[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37218-37222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12144]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket ID ED-2021-OESE-0152]


Final Priority and Requirements--Full-Service Community Schools

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Final priority and requirements.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority 
and requirements under the Full-Service Community Schools (FSCS) 
program, Assistance Listing Number 84.215J. The Department may use the 
priority and requirements for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and 
in later years. The Department intends for the priority and 
requirements to support competitions under the FSCS program for the 
purpose of conducting national evaluations of the program's 
implementation and effectiveness.

DATES: The priority and requirements are effective July 7, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Hodgdon. U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, room 3E346, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: 202-245-6057. Email: [email protected].
    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: 
    Purpose of Program: The FSCS program, established under sections 
4621-4623 and 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 4621-4623 and 4625 of the ESEA, 20 
U.S.C. 7271-7273, 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 rationale for proposing the 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, 
including a priority for participation in a national evaluation of the 
program's effectiveness using a randomized controlled trial (i.e., 
experimental) design. We then published a notice of final priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program in 
the Federal Register on July 13, 2022 (87 FR 41675) (the 2022 FSCS 
NFP). In the 2022 FSCS NFP, we discussed a plan to conduct additional 
outreach before finalizing a priority on a national evaluation.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 19 
parties submitted comments pertinent to the proposed national 
evaluation priority, which were addressed in the 2022 FSCS NFP. In the 
2022 FSCS NFP, the Department communicated our appreciation for the 
comments, concerns, and support shared by the field regarding a 
national evaluation of the FSCS program. We committed to working with 
grantees and other stakeholders to design and conduct the national 
evaluation required under section 4625(f) of the ESEA. To allow more 
time to conduct outreach with the field, the Department delayed 
launching the national evaluation.
    We discuss substantive issues under each priority or requirement 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 priority and requirements.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the priority and requirements related to the proposed 
national evaluation priority follows.
    Proposed Priority 4--Participation in a National Evaluation.
    Comments: We summarized the 19 comments received related to 
Priority 4 in the 2022 FSCS NFP.
    Discussion: As discussed in the 2022 FSCS NFP, 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, which requires the Department's Institute of Education Sciences 
(IES) to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of the FSCS program 
grants. To allow more time to conduct outreach with the field, the 
Department did not begin the national evaluation with the FY 2022 grant 
competition.
    In response to comments expressing concern about the design of the 
national evaluation, section 4625(f) of the ESEA requires a national 
evaluation that assesses the effectiveness of the grants. Section 
4625(g) of the ESEA requires that grantees conduct local evaluations to 
assess annual progress achieved, refine and improve activities, and 
make the results publicly available. The local and national evaluations 
are separate but complementary, and one cannot be used in place of the 
other. The alternative designs suggested by commenters for a national 
evaluation would not meet the requirements in section 4625(f). While a 
national evaluation of the program's implementation would be useful and 
is included in the randomized controlled trial design described in the 
national evaluation priority, a national evaluation of implementation 
alone would not fulfill the mandate for evaluating the program's 
effectiveness. While two of the 19 comments received supported 
conducting a randomized controlled trial evaluation beginning in 2022, 
the majority of commenters and stakeholders that provided input through 
subsequent outreach shared that it would be useful to the field to 
learn about the implementation of FSCS grants prior to assessing their 
effectiveness. We have decided to first conduct a national evaluation 
of program implementation and will share those implementation findings 
with the field. We will use the interim implementation findings to 
inform and enhance the design and execution of a subsequent national 
evaluation of the program's effectiveness using a randomized controlled 
trial.
    Another commenter suggested that an alternative design, a quasi-
experimental study, would be very challenging to execute with 
sufficient scientific rigor at a national level. A quasi-experimental 
design would require the identification of a comparison group of non-
FSCS funded schools that are very similar at baseline to the schools 
receiving grant funds. It would likely be very difficult to find 
schools not implementing community schools strategies that are similar 
enough to schools receiving FSCS grant funds and willing to provide the 
detailed data required for the evaluation. While such a quasi-
experimental design approach has been used in evaluating community 
schools within more limited contexts, such as a single city or one or 
two States, it would be much more difficult to identify

[[Page 37219]]

