Rule2024-17709
Postsecondary Student Success Grant
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 15, 2024
Effective
September 16, 2024
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) issues priorities, requirements, definitions, and a selection criterion for use in the Postsecondary Student Success Grant (PSSG) program. The Department may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 and later years. We intend for these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion to support projects that equitably improve postsecondary student outcomes, including retention, upward transfer, and completions of value, by leveraging data and implementing, scaling, and rigorously evaluating evidence-based activities to support data- driven decisions and actions that lead to credentials that support economic success and further education.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66225-66232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-17709]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter VI
[ED-2024-OPE-0069]
Postsecondary Student Success Grant
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criterion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) issues priorities,
requirements, definitions, and a selection criterion for use in the
Postsecondary Student Success Grant (PSSG) program. The Department may
use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criterion for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2024 and later
years. We intend for these priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criterion to support projects that equitably improve
postsecondary student outcomes, including retention, upward transfer,
and completions of value, by leveraging data and implementing, scaling,
and rigorously evaluating evidence-based activities to support data-
driven decisions and actions that lead to credentials that support
economic success and further education.
DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criterion are effective September 16, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nemeka Mason-Clercin, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5th floor, Washington, DC 20202-
4260. Telephone: (202) 987-1340. Nalini Lamba-Nieves, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, room 5C127, Washington, DC 20202-
4260. Telephone: (202) 453-7953. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#10404343575075743e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="075754544047626329606871">[email protected]</span></a>.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Program: The purpose of the PSSG
program is to equitably improve postsecondary student outcomes,
including retention, upward transfer, and completions of value, by
leveraging data and implementing, scaling, and rigorously evaluating
evidence-based activities to support data-driven decisions and actions
that lead to credentials that support economic success and further
education.
Assistance Listing Number: 84.116M.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and
definitions in the Federal Register on June 7, 2024 (89 FR 48517)
(NPP). That document contained background information and the
Department's reasons for proposing the particular priorities,
requirements, and definitions. There are several differences between
the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions and these final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion. They
include changing Proposed Priority 4 on using data for continuous
improvement to a selection criterion and adding examples of evaluation
strategies; revising the scaling requirements for the mid-phase and
expansion priorities; revising the definition of ``completions of
value''; and revising the examples of allowable uses of funds to
include using data to administer the program effectively at the
institution and/or State or system levels, capacity building, rigorous
evaluations, technology-assisted supports, tutoring and supplemental
instruction, peer mentoring, and support for students with
disabilities.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 23
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements,
and definitions. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor
changes, or suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to
make under applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not
address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to
the proposed priorities, requirements, or definitions.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, and definitions since
publication of the NPP follows.
General Comments
Comments: Several commenters praised the Department for conducting
rulemaking for the PSSG program and for the proposed priorities,
requirements, and definitions. For example, several commenters
supported the Department's use of evidence standards within Proposed
Priorities 1, 2, and 3, and the use of completions of value. Other
commenters supported the Department's proposed uses of funds.
Discussion: We appreciate the support of the grant program and the
priorities, requirements, and definitions.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters proposed recommendations for which
priorities and selection criteria from the NPP should be utilized in a
competition, how the selection criteria should be evaluated, what
information applicants should be provided, and other components of the
application process. Others suggested that we apply the requirements in
the recently updated Uniform Grants Guidance.
Discussion: The components of an individual application, including
which specific priorities to use, and the guidelines for the
application process are laid out in the notice inviting applications
that is developed for each competition and do not require additional
rulemaking for this grant program. The requirements from the new
Uniform Grants Guidance can be utilized without inclusion in the NFP
since they have already gone through rulemaking.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter criticized the priorities, stating that it
is discriminatory to focus on ``underserved students'' and that the
program lacks accountability measures to prevent misuse of the research
project support services for certain students and suggested that there
should be an opt-out provision for students.
