National Security Education Program (NSEP) Grants to Institutions of Higher Education

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 206

RIN 0790-AF59

National Security Education Program (NSEP) Grants to Institutions

of Higher Education

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: The National Security Education Act provided for the

establishment of the National Security Education Program, the National

Security Education Board, and a Trust Fund in the U.S. Treasury to

provide all resources for the program. Under the Act the Secretary is

directed to carry out a program to award undergraduate scholarships,

graduate fellowships, and grants to institutions of higher education.

This rule is to inform those concerned with institutional grants to be

offered under the 1994-1995 pilot grants program of the preliminary

guidelines.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 5, 1994. Written comments on this

rule must be received not later than July 18, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Forward comments to the office of: Director, National

Security Education Program, P.O. Box 47103, Washington, DC 20050-7103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edmond J. Collier, (703) 696-5673.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Certification statement regarding the

interim rule re: Executive Order 12866, Public Law 96-354 and Public

Law 96-511.

Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review''

It has been determined that this Interim Rule will, if issued, be a

significant regulatory action. This rule has been reviewed by OMB prior

to Federal Register publication.

Public Law 96-354, ``Regulatory Flexibility Act''

It has been certified that this rule is not subject to the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because, if issued as a final

rule, it would have no adverse effect on small entities. It would

provide guidance to colleges, universities, or consortia interested in

applying for an institutional grant under the National Security

Education Program. The primary effect of this rule on potential

grantees will be to reduce the administrative costs and other burdens

resulting from the simplification and clarification of the application

process.

Public Law 96-511, ``Paperwork Reduction Act''

It has been certified that this rule would, if issued as a final

rule, impose a reporting requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and is being forwarded for review by

OMB.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 206

Colleges and universities, Education, Grant program.

Accordingly, title 32 of the CFR, subchapter C is amended to add

part 206 to read as follows:

PART 206--NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION PROGRAM (NSEP) GRANTS TO

INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Sec.

206.1 Major characteristics of the NSEP institutional grants

program.

206.2 Eligibility.

206.3 Overall program emphases.

206.4 Proposal development and review.

206.5 Final proposal process.

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1141(a).

Sec. 206.1 Major characteristics of the NSEP institutional grants

program.

(a) The Institutional Grants Program provides support in the form

of grants to U.S. institutions of higher education. During the 1994-95

and 1995-96 academic years, a program of pilot grants is being

initiated with an annual competition for grants held during the spring

of each year. Grants to institutions will complement NSEP scholarship

and fellowship programs. NSEP encourages the development of programs

and curricula which:

(1) Improves the quality and infrastructure of international

education;

(2) Addresses issues of national capacity; and

(3) Defines innovative approaches to issues not addressed by NSEP

scholarship and fellowship programs.

(b) The NSEP Grants Program is designed to address a number of

important objectives critical to the United States:

(1) To equip Americans with an understanding of less commonly

taught languages and cultures and enable them to become integrally

involved in global issues.

(2) To build a critical base of future leaders in the marketplace

and in government service who have cultivated international

relationships and worked and studied along-side foreign experts.

(3) To develop a cadre of professionals with more than the

traditional knowledge of language and culture who can use this ability

to help the U.S. make sound decisions and deal effectively with global

issues; and

(4) To enhance institutional capacity and increase the number of

faculty who can educate U.S. citizens toward achieving these goals.

(c) Grants will be awarded for initial 1- or 2-year periods.

Potential follow-on commitments will be based on a rigorous evaluation

and assessment process. Between 15 and 25 awards are expected to be

made in the first year ranging from approximately $25,000 to $250,000.

These are only estimates and do not bind the NSEP to a specific number

of grants or to the amount of the grant.

