsGrants to States (IDEA-B-611)................................. Indefinite 1 $11,984,3802 Indefinite1 $12,002,8482

State grantsPreschool grants (IDEA-B-619) ................................ Indefinite 365,737 Indefinite 368,238

State grantsGrants for infants and families (IDEA-C)................... 0 3 455,442 03 458,556

National activities:

National acti viti es State personnel development (IDEA-D-1) ................ 03 38,368 03 38,630

National acti viti es Technical assistance and dissemination (IDEA-D2-663)................................................................ 03 44,044 03 44,345

National acti viti es Personnel preparation (IDEA-D-2-662) .................... 03 83,132 03 83,700

National acti viti es Parent information centers (IDEA-D-3-671-673)....... 03 27,225 03 27,411

National acti viti es Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

(IDEA-D-3-674) ................................................. 03 27,856 03 28,047

Special Olympics education programs (SOSEA 3(a)) ... Indefinite 12,497 Indefinite 0

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

Total annual appropriation ...................................... 13,038,681 13,051,776

Portion of request subject to reauthorization ........... 679,689

 1 Funding for technical assistance on State data collection is limited to $25,000 thousand adjusted for inflation. This amount is estimated to be $33,333 thousand 

for fiscal year 2018 and $33,949 thousand for fiscal year 2019. 2 Includes $21,400 thousand for technical assistance on State data collection in fiscal year 2018 and $20,000 thousand in fiscal year 2019. 3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in fiscal year 2019 through appropriations language.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate

to Congress

House 

Allowance footnote

Senate 

Allowance footnote Appropriation

2010 $12,579,677 $12,579,677 $12,587,856 1 $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 2 12,787,035 12,526,672 3

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 4 12,553,066 4 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 5 12,770,709 5 11,982,364

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

2014 12,657,307 N/A6 12,803,387 12,497,300

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

2015 12,600,627 N/A 12,555,044 7 12,522,358

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

2016 12,822,358 13,024,510 

8 12,636,817 8 12,976,858

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

2017 13,066,858 13,406,5179 13,066,8589 13,001,315

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

2018 12,942,125 13,251,69110 13,066,85810 13,038,681 10

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

 1 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Committee action only. 2 The level for the House allowance reflects the House passed full-year continuing resolution. 3 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(P.L. 112-10). 4 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill and the level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate 

Committee action only.

5 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. 6 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action.

7 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only. 8 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2016 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 114th Congress only through the House Committee and Senate Committee. 9 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2017 

appropriations bill. 10 The levels for the House reflect floor action on an Omnibus appropriation bill; Senate allowances reflect Committee 

action on the regular annual 2018 appropriations bill; the Appropriation reflects the annualized Continuing Resolution 

level.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

H-12

Year

Budget 

Estimate

to Congress

House 

Allowance footnote

Senate 

Allowance footnote Appropriation

2019 $13,051,776

2019 Advance for 2020 (10,124,103)
H-13

Summar y of Click here for accessible version

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2019 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

(in thousands of dollars)

Amount Percent

Special Education 

1. State grants:

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

Annual appropriation D 2,719,465 2,700,997 1,878,745 (822,252) -30.44%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year 1, 2 D 9,220,340 9,283,383 10,124,103 840,720 9.06%

Subtotal 11,939,805 11,984,380 12,002,848 18,468 0.15%

(b) Preschool grants (IDEA B-619) D 368,238 365,737 368,238 2,501 0.68%

(c) Grants for infants and families (IDEA C) D 458,556 455,442 458,556 3,114 0.68%

Subtotal, State grants 12,766,599 12,805,559 12,829,642 24,083 0.19%

2. National activities (IDEA D):

(a) State personnel development (subpart 1) D 38,630 38,368 38,630 262 0.68%

(b) Technical assistance and dissemination (section 663) D 44,345 44,044 44,345 301 0.68%

(c) Personnel preparation (section 662) D 83,700 83,132 83,700 568 0.68%

(d) Parent information centers (sections 671-673) D 27,411 27,225 27,411 186 0.68%

(e) Educational technology, media, and materials (section 674) D 28,047 27,856 28,047 191 0.69%

Subtotal 222,133 220,624 222,133 1,509 0.68%

3. Special Olympics education programs (Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act) D 12,583 12,497 0 (12,497) -100.00%

Total, Appropriation D 13,001,315 13,038,681 13,051,776 13,095 0.10%

Total, Budget authority D 13,064,358 12,975,637 12,211,056 (764,581) -5.89%

Current 3,780,975 3,755,298 2,927,673 (827,625) -22.04%

Prior year's advance 1 9,283,383 9,220,339 9,283,383 63,044 0.68%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 The Advance for succeeding fiscal year shown in the 2017 Appropriation column and the Prior year's advance shown in the 2018 Annualized CR column reflects the 0.6791 percent across-the-board reduction

authorized by P.L. 115-56, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018, as amended.

2 The amount for Advance for succeeding fiscal year in the 2019 President's Budget column is increased to account for the proposed elimination of advances in Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants in the

 School Improvement Programs account.

2019 President's Budget 

Category Compared to 2018 Annualized CR 

Code

2017 

Appropriation 

2018 

Annualized CR

2019 

President's 

Budget

H-13
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

H-14

Summary of Request

A full-year fiscal year 2018 appropriation was not enacted at the time the fiscal year 2019 

Budget was prepared; therefore, the Budget assumes the Department is operating under the 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 (Division D of P.L. 115–56, as amended). The amounts 

included for fiscal year 2018 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution. 

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 2019 Budget Request for Special Education of $13.0 billion is aimed at 

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

with disabilities. This request reflects an increase of $13.1 million, or 0.10 percent, over the 

fiscal year 2018 annualized continuing resolution (CR) level.

The Administration requests $12.0 billion for the Grants to States program, an $18.5 million, to 

restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 level and 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 $1,726 for each of the 6.9 million 

children with disabilities who are estimated to be served in 2019. The Federal contribution 

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

approximately 14 percent of the national average per pupil expenditures under this request.

The request of $368.2 million for Preschool Grants would provide support to States and 

schools for providing special education services to children ages 3 through 5. The request of 

$458.6 million for Grants for Infants and Families would provide assistance to States to help 

them implement statewide systems of early intervention services for children from birth through 

age 2.

The $222.1 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 

Administration’s request eliminates funding for the Special Olympics Education Programs

and maintains Federal support for all other National Activities programs at the fiscal year 2017 

level.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-15

State grants: Grants to States

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: Indefinite 1, 2

Budget Authority:

Budget Authority 2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

Annual appropriation $2,700,997 $1,878,745 -$822,252

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

Total 11,984,380 12,002,848 +18,468

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 2019 would be $33,949 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 2019 would be $147,155 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 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 

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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-16

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 local educational agencies 

(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 2019, the latter amount is estimated to be approximately 

$1.1 million.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

high-cost children.

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 

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

State Grants: Grants to States

H-17

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 on special education from one year to the next. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reducing its level of support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

services. 

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

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

amounts that they received from the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

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

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

collection requirements necessary for the implementation of the program.

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

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

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

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

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

$147 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 2019, 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-18

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

2019-2020 school year.

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, 2021, to obligate their fiscal year 2019 awards.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

2018.............................................................. ...........11,984,380

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2019, the Administration requests $12.0 billion for Grants to States, an increase 

of $18.5 million, to restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 level. The request level would 

maintain the Federal government’s commitment to support States and local educational 

agencies in providing special education and related services to an estimated 6.9 million 

students with disabilities nationwide in 2019. 

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

from educational services. 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 

in meeting that mandate.

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

children with disabilities and implementing strategies aimed at improving outcomes for children 

with disabilities, including efforts identified in their State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIP). 

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, at the request level, the Federal share toward offsetting the cost of special education 

and related services for children with disabilities would be approximately 14 percent of the 

national average per pupil expenditure (APPE) based on the anticipated growth of APPE in 

fiscal year 2019. The request would provide an average of $1,726 per child. This average is 

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

continue to increase through 2019 to approximately 6.9 million.

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

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

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

and this number generally declined through the 2011-2012 school year to a low of 6.5 

million. While the number of children with disabilities served under IDEA has increased since 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-19

then, the total number of children served in the 2016-2017 school year is still slightly below the 

2005 level. In estimating future trends in the number of children served under the IDEA, the 

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

Department estimates that approximately 6.9 million children with disabilities will be served in 

fiscal year 2019.

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

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

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

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

standards that have been established for all children to help prepare them for college 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) developed a new accountability 

system, RDA, designed to improve State performance by emphasizing student outcomes. RDA 

expanded the focus of the Department’s monitoring efforts from compliance to include 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 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.

The Department worked extensively with States and other stakeholders to develop fair, resultsdriven 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 ongoing technical assistance to support the implementation 

of this new framework. Therefore, the Department is investing in technical assistance centers 

through the IDEA Technical Assistance and Dissemination program. Activities supported 

through this program assist States in efforts to improve outcomes for children with disabilities 

(through improved data quality and use), including the implementation of SSIPs.

As the Department continues to implement the RDA framework, States, lead agencies, districts, 

and early childhood providers 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 by assisting in the identification and 

development of evidence-based practices as well as enhancing State systems of support. The 

funds requested under the Grants to States program and the National Activities programs 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 LEAs and early childhood providers have additional resources to 

provide high quality direct services to children with disabilities and their families.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-20

FY 2019 Proposed Appropriations Language 

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

regarding State Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements, the technical assistance set-aside 

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

In addition, the Administration is proposing new appropriations language to provide States with 

greater flexibility to more efficiently distribute funds they reserve for Other State-level Activities.

State Maintenance of Effort

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

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

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

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 

reduced awards to California, Illinois, West Virginia, and American Samoa under this provision 

in 2017. 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 Department 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 this 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 years 2016 through 2018, the Department 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 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 setaside 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. As in prior years, the Department remains 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-21

funds. By providing the Department the authority to spread out the penalty over a maximum of 

5 years, the direct impact on students with disabilities in any given year may be limited.

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 

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 IDEA funds available for expenditure, providing necessary 

special education and related services to children with disabilities can be extremely challenging. 

By exercising the flexibility to either recover State funds or reduce the State’s IDEA grant, the 

Department can mitigate the impact of a reduction in funds on services for children with 

disabilities.

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 has used these funds to improve data quality, drive 

data use, and inform program improvement at the State and local levels. Current investments in 

the IDEA Data Center and he IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood Data are 

set to expire in fiscal year 2018 and investments in the IDEA Fiscal Data Center and the IDEA 

Data Management Center are set to expire in fiscal year 2019. The Department is currently 

exploring how best to use its various authorities under the IDEA, including the authority under 

section 616(i), to support States and local educational agencies in meeting the needs of 

students with disabilities. The Department will seek public input on any new investments using 

these set-aside funds.

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

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

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

would maintain the existing authority enacted through appropriations language in fiscal 

year 2017, which is currently being used in several of the Department’s technical assistance 

investments. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-22

Department of the Interior Set-Aside

Consistent with previous years, the Administration proposes 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 1.226 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 $23,466 for each child with a disability it served in the fall of 2016, which is more 

than 13 times the average amount per child that States would receive. At the fiscal year 2019 

request level with the cap, Interior would receive about 8.8 times the average amount per child 

that States would receive, which translates into an average of $15,210 for each child with a 

disability, or about 122 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure (APPE) compared 

to 14 percent of the APPE for States overall.

Other State-Level Activities Subgranting Authority

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

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

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

technical assistance, personnel preparation, and professional development and training; and 

assisting LEAs in providing positive behavioral interventions and supports. For many of the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

use of both State and Federal resources. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-23

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018

footnote

2019

footnote

Formula grants:

Formula grants to States $11,782,639 $11,826,862 $11,846,583

Formula grants to Outlying Areas $34,269 $34,304 $34,304

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

Department of the Interior $94,881 $95,235 $95,382

Subtotal, formula grants $11,918,368 $11,962,980 $11,982,848

Technical Assistance $21,400 $21,4002 $20,0003

Total program funding $11,939,7684 $11,984,380 $12,002,848

Number of children with disabilities 

served ages 3 through 21 6,808,063 6,881,4565 6,944,0565

Average Federal share per child (whole 

dollars) 5 $1,751 $1,738 $1,726

Average per pupil expenditure (APPE) 

(whole dollars) 5 $12,070 $12,267 $12,518

Federal funding as a percentage of 

APPE 5 15% 14% 14%

 1 The Department carried over $1,584 thousand of the remaining fiscal year 2017 multiyear appropriation into fiscal 

year 2018. 2 The Department plans to carry over $1,840 thousand of the remaining fiscal year 2018 multiyear appropriation into 

fiscal year 2019. 3 The Department plans to carry over $849 thousand of the remaining fiscal year 2019 multiyear appropriation into 

fiscal year 2020. 4 On October 1, 2017, the Department reduced an award to American Samoa by approximately $35 thousand 

pursuant to section 612(a)(18)(B) of the IDEA. Under the terms of the continuing resolution, the Department does not 

have the authority to reallocate these funds to other States and will therefore lapse these funds. 5 Estimate.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-24

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

Basis:

School 

Year

2013-2014

Percent

School 

Year

2013-2014

Number

School 

Year

2014-2015

Percent

School 

Year

2014-2015

Number

School 

Year

2015-2016

Percent

School 

Year

2015-2016

Number

Graduating with 

regular diploma 42.2% 258,969 45.2% 252,172 44.9% 269,246

Graduating through 

certification 8.6% 53,031 6.7% 37,590 7.1% 42,590

Transferred to 

regular education 9.2% 56,552 9.7% 53,999 9.3% 56,113

Dropped out, or 

moved but not 

known to have 

continued in 

education 11.8% 72,251 11.6% 64,850 11.2% 67,305

Moved, but known 

to have continued 

in education 27.2% 167,187 25.6% 142,847 26.5% 158,889

Reaching 

maximum age for 

services and 

other reasons 1.0% 5,935 1.1% 6,054 1.0% 6,284

Total 100.00% 613,925 100.0% 557,512 100.0% 600,427

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

(EDEN)/EDFacts.

