U.S. Department of Labor on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education -- Postsecondary Student Success Grants Program

Fiscal Year 2026 Grant Competition Posted May 28, 2026

Contents Program Information

Eligibility

Eligible Applicants

Costs

Submission Requirements and Deadlines

Program Description

Overview

Priorities

Selection Criteria

Performance Measures

Application Submission Information

Application Review Information

Definitions

Award Requirements

Application Checklist

Program Information The Employment and Training Administration at the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor) is soliciting applications in support of the administration of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) -- Postsecondary Student Success Grants Program (PSSG) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the Secretary of Education (Secretary). The purpose of PSSG is to improve postsecondary student outcomes, including retention, transfer, credit accumulation, and completion, by leveraging data and implementing, scaling, and rigorously evaluating evidence-based strategies.

Assistance Listing Number: 84.116M.

OMB Control Number: 1894-0006.

Program authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d;

the Explanatory Statement accompanying Division B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (Pub. L. 119-75).

For further information contact: Robyn Wood and Nemeka Mason-Clercin. Email:

pssg@ed.gov.

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $45,000,000 (approximately $22,500,000 for early phase grants and $22,500,000 for mid phase grants).

Estimated Range of Awards: $2,000,000- $4,000,000 for early phase and $6,000,000-$8,000,000 for mid phase for the 48-month project period.

Average Award: $3,750,000 for early phase and $7,500,000 for mid phase for the 48-month project period.

Maximum Annual Award: $4,000,000 for early phase and $8,000,000 for mid phase for the 48-month project period.

Estimated number of awards: 6 early phase and 3 mid phase awards

Project Period: 48 months.

Application Deadline: June 29, 2026.

Note: ED is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/20/1138 mailto:pssg@ed.gov

Eligibility

Eligible Applicants

Eligible applicants include institutions of higher education, a consortium of institutions of higher education, statewide systems of higher education, public and private nonprofit agencies or organizations, or any of the preceding entities in partnership with a non-profit or business.

Note: An applicant that is a nonprofit organization may, under 34 CFR 75.51, demonstrate its nonprofit status by providing:

1. Proof that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

2. A statement from a state taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private shareholder or individual.

3. A certified copy of the applicant's certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or

4. Any item described above if that item applies to a State or national parent organization, together with a statement by the State or parent organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.

Costs Cost Sharing

Grantees must provide a ten percent match, which may include in-kind donations.

Indirect Cost Rate Information

A grantee's indirect cost reimbursement is limited to eight percent of a modified total direct cost base. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html. (Requirement 2 from 2024 Notice of Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criterion (NFP))

Administrative Cost Limitation

This program does not include any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses.

All administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform Guidance.

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html

Subgrantees

Under 34 CFR 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee under this competition may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to entities listed in the grant application.

Supplement Not Supplant

Grant funds must be used so that they supplement and, to the extent practical, increase the funds that would otherwise be available for the activities to be carried out under the grant and in no case supplant those funds. (Requirement 5 from 2024 NFP)

Use of Funds

In addition to supporting the costs of implementing the postsecondary student success intervention, grant funds must also be used for:

(a) Developing and using data systems, tools, and training to implement data-driven processes and interventions as part of a comprehensive continuous improvement effort, as well as to administer the program effectively at the institution and/or State or system levels; and

(b) Providing for rigorous evaluation of the program interventions. (Requirement 1 from

2024 NFP)

Independent Evaluation

Grantees must conduct an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the project and submit the evaluation report to ERIC, available at https://eric.ed.gov/, in a timely manner.

(Requirement 6 from 2024 NFP)

Submission Requirements and Deadlines

Applications Available May 28, 2026 Application Deadline June 29, 2026 Deadline for Intergovernmental Review August 28, 2026

Applicants are required to follow the 2025 Common Instructions and Information for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2025 (90 FR 42234) and available at ED 2025 Common Instructions.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-A/part-75/subpart-F/subject-group-ECFR26af177f71bc305/section-75.708 https://eric.ed.gov/ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant

Program Description

Overview PSSG is designed to improve postsecondary student outcomes, including retention, transfer (including successful transfer of completed credits), credit accumulation, and completion, by leveraging data and implementing, scaling, and rigorously evaluating evidence-based activities to support data-driven decisions and actions by institutional leaders committed to inclusive student success.

