SUCCESSFUL GRANT WRITING
Laura N. Gitlin, PhD, is professor in the Department of Occupational Therapy and founding director of the Center for Applied Research on Aging and Health (CARAH) at Jefferson College of Health Professions, Thomas Jefferson University. CARAH’s mission is to advance the quality of life of older adults through research, training of health professionals and students in evidence-based programs, and innovative delivery and evaluation of evidence-based services. Programs of research include developing and testing innovative psychosocial, behavioral, and environmental approaches to helping older people with physical frailty remain at home, supporting family caregivers, and enhancing life quality of persons with dementia, developing and testing innovative approaches to addressing health disparities and reducing distress among older African Americans, and translation of its evidence-based caregiver interventions. Dr. Gitlin is a nationally and internationally recognized and well-funded researcher, having received research and training grants both from federal agencies and private foundations, including the Alzheimer’s Association and the National Institutes of Health. She currently has over $9 million of committed research grant monies and has helped garner over $25 million in grant funding over the past 20 years. Dr. Gitlin has also served as a grant reviewer for the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute on Nursing Research, the Agency for Health Research and Quality, and the American Occupational Therapy Foundation. She has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals, and is a coauthor of a research text on quantitative and qualitative research methodologies, a book on the environmental skill-building intervention for family caregivers, and a book on physical function in older adults. Kevin J. Lyons, PhD, is associate dean in the College of Health Professions and the College of Graduate Studies and director of the Center for Collaborative Research at Thomas Jefferson University. He has over 25 years of experience in higher education as a faculty member and administrator. He has served on the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Health Services Research: Training and Workforce Issues and has written a white paper for the National Commission on Allied Health. In addition, he is editor of the Journal of Allied Health, the scholarly journal of the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions, and has received the J. Warren Perry Distinguished Author Award and been elected a fellow in that organization. Dr. Lyons has presented numerous papers at national and international scientific meetings and has been a frequent consultant to universities and government agencies on issues such as research development and program improvement. He has received significant funding from the Bureau of Health Professions to conduct research institutes to advance the research mission of the allied health and chiropractic professions. Dr. Lyons has served on peer review panels for Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), and National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) in the U.S. Department of Education, the Bureau of Health Professions, and for numerous professional journals.
SUCCESSFUL GRANT WRITING Strategies for Health and Human Service Professionals 3rd Edition
Laura N. Gitlin, PhD Kevin J. Lyons, PhD
NEW YORK
Copyright © 2008 Springer Publishing Company, LLC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Springer Publishing Company, LLC. Springer Publishing Company, LLC 11 West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036 www.springerpub.com Acquisitions Editor: Sheri W. Sussman Production Editor: Julia Rosen Cover design: Joanne E. Honigman Composition: Apex CoVantage 07 08 09 10/ 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gitlin, Laura N., 1952– Successful grant writing : strategies for health and human service professionals / Laura N. Gitlin, Kevin J. Lyons. — 3rd ed. p. ; cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–8261–3273–4 (alk. paper) 1. Proposal writing in human services. 2. Proposal writing in medicine. 3. Medical care—Research grants. 4. Public health—Research grants. 5. Proposal writing for grants. I. Lyons, Kevin J. II. Title. [DNLM: 1. Financing, Organized. 2. Writing. 3. Delivery of Health Care—organization & administration. W 20.5 G536s 2008] HV41.2.G58 2008 361.0068'1—dc22 2008001204 Printed in the United States of America by Bang Printing.
Dedication To Eduardo, Keith, and Eric Como siempre. LNG As before, to Brendan, Margaret, Patrick and Bridget with love. And to the newest additions: Matt, Christine, Mike, Theo, Beth and especially the next generation of grant writers, Ryan, Ashley, Ivy, Ronan, Ava and Madison. For you it’s worthwhile. KJL To our students and colleagues and to all new investigators whose creative ideas and dedication to the improvement of health and health care delivery for all makes grantsmanship a most worthy endeavor.
This page intentionally left blank
Contents Preface
xiii
Acknowledgments
xvii
Introduction Part I
xix
Getting Started
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
1
Why Write a Grant?
3
1.1 A Grant Story 1.2 The Language of Grantsmanship 1.3 Developing a Professional Growth Plan Using a Research Career Trajectory 1.4 A Research Career Trajectory 1.5 Personal Attributes of Successful Researchers 1.6 Overcoming Barriers to Grantsmanship
5 7
28
Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
35
2.1 Sources of Funding for Health and Human Service Professions
36
vii
14 17 26
viii
Contents
Chapter 3
2.2 Learning About and Keeping Track of Funding Sources 2.3 Interpreting Calls for Proposals
41 56
Developing Your Ideas for Funding
65
3.1 Identifying Ideas With Funding Potential 3.2 Ideas That Are Hot and Those That Are Not 3.3 Matching an Idea to a Funding Priority Part II
The Writing Process
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
65 73 75 81
Common Sections of Proposals
83
4.1 Description of Common Proposal Sections for Research, Training, and Demonstration Grants
84
Strategies for Effective Writing
117
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
118 121 124 125
Organizing for the Writing Task Problems With Writing A Word About Writer’s Block The Grant Writing Team
Technical Writing Considerations
131
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
131 134 137
Elements of a Concept Paper Needs Assessments Pilot Studies Obtaining Contractual Agreements and Letters of Support 6.5 Other Administrative Matters
139 140
Contents
ix
Part III Preparing a Budget Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
147
Developing a Budget
149
7.1 The Language of Grant Budgets 7.2 Considerations in Developing a Budget 7.3 Basic Components of a Budget 7.4 Budget Justification 7.5 NIH Modular Budget Format
149 152 159 169 170
Putting It All Together to Create a Budget
173
8.1 Constructing a Budget 8.2 Thinking Through Project Costs 8.3 Consultation and Subaward Considerations
173 180 183
Technical Considerations in Budget Development
187
9.1 Governance of Budgets 9.2 Budget Forms 9.3 Assuring Budget Accuracy
187 188 189
Part IV Models for Proposal Development
191
Chapter 10 Four Project Structures
193
10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5
Individual Model Consultative Model Cooperative Model Collaborative Model Choosing an Appropriate Project Structure
195 196 197 200 205
x
Contents
Chapter 11 Understanding the Process of Collaboration 11.1 Theoretical Framework for Understanding Collaboration 11.2 Roles and Responsibilities of Team Members 11.3 Five-Stage Model of Collaboration Chapter 12 Forming a Collaborative Team 12.1 Forming a Collaborative Team and Evaluating Its Effectiveness 12.2 Common Problems in Collaborative Teams and Effective Solutions Part V Submitting the Proposal Chapter 13 Learning About Your Institution
209
210 213 218 227
227 237 243 245
13.1 Questions to Ask of Your Institution 245 13.2 Institutional Review Board Procedures 250 Chapter 14 Electronic Considerations 14.1 Benefits of Online Grant Submissions 14.2 Common Challenges With Electronic Submissions 14.3 Getting Ready for Electronic Submission 14.4 The Process Part VI Life After a Grant Submission Chapter 15 Understanding the Review Process 15.1 Structure of the Review Process
261
262 262 263 267 269 271 272
Contents
xi
15.2 Review Criteria 15.3 Scores and Categories of Acceptance and Rejection 15.4 Tips for Understanding the Review Process Chapter 16 Responding to the Proposal Review 16.1 Resubmission Options 16.2 Considerations in Reading Reviewer Comments 16.3 What to Do if You Believe the Reviewer Was Unfair or Incorrect 16.4 Resubmission Process 16.5 The Three-Strike Rule Chapter 17 A Case Study 17.1 Excerpt From a Proposal 17.2 A Critique Part VII Strategies for Managing a Grant Award Chapter 18 Welcome to the World of Post-Award 18.1 Initiating a Grant Award: Administrative Matters 18.2 Scientific Start-Up Tasks 18.3 Yearly Reports and Administrative Responsibilities 18.4 Budgetary Considerations 18.5 Getting Ready for the Next Grant Submission Chapter 19 More Post-Award Considerations 19.1 Federal Agency Requirements 19.2 Notification and Implementation Process 19.3 Common Agency Reports
279 281 285 289 290 292 297 298 301 303 307 311 317 319
320 327 329 331 332 335 336 338 339
xii
Contents
19.4 Institutional Rules 19.5 Budget Management 19.6 Academic Policies
343 345 347
Appendix A
Common Questions and Their Answers
353
Appendix B
Selected Key Acronyms
361
Appendix C
Selected Web Sites
365
Appendix D
Sample Timeline, Budget Sheets, and Flow Charts
367
Guidelines for Evaluating Collaborative Teams
373
Appendix E
References
383
Index
385
Preface Welcome to the third edition of Successful Grant Writing! At the time of writing this edition, we are witnessing dramatic changes in the grant world. Budgets for all agencies are tight, the application process is moving toward electronic submissions, and the submission, review, and notification procedures of National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as other agencies are undergoing significant transformation. For example, the NIH is in the midst of conducting extensive self-studies and peer review to evaluate the impact of shortening the now-required 25-page narrative, having all grant appendices only available via an investigator’s Web site, and shortening the peer review process and notification time frames. The driving concern behind these changes is the tremendous burden of the grant writing and review process on the scientific community and the lag time between grant writing, grant award, completion of a study, and its publication and eventual public health impact. Further, there are clear and persistent societal trends influencing funding opportunities, including health disparities, the need for transdisciplinary approaches to address complex health issues, movement toward community-based health models, and an aging society (see chapter 2 for a fuller discussion of these and other trends). In particular, the NIH Roadmap initiated in 2002 has outlined a broad formulation for three directions of research, which are: new pathways to discovery, the need for collaborative research team efforts, and the “reengineering” of the research enterprise to address complex public health problems. This Roadmap, a mustread for those interested in the NIH arena and its funding trends, has shaped most of the NIH initiatives since 2004, when new funding opportunities were unveiled to address this bold new direction xiii
xiv
Preface
(http://nihroadmap.nih.gov). Similarly, foundations as well are becoming increasingly interested in translational projects, that is, taking science from bench, to bed, to community and home, and benefiting real people. The reality is that monies are tight and competition is very high in both the federal and foundation worlds. While this situation will continue into the near future, securing grants and conducting high-quality funded research and education programs remain fundamental and critical activities for improving the health of the public and are part of the mission of health and human service professionals. Thus, knowing the principles for effectively securing funds and gaining the knowledge of how to strategically build a meaningful and successful grant portfolio is even more critical now than ever before. Thus, it is in this spirit that we present this updated and revised edition of Successful Grant Writing: Strategies for Health and Human Service Professionals. This edition, like previous versions, presents the fundamental principles for effectively securing funds. The book lays out an approach to thinking about grant writing and the necessary vocabulary and knowledge to effectively read a funding opportunity, determine its appropriateness to pursue vis-à-vis your ideas and level of professional development, and the processes for applying for funding. This edition also includes expanded coverage of important areas, including how to develop a grant budget, implement effective transdisciplinary collaborations (an approach that is being advocated in many of the new NIH funding opportunities), interpret reviewers’ comments, and manage a grant project upon its award. As in previous editions, each chapter is peppered with examples and helpful tables that summarize key points; outline specific questions to ask colleagues, program officers, and administrators to obtain the critical information you need for success; and appendices full of specific examples and templates. Our presentation continues to differ from other grant writing books in that we focus on helping novice health and human service professionals learn how to be competitive for external funds, although we strongly believe that this book contains helpful information for those who are more experienced as well. We also focus on instructing in principles to guide the pursuit of funding primarily from federal agencies, although these principles also apply to foundations as well. Because grant requirements change from one competition and agency to the next, as well as over time, it is more
Preface
xv
important to understand the process and principles than the specific details that are typically time- and competition-dependent. Also, our concern is with helping you gain an appreciation of how grant writing fits into a career path, and how to develop your ideas in a logical, sequential order to systematically contribute to knowledge building. We hope you enjoy and learn from this new, improved, and expanded 3rd edition and we wish you much success in your grant writing and career endeavors. We will all benefit from competitive and thoughtful funded programs.
This page intentionally left blank
Acknowledgments We are grateful to the numerous individuals who helped us with preparation of this 3rd edition: Lauren Acquarole, clinical research assistant in the Center for Applied Research on Aging and Health (CARAH), for her research assistance in helping to update materials and identify relevant materials; Helen Jones, executive assistant in CARAH, for assistance with formatting and manuscript preparation; and Lauren Yarosheski, grants administrator, Jefferson College of Health Professions, for reviewing various charts and making recommendations. Finally, we would like to thank Sheri W. Sussman, editor at Springer Publishing Company, LLC, for her belief in the importance of this project, ongoing encouragement, and wonderful suggestions for making the third edition bigger and better. Although we did not have a grant to write this book, we would like to extend our gratitude to the many federal and foundation sponsors who have supported our research and education projects over these many years.
xvii
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction You have a great idea that you believe can significantly improve educational programming for your students or services for your clients. To carry out the idea you need financial support. How can you obtain this support? One way is to apply for a grant, whether it is from your own institution, the federal government, a private foundation, or a corporation. A grant is a mechanism by which an agency awards money to fund a research study or other activity, such as an educational program, service program, demonstration, or project. The task of writing a grant proposal, or even knowing how to get started, can be daunting, especially if it is your first attempt. As with any venture, grantsmanship has a language of its own, a set of rules, and relatively standard procedures, all of which you can learn and become successful in using. But you may well ask why you need to learn the process of grantsmanship. After all, it involves considerable time and effort and requires a new set of skills. There is more than one purpose for obtaining a grant. Obviously, if you need money to develop and implement a new program, a grant is one way to obtain that support. However, there are other very important but less tangible reasons to pursue external funding. What can grants do for you? Grants can help you: • • • •
Develop and advance scientific knowledge in your field Support training activities Provide support for institutional activities Expand opportunities for educating students and clinicians xix
xx
Introduction
• Legitimize your research program or training projects • Enhance the prestige of your institution • Advance your professional career Let’s examine each of these reasons more closely. Develop and advance scientific knowledge in your field: The basic mission of most federal funding agencies and the reason those in the health and human service professions pursue research or educational grants is to develop and advance knowledge in a particular field that can enhance the health of the public. For example, funding for a research study on the determinants of older women’s compliance with mammography, or examining the impact of an occupational therapy or nurse-based home intervention to help frail elders remain safe in their home is critical for advancing knowledge in these areas and improving the health and functioning of individuals and groups. Support training activities: Another purpose of grant funding is to support the development and implementation of new training programs. Developing new programs can be expensive, and institutions are often hesitant to support new ventures unless they have been systematically tested and shown to be effective. Training or education grants can be important catalysts for implementing change in an institution’s approach to educating health and human service professionals. The support for these programs also leads to new and effective instructional methods that can improve the education and, therefore, the practice of health and human service professionals. Provide support for institutional activities: Success in gaining external funding can also contribute to the vitality and financial health of your department, school, or agency. The direct costs derived from a funded project may support a special program your institution wants to run or, in some cases, contribute toward its general operating expenses. At a university, funds might pay for part of your salary or that of other important staff members, as well as statistical support or consultants, and expenses such as supplies and professional travel. The Facilities and Administrative (F&A) cost recovery, or indirect costs, which we define later in this book, helps defray operating costs such as heat, light, and telephone use. Expand opportunities for educating students and clinicians: As college tuition continues to rise, it becomes increasingly difficult for students to afford an education, particularly in the health and human service fields, where relatively low starting salaries make it
Introduction
xxi
difficult to pay back loans for tuition. Many PhD and master-level students in health and human services are often fully or partially supported by research projects, primarily through positions such as research assistants, interviewers, or project coordinators. Legitimize your research program or training projects: Obtaining funding for your project provides public recognition of the worth of your educational or research program. Grant applications are reviewed and approved by a jury of your peers, and this process provides external validation and legitimization of your work. An award indicates that experts in the field acknowledge your idea as important and worthy of public or private support. Enhance the prestige of your institution: Health and human service professionals in higher education are increasingly encouraged to obtain external funding, not only to advance knowledge in their field but also to contribute to the prestige of their institution. External funding is often used as an index of the prestige of a college or university and the quality of its faculty. As a result, many universities measure quality, in part, by the extent to which faculty members obtain external funding. It is no longer true that schools or departments educating health and human service professionals will be recognized as contributing to the institution only through the training of competent clinicians. These schools and programs are now evaluated on their contribution to the overall research mission of the university. In some cases, their continuation in the institution is dependent, in part, on the extent to which they contribute to this mission. Advance your professional career: A funded grant also enhances your professional standing, both within the institution and in the profession at large. Funded health professionals become known among their peers through professional newsletters, journals, or other national forums. Thus, funding success not only advances your knowledge base and professional development, but will also provide increased professional prestige and job mobility.
HOW TO USE THIS BOOK In this book we take you step by step through the process of grantsmanship, from its basic components to an understanding of what is required to carry out a successful grant application. The book is
xxii
FIGURE 0.1
Introduction
The process of grantsmanship.
organized in seven parts (see Figure 0.1), moving the reader from identifying a competitive idea (part I), to writing the narrative (part II), developing an appropriate budget (part III), identifying an effective project structure (part IV), submitting the proposal (part V), understanding the review process and grant critiques (part VI), to being successful by obtaining the award and managing grant activity (part VII). More specifically, we begin by emphasizing the importance of developing a career plan and learning the language of grantsmanship. We then examine ways to develop your ideas for funding and discuss effective strategies for writing proposals, and then describe each section of a grant application and what it should contain. This is followed by a discussion on different approaches to organizing grant projects, with particular emphasis on consultative and collaborative team approaches, which are essential in today’s funding environment. We then present a description of the review process, and how to evaluate and respond to reviewers’ critiques. We conclude with an examination of the post-award stage—that is, what you will need to do when you are actually awarded a grant. Each chapter describes a specific aspect of grantsmanship and provides innovative strategies for being successful based on our own experiences, that of our colleagues, and published literature. The appendices contain helpful materials, such as a list of key acronyms, examples of timelines, and sample budgets. The guidelines and suggestions in this book are based on over 20 years of experience by each of the authors in obtaining external support for education and research programs and working with individuals in the health and human service fields, as well as from interviews with experienced grant writers and program officers in key federal agencies and foundations.
Part I Getting Started
Welcome to the world of grantsmanship! Grantsmanship is the process of using knowledge and implementing a series of activities to obtain a grant to carry out a program. It is both an art and a technical skill that involves hard work, and sometimes trial and error prior to a successful outcome. A basic tenet of grantsmanship is that being well-informed about the process and funding sources are critical for success. The more you know about an agency’s mission and objectives, its funding priorities, and its review process, the greater the likelihood that you will be able to write a proposal that is competitive and matches the intent of the funding source. The funding environment is constantly changing. This is especially true today, in light of health care reform. Therefore, finding the 1
2
Getting Started
right funder for your particular idea takes time and requires knowledge of multiple sources that provide information about funding opportunities. Grant writing, however, really begins with you—your passion, your innovative ideas—your vision. As a professional activity, grant writing should fit within a career path. Therefore, we begin Part I by discussing the reasons for writing a grant and how it fits with a career trajectory (chapter 1), followed by how to identify funding sources (chapter 2), and how to develop a competitive grant idea (chapter 3).
Chapter 1 Why Write a Grant?
• A Grant Story • The Language of Grantsmanship • Developing a Professional Growth Plan Using a Research Career Trajectory • A Research Career Trajectory • Personal Attributes of Successful Researchers • Overcoming Barriers to Grantsmanship Do you have a great idea, but need money to carry it out? Where can you obtain information about potential sources for support? What is the best way to convince a funding source to support your idea? These are basic questions that health and human service professionals and faculty members new to the grantsmanship process often ask. Fortunately, there are agencies in both the public and private sectors that do have money for worthy projects. The first point to understand about grantsmanship is that you are not competing with a funding agency. Most individuals new to grantsmanship do not realize that the goal of federal funding agencies and private foundations is to give funds away. Agencies of the federal government are funded by Congress to address health problems facing the American people. Each agency is charged with the responsibility of addressing a different issue, such as women’s health or cancer prevention. Based on their charge, each agency has a mission and sets priorities for the types of research, training, and educational programs they will fund. Each year agencies must compete for continual funding from Congress to support their grant programs. To obtain congressional 3
4
Getting Started
funds, an agency must demonstrate to Congress that it is making significant progress toward meeting its goals. Indices of progress include the number of grant proposals submitted to and funded by the agency, the quality of the programs that have been funded, and the contributions that these programs have made to the advancement of knowledge, and ultimately the health of the public. Therefore, it is in an agency’s best interest to encourage the submission of excellent proposals. A second point to remember is that not every “great” idea for a research, training, or education project will be competitive for funding. Funding agencies have specific areas that they need and want to fund. These targeted areas for funding may differ from the specific ideas that you may wish to pursue. It is only when the interests of funders and grantees intersect that funding will occur. Therefore, it is necessary to identify an agency whose goals match your specific areas of interest. Even with this match, you will most likely have to modify your initial ideas to meet the specific goals of an agency. Alternately, you may discover that there are no agencies that are funding topics in the area you have identified. If this is the case, you will need to find a new area of investigation if you expect to be funded. But—tuck your initial idea in a file for future consideration. A third point to consider is that grantsmanship should be a systematic process. The purpose in seeking external funding is to build a coherent program of research, education, or training. Each grant proposal that is written (and ultimately funded) should be a stepping-stone for the next one. In other words, a grant proposal should be viewed as one component of a larger plan for a growing program of scholarship. A mistake frequently made by novice investigators is that they find an interesting project and, even if it is funded, lose interest in the project after it is completed and then shift their effort to a different area of interest. This approach can result in a series of disjointed projects that may not produce more than small amounts of money and an inability to systematically build a coherent program of science from one project to the next. A fourth point is that grantsmanship should be considered an integral part of one’s professional responsibilities. Research, teaching, and service are all fundamental components of a career as a health and human service professional, particularly for faculty members in a university setting. External funding has the potential to provide opportunities to advance practice or develop new and in-
Why Write a Grant?
5
novative services. For many faculty members, grantsmanship must be integrated within and be complementary to other job responsibilities. As such, it is important to use teaching and service activities as a springboard for pursuing grant ideas. The courses that one teaches can provide a basis from which to delve into a body of literature that may suggest an important topic for a research study. Interactions with clinicians might suggest important gaps in service provision (see chapter 3, which examines different sources for generating competitive grant ideas). Developing a funded research career is usually accomplished in a series of interrelated steps, each building on the one before. To begin with, ask yourself, “Where do I want to be 2, 3, 5, or 10 years from now with respect to my research career?” This may initially be a difficult question to answer. However, developing proficiency at gaining funding for your ideas takes time and patience and involves a planned, focused effort with well-defined professional and research goals. Let’s look at a fairly common situation and see how a faculty member might approach finding funding for a project that interests her.
1.1 A GRANT STORY Ms. L. is an assistant professor of social work at an urban university. The school in which she works has departments of physical therapy, occupational therapy, physician assistants, counseling, and nursing. Ms. L. volunteers in a number of homeless shelters throughout the city and has organized a student volunteer program. In her volunteer work, she notices that shelter residents have significant health problems and difficulties accessing social services. She is convinced that a formal educational program to prepare social work, nursing, and other health professions students to work in these shelters could be an important way to help alleviate some of these problems. Unfortunately, she doesn’t know how to go about developing such a program. Ms. L. decides to meet with her department chairman to inquire about recruiting more students to work in the shelters and to suggest that the department offer a formal educational program to
6
Getting Started
prepare clinicians to work in underserved areas. At the meeting, her chairman points out that, while Ms. L.’s idea is a good one, starting a new program is expensive and time-consuming. Since the school is short of both money and faculty, the chairman tells her that it is not possible to invest the department’s limited resources into a program such as this. The only way that such a program could be supported would be for Ms. L. to find money elsewhere to pay for its development and implementation. During her next evening of volunteer work, Ms. L. becomes even more determined to do something about the health problems she sees. The next day she makes an appointment to meet with a senior faculty member, Dr. A., who has received grant funding for a number of related projects. She explains her idea and asks for advice. Dr. A. is sympathetic but tells her that because of her inexperience, it is unlikely that she will be successful in finding funding for her project by working alone. He suggests that she develop a systematic plan to develop her credentials and that she partner with a more senior investigator and a team of experienced faculty. These individuals would not only help her gain the experience necessary to develop and conduct a program, but their participation would strengthen the proposal and make it more competitive. He also suggests that she start by conducting a literature review to learn the magnitude of the health problems that exist among shelter residents locally and nationally, the major problems that residents have accessing social services, and whether there are existing programs that have addressed these problems, and if so, their effectiveness. Dr. A. also encourages her to write up the results of this research and submit it as a manuscript or for presentation at a meeting of her professional association. Finally, he recommends that she “cast a wide net” in her search for a funding agency because it would be difficult to obtain funding from some of the larger, well-known agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Ms. L. is a little discouraged but decides to meet with senior faculty members who have had relevant experience in the homeless clinics. She explains her idea about developing a program to prepare students to work in the shelters and asks if they would be interested in helping her write a grant proposal to support it. All of the faculty members express interest in working with her if she can identify a funding source.
Why Write a Grant?
7
Where does Ms. L. begin her search for funding? Her first step would be to learn the basic language of grantsmanship.
1.2 THE LANGUAGE OF GRANTSMANSHIP As in other fields, there is a language that is specific to grantsmanship. It is important to learn this language in order to understand the grant world and application process, be able to communicate with agency personnel, and interpret application instructions for submitting a proposal. Here we review 14 common terms of grantsmanship. These terms, listed in Box 1.1 and defined below, introduce the language used by most agencies and are included in funding announcements and application materials for grant competitions. BOX 1.1 14 COMMON TERMS IN GRANTSMANSHIP a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n.
Research grants Training or educational grants Demonstration grants Agency Call for proposals Competition Preferences, priorities, and special considerations General instructions/supplemental instructions Grantee/grantor Principal investigator/co-investigator/project director Program officer/project officer Peer review panel Reviewers’ comments (pink sheets) Funding cycle
a. Research grants: Research grants provide money for an investigator to conduct a specific research study, either basic or applied. In basic research, an investigator examines a question that will add to
8
Getting Started
the theoretical body of knowledge in a discipline. In applied research, the investigator applies a specific theoretical principle, program, or approach to a practical situation. A research grant usually provides money for salary support of the investigator and his or her team; materials needed to carry out the research, such as laboratory specimens, chemicals, supplies, or mailings; data analysis; and travel to professional meetings. The grant may also provide stipends for graduate or undergraduate students. In some instances, the grant will also pay for the purchase of special equipment needed to carry out the project. However, it is important to refer to the application requirements to understand what budgetary items are allowable (we discuss this further in part III). For a research grant, federal agencies, such as the NIH, also provide a certain amount of money to the applicant’s university over and above the grant budget to help defray basic operational expenses. These monies are referred to as Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs (formally called indirect cost recovery) and are based on a rate negotiated between the university and funding agency, which could be as much as 50%–60% of the direct operating costs required for the conduct of the study. These costs are discussed in more detail in chapter 7. b. Training or educational grants: Training or educational grants are those that have, as a main purpose, the education or training of students, faculty, clinicians, or other practitioners. These grants can be used for planning and implementing new undergraduate or graduate programs, revising or updating curriculum materials, recruiting students into special programs, or helping health and human service professionals gain new knowledge or develop new skills. These types of grants provide money for salary, supplies, travel, consultants, and stipends for graduate students and, in some instances, equipment. These grants also come with F&A costs, but at a much lower rate than federal research grants and they are usually 8% to 10% of the direct operating costs of the grant. c. Demonstration grants: Demonstration grants provide support to projects that evaluate a model program, set of services, or methodology. A demonstration project often tests a program that is already in place, but it can also be used to develop and test a program if there is evidence that suggests a given model or service is an effective way to address a specific issue. These types of grants are most commonly pursued by health and human service providers who wish to expand existing services or develop innovative model
Why Write a Grant?
9
programs that can be replicated. Demonstration projects can also be used to translate and adapt a previously proven intervention to a new practice-care setting or for use with a different target population. d. Agency: Throughout this book, we use the generic term agency to refer to any funding source. A funding agency is also referred to as the sponsor. The federal government is divided into a bewildering array of organizational units called centers, offices, institutes, bureaus, divisions, departments, or administrations, all of which may have programs of funding. Private foundations and companies have different organizational structures through which money is awarded and their own way of naming departments that provide support for projects. e. Call for proposals: A call for proposals is a notice of an opportunity to submit a proposal on a specific topic. A call for proposals may also be referred to as a Request For Proposals or a funding opportunity. Agencies publish announcements describing a problem area and inviting interested parties to propose ways to investigate aspects of the problem. These announcements vary considerably in the level of funding provided, type of projects solicited, and scope of work involved. The federal government tends to provide very explicit and targeted calls for proposals that describe in detail what needs to be included. In contrast, foundations and private companies tend to initiate calls for proposals that are more general. f. Competition: The term “competition” will be used throughout this book. It simply refers to a particular grant program for which a call for proposals has been issued. g. Preferences, priorities, and special considerations: Some federal agencies identify a specific focus or emphasis that they would like addressed in a grant proposal. For example, an agency may wish to increase involvement of a particular minority or underserved group in the project, and thus offers “extra credit” or increased points to proposals that meet this additional priority or preference. There are three categories for which extra credit may be given: funding preferences, funding priorities, and special considerations. If a funding preference is specified, special attention will be given to applications that address the stated preference. For example, if preference is given to problems in underserved communities and your proposal meets this requirement and is approved for funding, you will be funded before other approved applicants who do not meet the preference. If you qualify for a funding priority, the score assigned to your proposal will be adjusted favorably by a
10
Getting Started
predetermined amount, such as 5 or 10 points. In competitions that contain a special consideration, reviewers have additional latitude in assigning points to those proposals that address the consideration. The use of these funding mechanisms varies across agencies. However, in some instances the legislation authorizing funding may require these funding mechanisms. When applying for grant monies from an agency using one of these mechanisms, it is important to address the preference or priority as part of your application. Although for most competitions it is not a requirement to address the preference or priority, there is a strong competitive advantage in doing so. Some agencies will provide a special section in the proposal in which you indicate that you are applying for one or more of these special categories. If they do not, make sure you state your intent in an introductory paragraph and describe the specific reasons why. h. General instructions/supplemental instructions: General instructions provide guidelines for submitting a grant application. These guidelines must be followed very carefully. Agencies in the federal government provide the most detailed general instructions. They usually contain the following types of information: A general overview of the requirements of the project; the date the application is due; the address where it should be sent; how to submit the application (e.g., by mail or electronically); identification of preferences, priorities, or special considerations; the amount of money available; the average expected funding range of projects; and the date grants will be reviewed and funded. General instructions also may include the guidelines that will be used by reviewers to evaluate proposals, and for some competitions, the optimal number of points that can be given to any one particular section of the proposal. Supplemental instructions extend or modify the general instructions. These should be read very carefully because the agency may have made significant changes in the requirements for a proposal after the general instructions were issued. Supplemental instructions will provide critical information that is important to be aware of in writing your proposal. i. Grantee/grantor: The grantee is the institution or individual who submits the grant application and receives a grant award. A grantor is the agency or sponsor providing the grant funds. j. Principal investigator/co-investigator/project director: The term principal investigator (PI) is used most often in research grants and refers to the person who provides the scientific oversight and integrity of the proposed grant activity. A co-investigator (Co-PI) is an
Why Write a Grant?
11
individual who contributes substantially to the conceptual development of a research study and who assists the PI. A project director is the term used in training, educational, or demonstration grants and is applied to the person who is responsible for the daily operations or day-to-day activities of the project. The project director is equivalent to the PI in that it is the person who oversees the grant activity, assures the scientific integrity of the endeavor, and is responsible for assuring that the grant is conducted in accordance with all regulations. k. Program officer/project officer: A program officer is an employee of an agency who manages a specific program of grant funding. A project officer is someone who is assigned to supervise and provide technical assistance to a particular funded grant. Sometimes these terms are used interchangeably. l. Peer review panel: A peer review panel is a group of experts selected by an agency to evaluate the grant proposals submitted to that agency. The panel evaluates and scores each proposal according to the agency’s evaluative criteria and approach to review. Each agency structures the review panel differently. The structure and composition of panels within the federal government are determined by statute or other federal guidelines. The National Institutes of Health, for example, select individuals with expertise in different scientific areas, such as health services, behavioral science, or medical research, and areas of expertise, such as statistics, economics, sociology, and medicine. These panels are referred to as Initial Review Groups (IRGs) or study sections. Members are appointed for specified periods of time (usually three years) and generally meet three times a year to review proposals. Agencies also select special emphasis panels of experts who serve as reviewers for one particular competition. Panels may vary in size from 3 to 15 to 30 members. Different formats are used when convening review panels, and we discuss this further in part IV. Private foundations tend not to use peer review panels. Decisions regarding funding are made by a board of directors or trustees of the foundation. Their decision is often based on the evaluations and recommendations made by program officers who work for the foundation. Proposals may also be reviewed by foundation work groups or committees of experts who are asked to convene for a specific competition. m. Reviewers’ comments (pink sheets): Once referred to as “pink sheets” for the color of the paper on which they were printed,
12
Getting Started
reviewers’ comments are written evaluations provided by a review panel for each application. A summary sheet of reviewers’ comments usually provides an in-depth critique of a proposal, summarizing the major strengths and weaknesses, and a score that rates the proposal. Most agencies use either Web-based programs or e-mail for communicating with applicants and sending reviewers’ comments. n. Funding cycle: Most federal and foundation competitions follow a schedule for receiving, reviewing, and awarding applications, referred to as a funding cycle. Most federal agencies have funding cycles that occur at the same time each year. For example, in the NIH system, there are three primary deadlines for submitting individual investigator research grant applications (commonly referred to as an RO-1): October 5, February 5, and June 5. Submission dates for federal and private foundations and corporations can be found on the Web site of an agency and in the call for proposals. It is important to note that due dates for grant applications are nonnegotiable. Late applications are rarely if ever accepted. For example, only in the case of a national disaster will a federal agency allow late applications and then only from the region of the country most affected. In addition to the 14 terms defined above, there are others that are specific to the NIH environment that are important to understand. These are listed in Box 1.2. For additional information about all aspects of the NIH grants process, visit the NIH Web site at http:// grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm. BOX 1.2 EIGHT COMMON TERMS IN THE NIH ENVIRONMENT a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.
SF-424 FOA (Funding opportunity announcement) eRA (Electronic Research Administration) Commons e-SNAP (Electronic Streamlined Non-competing Award Process) IRG (Integrated Review Group) SRO (scientific review officer) NIH Roadmap Grants.gov
Why Write a Grant?
13
a. SF-424: This refers to the electronic application forms that are now in use by the NIH for all applications. b. FOA (Funding opportunity announcement): Formally called Program Announcement (PAs) or Program Announcement Requests (PARs), they refer to specific announcements for applications to address a particular area of research. When applying to the NIH using electronic submission and the SF-424 forms, you must identify a particular FOA that is relevant to your proposal. If none exist, use the generic FOA that the NIH has created for this purpose. c. eRA (Electronic Research Administration) Commons: This refers to the electronic infrastructure that allows NIH to electronically receive, review, and administer grant awards. The eRA is the most important tool for monitoring your NIH grants and their status, and from which to download reviewers’ comments. d. e-SNAP (Electronic Streamlined Non-competing Award Process): This refers to the streamlined process to request continuing support of a PHS-supported grant. For multiyear funded grants, you will need to submit a progress report two months prior to the beginning of a new budget period. In most cases, these progress reports will be due electronically. The initial Notice of Grant Award that you receive upon a grant award will state whether the grant is awarded under e-SNAP. For more information about this process refer to the NIH e-SNAP guide at: http://era.nih.gov/Docs/eSNAP_UG_ August2003.pdf. e. IRG (Integrated Review Group): This refers to the study sections of the NIH that conduct peer review of all NIH submitted grant proposals. Study sections are organized around scientific areas. Each section is composed of scientists who conduct the initial peer review of NIH submitted grant applications. Related terms include peer review, study section, and scientific review group. f. SRO (scientific review officer): This individual is the federal scientist who is responsible for overseeing a scientific review group. He or she is responsible for coordinating and reporting the results of each peer review of each application assigned to an integrated review group. The SRO acts as an intermediary between the applicant and reviewers, answers questions from applicants about the review, and prepares a summary review statement for each application. g. NIH Roadmap: In May of 2002, the Director of the NIH convened a series of meetings to chart a “roadmap” for medical research in the 21st century. The purpose was to identify major opportunities and gaps in biomedical research that no single
14
Getting Started
institute at NIH could tackle alone but that the agency as a whole must address to make the biggest impact on the progress of medical research. The NIH Roadmap provides a framework of the priorities of the NIH as a whole. It lays out a vision for a system of medical research and identifies the most compelling opportunities in three main areas: new pathways to discovery, research teams of the future, and reengineering the clinical research enterprise. When you have reached a point in your research career when you are ready to apply for NIH funds, this will be a very important resource. For more information about the road map go to http://www.nihroad map.nih.gov/overview.asp. h. Grants.gov: This refers to the Web site (www.grants.gov) that contains information about grant opportunities in the federal government. It is a source that lets you find and apply for grants from the more than 1,000 programs sponsored by the government. It allows organizations to electronically find and apply for the over $4 billion dollars in available funds. Grants.gov is also the electronic mechanism for submitting NIH grant proposals.
1.3 DEVELOPING A PROFESSIONAL GROWTH PLAN USING A RESEARCH CAREER TRAJECTORY Now that we have reviewed the basic principles of grantsmanship and key terms, it is important to understand grant writing within the context of developing a research career. Writing a grant should be part of a research career trajectory or a long-range plan for professional growth and development. Developing skill in grantsmanship and writing a grant proposal represent a significant investment of time and energy and are compatible with the goal of being a health and human service professional. Integral to developing a competitive proposal is the need to demonstrate expertise in the particular area being proposed. That is, a grant application is evaluated in part based on whether the applicant has demonstrated expertise in the proposed work effort. This record must include presentations, publications, and previous experience in the management or oversight of projects. Thus, building credentials in a focused area is an important part of grantsmanship. Box 1.3 outlines four components of a strategy for
Why Write a Grant?
15
incremental professional growth that enhances one’s competitiveness in the world of grants. BOX 1.3 COMPONENTS OF A PROFESSIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY FOR FUNDING 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Develop a plan for short- and long-range personal development. Build individual credentials through presentations and publications. Build a track record of funding, starting with pilot funds. Work on teams with more experienced researchers. Seek mentorship.
Let’s look at each of these strategies individually. 1. Develop a plan for short- and long-range personal development: To develop a plan for professional growth, begin by outlining your career or professional goals. Ask yourself “What do I want to be doing two to five years from now?” “Am I more interested in research, teaching, or clinical work?” While these are interrelated, the area you select will influence the type of grant programs for which you will seek funding. After identifying immediate and long-range career goals, talk to your supervisor or your department head. Learn what their expectations are for you, the department, and the institution as a whole and how your goals may fit with the strategic planning of the institution. This will provide a better idea of how compatible your goals are with those of your department or institution. If your goals are not in keeping with the department or institution, you may not have access to or be able to obtain the necessary resources and support to reach your goals. For example, if you are interested in curriculum development and your department values and supports educational innovation, then you will probably receive the institutional support necessary to pursue a training grant. If, on the other hand, your department has a greater interest in research, you will need to rethink your goals and perhaps develop your research skills or examine your interest in curriculum from a research perspective. It is also important to discuss your goals with more experienced grant writers and researchers. These individuals will have moved
16
Getting Started
through the career steps necessary to be successfully funded. They will know the challenges you will face and will be able to suggest effective strategies for overcoming these challenges. 2. Build individual credentials through presentations and publications: Building your credentials requires time and patience, but it is critical to becoming funded. When submitting a grant proposal, the peer review panel will closely examine the credentials of the applicant as part of the evaluation process. Box 1.4 contains a typical comment by a review panel regarding the credentials of an investigator who did not demonstrate sufficient expertise in the topic of his proposal: congestive heart failure and a nursing home care intervention. BOX 1.4 The principal investigator, Dr. T., has a PhD in sociology and is an assistant professor. His past experience has included extensive research in gerontology and health care interventions for stroke patients. However, he has no previous research experience or publications on nursing, home care, or congestive heart failure. There is no doctorally prepared nurse on the project, which is also a problem. In particular, the team lacks clinical research expertise with congestive heart failure patients. The project would be enhanced by collaboration with nurses who have both clinical and research expertise in this area.
Building your credentials in a field can be accomplished in a number of ways: (a) presenting papers at professional meetings; (b) developing these presentations for publication; (c) writing a book review or column for your professional newsletter; (d) serving as a reviewer for a professional journal; (e) reviewing abstracts for a professional meeting; and (f) serving as a reviewer for a grant competition. 3. Build a track record of funding, starting with pilot funds: One component of building one’s credentials involves developing a track record of funding. Funding agencies require that an applicant demonstrate expertise in carrying out a proposed project. Therefore, reviewers will evaluate biographical material provided
Why Write a Grant?
17
by the applicant for prior successful experience in the content area for which funds are requested. This track record is usually evaluated by the number of professional presentations and publications in the area being proposed and by previous funding experience in the area. 4. Work on teams with more experienced researchers: There are two key strategies for beginning researchers to gain funding experience. The first is through obtaining small grant funds. Most universities have intramural competitive grant programs that provide seed money for novice investigators to conduct research and obtain pilot data. Many professional associations also have small grant programs. A second strategy is to work with others who have more experience and have funded program of research. Working on the grant of an experienced investigator is a very helpful approach to learning project management as well as providing opportunities to participate in presentations and publications related to the project. Becoming a member of an investigative team qualifies as a funding experience. This experience will also allow you to obtain important insight regarding how proposals are written. 5. Seek mentorship: At any stage of one’s career, mentorship is invaluable. Seeking advice and guidance from an individual with more experience is critical throughout one’s professional life. Mentorship, however, is particularly important in the initial stages of developing a research and/or faculty career path involving funding. A mentor with funding experience can provide important guidance in navigating through the grantsmanship process. If a mentor is not available, it is important to identify an experienced researcher or grant writer in your institution who would be willing to read and respond to drafts of grant proposals. This kind of intensive critiquing is essential for developing a competitive grant application. The following is a description of an approach, called a research career trajectory, to developing a research career growth plan that encompasses the points we have made.
1.4 A RESEARCH CAREER TRAJECTORY Being successful at grantsmanship involves a step-by-step progression by which you systematically build your expertise in targeted
18
Getting Started NOVICE
INTERMEDIATE
ADVANCED
EXPERT
WRITING/PRESENTATIONS • Presentations • Book reviews • Professional journals • Local presentations
AT NATIONAL CONFERENCE • Peer-reviewed j ou rn a ls • Professional journals • Speeches • Review Panels
INVITED PRESENTATIONS
KEYNOTE
Identification of Research Area
Refinement of Research Question/Area
Active Research Program Broadening and/or Advancement of Research Ideas
Active Research Program
Testing protocols or components of a study
Small scope studies
1−5 year research studies
Multiple interrelated studies
• Intramural support (dept/institution) • Faculty development awards • Member of funded grant • Small pilot efforts
FIGURE 1.1
• Professional association • Foundations (small) • Corporations • NIH -K01⎯ (mentored Research Scientist Development Award) -Post-Doctoral fellows • Department of Education -RSA -NIDRR field initiated • Member on a funded grant • Subcontracts with funded research projects
• Foundations (larger, competitive) • (Department of Education -RSA -NIDRR field initiated • NIH -R03⎯ Small grant -R-29⎯ Ist award -contracts RFA -R01 -AREA Grants
• NIH -R01 -P01 (program project) -P50 (center grant) • Foundation -RWJ
Research trajectory from novice to expert.
areas. Figure 1.1 outlines a systematic approach to developing a career trajectory in research. This research career trajectory is most appropriate for those in faculty positions. However, many of the activities we list are also relevant to health and human service professionals in practice settings who need to seek funding to support innovative programming. As shown by this trajectory, building a research career is a planned series of highly interrelated and iterative steps that move an individual from novice, to intermediate, to advanced, to expert levels of research and grant writing skill. Each level is composed of three fundamental activities. These include making presentations at professional meetings, publishing in professional journals, and conducting research. The number and type of activities undertaken, and the depth in which each is pursued, will change depending upon one’s level of expertise and position along the trajectory.
Why Write a Grant?
19
The time frame for moving from novice to intermediate to expert will vary, depending on a number of factors. These include the match of your research idea with the interests of a funding agency, your success at gaining funding at various stages, the amount of time you have available, and a certain amount of luck. This research trajectory is a guide for thinking about and planning a grant writing career in a systematic way. It is also a helpful tool for mentoring others and/or in department planning.
