Preschool Development Grant Birth through Five SMART Grant 2026: Up to $15 Million for State Early-Childhood Data and Technology Systems
The Administration for Children and Families forecasts a FY 2026 competitive grant for eligible states and territories to improve measurement, analytics and technology across early-childhood systems, with awards expected to range from $500,000 to $15 million.
Preschool Development Grant Birth through Five SMART Grant 2026: Up to $15 Million for State Early-Childhood Data and Technology Systems
The U.S. Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has forecast a FY 2026 Preschool Development Grant Birth through Five (PDG B-5) opportunity called the SMART Grant: Strategic Measurement, Analytics, and Results using Technology. The forecast describes a large, state-focused competition for projects that improve how early-childhood systems measure needs, connect information, analyze results, and use technology to make services work better for children and families.
This is an important status distinction: the forecast is real, but the final Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) has not yet been posted. Grants.gov lists an estimated post date of September 17, 2026, an estimated application due date of November 17, 2026, estimated total program funding of $224 million, and an expected award range of $500,000 to $15 million. Those figures are planning information from the federal forecast, not a substitute for the final NOFO. The NOFO will control the final scope, eligible applicants, priorities, project period, match or cost-sharing rules, required forms, and submission instructions.
Key details
| Detail | What the official forecast currently says |
|---|---|
| Opportunity | Preschool Development Grant Birth through Five SMART Grant: Strategic Measurement, Analytics, and Results using Technology |
| Federal program | FY 2026 PDG B-5, administered by ACF in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services |
| Purpose | Improve strategic measurement, analytics, results and technology in early-childhood systems |
| Estimated total funding | $224,000,000 |
| Expected award size | $500,000 minimum to $15,000,000 maximum |
| Expected publication | September 17, 2026 |
| Estimated application deadline | November 17, 2026, by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time according to the forecast |
| Eligible applicants | State governments identified in the final NOFO; the forecast also refers to specific states and territories being identified there |
| Not eligible | Individuals, including sole proprietorships, and foreign entities |
| Current status | Forecast; final NOFO and application instructions pending |
| Official source | Grants.gov forecast record |
The dollar figures deserve careful reading. The $224 million figure is an estimated pool for the program, not money reserved for one applicant. The $15 million figure is an award ceiling in the forecast, not an automatic award amount. The final NOFO may set the number of awards, project length, budget limits, and allowable costs differently. Treat the forecast as an early planning signal and update every number against the published NOFO before submitting.
What the SMART Grant is designed to address
PDG B-5 is a state-level early-childhood systems program rather than a scholarship for parents or a small direct-service grant for an individual provider. ACF’s program materials describe the broader PDG B-5 purpose as strengthening coordination among existing programs and funding streams for children from birth through age five. The mixed delivery system can include child care and family child care providers, Head Start, state pre-kindergarten, and home visiting.
The SMART forecast adds a specific emphasis on measurement, analytics, results, and technology. That wording points toward infrastructure and operating improvements such as better data definitions, more useful reporting, secure information exchange, dashboards for decision-makers, stronger performance measurement, or technology that helps state agencies see whether families are reaching the services they need. It does not confirm that every one of those examples will be allowable. They are sensible planning categories to test against the NOFO once it is released.
A competitive project should connect technology to a practical public result. A new platform by itself is a weak grant story. A stronger concept explains the current problem, identifies the people affected, shows how the proposed system or analytic method will change decisions, and names the measure that will show whether the change helped. For example, an applicant might describe fragmented eligibility or participation data, explain the decisions that fragmentation prevents, and propose a governed method for producing timely information for state and local partners. The actual project must follow the final federal requirements.
Who this opportunity may fit
The forecast identifies state governments as eligible applicants and says that the final NOFO will identify the specific states and territories eligible to apply. This means a nonprofit, university, county, tribal organization, child-care provider, or software company should not assume it can submit a standalone application. Such organizations may become partners, contractors, evaluators, or data-system contributors if the final rules permit them, but the state applicant and the federal notice will determine the structure.
