[Federal Register: June 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 32010-32016]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05jn08-40]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Rehabilitation Training--Rehabilitation Continuing Education
Program
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services announces a priority under the Rehabilitation
Continuing Education Program (RCEP) to fund regional Technical
Assistance and Continuing Education (TACE) centers. The Assistant
Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY)
2008 and later years. We take this action to improve the quantity and
quality of employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities
through enhanced technical assistance (TA) and continuing education
(CE) for State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies and agency
partners that cooperate with State VR agencies in providing VR and
other rehabilitation services (e.g., Centers for Independent Living
(CILs), Client Assistance Programs (CAPs), and Community Rehabilitation
Programs (CRPs)).
DATES: Effective Date: This priority is effective July 7, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Marschall, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., Room 5053, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7429 or via Internet:
Christine.Marschall@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Through this priority, the Department
revises the current structure of the RCEP, which includes 21 regional
RCEP centers--11 centers that serve primarily State VR agencies and 10
centers that serve primarily CRPs. Instead of funding these two
separate sets of centers, this priority supports 10 regional Technical
Assistance and Continuing Education (TACE) centers to serve State VR
agencies and agency partners that cooperate with State VR agencies in
providing VR and other rehabilitation services. CRPs are among the
agency partners that the TACE centers are expected to serve. While the
current RCEP centers provide CE and limited TA to entities, TACE
centers will provide both TA and CE as necessary to respond to the
needs of the State VR agencies and agency partners served by the TACE
centers.
We published a notice of proposed priority (NPP) for this program
in the Federal Register on January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5179). The NPP
included a discussion of the issues associated with modifying the RCEP
structure. The background section of the NPP explained that the results
of the Department's Rehabilitation Services Administration's (RSA)
program monitoring required by section 107 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended, and the needs assessments conducted by current RCEP
grantees indicated the need to integrate and coordinate services
provided to State VR agencies and agency partners that cooperate with
State VR agencies in providing VR and other rehabilitation services,
including CRPs. The NPP also explained that the modified RCEP structure
would reduce administrative costs by combining the functions of the two
sets of centers and that public comments on the Rehabilitation Training
Program, solicited through a notice in the Federal Register (72 FR
9942), generally supported the role of the RCEP in providing TA and CE
and the provision of these services through a regional model. The final
priority announced in this notice contains differences from the
priority proposed in the NPP.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the NPP, 79 parties submitted
comments on the proposed priority. An analysis of the comments and of
any changes in the priority since publication of the NPP follows.
Multiple commenters raised a number of similar issues; therefore,
we group major issues by subject area. Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes and suggested changes the law does
not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority.
Agency Partners
Comment: Fifty-four commenters requested that specific entities be
added to the list of agency partners with whom State VR agencies
cooperate to provide VR and other rehabilitative services. Various
commenters recommended that the following entities be added: American
Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Service programs (30 commenters);
State Rehabilitation Councils (SRCs) (nine commenters); Migrant and
Seasonal Farmworker programs (seven commenters); CILs (six commenters);
Statewide Independent Living Councils (one commenter); and State
agencies such as developmental disability, mental illness, and
substance abuse agencies (one commenter).
Discussion: The agency partners included in the priority are
examples of agencies with which State VR agencies cooperate to provide
VR and other rehabilitative services; the list of agencies provided is
not intended to be exhaustive. The entities suggested by the commenters
could be agency partners--that is, if a State VR agency cooperates with
any one of these entities to provide VR and other rehabilitative
services, that entity would be considered an agency partner for
purposes of this priority.
Changes: None.
Consolidation of the Regional Centers
Comment: Twenty-three commenters stated that CRPs will not be
served adequately under the modified RCEP structure, and six commenters
stated that the TA and CE needs of CRPs are significantly different
from the needs of State VR agencies.
Discussion: This priority focuses on the needs of State VR agencies
and their agency partners. RSA values the contribution of the CRPs in
the VR service system and recognizes that CRPs may have TA and CE needs
that are different from those of the State VR agency and its other
agency partners. RSA expects that the needs of CRPs, along with the
needs of other agency
[[Page 32011]]
partners, will be reflected in the annual needs assessment that will
serve as the foundation for each TACE center's work plan.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters asked whether the 10 TACE centers will
provide the employment certificate series training that the RCEP
centers serving CRPs currently provide.