(d) The following key characteristics will be emphasized in the

NSEP Institutional Grants Program:

(1) Programmatic in emphasis. The purpose of the grants is to

address weaknesses and gaps in programs and curricula. The grants

should be used to strengthen the national capacity in international

education. While ``operational'' support for already existing centers

and projects may be a component of a grant, NSEP emphasizes commitment

of its limited resources to projects that establish and improve

educational programs available to students and teachers.

(2) Demand and requirements oriented. Grants are designed to

address national needs. These needs must be clearly articulated and

defended in a grant proposal. It must be clear that the following

questions are addressed:

(i) Who will benefit from the program funded by the grant?

(ii) What need does the program address?

(iii) How will this program augment the capacity of the Federal

Government or of the field of education in areas consistent with the

objectives of the NSEP? How does it fit the national requirement?

(3) Cooperation and collaboration among institutions is mandated in

order to ensure that a wider cross-section of colleges and universities

benefit from a program funded under NSEP. NSEP is committed to

providing opportunities to the widest cross-section of the higher

education population as is feasible. Cooperation can be in the form of

formal consortia arrangements or less formal but equally effective

agreements among institutions. Both vertical (among different types of

institutions) and horizontal (among similar institutions across

functional areas) integration are encouraged. Outreach to institutions

that do not normally benefit from such programs is also strongly

favored.

(4) Complementary to other Federal programs such as Title VI of the

Higher Education Act. NSEP is designed to address gaps and shortfalls

in Higher Education and to build and expand national capacity. NSEP

recognizes that base capacity currently exists in some foreign

languages and area studies. It also recognizes that funding shortfalls

and other factors have contributed to tremendous gaps and weaknesses.

Funding for expansion of the international education infrastructure

remains limited. Duplication of effort is not affordable. NSEP

encourages new initiatives as well as expansion of existing programs to

increase supply in cases where the demand cannot be met and encourages

efforts that increase demand.

(5) NSEP encourages proposals that address two categories of issues

relating to the mission of NSEP:

(i) Programs in specific foreign languages, countries or areas;

and/or

(ii) Programs addressing professional, disciplinary and/or

interdisciplinary opportunities involving international education.

(6) NSEP views student funding as portable and hopes that

universities will develop ways to move students to programs and to

provide credit with these programs. NSEP believes that programs need to

be developed that are available to a wider cross-section of students.

Thus, they need to be ``open'' to students from other institutions.

Programs might also be ``transportable'' from one institution to

another.

(7) NSEP emphasizes leveraging of funds and cost-sharing in order

to maximize the impact of NSEP funding. It encourages institutions to

seek other sources of funding to leverage against NSEP funding and to

commit institutional resources in support of the program as well. NSEP

also emphasizes burden sharing between the institution and the Program.

NSEP encourages institutions to demonstrate a commitment to

international education and to present a plan for how funding for the

proposed program will be achieved over a 3-5 year period so that NSEP

can reduce its financial commitment to programs. The funds requested

from NSEP should minimize costs allocated to unassigned institutional

``overhead.'' NSEP institutional grants are assumed to be for training

programs. Consequently, university/college indirect costs associated

with training programs should be used as a general benchmark for

determining appropriate overhead rates.

(8) NSEP encourages creativity and is responsive to the needs of

higher education to expand the capacity to provide more opportunities

for quality international education. We do not suggest that the

guidelines presented in the grant solicitation will cover all problems

and issues. Quite to the contrary, we encourage careful consideration

of issues confronting international education in the U.S. and

thoughtful proposals that address these issues, consistent with the

overall mission of the NSEP.

Sec. 206.2 Eligibility.

Any accredited U.S. institution of higher education, as defined by

section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.

1141(a)), may apply for and receive a grant. This includes 2- and 4-

year colleges and universities, both public and private. Other

organizations, associations, and agencies may be included in proposals

but may not be direct recipients of a grant. Foreign institutions may

also be included in a proposal but may not be direct recipients of a

grant. Only U.S. citizens and U.S. institutions may receive funds

through a grant awarded by the NSEP.

