94
Waterfront Reconfiguration Introduction to Competitive Grant Programs And Tips for Success Mark Poth, PhD
Waterfront Reconfiguration
Introduction to Competitive Grant Programs And Tips for Success
Mark Poth, PhD
INSTITUTE OF FOOD PRODUCTION AND SUSTAINABILITY
Division of Animal Systems
Division of Plant Systems – Protection
Division of Plant Systems – Production
Division of Agricultural Systems
INSTITUTE OF BIOENERGY,CLIMATE, ANDENVIRONMENT
Division of Bioenergy
Division of Global ClimateChange
Division of EnvironmentalSystems
INSTITUTE OF FOOD SAFETYAND NUTRITION
Division of Food Safety
Division of Nutrition
INSTITUTE OF YOUTH, FAMILY, AND COMMUNITY
Division of Communityand Education
Division ofYouth and 4-H
Division ofFamily andConsumer Sciences
OFFICE OFGRANTS ANDFINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Awards Management Division
Policy and Oversight Division
Financial Operations Division
OFFICE OFINFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY
ApplicationsDivision
Operations andAdministrativeSystems Division
Information,Policy, Planning,and TrainingDivision
EQUALOPPORTUNITYSTAFF
Budget Staff
CommunicationsStaff
Planning,Accountability,And ReportingStaff
Center ForInternationalPrograms
NIFA ORGANIZATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
TOM VILSACKSecretary, USDA
DR. CATHERINE WOTEKIUnder Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics (REE)and USDA Chief Scientist
DR. SONNY RAMASWAMYDirector, NIFA
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA) established by the 2008 Farm Bill• Research enables us to develop the knowledge
needed to solve many of the issues facing our nation
• Education strengthens schools and universities to train the next generation of scientists, educators, producers, and citizens
• Extension brings the knowledge gained through research and education to the people who need it most – in the United States and around the world
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA)• Integration brings the three components of
the agricultural knowledge system (research, education, and extension) together around a problem area or activity. Integration occurs when the components complement one another and are truly necessary for the ultimate success of the project or program.
Over 30 Different Competitive Programs(some examples)
• Agriculture and Food Research Initiative ($264M)
• Specialty Crop Research Initiative ($40M)• NIFA Fellows (Pre-Doc and Post Doc at $7M)• Small Business Innovation Research ($18M)• Biotechnology Risk ($3M)• Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education ($10M)
Keys to Competitive Success• Understand NIFA mission • Explore the full range of programs
– Many options (find your advantage!)• Communicate with the National Program Leader
or Leaders in your area of interest• Persistent Participation
– Ad hoc Reviewer to Panelist– Grantsmanship Workshops– Applicant to Project Director!
Agriculture and Food Research InitiativeFinding Your
Competitive Advantage
Who Gets Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Grants?
FY 2010 Success Rates proportional to Applications Rates!
1. Land Grant Universities: 80% of applications and 75% of grants
2. Non-Land Grant Public Universities: 5% of applications and 5% of grants
3. Private Colleges/Universities: 5% of applications and 7% of grants
4. Private Research Organizations: 4% of applications and 4% of grants
5. Others (federal, Industry, Individual): the balance
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
Foundational Program RFA: estimated $70 M for FY2012
1. Plant Health and Production and Plant Products2. Animal Health and Production and Animal Products3. Food Safety, Nutrition, and Health4. Renewable Energy, Natural Resources, and
Environment5. Agriculture Systems and Technology6. Agriculture Economics and Rural Communities
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
Five Challenge Area RFAs (funding levels TBD) and include Coordinated Agricultural Projects (CAPS)
1. Childhood Obesity Prevention2. Climate Change3. Global Food Security4. Food Safety5. Sustainable Bioenergy
Letters of Intent• Required for most program areas.• Take care to follow the guidelines (PDF!).• Applications submitted without a prior Letter of
Intent submission will not be reviewed.
Food and Agricultural Science Enhancement (FASE) Grants:
• Pre-doctoral Fellowship Grants • Postdoctoral Fellowship Grants• New Investigator Grants (Restricted eligibility)• Strengthening Grants (Restricted eligibility)
– Sabbatical Grants– Equipment Grants– Seed Grants– Strengthening Standard and Strengthening CAP
Grants
Understanding the level of competition in AFRI• Programs get about 100 proposals• Will fund about 20• So my chances of getting funded are about
20%...right?• WRONG! Your chances are much higher if you
are eligible for the AFRI Food and Agricultural Science Enhancement (FASE) Program!
