Applications for New Awards; Postsecondary Student Success Grant Program (PSSG), 48220-48229 [2023-15780]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48220-48229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15780]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Postsecondary Student Success Grant 
Program (PSSG)

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice 
inviting applications (NIA) for fiscal year (FY) 2023 for the 
Postsecondary Student Success Grant Program (PSSG), Assistance Listing 
Number 84.116M. This notice relates to the approved information 
collection under OMB control number 1894-0006.

DATES: 
    Applications Available: July 26, 2023.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 25, 2023.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: November 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an 
application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to 
Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the 
Federal Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045), and available at 
www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-26554. Please note that these Common 
Instructions supersede the version published on December 27, 2021.

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: [email protected].
    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:

[[Page 48221]]

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of this program is to equitably 
improve postsecondary student outcomes, including retention, transfer 
(including successful transfer of completed credits), credit 
accumulation, and completion, by leveraging data and implementing, 
scaling, and rigorously evaluating evidence-based activities to support 
data-driven decisions and actions by institutional leaders committed to 
inclusive student success.
    Background: In today's economy, more than 60 percent of U.S. jobs 
require a postsecondary credential.\1\ Data show that as educational 
attainment increases, median earnings steadily increase.\2\ It is 
critical for institutions of higher education (IHEs) to provide support 
systems to improve retention, progression, and completion rates to 
decrease economic and social equity gaps for students of color and low-
income students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Recovery2020.FR_.Web_.pdf.
    \2\ www.bls.gov/emp/chart-unemployment-earnings-education.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Students of color and low-income students still face barriers to 
successfully enrolling in and completing college. Between 2019 and 
2021, there have been decreases in undergraduate enrollment for Native 
American students (7.9 percent decrease), Black students (7.3 percent 
decrease), and Hispanic students (5 percent decrease).\3\ From 2019 to 
2022, there has been a decrease in enrollment for Pell grant recipients 
(9.9 percent).\4\ In addition, while graduation rates have increased in 
four-year institutions overall by 4.6 percentage points since 2015, 
double-digit graduation rate gaps between underrepresented students of 
color and white students remain, and there is a 9-percentage point gap 
in graduation rates between Pell and non-Pell students.\5\ The same is 
occurring in two-year institutions, with an overall graduation rate 
increase of 2.8 percentage points since 2012, but a declining rate for 
Hispanic and Black students, leading to increasing gaps between white 
students and underrepresented students of color.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_306.10.asp?current=yes.
    \4\ https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends-in-student-aid-presentation-2022.pdf.
    \5\ https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Search?query=&query2=&resultType=all&page=1&sortBy=date_desc&overlayTableId=32473.
    \6\ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_326.10.asp, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_326.20.asp?current=yes, https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Search?query=&query2=&resultType=all&page=1&sortBy=date_desc&overlayTableId=32473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, as more ``non-traditional'' students attend college, 
additional and different supports are required to enable them to 
successfully complete their credentials. Today, 25 percent of 
postsecondary students are age 25 or older,\7\ about 70 percent of 
students work while enrolled,\8\ and 22 percent of students are 
parents.\9\ At community colleges,31 percent of students enrolled are 
age 25 or older,\10\ and 42 percent of all student parents attend 
community colleges.\11\ Research has found that IHEs should employ a 
multifaceted and integrated approach in mitigating barriers that hinder 
students in their educational trajectories, addressing academic, 
financial and other barriers.\12\ Moreover, IHEs that have improved 
completion rates use timely, disaggregated, actionable data to identify 
institutional barriers to student success, implement interventions, and 
evaluate impact on an on-going basis.\13\ Institutional leadership has 
been found to be critical to ensuring that the student experience is 
intentionally designed to increase student retention, persistence, and 
completion rates.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_303.50.asp?current=yes.
    \8\ https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Working-Learners-Report.pdf.
    \9\ https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED612580.pdf.
    \10\ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_303.50.asp?current=yes.
    \11\ https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED612580.pdf.
    \12\ www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/doubling_graduation_rates_fr.pdf.
    \13\ Phillips, B.C., & Horowitz, J.E. (2013). Maximizing data 
use: A focus on the completion agenda. In Special Issue: The College 
Completion Agenda-Practical Approaches for Reaching the Big Goal. 
New Directions for Community Colleges, 2013(164), 17-25.
    \14\ McNair, T.B., Albertine, S., McDonald, N., Major Jr, T., & 
Cooper, M.A. (2022). Becoming a student-ready college: A new culture 
of leadership for student success. John Wiley & Sons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This grant program seeks to fund evidence-based (as defined in this 
notice) strategies that result in improved student outcomes for 
underserved students (as defined in this notice). The program has two 
absolute priorities that correspond to varying evidence standards. This 
multi-tiered competition invites applicants that are in the ``early 
phase'' or ``mid-phase/expansion'' of their evidence-based work to 
support students through degree completion. This grant also supports 
the evaluation, dissemination, scaling, and sustainability efforts of 
the activities funded under this grant.
    In this competition, eligibility is limited to institutions that 
are designated as eligible under the HEA titles III and V programs, 
nonprofits that are not IHEs or associated with an IHE in partnership 
with institutions that are designated as eligible under the HEA titles 
III and V programs, States in partnerships with institutions that are 
designated as eligible under the HEA titles III and V programs, and 
public systems of institutions. Institutions designated as eligible 
under titles III and V include Historically Black Colleges or 
Universities (HBCUs), Tribally Controlled Colleges or Universities 
(TCCUs), Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) and other institutions 
with high enrollment of needy students and below average full-time 
equivalent (FTE) expenditures--including community colleges. The 
Department believes that targeting funding to these IHEs is the best 
use of the available funding because these institutions 
disproportionately enroll students from groups who are underrepresented 
among college completers, such as low-income students. 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.

