Brief: Disability services

Prepared from Grant Precedent, 2026-10-23; data as of precedent 2026-10-21, measures 2026-10-22.

Measures funders require

What you can collect, and how

Tier 1 is collected today from your own records. Tier 2 needs one free instrument. Tier 3 needs a partner under a data agreement. A measure that matches no rule has no tier.

What grantees achieved

13 grantees of Special Needs – Out-of-School Time reported 106 results against targets over 3 periods; the median result was 115% of target (middle half 100% to 125%), and 91% met or exceeded the target. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

• Smith Mental Health Associates, LLC (FY2023-24): Percentage of children demonstrating acceptable levels of social interactions (child-staff, child-child). (2 point in-time observations); promised 80%, actual 80% (100% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf
• United Community Options of Broward, Palm Beach and Mid Coast Counties (FY2021-22): Classrooms met quality standards for Project Based Learning. (Summer Only); promised 80%, actual 100% (125% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Annual-Performance-Report-Fiscal-Year-2021-202212.pdf
• Broward Children’s Center, Inc. (FY2021-22): Children demonstrated acceptable levels of social interactions (child-staff, child-child). (2 point in time observations); promised 80%, actual 100% (125% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Annual-Performance-Report-Fiscal-Year-2021-202212.pdf
• Jewish Adoption and Foster Care Option, Inc. (JAFCO) (Summer Only) (FY2021-22): Classrooms met quality standards for Project Based Learning. (point in time observation); promised 80%, actual 100% (125% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Annual-Performance-Report-Fiscal-Year-2021-202212.pdf
• Arc Broward, Inc. (FY2023-24): Percentage of children improving academic performance and/or skills; promised 70%, actual 55% (79% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf

9 grantees of Special Needs – Supported Training & Employment Program (STEP) reported 48 results against targets over 4 periods; the median result was 117% of target (middle half 89% to 131%), and 71% met or exceeded the target. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

• Arc Broward (FY2020-21): Youth acquired measurable skills in Job Duties.; promised 70%, actual 34% (49% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/PDF/FY/APR-FY-20-21-ADA.pdf
• United Community Options of Broward, Palm Beach and Mid Coast Counties (FY2021-22): Youth who are employed or pursuing post-secondary education 6 months post program completion.; promised 50%, actual 32% (64% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Annual-Performance-Report-Fiscal-Year-2021-202212.pdf
• Smith Mental Health Associates, LLC (FY2019-20): Youth acquired measurable skills in Work-related Behaviors.; promised 70%, actual 58% (83% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/PDF/FY/APR-FY-20-21-ADA.pdf
• United Community Options of Broward, Palm Beach and Mid Coast Counties (UCO) (FY2019-20): Youth acquired measurable skills in Work-related Behaviors.; promised 70%, actual 87% (124% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/PDF/FY/APR-FY-20-21-ADA.pdf
• Center for Hearing and Communication w/KID, Inc. as Fiscal Sponsor (FY2021-22): Youth acquired measurable skills in Daily Living Activities.; promised 70%, actual 89% (127% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Annual-Performance-Report-Fiscal-Year-2021-202212.pdf

12 grantees of Special Needs - Out-of-School Time reported 35 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 125% of target (middle half 100% to 125%), and 94% met or exceeded the target. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

• Broward Children’s Center, Inc. (FY2024-25): Percentage of children demonstrating acceptable levels of social interactions (child-staff, child-child). (2 point in-time observations); promised 80%, actual 100% (125% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf
• City of Pembroke Pines (Summer Only) (FY2024-25): Percentage of classrooms meeting quality standards for Project Based Learning. (Summer Only); promised 80%, actual 100% (125% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf
• David Posnack Jewish Community Center of South Broward (FY2024-25): Percentage of families who were satisfied with the camp experience; promised 80%, actual 100% (125% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf
• Center for Hearing and Communication, Inc. (FY2024-25): Percentage of children demonstrating acceptable levels of social interactions (child-staff, child-child). (2 point in-time observations); promised 80%, actual 100% (125% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf
• YMCA of South Florida, Inc. (FY2024-25): Percentage of classrooms meeting quality standards for Project Based Learning. (Summer Only); promised 80%, actual 100% (125% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf

4 grantees of Special Needs – Respite for Youth with Behavioral Health Conditions reported 31 results against targets over 4 periods; the median result was 111% of target (middle half 100% to 118%), and 77% met or exceeded the target. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

• Smith Mental Health Associates, LLC (FY2020-21): Caregivers who experienced reduced stress.; promised 85%, actual 70% (82% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/PDF/FY/APR-FY-20-21-ADA.pdf
• Memorial Healthcare System (FY2024-25): Percentage of caregivers reporting improvement in children's behaviors; promised 85%, actual 100% (118% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf
• Christina G. Smith Mental Health Associates, LLC (FY2024-25): Percentage of caregivers experiencing reduced stress; promised 85%, actual 68% (80% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf
• Jewish Adoption and Foster Care Option, Inc. (JAFCO) (FY2021-22): Caregivers who experienced reduced stress.; promised 85%, actual 100% (118% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Annual-Performance-Report-Fiscal-Year-2021-202212.pdf

