1

Issue Paper 

Proposed Regulatory Language 

 Team IV – TRIO 

Origin: HEOA Sec. 403(a) 

 

Issue: Number of Applications: Branch Campuses and Different 

Populations 

Statutory cites: HEA Sec. 402A(c)(5); 402A(h)(1)and (2) 

Regulatory cites: Definitions in 34 CFR 643.7 (TS); 644.7 (EOC); 645.6 (UB); 

646.7 (SSS); 647.7 (McNair) 

SSS: 34 CFR 646, Subpart B – How Does One Apply for an 

Award? Section 646.10; (How many applications for a Student 

Support Services award may an eligible applicant submit?) 

Amend/revise 34 CFR 642, Subpart B – What Kinds of Projects 

Does the Secretary Assist Under This Program? (TRIO Training) 

and Subpart B of 34 CFR 643 (TS); 644 (EOC); 647 (McNair) and 

Subpart C of 34 CFR 645 (UB); – Assurances to include a new 

section entitled “How many applications may an eligible applicant 

submit?”

Background: Entities applying for grants under most of the TRIO programs have 

traditionally been permitted to apply for multiple grants under each program. However, 

except for the Student Support Services program, the regulations for these programs do 

not specifically address this issue. For Talent Search (TS), Upward Bound (UB), and 

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) the practice has been that an eligible entity could 

apply for more than one grant provided each application proposed to serve students in 

different target schools (TS and UB) or a different target area (EOC). Also, in UB an 

entity could apply for grants under each of the three project types (Regular Upward 

Bound, Upward Bound Math-Science (UBMS) and Veterans Upward Bound (VUB)). 

For the TRIO Training program, the Application Notice for the competition stipulates the 

number of applications an entity can submit (e.g., one application per program priority). 

In the SSS program, the regulations provide that an applicant could submit more than one 

grant application as long as each application proposed a project that served a different 

campus or a different population of participants as those terms were defined in 34 CFR 

646.7 
2

Summary of issue: The HEOA establishes new requirements for the submission of more 

than one application by an eligible entity by adding definitions for a "different campus" 

of an institution of higher education and a "different population". The statute defines 

"different population" as a population "separate and distinct from other populations" or 

that "has distinct needs for specialized services". These changes apply to all of the TRIO 

programs. 

Updated information since February 18-20, 2009 meeting: 

The Department intends to modify the definition sections of each of the TRIO regulations 

to include the new statutory definitions for “different campus” and “different population” 

and for the SSS program to delete the old definition for a “different population.”

The Department plans to propose that for the Talent Search (TS), Upward Bound (UB), 

and Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) programs, we will continue with current 

practice that an eligible entity may apply for more than one grant provided each 

application proposes to serve students in different target schools (TS and UB) or a 

different target area (EOC). Also, we intend to propose that in UB an entity may apply 

for grants under each of the three project types (Regular Upward Bound, Upward Bound 

Math-Science (UBMS) and Veterans Upward Bound (VUB)). For the McNair program 

we intend to propose that an applicant may submit more than one application for McNair 

grants as long as each application describes a project that serves different campuses. We 

have prepared draft proposed regulations for these programs that reflect a new or updated 

section on the number of applications an eligible entity can submit (see 34 CFR 643.10 

(TS); 644.10 (EOC); 645.20 (UB) and 647.10 (McNair) of draft revised regulations). 

For the Student Support Services (SSS) program, we propose that the Secretary will 

stipulate the different populations in the Federal Register Notice Inviting Applications for 

each grant competition. This approach is being used for the 2010 SSS competition. 
3

Issue Paper 

Proposed Regulatory Language 

 Team IV – TRIO 

Origin: HEOA Sec. 403(a)

 

Issue: Definitions 

Statutory cites: HEA Sec. 402A, 402B, 402C, 402D, and 402F 

Regulatory cites: 34 CFR 643.7 (TS); 644.7 (EOC); 645.6 (UB); 646.7 (SSS); 

647.7 (McNair) 

Summary of issue: The HEOA created new definitions for some terms and uses other 

new terms that may need to be defined through regulations. New terms with a clear 

statutory definition will need to be reflected at appropriate places in the regulations. 