Early-Phase

    Early-phase grants provide funding to IHEs to develop, implement, 
and test the feasibility of a program that prior research suggests is 
likely to improve relevant outcomes, for the purpose of determining 
whether an initiative improves student retention and completion of 
postsecondary students. Early-phase grants must ``demonstrate a 
rationale'' (as defined in this notice) and include a logic model (as 
defined in this notice), theory of action, or another conceptual 
framework that includes the goals, objectives, outcomes, and key 
project components (as defined in this notice) of the project, and that 
demonstrates the relationship between such proposed activities and the 
relevant outcomes the project is designed to achieve. The evaluation 
design will be assessed on the extent to which it would meet What Works 
Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards with or without reservations. 
The evaluation of an Early-phase project should be an experimental or 
quasi-experimental design study (both as defined in this notice) that 
can determine whether the program can successfully improve 
postsecondary student success outcomes for underserved students.

[[Page 48222]]

    Early-phase grantees during their grant period are encouraged to 
make continuous and iterative improvements in project design and 
implementation before conducting a full-scale evaluation of 
effectiveness. Grantees should consider how easily others could 
implement the proposed practice, and how its implementation could 
potentially be improved. Additionally, grantees should consider using 
data from early indicators to gauge initial impact and to consider 
possible changes in implementation that could increase student 
outcomes.

Mid-Phase/Expansion

    Mid-phase/Expansion grants are supported by moderate evidence (as 
defined in this notice) or strong evidence (as defined in this notice), 
respectively. These grants provide funding to IHEs to improve and/or 
expand initiatives and practices that have been proven to be effective 
in increasing postsecondary student retention and completion. Mid-
phase/Expansion projects should provide vital insight about an 
intervention's effectiveness, such as for whom and in which contexts a 
practice/intervention is most effective. Mid-phase grantees should also 
measure the cost-effectiveness of their practices using administrative 
or other readily available data.
    Mid-phase/Expansion grant projects are distinctly situated to 
provide insight on scaling an initiative to a larger population of 
students or across multiple campuses.
    These grants must be implemented at a multi-site sample (as defined 
in this notice) with more than one campus or in one campus that 
includes at least 2,000 students. Project evaluations must evaluate the 
effectiveness of the project at each site.
    Mid-phase/Expansion grants must meet the ``moderate evidence'' 
threshold or ``strong evidence'' standard and include a logic model 
that demonstrates the relationship between the key project components 
and the relevant outcomes the project is designed to achieve. Mid-
phase/Expansion grants are also required to submit an evaluation design 
that will be assessed on the extent to which it would meet WWC Evidence 
Standards without reservations.
    Note that all research that meets the strong evidence standard also 
meets the moderate evidence standard. As such, the effective evidence 
standard for Absolute Priority 2 is moderate evidence. However, we 
encourage applicants to propose projects based on strong evidence and 
to expand services even beyond the scale requirements under Absolute 
Priority 2. We have combined the two types of grants into a single tier 
given funding limitations and the fact that this is the first year of 
implementing a tiered evidence structure in this program.

