(a) The Secretary uses selection criteria to evaluate the applications submitted for new grants under a discretionary grant program.

(b) To evaluate the applications for new grants under the program, the Secretary may use—

(1) Selection criteria established under § 75.209;

(2) Selection criteria in § 75.210; or

(3) Any combination of criteria from paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.

(c)(1) The Secretary may award a cooperative agreement instead of a grant if the Secretary determines that substantial involvement between the Department and the recipient is necessary to carry out a collaborative project.

(2) The Secretary uses the selection procedures in this subpart to select recipients of cooperative agreements.

[89 FR 70322, Aug. 29, 2024]

(a) In the application package or a notice published in the Federal Register, the Secretary informs applicants of—

(1) The selection criteria chosen; and

(2) The factors selected for considering the selection criteria, if any.

(b) If points or weights are assigned to the selection criteria or factors, the Secretary informs applicants in the application package or a notice published in the Federal Register of—

(1) The total possible score for all of the criteria for a program; and

(2) The assigned weight or the maximum possible score for each criterion or factor under that criterion.

(c) If no points or weights are assigned to the selection criteria or selected factors, the Secretary evaluates each criterion equally and, within each criterion, each factor equally.

[62 FR 10401, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 89 FR 70322, Aug. 29, 2024]

The Secretary may establish selection criteria and factors based on statutory or regulatory provisions that apply to the authorized program, which may include, but are not limited to, criteria and factors that reflect—

(a) Criteria contained in the program statute or regulations;

(b) Criteria in § 75.210;

(c) Allowable activities specified in the program statute or regulations;

(d) Application content requirements specified in applicable statutes and regulations;

(e) Program purposes, as described in the program statute or regulations; or

(f) Other pre-award and post-award conditions specified in the program statute or regulations.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) [78 FR 49353, Aug. 13, 2013, as amended at 89 FR 70322, Aug. 29, 2024]

In determining the selection criteria to evaluate applications submitted in a grant competition, the Secretary may select one or more of the following criteria and may select from among the list of optional factors under each criterion. The Secretary may define a selection criterion by selecting one or more specific factors within a criterion or assigning factors from one criterion to another criterion.

(a) Need for the project. (1) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.

(2) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The data presented (including a comparison to local, State, regional, national, or international data) that demonstrates the issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the proposed project.

(ii) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates the magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project.

(iii) The extent to which the proposed project will provide support, resources, or services; or otherwise address the needs of the target population, including addressing the needs of underserved populations most affected by the issue, challenge, or opportunity, to be addressed by the proposed project and close gaps in educational opportunity.

(iv) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving or otherwise addressing the needs of underserved populations.

(v) The extent to which the specific nature and magnitude of gaps or challenges are identified and the extent to which these gaps or challenges will be addressed by the services, supports, infrastructure, or opportunities described in the proposed project.

(vi) The extent to which the proposed project will prepare individuals from underserved populations for employment in fields and careers in which there are demonstrated shortages.

(b) Significance. (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the proposed project is relevant at the national level.

(ii) The significance of the problem or issue as it affects educational access and opportunity, including the underlying or related challenges for underserved populations.

(iii) The extent to which findings from the project's implementation will contribute new knowledge to the field by increasing knowledge or understanding of educational challenges, including the underlying or related challenges, and effective strategies for addressing educational challenges and their effective implementation.

(iv) The potential contribution of the proposed project to improve the provision of rehabilitative services, increase the number or quality of rehabilitation counselors, or develop and implement effective strategies for providing vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities.

(v) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in systemic change that supports continuous, sustainable, and measurable improvement.

(vi) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study, including the extent to which the contributions may be used by other appropriate agencies, organizations, institutions, or entities.

(vii) The potential for generalizing from the findings or results of the proposed project.

(viii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local, State, regional, or national capacity to provide, improve, sustain, or expand training or services that address the needs of underserved populations.

(ix) The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of innovative and effective strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.

(x) The extent to which the proposed project is innovative and likely to be more effective compared to other efforts to address a similar problem.

(xi) The likely utility of the resources (such as materials, processes, techniques, or data infrastructure) that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for effective use in a variety of conditions, populations, or settings.

(xii) The extent to which the resources, tools, and implementation lessons of the proposed project will be disseminated in ways to the target population and local community that will enable them and others (including practitioners, researchers, education leaders, and partners) to implement similar strategies.

(xiii) The potential effective replicability of the proposed project or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation by a variety of populations or settings.

(xiv) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially contributions toward improving teaching practice and student learning and achievement.

(xv) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in employment, independent living services, or both, as appropriate.

(xvi) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project that demonstrate its impact for the targeted underserved populations in terms of breadth and depth of services.

