[Federal Register: July 24, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 143)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38533-38541]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[[Page 38533]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Part 646
Student Support Services Program; Final Rule
[[Page 38534]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 646
RIN 1840-AC24
Student Support Services Program
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations governing the Student
Support Services Program in order to further implement statutory
changes made to the Student Support Services Programs authorizing
statutes, Sections 402A and 402D of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
as amended (HEA), by the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, and to
clarify and simplify certain requirements governing the program. In
general, the selection criteria, prior experience criteria, and grantee
accountability provisions are affected by these changes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations take effect August 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Virginia A. Mason, Division of Student
Services, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
The Portals Building, Suite 600D, Washington, D.C. 20202-5249.
Telephone: (202) 708-4804 or by Internet to TRIO@ed.gov. Individuals
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8
a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Student Support Services Program
provides grants to institutions of higher education for projects
offering support services to low-income, first generation, or disabled
college students. These support services should increase their
retention and graduation rates, facilitate their transfer from two-year
to four-year colleges, and foster an institutional climate supportive
of the success of low-income and first generation college students and
students with disabilities. On December 13, 1995, the Secretary
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Student
Support Services Program in the Federal Register (60 FR 64108-113).
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the NPRM, 107 persons
submitted comments on the proposed regulations. The following is an
analysis of the comments and the changes in the regulations since
publication of the NPRM. Substantive issues are discussed under the
section of the regulations to which they pertain. Technical and other
minor changes made to the language of the regulations and suggested
changes the Secretary is not legally authorized to make generally are
not addressed.
What is the Student Support Services Program? (Sec. 646.1)
Comments: Many commenters objected to the stated purpose in
Sec. 646.1(a) of the proposed regulations because of the phrase
``facilitate their entrance into graduate and professional programs.''
Some commenters suggested that the phrase exceeds the scope of the
authorizing legislation. Other commenters stated that the language
would put the program at cross purposes with the Ronald E. McNair
Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program and create an overwhelming burden
on grantees to track students through graduate study. Several
commenters recommended deleting ``graduate and professional'' and
stating only the language from the statute.
Discussion: The Secretary has reviewed section 402D of the HEA,
which authorizes the Student Support Services Program, and agrees with
the commenters' suggestion that the section restate the statutory
purpose of the program.
Change: This section of the regulations has been revised to mirror
the statutory purpose of the program, namely to increase retention and
graduation rates, and as appropriate, increase the transfer rates of
eligible students from two-year to four-year institutions.
What Activities and Services May a Project Provide? (Sec. 646.4)
Comment: One commenter stated that the Secretary omitted test
administration, in particular as it relates to students with
disabilities, from the list of allowable activities and services.
Discussion: The only change made in the list of activities in the
current version of this provision, Sec. 646.10, is the inclusion of the
mentoring programs as contained in Sec. 402D of the HEA.
Change: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that Sec. 646.4(i) be amended
to permit the involvement of individuals other than faculty members and
upper class students in mentoring programs. Commenters suggested that
these other individuals include institutional and TRIO alumni,
institutional administrators, graduate students and undergraduate
upper-class students, individuals from the community, business and
industry, and other persons as appropriate.
Discussion: Sec. 646.4(i) reflects the statutory requirements
concerning individuals involved in mentoring programs. The Secretary
believes that neither the statute nor the regulations exclude other
qualified and appropriate individuals from serving as mentors in
Student Support Services projects. Furthermore, Sec. 646.4(k) allows
any other activity designed to meet the purposes of the Student Support
Services program.
Change: None.
How Long is a Project Period? (Sec. 646.5)
Comment: Several commenters requested clarification of the five-
year project period and the Department's administration of five-year
grant cycles.
Discussion: This provision reflects the statutory requirements
concerning the length of project periods. The Secretary believes that
it is inappropriate to discuss subsequent funding cycles in the
regulations. Information on how the Department will administer the four
and five-year grants will be provided to successful applicants when
awards are made.
Change: None.
What Definitions Apply? (Sec. 646.7(c))
Comments: Several commenters objected to the definition of cohort
rate, which would require projects to compare the performance of
project participants by cohort groups with other groups of students.
The commenters stated that this evaluation measure is inappropriate
since it would be difficult to find a valid comparison group with
similar academic needs as Student Support Service project participants.
Further, the process of maintaining data and tracking students in the
comparison group would place unwarranted burden on already limited
project resources and reduce resources for direct services to the
eligible population.
