34026 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research; Notice of

Final Funding Priorities for Fiscal

Years 2001–2003 for Four Disability

and Rehabilitation Research Projects

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services, Department of

Education.

ACTION: Notice of final funding priorities

for fiscal years 2001–2003 for four

disability and rehabilitation research

projects.

SUMMARY: We are announcing four final

funding priorities under the Disability

and Rehabilitation Research Projects

and Centers Program (DRRP) of the

National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) for FY

2001–2003: Assistive Technology

Outcomes, Impacts and Assistive

Technology Research Projects for

Individuals with Cognitive Disabilities,

Resource Center for Community-based

Research on Technology for

Independence, and Community-based

Research Projects on Technology for

Independence. We take this action to

focus research attention on areas of

national need. We intend these

priorities to improve the rehabilitation

services and outcomes for individuals

with disabilities.

DATES: These priorities take effect on

July 26, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna Nangle. Telephone: (202) 205–

5880. Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the TDD number at (202)

205–4475. Internet:

Donna.Nangle@ed.gov

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain this document in an alternative

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

audiotape, or computer diskette) on

request to the contact person listed in

the preceding paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice contains final priorities under the

Disability and Rehabilitation Research

Projects and Centers Program (DRRP) for

Assistive Technology Outcomes,

Impacts and Assistive Technology

Research Projects for Individuals with

Cognitive Disabilities, Resource Center

for Community-based Research on

Technology for Independence, and

Community-based Research Projects on

Technology for Independence.

The final priorities refer to NIDRR’s

Long-Range Plan (the Plan). The Plan

can be accessed on the World Wide Web

at: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/

NIDRR/#LRP.

National Education Goals

The eight National Education Goals

focus the Nation’s education reform

efforts and provide a framework for

improving teaching and learning.

This notice addresses the National

Education Goal that every adult

American will be literate and will

possess the knowledge and skills

necessary to compete in a global

economy and exercise the rights and

responsibilities of citizenship.

The authority for the program to

establish research priorities by reserving

funds to support particular research

activities is contained in sections 202(g)

and 204 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 762(g) and

764(b)). Regulations governing this

program are found in 34 CFR part 350.

Note: This notice does not solicit

applications. A notice inviting applications is

published in this issue of the Federal

Register.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

On April 6, 2001, we published a

notice of proposed priorities on the

Assistive Technology Outcomes and

Impacts and the Assistive Technology

Research Projects for Individuals with

Cognitive Disabilities in the Federal

Register (66 FR 18366). The Department

of Education received 12 letters

commenting on the notice of proposed

priorities by the deadline date.

Technical and other minor changes—

and suggested changes we are not

legally authorized to make under

statutory authority—are not addressed.

Priority 1: Assistive Technology

Outcomes and Impacts

Comment: The primary stakeholder

regarding AT outcomes is the person

who uses (or is expected to use) a

particular AT device. Family members

and caregivers are secondary

consumers, however, they may be

considered primary stakeholders in the

sense that two thirds of all AT is

procured through first party and family

funding. Therefore, it is crucial that this

priority require applicants to focus on

the individual with a disability rather

than other primary and secondary

stakeholders.

Discussion: NIDRR feels the priority is

sufficiently flexible to allow the

applicant to propose methodological

approaches that focus on the needs of

primary stakeholders such as

individuals with disabilities. The peer

review process will evaluate the merits

of the proposal.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter is

concerned about using the word

‘‘intervention’’ in the general purpose

statement suggesting that it is a poor

choice of words and may be

misinterpreted. The commenter

recommends dropping the word

altogether so that the last sentence of the

general purpose statement reads ‘‘* * *

determine the efficacy and utility of AT

and the implications.’’

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the

term ‘‘interventions’’ may be

misconstrued because of varying

definitions and interpretations.

Changes: The word ‘‘interventions’’

has been dropped from the general

purpose statement.

Comment: The second bulleted

activity lists a number of relevant

organizations that applicants must

collaborate with. Given that AT users

are the primary targets of this priority,

this bulleted activity should be

expanded to include AT users.

Discussion: The second bulleted

activity enumerates relevant NIDRR

projects and not specific stakeholders.

The purpose of this priority is to

investigate AT outcomes and 2 impacts

and cannot be carried out without the

full participation and support of AT

users.

Changes: None.

Comment: The assessment and

evaluation of AT should include

questions related to both positive and

negative impacts of AT use and the

acquisition of AT through various

financial means.

Discussion: Economic and cost

factors, as well as positive and negative

outcomes, of AT use are discussed in

the background statement. An applicant

can propose methodological approaches

to measure outcomes and impacts that

take into account both positive and

negative impacts of AT use and the

acquisition of AT through various

financial means and the peer review

process will evaluate the merits of the

proposal.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter feels that

the application of AT to specific

populations (such as frail elderly

persons, infants and toddlers, and their

care providers) should be examined in

terms of financial benefits to individuals

and care systems as well as functional

outcomes for individuals.

Discussion: NIDRR agrees with the

commenter that an examination of the

application of AT to specific

populations and its impact on care

systems as well as individuals is critical

to the development of useful

measurement systems and this was

mentioned in the background statement.

An applicant may propose to examine

the financial benefits to individuals and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Notices 34027

care systems as well as functional

outcomes for individuals with

disabilities and the peer review process

will evaluate the merits of the proposal.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested

that long-term outcomes need to be

addressed specifically. Preliminary

research indicates that the use of AT

will delay institutionalization and,

along with personal attendant services,

will maintain a person in a relatively

independent state for a given period of

time. For people with significant

disabilities, including those with

Alzheimer’s and other dementia

diseases who use assistive devices, it

may be useful and instructive to

discover the long-term effects of reliance

on AT for independent living.

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that

maintaining an independent life style

for as long as possible is critical for all

people and that the use of AT plays an

important role in independent living.

The background statement and the

priority support the commenter’s

contention. An applicant may propose

ways to measure the impact of AT on

maintaining independence in its

application and the peer review process

will evaluate the merits of the proposal.

Changes: None.

Comment: The cost-benefit of AT on

healthcare is an essential impact

question. Efforts to evaluate the

appropriate use of AT and its financial

benefits to insurance providers (both

public and private) are essential.