Discussion: The TA and CE provided by each TACE center will be
determined by each TACE center with input from RSA after the TACE
center conducts an annual needs assessment of the State VR agency and
agency partners in the TACE center's region. While the TACE centers are
not required to provide the employment certificate series training
referred to by the commenter, nothing in the priority prohibits a TACE
center from doing so if it meets a need identified by the State VR
agency or its agency partners.
Changes: None.
Comment: Twenty-three commenters stated that the TACE centers
should balance the time and resources devoted to address TA needs, on
the one hand, and CE needs, on the other. Twelve commenters stated that
the proposed priority appears to emphasize TA more than CE.
Discussion: We do not agree that the priority places a greater
emphasis on TA than CE. The priority clearly states that each TACE
center must conduct an annual needs assessment to identify the TA and
CE needs of State VR agencies and agency partners. Based on the annual
needs assessment, each TACE center will determine and describe in its
work plan the distribution of resources that will be devoted to TA and
CE activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the 10 TACE centers
will not be able to handle the high volume of TA and CE requests as
well as the 21 currently funded RCEP centers.
Discussion: We expect the 10 TACE centers to be able to handle the
high volume of TA and CE requests as well as the 21 currently funded
RCEP centers because we believe that these 10 centers will provide TA
and CE more effectively and efficiently than the current 21 RCEP
centers. Because each region will have one TACE center to serve all
State VR agencies and agency partners in that region and because RSA
will coordinate across the TACE centers on a national level, the
modified structure will facilitate sharing materials and information,
and coordinating TA and CE activities, as appropriate, within and
across regions. The annual needs assessment and work plan requirements
in the priority will also help focus resources more effectively. We
believe that the modified structure of the program will decrease
duplication of effort and enhance coordination between State VR
agencies and their agency partners. In addition, fewer resources will
be expended on administrative costs because there will be one center in
each region rather than two.
Changes: None.
Comment: Six commenters expressed concern that the relationships
that have been developed over time among the current RCEP centers,
State VR agencies, and agency partners will be lost in the modified
RCEP structure supported by the TACE center priority.
Discussion: The modified structure of the RCEP program is designed
to ensure collaboration between the TACE center, the State VR agency
and agency partners served, and RSA. We believe that this collaboration
will result in increased coordination of TA and CE provided to State VR
agencies and agency partners and enhance relationships among the TACE
centers, State VR agencies, and agency partners. Further, we believe
that each TACE center's advisory committee will provide an opportunity
for the advisory committee members who represent State VR agencies,
among others, to develop and sustain relationships.
Changes: None.
Funding
Comment: Eighteen commenters stated that requiring the TACE centers
to take on more TA responsibilities than the current RCEP centers will
require more funds than those allocated to the current RCEP centers.
Fourteen commenters stated that the same amount of funds currently
provided to the 21 RCEP grantees should be provided to the 10 TACE
centers in order for the new RCEP structure to be effective.
Discussion: The estimated level of funding for the TACE centers
will be included in the notice inviting applications for new awards. We
do not anticipate maintaining the same level of funds for the TACE
centers that has been available under the current structure of the RCEP
program. One of the major reasons for the changes in the RCEP program
is to facilitate close coordination within each TACE center and among
the TACE centers in order to maximize the effective use of funds to
meet the TA and CE needs of the State VR agencies and their agency
partners. To help ensure collaboration among TACE centers, RSA will
coordinate activities of the TACE centers at the national level. We
believe that the increased coordination within each TACE center and
across centers will result in significant administrative efficiencies
that will offset some of the expected funding differential.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters asked how available funds for the RCEP
program will be allocated and whether the geographic size of regions
will be considered when funds are allocated to the TACE centers.
Discussion: All TACE centers will receive the same base funding
amount. Additional funding will be provided to individual TACE centers
based on the number of State VR agency staff in the region each TACE
center serves, as identified in the most recently published data from
the RSA-2, the Annual VR Program/Cost Report. We will not base our
funding allocations on the geographic size of regions because we do not
believe that the size of a region alone should affect the level of
services provided--since there are multiple ways to conduct TA and
provide CE in addition to face-to-face meetings, such as video
conferencing and Webcasts.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the majority of funds provided
to the TACE centers should be used to address TA and CE needs of State
VR agencies. Another commenter asked whether the TACE centers would
share staff training costs with the State VR agencies they serve as
they do under the current RCEP structure.
