Postsecondary Student 

Success Grant (PSSG) Program

Pre-Application Technical Assistance Webinar
Introductions

Beatriz Ceja-Williams

Senior Director of Institutional Services

Nemeka Mason-Clercin

Education Research Analyst and CoLead of PSSG

Nalini Lamba-Nieves

Senior Program Management Analyst 

and Co-Lead of PSSG

Jonathan Jacobson

Branch Chief for Knowledge Synthesis

Betsy Wolf

Senior Research Scientist

Felicia Sanders

Education Research Analyst

Office of Postsecondary 

Education

Institute of Education 

Sciences
Agenda

Segment Five Application Logistics

Segment Four Selection Criteria-Absolute Priority 2:MidPhase/Expansion

Segment 

Three

Selection Criteria-Absolute Priority 1: Early-Phase 

Segment Two Evidence Definitions and Resources

Segment One Introduction to PSSG

These slides provide brief summary. 

Please refer to the Notice Inviting 

Applications (NIA) and Application 

Booklet for official guidance.
Program Purpose:

To equitably 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.
Program Overview

Two-tiered structure Target population of 

underserved students

Independent 

Evaluation

Utilize evidence-based 

best practices
Dates to 

Remember

Applications Available: July 26, 2023

Submission Deadline:

September 25, 2023, at 11:59pm EST

Notification of Successful & Unsuccessful 

Applications: December 2023

Grant Activities Commence: January 2024
Program Requirements - Eligibility

Institutions designated as 

eligible to apply under Title 

III/V (including HBCUs, TCCUs, 

MSIs, and SIP institutions)

States, in partnership with at 

least one eligible Title III/V 

IHE

Public systems of higher 

education institutions

Nonprofits that are not 

institutions of higher 

education (IHEs) or 

associated with an IHE, in 

partnership with at least 

one eligible Title III/V IHE

Please refer to the 2023 Eligibility Matrix to verify designation as a Title III/V institution.
Absolute Priorities – AP1

• Absolute Priority 1 (AP1) - Applications that Demonstrate a 

Rationale, “Early-phase” 

Under this priority, an applicant proposes a project that 

demonstrates a rationale to improve postsecondary success for 

underserved students, including retention and completion.
Absolute Priorities – AP1

• Applicant must include in the Evidence Form:

1. Provide the citation or link for the research or evaluation findings

2. Describe how the research or evaluation findings suggest that the 

project component included in the logic model is likely to improve 

relevant outcomes. 

3. Explain how the project component(s) is informed by the research or 

evaluation findings.

Please cite page numbers and table numbers from the study or WWC publication, where applicable.
Absolute Priorities – AP2

• Absolute Priority 2 (AP2)— Applicants that Demonstrate Moderate 

Evidence, “Mid-phase” or Strong Evidence, “Expansion” 

◦ An applicant proposes a project supported by evidence that 

meets the conditions in the definition of “Moderate Evidence” 

or “Strong Evidence,” to improve postsecondary success for 

underserved students, including retention and completion 

rates. 

◦ Projects must be implemented at a multi-site sample or include 

at least 2,000 students. 
Absolute Priorities – AP2

•Applicants addressing this priority must: 

1. Identify up to two studies to be reviewed against WWC 

standards; 

2. Clearly identify the citations and relevant findings for 

each study in the Evidence form; and

3. Ensure that all cited studies are from publicly 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. 
Absolute Priorities – AP2

• Applicant must provide in the Evidence Form:

1. The positive student outcomes the applicant intends to replicate 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 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 and how the 

practice(s) correspond with the practice(s) in the cited studies
Competitive Preference Priority (CPP) 

This priority is: 

• Applicants that have made progress towards or can demonstrate 

they have a plan to improve student outcomes for underserved 

students by using data to continually assess and improve the 

effectiveness of funded activities and sustain data-driven 

continuous improvement processes at the institution after the 

grant period (up to 6 points).
Competitive Preference Priority

• Applicants addressing this priority must: 

