CSREES

1
The Grant Process
Dr. Sally Rockey
2
Proposal OptionsWhats Best for You?
3
Proposal Options

• Section 401 - IFAFS
• Section 406 - Integrated Authority

4
Proposal Activities

• Research
• Extension
• Education
• Integration of one or more of the above

5
Types of Proposals

• Standard Grants
• Research
• Extension
• Education
• Integrated (more than one of the above)
• Consortia/Centers
• Multi-State
• Multi-Institutional

6
Standard Projects
Research, education, and extension addressing a
focussed problem area

• Research Scientific investigation or inquiry
  resulting in generation of new knowledge
• Extension Projects Delivery of research-based
  knowledge and informal educational programs to
  people

7
Standard Projects
Research, education, and extension addressing a
focussed problem area

• Education Projects Classroom instruction,
  laboratory instruction and practicum experience
  in science and other related matters such as
  faculty development, student recruitment and
  service, curriculum development, instructional
  materials and equipment, and innovative teaching
  methodologies

8
Standard Projects
Research, education, and extension addressing a
focussed problem area

• However --- priority will still be given to
  projects that integrate research, education and
  extension!!!!

9
Consortia and Centers

• Address needs in research, education and
  extension that cannot be addressed through
  separate efforts
• Promote collaboration, open communication,
  exchange of information and resources and
  integrate activities among individuals,
  institutions, states and regions

10
Consortia and Centers

• Topic oriented or geographically oriented

• Must substantiate the need for consortia over
  single project approach (How does it add value?)

• Administrative Management Plan
• - Must indicate how funds will be
  administered
• - Describe role of participating
  institutions or member groups

11
Consortia and Centers

• Evaluation and Monitoring Plan
• What data or information will be developed or
  collected?
• How will this information be distributed?
• Who are the targeted audience(s) for this
  information or data?

12
Understand the Review Process
13
Review Process

• PROGRAM DIRECTOR
• For each Program

• PANEL MANAGER
• Active, established, expert
• Part-time USDA employee
• Assists Program Director with panel tasks
  (selecting panelists assigning reviewers to
  proposals budget decisions )
• Chairs the panel meeting

14
Panel Member Selection

• Education, Extension Research Experience
• Actively Involved in Research, Extension, and/or
  Education
• Ability to assess relevance of proposals to
  target audiences and program needs (may include
  users and customers)

15
Panel Member Selection

• Balanced For
• Discipline/activities
• Geography
• Organizational Type
• Rank ( Prof Assoc. Prof Asst. Prof )
• Women Minorities

16
Each Proposal Assigned To

• 3 or More Panelists Primary Secondary
  Tertiary

• Possibility for Adhocs (depending on
  program)
• - Because of timing constraints - not likely

17
Pest ManagementProposals in 406

• Use of a relevancy panel
• Separate panel to assess relevancy of projects
  prior to technical review panel

18
Avoiding Conflict Of Interest
Applied to Directors, Program Director, Panel
Manager, Panelists Ad Hocs

• Do NOT participate in any aspect of evaluation

• Do NOT participate in budget or project duration
  decisions

19
Conflict Of Interest

• Institution
• Self (or family member) profit in any personal
  way
• Within the past four years
• Collaborators
• Co-authors
• Advisors/ Advisees

20
Confidentiality

• Proposals

Protects intellectual property of investigators
(submissions are confidential ONLY awards
are public information)

• Review process
• Reviewer identity confidential
• Reviews confidential, shared only with
  submitting investigator
• Panel proceedings confidential

21
Evaluation Factors

• RELEVANCE
• MERIT
• QUALITY

22
Relevance

• Relevant to critical emerging agricultural issues
  related to future food production environmental
  quality, natural resource management or farm
  income.
• Documentation that the activities are directed
  towards current or likely future ag problems
  identified in the document
• Evident linkage of research, education and
  extension functions
• Evidence of involvement of stakeholders and/or
  communities of interest

23
Merit

• Novelty, innovation, uniqueness, and originality
• Conceptual adequacy of the activity
• Clarity and delineation of objectives
• Adequacy of description of undertaking and
  suitability and feasibility of methodology
• Demonstration of feasibility
• Probability of success

24
Quality

• Includes the most appropriate and qualified team
• Training and demonstrated awareness of
  alternative approaches
• Record of team or potential for future success
• Time allocation is OK to attain objectives
• Institutional experience
• Adequacy of facilities , personnel and equipment
• Adequacy of plans for reporting, assessing and
  monitoring

25
Consortia Evaluated on the adequacy of the
management plan and plans for dissemination of
information over the duration of the project
26
Panel Meeting

• PRIMARY (overview strengths weaknesses)
• (summarize ad-hocs if they exist)
• SECONDARY
• TERTIARY
• OTHER PANELISTS

27
Recommended
28
Recommended
29

NOT Recommended
Some Merit
Do Not Fund
5230 L. Pauling
4500 Mendel
4913 Crick
30
PANEL SUMMARY POSITIVE Aspects NEGATIVE
Aspects SYNTHESIS
31
Awards

• Based on panels ranking
• Panel Manager Program Director finalize budgets

32
Awards
1. Phone Call 2. Return of -- reviews
-- panel summary -- relative ranking
3. Complete Award Paperwork
33
Declines...
1. Decline letter from Program Director 2.
Return of -- reviews -- panel
summary -- relative ranking
34
Review Process Attributes

• Review performed by peers - research, extension,
  and education experts
• Requires investigators to effectively organize
  and design experimental plans
• Provides assessment of planned activities
• Provides constructive advice to improve proposal
• Provides intensive training in proposal
  evaluation for panel members

35
Identify the MOST Appropriate Program

• Obtain a copy of the CURRENT Program
  Description

http//www.reeusda.gov/ifafs or
.reeusda.gov/integrated
36
Questions ???
Contact the Program Director

• Phone calls are WELCOME
• Goal find the best fit for the best review

Contact Info Top of each program description
37
Another Important Tool
Make sure youhave a CURRENT APPLICATION KIT
38
Establish Time Frame for Completion

• Know the relevant deadline for submission of
  proposals
• May 22, 2000 for IFAFS
• June 6, 2000 for Integrated
• NO EXTENSIONS !!!

