Evaluation of the Pell Grant 

Experiments Under the 

Experimental Sites Initiative

OMB Supporting Statement:

Part A 

July 3, 2012

Evaluation of the Pell Grant 

Experiments Under the 

Experimental Sites Initiative

OMB Supporting Statement:

Part A 

July 3, 2012

OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

iii
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

iv

CONTENTS

PART A: SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT 

SUBMISSION...................................................................................................1

A1. Circumstances Necessitating the Data Collection ..................................5

A2. How, by Whom, and for What Purpose Is the Information to Be 

Used.....................................................................................................8

A3. Uses of Improved Technology to Reduce Burden .................................11

A4. Efforts to Identify Duplication .............................................................12

A5. Methods to Minimize Burden on Small Business Entities......................13

A6. Consequences of Not Collecting the Data............................................13

A7. Special Data Collection Circumstances ................................................13

A8. Federal Register Notice .......................................................................13

A9. Respondent Payments.........................................................................14

A10. Confidentiality ....................................................................................14

A11. Questions of a Sensitive Nature...........................................................15

A12. Hour Burden of Collection of Information............................................16

A13. Estimated Total Cost Burden for Collection of Information ..................20

A14. Estimated Annualized Cost to the Federal Government .......................20

A15. Changes in Burden..............................................................................20

A16. Publication Plans and Project Schedule................................................20

A17. Reasons for Not Displaying Expiration Date of OMB Approval..............21

A18. Exception to the Certification Statement .............................................21

REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................22

OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

vi

TABLES

A.1 PGE Data Collection Plan................................................................................9

A.2 Use of the Data to Answer Study Research Questions...................................11

A.3 Hour Burden Estimates for PGE Schools........................................................17

A.4 Hour Burden Estimates for Survey Data Collection........................................18

A.5 Total Hour Burden Estimates for Experiments 1 and 2 .................................18

A.6 Cost Burden Estimates for PGE Schools ........................................................19

A.7 Cost Burden Estimates for Survey Data Collection ........................................19

A.8 Total Cost Burden Estimates for Experiments 1 and 2..................................20

A.9 Preliminary Project Schedule of Activities .....................................................21

OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

viii

FIGURES

A.1 Stylized Model of the Recruitment, Enrollment, and Random 

Assignment Process for PGE When There Is Need-Blind Admissions................3

A.2 Time Line for the Pell Grants Experiments Study ............................................7

OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

1

PART A: SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR PAPERWORK

REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) at the U.S. Department of Education (ED) requests

approval to conduct an evaluation of the effects of two Pell Grant Experiments (PGE) 

demonstrations under the Experimental Sites Initiative (ESI). The ESI, authorized by section 

487A(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), allows the Secretary to grant waivers from 

specific Title IV HEA statutory or regulatory requirements to enable institutions to test alternative 

methods for administering those federal student aid programs. The two demonstrations are targeted 

to income- eligible postsecondary students interested in vocational training but who could not 

otherwise receive a Pell grant because: (1) they currently have a bachelor’s degree, or (2) they seek to 

enroll in a vocational program that is shorter than the current minimum duration and clock hours. 

Because of the potential high costs – and benefits – of expanding Pell grant eligibility in these two 

ways, ED has decided to rigorously assess the demonstration programs using a random assignment 

design. The study will examine the impacts of each experiment on employment and earnings, 

participation in education and training and job support activities, and student debt and financial aid 

receipt.

OVERVIEW OF THE DEMONSTRATIONS AND STUDY APPROACH

Under the ESI, Title IV institutions choose to participate in demonstrations or “experiments” 

in response to a notice from ED’s Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA). FSA published such a 

notice in October 2011, inviting postsecondary schools to participate in any of 8 different 

experiments1, two of which expanded Pell grant eligibility for students seeking job training. That 

notice also specified the institutions’ obligations to provide data and to ensure that a control or 

comparison group could be formed so that the effects of participating in the experiments could be 

evaluated. In subsequent webinars, FSA has provided additional detail to interested institutions 

about the demonstrations and the evaluation.

1. The Two Pell Grant Experiments (PGE)

Under the current ESI, postsecondary schools will receive waivers to enable them to provide 

Pell Grants to students who would not otherwise qualify under current Pell Grant rules. The PGE

evaluation will include two substudies, each of which relaxes one eligibility criterion for receipt of a 

Pell Grant:

1. Experiment 1. Students who already hold a bachelor’s degree and who document that 

they are unemployed or underemployed will be able to receive Pell Grant award 

support. This support can be for up to a one-year program of vocational education 

intended to help them obtain employment, to be used over no more than two award 

years. Current rules do not allow individuals with a bachelor’s degree to receive Pell 

support unless it is to be used for teacher certification or licensure.

2. Experiment 2. Students will be able to receive a prorated amount of Pell Grant financial 

support for short-term vocational training that lasts for at least 150 clock hours over a 

 

1 See https://experimentalsites.ed.gov/exp/index.html
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

2

period of at least 8 weeks. Current rules require that a student’s academic program is at 

least 600 clock hours (or an equivalent in semester, trimester, or quarter hours) over at 

least 15 weeks to qualify for Pell support.

2. Selecting Schools

Schools that volunteered to implement Experiments 1 and 2, that were in good standing in 

administering Title IV programs (e.g., related to compliance, default rates, etc.), and that agreed to 

meet the requirements of the evaluation form the study school sample. ED expects the sample to 

include a maximum of 28 schools for Experiment 1 and 40 for Experiment 2, but with 

approximately 17 intending to participate in both experiments. Although there will be 51 distinct 

schools participating, because each experiment will be studied separately there will be a total of 68 

experiments underway. Each school will identify the set of vocational or job training programs to 

which the experiments will apply.

3. Identifying Eligible Students

Recruitment, enrollment, and random assignment of sample members into the PGE study will 

be the same for both substudies and will involve several steps (Figure A.1). Participating schools will 

recruit applicants and encourage them to submit both the Free Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA) (typically completed on line) and an application to the PGE-eligible program in which the 

student wants to enroll. Simultaneously or sequentially, FSA will process the FAFSA and the school 

will determine whether the student can be admitted to the vocational program. Students will receive 

a Student Aid Report (SAR) and schools an Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR), which 

provides an assessment of the applicant’s expected family contribution (EFC) towards his or her 

educational expenses. 

Because the potential participants in the study would not ordinarily be eligible for Pell grants, by 

virtue of their educational characteristics or their program, the PGE schools will need to determine a 

way to identify candidates for the experiments rather than processing their aid packages in the usual 

manner. Most likely, the institutions will ensure that financial aid office staff flag students who apply 

to the PGE eligible programs and review their ISIRs separately.

