Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 26039

Supported living refers to the

development and provision of

assistance, including natural supports,

to enable persons with mental

retardation to live in settings and

participate in activities that contribute

to their personal goals and quality of life

(Abery, B. H., et al., ‘‘Research on

Community Integration of Persons with

Mental Retardation and Related

Conditions: Current Knowledge,

Emerging Challenges and

Recommended Future Directions,’’

Prepared for the NIDRR Long Range

Planning Process, pg. 4, May, 1996).

Supported living intends to increase

control and choice of services and

supports that persons with mental

retardation receive.

Access to community services and

community supports varies greatly by

State. Information on trends in

supported community living and

innovative models of successful

community living can assist States to

initiate and improve effective services.

In addition to parents and family

members, direct service personnel such

as group home staff, foster family

members and job coaches, are primary

sources of support and services for

persons with mental retardation living

in the community.

In the past decade, there has been

growing concern about recruitment and

retention of direct service personnel.

Research has shown high turnover rates

of between 55 percent and 73 percent

annually (Braddock, D., and Mitchell,

D., ‘‘Residential Services and

Developmental Disabilities in the

United States: A National Survey of

Staff Compensation, Turnover, and

Related Issues,’’ American Association

on Mental Retardation, Washington, DC,

1992). In order to attract and retain

competent direct service personnel,

service providers must provide staff

with information and training on

effective and innovative approaches to

promote independence. Agency trainers

and managers require information about

effective training techniques that teach

support providers how to encourage self

advocacy and choice making to persons

with mental retardation. In addition,

public awareness activities that educate

both the public and policymakers on the

importance of direct service workers can

enhance the image of community

workers and the individuals with

developmental disabilities they assist

(Larson, S. A., et al., ‘‘Residential

Services Personnel: Recruitment,

Training and Retention,’’ Challenges for

a Service System in Transition, pg. 321,

1994).

Recent developments in two major

Federal programs significantly affect the

nature and extent of community-based

services for persons with mental

retardation: The Personal Responsibility

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act of 1996 (welfare reform) and

Medicaid. Recent welfare reforms

provide States with increased flexibility

in the delivery of community-based

public services. The Medicaid program

is the primary source of payment for

both health care and community-based

long term care services for persons with

mental retardation and their families.

Providing training and technical

assistance on supported living to

policymakers and services providers

involved in the administration of

welfare and Medicaid programs will

enable them to take advantage of new

opportunities to shape integrated and

flexible programs for persons with

mental retardation.

Priority 6

The Secretary will establish a

Dissemination, Training, and Technical

Assistance Project to promote supported

living and choice for persons with

mental retardation. The Project shall:

(1) Identify and synthesize research

findings on state-of-the-art models of

supported living;

(2) Develop and disseminate materials

based on the synthesis and provide

training and technical assistance to

consumers, families, service providers,

State policy makers and State agencies;

and

(3) Develop and disseminate training

materials for direct service staff with

input from consumers and family

members.

In carrying out the purposes of the

priority, the Project must disseminate

materials and coordinate training

activities with relevant units of the

Department of Health and Human

Services, State public and private

managed care representatives,

individuals with disabilities and other

NIDRR Centers addressing related

issues.

Electronic Access to This Document

Anyone may view this document, as

well as all other Department of

Education documents published in the

Federal Register, in text or portable

document format (pdf) on the World

Wide Web at either of the following

sites: http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm;

http://www.ed.gov/news.html.

To use the pdf you must have the

Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with

Search, which is available free at either

of the preceding sites. If you have

questions about using the pdf, call the

U.S. Government Printing Office toll

free at 1–888–293–6498.

Anyone may also view these

documents in text copy only on an

electronic bulletin board of the

Department. Telephone: (202) 219–1511

or, toll free, 1–800–222–4922. The

documents are located under Option

G—Files/Announcements, Bulletins and

Press Releases.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register.

APPLICABLE PROGRAM REGULATIONS: 34

CFR Parts 350 and 353.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760–762.

Dated: May 5, 1998.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number 84.133A, Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Projects, and

84.133B, Rehabilitation Research and

Training Centers)

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for

Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services.

[FR Doc. 98–12378 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA Nos.: 84.133A and 84.133B]

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services, National

Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research; Notice

Inviting Applications for New Awards

Under the Disability and Rehabilitation

Research Project and Centers Program

for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998

Note to Applicants: This notice is a

complete application package. Together

with the statute authorizing the

programs and applicable regulations

governing the programs, including the

Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR),

this notice contains information,

application forms, and instructions

needed to apply for a grant under these

competitions.

This program supports the National

Education Goal that calls for all

Americans to possess the knowledge

and skills necessary to compete in a

global economy and exercise the rights

and responsibilities of citizenship.

