Department of Education

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language .........................................................................................................J-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes........................................................................J-3

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers ................................................................................J-7

Summary of Changes ..............................................................................................................J-8

Authorizing Legislation.............................................................................................................J-9

Appropriations History............................................................................................................J-11

Significant Items in FY 2013 Appropriations Reports..............................................................J-13

Summary of Request .............................................................................................................J-14

Activities:

State grants:

Grants to States .........................................................................................................J-16

Preschool grants ........................................................................................................J-37

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

National activities:

State personnel development.....................................................................................J-61

Technical assistance and dissemination.....................................................................J-69

Personnel preparation ................................................................................................J-80

Parent information centers..........................................................................................J-96

Educational Technology, Media, and Materials.........................................................J-107

Other activities:

Special Olympics education programs......................................................................J-119

PROMISE: Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI ...................................................J-125

State Tables*

*State tables reflecting final 2013 allocations and 2014 estimates will be posted on the Department’s Web page 

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

J-1

Appropriations Language

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

Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004, $12,657,307,000, of which $2,289,108,000 

shall become available on July 1, 2014, and shall remain available through September 30, 

2015, and of which $10,124,103,000 shall become available on October 1, 2014, and shall 

remain available through September 30, 2015, for academic year 2014-2015:1 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 2013, 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 2013:2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reduced under section 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 
J-2

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

further, That the Secretary may, notwithstanding section 643(e)(1) of the IDEA, reserve up to 

$2,710,000 of the amount provided under section 644 for incentive grants to States to carry out 

section 635(c):7 Provided further, That funds made available for the Special Olympics Sport and 

Empowerment Act of 2004 may be used to support expenses associated with the Special 

Olympics National and World Games:8 Provided further, That the funds reserved under section 

611(c) 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:9 Provided further, That the level of effort a local educational 

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

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

the LEA’s reduced level of expenditures: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.11

NOTES

A full-year 2013 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, 

this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L.112-175).

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

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

J-3

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

...$12,657,307,000, of which $2,289,108,000 

shall become available on July 1, 2014, and 

shall remain available through September 30, 

2015, and of which $10,124,103,000 shall 

become available on October 1, 2014, and 

shall remain available through September 30, 

2015, for academic year 2014-2015:

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 2013, 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 

2013:

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 2012 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 2013 appropriation.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

J-4

Language Provision Explanation

3 Provided further, That the Secretary shall, 

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

distribute to all other States (as that term is 

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

third proviso, any amount by which a State’s 

allocation under section 611(d), from funds 

appropriated under this heading, is reduced 

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

following: 85 percent on the basis of the 

States’ relative populations of children aged 

3 through 21 who are of the same age as 

children with disabilities for whom the State 

ensures the availability of a free appropriate 

public education under this part, and 15 

percent to States on the basis of the States’ 

relative populations of those children who are 

living in poverty:

This language authorizes the Department to 

reallocate funds that are reduced from a 

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

the maintenance of 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. 

4 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:

This language ensures that any State 

receiving a reduction in their section 611 

allocation as a result of not meeting the 

maintenance of 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

J-5

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 financial 

support requirements in section 612. This 

language mitigates the potential long-term 

impact of one-time reductions in awards.

7 Provided further, That the Secretary may, 

notwithstanding section 643(e)(1) of the 

IDEA, reserve up to $2,710,000 of the 

amount provided under section 644 for 

incentive grants to States to carry out section 

635(c):

This language permits the Secretary to use 

up to $2,710,000 of the funds appropriated 

for Part C of the IDEA for incentive grants for 

States to serve children 3 years of age until 

entrance into elementary school.

8 Provided further, That funds made available 

for the Special Olympics Sport and 

Empowerment Act of 2004 may be used to 

support expenses associated with the 

Special Olympics National and World 

Games:

This language authorizes funds made 

available for the Special Olympics Sports and 

Empowerment Act of 2004 to be used to 

support expenses associated with Special 

Olympics National and World games.

9 Provided further, That the funds reserved 

under section 611(c) 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

J-6

Language Provision Explanation

10 Provided further, That the level of effort a 

local educational agency must meet under 

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

year after it fails to maintain effort is the level 

of effort that would have been required in the 

absence of that failure and not the LEA's 

reduced level of expenditures:

This language clarifies that the level of effort 

a LEA must meet under maintenance of 

financial support requirements in section 613

of the IDEA, in the year after it fails to 

maintain effort is the level of effort that would 

have been required in the absence of that 

failure and not the LEA's reduced level of 

expenditures.

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.

This language permits the Secretary to use 

funds authorized for the State Personnel 

Development Grants program under Part D 

of the IDEA to evaluate program 

performance.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

J-7

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2012 2013 2014

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation ........................................................ $12,647,066 $12,640,709 $12,657,307

Discretionar y Across-the board reduction (P.L. 112-74)............. -6,357 0 0

Discretionar y Across-the board increase (P.L. 112-175)............ 0 20,547 0

Total, adjusted discretionary appropriation....... 12,640,709 12,661,256 12,657,307

Advance:

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

Advance from prior year....................................... 8,576,143 9,283,383 9,283,383

Total, budget authority ..................................... 11,933,469 12,661,256 11,816,587
SPECIAL EDUCATION

J-8

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2012................................................................................ $12,640,709

2014................................................................................ 12,657,307

Net change............................................... +16,598

Increases: 2012 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Increase in funding for Grants for Infants and Families (Part C). $442,710 +$20,000

Increase in funding for State Personnel Development grants to

support new awards. 43,917 +1,094

Subtotal, increases +21,094

Decreases: 2012 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Eliminates funding for PROMISE: Promoting Readiness of 

Minors in SSI (IDEA D-663), which is now being funded through 

the Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research account. $1,996 -$1,996

Reduction in funding for the Personnel Preparation program 

(section 662). 88,299 -2,500

Subtotal, decreases -4,496

Net change +16,598
SPECIAL EDUCATION

J-9

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2013 

Authorized

footnote

2013 

Estimate footnote

2014 

Authorized footnote

2014 

Request

footnote

State Grants:

State grantsGrants to States (IDEA-B-611) Indefinite1 $11,577,8552 Indefinite1 $11,577,8552

State grantsPreschool grants (IDEA-B-619) Indefinite 372,646 Indefinite 372,646

State grantsGrants for infants and families (IDEA-C) 03 442,710 03 462,710

National activities:

National acti viti es State personnel development (IDEA-D-1) 03 43,917 03 45,011

National acti viti es Technical assistance and dissemination (IDEA-D-2-663) 03 46,7814 03 46,781

National acti viti es Personnel preparation (IDEA-D-2-662) 03 88,299 03 85,799

National acti viti es Parent information centers (IDEA-D-3-671-673) 03 28,917 03 28,917

National acti viti es Technology and media services (IDEA-D-3-674) 03 29,588 03 29,588

Special Olympics education programs (SOSEA5 3(a)) 06 8,0004 06 8,000

PROMISE: Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI 

(IDEA-D-2-663) 07 1,996 07 0

Total definite authorization 0 0

Total annual appropriation 12,640,709 12,657,307

 Portion of request subject to reauthorization 706,806

 Portion of request not authorized 0

Total appropriation including 0.612 percent ATB increase 12,661,256

1 Funding for technical assistance on State data collection is limited to $25,000 thousand adjusted for inflation. This amount is estimated to be $31,259,054 

thousand for fiscal year 2013 and $31,908,649 thousand for fiscal year 2014.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation—continued

(dollars in thousands)

J-10

2 Includes $25,000 thousand for technical assistance on State data collection in fiscal year 2013 and $15,000 in fiscal year 2014. 3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011. The Administration proposes to continue funding in FY 2014 through appropriations language. 4 In fiscal year 2013, Special Olympics education programs was funded at $8,000 thousand with funds from Technical assistance and dissemination. 5 Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004. 6 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2010; this program is funded in FY 2013 through appropriations language. Continued funding is proposed for 

this program in FY 2014 through appropriations language. 7 The program was authorized in FY 2013 through appropriations language.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance footnote

Senate 

Allowance footnote Appropriation

2005 $12,176,101 $12,176,101 $12,328,391 $11,673,606

(2005 Advance for 2006) (5,413,000) (5,413,000) (5,413,000) (5,413,000)

2006 12,126,130 11,813,783 11,775,107 11,653,013

(2006 Advance for 2007) (6,204,000) (5,413,000) (5,424,200) (5,424,200)

2007 11,697,502 N/A1 N/A1 11,802,867

(2007 Advance for 2008) (6,215,200) (5,424,200)

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

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

2009 12,335,943 12,587,9202 12,511,6312 12,579,677

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

Recovery Act Supplemental 

(P.L. 111-5)

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

2010 12,579,677 12,579,677 12,587,8563 12,587,035

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

2011 12,846,190 12,564,9534 12,787,0353 12,526,6725

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

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

2012 12,861,351 13,757,8446 12,553,0666 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 7 12,770,7097 12,661,2568

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

2014 12,657,307

(2014 Advance for 2015) (10,124,103)

1

 This account operated under a fully-year continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5). House and Senate Allowance 

amounts are shown as N/A (Not Available) because neither body passed a separate appropriations bill. 2

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

which proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 3

 The level for the Senate allowance reflects committee action only. 4

 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 5

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

2011 (P.L. 112-10). 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation—continued

(dollars in thousands)

J-12

6

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

Senate Committee action only. 7

 The level 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. 8

 The amount shown includes the 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided by P.L. 112-175, in effect 

through March 27, 2013.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

J-13

Significant Items in FY 2013 Appropriations Reports

Technical Assistance and Dissemination

Senate: Report 112-176. The Committee continues to support activities that address the 

need for high-quality, evidence-based technical assistance activities that improve 

the services to and outcomes for students with disabilities. Prior to issuing new 

notices for fiscal year 2013 competitions, the Committee directs OSEP to 

develop a long-term strategic plan for its technical assistance activities that is 

aligned with its revised monitoring and data reporting structures as well as the 

Department’s other technical assistance activities.

Response: The Department has developed a long-term strategic plan for its technical 

assistance activities aligned with proposed revisions to OSEP’s Results Driven 

Accountability system, including the State Performance Plan and Annual 

Performance Reporting requirements. This plan supports Departmental goals 

related to early learning, college and career ready standards, equity, and 

continuous improvement of the U.S. education system. The strategic plan 

promotes collaboration with other ED-funded technical assistance, as well as 

technical assistance efforts in other agencies, e.g., HHS - early childhood, DOL -

secondary transition, etc. Finally, the strategic plan includes the purposeful 

consolidation of technical assistance centers in order to use resources more 

efficiently and improve responsiveness to customers and stakeholders. 

PROMISE: Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI

Senate: Report 112-176. The Committee includes new bill language requested by the 

administration that slightly modifies the [PROMISE] program as it was initially 

created in last year’s bill. As requested by the administration, the Committee bill 

also includes new bill language that allows a portion of the funds provided to be 

used for Pay for Success awards, which are described in the highlights section in 

the introduction to the Committee report. The Committee expects to be notified 

prior to the issuance of any notice related to the Pay for Success activity.

Response: Grants under the PROMISE program will be awarded in fiscal year 2013 using

amounts appropriated under the Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research 

account in fiscal year 2012 that remained available subsequent to the reallotment 

of funds to States under the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants program 

pursuant to section 110(b) of the Rehabilitation Act. The grant funds, which 

remain available for Federal obligation until September 30, 2013 under the 

authority provided in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations language, will not be 

used for Pay for Success activities. 
J-14

Summary of Request

Click here for accessible version 

(in thousands of dollars) 2014

Category 2012 2013 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Special Education 

1. State grants:

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

Annual appropriation D 2,294,472 2,294,472 1,453,752 (840,720) -36.641%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 9,283,383 9,283,383 10,124,103 840,720 9.056%

Subtotal 11,577,855 11,577,855 11,577,855 0 0.000%

(b) Preschool grants (IDEA B-619) D 372,646 372,646 372,646 0 0.000%

(c) Grants for infants and families (IDEA C) D 442,710 442,710 462,710 20,000 4.518%

Subtotal, State grants 12,393,211 12,393,211 12,413,211 20,000 0.161%

2. National activities (IDEA D):

(a) State personnel development (Subpart 1) D 43,917 43,917 45,011 1,094 2.491%

(b) Technical assistance and dissemination (section 663) 1 D 46,781 46,781 46,781 0 0.000%

(c) Personnel preparation (section 662) D 88,299 88,299 85,799 (2,500) -2.831%

(d) Parent information centers (sections 671-673) D 28,917 28,917 28,917 0 0.000%

(e) Educational technology, media and materials (section 674) D 29,588 29,588 29,588 0 0.000%

Subtotal 237,502 237,502 236,096 (1,406) -0.592%

3. Special Olympics education programs (Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act) 1 D 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 0.000%

4. PROMISE: Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI (IDEA D-663) D 1,996 1,996 0 (1,996) -100.000%

Total, Appropriation D 12,640,709 12,640,709 12,657,307 16,598 0.131%

Total, Budget authority D 11,933,469 12,640,709 11,816,587 (116,882) -0.979%

Current 2 3,357,326 3,357,326 2,533,204 (824,122) -24.547%

Prior year's advance 8,576,143 9,283,383 9,283,383 707,240 8.247%

Across-the-board 0.612% increase applied to discretionary appropriation, provided in P.L. 112-175. 20,547

Total, Appropriation 12,640,709 12,661,256 12,657,307 16,598 0.131%

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

FY 2013 discretionary appropriation amounts are based on P.L. 112-175, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, that provided appropriations through March 27, 2013. FY 2013 mandatory amounts are 

either specifically authorized levels, or are based on FY 2013 President's Budget Policy, updated for more recent estimates of mandatory costs, or FY 2014 President's Budget Policy, as applicable.

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

1 In FY 2012 and 2013, funding for Special Olympics Education programs was provided under Technical Assistance and Dissemination.

2 Excludes advance appropriations that become available on October 1 of the following fiscal year. Advance appropriations are $9,283,383 thousand in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, and $10,124,103 thousand in the 

FY 2014 President's Budget.In FY 2014, the amount for advances is increased due to the proposed consolidation of Teacher Quality State Grants into the Innovation and Instructional Teams account.

2014 President's Budget 

Compared to 2012 Appropriation
SPECIAL EDUCATION

J-15

Summary of Request

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

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

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

lives. The fiscal year 2014 budget request for Special Education of $12.7 billion is aimed at 

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

with disabilities. 

The Administration requests $11.6 billion for the Grants to States program, the same as the 

FY 2012 level, 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 $1,767 for each of the 6.543 million children with disabilities who 

are estimated to be served in 2014. The Federal contribution toward meeting the excess cost of 

special education and related services would be approximately 15 percent of the national 

average per pupil expenditures under this request.

The request of $372.6 million for Preschool Grants is the same as the FY 2012 level and the 

request of $462.7 million for Grants for Infants and Families is an increase of $20 million. The 

Preschool Grants program provides additional support to States and schools for providing 

special education services to children ages 3 through 5. The Grants for Infants and Families 

program provides assistance to States to help them implement statewide systems of early 

intervention services for children from birth through age 2. 

The $236.1 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. 

Parent Information Centers and Educational Technology, Media, and Materials, formerly

Technology and Media Services, would be funded at the FY 2012 levels of $28.9 million and 

$29.6 million, respectively. The State Personnel Development program would be funded at 

$45.0 million, $1.1 million more than in FY 2012. The Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination program would be funded at $46.8 million, the same funding level as in 

FY 2012. The Personnel Preparation program would be funded at $85.8 million, $2.5 million 

less than in FY 2012.

The Special Olympics Education Programs would be funded at $8 million. In FY 2012, 

activities carried out by this program were funded under the Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination program. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-16

Grant s to Stat es

State grants: Grants to States

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: Indefinite 1 2

Budget Authority:

2012 2013 

footnote

 

2014

 Change

from 2012

Annual appropriation $2,294,472 3 $2,294,472 3 $1,453,752 3 -$840,720

Advance for succeeding

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

Total 11,577,855 11,577,855 4 11,577,855 0

_________________

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

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

authorized for FY 2014 would be $31,909 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 FY 2014 would be $141,945 thousand. 3 Includes $25,000 thousand for technical assistance activities in FY 2012 and FY 2013, and $15,000 thousand 

in FY 2014. 4 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Secretary of the Interior, Outlying Areas, and the Freely Associated 

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

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

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

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

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

to children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 cannot receive base payment funds attributable to 

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

Funds are allocated among States in accordance with a variety of factors. 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-17

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) also includes several maximum and 

minimum allocation requirements that are triggered when the amount available for distribution to 

States increases.1

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

year to the next, States receive the same level of funding as in the prior year. If the amount 

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

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

that the States received between 1999 and the prior year. If there is a decrease below the 

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

Most of the Federal funds provided to States must be passed on to LEAs. However, a portion of 

the funds may be used for State-level activities. Any funds not set aside by the State must be 

passed through to LEAs. These sub-State allocations are made in a fashion similar to that used 

to allocate funds among States when the amount available for allocation to States increases.

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

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

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

Consumers. For fiscal year 2014, the latter amount is estimated to be $1,021,383.

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 

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

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

amount appropriated for Part B of IDEA from the prior year. The maximum amount that any State may receive in any 

single fiscal year is calculated by multiplying the number of children with disabilities ages of 3 through 21 served 

during the 2004-2005 academic 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-18

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

services in the 2003-2004 school year, or any subsequent year, to reduce its level of 

expenditures by up to 50 percent of any increase in its allocation under the Grants to States 

program over the prior year. The Secretary may prohibit a State from exercising this authority if 

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

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

each LEA must maintain its total expenditures, including State and local contributions, on 

special education from one year to the next. The standard for determining whether this MOE 

requirement has been met is that the LEA actually expends, in total or per capita, an equal or 

greater amount of local, or State and local, funds in each subsequent year. However, in any 

fiscal year that an LEA’s IDEA Part B subgrant allocation exceeds the amount that the LEA 

received in the previous fiscal year, the IDEA also permits certain LEAs to reduce the level of 

support otherwise required by this local maintenance of effort requirement by up to 50 percent 

of any increase in their Part B allocation. LEAs taking advantage of this flexibility must use any 

funds that otherwise would have been used for the education of children with disabilities to 

support activities that are authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965, as amended. Also, if a State educational agency (SEA) determines that an LEA is not 

meeting all of 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.

Early Intervening Services – Certain LEAs may also use up to 15 percent of their allocation, less 

any amount used to reduce that LEA’s maintenance of effort level, for early intervening services. 

Early intervening services generally address the needs of students who require additional 

academic and behavioral supports to succeed, but who are not identified as needing special 

education. If an SEA determines that an LEA has significant disproportionality on the basis of 

race in the identification of children as children with disabilities, in particular disability categories, 

in placement in particular educational settings, or in discipline, the SEA must require the LEA to 

use the full 15 percent for early intervening services.2

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 Secretary 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.

This is a forward-funded program that includes advance appropriations. In a typical year, a 

portion of the funds – the forward-funded portion – becomes available for obligation on July 1 of 

the fiscal year of the appropriation and remains available for 15 months, through September 30 

of the following year. The remaining funds – the advance appropriation – become available for 

 2 The local maintenance of effort reduction authority (under IDEA, Sec. 613(a)(2)(C)) and the authority to use 

Part B funds for early intervening services (under IDEA, Sec. 613(f)) are interconnected. The decision that an LEA 

makes about the amount of flexibility that it will utilize under one authority directly affects the amount of flexibility that 

may be utilized under the other. Additionally, LEAs that are required to use the full 15 percent for early intervening 

services in the current fiscal year will be ineligible to take advantage of any of the flexibility for local maintenance of 

effort that would otherwise be available under IDEA, Sec. 613(a)(2)(C). For examples illustrating how these 

provisions relate to one another, please refer to the 34 CFR 300, Appendix D. See: 

http://idea.ed.gov/download/finalregulations.pdf
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-19

obligation on October 1 of the fiscal year following the year of the appropriations act and remain 

available for 12 months, expiring at the same time as the forward-funded portion. For fiscal year 

2014, school districts will use both the forward- and advance-funded amounts primarily during 

the 2014-2015 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, 2016, to obligate their fiscal year 2014 awards.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)footnote

2009.............................................................................. $11,505,2111

Recovery Act................................................................... 11,300,000

2010................................................................................ 11,505,2112

2011................................................................................ 11,465,9602

2012................................................................................ 11,577,8552

2013................................................................................ 11,577,8552 3

_________________

1 Includes $15,000 thousand for technical assistance. 2 Includes $25,000 thousand for technical assistance. 3 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $11.6 billion for Grants to States to assist in covering the excess 

costs associated with providing special education and related services to children with 

disabilities. This request, which is level with the FY 2012 estimate, would help States improve 

the quality of the special education and related services that children with disabilities receive.

This request would provide an average of $1,767 per child. This average is based on the 

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

constant at the 2012 level of 6.543 million. The request level would slightly reduce the Federal 

contribution toward offsetting the cost of special education and related services for children with 

disabilities to approximately 15 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure (APPE).

