FY 2026 Tech Youth Program

Captured cycle: This page is retained for historical guidance. Confirm whether the program has reopened before planning an application.

FY 2026 Tech Youth Program

The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) is running a fully federal, open competition for this program under funding opportunity number DFOP0018281. The key page is a new technical youth exchange run as a cooperative agreement with one anticipated award and an estimated total budget of about $1.100 million (subject to available appropriations). The official deadline is July 6, 2026, 11:59 p.m. Washington, D.C. time, and the program is scheduled to run over 15 months with a U.S. exchange in summer 2027.

This page is a practical guide to decide quickly whether this is a fit for your institution and what you need to prepare to avoid a technical rejection.

Key details at a glance

What this opportunity really is

This is not a scholarship for individuals and not a paid internship for single students. It is a recipient-level program award: the U.S. Department of State funds one organization to design and run a large, structured three-week exchange and follow-up process.

The official NOFO describes the goal as training youth in technical, leadership, and entrepreneurial competencies tied to AI and other emerging fields, while building ties between U.S. students and international youth. The program model includes:

• pre-exchange virtual preparation,
• the in-person three-week U.S.-based exchange,
• intensive youth-facing activities (technology camp, mentorship, site visits, business and industry exposure, and leadership sessions),
• capstone project obligations in participants’ home contexts,
• ongoing alumni and home-country follow-on activities.

Because this is a cooperative agreement rather than a standard grant, the relationship is more hands-on: ECA reserves substantial implementation involvement (technical guidance, review checkpoints, and approvals), and the final recipient is expected to provide continuous monitoring, reporting, participant tracking, and coordination with embassies in multiple stages.

In effect, this is a program design and execution grant aimed at institutions already comfortable running international youth education projects with high supervision standards.

The NOFO explicitly says the Department may expand the program for up to two additional fiscal years before rerunning. That is one reason this is still highly relevant for teams planning 2026/2027 operational cycles, not only a single one-shot event.

Who should apply (and who should not)

This opportunity is best for organizations that can prove three things at once:

1. Capacity to run an international, youth-facing exchange.
2. Financial and compliance systems expected under U.S. foreign cultural exchange rules.
3. Age-appropriate education and safety design for teenagers from multiple countries.

The NOFO gives a narrow eligibility rule-set:

• Eligible applicants include U.S. nonprofit organizations (including 501(c)(3) NGOs and civil society NGOs) and U.S. nonprofit higher-education institutions.
• Applicants must have UEI + active SAM registration before proposing; registration can take weeks, so starting early is required.
• ECA expects award-level experience. Because the anticipated award amount is around the top bracket of the competition, applicants must have at least four years of international exchange experience.
• One legal organization can only be represented by one proposal. If multiple uploads are made, only the one closest to the close date is reviewed.

Important practical consequence: a local NGO with community ties but weak federal compliance maturity is usually not enough unless it can show a strong parent/partner structure. Many otherwise strong initiatives lose not on idea quality, but on technical ineligibility.

What your organization should realistically check before applying

Use this quick decision filter:

• Can your organization serve as the one accountable award recipient?
• Can you produce a full SF-424/SF-424A package with budget narrative and clear line-item support?
• Do you have at least a basic M&E plan, including youth safety and progress indicators?
• Can you prove compliance readiness in advance (SAM.gov, MyGrants, UEI, and legal registration)?
• Do you have partner institutions and alumni networks that can support both in-country partner selection and post-program follow-up?

If you are weak on more than two of those, the application is usually too risky.

How the 2026/2027 cycle works

Although it is branded FY 2026, the implementation is planned into 2027. The document states:

• program performance duration: 15 months,
• U.S.-based exchange timing: summer 2027,
• expected recruitment flow through embassies for international participants + national recruitment for U.S. participants,
• a planned network of about 96 youth total.

The cycle structure matters for strategy:

• You submit in July 2026,
• you may expect pre-award and onboarding/admin work after award release,
• actual exchange is later, so implementation risk is around staffing, partner onboarding, visas, and scheduling,
• alumni and capstone elements must be built in from the first narrative, not added as a late “nice-to-have”.

The NOFO also indicates that participating countries are selected through ECA and embassies, not freely chosen by applicants. So if you submit, your narrative should demonstrate flexibility in designing the cohort and delivery model while preserving clear standards for screening and selection.

Official application and submission workflow

The process is entirely electronic and tightly regulated by Grants.gov and State systems.

What to download and where

The solicitation package can be pulled from Grants.gov or ECA’s opportunities pages. The practical route is:

• Use the grants opportunity listing to download the package and related documents.
• Use https://www.grants.gov/applicants/grant-applications/how-to-apply-for-grants and applicant registration instructions for account setup.

The technical rule is strict:

• No exceptions to submission deadline after 11:59 p.m. Washington, D.C. time on July 6, 2026.
• Applications submitted after that timestamp are automatically rejected by Grants.gov.

Required registrations

From the NOFO, every applicant organization must have:

• UEI,
• active SAM.gov registration,
• ECA-side grant management registration (MyGrants).

Additionally, the NOFO warns that SAM setup can take 4–8 weeks, so teams that start after submission planning usually face preventable risk.

Required application contents

The package requires at least:

• SF-424,
• SF-424A and detailed line-item budget,
• budget narrative,
• proposal narrative,
• technical sections describing program design, partner roles, participant safety, participant selection flow, staff oversight, and alumni follow-up,
• optional supporting materials (calendars, commitments, letters).

Because this is a cooperative agreement, reviewers are not only looking at what you plan to do; they evaluate whether you can run an operationally complete exchange lifecycle.