The estimated funding levels in this

notice do not bind the Department of

Education to make awards in any of

these categories, or to any specific

number of awards or funding levels,

unless otherwise specified in statute.

Applicable Regulations: The

Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR),

34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 85,

86, and 350.
26040 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

Program Title: Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Project and

Centers Program

CFDA Numbers: 84.133A and 84.133B

Purpose of Program: The purpose of

the Disability and Rehabilitation

Research Project and Centers Program is

to plan and conduct research,

demonstration projects, training, and

related activities, including

international activities, develop

methods, procedures, and rehabilitation

technology, that maximize the full

inclusion and integration into society,

employment, independent living, family

support, and economic and social selfsufficiency of individuals with

disabilities, especially individuals with

the most severe disabilities. In addition,

the purpose of the Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Project and

Centers Program is to improve the

effectiveness of services authorized

under the Act.

Eligible Applicants: Parties eligible to

apply for grants under this program are

States, public or private agencies,

including for-profit agencies, public or

private organizations, including forprofit organizations, institutions of

higher education, and Indian tribes and

tribal organizations.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762.

APPLICATION NOTICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998—DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION RESEARCH PROJECTS, CFDA NO. 84–

133A

Funding priority Deadline for transmittal of

applications

Estimated

number of

awards

Maximum

award

amount (per

year)*

Project period

(months)

Improving Research Information Dissemination and Utilization to Promote Independent Living.July 10, 1998 ...................... 1 $400,000 60

Supported Living and Choice for Persons with Mental Retardation ....... July 10, 1998 ...................... 1 400,000 60

*Note: The Secretary will reject without consideration or evaluation any application that proposes a project funding level that exceeds the stated maximum award amount per year (See 34 CFR 75.104(b)).

Improving Research Information

Dissemination and Utilization to

Promote Independent Living Selection

Criteria

The Secretary uses the following

selection criteria to evaluate

applications for a project on improving

research information dissemination and

utilization to promote independent

living under the Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Project and

Centers Program.

(a) Importance of the problem (9

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

importance of the problem.

(2) In determining the importance of

the problem, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

clearly describes the need and target

population (3 points).

(ii) The extent to which the proposed

activities address a significant need of

one or more disabled populations (3

points).

(iii) The extent to which the proposed

project will have beneficial impact on

the target population (3 points).

(b) Responsiveness to an absolute or

competitive priority (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

responsiveness of the application to the

absolute or competitive priority

published in the Federal Register.

(2) In determining the responsiveness

of the application to the absolute or

competitive priority, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

addresses all requirements of the

absolute or competitive priority (2

points).

(ii) The extent to which the

applicant’s proposed activities are likely

to achieve the purposes of the absolute

or competitive priority (2 points).

(c) Design of research activities (8

points).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of research

activities is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the research

activities constitute a coherent,

sustained approach to research in the

field, including a substantial addition to

the state-of-the-art (4 points).

(ii) The extent to which anticipated

research results are likely to satisfy the

original hypotheses and could be used

for planning additional research,

including generation of new hypotheses

where applicable (4 points).

(d) Design of demonstration activities

(13 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of demonstration

activities is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the proposed

demonstration activities build on

previous research, testing, or practices

(3 points).

(ii) The extent to which the proposed

demonstration activities include the use

of proper methodological tools and

theoretically sound procedures to

determine the effectiveness of the

strategy or approach (2 points).

(iii) The extent to which the proposed

demonstration activities include

innovative and effective strategies or

approaches (4 points).

(iv) The extent to which the proposed

demonstration activities are likely to

contribute to current knowledge and

practice and be a substantial addition to

the state-of-the-art (2 points).

(v) The extent to which the proposed

demonstration activities can be applied

and replicated in other settings (2

points).

(e) Design of dissemination activities

(13 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of dissemination

activities is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the content of

the information to be disseminated—

(A) Covers all of the relevant aspects

of the subject matter (2 points); and

(B) If appropriate, is based on new

knowledge derived from research

activities of the project (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the materials

to be disseminated are likely to be

effective and usable, including
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 26041

consideration of their quality, clarity,

variety, and format (2 points).

(iii) The extent to which the methods

for dissemination are of sufficient

quality, intensity, and duration (2

points).

(iv) The extent to which the materials

and information to be disseminated and

the methods for dissemination are

appropriate to the target population,

including consideration of the

familiarity of the target population with

the subject matter, format of the

information, and subject matter (3

points).

(v) The extent to which the

information to be disseminated will be

accessible to individuals with

disabilities (2 points).

(f) Design of utilization activities (12

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of utilization

activities is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the potential

new users of the information or

technology have a practical use for the

information and are likely to adopt the

practices or use the information or

technology, including new devices (4

points).