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

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

However, from 2006 to 2009, the count of children with disabilities reported by States decreased 

slightly each year from the prior fiscal year. Fiscal year 2010 represented the first increase in 

this population of students in 5 years, but the population declined again in fiscal year 2011 and 

2012. Fiscal year 2010 appears to be an outlier and the Department believes the population of 

children with disabilities will continue to trend downward in future years, but in the absence of 

more certain information we have projected the numbers of children with disabilities expected to 

be served for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 at 6.543 million children, the same level as reported by 

States for fiscal year 2012. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-20

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

from educational services. The IDEA now guarantees that any child who has been identified as 

having a disability will have access to a free appropriate public education. The primary 

challenge of the program now is to improve the quality of the education provided, so that 

children with disabilities can, to the maximum extent possible, participate in the general 

education curriculum, meet the same rigorous standards that have been established for all 

children to help prepare them for college and a career, and be prepared to lead productive, 

independent adult lives.

FY 2014 Proposed Appropriation Language: 

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 two State’s awards, Kansas and South 

Carolina, under this provision for the first time. Under current law, the Department does not 

have authority to redistribute or otherwise spend any funds made available as a result of such a 

reduction. 

As such, the Administration is proposing language that would (a) allow the Department to 

redistribute reductions to other States and (b) mitigate the ongoing impact of a reduction on a 

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

would revert to Treasury at the end of the period of availability. The proposed language would 

allow the Department to provide these funds to other States who 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 one 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.

Local Educational Agency Maintenance of Effort

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

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

is proposing language to clarify that the level of effort a LEA must meet under maintenance of 

financial support requirements in the year after it fails to maintain effort is the level of effort that 

would have been required in the absence of that failure and not the LEAs reduced level of 

expenditures. This language would provide clarity to LEAs and is consistent with State MOE 

statutory language. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-21

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 Secretary of Education 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. The request includes $15 million for such technical assistance, $10 million less 

than the amount set aside in fiscal year 2012. The request would be used for continuation costs 

for the National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood Longitudinal Data 

Systems, which supports States in developing and using their early childhood data systems. 

Funds would also support the continuation of one multi-year award the Department plans to 

make in fiscal year 2013. This award would provide technical assistance to States and local 

educational agencies on improving their data collection and analytic processes in order to 

promote use of data to drive program improvement. 

In fiscal year 2014, the Administration is proposing appropriation language that would expand 

the authority of the Department to administer and carry out other services and activities to 

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

authority would be used to modify existing Department data collection systems and align them 

to collect State level special education data.

Department of the Interior Set-Aside

As in previous years, we are proposing that the fiscal year 2014 budget include special 

appropriation language limiting the amount of funding required to be provided to the Department 

of the Interior (Interior). The special 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 

$21,220 for each child with a disability it serves, which is approximately 12 times the average 

amount per child that States would receive. At the request level with the cap, Interior would 

receive about 7.9 times the average amount per child that States would receive, which 

translates into an average of $13,890 for each child with a disability, or about 121 percent of the 

national average per pupil expenditure (APPE) compared to 15 percent of the APPE for States 

overall.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-22

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013

footnote

2014

footnote

Program funding:

Formula grants to States $11,380,727 $11,419,116 $11,429,116

MOE Penalties 38,389 TBD TBD

Formula grants to Outlying Areas 34,250 34,250 34,250

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

Department of the Interior 92,910 92,910 92,910

Technical Assistance (TA):

 RTTA-GSEG 15,000 1 2 0 0

 Early Childhood Data 8,425 3 4 6,493 6,496

 TA Center on State Data 1,565 5 TBD 6 TBD 6

 Subtotal, TA 24,990 7 24,930 15,000

Peer review of new Technical 

 Assistance award applications 10

8

 70 0

Total program funding 11,577,855 11,577,855 9 11,577,855

Number of children with disabilities 

served ages 3 through 21 6,542,527 6,542,527 10 6,542,527 10

Average Federal share per child 

(whole dollars) $1,766 $1,766 10 $1,767 10

Average per pupil expenditure 

(APPE) (whole dollars) $10,826 $11,208 10 $11,450 10

Federal funding as a percentage of 

APPE 16% 16% 10 15% 10

_________________ 1 Race to the Top Assessment-General Supervision Enhancement Grants (RTTA-GSEG) also received

$15,000 thousand of FY 2011 carry-over funds in FY 2012. 2 The Department plans to obligate $15,000 thousand of FY 2012 funds in FY 2013. 3 This project also received $4,567 thousand of FY 2011 carry-over funds in FY 2012. 4 The Department plans to obligate $6,492 thousand of FY 2012 funds in FY 2013. 5 The Department plans to obligate $1,565 thousand of FY 2012 funds in FY 2013. 6 The Department has not yet determined the size of this award. Any remaining FY 2013 funds not needed for this 

award will be carried over into FY 2014. 7 The Department carried over $23,067 thousand of the remaining FY 2012 multi-year appropriation into

FY 2013. 8 The Department plans to obligate $10 thousand of FY 2012 funds in FY 2013. 9 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 10 Estimate, based on State-reported cumulative total for children served in the fall of 2012.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-23

Basis for Leaving Special Education for Youth with Disabilities Ages 14 and Older 1

Basis:

School 

Year

2008-2009

Percent

School 

Year

2008-2009

Number

School 

Year

2009-2010

Percent

School 

Year

2009-2010

Number

School 

Year

2010-2011

Percent

School 

Year

2010-2011

Number

Graduating with 

regular diploma 35.7% 247,299 37.9% 256,102 39.7% 255,801

Graduating through 

certification 8.9% 61,508 8.9% 60,001 9.2% 58,946

Transferred to 

regular education 9.6% 66,364 9.9% 66,920 9.5% 61,243

Dropped out, or 

moved but not 

known to have 

continued in 

education 13.2% 91,318 12.8% 86,327 12.6% 80,927

Moved, but known 

to have continued 

in education 31.6% 219,020 29.6% 199,899 28.2% 181,618

Reaching 

maximum age for 

services and 

other reasons 0.9% 6,112 0.8% 5,071 0.8% 5,245

Total 100.0% 691,621 100.0% 674,320 100.0% 643,780

_________________

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

(EDEN)/EDFacts. 1 Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-24

History of Children Served and Program Funding

Fiscal Year

Children 

Served 

(thousands)

footnote

Appropriation 

(dollars in thousands)

footnote

Federal 

Share Per Child 1

(whole dollars)

footnote

Percentage 

of APPE

footnote

1978 3,561 $566,030 $159 10%

1979 3,700 804,000 217 13%

1980 3,803 874,500 230 12%

1981 3,941 874,500 222 10%

1982 3,990 931,008 233 10%

1983 4,053 1,017,900 251 10%

1984 4,096 1,068,875 261 9%

1985 4,124 1,135,145 275 9%

1986 4,121 1,163,282 282 8%

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 2 1,558 18%

2006 6,814 10,582,961 2 1,551 18%

2007 6,796 10,782,961 2 1,584 17%

2008 6,718 10,947,511 2 1,609 17%

2009 6,599 22,805,211 2 3 3,453 3 33%

2010 6,614 11,505,211 2 1,736 16% 3

2011 6,558 11,465,960 2 1,745 16%

2012 6,543 11,577,855 2 1,766 16%

2013 6,543 4 11,577,855 2 4 5 1,766 4 16% 4

2014 6,543 4 11,577,855 2 4 1,767 4 15% 4

_______________________ 1

 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. 2

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

2014, and $25,000 thousand in 2010 through 2013. 3 Includes funds available in FY 2009 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5). 4 Estimate. 5 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-25

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

year 2014 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.1

Year Target Actual

2003 25 29

2005 35 33

2007 35 36

2009 37 34

2011 39 32

2013 40

NOTES: 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.” 

1 NAEP is a biannual assessment. No comparable NAEP assessments are scheduled for reading in 2012 and 2014.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-26

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

on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in mathematics.1

Year Target Actual

2003 23 29

2005 32 31

2007 33 33

2009 35 36

2011 37 36

2013 38

NOTES: 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.” 

1 NAEP is a biannual assessment. No comparable NAEP assessments are scheduled for mathematics in 2012 and

2014.

Additional information: 

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, decreased in 2009 and 2011, after moderate 

increases over the course of the previous 4 years. Both the 2009 and 2011 reading scores fell 

short of their targets. 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 2011 fourth-grade reading 

assessment, only 32 percent of students with disabilities scored at or above Basic, while 

71 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 and 2011, the exclusion rate for students with disabilities on fourth-grade reading 

assessments dropped from 41 percent to 23 percent. It should be noted 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-27

The use of accommodations for students with disabilities, such as testing in small groups and 

extended time, has increased substantially. The share of the overall population that is students 

with disabilities who receive accommodations increased from 2 percent to 7 percent from 2000 

to 2011. Among fourth-grade students with disabilities assessed in reading in 2011, 57 percent 

received accommodations. 

Because many students with disabilities are excluded from NAEP testing, NAEP results cannot 

be generalized to the total population of students with disabilities. 

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, 

in 2011, 8th grade math scores were flat and did not meet the target. The NAEP data also show 

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

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

below other students. On the 2011 math assessment, only 36 percent of eighth-graders with 

disabilities scored at or above Basic, while 77 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 and 2011, the 

exclusion rate on eighth-grade mathematics assessments dropped from 32 percent to 19 

percent. It should be noted 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.

The use of accommodations for students with disabilities, such as testing in small groups and 

extended time, has increased substantially. For example, whereas less than one quarter of the 

eighth-grade students with disabilities assessed in mathematics in 2000 received 

accommodations, 68 percent received accommodations in 2011. 

Because many students with disabilities are excluded from NAEP testing, NAEP results cannot 

be generalized to the total population of students with disabilities. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-28

Elementary and Secondary Education Measures

The Department has adopted 4 measures for the Special Education Grants to States program 

that are parallel with those used for the 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 are 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. States were not required to test students in all grades 3 through 8 in 

2005. However, they were required to test children in all grades 3 through 8 in 2006. The 

targets for 2007 were based on the incomplete 2005 tests. Targets for 2008 through 2012 were 

revised based on the more comprehensive 2006 data.

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

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

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

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

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

3 through 8 scoring at these levels.

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

advanced levels on State reading assessments.

Year Target Actual

2009 61.7 43.8

2010 69.4 43.9

2011 77.0 44.3

2012 84.7

2013 92.4

2014 100

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

2009 61.1 45.2

2010 68.9 46.3

2011 76.7 45.7

2012 84.4

2013 92.2

2014 100
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-29

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

2009 18.5 28.3

2010 14.8 28.3

2011 11.1 28.1

2012 7.4

2013 3.6

2014 0

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

2008 20.5 27.5

2009 17.0 26.1

2010 13.6 25.3

2011 10.2 26.0

2012 6.9

2013 3.4

2014 0

Additional information: As seen in the first two tables, States improved their performance with 

respect to students with disabilities on State mathematics and reading assessments between 

2008 and 2010. However, in 2011, State scores improved in reading but regressed in 

mathematics. The data suggest States are making some progress in ensuring that students 

with disabilities who participate in State reading and math assessments are reasonably wellequipped to perform on these assessments, but that progress is not substantial enough to keep 

up with the increasing targets that would bring all students with disabilities to proficiency by 

2014. It should also be noted that fewer than half of students with disabilities scored at the 

proficient or advanced levels in reading and math on State assessments (44.3 percent and 45.7 

percent, respectively). 

The latter two tables indicate that there continue to be significant gaps between the percent of 

students with disabilities scoring at proficient or advanced levels on State assessments in 

reading and math and the percent of all students scoring at the proficient or advanced levels 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-30

(28.1 percent and 26 percent, respectively). The improvement in scores among students with 

disabilities over the past few years has not been sufficient to significantly close those gaps. 

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

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

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

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

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

take alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. States may 

include scores from these assessments for the purposes of adequate yearly progress (AYP) 

decisions, but only up to a cap of 3 percent of the total population tested, a maximum of 2 

percent from alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards and a maximum 

of 1 percent from alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. In 2011, 

approximately 20 percent of students with disabilities in grades 3 through 8 and high school 

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

modified achievement standards and alternate achievement standards).

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

2008 58.0 59.0

2009 59.0 60.6

2010 60.0 62.6

2011 61.0 63.6

2012 62.0

2013 63.0

2014 64.0

Measure: The percentage of students with disabilities who drop out of school.

Year Target Actual

2008 27.0 24.6

2009 26.0 22.4

2010 25.0 21.1

2011 24.0

Note: The Department is no longer using this measure because it eliminated the “dropout” data element from 

data collection due to concerns with data validity and usability.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-31

Additional information: From 2008 to 2011, States successfully increased their graduation 

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

6 years. However, there have been significant changes to reporting requirements for graduation 

and dropout rates over the last 4 years.

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

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

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

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

timeline required under ESEA. 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 did comply 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 school-year, 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. The Department recently developed an 

indicator on employment and postsecondary education. This indicator tracks the 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 will be 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. The Department collected baseline data in fall 2011 and 

2012 and identified numerous data quality and collection issues across States. The Department 

is working with States to provide technical assistance to identify improvement activities to 

produce meaningful data on postsecondary outcomes. The Department will not report these 

data or establish a baseline until next year when the data are likely to be more reliable. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-32

Efficiency Measure

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

Office of Special Education Program's (OSEP) response to the State.

Year Target Actual

2009 90 87

2010 88 66

2011 86

2012 86

2013 75

2014 75

Additional information: In 2010, the most recent year for which data are available, the 

Department completed 16 site visits. OSEP responded to States, on average, within 66 days of 

a site visit. This result surpasses the target for this measure in 2010 and is an improvement 

over the prior 3 years. In 2012, the Department modified its accountability system to improve 

efficiencies and balance its focus on improved results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth 

with disabilities and compliance with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act. OSEP is developing a modified efficiency measure and anticipates it being 

operational for the FY 2014 data collection. In the meantime, OSEP continues to meet its 

statutory monitoring responsibilities through the SPP/APR process, fiscal monitoring, and its

work with State dispute resolution systems.

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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-33

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 in disability types were autism, a 400 percent increase among children ages 10 to 17 

years, and developmental delay, almost a 2,000 percent increase among children ages 3 to 9 

years. The study cited research on declassification (Holt, McGrath, and Herring 2007) that 

showed almost 50 percent of children eligible in kindergarten were no longer eligible for services 

by third grade. Children with speech/language impairment are the most likely to be declassified 

within 2 years (34 percent). Declassified children had higher literacy and math outcomes than 

children who continued to receive services under IDEA.

The Patterns study confirms data presented above that children with disabilities are performing 

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

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 percent 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-34

school level in 93 percent of districts and focuses on literacy instruction in 84 percent of districts. 

The study found that the use of Response to Intervention (RTI) is also widespread, and is being 

used in 71 percent of districts nationally. Similar to CEIS, RTI is most commonly used in 

elementary schools and in reading/language arts. However, only 41 percent of districts reported 

using IDEA funds for RTI, while 80 percent of districts reported using their own general funds.

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

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

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

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

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

use to increase the qualifications of their staff, implemented by 64 percent of all districts and 76 

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

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

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

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

hearing requests over that time has been steady at about 21 requests per 10,000 students, but 

the frequency of due process hearings completed has decreased from 3.36 hearings per 10,000 

students in 2004 to 1.61 hearings in 2008.

Impact Evaluation of Response to Intervention Strategies. Response to Intervention (RTI) is a 

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

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.

This RTI evaluation will employ a quasi-experimental design to examine the natural variations in 

elementary school reading instruction, intervention, and support among districts and schools 

already implementing RTI across the Nation, to address the following research questions:

• What are the impacts of different RTI models on academic outcomes – such as reading 

achievement, grade promotion, and special education identification – for students in 

elementary school?

• Do the impacts of RTI models vary by subgroup of students?

Data collection on RTI implementation and on student outcomes including reading achievement, 

grade promotion, and identification for special education was based on the 2010-11 and 2011-

12 school years. The report for this study is scheduled for release in 2013.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-35

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.

Impacts of School Improvement Status on Students with Disabilities. As part of the IDEA 

National Assessment, IES is studying changes in student outcomes after schools adopt 

programs focused on improving academic outcomes for students with disabilities. The focus of 

the study is 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 align 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 Interim Report on the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in School Accountability 

Systems was released in May 2012. This report presented data on schools in 40 States. For 

these 40 States, 35 percent of public schools have a large enough population of SWD to be 

required to meet SWD subgroup accountability standards for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants to States

J-36

Nine percent of all public schools in 37 States failed to make AYP in the 2008–09 school year 

because of SWD subgroup performance and other reasons, and 5 percent missed it solely 

because of SWD subgroup performance. Among schools with a large enough population of 

SWD to be required to meet the accountability standards for the duration of the study, 44 

percent were identified for school improvement. By comparison, 24 percent of schools with 

small SWD populations were identified for improvement. The final report is scheduled for 

release in early 2013.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-37

Preschool grants

State grants: Preschool grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

 Change

from 2012

$372,646 $372,646 1 $372,646 0

_________________

1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

Puerto Rico to make available 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 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 and that removal of children with disabilities from the regular 

educational environment occurs only 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, cannot 

be achieved satisfactorily. 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 childcare facilities.

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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-38

relative percentage of the total number of children aged 3 through 5 in the general population. 

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

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

ceilings regarding the amount a State can receive in any year. No State can receive less than it 

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

of: (1) the percent the appropriation grew above the prior year, minus 1.5 percent, or, 

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

minimum increase in State allocations of 1/3 of 1 percent of the increase in the appropriation 

over the base year and places a ceiling on how much the allocation to a State may increase, in 

that no State may be allocated an increase above the prior year greater than the percent of 

growth in the appropriation from the prior year plus 1.5 percent. These provisions help ensure 

that every State receives a part of any increase and that there is no radical shift in resources 

among the States. 

States must distribute the bulk of their grant awards to local educational agencies. They may 

retain funds for State-level activities up to an amount equal to 25 percent of the amount they 

received for fiscal year 1997 under the Preschool Grants program, adjusted upward each year 

by the lesser of the rate of increase in the State’s allocation or the rate of inflation. The amount 

that may be used for administration is limited to 20 percent of the amount 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: (1) support services, 

including establishing and implementing a mediation process, which may benefit children with 

disabilities younger than 3 or older than 5, as long as those services also benefit children with 

disabilities aged 3 through 5; (2) direct services for children eligible under this program; 

(3) activities at the State and local level to meet the goals established by the State for the 

performance of children with disabilities in the State; and (4) supplements to other funds used to 

develop and implement a statewide coordinated services system designed to improve results for 

children and families, including children with disabilities and their families, but not to exceed 

1 percent of the amount received by the State under this program for a fiscal year. The State 

may also use its set-aside funds to provide early intervention services. These services must 

include an educational component that promotes school readiness and incorporates preliteracy, 

language, and numeracy skills. In addition, they 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. 

The number of children served under this program increased from 737,690 in fiscal year 2011 to 

745,349 in fiscal year 2012. The 2012 count is the third consecutive increase after steadily 

declining child counts since fiscal year 2007. Despite more children than ever receiving 

services under this program in fiscal year 2012, children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 still 

constitute a smaller percentage of the overall population aged 3 through 5 than every other 

year, except 2009, since fiscal year 2005. The recent reversal of the downward trend in the 

total number of children served makes 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 2012 level for fiscal years 

2013 and 2014.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-39

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

year in which they are appropriated and remain available through September 30 of the following 

year. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2009 ...................................................................................$374,099

Recovery Act ........................................................................400,000

2010 .....................................................................................374,099

2011 .....................................................................................373,351

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

2013 .....................................................................................372,646 1

1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $372.6 million for the Preschool Grants program. The request 

would maintain funding for this program at the FY 2012 level, and provide an average of $500 

per child, the same amount provided in 2012. These averages are based on the assumption 

that the number of children aged 3 through 5 who will be served will remain constant at the 2012 

level of 745,349. The Department 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 $11.6 billion for the Grants to States program for fiscal 

year 2014, which will provide an average of $1,767 per child. Funding under Preschool Grants 

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

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

Grants program. 

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

children, including children with disabilities, and that improved coordination among Federal early 

learning programs will lead to improved services and results. Funding under the Preschool 

Grants program supports early learning programs that provide services needed to prepare 

young children with disabilities to enter school ready to learn. This program also supports the 

inclusion of young children with disabilities in State early learning programs and federally funded 

programs, such as Head Start and child care programs supported under the Department of 

Health and Human Services’ Child Care and Development Block Grants (CCDBG). States 

frequently use the Preschool Grants program State-level set-aside funds to ensure that children 

with disabilities are included in State early learning programs and programs operated or 

supported by other Federal programs. 

The Administration is proposing to expand the Federal early learning investment by more than 

$2 billion in fiscal year 2014 through the creation of the Preschool Development Grants and the 

Preschool for All programs, proposed for funding in the School Readiness account. Preschool 

Development Grants would provide competitive grants to States to support key quality 

improvement efforts and drive increased access to high-quality preschool programs. This effort 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-40

would expand the capacity of States to meet eligibility requirements for the Preschool for All 

program, which would fund grants to States that provide universal access to high-quality 

preschool programs for children from low- and moderate-income families. 

These new investments would build upon the work of the Race to the Top - Early Learning 

Challenge (RTT-ELC), for which the Department awarded 9 grants in 2011 and 5 grants in 

2012, totaling $630 million over 4 years. RTT-ELC provided States with additional incentives 

and opportunities to more effectively serve children with disabilities in inclusive, high quality 

early learning programs. The RTT-ELC funds supported competitive grants to States for the 

development of a statewide infrastructure of integrated high-quality early learning supports and 

services for children from birth through age 5, with a focus on children with high needs, 

including those with disabilities. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Measures 2012 2013 footnote2014 footnote

Children Served 1 745,349 745,349 2 745,349 2

Share per child (whole dollars) $500 $500 2 $500 2

1 States may, at their discretion, provide FAPE 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. 2 Estimate, based on State-reported cumulative total for children served in the fall of 2011.