Discussion: The use of funds for TA and CE will be determined by
each TACE center based on the TACE center's annual needs assessment
(developed with input from its advisory committee) and the TACE
center's annual work plan (developed with input from RSA). Nothing in
the priority prohibits the majority of funds provided to the TACE
centers from being used to address TA and CE needs of State VR
agencies. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to require
all TACE centers to use the majority of their funding under this
program to address these needs. With regard to sharing training costs,
while nothing in this priority requires a TACE center to share staff
training costs with the State VR agencies it serves, nothing in the
priority prohibits the TACE center from doing so.
Changes: None.
RSA Involvement With the TACE Centers
Comment: Twenty-eight commenters expressed concern that the
priority gives
[[Page 32012]]
RSA too much control over the decision-making of the TACE centers and
that, as a result, each TACE center's needs assessment and annual work
plan will be dictated by RSA and not adequately consider the needs of
the State VR agency and its agency partners.
Discussion: Under the priority, the TACE centers must work in
consultation with RSA to establish their annual work plans, which
describe the activities the TACE centers will carry out during each
year of their project. We believe that this level of RSA involvement in
and approval of the work plan is critical to ensure that the TACE
centers are familiar with relevant information from RSA's State
monitoring activities and to facilitate alignment of the TA and CE
provided by the TACE centers with the VR service system in each State
and across States. Given the need to ensure coordination of the work of
the TACE centers at the national level, we believe it is important for
RSA to approve all TACE center annual work plans. While the TACE model
provides RSA with the authority to approve each center's work plan, RSA
recognizes that, in order for the TACE centers to be effective, the
TACE centers must work with the State VR agencies and agency partners
to ensure more integrated decision-making with regard to the needs of
State VR agencies and agency partners within and across the regions.
Changes: Priority paragraph (1) has been amended to clarify that
each TACE center must establish an annual work plan, in coordination
with and subject to the approval of RSA.
Comment: Nine commenters stated that TA should be RSA's
responsibility, not the TACE centers' responsibility. One commenter
stated that there is a need to explain the difference between the TA
provided by the TACE centers and that provided by RSA.
Discussion: RSA will utilize the TACE centers to supplement the TA
it provides. In light of RSA's program monitoring and the needs
assessments conducted by current RCEP grantees that indicate a
significant need for TA, we believe that supplementing RSA's provision
of TA is beneficial to State VR agencies and agency partners, and
ultimately individuals with disabilities receiving services from State
VR agencies and agency partners. RSA--not the TACE centers--will
provide TA on the interpretation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, and its regulations. TACE centers will provide TA to State VR
agencies and agency partners to assist them in improving their
performance in areas such as program management and delivery of VR
services to increase and improve employment outcomes for individuals
with disabilities.
Changes: None.
Needs Assessment and Work Plan
Comment: The comments of 26 individuals indicated that there was
confusion about the relationship between the annual needs assessment
and the annual work plan, as well as the role of a TACE center's
advisory committee.
Discussion: The proposed priority specified that each TACE center
would conduct an annual needs assessment, with input from its advisory
committee, and develop an annual work plan, with input from RSA.
However, we agree that the proposed priority was not clear about how
the results of the needs assessment would be used to develop the annual
work plan. We intend that the annual work plan, developed in
cooperation with RSA and approved by RSA, will take into consideration
the TA and CE needs of State VR agencies and agency partners that are
identified in the TACE center's annual needs assessment. We do not
expect each annual work plan to address all of the needs identified in
the needs assessment. We understand that, due to limited resources,
each TACE center will prioritize needs to be addressed in the annual
work plan.
Changes: We have modified paragraph (1) of the priority to make
clear that annual work plans must consider, but not necessarily
address, the TA and CE needs of State VR agencies and agency partners
identified in the TACE center's annual needs assessment.