7 grantees of Special Needs - Supported Training & Employment Program (STEP) reported 15 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 136% of target (middle half 127% to 143%), and 100% met or exceeded the target. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

• Center for Hearing and Communication with KID, Inc. as Fiscal Sponsor (FY2024-25): Percentage of youth demonstrating proficiency in employability and job retention skills; promised 70%, actual 82% (117% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf
• Arc Broward, Inc. (FY2024-25): Percentage of youth reporting improvement in employability skills; promised 70%, actual 98% (140% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf
• Ann Storck Center (FY2024-25): Percentage of youth demonstrating improvement in employability skills; promised 70%, actual 86% (123% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf
• United Community Options (FY2024-25): Percentage of youth demonstrating proficiency in employability and job retention skills; promised 70%, actual 93% (133% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf
• YMCA of South Florida, Inc. (FY2024-25): Percentage of youth employed or pursuing post-secondary education post program completion; promised 50%, actual 60% (120% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf

1 grantee of Family Center on Deafness reported 5 results against targets over 4 periods; the median result was 111% of target (middle half 102% to 129%), and 80% met or exceeded the target. Source: Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas County, program monitoring reports, https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/VII-C-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf.

• Family Center on Deafness, Inc. (FY2020): Participants age 3-6 who are deaf of hard of hearing will demonstrate an increase in total score from pre-test to post-test on the Meadow-Kendall Social Emotional Assessment Inventory Preschool Age.; promised 90%, actual 100% (111% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/VI-C-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring.pdf

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities reported 394 results against targets over 20 periods; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 67% to 100%), and 54% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

• Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities (FY2005): Total expenditures - state appropriated funds (in thousands); promised $ 4,174.0, actual $ 2,577.2 (62% of target); unit: $. Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=558&FiscalYear=2005&ProgramAreaGroupID=1&ProgramID=2&UniqueProgramID=5582

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Developmental Disabilities - Community and Facility Services reported 285 results against targets over 15 periods; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 97% to 102%), and 47% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

• Department of Human Services (FY2008): Number of individuals served in private Intermediate Care Facilities and Mental Retardation facilities (ICF/MR), including Skilled Nursing Facility/Pediatrics; promised 6,600, actual 6,620 (100% of target). Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=444&FiscalYear=2008&ProgramAreaGroupID=1&ProgramID=16&UniqueProgramID=44416

8 of 30 matched precedent programs shown, largest first.

Target-setting language with precedent

Each item comes from one funder, one program or one department; none is a government-wide rule.

Showing clauses from HHS and Education.

• CDC DP-23-0002 applicant FAQ (2023): Quote: “you may enter a '0' and then TBD for targets in the work plan” — https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/healthyschools/nofo/nofo.htm
• EDGAR, 34 CFR 75.110(c) (2024): Paraphrase: An applicant that lacks a baseline explains how and when it will establish one. — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-08-29/html/2024-17239.htm
• SAMHSA CMHS Infrastructure, Prevention and Promotion Overview Guide, v2.0, p. 9 (2022): Quote: “grantees can revise annual goals in consultation with their GPO during the first quarter of each fiscal year” — https://spars.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/OE%20SPARS%20CMHS%20IPP%20Overview%20Guide.pdf
• Promise Neighborhoods guidance document, third edition (2025): Quote: “target setting will be an iterative process throughout implementation as more performance data is available” — https://promiseneighborhoods.ed.gov/pdf/Promise_Neighborhoods_Guidance_Document_508c.pdf
• HRSA-26-057 ECCS SEED applicant FAQs, p. 6 (2026): Paraphrase: Baseline estimates are confirmed or updated within six months of award. — https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/45e009d7-46ed-482f-8aa7-02812f207f71/attachments/54ad1b19-2651-43c7-8ade-76203c7770d7/HRSA-26-057_ECCS_SEED_Applicant_FAQs.pdf
• NIH PAR-25-383, Section VI (2025): Paraphrase: Future-year milestones may be renegotiated based on prior-year data. — https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-25-383.html
• Arizona Rural Health Transformation, approved program narrative, pp. 20-22 (2026): Paraphrase: A baseline assessment is done after award, and targets are set from it. — https://www.azahcccs.gov/AHCCCS/Downloads/Initiatives/RHTP/Arizona%27sApprovedProgramNarrative.pdf
• HRSA Health Center Program (H80) patient targets, Primary Health Care Digest (2022): Quote: “confirm or request adjustment to their patient target by the deadline in their email” — https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USHHSHRSA/bulletins/3120df3

What reviewers penalize

These ten weaknesses recur in 17 published reviewer critiques, mostly U.S. Department of Education and NIH. The count is the number of critiques that name it, not a rate, and a reviewer comment is a judgment.