NOVICE At the novice level, the primary goal is to identify a research area of interest that is broad enough that it allows a meaningful set of questions to be developed and from which to build a strong program of research. This requires that you initially identify a broad area of inquiry within which to examine specific research questions. Let’s say you are interested in issues related to the functional capacity of individuals with dementia. Your first step is to develop focused research questions that address this broad area of investigation. For example, as a health professional, you may find that it is difficult to evaluate physical function in persons with dementia. The accuracy of reports of daily functioning provided by either a caregiver or the person with dementia may not be accurate. The research literature suggests that caregivers tend to over- or underestimate functional capacity depending on their own level of stress. Thus, one researchable question might be, “What caregiver characteristics, other than stress, have an impact on the accuracy of proxy reports of functional capacity?” Another question may be, “What is the relationship between performance-based measures and selfreport measures of physical function for this clinical population?” A similar process occurs when developing an educational or training program. A broad educational idea may be identified, such as training health professionals in early intervention programs for children. A grant application would then focus on one aspect, such as testing the effectiveness of Web-based strategies or interdisciplinary approaches to such training. At the novice level, it is important to engage in other activities, such as making presentations at professional meetings, publishing in journals, and seeking money for pilot studies. Let’s examine each of these activities:
20
Getting Started
Presentations and Publications As a novice, it is critical to start with a comprehensive literature review on your topic. This literature review will help you become familiar with the current state of knowledge in the field. You will learn what research has been conducted in your area and the gaps that exist in the knowledge base. It will show you the kinds of research questions that are being asked in the field as well as the research designs and measurement instruments that are most common. A literature review is an ongoing process that you must continually engage in at each step of the research trajectory. An initial review will enable you to determine the primary issues, and the significant research questions suggested by the gaps in the knowledge base. This is one way to identify a broad area of inquiry and, within that, narrow your focus to a researchable question. From the knowledge gained from a review, you may be in a position to develop an abstract suitable for presentation at a professional meeting. One approach may be to identify a gap in knowledge and make recommendations regarding how to address it. Another might be to apply a particular theoretical framework to a practical situation to explain why a specific technique works in practice. Yet another approach may be to present an innovative teaching technique that you have developed and found to be effective. At this point in your career, you should target your local professional association and submit abstracts for presentation at their next meeting. The next step would be to use this presentation as a base, expand on it, and turn it into a short article that you can submit for publication. Again, at this stage in your career, the most appropriate places to submit your manuscript would be smaller, local or state journals or even professional newsletters. Still another strategy would be to contact one of the journals or publishers in your field and offer to review books for them. Publishers are sometimes open to receive reviews of new books by those in the field. Some journals also have special sections that introduce readers to the latest works in a particular area of inquiry. Publishers, and some journals, provide you with a copy of the book to review. Some journals also publish summaries/abstracts of recent relevant published articles to enable their membership to become aware of the latest thinking in the field. Conducting these reviews can provide you with up-to-date information and, at the same time, give you a publication related to your research area of interest.
Why Write a Grant?
21
Research Funding As a novice, you will need to develop skills in conducting research. One way to gain experience is to identify a funded researcher in your department or college and volunteer to work on his or her grant. Some investigators welcome the involvement of novice faculty in their research. You may be asked to conduct a literature review or engage in other related research activities such as interviewing subjects. This involvement will provide you with information about the day-to-day activities of a funded project, as well as experience working on a research team. Another way to develop hands-on research experience is to seek funding for a small research project. Based on your background reading, you should be able to formulate a question that can be studied on a small scale. Many universities have small pots of money earmarked for faculty development. This money might be available from your department chair or from your college. Usually, these are small amounts of money ranging from $500 to a few thousand dollars. You can use these in-house monies to conduct a small pilot study that can provide preliminary data from which to develop a larger study. Each of the above strategies helps to build the necessary skills and knowledge base from which to pursue a competitive research grant application. The strategies will also build qualifications in a research area that will help you become more competitive for funding as you move to the next phase of your career.
INTERMEDIATE Now that you have established your basic research direction, it is time to think about refining it. Your next steps are to enhance your research question and engage in studies of relatively larger scope.
Presentations and Publications As you advance in your career, you need to continue to give presentations at professional meetings and develop these presentations into publishable manuscripts. At this point you should target
22
Getting Started
national meetings for your presentations and peer-reviewed journals for your publications. Another valuable experience at this stage of a research career is to serve as a peer reviewer for your professional journal. Most editors of professional journals need to identify individuals with expertise in specific areas to review manuscripts. Serving as a peer reviewer will give you exposure to the latest thinking in your field and a better understanding of the components of publishable manuscripts. In addition, critically reviewing manuscripts helps to hone your writing skills and avoid common mistakes in scientific writing.
Research Funding If you have received seed money to conduct a pilot study, the results of this study can be used to identify a larger research study and justify it empirically. Most grant applications include a section in which the applicants must outline their previous efforts in the proposed area and empirical evidence to support the need for conducting research on this topic. There are numerous opportunities for small pockets of money. Some of these are with your professional organization, whereas others are with the federal government. Many professional organizations offer small grant programs for which you might qualify. These awards tend to range from $5,000 to $50,000 for studies or projects of interest to the profession. Descriptions and requirements for these competitions are usually advertised in the professional journal or found on the association’s Web site. At the federal level, many of the institutes in the National Institutes of Health have small award programs that are designed to help new investigators gain research experience. One of these is called the K01 mentored research scientists award. This award provides funds to support an experienced scientist in your area of research to act as your mentor. There are other opportunities as well. These include R03 awards for small research studies worth about $50,000 per year or up to $100,000 for two years, depending on the institute; and R21 awards for exploratory planning or developmental projects. These programs are described on the Web site of each of the institutes.
Why Write a Grant?
23
The pilot data collected in your earlier in-house study will be important for these small grant or mentorship awards. Pilot data will make your proposal more competitive because reviewers like to see that you have already begun to investigate an area. These small grants are designed to prepare you to conduct R01 grants, which are the main mechanism for funding investigator-initiated research studies at NIH. These R01 grants are awarded to experienced investigators who have a well-developed research program and preliminary evidence to support a larger study. The National Institutes of Health is not the only source of funding. At this stage, you should also consider other funding sources. The U.S. Department of Education has numerous research, training, and educational funding opportunities. For example, The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research in the Department of Education has a field-initiated program. This competition invites applications on topics identified by investigators as long as they are related to the overall goals of the agency. The Bureau of Health Professions in the Health Resources and Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services has many training and educational grant programs appropriate for health and human service professionals. Gaining experience in research and collecting pilot data are important activities at the novice and intermediate levels, and will prepare you for these competitions. At this point in your career trajectory, you may want to target two to three agencies whose funding interests are similar to your area(s) of expertise; learn about their funding priorities and proposal requirements, and contact the project officers and other investigators whom they are funding. There are at least three ways to develop a better understanding of an agency’s goals. The first is to contact a project officer in an agency. We discuss ways to do this in more detail in chapter 2. A second strategy is to attend a technical assistance workshop sponsored by an agency. Many agencies at the federal level conduct these workshops prior to the date when grant proposals for specific competitions are due. These 1- or 2-day workshops are free, but some are by invitation only. You can obtain information about these workshops either from the agency’s Web page or by asking a project officer. If the agency is conducting an invitational workshop, you must submit a letter indicating your research goals and specific research questions. This letter serves as an application. If there is
24
Getting Started
a match between your level of experience, research goals, and the agency’s areas of interest, you will be invited to attend. At the workshop, members of the agency staff will discuss the upcoming competition, provide information on the kinds of studies or projects that they are interested in, and talk about the major components of proposals. There is often time set aside for you to meet with project officers to discuss your ideas. Professional organizations, such as the National Council of University Research Administrators, also hold technical assistance workshops. Similar workshops are also provided by professional associations at their annual meetings. Although some have a registration fee, these workshops provide opportunities for you to listen to presentations given by representatives from a number of federal agencies, who discuss the kinds of projects they are interested in funding, elements of a competitive application, and upcoming grant initiatives. Another excellent way to learn about submitting proposals for funding is to serve on the peer review panel of an agency. Although NIH has standing panels in which experts who are funded by the agency serve for a three-year term, other agencies appoint panels for a single competition. Many of these agencies are required by legislation to construct review panels with geographic and ethnic representation, so they are often seeking peer reviewers. Contact an agency that interests you and inquire about the possibility of serving on one of these panels. They will send you an application form that will ask you to identify your areas of expertise or to write a brief letter outlining your experiences. Your application will be kept on file and when a competition is held in your area of expertise, you may be asked to serve. The experience you obtain from serving as a reviewer will help prepare you to write competitive grants. You will be able to see the range of proposal ideas that are submitted and common pitfalls to avoid. You will also have opportunities to meet other experts in your area, who may be able to help you as you advance your ideas.
ADVANCED The advanced level is characterized by a well-developed and ongoing funded research program. This will have resulted from the systematic flow of ideas from one grant project to the next, as well as
Why Write a Grant?
25
an extensive publication history that is built from previous research/ grant activity.
Presentations and Publications Presentations at national meetings, publishing in journals, and networking with colleagues who have similar interests all remain critical activities. However, at this stage, these activities are more focused, and the advanced researcher is often more selective, presenting primarily as an invited or keynote speaker and also targeting international forums from which to expand collaborations with colleagues in other countries. It is at this point that as an advanced researcher you will receive invitations to present at national or even international conferences. In addition, you may be invited to present suggestions to other new investigators at the technical assistance seminars conducted by various agencies or professional associations. Finally, many agencies periodically conduct long-range planning meetings to set future funding goals. These agencies will often invite many of their funded investigators to participate in these meetings. Involvement in these planning sessions will not only provide you with more knowledge about the agency and its priorities, but will also allow you to influence their future funding decisions.
Research If you have not already done so, you should be competing for the larger grants, such as the R01s and program grants in NIH, or the similar grant programs in other agencies that we discussed in a previous section. If you have already received several R01 grants from an institute in the NIH, or major grants from other agencies, you may be invited to serve on one of their standing peer review sections or ad hoc review panels. The standing peer review sections represent a three-year commitment, during which you will review grant proposals in your field three times a year. These are prestigious appointments and provide you with continued networking opportunities as well as solidify your reputation as an established investigator within the agency.
26
Getting Started
Large foundations, such as Robert Woods Johnson or Kellogg, may also have research funding opportunities in your area. Since these foundations usually fund experienced investigators, you may want to consider their initiatives at this point.
EXPERT The expert level is characterized by having an active research program underway with one or more active grants at any one time. Collaborations with other experts, nationally or internationally, participation in expert panels, keynote addresses, program projects, and/or multisite studies are core activities at this stage.
Presentations and Publications Your presentation and publication efforts should continue, since the results of your research should be very influential in your field and pave the way for even larger grant projects. You will also be invited to present your research as keynote speeches at various national or international meetings.
Research Now, you might also consider applying for P50 grants, which are large, multimillion dollar center grants. In these programs you would have a number of grants under your supervision as well as a team of other researchers.
1.5 PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES OF SUCCESSFUL RESEARCHERS Now that you are familiar with the language of grantsmanship and understand how to plan a research career, you should begin to think about the acquisition of skills that are necessary for success as you move along the trajectory. Box 1.5 presents a list of skills that we have found to be helpful in developing your career in research.
Why Write a Grant?
27
Some of these should be obtainable in most graduate education programs, and others you can learn by working with more experienced investigators. BOX 1.5 SKILLS OF FUNDED VETERAN RESEARCHERS a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.
Knowledge of the research process, methodology, and design Domain expertise Knowledge of funding sources and methods to obtain funds Knowledge of descriptive and/or inferential statistics Expertise with various software packages and other analytic technologies Organizational skills Ability to think creatively and critically Writing ability Ability to network with other professionals Group leadership in helping others get on the same page
Let’s briefly look at each of these, since we discuss many of them in later chapters of this book. a. Knowledge of the research process, methodology, and design: These are basic to the grantsmanship process. As a novice, you do not have to be an expert at all three of these areas, but as you proceed along the research trajectory, you should become more knowledgeable. b. Domain expertise: By domain expertise, we mean a familiarity with the research and writing in the area that you plan to investigate in your grant proposal. This comes from a thorough understanding of the literature in your field. c. Knowledge of funding sources and methods to obtain funds: This is why you are reading this book. d. Knowledge of descriptive and/or inferential statistics: An understanding of the basic principles of statistics will be helpful for all those who want to be involved in conducting funded research. It will
28
Getting Started
also be helpful to those doing educational research, because many projects will require you to do an outcome analysis or program evaluation. We do not mean that you need to be a statistician because, in many cases you can involve a biostatistician on your team. Knowledge of the basic principles will be helpful to you in developing your idea and knowing when you need to bring in statistical help. e. Expertise with various software packages and other analytic technologies: As technology advances, it is helpful to be familiar with the technologies that can help you be more efficient in conducting your project. Since most agencies are now requiring electronic submissions, you will need to become familiar with how to use the packages to allow you to meet that requirement. f. Organizational skills: Grantsmanship is a systematic process. It requires an organized approach to finding funding sources and putting together a competitive proposal. g. Ability to think creatively and critically: In addition to being organized you will need to think creatively to match your ideas with the goals of a funding agency. Critical thinking skills are also important to any health professional. This allows you to develop appropriate research questions and the approaches to their analyses. h. Writing ability: This skill is something that you should develop as you progress along the trajectory. We discuss this in more detail in chapter 5. i. Ability to network with other professionals: Again, this is something you should learn. Networking with other professionals is an important process because this is one of the ways in which you can identify potential funding ideas and, possibly, find colleagues with whom you can collaborate. We discuss the importance of this approach in chapter 2. j. Group leadership in helping others get on the same page: This is an important skill associated with developing collaborative teams. We discuss this in greater detail in chapters 11 and 12.
1.6 OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO GRANTSMANSHIP Breaking into the world of external funding requires knowledge and skill, but it also requires that you understand how to overcome the
Why Write a Grant?
29
inevitable barriers that all those involved in grantsmanship face. As a novice researcher this may seem, at times, a daunting task. However, while there are no simple solutions, it will require a certain amount of discipline, planning, organization and creativity. Box 1.6 presents a list of some of the more common barriers that have been identified in our discussions over the years with both novice and experienced researchers. Some of these barriers are real and some of them are merely perceived. However, all of them may need to be addressed.
BOX 1.6 BARRIERS TO CONDUCTING RESEARCH a. b. c. d. e.
Lack of time/workload Availability of resources Lack of systematic mentoring Lack of institutional support Lack of a research culture in an institution
Let’s look at each of these and suggest possible ways in which they may be overcome. a. Lack of time/workload: Lack of time is probably the barrier that is reported most often by both novice and more experienced researchers. Many health professions faculty have a heavy teaching load. Clinicians are burdened by heavy case loads and administrative requirements such as paperwork. While there are no easy solutions to this problem, there are some things that you might consider that might make time less of a barrier. Organizing your day and becoming more disciplined in your use of time may be one way to do this. Guard your time jealously. Some faculty members have reported that they try to organize their teaching schedule so that they have one day a week free for research or will work on their research from home in the evenings. Others have reported that they will take advantage of a half-day a week and leave their offices and work either at home or in the library. Still others have reported that they try to be selective in the other activities in which they engage, such as committee assignments and outside commitments. We have found
30
Getting Started
that there really is more time than you think, and by being more efficient with your use of time and by developing a commitment to a research project or a grant proposal, you can begin to overcome this barrier. b. Availability of resources: The perception appears to be that there is a lack of resources at many institutions to allow for the conduct of research. This may be the case at some institutions, but it has been our experience that there are more resources available than most people think. Many universities provide small pots of money for novice researchers. There are usually faculty who have had success at obtaining outside funding that are willing to work with younger faculty. While clinics are usually not set up to provide research support, there may be faculty who mentor students in the clinic that may serve as partners. Usually, if you look hard enough, you will find that some local support is available. Other resources available are grant writing workshops conducted by your professional association or government agencies, more experienced individuals to seek out and partner with, and making use of a university office of research administration. c. Lack of systematic mentoring: This can also be a significant barrier. There are usually successful researchers at most universities who would be willing to serve as a mentor or at least provide advice to novice researchers. If you find that there are no individuals with an interest in your area of research, then it should be possible to find a long-distance mentor. With significant advances in technology, communication across distance is much less a problem than it has been in the past. As you read your professional literature, find the individuals who are working in your area of interest and contact them through e-mail or telephone. Networking at professional meetings is another way of contacting individuals who might provide mentorship. It has been our experience that most successful researchers are more than willing to give advice to those with a real interest in their research. d. Lack of institutional support: Again, this is an area in which perception is greater than reality. As we discuss in chapter 2, it is important to discuss your research ideas with your department chair or supervisor to determine department or university goals. It is very important that your interests and goals match that of your institution. For example, as we have mentioned, if you are interested in developing educational programs and your department goals are to develop research programs, then to get adequate support, you
Why Write a Grant?
31
might have to modify the focus of what you are interested in and emphasize research into educational programs. e. Lack of a research culture in an institution: The lack of a research culture in health professions programs is another complaint heard quite often. If faculty and administrators at your institution appear not to support research or grant funding, then you might have to look outside your institution. As with finding a mentor, it would be wise to look in the literature or through your professional association for others with interests similar to yours. By developing relationships with these individuals, you can develop your own culture of research. And you will find that your institution will eventually value your contribution if you begin to bring in outside funding. As shown in Figure 1.2, research on successful faculty mentorship suggests that five components of an infrastructure are critical to assure that novice faculty can successfully advance a program of research and grantsmanship (Abreeu, Peloquin, & Ottenbacher, 1998). If you reside in a small or nonacademic institution, you may need to develop your own infrastructure, as Figure 1.2 suggests. That is, you may need to identify a mentor at another institution,
FIGURE 1.2 Supportive academic structure for novice researchers to achieve research.
32
Getting Started
find small funding opportunities, negotiate released time, and attend grant writing workshops at other institutions. As you can see, some of the barriers to conducting research or developing funded educational programs are real and some are perceived. While not easy, overcoming these barriers is possible. As more than one researcher has told us—sometimes you “Just Do It!”
SUMMARY In this chapter we have discussed the core terminology of grantsmanship and the importance of developing a professional growth plan that integrates grant writing with other aspects of your professional life. Six important points were discussed. 1. The essence of grantsmanship is to seek available money from a funding agency by writing a grant proposal that convinces an agency of the importance of your project idea and your ability to carry it out. 2. There is a specific language used by grant writers, and it is important to learn this language to communicate effectively with individuals in funding agencies and with colleagues. 3. If you are to be successful in obtaining a grant, a core approach is to understand the priorities of an agency. 4. Grantsmanship is a systematic process. There are welldefined and discrete steps in pursuing external funding. Each grant proposal that is written should be a steppingstone for the next grant application. 5. Grantsmanship is an integral part of the professional career of health and human service professionals, whether in academic or practice settings. Gaining financial support from outside agencies can advance the body of knowledge in a particular field, improve health and human service practice, or evaluate innovative services. 6. Developing a research career takes time and patience but can be accomplished in a systematic way through a series of well-defined steps, each building on the one before.
Why Write a Grant?
33
7. There are certain skills that are possessed by most individuals who are successful in competing for grant funds. These can be learned through education and through experience. 8. Breaking into the world of grantsmanship requires that you overcome the inevitable barriers that will exist. Some of these barriers are real and others are more imagined. However, all of them can be overcome using the correct strategies and with some personal discipline.
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 2 Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
• Sources of Funding for Health and Human Service Professions • Learning About and Keeping Track of Funding Sources • Interpreting Calls for Proposals Now that Ms. L. is familiar with the language of grantsmanship, her next step is to learn about potential sources of funding for her idea. Although identifying a competitive and scientifically sound idea for a project is critical, even the greatest idea will not be funded if it does not match the interests and priorities of an agency. It is important to remember that once a call for proposals reaches a public source such as the Federal Register, you will only have a short time (typically six weeks) to develop a proposal. This may not be sufficient time to develop a competitive project idea and write a detailed, thoughtful proposal. Learning about upcoming funding opportunities prior to an announcement can buy you additional time. Therefore, it is important to develop a plan to learn about the focal areas and types of projects various agencies seek to support. Since the funding environment and the interests of agencies are constantly evolving, it is also important to systematically monitor changes in agency policies and priorities. Developing a plan of action is particularly important if your ideas are in a formative stage and you are unfamiliar with the priorities of agencies. In this chapter we identify the major sources of funding for health and human service professionals and faculty, discuss ways 35
36
Getting Started
to learn about the current and future interests of various funding agencies, and suggest how to interpret calls for proposals. Also, we emphasize different pilot research mechanisms that are available to individuals in the formative stage of their research careers. Based on this information, you will be in a better position to develop a plan of action for tracking potential funding opportunities and responding with a competitive application.
2.1 SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE PROFESSIONS There are four major sources of grant funding for projects relevant to health and human service professionals and faculty, listed in Box 2.1: the federal government, private foundations, professional organizations, and private industry.
BOX 2.1 FOUR MAJOR SOURCES FOR GRANT SUPPORT a. b. c. d.
Federal agencies Private foundations Professional organizations Private industry
These four sources, discussed in more detail below, offer opportunities for funding a range of projects, such as small pilot research, conferences, demonstration projects, or large-scale education or research programs. In searching for funding, it is wise to cast a wide net initially. There are pockets of money available, often from seemingly unlikely agencies. Here we briefly describe these four sources. a. Federal government: The federal government is a huge enterprise that is comprised of an array of departments, agencies, institutes, bureaus, and centers. The complexity of this bureaucracy
Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
37
can make it difficult for inexperienced investigators to navigate their way through this federal maze. Further complicating the situation is the dynamic nature of the funding environment. The priorities and interests of the various agencies are always changing in response to advances in knowledge, societal trends, and congressional activity. The federal government is, however, still the largest source of research and training money. In reviewing various federal funding mechanisms, you will find that some agencies have interests similar to yours. Also, there may be some agencies that initially appear unlikely to fund your ideas, but that may be important to track over time and pursue in the future. Agencies may also receive money for programs of particular interest or value to their employees. For example, the Department of Defense, which provides a variety of training programs for its employees, has received millions of dollars for studies on breast cancer. Similarly, the Department of Agriculture has had money in the past to fund many projects that one might expect to find in the Department of Education. Thus, as we stated earlier, casting a wide net across a range of agencies is a wise strategy for identifying funding opportunities. While there may be pockets of money for health and human service professionals throughout the federal government, there are two departments in particular that contain agencies with a focused interest in health and human service areas. These are the Public Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education. Within the Department of Education, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) has a variety of programs of potential interest to the health professions, as does the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). The Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE), which is a foundation within the Department of Education, also has competitions for innovative approaches to educational problems. Within the Public Health Service, three agencies in particular fund research activity related to health and human services: the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The National Institutes of Health (NIH; http://www.nih.gov), composed of 20 institutes and 7 centers, is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting medical research. The NIH serves as “the steward of medical and behavioral
38
Getting Started
research for the Nation. Its mission is science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability” (NIH: About NIH, 2007). The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is the lead federal agency charged with improving the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of health care (http://www.ahrq.gov/). AHRQ primarily supports health services research, and its most recent funding initiatives have focused on promoting evidence-based decision making. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is the primary federal agency for improving access to health care services for people who are uninsured, isolated, or medically vulnerable. It is comprised of 6 bureaus and 12 offices. HRSA grantees provide health care to uninsured people; people living with HIV/ AIDS; and pregnant women, mothers, and children. It also provides funding for training health professionals and improving systems of care in rural communities (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, 2007). Another agency that is important to be aware of in the Department of Health and Human Services is the Administration on Aging (AoA). This is one of the nation’s largest providers of home- and community-based care for older persons and their caregivers. The AoA sponsors various competitive grant opportunities for demonstration grants. A more recent focus of the AoA is translating proven or evidence-based programs (tested previously from NIH-funded efforts) for delivery in the community and home-based long-term care networks of aging services. Thus, if your area of interest is translational research, community and home-based care, or the elderly, the agency is a potential source for funding. b. Private foundations: Private foundations are also an excellent source of funding for health and human service projects. There are over 88,000 foundations in the United States that offer grants to individuals, institutions, or other nonprofit groups. These foundations hold assets in excess of $150 billion. For the most part, foundations seek to fund studies and projects that are not supported elsewhere by such agencies as those in the Public Health Service. Thus, foundations are an excellent source for seeking funding for demonstration service projects, innovative interdisciplinary training programs, and other approaches not traditionally supported by the federal government. Nevertheless, obtaining funding from a
Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
39
foundation can be tricky for several reasons. Your idea must match exactly what the foundation is seeking to support. Sometimes the interests of a foundation can be narrowly defined. Although this is not true for all foundations, many focus on practical applications and translational efforts rather than theoretical or hypothesis testing type research. Also, some foundations, particularly those that are smaller and family-based, may change their priorities within any given year, and it can be difficult to know when such changes occur. Finally, many foundations will only support projects in their local area. Regardless of foundation type, it is essential to obtain as much information as possible about the foundation by carefully reading its annual reports, learning about its previous and most recently funded projects, and understanding its mission statements, stated foci, and objectives. An excellent source of information about foundations is the Foundation Directory, parts 1 and 2, published by the Foundations Center (http://www.foundationcenter.org). As with funding initiatives sponsored by the federal government, it is critical to contact a program officer of a foundation to explore whether your idea is the right fit with their priorities. However, unlike the federal system, program officers in foundations may not be allowed to discuss your particular grant idea in detail or provide specific guidance as to how to shape your idea to match the interests of the funder. Thus, when making contact with foundation program officers, be sure to inquire whether you are permitted to discuss your project idea with them and if they are able to give you specific feedback on your idea or a concept paper. Foundations can be categorized into four types: independent foundations, company-sponsored foundations, operating foundations, and community foundations. Generally, only the first two types provide grants to independent investigators, although all four offer potential funding opportunities. 1. Independent foundations have as their primary function the awarding of grants. The assets of most of these foundations are derived from gifts by individuals or families. Some operate under the direction of family members, whereas others are under the direction of a board of trustees. A board of trustees usually ensures that funds are spent for grant programs intended by the family. Still other foundations function more independently in awarding grants. The
40
Getting Started
Pew Charitable Trusts and the Rockefeller Foundation are examples of two of the largest independent foundations. There are hundreds of other smaller foundations with interests in funding projects relevant to health and human service providers. 2. Company-sponsored foundations have derived their funds from a profit-making company or corporation. They generally, but not always, award grants that are related to the business interest of the parent corporation. Two examples of these foundations are the Ford and Kellogg Foundations. 3. Operating foundations support research, social welfare, or other programs determined by their governing body. These foundations rarely award grants to outside organizations. 4. Community foundations derive funds from many donors. These foundations are often classified as public charities and generally limit their giving to charitable organizations in the local community. c. Professional organizations: Your professional association is another appropriate source for obtaining funding. It is particularly useful for beginning investigators, since the interest of an association is to support the professional development of its members and conduct projects to advance the profession. Many associations provide small grants that may range from $2,000 to $50,000 or more. Other organizations are disease-based (e.g., Multiple Sclerosis Society, Alzheimer’s Association), and have well-established and highly competitive grant programs that focus on basic, behavioral, and social aspects of the target disease. If your work focuses on a particular disease, learn about the related national organizations to see if they support extramural grant programs. d. Private industry: Drug companies, equipment manufacturers, and other companies related to health care often have funds available for small projects. Many large corporations have funds for research projects that advance the interests of the company. The main interest of companies in the private sector is the testing or evaluation of their own products. For example, an oral health care company may need a new product tested for the prevention of plaque; an equipment manufacturer may need a new assistive device evaluated; or a company may pay for the development of a patient education video that promotes its product. The private sector is a largely untapped potential source of funding.
Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
41
2.2 LEARNING ABOUT AND KEEPING TRACK OF FUNDING SOURCES In searching for funding, it is initially best to cast a wide net and search for sources of support in both obvious and unlikely places. As you develop your grant ideas and learn about different funding opportunities, you will then be able to create a leaner or more targeted list of potential funding sources. Where can you learn about funding opportunities? The Internet has emerged as the primary source of information about funding opportunities from federal, foundation, organization, and industry programs. Your first step for searching for funding should be the Web. You can use the Web to search specific funding outlets as well as to link with grant-funding search engines. There are two types of searches that should be routinely performed. One type of search is of government and legislative actions in your area(s) of interest that may potentially shape funding opportunities. Table 2.1 outlines key monitoring sources, all of which are available free of charge. Some sources such as USA.gov enable you to establish an e-mail alert system based on keywords tailored to your particular interests. Other Web sites such as the Congressional Quarterly require periodic visits to the site to monitor new reports. Monitoring the progress of major legislation is an important way of anticipating future funding initiatives. Congress appropriates money to all federal agencies with a general expectation that it will be used to investigate concerns of importance to the American people. For example, public concern regarding diseases such as AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, and cancer have resulted in effective lobbying efforts on the part of special interest groups to support more research on these diseases. Congress has responded positively to this pressure and earmarked increasing amounts of money to address these health concerns. Because federal agencies must compete for funds, they often structure their planning agendas around issues of congressional importance. Some institutes in NIH have received increased levels of funding for basic research in cancer and AIDS. Other agencies that do not specialize in basic research may approach the problem of AIDS from a different perspective. For example, the Department of Education has an interest in funding AIDS education programs in the public schools.
42
Getting Started
TABLE 2.1 Key Sources for Monitoring Legislation and Societal Trends That Influence Grant-Funding Opportunities Monitoring Service
Link
Description
http://apps.gsa. gov/CommonSub scriptionService. php
Set up e-mail newsletter alerts on various topics and issues that you are interested in receiving information about.
Congressional http://www.gpoac Records cess.gov/crecord/ index.html
Provides the official records and proceedings of the U.S. Congress. Published when Congress is in session.
GovTrack
Independently tracks federal legislation by the U.S. Congress. An RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feed is available.
USA.gov
http://www.gov track.us/
National Insti- https://list.nih. tutes of Health gov/ ListServ
E-mail alerts that are userdefined; ListServ manages list subscriptions for easy organization.
The Federal Register
http://www.gpoac cess.gov/fr/index. html
Official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations.
U.S. Government RSS Library
http://www.usa. gov/Topics/Refer ence_Shelf/Librar ies/RSS_Library. shtml
An RSS is an easy way to keep up with news and information. It helps avoid conventional methods of browsing or searching for information on Web sites. You can subscribe to different RSS feeds on various governmental information topics to tailor to your interests.
Congressional http://www. Quarterly cq.com
A news site that provides an e-mail list as well as RSS feed with up-to-date information coming directly from Capital Hill.
Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
TABLE 2.1 Monitoring Service
43
(continued)
Link
Description
U.S. House of Representatives
http://www.house. gov/
Contains information on current House sessions and provides access to the laws of the United States.
U.S. Senate
http://www.senate. Provides information about the gov/ U.S. Legislature as well as current Senate activity and legislation records.
THOMAS at the Library of Congress
http://thomas.loc. gov/
Library of Congress–run database, which houses information on current legislation and members of Congress.
One way to monitor legislation is to contact your senator or representative. When you visit Washington, D.C., make an appointment to discuss your interests and learn about the legislative agenda of your congressperson. Appointments with a legislative aid are usually easy to obtain. These individuals will have detailed knowledge of the major issues on Capitol Hill. You may also contact the government affairs office of your professional association. Members of this group will be monitoring legislation important to your profession and may be lobbying for a specific program of interest. They will also be very knowledgeable about upcoming legislative issues. A second type of search is tracking funding mechanisms and calls for proposals. There are numerous excellent search engines that are specifically designed to identify new program announcements and funding opportunities. Searches can be tailored to keywords that reflect the interests of investigators. Table 2.2 lists key resources for identifying funding opportunities. The last entry in Table 2.2 identifies the most comprehensive and important source of information about federal grant opportunities. The Federal Register announcements include Presidential proclamations, executive orders, federal agency documents that have general applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published by acts of Congress, and other federal documents of
TABLE 2.2
Key Resources for Identifying Potential Funding Opportunities
Database
Web Site
Description
Cost
44
Grants.gov
http://www. grants.gov
Tracks over 1,000 grant programs offered by all federal grant-making agencies and gives you access to over $400 billion in annual grants. You can find grant proposals and apply directly from the Web site.
Free
The Foundation Center
http://foundation center.org
Supported by more than 600 foundations The Foundation Center maintains an up-to-date database of grant makers and their grants within the United States.
Members only, but a very basic free search available. Subscription ranges from $19.95 to $179.95/month
Grant Station
http://www.grant station.com
An interactive Web site that provides a searchable database of current proposals and federal grant deadlines.
Members only: Annual Membership: $599 Quarterly Membership: $180
Fundraising and Grants directory
http://www.funds netservices.com
Provides grant-writing and grant-seeking assistance in a wide array of areas.
Free
GrantsNet
http://www. grantsnet.org
Search a variety of grant-funding opportunities, Free which are offered by various funding sources. This service is provided by the journal Science.
Community of Science
http://www.cos. com
A leading global resource for grant-funding opportunities that have been aggregated for easier and faster searching. Entries are updated daily. Searches can be tailored, and e-mail funding alerts based on investigator profile is a
No individual membership available. Must have institutional membership (fees vary).
Database
Web Site
Description
Cost
powerful feature of this search tool. Searches available for investigators only if their institution has a membership. https://proposal central.altum. com
An e-grant–making Web site that connects many government, private, and nonprofit organizations and allows you to communicate with over 20,000 applicants and reviewers.
Free
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
http://www.cfda. gov
An important information source about funding. This annual publication lists funding sources in the federal government. Each entry contains the title of the program, name of the contact person, brief summary of projects of interest, amount of money available, average award size, and anticipated information about the funding cycle during upcoming year.
Free
Sponsored Programs Information Network (SPIN)
http://www. infoed.org/
A searchable database, which provides up-to-date information about grant-funding opportunities, deadlines, sponsors, and program changes on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Searches available for investigators only if their institution has a membership.
Institutional membership only from which faculty can access the search engine.
45
Altum Proposal Central Application system
(continued)
TABLE 2.2
(continued)
Database
Web Site
Description
Cost
http.//www.fed bizopps.gov/
NIH Guide
http://grants.nih. A weekly publication of NIH; announces upgov/grants/guide/ coming grant and contract opportunities and provides policy and administrative information, such as requirements and changes in extramural programs. Provides focused look at NIH funding agencies.
Free
Federal Grants and Contracts Weekly
http://www. shoplrp.com/ product/p-9504. html
Weekly newsletter summarizing upcoming grant competitions for health care professionals sponsored by federal or foundation programs.
Subscription for about $435/ year
Federal Register
http://www. gpoaccess.gov/ fr/index.html
A daily (Monday–Friday) federal government publication providing public announcements of regulations and legal notices issued by federal agencies.
Online subscriptions available to individuals for $300/ year. Cost for a copy is $8.00. You can view Federal Register at most libraries.
46
Federal Business Opportunities (formerly the Commerce Business Daily)
Daily most comprehensive publication of federal grant/contract opportunities. Publication is a customized summary of solicitations published during preceding week. Can select based on keywords.
Consult with your library to see if your institution subscribes. Individual e-mail service costs about $349.
Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
47
public interest. Since all funding opportunities and calls for proposals are listed in this publication, reading it will help you learn what agencies are funding programs in your area of interest. The office of the Federal Register often conducts workshops for the public that describe what the Federal Register is and how to use it. Information regarding these workshops is published periodically on page II. In addition to the search engines for seeking grant funding, every foundation and government agency has its own Web site listing funding opportunities and application guidelines. Thus, once you have identified a particular foundation or government funding source from a particular database such as the Community of Science, it is imperative to follow up by examining the specific Web site of an identified agency. Of importance is to determine the date the Web site was last updated so you know whether the information posted is current and the most up to date. This information is usually found at the bottom of the Web page. There are other effective approaches for identifying specific funding opportunities that complement those listed in Table 2.2. Following is a list of common sources used by investigators to learn about funding interests at the federal, foundation, and corporation level, as well as funding opportunities offered by professional associations.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Program Officers Perhaps the most valuable source of information about a particular funding program are program officers who work in the federal agency of interest. These individuals can provide invaluable assistance at all stages of the grant development process. Program officers usually have extensive experience overseeing grant competitions, know the type of project that will be most competitive in their agency, and are able to give you valuable suggestions about how to shape your idea to fit the requirements of a particular competition. In some cases, a program officer you contact may have been responsible for the actual development and writing of the call for proposals and, therefore, will be able to provide specific advice about the type of project that the agency would like to see funded. Before you make a commitment to pursue a particular project, it is essential that you call a program officer. Perhaps the number one
48
Getting Started
mistake made by novice grant writers is that they do not contact an officer prior to writing an application. The name and telephone number of a program officer can be found in calls for proposals, in the Federal Register, or in the NIH Guide. In many cases their picture and areas of research interest may be found on the agency Web site. The suggestions and advice from these individuals can result in the submission of a stronger and more competitive proposal. Investigators are often hesitant to contact a government official. However, most program officers welcome scheduled telephone calls or visits, and/or e-mail contact. Table 2.3 contains suggestions about what to say to a program officer if you contact that person by telephone. Prior to contacting a program officer, review the points specified in Table 2.3. Be prepared to be succinct and to the point in your conversation. Regardless of the purpose of your call, always start by identifying yourself, and your institution. This provides a framework for the officer and they will know immediately whether their agency has funded others in your institution. Then, briefly describe the purpose of your call (e.g., “I am calling to discuss a funding opportunity and whether my idea is appropriate for this competition.”). Follow this by briefly explaining your idea, and ask whether the agency has an interest in funding a proposal based on it. Also ask whether you can e-mail a one- to two-page description of your project that outlines the specific aims and methodology, for their review. Most program officers will agree to review an abstract or concept paper containing specific aims and inform you whether it is appropriate to submit a proposal based on the idea. If your idea does not fit the goals of the specific funding opportunity or agency, the program officer will inform you of this as well and might be able to suggest a more appropriate funding source. A program officer can also help reformulate or adjust your ideas to correspond to what is of interest to the agency. Program officers are an invaluable source of information and serve as a window to the priorities and preferences of a particular agency and the review committees. Always listen carefully to their ideas. Remember that most federal program officers are scientists by training, and thus they enjoy developing and thinking through project ideas. They often ask incisive and challenging questions that can help you advance the science and hence competitiveness of your research ideas.
Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
TABLE 2.3
49
What to Say to a Program Officer by Telephone
A. If you are calling with regard to a specific Funding Opportunity (FO): 1. 2. 3.
Indicate who you are. Provide the name of your institution. Briefly describe your general idea, its significance, and its innovation. 4. Ask if the idea fits with the FO. 5. Ask if the program officer is able to review an abstract, concept paper, or draft of specific aims and/or the grant application prior to submission. 6. If you are discussing your proposal with an officer from NIH or AHRQ, ask what review group or study section would review the application, and ask about the expertise represented on the panel. 7. Ask if you can contact him or her again with additional questions as you develop the grant application. B.
If you are calling to learn about an agency’s funding priorities: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
6.
7.
Indicate who you are. Provide the name of your institution. Briefly describe your areas of interest and/or a specific project idea. Ask if your areas of interest or idea(s) fit with those of the agency. Ask if the program officer is able to review an abstract, concept paper, or draft of specific aims and/or the grant application prior to submission. If NIH or AHRQ, ask which integrated review groups (study sections) are specific to the agency and the expertise represented on them. Ask if there are investigators funded by the agency in your area of interest whom you could contact to discuss their research.
You can also visit program officers in Washington, D.C. Unless an agency is in the middle of a peer review, you will usually be able to obtain an appointment. Table 2.4 presents seven suggestions to help you plan and conduct a visit with a program officer. When you visit a program officer, plan for a brief meeting (20 to 45 minutes at the most). Before the meeting, learn about the
50
Getting Started
kinds of projects the agency has funded in the past and their current areas of interest. The ways you can obtain this information are discussed later in this chapter. At the meeting, do not be reluctant to ask very basic questions, such as what the agency looks for in a grant proposal, how the peer review process works, what specific areas the agency seeks to fund, and/or what funding opportunities and competitions are forthcoming. Also, ask if the agency has a written document that outlines a strategic plan for now and into the future. Many agencies develop 5-year plans that outline areas of emphases that then inform the development of funding opportunities. Most program officers are very helpful, patient, and pleasant, and are also extremely honest and candid about what you need to do to be successful. If you plan carefully, you may be able to visit three or four program officers in one day.
TABLE 2.4 A.
Before the visit: 1. 2. 3.
B.
Visiting a Program Officer
Review the Web site of the agency, specific funding opportunities sponsored by the agency, and legislative priorities. Learn what kinds of projects the agency usually funds. Learn what projects the agency funded in the past two years.
What to ask during the visit: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Be sure to introduce yourself, your institution, and your general areas of interest and/or specific research ideas. Ask what are the common strengths and weaknesses of proposals submitted to the agency. Ask what are the major areas that will be emphasized by the agency in the current funding cycle. Ask what are the anticipated future areas of interest to the agency. Ask whether proposals that have been funded by the agency in the past can be reviewed. Ask whether a grant application that is not funded can be resubmitted. Explain your specific aims or research idea and ask for feedback.
Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
51
Many funding agencies send representatives to professional research association meetings. At such meetings, an agency may conduct a session in which program officers discuss their respective funding portfolios and the areas of current and future funding interests. The sessions usually involve a question and answer period and additional opportunities to meet very briefly with an officer. Alternately, some program officers will agree to set up a longer face-to-face meeting with you during the meeting. Program officers are very busy at these meetings, so keep the encounter brief and to the point. Yet another way to contact a program officer is through e-mail. Program officers of federal agencies literally receive hundreds of e-mails a day, but most will respond in a timely way, although it may take a few days. If you e-mail a program officer and do not receive a response within a week, follow up with a telephone call.
Main Information Number of a Federal Agency If you are unsure of which program officer in a particular agency would be most helpful to contact, do not despair. First, search the Web site of the agency to see if you can identify an appropriate officer. If this does not yield helpful information, then you can call the main number of an agency and describe your idea in nontechnical terms. The operator will typically be able to direct your request to the most appropriate individual.
Congressional Offices Your congressional representative can also help you locate appropriate funding sources. Write a letter or e-mail to your senator or congressperson, explain the nature of your idea, and ask for assistance in locating an appropriate government source of support. The health legislative aid of a congressperson will review your letter, label it “controlled correspondence,” and forward it to one or more appropriate agencies. These agencies will then respond with suggestions. When writing this letter to your congressperson, highlight how your proposed project may potentially benefit those in his or her congressional district.
52
Getting Started
Notices of Upcoming Competitions Published for Comments Prior to issuing a call for proposals for a major new competition, an announcement is printed in the Federal Register that invites anyone to comment about the scope and substance of the proposed competition. These announcements indicate that there will be an upcoming call for proposals in the area for which comments are sought. Anyone can respond in writing to the proposed priorities or suggest ways to improve the announcement. The agency evaluates each comment and responds to it in later editions of the Federal Register. The final program announcement may be altered based on these comments. However, any changes will usually be minor and the final announcement will be similar to that which is finally published as a call for proposals. Therefore, reviewing these notices provides an opportunity for you to plan ahead and begin developing your proposal idea.
Serving on Peer Review Panels Agencies frequently try to identify qualified professionals to serve on peer review panels. Serving as a peer reviewer is an invaluable experience in that it provides a great opportunity to learn about the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful grants and to enhance your grantsmanship skills. The process of becoming a peer reviewer differs by agency. In some agencies, particularly those within the Department of Education, you can submit your curriculum vitae with a letter requesting to be considered to serve on a peer review panel. In your letter, clearly identify your areas of expertise and the types of applications you believe you are qualified to review. The agencies will usually send you a data form to complete, which they then keep on file. Being selected to serve as a peer reviewer is an honor and indicates that you are recognized as a leader or major contributor in your field. A program officer in any agency can inform you how to be considered to serve on a peer review panel. Agencies also seek reviewers for one-time reviews for specific competitions. It is often easier to become a reviewer in these instances because the agency is seeking representation of specific types of expertise and may be less concerned about the previous funding records of an individual.
Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
53
Serving on Agency Planning Groups Agencies often convene planning meetings with their funded investigators. These meetings are designed to identify the current state of knowledge in a field and recommend new research or educational directions for the agency. Opportunities to serve on planning groups are usually reserved for individuals who have been previously funded by an agency. Once you are funded, inquire about such opportunities with your project officer. Often, an agency will publish proceedings from planning meetings and make these documents available. These can be very valuable sources of information because they provide a general long-range plan for the agency.
FOUNDATIONS AND CORPORATIONS There are sources for tracking funding that are specific for foundations and corporations. With the anticipated and continued real cuts in federal spending, these funding sources are receiving increasing attention by those who formerly have been well supported by federal funds.