Related to this issue is the impact of

managed care systems on the

appropriate provision of AT to persons

with disabilities. The positive or

negative effects of this type of delivery

system should be investigated in terms

of long-term health outcome, including

the reduction of time spent in

healthcare institutions, for individuals

with disabilities.

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that there

are a myriad of issues related to the cost,

economics, and financial benefits of AT.

An applicant may propose to investigate

issues related to the cost, economics,

and financial benefits of AT and the

peer review process will evaluate the

merits of the proposal.

Changes: None.

Comment: The same commenter

believes that the impact of expanding

approved lists of durable medical

equipment through DMERCs on

individual outcomes should also be

assessed.

Discussion: Developing lists of

approved durable medical equipment

through DMERCs and assessing their

impact on individual outcomes is

beyond the scope of this priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter cites the

need to develop methods and standards

of practice to help organizations

monitor the quality of services and

outcomes.

Discussion: Developing methods and

standards of practice for organizational

monitoring of quality assurance is

beyond the scope of this priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: The same commenter feels

that three levels of information must be

measured; the impact of AT on the

individual, the impact on the

community and how and in what

context the service was delivered.

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that these

are important dimensions of AT use and

addressed these factors in the

background statement. An applicant

may propose ways to measure the

different levels of impact of the

provision of AT on the consumer, on the

community, and the context in which

the AT was provided. The peer review

process will evaluate the merits of the

proposal.

Changes: None.

Priority 2: Assistive Technology

Research Projects for Individuals With

Cognitive Disabilities

Comment: Four commenters suggest

that an activity should be added to the

priority requiring applicants to

investigate ways of making the Internet

accessible to people with cognitive

disabilities.

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that access

to the Internet, and therefore,

information is extremely important for

persons with cognitive disabilities. An

applicant could propose to investigate

ways to make the Internet more

accessible for persons with cognitive

disabilities and the peer review process

will evaluate the merits of the proposal.

Changes: None.

Priority 3: Resource Center for

Community-Based Research for

Independence; Priority 4: CommunityBased Research Projects on Technology

for Independence

On April 6, 2001, we published a

notice of proposed priorities in the

Federal Register (66 FR 18360). The

Department of Education received 14

letters commenting on the notice of

proposed priorities by the deadline date.

Many of the comments concerned both

priorities, raised multiple issues and

suggestions, and overlapped with other

comments. NIDRR is responding to the

comments on priority one and priority

two jointly. As a group, the comments

indicated a need to clarify the purposes

and expectations for these priorities and

to explain some of the legislative and

regulatory constraints under which they

were proposed. Technical and other

minor changes—and suggested changes

we are not legally authorized to make

under statutory authority—are not

addressed.

General Comments

Comment: Several commenters

suggested that each project be required

to address a variety of different topics,

such as rural areas, effects of technology

on health outcomes, 5 specific disability

populations, such as deaf individuals,

caregivers, or families.

Discussion: A major purpose of this

program is to address issues, within the

general area of access to appropriate

technology, that are identified as

important by individuals with

disabilities. This priority is concerned

generally with research on

understanding potential roles for

community-based disability

organizations in research on increasing

access to Assistive Technology (AT) and

systems technology, and with

developing partnerships and research

strategies for use by community-based

disability organizations. NIDRR elects

not to further constrict the selection of

problems for study. Applicants may

elect to study issues of single disability

populations or cross-disability concerns,

and may target any populations relevant

to improving access to technology,

including families, caregivers,

professional service providers, product

distributors, or others. It is up to the

applicants to convince the peer

reviewers of the importance of the

problem they elect to address.

Changes: None.

Comment: Several commenters

discussed the definition of communitybased disability organization and of

consumer control. The gist of these

comments related to either: declaring

certain types of organizations (e.g.,

University Affiliated Programs, now

named University Centers of Excellence,

or facility-based employment programs)

to be community-based organizations;

restricting the competition to consumerdirected organizations; or declaring

various types of organizations to be

either eligible or ineligible for the

competition. One commenter argued

that the intent to ‘‘involve community

disability organizations’’ is

objectionable, and that grants should be

made only to grassroots organizations,

and not universities.

Discussion: NIDRR does not have the

authority to restrict eligibility for the

DRRP competition beyond that specified

in the statute. The regulations specify

that any public or private organization,

34028 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Notices

whether nonprofit or for-profit,

institution of higher education, or

Indian tribe or tribal organization, is

eligible to apply for a grant in this

program. Since the purpose of this

priority is to build research capacity in

community-based disability

organizations to study problems of

access to technology, NIDRR requires in

the priority that any application to be

funded must include a communitybased disability organization, either as

sole applicant or as a partner in the

endeavor. According to the priority, ‘‘A

community-based disability

organization is a consumer-directed

disability organization * * * consumer

control is the key.’’ While NIDRR

regulations do not define these terms,

regulations for the Independent Living

Programs, also funded under the

Rehabilitation Act, as amended, define

‘‘consumer control’’ to mean that ‘‘a

center or eligible agency vests power

and authority in individuals with

disabilities * * *’’ [34 CFR 364.4 (b)].

Further, dictionary definitions and the

sense of this priority indicate that

community-based organizations are not

institution-based, and that disability

organizations are those of, by, and for

persons with disabilities. It will be up

to the peer reviewers in applying the

selection criteria to judge how well an

application responds to the purposes of

the priority of building research

capacity in community-based disability

organizations and works through

community-based disability

organizations to ‘‘* * * broaden the

inclusion of persons with disabilities in

developing practical and affordable

solutions to AT and environmental

access problems and needs’’.

Changes: None.

Comment: Several commenters

discussed standards and requirements

for AT to be developed under these

grants. At the same time, other

commenters pointed out that there were

many barriers to access beyond the

development of new technology.

Discussion: The priority does not

address development of technology, but

rather research on improved access to

technology. Applicants could propose to

develop new technology or devices if

the project met the basic purposes of

building research capacity in

community-based disability

organizations by addressing issues of

increasing access to technology, both

individual AT and systems

(environmental access). However,

NIDRR does not anticipate that

development of new technology will be

the focus of all, or even any, of these

projects. Issues of improving access also

include distribution, diagnosis and

prescription, funding, maintenance,

training, and other problems. Potential

applicants are referred to both the

NIDRR Long-Range Plan (1999) and the

Blueprint for the Millennium: An

Analysis of Regional Hearings on

Assistive Technology for People with

Disabilities (1998) for discussions of the

complex issues in technology access for

individuals with disabilities. It is up to

the applicants to convince the peer

reviewers of the importance of the

problem they elect to address.