Some of the other terms that are new to TRIO may be defined in other parts of the HEOA 

or other program regulations. There are also terms that the Department needs to define 

through the regulations. The regulations need to be amended to add or change the terms 

and definitions. 

Terms added by the HEOA that are new to the TRIO programs include: 

 "homeless children and youth" (as defined in section 725 of the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act) (All programs); 

"students in foster care" (All programs); 

 "regular secondary school diploma" (Talent Search and Upward Bound); 

"rigorous secondary school program of study" (see 34 CFR §691.16) (Talent Search and 

Upward Bound); 

"connections to services" (Talent Search); 

 "financial literacy and economic literacy" (All programs); 

"groups traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education" (All programs); 

 "disconnected students" (All programs); and 

"students who have a high risk of academic failure" (Upward Bound). 

Terms with new or revised definitions included in the HEOA: 

 "different campus" (All programs); 

"different population" (All programs); 

"veteran eligibility" (All programs); and 

"groups underrepresented in graduate education"(McNair). 

Terms not currently defined in regulations: 

 "scholarly and research activities" (McNair); 

"summer internships" (McNair); 

"youths with potential for education at the postsecondary level" (Talent Search); and 

"individual with disabilities" (defined in SSS regulations but not in TS, UB, or EOC 
4

regulations) 

Note: Definitions specific to the Talent Search program will be addressed during the 

discussion of the HEOA changes to the goals and purposes of the Talent Search program. 

Updated information since February 18-20, 2009 meeting: 

We are proposing to add to the draft regulations for the applicable program(s) definitions 

or revised definitions for: 

"homeless children and youth" (as defined in section 725 of the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act) (All programs); 

"students in foster care" (All programs); 

 "regular secondary school diploma" (Talent Search and Upward Bound); 

"rigorous secondary school program of study" (see 34 CFR §691.16) (Talent Search and 

Upward Bound); 

"financial literacy and economic literacy" (All programs); 

"students who have a high risk of academic failure" (Upward Bound); 

"different campus" (All programs); 

"different population" (All programs); 

"veteran eligibility" (All programs); and 

"groups underrepresented in graduate education"(McNair); 

"scholarly and research activities" (McNair); 

"summer internships" (McNair); and 

"individual with disabilities" (defined in SSS regulations but not in TS, UB, or EOC 

regulations) 

We do not believe that regulatory definitions for the following terms are needed: 

"connections to services" (Talent Search); 

"groups traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education" (All programs); 

"disconnected students" (All programs); and 

"youth with potential for education at the postsecondary level" (Talent Search). 

 
5

Issue Paper 

Proposed Regulatory Language 

 Team IV – TRIO 

Origin: HEOA Sec. 403(a) 

 

Issue: HEOA changes the current Talent Search (TS) required and 

permissible services

Statutory cites: HEA Sec. 402A and 402B 

Regulatory cites: 34 CFR 643.4 (Services); 643.7 (Definitions); 643.21 (Selection 

Criteria) 643.22 (Prior Experience Criteria); 643.32 (Other 

Requirements) 

Summary of issue: The HEOA made fundamental changes to the goals and purpose of 

the Talent Search program. These statutory changes seem to require Talent Search 

projects to provide more intensive academic interventions as reflected by the changes to 

the lists of required and permissible Talent Search services and the new program outcome 

criteria added by the HEOA. The list of Talent Search services and the outcome criteria 

are now similar to those of the Upward Bound program. The Department needs to 

determine how theses changes to the Talent Search program should be implemented 

through regulations and what distinctions are or should be made between the Upward 

Bound and Talent Search programs. 

Updated information since February 18-20, 2009 meeting: 

Because the HEOA has fundamentally changed the goals and purpose for the Talent 

Search program, some of the nonfederal negotiators met with other TRIO professionals to 

develop recommendations on how to implement these changes through revisions to the 

existing regulations. The negotiators provided the Department with a suggested version 

of proposed changes for the Talent Search regulations. 

The Department has prepared draft proposed regulations for the Talent Search program to

incorporate statutory changes, add definitions, and address the new prior experience 

criteria. The Department also proposes to remove the current regulatory requirement of a 

minimum numbers of participants to be served (section 643.32(b)). The Department 

proposes to address the number of participants a TS project is expected to serve each year 

of the grant cycle through the Notice Inviting Applications for the competition than 

through regulations. 

