[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 32, Volume 2]
[Revised as of July 1, 2008]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 32CFR206.5]

[Page 391-393]
 
                       TITLE 32--NATIONAL DEFENSE
 
        CHAPTER I--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (CONTINUED)
 
PART 206_NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION PROGRAM (NSEP) GRANTS TO INSTITUTIONS OF 
 
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

[[Page 392]]

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.

[[Page 393]]

                        PARTS 208-209 [RESERVED]