Changes: None.

Comment: Several commenters asked

that additional NIDRR centers or entities

funded from other sources be specified

as resources for cooperation in the

priority.

Discussion: The priority states,

‘‘Coordinate with appropriate federallyfunded projects.’’ The priority then

provides examples of what may be

included. It is not feasible or necessary

to list all potential cooperators, and

astute applicants will survey the field to

identify the most appropriate

organizations for coordination to

advance the success of their proposed

projects.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter requested

a clarification of the meaning of

‘‘environmental access’’ and whether it

applies only to AT, or could include

other environmental issues.

Discussion: The priority refers to AT

and environmental access. The Plan

refers to technology to improve function

and technology to improve access to the

built environment. Modifications to the

physical and telecommunications

environments, including applications of

universal design, may include

architectural modifications, signage for

persons with sensory or cognitive

limitations, and public transit

modifications that enable persons with

disabilities to access the broader

environment.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter stated that

there should be a requirement that every

applicant must indicate how they are

developing research capacity among

individuals with disabilities.

Discussion: NIDRR agrees that this is

an important aspect of the projects and

has added language in the priority to

this effect.

Changes: The language ‘‘applicants

must describe how they will develop

research capacity among individuals

with disabilities at the community

level’’ has been inserted as paragraph (c)

in the final section of both priorities.

Comment: One commenter noted that

although dissemination of project

findings through electronic media is

often effective, it would be

inappropriate to limit the dissemination

of findings to electronic media and that

accessible electronic media in

combination with other accessible

media should be used.

Discussion: Selection criteria for

dissemination activities address

appropriateness of dissemination

approaches and that such methods are

accessible to individuals with various

disabilities.

Changes: None.

Disability and Rehabilitation Research

Projects and Centers Program

The authority for Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP)

is contained in section 204 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended

(29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b)). The

purpose of the DRRP program is to plan

and conduct research, demonstration

projects, training, and related activities

to—

(a) Develop methods, procedures, and

rehabilitation technology that

maximizes the full inclusion and

integration into society, employment,

independent living, family support, and

economic and social self-sufficiency of

individuals with disabilities; and

(b) Improve the effectiveness of

services authorized under the Act.

Priority 1: Assistive Technology

Outcomes and Impacts

Background

One of the greatest challenges facing

health care systems, social services

providers and policymakers is to ensure

that scarce resources are used

efficiently. To a large extent, this

challenge explains the growing interest

in outcomes research and evidencebased medicine.

Particular interest in outcomes of

assistive technology (AT) is related to

the amount of dollars spent on

developing and manufacturing AT, AT

service delivery and to the need to

improve the functional independence

and well-being of persons with

disabilities of all ages. Yet, assessment

of the impact of technology on function

and other productivity and quality of

life outcomes lags behind outcomes

measurement in other areas of

rehabilitation.

There are several factors that promote

concern about the paucity of outcomes

research in AT including the: (a) Ability

to demonstrate efficacy of new devices;

(b) need to examine effectiveness of

devices over time; and (c) need to chart

future research and development to

improve devices (Fuhrer, M. J.,

‘‘Assistive technology outcomes

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Notices 34029

research: challenges met and yet

unmet,’’ American Journal of Physical

Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2001, In

press). Outcomes research and analysis

is also needed to guide decisionmaking

across multiple levels of policy and

program development, including: (a)

Decisions on a societal level regarding

types of public programs and services to

fund; (b) decisions on a programmatic

level regarding what services to

continue, enhance, modify or eliminate;

(c) decisions on an individual level

regarding AT recommendations and

interventions; and (d) decisions on a

research level regarding the comparative

effectiveness of individual devices and

the impact on future designs (Smith, R.,

‘‘Measuring the outcomes of assistive

technology: challenge and innovation’’,

Assistive Technology, Vol. 8, No. 2, pgs.

71–81, 1996).

In the face of a growing interest in

outcomes, the inconsistent use of

terminology contributes to the

confusion that exists in the application

of a generally accepted outcomes

approach. In the field of rehabilitation,

outcomes measurement has focused on

creating outcomes management systems

and measuring and communicating

outcomes. Rehabilitation has led the

health care field in its emphasis on

changes in function as an outcomes

measure. Still, even in rehabilitation,

outcomes measurement systems have

typically focused on process variables,

i.e., the outputs of products and

services, and not on gains to the

individual or society in either the short

or long term. Wilkerson posits that this

emphasis on process will change

because of three factors: (a) The pressure

to cut costs; (b) growth of consumerism

leading to increased input from users

and increased focus on the needs of the

end user; and (c) concerns about quality

in relation to costs (Wilkerson, D.,

‘‘Outcomes and accreditation—The

paradigm is shifting toward outcome,’’

Rehab Management, August/September,

pgs. 112–115, 1997).

Outcomes research is defined in

different ways across rehabilitation and

health services research as well as in the

social services field. The Foundation for

Health Services Research (Foundation

for Health Services Research, Health

Outcomes Research: A Primer,

Washington, DC, 1994) characterized

outcomes research as research focused

on the ‘‘end results of medical care—the

effect of the health care process on the

health and well-being of patients and

populations.’’ The Institute of Medicine

(IOM) (Feasley, J.C., ed., Health

Outcomes for Older People: Questions

for the Coming Decade, Washington,

DC: National Academy Press, 1996)

expanded this definition to include ‘‘the

clinical signs and symptoms, well-being

or mental and emotional functioning;

physical, cognitive, and social

functioning; satisfaction with care;

health-related quality of life, and costs

and appropriate use of resources.’’