39
Convince Your Peers to Fund You!

Dr. Michael ONeill
40
Proposal Preparation

• Follow directions
• Read all guidelines
• Correctly fill out all forms
• Know where to send proposal
• Do not send directly to Program Director
• Overnight and regular mail addresses are
  different

41
Successful Proposals

• Write for the REVIEWER -- Make it easy to read.
• Ask a colleague to review the proposal before
  submitting
• First Impressions ARE Important!
• Print size, page limit
• Print only on one side
• Number order pages correctly
• Everything stapled attached
• Originals or plates of photographs
• Check for typos sentence structure

42
Contents of a Proposal

• Cover page
• Fill out all blocks
• Have all investigators sign
• Indicate program to which you are applying
• Submission to other Agencies?

• Table of Contents
• Fill out the correct form

43
Contents of a Proposal

• Project Summary
• Used to assign reviewers
• 7 / 10 panelists read only this section
• Clear, concise, self-contained
• Include hypotheses/objectives, brief methods,
  species, model, etc.
• Appropriate length and font size
• Proposal type indicated

44
Contents of a Proposal

• Project Description

• 1. Introduction
• Literature Review
• Specific Objectives Long-term Goals

• 2. Rationale and Significance
• How does the proposed work fit the CSREES
  Program?
• Relevance to Agriculture

45
Contents of a Proposal

• Project Description (cont.)

• 3. Approach
• Most important section !!!!!
• Appropriate number of objectives for amount of
  time
• Description of studies/experimental design
• Methods to be use
• Expected outcomes
• Means to analyze assess or interpret result
• How result or products will be used

46
Contents of a Proposal

• Project Description (cont.)

4. Time Table - Provide an expected time
line 5. Evaluation and Monitoring - Plan
for assessing and evaluating the
accomplishments 6. Collaborative Arrangements
47
Contents of a Proposal

• References
• Complete literature citations (with titles)
• Accepted journal format
• Not included in 15 page limit

48
Contents of a Proposal

• Vitae Publication List
• Training and professional appointments
• Relevant publications from the last five years
• Limited to 2 pages for each individual

49
Contents of a Proposal

• Conflict of Interest List
• Alphabetically by last name
• All Collaborators and co-authors in past four
  years
• All persons with whom you have had a consulting
  or financial arrangements who stand to gain in
  past four years
• All thesis or postdoctoral advisees / advisors
  within past four years.

50
Contents of a Proposal

• Budget
• Annual and cumulative
• Appropriate for work proposed
• Correct overhead, fringe, etc.
• Indirect costs 19 of total
  Federal Funds

51
Contents of a Proposal

• Budget Narrative
• Type of appointment, effort
• Special field conditions/requirements
• Special contracting requirements
• Justify budget categories

52
Contents of a Proposal

• Current and pending support
• List all projects (submitted funded)
• List projects of co-investigators and/or mentors
• Provide a statement of research objectives for
  all listed projects
• Notify program if status changes

53
Contents of a Proposal

• Other forms
• Assurance Form-- use of recombinant DNA, human
  subjects, animals
• NEPA Statement
• Applicant certifications (only where required)

54
During the Review Process

• Contact the Program Director if you are not sent
  a notification of receipt within four weeks -
  should receive email notification
• Keep program updated of changes in address, phone
  number, status of pending proposals, COI status
• Wait for notification of funding decision

55
After the Review Process

• Carefully Read Panel Summary Reviews
• QUESTIONS ? CONFUSION ?Dont hesitate to
  contact the Program Director
• Problems? Let us hear first!

56
Attributes of Successful Proposals

57
Attributes of Successful Proposals

• Innovative idea
• Likely to provide impact on problem area during
  duration of project - highly relevant
• Project can sustain itself after funding is over
• Likelihood of success

58
Attributes of Successful Proposals

• Well-designed methodologies
• Evidence of technical expertise
• Appropriate activities for project
• If possible, show preliminary data or other
  information to demonstrate feasibility

59
Attributes of Successful Proposals

• Clear justification/relevance to mission of the
  program as stated in program description
  stakeholder priorities
• Consideration of alternative approaches

60
Attributes of Successful Proposals

• Thoughtful, up-to-date literature review
• Well-written, logical succinct
• Well focussed
• Clear, well-stated objectives
• Well developed outreach or tech- transfer
• Appropriate audience/stakeholders for education
  and extension programs

61
SUMMARY

• Understand the CSREES Review Process
• Know Agency Priorities Guidelines
• Current Program Description and Application Kit
• Contact Program Director(s)

62
Questions ? To email after April 10, 2000
first initial lastname_at_reeusda.gov e.g.
srockey_at_reeusda.gov