Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The Bureau's various programs suggest the need for flexible guidelines addressing its broad grant categories. Although application guidelines and program review procedures may vary depending on type of program, the following points comprise a general Bureau structure for grant application and review for E/A, E/P, E/YX and for new program agencies for E/V. Specific procedures for each office are developed in consultation with the Associate Director.

ELIGIBILITY

Academic and cultural institutions, exchange-of-persons and other not-forprofit organizations are eligible to apply for grant support. Organizations should demonstrate a proven record (4 years) for work in the field (except for pilot grants, as noted below). Grants are not awarded to organizations whose primary purpose is clearly political (except under the limited circumstances noted below). Grants are not available to subsidize organizations whose primary activities fall outside the purposes of the Fulbright-Hays Act.

Pilot grants not to exceed $60,000 may be awarded to newer organizations. Programs and projects should conform with other ECA guidelines, and shall be independently evaluated.

Under certain limited circumstances pertaining to their expert, specialized knowledge and resources, organizations with clearly political purposes may be eligible for grants. Such organizations should not, however, receive grants for projects or programs that are intended to promote their own political purposes. Overall, but not in each case, ECA grants to such organizations must be balanced in terms of orientation of participants, numbers and dollars.

The Bureau seeks to promote competition and balance in its discretionary grant-making and strives to avoid exclusivity. Long-term programs are reviewed periodically.

APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES

Long-term program agencies will be reviewed annually according to criteria developed by program, Area and budget Offices.

Specific application and proposal guidelines will be developed by each Office for its programs. Each application shall include:

A standard Bureau cover sheet (attached);

A copy of the organization's charter;

A list of its Board of Directors;

A narrative proposal;

A detailed budget including cost-sharing and in-kind contributions as appropriate;

Curriculum vitae of project staff;

Germane letters of endorsement.

Proposals are received in response to Federal Register Announcements, announcements in professional journals, and in response to direct inquiries to the Bureau's Offices.

Before requesting proposals from outside agencies which have not been USIA grantees and/or for new types of projects, program offices shall:

Discuss with Area;

Submit brief description of proprosed activity/project/program (including rationale for this solicitation) to Coordinator for Associate Director's clearance;

Following Associate Director's approval, Office Director or program officer may hold discussions concerning Bureau application procedures; Proposals will be reviewed according to Office procedures.

Upon receipt and logging in the program Office, the proposal will be:
Assigned an action officer;

Reviewed for technical eligibility;

Copied and forwarded to the Coordinator, the Executive Office, relevant Area (s) and the General Counsel's Office (as necessary).

Program office preparation of proposal for panel review:

Attach Executive Office budget review, Area and staff comment; Include relevant evaluation studies completed in last two years; Forward proposal and blank review sheets to panel members at least one week prior to monthly meeting; for "urgent" proposals consult with Coordinator for Associate Director's approval of panel review out of routine cycle; Include annual review information for longterm program agencies.

Each Office will have a regular monthly meeting (e.g. E/A on the third Friday), allotting sufficient time to review all proposals.

Each proposed grant, contract, or co-op agreement (including those staff considers non-priority) shall be reviewed by panel:

Of which a majority of the voting members shall be career employees; Constituted for each Office by Office Director and Coordinator in consultation with Associate Director (must include Office, E/X, GC, Area and E representation);

Located at program office;

Chaired by Bureau Coordinator;

Minutes taken by Office support staff.

Each panel member:

Submits written review sheet (attached) for each proposal, including reviewer's statement describing the nature and extent of his or her association, if any, which members or representatives of the applicant organization; Recommends approval/disapproval, additional staff work including conditions and/or modifications such as additional outside review of the application.

Coordinator:

Summarizes for minutes follow-up actions for various elements;

May request additional expert outside review.

For proposals recommended for disapproval, the Office will prepare a letter from the Office Director for Associate Director clearance and attach panel review sheets.