• Attrition or missing-data handling left unresolved (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “the applicant did not address how missing data will be handled” U.S. Department of Education, Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Mid-Phase, WestEd, S411B220027, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 25, 29. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220027_WestEd_TRF.pdf#page=29
• Comparisons vulnerable to selection, contamination, baseline differences or incompatible data (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “may require additional interpretation” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, K01 AI131895 (Rebeiro, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 5-6. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/k01-rebeiro-summary-statement.pdf#page=6
• Feasibility assumptions or fallback arrangements unsupported (named in 6 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no alternative analysis plan is provided” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017174 (Heinemann and Cherney), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 3, 5-6. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/sanitized-heinemann-cherney-summary-statement-redacted.pdf#page=5
• Implementation fidelity, thresholds or mediators inadequately specified (named in 5 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “Mediators are not described.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Education Development Center, U411C190275, 2019, Technical Review Form, p. 4. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2019/11/U411C190275-Education-Development-Center-Inc.-TRF-Tier-2.pdf#page=4
• Measurement tools insufficiently identified, supported or protected against reporting bias (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no detail is provided” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, Niswonger Foundation, U411B170038, 2017, Technical Review Form, pp. 4-5. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2016/12/U411B170038_TRF.pdf#page=4
• Targets or success criteria missing, inconsistent or disconnected from the project (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “lacks a specific number” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, ASSISTments Foundation, S411B220024, 2022, Technical Review Form, p. 14. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220024_ASSISTments-Foundation-Inc_TRF.pdf#page=14
• Analysis procedures insufficiently specified for the stated questions or model (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “methods of data analysis are not adequately described” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, R01 AI098472 renewal (Gandhi, UCSF), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 4-5. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/2-R01-AI098472-06_Ganhdi_Summary.pdf#page=4
• Data protection, management or cross-site coordination incomplete (named in 3 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The data management plan stops midsentence on page 125” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017683 (Gifford and Camarata, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 9-10. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/sanitized-giffordcamarataapplicationsummary-dc017683-01a1.pdf#page=10
• Feedback collection lacks a specified route into program decisions (named in 2 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The applicant does not discuss how often the team will review data or implement changes.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Orange County Superintendent of Schools, S411C200130, 2020, Technical Review Form, pp. 16, 19. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2020/12/S411C200130-Orange-County-Superintendent-of-Schools-TRF.pdf#page=19
• Evaluator independence insufficiently explained (named in 1 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The level of independence is not made clear” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Research Triangle Institute, S411C220065, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 24-25. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411C220065_Research-Triangle-Institute-_TRF.pdf#page=24

Protocol skeleton

Draft text, edit before use

Measures: The percentage of preparation programs that incorporate scientifically or evidence-based practices into their curricula.; The percentage of scholars completing preparation programs who are knowledgeable and skilled in evidence-based practices for children with disabilities.; The percentage of scholars who exit preparation programs prior to completion due to poor academic performance.; The percentage of scholars completing preparation programs who are working in the area(s) in which they were prepared upon program completion.; The Federal cost per scholar who completed the preparation program.; The percentage of scholars who completed the preparation program and are employed in high-need districts.; The percentage of scholars who completed the preparation program and are rated effective by their employers.; The percentage of scholars who completed the preparation program and are employed in the field of special education for at least two years.; Policies and Procedures: The number of policies and/or procedures created or changed.; Statutes and Regulations: The number of statutes and/or regulations created or changed.; Promising and Best Practices: The number of promising and /or best practices created or supported. Number of promising practices createdNumber of promising practices supportedNumber of best practices createdNumber of best practices supported; Training and Education: The number of people trained or educated through systemic change initiatives. This measure does not include information like website hits, social media likes, newsletter subscribers, etc.; and 12 more listed above. Baseline: ____ months from award, using OSEP Personnel Development Program Data Collection System (PDPDCS); VBPD quarterly program reports (DD Suite). Targets: set from the observed baseline at month ____, or committed now as a change of ____ percentage points from baseline.

Missing-data plan (how dropout and missing observations will be handled): ____

Comparison group or baseline (what you compare against and how the groups started): ____

Fallback if recruitment, data access or the first analysis falls short: ____

Fidelity threshold (what counts as full implementation, and how it is measured): ____

Instrument named, with its validity evidence and its rights (license) status: ____

Numeric target for each measure (a number, not a direction): ____

Analysis for each outcome (method, comparison, adjustment): ____

Data protection and data management (who holds identifiable data, where, for how long): ____

Feedback schedule (who reviews the data, how often, and what changes as a result): ____

Evaluator role and independence (who evaluates and how they are separate from delivery): ____

The text is copied or summarized from public documents. It is not legal advice.