[Federal Register: March 19, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 13637-13661]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19mr99-140]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 1999
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 the program
regulations 34 CFR part 350.
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 self-sufficiency 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 for-profit
organizations, institutions of higher education, and Indian tribes and
tribal organizations.
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762.
[[Page 13638]]
Application Notice for Fiscal Year 1999 Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects, CFDA No. 84-133A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Maximum award
Funding priority Deadline for transmittal number of amount (per Project period
of applications awards year)* (months)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dissemination of Disability and May 3, 1999 1 $750,000 60
Rehabilitation Research.
International Exchange of Information May 3, 1999 1 $400,000 60
and Experts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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)).
Dissemination of Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Selection Criteria: The Secretary uses the following selection
criteria to evaluate applications for a project on dissemination of
disability and research 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 (4 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 (2 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 (2 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 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 (12 points total).
[[Page 13639]]
(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 (3 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 (3 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.
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 facilities, equipment, and other resources of the
project (2 points total).
International Exchange of Information and Experts Selection
Criteria
The Secretary uses the following selection criteria to evaluate
applications for a project on the international exchange of information
and experts 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 (12
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 (6 points).
(ii) The extent to which the applicant's proposed activities are
likely
[[Page 13640]]
to achieve the purposes of the absolute or competitive priority (6
points).
(c) Design of dissemination activities (23 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 (2 points).
(d) Design of utilization activities (23 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 (8 points).
(ii) The extent to which the utilization strategies are likely to
be effective (8 points).
(iii) The extent to which the information or technology is likely
to be of use in other settings (7 points).
(e) 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).
(f) 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).
(g) 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).
(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).
(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 (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).
(j) 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).
[[Page 13641]]
Application Notice for Fiscal Year 1999 Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers, CFDA No.84-133B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Maximum award
Funding priority Deadline for transmittal number of amount (per Project period
of applications awards year) * (months)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measuring Rehabilitation Outcomes.... May 3, 1999 1 $700,000 60
Rehabilitation of Persons with May 3, 1999 1 600,000 60
Disabilities from Minority
Backgrounds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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)).
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers
Selection Criteria: The Secretary uses the following selection
criteria to evaluate applications for RRTCs on measuring rehabilitation
outcomes and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities from minority
backgrounds 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);
(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).
[[Page 13642]]
(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).
(i) 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).
(j) 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).
(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 (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).
(l) 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 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)).
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) 8\1/2\ 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
must--
(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, DC 20202-4725, or
[[Page 13643]]
(2) Hand deliver the original and two copies of the application by
4:30 p.m. [Washington, DC 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, SW., Washington, DC
(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 four 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--Non-Construction Programs (Standard Form
524A) and instructions.
PART III: Application Narrative.
Additional Materials
Estimated Public Reporting Burden.
Assurances--Non-Construction Programs (Standard Form 424B).
Certification 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 GCS-014 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, DC 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, SW, room 3418, Switzer Building,
Washington, DC 20202-2645. Telephone: (202) 205-5880. Individuals who
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD
number at (202) 205-2742. Internet: Donna__Nangle@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: March 15, 1999.
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
APPENDIX
Application 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 Guestions
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.
[[Page 13644]]
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-U
[[Page 13645]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.000
[[Page 13646]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.001
[[Page 13647]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.002
[[Page 13648]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.003
[[Page 13649]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.004
[[Page 13650]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.005
[[Page 13651]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.006
[[Page 13652]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.007
[[Page 13653]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.008
[[Page 13654]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.009
[[Page 13655]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.010
[[Page 13656]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.011
[[Page 13657]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.012
[[Page 13658]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.013
[[Page 13659]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.014
[[Page 13660]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.015
[[Page 13661]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MR99.016
[FR Doc. 99-6800 Filed 3-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C