(xvii) The extent to which the proposed project introduces an innovative approach, such as a modification of an evidence-based project component to serve different populations, an extension of an existing evidence-based project component, a unique composition of various project components to explore combined effects, or development of an emerging project component that needs further testing.

(c) Quality of the project design. (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program.

(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project demonstrates meaningful community engagement and input to ensure that the project is appropriate to successfully address the needs of the target population or other identified needs and will be used to inform continuous improvement strategies.

(iii) The quality of the logic model or other conceptual framework underlying the proposed project, including how inputs are related to outcomes.

(iv) The extent to which the proposed project's logic model or other conceptual framework was developed based on engagement of a broad range of community members and partners.

(v) The extent to which the proposed project proposes specific, measurable targets, connected to strategies, activities, resources, outputs, and outcomes, and uses reliable administrative data to measure progress and inform continuous improvement.

(vi) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to enable successful achievement of project objectives.

(vii) The quality of the proposed demonstration design, such as qualitative and quantitative design, and procedures for documenting project activities and results for underserved populations.

(viii) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including valid and reliable information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project.

(ix) The extent to which the proposed development efforts include adequate quality controls, continuous improvement efforts, and, as appropriate, repeated testing of products.

(x) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates that it is designed to build capacity and yield sustainable results that will extend beyond the project period.

(xi) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects the most recent and relevant knowledge and practices from research and effective practice.

(xii) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to meeting program purposes and requirements and serving the target population.

(xiii) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to any absolute priority or absolute priorities used in the competition.

(xiv) The extent to which the proposed project will integrate or build on ideas, strategies, and efforts from similar external projects to improve relevant outcomes, using existing funding streams from other programs or policies supported by community, State, and Federal resources.

(xv) The extent to which the proposed project is informed by similar past projects implemented by the applicant with demonstrated results.

(xvi) The extent to which the proposed project will include coordination with other Federal investments, as well as appropriate agencies and organizations providing similar services to the target population.

(xvii) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards and increased social, emotional, and educational development for students, including members of underserved populations.

(xviii) The extent to which the proposed project includes explicit plans for authentic, meaningful, and ongoing community member and partner engagement, including their involvement in planning, implementing, and revising project activities for underserved populations.

(xix) The extent to which the proposed project includes plans for consumer involvement.

(xx) The extent to which performance feedback and formative data are integral to the design of the proposed project and will be used to inform continuous improvement.

(xxi) The extent to which fellowship recipients or other project participants are to be selected on the basis of academic excellence.

(xxii) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the resources to operate the project beyond the project period, including a multiyear financial and operating model and accompanying plan; the demonstrated commitment of any partners; demonstration of broad support from community members and partners (such as State educational agencies, teachers' unions, families, business and industry, community members, and State vocational rehabilitation agencies) that are critical to the project's long-term success; or a plan for capacity-building by leveraging one or more of these types of resources.

(xxiii) The extent to which there is a plan to incorporate the project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the applicant beyond the end of the project period.

(xxiv) The extent to which the proposed project will increase efficiency in the use of time, staff, money, or other resources in order to improve results and increase productivity.

(xxv) The extent to which the proposed project will integrate with, or build on, similar or related efforts in order to improve relevant outcomes, using nonpublic funds or resources.

(xxvi) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale that is aligned with the purposes of the grant program.

(xxvii) The extent to which the proposed project represents implementation of the evidence cited in support of the proposed project with fidelity.

(xxviii) The extent to which the applicant plans to allocate a significant portion of its requested funding to the evidence-based project components.

(xxix) The strength of the commitment from key decision-makers at proposed implementation sites.

(xxx) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by promising evidence.

(d) Quality of project services. (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equitable and adequate access and participation for project participants who experience barriers based on one or more of the following: economic disadvantage; gender; race; ethnicity; color; national origin; disability; age; language; migration; living in a rural location; experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity; involvement with the justice system; pregnancy, parenting, or caregiver status; and sexual orientation. This determination includes the steps developed and described in the form Equity For Students, Teachers, And Other Program Beneficiaries (OMB Control No. 1894-0005) (section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1228a)).

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project were determined with input from the community to be served to ensure that they are appropriate and responsive to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries, including underserved populations, of those services.

(ii) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by the target population that it is intended to serve.

(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge and an evidence-based project component.

(iv) The likely benefit to the intended recipients, as indicated by the logic model or other conceptual framework, of the services to be provided.

(v) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to build recipient and project capacity in ways that lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.

(vi) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are likely to provide long-term solutions to alleviate the personnel shortages that have been identified or are the focus of the proposed project.

(vii) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to meaningful improvements in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous and relevant standards.

(viii) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to meaningful improvements in early childhood and family outcomes.

(ix) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to meaningful improvements in the skills and competencies necessary to gain employment in high-quality jobs, careers, and industries or build capacity for independent living.