Sec. 206.3 Overall program emphasis.

(a) The NSEP grants to institutions program focuses on two broad

program areas that reflect the challenges to building the

infrastructure for international education in U.S. higher education:

(1) Development and expansion to quality programs in overseas

locations.

(i) Programs that offer important opportunities for U.S. students,

both undergraduate and graduate, to study in critical areas under-

represented by U.S. students, and

(ii) Development of meaningful competencies in foreign languages

and cultures.

(2) Development and implementation of programs and curricula on

U.S. campuses that provide more opportunities for study of foreign

languages and cultures and the integration of these studies into

overall programs of study.

(b) Addressing the need for improving study abroad infrastructure.

The NSEP encourages the study of foreign cultures and languages

typically neglected or under-represented in higher education. In the

foreign language field these are generally referred to as less commonly

taught languages. In area studies, these are generally defined as non-

Western European in focus. An integral part of any student's

international education is a quality study abroad experience that

includes a significant portion devoted to gaining functional competence

in an indigenous language and culture. Unfortunately, there are only

limited opportunities to study abroad in many foreign areas. In

addition, many programs lack a quality foreign language component as

well as significantly experiential components. Historically, more

attention has been paid to the development of programs in Western

Europe where the student demand has been greater. NSEP hopes to

encourage, through institutional grants, the development and/or

expansion of infrastructure for study abroad in critical areas of the

world where capacity does not currently exist. Programs are encouraged

that:

(1) Expand program opportunities in critical countries where

limited opportunities currently exist.

(2) Establish program opportunities in critical countries where no

opportunities exist.

(3) Enhance meaningful opportunities for foreign language and

foreign culture acquisition in conjunction with study abroad.

(4) Create and expand study abroad opportunities for students from

diverse disciplines. In all cases, grants to develop study abroad

infrastructure must address issues of demand (how to increase demand

for study in the proposed countries or regions) and diversity (how to

attract a diverse student population to study in the proposed countries

or regions). Grants may support start-up of programs or the expansion

of a program's capacity to benefit more and/or different student or to

improve the quality of study abroad instruction. Proposals can address

issues concerning either or both issues of undergraduate and graduate

education.

(c) Addressing the infrastructure for international education in

U.S. higher education. While studying abroad is an integral part of

becoming more proficient in one's understanding of another culture and

in becoming more functionally competent in another language, the NSEP

also emphasizes the development and expansion of programs that address

serious shortfalls that provide a stronger domestic program base in

areas consistent with the NSEP mission. The NSEP encourages grant

proposals that address infrastructure issues. While not limited to

these areas, programs might address the following issues:

(1) Enhancing foreign language skill acquisition through innovative

curriculum development efforts. Such efforts may involve intensive

language study designed for different types of students. Less

traditional approaches should be considered as well as ways to provide

foreign language instruction for the student who may not otherwise have

an opportunity to pursue such instruction. Functional competency should

be stressed but defined as meaningful for the particular discipline or

field.

(2) Expanding opportunities for international education in diverse

disciplines and fields and in issues that are cross-area or cross-

national in character. Efforts are encouraged that offer opportunities

for meaningful international education for those in fields where

opportunities are not generally available. There are many fields and

disciplines that are rapidly becoming international in scope, yet the

educational process does not include a meaningful international

component. In many cases this is due to a rigid structure in the field

itself that cannot accommodate additional requirements, such as

language and culture study. There are also issues that involve cross-

area or cross-national education or are studied in comparative terms.

Students in these areas also need quality opportunities in

international education.

(3) Provide opportunities for programmatic studies throughout an

undergraduate or graduate career. Students frequently study a foreign

language or pursue study abroad opportunities as adjuncts to their

overall program of study. Innovations in curriculum are needed to more

thoroughly integrate aspects of international education into curriculum

throughout a student's undergraduate or graduate career. The NSEP

encourages institutions to address these overall international

education curriculum issues in their proposals.

