{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":3,"sheets":["Sheet1","Sheet2","Sheet3"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":1,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"Sheet1","index":0,"n_rows":70,"n_cols":4,"rows_kept":70,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["Comment #","Commenter's Name","Comment","TRIO's Response"]
[1,"Siertle/PA Coll of Tech","Suggest that the criteria for determining who can complete item #5 of Section II is too restrictive.  The first condition requires that the 4-year institution have a 2-year degree college.  While the criterion may apply to larger institutions, it excludes smaller colleges that do not have separate colleges for their two-year program.  These smaller colleges may award the majority of their degrees at the associate level but be classified as 4-year institutions.  Suggest using the Carnegie code because Carnegie classifies these institutions as Associate's Dominant.","Is the intention to make it restrictive, so that projects don't abuse the new accommodation?  What was our intention--to accommodate two-year programs at 4-yr institutions, or to accommodate 2-year degree colleges within a 4-year college?"]
[2,"Siertle/PA Coll of Tech","Condition 3 requires that an institution must have previously submitted both a 2 and 4 year objective in order to qualify (completing item #5). Grantee encourages ED to allow project to modify their existing objectives only if they meet the 1st and 2nd conditions.  Allowing for this modification will provide institutions a one-time opportunity to align their grant objectives with the appropriate prior experience objective.  Julie says, PLEASE READ THEIR EXAMPLE.  IT EXPLAINS THE INCONSISTENCIES.  ","According to their example, the grantee would not be able to provide an objective because they calculated a graduation objective based on their 2-year programs, however, they did not provide a 4-yr grad rate because they confer mostly associate's degrees.  It is complicated.  It is not as simple as identifying the sector and then having them complete the appropriate item based on their sector.  What a mess!!"]
[3,"Fraleigh/Marquette","Section III of the APR no longer provides instructions on how to prepare the APR.  It seems that an Excel spreadsheet with all data formatted as text is desired, but instructions don't say this.","We are not allowing fixed text formats so there is no need for field length, type, position, etc.  Column must match and field options but all else is irrelevant.  Only area where length becomes an issue is for SSN and the date fields and we have already addressed these in the instructions.  Maybe we need to add back instructions to the record structure that we are only accepting CSV and XLS files, therefore...blah blah blah."]
[4,"Fraleigh/Marquette","Field #17.  Enrollment Status--(1) A student who graduates in December is categorized as….   (2) change in option #4 \"acdemic term\" to \"academic year\".    (3)  How are incompletes, audits, and failed hours added? ","Appears that either the grantee is not reading the instructions or they are confused.  They have already addressed this field in the first round of comments.  These are a whole set of new comments.  (1)  Based on the number of hours ENROLLED at the end of the academic year.    (2)  OK     (3) Incompletes - # of hours enrolled.  Audits = 0.  Failed = # of hours enrolled."]
[5,"Fraleigh/Marquette","Field #16.  Student Cohort Year.  Allow grantee to enter the actual date; otherwise it will require modications after 09-10.","No.  This is a critical field.  Allowing grantees to enter the actual date would no doubt create more headaches.  Modifying is much easier---in the long run."]
[6,"Fraleigh/Marquette","Field #19--Remove \"continuing graduate/professional student\" since they won't be required to tract beyond BA.","No.  Track one more year."]
[7,"Fraleigh/Marquette","Field #20, 22, 23, and 27.  Combine all fields into one because we are collecting duplicative information and it will only create more confusion and inconsistencies.","The fields were setup to capture data in a logical way.  Combining does not ensure less confusion nor does it capture the data in a logical manner.  If they read the instructions, they will find that this works best.  "]
[8,"Goodwin/Uni of ID","Are we expected to update records on all previous students or leavel the numbers the same and only use the new numbers for new students.","Update where applicable."]
[9,"Goodwin/Uni of ID","Is there a difference between prior no longer enrolled and prior still enrolled.  Do we not report on either category?","Yes there is a HUGE difference.  If grantee has both types of students, then they need to report on both.  "]
[10,"Goodwin/Uni of ID","Do we report on students who did not return in the Fall?  Some students do not formally withdraw, they just don't return.","They have a point because we use the word \"withdrew\" which implies the student took action.  Maybe we just add the words \"Did not return\" after the word withdrew.  The ideal thing to do is to add another category \"Did not return\" but for our purposes, do we really care whether they formally withdrew or did not return?"]