(ii) The extent to which the utilization

strategies are likely to be effective (4

points).

(iii) The extent to which the

information or technology is likely to be

of use in other settings (4 points).

(g) Design of technical assistance

activities (8 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of technical

assistance activities is likely to be

effective in accomplishing the objectives

of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods

for providing technical assistance are of

sufficient quality, intensity, and

duration (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the

information to be provided through

technical assistance covers all of the

relevant aspects of the subject matter (2

points).

(iii) The extent to which the technical

assistance is appropriate to the target

population, including consideration of

the knowledge level of the target

population, needs of the target

population, and format for providing

information (2 points).

(iv) The extent to which the technical

assistance is accessible to individuals

with disabilities (2 points).

(h) Plan of operation (6 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the plan of operation.

(2) In determining the quality of the

plan of operation, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The adequacy of the plan of

operation to achieve the objectives of

the proposed project on time and within

budget, including clearly defined

responsibilities, and timelines for

accomplishing project tasks (3 points).

(ii) The adequacy of the plan of

operation to provide for using resources,

equipment, and personnel to achieve

each objective (3 points).

(i) Collaboration (3 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of collaboration.

(2) In determining the quality of

collaboration, the Secretary considers

the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant’s

proposed collaboration with one or

more agencies, organizations, or

institutions is likely to be effective in

achieving the relevant proposed

activities of the project (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which agencies,

organizations, or institutions

demonstrate a commitment to

collaborate with the applicant (1 point).

(iii) The extent to which agencies,

organizations, or institutions that

commit to collaborate with the

applicant have the capacity to carry out

collaborative activities (1 point).

(j) Adequacy and reasonableness of

the budget (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

adequacy and the reasonableness of the

proposed budget.

(2) In determining the adequacy and

the reasonableness of the proposed

budget, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the costs are

reasonable in relation to the proposed

project activities (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the budget for

the project, including any subcontracts,

is adequately justified to support the

proposed project activities (2 points).

(k) Plan of evaluation (7 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the plan of evaluation.

(2) In determining the quality of the

plan of evaluation, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation provides for periodic

assessment of progress toward—

(A) Implementing the plan of

operation (1 point); and

(B) Achieving the project’s intended

outcomes and expected impacts (1

point).

(ii) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation will be used to improve the

performance of the project through the

feedback generated by its periodic

assessments (1 point).

(iii) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation provides for periodic

assessment of a project’s progress that is

based on identified performance

measures that—

(A) Are clearly related to the intended

outcomes of the project and expected

impacts on the target population (2

points); and

(B) Are objective, and quantifiable or

qualitative, as appropriate (2 points).

(l) Project staff (9 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the project staff.

(2) In determining the quality of the

project staff, the Secretary considers the

extent to which the applicant

encourages applications for employment

from persons who are members of

groups that have traditionally been

underrepresented based on race, color,

national origin, gender, age, or disability

(2 points).

(3) In addition, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the key

personnel and other key staff have

appropriate training and experience in

disciplines required to conduct all

proposed activities (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the

commitment of staff time is adequate to

accomplish all the proposed activities of

the project (2 points).

(iii) The extent to which the key

personnel are knowledgeable about the

methodology and literature of pertinent

subject areas (2 points).

(iv) The extent to which key

personnel have up-to-date knowledge

from research or effective practice in the

subject area covered in the priority (1

point).

(m) Adequacy and accessibility of

resources (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

adequacy and accessibility of the

applicant’s resources to implement the

proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy and

accessibility of resources, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

is committed to provide adequate

facilities, equipment, other resources,

including administrative support, and

laboratories, if appropriate (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the facilities,

equipment, and other resources are

appropriately accessible to individuals

with disabilities who may use the
26042 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

facilities, equipment, and other

resources of the project (2 points total).

Supported Living and Choice for

Persons With Mental Retardation

Selection Criteria

The Secretary uses the following

selection criteria to evaluate

applications for a project on supported

living and choice for persons with

mental retardation under the Disability

and Rehabilitation Research Project and

Centers Program.

(a) Importance of the problem (9

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

importance of the problem.

(2) In determining the importance of

the problem, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

clearly describes the need and target

population (3 points).

(ii) The extent to which the proposed

activities address a significant need of

those who provide services to

individuals with disabilities (3 points).

(iii) The extent to which the proposed

project will have beneficial impact on

the target population (3 points).

(b) Responsiveness to an absolute or

competitive priority (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

responsiveness of the application to the

absolute or competitive priority

published in the Federal Register.

(2) In determining the responsiveness

of the application to the absolute or

competitive priority, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

addresses all requirements of the

absolute or competitive priority (2

points).

(ii) The extent to which the

applicant’s proposed activities are likely

to achieve the purposes of the absolute

or competitive priority (2 points).