Discussion: The PSSG program is designed to enable institutions to
implement evidence-based projects to support student success for a
targeted group of students who are underrepresented among college
completers. However, nothing in these priorities precludes applicants
from proposing to also serve students who are not included in the
definition of ``underserved students'' yet need additional support to
complete college. The program holds grantees accountable through, among
other things, monitoring of the grants, which includes requiring
grantees to report annually on program-specific performance measures.
Regarding the opt-out provisions,
[[Page 66226]]
institutions manage their own opt-in/opt-out policies with regard to
student participation in their grant-funded activities.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters questioned the effectiveness of taking a
statistics-focused approach to improving student outcomes.
Discussion: Research demonstrates that data-informed decision-
making is an important component of a people-driven continuous
improvement process to improve student outcomes, which is the approach
promoted in this grant program.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, for example, Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges (2019). Innovation in Higher Education: A
Case Study of Georgia State University. Washington, DC. Retrieved
from: <a href="https://agb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/case_study_innovation_georgia.pdf">https://agb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/case_study_innovation_georgia.pdf</a>; and Gagliardi, J., Parnell, A.,
and Carpenter-Hubin, J. (Eds). (2018). The Analytics Revolution in
Higher Education: Big Data, Organizational Learning, and Student
Success. Routledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed concern about the privacy of
student data.
Discussion: The Department does not collect individual-level data
for the PSSG program. Institutions that use student-level data to
support individuals through to completion must comply with the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR
part 99).
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the priorities and
requirements be used to collect enrollment and persistence data on
students with disabilities.
Discussion: Under the final selection criterion under which
applicants will identify or describe how they will develop performance
and outcome measures, applicants will also describe how they will
disaggregate data by student subgroups, which may include students with
disabilities if relevant to the project. In addition, under Priorities
1, 2, and 3, projects must be focused on improving outcomes for
underserved students, which may include students with disabilities.
Nothing in the proposed requirement regarding allowable use of funds
precluded support for students with disabilities, but we are explicitly
adding it to the list of examples to underscore the importance of
supporting this population.
Changes: We have added support for students with disabilities as an
explicit allowable student success strategy in the allowable uses of
funds requirement.
Priorities
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department consider
whether the programs in which students are being retained or to which
they are transferring meet the value threshold in the definition of
``completions of value.''
Discussion: The Department does not have the capacity to apply the
value measure at the program level, and PSSG currently is not targeted
at the program level. However, we recognize the importance of not
limiting this measure to completion. Accordingly, we are revising the
definition of ``completions of value'' to also address retention and
transfer outcomes. In responding to Priorities 1, 2, and 3, applicants
will be expected to demonstrate how their proposed projects will
improve postsecondary success for underserved students by increasing
completions of value that lead to further education through upward
transfer or graduate education and/or lead to economic mobility.
Changes: We added to the definition of ``completions of value''
that students must be retained at and/or transfer to institutions
conferring completions of value.
Comments: One commenter suggested we retain the focus of the PSSG
program on degree completion, rather than establish a new definition of
``completions of value,'' because they claimed it would be burdensome
to the grant application and administration processes for the applicant
to demonstrate post-completion return on investment due to limited
available data.
Discussion: The Department intends to use existing College
Scorecard data and generate additional College Scorecard measures
related to completions of value that institutions can use as part of
their reporting on this metric for PSSG, since we recognize that it is
difficult for some institutions to obtain earnings data.
Changes: None.
Comments: Three commenters suggested that the Department adopt a
selection criterion regarding data collection and continuous
improvement processes at the institution after the grant period, rather
than address the topic through a priority. Another commenter suggested
we add examples of evaluation strategies to this priority that include
rapid-cycle experimentation, pilots, feasibility studies, and
implementation research.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters about the importance of
this component to this grant program and believe that if we address it
through a selection criterion instead of a priority, it will
incentivize more applicants to develop robust data collection and
continuous improvement strategies, since it will be factored into the
scores of all applicants. While all of the evaluation strategies the
commenter mentions are already allowable, we have added them as
examples to make it clear for future applicants.
Changes: We have changed Proposed Priority 4 to a selection
criterion and added examples of evaluation strategies.