Foundation Directory As listed earlier in the chapter, if you are interested in pursuing funding from private foundations, the best sources of information are the Foundation Directory, parts 1 and 2. The Foundation Directory is considered the primary source of information on the largest grantmaking foundations in the United States. It provides information on the 10,000 largest U.S. foundations. The directory also includes over 50,000 grants to illustrate the interests of foundations. The Foundation Directory part 2 details the next set of 10,000 large and mid-sized foundations and over 40,000 selected grants. Each entry in these directories include: the name and address of the foundation, a description of its general funding interests, a list of officers and trustees, the types of grants and other forms of support that may be awarded, restrictions on programs by geographic location and subject area, and application procedures. Periodically they also publish a supplement to update each directory. The supplement provides revised entries for hundreds of foundations in both directories and
54
Getting Started
provides any changes in giving interests, or updates on staff, financial data, and contact information. The latest supplement was published in September of 2007. Although most foundations do fund research projects, many are more interested in demonstration projects or projects that test a model program that can be replicated at other sites. Most university libraries have in their holdings the most up-to-date edition of the Foundation Directory. Large foundations such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation or Kellogg Foundation often fund medical and health-related projects. However, these foundations tend to fund experienced researchers or those that have received funding before. A helpful source for the inexperienced investigator is smaller foundations, which offer funds for pilot efforts or small projects in health care. To help identify smaller foundations, use the Foundation Directory, part 2. Both directories can be ordered from: The Foundation Center, 79 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY, 10003–3076, and are available on CD-ROM, or at http://www.foundationcenter.org.
Foundation Annual Reports and Newsletters An excellent supplement to the Foundation Directory is the annual report of a foundation. The annual report provides detailed information on projects that were supported during the past year. Past project funding is one of the best indications of the current interests of the foundation. Many also publish newsletters that describe ongoing projects and announce upcoming initiatives. To learn more about these opportunities, write or call a foundation and ask that your name be put on their mailing list.
Annual Reports of Corporations If you are interested in pursuing funding from the private sector, an excellent source is the annual reports of corporations. Many large corporations, particularly the Fortune 500 companies, have offices of research that conduct studies of interest to the company. If your expertise or area of interest is related to that of the corporation, you might be able to collaborate on one of these studies. In some instances, these offices pursue funding from outside sources. In other instances they are supported by the company. Annual reports provide information on the amount of money a corporation
Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
55
has devoted to research or educational projects during the last year. It also contains the names and telephone numbers of those to call for more information.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER GENERAL SOURCES Professional Associations and Newsletters The newsletters of almost all professional associations publish information on upcoming federal or foundation grant programs. They also provide information about their own grant programs. In addition, some associations have an office of research that helps locate potential funding sources. Others have a governmental affairs office with staff members that spend a significant amount of time on Capitol Hill and are knowledgeable about upcoming funding opportunities and current legislative initiatives. These offices are important resources for keeping abreast of changing funding trends.
Professional Meetings When you attend the annual meeting of your professional organization, in addition to seeking opportunities to meet with agency representatives and program officers, also try to meet with funded investigators in your areas of interest. These individuals are usually willing to talk about their grantsmanship experiences and offer advice on potential funding sources.
Agency Advisory Committees Many professional associations appoint members of the profession to committees that advise federal agencies. For example, an advisory committee composed of health professionals from a variety of disciplines was convened to help shape the priorities of the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research. If your profession is participating in these activities, they may be tracking the funding priorities and can provide firsthand information about the future directions of many agencies.
56
Getting Started
The Professional Literature As a faculty member or practicing health professional, you need to keep current in the professional literature. Knowing the trends in research or education in your profession and area of expertise will help you anticipate new funding directions. These trends often become reflected in the funding environment and, therefore, help you plan for future calls for proposals.
Newsletters in Specialty Areas There are publications that routinely monitor funding opportunities in a focused area, such as the Chronicle of Higher Education. There are also publications that specialize in a particular topic, such as the weekly e-mail alerts from AgingOpportunities.com, which can be found at http://www.agingopportunities.com/breakingnews.html.
2.3 INTERPRETING CALLS FOR PROPOSALS Ms. L., in our grant story, has now used a number of these sources to identify potential funding opportunities. While scanning the Federal Register, she identifies a call for proposals in the area of her interest. However, she is unsure how to interpret the instructions. She also notices differences between federal and foundation requests for proposals in the level of specificity of their directions. This is what Ms. L. needs to know in order to interpret a call for proposals.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT To interpret a call for proposals, it is helpful to understand first how it is developed by an agency. Each federal agency is required to submit an operating budget to Congress that includes plans for the types of programmatic areas the agency hopes to initiate or continue to pursue. During the budget process, the president and each branch of Congress develop a budget that contains the amount of money that is recommended for authorization to each agency. After
Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
57
a period of budget negotiations, the final authorization is translated into an appropriation. The appropriation is either earmarked for specific programs or left to the discretion of the agency. The funds that are earmarked to a particular programmatic area are then used for the competitions that stimulate a call for proposals. Generally, a call for proposals is developed by a program officer who spends considerable time and effort in conducting the necessary background work to support the area of inquiry. This background work may involve a thorough review of the literature, a review of findings from previously funded projects related to the topic of the proposed competition, commissioned or invited papers at conferences sponsored by the agency, major government reports such as Healthy People 2010 (http://www.healthypeople.gov/ publications/) directives contained in major pieces of legislation, or long-range planning meetings sponsored by the agency. Based on this information, the program officer develops a plan for a competition, which includes a justification of the importance and need for the topic and a description of how the topic fits with the mission of the agency and general interest of the Congress. The plan is then reviewed and revised by others in the agency until there is general approval. The revised plan is then published in the Federal Register and comments from professionals in the field are invited. Based on these comments, the agency decides if revisions are needed in their initial plan. At this juncture, an agency will know how much money they have to spend, the types of projects they are interested in funding, and approximately how much money can be targeted to each program area. From this information it is relatively easy to compute the number of projects they expect to fund. All of this information will be included in the final published call for proposals. As a potential applicant, it is important to know that the call for proposals is well thought out and that a program officer has been closely involved in its development. Knowing this makes it incumbent upon any potential applicant to stay current in the literature of his or her field as well as knowledgeable about major government reports and legislation, since these will be the major sources used in the development of a call for proposals. Because the program officer is usually closely involved in the process, he or she will have a very good idea about which project ideas may be the most competitive and match the intent of the call. Once you obtain a call for proposals, how do you interpret it? A call for proposals contains a description of the objectives that the
58
Getting Started
agency wants projects to address, the types of organizations that are eligible to receive funding, detailed instructions on how to submit a proposal, and the due date of the application. The announcement may also contain information that will help you organize the presentation of your ideas, such as recommended sections for the narrative or the criteria used by reviewers to evaluate proposals. If you are submitting a proposal to the federal government, then you must become familiar with the SF-424 form. Also, all applications must be submitted electronically using Grants.gov. (http://www.grants.gov/). It is important to note that all federal grant-related activities, including grant submissions, reviews by study section members, and progress reports are now electronically provided. Electronic submission considerations are discussed in more detail in chapter 14.
Application Kit Some announcements for competitions indicate that an application kit needs to be downloaded from a Web site. This kit contains the application forms and a program guide that describes the rules and regulations of the competition and the information that needs to be included in each section of the proposal. These are very important documents, which must be read carefully before you begin to write your proposal. You must always follow the suggested outline provided by an agency and organize your application according to the evaluation criteria that are customarily provided in the application kit. Box 2.2 provides an example of information from an application kit issued by an agency in the HRSA. Table 2.5 contains a list of the criteria that the agency will use to evaluate proposals submitted in response to grant programs. If you submit a proposal to this agency, you need to become familiar with the legislative purposes of the competition and demonstrate that your proposal addresses its intent. The proposal should satisfy each of the elements of the evaluative criteria shown in Table 2.5. Sometimes agencies publish supplemental instructions. These contain changes to program requirements that have been made after an initial program guide has been published. The supplemental instructions may either modify or supplement the requirements in the original set of instructions. The supplement may also contain
Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
BOX 2.2 SAMPLE OF CONTENTS OF AN APPLICATION KIT I.
Background and Rationale A. What is the purpose of the project in relation to the legislative purpose (Section 767, PHS Act)? B. Is a background statement of the national/local need for the proposed project included? C. Is the proposed project an appropriate, innovative, effective, and efficient means of addressing the problem? D. Are the background statement and rationale appropriately researched and referenced in the proposed project? II. Objectives A. What are the objectives? B. Are the objectives clearly and concisely stated? C. Are the objectives stated in measurable terms and achievable? III. Project Methods A. Are the methods/activities clearly related to the objectives of the proposed project? B. Are the methods/activities to accomplish the objectives clearly stated? How will the activities be implemented and accomplished? C. Have necessary commitments from cooperating institutions been obtained (for example, letters of support and memoranda of agreement)? D. Are the methods/activities outlined in the proposal the most effective to accomplish the objectives? E. Are the methods/activities clearly assigned to the responsible staff? Cooperating institutions? F. Is there a feasible timetable of the work plan included with the proposal?
59
60
Getting Started
TABLE 2.5 • • • •
• •
• •
Evaluation Criteria Used by Agencies
The extent to which the proposed project meets the legislative purpose The background and rationale for the proposed project The extent to which the project contains clearly stated realistic and achievable objectives The extent to which the project contains a methodology that is integrated and compatible with project objectives, including collaborative arrangements and feasible work plans The evaluation plans and procedures for program and trainees, if involved The administrative and management capability of the applicant to carry out the proposed project, including institutional infrastructure and resources The extent to which the budget justification is complete, costeffective, and includes cost-sharing when applicable Whether there is an institutional plan and commitment for selfsufficiency when federal support ends
a more detailed outline of the review criteria that will be used by the review panel, so it is important to pay close attention to such changes. In some instances agencies publish a summary of the programs that they intend to fund in a year, along with an indication of the importance they have assigned to various sections of a proposal. Table 2.6 is an example of one such summary. This table demonstrates the point values assigned to each section among the programs. The distribution of points identifies those sections of most importance to the agency. To be competitive, your proposal would have to be particularly strong in the sections with the higher point values. This is not to say that you should ignore those sections with low point values. For example, to apply to either program #1 or #2, it would be important to expend considerable effort to ensure that your project has a detailed and effective plan for dissemination, because this section is worth 24 and 21 points, respectively. If, on the other hand, you developed a proposal for program #1, you would also give special attention to describing the training activities (worth 24 points) in addition to its technical
Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
61
TABLE 2.6 Example of Review Criteria and Their Assigned Importance
a.
Importance of problem
Program #1
Program #2
7
7
b.
Significance
—
3
c.
Design of training activities
24
14
d. Design of dissemination activities
24
21
e.
Design of technical assistance activities
22
21
f.
Quality of project services
—
10
g.
Quality of management plan
3
3
h.
Adequacy of budget
4
4
i.
Quality of project evaluation
3
3
j.
Project staff
13
14
soundness (worth 22 points). In program #2, two of the sections, dissemination and technical assistance, have relatively high point values (21 each). For some competitions, an agency may request a letter of intent, to officially inform them of your intention to submit an application. A letter of intent contains a statement that you plan to submit an application and a brief description of the program idea. These letters provide the agency with an indication of how many proposals they may anticipate and allow better planning as to how to organize the peer review process. It also enables the program officer to provide feedback about your initial ideas. This letter does not commit you to submit a final application, nor will you be evaluated on this idea and told not to submit an application.
FOUNDATIONS/PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND CORPORATIONS Each foundation has its own procedure for administering programs of funding. Foundations are less constrained by regulations
62
Getting Started
regarding the types of projects they can fund, the way they must process grant applications, and how they make funding decisions. For many foundations, the instructions for submitting a proposal are much less detailed than those of the federal government. Usually a foundation asks for a two- to five-page letter describing the project concept. They will then consider this letter carefully and, if they are interested, invite you to submit a full proposal. The lack of detailed instructions does not indicate that foundations have less rigorous expectations about the quality of a grant application than other agencies. The same care needs to be taken with proposals to a foundation as you would with a federal grant application. As with a federal agency, you need to convince the foundation that your project idea is important, that you are the most qualified person to carry it out, and that it fits with the interests of the agency. Prior to submitting a concept paper or letter, it is critical to talk to a program officer in a foundation about your idea. Professional associations will vary in the detail and format of their application procedures. If you decide to apply to your association, ask for their application kit or guidelines and read and follow them carefully. The main office of your professional association may also be able to clarify the questions that you may have. Obtaining corporate support is a different process than gaining federal support. Each corporation is a highly complex organization with many budgets that could be tapped. Because of this complexity, it is beyond the scope of this book to do more than summarize some suggestions for working with corporations. Schumacher (1994) cites four distinctions between corporations and federal agencies that make approaches to gaining funding different: 1. Federal granting agencies are required by law to spend a certain amount of money on academic research. Corporations are not required to do so, and are in the business of making money. 2. Federal agencies publicize their external grant program. Most corporations do not even have an external grant program. 3. Federal agencies award a grant to an investigator they have not met. Corporations usually do not fund academic investigators they do not personally know and trust.
Becoming Familiar With Funding Sources
63
4. Only a handful of federal agencies fund individual investigators, while there is a vast number of potential sponsors in the private sector. Obtaining funding from a corporation requires more than a great idea, an excellent research design, a well written proposal, and an experienced investigator. While these are important for success, more important is an investigator’s ability to form a mutually beneficial and trusting research partnership with a company. Schumacher claims that the term “partnership” means just what it implies; a truly egalitarian relationship in which trust is established and communication is maintained. As with all approaches to grantsmanship, the development of a partnership takes time and should start small and build slowly.
SUMMARY In this chapter, we described two types of sources for tracking funding opportunities; searches related to tracking legislation and societal trends, and searches to track actual funding announcements. We also described other important approaches to staying abreast of funding opportunities, including contact with program officers and other funded investigators. Here are five key points to remember: 1. The funding environment is constantly changing, and, therefore, it is best to develop a systematic plan to monitor these changes and predict future funding opportunities. 2. Cast a wide net initially to examine a wide variety of funding sources. As you develop an understanding of the range of funding opportunities that match your areas of interest and level of expertise, your search will become more focused. 3. Always contact a program officer at an agency to learn about a funding opportunity and to determine if your idea matches the interests of the agency. 4. Talk to colleagues at professional meetings regarding their funding sources. Also, as you read the professional literature, pay attention to the agencies that are cited as
64
Getting Started
supporting the development of the material presented in the article. 5. Always read, reread, and read again the application kit and supplemental instructions prior to committing your ideas to writing. Use the suggested outline or evaluation criteria provided in the application kit to structure the organization of your proposal.
Chapter 3 Developing Your Ideas for Funding
• Identifying Ideas With Funding Potential • Ideas That Are Hot and Those That Are Not • Matching an Idea to a Funding Priority One of the most challenging aspects of grantsmanship is identifying an idea that has the potential for funding. To have funding potential, an idea must be innovative, and it must advance science, reflect your expertise and track record, and match a priority or interest of a funding source. Although a great or innovative idea is just one of the important and necessary ingredients for producing a competitive application, it is the foundation from which to pursue funding, and thus, one must always start with a worthy idea. Therefore, one of the first tasks of grantsmanship is developing an idea that fits with your long-term career interests, as well as the interests of a funding source. This chapter identifies resources to use to develop a competitive idea and describes the process we recommend for developing an idea that has funding potential.
3.1 IDENTIFYING IDEAS WITH FUNDING POTENTIAL Most health and human service professionals, whether academic faculty or practitioners, are able to identify a specific area of inquiry that has personal or professional interest. However, an area of inquiry 65
66
Getting Started
must also reflect a public health issue or national concern in order to have funding potential. Therefore, matching an area of inquiry and a specific set of research questions or training objectives with the interests and priorities of funding agencies can be challenging and requires creativity and flexible thinking. To optimize a match between your idea and a funder, we recommend considering eight key resources you can use to help you formulate a fundable or competitive idea. These resources are: • • • • • • • •
Clinical or professional experience Professional literature Interaction with colleagues and funded investigators Societal health and population trends Legislative initiatives Public documents Agency program goals and specific priorities Community organizations, key informants of a target population
CLINICAL OR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE A principal source of ideas for projects that might be fundable is your own clinical or professional experiences. The challenges that emerge in classroom teaching; persistent issues that arise in working with clients in a clinical setting; or problems identified in grand rounds, clinical staff meetings, conferences or faculty meetings can yield critical issues that may have funding potential. For example, a pressing issue for social service and clinical agencies is the need to integrate evidence-based or tested programs into their daily practice. However, social service agencies have limited knowledge of how to define evidence, identify proven programs, and translate them into practice. This persistent theme in clinical staff meetings reflects a national trend. It resonates with a growing number of calls for grant applications to address how to translate and apply proven approaches in different settings. The identification of this issue could stimulate several ideas to seek funds. One idea might be to develop a training program to help clinicians understand what constitutes evidence and ways they might integrate it into their different practice settings. Another idea might be to systematically translate a proven program and apply it to an existing service.
Developing Your Ideas for Funding
67
PROFESSIONAL LITERATURE Carefully reading published research in your field is another important resource for identifying topics with funding potential. From reading the literature, you will be able to discern how other professionals are naming and framing problems and what they consider next steps in advancing a particular area. Many health and human service professional associations establish specific short- and long-term research and education goals for the profession and publish these in their national journals or newsletters. They also publish policy statements, pertinent articles on current issues, and position statements on practice. These regional and national newsletters that are published by many professions are also important sources of information about the current “hot” issues. Each of these can be used as guides to identify and develop relevant ideas for funding. The Chronicles of Higher Education often lists funding opportunities and trends in education that may have funding potential. A professional magazine such as OT Week periodically publishes a list of research topics that are identified by the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) as important areas for investigation by the profession. The Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences often publishes a one-year retrospective on the major topics published in the journal. The Journal of Allied Health, which publishes research and commentary articles from nursing and all of the allied health professions, often contains trends in ideas that are common across the professions. Although such publications list broad topics, they often suggest next steps and reflect the primary areas that are of importance to the profession and to the public at large. These broad topics provide a starting point from which to develop specific research questions, training, and/or special demonstration projects.
INTERACTION WITH COLLEAGUES AND FUNDED INVESTIGATORS Daily interactions with colleagues can also help to identify critical problem areas or persistent patterns or issues that could be developed into fundable projects. Topics that consistently emerge in interactions that occur at professional meetings, faculty or staff
68
Getting Started
meetings, and other professional forums often suggest topics that could be addressed through a research or education project. Discussions with currently funded individuals are a particularly important source from which to develop and/or refine ideas. Funded investigators often have inside information about specific funding agencies and emerging “hot” areas of interest to funders. These individuals can also provide insights as to how agencies and reviewers critique ideas in a given area. They may be able to offer suggestions as to the best way to present an idea to the funding agency and its reviewers based on their prior funding and review experiences. Discussions with individuals from different disciplines are important as well and can uncover common educational and research issues that are experienced by more than one health profession. In addition to inspiring fundable ideas, professional interactions, especially those that lead to collaborative relationships with those in other disciplines, may result in interdisciplinary programs and proposals, a major emphasis for many funders. Many federal agencies and foundations strongly encourage these collaborative, interdisciplinary approaches in their calls for proposals.
SOCIETAL TRENDS Societal trends are also a critical source from which to develop a grant idea that has funding potential. For example, emerging documented trends such as the first wave of baby boomers reaching retirement, race disparities in access to and type of health care received, increases in the number of individuals diagnosed with dementia in their 50s, increases in the number of children with autism, are all reflected in funding priorities of various foundations and federal agencies. These trends also often signal the possibility that Congress may allocate set-aside monies to address the specific problems that stimulate these concerns. Consider the national focus on the high cost of health care. The health care reform debate has stimulated many federal agencies to focus on the cost-effectiveness of health care programs, alternative financing mechanisms, and programs of managed care. Foundations are also influenced by societal trends. For example, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has a long-standing and ongoing interest in health service delivery models, particularly for chronic care and home health care. They
Developing Your Ideas for Funding
69
began by providing funding for the development of a theoretical framework for chronic care management. Currently, their initiatives focus on testing components of the model in different settings.
LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES Because legislative initiatives fuel the funding priorities of federal, state, and local agencies, it is important to track and examine proposed and pending legislation in the areas you are interested in pursuing. Historically, these initiatives have had a long-term impact on grant funding. For example, the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 granted critical civil rights to individuals with disabilities. A major component of the act required some federal agencies to provide technical assistance to help organizations understand the ramifications of the ADA. As a result, the Department of Education sponsored a competition that funded a network of 10 ADA technical assistance centers. The Department of Justice also awarded grants for projects aimed at implementing components of the act. Although technical assistance is no longer the primary focus of funding in the Department of Education, other related issues concerning disability and societal integration are the primary focus of ongoing funding initiatives. Another influential piece of legislation is the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (PL 93–112), Which, in its most recent version, is called the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Based on the IDEA, the Department of Education sponsors periodic competitions for research studies, in-service seminars, model education programs, and training activities. These competitions involve a range of health professions, including occupational therapy, speech therapy, special education, and physical therapy. A related legislative act, the Technology Related Assistance for Individuals With Disabilities Act of 1988 and its subsequent amendments, have also influenced the development of numerous funding competitions in the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. As one can see, individuals with expertise in an area covered by the ADA would have a number of funding opportunities to explore. However, as research generates new knowledge, the legislation will be modified and the focus of many grant programs will shift. Therefore, there must be flexibility in thinking about any particular idea. Also, keeping abreast of the amendments and reenactment
70
Getting Started
of the legislation will be important, because changes in the act will influence funding priorities and spur new areas of investigation.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS Public documents and reports by major governmental agencies are another important source from which to develop and/or refine one’s grant ideas. The topics covered by such reports and their recommendations offer clues to future funding initiatives. One classic, key document for health professionals is the Public Health Service report, Healthy People 2010: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. Its major goal is to increase the quality and years of healthy life. Among the many recommendations made in this report are: developing curriculum emphasizing knowledge and practice in the areas of prevention; community health promotion; innovative models to link clinical practice, education, and research; telehealth; and establishing clinical training sites in rural and underserved communities. It also focuses on eliminating health disparities based on gender, race, ethnicity, income, disability, or sexual orientation. This document has influenced previous and current funding and will continue to influence future funding priorities of many government agencies. Federal agencies under the Public Health Service use this report as a guide and usually request that proposals address one or more of its priorities. Most NIH grant program announcements refer to this document and include the following statement. “The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of ‘Healthy People 2010,’ a PHS-led national activity for setting priority areas. This Funding opportunity annoncement (FOA) is related to one or more of the priority areas.” (Public Health Service, 2004). This is a clear message that proposals must address identified national priorities if they are to be competitive. We recommend that you obtain a copy of this document and also examine its Web site (http://www.healthypeople.gov) frequently for report updates such as the mid-course review of progress toward the healthy people objectives and specific recommendations provided to achieve the goals of the document. Other important documents to review are those published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) (http://www.iom.edu/). This is another Web site that you should consult frequently for new reports
Developing Your Ideas for Funding
71
and updates. Their reports identify key societal concerns and current and future trends, which are reflected in funding priorities. As such, the reports serve as an important source of project ideas for health and human service professionals. For example, one such report published in 1989 is Allied Health Services: Avoiding Crises. This report addressed predicted personnel shortages, the need to attract professionals from underrepresented groups, making health careers more attractive, strengthening education programs, retaining health care workers, and avoiding regulations that impede entry into careers. Each one of these issues has generated funding opportunities and can still inform ideas for a competitive proposal (Institute of Medicine, 1989). Another IOM report, The Future of Disability in America, published in 2007, describes the “demographic, fiscal, and technological developments that will unfold during the next two to three decades” (Institute of Medicine, 2007). Other reports highlight issues related to patient safety, core competencies for health professionals, telemedicine and eHealth, patient-centered interdisciplinary care, health care delivery in rural and underserved areas, evidencebased practice, and quality improvement. We recommend reading such reports with the view of identifying potential project ideas that resonate with your professional interests and areas of expertise. As you will see, there is a certain amount of overlap in the recommendations in these reports, suggesting that these recommendations will be represented as the goals for some funding agencies. Yet another important source for obtaining insight into potential fundable ideas is the NIH Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects, referred to as CRISP (accessible via the Web at http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/). As described on the Web page, CRISP is a searchable database of federally funded biomedical research projects conducted at universities, hospitals, and other research institutions. The database, maintained by the Office of Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health, includes a description of projects funded by the NIH, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services (SAMHSA), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP), Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ), and Office of Assistant Secretary of Health (OASH). Users, including the public, can use the CRISP interface to search for
72
Getting Started
scientific concepts, emerging trends and techniques, or identify specific projects and/or investigators. As this introduction to CRISP suggests, it is possible to search the Web site by concept, and by emerging trends, in addition to by specific funded projects. We recommend that once you have identified an area/topic or specific research question, you search the CRISP databases to identify funded activity in the same or similar area. This will broaden your understanding of how the specific issues are being named and framed by other successfully funded investigators and help you determine if you are on track, or if your idea has already been funded.
AGENCY GOALS AND PRIORITIES Most funding agencies, whether in the private or public sector, set yearly goals and priorities. Many develop long-range plans that specify the types of initiatives they believe are important areas for investigation. These may be published in a variety of ways. Therefore, it is important to consult the Web pages of funding agencies to determine their long-range plans and/or if information concerning their mission and funding portfolio is available for distribution. Also, the annual reports of foundations typically contain a list of funding priorities and funded activities. These reports are important sources from which to learn of funding interests and the types of projects that have previously received support.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, KEY INFORMANTS OF A TARGET POPULATION Finally, another rich source from which to develop a fundable idea is collaborating with a community agency or key informants of a target population of interest. This is particularly important because community service models continue to be a high priority in many agencies. The direct involvement of end users of research (e.g., a community) in the initial development of an idea can be critical. This involvement will strengthen your application in the eyes of a funding agency and assure that the idea has immediate relevance to the target group. Some populations will not participate in research
Developing Your Ideas for Funding
73
or training unless representatives from that group are part of the original team who conceptualized the project idea. For example, numerous American Indian tribes have formed tribal councils that work with academic settings as partners to help develop and frame health-related research questions that are of concern to the participating tribes. Collaborating with the group that one seeks to involve in a study has several important advantages. First, it allows the investigator to have a better, fine-grained, and in-depth understanding of the problem. Second, it assures that the problem area is framed in such a way as to be relevant to the participating group. Third, inclusion of the study group enhances the prospect of their ongoing participation as study participants and consumers of study findings. Finally, as you can see from the various national reports, involvement of communities in the development of grant ideas has been identified as one of the most important strategies for addressing health disparities.
3.2 IDEAS THAT ARE HOT AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT After reviewing one or more of the sources listed, potential grant ideas should begin to emerge. It is helpful to develop an ongoing list of potential ideas that appear to be “hot,” or of a particular interest to a funding agency, and those ideas that may be of interest but not fundable. Box 3.1 outlines the key areas we believe are hot and for which funding is available now and into the future. We believe most if not all of these ideas will remain so for at least the next five years. Some have been hot topics (such as interdisciplinary training) for some time now and will continue to be of interest. The box also contains a list of those ideas or issues that were once fundable but are no longer of significance to funders. In keeping with changes in health care, recent funding priorities reflect an emphasis on testing new models of care: those that are community- and home-based, those that are interdisciplinary, those that examine health promotion and disease prevention strategies, and those that address persistent health problems including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic illness. Many agencies also require you to identify both immediate and long-term outcomes of your proposed project. Recent federal regulations mandate
74
Getting Started
BOX 3.1 What Is Hot • Community and home-based service models • Translation of “evidence-based” programs or interventions tested using randomized trials into community and clinical practices • Underserved and minority populations • Innovative use of technology to deliver health services • Workforce issues • Informal caregiving • Developing models for translating a proven intervention and training professionals in the application of the program • Translating research results for clinical application • Integration of biological and behavioral models and measures • Interdisciplinary team approaches to service, research, education • Innovative health promotion, disease prevention programs • Health disparities • Racial and ethnic health behaviors, physician access • Leveraging funds • Testing proven programs with new populations • Reducing the health impact of chronic disease • Falls reduction • Self-sufficiency and models for sustaining programs • Measurable long-term impact of a program • Specific clinical populations including those with autism, Alzheimer’s, cancer, and neurological degenerative conditions What Is Not • Hospital-based care systems • Service delivery-related questions specific to an agency • Comprehensive health assessments for home care or nursing home systems • Uni-discipline focused research, service, education approaches
Developing Your Ideas for Funding
• • • • • •
75
Exclusive focus on White populations Exclusion of women Research with little clinical applications or utility Specialty uni-disciplinary training programs Programs with large overheads Programs needing continued support
the inclusion of women and a wide range of minority groups (e.g., Hispanics, Asians, Russians, African Americans) and others who traditionally have been underserved (e.g., rural elderly, urban poor elderly, American Indians, Pacific Islanders) by the health care system. Funding agencies also encourage applications from teams of professionals, involving individuals from widely different disciplines (e.g., biologists, economists, and sociologists). Other foci include research and training programs that address critical shortages in the health care workforce. Also of interest are programs that are capable of leveraging resources such that more than one source of funds is used to build or expand on a project, and programs that demonstrate potential for self-sufficiency after funding is terminated. A relatively new focus of the PHS is research programs to identify factors that foster the rapid translation of research into practice settings. Funding to support the development and testing of translational research models is increasing. Finally, there is an increased interest by funders in applications that propose ideas that are portable and reproducible or that close the research-trainingpractice gap. As you begin to identify an area or topic of interest, think of the current funding trends and how to frame your idea accordingly.
3.3 MATCHING AN IDEA TO A FUNDING PRIORITY Let’s say you have used one or more of the eight sources described and have identified a potential idea for a proposal. You have also conducted a search and found specific agencies that
76
Getting Started
TABLE 3.1
Steps to Match an Idea With a Funding Agency
STEPS 1. Identify broad topic area(s) 2. Develop preliminary list of potential funding agencies 3. Evaluate your resources 4. Begin to narrow your area of interest and identify specific research questions/training objectives 5. Write an abstract or brief concept paper outlining your proposed project 6. Contact program officers to discuss your idea 7. Reshape your ideas based on conversations and literature reviews
may be interested in the area you have identified. What is your next step? Matching a specific idea with a funding interest can take a lot of thought, flexibility, and creativity in thinking. Most likely, you will have to reframe your initial idea so that it not only reflects contemporary thinking, but is also of interest to the agency you have selected. We have identified seven basic steps that can help you match your idea with the specific interests of a funding agency (also please see Table 3.1). First, identify a broad topic area through literature searches, discussions with colleagues, and the other sources we have described earlier. Ask yourself these four questions: 1. Is this idea stimulating and important enough to me so that I would want to spend considerable time thinking and reading? If your answer is no—find another idea. Even if there is a funding source available, it is not worth pursuing the idea if it does not fit into your overall professional goals and growth strategy. It is never wise to chase money for money’s sake and for an idea that you are not passionate about or have a sustainable interest in. 2. Does the idea reflect contemporary thinking in the field? If your answer is no—then maybe the idea is interesting but really not that important; or perhaps the idea has already been addressed sufficiently or is only a concern locally or
Developing Your Ideas for Funding
77
specific to a particular community group but not nationally or at the public health level. Consider reading more on the topic in order to fully understand the state of knowledge and accurately assess the gaps in understanding and whether the area of concern can be framed to reflect more of a national issue. 3. Does this idea have long-term potential to be expanded and contribute to my career path? If you are unsure how to answer this question, consult with a colleague or your supervisor or director. Also, read more on the topic to understand where your idea fits within the broader field of inquiry. Once funded, the grant should help shape a trajectory of funding and can form the basis for pursuing other related ideas and funding opportunities. 4. Is the idea compatible with the goals of my department, institution, and profession? A response to this question necessitates careful and detailed discussions with representatives of your institution. If your institution primarily supports and values basic science research (e.g., discovery of a cure), and your research and/or educational interests focus on the outcomes of a disease process or technology as a vehicle for patient education, you may encounter some difficulty in obtaining the resources and support necessary to pursue your ideas. It is important to understand what is valued and what will be supported within your department and institution. It is also important for you to be clear about what you would like to pursue and where your support will come from. Second, based on your responses to the above self-study questions, develop a preliminary list of potential funding agencies. To develop this list, we recommend consulting with a reference librarian to identify available electronic databases, and then conducting Web-based searches of such publications as the Foundation Directory (http://fconline.fdncenter.org), the National Institutes of Health Guide to Grants and Contracts (http://grants. nih.gov/grants/guide/index.html), the Federal Register (http:// www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html), and the Catalog of Domestic Assistance (http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html). These searches should then be followed up with discussions with program officers.
78
Getting Started
Third, evaluate your resources by asking yourself these questions: 1. What is my level of expertise, interest, and comfort with this topic area? Refer to the discussion of the research trajectory (chapter 1) to help identify where you fit along your career path. Then determine what skills will be needed to carry out your project idea and conduct a self-assessment of your level of expertise. You will then know what areas of expertise are lacking and whether you will need to hire consultants to become members of your grant team. This assessment will also tell you whether you will need to seek pilot funding if you do not have a track record in the area. 2. Are others available to serve as collaborators to complement my level of expertise? If your idea is significant to those in your institution, then it should not be difficult to identify others with either complementary expertise or interest. Fourth, in light of your responses to steps 2 and 3, begin to specify and narrow your area of interest to those agencies whose priorities most closely matches your idea and your level of expertise and experience. Fifth, write a one- or two-page abstract or concept paper that reflects your current thinking. This will help you narrow your topic and force you to systematically describe your idea. This abstract or concept paper can also be used to obtain feedback from colleagues or program officers in a funding agency. Sixth, contact the program officers from the list of agencies that you have identified. Discuss your ideas and determine if the idea fits the priorities of their agency. Seventh, begin to reshape your ideas based on these conversations and a further review of the literature. The following scenario describes how this process might be carried out. Ms. S., who has a master’s degree in occupational therapy, is a half-time faculty member. She has an interest in writing a proposal to obtain money to support herself for an additional 50% effort. During the previous year, she secured a $6,000 grant to develop a computer-assistive instructional package in anatomy for occupational therapy students. She also has had experience as a
Developing Your Ideas for Funding
79
computer consultant on a funded educational program for vocational counselors working with patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Ms. S. wants to combine her interests and write a proposal to develop computer-assisted training materials for formal and informal caregivers of patients with TBI. What type of grant should she write and for what agency? First, Ms. S. has two broad topic areas that interest her: the development of computer-assisted instructional programs; and helping formal and informal caregivers of those with traumatic brain injury. She conducts a database search for potential funding sources in these two areas and simultaneously begins to assess her level of expertise. She also begins to think about ways to refine these interests. As a result of her search and assessment process, she makes two discoveries. First, there appears to be greater interest from both federal agencies and foundations in community-based care models for individuals with TBI than computer-assisted instructional development. That is, most agencies appear more interested in testing model programs than in the development of computer-assisted training materials. Second, she realizes that she does not have sufficient expertise in project development or a substantive enough background in the area of TBI to submit a research proposal to the agencies that she has identified. Ms. S. knows that if she wants to pursue funding in traumatic brain injury, she will need to gain additional expertise. She decides that her best strategy will be to collaborate with someone with more experience and knowledge. She decides to approach Dr. J., who is the principal investigator of the funded project that involved Ms. S. as the consultant. Ms. S. suggests that her best role on a research study would be as a project manager, and she offers to take the lead in developing the ideas and the grant application. Ms. S. also wants to examine the potential of using her expert knowledge in computer-assistive technology in this research project. Dr. J. is very receptive to this idea because it has the potential to extend her current grant and is compatible with her personal research goals. Ms. S. and Dr. J. meet and discuss several possible ideas. Ms. S. reviews relevant literature and then writes a one-page abstract that she shares with other colleagues to obtain feedback. She then telephones the program officers of the federal agencies and foundations she had identified earlier. Based on these
80
Getting Started
discussions, she refines her idea for a project and begins to develop her proposal in more detail.
SUMMARY This chapter describes different sources from which to identify and develop ideas that are competitive and appropriate for seeking funding and how to match these ideas to the interests of funding agencies. Four key points were discussed: 1. There are eight key sources to consider from which to develop an idea that has funding potential. 2. Even the most important idea will not be funded unless it matches the interest or priority of a funding agency. Competitive ideas must reflect both contemporary thought in a field and the interests of an agency. 3. It is important to stay abreast of current legislation in your field of interest and societal trends from which to identify topics and areas of interest that are “hot” or fundable and those that are not. 4. There are seven basic steps to help you match your idea with those of funding agencies.
Part II The Writing Process
The next three chapters contain the heart of the matter—writing the proposal. Each chapter covers a different aspect of writing, including an in-depth discussion of the basic sections of an application (chapter 4), strategies for writing a competitive proposal (chapter 5), and technical writing considerations (chapter 6). Most grant proposals have standard sections in which you develop your ideas in a systematic fashion. This structure helps the funding agency and review panel provide an adequate assessment of the importance and feasibility of your project idea. Therefore it is important to understand the purpose of each of these sections and what material they should contain. An innovative idea is critical to the success of any grant proposal. However, the presentation of this idea is equally important. 81
82
The Writing Process
Writing and presenting your ideas in a concise, clear manner is one of the most important components of the process of grantsmanship. Proposal writing involves a style that is technical, crisp, and to the point. It is not an occasion to use a more literary, flowery, or embellished approach to writing. Unclear or confusing objectives, undeveloped methods, poorly referenced background and rationale, and vague evaluation criteria are all weaknesses that can be improved by attention to the process of writing a proposal.
Chapter 4 Common Sections of Proposals
• Description of Common Proposal Sections for Research, Training, and Demonstration Grants Once you have identified a competitive idea for a research, education, or demonstration project, it is time to write the proposal. As with other aspects of grantsmanship, the writing of a competitive proposal is a systematic process. A proposal is simply a document in which you propose to carry out an idea. Agencies are interested in funding the best ideas from among those that are submitted, so your proposal should present a compelling case to convince a funding agency to support your idea. As we discussed previously, agencies provide critical information about applying for a grant in their calls for proposals. A call for proposals may include potential topics or areas of inquiry of interest to the agency, the format of the proposal, and an outline of the evaluation criteria that will be applied by reviewers to rate proposals. It is critical to follow the instructions provided in a call for proposals and to use the sections required as the headings in the proposal. For example, if the instructions suggest that a proposal have an introduction, literature review, and work plan, then these would become the headings used in the proposal. Nevertheless, although each agency develops its own format and specific categories for inclusion in the writing of the proposal, there are common sections, which we discuss here.
83
84
The Writing Process
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF COMMON PROPOSAL SECTIONS FOR RESEARCH, TRAINING, AND DEMONSTRATION GRANTS The sections of a proposal can be thought of as a series of questions that you must answer. • • • • • • •
What are you proposing to do? Why is it significant and innovative? What will you do? How will you do it? What will it cost? Why will it cost what it does? Why are you the best one to do it?
The instructions for a grant proposal can be thought of as directions to help you answer these questions. Keeping these questions in mind and following the directions in the call for proposals as you write will help you focus on the key points to make in writing a competitive application. Prior to writing a grant application, it is essential to read, reread, and read again instructions and all information provided by an agency for submission of a grant application. As discussed in chapter 2, a federal agency informs applicants about the organization of a grant submission through its call for proposals. Some agencies, particularly in the Public Health Service, publish a program guide that contains detailed information about what is expected in the proposal. For some competitions, agencies may also issue supplemental instructions that outline changes to the original call for proposals or additional requirements. It is imperative to determine if supplemental instructions have been issued, because these instructions supersede those outlined in the initial call for proposals. Other agencies, such as those in the Department of Education, publish an application in the Federal Register and include specific instructions for its completion. Almost all agencies are moving toward electronic submissions of proposals, so the submission requirements and instructions can also be found on the agency’s Web site. To submit to a foundation, an application kit must be requested. But again, most application guidelines are now posted on foundation Web pages. The instructions for most competitions, whether federal or foundation, provide a description of how the proposal
Common Sections of Proposals
85
should be outlined and the materials that need to be included in each section of the application. Also, most instructions will outline the page length of each section and/or the maximum number of pages in the entire proposal. It is critical that all guidelines and instructions be closely followed. In most instances, an application will not be accepted for review if it does not conform to the established guidelines. Therefore, prior to writing the proposal, read all the instructions very carefully to be sure that you understand the requirements. If you are unclear about the instructions, then contact a program officer to seek clarification. We can not emphasize this point enough. As stated previously, the call for proposals or an application kit typically includes the rating system that will be used by the members of a review panel to evaluate your proposal. Some agencies may assign point values to each section of the proposal. As we discussed in chapter 2, these points indicate the relative importance of each section and provide an indication as to what should be emphasized in the proposal. Although there is much variation among proposal formats, the sections that are commonly found in federal grant applications are listed in Box 4.1. Your responses to each of these sections should answer one or more of the questions we posed earlier. BOX 4.1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Title Abstract Introduction Goals/Objectives/Specific Aims/Activities Background/Significance/Importance/Innovation Literature Review/Theoretical Foundation Methodology/Research or Educational Plan Dissemination Plan Plan of Management Investigate Team Credentials Institutional Qualifications Budget/Budget Justification References Appendix Material
86
The Writing Process
Let’s examine each of these sections.
TITLE The title for your proposed project may initially appear simple to develop. However, it can be difficult to capture the main idea of a proposal in a short phrase. As shown in Box 4.2, the title should describe the primary theme of the project so that it immediately orients reviewers to the main topic of the application. However, it
BOX 4.2 Too brief: A Program to Help the Homeless Too long and convoluted: A Program to Understand the Health Care Needs of Those Who Are Homeless by Working With Four Homeless Shelters and Developing Educational Materials for Students in Dental Hygiene, Nursing, Occupational Therapy, and Physical Therapy Programs Just right: A Community and Academic Partnership: A Program to Train Interdisciplinary Health Care Teams to Provide Services to Individuals Who Are Homeless
should not be so brief that it says nothing, nor so long that a reviewer has to work hard to figure out what it means. Most agencies have specific requirements about the length of the title. For example, grants submitted to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stipulate that the title not exceed 83 typewritten spaces, including punctuation and spaces between words. Other
Common Sections of Proposals
87
agencies require that the title fit within a prescribed space, thus limiting the number of words possible.
ABSTRACT The abstract is a brief description of the proposal. Generally, the abstract contains a statement of the purpose of your study or project and a brief description of the research design or methods that will be used to carry it out. Agencies vary in their requirements. Many place a limit on the number of words that can be used (around 500). Others require a more complete description of the project (two to three pages). In either case, the abstract must be very clear and succinct, but comprehensive. The abstract is very important, since it is the first section of the proposal that a reviewer reads, and it provides the framework for reviewing the proposal. In some cases it will be the only section of the proposal that members of a review panel other than the primary, secondary or tertiary reviewer will read. An abstract that is not clearly written, that is not comprehensive, or that has typographical errors can be misleading and give the reviewer a poor impression, potentially influencing how the entire proposal is evaluated. Because the abstract represents an executive summary of the project, it should actually be the final section that is written. For NIH grant applications, the title and abstract are used by the Center for Scientific Review to assign the proposal to a review panel. Thus, it is essential that both title and abstract reflect the core content of the proposal. Box 4.3 is an example of an abstract.
BOX 4.3 EXAMPLE OF AN ABSTRACT The purpose of this project is to develop, implement, and evaluate a new program designed to educate physical therapy, occupational therapy, dental hygiene, and nursing students in interdisciplinary, community-based health care for homeless individuals. The program is based on a five-stage collaborative model that links allied health and nursing faculty, community
88
The Writing Process
organizations serving the homeless, and social workers in homeless shelters. The purpose of this partnership is to develop and implement innovative curricular activities for nursing and allied health students on interdisciplinary approaches to community health, including health promotion and restoration services. This three-year program will be carried out in three phases: a developmental phase in which a partnership will be formed among faculty and community participants; an implementation phase in which a curricular program in interdisciplinary community-based health care generated in the first phase is implemented; and an evaluation phase in which the program is evaluated, the results disseminated to the academic and clinical communities, and the education model applied to other underserved populations.
INTRODUCTION Most proposals will begin with an introductory paragraph that provides the reader with a general overview of the main idea of the project and its importance. This opening paragraph sets the stage by briefly describing the purpose of the proposed project, why it is important (or a public health concern), and the specific call for proposals that the application is in response to. For example, the above abstract describes a proposal to develop a project that brings together interdisciplinary university faculty and social workers to plan a curriculum that would provide education for nursing and allied health students to work in community settings such as homeless shelters. An opening introductory paragraph would highlight the increasing number of persons who are homeless in the United States and in the city in which the project will be held, the lack of health and social service personnel who are adequately prepared to work with this complex and underserved population, and the limited curriculum content in the participating disciplines, such as occupational therapy, physical therapy, nursing, and dental hygiene. Although this section should be brief, it is necessary to cite data from sources such as national studies or
Common Sections of Proposals
89
reports and statements from professional groups that support the public health concern that is being addressed by the project.