(c) Design of training activities (13

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of training activities

is likely to be effective in accomplishing

the objectives of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the proposed

training materials are likely to be

effective, including consideration of

their quality, clarity, and variety (4

points).

(ii) The extent to which the proposed

training methods are of sufficient

quality, intensity, and duration (3

points).

(iii) The extent to which the proposed

training materials, methods, and content

are appropriate to the trainees,

including consideration of the skill level

of the trainees and the subject matter of

the materials (4 points).

(iv) The extent to which the proposed

training materials and methods are

accessible to individuals with

disabilities (2 points).

(d) Design of dissemination activities

(24 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of dissemination

activities is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the materials

to be disseminated are likely to be

effective and usable, including

consideration of their quality, clarity,

variety, and format (7 points).

(ii) The extent to which the methods

for dissemination are of sufficient

quality, intensity, and duration (7

points).

(iii) The extent to which the materials

and information to be disseminated and

the methods for dissemination are

appropriate to the target population,

including consideration of the

familiarity of the target population with

the subject matter, format of the

information, and subject matter (7

points).

(iv) The extent to which the

information to be disseminated will be

accessible to individuals with

disabilities (3 points).

(e) Design of utilization activities (8

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of utilization

activities is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the utilization

strategies are likely to be effective (8

points).

(f) Design of technical assistance

activities (10 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of technical

assistance activities is likely to be

effective in accomplishing the objectives

of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods

for providing technical assistance are of

sufficient quality, intensity, and

duration (3 points).

(ii) The extent to which the

information to be provided through

technical assistance covers all of the

relevant aspects of the subject matter (2

points).

(iii) The extent to which the technical

assistance is appropriate to the target

population, including consideration of

the knowledge level of the target

population, needs of the target

population, and format for providing

information (3 points).

(iv) The extent to which the technical

assistance is accessible to individuals

with disabilities (2 points).

(g) Plan of operation (6 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the plan of operation.

(2) In determining the quality of the

plan of operation, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The adequacy of the plan of

operation to achieve the objectives of

the proposed project on time and within

budget, including clearly defined

responsibilities, and timelines for

accomplishing project tasks (3 points).

(ii) The adequacy of the plan of

operation to provide for using resources,

equipment, and personnel to achieve

each objective (3 points).

(h) Collaboration (2 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of collaboration.

(2) In determining the quality of

collaboration, the Secretary considers

the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant’s

proposed collaboration with one or

more agencies, organizations, or

institutions is likely to be effective in

achieving the relevant proposed

activities of the project (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which agencies,

organizations, or institutions

demonstrate a commitment to

collaborate with the applicant (1 point).

(i) Adequacy and reasonableness of

the budget (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

adequacy and the reasonableness of the

proposed budget.

(2) In determining the adequacy and

the reasonableness of the proposed

budget, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the costs are

reasonable in relation to the proposed

project activities (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the budget for

the project, including any subcontracts,

is adequately justified to support the

proposed project activities (2 points).

(j) Plan of evaluation (7 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the plan of evaluation.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 26043

(2) In determining the quality of the

plan of evaluation, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation provides for periodic

assessment of progress toward—

(A) Implementing the plan of

operation (1 point); and

(B) Achieving the project’s intended

outcomes and expected impacts (1

point).

(ii) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation will be used to improve the

performance of the project through the

feedback generated by its periodic

assessments (1 point).

(iii) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation provides for periodic

assessment of a project’s progress that is

based on identified performance

measures that—

(A) Are clearly related to the intended

outcomes of the project and expected

impacts on the target population (2

points); and

(B) Are objective, and quantifiable or

qualitative, as appropriate (2 points).

(k) Project staff (9 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the project staff.

(2) In determining the quality of the

project staff, the Secretary considers the

extent to which the applicant

encourages applications for employment

from persons who are members of

groups that have traditionally been

underrepresented based on race, color,

national origin, gender, age, or disability

(2 points).

(3) In addition, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the key

personnel and other key staff have

appropriate training and experience in

disciplines required to conduct all

proposed activities (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the

commitment of staff time is adequate to

accomplish all the proposed activities of

the project (2 points).

(iii) The extent to which the key

personnel are knowledgeable about the

methodology and literature of pertinent

subject areas (2 points).

(iv) The extent to which key

personnel have up-to-date knowledge

from research or effective practice in the

subject area covered in the priority (1

point).

(l) Adequacy and accessibility of

resources (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

adequacy and accessibility of the

applicant’s resources to implement the

proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy and

accessibility of resources, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

is committed to provide adequate

facilities, equipment, other resources,

including administrative support, and

laboratories, if appropriate (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the facilities,

equipment, and other resources are

appropriately accessible to individuals

with disabilities who may use the

facilities, equipment, and other

resources of the project (2 points).