4. Random Assignment

Once candidates for the experiments are identified by the institutions, school staff will send 

these eligible individuals (evaluation contractor-provided) information about the study that also 

requests students’ consent to participate. School staff will data-enter into a web-accessible, studyspecific random assignment system the names and Social Security numbers of eligible admitted 

applicants who have given consent, as well as a very limited amount of other information about the 

individual and PGE program, so that random assignment can be conducted.2In real-time (with little 

delay), the school then will be notified of the research group status of each study participant. The 

proportion assigned to the treatment group versus control group will depend on the number of 

eligible candidates the institutions expect to identify. 

 

2 Randomly assigning within programs will promote treatment-control group balance on this important dimension. 

This might allow the evaluation to calculate impacts separately by occupational area.
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

3

Figure A.1. Stylized Model of the Recruitment, Enrollment, and Random Assignment Process for PGE When There Is Need-Blind Admissions

Based on regular 

rules, SAR sent to 

applicant and ISIR

sent to school

School determines 

whether applicant

is admitted to 

program

School submits 

admitted applicant’s

information to random 

assignment system

Is admitted applicant eligible 

for Pell support under

regular grant rules?

Does admitted 

applicant qualify

for Pell support under

Experiment 1 or 2?

Applicant is not 

part of study

Applicant completes

FAFSA and 

application for PGEeligible program

School determines

financial aid package, 

including Pell grant

School does not modify 

original financial aid 

package, which does not 

include a Pell grant

Financial aid package sent to 

admitted applicant

Admitted applicant decides

whether to enroll in school or

pursue another option (such as

enrolling at another school or

getting a job)

FAFSA sent

to FSA

Yes

No

Yes

PGE school 

identifies potential

applicants

Is admitted 

applicant 

assigned

to treatment or

control group?

Does admitted 

applicant provide 

consent?

School provides

study materials to 

admitted 

applicant

Yes
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

4

Control group members will have access to the normal financial support that they are eligible 

for (i.e., excluding a Pell Grant). Study participants assigned to the treatment group will be offered a 

Pell grant, and the school will take this into account in determining any other aid for which the 

student is eligible. The financial aid packages will then be provided to the study participants. 

Regardless of whether the participant is assigned to the treatment or control group, he or she can 

choose to enroll at the PGE school, enroll at another school to which he or she has been admitted, 

or pursue some other type of activity.

3

It is expected that schools in Experiment 1 will enroll 100 participants, on average, while 

schools in Experiment 2 will enroll 200 participants into the study, for a total of 2,800 sample 

members in Experiment 1 and 8,000 in Experiment 2. Thus, total sample enrollment for the study

will be 10,800. The study participants will consist of individuals who have been determined to be 

eligible for the study under either experiment and who have consented to be in the study.

5. Collecting Data

Both substudies of PGE will have the same data collection plans. These collection plans include 

new burden imposed by two types of data collection efforts: (1) PGE school data for all study 

participants and (2) survey data for a subsample of 2,000 participants (out of 2,500 participants 

randomly selected for participation in the survey). The plans also include use of two other types of 

data—FSA data and annual earnings data maintained by the Social Security Administration (SSA)4

—that do not generate data collection burden on participating schools or students. These data are 

described in detail in Section A.2. Together, these data will provide a rich set of information from 

which we can estimate the impacts of expanded Pell grant eligibility on study participants’ 

employment and earnings, educational experiences, and student debt, as well as on the 

characteristics of participants and their vocational programs. 

6. Reporting

The schedules for sample enrollment and program participation, as well as when post-program 

outcomes can be observed, drives the project’s reporting schedule. The study is expected to last five 

years, from spring 2012 to June 2017 (Figure A.2)

5

. Enrollment of school applicants into the study is 

expected to start in summer 2012. Although each of the 68 experiments in the study might take a 

slightly different amount of time to complete its enrollment of study participants, enrollment for the 

study is expected to continue through spring 2014. 

 

3 The particular methods that schools use to recruit potential sample members and any screening that is conducted 

to assess applicants’ interest levels in the PGE program before random assignment is conducted will have an influence 

on the rate at which study participants enroll in the PGE program. 

4 There is also some possibility of obtaining quarterly wage data from the National Directory of New Hires 

(NDHD) maintained by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. There is pending legislation to expand 

access to the database for federal research purposes. If this access is available during the evaluation period, we would 

consider substituting NDNH data for the FSA annual earnings data.

5 While Ed would prefer to have an additional, longer-term follow up on earnings, study resources do not currently 

allow for that.
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

5

Most of the study participants who enroll in Experiment 2 are expected to complete their 

participation in education or training in a fairly short time (two to four months), while participants 

who enroll in Experiment 1 are expected to take 9-14 months but could be up to two years if 

attending less than full-time. It is expected that all sample members who participate in a PGE 

program will complete their training program by late 2014. The first full post-program calendar year 

for all study participants will be 2015, although many of the participants who entered the study early 

in the sample enrollment period are expected to have had a full year of post-program experiences 

prior to then. SSA data covering calendar year 2015 is expected to be available for analysis in 

preliminary form in spring/summer 2016, making it possible to draft a report and have it go through 

IES’ statutorily required review process for publication in late spring 2017. 

A1. Circumstances Necessitating the Data Collection

Federal Pell grants are considered the foundation of higher education financial aid for lowincome students. Available to those with family incomes up to $60,000, most Pell awards go to 

students with family incomes below $30,000. In 2009-2010, 8 million students received Pell grants

to attend some kind of postsecondary education or training, at a total cost of $30 billion in 

government expenditures (U.S. Department of Education 2010). 

However, not all income eligible students obtain a Pell grant. For example, among 

postsecondary students from households with income below $10,000, 58 percent received a Pell 

grant while the remaining 42 percent did not (Baum and Payea 2011). Some may be unaware that 

such aid is available or are unable to complete the process of obtaining the grants. But with 

unemployment above 8.5 percent in 2011, and some reports of unfilled openings for skilled jobs in 

some occupations6, higher education institutions have called for expanding Pell grants to help fill the 

skill training gap for low-income workers. The Pell grant experiments under the ESI provide an 

opportunity to test out the use of federal funds in this way. 