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative: FASE Strengthening Awards-Funded from 7.5% set aside from AFRI
appropriation ( that’s 7.5% of $264 million in FY2012! Or over $19 million)
- Eligibility limited to EPSCoR states or small to mid sized institutions (<17,500 enrolled with limited institutional success not in the top 100) or Minority Serving Institutions. Just meet one of these requirements and you are eligible!
Strengthening Award Types• Standard Strengthening (second chance funding
for full research grant $300k to $30 million)• Career Enhancement Award (Sabbatical, “one
year of salary plus travel and supplies”) • Seed grants (up to $150k) • Equipment grants (the only AFRI grant type that
requires a match)
Strengthening Strategy• Plan your work to link awards and leverage
Grants• Evaluate where you are and what you need• Equipment? Training or a collaborator
(sabbatical award)? Preliminary data (seed/sabbatical)?
• What is your three year plan? (equipment>seed>standard or sabbatical>standard or other)
• How will this fit with your unique institutional advantages and strengths?
Understanding the level of competition in AFRI• Programs is asking for just CAP awards?• Look closer…for your advantage.• All programs will take Strengthening Grant
applications • Includes Equipment, Seed, Sabbatical and
Standard strengthening (including CAP) grants• Contact the NPL for your program of interest to
discuss before submission of a LOI
Panel Participation• Panelists from all regions needed. • Faculty from all levels (Assistant, Associate and
Full Professor)• In 2001 less than 2% from MSI, in 2010 7.6%
from MSIs for AFRI! • Contact the National Program Leader listed in
the Request for Applications if interested in serving or [email protected].
Panel Participation – Administrator’s Role• Panel is a large work load. There will be about 15
applications to review. This takes most reviewers about 40 hours before panel.
• Administrators must work with faculty to free up this time (release from teaching or other duties).
• Panels are on a fixed time line that may conflict with teaching or other assignments.
• Administrators must work with faculty to cover assignments while faculty member is in Washington for the week of panel (or for virtual panels).
Grantsmanship Workshops
• Provides overview of programs to applicants• Mock Peer Review Panel• “Face time” with National Program Leaders• Tips on grant-writing from experts• Travel fellowships for attendees from minority-
serving institutions • Offered in Washington, D.C. (planning now
underway, dates announced on our web site, search “grantsmanship”)
Grantsmanship Workshops – your role• Structured for faculty that will be preparing
applications• Do your homework – check the web site for
programs of interest and the associated NPLs • Use your time to engage!
– Introduce yourself to NPLs in your areas of interest– Offer to serve on a panel (follow up with an email to
the NPL with your 2 page CV)– Network with others from your region who might team
with you in the future on larger applications
Submitting Applications!• Start Early!• Read the Request for Applications!• Contact NIFA with questions or to discuss
ideas (use the contact information in the RFA and not general information from the web)
• Letters of intent may be required before you are allowed to submit an application- check dates in the RFA!
Overview of the Competitive Grant Proposal Process
• Application Process
• Review Process
• Awards and Declines
• Post-Panel Administration
Application ProcessRequest for Application (RFA)• Posted to the NIFA website
www.nifa.usda.gov link to “Grants” page
• Project Directors submit Letter of Intent (LOI) When applicable – not required for all programs Requirements provided in RFA Submission in advance of proposal deadline
Application Process• Develop proposal following:
Specific program goals, priorities and published deadline
Guidelines provided in RFA
• Submit proposal electronically (www.grants.gov)
Highly recommend submitting at least 72 hr before deadline
• Contact NPL if you do not receive an e-mail within 4 weeks acknowledging receipt of your proposal
• Keep program updated of changes in address, phone number, status of other pending proposals, and COI status
• Wait for notification of funding decisionbased on initial NPL e-mail received that also listed the anticipated timeline (contact NPL if deadline passes !)
