Overview of Grants Submission Process

1. Overview of Grants Submission Process Warren Calderone Director, Foundation, Government and Corporate Relations Co-Director, Shepherd University Research Corporation (SURC)

2. External Funding Goals • Faculty development • Student service • Student learning and research experience • Budget relief/new sources of funding • Student and faculty recruitment • University reputation and prestige

3. SURC Organization President Suzanne Shipley, Atty. Alan Perdue, Deborah Judd VPs Diane Melby and Christopher Ames Co-Directors: Warren Calderone (Director, Foundation, Govt. and Corp. Relations) and Dr. Colleen Nolan (Dean, SNSM)

4. SURC Grant Roles • Build a “grant seeking culture” at Shepherd: encourage faculty and staff to apply for external grant or contract support • Serve as a sounding board for grant ideas and assist in getting those ideas, and eventual grant proposals, approved by executive staff • Help faculty and staff find grant opportunities and assist with the preparation and submission of grant proposals, including budgets • Assist the PI/PD, and the Finance office, in post-award activities (e.g., report submission tracking)

6. Tools • Pre-Proposal Form and Concept Paper • Grant policies and procedures • SURC website • McAllister and Quinn resources • Proposal development and submission • Budget development/justification • Proposal review and approval

7. Timeline Funding Announcement Proposal Development Internal Review: SURC and Executive Staff 2 WEEKS PRIOR! Grant Due Date

8. First Grant Writer

9. In the beginning: Concept Two general tracks: Idea Search for funders RFP/FOA Align concept/idea

10. Concept Paper • One to two page description of idea • Briefly explain: • Need • Objectives • Activities and timeframe • Personnel involved • Funding amount with any cost sharing • If applicable, grant criteria (e.g., NSF)

11. Funding Sources Public and Private • Public: Federal (grants.gov); State; local • Private: Corporate, family, and other foundations (Foundation Center search engine: free access at library)

12. Exploring the Fit • Organizational– mission, vision, values • Organizational readiness • Partner requirements • Competitive • Regulations or “strings attached” • Source of cash or in-kind match, if applicable • Eligibility: lead applicant or partner • Deadline(s)

16. Pre-proposal form • “Early warning system” • Faculty or staff member describes a potential project where external funding is needed • Alerts Administration to potential grant submission and any support (e.g., matching funds, space, in-kind or other University commitments) that may be needed. 

17. Pre-proposal form (cont.) • Time-sensitive form: need as much advance notice as possible to secure approval from Executive Staff. Submit form at least 45 days before the grant due date. • Form is processed electronically • Executive approval of pre-proposal form is no guarantee of final approval of proposal. The proposal still has to go through internal review and approval before submission.

18. Key Proposal Items Goals and Objectives Needs Assessment or Problem Statement Program Evaluation or Outcomes Assessment Plan of Action/Activities to Address Need

19. Proposal Development Proposed Program • Be prescriptive about who you will serve, what and how you will serve them, who will conduct activities, where and when activities will occur • Establish a realistic timeline • Literature review to support project

20. Proposal Development Sustainability • What will happen after the funding ends? • List matching funds, in-kind, revenue, etc. Dissemination • How will you distribute results? Think usual (papers, posters, web, etc.) and innovative. • Funders like to be acknowledged!

21. Proposal Review and Processing--Federal • Preliminary Review • Reviewers Selected • Peer Review Panel (ad hoc, internal) • Program Officer Recommendation • Division Director Review • Business Review • Award Finalized

22. Post-Award • Celebrate! • Budget negotiation sometimes involved • PI/institution sign grant award • Hold a post-award meeting with team: key staff, Finance, and evaluator • Be cognizant of reporting dates

23. If you do not win

24. If you do not win • Don’t be discouraged. Success rates are low. Take a comprehensive approach to win. • Read the reviews carefully, if provided, and ask colleagues to do the same. • Discuss reviews with program officer. • Address reviews within resubmission.

25. MOUs • Proposals where Shepherd is not the lead applicant or fiscal agent • Partnering with another organization that has received a grant award • Need to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Shepherd and that organization, describing exactly the obligations and responsibilities of all parties • Developed by our legal counsel

26. Grant Myths I don’t need to worry about the grant deadline

27. Grant Myths I don’t need to be involved—we have a grant writer

28. Grant Myths • Cost sharing is not a problem • We don’t have to be that careful about in-kind cost sharing—no one is going to check

29. Grant Myths We don’t have to respond to everything in the RFP

30. Grant Myths Fonts, margins, page limits, etc. are not that important Who cares about a few typoes!

31. Grant Myths • After we get the award, we’re on easy street • It doesn’t matter if I don’t submit grant reports

32. Summary • SURC is here to help • The earlier you start the process, the better: allow sufficient time for executive staff review and approval

33. Thank you! Warren Calderone wcaldero@shepherd.edu 876-5065 304-671-2509