Detailed Information on the
IDEA Special Education Preschool Grants Assessment

Collect national point of entry data for children entering programs funded by the Preschool Grants program.

Collect national progress data on children exiting programs funded by the Preschool Grants program.

Collect final baseline data and establish targets for the child outcome measure.

Maintain federal funding at last year's level until the Administration has had a chance to work with Congress on the IDEA reauthorization, which should increase state and school accountability for having a real impact on children. In this reauthorization, the Administration will work with Congress to determine how best to serve preschool children with disabilities under the Act.

Improve collaboration with other Federal programs.

Develop long term performance goals, and annual goals for performance, for preschool children with disabilities.

Disseminate outcome data and provide targeted technical assistance to States on issues related to data quality.

Measure: The Percentage of children with Disabilities aged three through five participating in the Preschool Grants program who demonstrate positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); acquire and use knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and demonstrate appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Explanation:This is a new measure that was adopted in FY 2005. Initial data are not anticipated until FY 2007.

Measure: The percentage of children with disabilties (aged three through five) who receive special education and related services in a regular early childhood program at least 80% of time.

Explanation:

Measure: The number of States with at least 90 percent of preschool special education teachers fully certified in the areas in which they are teaching.

Explanation:There is a clustering of States around the 90 percent threshold in this indicator, which may result in unpredictable changes from year to year. No target was set for FY 2004.

Measure: The average number of workdays between the completion of a site visit and the Office of Special Education Program's response to the state.

Explanation:This measure is calculated as the average number of workdays between the completion of site visits in a particular fiscal year and the Department's responses to the States.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program's purpose is to assist States and local educational agencies in providing children with disabilities aged 3 to 5 access to high quality education to help them meet challenging standards and prepare them for employment and independent living. This purpose is almost identical to the one for IDEA Grants to States.

Evidence: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), section 619. The Department of Education's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance plans and reports.

Does the program address a specific interest, problem or need?

Explanation: Research shows that, without appropriate interventions, children with disabilities are likely to enter school with significant developmental delays. The services supported through this program help ensure that all preschool children with disabilities enter school ready to learn.

Evidence: Studies of the effectiveness of preschool interventions for children with disabilities. For instance, the 2000 National Academy of Sciences study "From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development."

Is the program designed to have a significant impact in addressing the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: IDEA Preschool Grants funding supplement funds provided to States under the IDEA Part B Grants to States program, for children with disabilities aged 3 through 21. There is no way for the Department to determine the distinct impact of the Preschool Grants program. While this program was originally constituted as an incentive grants program, the IDEA now requires all States to serve children ages 3-5 if they want to receive funding under this program, the proportion of IDEA Grants to States funding that is targeted to the children ages 3-5, and funding under any of the IDEA's National Programs pertaining solely to children aged 3-5.

Evidence: Sections 611 (Grants to States) and 619 (Preschool Grants) of the IDEA note that States can use funding under both programs to serve children ages 3-5.

Is the program designed to make a unique contribution in addressing the interest, problem or need (i.e., not needlessly redundant of any other Federal, state, local or private efforts)?

Explanation: The Preschool Grants program has the same programmatic requirements as the Grants to States program, and uses a funding allocation formula that is almost exactly the same.

Evidence: Sections 611 (Grants to States) and 619 (Preschool Grants) of the IDEA note that both funding allocations are to be used "to provide special education and related services in accordance with [Part B of the IDEA]." Funding allocation formulas in Section 611 and Section 619 are nearly identical.

Is the program optimally designed to address the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: This program is only a supplemental funding source. It does not have any separate programmatic requirements or incentives distinct from the Grants to States program. While the program's initial purpose was to provide a financial incentive for States to serve preschool children, this incentive is no longer necessary (especially since the Grants to States makes more funding available to serve preschool children than this program does).

Evidence: IDEA, section 619, and program regulations.

Does the program have a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: This program does not have quantifiable long-term performance goals related to child outcomes.

Evidence: The Department of Education's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance plans and reports.

Does the program have a limited number of annual performance goals that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals?

Explanation: This program does not have quantifiable annual performance goals related to child outcomes.

Evidence: The Department of Education's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance plans and reports.

Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, etc.) support program planning efforts by committing to the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: States are required to establish performance goals and indicators for children with disabilities that promote the purposes of IDEA. However, these goals and indicators typically focus on the outcomes of children with disabilities in elementary and secondary school, not preschool children.

Evidence: The Department of Education's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance plans and reports.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs that share similar goals and objectives?

Explanation: While the IDEA includes provisions which provide for collaboration with other entities (federal and State), the Department does not collaborate as well as it could with some other federal programs. For instance, there has been inconsistent coordination between ED and the Department of Health and Human Services on issues related to Medicaid reimbursement for IDEA-related health services. Also, the program has not provided concrete examples of how this program collaborates with other federal preschool programs, such as Head Start.