Comments: One commenter suggested that we eliminate Proposed
Priority 5, stating that the grant awards should not be selected based
on specific strategies to improve retention and completion, and another
commenter requested that we keep it. One commenter suggested we include
it as an allowable use of funds instead of a priority. Finally, one
commenter praised the Department for including this priority but
suggested that we add experiential learning in addition to credentials
of value.
Discussion: We believe that college-to-career pathways and supports
are a critical component of student success, and therefore are
retaining this as a priority. We agree with the commenter about the
important role experiential learning can play, especially for adult
learners with some college but no credential, and added language to the
priority to reflect this.
Changes: We have added language to Proposed Priority 5 to indicate
that participating in experiential learning can be part of a college-
to-career pathway.
Comment: In response to our request in the NPP for feedback on the
proposed scale requirements for the mid-phase and expansion tiers of
evidence, we received numerous comments with recommendations. A common
theme among the commenters was to suggest that we eliminate the use of
specific numbers of students required in order to demonstrate scale or,
if maintained, lower the number to 350 from EDGAR's current definitions
of ``strong evidence'' and ``moderate evidence.'' In lieu of using
population metrics, commenters had several suggestions, including
utilizing the rigor of evaluations, the caliber of the research, the
reasonableness of the costs, the strategy to effectively scale, and the
impacts on college completion--specifically to advance equity or
participant outcomes. One commenter suggested that we use, instead of
the proposed scale requirements for the mid-phase and expansion tiers
of evidence, a three-part requirement for each grant type that would
include requiring all mid-phase
[[Page 66227]]
and expansion grant applicants to demonstrate they will be able to
conduct a well-powered study with the number of students they propose
to serve; meet the minimum standard for studies that meet the
definition of ``moderate evidence'' or ``strong evidence,'' which is
350 students; and implement the intervention at multiple sites with
mid-phase grants implemented at multiple campuses and expansion grants
implemented either at multiple institutions or multiple campuses, where
the campuses serve different types of underserved students or in
different locales.
Discussion: We agree with the comments on aligning the scale and
multisite requirements with the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)
guidelines defined in EDGAR given one of the stated goals of the
program is to generate quality evidence about what works to improve
postsecondary student success. Because the WWC guidelines for
``moderate evidence'' and ``strong evidence'' do not differ in the
required number of sites or scale, we changed the priority language so
that the requirements for mid-phase and expansion projects do not
include a specific number of students, and we do not differentiate in
the number of sites or students required for moderate and strong
evidence. We also agree with the comments on ensuring the projects
demonstrate positive impact on underserved populations to align with
the goal of the program to equitably improve outcomes.
Changes: For mid-phase projects, we have changed the priority to
provide that projects must be implemented at multiple institutions of
higher education or multiple campuses of the same institution and be
intentionally designed to detect the impact of the project, if any, on
all students served by the project as well as on at least one
population of underserved students (as defined in this document) or
between institutions of different locales. For expansion projects, we
have changed the priority to provide that projects must be implemented
at multiple institutions of higher education and be intentionally
designed to detect the impact of the project, if any, on all students
served by the project as well as on at least one population of
underserved students (as defined in this notice) or between
institutions of different locales.
Comments: One commenter suggested adding a priority for projects at
lower-resourced institutions serving a significant population of high-
need students and with low completion rates or large completion
disparities.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that projects should be at
institutions that are lower-resourced and have a significant population
of underserved students and completion disparities. That is why the
eligibility is targeted to title III and V institutions, which are
generally under-resourced institutions with a disproportionate
enrollment of students from groups who are underrepresented among
college completers, such as students from low-income backgrounds.
Changes: None.
