FY 2026 YSEALI Academic Fellows Program (DFOP0017934): One Cooperative Agreement to Run 16 Institutes

FY 2026 YSEALI Academic Fellows Program (DFOP0017934): One Cooperative Agreement to Run 16 Institutes

This page is a historical reference for the FY 2026 Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) Academic Fellows Program (AFP). The U.S. Department of State competition is closed: the amended Notice of Funding Opportunity set a final deadline of May 29, 2026, and the official Grants.gov listing records the opportunity as archived on June 28, 2026. No next cycle has been announced on the official listing or the linked State Department funding-opportunities page, so this page does not represent an open application window.

Quick facts

What the opportunity is funding

YSEALI AFP is not a direct student scholarship call where individuals apply. It is a program-level implementation award. In practical terms, this was a large-format cooperative agreement for one lead organization to design and execute 16 institutes in 2027 (8 in spring and 8 in fall), each centered on leadership and civic capacity in one of four themes:

• Economic Prosperity
• Liberty and Freedom
• Natural Resources
• Peace and Security

This is why the opportunity is both high-value and operationally heavy. The award supports an initiative with approximately 285 undergraduate and recent graduates from Southeast Asia, up to 35 U.S. citizen Reciprocal Exchange participants, and up to two U.S. Fellows Forums in Washington, DC (spring and fall).

The NOFO explicitly says the cooperative agreement was intended as a base-year award with potential renewal for two additional consecutive fiscal years, subject to performance and availability of funds, before open competition again. That language describes the award structure; it is not an announcement that a renewal or a new public application window is available now. The intended recipient would need to be a serious operator with capacity to manage a multi-part, multi-institution system over many months.

Who this is for

This is clearly built for organizations, not individual students. The primary beneficiaries are:

• U.S. not-for-profit public and private educational institutions
• U.S. not-for-profit organizations, including think tanks and civil society or nongovernmental organizations

Not-for-profit educational entities and cultural exchange institutions are expected to have both conceptual and operational capability to host or coordinate multiple academic experiences and external partnerships in different U.S. locations.

If you are a university administrator, international office director, nonprofit program lead, or partnerships manager at an exchange-capable institution, this is structurally aligned with your role. If you are primarily a program evaluator or consultant without institutional status, the fit is weaker unless you are acting as a qualified subrecipient under a lead applicant.

Eligibility and program design constraints (confirmed on official text)

Verified applicant requirements

• At least one proposal per applicant only. Multiple proposals by the same applicant result in all submissions being declared ineligible.
• UEI issued through SAM.gov and active SAM registration are required.
• For this scale of award, the NOFO requires at least four years of experience conducting international exchanges. The requirement applies because the anticipated award exceeds $130,000 in ECA funding.
• No minimum or maximum percentage of cost sharing is required.

Design constraints that can trip teams

The program allowed two different implementation models:

1. Administer all 16 institutes through subawards;
2. Directly implement up to two institutes, one in spring and one in fall, and administer subawards for the remaining 14.

However, there is a cap: no academic institution can implement more than two institutes in one calendar year. This single rule is often missed in early plans and creates compliance risk if your consortium has one dominant host.

Subaward and partner expectations

Applicants can use a networked approach with up to 14 institutes handled through subawards, but partner selection and oversight still need strong governance. If your lead organization does not have direct control over a robust partner due diligence process, plan early for a review workflow: recruitment quality, budget checks, reporting formats, and program consistency.

Deadlines and timeline interpretation

The final deadline was May 29, 2026 at 11:59 PM Eastern / Washington DC time. The amended NOFO states that there were no exceptions to the filing cutoff and that Grants.gov would automatically reject an upload received after the deadline. That window is closed. The official listing is archived, and no later deadline or replacement FY 2026 application window appears on the official source.

For a future competition with a similar scale, a working preparation sequence would look like this; it is not a current submission schedule:

• Month -3 to -2: confirm SAM and institutional setup, and lock executive sponsorship at the lead organization.
• Month -2 to -1: build the full institute plan, theme logic, country outreach pathway, and partner mapping.
• Month -1 to -0.5: draft the full proposal package, including required attachments and budget logic.
• Final month: run Grants.gov test submission rehearsals and finalize AOR workflow.