Office responsibilities within two weeks of panel review:

Coordinate follow-up actions of various elements;

Summarize for the file institution's response to panel questions;

Prepare Office recommendation for Associate Director;

Prepare for Associate Director file with copies of proposal, panel review sheets, outside reviews, minutes of review meeting;

Send complete file to Associate Director through Coordinator, with cover memorandum indicating panel and Office Director's recommendation; Prepare duplicate file for the Deputy Director.

E responsibilities:

Log in E Secretariat;

To Coordinator for technical review and comment;

GC consultation as necessary;

To Associate Director for approval/disapproval;

To Deputy Director for final approval;

To Associate Director's office for filing of approval memos;

To Coordinator for log;

To E/X for final processing including contract; copy of approval memos to Office.

Office Directors may wish to send program award letters in addition to the Office of Contract's "boilerplate".

BUREAU OF EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS GRANT REVIEW CRITERIA

(A) Grant recipients should have an established reputation for excellence in the field in which the grant is being awarded. In certain cases grants may be awarded based on the demonstrated potential for excellence for the proposed program or project. The program or project should be representative of current expert knowledge and opinion in the field.

(B) Proposals will be assessed by the Agency's geographic Area desks to evaluate the need for the program or project and its potential impact and significance.

(C) Proposed programs and projects should serve to strengthen long-term mutual understanding by evidencing a potential "multiplier effect."

(D) Proposal personnel and institutional resources should be adequate to achieve the program or project's goals. Careful planning should be evidenced. (E) Relevant results of evaluations of previous projects and programs should be included with the proposal to demonstrate the applicant's capability.

(F) The overhead component of grants, as well as salaries and honoraria. should be kept as low as possible.

Additional review criteria and guidelines are available for each program Office and for specialized programs.

[blocks in formation]

Previous Grant History (Use Supplementary Pages as Necessary)

[blocks in formation]

14.

Have your submitted, or do you plan to submit a similar application to another government of private entity? If yes, provide name(s):

15.

16.

Authorizing Official

Applicant -I certify the statements herein are true and correct

for USIA use) Date received Action officer Number

[blocks in formation]

Association with Members or Representatives of the Applicant Organization:

Recommendation (complete following panel discussion)

APPROVE

DISAPPROVE

DEFER

RESUBMIT

Question 19. Were the grants to the Claremont Institute, the Mid-American Committee, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the National Strategy Information Center, and the Foreign Policy Research Institute subject to audit? What were the results of these audits? Were any questionable expenses uncovered? How much in questionable expenses were disallowed? Has USIA made any effort to recover the questionable or disallowed expenses? Would you please provide copies of the auditors' reports on taese organizations for the record.

Answer. To date, the grants to the Claremont Institute and the Mid-America Committee have already been audited. Audits of the other grants have not yet been undertaken. Some of these grants are still open and the award period of others has only recently expired. They remain subject to audit before the grant files are closed.

Copies of the two completed audits on grants to Claremont and the Mid-America Committee are attached. The audit of the Claremont Institute grants questioned $27,867 in costs of the total grant amount of $428,927. In other major findings, the auditors found the accounting system of the grantee inadequate and pointed out that the Agency had, in effect, overfunded the grant by authorizing normal per diem rates for the program participants when the participants actually were housed at lower cost.

In the case of the Mid-America Committee, the auditors recommended that costs of $829 be disallowed and questioned costs totaling $32,154 of the total audited grant amount of $190,088. In other major findings, the auditors recommended negotiation of a final overhead rate and found the accounting system of the Committee inadequate.

After analyzing the auditors' reports, the Agency's Contracting Officer notified both organizations of the findings. Consistent with Agency practice, the grantees were given thirty days to provide additional documentation and justification. When the thirty-day period has expired, the Contracting Officer will make a preliminary determination, after which the grantees will have thirty more days to file a rebuttal. At that time, if the Agency still determines that some of the costs are not allowable, we will proceed to recover the disallowed costs.

« AnteriorContinuar »