PSSG provides funding for the implementation and rigorous evaluation of evidence-based strategies that result in improved student outcomes. The program has two absolute priorities that correspond to varying evidence standards. This multi-tiered competition invites applicants that are in the “early phase” or “mid phase” of their evidence-based work to support students through credential attainment. Grant funding supports the evaluation, dissemination, scaling, and sustainability efforts of the activities funded under this grant.

An early phase applicant must propose a strategy that at least meets the Demonstrates a Rationale standard and have a plan to complete a project evaluation that meets What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards with or without reservations. A mid phase applicant must propose a strategy that at least meets the Moderate Evidence of effectiveness standard, include a plan to scale this strategy to multiple sites and/or to a large number of students, and complete an evaluation that meets WWC standards without reservations.

In this competition, we encourage applicants to propose projects to implement innovative strategies to improve student outcomes, such as projects that leverage AI technology to improve developmental education; projects designed to serve as on-ramps to career pathways and improve workforce readiness through work-based learning opportunities;

projects designed to lead to credentials in high-quality short-term programs that align with Workforce Pell Grant Program requirements; and other evidence-based strategies designed to improve credit accumulation, college retention and completion, including completion of registered apprenticeships.

The program also encourages leaders of States, systems and institutions to support data-driven decisions and actions that lead to improved student success. Postsecondary systems often struggle to retain students, support transfer, and ensure completion of credentials that lead to economic mobility. Traditional records do not fully capture learners’ skills, limiting their ability to demonstrate value to employers and institutions.

Innovations such as Learning and Employment Records (LERs), AI-enabled digital wallets, and Registered Apprenticeships offer more transparent, skills-based pathways. By leveraging these tools and associated data, institutions can drive more informed decisions, scale effective practices, and improve student outcomes aligned with workforce needs.

Priorities This notice includes six absolute priorities, one competitive preference priority, and one invitational priority. Absolute priorities 1 and 2 are from 34 CFR 75.226. Absolute priority 3 is from the Final Priority and Definitions-Secretary's Supplemental Priority and Definitions on Advancing Artificial Intelligence in Education (“AI Priority and Definitions”) published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2026 (91 FR 18774). Absolute priorities 4 and 5 are from the Final Priority and Definitions-Secretary's Supplemental Priority and Definitions on Career Pathways and Workforce Readiness (“Workforce Priority and Definitions”) published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2026 (91 FR 18780). Absolute priority 6 is from the 2024 NFP for this program (89 FR 66225). The competitive preference priority is from the Secretary’s Final Supplemental Priority and Definitions (2025 Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2025 (90 FR 43514).

Applicants are required to address one of the evidence priorities (absolute priorities 1 or 2), and one of the content priorities (absolute priorities 3-6). The Secretary also invites applications that will meet the invitational priority. All priorities that are being addressed must be identified in the abstract form and the project narrative section of the application.

Absolute Priority: For Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet one of absolute priorities 1 and 2. Additionally, applications must address one of absolute priorities 3-6. Each application must clearly identify the specific subset of the absolute priority for which a grant is requested.

Competitive Preference Priority: For FY 2026, and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is a competitive preference priority. An application may receive either 0 or 10 additional points under the competitive preference priority. ED will not review or award points where an applicant fails to clearly identify the competitive preference priority that it wishes ED to consider for purposes of awarding competitive preference priority points.

Invitational Priority: For FY 2026, and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR9f4a75686de6851/section-75.226 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/13/2026-07087/final-priority-and-definitions-secretarys-supplemental-priority-and-definitions-on-advancing https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/13/2026-07084/final-priority-and-definitions-secretarys-supplemental-priority-and-definitions-on-career-pathways https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/15/2024-17709/postsecondary-student-success-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/09/2025-17310/final-priorities-and-definitions-secretarys-supplemental-priorities-and-definitions-on

Priorities Priority Title Required Points Priority Language Absolute Priority 1: Early Phase Projects that Demonstrate a Rationale

Applicants must address AP 1 or

AP 2.

N/A Projects that are supported by evidence that meets the definition of Demonstrates a Rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).

Absolute Priority 2: Mid Phase Projects Supported by Moderate Evidence

Applicants must address AP 1 or

AP 2.