During the first meeting, the committee discussed the new criteria for prior experience. 

Some committee members expressed concern about requirement to assess the extent to 
6

which the grantee met or exceeded its postsecondary completion objective. The statute 

uses the term “to the extent practicable.”

The HEA requires the Department to use the completion criteria, if practicable. If the 

Department determines that it is not practicable to track completion, the appropriate 

decision would be to not use the criteria at all. However, to justify such a conclusion, the 

Department would need to explore all options for tracking completion such as allowing 

grantees to try to track only a sample of their students or allowing grantees to use an 

electronic survey or similar lower-cost method. 

The Department has included most of the recommendations of the group in the draft 

proposed regulations but placed some of the proposed changes in different sections of the 

regulations than suggested by the group. 

The TRIO group also submitted suggestions for revisions to the Talent Search regulations 

for the selection criteria for Need and Plan of Operation on Friday, March 13. 

The approved agenda for the negotiations limited the sections of the selection criteria that 

we would consider for changes to the objectives and the plan of operation. However, the 

Department is willing to discuss changes to the Need section for the Talent Search 

program because the HEOA has made fundamental changes to the purpose and goals of 

this program. 

Additional Discussion: 

The Department would like to discuss further the TRIO group’s suggestions regarding 

allowable costs for transportation and tuition and the Need selection criteria. 
7

Issue Paper 

Proposed Regulatory Language 

 Team IV – TRIO 

Origin: HEOA Sec. 403(a)

 

Issue: Outcome Criteria 

Statutory cites: HEA Sec. 402A(c)(2)(A); 402A(f); and 402H(a)(1)(C) 

Regulatory cites: 34 CFR 642.32 (TRIO Training); 643.22 (TS); 644.22 (EOC); 

645.32 (UB); 646.22 (SSS); 647.22 (McNair) 

Summary of issue: The HEOA establishes specific outcome criteria to be used to 

determine a grantee's prior experience (PE) points and for the purpose of reporting 

annually to the Congress on program performance. The HEOA does not stipulate the 

distribution of the PE points among the new outcome criteria for each program. The 

HEOA does not establish specific outcome criteria for TRIO Training. The Training 

regulations have not been updated to reflect the current practice of awarding 15 PE 

points. 

Note: The new outcome criteria for the Talent Search program will be addressed during 

the discussion of the HEOA changes to the goals and purposes of the Talent Search 

program. 

Updated information since February 18-20, 2009 meeting: 

The draft proposed regulations for the Student Support Services, McNair, Talent Search, 

EOC, and Upward Bound programs include a proposed distribution of the fifteen points 

among the criteria for PE points. Under this issue paper for the changes to the Talent 

Search program, the requirement for tracking participants through completion of 

postsecondary education is addressed. 

Note: A group of TRIO representatives submitted recommendations on prior experience 

criteria for Talent Search and Upward Bound late on Friday, March 13th. With a couple 

of small exceptions, the proposed criteria and point distribution for Talent Search and 

regular Upward Bound are similar to what Department is proposing proposed. The one 

major difference is the group’s proposal to use postsecondary retention in place of 

postsecondary completion. This proposal is not consistent with the HEA. 

Additional Discussion: The Department would like further discussion on how the 

Secretary should adjust PE scores for grantees that failed to serve the approved number of 

participants.
8

Issue Paper 

Proposed Regulatory Language 

 Team IV – TRIO 

Origin: HEOA Sec. 403(a) 

 

Issue: Foster Care and Homeless Youth 

Statutory cites: HEA Sec. 402A 

Regulatory cites: To be determined

Summary of issue: A new provision added by the HEOA identifies new groups of 

students that projects can serve, including foster care youth and homeless children and 

youth. The HEOA clarifies that specific services for foster care and homeless youth are 

permissible and directs the Secretary, as appropriate, to require applicants for funds under 

the TRIO Programs to make available services to these youth. 

