Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 41675 

or removed that contain comments on 

the merits of the Information Collection 

Request will be retained in the public 

comment file and will be considered as 

required under the Administrative 

Procedure Act and other applicable 

laws, and may be accessible under the 

Freedom of Information Act. 

Burden Statement: Sections 37.10 and 

38.12 of the Commission’s regulations 

include information collection 

requirements within the meaning of the 

PRA. These regulations permit a SEF or 

DCM to submit a determination that a 

swap is available to trade to the 

Commission via filing procedures set 

forth in part 40 of the Commission’s 

regulations. The Commission estimates 

the burden of complying with these 

information collection requirements to 

be 16 hours per response. 

Respondents/Affected Entities: SEFs, 

DCMs. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5. 

Estimated Average Burden Hours per 

Respondent: 16. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 80 hours. 

Frequency of Collection: On occasion. 

There are no capital costs or operating 

and maintenance costs associated with 

this collection. 

(Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

Dated: July 8, 2022. 

Robert Sidman, 

Deputy Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14974 Filed 7–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

[Docket No. CFPB–2022–0045] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Comment Request 

Correction 

In notice document 2022–14474 

appearing on pages 40513–40514 in the 

issue of Thursday, July 7, 2022, make 

the following correction: 

On page 40514, in the first column, 

under the DATES heading, in the third 

line, ‘‘October 5, 2022’’ should read 

‘‘August 8, 2022’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2022–14474 Filed 7–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 0099–10–D 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID ED–2021–OESE–0152] 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Full-Service Community Schools 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) announces priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria under the Full-Service 

Community Schools (FSCS) program, 

Assistance Listing Number 84.215J. The 

Department may use these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for competitions in fiscal year 

(FY) 2022 and in later years. 

DATES: These priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

effective August 12, 2022 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

Hodgdon. U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 3E346, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 453–6620. Email: 

FSCS@ed.gov. 

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or 

have a speech disability and wish to 

access telecommunications relay 

services, please dial 7–1–1. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department intends these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria to support competitions under 

the FSCS program for the purpose of 

awarding grants to projects in different 

stages of development, from capacity 

building to scaling full-service 

community schools approaches where 

the community and education 

leadership are ready to scale. These 

stages represent points of entry at the 

local, district, regional, and State levels 

to strategically scale the community 

school approach based on the readiness 

of the consortium applying for the grant. 

Purpose of Program: The FSCS 

program, established under sections 

4621–4625 of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act, as amended 

(ESEA), provides support for the 

planning, implementation, and 

operation of full-service community 

schools that improve the coordination, 

integration, accessibility, and 

effectiveness of services for children 

and families, particularly for children 

attending schools with concentrated 

poverty, including rural schools. 

Program Authority: Sections 4621– 

4625 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 1771–7273, 

7275. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for this program in the 

Federal Register on January 12, 2022 

(87 FR 1709) (the NPP). That document 

contained background information and 

our reasons for proposing the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 43 parties 

submitted comments pertinent to the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. We 

discuss substantive issues under each 

priority, requirement, definition, or 

selection criteria to which they pertain. 

Generally, we do not address technical 

and other minor changes or suggested 

changes the law does not authorize us 

to make. In addition, we do not address 

comments that are outside the scope of 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria since 

publication of the NPP follows. 

Proposed Priority 1—Capacity 

Building and Development Grants. 

Comments: Among the 15 comments 

related to Proposed Priority 1, all 

expressed overall support for the 

importance of and need for the priority. 

Six commenters recommended 

revisions to Proposed Priority 1, 

including striking the word ‘‘sustain’’ to 

better reflect that this priority is focused 

on building grantee capacity and the 

initial development of full-service 

community schools. Six commenters 

suggested that the Department clarify 

that the needs assessment could be done 

during, rather than before, the grant 

period. Two commenters recommended 

that we designate Priority 1 as an 

absolute priority, and three suggested 

that we set the grant period at 3 years. 

One commenter recommended that the 

Department reduce the funding 

available for Priority 1 grantees, which 

in FY 2019 was established at $500,000 

per year for 5 years, at total of up to $2.5 

million for the full grant period. One 

commenter requested that we clarify 

that a grantee can scale beyond the two 

schools required in Priority 1. One 

commenter suggested that Priority 1 

should emphasize civic learning and 

development of civic knowledge and 

skills. Another commenter suggested 

that the Department require asset 

mapping as part of the needs 

assessment, as well as a clear plan for 

how the grantee will engage and 

collaborate with families. Another 

commenter suggested the Department 

encourage projects that approach 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
41676 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 

capacity building and development of 

programs holistically, including through 

collaboration and integration with early 

childhood education providers such as 

Head Start. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the support for the proposed 

priority and concurs that the purpose of 

Priority 1 is to encourage grantees to 

begin the work to develop full-service 

community schools. As such, the 

Department clarifies that the needs 

assessment can be completed during the 

grant period and will eliminate the 

word ‘‘sustain’’ from the description. 

The Department acknowledges the 

importance of a comprehensive, 

collaborative, equitable, accessible, 

culturally competent, and inclusive 

approach to completing a holistic and 

individualized needs assessment that 

considers community assets and 

engages a wide and representative range 

of participants, including families and 

early childhood educators such as Head 

Start providers. We are revising the 

language of the priority to include 

extensive community engagement as 

part of the development and 

coordination activities in Priority 1. The 

Department declines to require 

applicants to conduct asset mapping 

because the term is not used in section 

4625(a)(4) of the ESEA and we want to 

maintain maximum flexibility for 

applicants. Additionally, nothing in the 

priority prevents an applicant from 

conducting asset mapping. Pillar 3 of 

the FSCS requirements includes active 

family and community engagement, and 

we are revising the definition of a 

broadly representative consortium to 

include student, family, and community 

voices. The Department thinks that the 

activities outlined in Pillar 3, which 

specifies that the school provides 

centralized supports for families and 

communities, which may include 

citizenship preparation, allows for a 

wide variety of activities. We appreciate 

the specific ideas about the 

organizations, individuals, and 

activities an applicant or grantee might 

engage in their plans to develop a fullservice community school; maintaining 

the broad language in the priority, 

however, will allow for additional ideas. 

The Department appreciates the 

interest in distinguishing Priority 1 as 

an absolute priority that is focused on 

development and capacity building, 

including the recommendation to 

rename the priority to reflect that focus, 

reduce the grant period to 3 years, and 

reduce the level of funding for awards. 

Regarding the duration of FSCS grants, 

section 4623(b) of the ESEA establishes 

that ‘‘a grant awarded under this subpart 

shall be for a period of not more than 

5 years, and may be extended for an 

additional 2 years.’’ Applicants may 

propose shorter project periods, but the 

Department thinks it is important to 

allow applicants, including applicants 

that are building capacity and 

developing a full-service community 

school, with sufficient time to plan, 

develop and implement their project. A 

longer period of performance will also 

reduce the administrative burden on 

applicants by reducing the frequency of 

applications. As such, we decline the 

suggestion to shorten the length of the 

grant. The designation as an absolute, 

competitive preference, or invitational 

priority is established through the 

notice inviting applications (NIA). 

Section 4625(e) of the ESEA requires 

that FSCS grantees use their awards to 

coordinate three or more existing 

pipeline services and provide a 

minimum of two additional services at 

two or more public elementary or 

secondary schools. Given the statutory 

requirement that grantees coordinate 

existing services and provide additional 

services during their grant period, all 

FSCS grantees are required to 

implement a minimal number of fullservice community schools’ activities. 

The Department intends to reflect this 

requirement in the NIA and by 

maintaining the current title of the 

priority, Capacity Building and 

Development Grants. The priority 

allows for applications that propose to 

serve more than two schools, but we 

think the language that a grantee 

implement a full-service community 

school in ‘‘two or more schools’’ is 

sufficiently clear. 

Changes: We have revised Priority 1 

by eliminating the word ‘‘sustain’’ and 

clarifying that the needs assessment can 

be completed during the grant period. 

We have added that initial development 

and coordination activities include 

extensive community engagement. We 

discuss below our changes to 

definitions, including the change to the 

definition of the Pillars of Full-Service 

Community Schools to ensure that 

student, family, and community voice 

are included. 

Priority 2—Multi-Local Educational 

Agency Grants. 

Comments: Many commenters 

strongly supported a priority that 

expands implementation of full-service 

community schools beyond two school 

sites and into local educational agencies 

(LEAs). Seven commenters 

recommended that the Department 

retitle the priority to use the term 

‘‘Implementation Grants’’ and include 

the expectation that grants awarded 

under this priority would be sustained 

beyond Federal funding. Further, one 

commenter requested that the 

Department clarify that funding under 

Priority 2 expand and sustain 

community schools within an LEA. An 

additional commenter proposed that the 

Department clarify that a grantee can 

expand to additional schools beyond the 

two required by section 4625(a)(3) of the 

ESEA. 

Four commenters recommended that 

Priority 2 require no more than one 

LEA, while three other commenters 

offered support for the inclusion of two 

or more LEAs, noting that the 

requirement that two or more LEAs 

work together benefits small and rural 

LEAs. Eight commenters requested that 

the Department revise the requirement 

that the LEAs be located in the same 

State, noting that in many places, 

including rural, remote and Tribal 

places, community identity is not 

limited by the legal boundaries of a 

State. 