The best early fit is likely a state office or state-led partnership that already has responsibility for early-childhood programs and can convene the agencies that hold relevant data. A credible lead should be able to explain how the work relates to children birth to five, how it fits the state’s existing early-childhood strategy, and who will own the system after the grant period. A state team with a strong technology idea but no authority over the underlying programs may struggle to show that it can deliver.
Potential partners should add a specific capability rather than simply appear in a coalition diagram. A university might contribute evaluation or measurement expertise. A child-care network might explain provider workflow and implementation barriers. A family-serving organization might help design consent, accessibility, language access, and feedback processes. A technology partner might provide architecture or integration skills. Each role should be tied to a deliverable, a decision right, and a realistic data-protection responsibility.
What is confirmed and what is still pending
Several points are confirmed in the Grants.gov forecast: the federal agency, the SMART Grant name, the FY 2026 fiscal-year context, the estimated funding pool, the forecast award range, the estimated September publication date, the estimated November application date, and the broad applicant restriction to state governments identified in the final notice.
Many details are not confirmed yet. The public forecast does not provide the final scoring criteria, required narrative questions, page limits, project start date, period of performance, indirect-cost treatment, match requirement, budget categories, reporting schedule, data-security standards, or list of eligible states and territories. It also does not say whether the competition will fund a new system, modernization of an existing platform, analytics capacity, planning, implementation, evaluation, or a combination of those activities.
Do not fill these gaps with assumptions from an older PDG B-5 round or another HHS grant. A past program may show useful context, but it cannot establish the terms of this SMART competition. When the NOFO appears, compare it line by line with the forecast and replace any provisional language in the internal project plan. If the notice changes the deadline or eligibility, the notice wins.
How to prepare before the NOFO appears
Preparation is worthwhile because the forecasted window between publication and the estimated deadline may be short. Start with a one-page problem statement. Describe the current early-childhood system issue in operational terms: which agencies or programs are disconnected, what data are missing or delayed, which families or providers experience the consequence, and what decisions are currently made without reliable evidence.
Next, create a baseline inventory. List the systems, data owners, identifiers, reporting cycles, legal authorities, consent practices, data-quality limitations, and existing agreements. Mark which information is already available and which would require new collection. This prevents a proposal from promising a statewide solution before the team understands the data it can lawfully use.
Build a results chain with four parts: activity, immediate output, changed decision or behavior, and public result. A technology purchase is an activity. A shared data specification or validated dashboard is an output. More timely allocation of services is a changed decision. Better access, coordination, quality, or continuity for children and families is a possible public result. Add a measurement plan that names the baseline, target, owner, reporting frequency, and limitation for each important result.
Finally, prepare a draft governance model. State who sponsors the work, who approves data definitions, who handles security incidents, who can access which information, how families and providers give feedback, and how the state will maintain the system after federal support ends. These are not decorative details in a data-and-technology proposal; they are evidence that the project can operate responsibly.
Application process and expected timeline
The forecast’s expected sequence is publication around September 17, 2026, followed by an estimated electronic application deadline of November 17, 2026 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Those dates may move. The final Grants.gov notice will identify the application package, required registrations, submission system, and authoritative time zone.
Once the NOFO is posted, read the eligibility and application sections before drafting the narrative. Confirm that the state or territory is named, that the lead agency is allowed to apply, and that every proposed partner fits the federal rules. Download the full package and preserve a copy with the date retrieved. Record every required attachment in a checklist, including forms that may be completed by a grants office rather than the program team.
The likely work sequence for a state team is: confirm eligibility; designate an authorized applicant and grants lead; translate the notice into a compliance matrix; finalize the problem and results model; secure partner commitments; prepare the budget and procurement approach; complete required assurances and registrations; run legal, privacy, accessibility, and security reviews; and submit early enough to resolve validation errors. The exact sequence and forms must be updated from the final notice.