(x) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners, including those from underserved populations, to maximize the effectiveness of project services.

(xi) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.

(xii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are focused on recipients, community members, or project participants that are most underserved as demonstrated by the data relevant to the project.

(e) Quality of the project personnel. (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has project personnel or a plan for hiring of personnel who are members of groups that have historically encountered barriers, or who have professional or personal experiences with barriers, based on one or more of the following: economic disadvantage; gender; race; ethnicity; color; national origin; disability; age; language; migration; living in a rural location; experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity; involvement with the justice system; pregnancy, parenting, or caregiver status; and sexual orientation.

(3) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the project director or principal investigator, when hired, has the qualifications required for the project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project and experience in designing, managing, or implementing similar projects for the target population to be served by the project.

(ii) The extent to which the key personnel in the project, when hired, have the qualifications required for the proposed project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project, and represent or have lived experiences of the target population.

(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.

(iv) The extent to which the proposed project team maximizes diverse perspectives, for example by reflecting the lived experiences of project participants, or relevant experience working with the target population.

(v) The extent to which the proposed planning, implementing, and evaluating project team are familiar with the assets, needs, and other contextual considerations of the proposed implementation sites.

(f) Adequacy of resources. (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.

(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The adequacy of support for the project, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant or the lead applicant organization.

(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.

(iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.

(iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served, the depth and intensity of services, and the anticipated results and benefits.

(v) The extent to which the costs of the proposed project would permit other entities to replicate the project.

(vi) The level of initial matching funds or other commitment from partners, indicating the likelihood for potential continued support of the project after Federal funding ends.

(vii) The potential for the purposes, activities, or benefits of the proposed project to be institutionalized into the ongoing practices and programs of the applicant, agency, or organization and continue after Federal funding ends.

(g) Quality of the management plan. (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

(ii) The adequacy of plans for ensuring the use of quantitative and qualitative data, including meaningful community member and partner input, to inform continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality and accessible products and services from the proposed project for the target population.

(iv) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.

(v) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives, including those from underserved populations, are brought to bear in the design, implementation, operation, evaluation, and improvement of the proposed project, including those of parents, educators, community-based organizations, civil rights organizations, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.

(h) Quality of the project evaluation or other evidence-building. (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project.

(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are thorough, feasible, relevant, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.

(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are appropriate to the context within which the project operates and the target population of the proposed project.

(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are designed to measure the fidelity of implementation of the project.

(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quality data that are quantitative and qualitative.

(v) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide guidance for quality assurance and continuous improvement.

(vi) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide performance feedback and provide formative, diagnostic, or interim data that is a periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

(vii) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing and potential implementation in other settings.

(viii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards without reservations, as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks.

(ix) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards with or without reservations, as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks.

(x) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias (such as regression methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group) to assess the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes.

(xi) The extent to which the evaluation employs an appropriate analytic strategy to build evidence about the relationship between key project components, mediators, and outcomes and inform decisions on which project components to continue, revise, or discontinue.

(xii) The quality of the evaluation plan for measuring fidelity of implementation, including thresholds for acceptable implementation, to inform how implementation is associated with outcomes.

(xiii) The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a dissemination strategy that is likely to promote others' learning from the project.

(xiv) The extent to which the evaluator has the qualifications, including the relevant training, experience, and independence, required to conduct an evaluation of the proposed project, including experience conducting evaluations of similar methodology as proposed and with evaluations for the proposed population and setting.

(xv) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes sufficient resources to conduct the project evaluation effectively.

(xvi) The extent to which the evaluation will access and link high-quality administrative data from authoritative sources to improve evaluation quality and comprehensiveness.

(i) Strategy to scale. (1) The Secretary considers the applicant's strategy to effectively scale the proposed project for recipients, community members, and partners, including to underserved populations.

(2) In determining the applicant's strategy to effectively scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

(i) The quality of the strategies to reach scale by expanding the project to new populations or settings.

(ii) The applicant's capacity (such as qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity), together with any project partners, to bring the proposed project effectively to scale on a national or regional level during the grant period.

(iii) The applicant's capacity (such as qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity), together with any project partners, to further develop and bring the proposed project effectively to scale on a national level during the grant period, based on the findings of the proposed project.

(iv) The quality of the mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information and resources on its project to support further development, adaptation, or replication by other entities to implement project components in additional settings or with other populations.

(v) The extent to which there is unmet demand for broader implementation of the project that is aligned with the proposed level of scale.

(vi) The extent to which there is a market of potential entities that will commit resources toward implementation.

(vii) The quality of the strategies to scale that take into account and are responsive to previous barriers to expansion.

(viii) The quality of the plan to deliver project services more efficiently at scale and maintain effectiveness.

