(a) Direct grant programs. The Department administers two kinds of direct grant programs. A direct grant program is either a discretionary grant or a formula grant program.

(b) Discretionary grant programs. (1) A discretionary grant program is one that permits the Secretary to use discretionary judgment in selecting applications for funding.

Cross Reference:

See § 75.219 Exceptions to the procedures under § 75.217.

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

(3) To evaluate the applications for new grants under the program the Secretary may use:

(i) Selection criteria established under § 75.209.

(ii) Selection criteria in program-specific regulations.

(iii) Selection criteria established under § 75.210.

(iv) Any combination of criteria from paragraphs (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(ii), and (b)(3)(iii) of this section.

(4) 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.

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

(c) Formula grant programs. (1) A formula grant program is one that entitles certain applicants to receive grants if they meet the requirements of the program. Applicants do not compete with each other for the funds, and each grant is either for a set amount or for an amount determined under a formula.

(2) The Secretary applies the program statute and regulations to fund projects under a formula grant program.

(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 52 FR 27803, July 24, 1987; 57 FR 30338, July 8, 1992; 60 FR 63873, Dec. 12, 1995; 62 FR 10401, Mar. 6, 1997]

(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, 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 and selected factors, the Secretary evaluates each criterion equally and, within each criterion, each factor equally.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) [62 FR 10401, Mar. 6, 1997]

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 the program statute or 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]

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 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 magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by the proposed project.

(ii) 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 services or otherwise address the needs of students at risk of educational failure.

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

(v) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.

(vi) The extent to which the proposed project will prepare personnel for fields in which shortages have been demonstrated.

(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 national significance of the proposed project.

(ii) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed by the proposed project.

(iii) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or effective strategies.

(iv) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased knowledge or understanding of rehabilitation problems, issues, or effective strategies.

(v) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement.

(vi) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study.

(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 yield findings that may be utilized by other appropriate agencies and organizations.

(ix) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population.

(x) The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.

(xi) The likely utility of the products (such as information, materials, processes, or techniques) that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a variety of other settings.

(xii) The extent to which the results of the proposed project are to be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information or strategies.

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

(xiv) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in teaching and student 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.

(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 and measurable.

(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs.

(iii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of that framework.

(iv) The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a coherent, sustained program of research and development in the field, including, as appropriate, a substantial addition to an ongoing line of inquiry.

(v) The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a coherent, sustained program of training in the field.

(vi) The extent to which the proposed project is based upon a specific research design, and the quality and appropriateness of that design, including the scientific rigor of the studies involved.

(vii) The extent to which the proposed research design includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for research activities, and the use of appropriate theoretical and methodological tools, including those of a variety of disciplines, if appropriate.

(viii) 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 ensure successful achievement of project objectives.

(ix) The quality of the proposed demonstration design and procedures for documenting project activities and results.

(x) 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 information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project.

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

(xii) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.

(xiii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.

(xiv) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach for meeting statutory purposes and requirements.

(xv) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the competition.

(xvi) The extent to which the proposed project will integrate with or build on similar or related efforts to improve relevant outcomes (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)), using existing funding streams from other programs or policies supported by community, State, and Federal resources.

(xvii) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with other appropriate agencies and organizations providing services to the target population.

(xviii) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students.

(xix) The extent to which the proposed project encourages parental involvement.

(xx) The extent to which the proposed project encourages consumer involvement.

(xxi) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.

(xxii) The quality of the methodology to be employed in the proposed project.

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

(xxiv) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the resources to operate the project beyond the length of the grant, including a multi-year financial and operating model and accompanying plan; the demonstrated commitment of any partners; evidence of broad support from stakeholders (e.g., State educational agencies, teachers' unions) critical to the project's long-term success; or more than one of these types of evidence.

(xxv) The potential and planning for the incorporation of project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the applicant beyond the end of the grant.

(xxvi) 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.

(xxvii) The extent to which the proposed project will integrate with or build on similar or related efforts in order to improve relevant outcomes (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)), using nonpublic funds or resources.

(xxviii) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).

(xxix) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).

(xxx) The extent to which the proposed project represents a faithful adaptation of the evidence cited in support of the proposed project.

(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 equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

(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 are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services.

(ii) The extent to which entities that are to be served by the proposed technical assistance project demonstrate support for the project.

(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.

(iv) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services.

(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 lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.

(vi) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are likely 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 improvements in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous academic standards.

(viii) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to improvements in the skills necessary to gain employment or build capacity for independent living.

(ix) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services.

(x) The extent to which the technical assistance 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.

(xi) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are focused on those with greatest needs.

(xii) The quality of plans for providing an opportunity for participation in the proposed project of students enrolled in private schools.

(e) Quality of 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 encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

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

(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator.

(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.

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

(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, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization 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.

(iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.

(v) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.

(vi) The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to such support.

(vii) The potential for the incorporation of project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing program of the agency or organization at the end of Federal funding.