History of Children Served and Program Funding

Fiscal Year Children Served

(thousands)

footnote

Appropriation

(dollars in thousands)

footnote

Federal

Share per Child

(whole dollars)

footnote

1977 197 $12,500 $64

1978 201 15,000 81

1979 215 17,500 81

1980 232 25,000 108

1981 237 25,000 105

1982 228 24,000 105

1983 242 25,000 103

1984 243 26,330 108

1985 260 29,000 112

1986 261 28,710 110

1987 266 180,000 677 1

1988 288 201,054 698

1989 322 247,000 767

1990 352 251,510 715

1991 367 292,766 798 2
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-41

History of Children Served and Program Funding - Continued

Fiscal Year Children Served

(thousands)

footnote

Appropriation

(dollars in thousands)

footnote

Federal

Share per Child

(whole dollars)

footnote

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 709 774,099 3 1,092 3

2010 732 374,099 511

2011 738 4 373,351 508

2012 745 4 372,646 500

2013 745 4 5 372,646 6 500 5

2014 745 4 5 372,646 5 500 5

_________________

1 The Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 changed the Preschool Grants program from a 

grant program that provided an incentive for States to serve children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 to a formula 

grant program. Funding was increased to support the change in statutory authority. 2 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. 3 These figures include funds provided under the Recovery Act in FY 2009. 4

 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 do not receive Preschool Grant awards. 5 Estimates. 6 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-42

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 2014 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. 

Three of the performance measures for the Preschool Grants program look at the percentage 

increase in growth by preschool children with disabilities in specific areas — positive socialemotional skills (including social relationships), acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, and 

use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs — as measured from the point of time on 

entering a program to the time the child exits the program. 

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

2010 80

2011 80 79

2012 81

2013 82

2014 83

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

2010 78

2011 80 79

2012 81

2013 82

2014 83
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-43

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

2010 78

2011 80 78

2012 81

2013 82

2014 83

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 its grantee, the 

Early Childhood Outcomes Center, uses these data to assess outcomes for children served 

through this program. Measuring growth in these outcomes, especially for preschool aged 

children, is a complicated endeavor that requires a significant investment of time and technical 

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

reliable, and meaningful.

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

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

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

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

remain in the program for at least 6 months. While four States have received approval from the 

Department to collect data for a representative sample of the children they serve through the 

Preschool Grants program, all other States are responsible for reporting data on all children 

served. The APRs submitted by States in February 2010 were to include, for the first time, 

complete entry and exit data for a full cohort of children with disabilities aged 3 through 5, but 

the Department did not publish these data because a large number of States had high 

percentages of missing data or other data quality concerns. 

However, 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 33 to 36 out of 59 States and jurisdictions in 2012. To help determine an 

appropriate baseline for these three measures, a weighted data set was derived from these 36 

States, excluding from the percentage calculation all States that had high proportions of missing 

data, anomalous outcomes, or were known to have other data quality or collection issues. The 

weighted data showed that, of this smaller sample of States, more than 80 percent of 

preschoolers substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program in 

each measure category: 81 percent in the acquisition and use of knowledge, 81 percent in 

positive social-emotional skills, and 81 percent in the use of appropriate behavior. These 

results represent a slight decrease from the 2011 school year and do not meet the targets set 

for each category; however, this decrease may be attributed to a larger sample and increased 

reporting. The targets for these measures were set based, in part, on the outcomes of this 

sample of States with higher quality data. As States have improved their data collection, the 

number of children served by this program for whom outcome data are reported has increased 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-44

substantially each year. Since outcomes have generally improved as data are reported for 

more children and States are better able to target program improvement, the Department is 

optimistic that, within the next few years, the national data will demonstrate that the children 

served by the program are improving at levels similar to the children in States with the best data 

quality.

States are engaged in implementing quality control systems to identify and improve the 

accuracy of local data, 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 regards to missing data. The extent of missing data is difficult to 

determine precisely because States do not report on the number of children exiting the 

program. Furthermore, States may be unable to collect exit data for all children (e.g., due to a 

move to another State, withdrawal from the program without prior notice, or death). Through its 

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

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

to inform program improvements.

Measure: The percentage of children with disabilities (aged 3 through 5) who receive special

education and related services in a regular early learning program at least 80 percent of the 

time.

Year Target Actual

2009 43 51

2010 43 53

2011 48

2012 48

2013 50

2014 52

Additional information: Actual performance in fiscal year 2010, the most recent year for which 

data are available, increased slightly from fiscal year 2009, and exceeded the target for this 

measure for the third year in a row. This measure replaced a previous measure on the extent to 

which children with disabilities receive their special education services in regular education 

settings. The earlier measure did not provide any information on where the child spends the 

bulk of his or her day and the extent to which the child has opportunities to interact with 

nondisabled peers. 

States began using a revised data collection between October 1 and December 1, 2006, 

inclusive. These data were reported and are reflected in the fiscal year 2007 data. Under the 

revised data collection, States must report children under one of two categories. Category A 

includes children attending a regular early learning program, which is defined as a program in 

which at least 50 percent of the children are not disabled. The category has three reporting 

subsets based on the amount of time the child spends in the regular early learning setting: 

(1) at least 80 percent, (2) 40 percent to 79 percent, or (3) less than 40 percent. Category B 

covers children who are not attending a regular early learning program or kindergarten and has 

two reporting options: (1) attending a special education program or (2) not attending a special 

education program (e.g., getting services in the home or a provider’s office). 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-45

In July 2007, the Department published a Federal Register notice requesting comments on a 

proposal to add another reporting category that would disaggregate the data so as to show 

children in programs in which 70 percent or more of the children are not disabled. SEAs and 

other interested parties submitted extensive comments regarding the proposal and the general 

validity and reliability of this measure. States reported that they had a great deal of difficulty 

implementing the new system because they must collect information on where children with 

disabilities spend their day, not just where they receive special education and related services. 

The Department reviewed these comments and revised the data collection forms. One change 

was to eliminate the need for parents to provide information on the percentage of children with 

disabilities in settings where the parent has enrolled or placed the child when the child is not in 

special education. We further simplified the 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 learning classroom. The form now will only require the parent to indicate whether 

the child’s usual daily routine includes attending a regular early learning program and, if yes, if it 

is less than or more than 10 hours a week. The revised data collection will also obtain 

information on where children receive the majority of their special education services. The first 

collection of preschool settings data using the new form was the 2010-11 school year, with the 

first data reported in the Annual Performance Reports due in February 2013. 

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

the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, and the Regional Resource Centers 

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 and the provision of “Frequently Asked 

Questions” documents and a data dictionary (http://www.ideadata.org/docs/bdatadictionary.pdf).

Measure: The number of States with at least 90 percent of special education teachers of 

children with disabilities aged 3 to 5 who are fully certified in the areas in which they are 

teaching.

Year Target Actual

2009 40 39

2010 40 43

2011 41 45

2012 41

2013 42

2014 45

Additional information: The Department exceeded its target for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, 

with 2011 being the most recent year for which data are available. As of 2007, 11 additional 

States have met the 90 percent requirement ensuring their special education teachers 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-46

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

birth through age 5 and their families. This Center will help 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.

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

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

developing and expanding statewide, longitudinal data systems that incorporate data required 

under Sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. The center will work 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 will coordinate with other 

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

Early Learning Challenge Fund and the Statewide Longitudinal Data System Grant Program.

Efficiency Measure

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

Office of Special Education Program's (OSEP) response to the State.

Year Target Actual

2009 90 87

2010 88 66

2011 86

2012 86

2013 86

2014 75

Additional information: In 2010, the most recent year for which data are available, the 

Department completed 16 site visits. OSEP responded to States, on average, within 66 days of 

a site visit. This result surpasses the target for this measure in 2010 and is an improvement 

over the prior 3 years. In 2012, the Department modified its accountability system to improve 

efficiencies and balance its focus on improved results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth 

with disabilities and compliance with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act. We are developing a modified efficiency measure and anticipate it being 

operational for the FY 2014 data collection. In the meantime, OSEP continues to meet its 

statutory monitoring responsibilities through the SPP/APR process, fiscal monitoring, and its

work with State dispute resolution systems.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-47

Other Performance Information

Pre-Elementary Longitudinal Study (PEELS): The PEELS study involves 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 will answer 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 their 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? 

In October 2010, the National Center for Special Education Research released the report, 

Access to Educational and Community Activities for Young Children with Disabilities. As 

reported in parent interviews, participation in community activities such as sports, organized 

clubs, art, and music varied significantly by type of disability and by household income. 

Children from households with annual incomes greater than $40,000 participated in sports with 

greater frequency than children from households with lower incomes. Children of parents who 

perceived their neighborhood to be unsafe or who reported that their transportation did not meet 

their families’ needs were significantly less likely to participate in extracurricular activities. 

Parents also reported on educational settings, and 69 percent said they sent their children to full 

day kindergarten. Children from high wealth districts and those from suburban settings were 

less likely to attend full-day kindergarten than their peers.

In a survey of kindergarten teachers, 73 percent of teachers reported that the regular education 

classroom was the main setting for children receiving special education services. This inclusion 

rate was significantly higher in very large districts (91 percent) than districts of other sizes, and 

significantly higher in rural districts (86 percent) than in suburban or urban districts. Children in 

very low wealth districts were less likely to have regular classrooms as their main setting (59 

percent) compared to all other districts. On average, children spent 17.1 hours per week in 

regular classrooms and 7.1 hours in special education settings. 

Teachers also reported on modifications and accommodations provided to children with 

disabilities. Overall, teachers reported using unmodified grade-level materials in 44 percent of 

cases, while 14 percent of children received specialized materials or curricula. There was no 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-48

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 (http://www.peels.org).

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 conducting the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study 

program through the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 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 some data on 

outcomes experienced by children with disabilities participating in preschool programs and 

baseline data on outcomes experienced by nondisabled children. 

OSEP, and subsequently the National Center on Special Education Research, have sponsored 

a special education questionnaire for teachers in the ECLS-K Study and the collection of more 

extensive data on children with disabilities and their programs, including the identification of, 

receipt of services for, and use of special equipment for a number of disabling conditions that 

may interfere with a sampled child’s ability to learn. The children in the ECLS-K cohort were 5 

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

During this collection, the majority of the 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 ECLS-K 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 ECLS-K and will be an ongoing 

study sponsored by NCES. The ECLS-K: 2011 will provide descriptive information on children's 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Preschool grants

J-49

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 over the grades studied. 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 nonpoor students received special 

education. About 12 percent of students receive special education in at least one of the grades: 

kindergarten, first, and third grade, including 16 percent of boys, 8 percent of girls, 18 percent of 

poor children, and 10 percent of nonpoor children. One in three students who receive special 

education in early grades, first receive special education in kindergarten. Half of those who 

begin special education in kindergarten are no longer receiving special education by third grade. 

In addition to students’ gender and poverty status, results are presented separately for other 

student and school characteristics, including race/ethnicity and school control, urbanicity, 

region, and poverty concentration.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-50

Grant s for infants and f amilies

State grants: Grants for infants and families

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part C)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 0 1

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013

footnote

2014

Change

from 2012

$442,710 $442,710 2 $462,710 +$20,000 _________________

1

 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011. The Administration proposes to continue funding in 

FY 2014 through appropriations language.

2

 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Secretary 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 birth-through-2-yearolds with disabilities and their families, including Indian children and families who reside on 

reservations geographically located in the State. Infants and toddlers with disabilities are 

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

appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in one or more of the following five areas: 

cognitive development, physical development, communication development, social or emotional 

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

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

"developmental delay" has the meaning given the term by each State. In addition, States 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. 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) gives States the discretion to extend 

eligibility for Part C services to children with disabilities who are eligible for services under 

section 619 and who previously received services under Part C, until such children enter or are 

eligible under State law to enter kindergarten or elementary school, as appropriate. The Act 

further stipulates that any Part C programs serving children aged 3 or older must provide an 

educational component that promotes school readiness and incorporates preliteracy, language, 

and numeracy skills and provide a written notification to parents of their rights regarding the 

continuation of services under Part C and eligibility for services under section 619. In fiscal year 

2009, two States (New Mexico and Maryland) elected to make Part C services available to 

children with disabilities beyond their third birthday and continued to do so in 2010, 2011, and 

2012. No additional States elected to implement this option in fiscal years 2010 through 2012.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-51

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

includes authority for the Secretary 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 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 2012 did not exceed $460 million, so the 

Department did not have authority to award State Incentive Grants in any of these fiscal years. 

The statewide system also must comply with 17 statutory requirements, including having a lead 

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

State Interagency Coordinating Council to advise and assist the lead agency. One of the 

purposes of the Part C program is to assist States to coordinate payment for early intervention 

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

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

Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income, and Early Head Start.

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. 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. The natural environment includes the home and community settings where 

children would be participating if they did not have a disability. 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.

Allocations are based on the number of children in the general population aged birth through 

2 years in each State. The Department of Education uses data provided by the United States 

Census Bureau in making this calculation. No State can receive less than 0.5 percent of the 

funds available to all States, or $500,000, whichever is greater. The Outlying Areas may 

receive not more than 1 percent of the funds appropriated. The Secretary 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-52

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

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

and (3) early intervention services. 

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

year in which they are appropriated and remain available through September 30 of the following 

year. 

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnot

e

2009........................................................ ........................ $439,427

Recovery Act........................................... .......................... 500,000

2010........................................................ .......................... 439,427

2011........................................................ .......................... 438,548

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

2013........................................................ .......................... 442,710 1

_________________

1

 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $462.7 million for the Grants for Infants and Families program for 

fiscal year 2014, an increase of $20 million over the fiscal year 2012 level. The requested 

amount would provide critical support needed to increase access to high-quality early childhood 

programs for all children. Funds requested for the Part C program would be used to support 

early intervention programs that provide services designed to lessen the needs of infants and 

toddlers with disabilities for future or more extensive services and to ensure that very young 

children with disabilities receive the supports and services they need to prepare them to 

participate in a meaningful manner when they are ready to enter formal education. 

The Administration expects that the requested amount also would help States enhance their 

systems for identifying infants and toddlers with disabilities and determining appropriate 

services, and facilitate better coordination with other programs serving young children. 

Administration’s Early Learning Agenda

The Administration is proposing to expand the Federal early learning investment by more than 

$2 billion in fiscal year 2014 through the creation of the Preschool Development Grants and the 

Preschool for All programs, proposed for funding in the School Readiness Account. Preschool 

Development Grants would provide competitive grants to States to support key quality 

improvement efforts and drive increased access to high-quality preschool programs. This effort 

would expand the capacity of States to meet eligibility requirements for the Preschool for All 

program, which would fund grants to States that provide universal access to high-quality 

preschool programs for children from low- and moderate-income families.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-53

These new investments would build upon the work of the Race to the Top - Early Learning 

Challenge (RTT-ELC), under which the Administration awarded $500 million to 9 States in fiscal 

year 2011 and awarded $133 million in fiscal year 2012 funds to 5 additional States that did not 

receive funding in the fiscal year 2011 competition. The RTT-ELC provides competitive grants 

to States for the development of a statewide infrastructure of integrated high-quality early 

learning supports and services for children from birth through age 5, with a focus on children 

with high needs, including those with disabilities. States could use their Part C program funds to 

support improved coordination between State lead agencies and early learning programs, 

including those participating in RTT-ELC grant projects, to help ensure that the needs of infants 

and toddlers with disabilities are addressed appropriately through these programs.

State Incentive Grants – FY 2014 Language Proposal

As noted in the Program Description, the IDEA provides authority for a State Incentive Grant 

program in years for which the funds available under Part C exceed $460 million. State 

Incentive Grants are intended to facilitate a seamless system of services for children with 

disabilities from birth up to age 5, thereby increasing access to and continuity of service 

provision through high-quality early childhood programs. In fiscal year 2009, due to the addition 

of funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Department awarded incentive 

grants to 2 States, Maryland and New Mexico, that elected to extend eligibility for Part C 

services to children with disabilities beyond their third birthday. These funds were available to 

States for obligation until September 30, 2011. The requested increase for 2014 would enable 

the Department to reserve funds to resume support for these activities in both Maryland and 

New Mexico, as well as for additional States that might elect to extend eligibility for Part C 

services.

In order to ensure that sufficient funding is available to support the extension of Part C services 

in States that elect to do this, the Administration is proposing appropriations language that 

would allow the Department to reserve any funds appropriated for this program above 

$460 million for State Incentive Grants. Based on requests for technical assistance on 

extending Part C services and expressed interest by States, the Administration expects as 

many as 8 States to apply for these funds. At the requested level, no State would receive more 

than $542,000 through a State Incentive Grant. Without this language, only $406,500 would be 

available for State Incentive Grants, with no State receiving more than $81,300.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-54

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Range in size of awards to States:

Smallest State regular Part C award 1 2 3 $2,170 $2,170 $2,265

Average State regular Part C award 1 2 $8,348 $8,344 $8,723

Largest State regular Part C award 1 2 $54,039 $52,540 $54,858

Children served 4 355,000 360,000 360,000

________________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 1 Allocations in fiscal year 2014 would depend on the number and size of State Incentive Grant awards. Since 

we do not yet know how many States will apply for State Incentive Grants, estimates of smallest, average, and 

largest Part C awards do not include the funds set aside for State Incentive Grants. 2 The calculations for smallest, average, and largest awards do not include the Outlying Areas or the Department 

of the Interior. 3 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. 4 Estimates. 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

FY 2014 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-55

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

2010 64

2011 65 65

2012 67

2013 69

2014 69

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

2010 68

2011 69 69

2012 71

2013 73

2014 73

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

2010 68

2011 69 71

2012 71

2013 73

2014 73

Additional information: Through their Annual Performance Reports (APRs), States report on 

the cognitive, social-emotional, and behavioral development of children with disabilities served 

through the Part C program. The Department, with the assistance of its grantee, the Early 

Childhood Outcomes Center, uses these data to assess outcomes for children served through 

this program. Measuring growth in these outcomes, especially for infants and toddlers, is a 

complicated endeavor that requires a significant investment of time and technical assistance at 

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

meaningful. The Department has been deliberate in developing this measure due to the 

challenges of assessing program performance based on growth in early childhood outcomes, 

especially for children with disabilities. In 2005, States began developing systems for collecting 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-56

entry and exit data on children with disabilities who receive services through the Part C program 

and remain in the program for at least 6 months. While 3 States have received approval from 

the Department to collect data for a representative sample of the children they serve through the 

Part C program, all other States are responsible for reporting data on all children served. The 

APRs submitted by States in February 2010 included the first opportunity for States to have a 

set of complete entry and exit data for a full cohort of infants and toddlers, but the Department 

did not publish these data because a large number of States had high percentages of missing 

data or other data quality concerns. 

However, the quality of the data States reported in their APRs in February 2011 and 2012 

demonstrated marked improvement. In the APRs submitted in 2010, only 19 States provided 

high quality data, meaning that they did not have high proportions of missing data, anomalous 

outcomes, nor were known to have other data quality or collection issues. In 2011, 29 States 

provided high quality data, increasing to 39 in 2012. Furthermore, there has been a noted trend 

across all years of this data collection that States with the highest quality data also 

demonstrated the best results.

Results for program year 2011 across all three outcomes were improved from 2010 across all 

States. Given that data quality also increased generally across the States, this could indicate 

that either (1) performance on these measures is actually better than was previously being 

captured with lower quality data, (2) performance on these measures is improving 

simultaneously with the increase in data quality, or (3) both. Across all three outcomes, the 

39 States with the highest quality data for 2011 presented results 2 to 4 percentage points 

higher than all States, though slightly less than what the 29 States with the highest quality data 

reported for 2010. While it is difficult to determine trends with such a small number of data 

points, it is possible that higher quality data is correlated with better outcomes for students and 

that the decrease in performance among high quality data States is simply a result of a 

regression to the mean as more States develop high quality data systems.

States have indicated that they believe the data will be useful in their program improvement 

efforts. States are engaged in implementing quality control systems to identify and improve the 

accuracy of local data. The Department acknowledges that some data quality issues persist, 

particularly concerning missing data. In some instances, States may be unable to collect exit 

data for all children (e.g., due to a move to another State, withdrawal from the program without

prior notice, or death). Through its technical assistance investments, the Department continues 

to work with the States to resolve implementation issues, improve the validity and reliability of 

reported data, and use these data to inform program improvements.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-57

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 one through Part C.

Year Target Actual

2009 27 25

2010 27 25

2011 27 26 

2012 27 28

2013 27

2014 28

Additional information: For a number of years, only 24 or 25 States have served at least 

1 percent of infants in the general population under the age of 1. The program made progress 

in 2012 and exceeded its target. 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

2009 31 35

2010 31 37

2011 32 42

2012 32 44

2013 42

2014 45

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 

 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

J-58

bureau on the percentage of infants and toddlers with disabilities in the general population. 

Through its monitoring and technical assistance efforts, the Department helps States enhance 

their child find systems to ensure that they are appropriately identifying and serving eligible 

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

the improved performance of States under this measure and has set higher targets for 2013 and 

2014 to reflect the actual performance for the past 3 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

2009 87 93

2010 87 94

2011 93 94

2012 93

2013 94

2014 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 10 years (by 18 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 workdays between the completion of a site visit and the Office of 

Special Education Program's (OSEP) response to the State.