(ix) The quality of the plan to develop revenue sources that will make the project self-sustaining.

(x) The extent to which the project will create reusable data and evaluation tools and techniques that facilitate expansion and support continuous improvement.

[89 FR 70322, Aug. 29, 2024]

(a) If the Secretary considers an unsolicited application under 34 CFR 75.222(a)(2)(ii), the Secretary uses the selection criteria and factors, if any, used for the competition under which the application could have been funded.

(b) If the Secretary considers an unsolicited application under 34 CFR 75.222(a)(2)(iii), the Secretary selects from among the criteria in § 75.210(b), and may select from among the specific factors listed under each criterion, the criteria that are most appropriate to evaluate the activities proposed in the application.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) [62 FR 10403, Mar. 6, 1997]

Sections 75.216 through 75.222 describe the process the Secretary uses to select applications for new grants. All these sections apply to a discretionary grant program. However, only § 75.216 applies also to a formula grant program. (See § 75.1(b) Discretionary grant programs, § 75.1(c) Formula grant programs, and § 75.200, How applications for new discretionary grants and cooperative agreements are selected for funding; standards for use of cooperative agreements.)

[89 FR 70326, Aug. 29, 2024]

The Secretary may choose not to evaluate an application if—

(a) The applicant does not comply with all of the procedural rules that govern the submission of the application; or

(b) The application does not contain the information required under the program.

[89 FR 70326, Aug. 29, 2024]

(a) The Secretary selects applications for new grants on the basis of applicable statutes and regulations, the selection criteria, and any priorities or other requirements that have been published in the Federal Register and apply to the selection of those applications.

(b)(1) The Secretary may use experts to evaluate the applications submitted under a program.

(2) These experts may include persons who are not employees of the Federal Government.

(c) The Secretary prepares a rank order of the applications based on the evaluation of their quality according to the selection criteria and any competitive preference points.

(d) The Secretary then determines the order in which applications will be selected for grants. The Secretary considers the following in making these determinations:

(1) The information in each application.

(2) The rank ordering of the applications.

(3) Any other information—

(i) Relevant to a criterion, priority, or other requirement that applies to the selection of applications for new grants;

(ii) Concerning the applicant's performance and use of funds under a previous award under any Department program; and

(iii) Concerning the applicant's failure under any Department program to submit a performance report or its submission of a performance report of unacceptable quality.

[52 FR 27804, July 24, 1987, as amended at 62 FR 4167, Jan. 29, 1997; 89 FR 70322, Aug. 29, 2024]

(a) The Secretary informs an applicant if its application—

(1) Is not evaluated; or

(2) Is not selected for funding.

(b) If an applicant requests an explanation of the reason its application was not evaluated or selected, the Secretary provides that explanation.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) [57 FR 30338, July 8, 1992]

The Secretary may select an application for funding without following the procedures in § 75.217 if:

(a) The objectives of the project cannot be achieved unless the Secretary makes the grant before the date grants can be made under the procedures in § 75.217;

(b)(1) The application was submitted under the program's preceding competition;

(2) The application was not selected for funding because the application was mishandled or improperly processed by the Department; and

(3) The application has been rated highly enough to deserve selection under § 75.217; or

(c) The Secretary receives an unsolicited application that meets the requirements of § 75.222.

[45 FR 22497, Apr. 3, 1980. Redesignated at 45 FR 77368, Nov. 21, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 27804, July 24, 1987; 60 FR 12096, Mar. 3, 1995; 89 FR 70326, Aug. 29, 2024]

If the special circumstances of § 75.219(a) appear to exist for an application, the Secretary uses the following procedures:

(a) The Secretary assembles a board to review the application.

(b) The board consists of:

(1) A program officer of the program under which the applicant wants a grant;

(2) An employee from the Office of Finance and Operations (OFO) with responsibility for grant policy; and

(3) A Department employee who is not a program officer of the program but who is qualified to evaluate the application.

(c) The board reviews the application to decide if:

(1) The special circumstances under § 75.219(a) are satisfied;

(2) The application rates high enough, based on the selection criteria, priorities, and other requirements that apply to the program, to deserve selection; and

(3) Selection of the application will not have an adverse impact on the budget of the program.

(d) The board forwards the results of its review to the Secretary.

(e) If each of the conditions in paragraph (c) of this section is satisfied, the Secretary may select the application for funding.

(f) Even if the Secretary does not select the application for funding, the applicant may submit its application under the procedures in Subpart C of this part.

[45 FR 22497, Apr. 3, 1980. Redesignated at 45 FR 77368, Nov. 21, 1980, as amended at 45 FR 86297, Dec. 30, 1980; 64 FR 50391, Sept. 16, 1999; 89 FR 70326, Aug. 29, 2024]

If the Secretary has documentary evidence that the special circumstances of § 75.219(b) exist for an application, the Secretary may select the application for funding.