Evidence and reviewer-facing preparation
Use evidence that makes the problem concrete without overstating what the data show. A useful baseline may combine service participation, workforce, quality, family feedback, and data-quality information, but only if the team can explain the source and limitation of each measure. Separate statewide findings from local examples. If a figure is an estimate, label it as an estimate. If a source covers only participating programs, do not describe it as a complete picture of all children.
Reviewers should be able to see why the proposed technology is necessary and why the applicant can deliver it. Show the relationship between the state’s authority, the participating agencies, the implementation schedule, and the requested costs. Explain how the design will work for smaller providers and communities with limited technical capacity. Address accessibility and language needs as part of system design, not as a final paragraph added after the architecture is complete.
A strong proposal also defines failure conditions. What happens if data matching is incomplete? Which measure will be delayed? How will the state prevent a dashboard from encouraging an incomplete or misleading comparison? How will the project handle a partner that cannot adopt the new workflow? A realistic risk register demonstrates control of the work and gives the federal reviewer confidence that the team understands implementation.
Common mistakes to avoid
The most serious mistake is treating the forecast as the final competition. Do not submit from an old application template, quote an unconfirmed project period, or promise eligibility for a state that the final NOFO does not name.
Another mistake is confusing a statewide grant with a direct award to every organization involved in early childhood. The forecast lists state governments as eligible applicants. Partners should clarify their role with the lead state agency and should not represent themselves as standalone applicants unless the final notice explicitly allows that.
Avoid writing a technology shopping list. Software licenses, interfaces, consultants, and dashboards are means, not outcomes. Tie each cost to a defined system problem and a measurable improvement. Also avoid vague claims about “real-time” or “interoperable” data unless the team can define the data standard, refresh cycle, user, security control, and decision that the capability will support.
Do not postpone governance. Privacy, permissions, data retention, accessibility, procurement, and sustainability can determine whether a technically impressive idea is feasible. Include the people who own those decisions from the beginning. Finally, do not wait until the deadline day. Federal submission portals can reject an otherwise complete package because of a missing attachment, an expired registration, or a validation issue that needs staff attention.
Frequently asked questions
Can an individual apply for this grant?
No. The Grants.gov forecast says individuals, including sole proprietorships, are not eligible. It identifies state governments as eligible applicants, with the final list of states and territories to be provided in the NOFO.
Is the $15 million amount guaranteed?
No. It is the forecast award ceiling. The forecast also lists an estimated $224 million total program amount and a $500,000 award floor. Final amounts and the number of awards must be confirmed in the NOFO.
Is the November 17 deadline final?
No. It is the estimated application due date in the forecast. Check the final Grants.gov notice for the controlling date, time zone, application package, and any changes.
Can a nonprofit or university participate?
Possibly as a partner or service provider if the final rules and the state applicant permit it. The forecast does not establish a standalone eligibility route for nonprofits or universities.
What should a state do today?
Assign a lead, assemble the agencies and families or providers affected by the data problem, document the baseline, and prepare a results-and-governance outline. Then monitor the official Grants.gov record for the final NOFO.
Official links and next steps
Start with the official Grants.gov forecast record. The record is the source for the current forecast status, estimated funding figures, applicant restriction, and estimated dates. For background on the wider PDG B-5 program, ACF describes the program as supporting coordination across early-childhood delivery models and funding streams, including workforce support, family engagement, quality improvement, data integration, and direct services. That background is useful for fit, but it does not replace the final SMART Grant notice.
The practical next step is to prepare a short internal concept note and a compliance checklist, not a final application. When the NOFO is published, confirm eligibility first, replace all forecast assumptions with the final terms, and decide whether the state has enough authority, data readiness, partner commitment, and implementation capacity to submit. If those pieces are present, the estimated November 2026 deadline gives a defined planning target for a 2026 competition that could support substantial early-childhood systems improvement.