During the Review Process
Competitive Peer Review Process• Reviewed and rated highly by the NRC• Designed to be scholarly & fair:
Review by peers & other experts
Provide written & verbal evaluations
• Understand the review process for your specific program
(research; education; extension; integrated) to prepare a
competitive proposal
Program-dependent evaluation factors in the RFA are critical to
the success of an application
• Organize and conduct review panel to assure fairness & rigorous evaluations
• Neither NPL nor Panel Manager influence the evaluation of any particular proposal
Review process is co-led by a National Program Leader (NPL) and
a Panel Manager
Selection of the Panel Manager
• Established and active in science as a researcher, educator, or extension specialist
• Leader in the program’s field of science, education or extension
• Knowledgeable of current trends & priorities in the scientific area
• Hired as part-time USDA employee (1-2 years)
Role of Panel Manager & National Program Leader (NPL)
• Study proposals to evaluate expertise needs for thorough review of program applications
• Invite appropriate experts for review panel• Assign proposals for peer-review (minimum 3):
– Panelists: number depends on the program needs to cover portfolio of applications
– External ad hoc reviewers (optional): number depends on program needs
Panel Member Selection• Active in Research, Education or Extension• Balanced to represent breadth of proposals and
applicants:– Discipline– Geography– Institution Size and Type– Professional Rank – Gender & Ethnicity
• Continuity: experience in the review process
• Review up to 20 proposals; # depends on program
• Provide scientific, constructive & fair evaluation
• Protect confidentiality
• Avoid Conflict of Interest
Role of Panelists
• Proposal content and identity of applicant
• Reviewer identity
• Reviews (shared with PD only)
• Panel proceedings
Protecting Confidentiality
• Advisors and advisees (lifetime)• Collaborators and co-authors (3 years)• Institutional• Anyone who stands to
materially profit from an award decision
• Other personal reasons defined by the reviewer
Avoiding Conflicts of Interest
• Applies to NPL, Panel Manager, panelists and ad hoc reviewers
• May not participate in any aspect of evaluation
• May not participate in decision regarding budget, project scope, or project duration
Avoiding Conflicts of Interest (cont.)
Reviewer Evaluation of ProposalsReviewers prepare written reviews before meeting
• Use RFA evaluation criteria• Address strengths and weaknesses• Make suggestions for improvement
Reviewers provide individual summary rating• Excellent• Very Good• Good• Fair• Poor
Evaluation Criteria(e.g., AFRI research proposals)
1. Scientific merit
2. Qualifications of project personnel, adequacy of facilities, and project management
3. Relevance and importance of topic to US Agriculture as articulated by the program’s priorities
1. Scientific merit
• Novel, innovative, unique, original
• For model systems – ability to transfer knowledge to important agricultural organisms
• Conceptual adequacy of research
• Clarity, delineation of objectives
Evaluation Criteria for AFRI research
1. Scientific merit (cont.)• Adequacy of description and suitability / feasibility
of methods• Demonstration of feasibility through preliminary
data• Probability of success (High risk? Worth the
reward?)
Evaluation Criteria for AFRI research
2. Qualifications of project personnel, adequacy of facilities, and project management
• Qualifications of PD and project team, including performance record – CV (Think of this as a pass/fail element, is not a barrier for new faculty)
• Awareness of previous and alternative approaches – pitfalls and limitations ( Be frank!)
• Planning and administration of project (Did this program ask for a management plan?)
Evaluation Criteria for AFRI research
2. Qualifications of project personnel, adequacy of facilities, and project management
• Institutional experience, competence (not just a track record but evidence of commitment for larger grants)
• Adequate facilities and instrumentation (Think of this as a pass/fail element. It is not a barrier for smaller institutions. If the project needs just one greenhouse it does not matter if your university has only one or 100)
Evaluation Criteria for AFRI research
Evaluation Criteria for AFRI research
3. Project Relevance• Relevant to US Agriculture and Food systems
as defined in the program priorities in RFA To yield improvements in:
Agriculture, Human nutrition, food safety & quality, Environment, or Rural communities
Evaluation Criteria for other proposal types differ:• Integrated Projects• Fellowships• Research Career Enhancement (Sabbaticals)• Equipment Grants• Seed Grants• Conference Grants
Evaluation Criteria
Review Panel MeetingDuring panel meeting