(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 adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

(ii) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

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

(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 are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, 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. (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.

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

(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.

(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are appropriate to the context within which the project operates.

(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.

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

(v) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide timely guidance for quality assurance.

(vi) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit 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 in other settings.

(viii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards without reservations as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).

(ix) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards with or without reservations as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).

(x) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) about the project's effectiveness.

(xi) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.

(xii) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, and independence, of the evaluator.

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

(xiv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes.

(i) Strategy to scale. (1) The Secretary considers the applicant's strategy to scale the proposed project.

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

(i) The applicant's capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to bring the proposed project to scale on a national or regional level (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) working directly, or through partners, during the grant period.

(ii) The applicant's capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to further develop and bring to scale the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice, or to work with others to ensure that the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice can be further developed and brought to scale, based on the findings of the proposed project.

(iii) The feasibility of successful replication of the proposed project, if favorable results are obtained, in a variety of settings and with a variety of populations.

(iv) The mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information on its project so as to support further development or replication.

(v) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates there is unmet demand for the process, product, strategy, or practice that will enable the applicant to reach the level of scale that is proposed in the application.

(vi) The extent to which the applicant identifies a specific strategy or strategies that address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant, in the past, from reaching the level of scale that is proposed in the application.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1875-0102) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) [62 FR 10401, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 78 FR 49353, Aug. 13, 2013; 80 FR 2608, Jan. 20, 2015; 82 FR 35448, July 31, 2017; 83 FR 18421, Apr. 27, 2018]

(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 75.216-75.222 describe the process the Secretary uses to select applications for new grants. All of these sections apply to a discretionary grant program. However, only § 75.216 applies also to a formula grant program.

Cross Reference:

See § 75.200(b) Discretionary grant program, and (c) Formula grant program.

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

The Secretary does not evaluate an application if—

(a) The applicant is not eligible;

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

(c) The application does not contain the information required under the program; or

(d) The proposed project cannot be funded under the authorizing statute or implementing regulations for the program.

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

(a) The Secretary selects applications for new grants on the basis of the authorizing statute, 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 solely on the evaluation of their quality according to the selection criteria.

(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.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) [52 FR 27804, July 24, 1987, as amended at 62 FR 4167, Jan. 29, 1997]

(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 evaluated under the preceding competition of the program;

(2) The application rated high enough to deserve selection under § 75.217; and

(3) The application was not selected for funding because the application was mishandled by the Department; or

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

(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 52 FR 27804, July 24, 1987; 60 FR 12096, Mar. 3, 1995]

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 the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 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.

(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 45 FR 86297, Dec. 30, 1980; 64 FR 50391, Sept. 16, 1999]

If the special circumstances of § 75.219(b) appear to exist for an application, the Secretary may select the application for funding if:

(a) The Secretary has documentary evidence that the special circumstances of § 75.219(b) exist; and

(b) The Secretary has a statement that explains the circumstances of the mishandling.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1) and 3474) [45 FR 22497, Apr. 3, 1980. Redesignated at 45 FR 77368, Nov. 21, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 27804, July 24, 1987. Redesignated at 60 FR 12096, Mar. 3, 1995]

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 under 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) 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 ED;

(2) The application meets the requirements of all applicable statutes and codified 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 to § 75.222:

To assure prompt consideration, applicants submitting unsolicited applications should send the application, marked “Unsolicited Application” on the outside, to the Chief, Application Control Center, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202-4725.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) [60 FR 12096, Mar. 3, 1995]

(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) As used in this section, “novice applicant” means—

(1) Any applicant for a grant from ED that—

(i) Has never received a grant or subgrant under the program from which it seeks funding;

(ii) Has never been a member of a group application, submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127-75.129, that received a grant under the program from which it seeks funding; and

(iii) Has not had an active discretionary grant from the Federal Government in the five years before the deadline date for applications under the program.

(2) In the case of a group application submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127-75.129, a group that includes only parties that meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, a grant is active until the end of the grant's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's authority to obligate funds.

(c) If the Secretary determines that special consideration of novice applications is appropriate, the Secretary may either—

(1) Establish a separate competition for novice applicants; or

(2) Give competitive preference to novice applicants under the procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2).

(d) Before making a grant to a novice applicant, the Secretary imposes special conditions, if necessary, to ensure the grant is managed effectively and project objectives are achieved.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) [66 FR 60138, Nov. 30, 2001; 67 FR 4316, Jan. 29, 2002]

(a) As used in this section, “strong evidence” is defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c).

(b) As used in this section, “moderate evidence” is defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c).

(c) As used in this section, “promising evidence” is defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c).

(d) If the Secretary determines that special consideration of applications supported by strong, moderate, or promising evidence is appropriate, the Secretary may establish a separate competition under the procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), or provide competitive preference under the procedures in 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2), for applications supported by—

(1) Evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of “strong evidence”;

(2) Evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of “moderate evidence”; or

(3) Evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of “promising evidence.”