One commenter requested that the 

Department clarify that the eligible 

applicants under this priority include 

those outlined in section 4622(1)(B) of 

the ESEA—which is a consortium of one 

or more LEAs or the Bureau of Indian 

Education (BIE) and one or more 

community-based organizations, 

nonprofit organizations, or other public 

entities—and that funds be reserved or 

designated for primary applicants that 

are not LEAs. One commenter suggested 

that the Department provide a 

comprehensive list of expanded 

learning professionals for all LEAs and 

allow for local flexibility for each school 

to choose those that best meet the needs 

of their community. One commenter did 

not support Priority 2 because unitary 

systems, such as Hawaii and Puerto 

Rico, would be ineligible under this 

priority. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the support for Priority 2 

and the design to scale development of 

full-service community schools into 

further implementation across two or 

more LEAs. Because Priority 1 also 

requires that grantees develop and begin 

implementation of the full-service 

community school model, including an 

allowance for use of funds for planning 

in year one, we decline the suggestion 

to retitle Priority 2; however, although 

no revisions to the priority are required, 

we agree that grantees should plan how 

they will sustain their work in 

additional schools and LEAs. In 

response to the concern that applicants 

and grantees can expand support to 

additional schools beyond the 

statutorily required two schools, the 

Department is adding language 

requiring eligible entities to ‘‘coordinate 

and provide services at two or more fullVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:49 Jul 12, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM 13JYN1

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 41677 

service community schools.’’ The 

Department agrees that it is important to 

clarify that, under Priority 2, two or 

more community schools would be 

implemented in each LEA. 

We appreciate the considerations of 

several commenters that implementing a 

community school approach across a 

single system, such as a single LEA, is 

sufficiently complex. However, we 

think that the distinction of working in 

no fewer than two LEAs is an important 

indicator of scaling the model. We also 

appreciate the considerations of small 

and rural LEAs who expressed that 

working in partnership with one or 

more additional LEAs supports their 

implementation of the model. The 

Department acknowledges that 

community identity often transcends 

official State boundaries and that, in 

some places, including rural and Tribal 

areas, it may be appropriate for the two 

or more LEAs to be located in different 

States, and thus, we are eliminating that 

requirement from Priority 2. 

Regarding the request that the 

Department consider reserving funds 

under Priority 2 for nonprofit-led 

consortia, we think individual 

communities and applicants are best 

positioned to determine the makeup of 

their consortium. As such, we decline to 

require Priority 2 applications to be led 

by nonprofits or that a portion of 

funding be reserved for nonprofit-led 

consortia; however, we are adding 

language to clarify that eligible 

applicants are consortia that include 

LEAs or the BIE and nonprofit 

organizations. The Department 

appreciates the suggestion that each 

LEA be provided with a list of expanded 

learning professionals, but we know that 

individual communities are best 

positioned to assess the resources and 

potential partners that can address the 

needs and supplement the assets 

identified in the development of their 

full-service community schools. As 

such, we will not provide a list of 

expanded learning professionals to 

LEAs. While unitary systems where the 

State Educational Agency (SEA) is also 

the LEA would not be eligible to apply 

under Priority 2, those entities would be 

able to apply under Priorities 1 and 3. 

Further, the NPP included a citation 

within Proposed Priority 3, which stated 

that the District of Columbia, Hawaii, 

and Puerto Rico may apply for 

Statewide grants, as does the text of 

Final Priority 3 included in this NFP. 

This clarification is also included in the 

NIA. 

Changes: The Department has revised 

Priority 2 to require that an applicant 

implement and sustain the model in two 

or more schools and in two or more 

LEAs. The language of the priority 

clarifies that eligible applicants are 

consortia that include, and may be led 

by, community-based organizations, 

nonprofit organizations, or public or 

private entities. The Department has 

eliminated the language in the priority 

that the two or more LEAs are located 

in the same State. Upon our internal 

review, we also added an exception for 

LEAs that oversee a single school—to 

the requirement to coordinate and 

provide services at two or more fullservice community schools in each 

LEA—in recognition that some small, 

rural or charter school LEAs may only 

serve a single school. 

Priority 3—State Scaling Grants. 

Comments: The Department received 

numerous comments that support 

Priority 3’s focus on scaling the fullservice community school at the 

statewide level. Three commenters 

requested that the Department clarify 

that eligible applicants under Priority 3 

are those outlined in section 4622(1)(B) 

of the ESEA. Four commenters proposed 

that the Department require that the 

SEA apply as part of the required 

consortium, or that the consortium 

include documentation from the SEA, in 

the form of a letter of support, outlining 

the SEA’s commitment to and 

partnership with the consortium. 

Two commenters proposed that the 

Department require, as a condition of 

eligibility, that States identify or 

establish a State steering committee that 

represents community schools 

stakeholders, including educators and 

other school staff, community school 

initiative leaders, education union or 

association designees, family leaders 

participating in community school 

programs, community partners, and 

community school coordinators from 

schools already implementing 

community schools in that State and 

that, in addition to serving as an 

advisory committee, also has the 

authority to make decisions about the 

design, implementation, and evaluation 

of State efforts for the grant. One 

commenter suggested that the 

Department require each grantee under 

Priority 3 to provide clear and 

consistent guidance for identifying 

LEAs, including the establishment of a 

minimum set of criteria so that the LEAs 

most in need are considered. 

Five commenters requested that the 

Department remove the requirement 

that six or more LEAs participate in a 

grant under Priority 3; two commenters 

suggested that the Department require a 

percentage of the State’s LEAs to 

participate, making the requirement 

more consistent across States with large 

and small numbers of LEAs. Several 

commenters recommended that funding 

available be commensurate with the 

number of LEAs included in a grant. 

Two commenters requested that the 

Department clarify that an applicant’s 

receipt of a grant in partnership with an 

SEA does not preclude other applicants 

in the State from receiving an award 

under a separate priority. Two 

commenters shared that they do not 

support Priority 3, including one 

commenter who declined to support the 

priority because, in their reading, 

unitary systems such as Hawaii and 

Puerto Rico would be ineligible. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the support for scaling fullservice community schools to the State 

level, as well as the suggestions 

commenters provided. In response to 

the request that the Department reaffirm 

the eligible applicants under the FSCS 

program, we recognize that the eligible 

applicants are established in section 

4622(1)(B) of the ESEA; therefore, the 

Department cannot make changes that 

would allow or require the SEA to be a 

lead applicant. The Department further 

agrees that the State scaling envisioned 

in Priority 3 makes SEA involvement 

and commitment critical to successful 

implementation and scaling; SEA 

commitment must be demonstrated 

through the FSCS-required 

memorandum of understanding (MOU). 

The Department appreciates the insights 

of commenters regarding the need for 

and benefit of a statewide steering 

committee that can support 

implementation and scaling, including 

selection of participating LEAs. 

However, the Department thinks that 

applicants and grantees, working with 

their partners, including Tribal partners, 

the broadly representative consortium 

(as defined in this notice) and the 

statewide steering committee are best 

positioned to determine the process for 

selecting LEAs under Priority 3. 

Regarding the concern that selected 

LEAs have demonstrated need, section 

4625(b) of the ESEA prioritizes schools 

eligible for a schoolwide program under 

section 114(b) of ESEA. 

The Department acknowledges the 

concerns that Priority 3 not set a 

minimum of participating LEAs and 

recognizes that there is wide variation 

in the number of LEAs and the number 

of schools within LEAs, across States. 

We agree that requiring a percentage of 

LEAs in the State would be a more 

equitable approach to scaling the model. 

However, the Department is interested 

in funding applications that propose to 

work with their partners to develop, 

implement, evaluate, and sustain fullservice community schools at a level, 

and in a percentage of LEAs and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
41678 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 

schools, across the State that will 

effectively scale the model statewide 

and are addressing this through 

revisions to the selection criteria. The 

Department will take into consideration 

the request that funding be made 

commensurate with the number of 

LEAs, and number of schools within 

those LEAs, that will be served, but 

funding levels are established in the 

NIA. 

The Department also recognizes the 

concern that a grant awarded under 

Priority 3 might inhibit submission of 

additional applications in that State 

under other priorities, and we will 

clarify through pre-application technical 

assistance that multiple awards can be 

made in a State provided that funded 

activities do not overlap. The 

Department also understands the 

concern of unitary systems where the 

SEA is also the LEA; however, the NPP 

included a citation under Proposed 

Priority 3 with the clarification that 

‘‘DC, HI, and PR may apply for 

Statewide grants.’’ The final priority 

includes the same clarification. 

Changes: The Department has revised 

Priority 3 to require that the SEA 

document its commitment to the 

consortia and implementation of the 

grant, if awarded, through the required 

MOU. Additionally, the Department is 

requiring, under Priority 3, that the 

applicant commit to establishing a State 

steering committee. Finally, the 

Department has revised the requirement 

from six or more LEAs to a requirement 

that the applicant, in partnership with 

the SEA, determine the percentage of 

LEAs in the State that will develop, 

support, and expand full-service 

community schools over the 5-year 

grant performance period. We have 

included a selection criterion that will 

be used to assess the applicant’s 

proposal to scale the FSCS model at the 

statewide level, including 

recommendations for considering the 

percentage of LEAs proposed when 

awarding points. Upon our internal 

review, we also added language 

recognizing that some small, rural, 

tribal, or charter school LEAs may only 

serve a single school. 

Proposed Priority 4—Participation in 

a National Evaluation. 

Comments: Of the 19 comments 

received related to Priority 4, most 

expressed concern about use of a 

randomized controlled trial evaluation 

design for the program. Two 

commenters supported the model. 