credible comparison schools for each FSCS-funded school given the 
diverse and widespread distribution of schools receiving FSCS grant 
funds. Even if an ostensibly suitable comparison group at baseline 
could be identified, it would not be possible to fully determine 
whether there are factors in the comparison schools that make them more 
or less likely to have better outcomes over time and to disentangle 
those factors from the effects of the FSCS grant funds.
    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. Using a national evaluation of implementation 
to inform the national evaluation of effectiveness required under 
section 4625(f) of the ESEA provides the Department with an opportunity 
to better understand what can be measured, including outcomes related 
to health, social emotional learning, safety, and well-being. Further, 
the 13 program indicators that were included in the 2022 FSCS NFP 
include measures related to attendance, school climate, discipline, 
expanded learning time, and family engagement, among others.
    The Department agrees with commenters that requiring applicants to 
propose at least four schools to receive grant funding could exclude 
some districts. Therefore, in the priority for a national evaluation of 
effectiveness using a randomized controlled trial, we are reducing the 
minimum number of proposed schools from four to two.
    In response to comments that a randomized controlled trial would be 
unfair, the Department disagrees. In all FSCS competitions, there is 
not sufficient funding for every interested and eligible school. 
Whatever total grant funds are available in any year, under a 
randomized controlled trial design, more applicants and localities 
would receive FSCS grants, though not every one of their interested 
schools could participate or benefit from that funding. Without a 
randomized controlled trial, fewer localities receive grants, though 
all interested schools can participate in FSCS funding. Therefore, 
whether there is a randomized controlled trial or not, there will be 
schools that will not receive grant funds or participate under a funded 
grant. In either case, the Department would be awarding the same total 
amount of money to support FSCS nationally.
    Regarding comments related to data collection, the Department 
agrees that it is vital to engage stakeholders in a variety of ways, in 
part to ensure that any national evaluation plans are well-informed and 
reflect the reality of grantee variation. Since receiving feedback on 
the national evaluation priority, we interviewed key community schools 
researchers and practitioners. We synthesized the interview findings 
and shared updated evaluation plans in a webinar with the field in 
February 2023. We will continue to seek stakeholder input and 
incorporate multiple perspectives, as feasible and aligned with the 
theory of action, in all national evaluations.
    Regarding recommendations that the Department engage a technical 
advisory group, we also agree there is substantial value in obtaining 
multiple perspectives on any national evaluation of FSCS. The 
evaluation currently has a Technical Working Group comprised of 
community schools researchers and practitioners. This group met in 
October 2020 to advise on initial evaluation plans. We will continue to 
consult these experts, or experts with similar expertise, as the design 
and execution of a national evaluation of FSCS implementation and 
effectiveness moves forward. The Department agrees that mandatory 
participation in any national evaluation is essential for the results 
to reflect the diversity of grantees and their efforts.
    Following the publication of the 2022 FSCS NFP and after 
discussions with FSCS grantees and other stakeholders, the Department 
has determined that a robust national evaluation of FSCS grantee 
implementation, as recommended in comments received on the NPP, will 
help the field learn about implementation, provide information to the 
Department to help us target supports for applicants and grantees, and 
inform a subsequent national evaluation of effectiveness that meets the 
statutory requirement. Accordingly, and as discussed in more detail 
below, we are establishing requirements that applicants include an 
assurance to participate in the national evaluation assessing the 
implementation of the FSCS program and that grantees participate in the 
national evaluation assessing the implementation of the FSCS program.
    To meet the statutory requirement, the Department will use 
information learned about implementation of FSCS grants to develop a 
rigorous national evaluation of effectiveness. In order to conduct a 
subsequent effectiveness study, we are establishing a priority for 
participation in a future national evaluation of effectiveness using a 
randomized controlled trial design.
    Changes: The Department has finalized a priority for participation 
in a national evaluation of effectiveness of the FSCS program using a 
randomized controlled trial design that requires applicants to propose 
at least two, rather than four, schools to potentially receive grant 
funding.

Other Requirements

    Comments: We summarized comments received related to FSCS program 
requirements in the 2022 FSCS NFP.
    As discussed in connection with the national evaluation proposed 
priority from the 2022 FSCS NPP, numerous commenters recommended that 
the Department conduct an evaluation using a design other than a 
randomized controlled trial design. There were four comments related to 
differences in implementation of full-service community schools across 
schools because the strategy is specific to the needs and assets of 
individual communities and schools.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important to study how grantees are 
implementing their FSCS grants. In order to ensure that FSCS applicants 
are fully prepared to participate in a national evaluation of the 
implementation of the FSCS program, the Department is establishing an 
application requirement and a program requirement that grantees must 
work with IES during the assessment of implementation of the FSCS 
program.
    Changes: The Department has added an application requirement that 
applicants include an assurance that the eligible entity and its 
partner entities will participate in a national evaluation assessing 
the implementation of the FSCS program and a program requirement that 
grantees will work with IES during the assessment of implementation of 
the FSCS program.