Discussion: The term cohort rate was defined in the NPRM to apply
to Sec. 646.21(a)(3) where comparison information was requested on
retention, graduation, grade point averages and transfer rates. The
term was intended to apply to Sec. 646.21(g)(2) and (3) where
evaluation requirements included comparisons with student cohorts not
served by the project. The Secretary believes the use of cohort groups
and the calculation of cohort rates as a means to establish the need
for the project and measure the benefits of the project are appropriate
and valid methods. Thus, tracking and reporting of participants by
cohorts standardizes the procedures for assessing progress across all
projects and lends greater validity to the data obtained.
[[Page 38535]]
Changes: The Secretary concurs that the proposed definition did not
clearly state the intention of introducing a standard approach for
reporting outcome data. In addition, the Secretary has revised the
evaluation criteria in section 646.21(g). Thus, the proposed definition
of cohort rate is no longer applicable to these regulations and thus
has been deleted. Nonetheless, the Secretary maintains that the cohort
methodology is important in order to standardize the reporting of
student performance outcomes. Therefore, the annual performance report
for the program was designed to track students' academic progress by
cohorts. The report will yield data that the Secretary can use, for
example, in conjunction with the baseline data on eligible students as
requested in section 646.21(a)(3). These data can provide comparative
assessments without the additional institutional burden of tracking
non-project participants.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the definition of the
term participant does not allow grantees to include eligible
individuals who are not served on a continual basis or received
services for less than one grading period. One commenter also noted
that the definition was particularly restrictive for projects in open
enrollment institutions where the student body is very transient, often
seeking services after the beginning of the grading period, stopping
out for one or more grading periods, or transferring to another
institution after one grading period. Commenters believed that
expanding the definition to include all participants served would be
the only means for giving an accurate account of services rendered by
projects. Many commenters suggested the use of the terms active
participant and auxiliary participant to distinguish the level of
participation in the project.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the proposed definition of
the term participant may be too restrictive in establishing the minimum
length of participation. However, the Secretary does not agree with the
suggestion that there be two classifications of participants. Although
projects may occasionally serve eligible students on a short term
basis, these students should not be counted as project participants
since the intervention received would not be sufficient to impact the
student's chances for academic success at the grantee institution.
Thus, the Secretary believes it is necessary to establish a definition
for project participant that will support decisions regarding approved
student service levels for funded projects and that will provide
parameters for assessing the impact of the project on the postsecondary
success of its participants.
Change: The Secretary has revised the definition of participant to
allow each grantee to define in the application the extent of services
an individual must receive in order to be counted as a project
participant.
What Selection Criteria Does the Secretary Use to Evaluate an
Application? (Sec. 646.21)
Comment: Several commenters stated that the criterion in
Sec. 646.21(a)(3) inappropriately defines need for the project in terms
of the institution's need and not the need of the students. Further, by
prescribing the comparison group as the total enrollment at the
institution, commenters felt this favored institutions with smaller
percentages of eligible students. Commenters suggested that the
comparison group data used to state the need include national data on
eligible students and/or information on student success at comparable
institutions of higher education as a way to reduce bias for
institutions with smaller percentages of eligible students.
Several commenters also stated that the language on graduate and
professional school enrollment in Sec. 646.21(a)(3)(iii) exceeds the
legislative purpose of the Student Support Services program and
overlaps the purpose of the TRIO McNair program.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the criterion in
Sec. 646.21(a)(3) could be interpreted to refer to an institution's
needs and not the needs of the students. Therefore, this criterion has
been restated. While some commenters have suggested using national data
on eligible students and/or information from comparable institutions to
create the cohort-like group for comparative purposes with project
outcome data, the Secretary will not prescribe the type of comparison
data that institutions should use to establish the need for the
program. Instead, the Secretary encourages applicants to use meaningful
comparison data that is related to the purposes of the program and to
the proposed project outcomes. The Secretary further encourages
applicants to define in the application the characteristics of the
comparison group and identify baseline data on eligible students. These
baseline data along with performance measures obtained from the annual
performance report would serve as points of reference from which
institutions could gauge participants' progress.
Change: The language of this section has been revised to expand the
types of comparison data that may be used to establish need for the
project. However, the Secretary has not changed the indicators to be
used for comparisons.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the term academic need
be deleted from Sec. 646.21(c)(2) because the provision highlights
project participants with academic need and ignores other eligible
project participants, i.e. low-income individuals, first generation
college students, and individuals with disabilities. Some commenters
suggested rewording this provision to correspond with a similar
provision concerning selection of project participants in the Upward
Bound Program regulations. Other commenters suggested that ``retain''
be deleted from Sec. 646.21(c)(2) because retention would be addressed
under Sec. 646.21(c)(4) in the plan to provide services that address
the goals and objectives of a project. One commenter believed that
Sec. 646.21(c)(2) may preclude projects from giving priority for
admission to students whose ethnicity has been historically
underrepresented at the project's host institution.