Comment: Four commenters stated that the needs assessment should
consider what the State VR agencies and agency partners say they need
and not be based solely on RSA-generated data. Eighteen commenters
stated that the State VR agencies in a TACE center's region should be
consulted in the development of the TACE center's needs assessment and
that a representative from State VR agencies in the region should be a
member of a center's advisory committee. Discussion: As specified in
paragraph (2) of the priority, each TACE center's annual needs
assessment must be based on the needs of State VR agencies and agency
partners in its region. The priority lists several sources of
information that will be important for each TACE center to consider in
its annual needs assessment, including information from VR State plans,
on-site monitoring reports, and annual review reports issued by RSA. A
TACE center's needs assessment, therefore, could not be based solely on
RSA-generated data. In addition, paragraph (3) of the priority requires
each TACE center to solicit input from its advisory committee members
in developing the needs assessment and to use this information in
developing its annual work plan.
Members of the advisory committee include, at a minimum, the
entities listed in 34 CFR 385.40 as well as those additional entities
listed in paragraph (3) of the priority. We believe that adding a
representative from each State VR agency in a TACE center's region will
increase opportunities for State VR agencies to inform the TACE center
about their needs and to provide input into a TACE center's annual work
plan. For this reason, we are modifying the priority to require each
TACE center to invite a representative from the State VR agencies in
the TACE center's region to participate on its advisory committee.
Changes: Paragraph (3) of the priority has been modified to require
a TACE center to invite a representative from each State VR agency in
its region to participate on its advisory committee.
Comment: Fifteen commenters stated that basing the needs assessment
on VR State plans will result in a reactive and deficiency-based needs
assessment (i.e., one that intends only to remediate skills identified
as ineffective through RSA monitoring), rather than a proactive needs
assessment (i.e., one that considers the development of new
professional skills of staff as a valuable activity). One commenter
stated that TA should be focused on VR State plans.
Discussion: VR State plans document the agency's goals and
priorities for the upcoming fiscal year, including the strategies that
the agency will undertake to achieve them. Using the VR State plans as
one source of information in the needs assessment process enhances the
needs assessments' relevance to State VR agencies' goals and
priorities.
It was not the intent of the priority that the needs assessment be
based solely on VR State plans. These plans are listed as one of the
data sources to be reviewed when conducting the needs assessment.
Paragraph (2) of the priority lists several other sources of data that
must be considered in the annual needs assessment, including on-site
monitoring reports and annual review reports issued by RSA, other
performance and compliance information from RSA and State VR agencies,
and other data, as appropriate.
We also do not intend for the needs assessment in this priority to
be a deficiency-based model. Instead, we expect that the needs
assessment process will be guided by each TACE center's advisory
committee to ensure
[[Page 32013]]
that TA and CE are provided both to remediate deficits and to support
new professional development. Each TACE center will make collaborative
decisions with RSA about the TA and CE to be provided through the
annual work plan based on the needs identified using these multiple
data sources.
Changes: None.
Comment: Eleven commenters disagreed with the requirement that TACE
center representatives attend State VR agency monitoring exit
conferences conducted by RSA. The commenters stated that the presence
of TACE center staff would give the impression that the TACE centers
have monitoring responsibilities. Three commenters stated that the exit
conference is the wrong time to have the TACE centers involved in the
monitoring process because the process is incomplete at that time;
instead, the commenters recommended that the TACE centers be involved
after the issuance of a State's final monitoring report.
Discussion: The priority does not assign monitoring
responsibilities to the TACE centers. Rather, the priority requires
that the TACE centers serve as observers in RSA's monitoring of State
VR agencies in their region by participating, at a minimum, in each
State VR agency's monitoring exit conference in order to gain a
thorough understanding of each State VR agency's TA and CE needs. It is
important to retain the requirement that TACE center representatives
participate in State VR agency monitoring exit conferences because
these exit conferences provide significant information about the TA and
CE needs of the State VR agency and agency partners. Requiring that
TACE center staff participate in the exit conferences is worthwhile
because of the early, additional insight the TACE centers will gain.
Once the final report is issued, the TACE centers will consider the
report's recommendations in their needs assessment and in the
development of their work plan.
Changes: None.