[89 FR 70326, Aug. 29, 2024]

If the Secretary receives an unsolicited application, the Secretary may consider the application under the following procedures unless the Secretary has published a notice in the Federal Register stating that the program that would fund the application would not consider unsolicited applications:

(a)(1) The Secretary determines whether the application could be funded under a competition planned or conducted for the fiscal year for which funds would be used to fund the application.

(2)(i) If the application could be funded under a competition described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the deadline for submission of applications has not passed, the Secretary refers the application to the appropriate competition for consideration under the procedures in § 75.217.

(ii)(A) If the application could have been funded under a competition described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the deadline for submission of applications has passed, the Secretary may consider the application only in exceptional circumstances, as determined by the Secretary.

(B) If the Secretary considers an application under paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, the Secretary considers the application under paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.

(iii) If the application could not be funded under a competition described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Secretary considers the application under paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.

(b) If an application may be considered under paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section, the Secretary determines if—

(1) There is a substantial likelihood that the application is of exceptional quality and national significance for a program administered by the Department;

(2) The application meets the requirements of all applicable statutes and regulations that apply to the program; and

(3) Selection of the project will not have an adverse impact on the funds available for other awards planned for the program.

(c) If the Secretary determines that the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section have been met, the Secretary assembles a panel of experts that does not include any employees of the Department to review the application.

(d) The experts—

(1) Evaluate the application based on the selection criteria; and

(2) Determine whether the application is of such exceptional quality and national significance that it should be funded as an unsolicited application.

(e) If the experts highly rate the application and determine that the application is of such exceptional quality and national significance that it should be funded as an unsolicited application, the Secretary may fund the application.

Note 1 to § 75.222:

To ensure prompt consideration, an applicant submitting an unsolicited application should send the application, marked “Unsolicited Application” on the outside, to U.S. Department of Education, OFO/G6 Functional Application Team, Mail Stop 5C231, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

[60 FR 12096, Mar. 3, 1995, as amended at 89 FR 70326, Aug. 29, 2024]

(a) The Secretary may use a multiple tier review process to evaluate applications.

(b) The Secretary may refuse to review applications in any tier that do not meet a minimum cut-off score established for the prior tier.

(c) The Secretary may establish the minimum cut-off score—

(1) In the application notice published in the Federal Register; or

(2) After reviewing the applications to determine the overall range in the quality of applications received.

(d) The Secretary may, in any tier—

(1) Use more than one group of experts to gain different perspectives on an application; and

(2) Refuse to consider an application if the application is rejected under paragraph (b) of this section by any one of the groups used in the prior tier.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) [66 FR 60138, Nov. 30, 2001]

(a) If the Secretary determines that special consideration of new potential grantees is appropriate, the Secretary may: provide competitive preference to applicants that meet one or more of the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section; or provide special consideration for new potential grantees by establishing one competition for those applicants that meet one or more of the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section and a separate competition for applicants that meet the corresponding conditions in paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) As used in this section, “new potential grantee” means an applicant that meets one or more of the following conditions—

(1) The applicant has never received a grant or cooperative agreement, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129 that received a grant or cooperative agreement, under the program from which it seeks funds;

(2) The applicant does not, as of the deadline date for submission of applications, have an active grant or cooperative agreement, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129 that has an active grant or cooperative agreement, under the program from which it seeks funds;

(3) The applicant has not had an active discretionary grant or cooperative agreement under the program from which it seeks funds, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129, within one of the following number of years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program:

(i) 1 year;

(ii) 2 years;

(iii) 3 years;

(iv) 4 years;

(v) 5 years;

(vi) 6 years; or

(vii) 7 years;

(4) The applicant has not had an active discretionary grant or cooperative agreement from the Department, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129, within one of the following number of years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program from which it seeks funds:

(i) 1 year;

(ii) 2 years;

(iii) 3 years;

(iv) 4 years;

(v) 5 years;

(vi) 6 years; or

(vii) 7 years;

(5) The applicant has not had an active contract from the Department within one of the following number of years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program for which it seeks funds:

(i) 1 year;

(ii) 2 years;

(iii) 3 years;

(iv) 4 years;

(v) 5 years;

(vi) 6 years; or

(vii) 7 years; or

(6) Any combination of paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.