Under the ESI statute, the Secretary is required to review and evaluate the experiences of 

institutions that participate as experimental sites and, on a biennial basis, submit a report based on 

the review and evaluation to the authorizing committees (section 487A(b)(2)). If the study’s 

proposed data collection were not undertaken, ED would not be able to fulfill this mandate; the 

demonstrations – and the funds set aside for them -- would not yield rigorous evidence on whether 

expanding eligibility to underemployed and underemployed individuals with bachelor’s degrees 

(Experiment 1) or to individuals applying to short-term career training programs (Experiment 2) can 

raise their employment and earnings. The collaboration between IES and FSA on this PGE 

demonstration and random assignment evaluation will provide credible and reliable information to 

help guide future policy decisions in this area of federal financial aid.

In particular, the data collection for and evaluation of the two Pell Grant experiments will 

address the following research questions:

 

6See, for example, interviews with manufacturing executives: 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44838614/Need_Work_US_Has_3_2_Million_Unfilled_Job_Openings; 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d586922-21f0-11e1-8b93-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1queCR3E0
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

6

1. Characteristics of Participating Schools’ Programs and Applicants

 What are the characteristics of the education or training programs identified by 

participating institutions as most suitable for the experiments (e.g., field of study, 

intensity, duration, and cost)? How are study applicants distributed across them?

 What are the personal and family background characteristics of individuals who qualify 

for each of the experiments?

 To what extend does the availability of Pell grants for short-term training under the 

experiments shift enrollments from longer-term programs traditionally eligible under 

Title IV to shorter ones?

2. Education-Related Outcomes

 To what extent does the offer of a Pell grant affect enrollment in the participating 

institutions’ education and training programs? In what kinds of programs do study

participants enroll?

 Do students not offered a Pell grant go elsewhere for skills training?

 What is the impact on education and training outcomes overall (e.g., credits earned, 

completion rates, time to complete, and credentials attained) and on access to support 

services such as job search assistance? 

 Does the offer of a Pell grant affect the amount of student debt incurred?

 How are education and training costs distributed across different types of financing 

strategies, such as grants, loans, and personal or family savings?

 Is there an impact on barriers that can hinder students from successfully completing 

their education and training plans?

3. Employment-Related Outcomes

 What is the impact of being offered a Pell grant on short-term employment rates and 

earnings levels?

 What are the characteristics of jobs attained (e.g., relatedness to PGE program, 

duration, availability of fringe benefits)?
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

7

Figure A.2. Time Line for the Pell Grant Experiments Study

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Contract Month Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun

1. PGE School Planning Phase

2. Study Participant Enrollment

3. Expected Program Completion Period

4. FSA Data Extraction

5. Data Extracts from PGE Schools 

6. Analysis of PGE School Data

7. Analysis of SSA Data 

8. Survey Fielding Period

9. Analysis of Survey Data

10. Final Report

 Draft deliverable. Final deliverable. Data extract. 
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

8

A2. How, by Whom, and for What Purpose Is the Information to Be Used

Information for the PGE evaluation will be collected and analyzed by a contractor selected through a 

competitive procurement. Data from four sources will be used for the study: (1) PGE school data, (2) 

survey data, (3) FSA data, and (4) SSA data. Data from the first two sources generate new burden, while 

the other two do not. This section describes the four types of data in detail and then explains how each 

type of data will be used to answer the study’s research questions.

PGE school data. PGE schools will provide three types of data. First, on a weekly basis school staff, 

most likely in the financial aid office, will send the evaluation contractor the list of candidates identified as 

eligible for the experiments during that period and who have been sent consent material (see Table A.1). 

The list will include each candidate’s name, program, and the date consent material was sent to him or her. 

This will allow the contractor to track the consent process and ensure that only students with consent 

participate in the demonstrations. 

The second type of PGE school data is that needed for random assignment. School staff will need to 

enter a limited amount of identifying information – name, SSN, date of birth, and program – about all 

study participants with consent into a web-accessible system. Entering this data will ensure that: (1) the 

integrity of the random assignment process is maintained; (2) no individual goes through random 

assignment more than once; and (3) the treatment and control groups are balanced on important 

characteristics. The data will be collected on a rolling basis as individuals enter the study.

The third type of data PGE schools will provide pertains to characteristics of students who have 

enrolled at the school, regardless of whether the study participants were assigned to the treatment or 

control group. These data will provide information about the rates of enrollment at PGE schools, the 

types of programs in which the students enrolled, and the students’ progress and completion rates. The 

data also will contain information about the financial aid offers given to study participants, regardless of 

whether or not they enrolled at the school. The first extract of these data, to be provided around February

2013, will be used to test the data collection process and ensure that schools correctly record data items.

The second extract, to be provided around February 2014, will contain most of the study sample that

enrolls at PGE schools. The third extract, to be provided around February 2015, will include the full 

expected history of participants’ PGE-related program experiences. This extract is timed so that it can 

include the program experiences of participants who enter the study near the end of the sample enrollment 

period and who participate in relatively long programs. However, collecting these school data extracts on 

an annual basis will be important to ensure that the data are being properly collected and retained for the 

study’s analysis.

Survey data. The survey of study participants is expected to take about 15 minutes to administer, and 

will collect information about participation in education and training programs; the methods used to pay 

for their education and training, such as the types of grants and loans received and the amount of student 

debt incurred; receipt of job search assistance from schools and other organizations; and employment and 

earnings outcomes. The survey data will cover experiences at both PGE and non-PGE schools. This is 

critical because it is expected that some study participants—from either the treatment group or the control 

group—will attend schools other than the PGE schools. (In contrast, the PGE school administrative data 

will cover enrollment experiences at PGE schools only.) Furthermore, the survey data will provide 

additional detail about sample members’ employment experiences compared to what will be available 

through the SSA data described later.
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

9

Given the funding available for the study, the survey will be fielded with a random subsample of 2,500

study participants, from which 2,000 completed surveys are expected. The survey sample size will limit the 

precision of estimated impacts and thus these analyses will be considered exploratory. 

ED is exploring how best to balance the cost efficiencies of a relatively short survey fielding period 

with possible analysis and recall issues from surveying study participants at different points after their 

enrollment. One approach under consideration is to select survey participants from an early subset of the 

time window during which sample members enrolled in the study. This approach could allow for a 

somewhat compressed survey fielding effort, such as 12 months, which would be shorter than the full 

study enrollment period. Doing so would allow the survey to collect data on a uniform follow-up period 

for each survey participant, but the survey results might not generalize as well to all study participants. 

Another approach would be to randomly select for the survey study participants from the full enrollment 

period; if this approach is taken, then the lengths of follow-up could vary across survey respondents. 

Ultimately, however, the approach taken is not expected to affect the estimates of the burden created by 

the survey effort and reported in this package. 