For the closed cycle, applicants were advised to transmit the complete package well before the cutoff. The NOFO emphasized a full, clean transmission through Grants.gov and warned that technical delays do not create an exception. A future applicant should build in a buffer for technical retries and final package verification.

What to submit and where it must be filed

The closed cycle required submissions through Grants.gov (the official path identified by ECA). The submission expectation was document-specific and format-specific; the steps below describe what applicants had to prepare before the May 29, 2026 cutoff, not a live application process.

Minimum confirmed required package elements include:

• SF-424
• Executive summary
• Proposal narrative
• SF-424A budget
• Detailed line-item budget
• Budget narrative

In addition, the program points to a broader solicitation package that includes a Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) and a POGI document for formatting and requirements. You should treat these as mandatory operational documents, not optional reference files.

The NOFO is specific that the applicant is the legal entity shown on SF-424 and supporting EIN details. For complex entities with subsidiaries or affiliated nonprofit structures, keep legal naming and account identity consistent across all attachments.

Review logic and what the program office prioritizes

After technical screening, proposals are reviewed by program staff and then an ECA grant panel. A few practical implications matter:

• It is competitively evaluated, not a pre-scored or pass/fail track.
• Technical eligibility is strict and can eliminate applications before panel review.
• The final award decision includes federal compliance review and risk assessment.

The review criteria have equal weight and focus on:

1. quality of program idea and feasibility,
2. institutional history and ability to implement,
3. follow-on impact and long-term multiplier effect,
4. performance monitoring and evaluation design,
5. cost-effectiveness.

In a tied scenario, lower indirect cost rates can be used as a tie-breaker mechanism. That point encourages realistic overhead planning instead of padding the budget.

What “feasible” looks like in this context

A realistic program must show all of these simultaneously:

• Recruitment logic aligned with US embassies and consular channels,
• clear staffing model across 16 institutes,
• measurable milestones for pre-award and institute operations,
• consistent participant selection and placement process,
• explicit plans for reporting, tracking, and learning.

The official structure is not a one-off conference model. It is a full cycle with selection support, program delivery, forum activity, and partner alignment.

Application quality playbook

Below is a practical build sequence reconstructed from the closed cycle for teams preparing a comparable future proposal.

1. Build the program architecture first, not the prose

Start with a matrix for each of 16 institutes. You should be able to answer:

• Which theme?
• Which academic host and host partner?
• Who recruits and screens Fellows?
• How does each institute connect to the final forum?
• What is the sequence from nomination to placement?

If you cannot complete that for all 16 in one coherent architecture, your proposal will not read as delivery-ready.

2. Put governance and compliance into the budget narrative

Because this is a federal cooperative agreement, the budget must map not only to nice ideas, but to the operational and compliance reality:

• personnel time,
• reporting obligations,
• travel and fellowship logistics,
• subaward administration,
• coordination cadence with partners.

Avoid “top-down” budgets that leave subaward administration as a vague expense class.

3. Use your 8 + 8 structure as a credibility signal

A lot of proposals fail because they over-index on one season and treat the two seasons as separate initiatives. The program is intentionally designed around two identical seasonal cycles. Demonstrating learning transfer between spring and fall planning is a stronger approach than inventing completely separate tracks.

4. Pre-empt technical rejection

A technically invalid package is worse than a weak concept. Build a pre-submit checklist around:

• legal entity naming,
• grant and SAM registration,
• attachment naming and completeness,
• final PDF conversion checks,
• Grants.gov transmission test,
• AOR readiness and backup role.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake 1: Thinking this is an individual fellowship

This is a lead-organization execution award. Applicants who treat it as an individual-focused scholarship grant often write weakly scoped budgets and miss governance requirements.

Mistake 2: Ignoring the one-proposal rule

The NOFO states that multiple submissions from one applicant make all submissions ineligible. This is strict and avoidable.

Mistake 3: Underestimating the delivery footprint

Running 16 institutes across one year is not a symbolic grant. Organizations often forget to model host load, staffing bandwidth, and partner capacity.