Year Target Actual

2009 79 80

2010 79 60

2011 79

2012 79

2013 75

2014 75

Additional information: The Department collects data for this measure through its program 

monitoring files. The Department reduced the number of days to issue responses in 2009 and 

further reduced the number of days in 2010, far exceeding its target of 79 days, by revising its 

reporting format to remove extraneous descriptions and text that is not relevant to the findings. 

This ensures that the written responses are issued in a reasonable period of time and are 

meaningful to the public. The Department is currently in the process of modifying its 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-59

accountability system, including the onsite visit component, in order to increase efficiency and 

balance our focus on improved results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and compliance 

with the requirements of the IDEA. We anticipate having the onsite visit component fully 

developed and operational for FY 2014. In the meantime, OSEP continues to meet its statutory 

monitoring responsibilities through the SPP/APR process, fiscal monitoring, and its work with 

State dispute resolution systems.

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. 46 States reported having different coordinators for the Part C and Preschool 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

State grants: Grants for infants and families

J-60

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 FY 2009 was 21 percent. 

23 States indicated that State early intervention services funding represented the largest 

source of funding for early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities. 

The largest sources of funding in other States were: Part C (8 States), Medicaid/Title XIX 

(8 States), local municipality or county funds (4 States), and Part B (1 State).

The final report for the “IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study” is available on the 

IES Web site at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114026/index.asp.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-61

State personnel development

National activities: State personnel development

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 0 1

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

 Change

 from 2012

$43,917 $43,917 2 $45,011 +$1,094

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011. The Administration proposes to continue funding in 

FY 2014 through appropriations language. 2 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The State Personnel Development (SPD) program provides grants to assist State educational 

agencies (SEAs) in reforming and improving 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 highly 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 (ESEA), the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973, and the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Grants are made on a competitive basis for any fiscal year in which the amount appropriated is 

less than $100 million. However, if the amount appropriated is $100 million or greater, funds 

would be distributed as formula grants, with allotments based on the relative portion of the funds 

the State received under Part B of IDEA. Competitive awards are made for periods of 1 to 5 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

J-62

years with minimum awards to States of not less than $500,000 and not less than $80,000 for 

Outlying Areas. The maximum award to States is $4 million per fiscal year. The factors used to 

determine the ultimate amount of each competitive award are: the amount of funds available; 

the relative population of the State or Outlying Area; and 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 1111 and 2112 of the ESEA, and 

the use, as appropriate, of scientifically-based research. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2009..................................................................................... $48,000

2010....................................................................................... 48,000

2011....................................................................................... 46,846

2012....................................................................................... 43,917

2013....................................................................................... 43,917 1

_________________

1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $45 million for the SPD grants program to assist State educational 

agencies to improve results for children with disabilities through the delivery of high quality 

instruction and the recruitment and retention of effective and highly qualified personnel. The 

request, which would increase funding by more than $1 million from the 2012 level, would be 

used to support 37 continuation and 6 new awards. The increase in funding would permit the 

Administration to provide funding to 43 States, the previous high, last reached in FY 2011. In 

addition, the Administration is requesting new appropriations language in the 2014 Budget that 

would provide the Secretary the authority to use SPD funds under section 655 of IDEA to carry 

out performance evaluation activities. SPD is the only program within Part D of IDEA that does 

not have the authority to use funds for performance evaluation.

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

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

State and local needs for personnel preparation and professional development identified in the 

State’s Personnel Development Plan. Projects provide personnel with the knowledge and skills 

to meet the needs of, and improve the performance and achievement of infants, toddlers, 

preschoolers, and children with disabilities, and to meet the State’s performance goals 

established in accordance with section 612(a)(15) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA). Support for special education personnel preparation activities is also provided 

through the Personnel Preparation program, under which the Secretary makes competitive 

awards, primarily to institutions of higher education, to help States meet their responsibility to 

train and employ adequate numbers of fully certified personnel to serve children with disabilities. 

Activities funded through this program are intended to support a statewide strategy to prepare, 

recruit, and retain teachers who are highly qualified under IDEA and the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), who are prepared to deliver scientific research-based 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

J-63

or evidence-based instruction, and who are effective in improving outcomes for children with 

disabilities. States must develop SPD activities in a collaborative fashion and seek the input of 

teachers, principals, parents, administrators, paraprofessionals, and other school personnel. 

Funding Priorities

To improve the outcomes of children with disabilities, the Department plans to focus the 

program’s available resources in FY 2014 to support projects that 1) provide evidence-based 

professional development activities that increase implementation of effective practices and 2) 

that provide on-going assistance to personnel who have received SPD-supported professional 

development, including assisting local educational agenceis (LEAs) to build upon systems that 

support implementation of effective practices. Such activities would ensure that personnel 

receive the necessary support to use the acquired knowledge and skills to implement practices 

with fidelity. New projects funded in FY 2012 were required to use technology to more 

efficiently and effectively provide ongoing professional development, including to personnel in 

rural areas and to other populations that are less likely to receive comprehensive professional 

development. The SPD program has worked to expand the use of technology that can assist 

projects in becoming more effective and efficient in their delivery of professional development. 

With the increased emphasis on ongoing professional development and coaching, increased 

use of technology is necessary if SPD grantees are to work with more than a few sites and/or 

work with schools in rural areas.

In addition, to better align the SPD program with the Department’s broader efforts supporting 

teacher effectiveness, in FY 2012, the Department awarded competitive preference points to 

projects designed to provide professional development targeted to meeting professional 

development needs as identified through teacher evaluation and support systems that take into 

account student growth.

Teacher quality is one of the most important factors in improving student achievement and 

eliminating achievement gaps between our neediest students and their more advantaged peers. 

Research shows that effective teaching is integral to improving the academic achievement of 

students who are at greatest risk of not meeting high academic standards. The SPD program 

provides funding for professional development to improve the knowledge and skills of special 

education and regular education teachers serving children with disabilities. Specifically, SPD 

funds are used to provide training in effective interventions. Examples of such interventions 

include positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve student behavior in the 

classroom, scientifically-based reading instruction, early and appropriate interventions to identify 

and help children with disabilities, effective instruction for children with low incidence disabilities, 

and successful transitioning to postsecondary opportunities. Funds also assist States in utilizing 

classroom-based techniques to assist children prior to referral for special education.

Personnel Recruitment and Retention

The SPD program also supports States in developing and implementing strategies that are 

effective in promoting the recruitment and retention of effective and highly 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

J-64

of success in helping students with disabilities. Listed below are examples of how States are 

using SPD funds to improve the knowledge and skills of teachers serving children with 

disabilities. 

• Michigan has used its SPD funds to provide professional development in connection with 

the implementation of its Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi) to 

increase the quantity and improve the quality of professional personnel providing leadership 

and instruction for the statewide educational program for students with disabilities. MiBLSi 

is a multi-tiered system of supports, which integrates behavior and reading. Over the last 2 

years, 159 MiBLSi elementary schools with more than 52,000 students saw improvements in 

the number of students reading at grade level and reductions in the number of students 

requiring intensive reading support. The total percentage of students at benchmark levels 

improved from 63 percent to 68 percent while the total percentage of students requiring 

intensive reading support dropped from 19 percent to 16 percent. In 2008, middle schools 

implementing MiBLSi reading supports began with 22 percent of their students at 

benchmark and 29 percent requiring intensive reading support. Now 51 percent are at 

benchmark and 18 percent of students require intensive reading supports. Schools 

implementing the MiBLSi model with fidelity have demonstrated a 33 percent reduction in 

behavior problems compared to schools not implementing with fidelity. From 2009-10 to 

2010-11 the special education referral rate for 43 MiBLSi schools decreased 25 percent 

while the percentage of students determined to be eligible decreased 6 percent.

• The Kansas SPD supports implementation of a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) at 53 

schools statewide. After the first year of implementation of MTSS in 2009-10, the 

percentage of students with disabilities in the MTSS schools who demonstrated proficiency 

or better on State assessments in reading was 79.7 percent, which is higher than the State 

average of 71.64 percent, and is an improvement of more than 14 percent since 2009. The 

percentage of students with disabilities in the MTSS schools who demonstrated proficiency 

or better on State assessments in mathematics was 77.4 percent, an improvement of nearly 

20 percent since 2009, and higher than the State average of 69.6 percent. MTSS schools 

also had no students with disabilities expelled in 2010-11, which is lower than the 1.5 

percent target.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

J-65

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012footnote2013 Footnote2014 

Project funding:

New SPD awards $24,196 0 $2,963

Continuation SPD awards 19,711 1 $41,911 41,963

Carryover 2,006 2

Performance evaluation 0 0 75

Peer review of new award applications 10 0 10

Total funding 43,917 43,917 3 45,011

Average award (whole dollars) $1,003 $1,118 $1,091

Number of awards:

New awards 22 0 6

Continuation awards 19 40 4 37

Total awards 41 40 43

1

 About $2,803 thousand of FY 2012 funds were used to support project continuation costs in FY 2013. 2

 These funds will be used to support new awards in FY 2014. 3

 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 4

 There are only 40 continuations in FY 2013 because one of the FY 2009 grantees requested only 4 years of 

funding for its project. 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

goals, objectives, and measures. 

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: 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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

J-66

Program Measures: Previously-developed measures for this objective were aligned with the 

priority developed for the SPD FY 2006 competition. This priority, which has been used in 

awarding grants for the past 5 years, focused the program’s resources on providing professional 

development on scientific- or evidence-based instructional practices in areas such as reading, 

positive behavior supports, and Response to Intervention. Consistent with the priority, the 

measures were designed to assess the change in the percentage of:

• personnel receiving professional development on scientific- or evidence-based 

instructional practices, 

• professional development activities on scientific- or evidence-based instructional practices 

that were carried out by the SPD projects, and

• professional development activities focused on scientific- or evidence-based 

instructional/behavioral practices that are sustained through on-going and comprehensive 

practices. 

Additional Information: Grantees who were funded under this priority in grant competitions for 

fiscal years 2006 through 2010 have been required to report information on these measures in 

their Annual Performance Report (APR), beginning with the report for the second year of the 

project, and in their final report. The methodology developed for assessing performance on the 

program measures and the efficiency measure requires the use of expert panels to review 

information reported in the APR. However, panel reviews have not been conducted because 

SPD funds cannot be spent for purposes other than grants to States and to pay the cost of peer 

review of grant applications, and other resources have not been available. 

Although panel reviews were not conducted, an objective assessment of the SPD program’s 

performance data collection and reporting was conducted in FY 2009 as a part of Department's 

Data Quality Initiative (DQI). In the first phase of the assessment, the contractor reviewed the 

procedures in place to assess performance on the SPD measures that use grantee APRs as the 

data source. In the second phase, the contractor assessed whether the data provided in the 

APRs are appropriate for comparing and aggregating across grantees, and particularly, whether 

the APRs provide valid information for analysis and represent an acceptable original data 

source. To answer this question the contractor examined a sample of 19 (of a possible 20) 

2009 SPD APR reports for grantees who were funded in 2005, 2006, and 2007. The contractor 

examined the variability and quality of the data reported on three of the program’s annual 

measures. 

In its report, the contractor documented the challenges of implementing the procedures in place 

to assess performance. They found that grantees included activities under the same measures 

that vary considerably in their nature and that the level of the detail within the reports is not 

consistent enough to allow coding and comparison of counts across grantees. For example, 

descriptions were provided of many different types of activities, including coaching, 

conferences, BA and MA coursework, distance learning programs, invited speakers, meetings, 

mentoring, module, multi-day trainings, scholarships and tuition reimbursement, webinars, and 

workshops. In addition, data reported on the number of personnel trained ranged from 8 in one 

State to 6,605 in another. Both these States reported that 100 percent of the personnel 

receiving professional development through the SPD program received training based on 

scientific- or evidence-based instructional practices, illustrating how the raw numbers underlying 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

J-67

the performance measures may reflect very different levels of effort and scope. Finally, some 

States did not provide the requested performance data. 

In fiscal year 2011, the Department replaced these measures with new ones that we believe are 

better aligned 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 revised measures assess the change in the 

percentage of SPD-funded initiatives that meet the:

• benchmarks for use of evidence-based professional development practices in years two to 

five;

• benchmark for improvement in implementation in their third through fifth years; and

• funding targets to sustain SPD-supported practices. (Efficiency Measure)

The draft rubric developed for reporting and assessing performance on the first measure is 

based on the 4 domains of professional development (selection, training, coaching, and 

performance assessment) and includes 6 components adapted from the work by the National 

Implementation Research Network, Learning Forward, and relevant experts such as Thomas 

Guskey. This rubric will be used by panels of Federal reviewers in evaluating project 

performance. SPD project directors and evaluators have been involved throughout the process. 

The new measures are being implemented in the project year that began October 1, 2011. 

Performance data and other information obtained in the first year will be used to refine the 

measures, methodology, and scoring, as well as to set performance targets. 

Objective: Implement strategies that are effective in meeting the requirements described in 

section 612(a)(14) of IDEA to take measurable steps to recruit, hire, train and retain highly 

qualified personnel in areas of greatest need to provide special education and related services. 

Measure: In States with SPD projects that have special education teacher retention as a goal, 

the percentage of highly qualified special education teachers who have continued to work in the 

area(s) for which they were trained for at least 2 years after participating in SPD activities 

designed to retain highly qualified special education teachers. 

Additional Information: To assess performance on this measure, SPD projects that have 

special education teacher retention as a goal were instructed to report retention data in their 

final performance report. The Department is unable to assess performance on this measure for 

the first cohort of 8 SPD grantees whose project periods ended in FY 2010. Only 3 of these 8 

projects had teacher retention as a goal and only Alaska and Maine were successful in 

collecting retention data.

The Alaska SPD project that concluded in FY 2010 provided the following information on its 

teacher retention activities in its final performance report. The SPD-supported Alaska Special 

Educators Mentoring Project (ASMP) recruited and trained mentor teachers to provide 

professional development support to early career special education teachers during their first 2 

years of teaching. The results for the first cohort of teachers, who began their participation in 

the ASMP in the 2005-2006 school year, indicate that 69 percent continued teaching special 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: State personnel development

J-68

education in the Alaska public school system after 2 years (2007-2008) and 53 percent were still 

teaching in the Alaska public school system after 4 years (2009-2010). State data indicates 

that 41 percent of new special education teachers leave the Alaskan school system after 4 

years. Alaska plans to continue to follow the later cohorts of teachers who participated in the 

project. 

The Maine SPD project provided the following information on its teacher retention activities in its 

fiscal year 2012 final report. Extended Teacher Education Program (ETEP) Unified is a 2-year 

program leading to dual certification in both regular and special education at the University of 

Southern Maine. The ETEP program has maintained a list of graduates over the past 5 years 

who are still working as evidence of retention. Of the 97 students who completed the ETEP 

program from 2006 to 2010, 77 graduates are currently employed in educational settings. 

The measure for this objective has been slightly revised. The new measure is:

• The percentage of States that have retention of highly qualified special education teachers 

as a goal that reach their targets for retention of special education teachers 2 years after 

their initial participation in SPD activities.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-69

Technical assistance and dissemination

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 0 1

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

 Change

from 2012

$46,781 2 $46,7812 3 $46,781 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011. The Administration proposes to continue funding in 

FY 2014 through appropriations language. 2 Excludes $8,000 thousand from the funds provided for this program in FY 2012 and FY 2013, which the 

Department is using to support the Special Olympics. For FY 2014, the Administration requests funding under a 

separate line item for Special Olympics. For comparability, FY 2012 and FY 2013 funding for Special Olympics is 

shown in the Special Olympics activity. 3 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Technical Assistance and Dissemination program is the Department’s primary vehicle 

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for providing educators, 

policymakers, other service providers, and parents of children with disabilities with information 

on effective practices for meeting the needs of children with disabilities and their families. The 

program makes competitive awards to provide technical assistance, support model 

demonstration projects, disseminate useful information, and implement activities that are 

supported by scientific research. These awards are intended to improve services provided 

under the IDEA, including the practices of professionals and others involved in providing 

services that promote academic achievement and improve results for children with disabilities. 

A majority of the grants currently funded under the Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

program support technical assistance centers that focus on a particular topic, population, or age 

range, such as early intervening services, dispute resolution, early childhood, college- and 

career-readiness, and positive behavioral interventions and supports. Most centers use a 

service model that provides three levels of technical assistance: intensive/sustained, 

targeted/specific, and general/universal. At the intensive/sustained level, a handful of States 

receive on-site, ongoing planned assistance designed to reach an outcome desired by the 

recipient. Through targeted/specific services, centers support activities based on the topical or 

technical needs common to multiple recipients and can be one-time or short-term events such 

as consultation services or presentations at conferences. The centers also provide 

general/universal technical assistance services that permit a broader audience to access 

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

made available on center websites. Most activities supported through this program are 

designed to address the needs of a variety of audiences. While these audiences vary, in 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-70

general, they include teachers, related services personnel, early intervention personnel, 

administrators, parents, and individuals with disabilities. 

In addition to facilitating the adoption of model practices, technical assistance and dissemination 

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

technical assistance and information are needed, preparing or ensuring that materials are 

prepared in formats that are appropriate for a wide variety of audiences, making technical 

assistance and information accessible to consumers, and promoting communication links 

among consumers. 

The technical assistance and dissemination activities supported through this program are based 

on the best information available. One source of the scientifically-based research findings that 

are used to inform technical assistance and dissemination activities is the What Works 

Clearinghouse in the Institute of Education Sciences. This is particularly true in cases where 

there is alignment between the topical focus of a center and work being supported through the 

What Works Clearinghouse, such as dropout prevention. 

The duration of awards varies with the award's purpose. Most individual awards are made for a 

period of 5 years.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2009..................................................................................... $48,549

2010.......................................................................................49,549

2011.......................................................................................48,806 

2012....................................................................................... 46,7811

2013....................................................................................... 46,7811 2

_________________

1

 The amount shown for FY 2012 and FY 2013 excludes $8,000 thousand in funds used to support the Special 

Olympics. Funds are requested in FY 2014 in the Special Olympics Activity. 2 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2014, the Administration is requesting $46.78 million for the Technical Assistance 

and Dissemination (TA&D) program, the same level as FY 2012. The request includes about 

$12.1 million (including peer review costs) for new technical assistance and dissemination 

projects, and $34.6 million for continuation projects.

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. TA&D activities combine the identification and 

dissemination of evidence-based practices with an effort to build capacity at the State and local 

levels to implement, sustain, and scale-up such practices. These activities have facilitated the 

adoption and spread of evidence-based practices such as positive behavioral interventions and 

supports (PBIS), which have been implemented in over 16,000 schools nationwide. The funds 

requested for new awards would support Regional Resource Centers to provide technical 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-71

assistance to help States and local educational agencies (LEAs) meet requirements of IDEA 

and connect them to resources in the TA&D network. 

The Department’s new awards in FY 2014 will continue ongoing efforts to maximize the impact 

of TA&D investments through fewer but larger awards in areas of greatest need. For example, 

the Department plans to fund a Transition to College and/or Careers Center that will consolidate 

the work of three previous centers (Transition to College and Careers Project, Dropout 

Prevention Center, and the Post-School Outcomes Center) that provide services to support 

college and career readiness. 

Continuation funding would be provided for a variety of projects, including those that focus on 

particular topics, age ranges of children, and student needs or disabilities. These include, for 

example: 

Projects focusing on particular topical areas:

Support for the Comprehensive Centers administered by the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education (OESE) – OSEP will provide $750,000 for activities related to the 

Comprehensive Centers in 2014. A portion of the funds will be used to supplement the 

Comprehensive Center on Effective Teachers and Leaders. The Comprehensive Center on

Effective Teachers and Leaders will use the OSEP funds to support the Center’s work on 

developing effective teacher evaluation systems for special education personnel as part of 

the Center’s overall work on teacher evaluation.

Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) – CADRE provides 

SEAs and Part C Lead Agencies with resources that can help them in effectively 

implementing a range of dispute resolution options, including strategies that other SEAs and 

Part C Lead Agencies are using to address the State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual 

Performance Review (APR) indicators related to dispute resolution. CADRE helps ensure 

that parents and families get the information they need about various methods for resolving 

disputes and helps avoid costly adversarial due process hearings. 

Projects focusing on children with disabilities by age or grade:

Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center – This center provides technical assistance to 

States to help them develop early childhood data systems. Its focus is on helping States 

develop the capacity to use data for program improvement to improve early learning 

outcomes, to enable more data-based decision making, and to support programs or 

practices with strong or moderate evidence of effectiveness. 

