FY 2026 Study of the U.S. Institutes Madeleine K. Albright Young Women Leaders Program

FY 2026 Study of the U.S. Institutes Madeleine K. Albright Young Women Leaders Program

The FY 2026 Study of the U.S. Institutes (SUSI) Madeleine K. Albright Young Women Leaders Program was a U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) cooperative-agreement competition for an organization able to administer a full international exchange program. The Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), DFOP0018387, offered one award of approximately $1,500,000, subject to funding availability. The application deadline was June 26, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern time (Washington, DC time). The official listing now identifies the opportunity as closed and archived, and no new FY 2027 solicitation is announced there. This page is therefore a historical reference for the FY 2026 competition, not an open application notice.

This was never a direct student fellowship application. It funded the U.S. implementing organization that would design, coordinate, and oversee four Albright SUSIs for summer 2027. Prospective participants were to be recruited and nominated through U.S. missions in eligible countries, with final eligibility and selections handled by ECA. Individuals should not treat the closed cooperative-agreement notice as a current route to apply for an exchange seat.

At a high level, the selected recipient would have run four short-term “Albright SUSIs,” each for around 20 foreign undergraduate students, for roughly five weeks each in the U.S., totaling about 80 participants across themes and locations. The program was built as part educational residency and field exposure, and it explicitly included follow-on engagement after participants returned home.

Program snapshot

What this program funds and what it does not

This opportunity is not a travel scholarship to an individual student. It is a systems and program-administration award. If your institution is trying to send one participant to a U.S. exchange, this is probably the wrong instrument unless you are an implementing partner that can coordinate a full chain of program components.

The NOFO specifies that the award recipient is responsible for designing, planning, selecting U.S. sites, and implementing all four cohorts. That includes subawards to educational institutions, participant logistics, safety protocols, and reporting after delivery. It also includes operational responsibilities like DS-2019 paperwork, health and safety procedures, participant forms, pre-departure orientation, field-experience coordination, and post-program alumni engagement.

The core program structure is constrained:

• Four Albright SUSIs, two on Economic Prosperity and Growth, two on Governance and Security.
• Each cohort is about five weeks: around four weeks of academic residency at an accredited U.S. college or university plus approximately one week of field experience in a different region.
• A single proposal is considered per applicant organization.
• The intended summer activity period is in 2027 with completion by around August 15.

Important distinction: this is a 2026 NOFO with 2027 delivery, not a repeated 2027-only solicitation. If you are advising an organization, treat it as a planning-and-readiness grant for the next academic year planning cycle, not an immediate student-level grant process.

Why this fits some organizations and not others

The opportunity was intended for organizations that already act as “exchange platform operators,” not groups launching their first international exchange. The NOFO makes this explicit in several ways:

• Required applicant types were U.S. not-for-profit organizations, including think tanks and civil society/non-governmental organizations, and U.S. not-for-profit public or private educational institutions.
• Because ECA anticipated an award above $130,000, applicants had to demonstrate at least four years of experience conducting international exchanges.
• It requires a complete Federal grant registration stack (UEI + SAM.gov active registration) before submission.

In practical terms, a strong candidate is usually one of these:

1. A nonprofit operator already managing exchange programming with documented participant safety/compliance systems.
2. A university consortium that can route participants through multiple campuses and manage visas, travel, and insurance.
3. A nonprofit think-tank/education organization with strong overseas partnerships and policy-heavy programming.

Organizations with limited HR infrastructure, weak controls around compliance, or no grants administration staff are likely to spend more effort fixing process gaps than writing narrative quality.

Fit signals to evaluate internally

Ask early:

• Do we have approved Grants.gov/GrantsGov registration chain and AOR workflows already tested?
• Can we commit project management staffing across planning, academic direction, logistics, reporting, and risk response?
• Can we prove at least four years of comparable exchange delivery?
• Do we currently hold relationships that can support four U.S. institutions and an alumni engagement model across 80 participants?

If any answer is “no,” this may still be feasible, but you will need a stronger consortium approach and explicit mitigation in the proposal.