Updated information since February 18-20, 2009 meeting: 

We are proposing to include definitions for foster care youth and homeless children and 

youth which have been added to the Definitions sections of the program regulations.
9

Issue Paper 

Proposed Regulatory Language 

 Team IV – TRIO 

Origin: HEOA Sec. 403(a)

 

Issue: Required and Permissible Services 

Statutory cites: HEA Sec. 402A, 402B, 402C, 402D, 403E, 402F, and 402G 

Regulatory cites: 34 CFR 642.10 and 642.34 (Training); 643.4 (TS); 644.4 (EOC); 

645.11, 645.13, and 645.14 (UB); 646.4 (SSS); 647.4 (McNair) 

Summary of issue: The HEOA amends the statutory provisions for the TRIO programs 

providing services to pre-college and college students (Upward Bound, Talent Search, 

Student Support Services, and McNair). The HEA now lists certain services that projects 

must provide to participants and optional activities that programs may offer to students. 

Prior to the new law, except for the Upward Bound statute that required projects funded 

for two or more years to provide instruction in core subjects, projects could choose from 

a number of permissible activities/services.

Note: The changes to the Talent Search program required and permissible services will 

be addressed during the discussion of the HEOA changes to the goals and purposes of the 

Talent Search program. 

Updated information since February 18-20, 2009 meeting: 

The draft proposed regulations reflect the statutory changes to the required and 

permissible services in each program.
10

Issue Paper 

Proposed Regulatory Language 

 Team IV – TRIO 

Origin: HEOA Sec. 403(a)

 

Issue: Updates to TRIO Regulations 

Statutory cites: HEA Sec. 402A, 402B, 402C, 402D, 403E, 402F, and 402G 

Regulatory cites: 34 CFR 642 (Training); 643 (TS); 644 (EOC); 645 (UB); 646 

(SSS); 647 (McNair) 

Summary of issue: The TRIO program regulations need to be modified to reflect 

changes made by the HEOA and established administrative practices. 

Needed changes include the following: 

--updating the selection criteria related to "Objectives" (All programs); 

--adding to SSS selection criteria a criterion on the applicant's effort to provide sufficient 

financial aid to meet the student's full need and to maintain the load burden of each 

student at a manageable level; 

--adding (or revising) the existing McNair selection criteria to include the "Award 

Considerations" from the HEA; 

--updating the allowable and unallowable cost sections of the SSS regulations to address 

Grant Aid and temporary housing for homeless and foster care youth; and 

--considering revisions to the regulations on minimum number of participants to be 

served by TS, EOC, and UB, UBMS, and VUB projects. 

Many sections of the TRIO Training regulations need to be updated or revised to reflect 

current law and practice. 

Updated information since February 18-20, 2009 meeting: 

The draft proposed regulations include revisions to the selection criteria related to 

“objectives” for all programs and changes to the applicant and community support 

selection criteria for Talent Search and Upward Bound, and revisions to the Plan of 

Operation section of the Talent Search regulations. However, no changes have been made 

to the Plan of Operation criteria for the UB, EOC, SSS and McNair. The statutory 

changes from the 1998 amendments can be evaluated using existing selection criteria for 

McNair and SSS, so there is no requirement at this time to make any changes to the 

selection criteria for these programs. 

With regard to the Department’s proposed changes to the selection criteria for the 

Objectives for all programs, the Department believes that peer reviewers should only 

evaluate the programs’ outcome objectives based on whether they were ambitious as 
11

related to the need data and attainable based on the applicant’s plan of operation, budget, 

and other resources. 

For the SSS program, conforming changes to the allowable and unallowable costs would 

be made to address Grant Aid and temporary housing for homeless and foster care youth. 

The Department also proposes to remove the regulatory requirement of a minimum 

numbers of participants to be served in Talent Search, EOC, and Upward Bound. The 

Department believes the number of participants a project is expected to serve each year of 

the grant cycle is better addressed through the Notice Inviting Applications for the 

competition than through regulations. The current regulations for the Student Support 

Services and McNair programs do not have a similar requirement. 