FSA data. The main type of data to be provided by the FSA will come from the FAFSA form, which 

contains identifying, contact, and background information used to process individuals’ requests for federal 

student aid. For the PGE study, the identifying and locating information in the FAFSA will enable

evaluation researchers to find sample members and request their participation in the survey. The 

background information will be used to describe the characteristics of study participants. In addition, it will 

enhance the estimation of program impacts by allowing the influence of these characteristics to be netted 

out of the estimation process. These data will be collected three times. The first time will be in November 

2012 as a test of the data extraction process early in the study enrollment period. The second time will be 

in November 2013, so that the contact and locating information can be used to field the survey. The third 

time, in November 2014, will provide additional information available about sample members’ access to 

and use of financial aid (items that are not available through the FAFSA), as well as FAFSA information 

for any study participants that enroll after the previous extracts were provided. 

Table A.1. PGE Data Collection Plan

Data 

Type

New Data 

Collection 

Burden?

Frequency and Timing of 

Data Collection Data Items

PGE

School 

Data

Yes Rolling basis during sample 

intake from summer 2012 to 

early 2014

Study participants’ name, the PGE program to which he or she 

has applied, and the date consent materials were sent, for 

purpose of tracking consent

Yes Rolling basis during sample 

intake from summer 2012 to 

early 2014

Study participants’ name, SSN, and date of birth, as well as 

the PGE program to which he or she has applied, for purpose 

of random assignment

Yes 3 times (February 2013,

2014, and 2015)

Start/stop dates for enrollment at school, characteristics of 

the education/training participated in, credits earned, 

credentials attained, financial aid offered and received,

placement and support services provided

Survey 

Data

Yes July 2014 through March 

2015

Participation in and characteristics of education/training,

financial aid and student debts, employment-related and 

other assistance received, employment and earnings 

outcomes

FSA Data No 3 times (November of2012,

2013, and 2014)

Identifying information; locating information; background 

information on demographics, educational attainment,

income, and assets, financial aid obtained

SSA Data No 1 times (fall 2016) Annual earnings from Social-Security-covered employment, for 

calendar years 2011 through 2015
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

10

SSA data. Each year, employers are required to report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) the total 

earnings subject to Social Security for the calendar year. SSA receives these data from IRS to determine 

eligibility for Social Security benefits. The Master Earnings File contains earnings records for each worker 

with a SSN who has worked in covered employment.7 To protect the privacy of individuals, SSA does not 

release earnings data for individuals. Instead, it provides summary earnings statistics for groups of people. 

Accordingly, the study team will request that SSA run computer programs to estimate earnings impacts 

(that is, differences in mean earnings between treatment and control group members) and their associated 

levels of statistical significance. The process will involve having the study team send to SSA a data file 

containing identifying information (such as SSN, name, and date of birth) and other data needed to run the 

computer programs, as well as the code for the computer programs. SSA will match the study sample to 

the Master Earnings File, run the computer programs, verify that output complies with regulations related 

to the privacy of the data, and send to the study team the output from these computer runs.

The Master Earnings data are updated annually, with more than 90 percent of the records updated by 

August of the following calendar year. These data are complete by the following February. Hence, the lag 

in obtaining earnings information is about 8 to 14 months. For example, data pertaining to calendar year 

2015 will become available in preliminary form in August 2016. The analysis will use SSA data from 

calendar years 2011 through 2015. Data covering calendar year 2011 will provide a clean measure of 

baseline earnings for all sample members. Data covering calendar year 2015 will provide a clean measure 

of post-program earnings for all sample members, including those who are among the last to enroll in the 

study. Data covering calendar years 2012 through 2014 will reflect a mix of earnings before, during, and 

after education and training, depending on when the study participants begin and end their programs.8

 

7 About 96 percent of all workers in employment or self-employment are covered under the Old-Age, Survivors, and 

Disability Insurance (OASDI) program (Social Security Administration 2001). Workers who are not covered include (1) civilian 

federal employees hired before 1984, (2) railroad workers, (3) some employees of state and local governments who are covered 

under their employers’ retirement systems, (4) people with net annual earnings from self-employment below $400, and (5) 

domestic and farm workers with low earnings.

8 It would be preferable to obtain employment and earnings data from the Unemployment Insurance system maintained 

by state and/or local workforce agencies. Such data is collected quarterly and contain additional information (e.g., occupational 

area of employment) that would be useful in either adding to or verifying information obtained through the survey. However, 

based on the Department of Labor’s experience, pursuing this approach would likely take too long and be too costly given the 

limitations of the Pell Grant Experiments evaluation.
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

11

Table A.2. Use of the Data to Answer Study Research Questions

Research Question

Main Impacts,

Exploratory Impacts,

or Descriptive 

Question

PGE

Schools 

Data

Survey 

Data

FSA 

Data

SSA 

Data

Characteristics of the School Applicants and their Desired Education or Training Programs

 What are the characteristics of the education or training 

programs identified by participating institutions as most 

suitable for the experiments (e.g., field of study, intensity, 

duration, and cost)? How are study applicants distributed 

across the programs?

Descriptive X X X

 What are the personal and family background 

characteristics of individuals who qualify for each of the 

experiments?

Descriptive X X

Education-Related Outcomes

 What is the impact on participation in PGE education and 

training programs of access to Pell Grant funding by 

individuals who qualify for Experiment 1 or Experiment 2?

Main impacts X X

 For each substudy, what are the characteristics of the 

education and training programs in which study 

participants enroll, such as the field of study, intensity,

duration, and cost?

Descriptive X X

 For each substudy, what is the impact of access to Pell 

Grants on study participants’ education and training 

outcomes, such as their credits earned, completion rates,

and credentials attained?

Exploratory impacts X X

 For each substudy, what is the impact of access to Pell 

Grants on the amount of student debt incurred by study 

participants?

Exploratory impacts X X

 For each substudy, how are the costs of study participants’ 

education and training distributed across different types of

financing strategies, such as grants, loans, and personal or 

family savings?

Descriptive X X

 What is the impact of access to Pell Grants on barriers that 

study participants from successfully completing their 

education and training plans?

Exploratory impacts X X

Employment-Related Outcomes

 For each substudy, what is the impact of access to Pell 

Grant funding on study participants’ employment rates and 

earnings levels?

Main impacts X X

 For each substudy, what are the characteristics of jobs that 

study participants attain? Descriptive X X

A3. Uses of Improved Technology to Reduce Burden

The study will primarily rely on electronic technology to collect data. For each data collection activity, 

IES has selected the form of technology that will provide reliable information while minimizing 

respondent burden. This section describes the four activities and their use of technology to reduce burden.