Comment: Five commenters stated that, given limited funding, a
single center couldn't be expected to have expertise in the 12 areas
identified in the third paragraph of the priority. Two commenters
stated that the 12 areas in which a TACE center must demonstrate
expertise focus on the needs of the State VR agency and do not include
areas that apply to agency partners. One commenter stated that the
State VR agency should have input on the subject matter experts
selected by its regional TACE center to provide TA and CE.
Discussion: One of the purposes of the TACE centers is to ensure
that State VR agencies and agency partners receive the TA and CE they
need to improve program performance. The expertise areas identified are
included to address the needs of agency partners in the activities the
agency partners undertake in cooperation with the State VR agency in
the provision of VR and other rehabilitation services authorized under
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The 12 expertise
areas included in the third paragraph of the priority were identified
based on the following: An assessment of the TA needs of State VR
agencies and SRCs; RSA's monitoring reviews required by section 107 of
the Act; and RSA's review of annual VR State plans. Based on this
information, we have determined that it is important to require
applicants to demonstrate that they have expertise or access to
subject-matter experts in at least these areas in order to provide
effective TA and CE under this priority. The priority requires an
applicant to describe how it will access expertise in at least these 12
areas, but it does not require the applicant to have experts on staff
in all 12 areas. Thus, we disagree that this requirement will be too
costly for TACE center grantees.
We recognize that other areas of need may arise through the needs
assessment and do not wish to limit the areas of expertise to those
identified in the priority. Therefore, we have changed the priority to
clarify that each TACE center must have expertise or access to subject
matter experts in, at a minimum, the 12 areas of expertise identified
in the third paragraph of the priority.
Finally, nothing in the priority prevents a TACE center from
consulting with the State VR agency to select its experts.
Changes: We have revised the third paragraph of the priority to
clarify that each TACE center must have expertise or access to subject-
matter experts in at least the 12 areas identified.
Comment: One commenter stated that the TACE centers should focus on
other areas of expertise, such as negotiation skills, the psychological
adjustment of individuals to acquired disabilities, leadership
development, and placement training. Another commenter stated that the
TACE centers should increase their knowledge of unserved and
underserved populations.
Discussion: The priority requires the applicant to describe how it
will address the 12 specified areas of expertise. Nothing in the
priority prohibits applicants from proposing to develop or provide
expertise in additional areas, such as negotiation skills,
psychological adjustment to disabilities, leadership development,
placement training, and the needs of unserved or underserved
populations. We agree that expertise in these and other areas may arise
from the needs assessments and have revised the priority to make clear
that applicants may propose to develop or provide expertise in other
areas.
Changes: We have revised the third paragraph of the priority to
clarify that each TACE center must have expertise or access to subject-
matter experts in at least the 12 areas identified.
Comment: Three commenters stated that each TACE center's annual
work plan should remain flexible and responsive to individual State's
needs.
Discussion: We agree that each TACE center's annual work plan
should remain flexible and responsive to individual State's needs. We
anticipate that the annual needs assessment, with input from the TACE
center's advisory committee, will ensure that each TACE center's annual
work plan will be responsive to individual State's needs given that the
annual work plan must consider the TA and CE needs identified in the
annual needs assessment. Moreover, because the needs assessments are
conducted and the work plans are established annually, they can easily
be altered from year to year. Finally, the annual work plan can be
revised in consultation with RSA if emerging needs are identified by
the TACE center during that year of the project period.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether the TACE centers could
coordinate multi-State teams and regional meetings as is done by the
current RCEP grantees.
Discussion: There is nothing in the priority that would prohibit a
TACE center from coordinating multi-State teams or regional meetings,
if it determines that this activity is appropriate based on the results
of the TACE center's annual needs assessment and work plan.
Changes: None.
Advisory Committee Members
Comment: Eight commenters objected to the Department's intent to
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to change the current
requirement for an advisory committee to include members of minority
groups. The commenters objected to the change that would require that
an advisory committee include individuals who are knowledgeable about
the special needs of individuals with disabilities from
[[Page 32014]]
diverse groups, including minority groups, because the new requirement
would not ensure the participation of members of minority groups. One
commenter suggested that members of the advisory committees include
individuals with disabilities who are members of minority groups.