GOALS/OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS/ACTIVITIES If you are applying for training money, this section contains the overall goals and specific objectives of the educational program. Goals, objectives, and activity statements are related but distinct components of an educational program. A training or educational program must first be based on one or more goals. A goal is a clear and concise statement that represents what will be accomplished as a result of the program. It is a global or broad statement describing the overarching purpose(s) of the project or what will be achieved by conducting the proposed program. An example of a goal statement is: The goal of this service program is to support the health and well-being of families caring for individuals with stroke. In the case of a training program, a goal statement could be: The goal of this education program is to provide health professionals with the requisite knowledge and skills to work as a member of an interdisciplinary team to address chronic illness in older adults. In turn, each goal has a specific set of objectives. An objective is a statement about a specific outcome of the program that can be evaluated or measured. Thus, an objective must be written in such a way as to reflect a qualitative or quantitative measurement strategy. For example, an objective usually includes words such as increase, describe, reduce, or enhance. For example, one objective for the stroke program could be to reduce the emotional distress of families in providing care to individuals with stroke. Each objective is accomplished by conducting a number of activities. Thus, activities contribute to attaining one’s objectives, which, in turn, lead to the accomplishment of the goal. Therefore, if the activities are accomplished successfully, the objectives will be achieved, and the goal of the program will have been attained. An activity for the stroke program would be to conduct support groups with families during hospitalization of stroke patients. Another example of a goal, two of its objectives, and representative activities are shown in Box 4.4.
90
The Writing Process
BOX 4.4 Goal: The goal of this project is to prepare future occupational therapists, nurses, physical therapists, and dental hygienists to collaborate in delivering health promotion and health restoration services in community shelters to persons who are homeless. Objective #1: Increase the knowledge base of students about the biological, psychological, cultural, and social influences in providing adequate health services to persons who are homeless. Activity: This objective will be accomplished through the following activities: a.
student participation in two specific departmental courses, which provide the necessary professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes for working with the diverse population of individuals who are homeless. b. student participation in three core multidisciplinary courses, which relate theory, health policy, and research in the delivery of community-based health services. Objective #2: Enable students to effectively collaborate as members of an interdisciplinary health care team. Activity: This objective will be accomplished through student participation in two team-building courses, which are designed to move students from a uni-disciplinary to an interdisciplinary perspective.
If you propose to conduct a research study, then specific aims rather than objectives are presented. Aims are similar to objectives in that they stem from a statement about the purpose of the research study, Aims concisely describe what will be tested or evaluated. If the aims of a study involve a quantitative approach to research, then it will be also important to state hypotheses specific to each aim that will be tested. These hypotheses, when tested, provide answers to the questions inherent in the aims of your study. An example of a specific aim and an accompanying hypothesis are shown in Box 4.5.
Common Sections of Proposals
91
BOX 4.5 Specific aim: Test the immediate (3 months) and long-term (9 months) effects of a home-based skills training intervention for 250 caregivers of persons with dementia, using a randomized controlled two-group design. Hypothesis: Caregivers of persons with dementia who participate in the home skill-building intervention will report reduced stress and burden in comparison to caregivers in a control group who receive educational materials on dementia.
If you propose to conduct a study using a qualitative methodology in which formal hypothesis testing is not appropriate, then you will need to carefully explain this to reviewers. Although there is increasing awareness among review panels of the scientific value of qualitative and mixed methodologies, the formats for most proposals favor a quantitative or linear structure to describing the research plan. If you are submitting an application to the National Institutes of Health, the specific aims section must not exceed one singlespaced typed page. This section should contain a brief statement of the purpose of the research, the significance of the research problem, specific aims, hypotheses, and a brief statement describing the research design. It is imperative that you be very concise and clear in this one page because this page, along with the title and abstract, frames the entire proposal for reviewers. For any application, the goal, objective, and/or aims statements are critical building blocks of a proposal. They provide the review panel with a mental template or a road map for the entire proposal. After you have written this section, ask yourself the questions presented in Box 4.6 as a way of reflecting on your work, and making sure that you have presented sound goals, objectives, or aims. BOX 4.6 SELF-STUDY QUESTIONS 1. 2.
Are the goals, objectives and/or aims clearly defined? Do the objectives, when taken together, enable the goals of the project to be accomplished?
92
The Writing Process
3. 4. 5.
Are aims written as concise, testable statements? Are key concepts/constructs defined? Will the hypotheses, when tested, address the aims of the study? 6. Are the independent/dependent variables operationally defined? 7. Is the terminology used for the operational definitions clear and unambiguous? 8. Are the hypotheses/objectives stated in observable, measurable terms? 9. Are the hypotheses based on a sound theoretical framework? 10. Do the hypotheses clearly predict a relationship between variables?
RATIONALE/SIGNIFICANCE/IMPORTANCE/INNOVATION Typically, a grant application will include a section that clearly delineates the importance of the idea or its significance and how it is innovative. Although having an idea that is exciting to you is a necessary starting point in writing the proposal, the idea must also be considered important to the funding agency. Furthermore, proposals to the NIH are also evaluated with regard to whether the idea and approach proposed are innovative. Although the actual application guidelines do not ask for a section called “innovation,” this is one of the criteria used by review panels to evaluate a proposal. If a separate section on significance and/or innovation is not specified in the grant application kit, it is still in your best interest to develop a paragraph that specifically addresses significance. Develop a logical, clear, and compelling argument as to why the proposed study is necessary and how it differs from previous work, and the specific ways in which it is innovative. Highlighting gaps in knowledge and how your project addresses these gaps helps to illuminate its significance. The significance of a project is paramount. A project that is not significant can lead reviewers to ask, “So what?” The “So what?” response represents a fatal flaw in a project. If a reviewer asks, “So
Common Sections of Proposals
93
what?” after reading your rationale, then your proposal has a poor chance of being funded, regardless of its scientific or methodological rigor. In a training or education project, the significance of an idea is usually established by citing important research reports, professional literature, local and national data, and other government statistics that demonstrate a societal need for your project. If there is little data available, you may need to conduct a survey or needs assessment to document its significance (see chapter 6). Even a small-scale or local survey helps to substantiate the need for and value of your program. It is also important in these types of projects to state why and how the project is innovative. In a research project, the significance of the research idea is justified through a concise review of other research studies that highlight the level of knowledge in the field, the need for further research, and the ways your research addresses the gap in knowledge. Your review of previous research should demonstrate that your question is important and one that has not been satisfactorily answered. Also, presenting preliminary findings from a small-scale or pilot study you have conducted on the topic strengthens the significance of your idea (see chapter 6). In the NIH investigatorinitiated grant application, there is a separate section for preliminary or pilot work. Preliminary work that supports each study aim is critical for any grant application (small pilot or full R01) to the NIH.
LITERATURE REVIEW/THEORETICAL FOUNDATION A review of the literature and description of the theoretical foundation of the study or educational program is often included as part of the significance section. In some applications, it is contained in a separate section. If you are writing a research proposal, it is important to show how the specific aim(s) and research question(s) are supported by a theoretical framework. The theoretical framework should be clearly and explicitly linked to the variables you propose to analyze. In addition to a discussion of the theoretical framework, other relevant literature needs to be presented. The review of literature should be comprehensive and directly related to the topic of your proposal. It should include only the most pertinent and current works and not a long discourse about topics only peripherally related to your project.
94
The Writing Process
There are five major reasons for reviewing the literature (DePoy & Gitlin, 2005). The first is to determine the extent to which your topic has been addressed in the published literature. If your research topic has been extensively investigated, you will need to carefully delineate the added value of your study. If the question you seek to address has already been adequately addressed, then you will need to reconsider whether to continue to pursue the topic or how to modify your approach so that it systematically and logically builds on the existing literature. If you are considering an education or demonstration project and you find that it has already been carried out, the same decisions apply. It may be important, for example, to test a proven program with a different population or in a different setting if that population or setting is one that is a high priority for a funding agency. A second reason for the literature review is to support the rationale for the importance and innovativeness of your study. Citing other studies that suggest why your study or educational program is important and has societal value allows you to build a strong case for its significance. It is not redundant to cite certain works in more than one place, although in the literature review section, a more thorough discussion is usually required. The third reason for conducting a literature review is that it demonstrates the relevance of your topic to the body of knowledge that exists in a particular field. Thus, it provides the scientific or empirical evidence for the need to pursue your idea. Fourth, the literature reviews help to identify and describe the theoretical foundation of your project. It is critical to show that your proposed study or project is grounded in a solid theoretical foundation. This will strengthen the science and hence your proposal considerably and enable you to show how your proposal will add to the organized knowledge in a field. Finally, the literature review helps to determine the best strategy to use in carrying out your project. Often, reviewing approaches that other investigators have taken can suggest how best to pose a research query and develop the specific design, measures, and set of procedures. There are several different strategies for conducting a literature review. Although we recommend the following approach, there is no one best way. It is often a matter of personal style and comfort (Findley, 1989). Start by conducting a literature search for articles or research studies that are directly related to the major focus of your project, and establish a list of criteria for selecting articles. These criteria
Common Sections of Proposals
95
should identify the important information that is needed to support your study or project. A good rule of thumb is to review literature that has been published within the past five years unless there is an older “classic” article. Also, be sure to search the literature in fields other than yours. Review the abstracts of the articles and organize them into four categories: 1. Highly relevant and absolutely essential for you to read for your proposal 2. Somewhat relevant and will probably be used 3. Appear to be relevant and might be used 4. Not relevant Begin with the most relevant articles and critically review them. Write down a very brief description of the article. If it is a research article, write a four- to five-sentence description in which you identify what was studied, how it was studied, what was found, and what conclusions were drawn. Also, note any recommendations for future research that support your proposed study. If it is not a research article, briefly summarize the major points of the article that are related to your topic. Once you have reviewed the articles in the “most relevant” category, do the same with the articles in the “relevant” category. If the conclusions and/or findings of the articles in these two categories are similar, it is probably time to stop searching for new articles. There are at least two ways to organize the literature review. One approach is to present articles chronologically, with the oldest articles first. This is the historical approach and will give the reviewer an understanding of how the field you are studying has evolved and where your proposed contribution fits. Another approach is to group articles according to common themes that are relevant to your topic. This thematic approach highlights the state of knowledge about each of the components of your study or project. Either approach can be effective. The choice may be a matter of personal preference or be determined by how you see your study or project fitting into the body of knowledge in the field. If you believe that it is a natural extension of knowledge building in the field, then the historical approach would be most appropriate. If you believe the relationships you are testing are new and innovative, then the thematic approach works better. Let’s take the educational project, discussed earlier, on providing care to individuals who are homeless. The search criteria you
96
The Writing Process
might use to identify, review, and categorize the literature would be articles or studies that: 1. Identify national and local statistics about the number of individuals who are homeless 2. Contain demographic data about the homeless population 3. Describe the health care needs of those who are homeless 4. Describe problems faced by those who are homeless in accessing the health care system 5. Discuss the need for new models in delivering health care 6. Discuss the importance of interdisciplinary, communitybased health care 7. Discuss the role of each of the nursing and allied health professions in meeting the health care needs of those who are homeless To gain the necessary information you identified in your list of search criteria, you would need to search a number of different bodies of literature. These may include studies on team building and collaboration; epidemiological, social work, and sociological research on homeless populations; government research reports; and the literature in each of the health professions that are participating in the project. Because many of these criteria are relatively discrete, a thematic approach to organizing the literature would probably be most appropriate in this case. In conducting a literature search, it is important to review sources outside your own profession. A common mistake novice researchers make is to limit their search to the literature in their own field. This restricts the range of information available and often results in missing important studies. For example, if you are planning to study a management issue in nursing, it would be important to conduct a search for management literature both in nursing and in other fields for studies related to the issue. A focus only on the nursing literature would be too narrow. If you are developing an educational program the same recommendation applies. A critical point to remember in writing a literature review is that the information that is used and reported must reflect primary sources. A primary source is the original article from which research results or theoretical principles are reported. It is almost never appropriate to discuss a research article that is described or presented in an article by an author who did not conduct or report the original study.
Common Sections of Proposals
97
If your topic area has not been studied or written about extensively, your review may need to focus on related efforts that support the direction you are proposing. The lack of research can be one reason for conducting your study, as long as you can develop an argument for its significance. At the conclusion of the literature review, it is helpful to provide a summary that reflects a synthesis of the articles. This concluding section provides a summation of the way the cited literature supports your research question, hypotheses, and study or program design. Also, this section should summarize the gaps in knowledge and the way in which your study or educational program systematically contributes to knowledge building and addresses these gaps. In writing this section of the proposal, ask yourself the questions in Box 4.7.
BOX 4.7 SELF-STUDY QUESTIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Does the literature review present important background information about the proposal topic? Does the literature review critically evaluate and synthesize existing knowledge? Are the identified gaps in knowledge addressed by this study or program? Does the review provide a basis of support for the hypotheses and/or research question? Has the need for the proposed study been documented? Does the literature review appear complete and up-todate? Is the literature review logically and systematically developed and presented?
METHODOLOGY/RESEARCH OR EDUCATIONAL PLAN This section addresses the important question: “How will you carry out the project?” If you are writing a proposal for a training or demonstration grant, this section will contain a detailed description of
98
The Writing Process
each step that will be carried out to conduct the project. This plan of operation must be carefully developed, comprehensive, and detailed. As you describe each step and activity of the project, if you feel as if you have already carried out the proposal, then you are on the right track! We recommend that the description of your methodology reflect a step-by-step logical explanation of each activity that will be implemented to accomplish the proposed objectives. The review panel will examine the details of your plan and consider the timeline of the proposed activities and their feasibility. With regard to education programs, they will evaluate whether you are proposing a logical sequence of courses or training experiences and/or how your plan complements, improves, or extends existing programs. Consider using flow charts and tables to describe the curriculum or project design. Graphic displays provide a concise visual summary of the written material and reinforce the major points in the narrative. If you propose a research study, each aspect of the research design must be described in detail. As with an education program, you must explain, in a logical way, the specific procedures for recruiting study participants, collecting data, and analyzing the results, along with a justification for each decision. Key aspects of your research design are outlined in Box 4.8.
BOX 4.8 SUGGESTED SUBSECTIONS OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1. 2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Overview of research design Sample description and selection a. Inclusion and exclusion criteria b. Recruitment plan Procedures, materials, and data collection Human subjects Study validity and reliability Assumptions and study limitations Timetable of key research activities Statistical analysis for each study aim
Common Sections of Proposals
99
It is important to consult with a statistician as you begin to think about a research project and to develop your specific aims, study procedures, and analytic design. A statistician should be a primary member of your research team who can assist in writing the statistical section of the proposal. Common mistakes made by applicants include the following: • Not providing an adequate justification for why a particular procedure or approach is chosen • Poor integration of ideas • Incorrect or inappropriate statistical or research design • Lack of sufficient detail about the recruitment plan and/or general research procedures These mistakes can be avoided by carefully planning each aspect of the design, and having drafts reviewed by others and a statistician if appropriate. In developing a research design, it is important to avoid “fatal flaws.” A fatal flaw is a fundamental problem in the research design that results in the inability to find meaningful or valid results. A fatal flaw is a flaw that cannot be remedied by simple alterations in the proposal and requires a rethinking and restructuring of the entire project. Box 4.9 presents a comment from a review panel that reflects a fatal flaw in a proposal.
BOX 4.9 EXAMPLE OF A FATAL FLAW It is difficult to see how this research study, with its cohort design, will adequately test the outcomes of the proposed intervention as it is currently conceptualized. Since random assignment of patients to experimental and control groups would compromise patient treatment plans at this facility, it would be unethical and not feasible to do so. However, without randomization, study outcomes cannot be interpreted in any meaningful way, nor can treatment effectiveness be determined.
100
The Writing Process
Let’s examine possible subsections of the methodology section for a research proposal in more detail. Keep in mind that there is not a specific order in which each one of the subsections below are required to be presented, unless the application instructions indicate otherwise. Rather, the research plan should be presented in a logical order so that reviewers have a clear understanding of the procedures that will be followed.
Research Design The research design of a study is the blueprint or plan that describes the way in which the study will be organized, the variables that will be measured, and the data collection and analytic procedures that will be followed (DePoy & Gitlin, 2005). Each component of the research design, along with a justification for each of the procedures that will be implemented, must be presented clearly and concisely. One approach is to begin the research design section with an overview, in which you identify and label your design (e.g., a two-group randomized experimental design; retrospective chart review; 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design; a qualitative, phenomenological study), and explain why the design is appropriate to control variance and threats to validity and/or for the specific research questions posed. Second, specify the major elements of the design, such as the independent and dependent variables, the sampling frame, sample size, selection procedures, and the number of testing occasions that are planned. It is important to be very specific in this description. Two examples of design statements are presented in Boxes 4.10 and 4.11. BOX 4.10 DESIGN STATEMENT #1 This study is designed to evaluate the level of knowledge of case managers in homeless shelters regarding the health care needs of their clients. A descriptive survey design using a stratified random sample is proposed by which 100 case managers from 30 homeless shelters in the city of Philadelphia will be randomly selected to complete a questionnaire designed to assess four areas of knowledge. These are: oral hygiene, mental
Common Sections of Proposals
101
health, drug and alcohol problems, and basic hygiene. The survey will contain demographic information, multiple choice questions that tap knowledge of signs and symptoms of each problem, and open-ended questions that ask respondents to describe their approach to dealing with each problem.
BOX 4.11 DESIGN STATEMENT #2 The research design chosen for this study is a randomized two-group experimental design to test the effectiveness of a home-based intervention for families caring for individuals with dementia. The study involves 250 caregivers who are assigned to either a treatment or control group. Study participants in the treatment group receive five home visits by an occupational therapist, whereas those in the control group do not receive any grant-supported services. A three-month post-test will evaluate the immediate effect of the intervention on caregiver skill acquisition, use of environmental modifications, and level of burden. Six- and 12-month follow-up interviews will assess long-term effects of the intervention.
After completing the draft of a design statement, ask yourself the study questions in Box 4.12.
BOX 4.12 SELF-STUDY QUESTIONS 1. 2.
Is the research design appropriate to study the research problem? Does the research design control for extraneous variables and threats to validity?
102
The Writing Process
Sample Description and Selection Describe the characteristics of individuals in the sample and the procedures by which they will be selected. At least five basic points should be covered. First, describe the criteria that will be used to select the participants. This involves describing how individuals will be recruited, listing the specific criteria by which they will be included and excluded, and providing a justification for each criteria. Second, describe the intended characteristics of the participants. Important characteristics include a description of age, gender, race, ethnicity, and health status. It is also important to explain the extent to which participants with these characteristics are representative of the population to which you plan to generalize the study findings. Third, describe in detail the approach that will be used to recruit and enroll individuals to participate in the study. Fourth, identify the sample size and present a justification for its adequacy by using a power analysis (the power analysis can be discussed as part of the sample or under a section devoted to statistical considerations). Finally, you should provide evidence that it will be feasible to obtain the required number of people by providing pilot data. Examples of two sample descriptions are presented in Boxes 4.13 and 4.14.
BOX 4.13 EXAMPLE OF SAMPLE DESCRIPTION #1 Participants in this study will comprise a convenience sample of 250 caregivers living with and caring for a family member with moderate dementia. Caregivers whose recipient has Parkinson’s disease or who is on experimental medication will be excluded from the study. The sample size of 250 is adequate to detect outcomes and is based on a power analysis, with power set at .80, alpha at .05, and an anticipated moderate effect size. No difficulty is anticipated in obtaining a sample of 250 caregivers, because previous analysis of the five dementia clinics participating in this study report an average of 30 new clients per month for the past two years who fit the study criteria.
Common Sections of Proposals
103
BOX 4.14 EXAMPLE OF SAMPLE DESCRIPTION #2 This study will be comprised of a convenience sample of 20 HIV-positive Hispanic men attending an AIDS support group who volunteer to participate in the study. Criteria for eligibility include evidence of an HIV-positive test and a 90% attendance record at support group meetings for the previous six months. Currently, there is an active pool of 50 men who have been tested as HIV positive. Subject recruitment will occur by two methods. The first method will entail a letter to each active participant, which describes the purpose of the study and invites participation. The second method will entail an explanation of the study by the principal investigator at regular meetings of the support group. Those who agree to participate will be interviewed to determine their eligibility.
Once you have a draft of this section, ask yourself the questions in Box 4.15.
BOX 4.15 SELF-STUDY QUESTIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Is the sample representative of the population of interest? Is the sample size adequate? Is the description of how the sample will be derived clearly stated? Is the sampling procedure appropriate (free of sampling error or bias)? Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to allow for replication? Is the assignment of subject to groups appropriate and adequately described?
104
The Writing Process
Procedures, Materials, or Data Collection Instruments This subsection should contain a discussion of the procedures that will be followed to collect data and the measures or instruments that will be used. First, provide a detailed description of the procedures that will be followed in collecting the data. Think about what will need to be done if the grant proposal is funded and describe these steps in detail. Box 4.16 provides examples of describing procedures and Box 4.17 outlines the main points to consider when describing data collection methods. BOX 4.16 EXAMPLES OF PROCEDURE DISCUSSIONS #1: Following notification of grant approval and funding, a letter will be mailed to administrators of participating nursing homes. This letter will explain the purpose of the study and its procedures and the importance of participation of the nursing assistants. The letter will be followed by a telephone call to the administrator to determine an appropriate time for a 20-minute telephone survey with each nursing assistant. Each participating nursing home will be requested to provide a quiet office setting from which the nursing assistant can participate in the telephone survey. #2: Cultures will be obtained from 20 HIV-positive patients and identified and quantified on a weekly basis until the infection has been controlled. Thereafter, cultures will be taken monthly for a maximum of 12 months. Treatments will be administered to control the clinical signs and symptoms.
BOX 4.17 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS AND STRATEGIES a.
Describe your data collection instruments. • What is their published reliability? • What is their published validity?
Common Sections of Proposals
105
• How extensively are they used in other research? • Why did you choose these particular instruments? b. Describe your data collection strategies. • How will you collect the data? • If you interview subjects, what procedures will you use?
Second, it is important to specify the data collection instruments that will be used in the study, such as the domains and the reliability and validity of measures. It is always preferable to use standardized measurement instruments with known reliability and validity for the particular population you plan to study. However, for some domains or variables that you seek to measure, you may find that there are no valid and reliable instruments for the specific population you plan to study. In that case, you may need to design one. If so, it will be important to introduce a plan for developing the instrument and evaluating its psychometric properties. This can be a difficult and time-consuming task and not appropriate if you are proposing a small pilot study. Important aspects to discuss are noted in Box 4.18.
BOX 4.18 EXAMPLE OF A DISCUSSION OF INSTRUMENTATION The telephone survey will be developed by the investigators and consist of three primary domains: demographic and background information, items that assess knowledge of oral pathology in the elderly, and a case vignette with questions to determine the ability to recognize signs and symptoms of disease. The survey will be reviewed by five individuals with expertise in oral health care of the elderly. This panel of experts will independently review the survey for its content validity. Modifications to the survey instrument will be made based on the panel’s review and the survey will be pilot-tested with five nursing assistants.
106
The Writing Process
Validity and Reliability of the Design Validity refers to whether a design and its procedures are appropriate and will yield information to answer the research question. Explain how your approach is the appropriate way to answer your research question. For example, if your purpose is to demonstrate a causal link between two variables, then it would be important to discuss why the particular experimental design chosen is the most appropriate. Another consideration is the reliability of your approach. Clearly describe the specific design features of the study that will assure that another investigator could replicate it. For example, let’s say you are obtaining cultures of oral lesions. Discuss the exact procedures that will be implemented in order to assure that all investigators take cultures from the correct lesion and use the same technique.
Statistical Analysis This section contains a detailed discussion of all statistical considerations related to a study, including the analytic strategy, the statistical tests that will be used, and power and sampling considerations. In the discussion, it is helpful to restate the specific aims and hypotheses and then identify the statistical tests that will be used to address each one. We also recommend that you provide a brief rationale for your choice of tests, the significance level that will be used to determine statistical significance, and the software packages that will be used. It is critical that the statistical analyses that will be used fit the measurement level of the data that will be collected and the specific study aims. For example, if your data is categorical or ordinal, then a descriptive and nonparametric statistical approach should be used. Your primary method of presentation would be frequency tables involving distribution of percentages. As we have recommended, consult with a statistician to determine the best analytic approach. Box 4.19 provides two examples of discussions of statistical designs. BOX 4.19 EXAMPLE #1 OF A DISCUSSION OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The major hypothesis that will be tested in this study is that students who participate in a computer-assistive learning ex-
Common Sections of Proposals
107
perience will demonstrate greater knowledge of oral pathology and greater satisfaction with their educational experience than students who take a traditional didactic course. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the primary statistical test to evaluate the experimental effect on the two dependent variables (knowledge of oral pathology and student satisfaction). ANCOVA is the statistical test typically used in a two-group experimental design involving pre-and post-test data. Also, demographic data obtained from this study will be tabulated using crosstab frequency distributions and measures of central tendency. All tests of significance will be reported at the .05 level. EXAMPLE #2 OF A DISCUSSION OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS A combination of statistical methods will be used to compare the characteristics of dental hygienists who participate in the mail survey questionnaire. Analysis of categorical variables will involve crosstab frequency distributions with chi-square statistics. Comparisons of the two groups (novice and experienced dental hygienists) on continuous variables will be based on analysis of variance (ANOVA). Significant ANOVAs will be followed up with Tukey’s HSD (Honestly Significant Difference) test for multiple comparisons. To determine statistical significance, alpha will be set at .01 to control for Type I error and all statistical tests will be based on a two-tailed distribution.
Once you complete your discussion of the statistical analysis, ask yourself the self-study questions in Box 4.20 as a check to see that you have included all of the appropriate material.
PLAN OF MANAGEMENT This subsection addresses the question as to why you are the most appropriate person to carry out the proposed project. Although
108
The Writing Process
BOX 4.20 SELF-STUDY QUESTIONS FOR STATISTICAL SECTION 1. 2.
Are the statistical analyses appropriate to answer my research question and test the proposed hypotheses? Are the statistical analyses appropriate for the measurement level of the data that will be collected?
you may have a wonderful idea, you must also assure an agency that you have the necessary expertise and resources to successfully complete the project or study. A clear, logical, and efficient plan of management, executed by a project team comprised of well-qualified people at an institution that can provide the necessary support and resources is the most effective way to do that. One approach to writing this section is to visualize that you have already been funded. Think about the steps you would have to take to carry out your plan if you were to start tomorrow. Who would you need to hire? What contacts would be important? What resources would you need? Logically and rationally think through your plan before you write the section. This may raise critical points of weakness in your research or curriculum design, or it may highlight limitations in institutional resources that will need to be addressed. Once you have thought through these questions, provide an outline of the major activities of the project along with the estimated time it will take to complete each activity. We recommend that you include a table that summarizes each major activity and the time frame for its completion, which can take the form of a Gantt chart, a graphical representation of the duration of proposed tasks by the amount of time required. This will provide reviewers a clear understanding of the time frame, the progression of activities, and whether the activities will be accomplished within the funding period. Boxes 4.21 and 4.22 provide two examples of timeline tables. A clear description of the plan of organization will only provide part of the answer to the question as to whether you are the best person to carry out the project. It is also necessary to describe a management structure for the project, including the roles and responsibilities of all key personnel on the project team and the amount of time each person will work on the project.
Common Sections of Proposals
109
BOX 4.21 EXAMPLE #1 OF TIME TABLE Activity
Time Frame
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Months 1–3 Month 4 Months 5–8 Months 5–10 Months 10–12 Months 12–15 Months 15–18
Questionnaire development Pilot testing of instruments Subject recruitment Subject interviewing Data entry, data cleaning Data analysis Report generation
BOX 4.22 EXAMPLE #2 OF TIME TABLE Activity
Timeline July
Instrument development Pilot test of protocol
Aug.
Sept.
Mail survey
X
Data entry and analysis Report writing and dissemination
Dec.
Jan.
X
X
Feb.
X X
Second reminder notice
Nov.
X
Sample selection Reminder notice
Oct.
X X
X
110
The Writing Process
Once a draft of this section is completed, consider the reflective questions in Box 4.23. BOX 4.23 SELF-STUDY QUESTIONS FOR METHODS AND MATERIALS SECTION 1. 2. 3.
Is the design appropriate for the research question and logically developed? Are the measures selected adequate, and has reliability and validity been addressed? Is there a timetable of major activities that accurately reflects the requirements of the study design and provides an adequate time frame for each activity?
HUMAN SUBJECTS This subsection involves a discussion of the procedures that will be used to protect human subjects. The discussion should include: how confidentiality of the information or data obtained will be assured; then, how informed consent from study participants will be obtained, the potential benefits and risks to a subject associated with participation, and the risk-benefit ratio. A description of human subject considerations will initially be reviewed by review committees, and if the proposal is approved for funding, it will need to be reviewed by your institution’s human subjects board. We discuss institutional review board procedures in chapter 13. In addition to human subject considerations, enrollment of study subjects will need to conform to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Box 4.24 contains an example of a discussion on human subjects.
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS Almost every study has some limitations either based on features inherent in the design or in its application to a particular situation.
Common Sections of Proposals
111
BOX 4.24 EXAMPLE OF DISCUSSION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS This research is descriptive and involves a telephone survey. Participation in the study will be voluntary, and, by responding to the telephone survey, respondents will be giving their informed consent to participate. Subject confidentiality will be assured by the use of identification numbers on data sheets. Subject names and other identifying information will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in the office of the investigator and will be separate from the information provided by subjects in response to the survey questions. Information will be reported in aggregate form only and no participant will be identified. There are no potential risks to participants. There are no direct personal benefits except for personal satisfaction obtained in participating in research and contributing to building a body of knowledge.
We recommend that for research proposals, a discussion be included that describes specific methodological challenges and alternate approaches. Identifying the limitations and/or methodological challenges and how you propose to overcome them is important because it lets reviewers know that you have thought about potential study problems and alternative study designs, you have a justification for the approach you have chosen, and you are taking the necessary and appropriate steps to minimize potential biases in your results. For example, let’s say you are conducting a Delphi study. A limitation of this technique is the possibility that some respondents may discuss their opinions with others whom they know are also participating in the study. This is a limitation that may have consequences for your findings. Thus, one approach might be to identify this limitation in the proposal and then discuss the way you plan to address it. A word of caution is important here. While it can be to your advantage to identify limitations, it is not necessary to identify and discuss in detail every minor one you can think of. This might suggest to reviewers that your study has too many limitations to be viable.
112
The Writing Process
DISSEMINATION PLAN Some agencies seek to assure that the results of a successful project they have funded has a wide impact. From their perspective, it makes little sense to fund a project if only a few people will benefit and fewer still are aware of the results. Therefore, agencies may require a systematic plan for disseminating the results of your project. Two important and commonly accepted ways to disseminate results are through presentations at national, scientific, and professional meetings, and publication in professional journals. Other creative or innovative ways to assure a wide distribution of your findings may include the development and distribution of instructional manuals, the conducting of workshops or continuing education programs, or the implementation of innovative ways to reach consumers as well as professional groups.
BUDGET This section of a proposal addresses the question of the cost of a project and why it will cost what it does. It is important to prepare a budget that is not inflated or wasteful but is sufficient to accomplish all proposed activities. Do not try to pad a budget by inflating costs or adding unnecessary expenses. Reviewers are asked to indicate whether a budget is reasonable for the activities proposed. If reviewers believe that the budget is padded or that unnecessary budget items are being requested, they will recommend budgetary cuts. Of equal importance is to not underestimate what it will cost to carry out the study or educational program. Underestimating will not only make it difficult to successfully complete a project if funded, but also may be viewed by reviewers as a weakness because the applicant is not aware of what the true costs really are. The best rule of thumb is to develop a budget that accurately reflects the cost of the activities that are being proposed. Most institutions have budget offices or offices of research administration that can help you prepare this budget. For each budget item that is requested you must provide a justification. The budget justification section describes each item in the budget, why it is necessary for the project, and how costs are calculated. For example, let’s say you are requesting $1,500 for travel to a professional meeting. A justification would include
Common Sections of Proposals
113
the expected flight costs, daily hotel cost, and per diem rate. We discuss budget preparation in more detail in part III.
INVESTIGATIVE TEAM CREDENTIALS This section helps to answer the question as to why you are qualified to carry out the project. For most grant applications, it is necessary to include a brief descriptive paragraph highlighting the role of each member of the proposed project team and their qualifications. Here reviewers are considering whether the project team reflects the necessary expertise to carry out the proposed project. Thus, the role of each team member, and their specific qualifications, including previous related experiences and publications, should be described. Part of assuring that your team has the necessary credentials to carry out the proposed work effort is to discuss other funding and project experiences of each team member as well as offices held in professional organizations, or teaching or consulting experiences that can provide additional credibility and demonstrate that you have the necessary background to implement the project successfully. Thus, developing an appropriate team for any type of proposed project is critical. Not only will the primary director or principal investigator be evaluated, but reviewers will carefully evaluate the credentials of all team members and their particular roles on the proposed project. To develop an appropriate team, consider the specific skills that are necessary to carry out each step of the project and carefully select team members with the necessary expertise. For example, if you are proposing a study that requires a repeated measures design or statistical modeling techniques, make sure you have a statistician on your team with expertise in these specific analytic strategies. If you plan to include a cost effectiveness evaluation, having a specialist in this area would be essential. If your study uses naturalistic inquiry, you will need to assure that a member of your team is an expert in qualitative methodologies and related software programs. In writing an educational grant, make sure you are working with someone who has curriculum development skills. Select individuals with complementary experience and credentials to yourself. For example, in an educational grant, you might need two people, one with curriculum development skills and one with experience in curriculum evaluation.
114
The Writing Process
INSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Just as you need to develop a qualified team, your institution needs to have the resources to assist and support you in carrying out the proposed project. You will need to include a concise description of your institutional resources. For example, has your institution acquired a significant amount of external funding? Does it have a comprehensive library, a learning resource center, or an active research administration office? Are there adequate computer facilities available for your use?
REFERENCES As in all scientific work, a reference list of your primary sources of information is required. If the agency does not specify a reference style, then use the style specified by the American Psychological Association (APA). In all cases, be sure to be consistent in the presentation of references. Also, be sure to check the instructions to determine if there is a page limitation for this section. For an NIH grant, currently, there is no page limitation for references, but applicants are urged to include only those cited and most pertinent to the grant proposal.
APPENDIX MATERIAL The appendices usually include information that supplements the narrative. For example, appendix material may include the complete curriculum vitae of key members of the project team, sample questionnaires or evaluation instruments, relevant manuals of operation such as a treatment manual for intervention studies, pertinent articles that you have authored that relate to the project, curriculum materials, and, most importantly, letters of support from consultants, leaders in your profession, or your senators and congresspersons. Some agencies will limit the amount and type of appendix material allowable. One rule of thumb is to only include materials in the appendix that truly supplement the narrative and that are not critical for a reviewer to read in order to fully understand the proposal. In some cases, not all reviewers will receive or have access to appendix materials.
Common Sections of Proposals
115
SUMMARY This chapter describes the basic elements of the grant application. Although each agency structures a call for proposals differently, there are sections that are commonly required. In this chapter we identified the content of each section and ways to approach its writing. Four major points have been made: 1. A proposal is simply a document in which you propose to carry out an idea. Its main purpose is to convince a funding agency that it should provide money to support the implementation of your idea. 2. The sections of a proposal can be thought of as answers to a series of questions. These questions are: What is your project about? Why is it important? What will you plan to do? How will you do it? What will it cost and why? Why are you the best one to do it? 3. Funding agencies are interested in receiving and funding the best possible proposals. Therefore, they will usually provide detailed instructions regarding what should be included in your proposal and criteria upon which it will be evaluated. 4. The instructions provided by the agency provide a guideline as to how to structure the components of the proposal. Therefore, the instructions should be carefully read, reread, and then read again.
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 5 Strategies for Effective Writing
• • • •
Organizing for the Writing Task Problems With Writing A Word About Writer’s Block The Grant Writing Team
An innovative and significant proposal that is well written, that is, clear, focused, and precise, has a greater chance of receiving a favorable review than one that is disorganized, unclear, and filled with typographical errors. Although a clear writing style will not overcome a poor idea, it will help to sell a good one. A poorly written or presented proposal has the potential to hurt the chances of having a competitive idea funded. The way you present your ideas sends a message to a review panel. Reviewers will form a quick impression of a proposal before even considering the details. Effective writing and an eye-pleasing presentation suggests to reviewers that you are conscientious, your ideas are important, and they have been carefully developed. Writing that is dense, imprecise, and rambling, or a presentation that is difficult to follow, can make it hard for reviewers to understand what is being proposed. Significant ideas may be misunderstood or missed by reviewers due to a writing style that is inexact. This could, implicitly, raise doubts about your ability to implement the project. As you write your proposal, it is important to understand four points about writing of any kind: • First, while many people like to have written, few like to write. Writing is hard work. The old adage that good reading is hard 117
118
The Writing Process
writing is true. Writing, like any other skill, takes practice. Improvement only comes about through continual writing, rewriting, and critical evaluation. The more you write, the more improvement you will see. • Second, you must be prepared to write, rewrite, and then rewrite again. A well-written grant proposal may require multiple revisions. • Third, writing is a very idiosyncratic process. Each person has a particular style and a preferred method of writing. You will find that your own style and personal approach to organizing your work will emerge as you become a more experienced grant writer. • Fourth, writing takes time. There are no shortcuts. You have to make the time to write. Few people can squeeze it into a few moments here and there. This is an important point, since agencies have hard and fast deadlines for proposal submissions. Therefore, you should plan a working schedule that allows sufficient time to develop and refine your ideas and present them in a clear and concise manner. While writing is an idiosyncratic process, it is also a systematic one that requires careful attention to the organization and logical presentation of thoughts. The use of words that precisely describe your ideas is critical. A proposal tells a story about what you plan to accomplish and how. The major points and essential details of the story must be clearly and concisely communicated. There are several strategies that can be used to improve the quality of written work. These include organizing the task, avoiding common writing problems, and developing and working with a grant writing team to facilitate the process. Let’s examine each strategy.
5.1 ORGANIZING FOR THE WRITING TASK One strategy that can improve your proposal writing is to develop a systematic plan by which to approach the task. Box 5.1 outlines one approach we have found to be effective.
Strategies for Effective Writing
119
BOX 5.1 ORGANIZING STRATEGIES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Set aside a block of uninterrupted time. Outline the major sections of the proposal. Write an initial draft without worrying about grammar or style. Plan to write more than one draft. Critically evaluate your draft. Ask a colleague or consultant to critically evaluate the next to last draft.
First, set aside a block of uninterrupted time to write. While everyone has different work rhythms and styles, we have found that concentrated periods of two to three hours are the most productive. While some authors have suggested that writing for periods of 30 minutes each day can be effective, we believe that short periods such as this may not be long enough for you to get into a “writing flow,” particularly for a grant proposal in which each section is related to the next. However, periods longer than three hours may be fatiguing. Trying to write when you are overly tired (or hungry) can also be an unproductive and frustrating experience. Second, prepare an outline of the major sections of the proposal. These sections should be based on the specific format provided by the funding agency in the call for proposals or application kit. Special consideration should be given to the evaluation criteria that will be used by the review panel. Begin by writing the section with which you are most comfortable or that you believe will be the easiest to tackle. You do not have to write each section in order. Writing the section that you are most comfortable with provides an immediate feeling of accomplishment and helps build momentum for the writing of other sections that may be more difficult. Third, in the first draft, you should not worry about grammar or style. The purpose of this draft is to capture as many ideas on paper as possible. You will have the opportunity to concentrate on the technical aspects of your writing in subsequent drafts. Consider this draft to be “for your eyes only.” Fourth, a good rule of thumb is to plan to write a minimum of two to three drafts of each section even prior to having someone
120
The Writing Process
else read it. Do not expect your first or second drafts to be perfect. A well-written proposal requires a significant amount of rewriting and editing. You might consider adopting the 2 2 2 rule: two drafts for initial ideas, sequencing, and logic; two drafts for critical reading, idea integration, revision, and initial editing; and two drafts for final editing and refinement. Fifth, once you complete a draft of a section that you believe to be satisfactory, put it aside for a day or two. This will help you examine it from a new perspective. When you come back to it, you may discover glaring mistakes in the logic of your presentation, ideas that are not clearly presented, or gaps in the proposed research design or management plan. One strategy is to read aloud a section of the proposal, or tape-record the reading and then listen carefully to it. This will give you a sense of what it sounds like to an outside reader. Another strategy is to visualize that you are a member of the review panel that is critiquing your proposal. Try to envision what flaws a reviewer could find, especially if he or she was not familiar with your area of inquiry. These strategies will allow you to gain a distance from your work and examine it from a more objective and critical perspective. Finally, while it is important to learn to be a critical evaluator of your own work, it is very beneficial to obtain the critical perspectives of others. After you have reread and edited the draft of a particular section, or the entire proposal, ask a colleague or pay a consultant to provide a careful critical review. The person you choose should have some familiarity with your topic and be willing and able to honestly appraise your work. You can significantly improve your writing skills by taking note of the comments others make about what you have written. Most writers get too close to their work and are unable to identify gaps in logic, missing explanations, or even fatal flaws in a project design. Listening to constructive criticism about one’s work can be difficult, and perhaps somewhat painful. Nevertheless, receiving critical appraisal is an important part of the grant writing process and will result in the improvement of a proposal. It is important that you do not become defensive when someone has evaluated your work as less than perfect. Instead, pay close attention to their comments. These comments may be a good indicator of how a review panel will receive your ideas.
Strategies for Effective Writing
121
5.2 PROBLEMS WITH WRITING The second way to improve the quality of your proposal is to avoid problems that are commonly found in writing. A major problem in writing is the use of imprecise language. Proposal writing is not a time to be fancy or experimental in language use and composition. A proposal requires a scientific, technical approach to writing in which the details of a project are clearly described. The proposal narrative should not be cluttered with nonessential material or extraneous words. Decide which details are the most important to include and incorporate them. Cut out as many extraneous phrases and words as possible, because they will make it difficult for a reviewer to understand your main points. Brevity, clarity, and organization are the keys to good proposal writing. Listed in Box 5.2 are nine recommendations for effective proposal writing. BOX 5.2 SOME RULES FOR CLEAR WRITING a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.
Stay away from jargon. Avoid words that are trendy. Do not try to cut corners by using abbreviations such as etc. Avoid overly broad phrases. Do not try to sound intellectual by using big words. Avoid redundant phrases. Keep over-used phrases to a minimum. Watch for unclear referents. Define core constructs/variables and relevant terms and use consistent wording throughout the proposal.
a. Stay away from jargon: Using jargon is an imprecise approach to writing. Phrases like “client-centered care,” although an important approach, is imprecise and jargon. The term has very different meanings depending upon one’s discipline and practice
122
The Writing Process
setting. It is important to understand that your proposal will be reviewed by scientists from many different disciplines, and some may not be familiar with the terms and concepts specific to your profession. For all major concepts and terms that you use, be sure to carefully define and explain each. For example, some fields may use the term “calibrating raters” to refer to ensuring that two different raters are consistent in their evaluation of a particular condition, whereas other fields use the term inter-rater reliability. Since calibration is often used to refer to an instrument, a review panel could become confused as to its meaning. Thus, it is essential that all key terms be carefully explained to assure that all reviewers understand intended meanings. b. Avoid words that are trendy: There are certain phrases that should be used with caution in grant proposals and when used, must be accompanied by a detailed explanation of their intent. For example, words like “cutting edge,” “state of the art,” “vis-à-vis,” “in-depth,” “conceptual framework,” or “innovative” are too vague and require an explanation as to what is meant. For example, what does the following sentence mean? “A state-of-the-art, cutting edge, innovative conceptual framework will be developed in this study.” If you do use words such as “innovative” or “cutting edge” then you must carefully and clearly explain how or in what way the program is innovative or on the cutting edge. For example, you could say “This program is innovative in that it brings together health professionals and academic faculty to work together to develop a curriculum for students.” In this way, you clearly specify the aspect of the program that you consider to be innovative. c. Do not try to cut corners by using abbreviations such as etc.: Using such abbreviations is a lazy way of writing and reflects an inadequate development of thoughts. For example, if you were to describe a clinical population who may benefit from your project as follows: “This project will have implications for women with dependent children, adolescents, teenagers, etc., who are commonly cited as runaways . . . ,” it would be important to identify all populations who are classified as runaways. In this way reviewers would have a clear understanding of who you were referring to as runaways. d. Avoid overly broad phrases: You are writing a scientific proposal, so that general phrases such as “research that will address the health needs of the American people” or “meeting the needs of all patients” have very little meaning. What specific needs are you going to meet? Such phrases are not specific and are all-
Strategies for Effective Writing
123
encompassing and they have very little meaning. If you must use these phrases, make sure that you provide a specific explanation of their meaning. e. Do not try to sound intellectual by using big words: It is not necessary to use a word with three syllables (utilize) when a onesyllable word (use) is adequate. Box 5.3 contains seven phrases that are commonly used but that can be restated to reflect an idea more accurately. BOX 5.3 EXAMPLES OF EFFICIENT WRITING Don’t Use
When You Can Use
an excessive amount of at a high level of productivity at a rapid rate due to the fact that has the capability of in view of the fact that serves the function of being
too much highly productive rapidly because can because is
f. Avoid redundant phrases: Another writing tip is to avoid phrases that are redundant. For example, phrases like “period of time,” “green in color,” “basic, fundamental essential,” “audible to the ear,” and “demographic statistical data” are examples of redundant phrases. g. Keep over-used phrases to a minimum: Phrases such as the following tend to be over-used in proposals: “a thorough search of the literature,” “an in-depth study,” “a large body of information,” “in the final analysis.” Although the use of these phrases may be appropriate at times, they are often an indication of inadequate development of one’s thoughts. h. Watch for unclear referents: The use of unclear referents is a common problem that occurs when you begin a sentence with a pronoun that refers to someone or something in the preceding sentence. An example of an unclear reference is shown in Box 5.4. In this example, it is unclear to whom the words “they” and
124
The Writing Process
“their” in the second sentence refer. Do these words refer to health professionals or the homeless that are discussed in the previous sentence? BOX 5.4 EXAMPLE OF AN UNCLEAR REFERENT The homeless are among the most disenfranchised and underserved who could greatly benefit from the services of health and human service professionals. They would contribute significantly to their health and well-being.
i. Define core constructs/variables and relevant terms and use consistent wording throughout the proposal: Be sure to clearly state the core constructs used in your project and to define them in terms that reviewers from diverse knowledge backgrounds will be able to understand. Use the same names for constructs and be consistent throughout the proposal as to their meanings. A common error is to use multiple terms to refer to the same principle or concept and to use terms that are specific to a particular discipline without clearly defining them.