Outcomes research has also been

defined as research designed to discover

the sustained impact of rehabilitative

strategies and treatments in the

everyday lives of persons with

disabilities. ‘‘Outcomes research

attempts to build a bridge between

interventions and long-term

improvements in the lives of persons

served as they reenter the community’’

(Johnston, M., et al., ‘‘Outcomes

research in medical rehabilitation—

foundations from the past and

directions for the future,’’ Assessing

Medical Rehabilitation Practices: The

Promise of Outcomes Research, Marcus

J. Fuhrer, ed., pgs. 1–42, 1997).

Regardless of how it is defined,

outcomes research is part of the larger

framework of program evaluation

(Fuhrer, op. cit., 1997), and includes

both outcomes analysis and outcomes

measurement also known as

performance measurement (Jennings,

B.M. and Staggers, N., The language of

outcomes, Journal of Rehabilitation

Outcomes Measurement, Vol. 3, No. 1,

pgs. 59–64, 1999).

Rehabilitation outcomes are changes

produced by rehabilitation services in

the lives of service recipients and their

environments. Outcome indicators are

measures of the amount and frequency

of those occurrences, and include

service quality. Within this perspective,

some analysts use the word ‘‘impacts’’

to distinguish between long-term

outcomes or end results that occur on a

societal versus an individual level. Still

others use the term ‘‘impact’’ more

strictly to refer to estimates of the extent

to which the program actually ‘‘caused’’

particular outcomes (Hatry, H., et al.,

Customer Surveys for agency managers:

What Managers Need to Know,

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 1998).

Deconstructing these various definitions

and types of outcomes and impacts

requires recognition of complexity on

many levels.

Although AT has grown as a

discipline and as an industry over the

past two decades, there has not been a

corresponding maturity in developing or

assessing the outcomes or impacts of AT

upon individuals with disabilities. AT

devices and services outcomes also may

be difficult to define because of the

ways AT is used. For example, AT is

used to increase participation in the

environment, enhance normative social

roles, promote and sustain employment,

and facilitate activities of daily living.

Some devices, such as computers,

increase access to information and

support life long learning. AT devices

vary significantly from highly complex

and sophisticated computer-operated

systems to low tech approaches that can

be easily purchased or built.

Complicating the issue even further are

the individual characteristics of the AT

user and the varied environments in

which users live, work, and learn.

Approximately one-third of AT

devices will be abandoned by the user

(Phillips, B. and Zhao, H. ‘‘Predictors of

assistive technology abandonment’’,

Assistive Technology, Vol. 5, pgs. 36–45,

1995). There are many reasons why

individuals with disabilities choose to

accept or reject AT devices. Since

public funds provide a major source for

purchasing AT devices and services,

useful and accurate measures of

outcomes and impacts is critical for

accountability and to avoid wasteful

outcomes. Is abandonment a negative or

could it be a positive outcome?

Abandonment has been viewed as the

end result of fragmented service

provision, poor assessment techniques,

lack of consumer choice in device

selection, inattention to device use

across environments, inadequate

training, costly repairs, need to upgrade

and obsolete or inappropriate

technology. However, abandonment

may be a natural phenomenon related to

improved physical or cognitive

function, the result of a technology

upgrade or because different technology

is a better fit between the end-user and

the environment.

There are other reasons to account for

the lack of momentum in measurement

development and outcomes and impact

research on AT. Most of the

endorsements of a particular device or

service are based on anecdotal

information (Fuhrer, 1999) rather than

data generated from research. Frank

DeRuyter (‘‘Evaluating outcomes in

assistive technology: do we understand

the commitment,’’ Assistive Technology,

Vol. 7, No. 1, pgs. 3–16, 1995), observed

that historically, AT was considered a

remedy to impairment or dysfunction,

and the urgency of consumer need was

of greater importance than relying upon

data to document the efficacy of a

particular device. In addition, quality

was perceived as too abstract and

difficult to measure and define. Vendors

and practitioners may feel threatened by

potential findings and accountability

demands, which may also have

contributed to the lack of outcomes

studies (DeRuyter, op. cit., 1995).

While the AT arena is complex and

broad, several outcomes studies have

34030 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Notices

focused on a discrete segment of the

entire system. Smith says that there are

essentially two domains of outcome

measurement: the performance of an

individual using assistive technology

and the cost of achieving the level of

performance (Smith, R. O.,

‘‘Accountability in assistive technology

interventions: measuring outcomes,’’

Volume I—RESNA Resource Guide of

Assistive Technology Outcomes:

Measurement Tools, pgs. 15–43, 1998).

Minkel proposed that the primary

measure to determine the value of the

assistive technology is the basic formula

of outcomes divided by cost (Minkel, J.,

‘‘Assistive technology and outcomes

measurement: Where do we begin?’’

Technology and Disability, July, pgs.

285–288, 1996). There are others within

the AT community who operate under

the assumption that improvements and

innovation in technology will

‘‘naturally’’ lead to successful use and

implementation, and therefore do not

need to be evaluated. From this

perspective, technological solutions

have been viewed as a panacea without

the benefit of data to support prevailing

assumptions (DeRuyter, F., ‘‘Concepts

and rationale for accountability in

assistive technology,’’ Volume I—

RESNA Resource Guide of Assistive

Technology Outcomes: Measurement

Tools, pgs. 2–15, 1998).

At a minimum, the process of

evaluating AT outcomes must measure

and establish a baseline of what works,

identify how well and for whom it

works, and at what level of economy

and efficiency. This process will

necessitate taking information from

several performance monitoring

dimensions (De Ruyter, op. cit., 1998).

In approaching the challenges of AT

outcomes measurement, it is important

to identify if the outcomes relate to the

AT product or service, the user, or to the

environment in which the technology is

being used. While not standardized or

widely endorsed, a variety of

measurement techniques and

instruments are currently utilized.

These measurement tools tend to be

specific to a given practice area or

limited to a functional domain, (Volume

I: RESNA—Resource Guide for Assistive

Technology Outcomes: Measurement

Tools, 1998).

To proceed with assessing AT

outcomes and impacts, the following

questions need to be addressed. First,

what are the key gaps and weaknesses

in our knowledge of AT use and its

impacts? Are the key research questions

related to a particular intervention at a

particular point in time? How do device

modifications and upgrades change the

intervention? How do characteristics of

the population including severity of

impairment, duration of disability,

presence of co-morbidities, aging and

other sociodemographic factors

influence technology utilization and

bias outcomes study? What is the role of

environmental, economic, awareness

and training barriers in AT use and

outcomes? These different levels of

outcomes can look at impacts and

effects of technology at one point in

time, more typically a clinical or

functional outcome, or can be examined

in terms of long-term impacts on

individual quality of life, productivity

and social participation. As one

researcher expressed it, in addition to

longitudinal studies, ‘‘the research

agenda must consider lifelong use of

assistive technology, documenting

effectiveness of that technology as an

intervention, identifying stages for

reconsideration of its use, and defining

environmental and social

considerations’’ (Turk, M. A., ‘‘Early

development-related condition,’’

Assessing Medical Rehabilitation

Practices—The Promise of Outcomes

Research, Marcus J. Fuhrer, ed., pgs.