Discussion: Members of minority groups are listed in 34 CFR 385.40
as one of the categories of mandatory participants on rehabilitation
training advisory committees. As the note to paragraph (3) of the
priority indicates, the Department intends to publish an NPRM to amend
34 CFR 385.40, which would remove the requirement that an applicant
include members of minority groups on all project advisory committees
and add a requirement that an applicant include individuals who are
knowledgeable about the special needs of individuals with disabilities
from diverse groups, including minority groups. This proposed change is
consistent with the Supreme Court ruling in Adarand Constructors, Inc.
v. Pena (515 U.S. 200 (1995)) in which the Court held that all racial
classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored
measures that further compelling governmental interests. The proposed
change is a race-neutral alternative that achieves the intent of the
Department that project advisory committees include individuals who are
familiar with the needs of individuals with disabilities from diverse
groups, while ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court's decision in
Adarand.
Changes: None.
Comment: Eleven commenters requested that various entities be
required members of each TACE center's advisory committee. The entities
that commenters recommended be added include: Representatives from
State VR agencies (six commenters); representatives from agency
partners (four commenters); and current or former recipients of VR
services (one commenter). One commenter stated that State VR agency
representatives should comprise 50 percent of the membership of each
TACE center's advisory committee. Another commenter stated that
individuals with disabilities should comprise the majority of the
members of each TACE center's advisory committee.
Discussion: The required composition of an advisory committee for
projects funded under the Rehabilitation Training Program, which
includes the RCEP program, is defined in 34 CFR 385.40. The priority
also requires that each TACE center advisory committee include members
from Independent Living Training and Technical Assistance centers. We
believe that adding a requirement to invite a representative from each
State VR agency in a TACE center's region would increase the
opportunities for State VR agencies to express their needs and provide
input into the TACE center's annual work plans. Otherwise, we believe
the composition of the advisory committee as specified in 34 CFR 385.40
and this priority is sufficiently broad to enable all appropriate
constituents to be represented, including representatives from agency
partners and former recipients of VR services. Nothing in the priority
or applicable regulations prohibits an applicant from proposing
additional members for its advisory committee.
Changes: We have modified paragraph (3) of the priority to require
each TACE center to invite a representative from each State VR agency
in its region to participate on its advisory committee.
Comment: One commenter asked if the role of the advisory committee
is to provide advice to the TACE center or to set policy for the TACE
center.
Discussion: The priority does not specify a policy-making role for
the advisory committee. It simply requires that the advisory committee
be established to provide input on the TACE center's annual needs
assessment. We anticipate that the annual needs assessment will be an
important source of input to each TACE center's annual work plan.
Nothing in the priority requires center policies to be determined by
the advisory committee, although this function could be proposed in the
application.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the TACE centers' advisory
committees, which, by definition, are regional in nature, would not
take into account differences in States' needs and recommended that the
TACE centers be required to have State advisory committees.
Discussion: The goal of TACE center advisory committees is to
provide an opportunity for State VR agencies and agency partners to
provide information about their TA and CE needs. For reasons of
efficiency, the priority requires only one advisory committee for each
TACE center. However, as noted elsewhere in this discussion, we have
modified the priority to require each TACE center to invite a
representative from each State VR agency served by the TACE center to
participate on its advisory committee. We believe that this addresses
the commenter's concern by allowing regional advisory committees to be
informed about and take into account State differences.
Changes: None.
Performance Measures
Comment: Four commenters stated that the goal of improving the
quality and quantity of VR outcomes is not adequately defined in the
priority, and one commenter stated that the TACE centers should not be
expected to contribute to increasing VR outcomes. Another four
commenters stated that the performance measures identified for the
program in paragraph (7) of the priority should be better defined and
more objective.
Discussion: The goal of improving the quality and quantity of VR
outcomes is an expected outcome of the provision of TA and CE to the
State VR agency and agency partners. However, the Department does not
intend to judge the performance of the TACE centers on the basis of
changes in VR outcomes. The Department will establish an independent
review panel to evaluate the performance of the TACE centers. The areas
to be evaluated by the independent review panel--quality, relevance,
and usefulness--are those areas typically examined by the Department in
assessing the performance of TA activities supported by the Department.
The Department will determine the methodology for this review,
including the objective criteria to be used by the panel in rating the
TA and CE services in these three areas.
Changes: None.
Other Comments
Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority allow consortia
models--that is, models in which a TACE center would be operated by two
or more entities, such as the National Rehabilitation Leadership
Institute.