APPLICATION NOTICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998—REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTERS, CFDA NO. 84–

133B

Funding priority Deadline for transmittal of

applications

Estimated

number of

awards

Maximum

award

amount (per

year)*

Project

period

(months)

Secondary Conditions of Spinal Cord Injuries ........................................ July 10, 1998 ..................... 1 $800,000 60

Neuromuscular Diseases ........................................................................ July 10, 1998 ...................... 1 650,000 60

Multiple Sclerosis ..................................................................................... July 10, 1998 ...................... 1 700,000 60

Community Integration for Persons with Traumatic Brain Injury ............ July 10, 1998 ...................... 1 800,000 60

*Note: The Secretary will reject without consideration or evaluation any application that proposes a project funding level that exceeds the stated maximum award amount per year (See 34 CFR 75.104(b)).

RRTC Selection Criteria

The Secretary uses the following

selection criteria to evaluate

applications for RRTCs on secondary

conditions of spinal cord injuries,

neuromuscular diseases, multiple

sclerosis, and community integration for

persons with traumatic brain injury

under the Disability and Rehabilitation

Research Project and Centers Program.

(a) Importance of the problem (9

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

importance of the problem.

(2) In determining the importance of

the problem, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

clearly describes the need and target

population (3 points).

(ii) The extent to which the proposed

activities address a significant need of

those who provide services to

individuals with disabilities (3 points).

(iii) The extent to which the proposed

project will have beneficial impact on

the target population (3 points).

(b) Responsiveness to an absolute or

competitive priority (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

responsiveness of the application to the

absolute or competitive priority

published in the Federal Register.

(2) In determining the responsiveness

of the application to the absolute or

competitive priority, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

addresses all requirements of the

absolute or competitive priority (2

points).

(ii) The extent to which the

applicant’s proposed activities are likely

to achieve the purposes of the absolute

or competitive priority (2 points).

(c) Design of research activities (35

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of research

activities is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the research

activities constitute a coherent,

sustained approach to research in the

field, including a substantial addition to

the state-of-the-art (5 points).

(ii) The extent to which the

methodology of each proposed research

activity is meritorious, including

consideration of the extent to which—

(A) The proposed design includes a

comprehensive and informed review of

the current literature, demonstrating

knowledge of the state-of-the-art (5

points);

(B) Each research hypothesis is

theoretically sound and based on

current knowledge (5 points);
26044 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

(C) Each sample population is

appropriate and of sufficient size (5

points);

(D) The data collection and

measurement techniques are

appropriate and likely to be effective (5

points); and

(E) The data analysis methods are

appropriate (5 points).

(iii) The extent to which anticipated

research results are likely to satisfy the

original hypotheses and could be used

for planning additional research,

including generation of new hypotheses

where applicable (5 points).

(d) Design of training activities (11

points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of training activities

is likely to be effective in accomplishing

the objectives of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the proposed

training materials are likely to be

effective, including consideration of

their quality, clarity, and variety (2

points).

(ii) The extent to which the proposed

training methods are of sufficient

quality, intensity, and duration (2

points).

(iii) The extent to which the proposed

training content—

(A) Covers all of the relevant aspects

of the subject matter (1 point); and

(B) If relevant, is based on new

knowledge derived from research

activities of the proposed project (1

point).

(iv) The extent to which the proposed

training materials, methods, and content

are appropriate to the trainees,

including consideration of the skill level

of the trainees and the subject matter of

the materials (2 points).

(v) The extent to which the proposed

training materials and methods are

accessible to individuals with

disabilities (1 point).

(vi) The extent to which the applicant

is able to carry out the training

activities, either directly or through

another entity (2 points).

(e) Design of dissemination activities

(8 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of dissemination

activities is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the content of

the information to be disseminated—

(A) Covers all of the relevant aspects

of the subject matter (1 point); and

(B) If appropriate, is based on new

knowledge derived from research

activities of the project (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which the materials

to be disseminated are likely to be

effective and usable, including

consideration of their quality, clarity,

variety, and format (2 points).

(iii) The extent to which the methods

for dissemination are of sufficient

quality, intensity, and duration (2

points).

(iv) The extent to which the materials

and information to be disseminated and

the methods for dissemination are

appropriate to the target population,

including consideration of the

familiarity of the target population with

the subject matter, format of the

information, and subject matter (1

point).

(v) The extent to which the

information to be disseminated will be

accessible to individuals with

disabilities (1 point).

(f) Design of technical assistance

activities (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the extent

to which the design of technical

assistance activities is likely to be

effective in accomplishing the objectives

of the project.