5.3 A WORD ABOUT WRITER’S BLOCK There may come a time during the grant writing process when words just do not come to you or you feel that you have writer’s block. There are a number of causes for this, including anxiety, lack of confidence in your writing ability, procrastination, lack of time, and fatigue. When this occurs it can be very frustrating and produce even more anxiety, especially when grant deadlines are looming. However, you should know that this is a natural occurrence and can happen to even experienced grant writers. The best prevention of writer’s block is to start early in the process of writing a grant proposal; leave yourself plenty of time for thinking, reflection, and generating multiple drafts that can be critically read by others. Here
Strategies for Effective Writing
125
are a few other strategies that can lessen or alleviate the occurrence of writer’s block. One suggestion is to set aside a place that is comfortable for writing. Because each person has their own style and comfort level, there are no hard and fast rules about what this place should be. Some people like to work in a space with a great deal of light and windows. Others like quiet, low-lighted areas. Still others prefer soft background music. Some like to have their work space neat and organized; others could care less. Whatever the setup, it should feel comfortable to you. Another suggestion is to select the time of day that is most comfortable to you. Some people tend to be more productive in the morning, others in the evening. For still others, it doesn’t matter. However, we recommend that, if possible, you try to schedule your time for writing at similar times during the day and/or week and stick to that schedule so that you have a regular writing routine. Yet another strategy is to break down the writing task into doable and meaningful sections. For example, start writing the section of a proposal that is most developed or that you feel is easiest. This will give you a sense of accomplishment and ease some of the anxiety about not being able to write. Finally, if you find you are blocked in your writing, take a break, talk with colleagues to work through your ideas, and read related research or publications to see how others have presented the topic you are examining.
5.4 THE GRANT WRITING TEAM Another strategy to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of proposal writing is to organize a grant writing team. As we have said before, writing a proposal can be time consuming and arduous. There are myriad details involved in putting together a grant application. Often, it is helpful to share the writing and other responsibilities for preparing an application with team members. A grant writing team enables individuals to share the pain of writing and developing a grant application. Each member of the team becomes responsible for carrying out specific activities that will expedite the completion of a proposal. An added advantage of a team approach
126
The Writing Process
is that it assigns writing responsibilities based on each member’s area of knowledge and skills. For example, if one member of your team has an interest and expertise in curriculum development, he or she can be assigned to write the initial draft of the curriculum objectives. In a research proposal, the statistician on your team can draft the statistical analysis section. In an interdisciplinary team, a literature review from each discipline can be written by the representative of that discipline. Team members can also be assigned roles other than writing. For example, one person can be responsible for obtaining clinical affiliates or letters of support, while another can be responsible for preparing the budget and budget justification. As shown in Box 5.5, there are 10 common tasks required to write a grant proposal. These tasks can be delegated to a grant writing team, although your team does not have to have more than two to four members, which will usually suffice to complete a proposal efficiently. In fact, more than four or five members could make the process very unwieldy. BOX 5.5 ROLES ON A GRANT WRITING TEAM a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.
Proposal coordinator/director Agency contact person Draft writers Editor Final draft writer Budget coordinator Coordinator of references Coordinator of letters of support Graphics coordinator Typist and proofreader
a. Proposal coordinator/director: The person in this role assumes responsibility for the overall coordination of the proposal writing effort. He or she organizes the project and assures that members complete their assigned tasks in a timely manner. This individual is typically the principal investigator or director of the project if funded.
Strategies for Effective Writing
127
b. Agency contact person: The agency contact person serves as liaison with the funding agency. While developing an idea for a proposal, it is essential to contact the program officer of the agency in order to obtain feedback on the project idea. You will want to determine if your idea is appropriate for submission to the competition, clarify agency requirements for submission, and inquire about any technical matters that may emerge in the process of developing the application. Communication with the program officer should only be handled by one member of the team, who should ordinarily be the principal investigator. However, such contact could be initiated by another team member who has familiarity with the agency or who has had previous contact with the program officer. A program officer can then associate the proposal with one person rather than several and will not have to repeat advice or suggestions. c. Draft writers: The first and second drafts of the proposal are usually the most difficult to write. Different members of the team can be assigned to draft specific sections of the proposal. For example, a member of the team with expertise in curriculum development could be assigned the responsibility of writing the first draft of the program goals and objectives. Other members might be more knowledgeable about research methodology or experienced at conducting literature reviews. Individuals should write the first draft of those sections for which they have the most knowledge or skill. These drafts can be shared with other members of the team, or an editor, for editing and revision via the use of tracking in Microsoft Word, or by posting on a shared Web site that allows members to share drafts and commentary. The process of writing and sharing drafts should be discussed early in the planning process of an application. Members of the team should be aware that their writing contributions are subject to editing and final refinement by the primary coordinator or principal investigator. This discussion will help prepare novice team members with the editing process and prevent the potential for animosity among those who may be sensitive to criticism about their writing style. d. Editor: Either a member of the team or an outside expert can serve as an editor. An editor reads for accuracy of content and comprehensiveness, as well as for grammar and punctuation, style, and format. He or she assumes the role of critic and has the responsibility of identifying gaps in conceptual development and/or unclear writing. Usually, it is best to edit for conceptual development and completeness in earlier drafts and grammar and punctuation in later drafts.
128
The Writing Process
e. Final draft writer: Because writers have different styles, one person must take responsibility for assuring continuity in writing, particularly in the use of terminology and language. This person should write the later drafts after all decisions about content have been made by the team. The editor or proposal coordinator often serves in this role. f. Budget coordinator: One person, usually the principal investigator, should be in charge of working with a grants manager who can help to prepare a budget and obtain the necessary institutional approvals. Once the specific aims and methodology have been thought through, an initial budget can be developed. However, as we discuss in chapters 7 and 8, developing a budget goes hand in hand with constructing a project and associated activities. Thus, it is important to establish early in the grant writing process the details of a project, even if this is not committed to writing yet, so that the budget implications can be determined. Typically, budgets for proposals must be moved through an approval process in an institution, which takes time. In some cases, the budget approval process can occur independently of a completed narrative. g. Coordinator of references: One person can be assigned the responsibility of assuring that references are properly cited and presented in the correct format. This is a time-consuming but important job and one that can begin as soon as an initial draft is completed. There are various computer software programs, such as Reference Manager, that are available to assist in the organization of citations. These programs can be wise investments because they can help you complete this task in an efficient way. h. Coordinator of letters of support: Obtaining letters of support from individuals or agencies who will be involved in your project is another important detail that can be time-consuming. This is a task that is best tackled early in the grant writing process. Depending upon the project, its scope, and the funding agency, letters of support from congresspersons; individuals in your organization, assuring institutional commitment; consultants; or organizations that will be participating in your project may be important. One member of the team can be assigned the responsibility of contacting relevant organizations and individuals and collecting their letters of support. It is customary to provide a sample or draft letter of support that individuals can modify and then sign for inclusion in an application.
Strategies for Effective Writing
129
A letter of support should include the name of the application and the agency that it will be submitted to in addition to the credentials of the individual writing the letter and why he/she believes your project is important. Drafting a letter will save time in the long run for you and the consultant and will help ensure that the letters contain the appropriate information necessary to show that there is support for the project. i. Graphics coordinator: Using tables and graphics can effectively summarize your points and concisely organize important information. Gantt charts that present a timeline of project activities and the involvement of key personnel, and figures that display the research or curriculum design are just some of the graphics you may want to include in your proposal. Drafts of this material can be developed during the early stages of proposal writing and then revised, if necessary. One member of the grant writing team can assume responsibility for developing the initial drafts of these materials and coordinating the effort to have figures, tables, or charts developed into a format for inclusion in the application. j. Typist and proofreader: This is a very important role in the development of a competitive proposal. Someone who can format the final draft and proofread the proposal for consistency in presentation is an invaluable asset to a grant writing team. This can be a time-consuming task, so allow enough time for proofreading, formatting, and printing the final version on the correct forms. A grant writing team can be an effective way of organizing the submission of a proposal, particularly for those that require the participation of different disciplines or individuals with diverse areas of expertise. Nevertheless, there are two points to keep in mind if you use this approach. First, as we mentioned earlier, some team members who participate in writing drafts may be sensitive to criticism about their writing style and may feel insulted when their draft is reworked. Because of the potential problems that may occur, members of the team need to be aware that the grant writing process involves constant revision and modification and that the sections they contribute will be revised a number of times. Second, it is essential that the members of the grant writing team complete their assigned tasks in a timely and efficient manner. The due date for a grant submission is not negotiable and the deadlines for initial drafts and other assignments must be treated similarly.
130
The Writing Process
SUMMARY Well-written proposals are those in which ideas are presented clearly, concisely, and logically. Such proposals have a greater chance of receiving a favorable review than those that are disorganized, unclear, and filled with typographical errors. This chapter presents three strategies to improve the quality of your written proposal. 1. Develop a systematic approach to writing. We discussed six organizational strategies to help. 2. Avoid common mistakes in writing. Nine rules for improving your writing were presented. 3. Consider developing a team to work together in submitting a grant application. We outlined 10 roles that individuals can assume on a grant writing team.
Chapter 6 Technical Writing Considerations
• • • • •
Elements of a Concept Paper Needs Assessments Pilot Studies Obtaining Contractual Agreements and Letters of Support Other Administrative Matters
Knowledge of key technical considerations in writing a proposal can improve the competitiveness of your submission and save you valuable time in the writing process. These considerations include writing a concept paper, conducting needs assessments or pilot studies, obtaining supporting documents, and attending to other administrative details. In this chapter, we examine some of the common practices of more experienced grant writers that will strengthen the proposal and/or save you time in the writing.
6.1 ELEMENTS OF A CONCEPT PAPER A concept paper is an important and very useful tool that can serve a number of purposes. It is similar to an extended abstract or an executive summary of your proposal in that it outlines the major elements of the project you are developing. While it should be a brief document, it is a very flexible tool that can help guide your proposal writing. 131
132
The Writing Process
TABLE 6.1 • • • • • •
Uses for a Concept Paper
Aid discussion with federal project officers Submit to a foundation to determine interest Share with colleagues to obtain feedback Refine your thoughts and those of your team about the project Serve as an early draft of your proposal and of your proposal abstract Help outside agencies understand your project and their role in it
It may initially appear that writing a concept paper is unnecessary or a waste of time because its elements reflect the basic components of a grant application. However, taking the time to write such a paper has certain benefits, especially for a new investigator. The six major uses of a concept paper are summarized in Table 6.1. First, some federal agencies require a written statement regarding your intent to submit a grant application to a specific competition. They may ask for either a “letter of intent,” which is simply a letter that states your intent to submit an application, or they may want a more developed description in the form of a concept paper. Even if advanced notification to submit is not required, it is still valuable to send a concept paper to a program officer for review if he or she agrees to review such a document. Program officers in most federal agencies will read and comment on your proposed project if they receive a concept paper at least 1 month to 6 weeks prior to the due date of a competition. However, be sure to call the agency first to determine their policy on reading and commenting on proposal ideas. If you plan to meet with a program officer, sending a concept paper via e-mail prior to your meeting will allow the program officer to review your ideas ahead of time so that you can both use your meeting time more effectively. If you are considering sending a proposal to more than one agency and have talked to project officers in each, you could send each of them a version of the concept paper. Make sure, however, that you tailor your remarks to the particular emphases and concerns of each agency. Feedback from program officers will help you gauge which agency offers the greatest chance of success.
Technical Writing Considerations
133
Second, the concept paper can be sent to program officers at foundations or corporate research divisions to assess their interest in your idea. Sending a concept paper with an introductory letter is often the preferred approach at many foundations. As with federal agencies, you may also send the paper to more than one foundation or corporation simultaneously. Third, the concept paper offers an easy way to obtain feedback from your colleagues. Because it is a brief document, it is not too time consuming for them to read. It enables you to obtain meaningful advice and suggestions without placing a burden on those who read it. Fourth, the concept paper is an effective way to refine your thoughts about your idea because it forces you to think through the elements of your proposal and identify gaps in your thinking. It would also be valuable to share the concept paper with members of your team early in the planning process. Fifth, because the concept paper contains basic elements of a grant application, it serves as the first working draft of the proposal and the first draft of your proposal abstract. Sixth, the concept paper can be shared with individuals from whom you solicit letters of support for the application. Aspects of it can be used to develop a submission to the institutional review board if human subjects are involved. The key to a well-written concept paper is that it provides important information without burdening the reader with every detail that needs to be included in a full proposal. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), for example, recommends that a concept paper should be 6 to 10 double-spaced pages. Other agencies recommend 2 to 5 double-spaced pages. In either case, the concept paper usually contains five basic sections as shown in Table 6.2. As you can see, these sections parallel many of the sections in a full proposal.
TABLE 6.2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Elements of a Concept Paper
Statement of Problem and Rationale Research Question or Objectives Methodology Estimated Budget Requirements (not essential) Key Personnel
134
The Writing Process
The first section of a concept paper contains an introductory paragraph that describes the problem you plan to address and explains its importance or significance. You should also include a very brief reference list of key citations. This section is followed by a brief explanation of the specific aims or the short- and long-term objectives of the project. The third section describes the methodology you plan to use to attain the objectives. In a research project you would include a description of the study design, sampling procedures, sample size, data collection techniques, and analysis procedures. In an educational project, you would describe the steps you plan to take to conduct the project. You may then wish to include an estimated budget for the project with a brief justification of overall project costs. Although most agencies will not be interested in detailed budget information at this stage, providing an overall cost estimate is helpful in evaluating whether your plan is feasible and consistent with the agency’s funding levels. Finally, you will need to briefly identify the key participants in the project and their respective areas of expertise.
6.2 NEEDS ASSESSMENTS In chapter 4, we emphasized the importance of demonstrating the significance of your idea and your expertise in the field of inquiry. An important way of demonstrating both points is to present data from a needs assessment or a pilot study and present your findings in a section of the proposal designated as either “Background and Significance,” “Preliminary,” or “Pilot Efforts.” The submission of an application for a demonstration training or education project usually requires that the significance of and need for the project be adequately demonstrated by a needs assessment. A needs assessment is a systematic approach for defining, analyzing, and evaluating a problem to show that an intervention or an education program should be developed to target that need. A needs assessment provides data that define the nature and scope of the problem, identify the target population, and ensure that a project is relevant. For example, let’s say you are proposing a continuing education program to advance the ability of practicing health professionals,
Technical Writing Considerations
135
such as occupational therapists and physical therapists, to provide family-centered care in early intervention programs in your region. To substantiate the need for such a program and its potential for improving services, it would be important to systematically survey the major early intervention programs in your region. Such an assessment might include the following: 1. The number of health professionals in the region who are working in early intervention programs 2. The number of health professionals in the region who are working in family-centered care 3. The number of families currently receiving these services 4. The number of families on waiting lists for these services 5. The education level of practicing health professionals 6. The level of knowledge in family-centered approaches to care 7. Family satisfaction with services they have received 8. Family perceptions of unmet needs 9. Willingness of practitioners to participate in a continuing education program on family-centered care 10. The number and type of educational opportunities in the region that are similar to the program you are proposing The data obtained from this effort may provide evidence of personnel shortages, the lack of knowledge of family-centered care strategies by practitioners in the current system, and the need for continuing education programs. This evidence is critical to substantiate the need for a proposed continuing education program. There are a range of methodological strategies that can be used to conduct a needs assessment. As in other types of research, the selection of a particular methodological approach for a needs assessment must fit the specific purpose, nature of the target population, and resources of the investigator. Table 6.3 describes a few of the methodological approaches that are commonly used to conduct a needs assessment. Let’s say you want to conduct an assessment of the need for an early intervention training program, but you only have a relatively brief period of time, and you are limited in financial resources and personnel who are available to assist in the data collection effort. In this case, either a telephone interview or a mail survey
136
The Writing Process
TABLE 6.3 Methodological Approaches Used in Needs Assessments Method
Description
Delphi
Mail surveys to reach consensus about an issue from experts. Each expert indicates importance of items along a Likert-type scale through a number of iterations.
Focus groups
Six to 15 individuals with similar backgrounds or experience are brought together to identify or discuss issues in a group. Types of focus groups include key informants, brainstorming, nominal group, and the use of either structured or semistructured questions.
Interviews
Personal, face-to-face interviews using either structured, standardized questions or open-ended qualitative probes.
Mail survey
Questionnaires sent by mail to a target population.
Telephone surveys
Telephone interviews with a target population.
Document reviews
Systematic review of literature, medical records, or other documents.
Direct observation
Systematic observations of settings and behaviors.
of administrators of early intervention programs could be used to obtain the necessary data quickly. If time and personnel are not barriers, however, then other methodologies might be considered. For example, a comprehensive survey of therapists, administrators, and family members can be conducted. This approach can be complemented by systematic observation of selected treatment sessions to evaluate the extent to which family-centered principles are integrated in practice. Another approach might involve conducting in-depth interviews with families to document their perceptions of the care they receive.
Technical Writing Considerations
137
6.3 PILOT STUDIES If you plan to submit a proposal for a research study, the inclusion of data collected from one or more pilot studies is very important. There are four major reasons for conducting a pilot study prior to the submission of a research grant application. These are shown in Table 6.4. Beginning investigators may feel frustrated about the need to obtain pilot data because such efforts often require some level of funding or expenditure of effort. However, it is very important for beginning investigators to obtain preliminary data and develop a track record of research. A pilot study can enable the investigator to demonstrate his or her knowledge about the field of inquiry and ability to conduct a research study. This is one of the areas that review panels will look at closely as it serves to answer the question about your ability to succeed if you are funded. Pilot studies are also excellent ways to test the appropriateness of the research design or the validity of the research instruments, in other words, whether your design will be able to identify the effects that you are looking for. If you are planning to use a new research instrument or one that is not well known in the field, it is critical that you provide reliability and validity data for it, which can be garnered from the pilot study. A pilot study is one of the best ways to demonstrate the potential significance of the project. While there may be evidence for your study in the literature, collecting data on a sample similar to what you will use in the full study can provide strong evidence of the need for your study and its potential for success.
TABLE 6.4 1. 2. 3. 4.
Reasons for Conducting a Pilot Study
Demonstrate the investigator’s ability to conduct the proposed research and his or her familiarity with area. Pretest the research design or other aspects of the methodology. Provide baseline data or preliminary information to justify the proposed effort and its significance. Determine possible problems that might arise when conducting the study and solutions.
138
The Writing Process
Finally, the study may shed light on potential problems that might arise should you get funded for the project. The results of the study will enable you to modify any part of your research plan that shows a weakness during the study. Obtaining pilot data does not have to be a costly activity. Support for small research projects can be obtained from intramural competitions or department or institutional operating budgets. It is also possible to collaborate with other researchers to conduct mail or telephone surveys, observations, focus groups, or in-depth interviews. This strategy can be a cost-effective way for you to examine a clearly defined research question or test one aspect of the research protocol. In presenting the findings from your pilot study, it is important to clearly indicate the way in which the data support the need for your study. Box 6.1 provides an excerpt from a grant application that illustrates how to report pilot findings. BOX 6.1 PRELIMINARY STUDIES The proposed research builds upon and significantly expands the previous research efforts of the investigators. Three studies in particular support the direction of the proposed effort and indicate its potential value. Study #1 Dementia Management Study The first study involved a two-group randomized design in which 220 caregivers of individuals with dementia were assigned to either a treatment or control group. Preliminary findings from 110 caregivers who completed the intervention indicate that an average of three caregiving problems were addressed. A total of 488 environmental strategies were suggested by the occupational therapist (OT) during the course of the five home visit interventions. OTs observed that caregivers used on average 83% or 406 of these strategies by the end of the intervention. These preliminary findings suggest that caregivers can learn and adapt environmental strategies to fit their care situation and respond favorably to a home intervention that addresses individualized need. The intervention proposed in
Technical Writing Considerations
139
this application uses the environmental strategies that were developed in this study but tests their effectiveness with caregivers of individuals with stroke.
6.4 OBTAINING CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS AND LETTERS OF SUPPORT In addition to the narrative portion of the grant, there are supplementary materials that need to be included in a proposal. For example, if you plan to have a formal work arrangement with another institution, you will need to sign a legal agreement in the form of a contract with that institution that clearly describes the working arrangement if the project is funded. We discuss the types of contractual arrangements in more detail in chapter 8. In the application, you will need to include a letter of agreement signed by an official of that institution with which you plan to work. If your project requires a less formal arrangement or if there are individuals or groups whose participation or endorsement would be required or helpful, then letters of support must be included with your proposal. Contracts are almost always handled by your institution. Most require that you use standard forms that have been approved by institutional attorneys. If you are at a university, inquire at your office of research administration for these forms. Most university offices of research administration will complete these forms for you and they will have to sign off on the form submitted with your proposal. If you are at another type of institution or agency, ask your director about the correct procedure. Be sure to specify in the contract all agreements that you have made with the other institution. These include the amount of money that will be paid, the payment schedule, the specific tasks that each party needs to complete in return for the money, and the time frame for completion of each task. If you plan to work with an outside agency in a less formal way, you will be required to include a letter of support with your application. A letter of support from a consultant or an outside agency that will provide opportunities for students assures the review panel that you have the necessary support to carry out the project.
140
The Writing Process
For example, let’s say you are submitting a proposal that involves working with persons who are homeless. Letters of support from administrators of homeless shelters, key personnel in city government who oversee programs for the homeless, and community leaders would be essential. In these letters you want to assure the funding agency that you have access to key resources, such as homeless shelters or study participants, and the endorsement of individuals or agencies knowledgeable about your project. These letters are usually requested personally by a member of the project team and do not have to go through the legal counsel of your university. The concept paper, abstract, or first page of the specific aims can be sent to these individuals so they have the information they need to write the letter and know what they are agreeing to participate in. In some cases, individuals in outside agencies will prefer that you write a draft letter of support. This is less burdensome on them and it will assure that the letter contains the necessary information to show the specific support you will need for the project. These individuals can then review the letter to be sure they understand what is needed prior to signing it. This is also a good way to make sure that both parties are clear on what is expected. A letter of support is usually addressed to the project director or principal investigator and should include a reference to the title of the project and the name of the intended funding agency, along with the endorsement of the project. Both contracts and letters of support can be obtained early in the proposal writing process. One member of the team can be responsible for acquiring these while other sections of the proposal are being written. These letters and contracts are placed in an appendix of the final proposal unless otherwise specified in the application instructions, and then referred to in the table of contents and the narrative of the proposal.
6.5 OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS There are other administrative details that if addressed early on in developing a proposal, can make the writing process more efficient and save you a considerable amount of time, particularly as you near the deadline for a grant submission. We discuss some of the
Technical Writing Considerations
141
administrative details you should consider as soon as you decide to submit an application.
BOILERPLATE MATERIAL Proposal writing is a time-consuming activity. Developing a competitive idea, writing the proposal, and carrying out all the other related tasks take considerable time. One way of cutting down on time is to prepare in advance basic information that is required in most proposals. This information is called “boilerplate material,” because it is standard information and required in most grant applications. Examples of this material include descriptions of your institution’s qualifications and resources, and the biographical sketches of project personnel. Such materials can be prepared in advance and then updated when necessary. The section on institutional qualifications is usually required to show that your institution has the resources necessary to support your project. It includes a series of brief paragraphs that contain a general description of the organization and mission of your institution, agency, college, school, or department. It also includes a description of resources such as the library, computer facilities, laboratories, institutional or agency affiliations, and any other components that make your organization special or demonstrate that the support you need for the success of the project is available. Most of this information can be found in your university catalog, annual report, or other public information developed by your agency. Consider developing two versions of this material, one relatively brief and another with more detail. Either version can then be modified and used in a grant proposal depending upon the depth required by a funding agency. Having the basic framework completed for this section of a grant will save you considerable time and effort. The description of the qualifications of potential project team members is another example of boilerplate material that can be prepared in advance. There are two forms this may take. The first is a narrative biographical sketch. Ask members of your department or agency to write two of these, one long and the other short. The long version need not be more than three paragraphs and should contain a summary of their major accomplishments in research, teaching, and service. The short version can be a oneparagraph description of these accomplishments. The second form
142
The Writing Process
is a standard biographical sketch (NIH PHS 398 4 page biographical sketch format), usually two or three pages, depending on the agency. This document requires you to list your name, title, education history, and a list of your publications, presentations, honors, and awards. NIH and other federal agencies require this form, and the directions are included in the application instructions. As with the institutional qualifications, you will have to modify this sketch for each proposal to match the most appropriate skills of your team members to fit a particular project. However, advance preparation of the basic content will facilitate your grant writing effort.
TYPING THE PROPOSAL When you type your proposal, make it pleasing to the eye and easy to read. If you have a page limitation, which most proposals do, avoid expanding your margins or using a smaller typeface to cram extra information into the narrative. Most applications now require 1-inch margins and 12-point typeface. In addition, whatever advantage you may think you gain by the inclusion of extra information may be lost because of the fatigue and eyestrain experienced by the reviewers while reading your proposal. An attractive, organized, professional-looking proposal enables a review panel to efficiently evaluate its content. Since most proposal writers have access to personal computers and laser jet printers that allow great flexibility in formatting and typeface, there is no excuse for submitting a sloppy proposal. Make sure that the printing is clear and crisp, the tables and graphs are attractive and easy to read, and the punctuation, spacing, and headings are logically consistent. Do not right justify your narrative. Right justification leaves too much white space and is more time consuming to read. So do not waste the reviewers’ time and energy.
DUPLICATING MATERIALS Most agencies now require that you submit your application electronically. This has the advantage of requiring less time to duplicate multiple copies of your proposal. The electronic format will also prevent you from making some of the mistakes in typing we listed
Technical Writing Considerations
143
in the last section. For those few agencies or foundations that still require paper copies, there are a number of things to keep in mind. You will probably be required to submit the original proposal and anywhere from two to eight copies. These copies must be complete and include all appendices and attachments. Sometimes agencies need more copies than are required by law, and it is helpful if you provide extra copies. Contact the program officer to inquire how many copies the agency would prefer you send. Agencies are on tight budgets, and by sending extra copies you will have saved your program officer or one of the secretary’s valuable time and money. Duplicating an application is more time consuming than you may think. Consider completing the appendices several days to a week prior to the due date. This will allow you to duplicate these materials and eliminate the stress of a last-minute rush.
REQUESTING A SPECIAL REVIEW If you believe that the nature of your proposal requires specific technical expertise, you can request that an individual with this specific expertise read your proposal as part of the review panel. This request can be made in a cover letter, and the program officer will make a decision regarding the appropriateness of your request. We discuss this in more detail in chapter 15. Some federal agencies will allow you to request that an additional agency, other than the one to which it is submitted, review your proposal. In other words, if you submit a proposal related to aging to the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research, you could also request that the National Institute on Aging review the same proposal and serve as a second potential source for its funding. In the NIH, these requests should be made in your cover letter and then a referral officer will make such assignments.
MAILING/DELIVERING THE PROPOSAL For those agencies requiring paper copies of your proposal, it needs to be delivered to the agency on or before the published due date. The due date is specified in the general or supplemental instructions along with the name and address of the office to which the
144
The Writing Process
proposal should be delivered and the number of copies to include. Some agencies will require that proposals be postmarked on or before the due date. Other agencies require that proposals arrive on or before the due date. Check closely what is required by reading the instructions or by asking the project officer. Extensions on deadlines are rarely if ever given and only in consideration of natural disasters, and for only those individuals in the affected geographic areas. Therefore, pay close attention to the due date and determine the best method of delivery. If, in writing the proposal, you see that you will need up to the last minute possible for its completion, you may want to consider sending your proposal by a next-day mail delivery service. Make sure that you obtain a receipt from the post office or courier that clearly shows the date and time of mailing. If your proposal is lost, this receipt is proof that it was mailed on time, and it will be accepted by the federal government and most foundations. You may also deliver your proposal personally. Investigators in institutions that are close to Washington, D.C., or the agency address often hand deliver their application. However, as long as the application arrives on time, there is no advantage to one or the other method of delivery.
IF YOU FIND A MISTAKE After submitting your application, you may discover that you inadvertently neglected to include a particular appendix or that in duplication, the ordering of the document was disturbed. These kinds of errors are usually considered small, and most agencies will correct these problems upon notification. Call the program officer to indicate the problem and to determine the best course of action. Electronic submissions generally prevent many mistakes from happening because of the conditions built into the software.
PLAN FOR A RESUBMISSION Few proposals are funded on the first submission. Therefore, plan on submitting your proposal more than once. In resubmitting, listen to the advice of your program officer and be responsive to the suggestions of the review panel. We discuss resubmitting your proposal in more detail in chapter 16.
Technical Writing Considerations
145
SUMMARY In this section, technical considerations of proposal writing have been discussed, as well as administrative matters involved in the submission process. Three important points have been discussed. 1. Writing a concept paper can facilitate proposal development. 2. Needs assessments and pilot studies are essential, especially in today’s competitive environment. 3. Developing boilerplate material is a valuable timesaver. Boilerplate material includes descriptive narrative of institutional resources and qualifications of key personnel that can be kept on file and used for most grant proposals.
This page intentionally left blank
Part III Preparing a Budget
You are unable to carry out a grant project without funding. The budget is the driving force behind seeking a grant and conducting grant activity. In part III, we provide the essential information you need to know to develop an effective and comprehensive budget for your application. Given the importance of the budget to the grant writing process, we devote three chapters to this effort. In chapter 7 we provide a basic overview of budgeting and introduce you to its basic structure and vocabulary. This is followed by chapter 8, in which you will learn how to put it all together—that is, how to match your idea and proposed activities with their associated costs to develop an appropriate budget. Chapter 9 provides an overview of the more technical considerations in budget development, such 147
148
Preparing a Budget
as the government policies and published circulars that govern budget development and its management by institutions and principal investigators. After reading these chapters, you will feel more comfortable with budgets and confident in building one for your proposal.
Chapter 7 Developing a Budget
• • • • •
The Language of Grant Budgets Considerations in Developing a Budget Basic Components of a Budget Budget Justification NIH Modular Budget Format
Developing a budget for a grant proposal is similar to writing other sections of the application. It takes time, careful thought, knowledge of technical budget terms, and an understanding of agency and institutional budgetary requirements and restrictions. Of importance is to begin developing a budget for a proposal as early as possible in the grant writing process or as soon as you have identified a specific project idea and aims. Developing a budget and its justification takes considerable time, and it is important to not underestimate the effort required. In addition to the time it takes to develop a budget, your institution will also need time to carefully review it prior to signing the cover sheet approving your application. The sign-off by a designated official from your institution on a grant proposal is a legal indicator that the institution has reviewed and approved the budget and that it accurately reflects salary figures and real costs.
7.1 THE LANGUAGE OF GRANT BUDGETS Before we consider the details of a budget and how to develop one, it is important to learn the specific language associated with this 149
150
Preparing a Budget
activity. Table 7.1 provides a glossary of the basic budgetary terms and their definition that you can refer to as you move through this chapter and the ones that follow. These basic terms are used in application kits, funding opportunities, requests for applications, discussions with your institution’s research administration, and government and foundation grant competitions. In discussing your ideas with program officers, they will expect you to be familiar with these terms.
TABLE 7.1
Key Budget Terms and Their Definition
Term
Definition
Direct costs
Costs associated with the performance of specific activities and the equipment and supplies necessary for the conduct of the grant.
Facilities and Administrative (F&A)
The hidden costs associated with the conduct of grant activity that an institution absorbs such as electricity and administrative support. Institutions are granted a certain F&A rate that is applied on top of the grant’s direct costs. Funds for these indirect or hidden costs are either used by the institution or a specific portion is allocated back to the principal investigator and/or his/her department to offset grant costs.
Modified F&A
Modified refers to the exclusion of certain direct budget categories such as equipment, patient care, or subcontracts. These expenses are not allowed to be included in the calculation of F&A costs.
Modular budget
NIH approach to budgeting for grant applications with direct costs of $250,000 or less. Instead of providing detailed costs for each budget category, requests are made in increments in $25,000 bundles.
Budgetary categories
The categories that reflect budget needs such as personnel, supplies, equipment, travel, and other.
Salary cap
A cap applied by NIH and some other agencies on the upper amount of salary that NIH will reimburse. For example, if the cap is $180,600 but the salary of the investigator is $200,000, NIH will support effort calculated
Developing a Budget
TABLE 7.1 Term
151
(continued) Definition only on the salary cap. The investigator’s institution will have to voluntarily commit to cost sharing for the portion of the salary not covered. The cap is adjusted periodically, so it is best to check what it is prior to developing the budget.
UnobliThe funds that are unused at the end of a budget grant gated funds period. Obligated funds
The funds that are committed to a particular grant activity with the assumption that they will be spent by the end of the grant budget year. For example, funds allocated for the investigator’s time remain obligated throughout the life of the grant.
Carry forward or carry over
Unspent funds in a given grant year that the investigator would like to carry over and spend in the subsequent funding year. Carry-over funds occur when activities initially budgeted for a given grant year were not accomplished but still need to be completed.
No-cost extension
Refers to funds that are unspent at the end of a grant period. Approval to use these funds enables an investigator to extend grant activities beyond the funded period to complete the project activities in the following year. Approval from an agency for a no-cost extension is required.
Cost sharing
Cost sharing represents the portion of the total project costs (direct or indirect) that an institution agrees to support rather than a sponsor or funding agency. There are different forms of cost sharing. For some competitions, there is a mandatory requirement for cost sharing by the applicant organization. Mandatory cost refers to that portion of the institution’s contribution to the project. This type of cost sharing must be included or the proposal will not be considered by the agency. Voluntary cost sharing refers to an institutional contribution to a grant effort when it is not a specific sponsor requirement.
(continued)
152
TABLE 7.1
Preparing a Budget
(continued)
Term
Definition
Level funding
The total budget request for the first year is the amount that will be awarded each subsequent year of the project. Thus, costs associated with personnel cost-ofliving increases would have to be absorbed by the budget each year by adjusting other allocations.
In-kind contribution
Monies that an institution agrees to in support of grant activity if the proposal is funded. Some competitions will require that the institution show an in-kind contribution as part of its budget request.
7.2 CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPING A BUDGET Now that you have an understanding of the basic language of budgeting, let’s examine the critical considerations in developing a budget. Before you delve into assigning costs and calculating a budget, you must first learn about and consider three factors: (a) the policies and requirements of the agency from which grant funds are being sought, (b) the policies and requirements of your own institution, and (c) the specific resources needed and costs associated with each task of your proposed project. Let’s examine each of these factors in detail.
AGENCY REQUIREMENTS Prior to developing a budget for a proposal, your first step is to learn what budgetary categories are allowable by an agency, the specific budget forms that are required, and the agency expectations as to how the budget will be managed if an award is granted. You can learn about the agency’s perspective on budgeting by carefully reading the application kit or Request For Applications and then talking to a program officer. Table 7.2 lists the key questions to ask a project officer or to find answers to by reading the application materials. As shown in Table 7.2, the first set of questions concerns how to structure a budget for a specific grant competition. As you can
Developing a Budget
TABLE 7.2
153
Budget Questions for an Agency
I. Budget considerations for a specific funding opportunity • • • • •
•
What is the estimated average cost of a project that will be funded in this competition? What is the maximum amount of money that can be requested? Does the maximum cost reflect direct as well as Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs (or just directs)? What is the allowable F&A cost recovery rate that can be requested? Are there certain expenses that are not allowed or supported by the agency (e.g., equipment, computers, travel, rental space, laboratory expenses)? What is the yearly salary increase that is allowable?
II. Questions concerning budget management • • • •
•
Can unspent funds in one year be carried forward to the next project year? If so, what are the requirements to gain approval to carry funds over and is there a limit as to what can be carried forward? Is level funding required or can the cost of the project vary from year to year? Are no-cost extensions allowed at the end of funding to carry out any uncompleted grant activities or must all funds be spent within a designated time frame? Can changes be made to the budget (e.g., increasing, decreasing percent efforts of staff or modifying budget category amounts) or is agency permission required and if so, for what types of modifications?
see from these questions, it is first important to learn if there is a maximum amount of money that can be requested and whether that limit includes direct costs only or direct and Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs. If the amount of funds allowable includes both direct and F&A, then you will have to remove the F&A costs of your institution from the total allowable funds in order to determine how much money would be available to carry out the specific activities you have proposed. This involves a simple calculation. Let’s say the F&A rate for your institution is 55%. Take the total amount of allowable funds (direct and indirect) and divide by 1.55 (or what your F&A rate is). This will equal the direct project costs.
154
Preparing a Budget
Once you have the direct cost, you can then subtract that from the total amount to derive the F&A. Box 7.1 contains an example of how budget information is presented in a Request For Applications (RFA). BOX 7.1 EXAMPLE OF BUDGET SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED IN AN RFA Approximately $2.0 million is projected to be available in FY 2009 to fund six to nine grants. The amount of funding actually available may vary and is subject to change. New grant awards will not exceed $500,000 per year (including both direct and F&A costs). Grant applications that exceed the $500,000 per year cap need approval from a program officer prior to submission or they will be returned to the investigator as nonresponsive.
Although an agency may not specify the amount of funds that an investigator can request in a particular competition, it typically provides an estimate of the average award they anticipate offering. This information is important because it lets you know the scope of the projects the agency is seeking to support. The budget restrictions determine the scope of a project that can be developed and the specific activities that can be proposed. For example, let’s say an agency indicates that the average award will be $150,000, including both the direct and F&A costs for up to 2 years. If your institution’s F&A costs are 55% of direct costs, then the allowable direct costs would be minimal ($82,500 or $41,250 each year for 2 years). Thus, you would need to develop the scope of your project accordingly, and proposing a large randomized trial or multisite effort would not be feasible, whereas a pilot or rich descriptive study would be reasonable. In some cases, as noted in Box 7.1, an agency may impose a strict upper limit. Applications that exceed that limit will be returned to the investigator without being reviewed. Each agency has its own rules about expenses that are allowed and those that are not. These rules may also differ for each
Developing a Budget
155
competition that is sponsored by the agency. For example, some professional associations will not support salary for an investigator, graduate student tuition, stipends, travel to professional meetings, or equipment costs. Some federal agencies will not support costs associated with equipment, direct patient care, or renovation of existing facilities. The NIH imposes a cap on the salary that can be requested for project personnel. For personnel with salaries higher than that covered by NIH, the person’s institution would have to cost-share, or agree to provide support for the uncovered funds. Therefore, it is very important to learn the specific expenses that are allowed, and those that are not allowed, since budgeting inappropriately can have a negative effect on the way your application is evaluated, including your ability to carry out the project. The Facilities and Administrative cost-recovery rate (previously referred to as indirect costs) that is allowed will depend upon the agency and the type of competition. As stated earlier, facilities and administrative costs are overhead expenses associated with the cost of running an institution. These include maintenance, utilities, insurance, and other general administrative expenses. Since you will be using institutional space and these other resources, government agencies and some foundations have agreed to help defray these costs. The amount that an agency provides to an institution for F&A is based on a rate of certain direct costs of a project that is negotiated between the agency and the institution. The process of obtaining a negotiated rate involves completing different forms regarding use of space and allocation to research, and securing this rate is the responsibility of an institution’s research administration (not you as the grant writer). Let’s say the negotiated F&A rate for a large university is 55%. This rate is applied to direct costs (except for certain categories such as patient care or equipment over a designated amount) and added to the budget. If the grant is awarded, the F&A costs will be used by the institution and are generally not available to the project director or principal investigator, although some institutions do have formulas for distributing these funds to the investigator and department, college, and university offices. For research grants, F&A costs will differ depending on the agency. For some, such as the NIH, the F&A rate may range from 50%–60% of modified direct costs. In the case of subcontracts, F&A costs are allowed for the first $25,000 of the subcontract. So, let’s say you are subcontracting with a hospital for $35,000 to provide a
156
Preparing a Budget
specific service for your project each project year. You are allowed to request F&A for the first $25,000 of the $35,000 in the first year but not thereafter. Other agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education, do not have a standard negotiated rate. For these agencies, you are allowed to propose an F&A rate that is acceptable to your institution. However, most agencies will not agree to pay the full amount that the NIH allows, so this is an important point for discussion with a program officer to determine what would be most acceptable to the agency. Some foundations allow an 8% or 10% F&A cost rate, while others will not allow any F&A charges. Training or educational grants have much lower F&A rates. This is because most of the expenses are in the form of tuition and stipend payments to students and additional university resources are not required. Therefore, federal agencies have a standard rate of 8%. If the F&A rate is not indicated in the funding opportunity or instructions for proposal submission, you must ask a program officer or your office of research administration how to proceed. Funding opportunities or instructions for submitting a proposal will also specify budget restrictions or other guidelines that apply to the particular funding competition. Conversely, some competitions specify certain required costs. For example, some agencies require that the principal investigator commit a minimum level of effort, such as 25% on the proposed project, or that a certain percentage of costs be allocated to direct service. It is also important to know an agency’s rules for managing grant budgets if an award is granted. These rules will differ among agencies and may determine the way in which you develop a budget and, hence, your project. For example, some agencies allow an investigator to use funds that are not spent in one project year in the subsequent budget year. These are referred to as “carry forward” or “carry over” funds. However, some agencies do not allow unobligated funds to be carried over. In this case, if you do not spend funds allocated for one project year, then these funds are lost to you and cannot be spent in subsequent grant years. This has important implications for planning activities of a project. If certain activities are not accomplished before the end of the budget year, then there will be no funds to carry them out at a later time. We discuss ways to manage budgets and carry over funds in more detail in chapter 19. It is also important to learn whether a funding agency allows budgeted amounts to vary each year or whether they only accept
Developing a Budget
157
“level funding.” If an agency enforces level funding, then the total budget request for the first year is the amount that will be awarded in each subsequent year of the project. Level funding has important implications for the way in which you plan the flow of project activities. With level funding it is essential to distribute activities evenly over each budget year of the project. Let’s say you are planning an education program for students in allied health, and in your first year you propose a long start-up period involving significant coordination and planning activities. Your first-year budget will be modest because these are relatively inexpensive activities. If in your second year you plan to actively recruit 40 students, and hire three new faculty members and two new clinical supervisors to instruct in the courses, your budget will necessarily increase significantly. If the agency allows budgets to fluctuate from year to year then there are no difficulties with this plan. However, if level funding is required, then it would be impossible to carry out the project because you could only receive the same level of funding in each year. Although most agencies allow for “no cost extensions,” it is critical to inquire whether this is the case to make sure you will have that flexibility. This flexibility is important because many activities, such as subject recruitment, interviewing in research grants, and student recruitment and course approvals in training grants can be delayed due to circumstances that are beyond the control of the investigator and thus extend the amount of time necessary for completing the grant. Although it is important to know whether an agency allows a no-cost extension, this should have no immediate effect on how you plan the budget. However, the added flexibility will give you some peace of mind, particularly in research projects in which recruiting and enrolling study participants can be episodic and take longer than originally planned. In all cases, it is essential to understand an agency’s budgetary expectations and rules for management, and thus it is best to contact a program officer to clarify rules that may be unwritten.
INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES A second important consideration in preparing a grant budget is the specific requirements of your institution. You will need to conform to your institution’s personnel salary scale, and apply the institutional rate for fringe benefits and F&A cost recovery. Table 7.3 lists
158
Preparing a Budget
TABLE 7.3 • • • • • •
Institution-Related Budget Considerations
What is the institution’s fringe benefit rate? What is the institution’s projected yearly percent merit or inflationary salary increase? What is the institution’s F&A cost recovery rate? What is the salary range for key personnel who need to be hired? What is the government and hence institution’s rate for car travel reimbursement? What will the institution permit as in-kind contributions?
six basic questions to ask an official in your institution before you prepare a grant budget. Depending upon the organizational structure of your institution, you can obtain this information from either the office of the controller, office of the budget administrator, office of research administration, or office of sponsored programs. Most institutions have a well-established set of procedures for reviewing proposal budgets to assure that they conform to their requirements. Some large universities have grants administrators who will work directly with investigators to develop their budgets. Grants administrators are knowledgeable about agency and institutional requirements and general costs, so they are a great asset to the grant writing team and in developing a proposal budget.
PROJECT COST CONSIDERATIONS Finally, in developing a budget for a proposal, you need to carefully estimate the cost associated with each project activity and be realistic in reflecting this cost in the budget. That is, your budget should reflect what you actually need to conduct a project and not an unrealistic or unnecessary amount. It should also use and build upon the resources of your institution. For example, although it might be helpful to have a full-time secretary on your project, most projects do not require this level of effort and many agencies will not allow secretarial support. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to request a 100% secretarial position when only a 30% effort is actually required and the work effort reflects more research assistance and coordination assistance than traditional secretarial work. By building on the
Developing a Budget
TABLE 7.4 1. 2. 3. 4.
159
Self-Study Questions for Budget Development
Is my budget practical and realistic for the tasks I plan to accomplish? Is my budget appropriate for the tasks I need to accomplish, my level of resources, and allowable costs by the agency? Are the funds I am requesting sufficient to offset the costs of my project? Is my budget comprehensive in that it covers all costs directly associated with the implementation of my project?
resources at your institution, you may be able to increase the time of a part-time secretary, or renegotiate the role of a full-time secretary so that 30% of his or her effort will be devoted to your project and the related work is project-specific coordination or assistance. Because budget considerations influence the design of a project and its scope, you need to think about the budget during each step in planning your project. By doing so, you will assure that you can accomplish what you would like to propose within the budget structure that will be available. As you develop the budget, ask yourself the questions in Table 7.4 as a self-study guide.
7.3 BASIC COMPONENTS OF A BUDGET Although direct costs represent the central feature of a budget, you will also need to consider other aspects such as the F&A cost allowance, and potential institutional commitments, including those that are stated as part of the proposal and those that may be hidden costs. Let’s review each component of a proposal budget.
DIRECT COSTS As noted in Table 7.1 direct costs are those expenses that are necessary to carry out your project. Although what is allowed as a
160
Preparing a Budget
direct cost can vary by agency and competition, here we describe eight basic budget categories that tend to be allowed by most federal agencies and foundations.
Personnel This category refers to the salary and fringe benefit support that is requested for each member of the project team. The project team usually includes key individuals such as the principal investigator and co-investigators; project director or coordinator; and support personnel such as interviewers, research assistants, statisticians, consultants, and secretaries. Starting with the principal investigator or project director, it is necessary to list the names and identify the roles of all the people who will be involved on the project. List only those who are current employees of your institution or those who you know will be hired to work on the grant. If you do not have a specific individual in mind, then you should list the specific role, and indicate “to be hired” (TBH). To determine the salaries, first estimate the amount of time each person will spend on the project. Usually, this is calculated as a percentage of 100%, which is a person’s full-time job commitment. Next, multiply this percentage by an individual’s annual base salary. This will give you the amount of his or her salary that is the responsibility of the grant. The next step is to compute the cost of fringe benefits that are attributable to this salary. This is done by multiplying the proposed project salary by the fringe benefit rate. These two figures are then added to determine the person’s salary paid for by the grant. If the person is on a 9- or 10-month employment contract and is asked to work on the grant during the summer months, a separate calculation for the summer salary will be required. Box 7.2 provides an example of how to compute a salary line. Similar calculations are made for all members of the project team. BOX 7.2 EXAMPLE OF SALARY CALCULATION Dr. J. is an assistant professor of physical therapy with a 10-month salary of $55,000. She has been included as a faculty member in an application for a training grant that the
Developing a Budget
161
department is submitting. The principal investigator, Dr. M., has determined that she needs 15% of Dr. J.’s time during the academic year, and 100% of her time for one month during the summer. The university fringe benefit rate is 26.5%. Dr. M. computes her salary line in the following manner. First, she takes 15% of $55,000 $8,250. This is Dr. J.’s salary covered by the grant during the academic year. Dr. M. then computes her benefit allowance by multiplying $8,250 by 26.5%, or $2,186. This is the fringe benefit cost rounded to the nearest whole dollar. The fringe benefit cost is added to the salary ($8,250 + $2,186 $10,436), to determine the total grant contribution to Dr. J.’s salary during the academic year. Dr. J. will also work for one month during the summer, and a separate calculation needs to be made for this month. Since Dr. J. is on a 10-month contract, her monthly salary is $5,500 ($55,000 10%), and her fringe benefit rate will be $1,458 (26.5% $5,500). Therefore, her summer compensation will be $6,958 ($5,500 + $1,458), and her total grant supported salary will be $17,394 ($10,436 + $6,958).
It is important to note that the NIH no longer requests the percent effort of key personnel that will be devoted to a project. Rather, it asks for grant-related effort to be recorded as “person months.” This represents the amount of time or effort key personnel will devote to a project based on the type of appointment or the calendar months for each key person (e.g., whether the individual has an appointment for an academic year or 9 months, summer term or 3 months, or calendar year of 12 months). To convert percent effort to calendar months, follow these scenarios: Scenario #1—9-month academic appointment 25% allocated to grant support 25% of a 9-month academic year appointment months (9 .25 2.25) Scenario #2—12-month calendar appointment 15% will be devoted to the project 15% of a 12-month calendar appointment months (12 .15 1.8)
2.25 person
1.8 person
162
Preparing a Budget
Scenario #3—3-month summer term 40% will be devoted to the project 40% of a 3-month summer term appointment months (3 .40 1.05)
1.20 person
To find out more about how to calculate the effort according to person months go to http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/person_ months_faqs.htm.
Consultants Consultants are those individuals who are not university employees but whom you plan to hire to carry out discrete activities on your project. For example, on a research grant you might require the assistance of an expert to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis. On a training grant you may need to consult with an individual who is a recognized expert on the curriculum content of your program. If these individuals are employees of your institution, they must be treated as members of the project team when computing salaries. If they are from outside the institution, you will need to negotiate the amount of their compensation and report it in the nonsalary section of the budget. Fringe benefits are not calculated for consultant fees. However, consultants may request an amount that may include their own institution’s fringe benefit rate.
Equipment Items such as furniture or equipment that have a usable life of two or more years and cost over $500 are reported in this section. Computers or special laboratory equipment are the types of equipment that also might be placed in this category. The full cost of these should be requested. A word of caution is in order here. You should only request funding for equipment that is essential, directly related to your project, and not already available at your institution. Because equipment may last longer than the life of your grant, review panels and funding agencies examine this category closely to assure the appropriateness of your request and that you are not padding your budget to purchase items that may be used for other projects or to increase your department’s inventory. For example, at one point personal computers were not common in faculty offices or laboratories
Developing a Budget
163
and many investigators needed to purchase them with grant funds. Today, the purchase of personal computers for employees is usually considered the responsibility of the institution, and funding agencies are rarely willing to support this purchase unless you can justify that it is essential, and used only for your project. In fact, for the purchase of all durable, fixed equipment, you must provide a strong justification for its importance to your project and a rationale as to why the funding agency, rather than your institution should support the cost.
Supplies These include daily office needs such as stationery, audiotapes, and specific laboratory supplies, such as reagents and chemicals that are necessary for your project. Federal agencies rarely approve the purchase of general office supplies such as paper, pencils, or computer disks. Often, there is no need to itemize supplies if your total request is less than $1,000. As with all proposed purchases, estimate as closely as you can the cost of all the materials you will need and ask for that amount with a justification for the expenditure.
Trainee Expenses This category is found in applications for training or educational grants. All costs related to individuals (usually students) who will be the recipients of the training provided by the grant are included in this section. These include expenses such as tuition, stipends, travel, or other costs associated with supporting the participation of trainees in your project.
Travel Travel expenses include costs of transportation, lodging, meals, meeting registration fees, and incidental expenses by project personnel. Travel costs must be directly related to your project. Examples include attending a conference to present a paper, meetings with other investigators to discuss your project, travel for advisory board members on your project, and costs associated with interviewing subjects. You should request only clearly justifiable travel expenses and provide an estimate of hotel and transportation costs.
164
Preparing a Budget
All travel by airline must be in economy class. Also, your institution most likely will use the government rate for reimbursing travel by car. The current government rate is $.505 a mile, but you should inquire whether this rate is used by your institution. Because this rate frequently changes it is best to check with your research administration prior to developing your budget.
Alterations, Renovations, and Rental Space In some cases, agencies will fund alterations or renovations to a physical space, if they are necessary to implement your project. For example, if you are conducting a study of wheelchair access, you may be able to receive funding for renovations to install ramps or widen doorways to an area that participants will need to use. Some foundations provide support for major construction projects such as the erection of a building. However, these “bricks and mortar” projects are becoming less common. Costs for space rental are usually not allowable because these costs are included in the F&A cost recovery rate. For most beginning investigators, however, these will not be relevant budget items.
Consortium/Contractual Costs There are a variety of projects in which a consortium relationship is necessary: a school of allied health may want to collaborate with a school of education to conduct an educational training project, a department of laboratory sciences might want to work with an equipment company in a study of new technology, or a department of occupational therapy might want to develop an agreement with a rehabilitation hospital to study a particular therapeutic intervention. These types of arrangements require special agreements between the participating institutions. The two most common arrangements are consortium and contractual agreements. In a consortium arrangement, both parties have responsibility for the scope of the entire project, although each will carry out different aspects of it. However, one institution will be required to serve as the principal institution and oversee the receipt and disbursement of funds. Another approach would be to contract with another institution for specific services. For example, Dr. M. is a faculty member
Developing a Budget
165
who has developed a special early intervention program for children with developmental delays but has no means of gaining access to the local school district. She knows that a nearby school of education has a program that involves providing staff development for school principals. She might propose a contract with the school of education that allows her to introduce this program to the principals who might provide her the access to implement the program in their schools. In either case, each participating institution has its own rules regarding compensation of personnel, allowable costs, and overhead rates, and each will need to submit a separate budget. Most institutions have standard forms and specific procedures for entering into these types of agreements with outside agencies, so you will need to work closely with your office of research administration to develop the appropriate legal documents. If your institution is the lead or principal institution in a consortial or contractual arrangement, your organization will receive and disburse all funds. The participating institution will then periodically bill you for their services. Be certain that you have reached a clear agreement about the exact services that will be provided, how you will be notified of their completion, and a schedule of payments.
Other Expenses All expenses not specifically covered in other categories are reported in this section. These can include miscellaneous expenses such as lunch for an advisory board, long-distance telephone costs, recruitment advertisement costs, or payments to subjects. For example, a project involving pediatric AIDS might include money in the budget for small gifts for the children as a way of encouraging participation and showing appreciation for a family’s involvement.
FACILITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS How do you calculate the F&A costs for your project? Not all expenses in your proposal can be used to compute your indirect cost recovery. This allowance is typically based on modified direct costs. The general rule of thumb is that any expense in your grant that involves university facilities or resources is used to compute the
166
Preparing a Budget
modified direct costs. These include the expenses found in the following categories: personnel, travel, supplies, consultants, and other. Equipment purchases, trainee expenses, and consortium and contractual costs over $500 are not allowable as part of the F&A cost base, because none of these uses the resources of your institution. However, for NIH grants, you are allowed to include the first $25,000 of consortium costs in calculating the indirect costs. In computing your F&A cost recovery, add the amounts in each of the allowable categories and multiply that amount by either 8% for a training grant or the negotiated rate of your institution for research projects. Simply add this amount to the total of the direct costs of your project to calculate the total costs for your project. If your institution does not have a negotiated rate with the funding agency to which you are applying, you will need to discuss the most appropriate rate with your budget administrator or office of research administration. However, it is best to contact the agency and ask whether they would accept this request although it is not government approved. When you enter into an arrangement with another institution, typically they will require F&A costs. Their F&A cost recovery will be included in the total amount of money that you agree to pay them, so separate calculations are not necessary, although you will need to state in the budget justification the rate they are requesting.
INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENTS An agency or a foundation may request, or in some instances require, that an institution contribute in some way to the financing of a project. Since cost-sharing commitments can have an effect on faculty and administrative workload, each institution has different policies related to the kinds and value of services that they are willing to commit. Cost sharing can be accomplished in several ways. First, an institution can contribute time for members on the project team. For example, if you estimate that a 40% effort is required by a member of your team, your institution may agree to donate 10% and ask the granting agency to pay 30%. Box 7.3 provides an example of how this might be done.
Developing a Budget
167
BOX 7.3 EXAMPLE OF INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT Dr. K. is a member of a project team that involves a consortium arrangement between two universities. One of his administrative responsibilities is to encourage external relationships between his university and other agencies. Because the project requires a research or administrative liaison between the two universities, 10% of Dr. K.’s time is donated to the project for that purpose. Because this role is legitimately part of the grant activity and his daily responsibilities, it is an appropriate university contribution to the project.
Universities can also demonstrate commitment by waiving a portion of the F&A cost recovery allowance. If your university has a negotiated F&A cost rate of 60% with an agency such as NIH, you might request a lower rate, such as 50%, and show the difference (10%) as a university contribution. However, this approach may not be acceptable to your university because it might jeopardize future F&A negotiations with NIH. Alternately, if you are applying to an agency that only allows a 10% F&A rate, then you can show that your institution is providing an in-kind contribution of 50% because that is its true negotiated and government-approved rate. A third way to demonstrate commitment is through the donation of supplies, mailing, phone, or duplicating expenses. For example, some universities have centralized mailing or purchasing systems that distribute costs for mailing and supplies throughout the university. For small mailings and limited supply purchases, the university might agree to share these costs with the granting agency. These are all examples of legitimate cost-sharing expenses. In developing a budget, be certain that your institution is agreeable to the in-kind commitments you include in the costs of your project. Most institutions are as concerned with the financial implications of a project as they are with its scientific integrity. Consequently, they typically have rules about what costs need to be covered in a grant budget. For example, some colleges and universities interpret clerical or secretarial support, or basic office supplies, as part of their F&A allowance. Others will allow you to request that the granting
168
Preparing a Budget
agency cover these expenses. Many institutions have an office of research administration that is charged with overseeing all grants submitted at the institution and that must approve all budget decisions. You need to check with this office prior to developing your budget. The staff will be familiar with the rules of your institution and assure that your budget meets the standards set by the university and the funding agency. Box 7.4 provides an example of a budget that shows how inkind contributions might be presented in a budget.
BOX 7.4 EXAMPLE OF A BUDGET CONTAINING IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS Personnel Position Investigator
% Effort 40
Fringe In-kind Requested Salary (26.5%) (10%) Amount ($) 14,400
3,816
6,092
18,216
Research Asst
10
1,800
477
2,277
Secretary
10
2,000
530
2,530
Subtotal:
6,092
23,023
Consultants Survey design 10 hours
40/hr
400
5 hours
40/hr
200
Statistical support Supplies Envelopes Printing and duplication
150 1,000
Staff Travel Parking for meetings
100
Other Data entry and computer use
500
Developing a Budget
169
Total Project Costs
31,465
Total Requested
25,373
In-kind contribution
6,092
7.4 BUDGET JUSTIFICATION In addition to providing a line-by-line or detailed budget, you will also be required to provide a detailed justification in the form of a narrative for each expense that is proposed. A budget justification involves a brief explanation and rationale for each line item in the budget. In writing the justification, follow the order in which budget items are presented. Thus, typically, you would start with “Personnel,” describe each person’s roles and responsibilities on the project, and provide a rationale for their percent effort. You will then need to systematically explain each line item of the budget and demonstrate how each cost has been derived. Box 7.5 illustrates an excerpt from a budget justification for a training grant.
BOX 7.5 EXAMPLE OF A BUDGET JUSTIFICATION FOR PERSONNEL Project Director: Dr. K. will devote 40% of his time each project year. The university will contribute 10% of his salary each project year and we request grant support for 30% of Dr. K.’s salary each project year. Dr. K. will serve as the project director and be responsible for coordinating all project activities, which include: convening an advisory panel, overseeing curriculum
170
Preparing a Budget
development activities, serving as liaison with the collaborating university, supervising graduate assistants, monitoring the grant budget, teaching in the newly designed courses, and participating in the dissemination activities.
7.5 NIH MODULAR BUDGET FORMAT In 1999, the NIH instituted a new approach to reporting budget requests for grant applications that have direct costs in each year of $250,000 or less. For these applications, you must use what is referred to as the “modular format.” This format must be used by any investigator who submits an application to the NIH when a modular format is required. This approach can be advantageous in that all the budget details do not need to be specified. The modular format requires that the applicant request direct budget costs in $25,000 increments rather than showing exact figures in each separate budget category. Using this approach, each $25,000 is a module, and you typically request the same number of modules each year. For example, if you develop a detailed budget and your total direct costs for the first year are $121,000, using the modular budget format, you would request a total of $125,000, or five modules. Similarly, if the second-year direct costs are $123,500, you would request a total of $125,000. If in year three, the budget requirements increase to $140,000, you would request $150,000 or six modules. A budget justification in the form of a narrative is still required. The justification must contain the same details that would be contained in the traditional budget format, such as the percent effort for key personnel, and consortium/contractual costs. You must also provide a rationale for yearly increases or decreases if the number of modules is different each year. For example, in the previous scenario, you would need to justify why the costs in your project increase by an additional $25,000 in the third year. The modular budget format is part of a wider initiative of the NIH to streamline its procedures and refocus the efforts of investigators and review panels on the science of the application rather than
Developing a Budget
171
budgetary and administrative details. This approach also streamlines the award process and eliminates renegotiations concerning budgetary details. Although detailed information for each budget category is not submitted to NIH, it is still important that you develop a detailed budget for your own use. A detailed budget will most likely be required by your institution and will also be necessary for you to effectively manage expenditures. Remember not to submit the detailed budget to the NIH if the modular format is required. Your application will be returned to you if you do. Specific directions for modular budgeting can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ funding/modular.htm.
SUMMARY This chapter presented information for preparing a grant budget. Six major points have been discussed: 1. In preparing a grant budget, there are three considerations: the policies and requirements of the funding agency, the policies of your institution, and the costs associated with each project task. 2. Agencies provide information in the call for proposals regarding the number of grants expected to be funded and the estimated size of each grant award. This information should guide the development of a budget. 3. Each agency has its own rules about allowable and nonallowable expenses, the F&A cost recovery rate, and whether costs can fluctuate from year to year. It is very important that you learn these rules. 4. Your institution has specific rules about the procedures to follow in developing a grant budget. These include allowable yearly salary increases, fringe benefit rates, allowable in-kind contributions, and the F&A cost-recovery rate. Knowing these rules prior to developing a grant application will save you considerable time in developing a budget. 5. In computing your budget, be as realistic as possible. Your budget should reflect your best estimate of the costs
172
Preparing a Budget
associated with each project activity. Do not overestimate your budget and ask for too much. At the same time, do not underestimate the amount you will need to conduct your project. 6. Budgets usually contain three components: direct costs, F&A costs, and institutional commitments. Categories in each of these components must be justified in a separate section of the budget.
Chapter 8 Putting It All Together to Create a Budget
• Constructing a Budget • Thinking Through Project Costs • Consultation and Subaward Considerations In chapter 7, we outlined the basic vocabulary for preparing a grant budget, differentiating between the budget categories associated with direct costs and the calculation of Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs, components of a budget justification, and the special considerations associated with the NIH modular budgeting format. Now that you are familiar with the basic vocabulary and components for designing grant budgets, let’s consider how to actually construct or build a viable budget for a proposed project.
8.1 CONSTRUCTING A BUDGET Developing a budget is as important as detailing the science or training requirements of a proposal. It requires care, thought, and time. There are numerous considerations in constructing a budget. First, it is important to recognize that your proposal budget (along with your entire proposal) will be reviewed by a number of different departments and officials, including individuals in your university as well as those in the funding agency. One of the more important 173
174
Preparing a Budget
groups who will review your budget is the review panel of the funding agency.
PEER REVIEW Your grant budget will be reviewed and critiqued by the review panel of the funding agency and will be an integral part of the evaluation of your entire proposal. A grant budget is assessed by peer reviewers, typically using four criteria that we have outlined in Table 8.1. First, reviewers will evaluate a budget for its reasonableness. They will evaluate whether the proposed costs are too high, making the project too expensive, or too low, which would make completing the project as proposed difficult. If reviewers believe that your budget is too high, they might recommend a percentage reduction to bring it in line with what they consider reasonable for the proposed activities. If the panel believes that the budget is inappropriate this can affect the overall score for the proposal, making it less competitive. Alternately, if you propose a budget that is unrealistically low, it is unlikely that they will recommend an increase. However, they may deduct points because they will consider that you have not adequately thought through the costs associated with the implementation of the proposed activities. Therefore, it is important to develop a budget that realistically reflects project costs associated with the aims and specified activities of the proposal. A related point is whether you have budgeted for all of the key activities. Those that are not budgeted for can raise issues related to the feasibility of your project. A final consideration for reviewers is whether adequate time and funds have been allocated to support the principal investigator and all key personnel on the project. Reviewers will evaluate whether too little or too much time is being allocated for each member of the project team, given their proposed responsibilities. For example, if you were proposing to conduct a large survey of 5,000 households, it would not be reasonable to have a statistician on the grant for only 10% time, because methodological and analytic considerations will be critical to the project’s success. Furthermore, in some agencies, the project director or principle investigator is required to allocate at least 20% of his or her time to the project.
Putting It All Together to Create a Budget
175
TABLE 8.1 Criteria for Evaluating Grant Budgets Used by Reviewers 1. 2. 3. 4.
Is the budget reasonable? Are requested costs in keeping with the proposed aims/activities? Does the budget cover key activities necessary for the success of the project? Is there adequate effort allocated for the principal investigator and other key personnel (e.g., statistical consultation)?
If your proposal is approved for funding, your budget will also be evaluated by a budget officer or grants administrator from the funding agency who will review the budget to assure it conforms to agency requirements and that disallowed costs have not been proposed. For example, for most NIH grants, costs associated with secretarial time, or office or laboratory space, are not typically allowed. Agency personnel will also review the budget to assure that all calculations are accurate.
ITERATIVE PROCESS BETWEEN PROGRAMMATIC AIMS AND BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS Constructing a budget for a proposal is an iterative process requiring a constant back-and-forth between the delineation of the science and associated activities and their budgetary implications, and back again to the science. As you develop your proposal, you will make numerous modifications to the aims and scope and nature of the activities that will be conducted. For each project refinement, there may be a potential budget implication and hence, an adjustment that may need to occur. Thus, for each change in the proposal, the budget must be refined as well. For example, if your initial plan is to enroll 150 individuals in a study but upon further reading and power calculations you determine that over 500 individuals will actually be required to address the questions you pose, significant adjustments to the budget would need to occur to account for the increased activity related to recruitment and interviewing, travel time of personnel, subject remuneration, and the effort required for data entry and analyses of a larger data set. Thus,
176
Preparing a Budget
the budget would have to be adjusted in each of these categories accordingly. It is never too soon to start working on a budget. In fact, you should think about the budgetary implications of your ideas as soon as you have identified a funding opportunity and outlined the specific project goals and objectives or aims. Never underestimate the amount of time it takes to construct a budget and its justification. Most novice researchers are unfamiliar with budgets and their management. Nevertheless, budget construction is not a task that should be delegated to someone else, because it should have continual oversight and input from the principal investigator. As principal investigator or project director, it is imperative that you lead the budget-building process. Only you as an investigator have the intimate knowledge of the proposed project and its methodology that is essential to identifying the budget requirements. Since grant budgets reflect the specific scientific or educational aims of a project, involvement of the investigator in budget preparation is critical. As we discussed in chapter 7, most universities and academic departments have grants administrators who will work closely with investigators to develop a grant budget. It is imperative that you work closely with this individual, starting as early as possible in the proposal development process. This will not only save you time in the long run, but also help you understand and improve your skill in the budgeting process. Table 8.2 outlines our top five tips for developing a budget. The following are some suggested steps that you should consider in developing your budget as it fits into the overall proposal development process.
READ THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY (APPLICATION KIT) As we emphasized in chapter 7, it is important to immediately read the funding announcement to identify the budgetary requirements and restrictions imposed by an agency. As you develop your idea, you must place that idea within the confines of the particular funding competition to assure that it is neither too small nor too large for the budget expectations delineated by an agency. Although we discussed this in part in chapter 7, it is worth repeating here the key elements that are important to consider when reading a funding
Putting It All Together to Create a Budget
TABLE 8.2 1. 2. 3. 4.
5.
177
Top Five Tips for Constructing a Budget
Read the funding opportunity (program announcement or application kit) to identify budget requirements. Start immediately to think about the budget implications of your initial project idea. Establish a timeline of grant activities to determine how your expenses will be allocated over the time span of the project. Meet with a grants administrator to outline the basic budget assumptions based on your initial project plan (e.g., who will be on the grant, percent of effort, supplies, and travel requirements). Finalize the project plan, activities, and timeline and develop your budget so that all budget forms (institutional and agency-related) can be completed and carefully reviewed as you continue to write the grant.
announcement. Table 8.3 outlines key agency requirements that will inform the process of building an appropriate budget for a project.
START IMMEDIATELY In meeting with your project team or a colleague to flesh out a grant idea, the budget implications must be part of that initial conversation, because each scientific or research/training decision that is made will influence your budget. As soon as you have decided that your idea is viable from a budgetary perspective and that you plan to move forward with a grant submission, be sure to inform your grants manager and provide him or her with a copy of the application kit and the specific application forms that will need to be completed. The grants manager will then carefully read the application documents to determine the budgetary implications as outlined in Table 8.3.
ESTABLISH A TIMELINE OF ACTIVITIES Once you have identified a project goal and its specific aims, begin to outline a timeline of key activities and when each activity will be
178
Preparing a Budget
TABLE 8.3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
6.
Agency Budgetary Considerations
What F&A is allowed? Is an in-kind (institutional) commitment required? Is there a salary cap imposed? Are there other budget restrictions (e.g., no support allowed for computers, travel, equipment)? Is there a certain proportion of the budget that must be allocated for a specific activity such as direct service, or to a community organization? Is there a certain percent effort expected of the principal investigator?
accomplished. An activity timeline is essential for constructing a budget. For example, if you are planning on a 3-year study in which you plan to enroll 150 study participants over 24 months (about six persons per month), and interview each person for 2 hours in their home, the schedule of activities will have important budget implications. In project years 1 and 2, you will need to budget for recruitment and interviewing for 72 participants and travel to their homes. In project year 3, however, the project will not have activities such as enrolling, interviewing, or traveling to participant homes. Instead, the budget may reflect other activities associated with data entry, analyses, and report generation. Thus, after establishing the specific aims, the timeline for accomplishing key activities is fundamental to the construction of a sound budget.
MEET WITH GRANTS ADMINISTRATOR As we mentioned earlier, most research-oriented universities have grants administrators or fiscal experts who work with faculty to develop their budgets and then manage these budgets upon the award. A knowledgeable grants manager is a critical member of a grant writing team. He or she will understand institutional requirements for developing a budget, such as the institution’s F&A rate, fringe benefit rates, and the forms required by the university/institution for their internal review in order to obtain signatures of the official who is designated to sign the approval forms for your institution.
Putting It All Together to Create a Budget
179
A grants manager can facilitate moving a grant proposal through the administrative maze of your institution for its submission to an agency on time. This is no easy feat in the current funding environment, and with the complexity of internal budget forms and necessary internal review processes. A knowledgeable grants manager also knows federal grant requirements or will be able to interpret the requirements of an agency to assure that your project’s budget conforms to agency expectations and regulations. The initial conversation with a grants manager involves identifying some of the key assumptions of a project as outlined in Table 8.4. Based on this basic information, a grants manager can begin to identify the project costs such as salary, fringe rates, and travel costs, and start to build a budget for each project year using a spreadsheet. This initial construction of the budget will allow you and your grants manager to determine if the budget is over or under agency expectations and whether there are implications for the science or training needs of the project. Depending on the complexity of the budget and the need to negotiate with consultants and/or subcontractors regarding their particular role and hence budgetary needs, there may be one to three (or possibly
TABLE 8.4
Key Assumptions for Constructing a Budget
Identify the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8.
Length of project (e.g., 1 year, 18 months, 3 years, 5 years) Name and role of key staff on project (e.g., principal investigator, project director, research assistant, interviewers) Expected percent effort of each key staff per year (e.g., 100% effort for project director years 1 and 2, and 50% effort in year 3) Key consultants, their role, scope of work, hourly rate, and expected number of hours per year Special supply and/or equipment needs Type of travel (e.g., professional meetings, travel to interviews), number of trips expected and number of persons involved Potential other expenses including subject remuneration, student stipends, the number expected, and budget amount for each project year Amount of subcontracts and other costs
180
Preparing a Budget
more) drafts of a budget generated prior to its final form. This is part of the iterative process and requires a positive and efficient working relationship between the grants manager and the principal investigator.
FINALIZE PROJECT IDEA, ACTIVITIES, TIMELINE Although your project idea may evolve and change as you write the grant application, it is imperative that you try to finalize the idea, specific aims, and methodology promptly so that you can commit to a budget as early as possible in the grant writing process. Otherwise, you may not have sufficient time to complete all of the required institutional and agency budgetary forms. As soon as you have finalized a timeline and discussed the initial budget with a grants manager, he or she can assist you with a budget justification and complete the necessary budget forms and associated paperwork to obtain signatures of institutional officials. As the grants manager is working on these forms, you can focus on the scientific narrative. If you do not have a grants manager or fiscal expert, it is helpful to identify a person who can work with you on the budget so that you can pay more attention to the proposal.
8.2 THINKING THROUGH PROJECT COSTS Novice investigators may find it difficult to think through the costs associated with the activities they are proposing to carry out. First, it is important to understand that each activity proposed has a budgetary implication that must be accounted for either by an in-kind contribution or by requesting funds from the granting agency. This is another example of why a timeline for accomplishing each project activity is so important. With this timeline or flow chart in hand, for each entry, ask yourself the questions posed in Table 8.5. The answers to the questions posed in Table 8.5 will enable you to think through costs associated with each project activity. Working with a grants manager will help you obtain a better understanding of the cost of performing each activity, and ways to consider staffing to pare down costs.
Putting It All Together to Create a Budget
TABLE 8.5
181
Questions for Identifying Costs of Each Activity
1. 2. 3. 4.
Who is responsible for carrying out the project? How much effort of that person is required? What materials/supplies or special equipment will be required? What type of additional supports will be necessary? (e.g., secretarial time, consultation with specific experts)? 5. Will travel be necessary? 6. Are there other considerations that should be addressed?
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING OUT EACH ACTIVITY As we mentioned in chapter 4, in putting together a project team, it is important to consider the skills necessary to carry out each step of the project and to select team members with the necessary expertise. The next step is to assign each member the specific tasks he or she is best suited for.
PERCENT EFFORTS The next step is to consider the amount of effort that each individual will need to commit in order to carry out assignments. Novice investigators typically under-budget the effort required. Although there is no clear rule of thumb, with practice and exposure to grant activity, you will become more comfortable with identifying the percent effort required for an activity. Grant-related activity takes considerable time and effort, and thus budgeting fairly and accurately is important; otherwise, your institution will have to absorb the difference between what is budgeted in the grant and what is actually required for the successful completion of the task. Typically, a principal investigator should be on a project for no less than 10% effort, although some agencies will require a minimum of 20% effort. However, the range of effort is highly variable depending upon the scope of the project and its complexity. In projects in which the investigator will be directly involved in hands-on activities such as conducting the interviews and statistical analyses, effort may be as high as 50% to 70%. For some new investigator
182
Preparing a Budget
initiatives, the investigator may be required to allocate 50% to 100% of their effort. For more seasoned or experienced investigators who are managing several grant-funded projects and for which there is budgeted a staff (e.g., project director, interviewers, analyst) responsible for day-to-day operations, 15% to 35% effort is considered acceptable. One difficulty that might arise in budgeting for personnel is that you may find that some activities only require a small percent effort of a person’s time. For example, if the proposal requires interviewing 50 people, to be accomplished by an interviewer who is on the grant for 20% effort, this would reflect a work effort of about 1 day per week. If that person is not on your staff, it may be difficult to hire an interviewer for such a brief period. This may require some creative use of staff time, or training a current member of the project team to perform the interviews. Although you do not need to identify a person at the time of submitting the grant application, it is important to consider how you would handle this employment situation as you construct the budget. Remember that the NIH requires effort to be represented in person months. See chapter 7 for a discussion of this approach to effort reporting on grant application budgets.
SALARY CONSIDERATIONS In developing a budget, there are three ways to identify proposed members of the project team. The first is to identify a person who is on staff at your institution by name. The second approach is to indicate that a person will be named at the time of the grant award (TBN), and the third is to indicate that an individual will be newly hired (TBH) to carry out the proposed work if the grant is awarded. In each case, you need to determine the salary for the person. If the person is on staff, then you must use that person’s salary as it is projected to be (e.g., taking into account merit or cost-of-living increases) for the project year in which the grant would begin. The salary you request in a grant budget must reflect actual salary; that is, it can not reflect what the individual would like to have as his/her salary or a substantial increase in salary unless there is a request for such an increase independent of the grant application. For individuals TBN or TBH, the salary proposed in the grant should reflect a realistic salary for the type of activity in which the
Putting It All Together to Create a Budget
183
person will be involved. It is helpful to contact your human resources department to identify an appropriate salary for the position you are requesting.
8.3 CONSULTATION AND SUBAWARD CONSIDERATIONS Most grant projects require the involvement of one or more consultants who have expertise and specialized knowledge in an area necessary for the successful accomplishment of the proposed activities. To involve a consultant in your project, follow the key steps outlined in Table 8.6. Some grant ideas may require developing a contract with another institution to carry out some of the proposed activities of
TABLE 8.6 1. 2.
Involvement of Consultants in a Grant Proposal
Identify specific areas of expertise needed and potential candidates. Contact the potential consultant, explain the project, the amount of time, and the scope of work you seek from the individual. 3. If the individual agrees, determine if a consultative arrangement will be with the individual him/herself or with their institution. 4. Obtain a biosketch in the format required by the agency to which the grant will be submitted. 5. Identify and agree to the specific scope of work of the consultant during each project year and the hourly/daily consulting fee. 6. Obtain a letter of agreement or support from the consultant. a) If the consultative agreement is with a person, then ask for a letter of support on plain paper or letterhead of the individual’s consultation firm. b) If the consultative agreement is with an institution, then ask for letter of intent from the individual’s office of research with a signature from the official designated to speak for the institution. If the proposal is funded, then you will need to enter into a formal consultative agreement with the consultant. This is discussed in more detail in chapter 18.
184
Preparing a Budget
your project. This is called a subaward. For example, if you plan to conduct a research study involving a community center that will be responsible for recruiting study participants and implementing the intervention on their site, you would need to develop a subaward with them. A subaward outlines the scope of work, specifies the budget requirements for that work, and the key personnel from that site who will be involved. The details of the subaward need to be included in the narrative of your proposal. Most university research administration offices have individuals who are experienced at developing and negotiating subawards, so you should get them involved as early as possible in the process. Table 8.7 outlines the key steps in developing a subaward arrangement once you have identified an organization with the skills and resources necessary to meet the identified needs of your project.
TABLE 8.7 1. 2.
3.
4. 5.
6.
Developing a Subaward
Identify the institution, center, or group that is necessary for successful enactment of the grant idea. Discuss with the director of the site the scope of work you require, what their budgetary needs are, and the key personnel from the site who might need to be involved. Ask the director to develop a draft budget reflecting the agreedupon scope of work, along with a budget justification for each line item. Review the budget carefully to assure it reflects the required work activities and adheres to agency budgetary restrictions. Have your research administration office review the proposed subaward budget in light of the work requirements and the funding agency requirements. Obtain a letter of intent from the site on their official stationary and signed by the director or official designated to sign such letters. This letter should indicate the site’s agreement to engage in the proposed activity and their willingness to enter into a formal contractual arrangement if the grant is awarded. Most letters of intent include the total budget request for the subaward to demonstrate acknowledgement and agreement with the negotiated budget figure. Your research administration office may have standard form letters that cover the above issues that they require researchers to use with outside contractors.
Putting It All Together to Create a Budget
TABLE 8.7
185
(continued)
7.
The budgeted amount for the subaward must be included in the designated section on the budget forms required by the funding agency. 8. Calculate F&A costs for your institution that include up to $25,000 for the subaward. You are permitted to ask for F&A costs for up to this amount across the life of the project. For example, if the subaward budget is $20,000 year 1, $30,000 year 2, and $15,000 year 3, then you may only ask for F&A on $20,000 of costs in year 1, and $5,000 (of the $30,000) in year 2. If the proposal is funded, then you will need to enter into a formal contractual arrangement with the participating site. This is discussed in more detail in chapter 18.
SUMMARY This chapter builds on our discussion in chapter 7 to provide an understanding of how best to construct a budget for research or training grants. Emphasized here are the following points. 1. Each scientific aim or training activity is associated with a budgetary implication. 2. Identifying specific budget costs for each expected activity is an iterative process reflecting a back-and-forth between developing the science and developing the associated budget. 3. Critical to the budget development process is working with a grants manager or fiscal expert who can help navigate the forms required and institutional and agency requirements, and who can provide budget data for key personnel, supplies, travel, and other budget categories for anticipated activities. 4. Specifying percent efforts for key personnel can be difficult for novice investigators who may not have sufficient expertise or previous exposure to how much effort may be required for grant activities. It is preferable to slightly overestimate than underestimate the work effort required because grant activity is usually more time-consuming
186
Preparing a Budget
than most new investigators realize and you may encounter unforeseen problems once you begin the project. However, a budget should not be padded, and reviewers and the agency will recognize if this has happened. 5. Involvement of consultants and/or other participating sites is common and requires specific budgeting and associated letters of support.
Chapter 9 Technical Considerations in Budget Development
• Governance of Budgets • Budget Forms • Assuring Budget Accuracy The more you become familiar with the rules governing budgeting and expenditures, the easier it is to build a budget for a grant proposal and manage it upon receipt of a grant award. In addition to government regulations, all grant-related activities must comply with local and state laws governing employment, taxation, and other related rules. Although your institution’s research administration and fiscal departments are ultimately responsible for assuring that all grant expenditures conform to government regulations, the principal investigator must be knowledgeable about allowable and unallowable costs to proceed ethically and responsibly in the conduct of any funded research or education project. Our purpose here is to provide a brief orientation to some of the technical considerations in budget formation and governance, which will enhance your ability to develop and ethically manage a grant budget.
9.1 GOVERNANCE OF BUDGETS Federal grant budgets are governed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and regulations are specified in three circulars. 187
188
Preparing a Budget
These circulars are available on the Web site of the OMB: http://www. whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/. Your institution’s research administration office will have these circulars, because they are required to follow them religiously. Individuals in research administration will be able to answer any questions you may have about them. We have summarized the content of each below and discuss their use again at the post-award stage in chapter 19. OMB Circular A-21, titled “Principles for Determining Costs Applicable to Grants, Contracts, and Other Agreements with Educational Institutions,” is most directly relevant to investigators. It provides the basic principles for determining costs that can be applied to grants, contracts, or other arrangements with federal government agencies. It outlines cost principles related to what is allowed, how funds can be allocated, which costs are not allowed, cost accounting standards, and the definition of direct and F&A costs. OMB Circular A-110 establishes “standards for obtaining consistency and uniformity among Federal agencies in the administration of grants to, and agreements with, institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations” (see http://www.white house.gov/omb/circulars/a110/a110.html). Additionally, OMB Circular A-133 lays out the rules for auditing grants, compliance standards, and the responsibilities of universities. Although these circulars are specific for federal grants, they provide the foundation for the monitoring and oversight of all grant activities in universities. You need to know that these guidelines exist, that you and your institution are bound by these guidelines, and that your fiscal and/or research administration department will use these circulars to set up grant budget oversight both at the preaward (grant submission) and post-award (grant award) stages.
9.2 BUDGET FORMS When developing a budget for a particular funding opportunity, as we discussed in chapter 8, you should first carefully examine the instructions specific to budget development in the Request For Applications (RFA), or funding opportunity. Federal agencies will provide specific instructions as to what is required in a budget within the body of the RFA. Make sure you use the most up-to-date budget forms that an agency requires. Always consult the Web page of
Technical Considerations in Budget Development
189
an agency to download the forms and check when they were last updated. It is not unreasonable to contact a program officer of a foundation to inquire about the use of particular forms and verify that you have the most recent version. For government agencies and the NIH arena, detailed budget instructions and forms are available through grants.gov and the OMB Web page: http://www.white house.gov/omb/grants/grants_forms.html. Most foundations will also specify what can be included in a budget and what cannot and the format that they require. Some foundations do not provide specific forms. If this is the case the NIH format is often acceptable.
9.3 ASSURING BUDGET ACCURACY Working with numbers requires constant checking and doublechecking each assumption and calculation. It is best to review all calculations on a grant budget and have another person, such as the grants administrator or fiscal expert, do so as well. Some grant budget forms can be cumbersome to use, and if in a Microsoft Word document, may not facilitate manipulation of related numbers if changes are made. For example, if you change a salary figure, it will have an effect on the amount of money allotted to fringe benefits, the total amount of money in salary lines, and the total of the budget. Therefore, each of these calculations would have to be made separately, introducing possible errors. Thus, it is often more efficient and accurate to use a spreadsheet such as Microsoft Excel, which allows for automatic adjustments to totals when changes to one or more entries are made. However, even with spreadsheets, it is best not to over-rely on them for accuracy. The numbers you enter for each cell may be incorrect, or you may inadvertently use differing round-off rules for each cell entry that can result in total calculations being slightly off. In addition, it is very easy to transpose a number, which will also result in an incorrect budget. Thus, be sure to check all entries by using a hand calculator. Even if you use a spreadsheet, once the budget is finalized, the numbers must then be reentered onto the grant forms required by the agency. This can also result in transcription errors, so, again, care must be taken and all work double-checked. Prior to
190
Preparing a Budget
submitting your budget work to your institution’s research administration or fiscal overseer, make sure all your calculations are correct. This will save everyone a lot of time in the long run.
SUMMARY This chapter provides suggestions concerning the technical components of developing a grant budget and introduces the basic government circulars that frame budget management. Although it is not necessary to study in depth the content of these circulars, it is helpful to have a working knowledge of their purpose and content and to have them easily available for your reference. Also, your grants administrator, fiscal office, or office of research administration can be consulted with regard to their content and the rules and regulations guiding all grant budgets from their development to their monitoring and management.
Part IV Models for Proposal Development
Compared to other disciplines, the health and human service professions are still in an initial stage of development in competing for external sources of support. This is, in part, due to a lack of experience in grantsmanship, the lack of available federal funds that are earmarked specifically for health professionals, and the complexity of the professional lives of health and human service academics and practitioners. Whereas grantsmanship is often the primary work of social and behavioral scientists, health and human service professionals must delicately balance multiple roles. These roles include training students to become practitioners, providing direct services or administering these services, and participating in the scientific advancement of practice. Each of these roles is time-consuming, competes for a professional’s focused energies, and requires a different 191
192
Models for Proposal Development
set of skills and expertise. Thus, the multiple roles of health and human service professionals pose a special challenge and necessitate a different, organized approach to grantsmanship than that traditionally used in the social and medical sciences. For this reason, we believe the next three chapters are very important and provide meaningful strategies to enable professionals in both academic and practice settings to participate in the process of obtaining external funds. Chapter 10 introduces four different organizational structures for organizing and implementing grant applications. These structures are conceptualized along a continuum from individual to collaborative team efforts. The benefits of each, and the particular circumstances under which they are most effective, are also discussed. Chapter 11 describes in more depth a collaborative, team approach to project development. A collaborative project structure is particularly timely in that it is embedded in many funding priorities and facilitates the development of complex, multifaceted educational and research programs in health and human services. We present a model to guide the collaborative process that is based on the framework of social exchange theory and the team-building literature. The model offers a basis for bridging research and practice settings or enabling individuals from different disciplines or distinct areas of expertise to effectively work together. Knowledge of the range of organizational approaches and the collaborative process enables individuals, departments, and institutions to develop the necessary infrastructure to support grantsmanship. Chapter 12 presents some of the common challenges of forming a team and ways of being an effective leader and group member.