Discussion: The Secretary disagrees with the commenters because
under Sec. 402D(c)(4) of the HEA all project participants must have
academic need. The Secretary also disagrees that the provision under
Sec. 646.21(c)(2) duplicates the provision of Sec. 646.21(c)(4).
Moreover, the Secretary wishes to emphasize the importance of retention
in an applicant's plan of operation. The Secretary, however, has
deleted the words ``and ensure their participation without regard to
race, color, national origin or gender'' in Sec. 646.21(c)(2) because
grantees are otherwise required to follow these requirements. The
Secretary notes that section 427 of the General Education Provisions
Act (GEPA) requires all applicants in their applications to specify
strategies for overcoming barriers based on gender, race, color,
national origin, disability, and age, in order to ensure the full
participation of eligible individuals in the project.
Change: The words ``and ensure their participation without regard
to race, color, national origin, or gender'' have been deleted from
this criterion.
Comment: Many commenters stated that the language in
Sec. 646.21(d)(3) is biased against public institutions in states that
do not provide sufficient funding for need-based scholarships; thus,
most colleges and universities are packaging loans for students to help
meet need. Others contended that to comply with this criterion an
institution would have to develop special packaging for Student Support
Services
[[Page 38536]]
participants and this would be unfair to other low-income students at
the institution. Additionally, commenters stated that to commit
institutional resources to special groups would be contrary to many
state and federal statutes.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that given the assurance ``to
offer sufficient financial assistance to meet the student's full
financial need,'' all grantee institutions should be committed to
reducing the participants' dependence on loans. The Secretary believes
that this criterion will encourage applicants to develop a plan to
minimize loans to reduce the financial burden of participants after
completion of their postsecondary education. Moreover, the criterion
recognizes the limits on an institution's ability to provide grants to
project participants through the use of the phrase ``to the extent
possible.''
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that to require an applicant to
assure the full cooperation and support of functional components as
stated in Sec. 646.21(d)(4) is unrealistic. The commenter suggested
that to identify ways to develop and maintain the cooperation of these
offices is a more reasonable expectation.
Discussion: The Secretary disagrees with the commenter because to
be a successful project requires the participation of these components
of the institution. Additionally, the Secretary has determined that
this provision should also include the components of the institution
that collect and analyze data.
Change: The language has been revised to include the component of
the institution that collects and analyzes data.
Comment: Many commenters suggested that in Sec. 646.21(g)(3) the
Secretary has underestimated the burden of collecting and maintaining
cohort data on students not participating in the program and has not
adequately considered the use of existing evaluation methods.
Additionally, commenters believed that the resources and time required
to establish a valid cohort group for non-project participants would
place more burden on already limited resources and dilute the quality
of services provided to students. Further, commenters stated that the
complexity and feasibility of collecting data for student cohorts not
served by the project would be difficult and would not necessarily
factor in the academic need and disability criteria for eligible
project participants. Several commenters encouraged the Secretary to
use the baseline data required in the Need section of the application
to determine the overall effectiveness of the Student Support Services
project.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that information on project
outcomes and therefore student performance is critical for indicating
where needs are, whether the project is moving in the right direction,
and what must be accomplished. By knowing how well students who receive
services perform, the Department can gauge the extent to which the
Student Support Services program is both reaching its intended
beneficiaries and having a positive impact. To accomplish this, the
NPRM required both the use of baseline data on each of the programmatic
outcomes and the comparison of subsequent results on student cohorts
not served by the project.
In a departure from the NPRM, the Secretary will not prescribe how
the project will assess the benefits of a Student Support Services
project on the target students and will not require projects to use a
comparison group to assess student outcomes. This, however, does not
preclude a project from proposing a comparison group or from using
baseline data provided in response to the Need criteria
(Sec. 646.21(a)) against which student progress can be assessed.
Projects can also satisfy evaluation requirements by stating how
student progress related to the purposes of the program (Sec. 646.1)
and the prior experience criteria (Sec. 646.22) will be addressed.
Additionally, the Secretary requests that each applicant demonstrate
how the evaluation results will be used to improve program operations
and activities.