Six commenters objected to the 

national evaluation’s randomized 

controlled study design. Five 

commenters encouraged the Department 

to use a different study design (such as 

various quasi-experimental designs) 

rather than a randomized controlled 

trial. One commenter expressed doubt 

that the national evaluation could 

control what was happening in the 

group of schools that would not receive 

funding. 

Six commenters objected to the 

Department not funding every interested 

and eligible school under the 

randomized controlled trial study 

design. 

There were six comments related to 

the data collected by the national 

evaluation. Four commenters 

recommended that the national 

evaluation require collection of specific 

quantitative and qualitative data aligned 

with the Full-Service Community 

Schools theory of action and its 

intended outcomes. One commenter 

asked how the Department will ensure 

that the outcomes measured go beyond 

test scores and include outcomes such 

as student physical and mental health 

and a range of key non-cognitive 

competencies, such as social and 

emotional learning and increased sense 

of safety and well-being. One 

commenter encouraged the Department 

to consider the baseline attributes and 

inputs of the community and include 

the experiences and perspectives of 

students, families, teachers, community 

partners, and stakeholders. 

Six commenters encouraged the 

Department to establish a technical 

advisory group to advise on the best 

approach to the national evaluation. 

One commenter suggested specific 

candidates to participate in such a 

group. There were four comments 

related to implementation of full-service 

community schools looking different 

across schools because the strategy is 

specific to the needs and assets of 

individual communities and schools. 

Two commenters indicated concern 

about how the lack of consistent 

services and activities could be captured 

in a randomized controlled trial. One 

commenter believed that it would be 

difficult to ascertain common practices 

across grantees that are most helpful for 

practitioners and policymakers to 

understand and advance. One 

commenter asked how the national 

evaluation will account for schools 

placing varying levels of emphasis on 

specific outcomes based on the 

characteristics of the student 

populations and communities they 

serve. 

Two commenters encouraged the 

Department to make participation in the 

national evaluation mandatory through 

the use of an absolute priority, stating 

that it would ensure that the sample size 

is sufficiently large and representative 

of grantees. One commenter pointed out 

that if only some of the grantees 

participate in the evaluation process, 

findings are limited and may not be 

representative or inclusive, and the 

opportunity to learn about the impacts 

of the program in different communities 

may be missed. 

Two commenters objected to the 

proposed requirement that applicants 

nominate four schools to receive 

program funding. In particular, this 

requirement could exclude smaller 

districts, which would limit the 

generalizability of the findings. It could 

also exclude larger districts that do not 

have at least four schools that are not 

fully implementing the four pillars of 

the community schools model. 

One commenter asked for clarification 

on how the data collected under the 

national evaluation would be used. One 

commenter asked what the national 

evaluation will assess and how the 

results will be shared. One commenter 

encouraged the Department to adopt an 

equity-based approach to the national 

evaluation, in partnership with 

community members. 

Seven commenters recommended that 

the Department require each grantee to 

conduct a third-party local evaluation. 

Those commenters encouraged the 

Department to require both quantitative 

and qualitative data that may include, 

but not be limited to, student chronic 

absenteeism rates; student discipline 

rates, including suspensions and 

expulsions; school climate information, 

which may come from student, parent, 

or teacher surveys; provision of 

integrated student supports and 

stakeholder services; expanded and 

enriched learning time and 

opportunities; family and community 

engagement efforts and impact; 

information on the number, 

qualifications, and retention of school 

staff, including the number and 

percentage of fully certified teachers, 

disaggregated by race and ethnicity, and 

rates of teacher turnover; graduation 

rates; changes in school spending 

information; collaborative leadership 

and practice strategies, which may 

include building the capacity of 

educators, principals, other school 

leaders, and other staff to lead 

collaborative school improvement 

structures, such as professional learning 

communities; regularly convening or 

engaging all initiative-level partners, 

such as LEA representatives, city or 

county officials, children and youth 

cabinets, nonprofit service providers, 

public housing agencies, and advocates; 

regularly assessing program quality and 

progress through individual student 

data, participant feedback, and aggregate 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 41679 

outcomes to develop strategies for 

improvement; and organizing school 

personnel and community partners into 

working teams focused on specific 

issues identified in the needs and assets 

assessment. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the comments, concerns, 

and support shared by the field 

regarding a national evaluation of the 

FSCS program and we are committed to 

working with grantees and other 

stakeholders to design and implement 

the national evaluation required under 

section 4625(f) of the ESEA. To allow 

more time to conduct outreach with the 

field, the Department is not going to 

begin the national evaluation with the 

FY 2022 grant competition. 

The Department recognizes the 

potential benefit of requiring each 

grantee to partner with a local 

independent evaluator to study each 

grant award separately and support 

ongoing program improvements during 

the grant period. Such a local evaluation 

would not be in place of a national 

evaluation. As noted above, the 

authorizing legislation for the FSCS 

program requires a separate national 

evaluation that examines the effects of 

the grant program as a whole. 

The Department has not included the 

Participation in the National Evaluation 

priority in these final priorities but will 

continue to consider the national 

evaluation priority and the related 

comments. We will also conduct 

additional outreach to the field to gather 

and discuss recommendations for 

developing a robust national evaluation 

of the program and its grantees and to 

address some of the concerns raised. If 

we decide to finalize the national 

evaluation priority, the Department will 

summarize and respond to the 

comments in a separate NFP for that 

priority. 

Additionally, the Department will 

build upon the ESEA requirement that 

grantees conduct annual evaluations, 

use those evaluations to refine and 

improve activities carried out, and make 

results of such evaluations publicly 

available, by adding a requirement that 

grantees contract for a third-party 

independent evaluation to meet the 

FSCS local evaluation requirements. 

Changes: The Department has not 

included the Participation in the 

National Evaluation priority in these 

final priorities but will continue to 

consider the national evaluation priority 

and the related comments. Additionally, 

the Department will build upon the 

ESEA requirement that grantees conduct 

annual evaluations, use those 

evaluations to refine and improve 

activities carried out, and make results 

of such evaluations publicly available, 

by including a requirement that grantees 

contract for a third-party, external 

independent evaluation to meet the 

FSCS local evaluation requirements. 

Proposed Priority 5—Evidence-Based 

Integrated Student Supports. 

Comments: Four commenters 

expressed that they do not support 

Proposed Priority 5 and requested that 

it be eliminated. Commenters expressed 

concern that the priority is duplicative 

of the requirement that applicants 

address integrated student supports 

under the pillars of community schools. 

Many of those same commenters also 

noted that the proposed selection 

criteria evaluate applications on the 

‘‘extent to which the design of the 

proposed project reflects relevant and 

evidence-based findings from existing 

literature and includes a high-quality 

plan for project implementation 

integrating the pillars of full-service 

community schools.’’ Two commenters 

supported the inclusion of the priority 

because they agree with the importance 

of strong evidence to ensure effective 

programs; one of those commenters 

noted the importance of clarifying that 

the term ‘‘evidence-based’’ has the 

meaning provided in the ESEA. Two 

commenters recommended that the 

Department clarify what is meant by 

integrated student supports. Three 

commenters expressed support for this 

priority, including one commenter who 

recommended it be used as a 

competitive preference priority. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the comments and 

suggestions provided, which make 

evident that the intention behind the 

priority, to encourage applicants and 

grantees to incorporate evidence-based 

models of integrated supports that 

identify and address the comprehensive 

needs of individual students into their 

community school initiatives, was not 

clearly communicated. We recognize 

that the use of the term ‘‘integrated 

student supports’’ in Proposed Priority 

5, as well as the proposed requirement 

and definition of the four pillars of 

community schools, may be confusing 

for applicants. In response to comments 

supporting the use of evidence-based 

activities and requests for confirmation 

that the definition is consistent with 

ESEA, the Department acknowledges 

that Section 4625(b)(2) of the ESEA 

prioritizes evidence-based activities in 

the FSCS program and cites the 

definition included in the ESEA. 

In order to encourage applicants and 

grantees to incorporate evidence-based 

models of integrated supports that 

identify and address the comprehensive 

needs of individual students into their 

community school initiatives, the 

Department will consider inclusion of 

applicable priorities from the 

Secretary’s Supplemental Priorities 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 10, 2021 (86 FR 70612) 

(Supplemental Priorities). 

Changes: In recognition of the 

potential for confusion in using the term 

‘‘integrated student supports’’ in 

Proposed Priority 5 and Requirement 1, 

and that the information may appear to 

be duplicative, the Department has not 

included Proposed Priority 5— 

Evidence-Based Integrated Student 

Supports in these final priorities. 

Additional Priorities 

Comments: A number of commenters 

suggested additional priorities for the 

FY 2022 FSCS program. Of those 

commenters, four requested that the 

Department include a competitive 

preference priority for applicants 

serving rural communities or schools. 

One of these commenters requested a 

priority for Tribal partners or applicants 

from rural or remote areas. 

A number of commenters expressed 

concern that grant resources and 

activities may not be focused on 

schools, students, and communities of 

greatest need. Of the 12 comments 

related to directing services and grants 

to those of greatest need, 10 

recommended that the Department add 

selection criteria related to need and 

one proposed that the Department add 

a priority for providing services to lowincome families. 

