Community Economic Development Projects — HHS, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services
NOFO: HHS-2026-ACF-OCS-EE-0026 · Assistance listing 93.570
Closes: September 8, 2026, 11:59 p.m. ET, via Grants.gov
Expected project start: September 30, 2026
$17.48M expected total · 22 expected awards · $100,000 floor · $800,000 ceiling
115 evaluation points · 200-page limit · 5 disqualifying factors
The CED program funds private nonprofit community development corporations (CDCs) to create full-time jobs for individuals with low income — 75% of jobs created must be filled by eligible individuals (NOFO summary, p.4). The matrix below decomposes the NOFO into the lines an application must answer, each cited to its section of the NOFO. Mandatory lines are conditions of consideration, format lines can disqualify on mechanics alone, and scored lines carry the 115 points.
Eligibility and disqualification — Step 1 (pp.6–7)
| Ref | Requirement | Flag | Answer in | Drafting note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 · p.6 | Eligible applicants are qualified CDCs — private, nonprofit organizations — under section 680(a)(2) of the CSBG Act, 42 U.S.C. 9921(a)(2). Faith-based and tribal/Alaska Native organizations meeting the requirements are eligible. | Mandatory | File 2 — eligibility documentation | Eligibility is proven by documents, not asserted — see the three-condition line below. |
| S1 · p.7 | Disqualifying factors: an application is not considered if it requests funding above the $800,000 ceiling; is submitted after the deadline; is from an individual, a federal entity, or a foreign entity; arrives on paper without a pre-approved exemption; or omits proof of the three eligibility conditions. | Mandatory | Whole application | Five ways to be removed before scoring begins. The ceiling check and the eligibility proof are the two an otherwise strong CDC most often trips. |
| S3 · p.40–41 | Additional eligibility documentation — proof of three conditions: (1) private nonprofit status; (2) articles of incorporation or bylaws stating the organization's purpose is planning, developing, or managing low-income housing or community development; (3) a board list specifying whether each member is a community resident, business leader, or civic leader. | Mandatory | File 2 — attachments | Condition 2 is the sleeper: generic charitable-purpose bylaws fail it. If the purpose clause doesn't say community development or low-income housing, this needs attention before writing begins. |
Submission mechanics and format — Steps 3 and 5 (pp.24–27, 64)
| Ref | Requirement | Flag | Answer in | Drafting note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S5 · p.64 | Applications due September 8, 2026, 11:59 p.m. ET, submitted through Grants.gov (paper only with a pre-approved exemption, due 4:30 p.m. ET). If the same application is submitted more than once, only the last on-time submission is accepted. | Mandatory | Grants.gov package | Grants.gov timestamps receipt. Registration chains (SAM → Grants.gov) take days — verify credentials now, not on the 8th. |
| S3 · p.26 | Two files plus standard forms; combined page limit for file one and file two: 200 pages. Pages beyond the limit are not reviewed. | Format | Whole application | The limit includes most attachments (indirect cost agreement, nonprofit proof, board documentation, third-party agreements, letters). Budget the pages per component before drafting. |
| S3 · p.26–27 | Format: 8½ × 11, 1-inch margins, Times New Roman 12-point black (10-point allowed in footnotes/tables), English. Project narrative double-spaced; table of contents and project summary single-spaced. No external links for reviewers. | Format | Whole document | Failure to adhere to formatting and page limitation rules is grounds for non-review. Double-spacing the narrative roughly halves usable narrative pages — plan for it. |
| S3 · p.24 | File one (Project Narrative Attachment form): table of contents, one-page project summary, project narrative, line-item budget and budget narrative — all inside the page limit. | Mandatory | File 1 | The project summary is one page and single-spaced by rule; do not cross-reference other sections in it (Step 3, project summary instructions). |
| S3 · p.24–25 | File two (Other Attachments form): ACF Priorities Alignment Attestation, indirect cost agreement, nonprofit proof, governing board documentation, additional eligibility documentation, organizational capacity information (incl. org chart), third-party agreements, letters of support, evidence of site control, financial documentation, market research data, and evidence of participating business commitment to quality jobs. | Mandatory | File 2 | Twelve attachment classes; only the attestation and site-control evidence sit outside the page limit. Third-party agreements and financials do the evaluative work — see the scored lines. |
| S3 · p.25 | Standard forms in Grants.gov: SF-424; SF-424A and SF-424B (non-construction) or SF-424C and SF-424D (construction); Key Contacts; Grants.gov Lobbying form; SF-LLL; Project/Performance Site Location(s). | Mandatory | Grants.gov forms | Construction vs non-construction decides which budget forms apply — and the project period (three-year vs four-year, Step 1, p.5). |
