Back to Bills

Student Success Grants for High-Need Students

Full Title:
Postsecondary Student Success Act of 2026

Summary#

The bill would create a new federal competitive grant program to pay for evidence-based student success work at colleges. The grants target programs that boost participation, retention, and completion for “high-need” students. The program would run for fiscal years 2027 through 2032 and requires evaluations and outcome benchmarks.

  • Main change: Authorizes the Secretary of Education to award competitive grants to public colleges, partnerships with nonprofit educational organizations, consortia of colleges, and Tribal Colleges and Universities.
  • Who is “high-need”: Students who are low-income, first-generation, caregivers, have disabilities, stopped out, reentering from the justice system, or military-connected.
  • Funding rules: For each year, 2% of appropriated funds must be reserved for Tribal Colleges and Universities; at least 20% of non-Indian-entity funds must go to projects that include at least one high-evidence (tier 3) practice.
  • Allowed uses: Advising, mentoring, tutoring, emergency financial aid, dual enrollment, scheduling and transfer reforms, career services, faculty recruitment, and other student supports.
  • Evaluation and reporting: The Secretary must fund evaluations of the funded practices and report results to congressional education committees within 18 months after enactment.

What it means for you#

  • Students (especially high-need students): Colleges could offer more advising, tutoring, emergency aid, career counseling, and programs to improve transfer and completion. This could increase access to accelerated learning (like dual enrollment) and supports to stay enrolled.
  • Public institutions and consortia: Colleges can apply for competitive grants to pilot or expand student success programs. Applications must include benchmarks, evaluation plans, and demographic data. A branch campus may only get a grant for one campus at a time.
  • Tribal Colleges and Universities: At least 2% of each year’s funds are set aside for these institutions. They may apply as eligible Indian entities.
  • Nonprofit educational partners and workforce systems: Partnerships with colleges can be grant applicants or partners to deliver services and improve pathways to jobs.
  • Administrators and staff: Colleges that apply will need to prepare application materials, run evaluations, track benchmarks, and report results. The bill allows up to 5% of funds for administration and capacity building and up to 2% for technical assistance, subject to the Secretary’s allocation.
  • Taxpayers: The bill authorizes grant spending but does not set dollar amounts. Any federal cost would depend on later appropriations.

Expenses#

No direct public cost is identified in the available material.

  • The bill authorizes grants for fiscal years 2027–2032 but does not specify total or yearly dollar amounts.
  • Required set-asides in the bill: 2% reserved for Tribal Colleges and Universities; at least 20% of non-Indian-entity funds reserved for projects that include at least one evidence tier 3 practice.
  • The Secretary may set aside up to 5% for administration, capacity building, research, evaluation, and reporting, and up to 2% for technical assistance.
  • The Secretary must fund external evaluations and reporting. The bill does not state how much will be spent on evaluations.
  • No publicly available information on estimated total federal spending, grant award sizes, or projected administrative costs.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill states its purpose as supporting evidence-based participation, retention, and completion activities for high-need students.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that targeted grants can finance proven supports (advising, tutoring, emergency aid, career services) that help students stay enrolled and graduate.
  • The emphasis on evidence tiers, evaluations, and benchmarks could be seen as improving accountability and helping identify what works across institutions.
  • Reserving funds for Tribal Colleges and including partnerships could strengthen services for underserved communities and improve transfer and workforce pathways.
  • Funding for research and dissemination could help spread effective practices to other institutions.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill does not specify any dollar amounts or include a fiscal note, so it is unclear how much federal money will be available and how many institutions could be funded.
  • The requirement that at least 20% of funds go to projects including a tier 3 practice might favor large institutions that already have strong evidence, and could disadvantage smaller or newer programs that are promising but not yet extensively evaluated.
  • Another concern is administrative burden: applicants must provide evaluation plans, benchmarks, demographic data, and post-grant sustainability plans. Smaller institutions may lack staff to prepare competitive applications and run rigorous evaluations.
  • The 2% reservation for Tribal Colleges may be viewed as a small share, depending on total funding levels (which are unspecified).
  • It is unclear how sustainability will be achieved after grants end; the bill requires a plan but does not provide continuing funding.
  • The 18-month deadline for the Secretary’s final report is short relative to multi-year program cycles; it may limit the ability to evaluate long-term impacts.