How to get started…..

Finding the right funding sources Writing a proposal that gets attention Addressing the “non-scholarly” pieces of a grant application The review process Online grant-writing resources for free

Starts with a good idea Identify sponsors who fund your idea Find a specific funding opportunity: read it carefully and follow it diligently Develop a strong team of collaborators Develop a novel/innovative approach to the research project Compose a compelling, well-articulated proposal NOW MORE THAN EVER WELL-WRITTEN PROPOSALS ARE ESSENTIAL TO GETTING FUNDED

The best ideas come from knowing your field well Read up and understand the problems, issues, concerns in the field Know what the most pressing unanswered questions are Know what’s been tried, what works and what does not Develop your idea Exhaustively review previous research on the topic Take note of suggestions for future directions in published research articles

Start thinking of interesting project ideas Narrow your ideas to those you know you can do with your expertise and resources, or with a specific collaborative team you can pull together Discuss your ideas with your team and others in the field and allow them to give you honest feedback without taking it personally

URSA’s Internal Grants Program

Website URL: http://ursa.research.gsu.edu/ursa/funding/fundi ng-opportunities/internal-grant-program/ Grants for travel to a sponsoring agency to discuss your project idea and possible funding (faculty) Two major ongoing programs for tenured and tenure track faculty Research Initiation grants – for new, innovative research projects that will result in applications for external funding Scholarly Support grants – for scholarly works that result in a major product or outcome, not an external grant application

Dissertation Grants – doctoral graduate students who have an “officially approved” dissertation project Provost’s Special Awards – Support faculty professional development Colleges/Schools, academic centers and departments may have funding mechanisms to support specific things (e.g. Language and Literacy seed grants, Brains & Behavior graduate fellowships, etc.)

Biweekly funding email alerts – Provide links to internal and external funding for research faculty, staff, graduate students. Subscribe at: http://ursa.research.gsu.edu/ursa/funding/fundi ng-opportunities/join-funding-opps-listserv/

Most federal agencies and foundations post funding announcements Some offer email funding alerts you can subscribe to receive automatically on a weekly basis For more resources see URSA’s External Funding webpages at: http://ursa.research.gsu.edu/ursa/funding/funding opportunities/external-funding/

COS Pivot Funding Overview

COS Funding is the most comprehensive source of Funding available on the Web A global database, packed with 26,000 records of funding opportunities worth an estimated $33 billion Multi-Disciplinary in scope All categories of sponsors, public and private Over 11,500 national and international sponsors including government agencies, private foundations, corporations, non profit organizations, etc… Funding for many purposes: grants, fellowships, capital improvements, conferences, travel, visiting professors, training and more

Accessing COS Pivot

• If you don’t have a COS account, you can easily create one. From the URSA website at http://ursa.research.gsu.edu/ursa/funding/fund ing-opportunities/funding-databases/ click on Register for COS-PIVOT and complete the requested information to set up your account. • The URL for COS Pivot is http://pivot.cos.com

Assistance with COS Pivot

• URSA will conduct a workshop for groups to help you set up your personal COS-PIVOT profile ( [email protected]

). • Once you set up your profile, you can have COS automatically search for funding related to your research areas and email those to you weekly.

Goal/mission/purpose of funding opportunity: Does your project fit within the funding priorities and mission of the agency?

Who is eligible to apply?

Are there any restrictions on the funding that would not fit your project?

Discuss your project idea with the sponsor’s staff (e.g. program officer). These people are a wealth of info and help. Do not pass up on this resource!

Know your topic

Be very knowledgeable of the current literature in that topic area If you are starting down a new path, get some experience in that area Write for your audience (reviewers may not be experts in your exact area, but are knowledgeable about your field in general) Know your reviewers and the review process If you know someone who has reviewed for the sponsor before, talk to them. If not, talk to the program officer or sponsor’s staff to get a good idea of what their reviewers look for.

If you know another investigator who has received funding from the same sponsor, ask if they will let you read their funded proposal If you can get a copy of a funded proposals (and maybe the reviewers’ comments), carefully read it and ask: Why did it get funded? Can it serve as a model for your proposal?

Coming soon, URSA will be providing secured access to samples of funded grant proposals from various GSU faculty members

Write and express ideas clearly, logically, and simply – make it easy for the reviewer Avoid being too formal which can lead to a boring proposal Use simple language. Avoid too many adverbs, adjectives and conjunctions.