• (a) Identify or describe how they will develop the performance and outcome 

measures they will use to monitor and evaluate implementation of the 

intervention(s), including baseline data, intermediate and annual targets, and 

disaggregation by student subgroups (up to 2 points); 

• (b) Describe how they will assess and address gaps in current data systems, tools, 

and capacity and how they will monitor and respond to performance and outcome 

data to improve implementation of the intervention on an ongoing basis and as part 

of formative and summative evaluation of the intervention(s) (up to 2 points); and 

• (c) Describe how institutional leadership will be involved with and supportive of 

project leadership and how the project relates to the institution’s broader student 

success priorities and improvement processes (up to 2 points).
Estimated 

Award Size

Absolute Priority 1 -

Early-Phase 

Absolute Priority 2 -

Mid-Phase/ 

Expansion

Estimated Available 

Funds

$22,275,000 $22,275,000 

Estimated Range of 

Awards

$2-4 million $6-8 million

Estimated Average 

Size of Awards

$3 million $7 million

Maximum Amount 

of Award

$4 million $8 million

Estimated Number 

of New Awards

5-8 3-4

Project Period for 

Award

48 months 48 months
Using and Building Evidence

Develop, implement, and test the feasibility of a 

program that prior research suggests is likely to 

improve relevant outcomes. Key project 

components informed by this research.

Based on proven, successful evidence-based 

practices that provide vital insight such as for whom 

and in which contexts a practice/intervention is most 

effective, while addressing the barriers to scale.

Absolute Priority 1: 

Early-Phase

Absolute Priority 2:

Mid-Phase/Expansion
TIERED 

EVIDENCE 

Absolute Priority 1 Absolute Priority 2

Phase Early Phase Mid-Phase/Expansion

Evidence Tier Demonstrates a

Rationale

Moderate Evidence or Strong Evidence

Evidence Requirement 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 

student retention and 

completion.

WWC Practice Guide Reporting Strong or 

Moderate evidence base for corresponding 

recommendation.

WWC Intervention Report reporting a “positive 

effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a 

relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” 

extent of evidence, with no reporting of a 

“negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” 

on a relevant outcome.

Evidence from at least one well designed and well 

implemented quasi-experimental or experimental 

study.

Logic Model Required with 

Application

Yes Yes

Minimum Evaluation Design 

for Project Evaluation 

Proposed

by Applicant

Quasi-experimental Experimental

Evaluation Design Must 

Meet WWC Standards

With or 

Without reservations

Without reservations
Match 

Requirement

•Applicants must provide a match of 

at least 10 percent of the requested 

grant funds.

•Types of acceptable match:

•Other Federal Funds

• State Funds 

• Local Funds

• Private Source

•In-Kind Contributions
Match 

Requirement 

Waiver 

Waivers may be requested under the following:

1. Difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve a 

high poverty area defined as a Census tract, a set of 

contiguous Census tracts, an American Indian Reservation, 

Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (as defined by the U.S. Census 

Bureau), Alaska Native Village Statistical Area or Alaska Native 

Regional Corporation Area, Native Hawaiian Homeland Area, 

or other tribal land as defined by the Secretary in guidance or 

county that has a poverty rate of at least 25 percent as set 

every 5 years using American Community Survey 5-Year data;

2. Serving a significant population of low-income students 

defined as at least 50 percent (or meet the eligibility 

threshold for the appropriate institutional sector) of degree- seeking enrolled students receiving need-based grant aid under Title IV; or 

3. Showing significant economic hardship as demonstrated by 

low average educational and general expenditures per full- time equivalent undergraduate student, in comparison with 

the average educational and general expenditures per full- time equivalent undergraduate student of institutions that 

offer similar instruction.
Performance Measures - General

For the purpose of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has 

established a set of required performance measures (as defined in the NIA): 

1. First-year credit accumulation. 

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

3. Success rates including graduation and upward transfer for two-year 

institutions. 

4. Time to credential. 

5. Number of credentials conferred. 

Note: All measures should be disaggregated by race/ethnicity and 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.) 