Applicants will be awarded points for the proposed evaluation plan
(Sec. 646.21(g)) based on the quality and appropriateness of the plan
presented in the application. The Department of Education will also use
information from the annual performance report in conjunction with the
project objectives and evaluation strategies proposed in the
application to evaluate a grantee's progress and award prior experience
points.
Change: Section 646.21(g) has been revised to require an evaluation
plan that is appropriate to the project, measures project success
against appropriate baseline data, and uses the results to make
programmatic improvements.
How Does the Secretary Evaluate Prior Experience? (Sec. 646.22)
Comment: One commenter stated that the new criteria for prior
experience in Sec. 646.22 should not be used to award prior experience
points for the fiscal year 1997 competition because the current
criteria have been the basis for the project design and implementation.
Many commenters believed that the omission of process objectives
from the prior experience criteria allows grantees to disregard
administrative requirements when reporting on the prior experience
criteria and to focus on successful project results only. This, they
noted would limit the Secretary's control over the quality of services.
Other commenters noted that the part of Sec. 646.22(b)(4), that states,
``enrolled in graduate or professional schools,'' does not give credit
to project participants who successfully pursue careers without benefit
of a postbaccalaureate degree, and gives an unfair advantage to
grantees serving students enrolled in programs that may lead to
entrance into graduate or professional school. Further, some commenters
believed that the Secretary expanded the purpose of the program and is
at cross purposes with the McNair program by giving ``graduate or
professional school enrollment'' weight in the prior experience
criteria.
These commenters suggested that this criterion be deleted. Many
commenters suggested that the Secretary give equal consideration to all
measures of postsecondary achievement.
Discussion: The Secretary will not use the prior experience
criteria in these final regulations to assess grantees for performance
during the 1993-1997 funding cycle. The prior experience assessment for
the upcoming competition will be conducted using the prior experience
criteria listed in Sec. 642.22(c) of the current program regulations.
The Secretary believes that the process objectives and administrative
requirements of a grantee should be evaluated on a yearly basis using
interim reports and on-site monitoring to determine the extent to which
the grantees are making progress toward meeting the goals and
objectives of the program.
The Secretary also agrees that success at the postsecondary level
does not necessarily mean receiving a postbaccalaureate degree, and
thus agrees that graduate and professional school enrollment rates
should not be a criterion under prior experience.
Change: The Secretary has revised Sec. 646.22 to combine criteria
(3) and (4) into a single criterion that addresses the successful
completion of postsecondary education programs that result in
graduation and/or transfer from a two-year to a four-year institution.
Language is added to give prior experience points for meeting the
administrative requirements of the program. The
[[Page 38537]]
criterion that addressed graduate and professional school enrollment
has been deleted.
What are Allowable Costs? (Sec. 646.30)
Comment: One commenter stated that lodging and meals should be
included as an allowable cost when necessary for approved educational
and cultural activities sponsored by the project.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that the approved activities in
Sec. 646.30(d) will allow projects to pay the cost of lodging and meal
when appropriate.
Change: None.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the rate of four percent of
the total project salaries as described in Sec. 646.30(g) for
professional development travel for project staff is discriminatory to
programs located in remote areas. Further, they claimed this rate would
place a hardship on staff from newly awarded projects with minimal
budgets and the highest need for travel funds. A few commenters
suggested an increase to 6.5 percent.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that professional development
travel for staff may be required to properly implement a project. Most
projects in the past have spent less than four percent for travel.
However, the Secretary can permit a project to spend more than the four
percent for travel in unusual circumstances.
Change: None
What Other Requirements Must a Grantee Meet? (Sec. 646.32)
Comment: Several commenters stated that Sec. 646.32(a)(3) will
prohibit participants from legitimately receiving services needed from
more than one TRIO project and hinder the coordination of the programs.
One commenter suggested changing the language to state ``who is
receiving the same services,'' to allow participation when services are
not duplicated.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters and accepts
the suggested language.
Change: This section has been revised to include the language of
the commenter which adds the phrase ``the same'' between the words
``receiving'' and ``services''. This revision will prohibit grantees
from providing the same services to participants served by more than
one TRIO project.
Further, the Secretary has decided to revise Sec. 646.32(b)(4) to
insert the words ``by cohort'' between the words ``participant'' and
``for the duration''. The change is needed to reflect the Secretary's
belief that the academic progress of project participants should be
tracked by cohort groups to provide valid measures of project
successes.
