Department of Education Direct Grant Programs — Competitive Grant Rules

The U.S. Department of Education administers more than $70 billion in annual grants, and the procedural framework governing virtually all of its competitive ("discretionary") grants is 34 CFR Part 75 — Direct Grant Programs. Part 75 sets the rules for the full lifecycle of an ED competitive grant: how the Department publishes funding opportunities, how applicants apply, how applications are scored and selected, what conditions grantees must meet, how funds can be spent, and what happens when grantees fall short. School districts, universities, nonprofits, state agencies, and other organizations competing for ED grants — Title I school improvement funds, IDEA grants for students with disabilities, Promise Neighborhoods, Race to the Top, Teacher Quality Partnerships, and hundreds of other programs — operate under these rules. If you want to compete for an ED grant or manage one you've already received, Part 75 is the operational playbook.

Legal Authority

• 20 U.S.C. § 1221e — General Education Provisions Act (GEPA): authorizes the Secretary of Education to establish general conditions and procedures applicable to all ED grant programs; basis for ED's authority to promulgate 34 CFR Part 75 governing competitive grants across all program areas
• 34 CFR Part 75 — Direct Grant Programs: the procedural framework governing competitive discretionary grants awarded by the Department of Education; covers application procedures, selection criteria, award terms, allowable costs, and oversight requirements
• 2 CFR Part 200 — OMB Uniform Guidance: the government-wide grants management framework that Part 75 implements for ED; Part 75 supplements but does not replace Uniform Guidance requirements

Key Mechanics

ED's competitive grant process follows a defined annual cycle: the Department publishes a Notice Inviting Applications (NIA) in the Federal Register; applicants submit proposals during the application window; peer reviewers (often faculty, practitioners, and program experts) score applications against published selection criteria; the Department makes awards based on scores and any priority weighting. Selection criteria are published in advance and typically include Significance (does the project address an important need), Quality of Project Design (is the approach evidence-based), Evaluation Plan (will success be measured), and Project Team (does the applicant have capacity to deliver). Priority points can be assigned to applications that address the Secretary's established priorities — creating a policy lever the Secretary uses to steer grantees toward preferred program models.

Current Rule (2026)

What This Rule Does

34 CFR Part 75 is the master procedures regulation for competitive ED grants. It applies to every program the Department runs on a competitive, discretionary basis — meaning programs where the Secretary has discretion to choose which applicants receive funding rather than programs that distribute funds to states by formula. Formula programs (where Congress specifies how money is allocated among states based on population, poverty, or other factors) have separate rules; Part 75 governs the competitive programs that create head-to-head competition among school districts, universities, nonprofits, and state agencies.

The grant cycle Part 75 governs runs from funding opportunity to closeout. First, ED publishes an application notice in the Federal Register announcing a grant competition: the program goals, eligible applicants, maximum award amounts, project period, and the selection criteria that reviewers will use to score applications (§ 75.100). An applicant submits a proposal by the deadline — the proposal must include a narrative describing the project, a logic model or conceptual framework showing how activities connect to outcomes, a budget, and a performance measurement plan (§§ 75.110, 75.112). If the program permits preapplications, those go in first. ED convenes peer reviewers — typically experts in the subject matter who score applications against the published criteria and may recommend or not recommend funding. The Secretary selects grant recipients based on peer reviewer recommendations, available funding, and programmatic priorities.

Once a grant is awarded, the grantee enters Part 75's compliance regime. The key obligations: spend funds only for allowable costs consistent with 2 CFR Part 200 (the uniform administrative requirements and cost principles that apply across all federal grants); maintain adequate financial management systems; report on project performance against the goals promised in the application; cooperate with ED evaluations; avoid conflicts of interest in project management; coordinate with other projects in the same service area; and comply with all applicable civil rights laws. For multi-year grants — most ED competitive grants run 3–5 years — grantees must submit annual performance reports to earn continuation awards (§ 75.118). ED can withhold or reduce continuation awards if grantee performance is inadequate. At the end of the project period, final performance and financial reports are due.

34 CFR Part 75 interacts with 2 CFR Part 200 (the government-wide "Uniform Guidance" on federal grants) — Part 75 is the ED-specific layer on top of the cross-agency Uniform Guidance. Where Part 75 and Part 200 address the same topic, Part 75 controls for ED grants. For issues Part 75 does not address, Part 200 fills the gap. The most important Part 200 provisions for ED grantees are the allowable cost principles (subpart E) and the administrative requirements for financial management, procurement, and property (subpart D).

Key Provisions

Subpart C — How to Apply (§§ 75.100–75.159)

• § 75.100 — Application notice: ED must publish a Federal Register notice for each grant competition explaining what ED is funding, who is eligible, the deadline, and how applications will be evaluated; the notice triggers the competition and establishes the binding rules
• § 75.105 — Priority system: ED may designate absolute priorities (applications must address the priority to be eligible), competitive preference priorities (applications addressing the priority receive bonus points), or invitational priorities (addressed priority is noted but not scored); understanding the priority system is critical — an application that misses an absolute priority is ineligible regardless of quality
• § 75.112 — Logic model requirement: ED requires applicants to include a logic model or other conceptual framework showing the connection between inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes; applications without a coherent logic model consistently score poorly
• § 75.127 — Group applications: eligible parties may apply as a consortium; one member acts as the lead applicant (the grantee); all members are legally liable for compliance unless the grant agreement specifies otherwise

Subpart D — How Grants Are Made (§§ 75.200–75.253)