367–392, 1997).

Innovations in AT will continue to

evolve and many AT users, as they have

in the recent past, will experience

increases in independence, function,

and general well being. Concurrently,

the gap between the promise of

technology and the ability of

individuals and funding sources to

afford them will continue to widen.

This will result in a greater need for

knowledge about the cost-effectiveness

and efficiency of particular devices and

services (Fuhrer, M.J., ‘‘Assistive

technology outcomes research:

challenges met and yet unmet,’’

American Journal of Physical Medicine

and Rehabilitation, 2001, In press).

Priority 1

We will establish multiple research

projects on AT outcomes and impacts to

determine the efficacy and utility of AT

and the implications for abandonment

of AT devices. In carrying out these

purposes, the projects must:

(a) Assess the current status of AT

outcomes and impacts measurement

systems and approaches, identifying

measurement methodologies,

characteristics of key instruments

including utility to AT field, and critical

gaps in measurement;

(b) Based upon the findings of

paragraph (a), evaluate efficacy of

existing measurement instruments or

develop and evaluate new outcomes and

impacts measurement methodologies to

meet the needs of AT stakeholders; and

(c) Investigate and analyze the

complexity of factors contributing to the

abandonment of AT, including agerelated changes, and identify how these

factors are incorporated into outcomes

and impacts measurement instruments.

In addition to activities proposed by

the applicants to carry out these

purposes, each project must:

• Develop and disseminate to AT

stakeholders and other interested and

relevant audiences, as determined by

NIDRR, materials on AT outcomes

studies and impacts analyses and,

periodic updates on the project’s

milestones, products and results; and

• Collaborate with relevant NIDRRsponsored projects, such as the AT/IT

Consumer Survey (University of

Michigan), the RESNA Technical

Assistance projects, and the RRTC on

Medical Rehabilitation Outcomes, as

identified through consultation with the

NIDRR Project Officer.

Priority 2: Assistive Technology

Research Projects for Individuals With

Cognitive Disabilities

Background

Technology and assistive devices

have commonly been used to assist

persons with mobility, communication

and sensory difficulties. Because of the

positive impact that technology has

played in the lives of these individuals,

there is now a strong push toward the

development of such devices for people

with cognitive disabilities. The

Assistive Technology Act of 1998

defines an AT device to be any item,

piece of equipment or product system

whether acquired commercially off the

shelf, modified or customized that is

used to increase, maintain or improve

functional capabilities of individuals

with disabilities. Rapid advances in

technology provide great potential for

development of new devices or

adaptation of available devices to assist

individuals with cognitive disabilities to

develop and maintain skills.

Technology professionals, such as

computer scientists and rehabilitation

engineers, have limited experience

applying AT solutions to users with

cognitive disabilities. Nor do they yet

understand the mapping between

specific needs and equally specific

design solutions. Most people with

cognitive disabilities have a range of

learning and processing capabilities.

Wide variations in cognitive functioning

make it difficult to develop generic

solutions appropriate for all individuals.

Functional capabilities associated with

these disabilities may include wide

ranges of ability in memory, reasoning,

and language comprehension. Cognitive

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Notices 34031

functioning also includes perception,

problem-solving, conceptualizing,

reading, thinking and sequencing

(Electronic and Information Technology

Access Advisory Committee, ‘‘EITAAC

Report, May 13, 1999,’’ A Report to the

Architectural and Transportation

Barriers Compliance Board). Common

strategies to improve functioning in

activities of daily living across various

cognitive disabilities need to be

identified, as do, issues regarding

information processing that may be

unique to each of these groups.

Persons with cognitive disabilities

often have difficulty in carrying out

Instrumental Activities of Daily Living

(IADLs) because of problems with time

management and information retrieval.

Researchers are experimenting with the

use of electronic personal computers to

compensate for memory problems.

Other researchers are examining

methods of matching individual

cognitive problems with compensatory

strategies provided by a variety of

commercially available portable

electronic devices. In traumatic brain

injury treatment, researchers are

investigating the use of virtual reality

technology to test visual acuity and

reaction times to stimulus. Research is

also being conducted on the use of textbased messages to enhance

communication.

Technology is often viewed as

facilitating employment of persons with

disabilities. However, inaccessible

technology can be a barrier to all

persons with disabilities. This is

particularly true for persons with

cognitive impairments who may have

difficulty using telephones, computers,

and other equipment that are staples of

most work environments. Developers

and manufacturers of AT often do not

consider issues of cognitive access and

flexibility when designing their

products.

While the congruence between the

promise of AT and the needs of many

people attempting to achieve

community integration is obvious, little

has been written about the manner in

which technology affects community

adaptation or the service needs of

individuals with cognitive disabilities

in community settings. While specific

manifestations of AT have identifiable

benefits, the central question needs to

be empirically addressed—how can

assistive technologies contribute to

community integration and in what

manner can the linkage be facilitated?

The state of knowledge about the use of

AT for persons with cognitive

disabilities, as well as the outcomes of

that use or lack of use and the costeffectiveness in achieving community

integration is limited. There are only a

few large assessments of the technology

needs of persons with cognitive

disabilities and results are ambiguous

because of difficulties in identifying

persons with low incidence conditions

and specific technology needs within

the study population (Lakin, C. et al.,

NIDRR Long-Range Plan Commissioned

Paper on Community Integration, 1996).

In order to take advantage of any

potential that technological advances

may have, it is important to define what

makes a device easier or more difficult

for a person with a cognitive disability

to use. Products that are simpler and

require fewer cognitive skills are easier

to operate for everyone (Vanderheiden,

G., 1992, ‘‘A brief look at technology

and mental retardation in the 21st

century,’’ in Mental Retardation in the

Year 2000, Louis Rowitz, ed., New York:

Springer-Verlag). ‘‘Design guidelines’’

must then be communicated to the

manufacturers of consumer products

and business information systems.