N/A Projects that are supported by evidence that meets the definition of Moderate Evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).

Absolute Priority 3: Advancing Artificial Intelligence to support Postsecondary Student Success

Applicants must address one of

AP 3-6.

N/A Projects or proposals to expand the appropriate and ethical use of AI technology in education through one or more of the following:

(a) Use AI to support postsecondary instruction, supplemental learning, or other assistance or resources to students who are below grade level, in need of remedial or developmental education, struggling to graduate with a regular credential from their education program, or otherwise in need of additional assistance to complete their program of study;

(b) The use of AI technology to improve program outcomes.

Note: Postsecondary instruction is inclusive of Registered Apprenticeships.

Absolute Priority 4: Career Pathways and Workforce Readiness

Applicants must address one of

AP 3-6.

N/A Projects or proposals that support workforce development programs that are aligned with State priorities by:

(a) Promoting the attainment by individuals of an in-demand and high-value industry-recognized postsecondary credential, or

(b) Providing work-based learning opportunities (e.g., internships, externships, pre-apprenticeships, registered apprenticeships, and mentorships) for which a student may receive wages and/or academic credit.

Absolute Priority 5: Developing or Expanding High-

Applicants must address

N/A Projects or proposals that will support workforce development programs that are https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-77.1

Quality Short Term Programs one of

AP 3-6.

aligned with State priorities. This may include one or more of the following:

(a) Supporting the development of new high-quality, short-term programs that meet the eligibility requirements of the Workforce Pell Grants program in Section 83002(b) of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act (P.L. 119-21), including program length requirements and alignment with high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations, as determined by the Governor in the state where the project is located; or

(b) Supporting the expansion of high-quality, short-term programs that meet the eligibility requirements of the Workforce Pell Grants program in Section 83002(b) of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act (P.L. 119-21), including program length requirements and alignment with high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations, as determined by the Governor in the state where the project is located.

Absolute Priority 6: Projects That Support College-to- Career Pathways and Supports

Applicants must address one of

AP 3-6.

N/A Projects that propose to build upon demonstrated progress toward integrating, or that propose a plan to integrate, career-connected learning and advising support into their postsecondary success strategies, which may include participation in experiential learning, to ensure students earn completions of value that lead to economic success and/or further education. Projects may include aligning academic coursework with career pathways and outcomes; developing and implementing program-level credential maps to create college-to-career pathways, including across institutions via transfer; integrating career planning, counseling, and coaching into holistic advising support; offering work-based learning opportunities aligned with students' programs of study; and providing navigation support to help graduates transition from college to career.

Note: Program-level credential maps that interoperate into credential registries are inclusive of learning and employment records (LERs) via talent marketplaces.

Note: Work-based learning opportunities are inclusive of Registered Apprenticeships.

Competitive Preference Priority:

Returning Education to the States

No 0 or points

Projects or proposals that will be carried out by one or more of the following:

(a) State educational agencies (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49)),

(b) State workforce development agencies or boards,

(c) State vocational rehabilitation agencies,

(d) State higher education agencies (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1003(22)),

(e) An Indian Tribe (as defined in 25 U.S.C.

5304(e)), Tribal organization (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(l)), or Tribal educational agency (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7452(b)(3)), or

(f) Consortia of the entities identified under this priority.

Invitational Priority:

Innovative, Evidence-Based Financing Models

No N/A Projects that improve postsecondary retention and completion rates, including critical persistence benchmarks, through innovative, evidence-based financing models that align public and private incentives to expand access to high-value education and workforce training programs.

Under this priority, the Department is particularly interested in projects that pilot outcomes-based financing models using private capital to support postsecondary education and workforce training programs that demonstrate strong potential to improve persistence, credential attainment, completion, and earnings outcomes. Projects may include mechanisms in which investor returns are tied to measurable increases in participant earnings and associated incremental federal tax revenues, including through the use of longitudinal data and advanced evaluation methodologies. The Department is especially interested in projects that create sustainable https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/20/7801 https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/20/7801 https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/20/1003 https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/25/5304 https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/25/5304 https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/25/5304 https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/25/5304 https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/20/7452 market incentives to identify, scale, and continuously improve programs that deliver strong student success and workforce outcomes while reducing reliance on student debt and minimizing upfront federal costs.