Chapter 10 Four Project Structures
• • • • •
Individual Model Consultative Model Cooperative Model Collaborative Model Choosing an Appropriate Project Structure
Now that you are familiar with various strategies for identifying a funding source and writing a grant proposal, it is important to consider other key aspects of project development and implementation. The successful development and implementation of a research or educational project not only requires knowledge of grantsmanship, but also how best to organize and manage a project. Each research or training project differs with respect to the nature and complexity of required activities, the type and amount of coordination required, and the types of skills that are necessary to have represented by project staff. To be successful, the principal investigator(s) or project director must structure the project in such a way as to maximize efficiency and ensure successful project implementation. There are basically four distinct models by which to organize and implement research or training grant applications. We refer to these as individual, consultative, cooperative, and collaborative. Each approach has a set of defining and distinguishing characteristics, is useful under different circumstances, and has unique advantages and disadvantages. Understanding different approaches to project development and management will help you organize a grant application as well as implement it if it is funded. It is important to evaluate which of the four structures we discuss here best fits 193
194
Models for Proposal Development
your preferred style, the nature of the project, and your institutional environment. Although it is possible to use one approach in project development and then another approach once the project is funded, usually one organizational model will be used at both the grant writing and project implementation stages. The four models of project organization can be conceptualized along a continuum based on the degree to which individuals are involved in the project. On one end of the continuum is an individualized work effort in which there is minimal involvement of others. On the other end is a collaborative structure that is team oriented and requires the greatest organizational effort and level of involvement of participants. Each of these project structures can be defined by the extent to which 14 basic characteristics are present. These characteristics are summarized in Table 10.1. Let’s examine each model. TABLE 10.1 Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Project Structures Individual
Consultative
Cooperative
Collaborative
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
Differentiation of roles
x
xx
xxx
Open communication
x
x
xxx
Open, honest negotiation
xx
xx
xxx
xx
xxx
Defining Characteristics Clear statement of goals, expectations, procedures
Mutual goals Climate of trust
x
xx
xxx
Cooperation
x
xx
xxx
Shared decision making
x
xx
Conflict resolution
xx
xxx
Equality of participation
xx
Group cohesion
xx
Decision by consensus
xx
Shared leadership
xx
Shared responsibility for participation
xx
Note: x’s indicate the presence of a characteristic and the level of its intensity, with more x’s indicating greater intensity.
Four Project Structures
195
10.1 INDIVIDUAL MODEL An individual model reflects the traditional academic approach. In this model, a single investigator works independently to develop and carry out a research or educational project. An individual model contains only one of the defining characteristics found in Table 10.1, that of a clear statement of goals, expectations, and procedures. Although this characteristic is a basic requirement of any project, it serves different purposes within each organizational model. In the individual model, a clear statement of goals, expectations, and procedures helps an investigator remain focused and task-oriented in carrying out the activities of the project. An individual approach is effective and appropriate in at least four situations: 1. Small pilot grant efforts, especially those under $50,000 2. An experienced investigator with a well-developed research agenda who is an expert in all facets of the project 3. Competitions in which the purpose is to advance an individual’s career (fellowships, special training opportunities, post-doctorates, mentored or internship awards) 4. Discrete pieces of research, such as the structure of protein molecules in a laboratory, an investigation of the outcomes of a particular educational strategy in the classroom, or the development or advancement of a particular theoretical framework An individual work model is less viable for large projects that necessitate the involvement of diverse areas of expertise and experience or require the participation of more than one organization. In fact, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for one person to have the knowledge and expertise in every facet of a project and the time to keep abreast of the literature in fields that may be relevant to the core project idea. The traditional picture of the lone researcher working in his or her laboratory and developing a brilliant research project is not an effective or realistic one for either the beginning novice investigator or the expert. With the exception of those situations described above, working alone can be an isolating experience that lacks intellectual stimulation.
196
Models for Proposal Development
10.2 CONSULTATIVE MODEL A consultative model is an extension of the individual approach. An investigator using this model develops a project idea and then requests assistance from experts or consultants who can contribute specific expertise or skills. Consultants may be hired to write a discrete section of a proposal or perform a particular activity for a project that is funded. They do not “own” the project idea, but contribute their expertise to enhance one particular aspect of it. The involvement of a consultant is usually viewed favorably by a review panel because the additional expertise increases the likelihood of the successful completion of the project. An example of when you might want to use this model would be if you wanted to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis in a study that tests a health service program. If you do not have expertise in cost-effectiveness analysis, you would need to find an expert in this area to serve as a consultant. In order to work effectively with you, the consultant would need to become familiar with the general purposes and objectives of your program in order to determine the variables that are most appropriate to include in the analysis. However, he or she may have little interest in, nor would it be necessary to understand, your theoretical framework or how the program contributes to the scholarly base in your field. A consultative model has six defining characteristics: a clear statement of project goals, expectations, and procedures; differentiation of roles; open communication; open and honest negotiation; a climate of trust; and cooperation. A clear statement of goals and expectations is critical in guiding the overall project and identifying the specific responsibilities of a consultant. Therefore, a key responsibility you have as the primary investigator or project director is to clearly explain the project to the consultant and the specific expectations for his or her work effort. It is important to make sure that the consultant has an accurate understanding of the work that needs to be performed. A second characteristic, role differentiation, refers to the set of procedures and roles assigned to individuals to guide their contributions and their specific tasks (we discuss this concept in more detail in chapter 11). In organizing a project using a consultative model, the specific responsibilities of the consultant must be clearly communicated so that the work can be performed effectively.
Four Project Structures
197
It is also important to identify a consultant with whom you can work productively. A productive work relationship will be based on communicating openly and negotiating fairly. A relationship that is characterized by open communication and involves honest negotiation about the nature and scope of work as well as timelines and payment will help both you and the consultant arrive at a mutually satisfying agreement and a working climate that is productive. The relationship must also involve a level of trust and cooperation so that tasks are performed in a timely and effective manner and fit your expectations as to how and when they must be accomplished. The agreement with the consultant is typically outlined in a legally binding contract, approved by your institution, that indicates the scope of the work, the timeline for its completion, and the method of payment. This document is referred to as a professional consulting or service agreement. Most consultative agreements also indicate that the consultant will not have intellectual ownership of any part of the study or the product that they provide as part of the scope of work, and that they are not permitted to use or publish the materials without obtaining prior written permission from the principal investigator. Most universities or major institutions have standard agreement forms that have been reviewed and approved by their legal department that they will require you to use. A consultative model is most effective for projects in which you have adequate knowledge and skill to carry out the major activities, but there is a need for technical expertise in a specified and welldefined area. This model is appropriate for individuals in social service agencies or health care facilities who may have knowledge about the major topic of a project but need assistance either in developing and implementing evaluation techniques, research design, or data analysis. Although most large projects will require the use of one or more consultants, even small pilot studies can benefit from consultation in specific areas.
10.3 COOPERATIVE MODEL A cooperative model is an extension of a consultative approach. There are two types of cooperative models. In one type, an investigator
198
Models for Proposal Development
identifies an idea for a project and invites one or more individuals in the same or other disciplines at his or her institution to work on major aspects of it. The initiator of the project defines the scope of involvement of each member and directs the group’s activities. A second form of this model involves a cooperative arrangement among two or more institutions. The initiating or lead institution takes overall responsibility for the submission and conduct of the project and defines the involvement of the other institution(s) in the form of a legal contract. In both types, all parties need to establish a systematic approach to organizing the project and create a productive working relationship. Participants divide the project into discrete areas of responsibilities and tasks. Members of the group then meet periodically to report their progress in carrying out their responsibilities and to make decisions about the project. Although participants work closely together, they do so as individuals, each assuming responsibility for their particular area. The end product of this “working group” reflects each individual’s unique contribution and is an additive approach to problem solving. Occasionally, a funding agency will seek a cooperative agreement with a grantee. In this case, the sponsor typically announces a particular Request For Applications in which such an arrangement is specified as a requirement of the grant submission. In such a cooperative agreement, the funding agency has a major role in decision making regarding the conduct of the funded research or educational program. This is an example of an organizational structure based on a cooperative model. A cooperative model contains nine of the defining characteristics outlined in Table 10.1. As in each of the other organizational models, cooperative arrangements are based on a clear statement of goals, expectations, and procedures that defines the direction of the project and its management. In this model, role differentiation becomes even more important than in the other work models. The cooperating groups must have a clear understanding of work expectations and the specific tasks that each needs to accomplish. This working relationship requires cooperation, open communication, honest negotiation, and professional respect or trust if it is to be successful. The possibility of disagreement exists in any working relationship; therefore, participating parties must also develop an effective mechanism for making decisions and resolving conflict.
Four Project Structures
199
A cooperative model is effective in projects involving multiple and distinct tasks, a clear division of labor, and distinct work performed by each participating institution or group separately. A cooperative arrangement can strengthen a project because it brings together individuals with complementary strengths and resources from different disciplines or institutions to carry out the project. Funding agencies often encourage projects that are organized according to this model because it allows for meaningful contributions by many individuals or institutions that would otherwise not be available in an individual or consultative project structure. This is particularly the case for research projects that involve the recruitment of hard-to-reach populations or those with very specific characteristics (such as, for example, older widowed Hispanic men), which may be difficult to recruit in one geographic region. Box 10.1 provides an example of a project in which a cooperative model would be appropriate.
BOX 10.1 CASE EXAMPLE OF A COOPERATIVE MODEL Dr. S., an associate professor in physical therapy, is interested in working with young children with disabilities. She has developed a set of protocols that have been tested and shown to be effective. Dr. S. wants to demonstrate the effectiveness of her protocols in the public school setting, but she does not have access to a sufficient number of schools or the experience in developing training materials that are appropriate to that setting. Dr. S. decides to contact a colleague, Dr. T., who is a faculty member in a school of education in another region who has done extensive work with schoolteachers. She discusses her ideas with Dr. T., who is interested in expanding her contacts in the schools and who agrees to cooperate on the project. Dr. S. submits a grant in which her institution is the applicant organization. She involves Dr. T. and her institution as part of a consortium relationship. That is, a subaward will be established with Dr. T.’s institution that supports the work effort of Dr. T. and her team.
200
Models for Proposal Development
As you can see in this example, Dr. S. has specific knowledge that is useful to teachers working with children who have disabilities. However, she lacks experience with teachers and, most importantly, the network by which to disseminate materials within school districts. Dr. T. has worked extensively with schoolteachers, is familiar with public school districts, and has developed teacher-training materials. Dr. S. and Dr. T. have complementary perspectives, skills, and resources. Each has access to different networks of experts, trainees, and bodies of literature, and each can accomplish a discrete work effort that addresses each of their own goals, while contributing to the accomplishment of the overall project. Therefore, both benefit from a cooperative arrangement. As part of the subcontract to Dr. T.’s institution, direct and indirect costs are requested so that both institutions benefit from this arrangement.
10.4 COLLABORATIVE MODEL A collaborative model builds upon a cooperative approach and involves a more complex organizational structure. Whereas cooperative models are built around working groups in which each individual and/or working group contributes to the completion of a task independently and uniquely, a collaborative model relies on the development of a team to work on all aspects of the project, from planning to implementation. Teams are different from working groups. Working groups are based on a collection of individual actions in which performance is a function of what members of the working groups do as individuals. The focus is on individual work products, and each participant is accountable for his/her final product. In a collaborative, team-based model, there is a requirement for interdependent problem solving and task performance. Success requires both individual and collective actions. Collective work products reflect the joint or integrated contributions of team members, and both the individual and the group are mutually accountable (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Teams may be composed of health and human service professionals from the same or different disciplines, faculty members and clinicians, researchers and consumers, or any combination of these individuals.
Four Project Structures
201
There are many definitions of collaboration. Katzenbach and Smith (1993, p. 112) define collaboration as “a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approaches for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.” This definition highlights the importance of teams having complementary skills and a commitment to a common purpose or mutual goal. Whitney (1990, p. 11) provides another way of understanding collaboration. She suggests that “real collaboration involves at least two different sets of ideas, known goals to be reached by each collaborator, differing and complementary talents, and a good measure of individual passion to continually generate, combine, and separate activities in response to both individual and group goals.” This definition emphasizes the importance of combining different ideas and the passion, energy, and commitment that is necessary to meet the challenges of the constantly changing dynamic of individuals interacting in groups. We build on these definitions and view collaboration as “an indepth cooperative effort in which experts from the same or different disciplines are linked in such a way that they build on each other’s strengths, backgrounds, and experiences and together develop an integrative approach to resolve a research or educational problem.” Thus, “problem formulation and solutions reflect a perspective that is more than the sum of each participant’s contribution” (Gitlin, Lyons, & Kolodner, 1994, p. 16). Our definition emphasizes the importance of integrating ideas. That is, in a collaborative effort, experts work together in such a way as to build on each other’s strengths, backgrounds, and experiences, so that an integrative approach to a research, education, or training problem is achieved. Using this approach, individuals with mutual interests but perhaps different areas of expertise meet to explore potential project and proposal ideas. These individuals work closely to jointly define and develop the project idea and a plan for its implementation. Ideas for a project emerge from the interaction and exchange among individuals. Each person on a collaborative team combines his or her skills with those of other team members in such a way that problems may be redefined and solutions found that reflect multiple levels of expertise and knowledge. The final project idea and plan for implementation represents the integration of multiple perspectives and is thus the product of the group interaction. Solutions identified through this approach are much
202
Models for Proposal Development
different than those that would be identified by using an additive approach to problem solving—that is, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A collaborative work model contains the nine defining characteristics of a cooperative model, but to a greater degree of intensity. For example, although open and honest negotiation may be present in consultative and cooperative models, this characteristic is critical for the effective development of a collaborative team. Group deliberations must be honest and open for a team to learn about and integrate each member’s opinion and expertise. This is not a necessary requirement for the success of a cooperative or consultative model. A collaborative approach is also characterized by five unique characteristics: equality of participation, decision making through consensus, shared leadership, shared responsibility for participation, and group cohesion. Equality of participation is particularly important because program ideas emerge from the blending or integration of the viewpoints of all team members. All members of the team bring critical expertise to the project and therefore are essential for its effective completion. Because of the importance of these skills, each member must be seen as an equal contributor to the team’s deliberations. Teams that reinforce equality of participation will also seek to involve all members in decision making and recognize the value of reaching a consensus on major decisions. When members make contributions in their respective areas of expertise, they are assuming a leadership role. As individuals become more involved in decisions, they will also develop a responsibility for participation because their contributions to team decisions are seen as important to the group. These processes result in the emergence of a high level of group cohesion that, in turn, leads to an environment or climate of trust, in which conflicts can be openly addressed and members feel free to make important contributions to the grant writing process. The five major advantages to this organizational model are summarized in Table 10.2. We discuss each of these advantages below. First, a collaborative approach provides an important mentoring opportunity for individuals on the team who may be less experienced in grant writing and/or conducting funded projects. Through participation and inclusion as a collaborator, an inexperienced faculty member, clinician, or service provider gains invaluable firsthand knowledge and skills. Second, a collaborative approach overcomes limited resources, such as the lack of specialized knowledge
Four Project Structures
TABLE 10.2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
203
Advantages of a Collaborative Model
Provides mentoring experiences Enables efficient use of limited resources Provides a competitive advantage for certain funding programs Facilitates interdisciplinary interaction and integration Enables multisite participation and development of more complex projects
and experience, which are major barriers to grant writing in the health and human service professions. Third, the rapid advancement of scientific knowledge makes it difficult for any one person to have all the information necessary to carry out a complex project. Fourth, an interdisciplinary approach can provide a competitive advantage because many funding agencies encourage interdisciplinary approaches to projects. The NIH Roadmap specifically calls for the involvement of different disciplines to study a particular public health concern as part of its strategic plan to advance science. Other funding agencies also recommend interdisciplinary approaches to addressing various health problems. Fifth, the development of a team of collaborators promotes interdisciplinary sharing of knowledge as opposed to the multidisciplinary participation that exists in a cooperative or consultative arrangement. Interdisciplinary collaboration allows members of one discipline to learn about and come to respect the potential contributions of those in other disciplines. As in a cooperative arrangement, collaboration enables a team to develop more complex education and research projects that may involve the participation of different disciplines or multiple sites. Complex projects such as curriculum development, or cost-benefit or statistical analyses require more specialized skills that many investigators do not possess. As Katzenbach and Smith (1993) suggest, the real purpose of a collaborative team is to be “cutting edge,” “revolutionizing,” and “first!” Nevertheless, it should be noted that a collaborative model still requires that one person be designated as the leader, most often the principal investigator of the grant project. The leader is still ultimately responsible for the integrity of the science or education program. A collaborative approach does not negate recognition of a hierarchical structure in which the principal investigator has the final decision-making authority. A new NIH model has emerged
204
Models for Proposal Development
recently to allow two principal investigators. This is a positive advancement in that it represents a formal recognition of equality between two individuals who are collaborating. However, this organizational arrangement requires an even more focused attention to the characteristics of collaborative teams. Despite the potential benefits of a collaborative approach, there are several disadvantages. First, collaboration is time-consuming in that it involves organizing and integrating the contributions of many individuals. It requires a very strong leader (e.g., principal investigator or project director) who has the skills to develop and foster a team approach and who can strike an effective balance in independent decision making and team involvement. Although collaborative projects can be exciting, some will find this approach tiring and draining, requiring too much energy in coordination of individuals and developing effective communication mechanisms. Second, some individuals may not be able to participate in shared decision making or may not have a personality that lends itself to compromise and revision. Third, collaborative projects may cost more to implement, because they involve the coordination of more individuals, which may necessitate more frequent meetings. Finally, many in academic disciplines, including those in the health and human service fields, are primarily concerned with their own professional advancement. This uni-disciplinary focus tends to discourage team-oriented approaches in research or education that involve different disciplines. Even with potential disadvantages, a collaborative approach has been upheld by NIH and other funders recently as one of the most critical and important approaches for addressing the major public health problems that now exist. A major health care issue identified in recent years is that of health disparities among various sectors of the population. A collaborative partnership between academic and community settings has been suggested as a critical approach for addressing this issue. An example of the collaborative approach that we have just described, that fits the requirements of many funding agencies, is called community-based participatory research (CBPR). This is an approach to research that: “equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community and has the aim of combining knowledge with action and achieving social change” (Community Health Scholars Program, 2006).
Four Project Structures
TABLE 10.3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
205
Advantages of CBPR as a Collaborative Model
Bridges research-to-practice gap by involving end-users as members of the project team Promotes more rapid transference of findings to communities Facilitates sustainability of proven programs Community involvement provides inside knowledge of the target population Enables study/program to be named and framed to resonate with cultural perspective of target group Involves stakeholders and thus enhances sustainability of a program or intervention if proven effective Enables partners to look through a different lens to understand complex health issues such as disparities between groups
CBPR is an approach that involves a targeted community and population. The partnership and input from the target community are key to shaping the specific research questions and research methodology. Either qualitative or quantitative, randomized trial designs can be used. Attention to the partnership to nurture and assure a culture of mutual respect and team decision making is central to the success of this approach. Other key advantages of using CBPR are listed in Table 10.3. Involvement of communities can include partners such as social service agencies, clinical settings, community-based organizations, or neighbors in targeted areas.
10.5 CHOOSING AN APPROPRIATE PROJECT STRUCTURE The four work models—individual, consultative, cooperative, and collaborative—offer diverse but complementary approaches to developing a project idea and a grant application. One work style and organizational model is not necessarily superior or more effective than the other. The selection of an organizational model for a project depends on the nature of the idea, the complexity and size of the project, the experience of the individuals involved,
206
Models for Proposal Development
the resources (e.g., funding level, knowledge, institutional) available, and the preferences of the funding agency. One model does not necessarily exclude the other. For example, a consultative approach can be integrated into the other models. If you were using a collaborative model for a complex project, but needed a consultant to carry out a very specific task in the project, he or she probably would not need to be a member of the project team. One way to choose the most appropriate organizational structure is to consider how much involvement of others is necessary. This can be determined by asking yourself these questions: • Do I have the necessary skills or knowledge to carry out my idea? • Do I have the time to complete the tasks that will be required? • Do I have the resources needed to complete the project? • Which project structure has the greatest potential for successful implementation of the idea? If you lack a specific skill set, knowledge area, time, or other necessary resources (statistical expertise, knowledge of curriculum development), then you should consider involving others who are capable of filling these gaps. This informal needs assessment will suggest the size and composition of your project team and the model of project organization that may be most effective. Although any one of these models may be appropriate depending upon the type of project you want to carry out, we favor collaborative approaches for a number of reasons. First, unfortunately, a “do it alone” attitude continues to impose a significant barrier to the health and human service professions in their efforts to advance their professions through knowledge building using systematic inquiry. A narrow, discipline-specific approach shortchanges the professions in that problem formulation based solely in the academic environment or within one discipline frequently lacks relevance to daily clinical issues or results in program designs that are inappropriate for a practice setting. A uni-disciplinary perspective also limits the potential growth of any one discipline in that it precludes the intellectual stimulation that results from interactions with others and the understanding of the contributions that other disciplines can make to solving the complex problems that exist in the health care system.
Four Project Structures
207
Second, an individual-based approach to research and education also shortchanges clinicians or practitioners, who usually do not have the resources, in terms of time and research knowledge, to engage in a research or education project. Third, the approach also shortchanges consumers. Many agencies require that consumers be involved in the planning and implementation of programs developed by health and human service professionals. Consumers have a unique perspective and a different understanding of their own needs than do “outside experts.” A productive approach for the health and human service professions is to consider a team approach that involves the equal participation of practitioners and academic faculty. Finally, team approaches can address many of the issues faced by health and human service professionals as they strive to improve their ability to acquire outside funding. These issues include lack of experience in grant writing, the scarcity of doctoral-prepared investigators, and the lack of resources. A collaborative model has the potential to improve the skills of inexperienced faculty and practitioners and bridge the gap between the academic and clinical environments to advance research, service, and education in the health and human service fields. Although most faculty members are familiar with individual and consultative arrangements, cooperative and collaborative models may offer all professionals greater opportunities to improve their writing and project development skills.
SUMMARY Few researchers spend adequate time determining the best structure for their project ideas. Nevertheless, understanding the nuances of different project structures is helpful and enhances work efficiency, competitiveness of an application, and ease by which project implementation can occur. In this chapter we introduced four models (individual, consultative, cooperative and collaborative) and discussed their relative merits, characteristics and considerations for choosing one over the other. While the individual approach may be appropriate for pilot projects, the complexity of larger scale projects typically requires the use of one of the other three models. Individuals also have unique working preferences and personalities, and thus matching project structure to preferred management and leadership styles is also important.
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 11 Understanding the Process of Collaboration
• Theoretical Framework for Understanding Collaboration • Roles and Responsibilities of Team Members • Five-Stage Model of Collaboration Multidisciplinary and collaborative approaches to solving health problems is receiving significant attention in the health and human services literature. Federal agencies and foundations have also begun to emphasize partnerships and a collaborative approach to research, education, and service in their program announcements and requests for applications (RFA). Researchers and educators are being asked to think and work across disciplines to examine complex health and human service issues. Although scientific advancement may always depend in part on the lone investigator pursuing a discrete problem, if NIH trends continue, successful investigators will be those that “a) think in trandisciplinary-translation terms, and b) can link people from different disciplines together” (Sussman, 2006). Thus, collaborating with others is emerging as one of the most important approaches to research and education programs. This is reflected in the new NIH policy that allows for more than one principal investigator. Collaborating with other disciplines and settings and working with a team requires a working style that is distinct from what we described in the last chapter as “individual” or “consultative.” One must learn how to be an effective leader and/or member of a project team and this will involve a different approach to problem 209
210
Models for Proposal Development
solving and an interdependent work model to accomplish the goals and activities of a proposed project. For those who are used to and prefer working alone, group participation will initially be unfamiliar, difficult, and time-consuming. To some it may even feel painful. It is not surprising that collaboration has been defined by some as “an unnatural act between two or more unconsenting adults!” Nevertheless, as we have discussed in chapter 10, for certain projects, a collaborative approach is a much more effective working model than doing it alone and should be considered, particularly when addressing complex and multifaceted health and human service problems. Although it may at first appear to be a cumbersome approach, it is possible to learn how to work effectively on a team and benefit from group participation. An understanding of the process of collaboration will enable you to become a more competent participant and effective leader of such an effort. In this chapter we discuss the development and dynamics of collaborative teams. We first present a brief discussion of a theoretical framework that provides a rationale for collaborative behavior. This framework is based on social exchange theory and the literature on team building. Two important concepts are introduced to facilitate a collaborative group structure: role differentiation, and role release. We then compare the roles assumed on a traditional research project with the roles on a collaborative team and discuss the responsibilities of a team leader. Based on this framework, we present a five-stage model of collaboration that describes the process by which to develop a collaborative research team.
11.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING COLLABORATION To understand the collaborative process, it is helpful to examine the ways individuals behave in groups and how groups, in turn, shape the exchanges that occur among their members. Social exchange theory and the literature on team building are helpful frameworks for explaining these group dynamics. According to social exchange theory, individuals join groups because of the perceived benefits they may receive from membership. These benefits may be either material or nonmaterial and may
Understanding the Process of Collaboration
211
include such things as opportunities for social support, professional advancement, help in solving problems, or possibilities of gaining status and/or prestige. While groups provide opportunities for individuals to obtain these benefits, they expect certain behaviors and contributions from their members that contribute to the accomplishment of the group’s goals in return. Thus, an interdependent relationship is formed between each member and the group as a whole (Homans, 1961; Blau, 1964; Jacobs, 1970). This exchange relationship is characterized as follows. Each member contributes specific skills to a group in return for benefits that he or she expects in return. All members of a group have some skills that they can contribute or they would not be a part of the group. While some of these skills are more valuable that others in helping the group achieve its goals, all members have something of value to contribute. In turn, each member expects to receive a particular benefit in exchange for his/her contribution. For example, Dr. L. is an expert on curriculum development but has had little experience or knowledge about how to obtain external funding. One of his goals, however, is to develop expertise in this area. He joins a team that is writing a proposal to develop an interdisciplinary curriculum for students at his college. The benefits he hopes to receive by participating in this project are to gain knowledge and experience in the grant writing and project implementation process. He also sees participation as a way to gain status in his department. Since the project deals with curriculum development, the grant writing team sees Dr. L.’s involvement and contributions as important for their success. Therefore, an interdependent relationship developed between Dr. L. and the grant writing team is a win-win situation, and the group will be able to function at maximum effectiveness if they can cultivate an equitable exchange with Dr. L., and a similar relationship with each of their members. In determining whether an exchange is equitable, individuals either implicitly or explicitly assess the group situation in terms of three questions. 1. Will I benefit by participating in this group? 2. Can I satisfy the group’s requirements? 3. Are the benefits offered for my participation worth the effort? A group climate or a positive culture of collaboration will help individuals to answer these questions in the affirmative. This culture must be characterized by a team approach that supports flexibility
212
Models for Proposal Development
and promotes mutual trust, open communication, and cooperation. In an environment of trust and open communication, group members are able to effectively discuss their needs and what they are willing and able to contribute to the group in exchange for meeting these needs. The following discussion describes how these questions might be approached.
WILL I BENEFIT BY PARTICIPATING IN THIS GROUP? One of the initial questions an individual must ask him or herself is whether there is a personal benefit for participating in a group. This question is one that is continually asked throughout the collaborative process. In joining a group, each individual has an initial sense of what he or she expects to gain from the project (or the benefits of membership), and an idea of what he or she is willing to commit to the project in return for these benefits. For example, a novice researcher may join a group in order to learn research skills and/or to gain prestige in working with established investigators (benefits). In exchange he or she is willing to conduct literature reviews and to collect letters of support (contribution). Therefore, group interactions are initially characterized by a process of negotiation and renegotiation in which there is a successive series of compromises and modifications in participants’ ideas, approaches to problem solving, commitments, and benefits. In these group meetings, individuals refine their understanding of the benefits they hope to gain and, based on this understanding, make a decision as to the level of commitment that will be given to the project.
CAN I SATISFY GROUP REQUIREMENTS? A second important question that an individual must ask him/herself is whether it is possible to carry out what the group expects. In order for a member of a group to feel confident that he or she can accomplish the tasks necessary to receive the desired benefits, an individual must have a clear idea of what is expected. This requires the group and its leader to define the expectations of the project clearly, so that all members know exactly what their specific roles are and what they will be required to do. This occurs through open discussion and negotiation, so that the roles of members become
Understanding the Process of Collaboration
213
differentiated and members clearly understand their responsibilities. If each member contributes to the total group effort by doing what he or she is personally best suited to do, and if each group member has clear expectations about what the other members are going to do and how his or her own efforts fit together with theirs, then not only will the skills of each individual be maximized, but each member will have confidence that their efforts will not be wasted.
ARE THE BENEFITS OFFERED WORTH THE EFFORT? Throughout group meetings and exchanges, individuals evaluate whether the benefits they expect to receive are worth their effort. Numerous factors are considered in evaluating the value of a potential benefit. The time commitment required to obtain the benefit, one’s compatibility with other group members, and the fit between one’s own personal goals and those of the group are just some of the criteria a person may use to determine whether his/her effort will be worthwhile.
11.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEAM MEMBERS The team-building literature provides an understanding of the roles and responsibilities that evolve in a collaborative work effort. These roles are different than those traditionally assumed in working groups. Two concepts are helpful in understanding the roles and responsibilities of team members: role differentiation and role release.
ROLE DIFFERENTIATION Developing specific and clearly defined roles is a critical aspect of the collaborative group process. It is important for the group to define key roles early in the group process and match the requirements of a particular role with the level of expertise of an individual member. For example, some members are good at curriculum development, and others at conducting literature reviews or scientific writing, while still others have expertise in statistics. This process
214
Models for Proposal Development
results in specialization of function and increased group stability. Groups operate more effectively when members are assigned tasks that they can do well. Group stability is enhanced under these conditions because uncertainty is reduced when each member is clear about what is expected of him- or herself and of others. Unclear roles and poorly defined areas of responsibility ultimately lead to group conflict and dissatisfaction of individuals. The requirements of a specific project may change over time, and therefore the requirements of the group, negotiation, and renegotiation regarding whom does what and when is a continuous process. Despite its importance, role differentiation can be difficult to achieve. For example, a group leader or another member of the group may assume too much responsibility. This can be as negative as assuming too little responsibility because it leaves other members of the group unsure of how to effectively participate. Obtaining just the right balance between individual and group goals involves constant evaluation and monitoring of the group process, along with continuous communication to assure that individuals understand their roles and that they are able to adequately fulfill them.
ROLE RELEASE Another important aspect of a collaborative effort is that the specific knowledge and expertise of a role is shared with the group in such a way that others can learn its requirements. This practice has been called role release. It is a process by which members of a group who are responsible for certain tasks share their expertise with other group members. This is different from that which occurs in an individual or consultative model (Lyon & Lyon, 1980). In these models, an individual or consultant provides expertise to solve a particular problem. However, they do not necessarily share their knowledge or teach others how to solve the problem. In a collaborative team, role release allows members to learn and develop new areas of expertise. This process increases the overall competence of the group and serves as a way to help individual members develop additional skills. For example, in a collaborative effort to submit a grant application, one member of the team may assume responsibility for developing a comprehensive review of the literature. This individual would then be responsible for sharing how the search is conducted, the
Understanding the Process of Collaboration
215
rationale for selecting specific literature, and the specific aspects of the review that are critical for all members to know and understand. In other words, he or she must release, or share, specific information and knowledge so that the group as a whole develops the same level of expertise. Another member’s role might be to develop the budget for the project and obtain the necessary institutional approval prior to the submission of the application. This individual would be responsible for sharing the steps necessary to develop the budget and the specific procedures involved in obtaining approval. Role differentiation and role release are two key components of a collaborative group structure that facilitate the professional growth of individual members. Team members with little expertise or experience in submitting a grant or conducting research are able to make meaningful contributions to the effort through role differentiation by doing what they are best suited for while, at the same time, learning additional skills taught through role release. The opportunity for personal growth is an important benefit of group participation.
EMERGENT ROLES ON A COLLABORATIVE TEAM There are a number of roles that individuals can assume on a collaborative team. The specific roles that are developed necessarily reflect the content of the grant, the scope of project-related activities, and the areas of expertise of team members. You may be familiar with the traditional roles that individuals typically assume on a research project as summarized in Table 11.1. Traditionally, the principal investigator on a research grant assumes major responsibility for establishing the administrative structure, guiding the conceptualization of the project, and assuring its scientific integrity. A project director assumes similar responsibilities for an educational program. A co-investigator is primarily responsible for more specialized areas of knowledge, such as theoretical or conceptual contributions, or supervising the implementation of a particular component of a study. The project manager, coordinator, or director is the individual who assumes responsibility for the day-to-day management of a project. This may include screening potential subjects, coordination and scheduling of interviews, supervision of interviewers, assistance in questionnaire development, and management of coding and cleaning of data. Other roles listed in Table 11.1 are associated with the management of data. These include establishing
216
Models for Proposal Development
TABLE 11.1 Possible Roles on a Hierarchical Traditional Research Project Role
Responsibility
Principal investigator
Oversees entire project Contributes content expertise Responsible for scientific integrity of the project
Co-investigator
Contributes discrete area of content expertise
Project coordinator/ director
Responsible for day-to-day management of the project
Interviewers
Conducts assessment of subjects or collects data
Interventionist
Implements experimental protocol in intervention studies
Data coders/cleaners
Cleans data Checks for accuracy of data entry
Statistician
Establishes and maintains data files
Database manager
Assists in determining statistical analysis
and maintaining a database for statistical analysis, cleaning raw data files, providing statistical assistance, and generating analyses. There are numerous other roles in a collaborative effort that complement the traditional project structure and facilitate the participation of individuals who may be less experienced in the research process. These roles and associated areas of responsibility are summarized in Table 11.2. This list of roles and responsibilities is not inclusive, but merely suggestive of the way in which multiple tasks can be organized to match the area and level of experience of individual members with the requirements of the group. Each member may assume one or more roles. Effective grant writing teams tend to be most effective with three to six participants. These roles enable individuals with different areas and levels of expertise to participate as equals on a team, because equality of participation is a critical characteristic of a collaborative work effort. Matching specific roles to the area of interest
Understanding the Process of Collaboration
217
TABLE 11.2 Potential Roles on a Collaborative Research Team: Primary Responsibilities Role
Project Development
Implementation
Organize meetings Record project decisions
• Develop codebooks • Organize and maintain data records
Administrative
• •
Funding specialist
• Identify funding sources • • Contact agencies • • Obtain application
Subject specialist •
Organize literature search • Summarize literature Design expert • Develop design components Statistical expert • Design statistical approach Clinical site • Represent resources expert and limitations of site • Design study procedures to fit site Subject recruiter • Identify subject pool • Design recruitment approach Data collector • Identify data collection instruments
• •
Intervention expert
•
•
Assist in developing intervention protocol
• • • • • •
•
Serve as contact for agency Monitor required reports Review new literature Conduct periodic searches Monitor implementation Conduct statistical analyses Monitor procedures Troubleshoot problems on site Track patient census Conduct or monitor recruitment Conduct or monitor interviews or data collection Conduct or monitor intervention
and level of expertise of each member occurs at a group meeting in which members openly discuss what needs to be accomplished, who will assume what responsibility, and the time frame for the completion of each task. As you can see from this table, there are a number of roles that might be assumed by members of a project team at both the proposal writing stage and the implementation stage. The determination
218
TABLE 11.3
Models for Proposal Development
Five Group Leader/Facilitator Responsibilities
• Assure that each member is engaged in the group process • Coordinate the work effort • Guide the team through each step of the grant submission process • Serve as a mentor and role model as well as a group participant • Recognize when to direct group interactions and when to relinquish control to another team member
of who will carry out what activity depends on the areas of expertise and interests of the team members and should be negotiated early in the planning process for a grant application. In addition to the roles listed in Table 11.2, one person needs to assume the role of group leader. The group leader of a collaborative effort has a distinct role on the team, which requires specific group facilitation skills in addition to the technical skills needed to carry out the project. This person may be the principal investigator of a research project or the project director of a training/education grant, or another individual who is appointed to coordinate the team effort because of his or her special expertise in group processes. The group leader must assume overall direction of the collaborative team-building effort, as well as facilitate or coordinate the work tasks of the group. He or she must carefully work to build an effective team in which equality of participation is encouraged and shared leadership becomes the norm of the team. Who should be a group leader? This individual should have knowledge of the grantsmanship process in addition to skills in working with groups. He or she must also be willing to commit more time and effort than other members of the team because evaluating and managing the group processes inherent in team development is time-consuming. The group leader may be appointed by a group or may be the initiator of the team itself. Table 11.3 lists five unique responsibilities of the leader of a collaborative team effort.
11.3 FIVE-STAGE MODEL OF COLLABORATION Now that you have a basic understanding of the processes that occur in a collaborative effort, let’s examine how these processes
Understanding the Process of Collaboration
219
unfold as a group develops. We have developed a five-stage process model to help guide the development of a collaborative organizational structure. This model, which is illustrated in Figure 11.1, has been described in detail elsewhere (Gitlin, Lyons, & Kolodner, 1994). It was developed to facilitate an interdisciplinary approach to developing and implementing research and education grant programs, and to bridge the gaps between health professionals, practitioners, and researchers. This process model is based on the principles of social exchange theory and the team-building literature and proposes a series of activities that occur in five purposely implemented overlapping stages. As graphically displayed in Figure 11.1, these are as follows: (a) assessment and goal setting, in which key participants examine their individual and institutional goals and assess the need for developing a collaborative relationship, (b) determination of a collaborative fit, in which participants discuss and negotiate project ideas and roles, (c) identification of resources and reflection, in which participants return to their respective sites to reassess their resources and decide whether to participate, (d) refinement and implementation of the project, in which an idea and individual roles are adjusted based on the outcomes of the third stage, and
Academic Environment Individual Assessment and Goal Setting
Resource Identification and Reflection
Community Environment Individual Assessment and Goal Setting Determining Collaborative Fit Determining Collaborative Fit
Resource Identification and Reflection
Project Refinement & Implementation
Evaluation and Feedback
FIGURE 11.1
Five-Stage Model of Collaboration.
220
Models for Proposal Development
(e) evaluation and feedback, in which participants analyze how well the team functioned and establish future goals. Let’s first consider a hypothetical situation in a typical college of health professions, as presented in Box 11.1, to see how this model can be applied to the development of a project. BOX 11.1 IDENTIFYING A PROBLEM Dr. L. is an associate professor and clinical coordinator in a department of occupational therapy. In visits to rehabilitation facilities, she notices what appears to be a common theme among therapists working with older patients. The therapists express the concern that many older patients seem resistant or unmotivated in therapeutic sessions. They question whether a better understanding of the aging process would improve their treatment approaches. Dr. L. reviews the curriculum in her program and is surprised to learn there is minimal content on the aging process. She mentions this to her colleague, Dr. K., in physical therapy, and finds that he has encountered a similar gap between the needs of the therapeutic community and the curriculum. Dr. L. and Dr. K. discover that Ms. G., in nursing, has the same concern. The three coordinators meet and decide to approach this problem by developing an interdisciplinary training grant involving participation of each program. They also decide that involvement of the clinical community in planning the project is critical.
STAGE 1: ASSESSMENT AND GOAL SETTING The scenario in Box 11.1 describes the processes that occur in stage 1. In this stage, individuals must first develop an area of interest or concern that needs to be explored with others. In the scenario, Drs. K. and L. and Ms. G. each independently identified a similar area of concern, which was a lack of understanding of the aging process on the part of therapists. Each also believed that geriatric rehabilitation was important for their profession, department, and institution.
Understanding the Process of Collaboration
TABLE 11.4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
6.
221
Self-Study Questions
What clinical research and/or educational issues are stimulating and important to me? How do my interests and research/education ideas fit with the goals and priorities of my profession, department, and institution? What expertise and resources are currently in place to develop my area of interest or specific idea? What expertise and resources would be necessary to develop a strong project in this area? What is my level of commitment in terms of time, energy, and other resources to such a project? What is the extent of the commitment I can expect from my department and institution? How willing am I to work with others to shape, develop, and implement this idea? a. Am I willing to be flexible and see different sides of a question? b. Am I willing to let go of or modify an important idea to fit the interests of others? c. Am I willing and able to commit the time to the project?
The second task in this stage is to identify potential collaborators. This task was easily accomplished in that the clinical coordinators knew each other and could informally discuss common concerns. In another context, it may involve considerable time and effort to identify potential collaborators, clinical sites, and mutual areas of interest. Table 11.4 presents six self-study questions to help guide one’s thinking in stage 1.
STAGE 2: DETERMINING A COLLABORATIVE FIT Stage 2 of the model involves two phases and requires that individuals interested in participating come together in a series of meetings to determine if there is a collaborative fit and establish an initial commitment to work together. The early phase of this stage involves an identification of mutual goals, the elicitation of the commitment of individuals to participate in the project, and a recognition of the shared responsibility for its outcomes. If there is agreement on the potential for collaborating in the early phase of
222
Models for Proposal Development
this stage, then further discussions and negotiations can proceed. The later phase of this stage is when role differentiation occurs, a clear statement of goals and expectations is formulated, and a group structure begins to emerge. If the negotiations are conducted honestly, if communication is open, if individuals cooperate with one another, and if effective conflict resolution strategies are used, then a climate of trust will emerge. If there is not a collaborative fit, then the project may be abandoned or a decision may be made to pursue a project using a cooperative or consultative model. Groups that effectively incorporate the viewpoints of others and develop a culture of collaboration will then proceed to stages 3 and 4. In the scenario presented in Box 11.1, the three clinical coordinators met to discuss their common area of concern and determine whether they would be able to work together to develop and implement a project. They also discussed their own working relationships, personal goals for the year, and the amount of time they had available. Because all three had worked together on projects in the past, they were confident that they could work together on this one. They also agreed that they would keep an open mind about the direction of the project and make sure that it remained relevant to all disciplines.
STAGE 3: RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION Stage 3 activities overlap with those of stage 2. Teams move back and forth between the stages until agreements on major issues and dimensions of the project are reached. That is, having determined that a collaborative fit is possible in stage 2, participants must return to their respective sites or departments to reflect on the project and identify what they can contribute and what resources are available, and determine the advantage to themselves and to their department for participation. This resource identification and reflection is then brought back to the group for further discussion. The information from each respective site may modify the group’s initial plans or help refine its direction. In the case example, the three members were able to identify resources in each of their departments, such as introductory course units on aging, and faculty recognition of the need to increase the curricular emphasis on the topic. Ms. G., who did not have a doctoral
Understanding the Process of Collaboration
223
degree, believed that working with more experienced team members would enhance her skills. Based on their independent assessments, they realized, however, that they lacked knowledge of many of the day-to-day practical problems faced by clinicians and that this knowledge would be critical to successful implementation of the curriculum project. Based on these discussions, each team member contacted a clinical supervisor in one of their affiliated sites, discussed their plan to write a proposal for a training grant, and asked if there was an interest in collaboration. Although each clinician was excited about the opportunity, they first needed to discuss their participation and the extent of their efforts with their department head. The next step for the team was to confer with their departments chairs to see if the project was desirable for the department and to obtain released time to work on the grant proposal. Ms. G. learned that her department was expanding its undergraduate program and this would require a significant increase in her time to coordinate student clinical experiences. Therefore, this compromised Ms. G.’s original intent to commit a large portion of her time to the development of the proposal. When she brought this information to the group for discussion, the group realized that the expansion of the nursing program actually created new opportunities for their efforts. However, they also realized that they would need to modify the original plans and role assignments to accommodate Ms. G.’s time limitations.
