ACE, Higher Ed Groups Urge Education Department to Withdraw Proposed Grant Rule

The Sept. 23 comments focus on proposed revisions to the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), which govern how the department awards and administers federal grants.

The groups argue that the proposal incorporates and, in some cases, expands on provisions contained in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed overhaul of the governmentwide Uniform Guidance. Congress recently blocked implementation of the OMB proposal through Dec. 11, raising concerns that individual agencies are moving ahead with similar changes while the broader rule remains on hold.

ACE and the groups said the proposed EDGAR changes would "weaken selection criteria based on objective merit, create significant financial risks for institutions of higher education, diminish transparency in grantmaking, and create misalignment between grant selection criteria and the purposes of programs authorized and funded by Congress."

Expanded Authority to Suspend and Terminate Grants

Among the most significant concerns is a proposal to expand ED's authority to suspend and terminate discretionary grants, including termination "for convenience," and give the education secretary greater discretion over whether and at what level to continue funding multiyear awards.
The associations said the provisions would introduce instability into the grant process by allowing funding decisions to be affected by changing agency priorities or political determinations.

The proposed rule also would allow the department to give preference in grant competitions to applicants that voluntarily agree to accept lower indirect cost rates than the rates they have negotiated with the federal government.

ACE and the other groups strongly opposed that provision, arguing that grant competitions should prioritize applicants best qualified to carry out a program's goals rather than those willing or able to absorb a larger share of a project's costs. They also noted that negotiated indirect cost rates account for real institutional expenses associated with conducting federally supported work.

Among the other concerns raised in the comments:

• New grant-selection criteria: Proposed criteria related to admissions, promotion, and participant selection are ambiguous and could conflict with the statutory purposes of some federal programs.
• "Merit and high standards" requirements: New requirements governing hiring, admissions, promotion, and compensation are undefined and could exceed ED's authority.
• Compliance with executive orders: The proposal would require recipients of state-administered formula grants to comply with executive orders, which do not supersede federal, state, or local law.
• Less transparency: ED would no longer be required to publish grant application notices and maximum award amounts in the Federal Register.

Part of a Broader Debate Over Federal Grantmaking

The EDGAR proposal comes amid an ongoing dispute over the administration's effort to reshape federal grantmaking.

In July, ACE and more than 60 other higher education associations urged OMB to withdraw its proposed rewrite of the Uniform Guidance, warning that it would shift grant decisions away from established merit-review processes and expand agencies' authority to suspend and terminate awards.

The Education Department and National Science Foundation subsequently proposed changes to their own grant policies reflecting elements of the OMB proposal.