Discussion: Although the priority does not specifically address the
establishment of consortia models for a TACE center, nothing in the
priority would prohibit an applicant from proposing such a model.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the TACE centers should have
explicit responsibility for disseminating evidence-based knowledge and
best practices.
Discussion: The Department agrees that it would be advantageous to
have the TACE centers disseminate evidence-based knowledge, including
information on best practices to the extent that it is available. We
have modified paragraph (5) of the priority to reflect this change.
Changes: We have modified paragraph (5) of the priority to indicate
[[Page 32015]]
that the TA provided by the TACE centers should be evidence-based to
the extent possible.
Comment: Four commenters expressed concern about the timing of this
priority and the fact that the TACE centers would be replacing current
RCEP grantees that have not completed their five-year funding cycle.
Two commenters stated that it creates a poor precedent not to continue
grants that are in the middle of a five-year funding cycle, and one
commenter stated that RSA is moving forward with this change too
quickly.
Discussion: The Department has carefully considered the timing of
this priority and believes it is the appropriate time to make this
change. Seven of the current 11 RCEP centers that primarily serve State
VR agencies will have completed their five-year project period, and
three of the RCEP centers will have completed the fourth year of their
grant prior to the establishment of the new TACE centers on October 1,
2008. In addition, the TA needs of the VR system have increased
significantly, based on an assessment of the TA needs of State VR
agencies and SRCs, RSA's monitoring reviews as required by section 107
of the Act, and RSA's review of annual State plans submitted by State
VR agencies as a condition of Federal funding. The purpose of this
priority is to ensure that State VR agencies and their agency partners
receive the TA and CE they need to improve their performance. The
Department believes that it is in the best interest of individuals with
disabilities and their families that this change be made at this time.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on internal departmental review, we determined
that it was not appropriate to include the phrase ``as applicable'' in
the first sentence of paragraph (2) of the priority. We expect the
annual needs assessment to identify the TA and CE needs of all State VR
agencies and agency partners in the region served by the TACE center.
Changes: We have deleted the phrase ``as applicable'' from the end
of the first sentence in paragraph (2) of the priority.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Based on internal departmental review, we determined
that ``agency partners'' was not adequately defined in the priority.
Agency partners include all agencies with which the State VR agency
cooperates in providing VR and other rehabilitation services.
Change: We have added language to the first paragraph of the
priority to clarify that the term ``agency partners'' refers to all
agencies with which the State VR agencies served by the TACE center
cooperate in providing VR and other rehabilitation services.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through
a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting applications we
designate the priority as absolute, competitive preference, or
invitational. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority we give competitive preference to an application by either
(1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent
to which the application meets the competitive priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the
competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that
does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over
other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Priority:
Regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education Centers
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services establishes a priority to create 10 regional Technical
Assistance and Continuing Education (TACE) centers to provide (1)
technical assistance (TA) to State vocational rehabilitation (VR)
agencies and agencies with which State VR agencies cooperate in
providing VR and other rehabilitation services (agency partners) to
improve services required under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, and (2) continuing education (CE) to employees of State VR
agencies and agency partners. For purposes of this priority, the term
``agency partners'' refers to all agencies with which the State VR
agencies served by the TACE center cooperate in providing VR and other
rehabilitation services.
Under this priority, the TACE centers must contribute to the
following outcomes: improved quality of VR services, increased
effectiveness and efficiency of State VR agencies in delivering VR
services, and improved quantity and quality of VR employment outcomes
for individuals with disabilities. The TACE centers must contribute to
these outcomes by providing TA and CE, either directly or through
contract, to employees of State VR agencies and agency partners on
topics that are identified jointly by the Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA) and each TACE center's advisory committee and
included in the TACE center's annual work plan.
Under this priority, applicants must demonstrate their ability to
respond rapidly to a broad range of TA and CE needs. Applicants must
provide evidence in their applications that they have expertise, or
access to subject-matter experts with experience, in conducting TA and
CE in at least the following areas: Improvement of State VR agencies'
service delivery; practices and interventions related to specific VR
populations; quality assurance; case management at the administrative
and counselor level; the use of assistive technology to achieve
employment goals; personnel management (e.g., staff retention
strategies); fiscal management; data management; communication skills
development; development of individualized plans for employment;
development of VR State plans; and strategic planning.