Other changes: Although no comments were received on the following,
the Secretary has reviewed the regulations since publication of the
NPRM and has made the following changes:
Changes: The Secretary has assigned weights to subcriteria under
need, objectives, and evaluation plan; revised Sec. 646.21(c)(3) to
include a plan to monitor participant's academic progress; and included
evaluation costs as an allowable cost in Sec. 646.30(h).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid
OMB control number. The valid OMB control number assigned to the
collection of information in these final regulations is displayed at
the end of the affected section of the regulations.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The objective of the
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Secretary requested
comments on whether the proposed regulations would require transmission
of information that is being gathered by or is available from any other
agency or authority of the United States.
Based on the response to the proposed rules and its own review, the
Department has determined that the regulations in this document do not
require transmission of information that is being gathered by or is
available from any other agency or authority of the United States.
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 646
Colleges and universities, Disadvantaged students, Educational
programs, Discretionary grants, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.042 Student
Support Services Program.)
Dated: June 27, 1996.
David A. Longanecker,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
The Secretary amends chapter VI of title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by revising Part 646 to read as follows:
PART 646--STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM
Subpart A--General
Sec.
646.1 What is the Student Support Services Program?
646.2 Who is eligible to receive a grant?
646.3 Who is eligible to participate in a Student Support Services
project?
646.4 What activities and services may a project provide?
646.5 How long is a project period?
646.6 What regulations apply?
646.7 What definitions apply?
Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?
646.10 How many applications for a Student Support Services award
may an eligible applicant submit?
646.11 What assurances must an applicant include in an application?
Subpart C--How Does the Secretary Make a Grant?
646.20 How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make?
646.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate
an application?
646.22 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?
646.23 How does the Secretary set the amount of a grant?
Subpart D--What Conditions Must Be Met by a Grantee?
646.30 What are allowable costs?
646.31 What are unallowable costs?
646.32 What other requirements must a grantee meet?
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14, unless otherwise
noted.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 646.1 What is the Student Support Services Program?
The Student Support Services Program provides grants for projects
designed to--
(a) Increase the retention and graduation rates of eligible
students;
(b) Increase the transfer rate of eligible students from two-year
to four-year institutions; and
(c) Foster an institutional climate supportive of the success of
low-income and first generation college students and individuals with
disabilities through services such as those described in Sec. 646.4.
[[Page 38538]]
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.2 Who is eligible to receive a grant?
An institution of higher education or a combination of institutions
of higher education is eligible to receive a grant to carry out a
Student Support Services project.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.3 Who is eligible to participate in a Student Support
Services project?
A student is eligible to participate in a Student Support Services
project if the student meets all of the following requirements:
(a) Is a citizen or national of the United States or meets the
residency requirements for Federal student financial assistance.
(b) Is enrolled at the grantee institution or accepted for
enrollment in the next academic term at that institution.
(c) Has a need for academic support, as determined by the grantee,
in order to pursue successfully a postsecondary educational program.
(d) Is--
(1) A low-income individual;
(2) A first generation college student; or
(3) An individual with disabilities.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.4 What activities and services may a project provide?
A Student Support Services project may provide services such as:
(a) Instruction in reading, writing, study skills, mathematics, and
other subjects necessary for success beyond secondary school.
(b) Personal counseling.
(c) Academic advice and assistance in course selection.
(d) Tutorial services and counseling and peer counseling.
(e) Exposure to cultural events and academic programs not usually
available to disadvantaged students.
(f) Activities designed to acquaint students participating in the
project with the range of career options available.
(g) Activities designed to secure admission and financial
assistance for enrollment in graduate and professional programs.
(h) Activities designed to assist students currently enrolled in
two-year institutions in securing admission and financial assistance
for enrollment in a four-year program of postsecondary education.
(i) Mentoring programs involving faculty or upper class students,
or any combination of faculty members and upper class students.
(j) Programs and activities as described in paragraphs (a) through
(i) of this section that are specifically designed for students of
limited English proficiency.
(k) Other activities designed to meet the purposes of the Student
Support Services Program stated in Sec. 646.1.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.5 How long is a project period?
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a project
period under the Student Support Services Program is four years.
(b) The Secretary approves a project period of five years for
applicants that score in the highest ten percent of all applicants
approved for new grants under the criteria in Sec. 646.21.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)
Sec. 646.6 What regulations apply?
The following regulations apply to the Student Support Services
Program:
(a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR) in 34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 82, 85 and 86.
(b) The regulations in this part 646.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.7 What definitions apply?
