Last month, the Office of Management and Budgetproposed an overhaul of the rules that govern federal grants. These rules previously received little attention other than by grant administrators who needed to ensure compliance. This revision, which would automatically apply the rule to all discretionary grants across federal agencies, cannot be ignored. With community colleges reliant on federal grants from the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture, and even the Department of Defense, among other agencies, it is critical that community college leaders and stakeholders pay attention and provide feedback by submitting comments before the rule is finalized, which they can do here by July 13th.
The proposed rule would make significant changes throughout the grantmaking process – from how programs get designed to how grants are selected to how grant can be terminated. It would add costs and administrative burden to community college grantees by limiting what can be covered, how funds can be accessed, and what processes have to be followed. It would allow whatever administration is in office to make decisions about who gets awards based on their politics and ideology rather than on evidence, the strength of the program, and chances of success. It would increase risk to community colleges by making it easier to cancel funding midstream and expanding ways in which private citizens can sue colleges for how they are using their funds. It would allow federal government intrusion into activities and associations of community colleges. And, although transparency is a stated goal of the rule, it uses vague terms throughout that will make it impossible for applicants and grantees to know what is expected of them.
It is critical that OMB receives substantive comments on the impact of the proposed rule on community colleges and students. Specifically, the Administration needs to hear about how these rules will make it harder, if not impossible, for community colleges to continue to provide the needed training and education of students so they can be responsive to local economic needs and the preparation of the future workforce. Below are some of the most harmful provisions for community colleges so that you can speak to the impact they will have on your colleges’ work. Your voice needs to be heard so that community colleges can continue to benefit from the federal grants Congress has provided and our students deserve.
Key Proposals Impacting Community Colleges:
§200.205: Undermines the independent, peer-review process by replacing it with decisions based on politics and ideology:Requires one or more senior agency appointees to review all applications before grants are issued to “ensure that Federal award proposals selected for funding are consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest.” Requires peer review recommendations to be advisory and “not ministerially ratified, routinely deferred to, or otherwise treated as de facto binding.” Requires pre-issuance reviews of proposals by senior appointees that apply the following principles: advance the President's policy priorities; not be used to fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate racial preferences or other forms of racial discrimination by the recipient, including activities where race or intentional proxies for race will be used as a selection criterion for employment or program participation, denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic, illegal immigration, or any other initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values; give preference to institutions with lower indirect cost rates; and comply with “Gold Standard Science.”
§200.206: Expands risk review beyond financial risk in potential violation of applicants’ First Amendment rights:Expands the risk review for applicants to include, based on publicly available and verifiable information, the applicant’s history of questionable practices which includes a record of plagiarism in studies or papers published by the applicant or its staff, discredited or non-replicable studies published by the applicant or its staff, engaging in activities or initiatives that are inconsistent with Federal civil rights laws including the equal protection principles of the U.S. Constitution and prohibitions against unlawful discrimination, or engaging in activities or initiatives that are inconsistent with religious liberty laws; and an applicant’s membership in or affiliation with organizations engaged in activities that violate Federal law, undermine public safety or national security, or advocate for the overthrow of the United States Government.
§200.303: Mandates use of E-Verify: Requires grantees to participate in the DHS E-Verify program to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees and contractors hired to perform work under the grant and to report to the federal agency any instances where the system is unable to confirm an individual’s employment authorization.
§200.305: Adds burdensome requirements to access approved funds: Adds an additional requirement of a detailed payment justification for each payment request.
§200.339: Incentivizes private lawsuits: Allowsa federal agency to cooperate with individuals or organizations in their pursuit of private causes of action and civil remedies based on the failure of a recipient or subrecipient to comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of a Federal award.
§200.340/§200.341: Allows termination of grants for convenience:Allows grants to be terminated by the federal agency if it “does not effectuate program goals, Federal agency priorities, or the national interest as they exist at the time of the termination.” It also allows grants to be “suspended” for up to 90 days, and allows the federal agency to terminate a grant without providing a detailed or individualized reason.
§200.342: Fails to require appeals for all terminated grants: Allows the federal agency to terminate without the grantee having a right to object, have a hearing, or appeal if the grant was canceled for a reason other than noncompliance.
§200.432: Limits funding for conferences:Only allows federal grant funds to be used to attend conferences if participation in the conference is expressly approved by the Federal agency and included in the terms and conditions of the Federal award.
§200.450: Expands prohibitions on federal funds to influence policy: Prohibits grantees from engaging inissue advocacy or public messaging that promotes or opposes a particular social, political, or public policy position unrelated to the statutory objectives or performance requirements of the Federal award, including messaging designed to influence public attitudes on matters not necessary to accomplish the purpose of the Federal award; or attempting to influence the executive branch of any State government on matters unrelated to the objectives or performance requirements of the Federal award, including attempts to affect State agency policymaking, rulemaking, or administrative actions for purposes other than carrying out objectives of the Federal award.
§200.454: Limits funding for memberships and prohibits subscription costs: Only allows federal grant funds to be used for membership in professional, civic, business, and technical organizations if it is necessary to fulfill the award requirements and receives prior approval. Prohibits federal funds to be used for subscriptions to business, professional, academic, and technical periodicals.
Amanda Fuchs Miller is the founder and President of Seventh Street Strategies and former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education.