Under this priority, each TACE center must--
1. Establish an annual work plan, in coordination with and subject
to the approval of RSA, describing activities that it will conduct to
assist State VR agencies to accomplish the goals identified in their VR
State plans and to achieve other performance and compliance goals
identified by RSA's monitoring reports. The annual work plan must
identify the nature and scope, including delivery means and methods, of
the TA and CE to be provided by the TACE center and consider, but not
necessarily address, the TA and CE needs of State VR agencies and
agency partners identified in the TACE center's annual needs
assessment;
2. Conduct an annual needs assessment to identify the TA and CE
needs of State VR agencies and agency partners in its region. Each TACE
center must base its annual needs assessment on a thorough review of VR
State plans, on-site monitoring reports and annual review reports
issued by RSA, other performance and compliance information available
from RSA and State VR agencies, and other data, as appropriate;
3. Establish a center advisory committee to provide input on the
annual needs assessments conducted by the TACE center in accordance
with paragraph (2) of this priority. In addition to the requirements in
34 CFR 385.40 for mandatory members of the center advisory committee,
the committee must invite representatives from each of the State VR
agencies in the region served by the TACE center and from RSA's
Independent Living Training and Technical Assistance
[[Page 32016]]
grantees to serve on this committee. RSA representatives will serve as
ex-officio members.
Note: Members of minority groups are listed in 34 CFR 385.40 as
one of the categories of mandatory participants on rehabilitation
training advisory committees. However, the Department intends to
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 34 CFR
385.40, which would remove the requirement that an applicant include
members of minority groups on all project advisory committees. The
NPRM would add a requirement that an applicant include individuals
who are knowledgeable about the special needs of individuals with
disabilities from diverse groups, including minority groups. The
purpose of this change would be to more clearly reflect the
Department's intent that project advisory committees include
individuals who are familiar with the needs of individuals with
disabilities from diverse groups, rather than individuals who are
just members of such groups;
4. Serve as an observer in RSA's monitoring of State VR agencies in
its region by participating, at a minimum, in each State VR agency's
monitoring exit conference in order to gain a thorough understanding of
each State VR agency's TA and CE needs;
5. Collaborate and coordinate with other TACE centers to provide TA
and CE as efficiently as possible to employees of State VR agencies and
agency partners that have similar needs. TA should be evidence-based,
to the extent possible, and include information on best practices to
the extent evidence or research is available.
6. Coordinate services with other entities that provide TA and CE
to State VR agencies and agency partners, including, but not limited
to, Independent Living Training and Technical Assistance grantees and
Assistive Technology projects funded by RSA; and
7. Evaluate how well each TA and CE activity provided by the TACE
center meets a targeted area of need (e.g., the improvement of State VR
agencies' service delivery; practices and interventions related to
specific VR populations; quality assurance), based on goals and
objectives established for the activity in the TACE center's annual
work plan. Each TACE center must provide data on each TA and CE
activity it conducts, including information on the topic of the
activity, the number and types of personnel and agencies participating
in the activity, participant evaluations of the effectiveness of the
activity, and any other data required by the Department. Each TACE
center must include the results of its evaluation in its annual
performance report. RSA will convene an independent review panel to
evaluate the work of the TACE centers. The independent review panel
will use the following performance measures: (a) The percentage of TA
and CE services provided by the TACE center that are deemed to be of
high quality; (b) the percentage of TA and CE services provided by the
TACE center that are deemed to be of high relevance to State VR
policies or practices; and (c) the percentage of TA and CE services
provided by the TACE center that are deemed to be useful in improving
State VR agency policies or practices.
Executive Order 12866
This notice of final priority (NFP) has been reviewed in accordance
with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the NFP are those resulting
from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary
for administering this program effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this NFP, we have determined that the benefits of
the final priority justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
We summarized the costs and benefits in the NPP.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 385 and 389.
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:
http://www.ed.gov/news/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 this document is the document
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.gpoaccess.gov/
nara/index.html.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.264A
Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program)
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772.
Dated: June 2, 2008.
Tracy R. Justesen,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. E8-12636 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P