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

State Grants: Grants to States

H-25

History of Children Served and Program Funding—FYs 1987 through 2019

Fiscal Year

Children Served 

(thousands)

footnote

Appropriation footnote (dollars in thousands)

footnote

Federal 

Share Per Child

(whole dollars)

footnote

Percentage 

of APPE

footnote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2005 6,820 10,589,746 1

1,558 18%

2006 6,814 10,582,961 1

1,551 18%

2007 6,796 10,782,961 1

1,584 17%

2008 6,718 10,947,511 1

1,609 17%

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

3,453233%2

2010 6,614 11,505,211 1

1,736 16%

2011 6,558 11,465,960 1

1,745 16%

2012 6,543 11,577,855 1

1,766 16%

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

2014 6,593 11,472,848 1

1,743 16%

2015 6,697 11,497,848 1

1,715 15%

2016 6,814 11,812,848 1

1,745 15%

2017 6,808 11,939,805 1

1,751 15%

2018 6,882 3 11,984,380 1

1,738314%3

2019 6,9443 12,002,848 1

1,726314%3

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

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

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

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

2016 and 2019, and $21,400 thousand in 2017 and 2018. 2 Includes funds available in fiscal year 2009 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5). 3 Estimate
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-26

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 2019 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

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

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

them for independent living and postsecondary education and/or competitive 

employment by assisting State and local educational agencies and families. 

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

national and State assessments with accommodations as appropriate.

National Assessment of Educational Progress Measures 

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

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

Year Target Actual

2009 37% 34%

2011 39 32

2013 40 28

2015 40 30

2017 40

2019 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

2009 35% 36%

2011 37 35

2013 38 31

2015 38 28

2017 38

2019 38

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

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

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

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

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

State Grants: Grants to States

H-27

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 

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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-28

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 is currently revising and setting ambitious but realistic targets for these 

measures.

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. The Department notes that, for many States, the 2014-2015 

academic year was the first year of implementation of new assessments, which may have had 

an effect on performance on some of these measures.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-29

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

2014 100% 36%

2015 100 22

2016 100

2017 Baseline

2018 Baseline

2019 Baseline

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

2014 100% 35%

2015 100 22

2016 100

2017 Baseline

2018 Baseline

2019 Baseline

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

2014 0 28%

2015 0 30

2016 0

2017 Baseline

2018 Baseline

2019 Baseline
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-30

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

2014 0 27%

2015 0 26

2016 0

2017 Baseline

2018 Baseline

2019 Baseline

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. While 

performance among students with disabilities declined in the most recent year, that decrease 

can be most likely attributed to the implementation of new State assessments nationally in the 

2014-2015 academic year, on which students tended to fare worse than the prior State 

assessments. 

As is evident from the two previous tables, the gaps between the percent of students with 

disabilities scoring at proficient or advanced levels on State assessments in reading and math 

and the percent of all students scoring at the proficient or advanced levels remained relatively 

consistent, demonstrating that the drop in performance on the first two measures captures a 

wider phenomenon than one only affecting students with disabilities. 

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

2014 64.0% 66.1%

2015 65.0 69.9

2016 66.0

2017 68.0

2018 70.0

2019 72.0

Additional information: Since 2008, States have successfully increased their graduation rates 

among students with disabilities and exceeded the targets for this measure. However, there 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-31

have been significant changes to reporting requirements for graduation and dropout rates over 

the last 5 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 

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. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-32

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

2014 74.0% 76.3%

2015 74.5 77.5

2016 75.0

2017 76.0

2018 78.0

2019 80.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014, 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 respondent group that was 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

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

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

Year Target Actual

2016 Baseline 171

2017 Baseline 143

2018

2019

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

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

responsibilities through the State Performance Plan (SPP)/APR process, fiscal monitoring, and 

its work with State dispute resolution systems. In 2016, OSEP began conducting site visits 

using a risk-based approach to monitoring. In that year, OSEP conducted site visits and issued 

letters to 4 States with an average of 171 days to issue response letters. In 2017, OSEP 

conducted 14 site visits with States (5 Part B and 9 Part C). To date, OSEP has issued 

responses to six States (2 Part B and 4 Part C) with an average response time of 143 days 

(223 days for Part B and 104 days for Part C). The response letters for all eight remaining 

States will be issued more than 90 days after the conclusion of the site visit. In 2010, the last 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-33

year the Department collected data on this measure, the average response time was 

66 workdays (note that data reported for 2017 reflects total days, not just workdays). The 

Department will establish targets for this measure after sufficient baseline data are available, 

which is expected in spring 2020.

Other Performance Information

IDEA National Assessment

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

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

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

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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-34

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. 

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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarding a child's eligibility for special education.

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

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

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

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

proficiency, and not those with moderate or significant needs.

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

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

State Grants: Grants to States

H-36

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-37

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 and those on 504 plans to enable direct 

comparisons of students with and without individualized education programs (IEPs). The study 

collected baseline data in 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 emphasizes transition services focused on improving 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federally-operated institution)?

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

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

baseline study of the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 (NLTS 2012). The NLTS 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

State Grants: Grants to States

H-38

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 

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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-39

State grants: Preschool grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$365,737 $368,238 +$2,501

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. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-40

The other 15 percent are 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 either: (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 one-third of 1 percent of the increase in the 

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

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

than the percent 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 

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

grant awards to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs).

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

year in which they are appropriated and remain available for 15 months, through September 30 

of the following year.

State-Level Activities

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

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

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

program, adjusted upward by the lesser of the rate of increase in the State’s allocation or the 

rate of inflation. Likewise, the amount that may be used for administration is limited to 

20 percent of the funds available to a State for State-level activities. These funds may also be 

used for the administration of the Grants for Infants and Families program (Part C).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kindergarten and, at a State’s discretion, to continue service coordination or case management 

for families who receive services under Part C.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-41

Numbers of Children Served

The number of children served under this program increased slightly from 752,628 in fiscal 

year 2015 to 762,802 in fiscal year 2016. The increase is consistent with trends since 2009. 

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

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

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

the 2016 level for fiscal years 2017 through 2019.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

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

2018.............................................................................. 365,737

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2019, the Administration requests $368.2 million for the Preschool Grants 

program, an increase of $2.5 million, to restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 level. The 

request amount would provide an average of $485 per child, based on the assumption that the 

number of children ages 3 through 5 who will be served will remain constant at the 2016-2017

level of 759,801. The Administration believes this request provides an appropriate level of 

resources to support activities for young children with disabilities given that these funds are 

paired with those available under the Grants to States program under IDEA, Part B.

The Administration is requesting $12.0 billion for the Grants to States program for fiscal 

year 2019, which will provide an average of $1,726 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.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Number of Children Served 759,801 759,801 759,801

Share per child (whole dollars) $485 $481 $485

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.

The numbers of children served for fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019 are estimates based on fiscal year 2016.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-42

History of Children Served and Program Funding

Fiscal Year

Children Served

(thousands)

Appropriation

(dollars in thousands)

Federal

Share per Child

(whole dollars)

1988 288 $201,054 $698

1989 322 247,000 767

1990 352 251,510 715

1991 367 292,766 7981

1992 398 320,000 804

1993 441 325,773 739

1994 479 339,257 709

1995 522 360,265 689

1996 549 360,409 656

1997 562 360,409 642

1998 572 373,985 654

1999 575 373,985 651

2000 589 390,000 662

2001 599 390,000 652

2002 617 390,000 632

2003 647 387,465 599

2004 680 387,699 571

2005 702 384,597 548

2006 704 380,751 546

2007 714 380,751 533

2008 710 374,099 527

2009 709 774,0992 1,092

2010 732 374,099 511

2011 738 3 373,351 508

2012 745 3 372,646 500

2013 749 3 353,238 472

2014 745 3 353,238 474

2015 753 3 353,238 469

2016 763 3 368,238 483

2017 760 3 368,238 485

2018 760 3 4 365,737 481

2019 760 3 4 368,238 485

 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. 4 Estimate based on number of children served in fiscal year 2016.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-43

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 2019 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

2014 83% 80%

2015 84 80

2016 84

2017 84

2018 84

2019 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

2014 83% 80%

2015 84 80

2016 84

2017 84

2018 84

2019 84
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-44

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

2014 83% 79%

2015 84 79

2016 84

2017 84

2018 84

2019 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 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 positive 

social-emotional skills, 80 percent in the acquisition and use of knowledge, and 79 percent in 

the use of appropriate behavior. While the 2015 results do not meet the targets set for each 

category, they are consistent with the 2014 results.

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 currently 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-45

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

2014 44% 44%

2015 45 45

2016 46

2017 46

2018 46

2019 50

Additional information: This measure replaced a previous measure that focused 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 reported in the Annual Performance 

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

set for 2014. The actual performance of 44.8 percent in 2015 represents a small increase over 

the 2013 and 2014 actuals, but is slightly lower than the target of 45 percent.

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

(https://ideadata.org/) and the Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems 

(http://dasycenter.org/) 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 

guidance in the Dear Colleague Letter on Preschool Least Restrictive Environments 

(https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/preschool-lre-dcl-1-10-17.pdf).

The Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems, which was created in 2012, also provides 

technical assistance and resources to state agencies to assist with the development or 

enhancement of data systems for Part C early intervention and Part B preschool special 

education programs supported through 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, including Race To the Top Early Learning Challenge Fund and the 

Statewide Longitudinal Data System grant program, to help state agencies create and expand 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-46

early childhood cross-agency and longitudinal data systems that include the Part C and Part B 

preschool data needed to collect, analyze, and report high-quality data required under IDEA.

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

2014 45 44

2015 46 45

2016 47

2017 47

2018 47

2019 47

Additional information: Although the Department is below its target for fiscal years 2014 and 

2015, performance has improved from 2013 to 2015. Forty-five 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

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

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

Year Target Actual

2016 Baseline 171

2017 Baseline 143

2018

2019

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

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

responsibilities through the State Performance Plan (SPP)/APR process, fiscal monitoring, and 

its work with State dispute resolution systems. In 2016, OSEP began conducting site visits 

using a risk-based approach to monitoring. In that year, OSEP conducted site visits and issued 

letters to 4 States with an average of 171 days to issue response letters. In 2017, OSEP 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-47

conducted 14 site visits with States (5 Part B and 9 Part C). To date, OSEP has issued 

responses to six States (2 Part B and 4 Part C) with an average response time of 143 days 

(223 days for Part B and 104 days for Part C). The response letters for all eight remaining 

States will be issued more than 90 days after the conclusion of the site visit. In 2010, the last 

year the Department collected data on this measure, the average response time was 

66 workdays (note that data reported for 2017 reflects total days, not just workdays). The 

Department will establish targets for this measure after sufficient baseline data are available, 

which is expected in spring 2020.

Other Performance Information

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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-48

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, 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

H-49

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 

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 

non-poor children. One in three students who receive special education in early grades, first 

receive special education in kindergarten. Half of those who begin special education in 

kindergarten are no longer receiving special education by third grade. In addition to students’ 

gender and poverty status, results are presented separately for other student and school 

characteristics, including race/ethnicity, school, urbanicity, region, and poverty concentration.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-50

State grants: Grants for infants and families

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part C)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2018 

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$455,442 $458,556 +$3,114

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2019

through appropriations language.

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 within a State. Infants and toddlers with 

disabilities are defined as children who: (1) are experiencing developmental delays, as 

measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in one or more of the following 

five areas: cognitive development, physical development, communication development, social 

or emotional development, or adaptive development; or (2) have a diagnosed physical or mental 

condition that has a high probability of resulting in developmental delay. Within statutory limits, 

States define “developmental delay” and have the discretion to provide services to infants and 

toddlers who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays if they do not receive 

appropriate early intervention services.