Note: All measures should have baseline and performance targets.
Performance Measures – Project-Specific

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

1.Performance measures. 

i. 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 the NIA) 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. 

i. 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). 
Data 

Collection 

& Reporting

Applications must also provide the following 

information as directed under 34 CFR 

75.110(c):

1. 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 

2. 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.
Data 

Collection 

& Reporting 

– Indicators 

of Success

Depending on the nature of the intervention 

proposed in the application, common metrics 

may include the following: 

1. College-level math and English course completion 

in the first year (developmental education); 

2. Unmet financial need (financial aid);

3. Program of study selection in the first year 

(advising); 

4. Post-transfer completion (transfer); and 

5. Re-enrollment (degree reclamation).
Tiebreaker Procedure

First Tiebreaker: The first tiebreaker will be the applicant with 

the highest percentage of undergraduate students who are 

Pell grant recipients. If a tie remains, the second tiebreaker 

will be utilized.

◦ We will use IPEDS Data. Please be sure to include the OPEID number and the 

name of each institution listed in the application.

Second Tiebreaker: The second tiebreaker will be the highest 

average score for the selection criterion titled “Significance.”
Program Evaluation Requirements

Evaluation: This program uses the 

waiver authority of section 

437(d)(1) of GEPA to require a 

grantee to conduct an 

independent evaluation of the 

effectiveness of its project.
Evidence Definitions 

and Resources

Jonathan Jacobson 

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES)

whatworks.ed.gov
Evidence Tiers in ED Regulations

27

• Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by one or more of 

Strong Evidence (Tier 1), 

Moderate Evidence (Tier 2), 

Promising Evidence (Tier 3), or 

Evidence that Demonstrates a Rationale (Tier 4).

• Strong Evidence and Moderate Evidence need to meet What Works Clearinghouse 

standards.

• All tiers of evidence except Evidence that Demonstrates a Rationale need to include a 

statistically significant and favorable effect on a relevant outcome.

Source: EDGAR, 34 CFR 77.1
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.

A logic model—also referred to as a theory of action—means a 

framework that identifies key project components of the 

proposed project—that is, 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. 
A Logic Model Relates to Project Activities to Relevant Outcomes

Logic model [theory of action] framework from “Logic Models: A Tool for Effective Program Planning, 

Collaboration, and Monitoring,” https://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=REL2014025

Resources: 

materials and 

other inputs 

needed to 

implement the 

project

Activities:

steps for project 

implementation

(project 

components”)

Outputs: 

results of 

project 

activities

Impacts on 

Relevant 

Outcomes: 

changes in the 

knowledge, 

behavior, or 

success of the 

individuals served 

by the project

Evidence relates a project 

component (or combination 

thereof) to at least one relevant 

outcome

Related evidence definitions 

are included in 34 CFR 77.1
Logic Models for Project Design and Evaluation

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, 

practice, or policy included in a project. 

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key 

project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of 

the program.

In developing logic models for project design and evaluation, applicants may 

want to use logic model resources available from the Regional Educational 

Laboratories: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products. 

For planning evaluation designs to meet WWC standards, see the resources at 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluationTA.asp
Source: EDGAR, 34 CFR 77.1

Characteristic Strong Evidence Moderate Evidence

Evidence base (under version 2.1 

or higher of the WWC Handbook) 

for practice recommendation cited 

to show the effectiveness of a

proposed project component on a 

relevant outcome

“Strong evidence” 

base

“Strong evidence” base or

“moderate evidence” base

Overlap with proposed 

populations/settings 

Overlap with both

required

Overlap with either

required

Requirements for a WWC Practice Guide at whatworks.ed.gov

Providing Strong Evidence or Moderate Evidence
Characteristic Strong Evidence Moderate Evidence

Intervention report effectiveness 

rating (under version 2.1 or higher 

of the WWC Handbook) for the 

effect of a proposed project 

component on a relevant outcome

“Positive effect,” with 

no reporting of a

“negative effect” or 

“potentially negative 

effect”

“Positive effect” or

“potentially positive

effect,” with no reporting of 

a “negative effect” or 

“potentially negative 

effect”