All Grant Tiers

    PSSG applicants should consider how these evidence-based practices 
are implemented and the impact these practices have on their student 
population given their context. PSSG applicants seek to explore the 
effectiveness of practices/strategies that can improve student 
persistence and retention, leading to degree completion.
    The evaluation of a PSSG project should be designed to determine 
whether the program can successfully improve postsecondary student 
persistence, retention, and completion. As previously stated, the 
evaluation design for early phase applications will be assessed on the 
extent to which it could meet WWC Evidence Standards with or without 
reservations while the evaluation design for mid phase/expansion 
applications will be assessed on the extent to which it could meet WWC 
Evidence Standards without reservations.
    The Department intends to provide grantees and their independent 
evaluators with technical assistance in their evaluation, 
dissemination, scaling, and sustainability efforts. This could include 
grantees and their evaluators providing to the Department or its 
contractor updated comprehensive evaluation plans in a format as 
requested by the technical assistance provider and using such tools as 
the Department may request. Grantees will be encouraged to update this 
evaluation plan at least annually to reflect any changes to the 
evaluation. Updates must be consistent with the scope and objectives of 
the approved application.
    PSSG applicants should consider their organizational capacity and 
the funding needed to sustain their projects and continue 
implementation and adaptation after Federal funding ends.
    Priorities: This notice contains two absolute priorities and one 
competitive preference priority. We are establishing the absolute 
priorities and competitive preference priority for the FY 2023 grant 
competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the 
list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with 
section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 
U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). Applicants have the option of addressing the 
competitive preference priority and may opt to do so regardless of the 
absolute priority they select.
    Absolute Priorities: For FY 2023 and any subsequent year in which 
we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this 
competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet one of these 
priorities.
    These Priorities are:
    Absolute Priority 1 (AP1)--Applications that Demonstrate a 
Rationale. ``Early-phase''.
    Under this priority, an applicant proposes a project that 
demonstrates a rationale to improve postsecondary success for 
underserved students, including retention and completion.
    Absolute Priority 2 (AP2)--Applicants that Demonstrate Moderate 
Evidence, ``Mid-phase'' or Strong Evidence, ``Expansion''.
    Under this priority, an applicant proposes a project supported by 
evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of ``Moderate 
Evidence'' or ``Strong Evidence,'' to improve postsecondary success for 
underserved students, including retention and completion. Projects 
under this priority must be implemented at a multi-site sample or 
include at least 2,000 students.
    (a) Applicants addressing this priority must:
    (1) identify up to two studies to be reviewed against the WWC 
Handbooks (as defined in this notice) for the purposes of meeting the 
definition of moderate evidence or strong evidence;
    (2) clearly identify the citations and relevant findings for each 
study in the Evidence form; and
    (3) ensure that all cited studies are available to the Department 
from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance 
indicating where each is available.
    Note: The studies may have been conducted by the applicant or by a 
third party. The Department may not review a study that an applicant 
fails to clearly identify for review.
    (b) In addition to including up to two study citations, an 
applicant must provide in the Evidence form the following information:
    (1) the positive student outcomes the applicant intends to 
replicate under its Mid-phase/Expansion grant and how these outcomes 
correspond to the positive student outcomes in the cited studies;
    (2) the characteristics of the population or setting to be served 
under its Mid-phase/Expansion grant and how these characteristics 
correspond to the characteristics of the population or setting in the 
cited studies; and

[[Page 48223]]