Requirements
Comments: Numerous commenters suggested we add to the list of
allowable uses of funds. Recommendations included adding capacity-
building, the costs of rigorous evaluation, data to administer the
program, development and use of data systems to leverage integrated
data systems, data systems, data capacity support, professional
development resources for data and institutional effectiveness
researchers, credit for prior learning, adaptive courseware, hybrid-
flex courses, peer mentoring strategies, supplemental instruction,
mental health, basic needs, and the integration of academic coursework
and career advising.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that all of these are
allowable uses. While the list provided in the proposed requirement is
not comprehensive, several of the suggested uses are critical
components for the PSSG program, so we have added to the list of
examples. The list in the proposed requirement included several
allowable uses to support Proposed Priority 5, including integrated
career planning, counseling, and coaching, work-based learning
opportunities, and college-to-career navigation support, so we do not
think other examples regarding the integration of academic coursework
and career advising are needed. It also already included basic needs
and mental health uses. Developing and using data systems is already
included as an allowable use and the approaches to do so are not
limited by the current language.
Changes: We have added using data to administer the program
effectively at the institution and/or State or system levels, capacity
building, and rigorous evaluation to the list of examples of allowable
uses of funds. We also have added technology-assisted supports,
tutoring and supplemental instruction, and peer mentoring as examples
of allowable uses of funds for student success strategies.
Comments: One commenter suggested that we provide that if a grantee
uses funds to include financial assistance as a component of their
project, they must propose to use at least one additional allowable
component in conjunction with the financial assistance.
Discussion: The Department does not believe such a stipulation
necessary. As a tiered evidence program, PSSG is designed to allow the
available evidence of what works in improving postsecondary student
outcomes to guide applicants in designing their proposed activities.
The Department also believes that applicants are in the best position
to determine what uses of funds would best serve to improve their
students' postsecondary outcomes. Under each of the priorities,
successful applicants will identify the key project components based on
their review of the studies they cite as evidence for their projects.
The applicant must develop a project that meets the goals of the
program as laid out in the priorities but can do so by selecting the
tools that they choose.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested adding language to the
independent evaluation requirement to ensure that the evaluations are
``well-designed, well-implemented, and sufficiently powered'' to meet
WWC standards for ``moderate evidence'' or ``strong evidence.''
Discussion: The Department agrees that the evaluation of these
projects should be well-designed, well-executed, and sufficiently
powered to yield credible results. We will use selection criteria to
ensure that projects include a plan to conduct evaluations that are
intentionally designed to meet WWC standards (with or without
reservations). As part of the selection process, WWC-certified peer
reviewers will assess the rigor of the evaluation plans. Accordingly,
it would be redundant to also address this area of focus in the
independent evaluation requirement.
Changes: None.
Comments: While praising the requirement that evaluations be posted
to ERIC, two commenters suggested that the Department not put the
burden on the grantee to submit the evaluations to ERIC. Instead, they
suggested that grantees submit the evaluation reports to the Department
within one month of completion and the Department post this information
to the Awards page.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenters that requiring the
grantee to submit evaluations to ERIC would be burdensome. We agree
that it is critical to make sure the evaluations are transparent and
made public. We intend
[[Page 66228]]
to share the evaluations publicly on the Department's website.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters submitted recommendations for the
requirements of evaluations that are submitted, including that they use
the most updated version of the WWC Handbook; that the evaluations of
early-phase projects be designed to meet WWC standards with or without
reservations and that the evaluations of mid-phase and expansion grants
be designed to meet WWC standards without reservations; that
evaluations have methodologies appropriate to the research question
being studied; and that the Department provide institutions with clear
guidance on how to submit a relevant study for review to determine if a
study meets WWC standards, including that the institutions have an
equitable opportunity to compete at the expansion phase without being
limited based on studies that are readily accessible in WWC.
Discussion: We appreciate the suggestions to ensure that the
evaluation methods are all evidence based and high quality. These
recommendations do not require rulemaking for this grant program and
would be considered in the application and peer review process.
Changes: None.
Comments: Two commenters recommended not restricting the indirect
cost rate.