Six commenters encouraged the 

Department to more explicitly connect 

community school supports to 

classroom instruction and learning. Two 

commenters referenced the science of 

learning and development and 

recommended the FSCS program 

emphasize a whole child or whole 

learner approach. One commenter 

suggested that the FSCS program 

include a focus on schoolwide culture, 

including use of trauma-informed 

practices and adoption of disciplinary 

procedures and practices that are 

holistic and nondiscriminatory. 

One commenter recommended that 

the Department develop a competitive 

priority for applicants who have made 

structural changes to support 

community schools, applicants who 

have plans to develop and utilize shared 

data systems, and previous or current 

Promise Neighborhoods grantees. 

Two commenters suggested that, 

because the success of a full-service 

community school relies on strong 

cross-agency collaboration, the 

Department consider using as a 

competitive preference priority the 

Secretary’s Supplemental Priority 6— 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
41680 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 

Strengthening Cross-Agency 

Coordination and Community 

Engagement to Advance Systemic 

Change. 

Discussion: The purpose of the FSCS 

program is to provide support for the 

planning, implementation, and 

operation of full-service community 

schools, particularly for children 

attending schools, including rural and 

tribal schools, with high rates of 

poverty. Additionally, the authorizing 

legislation requires that not less than 15 

percent of grant funds be awarded to 

eligible entities that propose to carry out 

activities in rural areas. 

The legislation that authorizes FSCS 

requires the Department to prioritize 

both high-poverty and rural schools. 

Section 4625(b) of the ESEA requires the 

Department to give priority to eligible 

entities that (A) will serve a minimum 

of two or more full-service community 

schools eligible for a schoolwide 

program under section 1114(b), as part 

of a community- or district-wide 

strategy; or (B) include an LEA that 

satisfies the requirements of section 

5211(b)(1)(A), (B), or (C); or section 

5221(b)(1)(A) and (B). The Department 

will ensure that all statutory 

requirements for the program are met. 

The Department recognizes that 

delivery of integrated, accessible, and 

effective supports in full-service 

community schools are intended to 

improve student outcomes, including 

academic achievement. We agree that 

full-service community schools should 

support the whole child and their 

classroom experience, including 

support and professional development 

for educators to ensure the classroom is 

an environment that allows students to 

thrive. FSCS schools should also 

support school leadership, and adoption 

of practices and frameworks that meet 

the needs of all learners. The 

Department has taken these suggestions 

into consideration as it develops the 

NIA, which may include related 

priorities from the Supplemental 

Priorities. We think the Supplemental 

Priorities include a number of topics 

proposed by the commenters, and 

therefore do not think it necessary to 

rule-make on program-specific priorities 

when the Supplemental Priorities are 

available. 

The Department agrees with the 

comment that organizations that have 

successfully implemented Promise 

Neighborhoods grants have revised their 

school and community structures to 

improve interagency and cross-sector 

implementation of shared goals and 

activities. These organizations use a 

shared data system to track and measure 

individual and program progress and 

are well positioned to successfully 

implement a FSCS grant. We decline, 

however, to include these as additional 

priorities because FSCS is designed to 

support schools and communities across 

a continuum of capacity to develop and 

implement full-service community 

schools. 

The Department concurs that crossagency coordination at the local level is 

critical to successful full-service 

community schools. Further, the BidenHarris Administration is committed to 

providing support for comprehensive 

evidence-based community violence 

initiatives that bring a cross-agency 

approach to community violence 

prevention and intervention. The 

Department will take these suggestions 

into consideration as it develops the 

NIA, which may include related 

priorities from the Supplemental 

Priorities. 

Changes: None. 

Requirements 

Requirement 1—Pillars of Full-Service 

Community Schools 

Comments: Among the comments 

received related to the proposed 

requirement that projects must describe 

the pillars of full-service community 

schools that they have in place or how 

they will establish these pillars, six 

expressed overall support for the pillars. 

Four commenters recommended that the 

Department provide applicants with 

examples of the pillars. Another 

commenter noted that any examples of 

the pillars should be evidence-based. 

One commenter suggested the 

Department provide applicants with 

workshops on the pillars. One 

commenter noted that the Department 

should add that the pillars of 

community schools must be 

underpinned by a strong instructional 

program that incorporates the science of 

learning and development. 

One commenter recommended that 

the Department clarify that an applicant 

that is implementing an evidence-based 

integrated student supports model is 

meeting the requirement as long as it is 

working in a school that is addressing 

all four pillars of a community school. 

One commenter recommended that 

the Department require that schools and 

districts make an adequate effort to 

reach students who will most benefit 

from the supports and require 

applicants to describe the strategies they 

will use to ensure the most vulnerable 

students and families are being reached. 

A similar comment recommended that 

the Department explicitly require that 

applicants collaborate with families. 

One commenter recommended that, 

instead of requiring applicants to 

describe their work using the framework 

of the four pillars, they should be 

required to describe their approach to 

strategic growth and address how 

community schools’ strategies involve 

teaching and curriculum in order to 

reach the ultimate goal of impacting 

student learning. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates that applicants benefit from 

technical assistance and support 

throughout the application period and 

during program implementation. The 

Department has provided applicants 

information about the FY 2022 

competition in the NIA, published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, and will provide support 

through pre-application webinars and 

frequently asked questions. 

While the Department is not revising 

the pillars to include a requirement that 

schools and districts describe how they 

will focus on the most vulnerable 

students and families, the NIA for the 

FY 2022 competition uses a 

Supplemental Priority in Competitive 

Preference Priority 2, to encourage 

applicants to consider using multitiered systems of support that can 

identify and serve students and families 

of greatest need. 

The Department acknowledges that, 

while there are a variety of ways to 

address and frame community schools’ 

practices, we are interested in 

maintaining a common structure that 

the pillars provide. The background 

section of the NPP cites evidence that 

implementation of the four pillars is 

associated with a range of positive 

outcomes for students. Additionally, the 

background section of the NIA for the 

FY 2022 competition recognizes that the 

four pillars are supported by evidence 

from the science of learning and 

development and can be used to address 

the needs of the whole child, including 

those that the school and community 

partners determine to be most 

vulnerable. Use of this common 

structure allows applicants to develop 

programs with more fidelity to what has 

been shown to be effective and prepares 

the FSCS program and its grantees for a 

future national evaluation. Applicants 

are invited to share additional 

information that can supplement their 

response to the requirement and 

discussion of the four pillars, including 

the applicant’s work with families, 

which is required in the third pillar 

(Active family and community 

engagement), use of evidence-based 

integrated student supports, how those 

supports address adverse childhood 

experiences (ACEs), and the applicant’s 

approach to strategic growth. The 

Department declines to make any 

changes to the requirement that 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 41681 

applicants describe the pillars of fullservice community schools. 

Changes: None. 

Other Requirements 

Comments: Several commenters 

suggested FSCS program requirements 

in addition to the proposed 

requirements. 

As discussed in connection with 

Proposed Priority 4, numerous 

commenters recommended that the 

Department establish a requirement that 

grantees work with an external 

evaluator and adopt a set of 

recommended measures of success, 

including student chronic absenteeism 

rates; student discipline rates, including 

suspensions and expulsions; school 

climate information; provision of 

integrated student supports and 

stakeholder services; expanded and 

enriched learning time and 

opportunities; family and community 

engagement efforts and impact; 

information on the number, 

qualifications, and retention of school 

staff, including the number and 

percentage of fully certified teachers, 

disaggregated by race and ethnicity, and 

rates of teacher turnover; graduation 

rates; changes in school spending 

information; collaborative leadership 

and practice strategies, including 

building the capacity of educators, 

principals, other school leaders, and 

other staff to lead collaborative school 

improvement structures, such as 

professional learning communities; 

regularly convening or engaging all 

initiative-level partners, such as LEA 

representatives, city or county officials, 

children’s cabinets, nonprofit service 

providers, public housing agencies, and 

advocates; regularly assessing program 

quality and progress through individual 

student data, participant feedback, and 

aggregate outcomes to develop strategies 

for improvement; and organizing school 

personnel and community partners into 

working teams focused on specific 

issues identified in the needs and assets 

assessment. 

The Department received five 

comments requesting that we clarify the 

roles and responsibilities of consortium 

partners. Several comments were 

directed toward proposed selection 

criteria (d) and evaluation of roles and 

responsibilities of the broadly 

representative consortium. 

One commenter requested that the 

Department not consider applications 

from for-profit charter schools or charter 

schools within a 25-mile radius of a 

traditional public school, and that any 

school receiving funds be subject to the 

same operational and transparency rules 

as schools within the district in which 

it is located. 

Discussion: The Department concurs 

with recommendations to require an 

independent evaluation of the 

evaluation activities outlined in section 

4625(g) of the ESEA. The Department is 

also adding a set of indicators 

recommended through comments that 

the independent evaluation must use to 

assess program success. These 

indicators are aligned with the annual 

measurable performance objectives 

included in section 4625(a)(4)(C) of the 

ESEA. 

The Department agrees that it is 

important to clarify the roles and 

responsibilities of the eligible entity, 

defined in section 4622(1)(B) as a 

consortium of one or more LEAs or the 

BIE and one or more community-based 

organization, nonprofit organization, or 

other public or private entities, as well 

as the broadly representative 

consortium, which includes, but is not 

limited to, the eligible entity submitting 

the application. Under section 

4625(a)(2), an application must include 

an MOU among all partner entities in 

the eligible entity that will assist the 

eligible entity to coordinate and provide 

pipeline services and that describes the 

roles the partner entities will assume. 