Extent of evidence Medium to large: 2 or more studies with a combined 

sample of at least 350 individuals 

Overlap with proposed 

populations/settings

Overlap with both

required

Overlap with either

required

Requirements for a WWC Intervention Report at whatworks.ed.gov 

Providing Strong Evidence or Moderate Evidence

Source: EDGAR, 34 CFR 77.1
Requirements for Individual Studies Reviewed by the WWC

Providing Strong Evidence or Moderate Evidence

Characteristic Strong Evidence Moderate Evidence

WWC study rating (under 

version 2.1 or higher of the 

WWC Handbook)

Meets standards without 

reservations

Meets standards with reservations 

or Meets standards without 

reservations

Study findings for the effect 

of a proposed project 

component on a relevant 

outcome

Statistically significant and positive (favorable) for at least one relevant 

outcome, with no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on 

relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC

intervention report (under version 2.1 or higher of the WWC Handbook)

Study sample (alone or in a 

combination of studies)

Large sample (350+ individuals) and multi-site sample (e.g., >1 State, 

county, city, district, or campus)

Overlap with proposed 

populations/settings

Overlap with both required Overlap with either required

Source: EDGAR, 34 CFR 77.1
Evidence Tier

Study design

Well-designed and 

well-implemented 

experimental design

Well-designed and 

wellimplemented quasiexperimental design

Well-designed and wellimplemented correlational 

design with statistical 

controls for selection bias

A logic model 

informed by 

research or 

evaluation

Positive, statistically 

significant effect on the 

outcome

Related research or 

evaluation is 

planned or 

underway

No overriding negative 

effects

Large, multisite sample 350+ students across 

multiple sites

350+ students across 

multiple sites

Relevance to proposed 

context

Population and

setting Population or setting

34
Evidence 

Form
Q&A on 

Evidence 

Requirements
Selection Criteria 

and Other 

Application 

Requirements
Selection 

Criteria

ABSOLUTE 

PRIORITY:1 

EARLY PHASE
Absolute Priority 

One:

Early-Phase 

Selection Criteria

Selection Criteria

Maximum 

Points

Significance 20

Quality of the Project Design 30

Quality of Project Personnel* 10

Quality of Management Plan* 10

Quality of Project Evaluation 30

Total Points without CPP 100

Competitive Preference Priority 6

Total Points Including CPP 106

* Indicates selection criteria unique to Early-Phase applications 
Significance (20 points)

In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the following factors:

1. The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed 

project. 

2. The extent to which the proposed project involves the 

development or demonstration of promising new strategies 

that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies. (up 

to 20 points)
Significance –

Questions to 

Consider

What changes will occur at the institution if 

the services and project to be supported by 

this grant are implemented?

How will students benefit from the services 

to be provided?

How will any institutional barriers be 

mitigated to support improvements in 

student outcomes?
Quality of the Project Design (30 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:

a. The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying the proposed 

research or demonstration activities and the quality of that framework. (up to 

10 points) 

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

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

c. 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)
Quality of the 

Project Design 

– Questions 

to Consider

What will change as a result of this funding?

How does the evidence support the framework 

of the proposed project/activities?

Are the goals, objectives, and outcomes clearly 

outlined in the application? Are they specific 

and measurable? Have you included S.M.A.R.T 

objectives? (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, 

Relevant, and Time-bound)

Is the alignment between the proposed project 

and targeted population clearly identified? 

How does the proposed project address the 

needs?
Quality of Project Personnel (10 Points)

1. The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out 

the proposed project. 

2. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers 

the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for 

employment from persons who are members of groups that have 

traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 

origin, gender, age, or disability. (up to 5 points) 

3. In addition, the Secretary considers the qualifications, including relevant 

training and experience, of key project personnel. (up to 5 points)
Quality of 

the Project 

Personnel –

Questions to 

Consider

What activities and/or strategies will be 

implemented to ensure a diverse pool of 

individuals will work on the proposed 

project?

