ARCHIVED INFORMATION

NATIONAL ACTIVITIES–IDEA PART D

Goal: To link best practices to states, school systems, and families to improve results Funding History
for infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities. ($ in millions)

Fiscal Year Appropriation Fiscal Year Appropriation

Legislation: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part D. 1985 $157 2000 $282
1990 $182 2001 $327
1995 $254 2002 (Requested) $312

Program Description
The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part D, is to provide support to States, schools, teachers, and families to improve results for
children with disabilities through research, technical assistance, dissemination of information, and other activities that can be most efficiently carried out at the Federal
level.

The State Improvement Program: The State Improvement program provides competitive grants to assist State educational agencies, in partnership with others, to
reform and improve their systems for providing educational, early intervention, and transitional services to improve results for children with disabilities. This includes
state educational agencies’ systems for professional development, technical assistance, and dissemination. Specifically, the program provides resources to assist states to
develop and implement their own plans for improving results.

Research and Innovation: The Research and Innovation program is the primary source of support under the IDEA for producing, and advancing the use of knowledge to
improve services and results for children with disabilities. The program supports a wide range of activities including research, demonstrations, and outreach that are
designed to produce new knowledge, integrate research and practice, and improve the use of professional knowledge.

Technical Assistance and Dissemination: The Technical Assistance and Dissemination program is the primary vehicle under the IDEA for putting information into the
hands of individuals and organizations serving children with disabilities. The program carries out the purpose through regional resource centers, clearinghouses, and
projects that support states and local entities in building capacity.

Personnel Preparation: The Personnel Preparation program assists States in meeting their responsibility to ensure an adequate supply of qualified personnel to serve
children with disabilities. The program supports competitive awards to prepare personnel to serve children with low- and high-incidence disabilities and leadership
personnel, and for projects of national significance.

Parent Information Centers: The Parent Information Centers program is one of the primary vehicles under the IDEA for providing information and training on student
and parent rights under IDEA, the nature and needs of their child’s disability, and effective communication with the educational profession to parents of children with
disabilities.

Technology and Media Services: The Technology and Media Services program is the primary source of support under the IDEA for technology and media-related
activities. Technology activities promote the development, demonstration, and utilization of technology. They include activities such as research on using technology to

NATIONAL ACTIVITIES—IDEA PART D - 02/10/08 PAGE F-13

improve learning and provide access to the classrooms, and Media Services activities such as captioning and video description that focus on individuals who are hearing
impaired, blind, or print disabled.

PAGE F-14 NATIONAL ACTIVITIES—IDEA PART D - 02/10/08

Program Performance
OBJECTIVE 1: PROGRAMS RESPOND TO CRITICAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES AND THEIR FAMILIES.
Indicator 1.1 Responsive to critical needs: The percentage of IDEA program activities that are determined by expert panels to respond to critical needs of
children with disabilities and their families will increase. (a) Research and innovation, (b) Technology, (c) Personnel preparation, (d) Technical assistance, and
(e) State improvement.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of program priorities Status: Unable to judge. Source: Expert panels (for State improvement:
1999 Actual 2000 Actual 2000 2001 2002 evaluation study).
Target Target Target Explanation: Fluctuations in data are expected Frequency: Annually.
Research and No Data 91% No target Continuous for several years while the data collection Next collection update: 2001.
innovation: Available set improvement methodology is refined. In FY 2000, expert Data to be reported: 2001.
Technology No Data 43% No target Continuous panels rated each program activity for
and media: Available set improvement responsiveness to critical needs on a scale of 0- Validation Procedure: Data validated by
Personnel No Data 67% No target Continuous 5, with a score of 3 or above considered internal review procedures of an experienced
preparation: Available set improvement responsive. For Research, 91 percent of data collection contractor.
Technical No Data 50% No target Continuous activities were judged responsive (mean of
assistance: Available set improvement 3.2); for Technology and media, 43 percent Limitations of Data and Planned
were responsive (mean of 2.4); for Personnel Improvements: In 2001 both the size of the
State No Data No Data No target No target set
Preparation, 67 percent were responsive (mean expert panel and breadth of expertise
improvement: Available Available set
of 3.2); for Technical Assistance, 50 percent represented on the panel will be enhanced.
were responsive (mean of 3.1). Data collected
for FY 2000 represent baseline data for this
indicator. Baseline data for the State
improvement program will be available in
2002. Targets for 2001 and 2002 have been set
to “continuous improvement” to reflect
developmental nature of the panel review
process.

NATIONAL ACTIVITIES—IDEA PART D - 02/10/08 PAGE F-15

OBJECTIVE 2: PROJECTS USE HIGH-QUALITY METHODS AND MATERIALS.
Indicator 2.1 Highest standards for methods and materials: Expert panels determine that IDEA-funded projects use exceptionally rigorous quantitative or
qualitative research and evaluation methods (for Research and innovation and Technology and media activities); or use current research-validated practices and
materials (for Personnel preparation, Technical assistance, and State improvement activities).
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of projects that meet exceptionally high standards Status: Unable to judge. Source: Project applications. (For State
1999 Actual 2000 2000 Target 2001 2002 improvement: Evaluation study).
Actual Target Target Explanation: Fluctuations in data are expected Frequency: Annually.
for several years while the data collection Next collection update: 2001.
Research and innovation

Continuous methodology is refined. This indicator identifies Date to be reported: 2001.