Recognizing that the FY 2022 FSCS 

competition includes priorities for 

building capacity and developing, 

implementing, and scaling full-service 

community schools, and recognizing 

that section 4625(c) allows grantees to 

use up to 10 percent of their total award 

for planning purposes in the first year, 

the Department thinks it is most 

appropriate for the application to 

include a preliminary MOU that 

establishes the roles and responsibilities 

of the eligible entity, additional 

partners, and the broadly representative 

consortium. At the end of the first year 

of the grant, FSCS grantees will be 

required to submit a final MOU. 

The Department does not have the 

authority to revise or refine the eligible 

applicants specified in section 

4622(1)(B) of the ESEA, which means 

we cannot limit applications from 

certain charter schools, provided the 

charter school is an eligible applicant or 

in partnership with an eligible 

applicant. All applicants and grantees, 

including any charter schools, will be 

required to meet the Federal regulations 

cited in the NIA. 

Changes: The Department has added 

Requirement 2, which requires 

applicants to include an independent 

evaluation to address the evaluation 

requirements in section 4625(g)) of the 

ESEA. Within Requirement 2, the 

Department also established a set of 

indicators that the independent 

evaluation must use to assess program 

success and that are aligned with the 

required performance measures in 

section 4625(a)(4)(C). 

The Department has added 

Requirement 3, which requires 

applicants to submit a preliminary MOU 

as part of their application. Within 

Requirement 3, the Department 

established the content that the 

preliminary MOU must include, which 

is aligned with the requirements in 

section 4625(a)(2). At the end of the first 

year of the grant, grantees are required 

to submit a final MOU, which must also 

align with the requirements in section 

4625(a)(2). 

Definition—Pillars of Full-Service 

Community Schools 

Comments: The Department received 

sixteen comments in support of the 

definition of the Pillars of Full-Service 

Community Schools. 

Within the definition, one commenter 

recommended the Department provide 

more clarity regarding research-based 

elements of effective practices for 

implementing integrated student 

supports in pillar (A), Integrated student 

supports. 

Three commenters suggested that we 

revise pillar (C), Active family and 

community engagement, to include 

additional activities for ensuring 

community and family engagement. One 

commenter recommended that, in the 

definition, we address citizenship 

preparation to reflect the civic mission 

of schools and leverage their unique role 

in engaging families and communities. 

Ten commenters recommended that 

the Department revise pillar (D), 

Collaborative leadership, to expressly 

include student, family, and community 

voice. Another commenter 

recommended that we specify that 

‘‘expanded and enriched learning time 

and opportunities’’ must be culturally 

rooted and sustaining. 

One commenter suggested that we 

specify in the pillars that providers, 

teachers, and community school 

personnel should be representative of 

the students and communities they 

serve and that representation should be 

a focus throughout the program because 

this enhances staff and leadership 

understanding of local community 

context. 

One commenter suggested that we 

include in the definition references to 

whole learner and trauma-informed 

approaches. 

Discussion: We think the activities 

outlined in the first pillar, (A) Integrated 

student supports, are sufficiently broad 

to allow for applicants and grantees to 

address the issues of greatest relevance 

to their community and that there is no 

need to establish a separate definition of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
41682 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 

‘‘integrated student supports.’’ The 

Department agrees that use of evidencebased practices is critical across all 

pillars, which is reflected in the 

language of the second pillar, (B) 

Expanded and enriched learning time 

and opportunities, through evidencebased strategies. This notice also 

includes selection criteria that will 

assess extent to which the design of the 

proposed project reflects relevant and 

evidence-based findings. 

We decline to include specific 

examples of citizenship preparation 

because we think that, as written, the 

priority would allow such a focus, and 

we think it is better to give applicants 

and schools flexibility to address 

community-specific needs. However, we 

agree that the definition of the third 

pillar, Active family and community 

engagement, should be expanded to 

include employment opportunities and 

other supportive services for adults. 

Activities implemented under the 

second pillar, Expanded and enriched 

learning time and opportunities, may be 

culturally rooted and sustaining. The 

Department thinks that, as written, the 

priority would allow such a culturally 

competent focus, and we think it is 

better to allow applicants and schools 

flexibility to address communityspecific needs. 

Regarding recommendations related 

to the third pillar, (C) Active family and 

community engagement, the Department 

agrees that students and families benefit 

from working with leaders and service 

providers who have shared backgrounds 

and experiences. The Department also 

appreciates the need to have community 

members participate in the development 

of the program at all levels, including 

through participation in the broadly 

representative consortium to enhance 

cultural competency. While this is an 

important goal, it may not be practical 

for a grantee to ensure all staff and 

service providers are from or 

representative of the community. 

Rather, the FSCS program places 

emphasis on family and community 

inclusion in decision-making processes, 

including decisions related to selection 

of evidence-based, expanded, and 

enriched learning time and 

opportunities. The Department agrees 

that schools, and community schools in 

particular, can serve as resources for 

parents and communities to advance 

personal and communal goals, which 

may include civic engagement. 

The Department agrees with the 

suggestions for including student, 

family, and community voice in the 

fourth pillar, (D) Collaborative 

leadership. 

The Department recognizes the 

benefit of bringing a whole learner- and 

trauma-informed approach to working 

with students and families in a holistic 

way in order to prevent, intervene, and 

mitigate ACEs. We have incorporated 

those terms in the definitions of pillars 

of community schools; applicants may 

consider inclusion of those approaches 

in their development and 

implementation of full-service 

community schools, including through 

responding to any Secretary’s 

Supplemental Priority included in the 

NIA. 

Changes: The Department has revised 

the language of the definition of Pillars 

of Full-Service Community Schools to 

include trauma-informed services to 

prevent, intervene and mitigate ACEs as 

part of integrated student supports. The 

Department has included adult 

employment opportunities and other 

supportive services in the third pillar, 

(C) Active family and community 

engagement; and student, family, and 

community voice is included in the 

fourth pillar (D) Collaborative 

leadership practices. 

Definition—Broadly Representative 

Consortium 

Comments: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise selection criteria (d) to include 

family leadership in the broadly 

representative consortium. 

Discussion: The Department thinks 

including organizations that can 

represent family leadership is a critical 

addition to the broadly representative 

consortium; however, we think the 

change is more appropriate for the 

definition of the term rather than the 

selection criteria. 

Changes: The Department has revised 

the definition of ‘‘broadly representative 

consortium’’ to include organizations 

that represent families and family 

leadership. 

Other Definitions 

Comments: A few commenters 

suggested other terms for the 

Department to define. One commenter 

noted that there are many definitions of 

‘‘community’’ and recommended that 

the Department include a definition for 

a ‘‘full-service community school.’’ 

Two commenters recommended that 

the Department define ‘‘full-service 

community school coordinator,’’ a term 

used in the proposed selection criteria. 

One commenter requested that the 

Department include a definition for 

‘‘student success coaches,’’ an evidencebased model for working with and 

providing comprehensive supports for 

students. 

Discussion: The Department 

acknowledges that there are many 

definitions of ‘‘community.’’ For the 

purposes of the FSCS program, section 

4622(2) of the ESEA defines a ‘‘fullservice community school’’ as a public 

elementary or secondary school that (A) 

participates in a community-based effort 

to coordinate and integrate educational, 

developmental, family, health, and 

other comprehensive services through 

community-based organizations and 

public and private partnerships; and (B) 

provides access to such services in 

school to students, families, and the 

community, such as access during the 

school year (including before- and afterschool hours and weekends), as well as 

during the summer. The Department 

will include this definition of a fullservice community school in the NIA. 

Although proposed selection criteria 

(d) indirectly described the role of the 

full-service community school 

coordinator, the Department agrees that 

it would be helpful to expressly define 

‘‘full-service community school 

coordinator,’’ and we are adding a 

definition that describes this role in a 

manner consistent with selection 

criteria (d). 

While the Department appreciates the 

positive outcomes that have been 

documented with the use of student 

success coaches, we do not include 

definitions for specific activities or 

approaches that a grantee might choose 

to include in their application because 

we want grantees to have the flexibility 

to choose the best evidence-based 

approaches to meet student and 

community needs. 

Changes: The Department has defined 

‘‘full-service community school 

coordinator.’’ 

Selection Criteria—(c) Ensure 

Diversity of Perspectives 

Comments: Commenters offered broad 

support for this selection criterion. Two 

commenters requested that the 

Department include children and youth 

in the list of constituencies referenced. 

An additional commenter suggested the 

Department revise the selection 

criterion to include the perspectives of 

racially diverse families and 

traditionally marginalized families. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the support of those who 

offered comments. The Department 

considers children, students, and youth 

as beneficiaries of services, but we 

recognize that other intended 

beneficiaries are included in the list of 

constituencies and are adding students 

and youth. The Department further 

agrees that it is important for an 

applicant to include, or have a plan to 

include, the perspectives of racially 

diverse families, those that have been 

marginalized, and other underserved 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 41683 

individuals in the community; however, 

we think that the broad nature of the 

selection criterion allows applicants to 

include racially and otherwise diverse 

families in their design and operation of 

the proposed project. Additionally, the 

Department thinks that grantees may 

use the allowable planning time during 

year one of the grant to engage with 

families and other groups who have not 

been consistently represented in 

assessments of needs and assets as well 

as leadership. 

Changes: We have renumbered 

selection criterion (b) as selection 

criterion (c) and revised to include 

students and youth as constituents 

whose perspectives should be brought 

to bear in the design and operation of 

the projects. 