1. Collection of PGE school data. Two types of data will be collected from participating PGE

schools: (1) a very limited amount of identifying information so that random assignment can 

be conducted; and (2) data extracts on the types of training programs that participants enroll

in, their educational outcomes, and financial aid information. For the first type of data, the 

PGE study will use a web-based random assignment database that will facilitate ease of data 

entry by PGE school staff. The second type of data will be acquired in electronic format 

whenever possible to reduce the burden on PGE schools in providing the data. The 

contractor will set up a FTP site so that participating schools can upload data extracts easily 

and securely.
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

12

2. Collection of survey data. The survey instrument for this evaluation has been designed to be 

mode-neutral, which means that it can be easily adapted to be completed through any of these 

three modes—online, telephone, or mail. Allowing respondents to choose the survey mode 

they are most comfortable with can decrease response burden and signals flexibility to 

respondents. Nonetheless, among the modes a respondent may choose between, a web survey 

is preferred because it will lead to the highest response rate and lowest respondent burden.

9

 In 

addition, it provides valuable cost efficiencies in the administration of the survey. Although an 

online survey will likely provide most of the responses, telephone and paper modes will be 

offered to sample members who do not respond to the online survey. The current expectation 

is that approximately 50 percent of respondents will complete the survey online, and 

completion rates for telephone and mail are expected to be 30 percent and 20 percent, 

respectively. 

3. Collection of FSA data about study participants. Data available from the FSA office within 

ED will include the FAFSA for each study participant, as well as other information about their 

continued eligibility and receipt of federal financial aid. The FSA data extraction efforts will 

proceed using the established technology standards and protocols for secure transmission of 

the data.

4. Use of Social Security earnings data for study participants. The data maintained by SSA

will not be directly available to the evaluation researchers; rather, the evaluation team will 

provide electronic computer programs to SSA staff who will run the programs on the data and 

provide output to the evaluation team.

A4. Efforts to Identify Duplication

In designing the PGE evaluation, the study team has examined existing literature and data sources to 

ensure that this effort does not duplicate existing or available data. To the extent possible, we are relying 

on extant data and will merely obtain it from the appropriate agencies. Data on the program experiences 

and labor market outcomes of the target populations can be obtained only through the proposed data 

collection design.

The PGE school and survey data elements, for which OMB approval for data collection are requested 

in this package, do not currently exist for this study’s target populations (that is, students currently 

ineligible for Pell Grant eligibility) and can be collected only through the proposed data collection plan. 

Neither of these two types of data will contain information identical to that available through the FSA, 

SSA earnings records, or other sources. For example, although both the survey and SSA records will 

contain information about sample members’ employment and earnings, the employment and earnings 

measures from each data source will differ. The SSA data will contain information about earnings from 

jobs covered by Social Security and aggregated to a single total for a calendar year. In contrast, the survey 

 

9 In addition to capturing time-stamp information on participants, web administration allows instrument programming to

route respondents through the questionnaire without relying on them to ensure that skip patterns are followed. Web 

administration also allows respondents to take the survey at their own pace at a time that is convenient for them (saving their 

responses, exiting the survey, and returning to the survey later). Moreover, the web pages that display the survey questionnaire 

can be designed to work well with smart phones as well as laptop and desktop computers. The ability to complete the survey 

using a smart phone can increase online response rates, particularly among lower income populations that are more likely to 

have smart phones than desktop or laptop computers. 
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

13

data will provide information about the sample member’s hours worked, wage rate, occupation, and 

satisfaction with the current job. Including both the survey and SSA data in the study is important because 

the survey data will not be available for all sample members. 

In addition, although both the survey and the PGE schools administrative data will provide 

information about sample members’ participation in education or training at PGE schools, the measures 

that are available from each source will differ. Thus, it is important for the study to collect data from both 

sources. Because administrative records data are not subject to recall bias, it is expected that they will 

provide more accurate information for some topics, such as the dates that study participants start and stop 

their enrollment in an education or training program. In addition, the administrative data will be available 

for all sample members. However, the administrative data will not contain any information about sample 

members’ participation in education and training programs not offered at PGE schools. In contrast, the 

survey data will collect information about education and training program experiences at all schools. 

Furthermore, the survey data will provide information about some topics that are unavailable through 

administrative records, such as why participants discontinued involvement in a program.

A5. Methods to Minimize Burden on Small Business Entities

This data collection effort does not involve small business or other small entities.

A6. Consequences of Not Collecting the Data

The data collected through this study will enable the evaluation to generate unbiased estimates of the 

impacts of possible changes to Pell Grant eligibility rules on participants’ education, training, employment 

and earnings. Given the cost implications of making these eligibility changes on a larger scale, evidence on 

impact is crucial. Without collecting the planned data for Experiments 1 and 2, only limited information 

will be available to justify the use of current funds OMB has set aside for the demonstrations.

Most of the data for this evaluation will be obtained from administrative data housed by PGE 

schools, the FSA, and the SSA. The survey component of the data collection effort, however, is also 

critical. The information collected through the survey instrument is the only direct input the study team 

will obtain from actual program participants. Data collected from the survey will support an in-depth 

understanding of the participation patterns and perceptions of the group of students the program intends 

to benefit. Moreover, because the survey will measure respondents’ assessments of the quality of their 

educational and training experiences, the survey is the primary means by which the evaluation can explore 

how specific aspects of training affect labor market outcomes. In this regard, the detailed data collected 

through the survey instrument allows for an assessment of the causal mechanisms that relate specific 

training experiences and skills with labor market outcomes.

A7. Special Data Collection Circumstances

This data collection does not involve any special circumstances.

A8. Federal Register Notice

As required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), a 60-day Federal Register notice was published (May 2, 2012) and a 

30-day notice will be published. The Federal Register announcements provide the public an opportunity to 

review and comment on the planned data collection and evaluation. Consultations on the research design, 

random assignment of participants to treatment and control groups, survey sample design, questionnaire 
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

14

instrument revisions, and data collection will be part of the evaluation’s design phase. These consultations 

will further ensure the technical soundness of the study and the relevance of the findings.

A9. Respondent Payments

The survey component of the evaluation aims to provide detailed information on study participants’ 

engagement in and satisfaction with the training programs in which they participate (offered by both PGE 

and non-PGE schools) as well as their self-reported labor market status and experiences, their 

participation in services to help them to attain employment, and their experiences financing their 

education. A survey will be conducted for subsamples of members of both the treatment and control 

groups in Experiments 1 and 2 in order to learn about their experiences under both the new Pell Grant

eligibility rules and the current eligibility rules. Given this goal, it is critical to maximize cooperation among 

treatment and control group members and ensure high survey response rates, thereby ensuring the 

representativeness of the survey sample and providing data that are complete, valid, reliable, and unbiased. 