Discussion: The Department maintains limiting the indirect cost
reimbursement to 8 percent of a modified total direct cost base. The
Department continues to believe that this limitation effectively
maximizes the Federal resources that support direct costs associated
with the project.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters had recommendations for the types of
entities that would be eligible for the grant. Four commenters
suggested that eligibility not be limited to institutions that are
designated as a title III or V school, including one suggestion that
public two-year community and technical colleges be added. Two
commenters suggested allowing non-profit organizations to be an
eligible entity alone, rather than requiring a partnership with a title
III or V institution, and another commenter suggested that we require
the institution to be the lead applicant. A couple commenters supported
allowing non-profits to apply in partnership with title III or V
institutions. One commenter asked that businesses be able to partner
with institutions, and one commenter asked that for-profit institutions
be prohibited from applying.
Discussion: The Department believes that targeting funding to title
III and V institutions is the best use of the available funds because
these institutions disproportionately enroll students from groups who
are underrepresented among college completers, such as students from
low-income backgrounds. Supporting retention and completion strategies
at these institutions offers the greatest potential to close gaps in
postsecondary outcomes. Additionally, these under-resourced
institutions are most in need of Federal assistance to implement and
evaluate evidence-based postsecondary college retention and completion
interventions. More than half of public two-year institutions are title
III/V eligible and would be eligible for a grant. Under the eligibility
requirement, non-profits may apply for the funding, as long as they do
so in partnership with an institution of higher education. It does not
matter which entity is the lead applicant since all entities applying
through the partnership are subject to the same ``Group Application''
requirements under 34 CFR 75.127-129. Given that the innovation would
need to occur at an institution, we do not believe it is workable to
allow a non-profit to apply without partnership with an institution of
higher education. Furthermore, there is nothing that currently
prohibits eligible applicants from collaborating with businesses, and
for-profit institutions are not eligible institutions.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter suggested that we specifically include
Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) as eligible entities.
Discussion: HSIs are eligible as title III/title V institutions.
Changes: None.
Comments: None.
Discussion: In Proposed Requirement 3, we specified certain
circumstances under which the Secretary may waive the matching
requirement on a case-by-case basis based on certain showings by the
``lead applicant.''
Changes: We have revised Requirement 3, section (b) Waiver
Authority, to clarify that data showing certain exceptional
circumstances should pertain to the ``eligible institution(s)'' instead
of the lead applicant in order to address circumstances where certain
eligible entities apply in partnership with title III or V
institutions.
Definitions
Comments: Two commenters suggested changes to the definition of
``completions of value.'' One commenter suggested we use Threshold 0
from the Postsecondary Value Commission framework, and another
commenter suggested we incorporate local workforce data.
Discussion: Our proposed definition aligns with the Postsecondary
Value Commission framework by measuring the percentage of students
earning enough to recoup their costs and experience an earnings premium
over high school graduates, and adds the percentage of students
pursuing further education. We recognize the importance of not
comparing schools nationally on earnings and so our definition also
utilizes State-level high school earnings data. The Department does not
have the capacity to factor in local workforce data.
Changes: We adjusted the definition to clarify how the percentage
of students is calculated and how State earnings data is used in the
construction of the metric.
Comments: One commenter suggested that in the definition of
``underserved student,'' we include a more detailed description of
``student of color'' to align with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)'s Race and Ethnicity Standards.
Discussion: The term ``student of color'' is undefined, consistent
with the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities, to ensure consistency
across the Department's discretionary grant programs and to allow
institutions to define the term in a manner they choose, to be
consistent with how they do so internally for other purposes.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
The Secretary establishes the following priorities for use in the
PSSG Program.
Priority 1--Early Phase.
Projects that are designed to improve postsecondary success for
underserved students by increasing completions of value that lead to
further education through upward transfer or graduate education and/or
lead to economic mobility, and are supported by evidence that meets the
definition of Demonstrates a Rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) or
Promising Evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
Priority 2--Mid-Phase: Projects Supported by Moderate Evidence.
Projects that are designed to improve postsecondary success for
underserved students by increasing completions of value that lead to
further education through upward transfer or graduate education and/or
lead to economic mobility, and are supported by evidence that meets the
definition of Moderate
[[Page 66229]]
Evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1). Projects under this priority must
be implemented at multiple institutions of higher education or multiple
campuses of the same institution and be intentionally designed to
detect the impact of the project, if any, on all students participating
in the project as well as on at least one population of underserved
students or between institutions of different locales.