Evidence trail your team should prepare early

• Organizational certifications and registrations,
• evidence of international exchange delivery in recent years,
• letters from partners/industry and regional support plans,
• draft timeline including embassy engagement and recruitment stages,
• participant screening and safeguarding process,
• post-exchange follow-on and capstone support plan.

What reviewers prioritize (and what to improve first)

The NOFO uses explicit review criteria (equal-weighted unless otherwise specified). In plain terms, you are evaluated on:

1. Program idea quality
   • Is the concept clearly designed for ECA mission outcomes?
   • Is it specific, realistic, and long-term oriented (not event-only)?
2. Program planning and execution capacity
   • Is the agenda detailed, feasible, and safe?
   • Are participant activities clearly sequenced from pre-exchange to alumni follow-on?
3. Institutional capacity and record
   • Have you run similar international youth or exchange programs?
   • Can your systems manage compliance and reporting?
4. Monitoring and evaluation design
   • Is your M&E structure specific, with clear indicators and intended use of data?
5. Cost efficiency
   • Are overhead and staff costs reasonable relative to program impact?

A final risk review follows: financial stability, management systems, history/performance, audits, and implementability.

High-impact application strategy

If I had to optimize for acceptance probability, I would prioritize:

• Build the proposal as a lifecycle design, not a one-week event.
• Show evidence of youth safety systems in detail (screening, supervision, emergency response, chaperoning, host family protocols).
• Document partner governance: who recruits, who decides final shortlists, who handles visa and travel logistics, and how U.S. embassies are integrated.
• Be specific on measurable outcomes tied to technical skills, leadership growth, and post-exchange impact.
• Include private-sector support where possible to strengthen cost-sharing and real-world exposure.

Given the single-award nature, competition is about relative program maturity, not just a good concept.

Common mistakes (and how to avoid them)

1) Missing registrations before package assembly

Many teams begin with content drafts and then discover SAM.gov or MyGrants registration gaps. That can become a technical rejection before scoring. Start registrations before final drafting.

2) Submitting a list of activities without a governance model

A strong program can fail if it ignores implementation mechanics: who screens participants, who owns monitoring, how embassies integrate, what happens if countries cannot be fielded. Reviewers read this as weak feasibility.

3) Underestimating safety and compliance requirements for minors

This program includes minors (ages 15–18), so the proposal must present practical safeguarding: staff vetting, background checks, health and travel risk planning, supervision standards, and emergency communication flow.

4) Weak follow-on strategy

Since the program is judged on sustained impact, proposals that end at the three-week exchange are scored down. You need a capstone and alumni pathway that continues beyond return.

5) Ignoring the deadline mechanics

Grants.gov marks late uploads as ineligible even when technical submission issues are resolved after 11:59 p.m. local close. Final uploads should be scheduled early with buffer for retries.

Practical fit checklist (if you are considering drafting)

Use this as your pre-write screen:

• Organization has clear mission alignment with youth exchange / education / STEM diplomacy.
• Current systems already support grants-level reporting and federal audit-ready documentation.
• You can show at least 4 years of exchange management history.
• You have a partner pipeline for host family placement, industry mentorship, and participant support.
• You can provide bilingual or multilingual support where needed and manage country-level selection logic with embassy coordination.
• You can plan for post-program capstone support after exchange and include evidence collection for outcomes.

If this is all “not yet,” you may still pursue a partner-led joint submission where a stronger organization is the award recipient and your group participates as supporting partner.

Frequently asked questions

Is this a scholarship or paid internship for students?

No. It is a program award to one implementing organization. Individual participants are beneficiaries of the exchange experience, not direct grant awardees.

Can non-US organizations apply?

The NOFO language emphasizes US nonprofits and US higher-education institutions as eligible applicants. Always verify current eligibility in the solicitation package and PSI before a final decision.

How large is the funding likely to be?

The NOFO indicates approximately $1.1M total and one anticipated award, with an expected award value around that amount. This is an estimate, and actual amounts remain subject to federal funds and approved award planning.

Can there be cost share?

The program does not require a mandatory cost-share percentage. Lower overhead and private-sector or institutional co-support are still expected quality factors.

Are applications from current ECA award recipients treated differently?

No special shortcut is listed, but current award management relationships matter for workload assumptions and implementation context. Applicants must discuss active awards and compatibility as part of a complete proposal.

Is there a contact for questions?

The NOFO lists the ECA contact [email protected] for questions about the solicitation.

Common documents and official links

Use official pages first:

• Federal listing: https://simpler.grants.gov/opportunity/fc13c2d1-489e-403a-80a8-2a6cc7ae3f6b
• Official NOFO PDF: https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/fc13c2d1-489e-403a-80a8-2a6cc7ae3f6b/attachments/d43c4f66-026e-4ce4-948b-b093b7fe4562/FY26_TechYouth_NOFO.pdf
• Grants submission hub: https://www.grants.gov
• SAM.gov entity registration: https://sam.gov/content/entity-registration
• State ECA opportunities hub: https://www.state.gov/eca-grant-opportunities/

Final guidance before you decide

For organizations already active in U.S. international youth programming, this is one of the clearest “high-control, high-requirement” opportunities currently listed. The upside is substantial: national-level foreign cultural exchange visibility, youth impact, and long-tail relationships with schools, embassies, and industry. The downside is equally clear: operational readiness must be real, not just narrative.

If your organization can already manage federally funded international education programs and can produce a rigorous timeline and safeguarding model, this is worth a full bid. If your team is still building that infrastructure, use this as a strategic partner opportunity rather than a direct lead applicant.