[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 96 (Thursday, May 19, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12172]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 19, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