Eligibility and submission requirements

Official eligibility baseline for the closed cycle

The NOFO and Simpler listing set out these confirmed requirements:

• U.S. not-for-profit organizations, including think tanks and civil society/non-governmental organizations,
• U.S. not-for-profit public and private educational institutions,
• active SAM.gov UEI and registration,
• no minimum or maximum cost-sharing percentage,
• only one proposal per legal applicant organization.

Because this was a federal program, compliance was as important as program design. The NOFO required:

• SF-424, executive summary, narrative, SF-424A, detailed budget and budget narrative,
• full application submitted electronically through Grants.gov only,
• a complete application package uploaded by the closing time; late applications were automatically rejected as technically ineligible.

Submission mechanics used for the FY 2026 competition

The submission was technical as well as substantive, and the NOFO warned that a portal or registration problem could make an otherwise strong proposal ineligible:

• Organizations needed a UEI and active SAM.gov registration. The NOFO says SAM.gov registration or renewal can take four to eight weeks, and Grants.gov registration can take up to four weeks.
• Applicants also needed to follow the Grants.gov registration and submission instructions and maintain the required federal registrations while a proposal was under review.
• The application package had to include the SF-424, executive summary, proposal narrative, SF-424A budget, detailed line-item budget, and budget narrative.
• Only one proposal could be considered from each legal applicant organization. If multiple submissions appeared, ECA would consider the one submitted closest to the deadline.
• Applications had to be submitted through Grants.gov. The NOFO stated that there were no exceptions after 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on June 26, 2026; late uploads were automatically rejected.
• The application narrative also needed to explain staffing, program management, participant health and safety, logistics, follow-on activities, and performance monitoring under ECA’s MODE framework.

FY 2026 timeline and status

• May 19, 2026: the official listing and NOFO were posted.
• June 26, 2026 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern time: application deadline; the competition is closed.
• September 1, 2026: anticipated award date, pending funding and selection.
• About September 15, 2026 through about September 15, 2028: anticipated 24-month performance period.
• Summer 2027: four cohorts were planned for delivery, with the exchange beginning no earlier than June 1, 2027 and concluding no later than August 15, 2027.

The official listing records an archive date of July 26, 2026. Since the cycle is closed and no next round is announced in the official listing or the linked FY 2026 NOFO, there is no current deadline to replace the closed cycle’s date with. The front matter retains June 26, 2026 as the historical deadline and uses historicalReference = true so the page reads as an archive entry rather than a live application listing.

A practical internal timeline is backward from the deadline by 8–10 weeks for registration and 6–8 weeks for draft review, with at least one full week reserved for Grants.gov upload rehearsal.

How to design a competitive application

Review criteria are not vague. The panel uses five equal-weight criteria:

1. Program idea and objective quality.
2. Institutional record and capacity.
3. Follow-on activities.
4. Monitoring and evaluation plan.
5. Cost-effectiveness and cost share posture.

If two bids tie, lower indirect cost rate may be used as tie-break only.

Application strategy that usually increases competitiveness

1) Lead with implementation realism. This is a direct program-delivery grant. Reviewers are looking for a coherent architecture, not generic language about exchange diplomacy. Build a realistic work plan for each week of each SUSI cohort: orientation, class schedule, field visit, health protocol, alumni bridge.

2) Prove exchange operations readiness. Show evidence of similar program execution, not just vision. Include staffing plan, risk-response workflow, and reporting cadence.

3) Treat M&E as a core deliverable, not appendix. ECA expects MODE framework alignment and a monitoring approach that can produce data used for performance decisions. Include target indicators, collection methods, survey strategy, and follow-up schedule.

4) Build a post-program bridge. “Follow-on activities” are part of review criteria and program administration. Explicitly map 6–12 month alumni engagement options, not just immediate post-program reporting.

5) Keep budget logic transparent. Given the one-award structure, budget should read as executable: staffing, participant support, travel logistics, host campus operations, safety contingency, accessibility/inclusion measures, and M&E costs.

6) Match theme design to participant profile. The two themes require distinct pedagogy. Economic Prosperity and Growth proposals should show measurable skill pathways; Governance and Security proposals should show practical workshops and policy-oriented learning outcomes.

What the NOFO expects during implementation

The NOFO’s recipient responsibilities are detailed and extensive. If your organization cannot absorb this scope, this is a major mismatch.