    (3) the practice(s) the applicant plans to implement under its Mid-
phase/Expansion grant and how the practice(s) correspond with the 
practice(s) in the cited studies.
    Note: If the Department determines that an applicant has provided 
insufficient information, the applicant will not have an opportunity to 
provide additional information. However, if the WWC team reviewing 
evidence determines that a study does not provide enough information on 
key aspects of the study design, such as sample attrition or 
equivalence of intervention and comparison groups, the WWC may submit a 
query to the study author(s) to gather information for use in 
determining a study rating. Authors would be asked to respond to 
queries within 10 business days. Should the author query remain 
incomplete within 14 days of the initial contact to the study 
author(s), the study may be deemed ineligible under the grant 
competition. After the grant competition closes, the WWC will, for 
purposes of its own curation of studies, continue to include responses 
to author queries and make updates to study reviews as necessary. 
However, no additional information will be considered after the 
competition closes and the initial timeline established for response to 
an author query passes.
    Competitive Preference Priority: For FY 2023, and any subsequent 
year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications 
from this competition, this priority is a competitive preference 
priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional 6 
points to an application, depending on how well the application meets 
the competitive preference priority.
    This priority is:
    Applicants that have made progress towards or can demonstrate they 
have a plan to improve student outcomes for underserved students by 
using data to continually assess and improve the effectiveness of 
funded activities and sustain data-driven continuous improvement 
processes at the institution after the grant period (up to 6 points).
    Applicants addressing this priority 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 (up to 2 
points); (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 on an ongoing basis and as part of formative and summative 
evaluation of the intervention(s)(up to 2 points); 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 (up to 2 
points).
    Definitions: In accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, we are 
establishing definitions for ``Students with disabilities,'' ``English 
learner,'' ``Minority-serving institution,'' ``multi-site sample'' and 
``underserved student'' \15\ for the FY 2023 grant competition and any 
subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded 
applications from this competition. The remaining definitions are from 
34 CFR 77.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The definitions of ``Students with disabilities,'' 
``English learner,'' and ``underserved student,'' for the purposes 
of this competition, align with the definitions of these terms in 
the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for 
Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on 
December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) (Supplemental Priorities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Baseline means the starting point from which performance is 
measured and targets are set.
    Demonstrates a Rationale means a key project component included in 
the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation 
findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve 
relevant outcomes.
    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.
    Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by 
one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising 
evidence,\16\ or evidence that demonstrates a rationale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The definition of ``promising evidence'' is from 34 CFR 
77.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare 
outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are 
otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment 
group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. 
Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, 
and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental 
studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g., 
sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression 
discontinuity design studies), can meet WWC standards without 
reservations as described in the WWC Handbooks:
    (i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for 
example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the 
project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to 
receive the project component (the control group).
    (ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project 
component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning 
students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental 
education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of 
outcomes.
    (iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case 
(e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in 
the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to 
determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the 
treatment.
    Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a 
framework that identifies key project components of the proposed 
project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to be 
critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the 
theoretical and operational relationships among the key project 
components and relevant outcomes.
    Note: In developing logic models, applicants may want to use 
resources such as the Regional Educational Laboratory Program's (REL 
Pacific) Education Logic Model Application, available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/regions/pacific/pdf/ELMUserGuideJune2014.pdf. Other 
sources include: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/pdf/REL_2014025.pdf, and https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2015057.pdf.
    Minority-serving institution means an institution that is eligible 
to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A of title 
III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the HEA.
    Moderate Evidence means that there is evidence of effectiveness of 
a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample 
that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that 
component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
    (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 
4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a ``strong evidence base'' 
or ``moderate

[[Page 48224]]