For the TRIO Training program regulations, the Department is proposing to make 

changes to reflect the amendments to the HEA and to reflect current practices regarding 

the Need selection criteria, the process for ranking applications by priority, the use of 

prior experience points in the ranking of applications for funding, and the number of prior 

experience points an applicant may earn. Since the Training grants are for two-years, the 

Department is proposing to evaluate prior experience of an applicant on its performance 

only for the first project year of the expiring grant. 
12

Issue Paper 

Proposed Regulatory Language 

 Team IV – TRIO 

Origin: HEOA Sec. 403(a) 

 

Issue: Review Process for Unsuccessful TRIO Applicants 

Statutory cites: HEA Sec. 402A 

Regulatory cites: 34 CFR 642 (Training); 643 (TS); 644 (EOC);; 646 (SSS); 647 

(McNair) Subpart C – How Does the Secretary Make a Grant? 

34 CFR 645 (UB) Subpart D -- How Does the Secretary Make a 

Grant? 

Summary of issue: The HEOA established a process for unsuccessful applicants to 

request a review of the scoring or processing of their applications. Applicants that have 

evidence that their scores were affected by a specific administrative, technical, or scoring 

error may request a review by the Secretary. If the Secretary determines that a technical 

or administrative error was made, the Secretary will arrange for the application to be 

reconsidered in the peer review process. If the Secretary determines that a scoring error 

was made, the Secretary may adjust the prior experience points or final score of the 

application as appropriate. If the Secretary determines that there was an error in the peer 

review process, the Secretary will refer the application to a second review panel of 

experienced readers who participated in the field reading but did not read the application 

in question. The new score from the secondary review would be used instead of the 

original score. Applications with revised scores in the fundable range will be funded to 

the extent feasible based on the availability of appropriations. 

Updated information since February 18-20, 2009 meeting: 

Background: Prior to enactment of the HEOA there was not a formal process for 

considering requests submitted by applicants in regards to alleged mishandling of an 

application by Department staff, its contractors or the peer reviewer. The practice has 

been that upon notification of an alleged administrative or scoring error, TRIO staff 

reviewed the calculation of prior experience points and/or the peer reviewer scoring; if an 

error or errors were found, the application score was adjusted accordingly. If the 

adjustment resulted in the application scoring within funding range, the applicant was 

award a grant. 

Adjustments in a score, due to either a mathematical or reader error, usually resulted in a 

score adjustment of only one or two points. Historically, the adjustments in scores have 

led to only one or two applicants receiving awards each competition as a result of the 

errors, which is a fraction of one percent of the applications received. 
13

New HEOA requirements: With the passage of the HEOA, the Department is now 

required to establish a formal process for reviewing unsuccessful applications. The 

review process as stated by the HEOA requires modifications to the grant award process 

that could significantly delay the awarding of grants, since the review of unsuccessful 

applications should be completed prior to the end of the fiscal year in which the 

competition is held to avoid any disruption in funding for existing grantees. Thus, the 

Department would need to notify all applicants of their funding status earlier than normal 

to allow time for a second review of unsuccessful applications. The HEOA requires the 

Secretary to “adjust the prior experience or final score of the application appropriately 

and quickly, so as not to interfere with the timely awarding of grants for the applicable 

grant competition.”

To meet all the statutory requirements, including the timely awarding of grants under 

each TRIO grant competition, the Department is proposing to use a two slate process. 

The Secretary would use the first slate to make new awards in rank order based on the 

available funds for the competition minus a percentage of the program funds set aside for 

any applications that qualify after a potential second review. The second slate would be 

prepared after the re-ranking of applications based on the second review. For each 

competition, the Secretary would determine what percentage of program funds to reserve 

for the second review of applications. Based on the Department’s recent experience, less 

than one percent of the funds allocated for a program competition would be needed to 

correct administrative or scoring errors; however, the Secretary may choose to reserve a 

higher percentage of funds to help ensure there would be sufficient funds set aside to 

address all possible score changes because of administrative or scoring errors. 

Alleged technical or administrative errors that resulted in an application not being review 

(refer to the draft proposed regulations for examples of these types of errors) would be 

addressed prior to the preparation of the first funding slate. An applicant, whose 

application was not reviewed because of a technical or administrative error, may request 

a review upon notification that the application was ineligible for consideration for 

funding. Since the Department will notify applicants determined to be ineligible before 

the start of the field reading; the Department would receive any requests for a review in 

time to have the application evaluated by the peer reviewers before funding decisions are 

announced. 

