Beatriz Ceja – Williams, HSI Division Director

Stacey Slijepcevic, Program Lead, HSI STEM and Articulation Program

Everardo Gil, Program Co-Lead, HSI STEM and Articulation Program 

Jymece Seward, Competition Manager, HSI STEM and Articulation Program

May 20, 2021

FY 2021

HSI STEM and Articulation Program 

Pre- Application Webinar

1
2 Agenda

 Welcome 

 Program Purpose

 FY 2021 Competition At A Glance

 Eligibility

 Priorities

 Selection Criteria

 Understanding Indirect Cost

 Allowable Activities

 Performance Measures

 The Logic Model and Evidence of Promise

 Questions from the Field

 Planning Your Grant Application

 Application Submission and Review 
Program Purpose

 Title III, Part F (CFDA 84.031C)

 The Hispanic-Serving Institutions STEM and Articulation Program supports eligible Hispanic-Serving 

institutions in developing and carrying out activities to increase the number of Hispanic and lowincome students attaining degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math 

(STEM); and to develop model transfer and articulation agreements between two-year HSIs and 

four-year institutions in such fields. 

3
FY 2021 Competition At A Glance

 Application available: April 30, 2021

 Application deadline: June 14, 2021

 Estimated available funds: $94,100,000

 Estimated range of awards: $700,000 – $1,000,000 (per 

year)

 Estimated average size of awards: $775,000 (per year)

 Estimated number of awards: 96

 Priorities

 1 Absolute Priority

 2 Competitive Preference Priorities

 1 Invitational Priority

 Unrestricted indirect cost rate allowed

 Do not exceed maximum award amount

4
Eligibility

 The institution must have been designated an “eligible institution,” for 2021 during the 

Title III and Title V eligibility process published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2021.

 To be an HSI, an Institution of Higher Education (IHE) must:

 Have an enrollment of needy students as defined in section 502(b) of the HEA

 Have low average education and general expenditures per FTE undergraduate 

student

 Has an enrollment of undergraduate full-time equivalent students that is at least 25 

percent Hispanic students

5
Absolute Priority

 Absolute Priority (Required)

Projects designed to increase the number of Hispanic and other low-income students attaining 

degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics; and to develop model 

transfer and articulation agreements between 2-year Hispanic-Serving institutions and 4-year 

institutions in such fields.

6
Competitive Preference Priorities

 Competitive Preference Priority 1 – Fostering Flexible and Affordable Paths to 

Obtaining Knowledge and Skills (up to five (5) points)- Projects that are designed 

to address the following priority areas: Improving collaboration between 

education providers and students; and providing work-based learning 

experiences. 

 Competitive Preference Priority 2 – Academic Achievement and Retention 

Strategies (up to five (5) points) - Projects designed to develop or enhance 

tutoring, counseling, and student service programs designed to improve academic 

success, including innovative and customized instruction courses (which may 

include remedial education and English language instruction) designed to help 

retain students and move the students rapidly into core courses and through 

program completion.

7
Invitational Priority

Invitational Priority (Optional)

 Invitational Priority – Providing Student Supports for Addressing the Impact of COVID-19 on Students’ Mental 

Health and Academic Outcomes - Projects that will provide integrated student support services (also known as 

wrap-around services) for HSI STEM students to address mental health and academic support due to the COVID19 Pandemic.

8
9 Selection Criteria

Selection Criteria Maximum Points

Quality of the Project Design 30

Quality of Project Services 30

Significance 20

Quality of the Management Plan 10

Quality of the Project Evaluation 20

Total Maximum Score for Selection Criteria 110

Competitive Preference Priorities 10

Total Possible Score Per Application 120
Selection Criteria

A. Quality of the Project Design (maximum 30 points)

1. The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully 

address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs. (up to 15 points)

2. The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority 

established for the competition. (up to 5 points)

3. The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale. (up to 5 points)

4. The extent to which the proposed project is supported by promising evidence. (up to 5 points)

10
Questions to Consider- Project Design

 What are the issues the proposal is attempting to address?

 How do the issues, needs, and proposed activities relate to the purpose of the program and the targeted 

population?

 How will the applicant address the needs?

 How will the applicant address the priorities? 

 How would the project be presented using a Logic Model?