Funds 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.

The IDEA requires that early intervention services be provided, to the maximum extent 

appropriate, in natural environments. The natural environment includes the home and 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-51

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 

designating a lead agency responsibility for the coordination and administration of funds, and 

developing and maintaining a State Interagency Coordinating Council to advise and assist the 

lead agency. One of the purposes of the Part C program is to assist States 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), Supplemental Security Income, and Early Head Start.

The IDEA gives States the discretion to extend eligibility for Part C services to children with 

disabilities who are eligible for services under section 619 and who previously received services 

under Part C, until such children enter or are eligible under State law to enter kindergarten or 

elementary school, as appropriate. The Act further stipulates that any Part C programs serving 

children aged 3 or older must provide both: a) an educational component that promotes school 

readiness and incorporates pre-literacy, language, and numeracy skills, and b) 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 (Department) uses data provided by the 

United States Census Bureau in making this calculation. No State can receive less than 

0.5 percent of the funds available to all States, or $500,000, whichever is greater. The Outlying 

Areas may receive not more than 1 percent of the funds appropriated. The Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Indian Education, receives 1.25 percent of the aggregate of the amount 

available to all States. Interior must pass through all the funds it receives to Indian tribes, tribal 

organizations, or consortia for the coordination of early intervention services on reservations 

with Interior schools. Tribes and tribal organizations can use the funds they receive to provide 

(1) help to States in identifying Indian infants and toddlers with disabilities, (2) parent training, 

and (3) early intervention services.

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

year in which they are appropriated and remain available for 15 months, through September 30 

of the following year.

State Incentive Grants

In any fiscal year in which the appropriation for Part C exceeds $460 million, the statute 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 

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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-52

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 2017 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)

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

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

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

2017 ........................................................................................458,556

2018 ........................................................................................455,442

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $458.6 million for fiscal year 2019 for the Part C program, an 

increase of $3.1 million, to restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 level.

These funds would continue to support early intervention programs that provide services to 

infants and toddlers with disabilities. Such programs are also generally designed to mitigate the 

need for more extensive services in the future, and ensure that infants and toddlers with 

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

education.

These funds would also help States address the growing population of infants and toddlers that 

are likely to require early intervention services due to the rise in opiate addiction and the Zika 

virus. A 2016 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that from 1999 

to 2013, the number of babies born addicted to opiates increased by almost 300 percent in the 

28 States included in the study, putting them at a higher risk for developmental delays or 

disabilities (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/pdfs/mm6531a2.pdf). In addition, 

congenital Zika virus infection is associated with a wide range of birth defects, and infants born 

with these birth defects are likely to exhibit significant delays in cognition, motor, 

communication, and adaptive development

(http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMsr1604338).

At the requested level, the average State award would be approximately $8.6 million. These 

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

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

young children.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-53

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Range in size of awards to States: 1

Rang e in size of awar ds to States: Smallest State regular Part C award 2 $2,248 $2,232 $2,247

Rang e in size of awar ds to States: Average State regular Part C award $8,645 $8,586 $8,644

Rang e in size of awar ds to States: Largest State regular Part C award $54,602 $53,837 $54,201

Children served3 377,463 377,463 377,463

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 2019 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

2014 69% 65%

2015 70 66

2016 70 65

2017 70

2018 70

2019 70

 1 The calculations exclude funds for the Outlying Areas and the Department of the Interior. 2 IDEA, section 643(c)(2) provides for a minimum allocation to States of the greater of $500,000 or 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.

3 Estimates.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-54

Measure: The percentage of infants and toddlers who entered the program below age 

expectations in acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early 

language/communication and early literacy) who substantially increased their rate of growth by 

the time they exited the program.

Year Target Actual

2014 73% 71%

2015 75 71

2016 76 71

2017 76

2018 76

2019 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

2014 73% 72%

2015 75 73

2016 77 72

2017 77

2018 77

2019 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 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 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 deliberately focused these measures on aspects of performance that take 

into account the challenges of assessing growth in early childhood outcomes, especially for 

children with disabilities. While two States have current approval from the Department to collect 

data for a representative sample of the children they serve through the Part C program, all other 

States are responsible for reporting data on all children served.

The Department acknowledges that some data quality issues persist in a few States, 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). However, most States are now producing high-quality data that provide a reliable 

national estimate of how children are performing when they exit Part C. Through its technical 

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

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

to inform program improvements.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-55

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

2014 28 30

2015 30 33

2016 32 36

2017 32

2018 34

2019 36

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 2016, exceeding its targets. The 1 percent threshold for this measure is based on data 

collected by the U.S. Census bureau on prevalence rates for 5 conditions: 0.4 percent - severe 

mental retardation1

; 0.2 percent - hearing impairment; 0.1 percent - visual impairment; 

0.2 percent - physical conditions (spina bifida, cerebral palsy, etc.); and 0.1 percent - autism. 

State lead agencies responsible for the implementation of these programs report data annually 

to the Department through their APRs on numbers of infants and toddlers with disabilities 

served under the Grants for Infants and Families program. Through its monitoring and technical 

assistance efforts, the Department is working with States to ensure that they are appropriately 

identifying and serving all eligible infants with disabilities and expects the number of States 

serving at least 1 percent of infants in the general population under age 1 to increase further as 

a result.

Measure: The number of States that serve at least 2 percent of infants and toddlers in the 

general population, birth through age 2, through Part C.

Year Target Actual

2014 45 44

2015 45 45

2016 46 47

2017 46

2018 47

2019 47

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 

 1 Consistent with P.L. 111-256, the Department uses the term “intellectual disabilities” instead of “mental retardation,” 

but we have retained the term here to permit verification of the data that were used to set the threshold.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-56

toddlers with disabilities. The Department believes that these efforts are partially responsible for 

the improved performance of States under this measure over the past 7 years.

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

2014 95% 96%

2015 95 96

2016 95 97

2017 95

2018 95

2019 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 15 years (by 21 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

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

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

Year Target Actual

2016 Baseline 171

2017 Baseline 143

2018

2019

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

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

responsibilities through the State Performance Plan (SPP)/APR process, fiscal monitoring, and 

its work with State dispute resolution systems. In 2016, OSEP began conducting site visits 

using a risk-based approach to monitoring. In that year, OSEP conducted site visits and issued 

letters to 4 States with an average of 171 days to issue response letters. In 2017, OSEP 

conducted 14 site visits with States (5 Part B and 9 Part C). To date, OSEP has issued 

responses to six States (2 Part B and 4 Part C) with an average response time of 143 days 

(223 days for Part B and 104 days for Part C). The response letters for all eight remaining 

States will be issued more than 90 days after the conclusion of the site visit. In 2010, the last 

year the Department collected data on this measure, the average response time was 

66 workdays (note that data reported for 2017 reflects total days, not just workdays). The 

Department will establish targets for this measure after sufficient baseline data are available, 

which is expected in spring 2020.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-57

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.

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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

H-58

(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 website at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114026/index.asp.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-59

National activities: State personnel development

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 1) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2018 

Annualized CR 2019

Change from 

Annualized CR

$38,368 $38,630 +$262

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2019

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The State Personnel Development (SPD) program supports 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 for 

the SPD program is less than $100 million. However, if the amount appropriated is $100 million 

or greater, funds would be distributed as formula grants, with allotments based on the relative 

portion of the funds the State received under Part B of IDEA. Competitive awards are made for 

periods of 1 to 5 years with minimum awards to States of not less than $500,000 and not less 

than $80,000 for Outlying Areas. The maximum award that can be made to States is $4 million 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-60

per fiscal year. Factors used to determine the amount of each competitive award are: the 

amount of funds available; the relative population of the State or Outlying Area; the types of 

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 as appropriate, the use of evidence-based programs and research. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2014.............................................................. ................$41,630

2015.............................................................. ..................41,630

2016.............................................................. ..................41,630

2017.............................................................. ..................38,630

2018.............................................................. ..................38,368

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2019, the Administration requests $38.6 million for the State Personnel 

Development (SPD) grants program, an increase of $0.3 million, to restore funding to the fiscal 

year 2017 level. This request would support continuation awards and performance evaluation 

activities. As in fiscal year 2018, the Administration is requesting appropriations language in the 

2019 Budget that would provide 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 statutory authority to use funds to evaluate program performance. 

Personnel shortages and inadequately trained teachers in special education are among the 

most pressing and chronic problems facing the field.1 SPD projects assist in addressing critical 

State and local needs to improve personnel preparation, induction to the LEA, and ongoing 

professional development identified in the State’s Personnel Development Plan. Projects 

provide personnel with the knowledge and skills to meet the needs 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. 

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 instruction, supported by evidence; and (3) are effective in improving 

outcomes for children with disabilities. States must collaborate and seek the input of teachers, 

principals, parents, administrators, paraprofessionals, and other school personnel when 

developing SPD activities.

 1 Teacher Shortage Areas Nationwide Listing, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 

August 2016: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.pdf
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-61

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 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 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 

incentives, to retain special education teachers who have a record of success in helping 

students with disabilities. 

Some examples of how States are using SPD funds to improve the knowledge and skills of 

teachers serving children with disabilities include: 

• Wisconsin SPD funds are used to support the development and sustainment of professional 

learning communities (PLCs). These PLCs help teachers to examine data, determine 

effective practices, and develop action plans that will lead to improvement in academic 

achievement for students with disabilities. Sixty-seven percent of schools participating in 

this professional development showed a decrease in the proficiency gap on Statewide 

assessments. Sixty-three percent of schools demonstrated growth in the achievement of 

students with disabilities on reading and math assessments. 

• Louisiana SPD funds are used to support family engagement activities that have resulted in 

a sixty-six percent increase in the number of families with students with disabilities who 

reported schools facilitate family involvement to improve services (based on the IDEA 

survey).

• Connecticut SPD funds are used to support improvements in school climate and positive 

behavior supports. In one year the SPD schools decreased their use of out-of-school 

suspensions and expulsions by eight percent. Sixty-four percent of the SPD-supported 

schools were able to decrease their use of out-of-school suspensions and expulsions.

• Oklahoma SPD funds are used to support improved literacy instruction for students with 

disabilities. Ninety-six percent of students receiving the program with fidelity moved up one 

grade level. Forty-nine percent of students moved up two grade levels.

• Rhode Island’s SPD funds are used to support their Multi-tiered Systems of Support 

efforts. Seventy-two percent of schools receiving assistance demonstrated increases in the 

percentage of students meeting academic benchmarks.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-62

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017footnotes2018te2019tnote

Project funding:

New SPD awards $20,548 0 0

Continuation SPD awards $18,0201 $38,3152 $38,5773

Performance evaluation $53 $53 $53

Peer review of new award 

applications

 $9 0 0 

Total funding $38,630 $38,368 $38,630

Average award (whole dollars) $1,094 $1,120 $1,120

Number of awards:

New 17 0 0

Continuation 16 33 33 

Total awards 33 33 33

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 2019 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.

 1 The fiscal year 2017 continuation awards total includes approximately $2,130 thousand in fiscal year 2017 funds for 

support of fiscal year 2018 continuation costs.

2 The fiscal year 2018 continuation awards total includes approximately $704 thousand in fiscal year 2018 funds for 

support of fiscal year 2019 continuation costs.

3 In fiscal year 2019, anticipated continuation awards will total $38,940 thousand, exceeding available funding by 

approximately $343 thousand.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-63

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.

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 

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 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 over time.

Year Target Actual

2015 Baseline 72%

2016 70% 75

2017 70 92

2018 77

2019 82

Additional information: This measure is calculated by dividing the number of SPD funded PD 

initiatives in their 2nd through final year of implementation that meet their respective benchmarks 

for use of evidence-based PD practices by the total number of SPD PD initiatives in their 2nd

through final year of implementation reviewed, times 100. 

In 2017, this measure applied to all SPD grants in their 2nd through final year of funding. In 

2017, 47 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 26 randomly selected 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 evidencebased 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 an “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.

Of the 26 SPD grants reviewed in 2017, a total of 24 were determined to “meet their respective 

benchmarks for use of evidence-based PD practices.” 

Therefore, in 2017, the number of SPD PD initiatives meeting their respective 

benchmarks/number of SPD PD initiatives reviewed x 100 = (24/26) x 100 = 92 percent.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-64

Measure: The percentage of SPD-funded initiatives that meet the benchmark for improvement 

in implementation over time.

Year Target Actual

2015 Baseline 58%

2016 60% 74

2017 60 72

2018 65

2019 70

Additional information: This measure is calculated by dividing the number of SPD funded PD 

initiatives in at least their 3rd year of implementation that meet their benchmark for improvement 

of evidence-based PD practices by the total number of SPD funded PD initiatives, times 100.