Projects focusing on children with particular needs:

National Center for Students with Disabilities Who Require Intensive Interventions – This center 

provides technical assistance on and dissemination of evidence-based intensive 

interventions for students with persistent learning or behavioral difficulties. This center also 

works with LEAs to identify and enhance the system components that promote the 

implementation and sustainability of such interventions.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-72

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Program Funding:

Specialized technical assistance and 

Dissemination:

zed technical assistance and dissemi nation:New $4,900 $7,27010

zed technical assistance and dissemi nation: Continuation 4,958 8,000 $11,741

Specialized technical assistance and dissemi nation: Subtotal 9,858 15,270 11,741 

Model demonstration centers:

Model demonstration centers: New 1,183 0 1,200

Model demonstration centers: Continuation 2,431 2,916 2,733

Model demonstration centers: Subtotal 3,614 2,916 3,933

Regional/Federal Resource Centers:

Regional/Feder al Resource Centers: New 0 0 7,683

Regional/Feder al Resource Centers: Continuation 7,735 7,756 0 

Regional/Feder al Resource Centers: Subtotal 7,735 7,756 7,683 

Early childhood technical assistance:

Earl y childhood technical assistance: New 6,416

2

0 0

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Continuation 800 1,784 4,500

Earl y childhood technical assistance: Subtotal 7,216 1,784 4,500 

Secondary, transition and postsecondary technical 

assistance:

 on and postsecondar y technical assistance: New 0 665 2,485

 on and postsecondar y technical assistance: Continuation 3,900 3,200 1,300

Secondar y, transiti on and postsecondar y technical assistance: Subtotal 3,900 3,865 3,785 

Technical assistance for children who are both 

deaf and blind:

 ce for children who ar e both deaf and blind: New 0 11,350 0

 ce for children who ar e both deaf and blind: Continuation 11,350 0 11,350

Technical assistance for children who ar e both deaf and blind: Subtotal 11,350 11,350 11,350 

_________________

1

 About $1,764 thousand of these funds will be used to pay 2014 continuation costs. 2

 About $2,716 thousand of these funds will be used to pay 2013 continuation costs.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-73

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) (continued)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Transfers to Elementary and Secondary 

Education for comprehensive centers:

 New $750 0 0

 Continuation 0 $750 $750

 Subtotal 750 750 750

Federal technical assistance, technical assistance

on data analysis, State, and Federal 

information exchange, other:

: SISEP Center (grant)1 1,100 1,100 1,100

: Leadership Conference contract 0 490 490

: ACDM contract2 665 675 650

: Performance Measures contract 87 89 90

: CIPP contract3 47 135 135

: Annual Report to Congress contract 344 454 454

 Subtotal 2,243 2,943 2,919

 New, Subtotal 1,531 625 650

 Continuation, Subtotal 712 2,318 2,269

Peer review of new award applications: 115 147 120

Total program funding:

New 14,780 19,910 12,018 

Continuations 31,886 26,724 34,643

Peer review 115 147 120

Total 46,781

4

46,781

4 5

46,781

_________________

1 State Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices Center. 2 Analysis, Communications, Dissemination, and Meetings contract. 3 Center to Improve Project Performance contract. 4 Excludes $8,000 thousand for the Special Olympics in FY 2012 and FY 2013.

5 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-74

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 2014 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.

Six performance measures have been developed for the Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination program. Three of these measures are annual measures, two are long-term, and 

the last is a measure of efficiency.

Annual Measures: The three annual measures deal with the quality, relevance, and usefulness 

of products and services provided by the program. These measures were developed as part of 

an effort to make measures relating to technical assistance and dissemination activities more 

consistent Departmentwide. However, the measures have been adapted to reflect the unique 

purposes of the TA&D program. Targets for 2011 and beyond were revised in 2010 to reflect 

strong performance that exceeded targets. 

The actual data and targets for these measures were adjusted in the FY 2012 Congressional 

Justification from prior year Congressional Justifications to more accurately reflect the 

performance in the year that the activity took place, in this case the year the product or service 

was developed or delivered. In previous years, the Department reported data by the year in 

which those data were collected.

For each of the three annual performance measures that follow, data are collected and 

analyzed by a contractor, using expert panels of reviewers who assess grant implementation by 

reviewing a sample of products and services developed by grantees against a listing of 

evidence-based practices in key target areas that have been identified by the Department as 

critical. The sample of grantees included in this measure for each year consists of 

approximately 22 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, 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-75

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 product is selected to be reviewed. Products and services are divided into 

the categories of policy and practice. Items that are considered to be in the area of practice are 

reviewed by the science panel, and policy items are reviewed by the State representative 

stakeholder panel. 

Panels of experts review all products and services and score them based on an OSEPdesigned 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 technical assistance and dissemination center products 

and services that received an average quality rating of 6 or better, out of 9 possible points, by 

the total number of products and services reviewed. The Department performs the same 

calculation for the State Deaf-Blind grantees, assigns weights to each of these calculations to 

correspond to the proportion of total program funds expended in each area, and then adds the 

figures together to produce an overall quality rating for the program. The specific rubric used to 

assess products and services for each measure is identified below in the Additional Information 

section following the Measure.

Measure: The percentage of Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services 

deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified to review the 

substantive content of the products and services.

Year Target Actual

2009 77 87

2010 78 85

2011 90 91

2012 92

2013 94

2014 95

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 6 or higher out of 9 possible points to be of high quality.

Prior to 2009, grantees had not been fully compliant in submitting products for review. In 2009, 

the first year in which all sampled grantees submitted products and services for review, 

previously non-compliant grantees that may have had, on average, lower quality products and 

services were included in the sample, which may explain a decrease in 2009 and 2010 from the 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-76

2008 performance. However, actual performance has exceeded performance targets for this 

measure over the past 3 years. This suggests grantees better understand the expectations for 

the quality of products and services they provide. The Department will continue to monitor 

individual grantees receiving relatively low scores more aggressively to ensure these grantees 

take steps to improve over time. 

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

2009 94 96

2010 94 100

2011 94 100

2012 95

2013 95

2014 95

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 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 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 6 or higher of 9 possible points.

Overall performance under this measure has been strong in every year for which data have 

been collected. Since the performance data for 2010 and 2011 indicate that all products and 

services are relevant to the needs of practitioners, the Department seeks to maintain current 

levels of performance for this measure and will monitor any individual grantees that receive 

lower scores more aggressively to ensure that these grantees take steps to improve the 

relevance of their products and services.
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-77

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

2009 52 85

2010 86 88

2011 89 93

2012 92

2013 95

2014 95

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 6 or higher of 

9 possible points.

Actual performance at the program level far exceeded established targets through 2009 and 

suggests that grantees have made substantial progress in ensuring that the products and 

services they provide are useful. To ensure that grantees continue to improve their 

performance under this indicator, the Department will monitor more aggressively any individual 

grantees that receive relatively lower scores to ensure that they take steps to improve over time.

Long-term Measures: The Department has established two long-term measures for this 

program. Data for the following measures will be collected every 2 years: 

• 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 began developing a 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-78

methodology, and will use the results to continue to refine the measure and set a 

performance target for future years. 

• 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.

In 2009, the first year data were collected for this measure, 79 percent of districts and 

agencies sampled were implementing evidence-based practices. In 2011, this figure 

increased to 86 percent of districts and agencies sampled. The Department used this data 

to develop a target of 86 for 2013, and will aggressively monitor any individual grantees that 

receive relatively lower scores to ensure that they take steps to improve over time.

Measure: The percentage of school districts and service agencies receiving technical 

assistance and dissemination services regarding scientifically- or evidence-based practices for 

infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities that implement those practices

Year Target Actual

2009 79

2011 86

2013 86

Efficiency Measures

The Department has developed a common efficiency measure for OSEP programs that provide 

technical assistance. The measure is “the cost per unit of technical assistance.” The TA&D 

program uses a slightly modified “cost per unit of target audience,” which divides the total cost 

of a product or service by the number of target audience units that receive the technical 

assistance. A target audience unit may be an individual, such as a teacher, or an organization, 

such as a State educational agency. To calculate this measure, the Department uses the cost 

per unit data of a product and a service developed in the most recent fiscal year from a sample 

of approximately 22 TA&D centers and 10 State Deaf-Blind programs each year. 

Since 2008, the first year of data collection, the Department has struggled to produce a reliable 

cost per unit of target audience results. Due to concerns about data quality, compliance, and 

methodology, the Department has since enhanced guidance and changed methodologies. 

Beginning in 2009, the Department realized that aggregate data were not useful because the 

cost of providing technical assistance varies significantly based on the sample and decided 

instead to disaggregate the cost per unit based on three levels of intensity of technical 

assistance (intensive/sustained, targeted/specific, and general/universal). In 2009, the cost per 

unit was $1,556, which subsequently rose to $5,789 in 2010, and fell to $651 in 2011. These 

variable results demonstrate the lack of reliability in the current measure and a need for an 

improved methodology. The Department is exploring different alternatives to evaluate the 

efficiency of TA&D investments and is developing a new measure to be piloted in 2013. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION

National activities: Technical assistance and dissemination

J-79

Other Performance Information

In connection with the ongoing National Assessment of IDEA, the Institute of Education 

Sciences (IES) launched an 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 evaluation, which 

started in August 2009, will be conducted over a 5-year period. This evaluation will inform 

policymakers and practitioners about (a) the nature of the technical assistance services 

provided by TA&D grantees, (b) the experiences of SEAs and LEAs that interact with such 

grantees, (c) 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. 

The evaluation addresses these research questions using data gathered from OSEP, through 

EDFacts1

, and through new surveys of TA&D grantees, SEA officials responsible for IDEA 

implementation, and school district special education directors. The final report is scheduled to 

be published in 2014.

_________________

1

 EDFacts is a U. S. Department of Education initiative to put performance data at the center of policy, 

management and budget decisions for all K-12 education programs. EDFacts centralizes performance data supplied 

by K-12 State educational agencies (SEAs) with other data assets, such as financial grant information, within the 

Department to enable better analysis and use in policy development, planning and management. EDFacts relies on 

the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN), a centralized portal through which States submit their educational 

data to the U.S. Department of Education.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-80

Personnel preparation

National activities: Personnel preparation

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 2, Sections 661 and 662) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 0 1

Budget Authority:

2012 2013

footnote

2014

Change

from 2012

$88,299 $88,299 2 $85,799 -$2,500 _________________

1

 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2012. The Administration proposes to continue funding in 

FY 2014 through appropriations language.

2

 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

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 highly 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 Secretary is required to make competitive grants that support training activities in a few 

high priority areas, including: general personnel development and preparing beginning special 

educators, personnel serving children with low incidence disabilities, and leadership personnel.

Personnel Development. This broad authority requires the Secretary to support at least one of 

the following activities: (a) promoting partnerships and collaborative personnel preparation and 

training between institutions of higher education (IHEs) and local educational agencies (LEAs), 

(b) developing, evaluating, and disseminating innovative models for the recruitment, induction, 

retention, and assessment of highly qualified teachers, (c) providing continuous training and 

professional development to support special education and general education teachers and 

related services personnel, (d) developing and improving programs for paraprofessionals to 

become special educators, (e) promoting instructional leadership and improved collaboration 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-81

between general and special education, (f) supporting IHEs with minority enrollment of not less 

than 25 percent, and (g) developing and improving programs to train special educators to 

develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders.

Beginning Special Educators. The Secretary also is required to provide support to beginning 

special educators. Specifically, the Secretary is required to make at least one award to: 

(a) enhance and restructure existing teacher education programs or develop teacher education 

programs that prepare special education teachers by incorporating an extended clinical learning 

opportunity, field experience, or supervised practicum (e.g., an additional 5th year), or (b) create 

and support teacher-faculty partnerships between LEAs and IHEs (e.g., professional 

development schools) that provide high-quality mentoring and induction opportunities with 

ongoing support for beginning special educators or in-service support and professional 

development opportunities.

Personnel to Serve Children with Low Incidence Disabilities. Awards to support personnel to 

serve children with low incidence disabilities are designed to help ensure the availability of 

quality personnel in this area by providing financial aid as an incentive to the pursuit of careers 

in special education, related services, and early intervention. Under this authority, the term “low 

incidence disabilities” primarily refers to visual or hearing impairments and significant intellectual 

disabilities, as well as children with intensive educational needs across all disabilities.” In 

carrying out this authority, the Secretary is required to support activities that benefit children with 

low incidence disabilities, such as: preparing personnel; providing personnel from various 

disciplines with interdisciplinary training that will contribute to improvements in early intervention 

and educational outcomes for children with low incidence disabilities; and preparing personnel 

in the innovative uses of technology to enhance educational outcomes for children with low 

incidence disabilities, and to improve communication with parents.

Leadership Personnel. Leadership preparation activities focus on improving results for students 

with disabilities by ensuring that leadership personnel in both regular and special education 

have the skills and training to help students with disabilities achieve to high standards. Under 

this authority, leadership personnel may include a variety of different personnel, such as teacher 

preparation and related service faculty, administrators, researchers, supervisors, and principals. 

Authorized activities include preparing personnel at the graduate, postgraduate, and doctoral 

levels, and providing interdisciplinary training for various types of leadership personnel.

All Personnel Preparation competitions emphasize the value of incorporating best practices, as 

determined through research, evaluations, and experience. These include practices related to 

personnel training and professional development, as well as the provision of special education, 

related services, and early intervention services.

While individuals and students are not eligible for awards under the Personnel Preparation 

program, many grantees are required to use at least 65 percent of their award(s) for student 

support (e.g. tuition, stipends, and payment of fees). Students who receive financial assistance 

from projects funded under the program are required to pay back such assistance, either by 

working for a period of time after they complete their training in the area(s) for which they 

received training, or by making a cash repayment to the Federal Government. In recent years, 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-82

approximately half of the program’s total appropriations have been used to support student 

scholarships. 

A large majority of grants awarded through this program goes to IHEs to provide scholarships to 

train additional special education 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 of materials and best 

practices. 

Additional support for personnel preparation activities is provided through the State Personnel 

Development Grants program, under which the Secretary makes competitive awards to help 

SEAs reform and improve in-service training and professional development activities for 

teachers, including the recruitment and retention of highly qualified 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) footnot

e

2009........................................................ .......................... $90,653

2010........................................................ ............................ 90,653

2011........................................................ ............................ 88,466

2012........................................................ ............................ 88,299

2013........................................................ ............................ 88,2991

_________________

1

 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2014, the Administration requests $85.8 million for the Personnel Preparation 

program, a reduction of $2.5 million from the fiscal year 2012 level. Of this amount, 

approximately $25.9 million would be used for new projects (including peer review costs of 

approximately $430,000) and $59.9 million would support the continuation of grants made in 

prior years. 

Program Funding Priorities

The Administration is currently exploring how funds available to support new activities under this 

program can be better targeted to support human capital systems that effectively prepare, 

recruit, support, evaluate, compensate and retain effective educators, and to address 

Administration priorities relating to the special education personnel workforce. Administration 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-83

priorities in this area include: addressing the inequities in the distribution of effective and highly 

qualified teachers (consistent with Section 14005(d)(2) of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act)); implementing high quality teacher and principal evaluation 

and support systems that take into account student growth and provide useful feedback to 

inform instruction and professional development; alleviating ongoing personnel shortages by 

targeting funds on training programs that provide for alternative certification and dual 

certification; increasing the supply of principals who are adequately prepared to ensure the 

provision of evidence-based services for children with disabilities; and improving the quality of 

teacher pre-service preparation programs through the use of data on the effectiveness of 

graduates in the classroom.

To address these priorities, beginning in fiscal year 2010, the Administration included provisions 

in its two largest competitions in this program to encourage grantees to provide scholar 

practicum experiences in high-poverty and/or low-performing schools and track and evaluate 

program graduates to ensure that they possess the knowledge and skills to meet the needs of 

students with disabilities in high-need schools. In the Program Improvement Grants 

competition, grantees were required to incorporate evidence-based practices into their curricula; 

provide field-based training in high-need local educational agencies, high-poverty schools, or 

low-performing schools; track graduates after they leave the program; and collect data on their 

students’ outcomes. Grantees were also encouraged to develop partnerships with other 

academic departments on campus to promote dual certification of special educators.

The Administration continued these efforts to bolster highly-effective human capital systems in 

fiscal year 2011 in a number of different grant areas by requiring 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 were required to track 

impacts on student growth and social, emotional, and academic development, as appropriate. 

In FY 2012, the Administration funded a new technical assistance center to, among other things, 

assist States and institutions of higher education in evaluating and improving personnel 

preparation programs by using data on outcomes for students with disabilities.

Additionally, while the funds available through this program are by no means sufficient to 

resolve ongoing nationwide personnel shortages in special education, they do contribute to: the 

on-going development of best practices; improvements in the overall quality of training offered; 

and the training of additional special education, related services, and leadership personnel in 

certain high priority areas where program investments have been targeted over time, such as 

training personnel to provide services to students with low incidence disabilities.

Data on Personnel Shortages

Available data relating to personnel shortages in special education, including State-reported 

data outlining the percentage of special education teachers fully certified in States and Outlying 

Areas, strongly support the need for continued Federal investment in this area. Persistent 

shortages of qualified personnel have been reported since the enactment of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1975. While States and local educational agencies across 

the country experience personnel shortages, recruiting and retaining special educators is 

particularly challenging for schools in high-poverty districts. Data from “Teacher Quality Under 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-84

No Child Left Behind: Final Report,” illustrate the challenge. According to this study, completed 

by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) for the Department in January 2009, 

approximately half of all districts in the country reported difficulty attracting highly qualified 

special education teachers in the 2006-2007 school year, while 90 percent of high-poverty 

districts reported the same difficulty (see http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/nclbfinal/index.html). 

In order to address shortages of highly qualified personnel, States often issue certification 

waivers to increase the pool of eligible teachers. According to data that States are required to 

report pursuant to Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA), through the 2006-2007 academic 

year, a higher percentage of certification waivers were issued to special education teachers 

(4 percent of all special education teachers) than teachers in any other subject area, indicating a 

larger shortage of highly qualified personnel in special education than in other fields. 

Additionally, nationwide, teachers who receive waivers of certification requirements are more 

likely to be employed in high-poverty districts (see 

http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/t2r7.pdf). These data show that there is a 

particularly significant need for qualified special education teachers in high-poverty districts. 

The National Assessment of IDEA also found that 51 percent of district Part B special education 

administrators reported that their districts routinely had difficulty finding qualified special 

application 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). 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 footnote2014

Program Funding:

Low incidence disabilities grants:

New Low i nci dence disabilities grants $2,313 $3,303 TBD

Continuations Low inci dence disabilities grants 12,085 11,931 1 $10,265

Subtotal Low i nci dence disabilities grants 14,398 15,234 TBD

Leadership training grants:

New Leadership trai ning grants 4,429 6,050 TBD

Continuations Leadership trai ning grants 11,730 12,506 10,129

Subtotal Leadership trai ning grants 16,159 18,556 TBD

Minority institution grants: 2

New Minority i nstituti on grants 1,868 2,466 TBD

Continuations Minority institution grants 9,258 7,456 1 6,715

Subtotal Minority institution grants 11,126 9,922 TBD
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-85

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) (continued)

Measures 2012 2013

footnote

2014

Program improvement grants:

New Pr ogram i mprovement grants $6,500 0 TBD

Continuations Program i mprovement grants 10,992 $15,313 $13,036

Subtotal Program i mprovement grants 17,492 15,313 TBD

Early childhood grants:

New Earl y childhood grants 4,853 4,823 TBD

Continuations Early chil dhood grants 15,174 15,784 1 14,335

Subtotal Early childhood grants 20,027 20,607 TBD

Other personnel development grants:

New Other personnel development grants 1,256 1,658 TBD

Continuations Other personnel devel opment grants 5,217 5,014 1 4,515

Subtotal Other personnel development grants 6,473 6,672 TBD

National Activities:

New nati onal acti vi ties 1,035 135 690

Continuations national acti vities 1,220 1,426 893

Subtotal national acti vi ties 2,255 1,561 1,583

Peer review of new award applications 369 434 430

Total program funding:

New total program funding 22,254 18,435 25,481

Continuations total program funding 65,676 69,430 59,888

Peer review 369 434 430

Total 88,299 88,299 85,799

________________

NOTES: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. Amounts listed as 

“TBD” in FY 2014 reflect topical areas for which decisions on FY 2014 competitions are not yet final. 1 The FY 2013 continuation awards totals include approximately $2,500 thousand in FY 2013 funds across all 

categories used to support FY 2014 continuation costs. 2 This category includes awards to institutions with minority enrollments of not less than 25 percent. Under 

IDEA, Part D, Sec. 681(c)(2), the Secretary is required to reserve not less than 2 percent of the total amount of funds 

appropriated under Part D, subparts 2 and 3, for outreach and technical assistance activities for historically Black 

colleges and universities and IHEs with minority enrollments of not less than 25 percent.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-86

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Administration is working to develop reliable and systematic ways to understand the effects 

of activities supported through the Personnel Preparation program. While State-reported data 

provide critical insights into the overall conditions in the market for special educators, such data 

do not shed much light on the effectiveness of particular personnel or training programs. 

Unfortunately, relatively little is known about the overall effectiveness of the Personnel 

Preparation program. 

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 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: To prepare service providers and leadership personnel in areas of critical need 

who are highly qualified to improve outcomes for children with disabilities. 

Objective 1: Improve the curricula of IDEA training programs to ensure that personnel 

preparing to serve children with disabilities are knowledgeable and skilled in practices that 

reflect the current knowledge base.

Objective 2: Increase the supply of teachers and service providers who are highly qualified for 

and serve in positions for which they are trained.

Objective 3: Enhance the efficiency of the expenditure of Federal dollars under the program.

Long-Term Performance Measures

The program has two long-term measures that are designed to provide information on the 

quality of the program by looking at the skills of scholars supported using program funds. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-87

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.