Selection Criteria—(d) Plans for Fullservice Coordinator 

Comments: Commenters supported 

inclusion of a selection criterion to 

assess grantee plans for a full-service 

community schools coordinator. 

Because a full-service community 

school coordinator is not responsible for 

the delivery of the pipeline of services 

offered, four commenters recommended 

that we clarify the language of the 

criterion by removing ‘‘deliver pipeline 

services’’ and replacing it with 

‘‘facilitate programs and partnerships.’’ 

Several commenters also recommended 

including that the full-service 

community school coordinator ‘‘lead a 

comprehensive needs and asset 

assessment that includes students, 

school staff, families, community 

members and partners.’’ 

Four commenters noted that the 

requirement for a full-time full-service 

community school coordinator does not 

reflect the diverse communities that 

may apply or receive a grant, including 

some rural communities where a fulltime coordinator is not needed. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the comments and 

recommendations. We agree with the 

clarification offered and are revising 

selection criterion (d) to better reflect a 

full-service community school 

coordinator’s responsibilities to 

facilitate programs and partnerships. 

While the full-service community 

school coordinator may, in some cases, 

lead the needs assessment, the 

Department recognizes that not all 

communities will expect the 

coordinator to lead that work. As such, 

we decline to include that edit. 

The Department appreciates that each 

community and its needs are unique; 

however, section 4625(a)(4)(E) of the 

ESEA requires that each full-service 

community school site has a full-time 

coordinator. 

Changes: The Department has 

renumbered proposed selection criteria 

(c) to final selection criteria (d) and 

revised selection criteria (d) to replace 

‘‘deliver pipeline services’’ with 

‘‘facilitate programs and partnerships.’’ 

Selection Criteria—(e) Consortium 

Broadly Representative of Community 

Comments: While commenters 

support the inclusion of proposed 

selection criterion (e), two commenters 

noted that some applicants may not yet 

have a consortium in place and should 

not be penalized. Those commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the language to say, ‘‘the extent 

to which the grantee has, or 

demonstrates a strong plan to have, a 

consortium broadly representative of 

community stakeholders and needs.’’ 

One commenter proposed that the 

broadly representative consortium 

representative of community 

stakeholders and needs should also 

have a role in the oversight and 

management of the program, including 

the selection of schools. The commenter 

suggested the selection criteria be 

revised to say, ‘‘the extent to which the 

grantee has a consortium broadly 

representative of community 

stakeholders and needs that informs the 

school selection process, operations and 

continued oversight of the project.’’ 

One commenter recommended that 

applications be assessed on the extent to 

which they have planned for open, 

consistent, and actionable 

communication among their consortia. 

Discussion: The Department will 

make FSCS awards to some applicants 

who will engage in capacity building 

and development of full-service 

community schools. As such, we concur 

that not all applicants will have an 

established broadly representative 

consortium and are editing the selection 

criterion. 

The Department concurs that 

applications and grant programs are 

strengthened through defined roles and 

responsibilities of leadership groups, 

such as the broadly representative 

consortium. Section 4625(a)(2) of the 

ESEA requires an MOU among all 

partner entities in the eligible entity that 

will assist the eligible entity to 

coordinate and provide pipeline 

services and that describes the roles the 

partner entities will assume, which 

includes the broadly representative 

consortium and, for applications 

submitted under Priority 3, the 

statewide steering committee. The 

Department thinks that inclusion of a 

preliminary MOU with the application 

can further delineate communication 

and decision-making processes, such as 

school selection. The Department 

declines to include school selection as 

a role of the broadly representative 

consortium in the final selection criteria 

because we want to maintain maximum 

flexibility for applicants. Additionally, 

nothing in the NFP prevents an 

applicant from including school 

selection as a responsibility of the 

broadly based consortium. 

Changes: The Department has 

renumbered proposed selection 

criterion (d) to final selection criteria (e) 

and revised selection criterion (e) to 

allow for an applicant to demonstrate a 

plan to develop and put into place a 

broadly representative consortium and 

included language that the roles and 

responsibilities of the consortium are 

outlined in the required preliminary 

MOU. For applications submitted under 

Priority 3, the Department revised 

selection criterion (e) to allow for an 

applicant to demonstrate a plan to 

develop and put into place a broadly 

representative consortium and a 

statewide steering committee, and 

included language that the roles and 

responsibilities of the consortium and 

statewide steering committee are 

outlined in the preliminary MOU. 

Selection Criteria—(f) Demonstrates 

History of Effectiveness 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

the selection criteria be expanded to 

include a description of the applicant’s 

history of working with a wide range of 

stakeholders—including students and 

families—in inclusive and equitable 

ways. 

One commenter recommended that 

we expand this selection criterion to 

consider the applicant’s history of 

effectiveness in serving both current and 

past students in addition to the wider 

community. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that it is important that an applicant’s 

history of effectiveness (as defined in 

this notice) includes effectively working 

with a wide and diverse range of 

stakeholders, including students and 

families. 

Changes: The Department has 

renumbered proposed selection 

criterion (e) as final selection criterion 

(f) and revised selection criterion (f) to 

include working with diverse 

stakeholders, including students and 

families. 

Other Selection Criteria 

Comments: The Department received 

a significant number of comments 

related to ensuring that grants and 

services are focused on schools, 

communities, students, and families of 

greatest need. Ten commenters 

recommended that the Department 

include selection criteria related to 

need. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
41684 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 

1Unitary systems, such as the District of 

Columbia, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, may apply for 

Absolute Priority 4 FSCS State Scaling Grants. 

Three commenters recommended that 

the FSCS program use selection criteria 

from the FY 2021 Promise 

Neighborhoods NIA. One commenter 

requested that the Department reinstate 

previous FSCS selection criteria for 

evaluation. 

One commenter requested that the 

Department include selection criteria 

that allows an applicant to propose 

using up to 6 months for planning and 

capacity building activities. 

Discussion: The FSCS program is 

intended to focus on children and youth 

attending schools with concentrated 

poverty, including rural and tribal 

schools. In addition to inclusion of a 

priority related to schoolwide poverty 

levels, the Department is adding 

selection criterion (a) to assess the 

extent to which the proposed project 

will provide support, resources, and 

services, close gaps in educational 

opportunity, or otherwise address the 

needs of the targeted population, 

including addressing the needs of 

underserved populations most impacted 

by the issue, challenge, or opportunity 

to be addressed by the proposed project. 

The Department appreciates the 

suggestions related to aligning the FSCS 

need criteria with that of the FY 2021 

Promise Neighborhood program. 

However, the FSCS program is designed 

to allow grantees to use the first year of 

their grant to conduct a robust 

assessment of needs and assets, while 

the Promise Neighborhood program 

requires the applicant to include an 

analysis of needs and corresponding 

activities to address those needs. 

Therefore, the Department declines to 

use the FY 2021 Promise Neighborhood 

selection criteria. 

Related to selection criteria for the 

required evaluation, for the FY 2022 

competition, the Department is using 

criteria from 34 CFR 75.210 to assess the 

applicant’s proposal to evaluate their 

FSCS project. For the FY 2022 

competition, two of the three criteria are 

from previous FSCS competitions. The 

evaluation criteria are included in the 

NIA, published elsewhere in this issue 

of the Federal Register. 

The Department agrees that building a 

successful full-service community 

school requires significant planning and 

capacity building, including time to 

strengthen partnerships. Section 4625(c) 

of the ESEA allows a grantee to use up 

to 10 percent of the total grant award for 

planning purposes during the first year 

of the award. This applies to all 

applicants and grantees, and, as such, 

the Department will not make any 

changes to the time that grantees can 

allocate to planning. 

In accordance with 34 CFR 75.209, 

the Department included in the NIA 

selection criteria from 34 CFR 75.210 

that assesses the quality of an 

applicant’s proposed local evaluation 

for the FY 2022 competition. 

As discussed in Priority 3, the 

Department agrees that requiring a 

percentage of LEAs in the State would 

be a more equitable approach to scaling 

the model. However, the Department is 

interested in funding applications that 

propose to work with their partners to 

develop, implement, evaluate, and 

sustain full-service community schools 

at a level, and in a percentage of LEAs 

and schools, across the State that will 

effectively scale the model statewide 

and are addressing this through 

revisions to the selection criteria. 

Changes: The Department added 

selection criterion (a) to assess the 

extent to which a proposed project will 

provide support, resources, and 

services; close gaps in educational 

opportunity; or otherwise address the 

needs of the targeted population, 

including addressing the needs of 

underserved populations most impacted 

by the issue, challenge, or opportunity 

to be addressed by the project. The 

Department also added selection criteria 

(g) to assess the extent to which the 

applicant demonstrates its commitment 

and strategy to scale full-service 

community schools at the statewide 

level. In determining the applicant’s 

capacity to scale the proposed project, 

the Secretary considers the number and 

percentage of LEAs, and the number and 

percentage of schools within each LEA, 

the applicant, the SEA, and other 

partners propose to serve; the 

applicant’s capacity (e.g., in terms of 

qualified personnel, financial resources, 

or management capacity) to further 

develop, implement, bring to scale and 

sustain additional full-service 

community schools in multiple LEAs; 

and the applicant’s capacity to work 

with others, including the broadly 

representative consortium and the 

statewide steering committee, to ensure 

that the proposed process, products, 

strategies, or practices can be further 

developed and brought to scale, based 

on the regular findings of the proposed 

project and its independent evaluation. 

Final Priorities: 

This document contains four final 

priorities. 