(c) As used in this section, an “application from a grantee that is not a new potential grantee” means an applicant that meets one or more of the following conditions—

(1) The applicant has received a grant or cooperative agreement, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129 that received a grant or cooperative agreement, under the program from which it seeks funds;

(2) The applicant has, as of the deadline date for submission of applications, an active grant or cooperative agreement, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129 that has an active grant or cooperative agreement, under the program from which it seeks funds;

(3) The applicant has had an active discretionary grant or cooperative agreement under the program from which it seeks funds, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129, within one of the following number of years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program:

(i) 1 year;

(ii) 2 years;

(iii) 3 years;

(iv) 4 years;

(v) 5 years;

(vi) 6 years; or

(vii) 7 years;

(4) The applicant has had an active discretionary grant or cooperative agreement from the Department, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127 through 75.129, within one of the following number of years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program from which it seeks funds:

(i) 1 year;

(ii) 2 years;

(iii) 3 years;

(iv) 4 years;

(v) 5 years;

(vi) 6 years; or

(vii) 7 years;

(5) The applicant has had an active contract from the Department within one of the following number of years before the deadline date for submission of applications under the program from which it seeks funds:

(i) 1 year;

(ii) 2 years;

(iii) 3 years;

(iv) 4 years;

(v) 5 years;

(vi) 6 years; or

(vii) 7 years.

(d) For the purpose of this section, a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract is active until the end of the grant's, cooperative agreement's, or contract's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's or contractor's authority to obligate funds.

[89 FR 70326, Aug. 29, 2024]

If the Secretary determines that special consideration of applications supported by strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that demonstrates a rationale is appropriate, the Secretary may establish a separate competition under the procedures in § 75.105(c)(3), or provide competitive preference under the procedures in § 75.105(c)(2), for applications that are supported by—

(a) Strong evidence;

(b) Moderate evidence;

(c) Promising evidence; or

(d) Evidence that demonstrates a rationale.

[89 FR 70327, Aug. 29, 2024]

(a) If the Secretary determines that special consideration of rural applicants is appropriate, the Secretary may: provide competitive preference to applicants that meet one or more of the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section; or provide special consideration for rural applicants by establishing one competition for those applicants that meet one or more of the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section and a separate competition for applicants that meet the corresponding conditions in paragraph (c).

(b) As used in this section, “rural applicant” means an applicant that meets one or more of the following conditions:

(1) The applicant proposes to serve a local educational agency (LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under title V, part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

(2) The applicant proposes to serve a community that is served by one or more LEAs—

(i) With a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or

(ii) With a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.

(3) The applicant proposes a project in which a majority of the schools served—

(i) Have a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or

(ii) Have a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.

(4) The applicant is an institution of higher education with a rural campus setting, or the applicant proposes to serve a campus with a rural setting. Rural settings include one or more of the following: Town-Fringe, Town-Distant, Town-Remote, Rural Fringe, Rural-Distant, and Rural-Remote, as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics College Navigator search tool.

(c) As used in this section, a “non-rural applicant” means an applicant that meets one or more of the following conditions—

(1) The applicant does not propose to serve a local educational agency (LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement program or the Rural and Low-Income School program authorized under title V, part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

(2) The applicant does not propose to serve a community that is served by one or more LEAs—

(i) With a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or

(ii) With a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.

(3) The applicant proposes a project in which a majority of the schools served—

(i) Have a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43; or

(ii) Have a locale code of 41, 42, or 43.

(4) The applicant is not an institution of higher education with a rural campus setting, or the applicant proposes to serve a campus with a rural setting. Rural settings include one or more of the following: Town-Fringe, Town-Distant, Town-Remote, Rural Fringe, Rural-Distant, and Rural-Remote, as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics College Navigator search tool.

[89 FR 70327, Aug. 29, 2024]

(a) If the Secretary selects an application under § 75.217, § 75.220, or § 75.222, the Secretary follows the procedures in §§ 75.231 through 75.236 to set the amount and determine the conditions of a grant. Sections 75.235 through 75.236 also apply to grants under formula grant programs. (See § 75.200 for more information.)

[89 FR 70327, Aug. 29, 2024]

After selecting an application for funding, the Secretary may require the applicant to submit additional information.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)

(a) Before the Secretary sets the amount of a new grant, the Secretary does a cost analysis of the project. The Secretary:

(1) Verifies the cost data in the detailed budget for the project;

(2) Evaluates specific elements of costs; and

(3) Examines costs to determine if they are necessary, reasonable, and allowable under applicable statutes and regulations.

(b) The Secretary uses the cost analysis as a basis for determining the amount of the grant to the applicant. The cost analysis shows whether the applicant can achieve the objectives of the project with reasonable efficiency and economy under the budget in the application.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) [45 FR 22497, Apr. 3, 1980. Redesignated at 45 FR 77368, Nov. 21, 1980, as amended at 59 FR 30261, June 10, 1994]

(a) Subject to any applicable matching or cost-sharing requirements, the Secretary may fund up to 100 percent of the allowable costs in the applicant's budget.