To this end, providing a modest payment to study participants who complete the survey is expected to 

significantly increase response rates and ensure that the data collected from the sample is representative. 

Respondent payments can help achieve high response rates by increasing the sample members’ propensity 

to respond (Singer et al. 2000). Studies offering respondent payments typically demonstrate decreased 

refusal rates and increased contact and cooperation rates. Among sample members who initially refuse to 

be interviewed, the payments increase refusal-conversion rates. Expenditures used for respondent 

payments can help contain costs of administering the survey by increasing cooperation, which reduces the 

costs associated with recruiting additional survey participants. The use of respondent payments has 

become common practice for survey studies in recent years (Curtin et al. 2005).

IES plans to provide a two-tiered incentive structure to encourage high survey response rates. In both 

cases, a $5 up front payment will be mailed to each survey sample member, along with a letter informing 

them about the survey and encouraging them to complete. Under the two-tiered approach, the study team 

will offer an additional $10 payment to respondents who complete the survey online. The total $15 

incentive is consistent with ED and OMB guidelines and is a gesture to thank individuals for the time they 

spend completing the survey interview. The second-tier incentive offers a $5 additional payment to 

respondents who complete the survey either by telephone or mail. The lower amount is intended to help 

offset the higher completion costs associated with telephone and mail survey modes and to encourage 

respondents to select the less-expensive online option.

Such a sign of appreciation motivates sample members to participate in a survey. The current study 

plan involves an initial email invitation to the sample members that will invite them to follow a web link 

that directly connects them to the survey instrument. For those sample members without email addresses, 

the study team will attempt to make contact by telephone and provide an option to take the survey online, 

over the telephone, or by mail. Prospective respondents contacted in this fashion will be offered the $15 

payment during this recruitment phase for taking the survey online. As explained above, the $10 incentive 

will be offered for completion of the survey by telephone or mail.

A10. Confidentiality

Policies and procedures related to confidentiality, physical and technical safeguards, and approaches to 

the treatment of personally identifiable information (PII) will be followed to ensure the confidentiality and 

protection of all data collected about study participants.
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

15

a. Confidentiality Policy

ED, its evaluation contractor (which has yet to be selected), and all other parties involved in the 

evaluation of the PGE will follow the policies and procedures required by the Education Sciences Reform 

Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183. The act requires “All collection, maintenance, use, and wide 

dissemination of data by the Institute” to “conform with the requirements of section 552 of title 5, United 

States Code, the confidentiality standards of subsection (c) of this section, and sections 444 and 445 of the 

General Education Provision Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g, 1232h).” These citations refer to the Privacy Act, the 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment. In addition,

for student information, “The Director shall ensure that all individually identifiable information about 

students, their academic achievements, their families, and information with respect to individual schools, 

shall remain confidential in accordance with section 552a of title 5, United States Code, the confidentiality 

standards of subsection (c) of this section, and sections 444 and 445 of the General Education Provision 

Act.” Subsection (c) of section 183 referenced above requires the director of the Institute of Education 

Sciences to “develop and enforce standards designed to protect the confidentiality of persons in the

collection, reporting, and publication of data.” Subsection (d) of section 183 prohibits disclosure of 

individually identifiable information as well as making the publishing or communicating of individually

identifiable information by employees or staff a felony.

b. Confidentiality Safeguards

ED, the evaluation contractor, and all other parties involved in the evaluation of the PGE will protect 

the confidentiality of all information collected for the study and will use it for research purposes only. No 

information that identifies any study participant will be released. Information from participating 

institutions and respondents will be presented at aggregate levels in reports. Information on respondents 

will be linked to their institution but not to any individually identifiable information. No individually 

identifiable information will be maintained by the study team after the information is no longer necessary 

for the purpose of conducting the study and fulfilling contractual requirements. ED will require the 

evaluation contractor to keep hard copies of documents in securely locked file cabinets, electronic data 

files to be encrypted, and access to study files to be strictly limited to study staff who have been identified 

by the project director as having a need to view those files. Respondents will be given written assurance in 

all advance materials about the PGE study data collection (and verbal reminders during administration of 

the survey by telephone) that the information they provide will be kept private and will not be disclosed to 

anyone but the researchers authorized to conduct the study, except as otherwise required by law. 

Furthermore, ED will require all institution-level identifiable information to be kept in secured locations 

and identifiers to be destroyed as soon as they are no longer required.

In addition, the following language will appear on all letters, brochures, and/or other study materials: 

Per the policies and procedures required by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183, 

responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize 

findings across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific district or individual. We will not provide 

information that identifies you or your district to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law. Any willful 

disclosure of such information for nonstatistical purposes, without the informed consent of the respondent, is a class E felony.

A11. Questions of a Sensitive Nature

None of the survey questions is considered sensitive. The survey instrument (Appendix A), has, 

whenever possible, been developed based on questions from existing education and labor market surveys. 
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

16

Moreover, the beginning of the survey instrument explains that respondents may decline to answer a 

question if they would like; thus, if a respondent prefers not to answer a question that he or she deems 

sensitive, then he or she will be able to continue to respond to other questions.

A12. Hour Burden of Collection of Information

The planned study includes two separate hour burden estimates: (1) the hour burden imposed on 

PGE schools to provide data for the study and (2) the hour burden for respondents who are contacted 

and complete the survey. Both burden estimates are presented next.

Estimated hour burden for PGE school data. The planned evaluation includes three types of data 

collection efforts from PGE schools (Table A.3). The first is the effort to provide the evaluation 

contractor with lists of eligible candidates identified for the two experiments each week and the dates that 

consent materials were mailed. There are 28 PGE schools participating in Experiment 1 and 40 schools in 

Experiment 2. While some schools will participate in both, for the purposes of estimating burden we 

consider there to be a total of 68 PGE school experiments. Schools participating in Experiment 1 are 

expected to have an average of about 100 study participants while schools in Experiment 2 are expected to 

have an average of about 200 study participants. It is expected that the effort required to record and send 

the data to the evaluator on a weekly basis is 10 minutes per participant. For Experiment 1, this time 

equals 466.67 hours (28 school experiments x 100 participants per school x 10 minutes per participant 

divided by 60 minutes per hour). For Experiment 2, the comparable estimate of burden is 1,333.33 hours 

(40 schools x 200 participants per school x 10 minutes per participant divided by 60 minutes per hour).