11
Selection Criteria

B. Quality of Project Services (maximum of 30 points)

1. The quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and 

treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that 

have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, national origin, 

gender, age, or disability. (up to 10 points)

2. The extent to which services to be provided by the proposed project reflect upto-date knowledge from research and effective practice. (up to 10 points)

3. The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the 

intended recipients of those services. (up to 10 points)

12
Questions to Consider – Project Services

 Is the institution considering new and proven service models that will ensure that the goals of the 

proposed services/project are achieved?

 What gains are expected as a result of the proposed services/project ?

 What are the services and what’s the intended outcome/impact?

13
Selection Criteria

C. Significance (maximum 20 points)

1. The potential contribution of the proposed project to increase knowledge or 

understanding of educational problems, issues, or effective strategies. (up to 5 

points)

2. The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or 

improvement. (up to 15 points)

14
Questions to Consider - Significance

 What are the potential contributions to the field?

 If the project is successful, what improvements or systemic changes are expected?

15
Selection Criteria

D. Quality of the Management Plan (up to 10 points)

1. The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project 

on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (up to 5 points)

2. The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal 

investigator and other key personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the 

objectives of the proposed project. (up to 5 points)

16
Questions to Consider – Management Plan

 How will the proposed project be managed and who will manage the various components?

 How will you ensure that the project is on schedule to meet the identified goals and objectives of the 

project?

 Have sufficient staff and time been committed to ensure that the identified goals and objectives are 

met?

17
Selection Criteria

E. Quality of the Project Evaluation (maximum 20 points)

1. The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed 

project are clearly specified and measureable. (up to 5 points)

2. The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate 

to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. (up to 5 points)

3. The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well-implemented, produce 

evidence about the project’s effectiveness that would meet the What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations. (up to 10 points)

18
Questions to Consider – Project Evaluation

 What data collection tools will be used to determine whether the project is successful?

 What metrics will be used to measure progress?

 Are long- and short-term objectives clear and measurable?

 How will the evaluation be used to inform continuous improvement? 

19
Understanding 

Indirect Cost 20
Indirect Cost 

Applicable Indirect Cost Rate Type 

 Unrestricted indirect cost rate

 NIA initially stated a restricted indirect 

cost rate 

Cognizant Agencies for Indirect Cost 

Institutions of Higher Education 

 Department of Health and Human Services 

(DHHS)

(https://rates.psc.gov/)

or 

 Office of Naval Research (ONR)

(https://www.onr.navy.mil/en/work-with-us/manage-your- award/manage-grant-award)

Regulation 

 Uniform Guidance 

 2 CFR 200 Subpart E

Departmental Regulations 

 Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations

 34CFR 75.560 - 75.580

 34 CFR 76.560 - 76.580

Guidance 

 Uniform Guidance Frequently Asked 

Questions updated 

(https://www.cfo.gov/assets/files/2CRFFrequentlyAskedQuestion

s_2021050321.pdf) 

21
Allowable Activities 

(20 U.S. Code § 1101b)

 Purchase, rental, or lease of scientific/laboratory equipment for educational, instructional, and 

research purposes;

 Construction, maintenance, renovation and improvement of instructional facilities;

 Support of faculty exchanges, faculty development, and faculty fellowships;

 Curriculum development and academic instruction;

 Purchase of library books, periodicals, and other educational materials;

 Tutoring, counseling, and student services designed to improve academic success;

 Articulation agreements and student support programs designed to facilitate the transfer from twoyear to four-year institutions;

 Funds management.

22
Allowable Activities 

(20 U.S. Code § 1101b)

 Joint use of facilities, such as laboratories and libraries;

 Creating or improving facilities for Internet or other distance education technologies;

 Establishing or enhancing a program of teacher education;

 Establishing community outreach programs that will encourage elementary and secondary students 

to pursue postsecondary education;

 Expanding the number of Hispanic and other underrepresented graduate and professional students 

that can be served by the institution through expanded courses and resources;

23
Sample Activities

Academic Quality

 Improvement of basic skills courses

 Faculty development

 Curriculum Development

Student Services

 Counseling (career, peer, personal)