(2) In determining the extent to which

the design is likely to be effective in

accomplishing the objectives of the

project, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods

for providing technical assistance are of

sufficient quality, intensity, and

duration (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which the

information to be provided through

technical assistance covers all of the

relevant aspects of the subject matter (1

point).

(iii) The extent to which the technical

assistance is appropriate to the target

population, including consideration of

the knowledge level of the target

population, needs of the target

population, and format for providing

information (1 point).

(iv) The extent to which the technical

assistance is accessible to individuals

with disabilities (1 point).

(g) Plan of operation (4 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the plan of operation.

(2) In determining the quality of the

plan of operation, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The adequacy of the plan of

operation to achieve the objectives of

the proposed project on time and within

budget, including clearly defined

responsibilities, and timelines for

accomplishing project tasks (2 points).

(ii) The adequacy of the plan of

operation to provide for using resources,

equipment, and personnel to achieve

each objective (2 points).

(h) Collaboration (2 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of collaboration.

(2) In determining the quality of

collaboration, the Secretary considers

the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant’s

proposed collaboration with one or

more agencies, organizations, or

institutions is likely to be effective in

achieving the relevant proposed

activities of the project (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which agencies,

organizations, or institutions

demonstrate a commitment to

collaborate with the applicant (1 point).

(g) Adequacy and reasonableness of

the budget (3 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

adequacy and the reasonableness of the

proposed budget.

(2) In determining the adequacy and

the reasonableness of the proposed

budget, the Secretary considers the

following factors:

(i) The extent to which the costs are

reasonable in relation to the proposed

project activities (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which the budget for

the project, including any subcontracts,

is adequately justified to support the

proposed project activities (2 points).

(h) Plan of evaluation (7 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the plan of evaluation.

(2) In determining the quality of the

plan of evaluation, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation provides for periodic

assessment of progress toward—

(A) Implementing the plan of

operation (1 point); and

(B) Achieving the project’s intended

outcomes and expected impacts (1

point).

(ii) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation will be used to improve the

performance of the project through the

feedback generated by its periodic

assessments (1 point).

(iii) The extent to which the plan of

evaluation provides for periodic

assessment of a project’s progress that is

based on identified performance

measures that—

(A) Are clearly related to the intended

outcomes of the project and expected

impacts on the target population (2

points); and

(B) Are objective, and quantifiable or

qualitative, as appropriate (2 points).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 26045

(i) Project staff (9 points total).

(1) The Secretary considers the

quality of the project staff.

(2) In determining the quality of the

project staff, the Secretary considers the

extent to which the applicant

encourages applications for employment

from persons who are members of

groups that have traditionally been

underrepresented based on race, color,

national origin, gender, age, or disability

(1 point).

(3) In addition, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the key

personnel and other key staff have

appropriate training and experience in

disciplines required to conduct all

proposed activities (2 points).

(ii) The extent to which the

commitment of staff time is adequate to

accomplish all the proposed activities of

the project (2 points).

(iii) The extent to which the key

personnel are knowledgeable about the

methodology and literature of pertinent

subject areas (2 points).

(iv) The extent to which the project

staff includes outstanding scientists in

the field (2 points).

(j) Adequacy and accessibility of

resources (4 points).

(1) The Secretary considers the

adequacy and accessibility of the

applicant’s resources to implement the

proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy and

accessibility of resources, the Secretary

the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the applicant

is committed to provide adequate

facilities, equipment, other resources,

including administrative support, and

laboratories, if appropriate (1 point).

(ii) The extent to which the applicant

has appropriate access to clinical

populations and organizations

representing individuals with

disabilities to support advanced clinical

rehabilitation research (2 points).

(iii) The extent to which the facilities,

equipment, and other resources are

appropriately accessible to individuals

with disabilities who may use the

facilities, equipment, and other

resources of the project (1 point).

Instructions for Application Narrative

The Secretary strongly recommends

the following:

(1) A one-page abstract;

(2) An Application Narrative (i.e., Part

III that addresses the selection criteria

that will be used by reviewers in

evaluating individual proposals) of no

more than 125 pages for RRTC

applications and 75 pages for Project

applications, double-spaced (no more

than 3 lines per vertical inch) 81⁄2 x 11′′

pages (on one side only) with one inch

margins (top, bottom, and sides). The

application narrative page limit

recommendation does not apply to: Part

I—the electronically scannable form;

Part II—the budget section (including

the narrative budget justification); and

Part IV—the assurances and

certifications; and

(3) A font no smaller than a 12-point

font and an average character density no

greater than 14 characters per inch.