Priority 1—Capacity Building and 

Development Grants. 

Projects that propose to (a) conduct 

initial development and coordination 

activities, including extensive 

community engagement, that leverage 

the findings of their needs assessment— 

which may be completed during or 

before the grant period—to develop the 

infrastructure, activities, and 

partnerships to implement full-service 

community schools in two or more 

schools, and (b) gather data on 

performance indicators. 

Priority 2—Multi-Local Educational 

Agency Grants. 

Projects that propose to implement 

and sustain full-service community 

schools in two or more LEAs. As 

outlined in section 4622(1)(B) of the 

ESEA, an eligible entity for any FSCS 

grant is a consortium of one or more 

LEAs or the BIE and one or more 

community-based organizations, 

nonprofit organizations, or other public 

or private entities. The project must, 

with the exception of LEAs that oversee 

a single school, coordinate and provide 

services at two or more full-service 

community schools in each LEA. 

Priority 3—FSCS State Scaling 

Grants 1. 

Applications submitted under Priority 

3 must include a written commitment of 

the SEA to participate in the partnership 

and to sustain the program beyond 2 

years after the term of the grant, which 

can be submitted in the required 

preliminary memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) that includes the 

roles and responsibilities of the SEA 

and other partners identified at the time 

of the application. The applicant, in 

partnership with the SEA, determines 

the number and percentage of State 

LEAs, and the number and percentage of 

schools across those LEAs, that will 

develop, support, and expand fullservice community schools over the 5- 

year grant performance period. 

Applications under Priority 3 must 

also identify or establish a State steering 

committee (which may be a previously 

existing body) that represents relevant 

community schools’ stakeholders, 

including educators and other school 

staff, community school initiative 

leaders, education union or association 

designees, family leaders participating 

in community school programs, 

community partners such as service 

providers, early childhood education 

providers such as Head Start, and 

community school coordinators from 

schools already implementing fullservice community schools in the State. 

In addition to serving as an advisory 

committee, the steering committee also 

has the authority to make decisions 

about the design, implementation, and 

evaluation for the grant, which may 

include identification or selection of 

LEAs that will partner in the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 41685 

development and implementation of 

two or more community schools in each 

LEA, with the exception of LEAs that 

oversee a single school. The roles and 

responsibilities of the steering 

committee must be included in the 

required preliminary MOU. 

As outlined in section 4622(1)(B) of 

the ESEA, an eligible entity for any 

FSCS grant is a consortium of one or 

more LEAs or the BIE and one or more 

community-based organizations, 

nonprofit organizations, or other public 

or private entities. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

This document does not preclude us 

from proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This document does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we 

choose to use one or more of these 

priorities, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Final Requirements: 

This document contains three final 

requirements. 

Requirement 1—Pillars of Full-Service 

Community Schools. 

An applicant must, in addition to 

providing the information and 

assurances required by section 4625(a) 

of the ESEA, provide the following: 

In addressing the application 

requirements set out in Section 4625(a) 

of the ESEA, applicants must address 

the essential pillars of full-service 

community schools (as defined in this 

notice). 

Projects must describe the pillars of 

full-service community schools that 

they have in place or how they will 

establish these pillars, or how they will 

implement these pillars with partners, 

including community-based 

organizations and collaborating with 

school leadership and staff. 

Requirement 2—Independent 

Evaluation. 

An applicant must, in addition to 

providing the information and 

assurances required by section 4625(g) 

of the ESEA, commit to an independent 

evaluation that includes a design and 

implementation evaluation that will, at 

a minimum, (1) include annual 

evaluations of progress achieved with 

the grant; (2) be used to refine and 

improve activities carried out through 

the grant; (3) collect and report data that 

includes, but is not limited to, the 

following indicators: student chronic 

absenteeism rates; student discipline 

rates, including suspensions and 

expulsions; school climate information, 

which may come from student, parent, 

or teacher surveys; provision of 

integrated student supports and 

stakeholder services; expanded and 

enriched learning time and 

opportunities; family and community 

engagement efforts and impact; 

information on the number, 

qualifications, and retention of school 

staff, including the number and 

percentage of fully certified teachers, 

disaggregated by race and ethnicity, 

rates of teacher turnover, and teacher 

experience; graduation rates; changes in 

school spending information; 

collaborative leadership and practice 

strategies, which may include building 

the capacity of educators, principals, 

other school leaders, and other staff to 

lead collaborative school improvement 

structures, such as professional learning 

communities; regularly convening or 

engaging all initiative-level partners, 

such as LEA representatives, city or 

county officials, children’s and youth’s 

cabinets, nonprofit service providers, 

public housing agencies, and advocates; 

regularly assessing program quality and 

progress through individual student 

data, participant feedback, and aggregate 

outcomes to develop strategies for 

improvement; and organizing school 

personnel and community partners into 

working teams focused on specific 

issues identified in the needs and assets 

assessment; and (4) make results of the 

evaluation publicly available. 

Requirement 3—Preliminary and 

Final Memoranda of Understanding. 

An applicant must, in addition to 

providing the information and 

assurances required in Section 

4625(a)(2) of the ESEA, provide the 

following: 

In addressing the application 

requirements set out in Section 

4625(a)(2) of the ESEA, applicants must 

include a preliminary MOU among all 

partner entities of the eligible entity, 

identified at the time of the application, 

that will assist the eligible entity to 

plan, develop, coordinate, provide, and 

evaluate pipeline services and that 

describes the roles and responsibilities 

that the partners, including the broadly 

representative consortium, will assume. 

Applications submitted under Priority 3 

FSCS State Scaling Grants must also 

include in the preliminary MOU a 

description of the State steering 

committee and the SEA’s commitment 

to and partnership in the consortium, 

including the roles, responsibilities, and 

commitment of the SEA to the 

partnership and the scaling of fullservice community schools to a 

percentage of State LEAs implementing 

schoolwide Title IA programs and 

where there is a commitment to sustain 

the program beyond two years after the 

term of the grant. 

Grantees must submit a final MOU at 

the end of their first year of the grant. 

Final Definitions: 

This document includes four final 

definitions. We may apply these 

definitions in any year in which this 

program is in effect. We also intend to 

use definitions from sections 4622 and 

8101 of the ESEA. 

Broadly representative consortium 

means stakeholders representing broad 

groups of people working together for 

the best interest of children; such 

stakeholders may include, but are not 

limited to, families and family 

leadership, schools, nonprofits, 

government, philanthropy, and the 

business community. 

Full-service community school 

coordinator means an individual in a 

full-time position at each community 

school who serves to plan, integrate, 

coordinate, and facilitate the delivery of 

pipeline services at each school. The 

coordinator may also lead the school 

and community assessment of needs 

and assets and identify ways to sustain 

the services and partnerships beyond 

the duration of the grant. 

History of effectiveness means an 

eligible entity demonstrating the ability 

to successfully implement programs and 

policies. Such programs and policies 

must include, but shall not be limited 

to, successfully implementing with 

other organizations grants, policies, and 

programs for students from high need 

schools (as defined in ESEA section 

2221). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
41686 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 

Pillars of Full-Service Community 

Schools means all of the following: 

(A) Integrated student supports at a 

community school that provide in- and 

out-of-school support for students, 

address well-being, and address out-ofschool barriers to learning through 

partnerships with social and health 

service agencies, including mental and 

behavioral health agencies and 

providers, and coordinated by a 

community school coordinator, which 

may include— 

(i) Medical, dental, vision care, and 

mental and behavioral health services, 

including mental health literacy for 

students and staff, and trauma-informed 

services to prevent, intervene, and 

mitigate adverse childhood experiences 

(ACEs); and 

(ii) Individuals to assist with housing, 

transportation, nutrition, citizenship 

preparation, or criminal justice issues 

and other services. 

(B) Expanded and enriched learning 

time and opportunities, through 

evidence-based strategies, including 

before-school, after-school, duringschool, weekend, and summer programs 

that provide additional academic 

instruction individualized academic 

support (such as evidence-based 

tutoring, post-secondary transition 

support, student success coaches and 

mentoring programs), enrichment 

activities, or learning opportunities, for 

students at a community school that— 

(i) May emphasize real-world projectbased learning where students can 

apply their learning to contexts that are 

relevant and engaging; and 

(ii) May include art, music, drama, 

creative writing, hands-on experience 

with engineering or science (including 

computer science), career and technical 

education, tutoring that is aligned with 

classroom success and homework help, 

and recreational programs that enhance 

and are consistent with the school’s 

curriculum. 

(C) Active family and community 

engagement that— 

(i) Brings parents and families of 

students at the community school and 

community members and leaders into 

the school as partners in students’ 

education, including meaningfully 

involving parents and families in the 

community school’s decision-making 

processes; 

(ii) Makes the community school a 

hub for services, activities, and 

programs, for students, families, and 

members of the neighborhood that the 

community school serves; 

(iii) Provides adults with desired 

educational and employment 

opportunities and other supportive 

services; and 

(iv) Provides centralized supports for 

families and communities in 

community schools, which may include 

English as a second language classes, 

citizenship preparation, computer skills, 

art, housing assistance, child abuse and 

neglect prevention supports, health and 

mental health literacy programs, digital 

literacy training, or other programs that 

bring community members into a school 

building for meetings, events, or 

programming. 