An outside contractor used a random sampling process to select one professional development 

(PD) initiative for review from each of 47 eligible SPD grants. The contractor then identified PD 

initiatives that were in at least their 3rd year of implementation during the most recent APR 

period, when improvements in implementation can be observed. A total of 25 PD initiatives 

were in at least their 3rd year of implementation, and therefore included in the review.

Of these 25 PD initiatives, a total of 18 were deemed to “meet the benchmark for improvement 

of evidence-based PD practices.”

Therefore, in 2017, the number of SPD PD initiatives meeting their respective 

benchmarks/number of SPD PD initiatives reviewed x 100 = (18/25) x 100 = 72 percent. 

Performance on this measure over the last two years represents a significant increase from 

prior years, and OSEP raised the target in response to this outcome.

Measure: The percentage of initiatives that meet targets for their use of funds to sustain SPDsupported practices.

Year Target Actual

2015 Baseline 90%

2016 85% 78

2017 85 83

2018 85

2019 85

Additional information: This measure is calculated by dividing the number of SPD funded PD 

initiatives in at least their 2nd year of implementation that meet the grantee benchmark for using 

funds to support sustainability by the total number of SPD PD initiatives in at least their 2nd year 

of implementation reviewed times 100. Grantee-submitted data describing the cost of the 

fidelity activities designed to sustain individual initiatives is used to support this measure. 

Targets for each initiative are set in conjunction with the grantee. Expert panels review the data 

to determine whether the grantee has met the target for spending on that initiative within 5 

percent of the target. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

H-65

In 2017, this measure applied to all SPD grants in their 2nd through final years of funding. 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. 

In 2017, the number of SPD initiatives meeting their respective benchmark/number of SPD 

initiatives reviewed x 100 = (24/29) x 100 = 83 percent.

Measure: The percentage of SPD grant-funded projects that meet targets for retention of 

special education teachers. 

Additional information: Beginning in the 2016 report, the information for this measure has 

been provided qualitatively. 

Some SPD grantees have special education teacher retention as a goal and are required to 

report the number of qualified special education teachers who remain as special education 

teachers two or more years following their initial participation in grant activities and the total 

number of teachers who participated in grant activities designed for teacher retention at least 

two years prior to the annual performance reporting period (APR). 

In 2017, this measure applied to five SPD grants. An outside contractor commissioned two 

reviewers with expertise in special education, PD, and program evaluation to assess the extent 

to which each grantee had met their respective target for retaining special education teachers. 

The program office uses a standardized rubric containing four questions to determine whether 

or not each grantee met their benchmark for retaining special education teachers after their 

participation in grant activities. These questions are:

• Did the grantee divide the number of teachers who remain in a teaching position by all 

teachers who received SPD grant assistance? (Equation = Number of teachers retained 

for at least two years following participation in a SPD grant teacher retention activity 

divided by number of teachers participating in a SPD grant activity designed to retain 

highly qualified special education teachers.) (Response categories = Yes, No)

• Does the grantee set a target for teacher retention for teachers who participated in SPD 

grant activities at least two years ago? (Response categories = Yes, No)

• Does the grantee have special educators who participated in SPD grant activities at 

least two years ago? (Response categories = Yes, No, Not Sure)

• Did the grant meet its target for these teachers? (Response categories = Yes, No)

Reviewers extracted data from the APR to answer these questions for each of the five SPD 

grants with teacher retention as a goal, and the reviewers then discussed their individual 

assessments until reaching consensus on each grantee’s response to each question.

In 2017, of the five SPG grants listing teacher retention as a goal, three met their target for 

teacher retention.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-66

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 2, Section 663)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$44,044 $44,345 +$301

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2019 

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) program is the Department’s primary 

vehicle under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for identifying, providing, and 

disseminating information on effective practices with educators, policymakers, service providers, 

and families of children with disabilities. The program makes competitive awards to provide 

technical assistance, support model demonstration projects, disseminate useful information, and 

implement activities that are supported by scientific research. These awards are intended to 

improve services provided under IDEA, promote academic achievement, and improve results for 

children with disabilities. 

The majority of TA&D program investments support national and regional technical assistance 

centers that are intended to support the field in implementing Parts B and C of IDEA, by

expanding the use of evidence-based and promising practices. Centers focus on a variety of 

critical topics, such as behavior, assessment, inclusive practices, secondary transition, literacy, 

and early childhood education. Most centers use a service model that provides three levels of 

technical assistance: (1) intensive, sustained; (2) targeted, specific; and (3) general, universal. 

At the intensive, sustained level, a small number of States receive on-site, ongoing planned 

assistance designed to reach an outcome desired by the recipient. Through targeted, specific 

services, centers support activities based on the topical or technical needs common to multiple 

recipients. Targeted, specific services can include one-time or short-term events, such as 

consultation services or presentations at conferences. The centers also provide general, 

universal technical assistance services that are intended to help broader audiences access 

information and services through presentations, newsletters, or research syntheses that are 

made available on center websites. Activities supported through this program are designed to 

address the needs of a variety of audiences, including teachers, related service personnel, early 

intervention personnel, administrators, parents, and individuals with disabilities. 

The TA&D program also funds model demonstration projects that evaluate the implementation 

of research findings in typical settings. Models that are found to be effective can then be 

promoted by the network of TA&D centers. In an ongoing effort to leverage existing resources 

and to collaborate with other federally funded TA&D projects more effectively, over the last few 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-67

years the program has aligned investments to support better coordination of efforts. TA&D 

activities promote the application of knowledge to improve practice by: determining areas where 

technical assistance and information are needed, ensuring that materials are prepared in 

formats that are appropriate for a wide variety of audiences, making technical assistance and 

information accessible to consumers, and promoting communication links among consumers. 

The duration of awards varies with the award's purpose, though most individual awards are 

made for a period of 5 years.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2014..................................................................................... $44,3451

2015....................................................................................... 44,3451

2016....................................................................................... 44,3451

2017....................................................................................... 44,3451

2018....................................................................................... 44,0441

1 The funding level for the TA&D program does not include funds for the Special Olympics program.

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $44.3 million for fiscal year 2019 for the Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination (TA&D) program, an increase of $0.3 million, to restore funding to the fiscal year 

2017 level. Approximately $33.5 million would be used to support continuation costs, and $10.8

million would be used to fund new awards. 

TA&D activities support the application of knowledge to improve practices among professionals 

and others involved in providing services that promote academic achievement and improve 

results for children with disabilities. Through TA&D, the Department focuses on identifying and 

disseminating evidence-based practices and building capacity at the State and local levels to 

implement, sustain, and scale-up such practices, thereby improving results for children with 

disabilities. These activities have successfully facilitated the adoption and spread of evidencebased practices such as positive behavioral interventions and supports, which have been 

implemented in nearly 26,000 schools nationwide, and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

(MTSS), which have been implemented and widely used throughout the country as a framework 

for delivering differentiated instruction.

Model Demonstration Projects

As States refine their systems and use data to identify areas for improvement in their State 

Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs), which are 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 a variety of school settings, particularly in non-traditional public school settings (e.g., 

charters, magnets, virtual schools) and in private schools. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-68

The growing field of implementation science suggests that effective implementation—including 

an understanding of how to accommodate variations inherent in the different educational 

settings in which programs are implemented—can be just as important as identifying evidencebased practices in the first place. Few schools or programs can successfully implement 

evidence-based practices without detailed implementation strategies. Research studies, 

however, do not often address what it takes to implement and sustain a practice in typical early 

intervention, preschool, classroom and school settings. 

Model demonstrations are an effective and efficient way to bridge the gap between existing 

research and the effective implementation of interventions in areas of critical need. The focus 

areas for model demonstrations are selected based on emerging areas of research, needs 

identified by the Department, and input from the special education field. The fiscal year 2019 

model demonstration investment will provide $1.2 million to fund 3 new projects related to 

educational choice and $3.1 million for 9 continuations aimed at addressing critical areas of 

need in special education (e.g., improving mathematics and English language arts outcomes of 

students with disabilities in inclusive public schools, including charter schools). Cohorts will 

identify and address the implementation challenges across a variety of choice environments 

throughout the country. For more information on model demonstration project continuations, 

see below.

Additional Technical Assistance Activities

The Department’s technical assistance investments focus on meeting the needs of States and 

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 Department takes a number of factors into consideration when funding technical 

assistance centers including: meeting statutory requirements, the needs of the field (including 

States, LEAs, parents and families, and other disability stakeholders), and the risk of duplication 

across programs. Projects and centers funded under this program are required to coordinate 

with other relevant technical assistance investments funded by the Department. This request 

includes approximately $8.9 million for new awards in fiscal year 2019 to support State efforts to 

use evidence-based implementation in building State capacity.

The Department plans to use $6.8 million to support a new national center for systemic 

improvement to provide States with technical assistance to support LEAs and local early 

intervention service providers in improving educational results and functional outcomes for 

children with disabilities. This center will also support States in the development of their SSIPs, 

which are a required component of RDA. In addition, $2.1 million will fund a new national 

technical assistance center focused on transition to assists SEAs, LEAs, State vocational 

rehabilitation (VR) agencies, and VR service providers to implement evidence-based and 

promising practices, particularly pre-employment transition services as described in Section 113 

of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, 

ensuring students with disabilities, including those with significant disabilities, graduate prepared 

for success in postsecondary education and employment. 

Continuation funding of $32.0 million in the fiscal year 2019 request will support a variety of 

technical assistance and dissemination projects under this program: 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-69

Model Demonstration Projects

• Model Demonstration Projects ($3.1 million)—assess how models can improve algebraic 

reasoning for students with disabilities in middle and high schools and improve literacy 

outcomes for English Learner students with disabilities in grades 3 through 6, including 

how they can be implemented and sustained by educators in general and special 

education settings.

Technical Assistance Centers (organized by focus area)

Behavior

• Technical Assistance Center on Positive Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Outcomes 

for Young Children with Disabilities ($1.1 million)—supports States, early childhood 

programs, and personnel in implementing an early childhood MTSS framework focused 

on improving social, emotional, and behavioral development.

• Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)

($1.9 million)—assists SEAs and LEAs to successfully implement and sustain PBIS 

practices and policies, which are supported by evidence for students with the most 

significant behavioral challenges that interfere with their ability to fully participate in the 

learning environment.

Early Childhood

• Early Childhood Systems Technical Assistance Center ($5.4 million)—provides TA to 

States to increase their capacity to maintain a high-quality infrastructure in place to 

implement IDEA, enabling States to provide comprehensive IDEA services for young 

children with disabilities and their families. Consistent with IDEA requirements, the 

Center also offers TA to States on effective strategies to work collaboratively with other 

early childhood systems, to increase young children with disabilities’ access to and 

participation in high-quality inclusive programs.

Assessment

• Technical Assistance Center to Increase the Participation and Performance of Students 

with Disabilities on State and Districtwide Assessments ($1.0 million)—addresses 

national, State, and local assessment issues related to students with disabilities.

Inclusive Practices

• Technical Assistance Center for Inclusive Policies and Practices ($2 million)—assists 

SEAs and LEAs to successfully implement and sustain inclusive practices and policies, 

supported by evidence and based on individualized determinations, for students with the 

most significant cognitive disabilities in elementary and middle school (K-8) programs.

• National Center for Students With Disabilities Who Require Intensive Intervention

($2.1 million)—assists SEAs and LEAs in their efforts to support schools and educators 

in implementing intensive interventions composed of practices that are evidence-based 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-70

for students with disabilities who have persistent learning or behavior difficulties and who 

need intensive intervention to succeed in school and be prepared for postsecondary 

opportunities.

• National Center for Dispute Resolution ($750,000)—provides SEAs and Part C Lead 

Agencies with resources that can help them effectively implement a range of dispute 

resolution options, including strategies that other SEAs and Part C Lead Agencies use to 

address the SSIPs indicators related to dispute resolution. This center helps ensure 

parents and families get the information they need about various methods for resolving 

disputes and helps avoid costly adversarial due process hearings.

Secondary Transition

• Postsecondary Education Center for Individuals who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

($1.3 million)—supports postsecondary education through collaborations with 

postsecondary institutions, SEAs, LEAs, State VR agencies, VR service providers, and 

other relevant organizations and public agencies to more effectively address the 

postsecondary, vocational, technical, continuing, and adult education needs of 

individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. 

• National Technical Assistance Center on Transition ($2.1 million)—provides technical 

assistance to all States and U.S. territories to ensure transition-age youth with 

disabilities receive high-quality education services, assisting State Educational Agencies 

(SEAs), LEAs, State VR Agencies, and VR service providers in implementing evidencebased and promising practices ensuring that students with disabilities, including those 

with significant disabilities, graduate prepared for success in postsecondary education 

and employment.