Research: 60% 50% 65%
Improvement projects that go beyond the requirement for
rigorous research and evaluation methodology. Validation Procedure: Applications are
Demon- Continuous For 2000, data indicate that the percentage of reviewed by a panel consisting of independent,
12% 70% 20% research projects that met exceptionally high third-party reviewers who are experts in the
stration: Improvement
standards decreased from 60 percent to 50 program content and trained in the review
percent the percentage of demonstration projects procedures. The panel results are analyzed by
Continuous increased from 12 percent to 70 percent, and the experts in evaluation research.
Outreach: 20% 20% 25%
Improvement percentage of outreach projects remained the
same, at 20 percent. Baseline data were Limitations of Data and Planned
Personnel Data not Continuous collected for three program areas (technology, Improvements: Because different amounts and
97% Target not set
Preparation available Improvement personnel preparation, and technical assistance). types of Research and Innovation activities are
Technical Data not Continuous Baseline data on the State improvement program conducted each year (such as directed versus
94% Target not set will be available in 2002. The wording of the non-directed research) and results can be
assistance available Improvement
indicator has been modified to clarify what affected by such variations, the activities in that
Data not Continuous “highest standards” means with regard to program will be stratified for the expert panel
Technology 50% Target not set
available Improvement specific programs. The research and innovation review in 2001.
targets for 2001 have been revised to
State Data not No Data “continuous improvement” in light of the
Target not set Target not set
improvement available Available developmental nature of the panel review
process.

PAGE F-16 NATIONAL ACTIVITIES—IDEA PART D - 02/10/08

OBJECTIVE 3: PROJECTS COMMUNICATE APPROPRIATELY AND PRODUCTS ARE USED TO IMPROVE RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES AND THEIR FAMILIES.
Indicator 3.1 Communication with target audiences: The percentage of IDEA-funded projects that communicate appropriately with target audiences will
increase. (a) Research and innovation (b) Technology (c) Personnel preparation projects of national significance (d) Technical assistance.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of projects that communicate with target audiences Status: Unable to judge. Source: Project information.
2000 2000 2001 2002 Frequency: Annually.
1999 Actual Actual Target Target Target Explanation: It had been expected that baseline Next collection update: 2001.
Research and No Data See data No target Baseline to Target to data would be available for 2000. However, in Date to be reported: 2001.
innovation: Available in “note” set be set be set 2000, a pilot effort was conducted to determine
Technology: No Data See data No target Baseline to Target to the number of products communicated by Validation Procedure: Project information is
Available in “note” set be set be set projects in each program area. For example, reviewed by a panel consisting of independent,
Personnel No Data See data No target Baseline to Target to research and technology projects are expected to third-party reviewers who are experts in the
preparation: Available in “note” set be set be set communicate findings through appropriate program content and trained in the review
Technical No Data No data No target Baseline to Target to refereed journals and other vehicles such as the procedures. The panel results are analyzed by
assistance: Available available set be set be set Internet, association publications, and Federally- experts in evaluation research.
funded technical assistance providers, and to
include a citation of funding support under Limitations of Data and Planned
IDEA. Improvements: Future collections will include
a measure of quality or appropriateness. Also, in
Note: Data from the FY 2000 pilot: 2001, in the Personnel Preparation program, only
Av. No. products Products that projects of national significance will be reviewed
communicated cite IDEA support since the other activities in this program focus on
Research 28 75% personnel preparation and have no major
Technology 141 80% responsibility for communicating information.
Personnel 13 45%
Technical assist. No data No data
Indicator 3.2 Practitioners use results: Expert panels determine that practitioners, including policy-makers, administrators, teachers, parents, or others as
appropriate, use products and practices developed through IDEA programs to improve results for children with disabilities. (a) Research and innovation (b)
Technology (c) Personnel preparation (d) Technical assistance (e) State improvement.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of expert panel with positive determination Status: Unable to judge. Source: Project applications. (For State
1999 Actual 2000 Actual 2000 2001 Target 2002 improvement: Evaluation study)
Target Target Explanation: For 2000, data were collected Frequency: Annually.
No on the Technology and Technical Assistance Next collection update: 2001.
Research and No Data No Data Baseline to Target to be programs using a Web-based system. Date to be reported: 2001 (For State
target
innovation: Available Available be set set However, due to a methodological error, the improvement: 2002).
set
Continuous Continuous data are not valid and are not available for
See reporting. The methodological problem has Validation Procedure: Verified by ED
Technology: 78% 89% improve improve
explanation been corrected and data will be available for attestation process and ED Standards for
ment ment
No all five programs in 2001. (Targets for Evaluating Program Performance Data.
Personnel No Data No Data Baseline to Target to be technology and technical assistance for 2001
target
Preparation: Available Available be set set have been revised to “continuous Limitations of Data and Planned
set
Continuous Continuous improvement.) Improvements: Baseline data for the State
Technical See improvement grant program are being collected
67% 78% improve improve
assistance: explanation through an evaluation study and will be available
ment ment
State No Data No Data No Baseline to Target to be in 2002.
improvement: Available Available target be set set
set