Instructions for Transmittal of

Applications

(a) If an applicant wants to apply for

a grant, the applicant shall—

(1) Mail the original and two copies

of the application on or before the

deadline date to: U.S. Department of

Education, Application Control Center,

Attention: (CFDA # [Applicant must

insert number and letter]), Washington,

D.C. 20202–4725, or

(2) Hand deliver the original and two

copies of the application by 4:30 p.m.

[Washington, D.C. time] on or before the

deadline date to: U.S. Department of

Education, Application Control Center,

Attention: (CFDA # [Applicant must

insert number and letter]), Room #3633,

Regional Office Building #3, 7th and D

Streets, S.W., Washington, D.C.

(b) An applicant must show one of the

following as proof of mailing:

(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service

postmark.

(2) A legible mail receipt with the

date of mailing stamped by the U.S.

Postal Service.

(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or

receipt from a commercial carrier.

(4) Any other proof of mailing

acceptable to the Secretary.

(c) If an application is mailed through

the U.S. Postal Service, the Secretary

does not accept either of the following

as proof of mailing:

(1) A private metered postmark.

(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by

the U.S. Postal Service.

Notes: (1) The U.S. Postal Service does not

uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before

relying on this method, an applicant should

check with its local post office.

(2) An applicant wishing to know that its

application has been received by the

Department must include with the

application a stamped self-addressed

postcard containing the CFDA number and

title of this program.

(3) The applicant must indicate on the

envelope and—if not provided by the

Department—in Item 10 of the Application

for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424)

the CFDA number—and letter, if any—of the

competition under which the application is

being submitted.

Application Forms and Instructions

The appendix to this application is

divided into three parts. These parts are

organized in the same manner that the

submitted application should be

organized. These parts are as follows:

Part I: Application for Federal

Assistance (Standard Form 424 (Rev. 4–

88)) and instructions.

Part II: Budget Form—NonConstruction Programs (Standard Form

524A) and instructions.

Part III: Additional Materials.

Estimated Public Reporting Burden.

Assurances—Non-Construction

Programs (Standard Form 424B).

Certifications Regarding Lobbying,

Debarment, Suspension, and Other

Responsibility Matters: and Drug-Free

Work-Place Requirements (ED Form 80–

0013).

Certification Regarding Debarment,

Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary

Exclusion: Lower Tier Covered

Transactions (ED Form 80–0014) and

instructions. (NOTE: ED Form 80–0014

is intended for the use of primary

participants and should not be

transmitted to the Department.)

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

(Standard Form LLL (if applicable) and

instructions; and Disclosure Lobbying

Activities Continuation Sheet (Standard

Form LLL–A).

An applicant may submit information

on a photostatic copy of the application

and budget forms, the assurances, and

the certifications. However, the

application form, the assurances, and

the certifications must each have an

original signature. No grant may be

awarded unless a completed application

form has been received.

For Applications Contact: The Grants

and Contracts Service Team (GCST),

Department of Education, 600

Independence Avenue S.W., Switzer

Building, 3317, Washington, D.C. 20202,

or call (202) 205–8207. Individuals who

use a telecommunications device for the

deaf (TDD) may call the TDD number at

(202) 205–9860. The preferred method

for requesting information is to FAX

your request to (202) 205–8717.

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain a copy of the application package

in an alternate format by contacting the

GCST. However, the Department is not

able to reproduce in an alternate format

the standard forms included in the

application package.

For Further Information Contact:

Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of

Education, 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W.,

room 3418, Switzer Building,

Washington, D.C. 20202–2645.

Telephone: (202) 205–5880. Individuals

who use a telecommunications device
26046 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD

number at (202) 205–2742. Internet:

DonnalNangle@ed.gov

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain this document in an alternate

format (e.g., Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette) on

request to the contact person listed in

the preceding paragraph.

Electronic Access to This Document

Anyone may view this document, as

well as all other Department of

Education documents published in the

Federal Register, in text or portable

document format (pdf) on the World

Wide Web at either of the following

sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use the pdf you must have the Adobe

Acrobat Reader Program with Search,

which is available free at either of the

preceding sites. If you have questions

about using the pdf, call the U.S.

Government Printing Office toll free at

1–888–293–6498.

Anyone may also view these

documents in text copy only on an

electronic bulletin board of the

Department. Telephone: (202) 219–1511

or, toll free, 1–800–222–4922. The

documents are located under Option

G—Files/Announcements, Bulletins and

Press Releases.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760–762.

Dated: May 4, 1998.

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services.

Appendix

Applications Forms and Instructions

Applicants are advised to reproduce and

complete the application forms in this

Section. Applicants are required to submit an

original and two copies of each application

as provided in this Section. However,

applicants are encouraged to submit an

original and seven copies of each application

in order to facilitate the peer review process

and minimize copying errors.