Year Target Actual

2009 91 65

2010 93

2011 95

2012 35

2013 35

2014 35

Additional Information: Through 2009, the Department collected data for this measure using 

a temporary collection methodology that involved surveying a small sample of the largest IHEs 

that receive program funds to support student training. This measure was calculated by dividing 

the total number of degree recipients from the 9 largest grantees that, according to those 

institutions, maintained employment for 3 years in the area(s) for which they were trained and 

who are highly qualified by the total number of degree recipients who graduated in any single 

year from those programs. For example, for 2009 the numerator is the total number of degree 

recipients who received degrees in 2004, maintained employment for 3 or more years in the 

area for which they were trained, and who are fully qualified under IDEA (n=280), and the 

denominator is the total number of degree recipients graduating from these 9 institutions in 2004 

(n=431). Because these data were collected from only 9 grantees, they are not comparable to 

the data presented in the other program performance measures. 

Beginning in 2010, the Department began obtaining data from all currently funded program 

grantees through the National Center for Service Obligation (NCSO). NCSO is the Office of 

Special Education Programs(OSEP)-supported contractor that tracks scholars post-graduation 

to determine whether they comply with the program’s service obligation requirement. NCSO 

began tracking graduates from institutions receiving grants in FY 2005, shortly after the 

Department assumed responsibility for this task under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Improvement Act (P.L. 108-446). However, because the NCSO did not have data on 2005 

graduates eligible for inclusion in this measure, data available for 2010 may not have been an 

accurate representation of the actual proportion of scholars who maintain employment for 3 or 

more years in the area for which they were trained.

Ideally, the Department would calculate this measure by determining the total number of 

scholars who had completed 3 or more years of acceptable service within 5 years of their 

graduation. However, because NCSO does not have data on 2005 graduates eligible for 

inclusion in this measure, the Department calculated the 2010 measure using the percentage of 

2006 graduates completing 3 or more years of service by the time of collection. As such, 

graduates had only 4 years to complete the 3 years of service as opposed to the 5-year window 

used in prior data collection cycles and in 2011. For 2010, no FY 2006 graduates reported 

having maintained employment for 3 or more years within the 4-year period and only one 

graduate reported having at least a 3-year service obligation. However, we do not know the 

extent to which these recipients may have actually maintained acceptable employment prior to 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-88

FY 2010 because data were unavailable for 154 of the 155 FY 2006 graduates who may have 

had a service obligation of 3 or more years. By FY 2011, the number of FY 2006 graduates for 

whom data were not available dropped from 154 to 42, reflecting increased outreach efforts 

from both OSEP and NCSO to program graduates and project directors to enter applicable 

information into the NCSO tracking system.

For 2011, data reported to NCSO indicated that 2 percent of the program graduates maintained 

acceptable employment for 3 or more years in the area for which they were trained and were 

fully qualified under IDEA. This measure was calculated by dividing the number of degree 

recipients who have reported to NCSO that they have maintained 3 or more years of acceptable 

employment in the areas for which they were trained and are fully qualified under IDEA (n=1) by 

the total number of degree recipients in 2006 who had service obligations of at least 3 years in 

length – including those who reported 3 or more years of acceptable service (n=1), those who 

reported less than 3 years of acceptable service (n=1), and those who reported no acceptable 

service (n=0) – and those for whom no data are available (n=42).

The Department believes that the data for 2011 underestimate actual performance on this 

measure given performance on other measures for this program (e.g. percent of graduates 

working in the field for which they were trained and are highly qualified under the IDEA), the 

small number of graduates eligible to be included in this measure, and the fact that project 

directors did not report any data for 19 percent of 2006 completers. From Annual Performance 

Report data, the Department has determined that 73 percent of the 2,232 program completers 

from 2006 were working in the area for which they were trained upon program completion, and 

the Department believes it is highly unlikely that such a large percentage of graduates would fail 

to maintain employment for 3 or more years. Additionally, given that 2011 estimates are based 

on 2006 program completers and fiscal year 2005 grantees were the first whose program 

completers were tracked by the Department, there are only a small number who actually have 

service obligations of at least 3 years (approximately 1 percent of the 181 completers who had 

data reported to NCSO). Additionally, given that the NCSO system was not able to collect data 

on program graduates until fiscal year 2008, there were a number of 2006 program completers 

who did not have any data in the Service Obligation Tracking System (approximately 19 percent 

of the 223 completers).
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-89

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

2009 45 85

2010 48 93

2011 51

2012 85

2013 85

2014 85

Additional Information: Grantees submit data annually through the Department Personnel 

Preparation Data Report (PPD) Web-based data collection (see: http://www.oseppdp.ed.gov). 

This measure presents information on the percentage of scholars completing programs who 

passed an independent exam, such as the Praxis II, that is designed to assess the knowledge 

and skills of special educators. This measure is calculated by dividing the total number of 

scholars who graduated in a given year and pass an exam demonstrating knowledge and skills 

in evidence-based practices for children with disabilities (2,143 students in fiscal year 2010) by 

the total number of students who completed training programs – including students who passed 

a test (2,143 students), students who did not pass a test or whose testing status or results are 

missing or unknown (28 students), and students for whom testing was not applicable 

(2 students). 

The Department does not currently require IHEs receiving program funds to use an independent 

assessment to assess the knowledge and skills of individuals graduating from institutions 

supported with program funds. Historically, actual data and targets for this measure have been 

unusually low because, while all scholars receiving program funds are included in the 

denominator, a substantial number of those scholars (approximately 908 out of 2,712, or 

33 percent, in fiscal year 2008) did not participate in independent assessments according to 

grantees. While these scholars attend programs at IHEs located in States that did not require 

graduates to pass an independent assessment to measure the knowledge and skills of 

graduates, the Department has worked closely with grantees to improve data collection on 

graduates who take other, non-required assessments and to ensure that data on nonstandardized measures of knowledge and skills are reported by grantees (such as an oral 

examination administered by faculty at the IHE). 

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. 

While several years of data have been collected for most of these annual measures, the 

Department recently recalculated all years of actual performance to ensure that the appropriate 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-90

subcategories of “unknowns” were included in the denominators. In most cases, because the 

actual data changed substantially, new targets also had to be established. These measures 

are:

Measure: Percentage of projects that incorporate scientifically- or evidence-based practices in 

their curricula.

Year Target Actual

2009 65 91

2010 80 100

2011 90 74

2012 95

2013 90

2014 90

Additional Information: Data are collected and analyzed by a contractor using a panel of 5 to 

7 experts, who review a randomly selected sample of 50 percent of grantee course syllabi 

submitted by funded applicants in the same cohort of grantees. Syllabi, which are taken from 

grantee applications, are reviewed for the inclusion of between 5 and 7 scientifically- or 

evidence-based practices in key target areas that have been identified by the Department as 

critical for all projects -- including assessment, behavior, inclusive practices, instructional 

strategies, literacy, transition, and early childhood, as appropriate. The score for every 

individual syllabus is the sum of the evidence-based practices observable in that syllabus. In 

order to meet the standard for incorporating evidence-based practices, all evidence-based 

practice areas reviewed must be identifiable in the syllabus.

In the fiscal year 2012 review, 31 syllabi from fiscal year 2011 grantees were included from the 

following types of projects: early childhood (6 syllabi scored), leadership (11 syllabi scored), low 

incidence (5 syllabi scored), minority institutions (5 syllabi scored), secondary transition 

(3 syllabi scored), and program improvement (6 syllabi scored). 

The increase in performance under this measure in recent years is due, in part, to a concerted 

effort by the Department both to ensure adequate technical assistance to grantees and 

sufficient instructions to reviewers. Beginning with the review of fiscal year 2009 grantees, the 

Department provided substantial guidance to reviewers to assist them in systematic evaluation 

of the curricula to ensure that all evidence-based practices were recognized and properly 

credited. Additionally, the Department worked closely with grantees to ensure that syllabi were 

properly updated and reflected the most current practice and evidence base used in their 

courses. Performance under this measure in 2009 and 2010 was well above established 

targets, leading OSEP to increase the criteria for a set of syllabi to be identified as “evidencebased” across all five domains for the review of 2011 grantees – from 50 percent panel 

agreement to at least two-thirds. As a result, performance under this measure decreased from 

the prior year. However, the Department believes that this higher standard will ultimately lead to 

better data on this measure and the quality of projects funded under this program.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-91

The Department will continue to provide technical assistance to grantees regarding the 

incorporation of evidence-based practices into their syllabi and to reviewers regarding the 

evaluation process. 

Measure: Percentage of scholars who exit training programs prior to completion due to poor 

academic performance.

Year Target Actual

2009 1.9 2.0

2010 1.9 1.9

2011 1.9

2012 1.9

2013 1.9

2014 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 1.9 percent of all scholars receiving program funds exited their training programs 

early due to poor academic performance in 2010, down from 2.0 percent in 2009, but still higher 

than 1.4 percent in 2007 and 1.6 percent in 2008. This measure is calculated by dividing the 

total number of scholars exiting their training program in fiscal year 2010 due to poor academic 

performance (n=52) and dividing it by the total number of scholars completing a training 

program in fiscal year 2010 (n=2,307) and the number of scholars exiting their training program 

prior to completion for any reason (n=498).

A low number of scholars exiting their training programs early could reflect either a strong 

recruitment effort by IHEs to ensure high quality students receive Federal scholarship funds or a 

strong student support network in programs receiving Federal funds. While there is still room 

for improvement, IHEs on average seem to be adequately ensuring that scholars do not exit 

training programs prior to completion due to poor academic performance. However, despite the 

reasonably strong performance of grantees on this measure, the Department believes that this 

measure is essential to maintain to ensure that grantees continue to maintain high standards 

when recruiting scholars.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-92

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who are working in the area(s) for which 

they are trained upon program completion.

Year Target Actual

2009 78 75

2010 81 78

2011 84

2012 84

2013 85

2014 85

Additional Information: Grantees submit data annually through the PPD Web-based data 

collection. This measure is calculated by dividing the total number of degree and certification 

recipients who were working in the area(s) for which they received training at the completion of 

the program by all degree and certification recipients who were employed in their area of 

training, recipients who were not employed in their area of training, recipients for whom 

grantees did not know if they were employed upon program completion, recipients who were not 

employed, and recipients for whom employment data were missing. Individuals who received 

only an endorsement are excluded from all calculations. Due to a coding error, prior year data 

had to be adjusted. Data for 2009 previously indicated 77 percent of degree/certification 

recipients were working in the area for which they were trained upon program completion.

Approximately 4 in 5 degree/certification recipients funded through this program work in the 

area for which they were trained upon graduation. However, it is difficult to determine the 

ultimate driver of this trend. The program has in place a service obligation requirement that 

mandates that degree recipients work in the field in which they were trained upon graduation or 

pay back the full amount of support received. Additionally, teaching assignments are not wholly 

at the discretion of the program’s graduates, but are instead largely at the discretion of LEAs 

and schools that may opt to place a teacher in an assignment that is out of area. Given the 

continuing impacts of the recession, shrinking local and State government tax bases, and the 

increased number of teacher layoffs, we are likely to see a number of teachers placed “out-offield” as LEAs attempt to cope with smaller numbers of personnel. With smaller local budgets 

and fewer LEAs hiring, program graduates may accept teaching positions outside of their field of 

training in order to secure employment with a view to transition to their area of expertise in a 

number of years. The Department is currently conducting a review to determine if those 

graduates who are not working in the area for which they were trained are nevertheless 

employed in special education or if they are working in non-special education placements. The 

Department is also considering additional steps to ensure that grantees more effectively recruit 

and train students who will work in the area for which they received training; to improve training 

courses and curricula to ensure that graduates are competitive in the market; and to promote 

high quality residency programs that help graduates build relationships with LEAs and increase 

their competitiveness.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-93

Measure: Percentage of degree/certification recipients who are working in the area(s) for which 

they are trained upon program completion and who are fully qualified under IDEA.

Year Target Actual

2009 74 72

2010 77 76

2011 80

2012 83

2013 83

2014 83

Additional Information: Grantees submit data annually through the PPD Web-based data 

collection. This measure is calculated by dividing the total number of non-leadership degree 

recipients who were working in the area(s) for which they received training at the completion of 

the program and who are highly qualified by all degree recipients who were employed, who 

were not employed, and for whom the employment status was not known, minus students 

working in positions for which the State does not have certification or licensure requirements. 

Note that the population included in calculations for this measure differs from the population 

included in the previous measure. While the denominator in the previous measure includes all 

students currently employed, not employed, and those for whom employment status was not 

known, the denominator here excludes students working in positions for which the State has no 

licensure or certification requirements. Additionally, scholars who received only an 

endorsement, as well as students who received leadership training, are excluded from all 

calculations because highly qualified status does not apply to these individuals. 

Due to a coding error, prior year data had to be adjusted. Data for 2009 previously indicated 

73 percent of degree/certification recipients were working in the area for which they were trained 

upon program completion and were fully qualified under IDEA.

As noted in the discussion of the previous measure, there are a number of reasons why 

degree/certification recipients funded through this program may not work in the area for which 

they were trained upon program completion. More importantly, the comparison of this measure 

to the previous one provides an important insight into the alignment of training programs 

supported under this program and the certification standards outlined in IDEA. Consistently, 

this measure has lagged behind the previous one by 4 to 5 percentage points, indicating that, 

even of those individuals who obtain employment in the area for which they were trained, a 

consistent subset do not meet the certification standards of the field despite program regulations 

that require program graduates to meet State certification and licensure standards. The 

Department is currently taking several steps to determine the full extent and cause of this 

shortfall and address it. Through updated data collection instruments employed in fiscal 

year 2011, the Department seeks to gather more information about the subset of scholars who 

do not meet State certification and licensure standards and the specific causes (e.g., not taking 

or failing State licensure exams, or a lack of appropriate coursework). In its grant application 

review process, the Department has provided greater direction to reviewers and applicants to 

ensure a more thorough review of course syllabi submitted by applicants to ensure that program 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-94

funds are used to support high quality programs. Additionally, through the program’s Preservice 

Training Improvement grants and a new technical assistance center funded in fiscal year 2012, 

the Department is providing support to a number of teacher and paraprofessional training 

programs to restructure their curricula to align with State standards for certification and 

accreditation.

Efficiency Measures

The Department established one efficiency measure for the Personnel Preparation program. 

This measure is: 

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

2009 $25,000 $27,398

2010 25,000 22,333

2011 25,000

2012 25,000

2013 25,000

2014 25,000

Additional Information: This measure links directly to the program’s annual performance 

measures, and should enable comparisons across grantees or sub-sets of similar grantees. 

The Department is currently working with a contractor to analyze grantee-level results to identify 

high performing institutions that other grantees can look to as examples for improving program 

performance. Grantee-level data will also be used to compare the relative efficiency of program 

grantees, both in relation to one another as well as in relation to other Federal programs that 

provide graduate level scholarships. 

The data used to calculate this measure come from the Department’s PPD Web-based data 

collection. The cost per degree/certification program recipient is calculated for individual 

cohorts of grantees by dividing the sum of all project costs supported with Federal funds (across 

all years of each individual scholar’s training) ($72,940,703 in fiscal year 2010) by the number of 

degree recipients who successfully completed funded training programs closing in that year and 

who are fully qualified (3,266 in 2010). Given the historical trends in this measure, the 

Department believes that 2009 represents an outlier, as is evidenced by the decline seen in 

2010.

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 

includes two separate components. The first is a study of IHEs that have applied for funds to 

train personnel under the program. This portion of the study is designed to: (1) collect 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Personnel preparation

J-95

descriptive data from all the funded and non-funded applicants to the FY 2006 and FY 2007 

competitions (approximately 185 funded and 265 non-funded), and (2) document changes to the 

funded applicants’ courses of study. 

A Web survey of Project Directors was conducted in fall 2009 with items addressing the 

following elements of individual courses of study: (1) status; (2) focus; (3) entry and completion 

requirements; (4) grant support for students; (5) enrollment and completion information; 

(6) standardized exit exam scores; (7) allocation of Personnel Preparation program grant funds; 

(8) information about program completers, and (9) changes to the funded course of study since 

the time of the application. A sample of changes made to funded courses of study is currently 

being rated by an expert panel. These changes include: (1) syllabi and assessments from 

newly created or substantially modified courses; (2) materials documenting new training units, 

modules, or fieldwork; (3) new mentoring programs; and (4) curriculum vitae of new faculty 

members. Members of the expert panel will review the documents representing each change 

and rate the quality of those changes. 

The second component of the evaluation is a study of the national centers funded under the 

program. This component of the evaluation is designed to: (1) document the products and 

services generated by the national centers; (2) produce a rough estimate of their costs; and 

(3) rate the quality, relevance, and usefulness of a sample of those products and services. The 

study of the national centers will include all 12 of the centers funded between 2001 and 2008. 

Following initial telephone interviews with center staff, an inventory was completed by center 

staff that cataloged the cumulative accomplishments of each center. Data from the inventory of 

products and services served as the basis for selecting a sample of each center’s products for 

review by an expert review panel, comprised of individuals with expertise relevant to the work of 

each center. Centers designated up to 10 percent of their products as signature works, which 

were sampled in a separate stratum. Once the products were sampled, center staff were asked 

to provide descriptive information about each and to submit all available materials relevant to 

the sampled products or services. Three experts are currently reviewing each product or 

service for quality, relevance, and usefulness. The expected release date of the report is late 

summer 2012.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-96

Parent information centers

National activities: Parent information centers

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 3, Sections 671-673)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

Change 

from 2012

$24,505 $24,5052 $24,505 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011. The Administration proposes to continue funding in 

FY 2014 under appropriations language. 2 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

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 projects: parent training and information centers, community 

parent resource centers, and technical assistance for parent centers.

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 the 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 have 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-97

multiple centers that serve designated counties. One center specifically serves the unique 

needs of military families and another center serves Native American families across the 

country.

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 the amount of their fiscal 

year 2007 grant. When the appropriation for the program increases, this formula ensures that 

centers in States with the greatest need and the lowest per capita funding receive more funds. 

Community parent resource centers are parent training and information centers, operated by 

local parent organizations, that help ensure that 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 other parent training and information centers in 

their States.

Technical assistance is authorized to assist parent training and information centers, including 

community centers, in areas such as coordinating parent training efforts, disseminating 

scientifically-based research and information, and the effective use of technology. These 

technical assistance services enhance the capacity of parent centers to serve parents 

effectively. The parent technical assistance center network maintains a Web site with a wide 

variety of information and materials for parents and professionals, as well as a directory of the 

parent centers (http://www.parentcenternetwork.org/).

In order to receive an award for a parent center, the IDEA requires that applicants must be a 

parent organization that has a board of directors, the majority of which must consist of parents 

of children with disabilities. The board must also include individuals with disabilities and 

individuals working in the fields of special education, related services, or early intervention. The 

parent and professional members of the board must be broadly representative of the population 

to be served, including low-income parents and parents of English learners.

While parent centers serve as direct resources for parents and families, they also act as referral 

points to other resources such as those available under the Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination program and from the Institute of Education Sciences. Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination activities are coordinated with Parent Information Centers program activities to 

ensure that parents participating in parent training projects as well as other parents have access 

to valid information that is designed to address their needs.

The budget periods for all three project types start on October 1 of the fiscal year following the 

award. Awards for community parent resource centers and parent training and information 

centers are made typically for a period of 3 to 5 years. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-98

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2009.................................................................................... $27,028

2010...................................................................................... 28,028

2011...................................................................................... 27,972

2012 ..................................................................................... 28,917

2013..................................................................................... 28,9171

_________________

1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s request for the Parent Information Centers program is $28.9 million, the 

same as the fiscal year 2012 level. Family involvement in children's learning is critical to 

achieving high-quality education. Decades of research show that positive school-family 

partnerships can be built to 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 parent centers help ensure that parents have the 

knowledge and skills to help their children with disabilities succeed. In addition to assisting 

parents to better understand the nature of their children's disabilities and their educational and 

developmental needs, the centers provide training and information on how parents can work 

with professionals serving their children. For parents of school-aged children, this includes 

participating with administrators and teachers in the development of their child’s individualized 

education programs (IEPs), as provided for by IDEA. For parents of infants and toddlers 

receiving early intervention services, it means participating with a multidisciplinary team in the 

development of individualized family service plans (IFSPs). Parent centers also serve as 

sources of information and training for hundreds of thousands of teachers and other 

professionals each year. 

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which includes provisions that affect all 

children, emphasizes the role of parents in education through provisions that stress shared 

accountability between schools and parents for high student achievement, educational options, 

local development of parental involvement plans, and building parents’ capacity for using 

effective practices to improve their children’s academic achievement. For a non-regulatory 

guidance document that provides a detailed overview of parent involvement in the context of 

ESEA, see: http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/parentinvguid.doc. The Administration’s 

proposal for the reauthorization of ESEA would further strengthen family engagement by 

doubling the amount of Title I, Part A funding that districts must reserve for family engagement 

and requiring districts to develop and implement comprehensive family engagement plans, as 

well as allowing States to fund programs that support family engagement and identify and 

disseminate best practices.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-99

Parent centers use a variety of mechanisms for providing information to 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 Office of Special 

Education Programs has worked with parent centers to improve their websites and make their 

resources available in languages other than English, particularly Spanish (see 

http://www.neparentcenters.org/glossary/index.html). 