Instructions for training on the use and

maintenance of the device also need to

be part of this design process. It is

important for designers to be aware of

the real world tasks with which the user

has difficulty; hence, research needs to

include persons with cognitive

disabilities at the front end of all

technology development. End product

affordability is important not only in

meeting consumer needs, but also in

creating the market demand that will

encourage manufacturers to enter

production.

The NIDRR Long-Range Plan

discusses three objectives in developing

technology to meet the needs of people

with limitations in cognitive

functioning: to assure that new

technologies are accessible and do not

exacerbate exclusion from mainstream

activities; to assist people with cognitive

limitations in the performance of daily

activities; and to develop technologies

that can enhance or restore some

cognitive functions (NIDRR, Long-Range

Plan: 1999–2003, pg. 57).

The University of Colorado recently

accepted a gift of $250 million. The

endowment will fund advanced

research and development of innovative

technologies to enhance the lives of

people with cognitive disabilities. The

endowment, to be paid over five years,

will be used to establish the Coleman

Institute for Cognitive Disabilities

located at the University of Colorado.

Applicants for this project should

provide information on proposed

coordination with the Coleman

Institute.

Priority 2

We will establish multiple research

projects on technology access for

persons with cognitive disabilities

leading to practical and affordable

solutions to identified community and

workplace needs of this population. The

projects must:

(a) Conduct an assessment of state-ofthe-art technology applications for

persons with cognitive disabilities;

(b) Based on the assessment results of

paragraph (a), identify technology gaps

and needs for persons with cognitive

disabilities and make recommendations

for new technology and modifications to

existing technology;

(c) Identify features that may be

incorporated into existing,

commercially available technology that

could benefit persons with cognitive

disabilities; and

(d) Develop and explore strategies for

strengthening partnerships with

developers and manufacturers of

devices in order to facilitate the

development of new technologies and

applications to incorporate cognitive

access.

In addition to the activities proposed

by the applicants to carry out these

purposes, the projects must:

• Coordinate with the appropriate

Federal agencies and privately-funded

projects, such as the University of

Colorado’s Coleman Institute for

Cognitive Disabilities, that are relevant

to the applicants proposed activities as

identified through consultation with the

NIDRR project officer; and

• Involve individuals with cognitive

disabilities in all aspects of the project.

Priorities for Community-Based

Rehabilitation Projects on Technology

for Independence

Background on Issues in Involvement of

Community-Based Organizations of

People With Disabilities in Promoting

Technology for Independence

As stated in the Plan, ‘‘It is the

mission of NIDRR to generate,

disseminate, and promote the full use of

new knowledge that will improve

substantially the options for disabled

individuals to perform regular activities

in the community, and the capacity of

society to provide full opportunities and

appropriate supports for its disabled

citizens.’’ Assistive Technology (AT)

and environmental access play key roles

in this mission. The Plan provides

detailed definitions, examples, and

research objectives for AT and

environmental access, including

universal design.

According to a National Center for

Health Statistics report titled ‘‘Trends

34032 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Notices

and Differential Use of Assistive

Technology Devices: United States,

1994,’’ approximately 17 million people

used at least one AT device. AT and

related environmental access

approaches (environmental access

approaches include the concept of

universal design) help people with

disabilities function on a more equal

basis in society. For more information

on the contributions of AT and access

solutions, see the examples and links to

relevant web sites provided by the

United States Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board, also known as the Access Board

(http://www.access-board.gov/), and the

Doorway to Research on Technology for

Access and Function at the National

Center for the Dissemination of

Disability Research (NCDDR) (http://

www.ncddr.org/rpp/techaf/index.html).

The new paradigm of disability

embodied in the Plan requires analysis

of the extent to which AT and

environmental access helps individuals

with disabilities in attaining full

participation in society. Much of

NIDRR’s work reflects the components

of the Independent Living (IL)

philosophy: consumer control, self-help,

advocacy, peer relationships and peer

role models, and equal access to society,

programs, and activities. IL and

achieving community integration to the

maximum extent possible are issues at

the crux of NIDRR’s mission.

Furthermore, NIDRR is committed to the

creation of a theoretical framework with

measurable outcomes that is based upon

the experiences of individuals with

disabilities.

To improve ‘‘end-user’’ participation

in addressing AT problems, and related

environmental access solutions, NIDRR

will support projects that involve

community-based organizations in

researching AT related problems and

needs. Two types of projects will be

supported. The first type includes

research projects that will investigate

the use of, and need for, AT devices and

services at the community level. The

second type of project is a communitybased research ‘‘Resource Center’’ that

will develop, evaluate, and disseminate

improved research and training methods

appropriate to AT and environmental

access involvement of community-based

disability organizations. The Resource

Center will also provide AT and

environmental access technical

assistance to community-based

organizations and will foster

cooperation among the funded projects.

These community-based research

projects will broaden the inclusion of

persons with disabilities in developing

practical and affordable solutions to AT

and environmental access problems and

needs.

In recent years, a number of NIDRR

grant competitions have led to research

projects and activities that aim at

improving access to AT and reducing

environmental barriers. For many years,

NIDRR funded grants to States under the

Technology-Related Assistance for

Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988

(Tech Act). In addition to research

programs under title II of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended

(29 U.S.C. 796) (the Rehabilitation Act),

NIDRR now has responsibility for AT

programs under the Assistive

Technology Act of 1998 (AT Act), which

replaced the Tech Act. A June 5, 2000

notice (65 FR 35768–35774) for a new

Alternative Financing Program under

title III of the AT Act identified

numerous issues affecting access of

people with disabilities to AT. An April

5, 1999 notice (64 FR 16531) under

NIDRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering

Research Center (RERC) program

discussed the importance of improving

access to the environment through

universal design. For information on

ongoing and completed NIDRRsupported activities in these areas,

contact the National Rehabilitation

Information Center at or telephone 1–

800–346–2742.

