By Dr. Marc Smithers, Grants Development Associate (Higher Education)
The first six months of the new presidential administration have brought about profound changes to the grants landscape, particularly for institutions of higher education. Colleges and universities have faced intense scrutiny and uncertainty, some seeing awarded projects voided for being antithetical to the executive office’s priorities, while others are being told they are at risk of losing all federal funding for championing initiatives that are seen as politically motivated. The breakneck pace at which these changes have been implemented has left grantseekers at institutions of higher education feeling overwhelmed, confused, and hesitant to step into the federal grants landscape as they wait to see how the new administration’s priorities take shape. With over half a year of data to consider, though, now is the time to step back and reflect on what has happened and what may happen in the future. While there is far more that can be said about the current and future state of higher education grant funding in America, here are three things grantseekers at colleges and universities should know about (1) what has changed, (2) what has stayed the same, and (3) what institutions should be doing now to prepare for the future.
Three Significant Changes to Grant Funding in Higher Education
- Shifts Away from Equity, Inclusion, and Green Energy
By far, the most editorial space given to reporting on the changes to the higher education grants landscape has been the freezing and widespread cancellation of already awarded projects. Most of the changes the administration made to these awards were due to funds being used to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, though the new administration has also attempted to pull funding from research and training in green energy technologies and other presumed progressive projects. This shift has been felt in nearly all agencies and programs, with the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Department of Education, among others, cancelling millions of dollars’ worth of research projects based on equity and inclusion concerns. The award cancellations have been mired in legal challenges, but regardless of the outcome, the most notable change in the higher education grants landscape has been the abrupt shift away from equity, inclusion, and other progressive causes.
- Capping Indirect Cost Rates
In addition to cutting awarded programs, another well-known change has been the capping of indirect cost rates to no more than 15% of a project award. The NIH, which previously capped indirect costs at unique negotiated rates with each institution ranging between 20 to 50%, began to implement this rate in early February, with the Department of Energy following suit in April, and the NSF in May. While these changes were implemented with equal effects on all awarded entities, these caps have had an unquestionably large impact on institutions of higher education, leading several colleges and universities to take legal action against the presidential administration. The outcome of these lawsuits is pending as of this writing.
- Centralized Collaboration and Review of Grant Awards
A change that has received less attention than the previous two areas, however, is the overall increased and centralized involvement of departmental agencies and the executive branch in the activities of awardees. The most high-profile instance of this change was the Department of Homeland Secretary requiring all awards over $100,000 to be individually reviewed by her office, though many other federal agencies have instituted stricter reviews and more intensive oversight of awarded institutions. The NIH announced in March that they were centralizing their review process away from their institute-based peer-review process, while the Department of Justice has added compliance with federal immigration office requirements to some of their most recent application guidance, such as the School Violence and Prevention Program, the Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors Violence Against Women Grant Program, and the Safer Outcomes Program. These changes highlight a desire within the current administration to not only ensure funds are not used for causes which they view as politically progressive, but to also exercise more centralized authority over how all funds are spent and whether they further a more cohesive approach to the executive branch’s agenda.
Three Points of Continuity in Grant Funding in Higher Education
- Longstanding Programs Continue to be Funded
Despite the significant changes that have rattled the higher education funding landscape, one of the most encouraging signs of the past half-year has been the continuation of longstanding, popular programs in various agencies. While the future of some programs are in jeopardy with the budget negotiations in Congress, agencies continue to run programs like the Office on Violence Against Women’s Reduce Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking on Campus Program (Campus OVW), the Department of Education’s Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions Program, and the NSF’s Improving Undergraduate STEM Education Program. Even with the elimination of areas of focus related to equity and inclusion, as well as green technology, each of these programs looks similar, if not identical, to the previous funding cycle’s guidance. With these similarities, institutions can more easily prepare to apply for these opportunities in the future, even as aspects of the funding landscape are in a state of flux.
- Many Agency Priorities Continue to be Areas of Focus
In addition to seeing longstanding programs continue to be funded, another point of continuity seen in funding opportunities is the relative stability of many agency priorities that have carried over despite the change in administrations. The NSF continues to prioritize most of its areas of focus, including broadening participation in STEM, and most annual programs have continued without much, if any, revision to their guidelines, including the Advanced Technological Education Program, Faculty Early Career Development Program, and the Computer Science for All Program. The Campus OVW Program contained some changes regarding interagency collaboration, yet each of the focus areas institutions can build a project around, remaining unchanged from the 2024 application guidance. Like the continuation of programs, the continued areas of focus for many of these programs can also help institutions construct competitive projects well before a program is announced.
- Innovative Fields Continue to be Agency Priorities
A major point of continuity between the previous administration and the current one has been specific fields of innovation that institutions of higher education are well-positioned to contribute to, most notably in artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. Multiple agencies have released new and continuing programs focused on these areas of innovation, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology holding a new round of their Regional Alliances and Multistakeholder Partnerships to Stimulate (RAMPS) Cybersecurity Education and Workforce Development (RAMPS Program). As institutions continue to consider ways to bring innovative technologies onto their campuses and enhance their effectiveness, federal grant opportunities continue to be a source of funding they should consider.
Three Action Steps Institutions of Higher Education Should Take Now
As colleges and universities continue to grapple with the unprecedented changes happening at the federal level in the midst of the enrollment challenges brought on by the looming demographic cliff, there are steps that each institution should consider taking when reflecting on these changes and similarities in the federal grants landscape.
- Determine Your Institution’s Willingness to Align with Federal Priorities
Before considering what programs your institution may pursue, it is imperative that institutional leaders conclude how willing they are to align institutional priorities with the current administration’s priorities. Many institutions will find it difficult, if not impossible, to alter initiatives focused on equity and may face significant challenges in adopting a more collaborative approach to work on immigration. These are conversations that should happen regardless of the outcomes of pending litigation and must be transparently communicated to the grantseekers at colleges and universities so that faculty and staff can alter their funding strategies.
- Gain a Basic Understanding of Laws Governing Key Programs
One way to plan ahead for future opportunities is to have a basic knowledge of the laws that created and sustain key funding programs, such as the Higher Education Act of 1965, which, with several amendments made since its passing, has funded several programs such as the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program. Having a working knowledge of some of these key pieces of legislation can give your institution an advantage in preparing a competitive project for programs that can be expected to continue since they are funded through an act of Congress.
- Ensure Your Institution is Grant Ready Now!
Knowing what programs are expected to continue and whether your institution can align itself with federal priorities is useful only if your institution is committed to becoming grant-ready. We have many resources for grantseekers on how to ensure your institution is grant-ready, including an article in this issue of FUNDED on the hidden aspects of grantseeking. Also, track these and many other changes to the federal funding landscape at our blog, Navigating the Grant Landscape Under a New Administration. Use these free resources to help your institution be prepared for programs before they open to ensure you are submitting the most competitive proposal you can!
Conclusion
The higher education environment has had ample periods of uncertainty and disruption, and the changes to federal funding programs have added to an already chaotic time for college and university leaders. Taking time to reflect on what has and has not changed, though, can provide a clearer understanding of the scope of these changes and provide a potential course of action for institutional leaders to enact. While the future of any of these programs mentioned is not certain, the ability for institutional leaders to discern emerging patterns and continuities between the previous and current administration can provide a degree of confidence and a call to action for college and university grantseekers.