[11,"Escher/Uni of NV Reno","Prior Experience Points and the defining the cohort.  The cohort is not based on what they were told to do.  For example, they set their graduation bjectives based on institutional data (i.e., SRTK), however, we define the cohort and calculate PE points very differently.","Hmm.  They do have a point.  Two sets of conflicting info.  If the SRTK cohort is based on full-time freshmen and the PE cohort is based on new students entering the program in XX-XX which may include sophomores, juniors, and seniors….very different.   Actually, it is to their advantage, that is, the way we define the cohort because they would be adding more students that are more likely to graduate since they would be in the higher grades.  Hope this makes sense."]
[12,"Nieves/Grand Rapids CC","Add another category to the Participant Status to include Readmits/Reentries.  This is a very common occurrence at CCs.","Good suggestion but I would add a separate field; otherwise you would have to have two types of readmits: continuing and prior still enrolled--too confusing."]
[13,"Hupp/Black Hills St Uni","Grantee was told by program officer to update the eligibility status, however, they were under the impression that once they establish eligibility status, it remains the same throughout.","I thought the same thing.  Are there instances when the eligibility status would need to be updated/changed?"]
[14,"Hupp/Black Hills St Uni","Clarify which cohort a student would be in if they were new to both the institution and the program for summer 06.  Grantee says 05-06.","Instructions are very clear on this.  If student participated in summer bridge program in 06, then they would be 06-07, otherwise, 05-06."]
[15,"Hupp/Black Hills St Uni","To count a student as a transfer…if a student says they are transferring, do they count the student or do they need to actually verify that the student transferred in order to count the student."]
[16,"Hupp/Black Hills St Uni","Undergrad Degree Completed.  The grantee thinks that a dual degree program is for students who are working on two undergrad degrees.  ","Did we intend dual degree to mean only for students who have completed the equivalent of a BA and are working towards a grad degree or students who are working on two undergrads simultaneously?"]
[17,"Unknown","How are participants counted (persistence rate) prior to 03-04?","There are not because persistence is calculated from one academic year to the next, so prior years are irrelevant."]
[18,"Unknown","Prior Experience Points calculation seems unfair for those projects who did not recruit new participants in a given year.  ","True and project should have taken this into account when they did their objectives and recruitment."]
[19,"Glampa/","Field #20.  How would a grantee record a student who received a BA?   None of the existing options would fit this student.","Not true.  Use option #2."]
[20,"Glampa/","Grantee wrote their objectives based on the instructions from the Department--rate for each cohort.  The retention rates are different for each cohort, so how would they report the correct rate?","Persistence is based from one academic year to the next and not on cohort.  Appears that they need to modify their objectives to comply with the new procedures.   Need to speak to their PO."]
[21,"Glampa/","Same question for graduation.  ","Graduation rate is based on 6 years for this school.  So use the grad rate objective that was provided -- only report on the cohort who began 6 years ago."]
[22,"Kabat","Adding slashes to all date fields will be cumbersome","CBMI has requested no slashes be used"]
[23,"Kabat","First Enrollment Date as proposed does not work because many grantees have precollege enrollment and many students enroll 4 - 5 months prior to the start of classes","Propose to change the instructions to read \"The enrollment date is the date when the participant has completed the registration requirements, paid their tuition and fees and attends first day classes.\""]
[24,"Kabat","Field Academic Need--Combine low college grades and failing grades since a student who is either will go on probation; therefore, showing the need for academic services.","Leave as is because some grantees might need both options separate as they may have a different measurement."]
[25,"Kabat","Enrollment Status--Categories do not allow for reporting on students who did not attend the full year.  Example, attended full-time in the fall then left institution or student attended fall, did not attend in the winter and returned in the spring as full-time.","The grantee seems to be confused.  The enrollment status is based on the number of hours not the status at the end of the reporting period.  "]
[26,"Kabat","Although field #21 could be different from #20 because grantee usually reports in November, there would be no difference.","These persistence fields have nothing to do with each other.  A status of withdrew in #20 does not mean the student will not be enrolled in 06-07."]
[27,"Kabat","Field #20--The instructions are incorrect.","For all other transfers should be \"4\" not \"5\"."]
[28,"McNeil","Complained about the number of hours to complete the APR as a result of the changes.","Thank you for your comments."]
[29,"McNeil","While grantee appreciates the opportunity not to report on bachelor's and transfers, the instructions are confusing.  Question:  If on the 04-05 they reported a student's graduation, does that mea that they don't have to report it again in 05-06 (with them as a prior-year participant, not enrolled), or does it mean that once they report it on the 05-06 (with the new fields added), then they don't have to report it next year?","We decided to keep BA's, transfers, and priors no longer enrolled for one more year.  So, we have to change all of the instructions."]