 Tutoring/mentoring

 Establishing learning communities

 Improvement of student facilities

Student Outcomes

 Improving student retention and graduation rates

 Increasing academic achievement

Fiscal Stability

 Establishing or improving a development office

 Strengthening Alumni relationships

 Building an endowment

Institutional Management

 Construction and renovation

 Improving the infrastructure for Internet access

24
ENDOWMENT FUND

 Is an investment instrument established 

by the applicant institution

 Generates institutional income

 Supports ongoing operations or other 

specified purposes with interest income 

generated by invested capital

 Is funded by donations, which are tax 

deductible for donors

 Does not include real estate 

 You may assign as much as 20% of that 

year’s grant funds to the Endowment Fund

 Endowments must match (cost-share) 

federal funds dollar-for-dollar

 You must invest both grant and matching 

funds for 20 years

 Up to 1⁄2 of the interest may be spent for 20 

years

 Those interest funds may be used for 

scholarships 

25
Performance Measures

The performance indicators for the HSI STEM and Articulation program are:

1. The percentage change, over the five-year grant period, of the number of Hispanic and low-income full-time STEM 

field degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled. 

2. The number and percent of Hispanic and low-income first-time, full-time STEM field degree-seeking undergraduate 

students who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year 

who remain in a STEM field degree/credential program. 

3. The number and percent of Hispanic and low-income first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students 

enrolled at four-year HSIs graduating within six years of enrollment with a STEM field degree. 

26
Performance Measures 

4. The number and percentage of Hispanic and low-income first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate 

students enrolled at two-year HSIs graduating within three years of enrollment with a STEM field degree/credential. 

5. The number and percentage of Hispanic and low-income students transferring successfully to a four-year 

institution from a two-year institution and retained in a STEM field major. 

6. The number of Hispanic and low-income students participating in grant-funded student support programs or 

services. 

27
Performance Measures 

7. The number of Hispanic and low-income students who participated in grant-supported services or programs

in good academic standing.

8. The percent of Hispanic and low-income students who participated in grant supported services of programs 

in good academic standing. 

9. The number of Hispanic and low-income STEM field major transfer students on track to complete a STEM field 

degree within three years from their transfer date.

10. The number of Hispanic and low-income students who participated in grant-supported services or programs 

and completed a degree or credential.

28
The Logic Model 

and 

Evidence of Promise

29
Components of a Program Logic Model

30

 Resources: materials to implement the program

 Activities: steps for program implementation

 Outputs: products of the program

 Impacts on Outcomes: changes in program participants’ 

knowledge, beliefs, or behavior
Note: The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar provides technical assistance only.

31 Sample Logic Model
Regional Educational Laboratory (REL)

Resources on Logic Models

Logic Models: A Tool for Effective Program Planning, Collaboration, and Monitoring

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?projectID=409

Logic Models: A Tool for Designing and Monitoring Program Evaluations

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?ProjectID=404

Logic Models for Program Design, Implementation, and Evaluation: Workshop Toolkit

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?ProjectID=401

Education Logic Model application for creating logic models:

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/pacific/elm.asp

32
Evidence 

Levels in 

EDGAR

(Title 34 of 

Code of 

Federal 

Regulations, 

Part 77)

33

Evidence goes beyond theory by 

having an empirical basis that a 

program works

EDGAR distinguishes three levels of 

evidence:  Evidence of Promise  Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness  Strong Evidence of Effectiveness
What is Promising Evidence?

Promising evidence means there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving 

a relevant outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following: 

a) a practice guide prepared by the WWC reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence 

base” for the corresponding practice recommendation; 

b) an intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive 

effect” on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” 

on a relevant outcome; or 

c) a single study reviewed and reported by the WWC or assessed by ED, as appropriate, and that meets 

the two criteria for a single study in the EDGAR definition of promising evidence.

Edgar and Evidence: How has ED streamlined and improved the requirements?, 

2018. Retrieved from 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oss/technicalassistance/edgarrevisi

onsfactsheet101617.pdf , May 19, 2021.

34
What level of evidence 

does an intervention 

meet?

Edgar and Evidence: 

How has ED streamlined 

and improved the 

requirements?, 2018. 