(b) In deciding what percentage of the allowable costs to fund, the Secretary may consider any other financial resources available to the applicant.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) [57 FR 30338, July 8, 1992]

(a) The Secretary makes a grant to an applicant only after determining—

(1) The approved costs; and

(2) Any specific conditions.

(b) In awarding a cooperative agreement, the Secretary includes conditions that state the explicit character and extent of anticipated collaboration between the Department and the recipient.

[57 FR 30338, July 8, 1992, as amended at 89 FR 70328, Aug. 29, 2024]

(a) To make a grant, the Secretary issues a notification of grant award and sends it to the grantee.

(b) The notification of grant award sets the amount of the grant award and establishes other specific conditions, if any.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) [45 FR 22497, Apr. 3, 1980. Redesignated at 45 FR 77368, Nov. 21, 1980, as amended at 57 FR 30338, July 8, 1992]

The grant obligates both the Federal Government and the grantee to the requirements that apply to the grant.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) Cross Reference:

See 2 CFR 200.308, Revision of budget and program plans.

The Secretary may approve a project period of up to 60 months to perform the substantive work of a grant unless an applicable statute provides otherwise.

[89 FR 70328, Aug. 29, 2024]

(a) The Secretary usually approves a budget period of not more than 12 months, even if the project has a multi-year project period.

(b) If the Secretary approves a multi-year project period, the Secretary:

(1) Makes a grant to the project for the initial budget period; and

(2) Indicates his or her intention to make contination awards to fund the remainder of the project period.

(c) If the Secretary funds a multi-year data collection period, the Secretary may fund the data collection period through separate budget periods and fund those budget periods in the same manner as those periods are funded during the project period.

[45 FR 22497, Apr. 3, 1980, as amended at 78 FR 49354, Aug. 13, 2013] (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)

(a) Continuation award. A grantee, in order to receive a continuation award from the Secretary for a budget period after the first budget period of an approved multiyear project, must—

(1) Either—

(i) Demonstrate that it has made substantial progress in achieving—

(A) The goals and objectives of the project; and

(B) The performance targets in the grantee's approved application, if the Secretary established performance measurement requirements for the grant in the application notice; or

(ii) Obtain the Secretary's approval for changes to the project that—

(A) Do not increase the amount of funds obligated to the project by the Secretary; and

(B) Enable the grantee to achieve the goals and objectives of the project and meet the performance targets of the project, if any, without changing the scope or objectives of the project;

(2) Submit all reports as required by § 75.118;

(3) Continue to meet all applicable eligibility requirements of the grant program;

(4) Maintain financial and administrative management systems that meet the requirements in 2 CFR 200.302 and 200.303; and

(5) Receive a determination from the Secretary that continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal Government.

(b) Information considered in making a continuation award. In determining whether the grantee has met the requirements described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Secretary may consider any relevant information regarding grantee performance. This includes considering reports required by § 75.118, performance measures established under § 75.110, financial information required by 2 CFR part 200, and any other relevant information.

(c) Funding for continuation awards. Subject to the criteria in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, in selecting applications for funding under a program, the Secretary gives priority to continuation awards over new grants.

(d) Budget period. If the Secretary makes a continuation award under this section—

(1) The Secretary makes the award under §§ 75.231 through 75.236; and

(2) The new budget period begins on the day after the previous budget period ends.

(e) Amount of continuation award. (1) Within the original project period of the grant and notwithstanding any requirements in 2 CFR part 200, a grantee may expend funds that have not been obligated at the end of a budget period for obligations in subsequent budget periods if—

(i) The obligation is for an allowable cost within the approved scope and objectives of the project; and

(ii) The obligation is not otherwise prohibited by applicable statutes, regulations, or the conditions of an award.

(2) The Secretary may—

(i) Require the grantee to submit a written statement describing how the funds made available under paragraph (e)(1) of this section will be used; and

(ii) Determine the amount of new funds that the Department will make available for the subsequent budget period after considering the statement the grantee provides under paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section and any other information available to the Secretary about the use of funds under the grant.

(3) In determining the amount of new funds to make available to a grantee under this section, the Secretary considers whether the unobligated funds made available are needed to complete activities that were planned for completion in the prior budget period.

(4) A decision to reduce the amount of a continuation award under this paragraph (e) does not entitle a grantee to reconsideration under 2 CFR 200.342.

(f) Decision not to make a continuation award. The Secretary may decide not to make a continuation award if—

(1) A grantee fails to meet any of the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section; or

(2) A grantee fails to ensure that data submitted to the Department as a condition of the grant meet the definition of “quality data” in 34 CFR 77.1(c) and does not have a plan acceptable to the Secretary for addressing data-quality issues in the next budget period.

(g) Request for reconsideration. If the Secretary decides not to make a continuation award under this section, the Secretary will notify the grantee of that decision, the grounds on which it is based, and, consistent with 2 CFR 200.342, provide the grantee with an opportunity to request reconsideration of the decision.