• § 75.200 — Selection: the Secretary uses selection criteria to evaluate applications; criteria must be published in advance; ED may use peer reviewers, its own staff, or a combination; the Secretary has discretion to make awards below or above peer reviewer recommendations for programmatic reasons
• § 75.210 — General selection criteria: Part 75 lists the standard criteria ED may select from, including: significance of the problem, quality of the project design, quality of project services, quality of the project evaluation plan, quality of the management plan, quality of the project personnel, adequacy of resources, and quality of partnerships; the specific criteria and their weights are announced in each competition's application notice
• § 75.217 — Determination not to fund: the Secretary may decline to fund any application, even a high-scoring one, if it is inconsistent with programmatic priorities or available funding — ED competitive grants are never "automatic" even for strong applications

Subpart E — Grantee Conditions (§§ 75.500–75.591)

• § 75.500 — Civil rights compliance: all grantees must comply with Title VI (race), Title IX (sex), Section 504 (disability), Age Discrimination Act, and IDEA nondiscrimination requirements; ED's Office for Civil Rights enforces these conditions
• § 75.519 — No dual compensation: grant funds may not pay a staff member for time already compensated from another source; this prevents "double dipping" where the same hours are charged to multiple grants or to the grantee's general operating budget
• § 75.525 — Conflict of interest: a person may not participate in a decision affecting a project if they or a family member have a financial interest in the decision; grantees must establish conflict of interest policies for grant-funded procurement and personnel decisions
• § 75.530 — Cost principles: allowable costs are governed by 2 CFR Part 200 subpart E; key principles — costs must be reasonable, allocable to the grant, and consistently treated with how the grantee treats similar costs from non-federal sources; prior approval from ED is required for budget changes exceeding the thresholds in 2 CFR § 200.308
• § 75.532 — No religious use: ED grant funds may not pay for religious worship, instruction, or proselytization, or for supplies or equipment primarily used for those purposes; this limitation applies even to faith-based organizations that are otherwise eligible to compete
• § 75.560–75.563 — Indirect costs: ED grants may include indirect costs (overhead) at the negotiated rate between the grantee and its cognizant federal agency; training grants often use a restricted 8% indirect cost rate; local educational agencies (school districts) may use a restricted indirect cost rate under § 75.563

Subpart G — Compliance and Enforcement (§§ 75.900–75.903)

• §§ 75.900–75.903 — Compliance procedures: ED may use informal resolution, compliance agreements, corrective action plans, or formal enforcement to address grantee non-compliance; enforcement can include withholding payments, recovery of improperly spent funds, and termination; grantees have hearing rights before adverse enforcement actions

How It Affects You

If you're a school district or educational organization applying for an ED competitive grant:

Your first step is finding and reading the application notice — search Grants.gov and the Federal Register for active competitions. The notice tells you the absolute priorities (which you must address to be eligible), the competitive preference priorities (where you can gain extra points), the selection criteria and their weights, the maximum award, and the deadline. A strong application maps explicitly to every scored selection criterion — reviewers score what's there, not what they imagine your project will do. The logic model matters: ED's peer reviewers are trained to look for clear connections between your proposed activities and expected outcomes, with measurable performance measures for each.

Once you have a grant, your compliance obligations are substantial. Keep your financial management system capable of tracking grant expenditures separately, maintain time-and-effort documentation for staff paid from grant funds, follow ED's prior approval rules before making significant budget modifications, and meet your performance reporting deadlines. Missing a performance report can result in loss of continuation funding even if your project is performing well. Your annual continuation award is not guaranteed — it is contingent on demonstrated progress toward your approved project goals.

If you're managing a multi-year ED grant:

Track your budget against your approved budget categories — the categories in your grant award (not what you described in your application narrative) are the binding budget. Transfers between categories exceeding 10% of the total award typically require prior written approval from your ED program officer (though the threshold varies by program). Document all cost-sharing commitments you included in your application — ED can enforce match requirements. If you need a no-cost extension to complete project activities, request it before the end of the project period; retroactive extensions are rarely granted. At closeout, all grant deliverables must be complete, financial records retained for 3 years, and final reports submitted within 90 days.

For faith-based organizations: ED competitive grants are open to faith-based organizations on the same terms as secular organizations — the Equal Access to Public Benefits protections in 34 CFR Part 75 prohibit ED from discriminating against an applicant on account of its religious character. But grant funds may not be used for inherently religious activities, and the organization must be able to keep grant-funded services separate from its religious activities. Many faith-based social service and education organizations successfully receive and manage ED grants by maintaining this programmatic separation.

Statutory Authority

This rule implements:

• 20 U.S.C. § 1221e (General Education Provisions Act, § 410) — authorizes the Secretary to make grants and cooperative agreements for educational research, development, and improvement; delegated rulemaking authority for grant administration
• 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA) — incorporated into Part 75's grantee conditions; student education records of grant-funded programs must comply with FERPA privacy protections

Implementing Regulations

Part 75 sits in a three-layer regulatory structure:

1. Program-specific statute (e.g., Title I of ESEA, IDEA Part D) — defines who is eligible, how much Congress appropriates, and required program goals
2. Program-specific regulations (where they exist) — specify criteria and conditions unique to that program; these override Part 75 if there is a conflict (§ 75.2)
3. 34 CFR Part 75 — applies to all competitive grants as the default procedural framework
4. 2 CFR Part 200 (Uniform Guidance) — applies as the cross-agency baseline that Part 75 supplements

Recent Rulemakings

89 FR 70320 (October 2024) — clarifications to performance reporting requirements and indirect cost rate rules for local educational agencies; added provisions on competition exception for proposed implementation sites; updated requirements for no-cost extensions.

45 FR 77368 (1980) — original major revision establishing the current structure of Part 75, implementing the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979.

Pending Action