Priority 3--Expansion: Projects Supported by Strong Evidence.
Projects that are designed to improve postsecondary success for
underserved students by increasing completions of value that lead to
further education through upward transfer or graduate education and/or
lead to economic mobility, and are supported by evidence that meets the
definition of Strong Evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1). Projects
under this priority must be implemented at multiple institutions of
higher education and be intentionally designed to detect the impact of
the project, if any, on all students participating in the project as
well as on at least one population of underserved students or between
institutions of different locales.
Priority 4--Projects That Support College-to-Career Pathways and
Supports.
Projects that propose to build upon demonstrated progress toward
integrating, or that propose a plan to integrate, career-connected
learning and advising support into their postsecondary success
strategies, which may include participation in experiential learning,
to ensure students earn completions of value that lead to economic
success and/or further education. Projects may include aligning
academic coursework with career pathways and outcomes; developing and
implementing program-level credential maps to create college-to-career
pathways, including across institutions via transfer; integrating
career planning, counseling, and coaching into holistic advising
support; offering work-based learning opportunities aligned with
students' programs of study; and providing navigation support to help
graduates transition from college to career.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. 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 (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the 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 priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
The Secretary establishes the following requirements for use in the
PSSG Program.
Requirement 1: Uses of Funds.
Program funds must be used for one or more of the following
allowable uses of funds:
(a) Developing and using data systems, tools, and training to
implement data-driven processes and interventions as part of a
comprehensive continuous improvement effort, as well as to administer
the program effectively at the institution and/or State or system
levels;
(b) Implementing student success strategies, including but not
limited to whole-college improvement models; course redesign to
implement co-requisite remediation or career-connected math pathways
including through use of technology-assisted supports; tutoring and
supplemental instruction; intensive, integrated advising models
including program maps with progress checks, case management
approaches, coaching, and peer mentoring; financial support, including
need-based aid, emergency aid, and basic needs and behavioral health
support and services; transfer support (as applicable), including four-
year transfer maps, co-enrollment and co-advising across institutions,
and regional transfer partnerships; support for students with
disabilities; career support, including integrated career planning,
counseling, and coaching, work-based learning opportunities, and
college-to-career navigation support; or other evidence-based student
success strategies and capacity building to implement student success
strategies; and
(c) Providing for rigorous evaluation of the program interventions.
Requirement 2: Indirect Cost Rate Information.
A grantee's indirect cost reimbursement is limited to eight percent
of a modified total direct cost base. For more information regarding
indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please
see <a href="http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html">www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html</a>.
Requirement 3: Matching Requirements and Exceptions.
(a) Matching Requirement. Grantees must provide a ten percent
match, which may include in-kind donations.
(b) Waiver Authority. The Secretary may waive the matching
requirement on a case-by-case basis upon a showing of any of the
following exceptional circumstances:
(1) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve
an area with high rates of poverty in the eligible institution(s)'
geographic location(s), defined as a Census tract, a set of contiguous
Census tracts, an American Indian Reservation, Oklahoma Tribal
Statistical Area (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau), Alaska Native
Village Statistical Area or Alaska Native Regional Corporation Area,
Native Hawaiian Homeland Area, or other Tribal land or county that has
a poverty rate of at least 25 percent as determined every 5 years using
American Community Survey 5-Year data;
(2) Serving a significant population of students from low-income
backgrounds at the eligible institution(s)' location(s), defined as at
least 50 percent (or the eligibility threshold for the appropriate
institutional sector available at <a href="https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/eligibility.html#app">https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/eligibility.html#app</a>) of degree-seeking enrolled
students receiving need-based grant aid under title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA); or
(3) Significant economic hardship as demonstrated by low average
educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent
undergraduate student at the eligible institution(s)' location(s), in
comparison with the average educational and general expenditures per
full-time equivalent undergraduate student of institutions that offer
similar instruction without need of a waiver, as determined by the
Secretary in accordance with the annual process of designation of title
III and title V institutions.