(1) A request for reconsideration must—

(i) Be submitted in writing to the Department official identified in the notice denying the continuation award by the date specified in that notice; and

(ii) Set forth the grantee's basis for disagreeing with the Secretary's decision not to make a continuation award and include relevant supporting documentation.

(2) The Secretary will consider the request for reconsideration.

(h) No-cost extension when a continuation award is not made. If the Secretary decides not to make a continuation award under this section, the Secretary may authorize a no-cost extension of the last budget period of the grant in order to provide for the orderly closeout of the grant.

(i) A decision to reduce or not to make a continuation award does not constitute withholding. A decision by the Secretary to reduce the amount of a continuation award under paragraph (e) of this section or to not make a continuation award under paragraph (f) of this section does not constitute a withholding under section 455 of GEPA (20 U.S.C. 1234d).

[89 FR 70328, Aug. 29, 2024]

(a) The Secretary may approve a data collection period for a grant for a period of up to 72 months after the end of the project period and provide funds for the data collection period for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and reporting performance measurement data on the project.

(b) If the Secretary plans to approve a data collection period, the Secretary may inform applicants of the Secretary's intent to approve data collection periods in the application notice published for a competition or may decide to fund data collection periods after grantees have started their project periods.

(c) If the Secretary informs applicants of the intent to approve data collection periods in the notice inviting applications, the Secretary may require applicants to include in the application a budget for, and description of, a data collection period for a period of up to 72 months, as specified in the notice inviting applications, after the end of the project period.

[89 FR 70328, Aug. 29, 2024]

(a) Under some of the programs covered by this part, the Secretary allots funds under a statutory or regulatory formula.

(b) Any reallotment to other grantees will be made by the Secretary in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations.

[45 FR 22497, Apr. 3, 1980. Redesignated at 45 FR 77368, Nov. 21, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 27804, July 24, 1987; 89 FR 70329, Aug. 29, 2024]

(a) One-time extension of project period without prior approval. A grantee may extend the project period of an award one time, for a period up to 12 months, without the prior approval of the Secretary, if—

(1) The grantee meets the requirements for extension in 2 CFR 200.308(e)(2); and

(2) The extension is not otherwise prohibited by statute, regulation, or the conditions of an award.

(b) Extension of project period with prior approval. At the conclusion of the project period extension authorized under paragraph (a) of this section, or in any case in which a project period extension is not authorized under paragraph (a) of this section, a grantee, with prior approval of the Secretary, may extend a project for an additional period if—

(1) The extension is not otherwise prohibited by statute, regulations, or the conditions of an award;

(2) The extension does not involve the obligation of additional Federal funds;

(3) The extension is to carry out the approved objectives and scope of the project; and

(4)(i) The Secretary determines that, due to special or unusual circumstances applicable to a class of grantees, the project periods for the grantees should be extended; or

(ii)(A) The Secretary determines that special or unusual circumstances would delay completion of the project beyond the end of the project period;

(B) The grantee requests an extension of the project period at least 45 calendar days before the end of the project period; and

(C) The grantee provides a written statement, before the end of the project period, of the reasons the extension is appropriate under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section and the period for which the project extension is requested.

(c) Waiver. The Secretary may waive the requirement in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section if—

(1) The grantee could not reasonably have known of the need for the extension on or before the start of the 45-day period; or

(2) The failure to give notice on or before the start of the 45-day period was unavoidable.

[89 FR 70329, Aug. 29, 2024]

(a)(1) The Secretary may convert a grant to a cooperative agreement or a cooperative agreement to a grant at the time a continuation award is made under § 75.253.

(2) In deciding whether to convert a grant to a cooperative agreement or a cooperative agreement to a grant, the Secretary considers the factors included in § 75.200(b) (4) and (5).

(b) The Secretary and a recipient may agree at any time to convert a grant to a cooperative agreement or a cooperative agreement to a grant, subject to the factors included in § 75.200(b) (4) and (5).

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) [57 FR 30339, July 8, 1992]

A grantee may incur pre-award costs as specified in 2 CFR 200.308(d)(1) unless—

(a) The Department regulations other than 2 CFR part 200 or a statute prohibit these costs; or

(b) The conditions of the award prohibit these costs.

[80 FR 67264, Nov. 2, 2015, as amended at 89 FR 70329, Aug. 29, 2024]

A grantee may make transfers as specified in 2 CFR 200.308 unless—

(a) ED regulations other than those in 2 CFR part 200 or a statute prohibit these transfers; or

(b) The conditions of the grant prohibit these transfers.

[79 FR 76092, Dec. 19, 2014, as amended at 89 FR 70329, Aug. 29, 2024]