NATIONAL ACTIVITIES—IDEA PART D - 02/10/08 PAGE F-17

OBJECTIVE 4: PERSONNEL ARE PREPARED TO SERVE CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.
Indicator 4.1 Persons trained to serve children with disabilities: The percentage of persons who obtain their degrees with IDEA support and serve children with
disabilities as teachers, early intervention personnel, related services personnel, or leadership personnel within 3 years of receiving their degrees will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: Unable to judge. Source: Annual performance reports.
1999: No Data Available No target set Frequency: Annually.
2000: No Data Available No target set Explanation: Baseline data will be collected Next collection update: 2001.
2001: Baseline to be determined from project performance reports in 2001. This Date to be reported: 2001.
2002: Target to be set is a new data collection.
Validation Procedure: Data validated by an
experienced data collection contractor.

Limitations of Data and Planned

Improvements: In 2001 this indicator will be
revised to reflect employment, 1 year after
receipt of degrees. This data is more readily
accessible and timely than data in the current
indicator.
Indicator 4.2 Grants to minority institutions: The percentage of IDEA grants for personnel preparation awarded to Historically Black Colleges and Universities
and other minority institutions, including tribal colleges, will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of all personnel-preparation awards (new and continuation) that went Status: Positive movement toward goal. Source: Analysis of project information.
to minority institutions Frequency: Annually.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Explanation: There was a significant increase in Next collection update: 2001.
1997: 15.4% personnel preparation awards to minority Date to be reported: 2001.
1998: 17.7% institutions from 1999 to 2000.
1999: 26.4% No target set Validation Procedure: Verified by ED
2000: 34.0% 28% attestation process and ED Standards for
2001: Target to be set Evaluating Program Performance Data.
2002: Target to be set
Limitations of Data and Planned
Improvements: In future years, to provide a
more meaningful indication of support to
minority entities under all of Part D of IDEA,
this indicator will measure funding to minority
institutions from all Part D programs and not
only from the personnel preparation program.
The competition for which only minority entities
are eligible will be excluded from the
calculation. A new baseline will be established
using 2000 data.

PAGE F-18 NATIONAL ACTIVITIES—IDEA PART D - 02/10/08

Indicator 4.3 Minority and disabled personnel: The percentage of personnel who are minority and the percentage who are disabled who receive financial
assistance for training under IDEA will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: Unable to judge. Source: Project performance reports.
1999: No Data Available No target set Frequency: Annually.
2000: No Data Available No target set Explanation: Baseline data will be collected Next collection update: 2001.
2001: Baseline to be determined from project performance reports in 2001. This Date to be reported: 2001.
2002: Target to be set is a new data collection. Target to be determined
upon receipt of baseline data. Validation Procedure: Data to be validated by
internal review procedures of an experienced
data collection staff.

Limitations of Data and Planned

Improvements: None.

OBJECTIVE 5: FAMILIES RECEIVE INFORMATION ABOUT SERVICES FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.
Indicator 5.1 Increase in informed families: The percentage of families that report that the training and technical assistance received from the Parent
Information and Training Centers made a positive difference in their child’s supports and services will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets Status: Positive movement towards goal. Source: Project performance data.
1998: No Data Available Frequency: Annually.
1999: 71% No target set Explanation: The percentage of families that Next collection update: 2001.
2000: 86.5% 75% reported that training and technical assistance Data to be reported: 2001.
2001: Continuous improvement from the parent centers had a positive impact
2002: Continuous improvement increased from 71 percent in 1999 to 86.5 Validation Procedure: Verified by ED
percent in 2000. Because actual performance for attestation process and ED Standards for
2000 substantially exceeds the 76 percent target Evaluating Program Performance Data.
for 2001, the 2001 target has been revised to
“Continuous improvement.” Limitations of Data and Planned
Improvements: Self-report by projects may
hamper validity. OSEP will verify results with
follow-up survey.

INDICATOR CHANGES
From Annual Plan (FY 2001)
Adjusted
 Indicator 2.1 (highest standards for methods and materials) “Expert panels determine that IDEA-funded projects use exceedingly high-quality methods and materials: (a) Research
and innovation (b) Technology (c) Personnel preparation (d) Technical assistance (e) State improvement” replaced by “Expert panels determine that IDEA-funded projects use
exceptionally rigorous quantitative or qualitative research and evaluation methods (for Research and innovation and Technology and media activities); or use current research-
validated practices and materials (for Personnel preparation, Technical assistance, and State improvement activities).”
 Indicator 4.1 changed for 2001 to reflect 1 year after receipt of degree as opposed to 3 years.
Dropped—None.
New—None.

NATIONAL ACTIVITIES—IDEA PART D - 02/10/08 PAGE F-19