This year, NIDRR anticipates

awarding a number of projects related to

AT and environmental access. For

updates on the status of announcements

please see the Education Department

Forecast of Funding Opportunities

under Department of Education

Discretionary Grant Programs for FY

2001 at: http://ocfo.ed.gov/grntinfo/

forecast/forecast.htm

According to the Rehabilitation Act,

the purpose of IL programs is ‘‘to

promote a philosophy of consumer

control, peer support, self-help, selfdetermination, equal access, and

individual empowerment, equal access,

and system advocacy, in order to

maximize the leadership,

empowerment, independence, and

productivity of individuals with

disabilities, and the integration and full

inclusion of individuals with

disabilities into the mainstream of

American society.’’ The concepts in this

philosophy of consumer control, peer

support, and self-help place these title

VII independent living centers (CILs)

within a broader world-wide grouping

known as ‘‘community-based’’

organizations.

The term ‘‘community-based’’

organization has varying meanings in

disability and rehabilitation programs

and in social research. For the purpose

of these two priorities, a ‘‘communitybased disability organization’’ is a

consumer-directed community

organization such as a CIL. Consumer

control is the key. Some community

rehabilitation service organizations, for

example psychosocial rehabilitation

programs, also value consumer

direction. Other disability-related

organizations are located in community

settings, but do not have significant

consumer direction. Section 7 of the

Rehabilitation Act, for example,

identifies community rehabilitation

programs as providers of AT devices

and services for persons with

disabilities, but such organizations may

or may not be consumer directed.

Organizations with consumer direction,

including CILs and other organizations

such as protection and advocacy (P&A)

agencies, are in a unique position to

help identify and study the specific

needs for AT and environmental access

of individuals from diverse populations

and therefore are the focus of this

research effort.

A number of private foundations and

international agencies have identified

the value of investing in ‘‘grassroots’’,

consumer-directed organizations,

particularly in public health and

economic development. These

organizations aim at reducing poverty or

specific diseases such as HIV/AIDS, or

they provide assistance to special needs

groups such as people in troubled urban

and rural areas (see the World Wide

Web sites or publications of the Pew

Fund for Health and Human Services

http://www.pewtrusts.com/, the World

Health Organization http://

www.who.int/, and the Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation http://www.rwjf/

org/index.jsp for examples).

Community-based research

encompasses a broad set of research

activities with differing, and sometimes

competing, concepts and methods.

Sociology, anthropology, community

psychology and public health, for

example, use applied community

research methods. For the purpose of

these two proposed priorities,

community-based research is intensive,

systematic study directed toward new or

full scientific knowledge or

understanding of AT or environmental

access problems. In addition, the

research must be completed in the

community under the direction of

community-based disability

organizations (Sclove, R.E, Scammell,

M.L. & Holland, B. (1998). Communitybased Research in the U.S. Amherst,

MA: The Loka Institute (http://

www.loka.org/)).

Community-based disability and

rehabilitation research puts primary

emphasis on assisting persons with

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Notices 34033

disabilities by producing and

disseminating knowledge and

technology and promoting and

advancing the rehabilitation and

integration process at the community

level. Community-based disability and

rehabilitation research, according to

these two priorities, applies to the use

of, or need for, AT devices and services

by persons with disabilities in the

community, and related issues of

environmental access. Such research

should be performed by qualified

researchers in cooperation with

community-based disability

organizations. NIDRR supports the

notion that persons with disabilities

provide unique perspectives about

living with disability and must be

included in community-based research

projects to the greatest possible extent.

Their experience with, and interest in,

finding practical solutions to problems

encountered in home, school, place of

work, and community make them

informed participants, if not particularly

qualified researchers. To ensure that

technology-related problems relevant to

persons with disabilities are studied,

contributions from such persons are

encouraged. In addition, universitybased research on disability needs to be

complemented by community-based

research to provide the community with

useful and immediate tools,

technologies, and knowledge for

overcoming barriers to access and

participation in economy and society.

Community-based rehabilitation

research is particularly suited for

persons with disabilities. According to

the University of Washington School of

Public Health and Community

Medicine’s Principles of CommunityBased Research, a research partnership

between a university and communitybased organizations should accomplish

the following:

• Community partners should be

involved at the earliest stages of the

project, helping to define research

objectives and having input into how

the project will be organized.

• Community partners should have

real influence on project direction—that

is, enough leverage to ensure that the

original goals, mission, and methods of

the project are observed.

• Research processes and outcomes

should benefit the community.

Community members should be hired

and trained whenever possible and

appropriate, and the research should

help build and enhance community

assets.

• Community members should be

part of the analysis and interpretation of

data and should have input into how

the results are distributed. This does not

imply censorship of data or of

publication, but rather the opportunity

to make clear the community’s views

about the interpretation prior to final

publication.

• Productive partnerships between

researchers and community members

should be encouraged to last beyond the

life of the project. This will make it

more likely that research findings will

be incorporated into ongoing

community programs and therefore

provide the greatest possible benefit to

the community from research.

• Community members should be

empowered to initiate their own

research projects that address needs

they identify themselves.

Priority 3: Resource Center for

Community-Based Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Projects on

Technology for Independence

There is a need for capacity-building

on conceptual and methodological

approaches to research on the

involvement of community-based

organizations of people with disabilities

in promoting technology for

independence. There is need for

training, technical assistance, and

dissemination efforts to guide ongoing

efforts. Advice and strategies are needed

in specific areas including, but not

limited to, research designs and

methodologies, case studies, focus

group research, AT and environmental

assessment, small sample surveys,

participant observation, ethnography,

and participatory action research. There

is a need to develop ‘‘how-to-do’’

materials on disability-related AT and

environmental access community-based

research, reference resources, web-based

access to materials, and other means of

communicating knowledge about

community-based rehabilitation

research in the U.S.

Priority 3

We will establish a resource center to

assist Disability and Rehabilitation

Research Projects on Technology for

Independence and other related NIDRR

activities under the Plan with capacitybuilding for improving the involvement

of community-based organizations of

people with disabilities in promoting

technology for independence.

In carrying out these purposes, the

project must:

(a) Establish and conduct a significant

and substantial resource program on

capacity-building in research, training,

and TA on the involvement of

community-based disability

organizations in promoting technology

for access and function that will

contribute to the advancement of

knowledge in accordance with the Plan.

(b) Disseminate findings from the

Resource Center’s program on

community-based research to DRRPs on

Technology for Independence and other

related NIDRR-funded activities under

the Plan; and

(c) Describe how the resource center

will develop research capacity among

individuals with disabilities at the

community level.