• Primary reviewer summarizes proposal• Primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. reviewers
provide evaluation and critique in order• Ad hoc reviews are summarized (if used)• Response to last year’s panel summary
discussed for resubmissions• Ratings available to all panelists (except those
with COI)
• Interactive Panel discussion• Panel consensus and categorizing
• Outstanding• High Priority• Medium Priority• Low Priority• Do Not Fund• Triage
• Prepare panel summary
Review Panel Meeting
Preparation of the Panel Summary
• POSITIVE Aspects
• NEGATIVE Aspects
• SYNTHESIS
Panel Meeting: Final Day
Re-rank of proposals:
• Re-visit all categories
• Numerical ranking - usually only proposals ranked in top ~50%
Funding of ranked applications• Budgets may be adjusted as recommended by the
panel
• NPL and PM make decisions to fund eligible projects “below the line” from set aside funds ( AFRI Strengthening and New Investigator grants)
• NPL and Panel Manager prepare funding list according to panel ranking for review and approval by Division Director and Assistant Director
• E-mail and/or letter to the PD from National Program Leader
• Return of:• Written reviews• Panel summary• Relative ranking
Post-panel: Declined Proposals
• Phone Call• Return of:
– reviews– panel summary– relative ranking (categorical ranking)
• Complete award paperwork
Post-panel: Recommended Awards
• Panel Manager written report Recommendations for program enhancement - New topic areas; Improved review process/panel processes; - ‘Hot topics’ from awards for annual report; - Recommendations for future Panel Managers and panelists
• NPL Award administration Feedback and consultation on declined proposals Reporting performance, summaries, success stories & highlights
(USDA, Congress, White House - OSTP, OMB, others) Program communication including outreach & promotion
Post-panel
Even More Competitive Programs…
Other Competitive Programs• Biotechnology Risk Assessment• Small Business Innovation Research• Sustainable Agricultural Research and Education• NIFA Fellows
Biotechnology Risk Assessment Program
• Purpose: To assist Federal regulatory agencies in making science-based decisions about the introduction of transgenic organisms into the environment
– Risk Assessment Research– Risk Mitigation/Management Research
Biotechnology Risk Assessment Program
• Authorized in the 1990 Farm Bill• All U.S. public or private research or educational
institutions or organizations are eligible• Funded through a 2% set-aside of all funds used
for agricultural biotechnology research• Approximately $4 M available
Biotechnology Risk Assessment Program
• Identify and develop appropriate management practices to minimize physical and biological risks
• Develop methods to monitor the dispersal of genetically engineered animals, plants, and microorganisms
• To further knowledge of characteristics, rates and methods of gene transfer
• Compare the relative impacts of organisms modified through genetic engineering to other types of production systems
• Program Contact:Shing Kwok
Biotechnology Risk Assessment Program
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
• Grants provided to Small Businesses to Research and Develop technologies, products or services that will be commercialized or brought to the marketplace.
• Two-phase program• $100,000 (Phase I) – feasibility study• $500,000 (Phase II) – development and scale-up
Eligibility:Small businesses of 500 employees or less.
SBIR Topic Areas
• Forests & Related Resources• Plant Production & Protection -
Biology• Animal Production & Protection• Air, Water & Soils• Food Science & Nutrition
SBIR Topic Areas (cont.)
• Rural Development• Aquaculture• Biofuels and Biobased Products• Small and Mid-size Farms• Plant Production & Protection -
Engineering
University Involvement in USDA SBIR
• Strongly encouraged
• Faculty may serve as consultants or receive subcontract and continue to work full time at university
No more than 1/3 of a Phase I award budget or 1/2 of a Phase II award budget may be subcontracted.
University Involvement in USDA SBIR (cont.)
• Faculty may serve as principalinvestigator on the grant by: reducing university employment
to 49% for duration of grantand
conducting SBIR research off-site (i.e., other than university research lab).
• Usually not acceptable for faculty to serve as consultants and have all the research done in their lab.
SBIR Program
Program Contacts:
Charles ClelandBill GoldnerS. (Suresh) SureshwaranDionne ToombsAdele Turzillo
Cleland Goldner
Sureshwaran Toombs
Turzillo
Sustainable Agricultural Research and Education
(SARE)
Purpose: Increase and disseminate knowledge that helps farmers and ranchers adopt practices that are profitable, environmentally sound, and enhance the quality of life for producers and society as a whole.