Mistake 4: Delaying SAM/Grants.gov setup

The NOFO routes all submissions through Grants.gov and repeatedly emphasizes submission mechanics. Delayed setup is a common source of last-minute failure.

Mistake 5: Weak M&E design

You need more than numbers. Review criteria explicitly value a developed monitoring and evaluation plan with goals and indicators. Provide baseline and expected evidence points, not only aspirational language.

Mistake 6: Overstating or misstating organizational history

Because technical review includes qualification and compliance, any unsupported claims about exchange history create credibility risk. Match claims to specific prior program outcomes.

Practical due-diligence sequence (14-point checklist)

Use this as a historical prep checklist for a future competition; it is not a checklist for an open FY 2026 submission:

1. Confirm that your organization is eligible under the categories listed in the NOFO.
2. Verify active SAM registration and UEI.
3. Confirm legal name, EIN, and all grant account fields are consistent.
4. Assign one AOR in Grants.gov with clear authority.
5. Build a full institutional workload model for 16 institutes.
6. Decide direct vs. subaward implementation split within the two-institute direct cap.
7. Prepare partner compliance due diligence for each subaward recipient.
8. Draft the recruitment and placement workflow with embassy coordination.
9. Prepare full participant pathway from nomination to assignment.
10. Draft all required budget tables in SF-424A and detailed line-item format.
11. Complete executive summary with clear capacity proof.
12. Prepare proposal narrative with measurable outcomes and M&E indicators.
13. Include concrete follow-on and multiplier strategy after 2027 institute cycles.
14. Run an internal dry-run submission at least two days before final deadline.

If your team can defend each item, your proposal is much more likely to clear technical screening and reach panel review.

Frequently asked questions

Is there a separate application page for this in-house?

The official listing points to grants filing via Grants.gov. The same listing also links to the full NOFO package and POGI/PSI materials.

Is this open only once and then closed?

The opportunity was published as an FY 2026 program and closed on May 29, 2026. The official listing is archived, and no next cycle has been announced. The possible renewal language in the NOFO does not itself open a new application window.

Can we submit more than one proposal under one organization?

No. Multiple proposals from one applicant under this NOFO make all proposals ineligible.

Can institutions with no direct ECA history apply?

The NOFO does not require an applicant to have held a direct ECA award, but it does require the applicant to demonstrate at least four years of international exchange experience for an award exceeding $130,000. Current ECA recipients and applicants without current ECA awards also had different supporting-information instructions in the PSI.

Is any cost share required?

No mandatory percentage is required.

What is the expected award structure?

The official source describes one anticipated cooperative agreement with total estimated federal funding of about $6.5M for the FY 2026 cycle.

Is this only for one season?

No. It is planned around eight spring and eight fall institutes.

What this means for your planning

If you are reviewing the opportunity for research or preparing for a possible future competition, the intended applicant profile is a university or nonprofit with serious exchange delivery history, multi-site execution capacity, and partner-coordination systems. It is not an open opportunity for organizations to apply to now.

Strong proposals are usually those that turn “themes and ideas” into a realistic operations model: who does what, when, under what authority, and with what reporting path. The reviewers repeatedly separate concept strength from implementation credibility. A technically complete, coherent, and cost-aware application with a credible follow-on vision is significantly stronger than a beautifully written but fragile proposal.

Official links

• Opportunity page: https://simpler.grants.gov/opportunity/7ec0a91c-d747-4643-8d83-88ad47ba1c15
• Amended NOFO PDF: FY26_YSEALI_AFP_NOFO_Amended.pdf
• State Department grant opportunities: https://www.state.gov/eca-grant-opportunities/
• Grants.gov application process: https://www.grants.gov/applicants/grant-applications/how-to-apply-for-grants
• Grants.gov applicant registration: https://www.grants.gov/applicants/applicant-registration

Official links for support and status

• Contact name from official listing: Sarah McLewin
• Contact email: mclewinsj@state.gov
• Grants.gov support: support@grants.gov, 1-800-518-4726

For historical research, the key administrative lesson is to confirm legal identity, SAM status, and the Grants.gov submission role before drafting narrative language. Anyone seeking a future YSEALI opportunity should first verify that a new official notice has been published rather than relying on this closed FY 2026 page.