Retrieved from 

https://www2.ed.gov/ab

out/offices/list/oese/oss/t

echnicalassistance/edga

rrevisionsfactsheet101617.

pdf , May 19, 2021.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE FROM A SINGLE STUDY

Requirements Strong Moderate Promising Demonstrates a 

Rationale

Outcomes At least one statistically 

significant and positive 

effect on a relevant 

outcome; no statistically 

significant and negative 

effects on a relevant 

outcome

At least one statistically 

significant and positive 

effect on a relevant 

outcome; no statistically 

significant and negative 

effects on a relevant 

outcome

At least one statistically 

significant and positive effect 

on a relevant outcome

Not Applicable

Study Design Experimental study Experimental study or quasiexperimental design studyExperimental study, quasiexperimental design study, or 

correlational study with 

statistical controls for selection 

bias

Logic model 

informed by 

research or 

evaluation 

findings

WWC 

Evidence 

Rating

Meets WWC without 

reservations

Meets WWC with or without 

reservations

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Sample Size A large sample (n = 350+) 

and a multi-site sample

A large sample (n = 350+) 

and a multi-site sample

Not Applicable Not Applicable

35
So, what?

 To be supported by promising evidence, there must be at least one well-designed and well-implemented 

correlational study with statistical control for selection bias on the intervention. The Department considers 

a correlational study to be “well-designed and well-implemented” if it uses sampling and/or analytic 

methods to reduce or account for differences between the intervention group and a comparison group.

 A statistically significant and positive effect on the outcome.

 What is a correlational study?

 An investigation of relationships between two or more variables.

Example 1. Does Supplemental Instruction (SI) increase the ABC rate in Intro to Chemistry?

Example 2. Do First-Year Experience courses increase first to second year student persistence?

Example 3. Does the Residential Learning Community for Biology students result in increased completion 

of introductory science coursework?

Non-Regulatory Guidance: Using Evidence to Strengthen Education Investments, 2016. 

Retrieved from 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf, May 19, 2021.

36
Summary: A Study Providing

Evidence of Promise...

(NOT DEFINED BY THE WWC, but in Title 34 of Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77) 

Investigates the effect of the intervention (or a key component) on a relevant 

outcome

Uses a treatment group and a comparison group to associate differences in 

outcomes with the intervention, while including statistical controls for selection bias

Shows a statistically significant or substantively important effect on a key outcome

37
 Several resources to find studies are available at the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance website (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/):

 The Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) contains a searchable digital database of studies

 Other studies (and librarian assistance) are available through the National Library of Education (NLE)

 The What Works Clearinghouse has a Reviewed Studies Database listing studies reviewed by the WWC, 

describing the WWC rating of the study and the reason for the review (including links to any relevant WWC 

publications describing that review in greater detail)

 Regional Educational Library (Examples of Logic Models) - Education Logic Model - REL Pacific

Resources for Finding Relevant Studies 38
Questions from the Field

May an applicant request less than the average award size? 

 Yes. An applicant may request less than the average award size but cannot exceed $1M.

Can an institution be the lead in more than one application? 

 No. An institution may only receive one award, as the lead applicant. 

If the lead applicant institution is an HSI, can they articulate with a non-HSI? 

 Yes. 

39
Questions from the Field

Could you clarify the eligible majors included as “STEM” in the HSI STEM, Title III Part F program?

 For the HSI STEM and Articulation (HSI STEM) program, “STEM” is an acronym for the following 

academic disciplines: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. The HSI STEM 

program recognizes that there are integrated disciplines of STEM. Therefore, it is the 

responsibility of the applicant institution to clarify in the application how the proposed courses, 

majors, programs, etc. align with an academic discipline of STEM, as well as the HSI STEM 

program and priorities.

40
Questions from the Field

If an institution was not included on the list of HSIs but has data showing that it meets HSI 

criteria, where and/or how is the institution to provide this data to the USDE? 

 The Notice Inviting Applications has information for applicants to submit enrollment 

information for eligibility purposes. Please note that in order for us to consider enrollment 

eligibility data, the institution must have been designated an “eligible institution,” for 2021 

during the Title III and Title V eligibility process published in the Federal Register on March 3, 

2021.

41
Questions from the Field

Criterion 2 under Quality of Management Plan refers to the "project director and principal 

investigator." Are projects expected to include both a Principal Investigator and a Project 

Director? 

 No. 

Can we give students stipends for lab work, research?

 Yes, stipends to students conducting research is allowable, but must be aligned to the 

program purpose and goals as it relates to this program. 