| S3 · p.41–43 | Third-party agreements required with all contractors and cooperating entities — signed by an authorized person, with roles, committed resources, work schedules, and estimated compensation. Agreements with participating businesses must commit to new full-time, full-year positions (75% filled by individuals with low income eligible to work in the U.S.), unduplicated position counts, livable wages, and specified benefits. | Mandatory | File 2 — attachments | General letters of support do not count as third-party agreements — the NOFO says so explicitly. Getting signatures takes longer than writing; start these first. |
Evaluation criteria — Step 4 (115 points)
| Ref | Criterion | Flag | Answer in | Drafting note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S4 · 1 | Purpose and need — 5 points. | Scored · 5 | Narrative | Project area boundaries and beneficiary data carry the sub-points; name the geography precisely. |
| S4 · 2 | Approach — 10 points. | Scored · 10 | Narrative | Sub-points reward recruitment strategy, support-service alignment, filled positions before period end, and a timeline covering the full period of performance. |
| S4 · 3 | Community revitalization — 15 points. | Scored · 15 | Narrative | Tied for the largest criterion. Show linkage to other development activity in the community, not the project in isolation. |
| S4 · 4 | Resources and capabilities — 14 points. | Scored · 14 | Narrative + File 2 capacity docs | Scored from the narrative but evidenced by the org chart, resumes, financial statements, and audit summary in File 2 — the two must reconcile. |
| S4 · 5 | Business plan: participating business viability — 13 points. | Scored · 13 | Narrative + market research data | Market research data is a named File 2 attachment; viability claims without it read as assertion. |
| S4 · 6 | Business plan: high-quality job creation — 13 points. | Scored · 13 | Narrative + third-party agreements | Wages, benefits, and the 75% eligible-individual commitment must appear inside the signed business agreements. |
| S4 · 7 | Business plan: barrier reduction support services — 15 points (child care, transportation, treatment, etc.; link to target job-holders' needs; provider capacity; signed agreements if partner-delivered; named staff coordination). | Scored · 15 | Narrative + third-party agreements | Tied for largest. The sub-points (pp.53–54) reward specificity: which services, for whom, delivered by which named capacity. |
| S4 · 8 | Line-item budget and budget narrative — 10 points. | Scored · 10 | File 1 budget section | Inside File 1 and inside the page limit; must reconcile with SF-424A/C sections D and E. |
| S4 · 9 | Letters of support — 3 points (each letter: author, organization, date, reasons). | Scored · 3 | File 2 | Cheap points with a stated minimum content rule — check every letter carries all four elements. |
| S4 · 10 | Alignment with ACF vision, mission, values, priorities, and guiding principles — 10 points. | Scored · 10 | Narrative + attestation | Pairs with the ACF Priorities Alignment Attestation in File 2 (outside the page limit). |
| S4 · 11 | Bonus — 7 points: partnerships with workforce development or job creation programs (TANF, WIOA, child welfare); and projects reviving economically underserved communities — rural communities, persistent-poverty counties, or states/territories without an active CED grant. | Scored · 7 | Narrative | Both bonus routes are structural facts about the project, not writing quality — claim them explicitly if they apply. |
Annotated outline — the application the matrix implies
§1Grants.gov standard forms
- SF-424 (descriptive title per Box 15 guidance) · SF-424A/B or C/D · Key Contacts · Lobbying · SF-LLL · SF-P/PSL
Mechanical but sequenced first: the forms decide construction vs non-construction, which decides the project period and budget forms everything else must match.
§2File one — narratives
- Table of contents (single-spaced) · one-page project summary · project narrative ordered to criteria 1–7 and 10 · line-item budget + narrative (criterion 8)
Order the narrative by the scoring table — 115 points read in criterion order is the reviewer's own worksheet. The double-spacing rule makes the narrative the scarcest real estate in the 200 pages.
§3File two — attachments
- Attestation (outside limit) · nonprofit proof · purpose clause · board list by role · capacity pack (org chart, resumes, financials, audit) · third-party agreements · letters of support · site control (outside limit) · market research
The eligibility trio and the signed business agreements are the two long-lead items — both involve other people's signatures and neither can be drafted around.
Source and scope. Every line above is drawn from the published NOFO for HHS-2026-ACF-OCS-EE-0026 (original version, 72 pages), cited by step and page. This page is BidStroke's independent decomposition of a public document; it contains no applicant's facts and is not guidance from, or endorsed by, HHS or ACF. Always work from the official posting: grants.gov — HHS-2026-ACF-OCS-EE-0026.