Keep your personal opinions out of the proposal as much as possible.

Be concise. Using the fewest words possible to say what you want gives you room to say more.

Read instructions and follow directions - Reviewers are looking for any reasons not to review proposals

REVIEW THE RFP OR FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENT IN DETAIL

Market your idea. Be clear about how it is important to the field and even to the world Tell a compelling story Formulate your project as a that everyone understands-make it applicable to human life if possible Clearly express the potential benefits of your research Sell your project in the first 1-2 pages or the reviewers may not read further

CAPTURE THE REVIEWER’S ATTENTION from the start. Many reviewers won’t read past the first 2 pages if it’s poorly written or not compelling.

Clearly identify the need or problem being addressed, explain why and how you will address it, and outline the potential benefits that will result from the research being proposed DO NOT make the Reviewers work to find answers to the questions they will have about your proposed research. Use headers, be organized, and methodical to make it easy

Reviewers want to be walked through the project step-by-step Don’t assume the Reviewers already know all the nuances of your field or will figure it out themselves. Spell out exactly what you need to say clearly and succinctly.

Reviewers are NOT (always) experts. Avoid using a lot of jargon and abbreviations that everyone would not understand (unless it cannot be avoided – and then clearly define what you mean)

“The more energy and time a Reviewer has to devote to figuring out your application, the less energy a reviewer has to actually review your application” Elliot Postow

Abstract (write this last and make it a clear and concise summary) Introduction/Significance (this is where you write your compelling story) * Background (use relevant references to justify your proposed work) Innovation Methods/Approach (be clear, concise and organized) *

*Analyses of the NIH portfolio of applications indicate that the reviewer scores on the significance and approach are most strongly associated with getting funded.

Write a “mini-story” that gives the reader the key details including: Why is the work important?

Why should it be done right now?

What problem does it address or solve?

Why are you qualified to do it?

How are you going to do it?

How will it move the field forward?

Get the reader up to speed on the topic and highlight the important contribution you are planning to make with the project An average, educated adult with a relevant background, should be able to understand Most reviewers will have some background in your field, but won’t necessarily be experts Make sure you include research directly tied to your project, not just generally related (build a case for your project)

This is where you describe what is new and different about proposed project Innovation is not always clearly defined so you have to point it out or show the reviewers how your project is innovative

Turn your good idea into a plan of action Should be as clear as possible; take a step-by step approach if you can Usually not enough space to be very detailed so be choosy about what you include Be creative about using tables and figures to replace lengthy text if possible Measures you use should be able to directly answer the question(s) or the hypothesis posed

Be sure to identify obvious weaknesses in methods or measures and discuss how you will address these Beat the Reviewer to the punch: Be self critical, but not to the point that they lose confidence in what you are proposing Offer alternative methods for measuring whatever you are interested in (if they exist) and state why and when you would give up on your current method and try the alternative method

Stress that you have the means and experience to conduct this project (resources, knowledge, no one else is doing this, etc.) Your ultimate goal is to convince them that if they don’t fund you, then progress in this field will be hindered!

Use relevant references to similar or related work in your biosketch that underscores your expertise and skills for the proposed work

Find and approach mentors and colleagues well ahead of the deadline for their help Provide clear instructions about how they can help?

What do you want them to do When do you want them to do it Take no for an answer Remind them gently when you need their feedback Show appreciation Feedback is CRITICAL!

Set the grant/proposal aside for 3-4 days during the writing to gain some perspective Refine, refine, refine. There is always room for improvement There should be NO typographical, spelling or grammar errors

Know and clearly address the review criteria Not necessarily the same as sections in application Make sure proposal addresses all criteria clearly and directly Use sub-headings/sub-sections if that helps Know the review process (usually described in the funding announcement) Know your reviewers (if possible) Some agencies like NIH allow applicants to specify the review section their proposal should be vetted through and will provide bios of reviewers in that section.

Forms Biosketches/CVs Human Subjects/Animals Budget Procedures for internal review and processing These all take time to complete so budget time for them. Some depts and colleges have staff that can help with these.