Note: Projects that meet this priority may leverage other funding sources for uses that may not be allowable uses of grant funds under this program, including payments for successful outcomes.

An applicant must identify at least one, but no more than two, citations for the purpose of meeting the evidence requirements under absolute priorities 1 and 2. For more information on meeting the evidence citation requirement for this program, review the “Evidence Form” section of the Application Checklist.

(a) Applicants addressing absolute priority 2 must:

(1) identify up to two studies to be reviewed against the WWC Handbooks (as defined in this notice) for the purposes of meeting the definition of demonstrates a rationale or moderate evidence;

(2) clearly identify the citations and relevant findings for each study in the Evidence form;

and

(3) ensure that all cited studies are available to the Department from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance indicating where each is available.

Note: The studies may have been conducted by the applicant or by a third party. The Department may not review a study that an applicant fails to clearly identify for review.

(b) In addition to including up to two study citations, an applicant must provide in the Evidence form the following information:

(1) the positive student outcomes the applicant intends to replicate under its mid-phase grant and how these outcomes correspond to the positive student outcomes in the cited studies;

(2) the characteristics of the population or setting to be served under its mid-phase grant and how these characteristics correspond to the characteristics of the population or setting in the cited studies; and

(3) the practice(s) the applicant plans to implement under its mid-phase grant and how the practice(s) correspond with the practice(s) in the cited studies.

Note: If the Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient information, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide additional information.

However, if the WWC team reviewing evidence determines that a study does not provide enough information on key aspects of the study design, such as sample attrition or equivalence of intervention and comparison groups, the WWC may submit a query to the study author(s) to gather information for use in determining a study rating. Authors would be asked to respond to queries within 10 business days. Should the author query remain incomplete within 14 days of the initial contact to the study author(s), the study may be deemed ineligible under the grant competition. After the grant competition closes, the WWC will, for purposes of its own curation of studies, continue to include responses to author queries and make updates to study reviews as necessary. However, no additional information will be considered after the competition closes and the initial timeline established for response to an author query passes.

Selection Criteria Selection criteria outline how the application will be scored. The maximum possible total score an application can receive for addressing the criteria is 100 points. The maximum possible score for addressing each criterion is indicated in parentheses following the criterion. The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210.

Absolute Priority One—Early-Phase Selection Criteria

(a) Significance. (up to 15 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of innovative and effective strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies. (up to 15 points)

(b) Quality of the Project Design. (up to 35 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The quality of the logic model or other conceptual framework underlying the proposed project, including how inputs are related to outcomes. (up to 10 points)

(ii) The extent to which the proposed project proposes specific, measurable targets, connected to strategies, activities, resources, outputs, and outcomes, and uses reliable administrative data to measure progress and inform continuous improvement. (up to 10 points)

(iii) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including valid and reliable information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project. (up to 5 points)

(iv) The extent to which the proposed project represents implementation of the evidence cited in support of the proposed project with fidelity. (up to 5 points)

(v) The extent to which the applicant plans to allocate a significant portion of its requested funding to the evidence-based project components. (up to 5 points)

(c) Quality of the Management Plan. (up to 20 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (up to 12 points)

(ii) the extent to which the project director or principal investigator, when hired, has the qualification required for the project, including formal training or work experience in field related to the objectives of the project and experience in designing, managing, or implementing similar projects for the target population to be served by the project. (up to 8 points).

(d) Quality of the Project Evaluation or Other Evidence-Building. (up to 30 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence building of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence building, the Secretary

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards with or without reservations as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks. (up to 20 points)

(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence building will provide performance feedback and provide formative, diagnostic, or interim data that is a periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

(up to 5 points)

(iii) The quality of the evaluation plan for measuring fidelity of implementation, to inform how implementation is associated with outcomes. (up to 5 points)

Absolute Priority Two—Mid-Phase Selection Criteria

(a) Significance. (up to 15 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the proposed project is relevant at the national level. (up to 5 points)

(ii) The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of innovative and effective strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies. (up to 5 points)

(iii) The extent to which findings from the project's implementation will contribute new knowledge to the field by increasing knowledge or understanding of educational challenges, including the underlying or related challenges, and effective strategies for addressing educational challenges and their effective implementation. (up to 5 points)

(b) Quality of the Project Design. (up to 55 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary

(i) The quality of the logic model or other conceptual framework underlying the proposed project, including how inputs are related to outcomes. (up to 10 points)

(ii) The extent to which the proposed project proposes specific, measurable targets, connected to strategies, activities, resources, outputs, and outcomes, and uses reliable administrative data to measure progress and inform continuous improvement. (up to 10 points)

(iii) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including valid and reliable information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project. (up to 5 points)

(iv) The extent to which the proposed project represents implementation of the evidence cited in support of the proposed project with fidelity. (up to 5 points)

(v) The extent to which the applicant plans to allocate a significant portion of its requested funding to the evidence-based project components. (up to 5 points)

(vi) The applicant's capacity (such as qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity), together with any project partners, to bring the proposed project effectively to scale on a national or regional level during the grant period. (up to 10 points)

(vii) The quality of the plan to deliver project services more efficiently at scale and maintain effectiveness. (up to 5 points)

(viii) The quality of the mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information and resources on its project to support further development, adaptation, or replication by other entities to implement project components in additional settings or with other populations. (up to 5 points)

(c) Quality of the Project Evaluation. (up to 30 points)

(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards without reservations, as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks. (up to 20 points)

(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide performance feedback and provide formative, diagnostic, or interim data that is a periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (up to 5 points)

(iii) The quality of the evaluation plan for measuring fidelity of implementation, to inform how implementation is associated with outcomes. (up to 5 points)

Performance Measures ED has developed the following performance measures for the purposes of the reporting to ED under 34 CFR 75.110.

Program Performance Measures. The Department developed the following program performance indicators to evaluate the overall effectiveness of this program:

Program Performance Measure 1 First-year credit accumulation.

Program Performance Measure 2 Annual retention (at initial institution) and persistence (at any institution) rates.

Program Performance Measure 3 Success rates including graduation and upward transfer for two-year institutions.

Program Performance Measure 4 Time to credential among completers.

Program Performance Measure 5 Number of credentials conferred.

Note: All measures should be disaggregated by Pell grant recipient status and should be inclusive of all credential-seeking students (e.g., full-time and part-time, first-time and transfer-in.)

For purposes of these performance measures, “credential” has the same meaning as “Recognized postsecondary credential.”

Project-Specific Performance Measures. Applicants must propose project-specific performance measures and performance targets (both as defined in this notice) consistent with the objectives of the proposed project.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-75.110

Applications must provide the following information as directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b):

(1) Performance measures. How each proposed performance measure would accurately measure the performance of the project and how the proposed performance measure would be consistent with the performance measures established for the program funding the competition.

(2) Baseline (as defined in this notice) data. (i) Why each proposed baseline is valid; or (ii) if the applicant has determined that there are no established baseline data for a particular performance measure, an explanation of why there is no established baseline and of how and when, during the project period, the applicant would establish a valid baseline for the performance measure.

(3) Performance targets. Why each proposed performance target is ambitious yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure and when, during the project period, the applicant would meet the performance target(s).

Applications must also provide the following information as directed under 34 CFR 75.110(c):

(1) Data collection and reporting. (i) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and (ii) the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.

Depending on the nature of the intervention proposed in the application, common metrics may include the following: college-level math and English course completion in the first year (developmental education); unmet financial need (financial aid); program of study selection in the first year (advising); post-transfer completion (transfer); and re-enrollment (degree reclamation).

These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program.

Consequently, we advise an applicant for an award under this program to consider the operationalization of the measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project.

If funded, you will be required to collect and report data in your project's annual performance report (34 CFR 75.590).

Application Submission Information Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions and Information for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2025 (90 FR 42234), which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

Registration

To apply, you must first be registered in two systems: SAM.gov and Grants.gov. If you are already registered, make sure your registration is active and up to date.

Grants.gov registration involves several steps including registration on SAM.gov. You may begin working on your application while completing the registration process, but you cannot apply until all registration steps are complete. Once your SAM registration is active, it will take 24-48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov, and before you can apply through Grants.gov. For detailed information on the registration steps, please go to:

Grants.gov Applicant Registration. Please note that your organization will need to update its SAM registration annually.

ED strongly recommends that you do not wait until the last day to submit your application.

