Student Support Services Program

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 [email protected]. 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