The parent centers also play an important role in dispute resolution by explaining to parents the 

benefits of alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation, which States are 

required by IDEA to make available. Parent center staff attended or facilitated over 1,000 

alternative dispute resolution sessions last year. These alternative methods of dispute 

resolution can help avoid costly litigation. As part of that role, parent centers are required, if 

State educational agencies choose, to contract with those State educational agencies to provide 

individuals who will meet with parents to explain the IDEA-mandated mediation process.

The 2014 request includes $8.5 million for new awards to parent training and information 

centers, $14.5 million for continuing awards to these centers, $3.0 million for continuing 

community parent resource centers, and $2.7 million to fund continuation awards to provide 

technical assistance to centers. Together, these 108 centers provide training and information to 

over a million parents and professionals each year.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Program Funding:

Parent Training & Information Centers:

New: Parent Training & Info Centers $9,937 $487 $8,462

Continuations : Parent Trai ning & Info C enters 13,280 22,484 14,481

Subtotal: Par ent Trai ning & Info C enters 23,217 22,971 22,943

Community Parent Resource Centers:

New: Community Parent Resource Centers 1,100 0 0

Continuations: Communi ty Par ent R esource C enters 1,900 2,999 3,000

Subtotal: Community Parent Resource Centers 3,000 2,999 3,000

Technical Assistance Centers:

New: Technical Assistance 0 2,657 0

Continuations: Technical Assistance 2,484 0 2,657

Subtotal: Technical Assistance 2,484 2,657 2,657

________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-100

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) (continued)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Other (contracts):

New $58 $100 $92

Continuations: Other 105 150 160

Subtotal: Other 163 250 252

Peer Review of new award applications: 53 40 65

Total program funding:

New: Total 11,095 3,244 8,554

Continuations: Total 17,769 25,633 20,298

Peer Review: Total 53 40 65

Total 28,917 28,917 28,917

2014

Number of Projects:

Parent Training & Information Centers:

New: Parent Training & Info Centers 25 2 32

Continuations: Parent Training & Info Centers 46 68 40

Community Parent Resource Centers:

New: Community Parent Resource Centers 11 0 0

Continuations: Community Parent Resource Centers 19 30 30

Technical Assistance Centers:

New: Technical Assistance 0 8 0

Continuations: Technical Assistance 7 0 8

Other (contracts):

New 1 1 1

Continuations: Other 3 3 3

Total number of projects:

New: Total 37 11 33

Continuations: Total 75 101 81

Total 112 112 114

________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-101

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 2014 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.

Annual Measures

The three annual measures deal with the quality, relevance, and usefulness of products and 

services provided by the program. These measures were developed as part of a crossdepartmental effort to make measures relating to technical assistance and dissemination 

activities more consistent Departmentwide. However, the measures have been adapted to 

reflect the unique purposes of the Parent Information Centers program. Targets for 2011 

through 2014 have been established based on performance data from 2007 to 2010. The 

measures are:

Measure: The percentage of materials used by Parent Information Centers projects that are 

deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of qualified experts or individuals 

with appropriate expertise to review the substantive content of the products and services.

Year Target Actual

2009 60 84

2010 63 76

2011 76 89

2012 78 96

2013 80

2014 82
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-102

Additional Information: Data are collected and analyzed by a contractor, using expert panels 

of reviewers who assess grant implementation by reviewing a randomly selected sample of 

materials disseminated by centers for the purpose of training and informing parents. In an effort 

to ensure that the sample materials reviewed in 2012 were representative of all grantees, 1 

product and 1 service were drawn from a stratified random sample of community parent 

resource centers (CPRCs) and parent training and information centers (PTIs), for a total of 34 

products and 34 services reviewed. 

All products and services are reviewed and scored on the basis of a rubric, developed by the 

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), that is designed to yield ratings on the extent to 

which the content of submitted materials is: evidence-based, 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 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. 

High quality for any individual product or service is defined as a total score of 6 or higher of 9 

possible points. 

This measure is calculated by dividing the number of individual products and services that 

received an average quality rating of 6 or better (65) by the total number of products and 

services reviewed (68), multiplied by 100 percent. For 2012, this score was 96 percent 

(65/68 = .894 x 100% = 95.6%), which is an increase compared to 2011 and exceeds the target 

level. The Department is using the feedback from the expert panel to work with grantees to 

continue to improve their products and services. Data for fiscal year 2013 will be available in 

October 2013.

Measure: The percentage of Parent Information Centers products and services deemed to be 

of high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or practice by an independent 

review panel of qualified members of the Parent Information Centers target audience. 

Year Target Actual

2009 96 89

2010 96 98

2011 96 99

2012 96 100

2013 96

2014 97

Additional Information: Data are collected and analyzed by a contractor, using panels of 

special education parent stakeholders to review a randomly selected sample of materials 

disseminated by centers for the purpose of training and informing parents. In an effort to ensure 

that the sample materials reviewed in 2012 were representative, 1 product and 1 service were 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-103

drawn from a stratified random sample of CPRCs and PTIs, for a total of 34 products and 34 

services reviewed. 

All materials are reviewed and scored on the basis of a rubric, developed by OSEP, that is 

designed to yield ratings on the materials’ responsiveness to priority issues and challenges 

confronting the target groups. Specifically, the rubric is designed to yield ratings on the basis of 

the following three dimensions related to relevance: (1) Need (Does the content of the material 

attempt to solve an important problem or critical issue?); (2) Pertinence (Does the content of the 

material match the problem or issue facing the target group or groups?); and (3) Reach (To 

what extent is the content of the material applicable to diverse populations within the target 

group?). The total score for any individual 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 6 or higher of 9 possible points.

This measure is calculated by dividing the number of individual products and services that 

received an average relevance rating of 6 or better (68) by the total number of products and 

services reviewed (68), multiplied by 100 percent. For FY 2012, this score was 100 percent. 

(68/68 = 1.00 x 100% = 100%).

Based on the most recent years of data it appears that program grantees do a good job of 

ensuring that products and services are of high relevance to education and early intervention 

policy or practice. The actual percentage of materials judged to be of high relevance exceeded 

the target. The Department is using the feedback from the expert panel to work with grantees to 

improve their products and services and maintain the high standard achieved in 2012. Data for 

fiscal year 2013 will be available in October 2013.

Measure: The percentage of all Parent Information Centers products and services deemed to 

be useful by target audiences to improve educational or early intervention policy or practice. 

Year Target Actual

2009 95 86

2010 95 95

2011 95 92

2012 95 100

2013 96

2014 96

Additional Information: Data are collected and analyzed by a contractor, using a panel of six 

to eight parent stakeholders who assess grant implementation by reviewing a randomly selected 

sample of materials (n = 68) disseminated by the centers. In an effort to ensure that the sample 

materials reviewed were representative, 1 product and 1 service were drawn from a stratified 

random sample of 33 CPRCs and PTIs, for a total of 33 products and 33 services reviewed. 

All materials are reviewed and scored on the basis of a rubric, developed by OSEP, that is 

designed to yield ratings on the extent to which the content can be easily and quickly adopted or 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-104

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 in 

multiple settings to achieve the intended benefit?); and (3) Pertinence (Does the content of the 

material match the problem or issue facing the target group or groups?). 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 6 or higher of 

9 possible points. 

This measure is calculated by dividing the number of individual products and services that 

received an average usefulness rating of 6 or better (68) by the total number of products and 

services reviewed (68), multiplied by 100 percent. For FY 2012, this score was 100 percent. 

(68/68 = 1.00 x 100% = 100%). 

Based on the most recent years of data it appears that the program’s grantees generally 

produce products and services that are useful to target audiences. The actual percentage of 

materials judged to be of high relevance increased from the prior year and exceeded the target. 

The Department is using the feedback from the expert panel to work with grantees to improve 

their products and services and maintain the high standard achieved in 2012. Data for fiscal 

year 2013 will be available in October 2013.

Long-Term Measures

Two long-term measures have been developed for the program. Data are collected every 2 

years through an OSEP-supported survey of parents who had received services from the parent 

centers. In 2009, OSEP conducted an independent survey of the same population to test the 

validity of these measures. The survey found parents’ answers to questions were not 

significantly different from the original data and confirmed the accuracy of the data collection 

methods used for the following long-term measures:

Measure: The percentage of parents receiving Special Education Parent Information Centers 

services who promote scientifically- or evidence-based practices for their infants, toddlers, 

children and youth.

Year Target Actual

2009 74 79

2011 75 77

2013 76

Additional Information: Data are collected by the parent centers every 2 years using 

telephone interviews with 25 randomly selected parent stakeholders per center (n = 3,394). The 

National PTI Technical Assistance Center developed the survey. To calculate the measure, a 

weighted sum of the number of parents whose answers displayed an enhanced knowledge of 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-105

evidence-based practices is divided by the total number of parents who responded to four 

relevant survey questions. Baseline data for this relatively new measure were first collected in 

2007 and used to establish targets for later years.

Based on the most recent years of data it appears that program grantees do a reasonably good 

job of ensuring that parents receiving parent information centers services promote sound 

practices for their children. The Department uses the results of this measure and the annual 

quality measure to provide the centers with feedback on how they can better align their products 

and services with evidence-based practices. Data for fiscal year 2013 will be available in 

October 2013.

Measure: The percentage of parents receiving Special Education Parent Information Centers 

services who report enhanced knowledge of IDEA rights and responsibilities.

Year Target Actual

2009 85 91

2011 87 85

2013 89

Additional Information: Data are collected for this measure by the parent centers every 2 

years using telephone interviews with 25 randomly selected parent stakeholders per center 

(n = 3,294). The National PTI Technical Assistance Center developed the survey. To calculate 

the measure, a weighted sum of the number of parents whose answers displayed an enhanced 

knowledge of IDEA rights and responsibilities is divided by the total number of parents who 

responded to three relevant survey questions. The targets were established based on results 

from the survey in prior years.

Data for this measure suggest that most of the parents receiving services from the grantees 

believe they enhanced their understanding of their rights and responsibilities under IDEA. 

However, the actual percentage of parents who reported enhanced knowledge declined from 

last year and fell below the target level. Data for fiscal year 2013 will be available in October 

2013.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Parent information centers

J-106

Efficiency Measure

Measure: The Federal cost per unit of output provided by the Special Education Parent 

Training and Information Centers, by category.

Year Target Actual

2009 $2.24 $1.06

2010 2.24 1.13

2011 1.14 1.13

2012 1.12 1.26

2013 1.10

2014 1.08

Additional Information: The efficiency measure for the Parent Information Centers program is 

“the cost per output, by category, weighted by an intensity rating.” In 2012, the cost per unit of 

services for the program was $1.26, which exceeded the target level. The increase in cost per 

unit from 2011 to 2012 may have been caused by a drop in the number of visitors to the 

websites of parent centers or recipients of newsletters, which together count as one component 

of this measure. A small percentage drop in web traffic or newsletter recipients can cause a 

relatively large shift in efficiency because the absolute number of these activities is so large 

(greater than 19 million). Starting in 2011, targets were adjusted downward based on the 

consistent low level of the cost per unit from 2008 to 2010. Data for fiscal year 2013 will be 

available in October 2013.

The data for this measure are collected by a survey developed by the National PTI Technical 

Assistance Center. The measure is calculated by dividing the total value of all Federal funds in 

the Parent Information Centers program by the number of parents reported to be served under 

the program weighted by an index reflecting the intensity of the services provided 

($27,971,944/22,166,981 = $1.26). The intensity weights represent the amount of interaction 

and support required to render each type of service. High intensity services such as IEP 

facilitation meetings receive a weight of 4; medium intensity services such as group trainings 

and counseling phone calls receive a weight of 3 and 2, respectively; and low intensity services 

such as visits to parent center websites receive a weight of 1. However, these whole number 

intensity weights do not reflect precise estimates of the relative amounts of time and resources 

associated with different types of services. The Department has examined revising these 

weights, but an analysis of data and input from performance measures specialists and parent 

center directors found that the weights could have a wide range of possible values, depending 

on the mix of services and costs at each parent center. In light of these findings, the 

Department has kept the weights unchanged to preserve the simplicity and transparency of this 

measure.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-107

Education al Technolog y, M edia, and M aterials 

National activities: Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part D, Subpart 3, Section 674)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

Change 

from 2012

$29,588 $29,5882 $29,588 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011. The Administration proposes to continue funding in FY 

2014 through appropriations language. 2 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program (formerly known as the Technology 

and Media Services program) is the primary source of support for accessible technology and 

media-related activities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

Technology activities promote the development, demonstration, and use of technology, 

including products with universal design features. It includes activities such as research on 

using technology to improve learning and provide access to curricula, and technical assistance 

and dissemination activities to enhance the use of technology by parents and teachers. Media 

and materials activities include closed captioning, video description, the timely provision of 

books and other educational materials in accessible formats, and other activities that improve 

access to education for students with disabilities. 

The Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program ensures that educational media 

that are not otherwise required to be made accessible are available to students with disabilities. 

Despite the passage of the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 

which expanded the range of media that must be closed captioned and updated accessibility 

standards to include emerging Internet and mobile technologies, significant gaps in captioning 

coverage remain. Mandatory captioning still does not apply to video produced for classroom 

viewing rather than broadcast television or to video broadcast exclusively over the Internet. 

Funding for this program supports the captioning and nationwide distribution of thousands of 

titles of educational media per year. 

Video description consists of verbal depictions of key visual elements in a video or television 

program that are inserted into natural pauses in the spoken dialogue. These descriptions 

supplement the regular audio track of the program. They provide individuals with visual 

impairments access to television and other media that include visual images. Federal law only 

requires video description of 4 hours of television programming a week on each broadcast 

television network and the five most watched cable networks. All other video programming, 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

J-108

including increasingly popular Internet media, are not subject to description requirements. In 

2012, over 1,200 hours of educational video were described by grantees funded through this 

program. The IDEA requires that description and captioning funds be used only for programs 

that are suitable for use in a classroom setting. These funds may not be used to describe or 

caption news programs even when they are suitable for use in classrooms. 

Educational materials activities include maintaining the standard used in the preparation of 

electronic files suitable for efficient conversion into specialized accessible formats. The 

educational materials and related printed core materials provided by this program are written 

and published primarily for use in elementary and secondary schools for instructional purposes 

and are required by a State educational agency or local educational agency to be used by 

students with disabilities in the classroom. As such, the timely delivery of these materials 

supports 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. These activities can be accomplished more rapidly and 

cheaply than ever before due to recent advances in digital technologies. In 2012, this grantee 

provided over 1,180,000 accessible books and other materials at no cost to eligible students 

across the country.

The Department makes awards for projects throughout the fiscal year. The initial project 

periods of most awards start at the beginning of the fiscal year following the year of the 

appropriation. 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)

2009 .................................................................................... $38,615

2010 ...................................................................................... 43,973

2011 ...................................................................................... 28,644

2012 ...................................................................................... 29,588

2013 ...................................................................................... 29,588 1

_________________

1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s request for the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials program is 

$29.6 million, the same as the 2012 level. The fiscal year 2014 request would provide 

approximately $3.2 million for about 7 new awards and approximately $26.3 million for 31 

continuation projects. Projects funded under the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials 

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 that students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

J-109

education guaranteed for them under the IDEA. This program funds innovations in accessible 

technologies and new understandings of how these technologies can be effectively applied to 

increase academic achievement. The Administration believes that improved access and 

participation result in higher expectations and improved outcomes for children with disabilities. 

Educational Technology

The request includes $15.8 million for Technology activities, which promote the development, 

demonstration, and use of technology. This is accomplished primarily through research, for 

which at least $11.1 million is proposed. This includes $2.0 million for several new model 

demonstration projects under the Stepping Up Technology Implementation priority. This 

competition, first launched in 2012, is a successor to the Steppingstones of Technology 

Innovation grants. These model demonstration projects build on the development work of the 

Steppingstones grants by focusing on validating and scaling up technology-based products or 

interventions such as curriculum materials, accessible products, or instructional methodologies. 

Projects will receive assistance with technology dissemination and implementation from the 

Model Demonstration Coordinating Center, which is funded by the Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination program. The assistance provided to Stepping Up projects by this Center will 

help ensure that promising technologies can overcome barriers to implementation and mature 

into widely available interventions and products for special education teachers, families, and 

students. 

The request would also support continuation funding in fiscal year 2014 for research grants 

awarded in prior years. Of the $11.1 million for continuation funding, $1.5 million will support 

the Center on Online Learning for Students with Disabilities. This project investigates how the 

rapid growth of instruction delivered through the Internet affects students with disabilities, both 

positively and negatively, and develops promising practices for delivering online instruction to 

these students (project website: http://centerononlinelearning.org/). The Technology Research 

and Development Center on Literacy Achievement for Middle School Students with Disabilities 

would also receive about $2 million of continuation funding to support its work to expand the 

research base about technology-based instructional methods that can improve literacy 

outcomes. Approximately $6.4 million of the continuation funding would support 13 Stepping Up 

Technology Implementation projects and $1.2 million would provide continuing funding for early 

childhood technology model demonstration grants first awarded in prior years.

In addition to research projects, the request for Technology activities includes $1.7 million for a 

continuation award to support technical assistance and dissemination activities carried out by a 

project awarded in fiscal year 2013 that will assist parents and educators with using best 

practices with new products and services for students with disabilities. 

The request would also provide $1 million for the fourth year of an award to address the needs 

of postsecondary institutions related to recruiting, enrolling, retaining, and instructing students 

who are deaf, and addressing the varying communication and technology needs of and 

methods used by individuals who are deaf. This project is jointly funded with the Personnel 

Preparation and Technical Assistance and Dissemination programs. Under IDEA section 

682(d)(1)(B), the Department is required to provide at least $4 million of the funds provided for 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

J-110

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 activities includes a variety of activities targeted toward providing 

educational materials, such as textbooks, in accessible formats for individuals with disabilities, 

particularly deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals and blind and other visually impaired 

individuals. In fiscal year 2014, $13.1 million would be allocated to these activities. 

Approximately $1 million of this funding will support a new project to provide technical

assistance to States and other entities on the provision of books and other educational materials 

in accessible formats. In prior years, the Department has funded similar projects that develop 

and support the widespread use of the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard 

(NIMAS). This standard ensures that publishers, educational agencies, and students with 

disabilities have clear guidelines for converting educational media into a variety of accessible 

formats.

The 2014 request for continuation activities in educational media and materials includes a total 

of $7.5 million for accessible books and other instructional materials. Of this, $6.5 million is for 

an award to support the development, production, and distribution of educational materials in 

accessible formats to students with visual impairments and other print disabilities. The current 

grantee under this priority, Bookshare for Education (http://www.bookshare.org), has 

transformed the provision of educational materials in accessible formats by nationally providing 

free educational media, including textbooks, much more efficiently and quickly than was 

previously possible. The remaining funds in this area would support a $1 million continuation 

award to support the Digital Images and Graphic Resources for Accessible Materials 

(DIAGRAM) Center. The goal of this research and development project is to enhance students’ 

access to images and graphics. This content is considerably more difficult to make accessible 

than basic text. The DIAGRAM Center develops innovative accessibility solutions appropriate 

for a variety of educational media formats (http://www.diagramcenter.org/).

Continuation projects also include $4 million to support six awards that provide video description 

and closed captioning of educational television programming. These projects not only close 

caption and describe educational media, but also efficiently distribute the media to schools via 

the Internet and other resources. The support for video description of educational programming 

is particularly important for individuals with visual impairments because, unlike closed 

captioning, there are very few Federal requirements for providing video descriptions. 

Information on one of the current captioning and description projects is available at 

http://www.dcmp.org.

The IDEA requires the Department to support the National Instructional Materials Access Center 

(NIMAC), which is awarded noncompetitively to the American Printing House for the Blind. The 

NIMAC 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 

(http://www.nimac.us/). NIMAC receives source files in NIMAS format from textbook publishers 

and provides these files to State and local educational agencies for use in producing materials 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

J-111

in accessible media, such as braille, audio, and digital text. NIMAC contained 31,883 books 

and other items as of October 2012. The request includes $604,000 for a continuation award 

for this project in fiscal year 2014. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 ootnote2013 Footnote2014footnote

Program funding:

Technology:

Technolog y Research:

New technology research $4,588 $3,000 $2,000 

Continuations technology research 5,247 10,707 11,123

Subtotal technology research 9,835 13,707 13,123

Technolog y Technical assistance and dissemination:

New technolog y technical assistance and disseminati on 0 1,935 0

Continuations technol ogy technical assistance and dissemi nation 1,600 1,000 1,699

Subtotal technolog y technical assistance and disseminati on 1,600 2,935 1,699

Technolog y Projects to address the postsecondary, 

vocational, technical, and adult 

education needs of individuals with 

deafness:

Continuations Technolog y Proj ects to address the postsecondar y, vocational, technical, and adult educati on needs of indi vi duals with deafness: 1,000 1,000 1,000

Subtotal Technolog y Proj ects to address the postsecondar y, vocational, technical, and adul t education needs of indi viduals with deafness: 1,000 1,000 1,000

Subtotal, Technology:

New pr ogram fundi ng subtotal, technolog y 4,588 4,935 2,000

Continuations program funding subtotal , technolog y 7,847 12,707 13,822

Subtotal program fundi ng subtotal, technolog y 12,435 17,642 15,822

Media and Materials:

Medi a ser vicesCaptioned & described accessible media:

Continuations medi a ser vices captioned & described accessibl e medi a 4,995 3,998 3,998

Subtotal medi a ser vices captioned & described accessi ble media 4,995 3,998 3,998

Medi a ser vicesBooks and other instructional materials in 

accessible formats:

New medi a ser vices books and other instructional materials in accessi ble formats 8,5791 0 1,000

Continuations medi a ser vices books and other i nstructional materi als in accessibl e for mats 2,400 6,8211 7,500
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

J-112

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Medi a ser vicesNational Instructional Materials Access 

Center (NIMAC) – Statutory earmark

Continuations medi a ser vices national i nstr ucti onal materials access center statutor y earmar k $533 $567 $604

Subtotal medi a ser vices nati onal i nstr ucti onal materials access center statutor y ear mar k 533 567 604

Subtotal, Media and Materials:

New pr ogram fundi ng subtotal, media services 8,5791 0 1,000

Continuations program funding subtotal , medi a ser vices 7,928 11,3861 12,102

Subtotal program fundi ng subtotal, media services 16,507 11,386 13,102

Other (e.g. program evaluation contracts):

New 380 130 155

Continuations other 186 309 389

Subtotal, Other, other 566 439 544

Peer review of new award applications: 80 121 120

Total program funding: 2

New total program funding 13,547 5,065 3,155

Continuations total program funding 15,961 24,402 26,313

Peer review 80 121 120

Total program funding 29,588 29,588 29,588

________________

1 Approximately $2,100 thousand of the fiscal year 2012 funds for media services cover a portion of the 

continuation costs for this activity in fiscal year 2013.