Investments for Children who are both Deaf and Blind

• State and multi-State projects providing technical assistance on services for children 

who are both deaf and blind ($11.7 million)—provide technical assistance on services for 

children who are both deaf and blind. The coordinating center provides technical 

assistance to State and multi-State projects. Overall, this investment represents a 

significant portion of the minimum annual funding requirement (i.e., $12.8 million) of 

IDEA to address the educational, related services, transitional, and early intervention 

needs of children with deaf-blindness.

For more information on the OSEP TA&D investments, visit: www.OSEPideasthatwork.org. 

Of the remaining fiscal year 2019 continuation funds requested, $200,000 will be transferred to 

the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) to continue support for an 

interagency technical assistance investment to improve academic, employment and behavioral 

outcomes for justice-involved youth. Approximately $1.3 million would support new and 

continuing contracts for peer review, performance evaluation, reporting, and dissemination.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-71

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Program Funding:

Model demonstration centers:

Model demonstration centers: New $1,200 $1,200 $1,200

Model demonstration centers: Continuations 2,252 3,466 3,142

Model demonstration centers: Subtotal 3,452 4,666 4,342

Behavior:

 New 1,100 1,850 0

Regional/Feder al Resource Centers: Continuations 1,000 1,100 2,950

Regional/Feder al Resource Centers: Subtotal 2,100 2,950 2,950

Early childhood:

Earl y childhood technical assistance: New 3,400 0 0

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Continuations 0 3,400 5,400

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Subtotal 3,400 3,400 5,400

Assessment:

Earl y childhood technical assistance: New 0 0 0

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Continuations 1,000 1,000 1,000

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Subtotal 1,000 1,000 1,000

Inclusive Practices:

Earl y childhood technical assistance: New 5,816 1,350 6,772

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Continuations 11,681 13,735 7,328

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Subtotal 17,497 15,085 14,100

Secondary transition:

Secondar y, transiti on and postsecondar y technical assistance: New 0 0 2,100

Secondar y, transiti on and postsecondar y technical assistance: Continuations 3,400 3,400 1,300

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: New 0 11,100 0

Technical assistance for children who ar e both deaf and blind: Continuations 11,285 0 11,700

Technical assistance for children who ar e both deaf and blind: Subtotal 11,285 11,100 11,700

Transfers to Elementary and Secondary 

Education for comprehensive centers:

 New 750 0 0

 Continuations 0 750 0

 Subtotal 750 750 0
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-72

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Transfers to Career, Technical, and Adult 

Education for corrections collaboration:

 New $200 0 0

 Continuations 0 $200 $200

 Subtotal 200 200 200

National Activities

 New 724 350 434

 Continuations 434 1,182 749

 Subtotal 1,158 1,532 1,183

Peer review of new award applications 103 178 70

Total program funding:

New 13,190 15,850 10,506

Continuations 31,052 28,233 33,769

Peer review 103 178 70

Total 44,345 44,261 44,345

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

year 2019 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-73

Annual Performance Measures

The three annual measures deal with the quality, relevance, and usefulness of products and 

services provided by the program. These measures were developed as part of an effort to 

make measures relating to technical assistance and dissemination activities more consistent 

Department-wide. 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. 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, a contractor collects and 

analyzes data, based on input from two panels of subject matter experts. Panels review a 

sample of products and services developed by grantees against a listing of evidence-based 

practices in key target areas the Department has identified as critical. The sample of grantees 

included in this measure for each year consists of 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 Deaf-Blind grantee included in the sample is asked to 

submit a list of every new service from the previous year, from which one service is selected to 

be reviewed. 

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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-74

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

2014 95% 91%

2015 95 77

2016 90 75

2017 90

2018 90

2019 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 fiscal year 2016, due to the change in the number of centers funded, the Department 

adjusted the targets for this program. Based on the most recent data available for products and 

services developed with fiscal year 2016 funds, the program fell substantially short of the target 

with only 21 out of 28 products and services meeting the standard for high quality (i.e.,

75 percent). 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.

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

2014 95% 97%

2015 95 93

2016 90 100

2017 90

2018 90

2019 93

Additional information: Expert panels review the products and services and score them 

based on a rubric that assesses the extent to which the content of materials is responsive to 

priority issues, including challenges confronting the target groups. Specifically, the rubric is 

designed to yield ratings on the basis of the following three dimensions related to relevance: 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-75

(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. All 28 products and services in the sample from fiscal year 2016 met the 

standard for high relevance. As such, the Department has set a higher target for fiscal 

year 2019. 

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

2014 95% 94%

2015 95 93

2016 90 86

2017 90

2018 90

2019 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 fiscal year 2016, due to the change in the number of centers funded, the Department 

adjusted the targets for this program to account for the smaller number of total products and 

services. Based on the most recent data available on products and services from fiscal 

year 2016, the program fell short of the target with 24 out of 28 products and services meeting 

the standard for high usefulness. To ensure that grantees continue to improve their 

performance under this indicator, the Department will more aggressively monitor any individual 

grantees that receive relatively lower scores to improve program performance and ensure that 

they take steps to improve over time.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-76

Long-term Performance Measures

The Department established two long-term measures for this program. Data for the long-term 

measures are collected every 2 years. 

Measure: The percentage of effective evidence-based program models developed by model 

demonstration projects that are promoted to States and their partners through the TA&D 

Network. 

In 2010, the Department developed this new long-term pilot measure because the previous 

measure did not provide meaningful data for program improvement. This new measure will 

provide the Department valuable data on how well model demonstration projects are 

disseminating effective practices, a key component of this program. In November 2012, the 

Department began collecting the new data using a revised methodology, and will use the results 

to continue to refine the measure and set performance targets for future years. 

Measure: The percentage of school districts and service agencies receiving technical 

assistance and dissemination services regarding scientifically or evidence-based practices for 

infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities that implement those practices.

Year Target Actual

2011 86%

2013 86% 83

2015 86 100

2017 86

2019 83

Additional information: Experts review data from States that have received intensive 

technical assistance from OSEP TA&D Centers in six focus areas. These areas include 

assessment, literacy, behavior, instructional strategies, early intervention, secondary transition, 

and inclusive practices. 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 for which they received technical 

assistance. In 2011, this figure increased to 86 percent of districts and agencies sampled. In 

2015, the Department exceeded the target with 7 out of 7 States implementing evidence-based 

practices for which they received technical assistance. Data for 2017 will be available in fall 

2018.

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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

H-77

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. 

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” (https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144000/). 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).
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

H-78

National activities: Personnel preparation

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 2, Sections 661 and 662) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2018 

Annualized CR 2019

Change from 

Annualized CR

$83,132 $83,700 +$568

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2019

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Personnel Preparation program helps meet State-identified needs for adequate numbers of 

fully certified personnel to serve children with disabilities by supporting competitive awards to:

• Provide research-based training and professional development to prepare special 

education, related services, early intervention, and regular education personnel to work with 

children with disabilities;

• Ensure that those personnel are fully qualified, and possess the skills and knowledge that 

are needed to serve children with disabilities; and

• Ensure that regular education teachers have the necessary knowledge and skills to provide 

instruction to students with disabilities in regular education classrooms.

• The Department is required by statute to make competitive grants that support training 

activities in a few high priority areas, including personnel development, beginning special 

educators, personnel to serve children with low incidence disabilities, and leadership 

personnel. These grants are typically 5 years in length.

Personnel Development: This broad authority requires the Department to support at least one 

of the following activities:

 

• Promoting partnerships and collaborative personnel preparation and training between 

institutions of higher education (IHEs) and local educational agencies (LEAs);

• Developing, evaluating, and disseminating innovative models for the recruitment, 

induction, retention, and assessment of teachers;

• Providing continuous training and professional development to support special education 

and general education teachers and related services personnel;

• Developing and improving programs for paraprofessionals to become special educators;
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-79

• Promoting instructional leadership and improved collaboration between general and 

special education;

• Supporting IHEs with minority enrollment of not less than 25 percent; and 

• Developing and improving programs to train special educators to develop expertise in 

autism spectrum disorders.

Beginning Special Educators: The Department is also required to provide support to beginning 

special educators. Specifically, the Department is required to make at least one award to: 

(a) enhance and restructure existing teacher education programs or develop teacher education 

programs that prepare special education teachers by incorporating an extended clinical learning 

opportunity, field experience, or supervised practicum (e.g., an additional 5th year), or (b) create 

and support teacher-faculty partnerships between LEAs and IHEs (e.g., professional 

development schools) that provide high-quality mentoring and induction opportunities with 

ongoing support for beginning special educators or in-service support and professional 

development opportunities.

Personnel to Serve Children with Low Incidence Disabilities: Awards to support personnel to 

serve children with low incidence disabilities are designed to help ensure the availability of 

quality personnel 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 Department 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 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-80

received training, or by making a cash repayment to the Federal Government. In recent years, 

approximately half of the total funding available under the program has been used to directly 

support student scholarships. 

A significant percentage of the grants awarded through this program go to IHEs to provide 

scholarships to train additional special education and early intervention personnel. However, 

the Department also makes awards to centers under this program. Unlike awards that provide 

support for scholarships, which are designed primarily to increase the supply of personnel, 

center-based awards tend to focus on enhancing the quality of work in a particular topical area 

through such activities as professional development, technical assistance, partnerships, or the 

development and dissemination of materials and best practices. 

Additional support for personnel preparation activities is provided through the State Personnel 

Development Grants program, under which the Department makes competitive awards to help 

SEAs reform and improve in-service training and professional development activities for 

teachers, including the recruitment and retention of special education teachers. 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)

2014.............................................................. ................$83,700

2015.............................................................. ..................83,700

2016.............................................................. ..................83,700

2017.............................................................. ..................83,700

2018.............................................................. ..................83,132

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2019, the Administration requests $83.7 million for the Personnel Preparation 

program, an increase of $0.6 million, to restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 level. Of the 

funds requested, approximately $18.6 million (including peer review costs) would be used for 

new projects, and $65.1 million would support the continuation of grants made in prior years. 

Approximately $9.9 million of the funding for new projects in fiscal year 2019 would be used to 

support pre-service training for special education and early intervention personnel, and 

approximately $4.3 million would be used to support the training of special education leadership 

personnel. The remaining additional funding would be used to support consortia focused on 

preparing leadership personnel in sensory disabilities and disabilities associated with intensive 

service needs.

Program Funding Priorities

The Department is exploring how funds available to support new activities under this program 

can be targeted to support human capital systems that prepare, recruit, support, evaluate, 

compensate and retain effective educators. Administration priorities in this area include

partnering with States, local education agencies (LEAs), and grantees under the program to: 

ensure teachers enter the classroom with the necessary skills to be effective; address inequities 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-81

in the distribution of effective teachers; and alleviate ongoing personnel shortages of teachers 

and principals who are prepared to provide evidence-based services for children with 

disabilities.

Since fiscal year 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 

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 2019. 

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. Persistent shortages of 

qualified personnel have been reported since the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) in 1975. While many States and local educational agencies across the 

country experience personnel shortages, recruiting and retaining qualified special educators is 

particularly challenging for schools, especially those in high-poverty districts. Data from 

“Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind: Final Report,” illustrate the challenge. According 

to this study, completed by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) for the Department in 

January 2009, approximately one-half of all districts in the country reported difficulty attracting 

highly qualified special education teachers in the 2006-2007 school year, while 90 percent of 

high-poverty districts reported the same difficulty (see 

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/nclb-final/index.html). 

The most recent National Assessment of IDEA, published in 2011, also found that 51 percent of 

district Part B special education administrators reported that their districts routinely had difficulty 

finding qualified special education applicants over the past 3 years, and approximately 5 percent 

of 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). 

Since those studies were published, States continue to report shortages of special education 

staff at higher rates than almost any other subject area specialization (see 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.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. Further, in fiscal year 2014, 83 percent of degree/certification recipients supported under 

this program were employed in a high-need school district.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-82

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Program Funding:

Low incidence disabilities 

grants:

New Low incidence disabilities grants 0 $500 $3,500

Continuations Low incidence disabilities grants $5,149 3,181 1,670

Subtotal Low incidence disabilities grants 5,149 3,681 5,200

Leadership training grants:

New Low incidence disabilities grants 3,344 4,250 4,250

Continuations Low incidence disabilities grants 15,680 14,407 15,389

Subtotal Low incidence disabilities grants 19,024 18,657 19,639

Training improvement grants:

New 5,450 0 0

Continuations Program improvement grants 0 5,450 5,450

Subtotal Program improvement grants 5,450 5,450 5,450

Early childhood grants:

New Early childhood 

grants 2,000 1,200 0

Continuations Early childhood grants 0 2,000 3,200

Subtotal Early childhood grants 2,000 3,200 3,200

Pre-service training grants

New Other personnel development grants 8,312 10,000 9,865

Continuations Other personnel development grants 41,207 39,781 38,259

Subtotal Other personnel development grants 41,519 49,781 48,124

National Activities:

New 1,490 250 699

Continuations national activities 699 1,772 1,093

Subtotal national activities 2,189 2,022 1,792

Peer review of new award 

applications 369 340 295

Total Program Funding:

New total program funding 20,596 16,200 18,314

Continuations total program funding 62,735 66,592 65,091

Peer review of new award 

applications 369 340 295

Total 83,700 83,132 83,700
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-83

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 2019 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: To prepare service providers and leadership personnel in areas of critical need 

who are highly qualified to improve outcomes for children with disabilities. 