Requirement 4: Limitation on Grant Awards.
The Department will make awards to only applicants that are not the
individual or lead applicant in a current active grant from the PSSG
program.
[[Page 66230]]
Requirement 5: Supplement-not-Supplant.
Grant funds must be used so that they supplement and, to the extent
practical, increase the funds that would otherwise be available for the
activities to be carried out under the grant and in no case supplant
those funds.
Requirement 6: Independent Evaluation.
Grantees must conduct an independent evaluation of the
effectiveness of the project and submit the evaluation report to ERIC,
available at <a href="https://eric.ed.gov/">https://eric.ed.gov/</a>, in a timely manner.
Requirement 7: Eligible Entities.
Eligible entities are title III or V institutions; nonprofits in
partnership with title III or V institutions; States in partnership
with title III or V institutions; or systems of public institutions of
higher education.
Final Definitions
The Secretary establishes the following definitions for use in the
PSSG program.
Completions of value measures the percentage of credentials that
lead to further education through upward transfer or graduate education
and/or that lead to economic mobility through earning enough to
experience a premium over high school graduates in one's State and
earning enough to recoup one's investment in postsecondary education.
The student must also be retained at, or transferring to, an
institution that confers completions of value.
Continuous improvement means using plans for collecting and
analyzing data about a project component's (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1)
implementation and outcomes (including the pace and extent to which
project outcomes are being met) to inform necessary changes throughout
the project. These plans may include strategies to gather ongoing
feedback from participants and stakeholders on the implementation of
the project component.
English learner means an individual who is an English learner as
defined in section 8101(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended, or an individual who is an English language
learner as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act.
Historically Black College or University means an institution that
meets the eligibility requirements under section 322(2) of the HEA.
Independent evaluation means an evaluation of a project component
that is designed and carried out independently of, but in coordination
with, the entities that develop or implement the project component.
Minority-serving institution means an institution that is eligible
to receive assistance under sections 317 through 320 of part A of title
III, or under title V of the HEA.
Student with a disability means any student enrolled at an
institution of higher education (including those accepted for dual
enrollment) who meets the definition of an individual with a disability
as defined in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12102).
Tribally Controlled Colleges or Universities has the meaning
ascribed it in section 316(b)(3) of the HEA.
Underserved student means a student in one or more of the following
subgroups:
(a) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with
high concentrations of students living in poverty.
(b) A student of color.
(c) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian
Tribe.
(d) An English learner.
(e) A student with a disability.
(f) A student experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.
(g) A lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or
intersex (LGBTQI+) student.
(h) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.
(i) A student who is the first in their family to attend
postsecondary education.
(j) A student enrolling in or seeking to enroll in postsecondary
education for the first time at the age of 20 or older.
(k) A student who is working full-time while enrolled in
postsecondary education.
(l) A student who is enrolled in, or is seeking to enroll in,
postsecondary education who is eligible for a Pell Grant.
(m) An adult student in need of improving their basic skills or an
adult student with limited English proficiency.
Final Selection Criterion
Using Data for Continuous Improvement.
The extent to which the proposed project will build upon
demonstrated progress toward improved student outcomes, or the extent
to which the proposed project includes a plan to improve student
outcomes for underserved students, by using data to continually assess
and improve the outcomes associated with funded activities and sustain
data-driven continuous improvement processes at the institution after
the grant period.
Applicants addressing this selection criterion must--
(a) Identify, or describe how they will develop, the performance
and outcome measures they will use to monitor and evaluate
implementation of the intervention(s), including baseline data,
intermediate and annual targets, and disaggregation by student
subgroups;
(b) Describe how they will assess and address gaps in current data
systems, tools, and capacity, and how they will monitor and respond to
performance and outcome data to improve implementation of the
intervention(s) on an ongoing basis and as part of formative (which may
include rapid-cycle evaluation, pilots, feasibility studies, and
implementation research) and summative evaluation of the
intervention(s); and
(c) Describe how institutional leadership will be involved with,
and supportive of, project leadership and how the project relates to
the institution's broader student success priorities and improvement
processes.