What qualifications, experience, and 

training will you require of personnel that 

will be assigned/hired to work on the 

proposed project activities?
Quality of Management Plan (10 Points)

1. The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for 

the proposed project. 

2. In determining the quality of the management plan, the Secretary 

considers 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 10 points)
Quality of 

the 

Management 

Plan –

Questions to 

Consider

 Are the roles and responsibilities of the 

individuals responsible for implementing the 

funded project included in the application?

 How will the project be managed?

 Who will be responsible?

 How is leadership involved?

 Are milestones identified in the application?
Quality of the Project Evaluation (30 Points)

1. The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the 

proposed project. 

2. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

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

evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the WWC standards with or 

without reservations as described in the WWC Handbook. (up to 20 points) 

2. The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and 

permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (up to 5 

points) 

3. The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key project components, 

mediators, and outcomes, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable 

implementation. (up to 5 points)
Quality of 

the 

Evaluation 

Plan –

Questions to 

Consider

 Who will be your project evaluator? 

 Does your chosen evaluator have sufficient experience 

in the selected evaluation design method?

 Have you identified the project components (services) 

to be evaluated?

 Have you identified relevant outcomes for the 

evaluation?

 Does the study design have the potential to meet 

WWC standards without reservations (Mid- phase/Expansion) or at least with reservations (Early- phase).

 What are your qualitative and quantitative data 

sources to measure project implementation (e.g., 

fidelity) and relevant outcomes and implement your 

study design (e.g., baseline measures for a QED)?

 What is the evaluation timeline?
Q&A on 

Early-Phase 

Grants
Selection 

Criteria

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY:2

MID-PHASE/EXPANSION
Absolute Priority 

Two: 

Mid-Phase/ 

Expansion 

Selection Criteria

Selection Criteria

Maximum 

Points

Significance 15

Strategy to Scale* 35

Quality of the Project Design 15

Quality of Project Evaluation 35

Total Points without CPP 100

Competitive Preference Priority 6

Total Points Including CPP 106

* Indicates selection criterion unique to Mid-Phase/Expansion applications 
Significance (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: 

1. The national significance of the proposed project. (up to 5 points) 

2. The extent to which the proposed project involves the development 

or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, or are 

alternatives to, existing strategies. (up to 5 points) 

3. The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased 

knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or 

effective strategies. (up to 5 points)
Significance –

Questions to 

Consider

What changes will occur at the institution if 

the services and project to be supported by 

this grant are implemented?

How will students benefit from the services 

to be provided?

How will any institutional barriers be 

mitigated to support improvements in 

student outcomes?
Strategy to Scale (35 points)

1. The Secretary considers the applicant's strategy to scale the proposed 

project. 

2. In determining the applicant's capacity to scale the proposed project, 

the Secretary considers the following factors: 

1. The extent to which the applicant identifies a specific strategy or strategies 

that address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant, 

in the past, from reaching the level of scale that is proposed in the 

application. (up to 15 points) 

2. 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) 

3. The mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information 

on its project so as to support further development or replication. (up to 

15 points)
Strategy to 

Scale –

Questions to 

Consider

Does the application adequately outlined how the 

proposed initiative will be scaled ?

Are there adequate resources that focus on efficiency in 

all aspects of implementation (students served, staffing, 

cost, funding).

Does the application clearly outlined all avenues that will be used to disseminate project results?

Are the roles and responsibilities of the individuals 

responsible for implementing the funded project 

included in the application?

Are milestones identified in the application?
Quality of Project Design (15 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: 

1. The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying the 

proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of that 

framework. (up to 5 points) 

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

the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (up to 5 points) 

3. 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 5 points)
Quality of 

Project 

Design –

Questions to 

Consider

How does the evidence support the 

framework of the proposed 

project/activities?

Are the goals, objectives, and outcomes 

clearly outlined in the application? Are they 

specific and measurable?

Is the alignment between the proposed 

project and targeted population clearly 

identified? How does the proposed project 

address the needs?
Quality of the Project Evaluation (35 Points)

1. The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the 

proposed project.

2. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

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

evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the WWC standards without 

reservations as described in the WWC Handbook. (up to 20 points) 

2. The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies 

suitable for replication or testing in other settings. (up to 5 points) 

3. The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key project components, 

mediators, and outcomes, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable 

implementation. (up to 5 points) 

4. The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and 

permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (up to 5 

points)
Quality of 

Evaluation 

Plan –

Questions to 

Consider

 Who will be your project evaluator? 

 Does your chosen evaluator have sufficient experience 

in the selected evaluation design method?

 Have you identified the project components (services) 

to be evaluated?

 Have you identified relevant outcomes for the 

evaluation?

 Does the study design have the potential to meet 

WWC standards without reservations (Mid- phase/Expansion) or at least with reservations (Early- phase).

 What are your qualitative and quantitative data 

sources to measure project implementation (e.g., 

fidelity) and relevant outcomes and implement your 

study design (e.g., baseline measures for a QED)?

 What is the evaluation timeline?
Q&A on 

Mid-Phase/ 

Expansion 

Grants
Application 

Logistics
Application Submission

All applications must be submitted in Grants.Gov

Please visit the Grants.gov site (https://www.grants.gov/) for guides and 

instructions on application submission, under Applicants.

All applicants must have a registered and active Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)

Please visit the Sam.gov site for more information

https://sam.gov/content/entity-registration
Application 

Package

Part 1: Standard Documents 

 Application for Federal Assistance (Form SF 424) 

 ED Supplemental Information for SF 424 

 Evidence Form 

Part 2: Budget Information 

 ED Budget Information Non-Construction Programs (ED Form 524) Sections A & B 

Part 3: ED Abstract Form 

 Project Abstract 

Part 4: Project Narrative Attachment Form 

 Application Narrative 

Part 5: Budget Narrative Attachment Form 

 Budget Narrative 

Part 6: Other Attachments Form 

 Appendix A: FY 2023 Eligibility Letter (available at HEPIS Web Portal) 

 Appendix B: Nonprofit 501(c)(3) status verification (only applicable if lead submitter is not an IHE) 

 Appendix C: Letters of Support and Memoranda of Understanding, if applicable 

 Appendix D: Logic Model 

 Appendix E: Resumes of Key Personnel 

 Appendix F: Waiver Request of 10% Match Requirement, if applicable 

 Appendix G: Demonstration of Match Contributions 

 Appendix H: Copy of Indirect Cost Rate Agreement 

 Appendix I: References 

 Appendix J: Other, if applicable 

Please refer to the 

Application Booklet for 

additional guidance 
Sample 

FY 2023 

Eligibility 

Letter
Submission Requirements – Application Narrative

The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the

selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application.

We recommend that you limit the application narrative to no more than 30

pages.

The recommended page limit does not apply to the:

 Cover sheet;

 One-page abstract;

 Budget section, including the narrative budget justification;

 Assurances and certifications;

 Resumes;

 References/bibliography;

 Letters of support; or

 Waiver request for the matching requirement.
Submission 

Requirements

- Application

Narrative

Recommended Formatting Standards:

 A “page” is 8.5" x 11“

 Double-spaced

 Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, 

and no smaller than 10-pitch (characters per 

inch).

 Use one of the following fonts: Times New 

Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
Resources to Help Project Evaluations 

Meet WWC Standards

WWC Website: 

whatworks.ed.gov or 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

WWC Handbooks: 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Ha

ndbooks

Online Training: 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Onl

ineTraining

Resources for Study Authors: 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Res

ources/ResourcesForStudyAutho

rs

Technical Assistance Materials 

for Conducting Rigorous Impact 

Evaluations: 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects

/evaluationTA.asp

Technical Assistance Contractors 

Funded by the Department
Program 

Contacts 

For answers to the most common questions, 

please review our FAQs

Email is the best mode of contact: pssg@ed.gov

Competition Manager: Nemeka Mason-Clercin

Telephone: (202) 987-1340

Program Co-Lead: Nalini Lamba-Nieves

Telephone: (202) 453-7953
Thank You!