Objective 1: Improve the curricula of IDEA training programs to ensure that personnel 

preparing to serve children with disabilities are knowledgeable and skilled in practices that 

reflect the current knowledge base. 

Objective 2: Increase the supply of teachers and service providers who are highly qualified for 

and serve in positions for which they are trained.

Objective 3: Enhance the efficiency of the expenditure of Federal dollars under the program.

Annual Performance Measures

The program has five annual performance measures. All five of these measures are designed 

to provide information on various aspects of program quality, including scholars who receive 

funding through the program. These measures are:

Measure: Percentage of projects that incorporate scientifically- or evidence-based practices in 

their curricula.

Year Target Actual

2014 90% 88%

2015 90 95

2016 90 95

2017 90

2018 90

2019 90

Additional Information: Data are collected and analyzed by a contractor using a panel of five 

to seven experts, who review a randomly selected sample of grantee course syllabi submitted 

by funded applicants in the same cohort of grantees. 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-84

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 2016 review, 20 syllabi from fiscal year 2016 personnel development grantees 

were included from the following types of projects: early childhood (4 syllabi scored), leadership 

(8 syllabi scored), and low incidence (8 syllabi scored), including 3 syllabi from minority 

institutions. Only one grant (in the low incidence area) did not meet the established standard for 

incorporating scientifically- or evidence-based practices in their curricula. In fiscal year 2017, 

new personnel development grantees were allowed the option of one year to develop new 

curricula to meet the interdisciplinary focus of that competition. As such, the Department does 

not plan to have data from a syllabi review for those grantees until fall 2019.

Measure: Percentage of scholars who exit training programs prior to completion due to poor 

academic performance.

Year Target Actual

2014 1.9% 1.0%

2015 1.9 1.3

2016 1.9

2017 1.9

2018 1.9

2019 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 scholars exited programs early due to poor academic performance 

in 2015, in line with performance on this measure since 2009, when 2.0 percent exited early due 

to poor academic performance, declining consistently to 1.0 percent through 2014. This 

measure is calculated by dividing the total number of scholars exiting their training program due 

to poor academic performance (n=20 in 2015) and dividing it by the total number of scholars 

completing a training program (n=1,431 in 2015) and the number of scholars exiting their 

training program prior to completion for any reason (n=135 in 2015). For reference purposes, 

the difference in performance between 2014 and 2015 on this measure is approximately 

4 scholars. Data for fiscal year 2016 are expected to be available in fall 2018.

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. 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-85

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who are working in the area(s) for which 

they are trained upon program completion.

Year Target Actual

2014 85% 93%

2015 85 91

2016 85

2017 85

2018 85

2019 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 2015, 1,431 scholars completed their programs and 524 were reported as working in the field 

for which they were trained upon program completion. However, to date, 855 scholars have not 

yet entered employment records into the system. At this time, the Department is missing data 

on approximately 60 percent (855 divided by 1,431) of 2015 program completers. Actual data 

reported above for 2015 do not include these 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 2016 will be available in fall 2018.

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.

Additional Information: Beginning in fiscal year 2017, the Department discontinued data 

collection on this measure, as it did not provide sufficiently meaningful data beyond that 

captured by the preceding measure.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-86

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who are employed in high-need 

districts.

Year Target Actual

2014 Baseline 83%

2015 Baseline 88

2016 85%

2017 85

2018 85

2019 85

Additional information: The Department began collecting data on this measure with 

degree/certification recipients who completed their programs in fiscal year 2013. For the last 

three years, the Department has piloted this measure to determine data quality and reliability. 

In calculating this measure, the Department uses employment records submitted by scholars 

and matches that employment data to school districts in the Common Core of Data (CCD), 

which were then classified as high-need using free and reduced-price lunch data.

In 2015, 1,431 scholars completed their programs and 333 were employed in high need 

districts. As noted above, to date, 855 of those scholars have not yet entered data into the data 

collection system. Of the remainder, 188 scholars did not work in a school district, but worked 

in some other type of organization (e.g., a clinic, hospital, or State or Federal education 

agency). In addition, one scholar reported working in a district for which the Department could 

not find a match in the CCD. These scholars were also excluded from the calculation. 

The denominator includes scholars who were employed in high need districts (333 scholars in 

2015), scholars who were employed in districts that were not high-need (23 scholars in 2015), 

and scholars who were employed in districts for which free or reduced price lunch enrollment 

data were not available in the CCD (24 scholars in 2015).

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who are rated as effective by their 

employers.

Year Target Actual

2014 Baseline 80%

2015 Baseline 80

2016 80%

2017 80

2018 80

2019 80

Additional information: The Department began collecting data on this measure with 

degree/certification recipients who completed their programs in fiscal year 2013. For the last 

3 years, the Department has piloted this measure to assess data quality and reliability. When 

entering employment data into the data collection system, scholars identify their supervisors or 

employers, who must then confirm the scholar’s submissions. In Employment Verification Form, 

employers are asked whether the scholars are currently rated, under the organization’s 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-87

performance appraisal system as “effective,” “less than effective,” “ineffective,” or “not rated for 

this position.” Employers are also given the option to not answer the question. 

In 2015, 407 scholars were rated as effective by their employers. The denominator for this 

measure includes scholars who did not report employment after their program (7 scholars in 

2015), scholars whose employment records had not been verified by their employers 

(95 scholars in 2015), scholars who had been deemed as “less than effective” or “ineffective” by 

their employer (1 scholar in 2015), and scholars who had been deemed “effective” by their 

employer (407 scholars in 2015). 

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. 

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, the Department is currently 

developing a piloting a new outcome measure – the percentage of degree/certification recipients 

who are employed in the field of special education for at least 2 years. In consulting with 

grantee focus groups, the Department determined that it would be reasonable to calculate 

performance on this measure three years after program completion in order to provide adequate 

time for degree/certification recipients to obtain employment. Further, this measure would 

provide information on the extent to which those degree/certification recipients maintained at 

least two continuous years of employment in the field of special education. Among 2012 

graduates, 62 percent had maintained employment for at least two years in the field of special 

education by 2015. As the department is still piloting this measure, we do not expect to 

establish benchmarks for performance until fall 2019 at the earliest.

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

2014 85% 92%

2015 90 96

2016 90

2017 90

2018 90

2019 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-88

scholars who graduated in a given year and pass an exam demonstrating knowledge and skills 

in evidence-based practices for children with disabilities (1,357 students in fiscal year 2015) by 

the total number of students who completed training programs – including students who passed 

a test (1,357 students), students who did not take a test (25 students), and students who did not 

pass a test or whose testing status or results are missing or unknown (34 students). Data for 

fiscal year 2016 are expected to be available in fall 2018.

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

2014 $25,000 $35,851

2015 25,000 38,928

2016 30,000

2017 32,500

2018 32,500

2019 32,500

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) ($50,630,287 in fiscal year 2015) by the number of 

degree recipients who successfully completed funded training programs closing in that year and 

who are fully qualified (1,322 in 2015). Results on this measure have increased over the last 

four 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

H-89

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.

The study (see http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20144007) determined 

that, in the fiscal year 2006 and 2007 competitions:

• Certain types of applicants tended to be more successful than other types:

o Public IHEs were more successful than private IHEs (37 percent versus 32 percent);

o Doctorate-granting IHEs were more successful than non-doctorate-granting IHEs 

(38 percent versus 25 percent); 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-90

National activities: Parent information centers

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 3, Sections 671-673)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from 

Annualized CR

$27,225 $27,411 +$186

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2019

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Parent Information Centers program is one of the primary vehicles under the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for providing information and training to parents of 

children with disabilities. The program supports competitive awards to help ensure that:

• Children with disabilities and their parents receive training and information designed to 

assist these children in meeting developmental and functional goals and challenging 

academic achievement goals, and in being prepared to lead productive independent adult 

lives;

• Children with disabilities and their parents receive training and information on their rights, 

responsibilities, and protections under IDEA, in order to develop the skills necessary to 

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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-91

The centers also play an important role in dispute resolution by sharing information on the 

benefits of alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation, which States are 

required to make available under IDEA. Parent center staff attend or facilitate over 1,300

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, in smaller 

geographically defined areas, operated by local parent organizations, that help ensure 

underserved parents of children with disabilities, including low-income parents, parents of 

children who are English learners, and parents with disabilities, have the training and 

information they need to enable them to participate effectively in helping their children. 

Community parent resource centers are required to establish cooperative partnerships with the 

parent training and information centers in their States.

Parent technical assistance centers are authorized to assist parent training and information 

centers and community parent resource centers in areas such as coordinating parent training 

efforts, disseminating evidence-based research and information, and ensuring the effective use 

of technology. These technical assistance services enhance the capacity of parent centers to 

serve parents effectively. The parent technical assistance center network maintains a website 

with a wide variety of information and materials for parents and professionals, as well as a 

directory of the parent centers (http://www.parentcenterhub.org/). Two technical assistance 

centers provide assistance to parent information centers so that they can better meet the needs 

of military families and Native American families respectively.

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 under the age of 26. The board must also include individuals with 

disabilities and individuals working in the fields of special education, related services, or early 

intervention. The parent and professional members of the board must be broadly representative 

of the population to be served, including low-income parents and parents of English learners.

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. 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-92

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2014.................................................................................... $27,411

2015...................................................................................... 27,411

2016...................................................................................... 27,411

2017...................................................................................... 27,411

2018...................................................................................... 27,225

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $27.4 million for fiscal year 2019 for the Parent Information 

Centers, an increase of $0.2 million, to restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 level. The 

request would support awards for a total of 98 Centers, including 24 new and 40 continuing 

Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs), 29 continuing Community Parent Resource 

Centers (CPRCs), and 5 continuing 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 required by the IDEA. For parents of infants and toddlers receiving early 

intervention services, this means participating with a multidisciplinary team in the development 

of individualized family service plans (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 websites, one-on-one support, telephone call-in numbers, training 

workshops, and dissemination of written materials. In recent years, the Department’s Office of 

Special Education Programs has worked with the Parent Centers to improve their websites and 

make their resources available in languages other than English, particularly Spanish (for 

examples, see http://glossary.spanadvocacy.org/ and 

http://www.parentcenterhub.org/resourcelibrary/). Families who receive services, according to 

data collected by the Parent Centers, report a high degree of satisfaction with the services they 

receive and an increase in their capacity to effectively support their children.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-93

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017

20

17 

fo

ot

no

te

s

2018

2

0

1

8 

fo

ot

n

ot

es 2019

Program Funding:

Parent Training & 

Information Centers:

New: Parent Training & Info Centers 0 0 $7,464

Continuations : Parent Trai ning & Info C enters $21,6541 $20,962 2 13,766

Subtotal: Par ent Trai ning & Info C enters 21,654 20,962 21,230

Community Parent 

Resource Centers:

New: Community Parent Resource Centers 600 0 0

Continuations: Communi ty Par ent R esource C enters 2,300 3,000 3 2,900

Subtotal: Community Parent Resource Centers 2,900 3,000 2,900

Technical Assistance 

Centers:

New 0 2,900 0

Continuations: Technical 

Assistance 2,494 0 2,900

Subtotal: Technical Assistance 2,494 2,900 2,900

Total Program Funding:

New: Total 1,073 2,900 7,464

Continuations: Total 25,975 23,962 19,566

Other (contracts, 

supplements): 336 336 336

Peer Review of new 

award applications 27 27 45

Total 27,411 27,225 27,411

 1 Includes $473 thousand in fiscal year 2017 funds used to pay fiscal year 2018 continuation costs. 2 Includes $252 thousand in fiscal year 2018 funds used to pay fiscal year 2019 continuation costs. 3 Includes $100 thousand in fiscal year 2018 funds used to pay fiscal year 2019 continuation costs.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-94

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Number of Projects:

Parent Training & Information 

Centers:

New: Parent Training & Info Centers 0 0 24

Continuations: Parent Training & Info 64 64 40

Community Parent Resource 

Centers:

New: Community Parent Resource Centers 6 0 0

Continuations: Community Parent Resource Centers 23 29 29

Technical Assistance Centers:

New 0 5 0

Continuations: Technical 

Assistance

9 0 5

Total number of projects:

New: Total 6 5 24

Continuations: Total 96 93 74

Total 102 98 98

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 2019 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.