evidence base'' for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 
3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a ``positive effect'' 
or ``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant outcome based on a 
``medium to large'' extent of evidence, with no reporting of a 
``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative effect'' on a relevant 
outcome; or
    (iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design 
study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 
4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise assessed by the Department using 
version 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, as appropriate, and that--(A) Meets 
WWC standards with or without reservations; (B) Includes at least one 
statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a 
relevant outcome; (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant 
and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a 
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0, 
4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks; and (D) Is based on a sample from 
more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or 
postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other 
individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project 
component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii) (A), (B), and 
(C) of this definition may together satisfy the requirement in this 
paragraph (iii)(D).
    Multi-site sample means at least two campuses of a single 
institution or multiple IHEs, including multiple IHEs within one public 
system of higher education.
    Nonprofit, as applied to an agency, organization, or institution, 
means that it is owned and operated by one or more corporations or 
associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully 
benefit, any private shareholder or entity.
    Note: For purposes of this competition, this definition of 
Nonprofit does not apply to institutions of higher education or 
nonprofits that are a part of an IHE.
    Performance measure means any quantitative indicator, statistic, or 
metric used to gauge program or project performance.
    Performance target means a level of performance that an applicant 
would seek to meet during the course of a project or as a result of a 
project.
    Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, 
process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence 
may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of 
project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices 
for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).
    Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that 
attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a 
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important 
respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation 
(e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being 
compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet 
WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbooks.
    Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) 
the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the 
specific goals of the program.
    Strong Evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness 
of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample 
that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive 
that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
    (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 
4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a ``strong evidence base'' 
for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 
3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a ``positive effect'' 
on a relevant outcome based on a ``medium to large'' extent of 
evidence, with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially 
negative effect'' on a relevant outcome; or
    (iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC 
using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise 
assessed by the Department using version 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, as 
appropriate, and that
    (A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;
    (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive 
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;
    (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative 
effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a 
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0, 
4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks; and
    (D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, 
county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at 
least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies 
of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs 
(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy the 
requirement in this paragraph (iii)(D).
    Students with disabilities means students with disabilities as 
defined in section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1401(3) and 34 CFR 300.8, or students 
with disabilities, as defined in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
U.S.C. 705(37), 705(202)(B)).
    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 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or 
intersex (LGBTQI+) student.
    (g) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.
    (h) A student who is the first in their family to attend 
postsecondary education.
    (i) A student enrolling in or seeking to enroll in postsecondary 
education for the first time at the age of 20 or older.
    (j) A student who is working full-time while enrolled in 
postsecondary education.
    (k) A student who is enrolled in, or is seeking to enroll in, 
postsecondary education who is eligible for a Pell Grant.
    (l) An adult student in need of improving their basic skills or an 
adult student with limited English proficiency.
    WWC Handbooks means the standards and procedures set forth in the 
WWC Standards Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, and WWC Procedures 
Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, or in the WWC Procedures and Standards 
Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (all incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards 
can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with 
reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and 
intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of 
evidence as described in the WWC Handbooks documentation.

[[Page 48225]]

    Note: The WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 4.1), as 
well as the more recent WWC Handbooks released in August 2022 (Version 
5.0), are available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks.
    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure 
Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties 
the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities, definitions, and 
requirements. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary 
to exempt from rulemaking requirements regulations governing the first 
grant competition under a new or substantially revised program 
authority. This program, as a substantially revised program, qualifies 
for this exemption. To ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has 
decided to forgo public comment on the priorities, definitions, and 
requirements under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. These priorities, 
definitions, and requirements will apply to the FY 2023 grant 
competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the 
list of unfunded applications from this competition.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d; House Report 117-403 and 
the Explanatory Statement accompanying Division H of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328).
    Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner 
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in the 
Federal civil rights laws.
    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97, 
98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to 
Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and suspension (Nonprocurement) in 
2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department 
in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 
200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR 
part 3474.
    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of 
higher education only.

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grant.
    Estimated Available Funds: $44,550,000.
    These estimated available funds are the total available for new 
awards for both types of grants under PSSG (Early-phase and Mid-phase/
Expansion grants).
    Early-phase--$22,275,000 for AP1.
    Mid-phase/Expansion--$22,275,000 for AP2.
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from 
the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
    Estimated Range of Awards:
    Early-phase (AP1)--$2,000,000-$4,000,000 for 48 months.
    Mid-phase/Expansion (AP2)--$6,000,000-$8,000,000 for 48 months.
    Estimated Average Size of Awards:
    Early-phase (AP1)--$3,000,000 for 48 months.
    Mid-phase/Expansion (AP2)--$7,000,000 for 48 months.
    Maximum Awards: We will not make awards exceeding the following 
amounts for a 48-month budget period.
    Early-phase (AP1)--$4,000,000.
    Mid-phase/Expansion (AP2)--$8,000,000.
    Estimated Number of Awards:
    Early-phase (AP1)--5-8.
    Mid-phase/Expansion (AP2)--3-4.
    Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
    Project Period: Up to 48 months.