(a) Definitions in the Act. The following terms used in this part
are defined in sections 402(A)(g), 481, or 1201(a) of the Higher
Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended:
First generation college student
Institution of higher education
Low-income individual
(b) Definitions in EDGAR. The following terms used in this part are
defined in 34 CFR 77.1:
Applicant
Application
Award
Budget
Budget Period
Department
EDGAR
Equipment
Facilities
Fiscal year
Grant
Grant Period
Grantee
Project
Project period
Public
Secretary
Supplies
(c) Other definitions. The following definitions also apply to this
part:
Academic need with reference to a student means a student whom the
grantee determines needs one or more of the services stated under
Sec. 646.4 to succeed in a postsecondary educational program.
Combination of institutions of higher education means two or more
institutions of higher education that have entered into a cooperative
agreement for the purpose of carrying out a common objective, or an
entity designated or created by a group of institutions of higher
education for the purpose of carrying out a common objective on their
behalf.
Different Campus means an institutional site that is geographically
apart from and independent of the main campus of the institution. The
Secretary considers a location of an institution to be independent of
the main campus if the location--
(1) Is permanent in nature;
(2) Offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree,
certificate, or other recognized educational credential;
(3) Has its own faculty and administrative or supervisory
organization; and
(4) Has its own budgetary and hiring authority.
Different population of participants means a group of--
(1) Low-income, first-generation college students; or
(2) Disabled students.
Individual with disabilities means a person who has a diagnosed
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits that person's
ability to participate in the educational experiences and opportunities
offered by the grantee institution.
Limited English proficiency with reference to an individual, means
a person whose native language is other than English and who has
sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the
English language to deny that individual the opportunity to learn
successfully in classrooms in which English is the language of
instruction.
Participant means an individual who--
(1) Is determined to be eligible to participate in the project
under Sec. 646.3; and
(2) Receives project services that the grantee has determined to be
sufficient to increase the individual's chances for success in a
postsecondary educational program.
Sufficient financial assistance means the amount of financial aid
offered a Student Support Services student, inclusive of Federal,
State, local, private, and institutional aid which, together with
parent or student contributions, is equal to the cost of
[[Page 38539]]
attendance as determined by a financial aid officer at the institution.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14)
Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?
Sec. 646.10 How many applications for a Student Support Services
award may an eligible applicant submit?
The Secretary accepts more than one application from an eligible
applicant so long as each additional application describes a project
that serves a different campus, or a different population of
participants who cannot readily be served by a single project.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.11 What assurances must an applicant include in an
application?
An applicant shall assure in its application that--
(a) At least two-thirds of the students it will serve in its
Student Support Services project will be--
(1) Low-income individuals who are first generation college
students; or
(2) Individuals with disabilities;
(b) The remaining students it will serve will be low-income
individuals, first generation college students, or individuals with
disabilities;
(c) Not less than one-third of the individuals with disabilities
will be low-- income individuals; and
(d) Each student participating in the project will be offered
sufficient financial assistance to meet that student's full financial
need.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1840-0017)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
Subpart C--How Does the Secretary Make a Grant?
Sec. 646.20 How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make?
(a) The Secretary evaluates an application for a new grant as
follows:
(1)(i) The Secretary evaluates the application on the basis of the
selection criteria in Sec. 646.21.
(ii) The maximum score for all the criteria in Sec. 646.21 is 100
points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in
parentheses with the criterion.
(2)(i) If an application for a new grant proposes to continue to
serve substantially the same population or campus that the applicant is
serving under an expiring grant, the Secretary evaluates the
applicant's prior experience in delivering services under the expiring
grant on the basis of the criteria in Sec. 646.22.
(ii) The maximum score for all the criteria in Sec. 646.22 is 15
points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in
parentheses with the criterion.
(b) The Secretary makes new grants in rank order on the basis of
the applications' total scores under paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of
this section.
(c) If the total scores of two or more applications are the same
and there is insufficient money available to fully fund them both after
funding the higher-ranked applications, the Secretary chooses among the
tied applications so as to serve geographic areas that have been
underserved by the Student Support Services Program.
(d) The Secretary does not make grants to applicants that carried
out a Federal TRIO program project that involved the fraudulent use of
funds.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to
evaluate an application?
The Secretary uses the following criteria to evaluate an
application for a new grant:
(a) Need for the project (24 points). The Secretary evaluates the
need for a Student Support Services project proposed at the applicant
institution on the basis of the extent to which the application
contains clear evidence of--
(1) (8 points) A high number or percentage, or both, of students
enrolled or accepted for enrollment at the applicant institution who
meet the eligibility requirements of Sec. 646.3;
(2) (8 points) The academic and other problems that eligible
students encounter at the applicant institution; and
(3) (8 points) The differences between eligible Student Support
Services students compared to an appropriate group, based on the
following indicators:
(i) Retention and graduation rates.