The proposed regulations for the second stage review reflect the following steps:

(1) After the first review of applications, the Secretary would make new awards in 

rank order as described in the regulations based on the available funds for the 

competition minus the funds set aside for the second review; 

(2) An applicant that was not selected for funding following the first review of 

applications, may request a second review if the applicant demonstrates that the 

Department, the Department’s agent or a peer reviewer made an administrative or 

scoring error; and

(3) The final score assigned to the application is within the funding band (refer to 

information below on how funding band is established).
14

Draft proposed procedures: 

(1) The Secretary would notify an unsuccessful applicant in writing as to the status of 

its application and the funding band for the second review, and provide copies of 

the peer reviewers’ evaluations of the applicant's application and the applicant’s 

prior experience score, if applicable. 

(2) An applicant whose application’s final score is within the funding band would 

have seven (7) calendar days after notification that its application was not funded, 

in which to submit a written request for a second review in accordance with the 

instructions and due date provided in the Secretary’s written notification. Note: 

It is important that the Department establish a short timeframe and one deadline 

for all requests for a second review to be able to manage and schedule the 

additional work and convene a secondary review panel or panels as needed in 

order to ensure timely notifications to applicants and obligation of remaining 

program funds.

(3) An applicant’s written request for a second review must be received by the 

Department or submitted electronically to a designed e-mail or Web address by 

the due date and time established by the Secretary. 

(4) If the Secretary determines that the Department or the Department's agent made 

an administrative error that relates to the prior experience points awarded, the 

Secretary will adjust the applicant’s prior experience score. If the adjusted score 

assigned the application would have resulted in funding of the application during 

competition and the program has funds available, the Secretary will fund the 

application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on the second peer review 

of applications. 

(5) If the Secretary determines that the Department, the Department's agent or the 

peer reviewer made an administrative error that relates to the peer reviewers’ 

score(s), the Secretary will adjust the applicant’s peer reviewers’ score(s). If the 

adjusted score assigned the application would have resulted in funding of the 

application during the competition and the program has funds available, the 

Secretary will fund the application prior to the re-ranking of applications based on 

the second peer review of applications. 

(6) If the Secretary determines that the peer reviewers made a scoring error, the 

Secretary will convene a second panel of peer reviewers in accordance with the 

requirements in Section 402A(c)(8)(C)(iv)(III) of the HEA as amended. 

The average of the peer reviewers’ scores from the second peer review will be 

used in the second ranking of applications. The second average score obtained 

from the secondary peer reviewers is the final peer reviewer score for the 

application that will be used even if the second review results in a lower score for 

the application than that obtained in the initial review. 
15

For those applications eligible for a second review based on the established 

funding band, following the second peer review, the Secretary would fund the 

applications in this band based on adjusted scores and fund in rank order using the 

available funds that had been set aside for the second review of applications. The 

peer reviewers’ scores received as a result of the secondary review would be the 

scores used even if the score is less than the peer reviewers’ score from the first 

review of the application. 

Notes: It is possible that the secondary review process will result in some 

applicants that would have been funded on the first slate if all the program funds 

had been used for the first slate to not be successful after the re-ranking of 

applications based on the secondary peer review. In addition, it is possible that 

applicants that did not submit a request for secondary review will be successful if 

their original total score is within the funding range for the supplemental slate 

after the re-ranking following the second review. Thus, applications in this 

category would be funded. 

Process for Establishing Funding Band

(1)Under the draft proposed regulations, for each competition the Secretary would 

establish a funding band for the second review of applications. 

(2)The funding band would include at least 50 percent more applications than could 

be funded with the funds set aside for the second review of applications for the 

competition. 

Refer to examples. 

Second Review of Applications Scoring Below the Funding Band

(1) After the end of the competition, the Secretary would consider an applicant’s 

request for a second review, if the Secretary determines that there was an 

administrative and/or scoring error related to either the awarding of prior 

experience points or the peer review process. 

(2) If the adjusted total score assigned to the application would have resulted in 

funding of the application during the competition and the program has funds 

available, the Secretary will fund the application. 

 
16