Frequent Questions

1. Can I Get an Extension of the Due Date?

No! On rare occasions the Department of

Education may extend a closing date for all

applicants. If that occurs, a notice of the

revised due date is published in the Federal

Register. However, there are no extensions or

exceptions to the due date made for

individual applicants.

2. What Should be Included in the

Application?

The application should include a project

narrative, vitae of key personnel, and a

budget, as well as the Assurances forms

included in this package. Vitae of staff or

consultants should include the individual’s

title and role in the proposed project, and

other information that is specifically

pertinent to this proposed project. The

budgets for both the first year and all

subsequent project years should be included.

If collaboration with another organization

is involved in the proposed activity, the

application should include assurances of

participation by the other parties, including

written agreements or assurances of

cooperation. It is not useful to include

general letters of support or endorsement in

the application.

If the applicant proposes to use unique

tests or other measurement instruments that

are not widely known in the field, it would

be helpful to include the instrument in the

application.

Many applications contain voluminous

appendices that are not helpful and in many

cases cannot even be mailed to the reviewers.

It is generally not helpful to include such

things as brochures, general capability

statements of collaborating organizations,

maps, copies of publications, or descriptions

of other projects completed by the applicant.

3. What Format Should be Used for the

Application?

NIDRR generally advises applicants that

they may organize the application to follow

the selection criteria that will be used. The

specific review criteria vary according to the

specific program, and are contained in this

Consolidated Application Package.

4. May I Submit Applications to More Than

One NIDRR Program Competition or More

Than One Application to a Program?

Yes, you may submit applications to any

program for which they are responsive to the

program requirements. You may submit the

same application to as many competitions as

you believe appropriate. You may also

submit more than one application in any

given competition.

5. What Is the Allowable Indirect Cost Rate?

The limits on indirect costs vary according

to the program and the type of application.

An applicant for an RRTC is limited to an

indirect rate of 15%.

An applicant for a Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Project should limit

indirect charges to the organization’s

approved indirect cost rate. If the

organization does not have an approved

indirect cost rate, the application should

include an estimated actual rate.

6. Can Profitmaking Businesses Apply for

Grants?

Yes. However, for-profit organizations will

not be able to collect a fee or profit on the

grant, and in some programs will be required

to share in the costs of the project.

7. Can Individuals Apply for Grants?

No. Only organizations are eligible to apply

for grants under NIDRR programs. However,

individuals are the only entities eligible to

apply for fellowships.

8. Can NIDRR Staff Advise Me Whether my

Project Is of Interest to NIDRR or Likely To

Be Funded?

No. NIDRR staff can advise you of the

requirements of the program in which you

propose to submit your application.

However, staff cannot advise you of whether

your subject area or proposed approach is

likely to receive approval.

9. How Do I Assure that my Application Will

be referred to the Most Appropriate Panel for

Review?

Applicants should be sure that their

applications are referred to the correct

competition by clearly including the

competition title and CFDA number,

including alphabetical code, on the Standard

Form 424, and including a project title that

describes the project.

10. How Soon After Submitting my

Application Can I find Out if it Will Be

Funded?

The time from closing date to grant award

date varies from program to program.

Generally speaking, NIDRR endeavors to

have awards made within five to six months

of the closing date. Unsuccessful applicants

generally will be notified within that time

frame as well. For the purpose of estimating

a project start date, the applicant should

estimate approximately six months from the

closing date, but no later than the following

September 30.

11. Can I Call NIDRR To Find Out If My

Application Is Being Funded?

No. When NIDRR is able to release

information on the status of grant

applications, it will notify applicants by

letter. The results of the peer review cannot

be released except through this formal

notification.

12. If My Application is Successful, Can I

Assume I Will Get the Requested Budget

Amount in Subsequent Years?

No. Funding in subsequent years is subject

to availability of funds and project

performance.

13. Will All Approved Applications Be

Funded?

No. It often happens that the peer

review panels approve for funding more

applications than NIDRR can fund

within available resources. Applicants

who are approved but not funded are

encouraged to consider submitting

similar applications in future

competitions.

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 26047
26048 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 26049
26050 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 26051
26052 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

Public reporting burden for these

collections of information is estimated to

average 30 hours per response, including the

time for reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing

and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden

estimate or any other aspect of these

collections of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to: the

U.S. Department of Education, Information

Management and Compliance Division,

Washington, D.C. 20202–4651; and to the

Office of Management and Budget,

Paperwork Reduction Project 1820–0027,

Washington, D.C. 20503. Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Projects (CFDA No.

84.133A) 34 CFR Part 350 Subpart B.

Rehabilitation Research and Training Center

(CFDA No. 84.133B) 34 CFR Part 350 Subpart

C.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 26053
26054 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 26055
26056 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 26057
26058 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 26059
26060 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 26061
26062 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

[FR Doc. 98–12379 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C