(4) Provide opportunities to increase demand for study of foreign

areas and languages. Efforts to develop educational programs that offer

innovative approaches to increasing demand to include a meaningful

international component are encouraged. Proposals are encouraged to

address issues of diversity: how to attract students who have

historically not pursued opportunities involving international

education. Diversity includes geographical, racial, ethnic, and gender

factors.

(5) Improve faculty credentials in international education. Efforts

to create more opportunities for teachers to become competent in

foreign cultures and languages are encouraged. While NSEP is a higher

education program, it is interested in the potential dynamics of

collaborative efforts that recognize the shared responsibility of all

educational levels for promoting international education.

(6) Uses of new technologies. During the last decade tremendous

advances have been made in the application of new educational

technologies. Such technologies have enhanced our capacity to improve

instruction, broaden access, and assess student learning. NSEP's

objective is not to support large technology oriented projects.

However, NSEP encourages efforts that integrate innovative uses of

technology emphasizing how proposed programs will have significance

beyond a local setting. Proposals that include proposed uses of

technology will be required to demonstrate detailed knowledge of the

technology, how it is to be developed and applied and how student

learning will be impacted.

Sec. 206.4 Proposal development and review.

The purpose of this section is to explain the NSEP review process.

[Note: A number of important approaches to proposal development and

review have been adapted from guidelines developed by the Department of

Education's Office of Postsecondary Education for its ``Fund for the

Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE)''.] This information if

intended to aid institutions in the development of proposals and to

provide guidance concerning the criteria that may be used in reviewing

and evaluating proposals.

(a) The grants to institutions program will be administered by the

National Security Education Program Office (NSEPO). However, the NSEPO

will function as an administrative office much in the same manner as

the Institute of International Education and the Academy for

Educational Development function in administering NSEP scholarship and

fellowship programs, respectively. The NSEPO will not review or

evaluate proposals. The proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by

national screening panels.

(b) The NSEP will use a two-stage review process in order to

evaluate a broad range of proposal ideas. In the first stage,

applicants will submit a five-page summary [double-spaced] of their

proposal. An institution may submit more than one proposal, but each

proposal should be submitted and will be evaluated separately and

independently.

(c) NSEP expects competition for grants to be intense. By

implementing a two-stage process, potential grantees are given an

opportunity to present their ideas without creating a paperwork burden

on both the proposal authors and the reviewers.

(d) The preliminary review process. The review of preliminary

proposals will be undertaken by panels of external reviewers, not

members of the NSEPO. Panels of not less than three will be assembled

to review preliminary proposals. Panel members will be drawn primarily

from faculty and administration in higher education but might also

include representatives from the research, business, and government

communities. Every effort will be made to ensure balance (geographical,

ethnic, gender, institutional type, subject matter) across the entire

competition.

(e) Panel members will reflect the nature of the grants program.

Each panel will include a recognized expert in a field of international

education. Other panelists may include experts in area studies, foreign

language education, and other fields and disciplines with an

international focus.

(f) Preliminary proposals will be reviewed according to a set of

criteria developed in consultation with representatives from higher

education, and provided to the panels. The applicant shall, at a

minimum, deal with the following issues in the preliminary proposal:

(1) How the proposal addresses issues of national capacity in

international education.

(2) What area(s), language(s), and discipline(s) the proposal

addresses and the importance of these to U.S. national capacity.

(3) What the applicant is proposing to do.

(4) How the proposal deals with the key characteristics of the

NSEP.

(5) Demonstration of thorough knowledge of the state of the art in

the particular area of the proposal and how this proposal develops or

builds capacity, not duplicates existing capacity.

(g) The applicant must also include a budget estimate. This budget

estimate, for the first year of the proposal, must include the

following:

(1) A summary of anticipated direct costs including professional

salaries, funds for students, travel, materials and supplies,

consultants, etc., and how or why these costs are needed.