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: Institutions designated as eligible to 
apply under Title III/V (which includes HBCUs, TCCUs, MSIs and SIP); 
nonprofits that are not an IHE or part of an IHE, in partnership with 
at least one eligible Title III/V IHE; a State, in partnership with at 
least one eligible Title III/V IHE; or a public system of higher 
education institutions.
    Note: The notice announcing the FY 2023 process for designation of 
eligible institutions, and inviting applications for waiver of 
eligibility requirements, was published in the Federal Register on 
January 17, 2023 (88 FR 2611). Only institutions that the Department 
determines are eligible, or which are granted a waiver under the 
process described in the January 17, 2023, notice, and that meet the 
other eligibility requirements described in this notice, may apply for 
a grant under this program. To determine if your institution is 
eligible for this grant program please visit, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/eligibility.html.
    Institutions must include their FY 2023 Eligibility Letter in their 
application packet under other attachments. To retrieve the letter, 
please visit https://hepis.ed.gov/main.
    Note: If you are a nonprofit organization, under 34 CFR 75.51, you 
may demonstrate your nonprofit status by providing: (1) proof that the 
Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an 
organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section 
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a statement from a State 
taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the 
organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and 
that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private 
shareholder or individual; (3) a certified copy of the applicant's 
certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly 
establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or (4) any item 
described above if that item applies to a State or national parent 
organization, together with a statement by the State or parent 
organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.
    2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: Each grant recipient must provide, 
from Federal, State, local, or private sources, an amount equal to or 
exceeding 10 percent of funds requested under the grant, which may be 
provided in cash or through in-kind contributions, to carry out 
activities supported by the grant. Applicants must include a budget 
showing their matching contributions to the budget amount requested of 
PSSG funds.
    The Secretary may waive the matching requirement on a case-by-case 
basis, upon a showing of exceptional circumstances, such as:
    (i) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve 
a high poverty area 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 as defined by the 
Secretary in guidance or county that has a poverty rate of at least 25 
percent as set every 5 years using American Community Survey 5-Year 
data;
    (ii) Serving a significant population of low-income students 
defined as at least 50 percent (or meet the eligibility threshold \17\ 
for the appropriate institutional sector) of degree-seeking enrolled 
students receiving need-based grant aid under Title IV; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Request for Designation as an Eligible Institution and 
Waiver of the Non-Federal Cost Share Requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Showing significant economic hardship as demonstrated by low 
average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent 
undergraduate student, in comparison

[[Page 48226]]

with the average educational and general expenditures per full-time 
equivalent undergraduate student of institutions that offer similar 
instruction.
    Note: Institutions seeking to waive the matching requirement must 
provide the outlined waiver request information within their 
application.
    b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This competition involves supplement-
not-supplant funding requirements. This program uses the waiver 
authority of section 437(d)(1) of GEPA to establish this as a 
supplement-not-supplant program. 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.
    c. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program limits a grantee's 
indirect cost reimbursement to eight percent of a modified total direct 
cost base. We are establishing this indirect cost limit for the FY 2023 
grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from 
the list of unfunded applications from this competition in accordance 
with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. For more information regarding indirect 
costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see 
www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.
    d. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include 
any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All 
administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to 
Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform 
Guidance.
    3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may award 
subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities 
described in its application. The grantee may award subgrants to 
entities it has identified in an approved application.
    4. Evaluation: This program uses the waiver authority of section 
437(d)(1) of GEPA to require a grantee to conduct an independent 
evaluation of the effectiveness of its project.
    5. Other Requirements: Applicants may only apply to one absolute 
priority ``tier''. One application per applicant.

IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to 
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of 
Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal 
Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045), and available at 
www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-26554, which contain requirements and 
information on how to submit an application. Please note that these 
Common Instructions supersede the version published on December 27, 
2021.
    2. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about 
Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 
12372 is in the application package for this program.
    3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, 
the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to 
evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the 
application narrative to no more than 30 pages and (2) use the 
following standards:
     A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1'' 
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
     Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) 
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, 
footnotes, quotations, references, and captions as well as all text in 
charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
     Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, and no 
smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
     Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 
Courier New, or Arial.
    The recommended 30-page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; 
the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the 
assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract. However, the 
recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
    Note: The Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs Form (ED 
524) Sections A-C are not the same as the narrative response to the 
Budget section of the selection criteria.