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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-95

Annual Performance Measures

The three annual measures deal with the quality, relevance, and usefulness of products and 

services provided by the program. These measures were developed as part of a crossdepartmental effort to make measures relating to technical assistance and dissemination 

activities more consistent Department-wide. However, the measures were adapted to reflect 

the unique purposes of the Parent Information Centers program. Targets for 2012 through 2019

were established based on performance data from 2007 to 2017. The measures are:

Measure: The percentage of materials disseminated by Parent Training and Information Center

Program projects deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts 

qualified to review the substantive content of the products or services.

Year Target Actual

2014 97% 79%

2015 97 93

2016 97 93

2017 93 100

2018 93

2019 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.

The expert panel reviews a randomly selected sample of services made available through 

OSEP-funded Parent Information Centers grants funded during fiscal year 2016. OSEP defines 

a “service” as “work performed by an OSEP-funded project to provide information to a specific 

audience relevant to the improvement of outcomes for children with disabilities.”

The cohort sample design ensures a random selection of a new group of grants annually while 

avoiding sample replication in any two consecutive years. All Parent Information Center grants 

funded in fiscal year 2016 that were not included in the previous year’s sample are included in 

the sampling frame. Fifty percent (50%) of the eligible grants are randomly selected. In 2017, a 

total of 31 grants are included in the sample.

All services 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 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-96

The result for fiscal year 2017 equals the total number of grant services with average panel 

ratings of 6 or higher (31) divided by the total number of grant services (31) reviewed times 100 

(31/31 x 100 = 100 percent). The actual data exceeded the target for this year.

Measure: The percentage of Parent Training and Information Center Program products and 

services deemed to be of high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or practice 

by an independent review panel of qualified experts with appropriate expertise to review the 

substantive content of the products or services.

Year Target Actual

2014 97% 85%

2015 97 90

2016 97 93

2017 93 100

2018 93

2019 93

Additional Information: As with the performance measure above, data are collected and 

analyzed by a contractor, using panels of special education parent stakeholders to review a 

randomly selected sample of materials disseminated by centers for the purpose of training and 

informing parents.

All materials are reviewed and scored on the basis of a rubric, developed by OSEP, which 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.

All grants funded in fiscal year 2016 that were not included in the previous year’s sample are 

included in the sampling frame. Fifty percent (50%) of the eligible grants are randomly selected. 

In 2017, a total of 31 grants are included in the sample.

In 2017, average panel ratings of the relevance of services ranged between 6.17 and 9.00. 

Services receiving an average total panel rating of 6 or higher (31) across the three criteria are

deemed to be of high relevance.

The calculation is as follows: Total number of grant services with average panel ratings of 6 or 

higher (31) divided by the total number of grant products (31) and services reviewed times 100 

(31/31 x 100 = 100 percent). The actual data exceeded the target for this year.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-97

Measure: The percentage of all Parent Training and Information Center Program products and 

services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be useful to improve 

educational or early intervention policy or practice.

Year Target Actual

2014 97% 88%

2015 97 93

2016 97 93

2017 93 100

2018 93

2019 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.

All materials are reviewed and scored on the basis of a rubric, developed by OSEP, which is 

designed to yield ratings on the degree to which the product content or content delivered 

through the service can be readily and successfully used by consumers. Specifically, the rubric 

is designed to yield ratings on the basis of the following two dimensions related to usefulness: 

(1) Ease—Does the content delivered through the service address a problem or issue in an 

easily understood way, with directions or guidance regarding how the content can be used to 

address the problem or issue? (2) Suitability—Does the 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 extent to which the service meets each criterion is measured using a 4-point 

scale ranging from 0 = Very Low to 1 = Moderately Low to 2 = Moderately High to 3 = Very 

High. In order to reflect the importance of the Suitability criterion, this rating is given a weight of 

two for reporting purposes.

All grants funded in fiscal year 2016 that were not included in the previous year’s sample are 

included in the sampling frame. Fifty percent (50%) of the eligible grants are randomly selected. 

Each grantee that is selected submits a list of three services that represent its most effective 

work with parents. One of the three services is then randomly selected for review by the panel. 

In 2017, a total of 31 services were included in the sample, and the average panel ratings of the 

usefulness of services ranged between 6.00 and 9.00 for the 31 grant services found to be of 

high usefulness. Services receiving an average total panel rating of 6 or higher across the two 

criteria are deemed to be of high usefulness.

The total number of grant services (31) found to be of high usefulness/number of grant services 

reviewed (31) times 100 (31/31 x 100 = 100 percent).

Long-Term Performance Measures

Two new 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. Baseline data was collected in fiscal year 2017.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-98

Measure: The percentage of parents receiving Special Education Parent Information Centers 

services who report having enhanced capacity to work with schools and service providers 

effectively in meeting the needs of their children.

Year Target Actual

2017 90%

2019 TBD

Additional Information: Data for the measure are collected by the parent centers every two 

years by mail, on-line survey, or telephone interview from one percent of the parents served by 

each center. To calculate the measure, respondents are asked to rate their agreement with two 

items on a four-point scale. The percentage of applicable responses indicating agreement or 

strong agreement for each item are averaged together to obtain an overall percentage of 

agreement. Baseline data for this measure were collected in 2017. Targets will be established 

in 2019.

In 2017, the Center for Parent Information and Resources received 1,235 responses to the first 

item, 1,121 of which indicated agreement or strong agreement. The Center received 

1,261 responses to the second item, 80 of which indicated the item was not applicable; 1,052 of 

the 1,181 applicable responses indicated agreement or strong agreement.

Based on the baseline data, it appears that program grantees do a reasonably good job of 

ensuring that parents receiving services from parent information centers feel like they have an 

enhanced capacity to work with schools and service providers effectively in meeting the needs 

of their children.

Measure: The percentage of parents receiving Special Education Parent Information Centers 

services who report enhanced knowledge of IDEA rights and responsibilities.

Year Target Actual

2017 94%

2019 TBD

Additional Information: Data for the measure are collected by the parent centers every two 

years by mail, on-line survey, or telephone interview from 1% of the parents served by each 

center. To calculate the measure, respondents are asked to rate their agreement with two items 

on a four-point scale. The percentage of responses indicating agreement or strong agreement 

for each item are averaged together to obtain an overall percentage of agreement. Baseline 

data for this measure were collected in 2017. Targets will be established in 2019.

In 2017, the Center for Parent Information and Resources received 1,262 responses to the first

item, 1,169 of which indicated agreement or strong agreement. The Center received 

1,253 responses to the second item, 1,197 of which indicated agreement or strong agreement.

Data for this measure suggest that most of the parents receiving services from the grantees 

believe they enhanced their knowledge of their rights and responsibilities under IDEA.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

H-99

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

2014 1.1 1.1

2015 1.1 1.6

2016 1.1 0.8

2017 1.1 0.8

2018 1.1

2019 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 Department notes that it is 

difficult to attribute increases or decreases under this measure to the Federal share of funds 

due to the variability in other sources of funding. The result is expressed as an index of cost 

rather than a cost in dollars.

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 

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 2017, the index of .76 was arrived at by dividing the total funding 

($27,411,000) by the total number of services provided to parents, youth and professionals

(36,125,725). Of this count, 97 percent were attributable to website hits (11,693,554), social 

media hits (13,924,710) and newsletter dissemination (9,531,646).
SPECIAL EDUCATION

H-100

National activities: Educational technology, media, and materials

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 3, Section 674)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from 

Annualized CR

$27,856 $28,047 +$191

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011; continued funding is proposed for this program in FY 2019

through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program is the primary source of support for 

accessible technology and media-related activities under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). The program supports two broad categories of activities – accessible 

technology and educational media and materials. 

Technology activities are generally designed to promote the development, demonstration, and 

use of accessible technology. The technology component of the program also supports 

research on using technology to improve outcomes for students with disabilities, and technical 

assistance and dissemination activities to enhance the use of technology by students, parents, 

and teachers. Media and materials activities focus on closed captioning, video description, 

timely provision of books and other educational materials in accessible formats, and other 

activities to improve access to education for students with disabilities.

The 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 expanded the range of 

media that must be closed captioned and updated accessibility standards to include emerging 

Internet and mobile technologies. However, significant gaps in captioning coverage remain. 

The Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program helps ensure educational media 

that are not otherwise required to be made accessible are available to students with disabilities. 

For example, mandatory captioning only applies to broadcast television, not to video broadcast 

solely over the Internet or video produced for classroom viewing. Funding for this program helps 

to fill these critical gaps in the accessibility of learning content and materials by supporting the 

captioning and nationwide distribution of thousands of titles of educational media each year.

Video description is used to make video and other media with visual content accessible for 

people who are blind or visually impaired. Audio-narrated descriptions of key visual elements in 

a video or television program are inserted into natural pauses in the spoken dialogue, 

supplementing the regular audio track of the program by providing additional context. Federal 

law requires television broadcast stations affiliated with the top four commercial broadcasting 

corporations (ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC) and licensed to the top 60 Designated Market Areas 

(i.e., unique, county-based geographic areas designated by The Nielsen Company, a television 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-101

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 Department 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)

2014.................................................................................... $28,047

2015...................................................................................... 28,047

2016...................................................................................... 30,047

2017...................................................................................... 28,047

2018...................................................................................... 27,856

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $28.0 million for fiscal year 2019 for the Educational Technology, 

Media, and Materials program, an increase of $0.2 million, to restore funding to the fiscal year 

2017 level. This request would provide approximately $2.7 million for four new awards and 

approximately $24.9 million for 22 continuation projects. The remaining funding would support 

program evaluation and peer review activities. 

Projects funded under the program support improved access to, and participation in, the general 

education curriculum; developmentally appropriate activities for preschool children; and 

statewide assessments. By supporting research on, and dissemination of, accessible 

instructional materials and technology, this program helps ensure students with disabilities 

receive a free appropriate public education, as guaranteed under the IDEA. This program also

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. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-102

Educational Technology

The request includes $13.2 million for Technology activities, which promote the development, 

demonstration, and use of accessible technology. In fiscal year 2019, at least $1.5 million will

support three new Stepping Up Technology Implementation awards and $6.3 million will support

10 continuing Stepping Up projects. These model demonstration grants validate and scale up 

promising technology-based products or interventions, such as curriculum materials, accessible 

products, and instructional methodologies.

The fiscal year 2019 request would provide $5.4 million to support continuation awards for other 

technology activities. Of that amount, $1.5 million will support an Early Childhood STEM Center 

(to be awarded in fiscal year 2018), $1 million will support a Research and Development Center 

on Developing Software to Adapt and Customize Instruction in Digital Learning Environments to 

Improve Results for Children with Disabilities (funded in fiscal year 2017), $1.2 million will 

support a continuation award to an Assistive Technology Implementation Center (funded in 

fiscal year 2015), and $0.7 million will be used to fund a continuation award for the Center on 

Technology and Disability. This center provides technical assistance (TA) to state and local 

educational agencies (SEAs and LEAs) to help build capacity in their efforts to support families, 

students, and providers in acquiring and implementing appropriate assistive and instructional 

technology practices, devices, and services.

The request would also provide $1 million for a continuation award to further the support of 

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, addresses 

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 use 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 designed to provide educational content, 

such as textbooks in accessible formats for individuals with disabilities, particularly deaf or hardof-hearing individuals and blind or other visually impaired individuals. In fiscal year 2019, 

$14.4 million would be allocated to these activities. 

The 2019 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 for an 

increasingly large amount of content that is not currently covered under Federal accessibility 

policies, to ensure that as much educational programming as possible is 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 graphics are 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-103

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. 

An additional $2 million would support a continuation award under the Described and Captioned 

Media Program (DCMP) (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. The current media library contains over 4,000 titles.

With continuation funding, the DCMP will additionally focus on STEM related media and 

describing and captioning items in Spanish. More details regarding ongoing work can be found 

here: https://dcmp.org/press_releases/23-grant-renewal-ensures-equal-educational-opportunityfor-students-who-are-deaf-and-or-blind.

The 2019 request for educational media and materials includes a total of $10.4 million for 

accessible books and other instructional materials. Of that amount, approximately $1.2 million of 

the 2019 request would support a new award for a National Center on Educational Materials for 

Learning to provide technical assistance to States and other entities on the provision of books 

and other educational materials in accessible formats. These 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. 