2 Subtotals may not add to total due to rounding. 

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 

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 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

J-113

Seven performance measures have been developed for the Educational Technology, Media, 

and Materials program. Three of these measures are annual measures, two are long-term, and 

the last two are measures of efficiency.

Annual Measures

The three annual measures deal with the relevance, quality, and usefulness of products and 

services provided by the program.

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 quality.

Year Target Actual

2009 82 100

2010 83 97

2011 97 97

2012 97 92

2013 98

2014 98

Additional Information: The percentage of products judged to be of high quality decreased 

and fell below the target in fiscal year 2012. However, a high percentage of products were still 

reported to be of high quality. The reviewers judged 24 of the 26 products in the sample to be 

of high quality. The decrease may have been caused by the issuance of new, more detailed 

instructions to this year’s expert panel reviewers. The Department set higher targets starting in

fiscal year 2011 based on the high percentages achieved in prior years. Fiscal year 2013 data 

are expected for this program in October 2013. 

The scores appearing in the actual data column were produced by a panel of six to eight special 

education scientists, who reviewed a sample of products from 26 of the program’s projects. 

Each project submitted a product or multiple products that represents the primary or typical 

products/services released by that grantee during the prior fiscal year. All of the selected 

products are reviewed and scored on whether the product content is evidence-based, valid, 

complete, and up-to-date. 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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

J-114

of editorial errors, appropriately formatted, and well organized? OSEP reports that the 

measured inter-rater reliability of the panel members has been excellent during the last few 

years, indicating substantial agreement among the experts about the quality of the sampled 

products. 

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

2009 93 100

2010 95 97

2011 97 91

2012 97 100

2013 98

2014 98

Additional information: In fiscal year 2012, the percentage of products judged to be of high 

relevance for this measure increased and exceeded the target level. The reviewers judged all 

26 of the products in the sample to be highly relevant for the intended users. The Department 

set higher targets for this measure starting in fiscal year 2011 based on the consistent results 

obtained during the 3 prior years of data. In recent years, a large majority of the projects funded 

under this authority scored highly on this measure.

The scores appearing in the actual data column were produced by a panel of six to eight special 

education external experts who reviewed a sample of products from 26 Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials projects, selected so as to be representative of the program’s 

topical portfolio of grants. Each project submitted a product or multiple products that represents 

the primary or typical products/services released by that grantee during the prior fiscal year. All 

of the selected products were assessed on whether the product content was responsive to 

priority issues and challenges confronting the target groups and judged on three dimensions of 

relevance: (1) Need – Does the content of the material attempt to solve an important problem or 

critical issue?; (2) Pertinence – Does the content of the material match the problem or issue 

facing the target group or groups?; and (3) Reach – Is the content of the material applicable to 

diverse populations within the target group? 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

J-115

Measure: The percentage of Special Education Educational Technology, Media, and Materials 

projects that produce findings, products, and/or services that contribute to improving results for 

infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2009 83 100

2010 84 97

2011 97 97

2012 97 92

2013 98

2014 98

Additional information: The actual percentage for fiscal year 2012 did not meet the target and 

decreased from the prior year. The decrease may have been caused by the issuance of new, 

more detailed instructions to this year’s expert panel reviewers. The last few years of data 

indicate that the projects are doing a reasonably good job of creating useful products or services 

for their target populations. Data for fiscal year 2013 are expected in October 2013. 

The percentages in the actual data column were produced by a panel of six to eight special 

education external experts, who reviewed 26 samples of technology products. Each project 

submitted a product or multiple products that represents the primary or typical products/services 

released by that grantee during the prior fiscal year. 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. The products were judged on three dimensions of 

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?

Long-Term Measures

The following two long-term measures have been developed for the program to provide 

information about the potential impacts of the projects’ products and services on the target 

population. 

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.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

J-116

Measure: The percentage of Special Education Educational Technology, Media, and Materials 

projects that validate their products and services.

Year Target Actual

2009 73

2010 63

2011 50

2012 50 70

2013 52

2014 54

Additional information: The Department set targets for this measure after reviewing trends in 

data from prior years. For this measure, a panel of six to eight special education external 

experts reviews evidence submitted by each project that their products or services improve 

outcomes for the target population, are evidence based, and are validated by empirical findings. 

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. Of the ten projects that 

were rated in fiscal 2012, seven submitted acceptable evidence of validity; the other three 

projects struggled with collecting sufficient evidence of validity within the 1 year time frame. 

Evidence about outcomes of the target population may take more than 1 year to become 

available. Fiscal year 2013 data for this long term measure are expected in October 2013. 

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

2009 94

2010 100

2011 100

2012 100 83

2013 100

2014 100

Additional information: A panel of six to eight special education external experts reviews and 

scores the extent to which each project rated in the measure above as “validated” has submitted 

evidence of the availability of, and customer support for, their technology-based products and 

services. In fiscal year 2012, the panel reviewed evidence from six centers that entered the 

dissemination phase of their projects or completed the final year of their grants and submitted a 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

J-117

final report. Five centers that were rated as “validated” submitted sufficient evidence of the 

availability of their products or services to the target population. Fiscal year 2013 data for this 

long term measure are expected in October 2013.

Efficiency Measures

The Department has established two efficiency measures for the Educational Technology, 

Media, and Materials program. The two measures provide data on accessible book distribution 

and video captioning and description projects, respectively. The Department 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

2011 $7.0

2012 5.5

2013 TBD

2014 TBD

Additional Information: One of the major activities supported by this program is the 

development, production, and distribution of educational books and materials in accessible 

formats to students with visual impairments and other print disabilities. The current grantee 

performing activities under the Department’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 (In 2012: $6,515,185 / 

1,184,126 = $5.50). After downloading these files, eligible students can access the content in 

specialized formats, such as audiobooks or braille. Bookshare is the most widely used 

accessible book producer and distributor in the country. This project works in conjunction with 

other Department funded projects, such as the National Instructional Materials Access Center 

(NIMAC), to ensure that eligible students have appropriate materials needed to access the 

general curriculum. The Department will establish targets for this new measure when another 

year of data become available in November 2013.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

National activities: Educational Technology, Media, and Materials

J-118

Measure: The Federal cost per hour of video description funded by the Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials program.

Year Target Actual

2009 $1,393

2010 2,255

2011 2,258

2012 1,962

2013

2014 $1,669

Additional information: The educational media measure is calculated as the total amount of 

funding provided for description activities ($2,499,066 in 2012) divided by the total number of 

hours of accessible described media produced (1,274 hours in 2012). The cost of an hour of 

media description decreased from fiscal years 2011 to 2012. Recent advances in technology 

have increased automation in the descriptioning process and may continue to bring down costs. 

Actual values for 2011 and 2010 have been corrected. In those years, the amount of funding 

used in the numerator was incorrectly reported and the number of hours in the denominator 

inappropriately included some media captioning hours. The updated values shown above 

include the accurate amount of funding and only media description activities. No target is 

shown for 2013 because the target in that year was based on the incorrectly reported data. 

Targets in 2014 and subsequent years are based on the corrected data. We anticipate that 

fiscal year 2013 data for this measure will be available by October 2013.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-119

Special Olympics education programs

(Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004, section 3(a))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 0 1

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

Change 

from 2012

$8,000 2 $8,000 2 3 $8,000 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2010. The Administration proposes to continue funding in FY 2014 

through appropriations language. 2 In FY 2012 and FY 2013, funding for Special Olympics was provided under Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination. Funding is shown here for purposes of comparability. 3 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004 authorizes the Secretaries 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. 

Awards made by the Secretary of Education are 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.

In addition to funds appropriated under this authority, Special Olympics has received over $5 

million in non-competitive grant awards from the Department since fiscal year 1999, including 

funds for national and world games and affiliated programs.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Special Olympics education programs

J-120

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2009....................................................................................... $8,095

2010......................................................................................... 8,095

2011......................................................................................... 8,079

2012 ........................................................................................ 8,000 1

2013......................................................................................... 8,000 1 2

________________

1 In FY 2012 and FY 2013, funding for Special Olympics was provided under Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination. Funding is shown here for purposes of comparability. 2 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $8.0 million for Special Olympics education programs, the same as 

the amount for this activity in fiscal year 2012. The Administration’s request would support 

efforts to promote the expansion of Special Olympics and the design and implementation of 

Special Olympics education programs, especially the Special Olympics National Youth 

Activation Demonstration Project (Project UNIFY).

Project UNIFY, a national youth sports demonstration program, is the major activity funded by 

this direct appropriation. Besides sports and physical education in integrated settings, this 

project also provides opportunities for youth to participate in leadership development, service 

learning, and structured interpersonal communication and socialization activities. The 

Administration believes the activities supported under this program assist individuals with 

intellectual disabilities in becoming productive members of their communities by dispelling 

negative stereotypes and promoting positive and inclusive learning environments.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Project UNIFY

Number of funded State programs 38 38 38

Number of schools participating 2,150 2,275 2,400

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 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Special Olympics education programs

J-121

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 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. 

The Department has recently established two output measures, two outcome measures, and 

two efficiency measures for this program. These are the first formal performance measures for 

this program, and the Department believes that they provide valuable information on the scope, 

quality, progress, and effectiveness of program services. The first year of formal data collection 

for these measures was 2011.

Objective: The Special Olympics will increase the inclusion and awareness of students with 

intellectual disabilities.

Measure: The percent of school liaisons who report that Project UNIFY helps raise awareness 

about students with intellectual disabilities.

Year Target Actual

2011 66

2012 65

2013 TBD

2014 TBD

Measure: The percent of school liaisons who report that Project UNIFY increases opportunities 

for students with intellectual disabilities to be involved in school activities.

Year Target Actual

2011 52

2012 58

2013 TBD

2014 TBD

Additional information: Data were reported for these new measures starting in 2011. To 

gather 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 measures provide perspectives on the 

level of success that the Special Olympics is having at promoting positive and inclusive learning 

environments. The Department will establish targets when another year of data is available for 

analysis. FY 2013 data will be available by January 2014.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Special Olympics education programs

J-122

Objective: The Special Olympics will promote the expansion of opportunities provided by 

Special Olympics programs for students with intellectual disabilities to participate in service 

learning, character education, and structured interpersonal communication and socialization 

activities that can be integrated into classroom instruction and are consistent with academic 

content standards.

Measure: The number of schools participating in Project UNIFY.

Year Target Actual

2011 2,025

2012 2,150

2013 TBD

2014 TBD

Measure: The number of schools participating in a Project UNIFY High Activation Program.

Year Target Actual

2011 810

2012 924

2013 TBD

2014 TBD

Additional information: Special Olympics has aggressively expanded the reach of Project 

UNIFY during recent years to over 2,100 locations in 38 states. There were 777 elementary 

schools, 481 middle schools, and 689 high schools, and 30 other schools participating in Project 

UNIFY in 2011. 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 tend to be new to the program. Schools with High 

Activation programs also generally require a greater commitment of resources. In 2012, 43 

percent of all participating schools were in the High Activation category, an increase of 3 

percent from 2011. The Department will establish targets when another year of data is available 

for analysis. FY 2013 data will be available by January 2014.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Special Olympics education programs

J-123

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

2011 $3,997

2012 3,758

2013 TBD

2014 TBD

Measure: The percent of Federal funds spent on administration.

Year Target Actual

2011 33

2012 29

2013 TBD

2014 TBD

Additional information: These two measures provide basic information on the efficiency of the 

program. The decrease in the cost per school reflects an increase in the number of participating 

schools and a slight decline in the Federal appropriation for this program. 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. 

Data were reported for these new measures starting in 2011. The Department will establish 

targets when another year of data is available for analysis. FY 2013 data will be available by 

January 2014.

Other Performance Information

Project reports indicate that State and local coordinators were given significant latitude in 

developing programs. This flexibility has resulted in significant differences in the approaches 

taken to achieving Project UNIFY’s goals and presented challenges for evaluating success. For 

example, the intensity of services offered varied substantially among participating schools.

Project UNIFY has engaged external evaluators from the University of Massachusetts to 

conduct a formative evaluation. Data from surveys of school liaisons in 954 schools indicated 

that Project UNIFY had an inconclusive 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 had positive attitudes and behaviors. It is difficult to avoid this self-selection effect 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Special Olympics education programs

J-124

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 

was not the primary goal of this program. 

The formative evaluation also found that the majority of school staff involved with the project 

believed 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. Surveys showed that most participating 

schools have hosted both inclusive sports programs and youth leadership/activation activities. 

Schools with the highest levels of involvement generally featured extra-curricular clubs that 

provided a venue for students with and without intellectual disabilities to participate in sports and 

social activities that promote inclusive school environments. The evaluator concluded that 

these clubs are a best practice that can provide a model for other participating schools.
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

J-125

PROMISE: Pro moting Readin ess of Minors in SSI 

PROMISE: Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI 

(Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

Change

PP2012 2013 2014 from 2012

$1,996 $1,996 2 0 -$1,996

_________________

1 The program is authorized in FY 2013 through appropriations language. No appropriation or authorizing 

language is sought for this activity under the Special Education account in FY 2014. 2 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI (PROMISE) is a joint pilot demonstration program with 

the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Departments of Health and Human Services 

and Labor. The goal of the program is to improve the education and post-school outcomes of 

children who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments, including completion of 

postsecondary education and employment, and to improve family or household outcomes 

through improved services and supports, such as education and job training for the parents. 

PROMISE is being implemented in two phases. The first phase is a planning stage that has 

focused on knowledge generation and development of the proposed priority for the grant 

competition. The second phase will begin in spring of fiscal year 2013 and will focus on 

implementing the PROMISE pilot projects, including soliciting grant applications, and reviewing 

and selecting projects for grant awards. Competitive grants will be awarded to a small number 

of States for a period of 3 to 5 years to develop partnerships and implement interventions 

designed to improve the provision and coordination of services and supports for children who 

receive SSI and their families and achieve outcomes that lead to increased economic selfsufficiency and a reduction in their dependence on SSI payments. Governors will be invited to 

submit applications for their States and designate a lead agency to carry out the program. 

States will use funds to improve the coordination and increase the use of existing services. 

Projects will be required to collaborate with the national evaluation of PROMISE to be 

conducted under a contract with SSA, in collaboration with the Department. 

PROMISE has a number of distinguishing features. First, the planning stage involved input from 

Federal partners as well as stakeholders into the design of the program. Second, the program 

will entail continued collaboration among four Federal agencies. Third, it will provide services to 

both youth and their families. This feature will require the involvement of programs that do not 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

PROMISE: Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI

J-126

typically serve youth with disabilities. Fourth, it will use a rigorous evaluation design to guide 

implementation of randomized controlled assignment and data collection.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funds for PROMISE under the Special Education account 

in fiscal year 2014. The fiscal year 2012 appropriation under the Rehabilitation Services and 

Disability Research account allowed the Secretary to use amounts that remained unobligated 

subsequent to the reallotment of funds to States under the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) State 

Grants program pursuant to section 110(b) of the Rehabilitation Act to support PROMISE 

grants. We believe that the funds that became available for obligation under the PROMISE 

program on October 1, 2013, and remain available through September 30, 2013, are sufficient 

to support the first year and a significant portion of the second year of project funding for a small 

number of grants to States. 

In addition, the fiscal year 2013 request included language that would allow the Secretary to use 

remaining funds subsequent to the reallotment of VR funds to support innovative activities 

aimed at improving outcomes for individuals with disabilities (Disability Innovation Fund), 

including, if needed, funds for improving the outcomes of children receiving SSI and their 

families through PROMISE. These funds would remain available for Federal obligation until 

September 30, 2014. The Administration is proposing similar language in its fiscal year 2014 

request for the VR State Grants program, including authority to test the Pay for Success 

approach. However, funds would not be set aside for this purpose unless the necessary 

conditions exist and investors show interest. These conditions include:

• An intervention that is likely to produce positive outcomes for the target population;

• A strong evaluation methodology for measuring outcomes achieved, using a good 

comparison group or other credible approach to measuring impacts;

• Pay for performance agreements that provide flexibility for service providers to innovate and 

adjust their approach to maximize outcomes at the lowest possible cost; and

• A negotiated payment level for outcomes that provide private investors with a sufficient 

return if the intervention is successful and improves the cost-effectiveness of government 

investments. 

The FY 2012 Special Education appropriation provided $2 million to support planning, outreach, 

and other activities needed to implement the PROMISE program. The Department reviewed 

and compiled existing research on relevant evidence-based practices, knowledge gained from 

its research, evaluation, technical assistance, and demonstration investments made by the 

Institute of Education Sciences, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and 

other offices. In addition, meetings, social media, and other formats were used to solicit broad 

public input from researchers, practitioners, potential grantees, and other stakeholders, 

including the posting of a draft public notice that requested feedback on program, application, 

and selection requirements. In addition, SSA is using its research funds to support the 

PROMISE evaluation. About 75 percent of the fiscal year 2012 funds appropriated for 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

PROMISE: Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI

J-127

PROMISE under the Special Education account will be transferred to SSA to support technical 

assistance to PROMISE project grantees on participant outreach, random control assignment, 

and data collection in conjunction with the evaluation. The remaining fiscal year 2012 funds will 

be used by the Department to provide technical assistance to applicants and to cover peer 

review and other associated costs. Fiscal year 2013 funds, which would remain available until 

September 30, 2014, will be used to support technical assistance to PROMISE project grantees 

and, if needed, to help cover PROMISE grant continuation costs. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures

Program Funding: 2012 2013 2014

Transfer to SSA for evaluation technical 

assistance

$1,500 0 0

Other technical assistance and peer 

review

496 $1,996 0

Project funds 0 1 01 0

Total program funding 1,996 1,996 0

1

 PROMISE project awards will be made in FY 2013 with funds that became available at the end of FY 2012 

from unobligated funds remaining subsequent to the reallotment of State VR Grant funds under the 

Rehabilitation Services and Disability account. Similarly, VR funds that are unobligated at the end of FY 2013 

will be made available to help support project continuation costs. 

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

Program performance measures will be developed in the initial year of the pilot and will reflect 

the goals for this program, including intermediate and longer term outcome measures of 

progress toward self–sufficiency. Each project grantee will be required to track its progress on 

the key outcomes to be evaluated under the PROMISE program as well as the other outcomes 

that a project proposes to measure. In collaboration with the national evaluator, the 

performance of the PROMISE program will be assessed on the basis of established key 

outcome measures for participating child SSI recipients and their families, as reflected in the 

goals of the program provided in the priority. These key outcome measures are:

(1) Increase educational attainment (high school completion, graduation (diploma or 

equivalent) and enrollment and persistence in postsecondary education, training, or the military; 

(2) Increase the number of individuals earning credentials after high school (e.g., 

postsecondary degree, technical certification, occupational licensure, or other industryrecognized credential); 
SPECIAL EDUCATION 

PROMISE: Promoting Readiness of Minors in SSI

J-128

(3) Improve employment outcomes (e.g., competitive employment, average earnings, number 

of hours worked per week, job retention);

(4) Changes in the use of public benefits provided to the individual or family (e.g., cash 

benefits and other benefits with directly measurable economic value); 

(5) Changes in total gross income of all the members of a household who are 15 years old and 

older. (Included in the total are amounts reported separately for wage or salary income; net 

self-employment income; interest, dividends, or net rental or royalty income or income from 

estates and trusts; Social Security or Railroad Retirement income; Supplemental Security 

Income; public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and 

all other income.); and

(6) Post-program reduction in SSI payments (e.g., differences between amounts of payments 

to children and their families who participated in the demonstration project interventions and the 

amounts paid to the other group randomly assigned to receive typical services). 

In addition to the key program outcome measures, each project must develop project measures 

that assess the project’s performance in achieving its goals consistent with the purpose of the 

priority and the project’s logic model. The set of project measures will also include interim 

measures that assess progress toward achieving the project’s outcomes, including the 

attainment of milestones and benchmarks consistent with the logic model. For example, 

projects could consider including measures related to school attendance, project attrition, work 

experiences, enrollment in education or workforce development programs, or the use of partnerprovided services for which the child participants and their families are eligible.