V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition 
are from 34 CFR 75.210. The points assigned to each criterion are 
indicated in the parentheses next to the criterion. An applicant may 
earn up to a total of 100 points based on the selection criteria for 
the application. An applicant that also chooses to address the 
competitive preference priority can earn up to 106 total points.

1.1 Absolute Priority One--Early-Phase Selection Criteria

    (a) Significance. (up to 20 points)
    (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed 
project.
    (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project involves 
the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build 
on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.
    (b) Quality of the Project Design. (up to 30 points)
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the 
proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying 
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of 
that framework. (up to 10 points)
    (ii) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. 
(up to 5 points)
    (iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is 
appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target 
population or other identified needs. (up to 15 points)
    (c) Quality of Project Personnel. (up to 10 points)
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will 
carry out the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for 
employment from persons who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability. (up to 5 points)
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the qualifications, 
including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel. 
(up to 5 points)
    (d) Quality of the Management Plan. (up to 10 points)
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for 
the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the management plan, the 
Secretary considers the adequacy of the management plan to achieve the 
objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including

[[Page 48227]]

clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for 
accomplishing project tasks. (up to 10 points)
    (e) Quality of the Project Evaluation. (up to 30 points)
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be 
conducted of the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well 
implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that 
would meet the WWC standards with or without reservations as described 
in the WWC Handbook. (up to 20 points)
    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
achieving intended outcomes. (up to 5 points)
    (iii) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates 
the key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a 
measurable threshold for acceptable implementation. (up to 5 points)

1.2 Absolute Priority Two--Mid-Phase/Expansion Selection Criteria

    (a) Significance. (up to 15 points)
    (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed 
project.
    (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The national significance of the proposed project. (up to 5 
points)
    (ii) The extent to which the proposed project involves the 
development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, 
or are alternatives to, existing strategies. (up to 5 points)
    (iii) The potential contribution of the proposed project to 
increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, 
or effective strategies. (up to 5 points)
    (b) Strategy to Scale. (up to 35 points)
    (1) The Secretary considers the applicant's strategy to scale the 
proposed project.
    (2) In determining the applicant's capacity to scale the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the applicant identifies a specific 
strategy or strategies that address a particular barrier or barriers 
that prevented the applicant, in the past, from reaching the level of 
scale that is proposed in the application. (up to 15 points)
    (ii) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives 
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly 
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing 
project tasks. (up to 5 points)
    (iii) The mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate 
information on its project so as to support further development or 
replication. (up to 15 points)
    (c) Quality of the Project Design. (up to 15 points)
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the 
proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying 
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of 
that framework. (up to 5 points)
    (ii) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. 
(up to 5 points)
    (iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is 
appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target 
population or other identified needs. (up to 5 points)
    (d) Quality of the Project Evaluation. (up to 35 points)
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be 
conducted of the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well 
implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that 
would meet the WWC standards without reservations as described in the 
WWC Handbook. (up to 20 points)
    (ii) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about 
effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other 
settings. (up to 5 points)
    (iii) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates 
the key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a 
measurable threshold for acceptable implementation. (up to 5 points)
    (iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
achieving intended outcomes. (up to 5 points)
    Note: Applicants may wish to review the following technical 
assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards 
Handbooks: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks; (2) ``Technical 
Assistance Materials for Conducting Rigorous Impact Evaluations'': 
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluationTA.asp; and (3) IES/NCEE 
Technical Methods papers: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. In 
addition, applicants may view an optional webinar recording that was 
hosted by the Institute of Education Sciences. The webinar focused on 
more rigorous evaluation designs, discussing strategies for designing 
and executing experimental studies that meet WWC evidence standards 
without reservations. This webinar is available at: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Multimedia/18.
    2. Review and Selection Process: Potential applicants are reminded 
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, 
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past 
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as 
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and 
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider 
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or 
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary 
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal 
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or 
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department 
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
    A panel of non-Federal reviewers will review and score each 
application in accordance with the selection criteria. The Department 
will prepare a rank order of applications for each Absolute Priority 
based solely on the evaluation of their quality according to the 
selection criteria and competitive preference priority points. Awards 
will be made in rank order according to the average score received from 
the peer review. The rank order of applications for each Absolute 
Priority will be used to create two slates.
    Before making awards, we will screen applications submitted in 
accordance with the requirements in this notice to determine whether 
applications have met eligibility and other requirements. This 
screening process may occur at various stages of the process; 
applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a 
grant, regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments.
    Tiebreaker: Within each slate, if there is more than one 
application with the same score and insufficient funds to fund all the 
applications with the same ranking, the Department will apply the