(ii) Grade point averages.
(iii) Graduate and professional school enrollment rates (four-year
colleges only).
(iv) Transfer rates from two-year to four-year institutions (two-
year colleges only).
(b) Objectives (8 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of
the applicant's proposed project objectives on the basis of the extent
to which they--
(1) (2 points) Include performance, process and outcome objectives
relating to each of the purposes of the Student Support Services
Program stated in Sec. 646.1;
(2) (2 points) Address the identified needs of the proposed
participants;
(3) (2 points) Are clearly described, specific, and measurable; and
(4) (2 points) Are ambitious but attainable within each budget
period and the project period given the project budget and other
resources.
(c) Plan of operation (30 points). The Secretary evaluates the
quality of the applicant's plan of operation on the basis of the
following:
(1) (3 points) The plan to inform the institutional community
(students, faculty, and staff) of the goals, objectives, and services
of the project and the eligibility requirements for participation in
the project.
(2) (3 points) The plan to identify, select, and retain project
participants with academic need.
(3) (4 points) The plan for assessing each individual participant's
need for specific services and monitoring his or her academic progress
at the institution to ensure satisfactory academic progress.
(4) (10 points) The plan to provide services that address the goals
and objectives of the project.
(5) (10 points) The applicant's plan to ensure proper and efficient
administration of the project, including the organizational placement
of the project; the time commitment of key project staff; the specific
plans for financial management, student records management, and
personnel management; and, where appropriate, its plan for coordination
with other programs for disadvantaged students.
(d) Institutional commitment (16 points). The Secretary evaluates
the institutional commitment to the proposed project on the basis of
the extent to which the applicant has--
(1) (6 points) Committed facilities, equipment, supplies,
personnel, and other resources to supplement the grant and enhance
project services;
(2) (6 points) Established administrative and academic policies
that enhance participants' retention at the institution and improve
their chances of graduating from the institution;
(3) (2 points) Demonstrated a commitment to minimize the dependence
on student loans in developing financial aid packages for project
participants by committing institutional resources to the extent
possible; and
(4) (2 points) Assured the full cooperation and support of the
Admissions, Student Aid, Registrar and data collection and analysis
components of the institution.
[[Page 38540]]
(e) Quality of personnel (9 points). To determine the quality of
personnel the applicant plans to use, the Secretary looks for
information that shows--
(1) (3 points) The qualifications required of the project director,
including formal education and training in fields related to the
objectives of the project, and experience in designing, managing, or
implementing Student Support Services or similar projects;
(2) (3 points) The qualifications required of other personnel to be
used in the project, including formal education, training, and work
experience in fields related to the objectives of the project; and
(3) (3 points) The quality of the applicant's plan for employing
personnel who have succeeded in overcoming barriers similar to those
confronting the project's target population.
(f) Budget (5 points). The Secretary evaluates the extent to which
the project budget is reasonable, cost-effective, and adequate to
support the project.
(g) Evaluation plan (8 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality
of the evaluation plan for the project on the basis of the extent to
which--
(1) The applicant's methods for evaluation--
(i) (2 points) Are appropriate to the project and include both
quantitative and qualitative evaluation measures; and
(ii) (2 points) Examine in specific and measurable ways, using
appropriate baseline data, the success of the project in improving
academic achievement, retention and graduation of project participants;
and
(2) (4 points) The applicant intends to use the results of an
evaluation to make programmatic changes based upon the results of
project evaluation.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1840-0017)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.22 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?
(a) In the case of an application described in
Sec. 646.20(a)(2)(i), the Secretary reviews information relating to an
applicant's performance under its expiring Student Support Services
project. This information may come from performance reports, site visit
reports, project evaluation reports, and any other verifiable
information submitted by the applicant.
(b) The Secretary evaluates the applicant's prior experience in
achieving the goals of the Student Support Services Program on the
basis of the following criteria:
(1) (4 points) The extent to which project participants persisted
toward completion of the academic programs in which they were enrolled.
(2) (4 points) The extent to which project participants met
academic performance levels required to stay in good academic standing
at the grantee institution.
(3) (4 points) (i) For four-year institutions, the extent to which
project participants graduated; and
(ii) For two-year institutions, the extent to which project
participants either graduated or transferred to four-year institutions.
