Waterfront Reconfiguration

1. Introduction to Competitive Grant Programs And Tips for Success Mark Poth, PhD Waterfront Reconfiguration

2. NIFA ORGANIZATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR INSTITUTE OF FOOD SAFETYAND NUTRITION EQUALOPPORTUNITYSTAFF Budget Staff CommunicationsStaff Planning,Accountability,And ReportingStaff Center ForInternationalPrograms OFFICE OFINFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE OF FOOD PRODUCTION AND SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE OF BIOENERGY,CLIMATE, ANDENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE OF YOUTH, FAMILY, AND COMMUNITY OFFICE OFGRANTS ANDFINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Division of Animal Systems Division of Plant Systems – Protection Division of Plant Systems – Production Division of Agricultural Systems Division of Bioenergy Division of Global ClimateChange Division of EnvironmentalSystems Division of Food Safety Division of Nutrition Division of Communityand Education Division ofYouth and 4-H Division ofFamily andConsumer Sciences Awards Management Division Policy and Oversight Division Financial Operations Division ApplicationsDivision Operations andAdministrativeSystems Division Information,Policy, Planning,and TrainingDivision

3. TOM VILSACK Secretary, USDA DR. CATHERINE WOTEKI Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics (REE)and USDA Chief Scientist DR. SONNY RAMASWAMY Director, NIFA

4. 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 • Educationstrengthens 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

5. 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.

6. 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)

7. 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!

8. Agriculture and Food Research InitiativeFinding Your Competitive Advantage

9. Who Gets Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Grants? FY 2010 Success Rates proportional to Applications Rates! • Land Grant Universities: 80% of applications and 75% of grants • Non-Land Grant Public Universities: 5% of applications and 5% of grants • Private Colleges/Universities: 5% of applications and 7% of grants • Private Research Organizations: 4% of applications and 4% of grants • Others (federal, Industry, Individual): the balance

10. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Foundational Program RFA: estimated $70 M for FY2012 • Plant Health and Production and Plant Products • Animal Health and Production and Animal Products • Food Safety, Nutrition, and Health • Renewable Energy, Natural Resources, and Environment • Agriculture Systems and Technology • Agriculture Economics and Rural Communities

11. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Five Challenge Area RFAs (funding levels TBD) and include Coordinated Agricultural Projects (CAPS) • Childhood Obesity Prevention • Climate Change • Global Food Security • Food Safety • Sustainable Bioenergy

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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!

15. 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!

16. 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)

17. 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?

18. 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

19. 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 newreviewer@nifa.usda.gov.

20. 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).

21. 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”)

22. 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

23. 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!

24. Overview of the Competitive Grant Proposal Process • Application Process • Review Process • Awards and Declines • Post-Panel Administration

25. Application Process Request 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

26. 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

27. During the Review Process • 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 !)

28. 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

29. Review process is co-led by a National Program Leader (NPL) and a Panel Manager • Organize and conduct review panel to assure fairness & rigorous evaluations • Neither NPL nor Panel Manager influence the evaluation of any particular proposal

30. 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)

31. 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

32. 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

33. Role of Panelists • Review up to 20 proposals; # depends on program • Provide scientific, constructive & fair evaluation • Protect confidentiality • Avoid Conflict of Interest

34. Protecting Confidentiality • Proposal content and identity of applicant • Reviewer identity • Reviews (shared with PD only) • Panel proceedings

35. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest • 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

36. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest (cont.) • 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

37. Reviewer Evaluation of Proposals • Reviewers 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

38. Evaluation Criteria(e.g., AFRI research proposals) • Scientific merit • Qualifications of project personnel, adequacy of facilities, and project management • Relevance and importance of topic to US Agriculture as articulated by the program’s priorities

39. Evaluation Criteria for AFRI research 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

40. 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?)

41. 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?)

42. 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)

43. 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

44. Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria for other proposal types differ: • Integrated Projects • Fellowships • Research Career Enhancement (Sabbaticals) • Equipment Grants • Seed Grants • Conference Grants

45. During 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) Review Panel Meeting

46. Interactive Panel discussion Panel consensus and categorizing Outstanding High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority Do Not Fund Triage Prepare panel summary Review Panel Meeting

47. Preparation of the Panel Summary • POSITIVE Aspects • NEGATIVE Aspects • SYNTHESIS

48. Re-rank of proposals: Re-visit all categories Numerical ranking - usually only proposals ranked in top ~50% Panel Meeting: Final Day

49. 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 Funding of ranked applications

50. Post-panel: Declined Proposals • E-mail and/or letter to the PD from National Program Leader • Return of: • Written reviews • Panel summary • Relative ranking