(D) Collaborative leadership and 

practices that build a culture of 

professional learning, collective trust, 

and shared responsibility for each 

community school using strategies 

that— 

(i) At a minimum, include a schoolbased leadership team with 

representation of student, parent, and 

family leaders and a community voice; 

a community school coordinator; and a 

community-wide leadership team; and 

(ii) May include other leadership or 

governance teams, community school 

steering committees, or other 

community coalitions, educator learning 

communities, and other staff to manage 

the multiple, complex joint work of 

school and community organizations. 

Final Selection Criteria 

The Department may apply one or 

more of the following final selection 

criteria in any year in which the 

program is in effect. We will announce 

the maximum possible points assigned 

to each criterion in the NIA. The 

Department may include additional 

selection criteria from 34 CFR 75.210. 

(a) The extent to which the proposed 

project will provide support, resources, 

and services; close gaps in educational 

opportunity; or otherwise address the 

needs of the targeted population, 

including addressing the needs of 

underserved populations most impacted 

by the issue, challenge, or opportunity 

to be addressed by the proposed project. 

(b) The extent to which the design of 

the proposed project reflects relevant 

and evidence-based findings from 

existing literature and includes a highquality plan for project implementation 

integrating the four pillars of full-service 

community schools and the use of 

appropriate evaluation methods to 

ensure successful achievement of 

project objectives. 

(c) The extent to which the applicant 

will ensure that a diversity of 

perspectives is brought to bear in the 

design and operation of the proposed 

project, including those of students, 

youth, families, educators and staff, 

beneficiaries of services, school 

leadership, and community leadership. 

(d) The extent to which the grantee 

has plans for a full-time coordinator at 

each school, including a plan to sustain 

the position beyond the grant period, 

and a description of how this position 

will serve to plan, integrate, coordinate, 

and facilitate programs and services at 

each school. 

(e) The extent to which the grantee 

has, or demonstrates a strong plan to 

have, a broadly representative 

consortium that reflects the needs of the 

community and its stakeholders, and a 

description of the roles and 

responsibilities of the broadly 

representative consortium outlined in 

the required preliminary MOU. 

(f) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates a history of effectiveness 

in working with a diverse range of 

stakeholders, including students and 

families. 

(g) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates its commitment and 

strategy to scale full-service community 

schools at the statewide level. In 

determining the applicant’s capacity to 

scale the proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the number and percentage of 

LEAs, and the number and percentage of 

schools within each LEA, the applicant, 

the SEA, and other partners propose to 

serve; the applicant’s capacity (e.g., in 

terms of qualified personnel, financial 

resources, or management capacity) to 

further develop, implement, bring to 

scale and sustain additional full-service 

community schools in multiple LEAs; 

and the applicant’s capacity to work 

with others, including the broadly 

representative consortium and the State 

steering committee, to ensure that the 

proposed process, products, strategies, 

or practices can be further developed 

and brought to scale, based on the 

regular findings of the proposed project 

and its independent evaluation. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive Order and subject to 

review by OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action likely to result in a rule that 

may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 41687 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive Order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq.), the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs designated this rule 

as not a ‘‘major rule,’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that the benefits justify 

the costs. In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, we selected 

those approaches that maximize net 

benefits. Based on the analysis that 

follows, the Department believes that 

this regulatory action is consistent with 

the principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with these Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits: The 

Department believes that these final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria will not impose 

significant costs on the entities eligible 

to apply for FSCS. We also believe that 

the benefits of implementing the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria justify any associated 

costs. 

The potential costs are those resulting 

from statutory requirements and those 

we have determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

Priority 1 gives the Department the 

opportunity to offer applicants time and 

resources to build the capacity required 

to develop two or more successful fullservice community schools. 

Priority 2 gives the Department the 

opportunity to offer applicants funding 

to implement and sustain full-service 

community schools in two or more 

LEAs, with a minimum of two fullservice community schools in each LEA. 

Priority 3 gives the Department the 

opportunity to offer applicants funding 

to scale the implementation of fullservice community schools at the State 

level, in a percentage of LEAs in the 

State as determined by the applicant, 

the SEA, and other partners, with a 

minimum of two full-servicecommunity schools in each LEA. 

Implementation of community schools 

at this scale offers the opportunity for 

States to enact legislation and develop 

funding streams to support the 

expansion and sustainability of fullservice community schools in their 

State. 

Priority 4 gives the Department the 

opportunity to ensure that funds are 

targeted to reach the schools and 

communities of greatest need. 

Because these final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria would neither expand nor 

restrict the universe of eligible entities 

for any Department grant program, and 

since application submission and 

participation in our discretionary grant 

programs is voluntary, there are no costs 

associated with these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that 

this final regulatory action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

Size Standards define ‘‘small entities’’ 

as for-profit or nonprofit institutions 

with total annual revenue below 

$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions 

controlled by small governmental 

jurisdictions (that are comprised of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts), with a population of less than 

50,000. 

The small entities that this regulatory 

action will affect are public or private 

nonprofit agencies and organizations, 

including institutions of higher 

education, that may apply. We believe 

that the costs imposed on an applicant 

by the final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria will be 

limited to paperwork burden related to 

preparing an application and that the 

benefits of implementing these final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria will outweigh any 

costs incurred by the applicant. 

Therefore, we do not believe that the 

final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria will 

significantly impact small entities 

beyond the potential for receiving 

additional support should the small 

entity receive a competitive grant from 

the Department. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department provides the 

general public and Federal agencies 

with an opportunity to comment on 

proposed and continuing collections of 

information, in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps 

ensure that: The public understands the 

Department’s collection instructions, 

respondents can provide the requested 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
41688 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2022 / Notices 

1Maier, A., Daniel, J., Oakes, J., & Lam, L. 

(December 2017). Community Schools as an 

Effective School Improvement Strategy: A Review 

of the Evidence. Learning Policy Institute. 

data in the desired format, reporting 

burden (time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the Department 

can properly assess the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents. 

The final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

contain information collection 

requirements that are approved by OMB 

under OMB control number 1894–0006. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: On request to the 

contact person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format. The Department 

will provide the requestor with an 

accessible format that may include Rich 

Text Format (RTF) or text format, a 

thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc or 

other accessible format. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 

www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can 

view this document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Ruth E. Ryder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Programs Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education. 

[FR Doc. 2022–15090 Filed 7–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Applications for New Awards; FullService Community Schools Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(Department) is issuing a notice inviting 

applications for fiscal year (FY) 2022 for 

the Full-Service Community Schools 

(FSCS) program, Assistance Listing 

Number 84.215J. This notice relates to 

the approved information collection 

under OMB control number 1894–0006. 

DATES: 

Applications Available: July 13, 2022. 

Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: 

August 12, 2022. 

Date of Pre-Application Meetings: The 

Department will hold pre-application 

meetings via webinars for prospective 

applicants. Detailed information 

regarding these webinars will be 

provided on the FSCS website at https:// 

oese.ed.gov/offices/office-ofdiscretionary-grants-support-services/ 

school-choice-improvement-programs/ 

full-service-community-schoolsprogram-fscs/. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: September 12, 2022. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review: November 10, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: For the addresses for 

obtaining and submitting an 

application, please refer to our Common 

Instructions for Applicants to 

Department of Education Discretionary 

Grant Programs, published in the 

Federal Register on December 27, 2021 

(86 FR 73264) and available at 

www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-27979. 

Please note that these Common 

Instructions supersede the version 

published on February 13, 2019, and, in 

part, describe the transition from the 

requirement to register in SAM.gov a 

Data Universal Numbering System 

(DUNS) number to the implementation 

of the Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). 

More information on the phase-out of 

DUNS numbers is available at https://

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ofo/ 

docs/unique-entity-identifier-transitionfact-sheet.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

Hodgdon, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 4E246, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 453–6620. Email: 

FSCS@ed.gov. 

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or 

have a speech disability and wish to 

access telecommunications relay 

services, please dial 7–1–1. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Full Text of Announcement 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

Purpose of Program: The FSCS 

program is authorized by sections 4621– 

4623 and 4625 of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA). This program 

provides support for the planning, 

implementation, and operation of fullservice community schools that improve 

the coordination, integration, 

accessibility, and effectiveness of 

services for children and families, 

particularly for children attending highpoverty schools, including high-poverty 

rural schools. 

Background: A full-service 

community school is a public 

elementary or secondary school that 

uses established partnerships between 

schools and community organizations to 

provide well-rounded educational 

opportunities and meet the social, 

emotional, physical and mental health, 

and academic needs of students. Section 

4622 of the ESEA defines a full-service 

community school as a public 

elementary or secondary school that: 

(a) Participates in a community-based 

effort to coordinate and integrate 

educational, developmental, family, 

health, and other comprehensive 

services through community-based 

partnerships; and 

(b) Provides access to such services in 

schools to students, families, and the 

community, such as access during the 

school year (including before- and afterschool hours and weekend), as well as 

during the summer. 

The growing interest at the State and 

local levels in community schools,1 also 

known as full-service community 

schools, coupled with this competition, 

presents an opportunity for nationwide 

school improvement during a period 

when children and teachers are trying to 

return to the classroom and the nation 

is grappling with violence in and 

around schools. The ESEA offers 

flexibilities at the State and local levels 

to implement strategies supported by 

community schools, such as 

coordination of school and community 

resources (ESEA sections 1114(b)(5) and 

1115(b)(2)) and after-school 

programming and support for a 

community school coordinator (ESEA 

section 4108(5)(H)). If a State 

educational agency (SEA) (as defined in 

this notice) or local educational agency 

(LEA) (as defined in this notice) lacks 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1