Sponsored Agency Forms need to be completed (either paper or online) Fact sheet contains useful information for sponsor forms Only “authorized” individuals able to commit resources and enter into legal contracts on behalf of GSURF A PI can’t sign a contract or submit a grant for the institution EXCEPT for individual fellowship programs (must review eligibility)

All federal grants can now be uploaded and completed in Cayuse 424 (at GSU); NSF still can be done in FASTLane Some require PI’s registration (e.g. NIH requires eRA Commons registration, NSF requires Fastlane registration) Most grants active departments provide assistance with these tasks OSPA also provides assistance

Set a start date and/or period of performance (might be specified by agency) Identify limits on F&A or Indirect Costs Identify budget categories and limitations within these Identify any Cost Share requirements.

Project Period

Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 NOTE: Budget periods are usually one year, but can vary in length

• • •

Direct Costs

• Salaries and wages • • Fringe benefits Equipment Travel Materials and supplies Other direct costs

Cost sharing

• Direct costs • F&A costs • • • • • • •

Facilities and Administrative (Indirect) Costs

• • Building depreciation Building interest Equipment depreciation Operations and maintenance Library General administration Department administration Sponsored projects administration Student services

Direct Costs + F&A Costs + Cost Sharing = Total Budget

F&A Costs are also called Indirect Costs GSU’s policy applies the Federally approved negotiated Indirect Costs Rate (F&A Rate) to all externally Sponsored projects (Fact Sheet) Require permission from VP to negotiate reduced rate, unless specified by funder

F&A percentage rates are negotiated with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) based on data collected on record of our costs historically Rates are different for research, instruction, and service Rates are different for On-campus versus Off-campus activities More information and guidance available on URSA website at:

http://ursa.research.gsu.edu/ursa/funding/proposal development/fa-rates/

We want to recover all F&A that we can from external sponsors. So, you must use the correct F&A Rate for your project on any external proposal for funding UNLESS Agency limits F & A rate

Direct Costs can be distinctly identified as costs directly related to the project and are reasonable and necessary Divided into budget categories. May be sponsor specific but most are standard categories Download spreadsheet and budget category explanation from URSA’s website under Proposal Development at:

http://ursa.research.gsu.edu/ursa/funding/prop osal-development/budget-development/

Cost sharing is when University/Department resources are committed to cover some of the costs associated with a Sponsored Project LIMIT cost share commitment only when cost sharing is required by Sponsor DO NOT volunteer Cost Share. This DOES NOT improve your chances of getting funded Committing to Cost Share that is not required must be approved by Dr. Weyhenmeyer (rare cases)

Chair and Dean’s Offices Reviews Budget and Signs Form Principal Investigator First completes Proposal Approval Form and accompanying documentation OSPA Officer Reviews and forwards to Authorizing Institutional Official for Approval and Notifies PI

Proposal Approval Form (in Research Portal and on URSA website) Ask Dept or College grants staff who should approve and the order of approval workflow Once approved, submit “everything” by email to OSPA 5 days ahead. “Everything” includes the minimum of a scope of work, budget and budget justification Use OSPA Quick Reference sheet to see what needs to be included

Proposal is reviewed by OSPA and the Proposal Approval Form is signed by the Authorized Official If a sponsoring agency still requires a Paper Copy to be submitted, it is the responsibility of the PI to mail the completed original to the Sponsor along with the correct number of copies Electronic submissions are completed by OSPA and PI is notified when submission has been completed and accepted

Lack of organization Unoriginal ideas Too vague Lack of knowledge on the topic Work not deemed important to field Poor reasoning Inadequate rationale for project Unrealistic workload Uncertain future directions Did not follow directions

Write the reply you would really like to send and then destroy it

NEVER PUT INTO A RESUBMISSION ANYTHING “NEW” THAT WAS NOT ASKED FOR BY THE REVIEWERS!

When rebutting the reviewers, be sensitive to the 'tone' of your writing If you are argumentative and defensive, then you will not be funded!

Have someone else read it before sending if you are concerned about tone Indicate the major changes in your revised proposal by changing the type font, or style, but not by underlining (its too difficult to read that way)

Don’t give up!!!!! Revise, re-submit, find other funding sources, team up with other successful grantees, and learn from feedback. Be Persistent……..

http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/funding sample-application.html

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/gra nt/pages/appsamples.aspx#rpindex

Questions