(4) (3 points) The extent to which the applicant has met the
administrative requirements--including recordkeeping, reporting, and
financial accountability--under the terms of the previously funded
award.
(Approved by the Office of Management & Budget under control number
1840-0017)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.23 How does the Secretary set the amount of a grant?
(a) The Secretary sets the amount of a grant on the basis of--
(1) 34 CFR 75.232 and 75.233, for new grants; and
(2) 34 CFR 75.253, for the second and subsequent years of a project
period.
(b) If the circumstances described in section 402A(b)(3) of the HEA
exist, the Secretary uses the available funds to set the amount of the
grant at the lesser of--
(1) $170,000; or
(2) The amount requested by the applicant.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)
Subpart D-- What Conditions Must Be Met by a Grantee?
Sec. 646.30 What are allowable costs?
The cost principles that apply to the Student Support Services
Program are in 34 CFR part 74, subpart Q. Allowable costs include the
following if they are reasonably related to the objectives of the
project:
(a) Cost of remedial and special classes if--
(1) These classes are not otherwise available at the grantee
institution;
(2) Are limited to eligible project participants; and
(3) Project participants are not charged tuition for classes paid
for by the project.
(b) Courses in English language instruction for students of limited
English proficiency if these classes are limited to eligible project
participants and not otherwise available at the grantee institution.
(c) In-service training of project staff.
(d) Activities of an academic or cultural nature, such as field
trips, special lectures, and symposiums, that have as their purpose the
improvement of the participants' academic progress and personal
development.
(e) Transportation of participants and staff to and from approved
educational and cultural activities sponsored by the project.
(f) Purchase of computer hardware, computer software, or other
equipment to be used for student development, student records and
project administration if the applicant demonstrates to the Secretary's
satisfaction that the equipment is required to meet the objectives of
the project more economically or efficiently.
(g) Professional development travel for staff if directly related
to the project's overall purpose and activities, except that these
costs may not exceed four percent of total project salaries. The
Secretary may adjust this percentage if the applicant demonstrates to
the Secretary's satisfaction that a higher percentage is necessary and
reasonable.
(h) Project evaluation that is directly related to assessing the
project's impact on student achievement and improving the delivery of
services.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.31 What are unallowable costs?
Costs that may not be charged against a grant under the Student
Support Services Program include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(a) Costs involved in recruiting students for enrollment at the
institution.
(b) Tuition, fees, stipends, and other forms of direct financial
support for staff or participants.
(c) Research not directly related to the evaluation or improvement
of the project.
(d) Construction, renovation, or remodeling of any facilities.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.32 What other requirements must a grantee meet?
(a) Eligibility of participants. (1) A grantee shall determine the
eligibility of each participant in the project when the individual is
selected to participate. The grantee does not have to revalidate a
participant's eligibility after the participant's initial selection.
(2) A grantee shall determine the low-income status of an
individual on the basis of the documentation described in section
402A(e) of the Higher Education Act.
(3) A grantee may not serve any individual who is receiving the
same
[[Page 38541]]
services from another Federal TRIO program.
(b) Recordkeeping. A grantee shall maintain participant records
that show--
(1) The basis for the grantee's determination that each participant
is eligible to participate in the project under Sec. 646.3;
(2) The grantee's basis for determining the academic need for each
participant;
(3) The services that are provided to each participant; and
(4) The performance and progress of each participant by cohort for
the duration of the participant's attendance at the grantee
institution.
(c) Project director. (1) A grantee shall employ a full-time
project director unless paragraph (c)(3) of this section applies.
(2) The grantee shall give the project director sufficient
authority to administer the project effectively.
(3) The Secretary waives the requirement in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section if the applicant demonstrates that the requirement will
hinder coordination--
(i) Among the Federal TRIO programs; or
(ii) Between the programs funded under sections 404A through 410 of
the Higher Education Act and similar programs funded through other
sources.
(d) Project coordination. (1) The Secretary encourages grantees to
coordinate project services with other programs for disadvantaged
students operated by the grantee institution provided the Student
Support Services grant funds are not used to support activities
reasonably available to the general student population.
(2) To the extent practical, the grantee may share staff with
programs serving similar populations provided the grantee maintains
appropriate records of staff time and effort and does not commingle
grant funds.
(3) Costs for special classes and events that would benefit Student
Support Services students and participants in other programs for
disadvantaged students must be proportionately divided among the
benefiting projects.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1840-0017)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a)
[FR Doc. 96-18588 Filed 7-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P