Can we hire students for tutoring? 

 Yes.

42
Questions from the Field

If in this cycle only individual development grants are being supported, can 

applicants partner with other institutions? 

 Yes. Institutions may partner with other institutions to support the project 

design and services. Costs associated with the partner institutions can be 

included in the budget under “Other” or “Contractual.” 

Is there a cost matching requirement? If so, are in-kind contributions acceptable 

as part of the grantee's match?

 If a grantee institution plans to fund an endowment as part of the approved 

grant activities, dollar-for-dollar match is required for each federal dollar used 

for that purpose. No other cost matching is required.

43
Questions from the Field

If an HSI already has a Title III, Part F and/or Title V HSI grant, can they still apply for this 

grant?

 Yes.

We are interested in pursuing another Title III, Part F when the competition opens. Would 

having a no-cost extension negatively impact or disqualify us from applying for a new 

grant award?

 No.

44
Questions from the Field: Evidence

Where do I find studies on evidence?

 What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks (WWC Handbooks) are the standards and 

procedures set forth in the WWC Standards Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, and WWC 

Procedures Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, or in the WWC Procedures and Standards 

Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (all incorporated by reference, see § 77.2). Study 

findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without 

reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. 

WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews 

of evidence as described in the WWC Handbooks documentation.

45
46 Q&A
Planning Your 

Grant 

Application

 Identify goals for your proposed project, especially how they 

will focus on Hispanic student academic and career success.

 Analyze every proposed activity to ensure that it is attainable, 

meaningful, and measurable.

 Choose metrics and evaluation methods that will produce 

evidence about the project’s effectiveness.

 Use the identified Performance Measures to build your project 

assessments.

47
Planning Your 

Grant Application

• Use analysis and evaluation to identify institutional 

challenges or issues.

• Focus on the most well analyzed challenges or issues that 

confront your institution.

• Consider addressing challenges or issues that your 

institution will have to resolve regardless of Title III 

funding.

• Dedicate adequate resources and time to develop your 

funding application.

48
Planning Your 

Grant Application

 Be realistic and straightforward about every aspect of your 

project design.

 Design activities and services that are manageable and 

directly address your identified challenges and issues.

 Know your budget and ensure that all costs are allowable 

(2CFR 200.403), allocable (2CFR 200.405), and reasonable 

(2CFR 200.404).

 Forecast and create an implementation and management 

plan that is realistic.

49
Other Advice 

for 

Preparing a 

Strong 

Application

50

Emphasize Emphasize how your project, if funded, will make lasting 

change at your IHE by thoughtfully incorporating strategies 

for institutionalization of project impacts.

Ensure

Ensure that your project narrative is well-documented and 

researched; include citations/references, where 

appropriate, and use the highest level of evidence that 

makes sense for your project.

Have in Have in place or plan to hire well-qualified and 

experienced key personnel (especially the Project Director, 

Project Manager or Activities Director, and Evaluator).

Design Design your project with a strong internal controls systems, 

including frequent monitoring and a sound financial 

management plan.
Logistical Advice

 Make sure you are properly registered in the Grants.gov system: 

https://www.grants.gov/, your AOR profile is current, and you are applying to the 

correct Grant Opportunity Number.

 Ensure that your IHE’s DUNS number is up-to-date and active in SAM 

https://www.sam.gov/SAM/.

 Be aware that the DUNS number will be transitioning to a Unique Entity 

Identifier (UEI) in April 2022 (see here for more information: 

https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/organization/federal-acquisition-service/office-ofsystems-management/integrated-award-environment-iae/iae-informationkit/unique-entity-identifier-update).

 Submit your grant application EARLY!

51
Call for Peer Reviewers

 Those interested in reading for any other programs having 

competitions in FY 2021 in the Office of Postsecondary Education 

must register or (if already registered) update their information in 

G5 at www.g5.gov.

52
Contact Information

Competition Manager:

 Jymece Seward| Jymece.Seward@ed.gov, 202-453-6138

HSI STEM and Articulation Program Staff:

 Stacey Slijepcevic, Program Lead

 Everardo Gil, Program Co-Lead

HSI STEM and Articulation Program Page: Hispanic-Serving Institutions - Science, 

Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics and Articulation Programs (ed.gov)

53