Approximately $8.5 million of the request would support a continuation award under the

Accessible Materials program for 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 (https://www.bookshare.org/cms/). 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 

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. As of January 2018, NIMAC contained 

more than 48,000 K-12 NIMAS-format files that can then be converted to accessible content for 

students with disabilities. The request includes $650,000 for a continuation award for this 

project in fiscal year 2019. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-104

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 Footnote2018 Footnote2019footnote

Program Funding:

Technology:

Technolog y: Research:

Newtechnol ogy research $3,000 $1,500 $1,500

Continuations technol ogy research 6,713 9,755 6,300

Subtotal technolog y: research 9,713 11,255 7,800

Technolog yTechnical assistance and dissemination:

Newtechnolog y: technical assistance and dissemi nation 0 1,500 0

Continuationstechnolog y: technical assistance and dissemi nation 1,435 0 4,400

Subtotal technolog y: technical assistance and dissemi nation 1,435 1,500 4,400

Technolog yProjects to address the postsecondary, 

vocational, technical, and adult 

education needs of individuals with 

deafness:

NewTechnolog y: Pr ojects to addr ess the postsecondar y, vocational, technical, and adult educati on needs of i ndi vi duals wi th deafness: 0 0 0

Continuations Technolog y: Pr ojects to addr ess the postsecondar y, vocati onal, technical , and adult educati on needs of i ndi vi duals wi th deafness: 1,000 1,000 1,000

Subtotal Technolog y: Pr ojects to addr ess the postsecondar y, vocational, technical, and adult educati on needs of indi vi duals with deafness: 1,000 1,000 1,000

Subtotal, Technology:

New program funding subtotal , technolog y 3,000 3,000 1,500

Continuations program funding subtotal , technolog y 9,148 1 11,015 2 11,700 3

Subtotal program fundi ng subtotal, technolog y 12,148 14,015 13,200

Media and Materials:

Medi a and materials Captioned and described accessible 

media:

New media and materials: captioned & described accessibl e medi a 0 0 0

Continuations medi a and materials: captioned & described accessi ble media 3,995 3,997 4,000

Subtotal media and materials: captioned & described accessibl e medi a 3,995 3,997 4,000

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 9,500 0 1,200

Continuations medi a and materials: books and other instructional materials in accessibl e formats 1,200 10,900 8,500

Subtotal media and materials: books and other i nstr ucti onal materials i n accessibl e for mats 10,700 10,900 9,700

 1 About $284 thousand of FY 2017 funds will be used to support FY 2018 continuations. 2 About $260 thousand of FY 2018 funds will be used to support FY 2019 continuations. 3 About $1.3 million of FY 2019 funds will be used to support FY 2020 continuations.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-105

Output Measures 2017 Footnote2018 Footnote2019footnote

Medi a and materials: National Instructional Materials Access 

Center (NIMAC) – Statutory earmark:

New Medi a and materials: National Instructional Materials Access C enter (NIM AC) – Statutor y ear mar k 0 0 0

Continuations Media and materials: nati onal i nstr ucti onal materials access center statutor y ear mar k $650 $650 $650

Subtotal Media and materials: nati onal i nstructional materi als access center statutor y ear mar k 650 650 650

Subtotal, Media and Materials:

New program funding subtotal, Media and materials 9,500 0 1,200

Continuations program funding subtotal, Media and materials 5,845 15,547 13,150

Subtotal program funding subtotal, Media and materials 15,345 15,547 14,350 

Other (e.g. program evaluation contracts):

Continuations other 461 380 448

Subtotal, Other, other 461 380 448

Peer review of new award applications: 93 93 49

Total Program Funding:

New total program funding 12,500 13,600 2,700

Continuations total program funding 15,454 16,297 25,298

Peer review 93 93 49

Total program funding 28,047 29,990 28,047

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

FY 2019 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 Performance Measures

The three annual measures deal with the relevance, quality, and usefulness of products and 

services provided by the program.

For each of the three annual performance measures that follow, a contractor collects and 

analyzes data, based on input from two panels of subject matter experts. Panels review a 

sample of products and services developed by grantees against a listing of evidence-based 

practices in key target areas the Department has identified as critical. The sample of grantees 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-106

included in this measure for each year consists of projects from across all areas of this program. 

Products and services are divided into the categories of policy and practice.

Panels of experts review and score all products and services based on an OSEP-designed 

rubric that is specific to each performance measure, rating the products and services on the 

extent to which they meet the measure’s performance indicators. 

In assessing the performance under each measure, panels of six to eight experts reviewed a 

sample of products and services from the program’s projects.

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

2014 94% 100%

2015 94 91

2016 94 100

2017 94

2018 94

2019 90

Additional information: A total of 12 products and services 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.

The percentage of products judged to be of high relevance for this measure increased, 

exceeding the target of 94 percent. The panel found all 12 new products and services in the 

sample to be highly relevant for the intended users. It is noteworthy that overall performance 

under this measure has been consistently strong over time, and that variations in actual 

performance are expected considering the small number of items reviewed in the sample. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-107

Measure: The percentage of Educational Technology, Media, and Materials projects judged to 

be of high quality.

Year Target Actual

2014 94% 100%

2015 94 86

2016 94 100

2017 94

2018 94

2019 90

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 6 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 2016. All 12 products reviewed in the sample were reported to be of high quality. Not unlike 

the previous measure, it is noteworthy that overall performance under this measure has been 

consistently strong over time, and that variations in actual performance are expected

considering the small number of items reviewed in the sample. 

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

2014 94% 91%

2015 94 96

2016 94 100

2017 94

2018 94

2019 90

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. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-108

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 for fiscal year 2016 products and services, exceeding

the target. The panel found all 12 products in the sample to be highly useful. 

Long-Term Performance Measures

The following two long-term measures have been developed for the program to provide 

information about the potential impacts of the projects’ products and services on the target 

population. 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 

to every 2 years for both of these 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 75

2018 75

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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-109

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. Three of the four projects 

that were rated in the 2016 data collection submitted acceptable evidence of validity.

Previously, the Department had reported actual data that aligned with the fiscal year in which 

the review of products and services took place. The table has been revised to reflect alignment 

with the fiscal year in which the funding was appropriated. This revised reporting for Educational 

Technology, Media and Materials is now consistent with other performance measures reported 

within the Special Education account.

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

2013 95% 50%

2015 95 100

2017 95

2019 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. For fiscal year 2013, 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. For fiscal year 2015, three of the three grants providing data for this measure 

were found by the panel to have made their products and services widely available. 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 2019 reporting.

Previously, the Department had reported actual data that aligned with the fiscal year in which 

the review of products and services took place. The table has been revised to reflect alignment 

with the fiscal year in which the funding was appropriated. This revised reporting for Educational 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-110

Technology, Media and Materials is now consistent with other performance measures reported 

within the Special Education account.

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

2014 $5.0 $4.2

2015 5.0 4.1

2016 5.0 5.4

2017 5.0

2018 4.0

2019 4.0

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 

under the Administration’s accessible educational materials priority is Bookshare, Inc. This 

measure, new in 2011, is calculated as the annual amount of Federal 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 fiscal year 2016, the grantee received a 

$2 million supplement, while the number of downloads were lower than the number reported the 

previous year, contributing to an increase in cost and a failure to meet the target. 

$8,500,000/1,576,587 = $5.39. 

Previously, the Department had reported actual data that aligned with the fiscal year in which 

the review of products and services took place. The table has been revised to reflect alignment 

with the fiscal year in which the funding was appropriated. This revised reporting for Educational 

Technology, Media and Materials is now consistent with other performance measures reported 

within the Special Education account.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, media, and materials

H-111

Measure: The Federal cost per hour of video description funded by the Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials program.

Year Target Actual

2014 $1,669 $2,469

2015 1,669 2,335

2016 1,669 2,151

2017 2,000

2018 2,000

2019 2,000

Additional information: The educational media measure is calculated as the total amount of 

funding provided for description activities ($1,999,048 in fiscal year 2016) divided by the total 

number of hours of accessible described media produced (929.5 hours in 2016). The cost of an 

hour of media description has decreased slightly from fiscal years 2014 to 2016; however, the 

hourly rate still did not approach the target. The 2017, 2018, and 2019 targets were increased to 

provide a more realistic goal for this measure given the actual costs reported in years 2013-

2016.

Previously, the Department had reported actual data that aligned with the fiscal year in which 

the review of products and services took place. The table has been revised to reflect alignment 

with the fiscal year in which the funding was appropriated. This revised reporting for Educational 

Technology, Media and Materials is now consistent with other performance measures reported 

within the Special Education account.
H-112

Special Olympics education programs

(Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004, Section 3(a))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from 

Annualized CR

$12,497 0 -$12,497

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)

2014.............................................................. ..................$7,583

2015.............................................................. ....................7,583

2016.............................................................. ..................10,083

2017.............................................................. ..................12,583

2018.............................................................. ..................12,497

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2019, the Administration requests no funds for the Special Olympics education 

programs. This request is consistent with the Administration’s intent to eliminate programs that 

are more appropriately supported with State, local, or private funds.

Special Olympics is a well-established non-profit organization with a broad network of program 

volunteers and supporters. Special Olympics education programs include worthwhile activities, 

such as the Special Olympics National Youth Activation Demonstration (Unified Champion 

Schools, previously referred to as Project UNIFY), a national youth sports demonstration and 

education program. While the Administration strongly supports the mission of Special Olympics, 

it does not believe Federal funding is necessary for the successful operation of these programs, 
H-113

particularly since Special Olympics is more appropriately supported by other sources (the 

organization reported over $90.6 million in revenue from its individual and corporate donors in 

fiscal year 2016).

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Unified Champion Schools

Project UN IFY :Number of funded State programs 47 47 0

Project UN IFY :Number of schools participating 5,453 5,500 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

progress made toward achieving program results.

The Department collected data in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 to set targets for fiscal year 2014 

and beyond. The Department has not developed targets for the program’s performance or 

efficiency measures for fiscal year 2019 because the Administration’s fiscal year 2019 budget 

request includes no funding for Special Olympics.

Goal: To increase the inclusion and awareness of students with intellectual disabilities.

Objective: The Special Olympics will improve awareness about students with intellectual 

disabilities.

Measure: The percent of school liaisons who report that Unified Champion Schools helps raise 

awareness about students with intellectual disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2014 67% 72%

2015 67 68

2016 67 71

2017 67 72

2018 70

Additional information: Special Olympics proposed a revision to its methodology for reporting 

on this measure beginning in fiscal year 2016. After further consideration, Special Olympics will 

not revise its methodology, but will continue to use its previous methodology, including only 

those survey responses that indicate the program “made a big difference” (scores of 4 or 5 on 

the survey’s Likert scale) in the numerator used to calculate the actual performance. 
H-114

Measure: The percent of school liaisons who report that Unified Champion Schools increases 

opportunities for students with intellectual disabilities to be involved in school activities.

Year Target Actual

2014 61% 64%

2015 61 65

2016 61 65

2017 61 67

2018 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 fiscal years 2014-

2017.

Special Olympics proposed a revision to its methodology for reporting on this measure 

beginning in fiscal year 2016. After further consideration, Special Olympics will not revise its 

methodology, but will continue to use its previous methodology, including only those survey 

responses that indicate the program “made a big difference” (scores of 4 or 5 on the survey’s 

Likert scale) in the numerator used to calculate the actual performance. 

Objective: The Special Olympics will increase opportunities for K-12 students with intellectual 

disabilities to participate in inclusive school activities.

Measure: The number of schools participating in Unified Champion Schools.

Year Target Actual

2014 2,400 3,076

2015 2,500 3,686

2016 4,000 4,451

2017 4,500 5,453

2018 5,000

Measure: The number of schools participating in a Unified Champion Schools High Activation 

Program.

Year Target Actual

2014 1,056 1,413

2015 1,150 1,685

2016 1,725 3,005

2017 1,765 3,748

2018 3,500

Additional information: Special Olympics has aggressively expanded the reach of Unified 

Champion Schools during recent years to more than 5,453 locations in 47 States. There were 

1,568 preschool and elementary schools, 921 middle schools, and 2,621 high schools, 191
H-115

post-secondary schools, and 152 other schools participating in Unified Champion Schools in 

2017. 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 2017, 69 percent of all participating schools were in the High Activation category, an increase 

of two percent from 2016 and 23 percent from 2015. Special Olympics attributes much of this 

growth to clarification it provided schools about what they must implement to be categorized as 

a High Activation school, as well as the overall growth in the number of participating schools.

Efficiency Measures

Objective: The Special Olympics will develop efficient programs at the national, State, and 

school level.

Measure: The average total Federal cost per school.

Year Target Actual

2014 $3,160 $2,465

2015 3,033 2,057

2016 3,033 1,703

2017 3,033 1,849

2018 2,500

Measure: The percent of Federal funds spent on administration.

Year Target Actual

2014 20% 22%

2015 20 22

2016 20 22

2017 20

2018 20

Additional information: These two measures provide basic information on the efficiency of the 

program. While the program met the targets for Federal cost per school in 2014-2017, the 

program did not meet the targets for the percent of Federal funds spent on administration in 

2014-2016. Data for the percent of Federal funds spent on administration in 2017 will be 

available in March 2018. 

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-116

Other Performance Information

In 2014, external evaluators from the University of Massachusetts conducted a formative 

evaluation of Project Unify (now referred to as Unified Champion Schools). Data from surveys 

of school liaisons in 1,509 schools indicate that Project UNIFY 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.