Final Priority

    This document contains one final priority.
    Participation in a National Evaluation of Effectiveness Using a 
Randomized Controlled Trial Design.
    Projects in which the applicant agrees to--
    (a) Carry out the FSCS grant in a manner consistent with a 
randomized controlled trial evaluation design developed by the 
Department and its national evaluator;
    (b) Propose at least two schools to potentially receive grant 
funding in the national evaluation of effectiveness. The

[[Page 37220]]

proposed schools can be elementary, middle, and/or high schools;
    (c) Not currently be fully implementing all four pillars of full-
service community schools (as defined in the 2022 FSCS NFP) in any of 
the schools proposed for the grant;
    (d) Consent to the evaluator's random assignment of approximately 
one-half of the schools proposed by the applicant to receive funding 
and begin implementing the FSCS approach; and the other half of schools 
to not receive funding from any FSCS grant for 3 years following random 
assignment;
    (e) Not promote or begin using grant funds for the implementation 
of the FSCS approach in any proposed schools until the grantee receives 
notification from the national evaluator about the random assignment of 
its schools to receive FSCS grant funding or not; and
    (f) Cooperate, consistent with applicable privacy requirements, 
with evaluation data collection activities, including: surveys of 
grantee directors, principals of both groups of proposed schools (those 
randomly assigned to receive grant funding and schools assigned to not 
receive grant funding), and a representative sample of parents/
guardians of students attending the two groups of grantee schools; and 
provision of district administrative records on educators (e.g., 
credentials, experience) and students (e.g., academic assessment 
scores, course taking and credit accumulation, attendance) in the two 
groups of grantee schools. These data collections will be carried out 
at multiple points over the grant period.
    Note: From among the proposed schools, applicants may designate one 
group of two or more schools that serve the same grade levels as 
``highest need.'' If the applicant receives a grant, the national 
evaluation of effectiveness will ensure that at least one of the 
schools in the group receives FSCS funding.
    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 75.105C(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 two final requirements.
    Assurance of Participation in a National Evaluation Assessing the 
Implementation of the FSCS Program.
    Each applicant must include an assurance that the eligible entity 
and its partner entities will participate in a national evaluation 
assessing the implementation of the FSCS program, which may include, 
but is not limited to, the following:
    (a) Completing surveys of grantee organizations (which may include 
service provider partners), grantee schools (which may include multiple 
individuals within each school such as the principal and the service 
coordinator), and potentially a sample of teachers within grantee 
schools;
    (b) Participating in interviews of grantee organizations, grantee 
schools, and/or a sample of teachers within grantee schools;
    (c) Providing administrative data, such as student absenteeism 
rates and high school graduation rates;
    (d) Cooperating with data collection at several points during the 
grant period, such as shortly after grant award (baseline round of data 
collection), during the middle of the grant period (interim round of 
data collection), and toward the end of the grant period (final round 
of data collection); and
    (e) Assisting in facilitating connections between each grantee's 
local evaluator and the national evaluation of implementation to ensure 
efficiency and coordination between the evaluation efforts.
    Participate in a National Evaluation Assessing the Implementation 
of the FSCS Program.
    Each grantee must participate in a national evaluation assessing 
the implementation of the FSCS program, which may include, but is not 
limited to, the following:
    (a) Completing surveys of grantee organizations (which may include 
service provider partners), grantee schools (which may include multiple 
individuals within each school such as the principal and the service 
coordinator), and potentially a sample of teachers within grantee 
schools;
    (b) Participating in interviews of grantee organizations, grantee 
schools, and/or a sample of teachers within grantee schools;
    (c) Providing administrative data, such as student absenteeism 
rates and high school graduation rates;
    (d) Cooperating with data collection at several points during the 
grant period, such as shortly after grant award (baseline round of data 
collection), during the middle of the grant period (interim round of 
data collection), and toward the end of the grant period (final round 
of data collection); and
    (e) Assisting in facilitating connections between each grantee's 
local evaluator and the national evaluation of implementation to ensure 
efficiency and coordination between the evaluation efforts.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in 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, as 
amended by Executive Order 14094, 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 $200 million or more 
(adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of OIRA for changes in 
gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or 
Tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a 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 legal or policy issues for which centralized review would

[[Page 37221]]

meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles 
stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely 
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
(as amended by Executive Order 14094). Pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), OIRA 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.'' OIRA 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 the final priority and requirements 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 the 
final priority and requirements will not impose significant costs on 
the entities eligible to apply for FSCS. We also believe that the 
benefits of implementing the final priority and requirements outweigh 
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.
    The priority and requirements give the Department the opportunity 
to conduct a national evaluation of the FSCS program, as required in 
section 4625(f) of the ESEA.
    Because the final priority and requirements 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 this priority and requirements for applicants; grantees 
would use grant funds for participation in evaluation activities.
    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 
local educational agencies, the Bureau of Indian Education, and 
community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, and other 
public or private entities that may apply. We believe that the costs 
imposed on an applicant by the final priority and requirements will be 
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and 
that the benefits of implementing this final priority and requirements 
will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant. Grantees will incur 
costs related to participating in the national evaluation and 
implementation study; however, grant funds will be available to meet 
those costs. Therefore, we do not believe that the final priority and 
requirements 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 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 priority and requirements 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.

[[Page 37222]]

    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 Adobe 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.

James F. Lane,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Delegated the Authority to 
Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary, Office of 
Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2023-12144 Filed 6-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P