[30,"McNeil","Grantee is very concern on how ED intends to use date of last service.  The date of last may be in a year which they do not become active.  The grantee's concern is that this will somewho trigger an error message that states that this info is somehow incompatible with other data reported in the report.  Scenario:  A student enters the program in 05-06.  In 06-07 they receive 2 hours of service but they do not meet the 3 hr requirement for becoming an active participant.  However, they enter the contact info because the student did receive 2 hrs of service but the student is prior year participant.  ","As far as the edit validation process is concerned, we are not editing this field, however, the grantee may need some guidance regarding the policy as it relates to serving students."]
[31,"McNeil","Delete option 13 - continuing grad/prof since they will not be required to track beyond bachelor's degree","No because it has nothing to do with tracking of students.  A student could have graduated in the winter and entered grad school in the spring."]
[32,"McNeil","Field #20--Modify option 2 because the way it reads is confusing.","Propose:  Graduated with a bachelor's degree OR graduated with an associate's degree (without transferring to a 4-year institution)"]
[33,"Powers","Grantee would like to know if there is a method that they may now use to take advantage of the fifth option in Section II.  Although they are a 4-year school, their population is very different.  ","I guess the grantee is asking if they can modify their objective so that they can serve needy students who do not intend to finish within the 6 years."]
[34,"Powers","Grantee has students who are working on one or more incompletes.  By definition they are not enrolled but is working towards graduating.  Sometimes the student may have gotten the incomplete in one program year but graduate in the next.  Can they get credit for this student?","They get credit when the student graduates.  Something to ponder if we consider at some point deleting from the file all priors no longer enrolled."]
[35,"Powers","What characteristics will the graduation rate be calculated?  All graduates?  Only new or continuing participants?","The rate is based on the cohort.  The cohort is based on date of project entry.  "]
[36,"Escher","Grantee stated that new grants will be eliminated from earning significant pe points because they will not get any points for graduation.","PE points is something the grantee earns not something that is given to them.  If there is no data to calculate the grad rate, how then does the grantee propose we calculate and allocate points.  You can't get points for something you have not earned."]
[37,"Escher","Grantee stated that the definition of the cohort is \"starkly different\" than that of the SRTK and the institution's.  The proposed model was reflected the grad objective of most of the grantees, however, this is not a good basis for making a cedision with such far eaching consequences since grants were written based on info from the ED strongly suggesting the proposed cohort model for determining grad rates.","For purposes of PE, this is how we define the cohort.  The grantee should have taken this into consideration when they developed their proposal.  This has nothing to do with PART, GPRA, Efficiency Measures, etc."]
[38,"Escher","Programs should be able to use the NSC to track grads.  Under the proposed model, grantees only get credit for students who graduate from the host institution.","For now, we only consider the host institution.  When and if TRIO grantees participate at a higher rate in the NSC we will consider other alternatives.  The key here is for the purposes of PE.  We already are doing what they have suggested (SRTK model) when we calculate the rates for GPRA."]
[39,"Escher","Service Data","Non Issue"]
[40,"Escher","Grantee asked:  \"How could an individual be served by an SSS project without being enrolled at the University?  Enrollment at the grantee institutions or accepted for enrollment is a basic requirement for acceptance into SSS.","For purposes of Katrina/Rita students, a student could have been served by the project without having been accepted.  The reason for the distinction is to determine the funded number served."]
[41,"Escher","13 - Continuing graduate/professional student.   How are these students to be coded for the next reporting period?  Are they to be dropped from the next year's APR?","More of a policy question.  We added this to the instructions.  For students who graduated or transferred or students who are prior-year participants not longer enrolled at the institution during 2005-2006 use “99” for -- “Not Enrolled”  "]
[42,"Escher","#20 - Persistence/Graduation Status (end of reporting year)","Change the note from:  \"Students who completed/diploma....should be reported as \"1\" TO \"Students who completed/diploma....should be reported as \"8\".  Change the note from: \"For all other transfers, use option \"5\" TO \"For all other transfers, use option \"4\"."]
[43,"Escher","#21 - If the Department is wanting to know if a participant who was listed as \"Continuing in the end of the year status (field #20) actually did enroll the following academic year, please just say so.  Grantee would prefer a cutoff date like enrolled as of November 1, 2006.","Wish it was as simple as the grantee suggests. This is for PE and GPRA, so we need to be able to distinguish between those that enrolled, those that transferred (and type of transfer, etc.)    New options are as follows:"]
[null,null,null,"1 = Enrolled as an undergraduate at grantee institution (no degree earned)"]
[null,null,null,"2 = Enrolled as an undergraduate at grantee institution (degree earned)"]
[null,null,null,"3 = Not enrolled at grantee institution (graduated with associate's degree and transferred to a 4-year institution or transferred from a 2-year to a 4-year without completing an associate’s degree)"]
[null,null,null,"4 = Not enrolled at grantee institution (completed degree)"]
[null,null,null,"5 = Not enrolled at grantee institution (transferred)"]
[null,null,null,"6 = Not enrolled at grantee institution (no degree completed at grantee institution)"]
[null,null,null,"0 = No response/Unknown"]
[44,"Escher","GPA Scale - Delete \"0 = No response/Unknown\".  Any funded project better know what grading scale their college/university is using whether it's a 4 point, 5 point, or some other grading scale."]