Eligibility: Open to all qualified public and private entities, including all colleges and universities, federal, state, and local agencies, private organizations, corporations, and individuals
SARE Grant Types
• Research and Education• Farmer/Rancher• On Farm• Graduate Student• Community Innovation
SARE Regional Boundaries
SARE Regional CoordinatorsNorth Central http://www.sare.org/ncrsare/Coordinator: Bill Wilke120 BAE, University of Minnesota1390 Eckles AvenueSt. Paul, MN [email protected]
Northeast http://nesare.orgCoordinator: Vern GrubingerUniversity of Vermont Extension11 University Way, Suite # 4Brattleboro, VT 05301-3669802-257-7967 [email protected]
Southern http://www.southernsare.uga.edu/Coordinator: Jeff JordanUniversity of Georgia Griffin Campus 1109 Experiment St. Room 206, Stuckey Building Griffin, GA 30223-1797 770-412-4787 [email protected]
Westernhttp://wsare.usu.edu/Coordinator: Phil RasmussenUtah State University4865 Old Main HillLogan, Utah [email protected]
NIFA contact: Rob Hedberg
Top Ten Tips for Success
#10
#10… Submit ON TIME• How far in advance should you submit your
proposal?a. One Weekb. One Dayc. One Hourd. One Minutee. One Second
Naval Observatory Master Clock
Grants.gov Master Clock
# Nine
#9… Have a Colleague Review Your Proposal• Leave time before submitting your proposal to
solicit feedback (technical and proofreading).• Alternatively, ask successful colleagues for a
copy of their funded proposal.
TIP: Be sure to express your gratitude for their time, energy, and input.
• Review abstracts from funded projects:http://cris.nifa.usda.gov/
# 8
#8… Write a Meaningful and Engaging Project Summary
• Summary should include goals and objectives, hypothesis being tested
• Highlight what’s innovative about your project• Describe outputs and outcomesTIP: Recall that most panelists will not read your
entire proposal – get them interested with your Project Summary
N.B. – Cutting and pasting the first two paragraphs of your Introduction generally is not successful.
#7… Write the Proposal for the Reviewers• Put yourself in the shoes of a reviewer who will
read between 15 and 20 proposals.– Capture their attention– Get to the point = Be succinct
“What will be different as a result of your project?” “So what?”
#7… If a Letter of Intent is Required
• Be certain that you address priorities listed in the Program Description
• Describe the salient points of the project• Include key objectives and define all necessary
functions (research, education, and/or extension)• Identify potential outcomes or outputs from the
project• Follow formatting guidelines (e.g., submit in .PDF)
# 6
#6… Responding to Reviewer Comments• Take advantage of the extra page to address
reviewer’s comments• Identify places in the proposal where reviewer
comments are addressed– On page 9 we address…
• If you disagree with reviewers, be carefulTIP: It doesn’t pay to refer to reviewers as idiots,
intellectual lightweights, etc.Don’t totally ignore reviewer comments, be diplomatic
Five
#5A… Develop a Comprehensive Project Outline• Outline should reflect:
– Goals and objectives– Critical project functions– Roles for project co-PDs and collaborators if any
#5B… Develop a Timeline for Completing the Proposal (on Time)
• When is the deadline for submission?• How much time will your Office of Contracts and
Grants need to review and submit the project? Will holidays complicate this?
• How much time will a colleague need for review?
TIP: Start early! Don’t delay!!! Remember #10!
Fore!
#4… Goals and Objectives• Integrated projects: What’s the point of funding
this project?– A clear Goal Statement should define the project
“What will be different after completing this project?”
• Research Projects– Is there a clear hypothesis that can be tested in
what is proposed? Looking for new knowledge and not “observations”.
#3
#3… How does this fit with your Career Strategy? • Just because funding is available to do something
doesn’t mean that you should be doing it.• Are you trying to fit a square peg in a round hole? • How will this build on other resources you have
incorporated into your strategy (start up funding, industry funding, set aside funding)?
• Have you “fallen in love” with this idea such that you cannot be reached by reason or peer reviewers?
#2
#2… Serve on a Panel• Contact the NPL or Panel Manager and
volunteer to serve– Add your name to the Reviewer Database:
Send an email to:[email protected]
N.B. – You may not serve on a panel in the same year that you submit to the program.
#1
#1… READ THE RFA!!!• Explore to find your competitive advantage!• Program priorities can and do change!• The RFA is more than just the Program
Description– Eligibility– Funding levels– DEADLINES (Letters of Intent, Full Proposals)– Review criteria– Project requirements– NPL contact information
Summary1. Read the RFA!2. Serve on a panel3. Career Strategy Fit? 4. Write a clear goal or
hypothesis statement5. Develop a
comprehensive project outline
6. Responding to reviewer comments
7. Write the proposal for the reviewers
8. Write a meaningful and engaging project summary
9. Have a colleague review your proposal
10.Submit ON TIME!
Questions?• Contact: Dr. Mark Poth• Division Director• Sustainable Bioenergy• 202-401-5244• [email protected]
• Thank You!!