(2) An estimate of institutional indirect costs. The budget

estimate must also indicate whether funding is also being requested for

a second year and, if so, an estimate of the amount to be requested.

(h) Panelists will review and rank proposals and forward their

recommendations to the NSEPO. NSEPO will review and analyze these

recommendations and inform all applicants of decisions.

Sec. 206.5 Final proposal process.

NSEPO will provide detailed comments on proposals to all applicants

who are invited to prepare a final proposal.

(a) Final proposals should be limited to no more than 25 double-

spaced pages. Proposals will be reviewed by national panels constructed

similarly to those designed to review preliminary proposals. In

addition to a field review process, panelists will be assembled in

Washington D.C. to discuss and review the independent and competing

merits of proposals.

(b) Proposals will be evaluated in two basic categories:

(1) Proposals that address study abroad infrastructure and

(2) Proposals that address domestic infrastructure. Should

proposals deal with both of these issues, they will be evaluated in a

third category. This grouping of proposals will ensure that all

categories of proposals receive funding consideration.

(c) In general, final proposals will be considered on the following

selection criteria:

(1) Importance of the problem. Each proposal will be evaluated

according to the merit of how it addresses issue(s) of national

capacity. The proposal must articulate the importance of the problem it

addresses, how the proposal addresses issues of national capacity in

international education, and how it is consistent with the objectives

of the NSEP.

(2) Importance of proposed foreign language(s), foreign area(s),

field(s) or discipline(s). The proposal will be evaluated according to

how well it articulates the need for programs in the proposed areas,

languages, fields, or disciplines.

(3) Identification of need and gaps/shortfalls. The proposal will

be evaluated according to its persuasiveness in identifying where the

needs exist and where serious shortfalls exist in the capacity to fill

the need. The proposal should clearly identify why these gaps exist and

provide a strong indication of familiarity with the state of the field

in the proposal area.

(4) Cost effectiveness. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of

``educational value for the dollar.'' NSEP is interested in funding

proposals in areas where other funding is limited or in areas where

NSEP funding can significantly augment or complement other sources.

NSEP is not interested in replacing funds available from other sources

or in duplicating other efforts. Also, NSEP is interested in projects

whose dollar levels and long-range budget plans provide for realistic

continuation by the grantee institution and adaptation by other

institutions. NSEP is interested in proposed approaches to leveraging

other funds against the proposed project.

(5) Evaluation plans. Proposals will be evaluated on their approach

to measuring impact. What impact will the proposed program have on

national capacity? How will the proposed program deal with assessing

language and foreign cultural competency? In the case of study abroad

programs, how will the success and impact of study abroad experiences

be assessed. Proposals should not defer the consideration of these

issues to a latter stage of the effort. Evaluation and assessment

should be an integral part of the entire proposal effort.

(6) Prospects for wider impact. Proposals must address national

needs and will be evaluated according to how well they are likely to

address these needs. What component of the higher education community

does the proposal address? How diverse a student population will the

proposed program address? What applications to other institutions will

be made available, either directly or indirectly, because of the

proposed program?

(7) Capacity and commitment of the applicant. The proposal will be

evaluated according to the evidence provided on the commitment of the

institution, and other institutions, to the proposed project. What

other institutions are involved and what is their commitment. If there

are commitments from foreign institutions, what is the evidence of this

commitment? Are their plans for the institution to integrate the

efforts of the proposed program into the educational process? What

plans are there for eventual self-support? As with many other similar

programs, NSEP is particularly interested in the degree to which the

institution is willing to bear a reasonable share of the direct and

indirect costs of the proposed project.

(d) Applicants should also indicate if they currently receive or

are seeking support from other sources. Applicants should indicate why

support from NSEP is appropriate, if other sources are also being

sought.

Dated: May 13, 1994.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 94-12172 Filed 5-16-94; 11:14 am]

BILLING CODE 5000-04-M