[82 FR 35449, July 31, 2017]

If the Secretary selects an application under §§ 75.217, 75.220, or 75.222, the Secretary follows the procedures in §§ 75.231-75.236 to set the amount and determine the conditions of a grant. Sections 75.235-75.236 also apply to grants under formula grant programs.

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

See § 75.200 How applications for new grants are selected for funding.

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 special 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.

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

(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.

(a) The Secretary may approve a project period of up to 60 months to perform the substantive work of a grant.

(b) 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 funding for the data collection period for the sole purpose of collecting, analyzing, and reporting performance measurement data regarding the project. 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.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.) [78 FR 49353, Aug. 13, 2013]

(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) The Secretary may make a continuation award for a budget period after the first budget period of an approved multi-year project if:

(1) The Congress has appropriated sufficient funds under the program;

(2) The grantee has either—

(i) Made substantial progress in achieving—

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

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

(ii) Obtained 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.

(3) The recipient has submitted all reports as required by § 75.118, and

(4) Continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal Government.

(5) The grantee has maintained financial and administrative management systems that meet the requirements in 2 CFR 200.302, Financial management, and 200.303, Internal controls.

(b) In deciding whether a grantee has made substantial progress, the Secretary may consider any information relevant to the authorizing statute, a criterion, a priority, or a performance measure, or to a financial or other requirement that applies to the selection of applications for new grants.

(c) Subject to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, in selecting applications for funding under a program the Secretary gives priority to contination awards over new grants.

(d)(1) Notwithstanding any regulatory 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 of the subsequent budget period if—

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

(ii) ED regulations, including those in title 2 of the CFR, statutes, or the conditions of the grant do not prohibit the obligation.

Note:

See 2 CFR 200.308(d)(2).

(2) The Secretary may—

(i) Require the grantee to send a written statement describing how the funds made available under 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 (c)(2)(i) of this section or 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.

(e)(1) If the Secretary decides, under this section, not to make a continuation award, 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.

(2) If the Secretary makes a continuation award under this section—

(i) The Secretary makes the award under §§ 75.231-75.236; and

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

(f) Unless prohibited by the program statute or regulations, a grantee that is in the final budget period of its project period may seek continued assistance for the project as required under the procedures for selecting new projects for grants.

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

1. See Subpart C—How to Apply for a Grant.

2. See § 75.117 Information needed for a multi-year project; and § 75.118 Application for a continuation award.

[45 FR 22497, Apr. 3, 1980. Redesignated at 45 FR 77368, Nov. 21, 1980, as amended at 57 FR 30338, July 8, 1992; 59 FR 30261, June 10, 1994; 62 FR 40424, July 28, 1997; 78 FR 49354, Aug. 13, 2013; 79 FR 76092, Dec. 19, 2014]

(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 the authorizing statute for that program.

(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 52 FR 27804, July 24, 1987]

(a) General rule. A grantee may extend the project period of an award one time for a period up to twelve months without the prior approval of the Secretary, if—

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

(2) ED statutes, regulations other than those in 2 CFR part 200, or the conditions of an award do not prohibit the extension.

(b) Specific rule for certain programs of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, grantees under the following programs of NIDRR must request prior approval to extend their grants under paragraph (c) of this section:

(1) The Knowledge Dissemination and Utilization Centers and Disability and Technical Assistance Centers authorized under 29 U.S.C. 761a(b)(2), (4), (5), (6), and (11) and implemented at 34 CFR part 350, subpart B, §§ 350.17-350.19.

(2) The Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers program authorized under 29 U.S.C. 762(b) and implemented at 34 CFR part 350, subpart C.

(3) The Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers authorized under 29 U.S.C. 762(b)(3) and implemented at 34 CFR part 350, subpart D.

(4) The Special Projects and Demonstrations for Spinal Cord Injuries authorized under 29 U.S.C. 762(b)(4) and implemented at 34 CFR part 359.

(c) Other regulations. If ED regulations other than the regulations in 2 CFR part 200 or the conditions of the award require the grantee to obtain prior approval to extend the project period, the Secretary may permit the grantee to extend the project period if—

(1) The extension does not violate any statute or regulations;

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

(3) The extension is to carry out the activities in the approved application; 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 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 giving the reasons why the extension is appropriate under paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A) of this section and the period for which the project needs extension.

(d) Waiver. The Secretary may waive the requirement in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B) 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 time period; or

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

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474) [57 FR 30338, July 8, 1992, as amended at 62 FR 40424, July 28, 1997; 79 FR 76092, Dec. 19, 2014]

(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, notwithstanding any requirement in 2 CFR part 200, incur pre-award costs as specified in 2 CFR 200.308(d)(1) unless—

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

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

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474; 2 CFR 200.308(d)(1)) [80 FR 67264, Nov. 2, 2015]

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.

(Authority 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, 2 CFR part 200) [79 FR 76092, Dec. 19, 2014]