The second data collection effort involves the recording of a limited amount of information about 

individuals in the study-specific random assignment database. It is expected that the processing time and 

effort required for data entry of sample members into the database is similar to that of recording 

candidates and consent dates, or 10 minutes per participant. Given the number of schools in each 

experiment and the expected number of participants at each school, as described above, for Experiment 1 

the estimated time required equals 466.67 hours (28 school experiments x 100 participants per school x 10 

minutes per participant divided by 60 minutes per hour). For Experiment 2, the comparable estimate of 

burden is 1,333.33 hours (40 schools x 200 participants per school x 10 minutes per participant divided by 

60 minutes per hour).

The final type of data collection effort from PGE schools involves three waves of administrative data 

extraction. It is assumed that each extraction, regardless of the wave or the type of experiment in which a 

school participates, will take 8 hours. Hence, the total time for PGE schools in Experiment 1 to extract 

and process the administrative data records is 672 hours (28 schools x 3 extracts per school x 8 hours per 

extract). Similarly, the total time for PGE schools in Experiment 2 is 960 hours (40 schools x 3 extracts 

per school x 8 hours per extract).

Summing the total hours from the three different types of data collection processes for each 

experiment leads to burden estimates of 1,605.34 hours for Experiment 1 and 3626.66 hours for 

Experiment 2. The total burden for PGE school data collection, across both experiments, equals 5,232.00

hours. 
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

17

Table A.3. Hour Burden Estimates for PGE Schools

n.a. = not applicable.

Estimated hour burden for survey respondents. The planned evaluation includes one survey of 

study participants in Experiments 1 and 2. The same survey instrument will be used for all respondents. 

The survey of Experiment 1 participants will include a total of 1,000 respondents equally stratified by 

treatment and control groups (approximately 500 respondents per group). The survey of Experiment 2 

participants will also contain 1,000 respondents with equal representation across treatment and control 

groups. With a targeted response rate of 80 percent, the total sample size needed to obtain 1,000 

completed surveys for Experiment 1 is approximately 1,250 participants (500 x 2/0.8). The same survey 

design will be used to collect data for Experiment 2 respondents; a total sample of 1,250 participants is 

expected in order to collect 1,000 completed surveys for Experiment 2.

For both Experiments 1 and 2, the time to complete the survey is estimated to be 15 minutes. Table 

A.4 provides the total hour burden estimates for survey respondents. The total hour burden for survey 

respondents in Experiment 1, therefore, is estimated to be 15,000 minutes (1,000 respondents x 15 

minutes per respondent), which when divided by 60 equals 250 hours. This same formula is used to 

determine the hour burden for respondents in Experiment 2, which also produces a burden of 250 hours. 

Together, Experiments 1 and 2 yield a total respondent burden of 500 hours.

Experiment

Number of PGE

School

Experiments

Number of 

Participants per 

PGE School

Frequency of 

Collection

Average 

Processing 

Time

Burden 

(Hours)

Experiment 1

List of Candidates and 

Date Consent Materials 

Mailed 28 100

Once per study 

participant

10 minutes per 

study 

participant 466.67

Data Entry into the 

Random Assignment 

Database 28 100

Once per study 

participant

10 minutes per 

study 

participant 466.67

Extraction of School 

Enrollment Records 28 n.a.

3 extracts per 

school

8 hours per 

extract 672.00

Subtotal 28 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,605.34

Experiment 2

List of Candidates and 

Date Consent Materials 

Mailed 40 200

Once per study 

participant

10 minutes per 

study 

participant 1,333.33

Data Entry into the 

Random Assignment 

Database 40 200

Once per study 

participant

10 minutes per 

study 

participant 1,333.33

Extraction of School 

Enrollment Records 40 n.a.

3 extracts per 

school

8 hours per 

extract 960.00

Subtotal 40 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3,626.66

Total for Both 

Experiments 68 100-200 n.a. n.a. 5,232.00
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

18

Table A.4. Hour Burden Estimates for Survey Data Collection

Respondents

Number of 

Respondents

Frequency of 

Collection

Average Time per 

Sample Member

Burden 

(Hours)

Experiment 1

Respondents 1,000 Once 15 minutes 250

Subtotal 1,000 Once n.a. 250

Experiment 2

Respondents 1,000 Once 15 minutes 250

Subtotal 1,000 Once n.a. 250

Total for Both Experiments 2,000 Once n.a. 500

n.a. = not applicable.

Total estimated hour burden for all data collection. Summing the hour burden estimates from the 

PGE school data collection and the survey data collection yields the total burden expected for the PGE

study. As shown in Table A.5, the total expected burden equals 1,855.34 hours for Experiment 1 and 

3,876.66 hours for Experiment 2. The total burden for all respondents across both experiments, equals 

5,732.00 hours.

Table A.5. Total Hour Burden Estimates for Experiments 1 and 2

Experiment Burden (Hours)

Experiment 1

PGE Schools Data Collection 1,605.34

Survey Data Collection 250.00

Subtotal 1,855.34

Experiment 2

PGE Schools Data Collection 3,626.66

Survey Data Collection 250.00

Subtotal 3,876.66

Both Experiments

PGE Schools Data Collection 5,232.00

Survey Data Collection 500.00

Total for Both Experiments 5,732.00

PGE = Pell Grant Experiments.

There are two cost burden estimates included in this request for clearance: (1) the cost burden 

imposed on PGE schools for providing study data and (2) the costs imposed on survey respondents for 

taking the survey. Estimates for both data collection activities are provided next.