Grants.gov will put a date/time stamp on your application and then process it after it is fully

SAM.gov

You must have an active account with SAM.gov. This includes having a Unique Entity Identifier. SAM.gov registration can take several weeks. Begin that process early.

To register, go to SAM.gov and click on "Get Started."

Click on the Entity Registration Checklist for the information you will need to register in SAM.gov.

If you need help, you can call 866-606-8220 or live chat with the Federal Service Desk.

Grants.gov

You must also have an active account with Grants.gov.

To register, go to Grants.gov and click “Register.” When ready click on “Get Registered Now” and complete required fields.

For more information or assistance, click on “Applicant Registration Page.”

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/90-FR-42234 http://www.sam.gov/ https://www.grants.gov/applicants/applicant-registration uploaded. If Grants.gov rejects your application, you will need to resubmit successfully to Grants.gov before 11:59:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadline date.

You must provide the UEI on your application that was used when you registered as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) on Grants.gov. This UEI is assigned to your organization in SAM at the time your organization registers in SAM. If you do not enter the UEI assigned by SAM on your application, Grants.gov will reject your application.

A Grants.gov applicant must apply online using Workspace, a shared environment in Grants.gov where members of a grant team may simultaneously access and edit different web forms within an application. You begin by creating an individual Workspace for each application and establish, for that application, a collaborative application package that allows more than one person in your organization to work concurrently on an application.

You will then complete the application forms in Workspace and submit the application when completed. For further instructions on how to apply using Grants.gov, refer to:

https://grants.gov/applicants/grant-applications/how-to-apply-for-grants.

Intergovernmental Review

This is subject to Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs) and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. One of the objectives of Executive Order 12372 is to strengthen federalism – or the distribution of responsibility between localities, states, and the Federal government – by fostering intergovernmental partnerships. This idea includes supporting processes that state or local governments have developed to coordinate and review proposed Federal financial grant applications. Grant applicants need to contact State Single Points of Contact (SPOC) for information on their state’s procedures. Multi-state applicants should follow procedures specific to each state. Further information about the SPOC and the official list of entities can be found at:

https://www.ojp.gov/IntergovernmentalReviewSPOCList.pdf.

Verify Submission

Verify that Grants.gov received your application submission on time and that it was validated successfully. To see the date/time your application was received, login to Grants.gov and click on the Track My Application link. For a successful submission, the date/time received should be earlier than 11:59:59 p.m. Eastern Time, on the deadline date, AND the application status should be: Validated, Received by Agency, or Agency Tracking Number Assigned.

If the date/time received is later than 11:59:59 p.m. Eastern Time, on the deadline date, your application is late. If your application has a status of “Received” it is still awaiting validation by Grants.gov. Once validation is complete, the status will either change to https://grants.gov/applicants/grant-applications/how-to-apply-for-grants https://www.ojp.gov/IntergovernmentalReviewSPOCList.pdf

“Validated” or “Rejected with Errors.” If the status is “Rejected with Errors,” your application has not been received successfully. Some of the reasons Grants.gov may reject an application can be found at https://www.grants.gov/applicants/encountering-error-messages. For more detailed information on troubleshooting Adobe errors, you can review the Adobe Reader Software Tip Sheet at: https://www.grants.gov/applicants/adobe-software-compatibility. If you discover your application is late or has been rejected, please see the instructions below. Note: You will receive a series of confirmations both online and via e-mail about the status of your application. Please do not rely solely on e-mail to confirm whether your application has been received timely and validated successfully.

Submission Problems – What should you do?

If you have problems submitting to Grants.gov before the closing date, please contact Grants.gov Customer Support at 1-800-518-4726 or email at: support@grants.gov or access the Grants.gov Self- Service Knowledge Base web portal.

Application Review Information Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217, information outside the rank order of applications, including: the information in each application; and any other information—

(1) Relevant to a criterion, priority, or other requirement that applies to the selection of applications for new grants;

(2) Concerning the applicant's performance and use of funds under a previous award under any Department program; and

(3) Concerning the applicant's failure under any Department program to submit a performance report or its submission of a performance report of unacceptable quality.