[45,"Escher","Cumulative GPA.  \"Use 9.9999 (Not applicable) for prior....\"   Should this be a 3 or 4 decimal point?  Conflict between the field and instructions.","3 decimal?"]
[46,"Taylor","The documentation (instructions and letter) are referencing the wrong date.","Were required to enter a date.  We are aware of it and will make the necessary changes."]
[47,"Taylor","Field Reference #17, 25, 26, 28, and 29-31.  Several fields state enter a certain number for prior year participants.  This is unclear.  Does it mean all priors or only certain types of priors?","All priors."]
[48,"Taylor","Field #19 - Current Grade Level.  Although we provide instructions for \"99 - Not Enrolled\", there is no option on the proposed APR.","Not Enrolled and Graduated/transferred are not grade levels.  I personally would like to see these two options not included in the APR.  Creates too much confusion.  If a grantee does not know the grade level or whatever invalid reason they have, they should choose Unknown/No Response.  "]
[49,"Taylor","Field #19, option 15 - Graduated or Transferred.  Shouldn't the grade level be reported even if the student graduated or transferred?  The grantee goes on to say that this info (grad/transf) is already provided in #20.","I agree.  They are correct."]
[50,"Taylor","Field #21-Persistence Status (at the beginning of the 06-07 academic year).  What exactly is the performance report requesting info on?  Is this information at the beginning of the 06-07 AY, or are we reporting  2 1/2 months into the next grant year?","Do we need to further clarify?  I thought it was clear...\"at the beginning of the ACADEMIC YEAR not the next grant cycle."]
[51,"Taylor","In the instructions under \"(2) What are the data fields?\" The asterisk fields can use the default (Not applicable) for prior year participants. Field #17, 25, 26, and 32 are not default values.  ","I think what they are in applying is that by having an option for priors it does not become a default value.  A simple change to the instructions will hopefully clear up any misunderstanding.  For example, delete the word \"default\" so the instructions would read:  The asterisk fields can use the \"Not Applicable (prior-year participants\" for all prior-year participants.)"]
[52,"Taylor","How would a grantee update info on prior-year participants (not enrolled) who have transferred after the due date of the prior performance report?  There are times that participants may take off a semester before transferring on to a university, or after a semester off, may enrol at a university and transfer back hours which would complete a degree at our 2 yr colleges. Does this hold true for updating info on participants who left the program the prior year and are listed as prior year not enrolled in current APR but who may have transferred and/or transferred back hours to obtain their AA?","Once the information has been submitted that submission cannot be changed.  If they return to finish, they are supposed to put them back on the file.  For the new submission the part. status would change to prior year still enrolled.  If they only transfer hours in order to meet the requirements for AA....help?"]
[null,"APR changes"]
[null,"--Reminder to CBMI to gray out Student Cohort Year, options 9 -11 (07-08 thru 09-10)."]
[null,"--Field #19 - Current Grade Level Possible deletion of option 15-Graduated or Transferred?"]
[null,"--Field #20 - Persistence/Grad. Option 2, fix per comment above.  Also, should we add the words \"or equivalent\" after \"bachelor's degree?"]
[null,"--Field #21 - Persistence Status in 2006-07.  See comment above. Also change column name to \"CurPerstStatus \""]
[null,"--Field #27-Undegraduate Degree/Certificate Completed.  Add the words \"at grantee institution\" after the word \"Completed\"."]
[null,"    --Change option 4 to 1st Bachelor's Degree and add option \"5 - 2nd Bachelor's Degree\""]
[null,"    --Change option \"8 - Still enrolled at grantee institution\" to \"Not yet completed a degree or certificate\""]
[null,"--Field #28 - Date of Degree.  Change the field name to \"Date of Undergraduate Degree\" and change column name to \"DOUD\""]
[null,"--Field #22 - Summer Bridge.  Delete options 2 and 7."]

{"sheet":"Sheet2","index":1,"n_rows":0,"n_cols":0,"rows_kept":0,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}

{"sheet":"Sheet3","index":2,"n_rows":0,"n_cols":0,"rows_kept":0,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}