Estimated cost burden for PGE school data. As shown in Section A.12, the estimated total hour 

burden for PGE school data collection is 5,232 (1,605.34 for Experiment 1 and 3,626.66 for Experiment 

2). The average hourly wage, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) average hourly earnings of 

production and nonsupervisory employees on private, nonfarm payrolls, is $19.42 (May 2011 Employment 

Situation Table B-8, Current Employment Statistics, BLS, U.S. Department of Labor). Multiplying the 

total number of hours by the average hourly wage yields a total cost estimate of $101,606 (5,232 hours x 

$19.42 per hour). Table A.6 provides separate cost burden estimates for Experiments 1 and 2 as well as the 

total combined cost estimate.
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

19

Table A.6. Cost Burden Estimates for PGE Schools

Data Collection Activity Total Burden Hours Average Hourly Wage Total Cost

Experiment 1

List of Candidates and Date Consent 

Materials Mailed

466.67 $19.42 $9,063

Data Entry into the Random Assignment 

Database

466.67 $19.42 $9,063

Extraction of School Enrollment Records 672.00 $19.42 $13,050

Subtotal 1,605.34 $19.42 $31,176

Experiment 2

List of Candidates and Date Consent 

Materials Mailed

1,333.33 $19.42 $25,893

Data Entry into the Random Assignment 

Database

1,333.33 $19.42 $25,893

Extraction of School Enrollment Records 960.00 $19.42 $18,643

Subtotal 3,626.66 $19.42 $70,430

Total for Both Experiments 5,232.00 $19.42 $101,606

Estimated cost burden for survey respondents. The estimated total hour burden for survey 

respondents is 500 hours (250 x 2), which is the sum of the burden from Experiments 1 and 2. The cost 

burden per hour for the survey is calculated based on the same hourly wage, $19.42, as the cost burden per 

hour for the PGE schools data collection effort. Multiplying the total number of hours by the average 

hourly wage yields a total cost estimate of $4,855 per experiment, or $9,710 for both experiments 

combined. Table A.7 provides the total hour burden estimates for the survey data collection in 

Experiments 1 and 2 as well as the total cost estimate.

Total estimated cost burden for all data collection. Summing the cost burden estimates from the 

PGE school data collection and the survey data collection yields the total burden expected for the PGE

study. As shown in Table A.8, the total expected burden equals 1,855.34 hours for Experiment 1 and 

3,876.66 hours for Experiment 2; the total burden for both experiments equals 5,732 hours. Multiplying 

these hour burden estimates by the average wage of $19.42 yields cost burden estimates of $36,031 for 

Experiment 1, $75,285 for Experiment 2, and $111,316 for both experiments combined.

Table A.7. Cost Burden Estimates for Survey Data Collection

Data Collection Activity

Total Burden 

Hours Average Hourly Wage Total Cost

Experiment 1

Respondents 250 $19.42 $4,855

Subtotal 250 $19.42 $4,855

Experiment 1

Respondents 250 $19.42 $4,855

Subtotal 250 $19.42 $4,855

Total for Both Experiments 500 $19.42 $9,710
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

20

Table A.8. Total Cost Burden Estimates for Experiments 1 and 2

Experiment Total Burden Hours Average Hourly Wage Cost Burden

Experiment 1

PGE Schools Data Collection 1,605.34 $19.42 $31,176

Survey Data Collection 250.00 $19.42 $4,855

Subtotal 1,855.34 $19.42 $36,031

Experiment 2

PGE Schools Data Collection 3,626.66 $19.42 $70,430

Survey Data Collection 250.00 $19.42 $4,855

Subtotal 3,876.66 $19.42 $75,285

Both Experiments

PGE Schools Data Collection 5,232.00 $19.42 $101,606

Survey Data Collection 500.00 $19.42 $9,710

Total for Both Experiments 5,732.00 $19.42 $111,316

PGE = Pell Grant Experiments.

A13. Estimated Total Cost Burden for Collection of Information

There are no start-up costs for this collection.

A14. Estimated Annualized Cost to the Federal Government

The annualized cost to the Federal government has only been estimated, not confirmed, and cannot 

be included in public documents because a competition for the evaluation contract is underway. In 

addition to the costs associated with collecting and analyzing the evaluation data, FSA will bear some costs 

because they will have to pay their contractor to write and execute queries to the National Student Loan 

Data System to allow for extraction of appropriate data to manage the two demonstration programs. 

A15. Changes in Burden

This is a new information collection request.

A16. Publication Plans and Project Schedule

The final publication plans have not yet been determined. ED plans to work with an independent 

evaluation contractor to finalize a publication and project schedule. Table A.9 provides a preliminary 

project schedule for the specific data collection activities for which clearance is requested, as well as for 

those that impose no new burden. The table also includes expected dates for the interim and final reports 

for the PGE study. The time lines are considered preliminary.
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

21

Table A.9. Preliminary Project Schedule of Activities

Activity Time Frame

Study Participant Enrollment July 2012 – January 2014

Expected Program Completion Period Fall 2012 – Fall 2014

FSA Data Extraction November 2012, November 2013, and November 2014

Data Extracts from PGE Schools February 2013, February 2014, and February 2015

Survey Fielding Period July 2014 - March 2015

SSA Data Analysis July 2016 through December 2016

Final Report June 2017

FSA = Federal Student Aid office; PGE = Pell Grant Experiments; SSA = Social Security Administration.

A17. Reasons for Not Displaying Expiration Date of OMB Approval

The expiration date for OMB approval will be displayed on all forms associated with this data 

collection.

A18. Exception to the Certification Statement

Exception to the certification statement is not requested for the data collection.
OMB Package for the Pell Grant Experiments

22

REFERENCES

Baum, Sandy and Kathleen Payea. Trends in Student Aid 2011. New York, NY: The College Board, 

2011.

Bettinger, Eric. “How Financial Aid Affects Persistence.” In College Choices: The Economics of Where 

to Go, When to Go, and How to Pay For It, edited by Caroline Minter Hoxby. Cambridge, MA: 

National Bureau of Economic Research, 2004.

Curtin, R., S. Presser, and Eleanor Singer. “Changes in Telephone Survey Nonresponse Over the 

Past Quarter Century.” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 69, no. 1, spring 2005, pp. 87–98.

Federal Register. “Postsecondary Educational Institutions Invited To Participate in Experiments 

Under the Experimental Sites Initiative.” vol. 76, no. 208, October 27, 2011. Available at 

[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-10-27/html/2011-27880.htm]. Accessed March 15, 

2012, pp. 66698–66707.

Seftor, Neil S. and Sarah E. Turner. “Back to School: Federal Student Aid Policy and Adult College 

Enrollment.” The Journal of Human Resources, vol. 37, no. 2, spring 2002, pp. 336-352.

Singer, Eleanor, John Van Hoewyk, and Mary P. Maher. “Experiments with Incentives in Telephone 

Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 64, no. 2, summer 2000, pp. 171–188.

Social Security Administration. “Social Security Bulletin: Annual Statistical Supplement 2001.” 

Washington, DC: Social Security Administration Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, 

2001.

U.S. Department of Education. “Federal Pell Grant Program.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Education, 2011. Available at [http://www2.ed.gov/programs/fpg/index.html]. Accessed 

March 15, 2012.

U.S. Department of Education. “2009-2010 Federal Pell Grant Program End-of-Year Report.” 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2010. Available at 

[http://www2.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/data/pell-2009-10/pell-eoy-09-10.pdf]. Accessed 

March 23, 2012.