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use any of these priorities, requirements,
definitions, or selection criterion, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) determines whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more
(adjusted every three years by the Administrator of Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic
product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal
governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
[[Page 66231]]
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would
meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles set
forth in this Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
as amended by Executive Order 14094.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that
an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criterion only on a reasoned determination that their
benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize
net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department
believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles
in Executive Order 13563.
The potential costs associated with these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criterion would be minimal, while the
potential benefits are significant. The Department believes that this
final regulatory action would not impose significant costs on eligible
entities. Participation in this program is voluntary, and the costs
imposed on applicants by this regulatory action would be limited to
paperwork burden related to preparing an application. The potential
benefits of implementing the program would outweigh the costs incurred
by applicants, and the costs of carrying out activities associated with
the application would be paid for with program funds. For these
reasons, we have determined that the costs of implementation would not
be burdensome for eligible applicants, including small entities.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
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 Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criterion would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that this final regulatory action would affect
are institutions that meet the applicable eligibility requirements. The
Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion would be
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and
that the benefits would outweigh any costs incurred by applicants.
Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the
final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion
would impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for
funding under the program. We expect that in determining whether to
apply for PSSG program funds, an eligible applicant would evaluate the
requirements of preparing an application and any associated costs and
weigh them against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving PSSG
funds. Eligible applicants most likely would apply only if they
determine that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an
application. The likely benefits include the potential receipt of a
grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an entity through
its development of an application.
This final regulatory action would not have a significant economic
impact on any small entity once it receives a grant because it would be
able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under
this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections
of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This helps ensure that the public
understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents
provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden
(time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are
clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact
of collection requirements on respondents.
The final selection criterion contains information collection
requirements. Under the PRA the Department has submitted this selection
criterion to OMB for its review.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless OMB approves the collection
[[Page 66232]]
under the PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument
displays a currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any
other provision of the law, no person is required to comply with, or is
subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of
information if the collection instrument does not display a currently
valid OMB control number.
Collection of Information: Using Data for Continuous Improvement
Eligible entities under this program are title III or V
institutions; nonprofits in partnership with title III or V
institutions; States in partnership with title III or V institutions;
or systems of public institutions of higher education. The collection
of information would include eligible applicants responding to this
final selection criterion: Using Data for Continuous Improvement, which
we changed from a priority to a selection criterion based on public
comment in response to the NPP. The Department will utilize the
selection criteria in selecting eligible applicants for funding.
Eligible applicants must respond to the selection criteria within the
application package for this program. We estimate the annual burden for
the information collection to average 8,400 hours, from 210 eligible
applicants at 40 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Thus, we estimate the total burden for this
collection to be 8,400 hours. At $47.20 per hour, the total annualized
estimated cost for 210 eligible applicants to respond to final
selection criteria is approximately $396,480.
Consistent with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the Department is soliciting
comments on the information collection through this document. Between
30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register, OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections
of information contained in this requirement. Therefore, to ensure that
OMB gives your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB
receives your comments on the Postsecondary Student Success Grant
(PSSG) Program Application Information Collection Request by September
16, 2024. Comments related to the information collection activities
must be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> by selecting the Docket ID number ED-2024-OPE-
0069 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery by
referencing the Docket ID number and the title of the information
collection request at the top of your comment. Comments submitted by
postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the PRA Coordinator of
the Strategic Collections and Clearance Governance and Strategy
Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room
4C210, Washington, DC 20202-1200.
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of
information in--
<bullet> Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the
information will have practical use;
<bullet> Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and
assumptions;
<bullet> Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information we collect; and
<bullet> Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
Accessible Format: On request to one of the program contact persons
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The
Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that
may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive,
an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other
accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other Department documents published in the
Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use
PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access Department documents published in the Federal
Register by using the article search feature at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a>. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Nasser Paydar,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2024-17709 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 15, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.