Evidence: Program monitoring reports.

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or as needed to fill gaps in performance information to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness?

Explanation: No performance information is available on the outcomes of this program. The Department of Education has initiated a longitudinal study, which will provide some information on outcomes. However, it will be several years before such outcome data are available. Even when completed, the longitudinal study will not provide ongoing data on performance.

Evidence: The Department of Education initiated the Pre-Elementary Longitudinal Study (PEELS) in December 2002.

Is the program budget aligned with the program goals in such a way that the impact of funding, policy, and legislative changes on performance is readily known?

Explanation: Since this program's funding supplements IDEA Grants to States funding, it is necessary to look at how both programs affect preschool children. While IDEA funding available for preschool children has more than tripled in recent years, there is no evidence which shows that this funding has improved educational outcomes for preschool children with disabilities. State and local responsibilities for educating children with disabilities are not affected by changes in Federal funding.

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: There is no system for evaluating the effectiveness of strategic planning and correcting deficiencies when goals are not achieved.

Evidence:  

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Department of Education uses biennial reports from States and annual State data to help target monitoring and technical assistance activities. For preschool children, ED collects data on: the number of children served; the age of the children served; and the settings in which services are provided. Outcome data are not currently available. The Department expects to receive baseline outcome data in an longitudinal study initiated in FY 2003.

Evidence: Program evaluation plans and GPRA reports.

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: This program has not instituted an appraisal system that holds Federal managers accountable for grantee performance. However, as part of the President's Management Agenda, the Department is planning to implement an agency-wide system -- EDPAS -- that links employee performance to progress on strategic planning goals. Grantee performance is monitored on an annual basis through review and approval of annual budget plans, compliance reviews, audits, and site visits. Grantees that do not meet Federal requirements are required to submit improvement plans and can have grants reduced or discontinued for serious or persistent failures to comply. However, IDEA requirements primarily focus on procedures, not results for children with disabilities (though many of these procedures are intended to promote improved results).

Evidence: Program biennial reports, annual data reported by States, and program GPRA reports.

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Federal funds provide only a small percentage of the total cost of special education. There is broad authority for how federal funds can be used; when Federal funds are found to be improperly spent, it is usually due to an accounting error. Federal obligations are consistently made in a timely manner.

Evidence:  

Does the program have incentives and procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: This program has not yet instituted procedures to measure and improve cost efficiency in program execution. However, as part of the President's Management Agenda, the Department is implementing an agency-wide initiative to re-evaluate the efficiency of every significant business function, including the development of unit measures and the consideration of competitive sourcing and IT improvements.

Evidence:  

Does the agency estimate and budget for the full annual costs of operating the program (including all administrative costs and allocated overhead) so that program performance changes are identified with changes in funding levels?

Explanation: The Department of Education's FY 2004 Budget materials satisfy the first part of the question by presenting the anticipated S&E expenditures (including retirement costs) for this program, which constitute 0.7 percent of the program's full costs. However, ED has not satisfied the second part of the question because program performance changes are not identified with changes in funding levels. The program does not have sufficiently valid and reliable performance information to assess the impact of the Federal investment.

Evidence:  

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Department conducts periodic monitoring of State activities under this program, and States are required to conduct annual audits of their education programs. No internal control weaknesses have been reported by auditors.

Evidence: Grantee applications and reports.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Department of Education has not shown how it has addressed management deficiencies in this program.

Evidence:  

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The Department has fairly extensive knowledge of State/Local Educational Agency activities under this program through its Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, which is used to monitor State compliance with the IDEA.

Evidence: Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process Reports.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The Department of Education makes program data available to the public through many channels, including an annual report to Congress and the Department's website. Also, State biennial reports and monitoring findings are posted on ED's website. However, none of these data show anything about the educational outcomes of preschool children.

Evidence: IDEA section 618. Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; OSEP Biennial Performance Report (OMB Number: 1820-0627). OSEP Monitoring Process Reports.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome goal(s)?

Explanation: Long-term goals have not been established for this program. In addition, there are no data related to outcome measures available for this program.

Evidence: The Department of Education's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance plans and reports.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Data are not available or indicate that the goals have not been met.

Evidence: The Department of Education's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance plans and reports.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program does not lend itself to the development of efficiency measures that link the Federal investment to program outcomes.

Evidence: SHOULD BE NA

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are no comparable programs serving this population.

Evidence:  

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: A longitudinal study has been initiated, which should provide information on outcomes for children served under this program. However, the results of this study are several years away, and it will not provide data on program effectiveness or ongoing data on results.

Evidence: Program Evaluation Plans.