Before making awards, Department staff will screen applications submitted in accordance with the requirements in this notice to determine whether applications have met eligibility and other requirements, including whether an application may fail to meet the “General Terms and Conditions” applicable to awarded funds referenced elsewhere within this notice. This screening process may occur at various stages of the review and selection process. Applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant, regardless of whether the application was included in the peer review process. Applications not selected for funding will be informed of the Secretary's decision in accordance with 34 CFR 75.218.

https://www.grants.gov/applicants/encountering-error-messages https://www.grants.gov/applicants/encountering-error-messages https://www.grants.gov/applicants/adobe-software-compatibility https://www.grants.gov/applicants/adobe-software-compatibility mailto:support@grants.gov https://grants-portal.psc.gov/Welcome.aspx?pt=Grants.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-75.217#p-75.217(d)(3) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-75.217#p-75.217(d)(3)

Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation of, and score the assigned applications, using the selection criteria provided in this notice.

For this competition, a panel of non-Federal reviewers will review each application in accordance with the selection criteria. The individual scores assigned by the reviewers will be added and the sum divided by the number of reviewers to determine the peer reviewer score received in the review process.

In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from ED (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

Tiebreaker

If there are insufficient funds to award multiple applications with the same score, the Secretary will select applications according to the following tiebreaker:

AP 1: (1) The application’s score on the Quality of the Project Evaluation criterion; (2) the applicant that includes the IHE(s) with the highest percentage of undergraduate students who are Pell grant recipients, according to the most recent publicly available data available in IPEDS.

AP 2: (1) The applicant proposing to serve the largest number of students; (2) the applicant proposing to implement at the most sites; (3) the application(s) with the highest score on the Quality of the Project Evaluation criterion; (4) the applicant that includes the IHE(s) with the highest percentage of undergraduate students who are Pell grant recipients, according to the most recent publicly available data in IPEDS.

Definitions The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1, the 2024 NFP, the AI Priority and Definitions, the Workforce Priority and Definitions, and the Secretary’s Supplemental Priorities.

Ambitious means promoting continued, meaningful improvement for program participants or for other individuals or entities affected by the grant, or representing a significant advancement in the field of education research, practices, or methodologies. When used to describe a performance target, whether a performance target is ambitious depends upon the context of the relevant performance measure and the baseline for that measure.

Applicant means a party applying for a grant or subgrant under a program of the Department.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-100.4 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-100.4 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-104.5 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-106.4 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-108.8 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-110.23

Application means a party applying for a grant or subgrant under a program of the Department.

Artificial intelligence] has the meaning set forth in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3).

Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set.

Continuous improvement means using plans for collecting and analyzing data about a project component's implementation and outcomes (including the pace and extent to which project outcomes are being met) to inform necessary changes throughout the project. These plans may include strategies to gather ongoing feedback from participants and stakeholders on the implementation of the project component.

Credential Registry, with respect to a component of a Talent Marketplace, means a digital repository and database, maintained by a State or State Workforce Agency, as defined at 29 U.S.C. 3225a(a)(8).

Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes.

Evaluation means an assessment using systematic data collection and analysis of one or more programs, policies, practices, and organizations intended to assess their implementation, outcomes, effectiveness, or efficiency.

Evidence-based, for the purposes of 34 CFR part 75, means the proposed project component is supported by one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that demonstrates a rationale.

Evidence-building means a systematic plan for identifying and answering questions relevant to programs and policies through performance measurement, exploratory studies, or program evaluation.

Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbooks:

https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/15/9401 https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/29/3225a

(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).

(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes.

(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case (e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment.

Independent evaluation means an evaluation of a project component that is designed and carried out independently of, but in coordination with, the entities that develop or implement the project component.

Learning and Employment Record, with respect to a Talent Marketplace, means a digital tool maintained by a State or State Workforce Agency, as defined at 29 U.S.C. 3225a(a)(8).

Logic Model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes.

Moderate Evidence means evidence of effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks reporting “strong evidence” or “moderate evidence” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks reporting “Tier 1 strong evidence” of effectiveness or “Tier 2 moderate evidence” of effectiveness or a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a sample including at least 20 students or other individuals from more than one site (such as a State, county, city, local educational agency (LEA), school, or postsecondary campus), or a “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a sample including at least 350 students or other individuals from more than one site (such as a State, county, city, LEA, school, or postsecondary campus), with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

(iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study reviewed and reported by the WWC most recently using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, 4.1, or 5.0 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 5.0 of the WWC…