Implementation obligations include planning and managing all four cohorts, contracting subawardees, handling participant logistics and travel coordination, preparing visa-related documents, running pre-departure orientation, ensuring accommodation/health/safety planning, reporting progress weekly if needed, creating alumni databases, and submitting regular financial/program reports.

There are also important administration obligations tied to policy compliance:

• Disability accommodations and safety planning for foreign participants,
• required forms and data handling,
• branding compliance,
• crisis communication and incident reporting,
• tax and compliance obligations.

This is intentionally a high-accountability program. For applicants who usually run smaller events, partnering with experienced institutions and including clear division of responsibilities in the proposal is essential.

Practical FAQ

1) Is this only for women?

No. The title includes “Young Women Leaders,” but the NOFO text says foreign undergraduate students, men and women, ages 18–25 can participate.

2) Is this a one-time award or recurring?

The NOFO says one up to $1.5M award in FY 2026 and notes an intent to renew for one more fiscal year pending performance and funding availability, but no guarantee is stated. Treat this cycle as open-ended renewal language, not automatic recurring funding.

3) Can nonprofit universities apply directly?

Yes, if they are U.S. nonprofit public/private educational institutions and meet eligibility and registration requirements.

4) Is cost share mandatory?

No minimum or maximum cost sharing requirement is stated, but the review criteria still consider cost-effectiveness. Additional institutional contributions can strengthen viability.

5) Who selects participants?

Applicant organizations administer the program, while ECA and U.S. missions nominate/select participants as per diplomatic channels. Organizations should not assume direct applicant-led participant hiring; they oversee implementation.

6) Can a submission with partial documents be fixed after deadline?

No. Late or technically incomplete submissions are at high risk of being treated as ineligible. Build a full pre-submission checklist and hold a full dry-run in advance.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Submitting before clarifying whether your legal entity is the correct applicant type and SAM-registered.
• Treating the opportunity as a student-level grant narrative and not as an implementing-organization competition.
• Underestimating the M&E burden (the MODE indicators and reporting structure should be integrated in the proposal narrative and budget).
• Weak operational staffing plan without named responsibilities and backup capacity.
• Ignoring follow-on engagement strategy even though long-term engagement is explicitly requested.
• Assuming one grant submission is enough without considering that each technical issue in uploads can invalidate the package if not synchronized.

For a future competition, an organization would need to describe the roles of Project Director, academic director, and administrative director or coordinator with clear accountability. That is a planning lesson from the closed FY 2026 notice, not an indication that applications are currently being accepted.

Required preparation checklist

1. Check the official ECA funding page and Grants.gov for a newly announced competition before preparing an application.
2. If a new notice appears, retrieve and read the complete NOFO, Proposal Submission Instructions, and any required monitoring attachments.
3. Confirm that the legal organization has a UEI, active SAM.gov registration, and the required four years of international-exchange experience.
4. Confirm the applicant type and plan for only one submission per legal organization.
5. Define staffing: project director, academic director(s), administrative lead, and health-and-safety/logistics responsibilities.
6. Prepare the SF-424, SF-424A, detailed line-item budget, budget narrative, executive summary, and program narrative required by the new notice.
7. Build MODE-aligned performance indicators, data-collection questions, and a reporting cycle.
8. Prepare a written follow-on alumni engagement model with measurable outputs.
9. Rehearse the Grants.gov submission and leave enough time for registration, upload, and receipt confirmation.
10. Follow the new notice’s deadline exactly; do not reuse June 26, 2026 as a live deadline.

Why this is a premium opportunity for the right applicant

Among 2026/2027 opportunities, this one is unusual in that it combines prestige (Fulbright ecosystem) with explicit operational rigor and a large single award. In a strong year, a successful proposal here can position an organization as a preferred exchange partner for later cycles, because this is not only a funded pilot but also a capability test under ECA oversight.

If your organization is already handling exchange compliance, this NOFO can fit. If not, treat it as a near-term capacity-building project before the next cycle.

Official links

• Opportunity listing (official page)
• FY 2026 Albright SUSI NOFO (official PDF)
• Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Organizational Funding Opportunities
• Grants.gov applicant registration
• Grants.gov application instructions