In addition to the activities proposed

by the applicant to carry out these

purposes, the Resource Center must:

• Involve individuals with

disabilities and, if appropriate, their

representatives, in planning and

implementing the research, training,

and dissemination activities, and in

evaluating the Center;

• Coordinate with appropriate

federally funded projects. Coordination

responsibilities will be identified

through consultation with the NIDRR

project officer and may include outreach

to specific NIDRR DRRPs, RERCs,

RRTCs, DBTACs and AT Projects; Office

of Special Education technology

projects and Parent Training and

Information Centers; and Rehabilitation

Services Administration training,

special demonstration, and IL projects;

• Convene a formative review session

within six months of project award with

the DRRPs on Technology for

Independence to assist these

community-based rehabilitation

researchers in the finalization of their

research plans, and to help them with

the commencement of their research

projects; and

• Conduct a state-of-the-science

conference, including the DRRPs on

Technology for Independence, in the

third year of the grant and publish a

comprehensive report on the final

outcomes of the conference in the fourth

year of the grant.

Priority 4: Community-Based Disability

and Rehabilitation Research Projects on

Technology for Independence

The Plan identifies disability in terms

of the relationship between the

individual and the natural, built,

cultural, and social environments (63

FR 57189–57219). The Plan focuses on

both individual and systemic factors

that have an impact on the ability of

people to function. The elements of the

Plan include employment outcomes,

health and function, technology for

access and function, and IL and

community integration. To attain the

goals in these areas, the Plan also

includes capacity building for research

and training, and to ensure knowledge

dissemination and utilization. Each area

34034 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Notices

of the Plan includes objectives at both

the individual and system levels. For

example, the technology for access and

function area of the Plan includes

research objectives to develop AT that

supports people with disabilities to

function and live independently and

obtain better employment outcomes,

and research objectives to promote

improved access to the built

environment and concepts of universal

design. It is clear that the challenges and

opportunities for AT and improved

environmental access reflect all of the

priority areas of the Plan.

Priority 4

We will establish research projects to

involve community-based disability

organizations in AT and environmental

access research leading to practical and

affordable solutions to identified

problems and needs, and building

research capacity at the community

level and in community-based

organizations serving persons with

disabilities.

In carrying out these purposes, a

project must:

(a) From the examples of research

objectives below, conduct a significant

and substantial research program on the

involvement of community-based

disability organizations in promoting

technology for access and function that

will contribute to the advancement of

knowledge in accordance with the Plan

by:

• Investigating and developing

research questions, methodologies, and

recommendations for use by other

research entities in solving technologyrelated, engineering, psychosocial,

economic and other problems at the

individual and systems levels, in the

United States (U.S.); and

• Designing and testing models for

partnership of community-based

disability organizations in research,

participant observation studies and

other qualitative and quantitative

research approaches to using technology

in community-based settings;

(b) Disseminate findings from

community-based research to persons

with disabilities, their representatives,

disability and rehabilitation service

providers, researchers, planners, and

policy makers; and

(c) Describe how the applicant will

develop research capacity among

individuals with disabilities at the

community level.

In carrying out these purposes, the

project must:

• Coordinate with appropriate

federally funded projects. Coordination

responsibilities will be identified

through consultation with the NIDRR

project officer and may include outreach

to specific NIDRR DRRPs, RERCs,

Rehabilitation Research and Training

Centers (RRTCs), Disability Business

Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs)

and AT Projects; Office of Special

Education technology projects and

Parent Training and Information

Centers; and Rehabilitation Services

Administration training, special

demonstration, and IL projects.

• Involve individuals with

disabilities in key decision-making.

• Participate in a formative review

session to be convened by the Resource

Center within six months of award, and

cooperate with the Resource Center’s

capacity-building and evaluation

activities.

• Participate in a state-of-the-science

conference in the third year of the grant.

Selection Criteria

The selection criteria to be used for

these competitions will be provided in

the application package for each

competition.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34

CFR part 350.

Electronic Access to This Document

You may view this document, as well

as all other Department of Education

documents published in the Federal

Register, in text or Adobe Portable

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet

at the following site: www.ed.gov/

legislation/FedRegister

To use PDF you must have Adobe

Acrobat Reader, which is available free

at this site. If you have questions about

using PDF, call the U.S. Government

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498; or in the Washington,

DC, area at (202) 512–1530.

Note: The official version of the document

is published in the Federal Register. Free

Internet access to the official edition of the

Federal Register and the Code of Federal

Regulations is available on GPO Access at:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Numbers 84.133A, Disability

Rehabilitation Research Project)

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and

764(b).

Dated: June 20, 2001.

Francis V. Corrigan,

Deputy Director, National Institute on

Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

[FR Doc. 01–15959 Filed 6–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No.: 84.133A]

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services; National

Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research

ACTION: Notice inviting applications for

fiscal year (FY) 2001 new awards and

announcement of pre-application

meetings.

SUMMARY: We invite applications for

new FY 2001 grant awards for four

Disability and Rehabilitation Research

Projects and Centers Program (DRRP)

on: (1) Assistive Technology Outcomes

and Impacts, (2) Assistive Technology

Research Projects for Individuals with

Cognitive Disabilities, (3) Resource

Center for Community-based Research

on Technology for Independence, and

(4) Community-based Research Projects

on Technology for Independence.

Purpose of the Program

The purpose of the Disability and

Rehabilitation Research Projects and

Centers Program is to improve the

effectiveness of services authorized

under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

We take this action to focus research

attention on an area of national need.

The priorities are intended to improve

rehabilitation services and outcomes for

individuals with disabilities.

National Education Goals

The eight National Education Goals

focus the Nation’s education reform

efforts and provide a framework for

improving teaching and learning.

This notice addresses the National

Education Goal that every adult

American will be literate and will

possess the knowledge and skills

necessary to compete in a global

economy and exercise the rights and

responsibilities of citizenship.

Applicable Regulations

The Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR),

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

86 and 97; and the following program

regulations: Disability Rehabilitation

Research Projects and Centers—34 CFR

part 350, and the Notice of Final Priority

published elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register.

Pre-Application Meeting

Interested parties are invited to

participate in pre-application meetings

to discuss the funding priorities. In each

meeting you will receive technical

assistance and information about the

funding priority. You may attend the