[[Page 48228]]

following procedure to determine which application or applications will 
receive an award:
    First Tiebreaker: The first tiebreaker will be the applicant with 
the highest percentage of undergraduate students who are Pell grant 
recipients. If a tie remains, the second tiebreaker will be utilized.
    Second Tiebreaker: The second tiebreaker will be the highest 
average score for the selection criterion titled ``Significance.''
    3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions:
    Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this 
competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by 
applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific 
conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, 
high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not 
financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a 
financial or other management system that does not meet the standards 
in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a 
prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.
    4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this 
competition to receive an award that over the course of the project 
period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently 
$250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your 
integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal 
awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before we make 
an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that 
is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as 
the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System 
(FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may 
review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal 
agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.
    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active 
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the 
Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity 
information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal 
funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
    5. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and 
Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal 
laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and 
consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting 
applications in accordance with:
    (a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering 
results based on the program objectives through an objective process of 
evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
    (b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video 
surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 
200.216);
    (c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to 
maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United 
States (2 CFR 200.322); and
    (d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest 
extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program 
goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your 
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award 
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to 
access an electronic version of your GAN. We also may notify you 
informally.
    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, 
we notify you.
    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements:
    We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the 
application package and reference these and other requirements in the 
Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of 
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and 
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also 
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding 
commitments under the grant.
    3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you 
are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to 
openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in 
part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of 
modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those 
modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent 
that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or 
other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. 
Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant 
funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. 
This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your 
application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional 
information on the open licensing requirements, please refer to 2 CFR 
3474.20.
    4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, 
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and 
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply 
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final 
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the 
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual 
performance report that provides the most current performance and 
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance 
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, 
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
    5. Performance Measures: For the purpose of Department reporting 
under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has established a set of required 
performance measures (as defined in this notice):
    (1) First-year credit accumulation.
    (2) Annual retention (at initial institution) and persistence (at 
any institution) rates.
    (3) Success rates including graduation and upward transfer for two-
year institutions.
    (4) Time to credential.
    (5) Number of credentials conferred.
    Note: All measures should be disaggregated by race/ethnicity and 
Pell grant recipient status and should be inclusive of all credential-
seeking students (e.g., full-time and part-time, first-time and 
transfer-in.)
    Project-Specific Performance Measures: Applicants must propose 
project-specific performance measures and performance targets (both as 
defined in this notice) consistent with the objectives of the proposed 
project.
    Applications must provide the following information as directed 
under 34 CFR 75.110(b):
    (1) Performance measures. How each proposed performance measure 
would accurately measure the performance of

[[Page 48229]]

the project and how the proposed performance measure would be 
consistent with the performance measures established for the program 
funding the competition.
    (2) Baseline (as defined in this notice) data. (i) Why each 
proposed baseline is valid; or (ii) if the applicant has determined 
that there are no established baseline data for a particular 
performance measure, an explanation of why there is no established 
baseline and of how and when, during the project period, the applicant 
would establish a valid baseline for the performance measure.
    (3) Performance targets. Why each proposed performance target is 
ambitious yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance 
measure and when, during the project period, the applicant would meet 
the performance target(s).
    Applications must also provide the following information as 
directed under 34 CFR 75.110(c):
    (1) Data collection and reporting. (i) The data collection and 
reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are 
likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and 
(ii) the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, 
and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data 
collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.
    Depending on the nature of the intervention proposed in the 
application, common metrics may include the following: college-level 
math and English course completion in the first year (developmental 
education); unmet financial need (financial aid); program of study 
selection in the first year (advising); post-transfer completion 
(transfer); and re-enrollment (degree reclamation).
    These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success 
for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for an award 
under this program to consider the operationalization of the measures 
in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed 
project.
    If funded, you will be required to collect and report data in your 
project's annual performance report (34 CFR 75.590).

VII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package 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 www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department 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 documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Nasser H. Paydar,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2023-15780 Filed 7-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P