STAGE 4: REFINEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT In stage 4, the actual work of the proposal writing begins. As the writing progresses, roles may be refined and procedures redefined. It is important in this stage to maintain open communication and handle conflicts or major differences in opinion in an honest and straightforward manner. Proposal writing can be stressful, especially as deadlines near. Therefore, developing a climate where people help and trust each other will lessen the effects of this stress. Although Murphy’s Law, “If anything can go wrong, it will,” is usually operative, the other axiom also holds, and that is, “Proposals are always completed on time.” In our example, during stage 4 the three faculty members met to confer about the structure of the project. They also invited
224
Models for Proposal Development
representatives from the rehabilitation facilities to discuss how these organizations would be involved and to gain commitment to participate if the project were funded. As the discussion proceeded they found that, in the literature of each of their disciplines, the aging process was covered, but from different perspectives. This literature also suggested different approaches to dealing with the geriatric client. By learning about each other’s disciplines, the group was able to identify common themes. They decided to focus on these commonalities to see if, by modifying certain practices, a program could be developed that would be appropriate for all three disciplines. As these ideas evolved, they asked the clinical supervisors to evaluate the potential for success. After a series of meetings, they were able to construct a model program that incorporated ideas from all three disciplines and actually went beyond what any one discipline offered. It was at this point that they realized that they had developed a very close working relationship and began to feel more like a team than a group. The team’s next task was to determine how they would approach the writing of the proposal. They each discussed their strengths and experiences. They agreed that, since the initial idea for the project was Dr. L.’s, she would take the lead and coordinate the proposal writing activities, have responsibility for contacting the funding agency, and guide the proposal through the institutional review requirements. Dr. K. volunteered to serve as editor, especially for the final draft, and to develop the budget in collaboration with Dr. L. Ms. G. agreed to obtain the letters of support and gather the references, which, while time-consuming, is flexible enough so that she could still devote the time to her increased departmental responsibilities. She also offered to have the secretary in her department take responsibility for final typing, formatting, and developing timelines and other graphics. Each member of the team also agreed to conduct a thorough literature search in their own disciplines, write a draft of a section of the proposal, and obtain letters of support from contacts in their disciplines. During the negotiations and discussion of the details of the project, a number of disagreements occurred. However, Dr. L., in her role as team coordinator, identified areas for which there was agreement and checked for consensus at key points in the discussion. She also reminded everyone that it was important that all concerns about any aspect of the project be brought to the team’s attention. All concerns were given a full and open hearing as the group
Understanding the Process of Collaboration
225
worked toward obtaining consensus. The writing of the proposal was completed in time to gain the necessary institutional approvals, although during that time they continued to refine the language of the narrative. During the last day before the proposal had to be submitted, each member of the team had specific responsibilities for putting the final touches on the application. For example, Dr. K. reviewed the final draft for consistency and completeness, Ms. G. supervised the organization of the proposal sections, and Dr. L. took responsibility for the electronic submission.
STAGE 5: EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK Once the proposal is completed, the entire process needs to be evaluated by all team members. Evaluation and feedback is an essential component of each stage of the model. However, stage 5 represents a formal evaluation of the entire process by all team members. This evaluation should assess team functioning and include an honest reflection on the way members communicated, resolved conflicts, and made decisions. Table 11.5 presents a list of six questions to help guide this evaluation. The assessment is a very important component of a collaborative model. It not only provides an evaluation of how well the group functioned, but also prepares the team to engage in future collaborative efforts. If the proposal is funded, the group will also have the responsibility of carrying out the project, and this assessment will help them improve their ability to function as a team in the future. TABLE 11.5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Evaluation of Team Effectiveness
Are there clear, cooperative goals to which every member has been committed? Has there been accurate and effective communication of ideas and feelings? Has there been distributed participation and leadership? Were decision-making procedures appropriate and effective? Did controversy and differences of opinion lead to productive solutions? Is there evidence of high levels of trust, acceptance, and support among members and a high level of cohesion?
226
Models for Proposal Development
In our example, the team decided to wait two weeks after the proposal was mailed before meeting again to assess the proposal writing process. They believed that this period of time was long enough to allow them to catch their breath, and yet still close enough to the experience so that the strengths and weaknesses of the process would be fresh in everyone’s minds.
SUMMARY This chapter presented a theoretical framework for understanding the process of collaboration. 1. Collaboration was discussed using the theoretical framework of social exchange theory and literature on team building. 2. In a collaborative structure, there are specific roles and responsibilities for each member of a team. These roles are different than those within a traditional project structure. The concepts of role differentiation and role release are helpful to understand these different roles. 3. A five-stage model of collaboration was presented to effectively guide the development and functioning of a collaborative team. The stages are labeled: assessment and goal setting, determination of a collaborative fit, identification of resources, refinement and implementation, and evaluation and feedback.
Chapter 12 Forming a Collaborative Team
• Forming a Collaborative Team and Evaluating Its Effectiveness • Common Problems in Collaborative Teams and Effective Solutions
12.1 FORMING A COLLABORATIVE TEAM AND EVALUATING ITS EFFECTIVENESS Now you have an idea of the fundamental assumptions underlying collaborative teamwork and a model that you might use. How would you go about using the model to form a team? The development of teams through the use of the five-stage model involves conscious recognition of group processes and the purposeful shaping of exchanges to nurture the emergence of collaboration. The first step in forming a team is to determine whether this is the correct model for the project in which you will be engaged. As we discussed in chapter 10, there are four different approaches to developing and carrying out a project idea. To select a project model that is right for you and your project idea, ask yourself these questions: • Do I have the necessary skills or knowledge to carry out my idea? • Do I have the time to complete the tasks that will be required? 227
228
Models for Proposal Development
• Do I have the resources needed to complete the project? • Which project structure will have the greatest potential for successful implementation of the idea? You should first ask yourself what the project entails. Is it a simple and direct piece of research that you have all of the necessary skill to accomplish by yourself? If so, there is no need to bring in others. An individual model would be the model you would choose. Is it a project for which you have most of the skills necessary to accomplish the tasks required, but you need an outside expert, such as a statistician, to contribute in certain areas? Here, again, you would not necessarily need to form a team, but rather, use of the consultative model would be most effective. For larger projects, or those requiring more than one discipline, then you would need to choose between a cooperative or consultative model. Although we favor the use of a collaborative model, it might not be feasible or necessary in all situations. The selection of a project structure will depend on the nature of the project as well as the availability of others with an interest and ability to join the team who can work together collaboratively. If you have decided that a cooperative or collaborative model is the best approach, you then need to identify and bring together the potential team members to discuss the project, potential respective roles, and the requirements necessary to make it effective. If there is interest and agreement, then you can proceed with a collaborative approach. If it turns out that problems arise using the collaborative model that cannot be resolved, then project completion using a cooperative model might become more appropriate. How can you tell whether your team is working toward a collaborative approach using the five-stage model? At each stage of the model, there are specific indicators that suggest the group is progressing effectively. These indicators are the 14 characteristics described in chapter 10. The specific stages in which they are expected to emerge are shown in Table 12.1. As the leader of a team it would be important to model each of the characteristics of collaboration. It would also be a valuable idea to share the list of characteristics of collaboration with other members of the team. By doing so, the list can serve to guide behavior as the team evolves. Monitoring these indicators at group meetings is an important activity that can be used to facilitate the emergence of a culture of
Forming a Collaborative Team
TABLE 12.1
229
Stage, Task, and Indicators of Effectiveness
Stage
Task
Primary Indicators of Effective Team Effort
1
Assessment and goal setting
• Mutual or shared goals • Clear statement of goals, expectations, and procedures
2
Determination of a collab- • orative fit (early phase) • • •
Cooperation Open, honest negotiation Climate of trust being established Shared decision making
2
Determination of a collab- • orative fit (later phase) • •
Open communication Role differentiation Conflict resolution
4
Resource identification and reflection
• •
Equality of participation Shared responsibility for participation
5
Project refinement and implementation
• Shared leadership • Group cohesion • Decision making by consensus
6
Evaluation
Three levels of assessment • Individual • Group • External observer
collaboration. This process may occur informally when the group leader and one or two other group members discuss the progress of the team. It may also occur more formally when an objective evaluator observes the group process and its outcomes, or it may occur by using a combination of informal and formal techniques.
INFORMAL EVALUATION An informal assessment merely entails reflecting on the interactions at meetings and recording the group’s strengths and weaknesses.
230
Models for Proposal Development
Using this approach, the leader and one or more team members briefly meet after each team meeting to evaluate the group interactions and assess them using the 14 indicators of collaboration. It is helpful to simply record those aspects of the group meeting that represent a “green light” or a “red flag.” Green lights are those interactions that signal that the group has reached a level of consensus and cohesion and is ready to move ahead. Red flags are those interactions that suggest major differences persist among group members. For example, in stage 1, a green light may be that all team members appear to be actively engaged in the discussion and are able to articulate specific project goals that are consistent. This would be an indicator that mutual goals can be achieved. A red flag in this stage may be that members indicate that they have limited time to commit to the project or introduce widely conflicting approaches to carrying it out. The recognition of interactions that indicate green lights or red flags enables the leader to identify areas that need to be negotiated so the team can move on to the next stage of the project. In conducting an informal assessment, it is important to identify particular behaviors or statements that illustrate a green light or that are indicative of the characteristics of collaboration for that stage. For example, by the conclusion of stage 1, the expectation is that members will agree on a set of broad project goals that are clearly articulated. Box 12.1 illustrates an interaction that reflects two indicators that a positive collaborative relationship is forming: expression of mutual goals, and a clear statement of expectations and procedures. BOX 12.1 COMMENTS THAT SUGGEST A GREEN LIGHT Ms. K.: I am interested in pursuing a project that will advance systematic assessment of the physical home environment. An objective assessment would enable us to evaluate the role of the environment in supporting daily function and also to provide comprehensive and effective home modifications to our clients. Dr. L.: I agree. Let’s structure a project to develop an assessment tool and evaluate its psychometric properties. This would benefit both the researcher and health provider.
Forming a Collaborative Team
231
Dr. J.: This might be difficult to accomplish. We may need to consult with an expert in questionnaire design and others who have developed environmental scales for use in nursing homes. But I agree, this should be our primary goal.
This interaction represents a green light. That is, members appear committed to pursuing a joint project and there is agreement as to its nature and scope. In this case, the group leader can move the group to the next stage of team development that would involve discussion of the details of the project and potential funding opportunities. Consider, on the other hand, the interaction in Box 12.2, which raises a red flag. BOX 12.2 COMMENTS THAT SUGGEST A RED FLAG Dr. S.: I agree that delirium is a serious problem that we often see with the elderly who enter the acute care setting. But we do not, as of yet, know the best practices for minimizing this problem. Therefore, I suggest we focus on describing and evaluating current practices as one approach to determine what works. Dr. M.: But this problem is so pervasive. I would like to develop training materials immediately to enable practitioners to work with the elderly more effectively. Ms. B.: But what would these training materials include? Don’t we first need to study the issue and see what is out there? Dr. M.: No. I disagree. That would take too long. We could develop a consensus panel to establish training materials and then train health practitioners within the year.
In this interaction, the group is not ready to advance its work. Although members of the group have agreed on an area of mutual interest (delirium in the elderly in acute care hospital settings), the way to proceed (research vs. training project) remains unresolved.
232
Models for Proposal Development
This represents a basic disagreement, and a potentially serious conflict. There is no evidence of a clear statement of group goals or direction at this point in the group’s discussion. In this case, the group leader needs to have the group gather more information and then meet again to determine if this difference in approach can be resolved. The leader may assign each member a task. For example, one member might be asked to conduct a literature review of research and training related to health professionals and delirium. Another member might be asked to identify potential research and training funding sources in this area. The group will remain in the early phase of stage 1 until they can reach a mutually agreeable solution as to the nature and scope of the project, or decide that the differences of opinion are too great to proceed with the project.
FORMAL EVALUATION You might also consider a formal evaluative approach that involves a systematic evaluation from three perspectives: (a) an appraisal of the nature of group interactions, (b) each member’s appraisal of their own behavior in the group, and (c) each member’s appraisal of the other members’ behaviors in the group. The triangulation of three perspectives provides an understanding of the extent to which collaboration and group cohesiveness exists. In a formal approach, an external reviewer may also be hired or a member of the group agrees to serve as the process evaluator. The evaluator must remain an objective observer of group interactions and observe and record specific behaviors that illustrate the 14 characteristics of collaboration. We have developed evaluative questions to guide how to identify these 14 indicators (see appendix E). Additionally, we recommend that the evaluator systematically obtain appraisals from individual members about the group process, which can be used at the conclusion of stages 2 and 4 (see appendix E). The evaluator should also provide feedback to the group. The purpose of this feedback is to strengthen team building by identifying behaviors that promote a positive team climate. With this information group members can consciously strive to engage in effective team-building behaviors and learn what behaviors are helping or hindering the emergence of a collaborative culture. Box 12.3 provides one example of the way constructive feedback can be provided to a team to strengthen its efforts.
Forming a Collaborative Team
233
BOX 12.3 EVALUATION FEEDBACK I have observed five group meetings and have asked each member to complete two questionnaires. Let me begin by discussing my observations of the team’s performance. First, it has been very exciting to see how the group’s commitment to its goals has emerged over this period of time. This is evident in that each team member comes to the meetings on time and actively participates in the discussions. Also, there is strong evidence of respect for each member’s opinion and there appears to be equality of participation. By this I mean that each person has at one point or another taken responsibility for steering the group back on track when discussions deviate, and that individuals appear to feel comfortable enough to challenge expressed opinions or at least ask for clarification. One point I would like to emphasize is that the group has not yet clearly differentiated roles and responsibilities of members. That is, each member appears to be still unclear as to his or her specific responsibilities and tasks. This is evident from the responses on the questionnaires in which most members responded that they had not been assigned specific areas of responsibility and were unclear as to their specific roles. It is also evident in my own observations. For example, there appears to be confusion about the responsibilities of the group leader. On several occasions the group leader has asked for assistance in carrying out particular tasks and no one readily volunteered. The group leader in turn has expressed feeling burdened due to assuming more of the workload than is reasonable. I recommend that the group spend some time at this meeting discussing each person’s expectations about their specific roles and responsibilities as well as that of the group leader. Also, the group might want to discuss a more effective way of assigning tasks. It is important to clarify roles especially at this juncture, because the group needs to accomplish many tasks in a timely fashion during the next month.
An evaluative process can also combine formal and informal approaches. Evaluation is an important reflective activity that not
234
Models for Proposal Development
only helps each member clarify his or her own personal goals, but can significantly advance the efforts of the group as well. Some form of evaluation must occur at each stage of the model. Following is an example of how a team may be developed using the five-stage model.
AN EXAMPLE Dr. L. and her colleagues decided to write a grant to develop a curriculum to prepare an interdisciplinary group of students in occupational therapy, physical therapy, and nursing to work in the homeless community. In planning the grant, they decided that the best way to carry out the project would be to partner with members of the community that were involved in providing services to the homeless community. One of the members of her team, Ms. C., had contacts with some of the shelters and city agencies that oversaw programs in the shelters. Another member of the team, Dr. M., had done previous work in three of the shelters. When Ms. C. discussed the possibility of writing a proposal to her contacts, they expressed interest in learning more about the project, as did the representatives from the shelters that Dr. M. had worked with. Dr. L. convened a meeting that included faculty members of her team from the three disciplines. Also in attendance were representatives from the city’s Office of Emergency Shelter System, the directors of the three shelters, and officers of two of the large emergency service providers in the city. At the meeting, Dr. L. explained their idea of developing a program to train students to work with some of the residents of the shelters and the team’s desire to form a collaborative coalition with the people at the meeting. After her explanation, she proposed that the whole group brainstorm about the feasibility of the idea and potential content of the program from the perspective of each of the community members. As a result of the brainstorming session, the team had a clearer idea of what aspects of the program would be feasible to implement, as well as an idea about the curricular components that would be necessary. At the end of the meeting, the participants went home to reflect on the idea of the project. Directors of the shelters were excited about the idea, because they had been involved in some successful programs with Dr. M. in the past. Other members were willing to become involved but took a
Forming a Collaborative Team
235
“wait and see” attitude. They were primarily concerned about the time commitment they would be forced to make and what additional resources they would have to contribute. During the proposal writing process, the coalition met briefly once so that the faculty team could bring them up to date on the progress and show them how their suggestions were being incorporated into the proposed program. Drs C. and M. also kept in communication with their respective contacts during the process. They also drafted support letters that would be included in the proposal for members of the coalition to sign. The proposal was finally completed, submitted, and subsequently funded. In terms of team development, stage 1 of the five-stage model occurred during the proposal development. Each member was able to examine how their goals might be accomplished through the project, learn how much they would have to contribute, and determine whether the benefit was worth the amount they would have to contribute. They also learned, through the process, exactly what they would need to contribute (role differentiation). Stages 2, 3, and 4 occurred during the initial implementation of the project. The coalition met on a monthly basis during the first six months of the project, which was devoted to the development of the curriculum and the field experiences for the students. Dr. L. conducted these meetings and stressed the partnership aspect of the project and the need for open communication. At these meetings, members of the coalition worked in groups to further identify classroom learning that they felt was important and activities in which students should be engaged during their field work experiences. One of the major outcomes of the curriculum was determined to be an interdisciplinary student project that would be implemented in each of the shelters, designed to improve some aspect of the life of the men and women there. Members of the coalition worked hard to identify some of the needs in the shelter that could be addressed by these projects, with the directors of the shelters taking the lead in this deliberation. As members of the coalition saw these ideas being put into operation, they began to realize that they did have important input and that the goals they had identified at the outset of the program might have a chance of being realized. During these early meetings, the team introduced Dr. A., who was serving as project evaluator. Dr. L. explained that Dr. A.’s role was to observe the working of the team to ensure that it was collaborating in the most effective way possible. After the
236
Models for Proposal Development
fourth meeting, Dr. A. presented members of the coalition a survey designed around the 14 characteristics of collaboration. She asked members of the coalition to provide feedback as to how they felt working as a member of the team. At the next meeting, Dr. A. presented the results of the survey and some of her observations about how the team seemed to be functioning. The survey results showed that members of the team rated highly the following aspects of team functioning: their understanding of the goals of the project; the freedom to express ideas; the ability to disagree with others, to express their feelings honestly, to suggest ideas, and to take responsibility; and their feeling part of the team. An area that was not rated as highly as others was the assignment of specific responsibilities. Dr. A. also discussed her observations and said that these observations seemed to confirm the survey results. She suggested that more attention be paid to assigning tasks to group members instead of waiting for volunteers. These observations seemed to suggest that the coalition was evolving into a cohesive, collaborative team, although some refinement was necessary. During these stages of the project, members of the coalition continued to ask themselves the three questions suggested by social exchange theory. It appeared to the members that the expected benefits were being received, that they were able to provide what was required of the project, and that the outcomes of their participation were worth the time and effort that they were expending. As the project progressed, it was not necessary for the coalition to meet as often. The first two groups of student projects in the shelter appeared to be successful in making an impact in the day-to-day lives of the men and women. At the conclusion of each semester, Dr. L. brought the three teams of students to the coalition meeting to make a report on their project. This further reinforced to the coalition that the benefits of participation were being realized. By the middle of the third year of the project, attendance at the coalition meetings was going down, particularly from the representatives of the city and the large service providers. Also, the meetings seemed to be much less task-oriented. At first, Dr. L. was a little concerned about this but, because the project was winding down, decided not to address it. At the end of the project the coalition met one last time for a summary of the overall results of the project and to decide whether they would submit another grant
Forming a Collaborative Team
237
proposal to continue the program. It was decided that they would meet again in approximately 3 months to outline what the next steps would be. After a few weeks, Dr. L. brought the faculty team together to debrief. They assessed both the quality of the curriculum and the student projects as well as the functioning of the team. The team was very satisfied with the outcomes of the student projects and thought that there were a few refinements needed in some of the courses in the curriculum. Dr. L. brought up her concern about the waning attendance at the last few coalition meetings and the seeming lack of direction at the meetings. Dr. A. said that this shouldn’t be too surprising and was probably to be expected. She indicated that what probably happened was that for some members of the coalition, particularly the representatives from the city and the service providers, their goals for participation had been achieved. The projects seemed to be going well in the shelters and the students seemed to be well-prepared. At that point, there were no more benefits to be gained by participating in the project. Dr. A. stressed that this was not a negative thing. She suggested that teams such as this, that are formed to address a particular problem, should be considered as temporary systems. Once the goals are accomplished, new goals should be identified or the team should be reconstituted with members who are still able to derive benefits from participation. If this is not feasible, then the team should disband.
12.2 COMMON PROBLEMS IN COLLABORATIVE TEAMS AND EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS Group work is a dynamic process that involves continual negotiation and redefinition and refinement of group goals, and the roles and responsibilities of each group member. Because these efforts occur over time, groups are in a constant state of flux and change. As a consequence, a number of difficulties may emerge in the process of collaborating as groups move through the five stages of the collaborative model. These problems may concern either individual members, the dynamics of the group, or changes at the institutional level. Table 12.2 summarizes some common problems in collaborative group work and solutions that can be effective.
238
Models for Proposal Development
TABLE 12.2
Common Problems and Solutions
Common Problems I.
Possible Solutions
Individual Members 1.
Divisive working behaviors that impede group work
•
Reexamine personal goals and team goals. • Restate main goals and objectives. • Establish ground rules for interaction. • Facilitate healthy disagreement.
2.
Timelines not being met
•
3.
Individual changes in priorities/goals
• •
Renegotiate roles, responsibilities, and expectations. • Identify barriers to completing tasks on time. • Establish open communications to facilitate task completion. • Develop contingency plans.
•
•
II.
Renegotiate roles on team. Expand areas of responsibility when appropriate. Be prepared from the outset for changes in expectations and personal goals. Be prepared for a member to leave the group and for others to join.
Group Interaction 1.
Conflict/differences in opinion on how to proceed
• • •
•
Allow all differences to be discussed. State main goal and objective of the team. Work through conflicting positions to see if they meet team objectives. Obtain opinion of an expert outside of the group to inform group decision.
Forming a Collaborative Team
TABLE 12.2
239
(continued)
Common Problems 2.
Use of different vocabularies and ways of conceptualizing an issue
Possible Solutions • • •
3. Unclear goals; group seems to drift, lose sense of purpose
III.
• •
Have team jointly review key articles that outline concepts. Discuss implications of different approaches. Ensure final decisions are stated clearly. Keep running record of group decisions. Start each meeting by reviewing what has been accomplished and what still needs to be done.
Institution-Related 1.
Priorities/goals of partici- • pating institution change •
•
Team needs to be prepared for change in working environment. Anticipate shifts in goals by keeping each member informed. Assign members specific responsibilities that involve keeping abreast of institutional changes.
INDIVIDUAL-BASED PROBLEMS There are a number of difficulties that may arise in a collaborative team effort that are related to the behaviors of individual members. Behaviors of individuals, such as dominating discussions, interrupting other members before they have an opportunity to complete a statement, ridiculing ideas, or taking a negative approach to the project are not uncommon, especially in the beginning stages of collaboration. Some individuals are just not ready for collaboration. They may be threatened by the group process, they may not endorse the goals of the group, they may lack appropriate group
240
Models for Proposal Development
skills, or they may have a personal agenda that differs from the goals of the group. These behaviors cause divisiveness and prevent the development of group cohesion. The group needs to establish ground rules for behavior at the outset, which assure that divisive behaviors are not tolerated. The group leader needs to take control of meetings and redirect the group should any of these behaviors occur. He or she should also be modeling expected behaviors, and clearly reinforcing the value of each member’s ideas. A second common problem in collaborative work is that a team member may have difficulty completing a task by the expected time. Other responsibilities or changes in personal priorities may take precedence for that individual. Although this may inadvertently happen to anyone, the inability to meet a deadline may have serious consequences for other members of a team, especially when a grant application must be completed by a designated date. Therefore, it is important to assure that all tasks are accomplished in a timely fashion. Strategies that can be used include circulating a written list of the tasks agreed upon and the expected date of their completion to team members, developing contingency plans for completing difficult tasks, or renegotiating the roles and areas of responsibility of individual members to assure that all tasks can be completed. It is the responsibility of the group leader to periodically check the progress of each team member in completing these assigned tasks. Another common occurrence in group work is that individual priorities and personal goals change with time. Individuals may leave a group or seek different roles within it. A group needs to be prepared for shifts in the composition of the team and be ready to engage in negotiations regarding changing role responsibilities.
GROUP-BASED PROBLEMS The dynamics of a group itself may pose its own set of difficulties or potential barriers to team success. A natural part of group interaction is the expression of differences of opinion, and this can be either positive or negative. On the positive side, differences of opinion stimulate thinking and can point out inconsistencies or lack of clarity in the group’s approach. If dealt with in a positive manner, differences can result in more creative ideas. On the negative side, they can be a potential source of disruption. It is important,
Forming a Collaborative Team
241
therefore, to allow differences in perspectives and opinions to be discussed openly and to evaluate how these discussions strengthen or contribute toward the main goal and objective of the team. A second potential problem is that individuals from different disciplines enter the group with distinct work styles, a specialized vocabulary, and diverse ways of conceptualizing problems. As the group works together it is important to build a common vocabulary and to understand how each discipline conceptualizes ideas and problems. Once a common base is developed, it allows the group to integrate diverse ideas and build beyond what each discipline can contribute separately. One way to build a common foundation is to have team members read the same set of articles that examine the problem area from different perspectives. This provides members with an understanding of different approaches and vocabularies. Vocabulary and conceptual approaches must be discussed by the team and an agreement must be reached about the common language that will be used. A third common problem is that a group may seem to lose its sense of direction or purpose. This may occur if discussions become redundant or during periods when there is little to do. To keep a group on track, a running record of group decisions and a review of these decisions at the beginning of each meeting is helpful. Another strategy is to stop meeting for a period of time. If there is no reason to meet, there should be no meeting. For example, if a group is meeting weekly during periods of intense activity, then during low periods, a better use of time might be to meet on a less frequent basis, such as once a month.
INSTITUTIONAL-BASED PROBLEMS Another potential source of difficulties that may impede group performance is institutional. The priorities or goals of a department or institution may change due to a new department head or dean with a different philosophy, institutional reorganization, or changes in financial stability. Often there is very little that a group can do to overcome these changes. However, if the group has developed a culture of collaboration, they will have a flexible attitude and be able to accommodate such changes. Sharing information among members keeps everyone appropriately informed of anticipated changes and prepared for change.
242
Models for Proposal Development
SUMMARY
1. Forming a team and evaluating its performance can be accomplished using 14 indicators of a collaborative structure as a guide. This evaluation can be conducted either informally, by members of the team, or more formally, by an outside evaluator. 2. Group work is a dynamic process, influenced by the personalities of members and changes in the institutional environment. As a result, a number of challenges may occur throughout the life of the group. Challenges will emerge that are related to individuals, to the dynamics of the group itself, and to the institution. Successful teams are those that monitor their own functioning and have developed the mechanisms by which to work through common difficulties. 3. Having an understanding of the collaborative process and common challenges can advance team effectiveness. 4. Role differentiation is one of the most critical components of successful collaborative processes.
Part V Submitting the Proposal
So you now know how to develop a competitive grant proposal idea, write the narrative, and develop the accompanying budget. You’ve figured out an appropriate project structure and you are ready to submit your application for consideration by a sponsor. In this section, we examine the specific steps you will need to take to submit a grant application. There are various considerations in submitting an application, including institutional requirements (examined in chapter 13), and agency regulations and electronic submission guidelines (chapter 14). Knowledge of your institutional policies and procedures and those of the agency you plan to submit to will facilitate this stage of the grant submission process.
243
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 13 Learning About Your Institution
• Questions to Ask of Your Institution • Institutional Review Board Procedures As we discussed in chapter 2, funding agencies provide detailed instructions for submitting proposals that must be carefully followed. In addition, your institution also has specific rules for submitting a proposal that must be followed carefully or you will not be allowed to submit your application (refer to chapters 7 and 8). Funding agencies require that an official of an applicant’s institution with signing privileges review the budget to confirm accuracy of salary information and assure compliance with all federal regulations concerning such things as equal employment opportunities, budget oversight, and maintenance of a drug- and smoke-free environment. Your institution also has policies that need to be followed should your project be funded. These policies involve procedures about recruiting and hiring personnel, reporting grant-related expenses, and submitting required reports. (We discuss post-award requirements in detail in chapter 18.) Therefore, knowing the policies and procedures of your institution early in the proposal development process will help you work productively at both the pre-award and post-award stages.
13.1 QUESTIONS TO ASK OF YOUR INSTITUTION The most important questions to ask your supervisor, department head, or other administrators in order to learn about the rules of 245
246
Submitting the Proposal
your institution or agency are shown in Table 13.1. Let’s examine each of these questions.
TABLE 13.1 A.
Pre-Award Questions: 1.
2.
3. 4. B.
Questions to Ask About Your Institution
What procedures need to be followed to obtain approval from an official in the institution to submit a grant application? That is, who in the institution is officially required to sign the face page of an application? How much lead-time does that person need in order to approve a grant application? What materials (e.g., internal forms, grant sections) does that person need to review in order to approve the application? Who in the institution needs to review and approve the budget? How much lead time is required to obtain approval? Are there resources available to help prepare a budget? How much time do these individuals need to work with an investigator? What is the institution’s Facilities and Administrative (F&A) rate? What official, institutional information is required to complete the application? Who needs to sign internal forms indicating approval of the proposal?
Post-Award Questions: 1. 2.
3. 4. 5.
What are the procedures that need to be followed for hiring new personnel on a project? Once a grant is received, how are the funds administered? Which office monitors the budget and prepares the final budget reports that are required by the funding agency? What are the institution’s procedures for processing payment of grant expenses? What are the policies regarding the distribution of Facilities and Administrative costs? What other policies exist that are related to the implementation of grants?
Learning About Your Institution
247
PRE-AWARD 1. What are the procedures you need to follow to obtain approval from an official in the institution to submit a grant application? Although a grant is awarded to the principal investigator, it is the institution that must assume legal responsibility for the conduct of the project and the expenditure of funds. Therefore, an official who is the legal representative of the institution must sign off on every application prior to its submission to an agency. The signature also indicates the institution’s assurance that budgeted salaries are accurate and that the institution is in compliance with federal regulations. Thus, you must know who in your institution signs the face sheet of the application and the process of obtaining that signature. Most universities have an office of research administration charged with the review of all applications prior to their submission, who will provide the necessary signatures. This office may require you to submit your entire completed proposal with sufficient lead time. Some institutions require up to two weeks prior to the due date to review a proposal. Your own department or college may also have requirements for the review of proposals prior to final institutional approval. It is critical that you learn what signature forms are required and the lead time required for each. 2. Who in the institution needs to review and approve your budget? What resources are available to help you prepare a budget? Developing a budget can be complex, especially if you are hiring consultants or entering into agreements with other institutions. In some institutions, the office of research administration or a budget administrator in your department or college will provide technical assistance or actually develop the budget for you. Even if someone else in your institution assumes responsibility for preparing your budget, you should learn how it is done (see chapters 7 and 8). At a minimum, the following information is important to identify for preparing a grant budget: • Fringe benefit rate of your institution • Allowable percent increase for yearly salaries of the funding agency and your institution
248
Submitting the Proposal
• Salary figures for personnel on the grant for expected year of start-up if the grant is awarded • Facility and administrative (F&A) rate of your institutions (also referred to as indirect cost recovery rate). Refer back to chapter 7 for a discussion of budget preparation and these issues in more detail. 3.
What official, institutional information is required to complete the application?
Most grant applications (and any applications to the federal government) require that an official at your institution sign various forms, assuring that your institution meets certain requirements. These requirements include civil rights compliance, drug-free and smoke-free workplace, and information about lobbying, debarment, and suspension. Consult with your office of research administration to obtain signatures for these forms. The face page of your application to federal agencies requires that certain other information be provided as well. This information includes the number of your congressional district, the identification number of your institution, and the contact information for the responsible officials who can sign off on a proposal at your institution. Sometimes all the formal required information for a grant application is posted on the Web page of an institution’s office of research administration or updated yearly and circulated via memos to key administrators throughout the institution. It is important to make sure that the most up-to-date information is provided, so prior to completing these forms, always check the Web page of your research administration or check with the appropriate institutional officials.
POST-AWARD 1.
What procedures will need to be followed in hiring new personnel on a funded project?
Although you may not need to use this information prior to submitting an application, it is still important to learn about your institution’s personnel policies for hiring grant personnel. The human resource or personnel department usually has stringent rules and regulations that govern the hiring of new personnel. This department can also help you write a job description that fits your requirements, advertise for the position, if necessary, and advise on the salary range that would be appropriate and approved by the institution.
Learning About Your Institution
2.
249
Once a grant is received, how are the funds administered? Which office monitors the budget and prepares the final budget reports that are required by the funding agency?
When you receive a grant award, your institution will usually maintain the official budget, disburse your funds, make the appropriate financial reports, and monitor your expenditures. However, you will still need to maintain a working budget, so you should inquire about the kind of reporting you will be required to provide and how best to interact with the offices that provide oversight. For example, some institutions keep track of all expenditures and provide the investigator with periodic reports. Other institutions expect the department and/or individual investigator to establish an accounting mechanism, although all payments still have to be approved by the financial officer. The procedures that are followed in your institution will shape the way you manage your budget. 3.
What are the institution’s procedures for processing payment of grant expenses?
This information is important to know in order to plan how you will meet the expenses of your project, such as payment to other institutions and consultants, or ordering equipment and other supplies. Each institution has its own set of procedures, order forms, timelines, and requirements for official signatures. Knowing these procedures and the timelines for processing expenses will help you administer your project more effectively. 4.
What are the policies regarding the distribution of Facilities and Administrative cost?
As we discussed in chapter 7, F&A costs are awarded to the institution to cover basic operating expenses. Each institution differs as to how it disperses these funds. In some institutions, the individual and/or the department that receives the grant is given a percentage of these costs to assist in administering the grant project. For example, if a department of physical therapy in a university receives a grant award for which the university will obtain a 60% F&A cost recovery rate, some universities will give 10% to 15% of the F&A costs to the department to help offset the additional, but hidden, costs associated with the administration of the award. In other instances, a percentage may be given to the investigator to use as discretionary money or to augment the direct costs of the project. Investigators can use these funds for such things as travel to professional meetings,
250
Submitting the Proposal
hiring of a research assistant, or purchase of special equipment that may not have been allowable as a direct budgeted item. However, in many settings these costs are not shared with the investigator or department and are retained by the university for offsetting the hidden costs of managing grants. It is important to know the policy of your institution, so that you may plan accordingly. 5.
What other policies exist that affect the implementation of grants?
As part of the planning for your first grant submission, set up a series of information-gathering meetings with key administrators or individuals in your institution who may be involved in either the pre-award or post-award phase of your grant, or whose expertise may be needed if your project is funded. For example, the reference librarian will be an invaluable guide to information services that are available. Meet with your budget officer, key individuals in sponsored programs, or the office of research administration to discuss your grant program prior to submitting a grant application so that you are in a position to work effectively. In addition to providing information about various administrative procedures that you must follow, these individuals might also be able to offer helpful suggestions that will save you time and effort both at the pre- and post-award stages.
13.2 INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURES If you are developing a research proposal involving human subjects, you will need to submit your research protocol to your Institutional Review Board (IRB) for its approval. For most competitions, it will not be necessary to obtain IRB approval unless your grant application will be funded. Referred to as just-in-time procedures, most agencies now require human subject review to occur following approval of a proposal for funding but just before the agency releases grant funds to the institution. In some institutions, the IRB is referred to as the human subjects board or, in others, the research committee. According to federal regulation, an IRB or comparable committee must approve all government-funded research involving human subjects. Universities require IRB approval for any research regardless of the funding source or if the research is unfunded. An IRB is
Learning About Your Institution
251
composed of individuals with diverse areas of expertise in biomedical and behavioral research as well as consumers, who review each research protocol developed by members of the institution. The purpose of an IRB review is to ensure that the rights and welfare of those participating (including animals) in a study are protected and that the benefits of the research are greater than any risk associated with participation. The IRB evaluates each aspect of a research protocol, including the consent form, advertisements for subject recruitment, data collection procedures, scripts describing the study to potential subjects, and the study design. The IRB also conducts an annual review of the progress of each approved research protocol to monitor the number of subjects recruited, the incidence of adverse reactions, or the identification of new risks. Although you may view IRB procedures as stringent, this review is critical to assure proper research conduct and protect the rights of all subjects. Prior to submitting a research application, you need to learn about the procedures that have been established by your institution for IRB review and approval. If you plan to collaborate and recruit subjects from other clinical sites or universities, you will also need to discover the institutional review board requirements of each of these sites. Although most clinical sites do not have a formal IRB, they typically have some form of human subjects review procedures, such as a committee that reviews and approves requests for conducting research on its premises. It is also important to read the directions of a grant application carefully to determine when you must submit for IRB approval. Although, as discussed previously, federal competitions and most foundations will not require IRB approval at the time of submission, some competitions may require that approval by the IRB occur within 30 days of the submission. Even if IRB approval is not required prior to submitting your proposal, it is prudent to know what IRB forms must be completed. It is also wise to begin the approval process as early as possible, because this process may take significant time and some changes may be required. There are three different levels of an IRB review. These are full, expedited, and exempt. The review you receive will depend upon the degree of risk associated with the research procedures. A full review is required if the research protocol involves one or more of the following groups or categories: (a) infants/fetuses, (b) children, (c) pregnant women, (d) prisoners, (e) mentally incompetent individuals, (f) addicted persons, (g) HIV testing and
252
Submitting the Proposal
AIDS, and (h) research involving investigational drugs or medical devices or invasive techniques. This type of review typically involves a review of a complete protocol by all members of the IRB (possibly 20 to 30 individuals). Usually, one member is assigned to serve as the primary reviewer and one or more members are assigned as secondary and tertiary reviewers. The primary reviewer presents the protocol to the entire board with input from the secondary and/ or tertiary reviewers as to its strength and weakness. An expedited review is provided when the research is not invasive or represents minimal risk and does not involve one of the vulnerable populations listed above. Reviewers consist of a subcommittee appointed from the full board. Examples of studies that qualify for an expedited review include: (a) collecting data from individuals 18 years or older using noninvasive procedures that are routinely used in clinical practice; (b) using existing data, documents, or specimens; (c) observation of individual or group behavior or characteristics of individuals where the investigator does not manipulate subjects’ behavior and the research does not involve stress to the subject. The chairperson or another appointed member of the IRB usually reviews research protocols that are determined by the IRB to be exempt. Categories of research that are considered exempt from full or expedited review include the following research activities: (a) evaluation of normal educational practices, (b) select telephone or face-to-face survey or interviews, (c) observation of public behavior, or (d) retrospective studies using secondary data sets or previously collected patient information. Studies that are exempt are not monitored by the IRB on an annual basis as long as the investigator continues to follow the protocol that was originally proposed. It is important to note that the IRB must be notified regarding any type of research that is carried out by a member of the institution. Thus, even if your research can be considered exempt, you must notify the IRB and receive their approval of its exempt status. Each institution establishes its own set of procedures for submitting research protocols to its IRB for a full, expedited, or exempt review. Some require that an entire grant application be submitted for review and that the principal investigator attend a meeting with the board to present the study and respond to questions. Other IRB groups require that an abstract, informed consent form, and responses to six basic questions be submitted for review. The basic information that most IRBs need in order to adequately review a study protocol is outlined in Box 13.1.
Learning About Your Institution
253
BOX 13.1 BASIC COMPONENTS OF AN IRB SUBMISSION Cover Sheet Title of project, funding source, names of investigators, estimated budget and budget period, indication of use of human or animal subjects, FDA-approved devices or drugs to be used, signatures of key officials (investigators, department chairs, etc.), and assurance that the investigator has no conflict of interest in the study. Abstract Summary of the research, its significance and purpose, specific questions and hypotheses, recruitment procedures, subject inclusion criteria, and statistical analyses. Informed Consent Consent form for use with all subjects in the study. A consent form outlines the study procedures in lay language, describes the risks and benefits to participation, and informs subjects of their right to withdraw from the study. Response to Six Questions 1. 2.
3. 4. 5. 6.
What is the proposed involvement of human subjects and their characteristics? What are the sources of research material obtained from individually identifiable living human subjects in the form of specimens, records, or data? What are the plans for recruitment of subjects? What are the potential risks—physical, psychological, social, legal, or other? What are the procedures for protecting against or minimizing any potential risks? Why are the risks to subjects reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits to subjects?
254
Submitting the Proposal
Let’s examine the six questions in Box 13.1. These six questions must also be answered as part of the application process for all federal grants using the SF-424 forms. These questions require the investigator to describe the procedures of the study as they relate to the recruitment of human subjects, data collection, issues of confidentiality, and the risk/benefit ratio of those participating in the study. 1.
What is the proposed involvement of human subjects and their characteristics?
This question asks the investigator to describe the study population, including demographics, as well as to list and justify specific criteria that will be used to include or exclude potential subjects (usually referred to as inclusion and exclusion criteria). If your study targets a special population, such as Hispanic middle-aged men or women, then you will need to justify why this particular population is required. If your study excludes certain individuals or groups, particularly women or minority populations or children, then you will need to justify why these groups will be excluded. 2.
What are the sources of research material obtained from individually identifiable living human subjects in the form of specimens, records, or data?
This question requires the investigator to identify the source from which data will be collected (e.g., self-report, blood specimen) and the procedures that will be followed for obtaining information. Box 13.2 provides an example of a response to this question.
BOX 13.2 EXAMPLE DISCUSSION OF SOURCES OF RESEARCH MATERIAL The primary source of research material involves two, twohour personal interviews that will be conducted in the subject’s home by a trained member of the research team at Time 1 (baseline) and Time 2 (4 months from baseline). The interview protocol will involve a series of structured and standardized scales reflecting domains such as functional level, depression, and health.
Learning About Your Institution
3.
255
What are the plans for recruitment of subjects?
Here the investigator needs to describe the plan for recruiting subjects. If advertisements are used, then the IRB will need to approve the wording of all recruitment brochures to assure that they are not misleading or coercive in nature. Also, if compensation is provided to subjects, then a clear explanation of the procedures you will use is required, including how much and when subjects will be compensated. Box 13.3 provides an example of a response to this question. BOX 13.3 EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION OF A RECRUITMENT PLAN FOR HUMAN SUBJECTS Older adults living in the community will be recruited using a set of procedures that have been developed by the investigators and used successfully in other large-scale studies. These procedures involve systematic outreach to an array of social services, medical centers, senior centers, and regional media sources using advertisements and letters inviting participation (see attached). Interested individuals will be instructed to contact the project manager by telephone. Eligibility will be determined by a brief (20-minute) telephone screen administered to individuals who call and express interest in study participation. This screen will determine the level of functioning and difficulties experienced in carrying out daily activities, falls history, and mental status. For those individuals who are eligible to participate, an explanation of the purpose of the study, the time commitment, financial remuneration, randomization procedures, and nature of participation in the experimental and minimal treatment conditions will be given. A signed informed consent will be obtained in person by the research interviewer prior to the conduct of the first interview.
4.
What are the potential risks—physical, psychological, social, legal, or other?
The investigator must identify all potential known risks associated with participation in the study. In those studies for which there
256
Submitting the Proposal
is significant risk, detailed information must be provided regarding the nature and extent of each risk and the statistical probability of its occurrence. Detailed documentation from the studies that have demonstrated these risks must be carefully described as well. Low-risk studies are much less problematic. Box 13.4 provides an example of a discussion of a low-risk study. BOX 13.4 EXAMPLE DISCUSSION OF MINIMAL RISK There is no known risk associated with participation in this study. There are no physical, psychological, social, or legal risks associated with the structured interviews. Occasionally, the content of the questions may raise personal and emotional issues for an older adult. Such responses to interview content, however, have not been found to pose a serious psychological threat. Interviewers are carefully trained to sensitively handle such issues and facilitate the participant’s ability to successfully complete the interview.
5.
What are the procedures for protecting against or minimizing any potential risks?
An investigator must not only identify all potential risks associated with participation in the study, but also develop a set of procedures to protect against or minimize the potential occurrence of each risk that is posed. As part of this discussion, the investigator should also describe procedures for maintaining subject confidentiality. An example is shown in Box 13.5. BOX 13.5 EXAMPLE DISCUSSION OF PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY Precoded data collection instruments will be prepared for use with subjects at each testing occasion. Identification numbers
Learning About Your Institution
257
to assure subject confidentiality will be used. Only one master log containing the subject name, address, telephone number, and study identification assignment will be maintained. This log, in both hard copy and disk, will be stored in a locked filing cabinet separate from other identifying information. All completed data collection instruments will be stored in filing cabinets as well and kept locked in the researcher’s office. Audiotaping of intervention sessions will be identified by numbers only and any transcriptions resulting from these tapes will not contain any references to names or other personal identifying information. Audiotapes will be destroyed at the conclusion of the study.
6.
Why are the risks to subjects reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits to subjects?
Finally, in this last question, the investigator is required to explain why the anticipated benefits of the study outweigh the potential risks associated with participation. The investigator may explain the immediate benefits to subject participation (e.g., financial compensation, opportunity to participate in meaningful experience, opportunity to receive a new treatment), as well as the long-term expected outcomes (e.g., discovery of new drug or treatment that would benefit a clinical population or significant contribution to a body of knowledge regarding a disease). Most studies involving human subjects will also require the use of an informed consent form. A consent form is a legal document that informs a subject about the study procedures and its risks and benefits. By signing this form, the subjects acknowledge that they understand what they will experience when they participate in the study along with the risks and benefits. It also contains the assurance that they have volunteered for participation and can refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. This form must be clear and concise and written in a way that any lay person can understand. Scientific terms should be kept to a minimum and, when used, must be explained in lay language. The literacy level of the consent form is another consideration that must addressed. It is recommended that, because reading ability will vary greatly among potential subjects, that the form should be
258
Submitting the Proposal
written at a 6th-grade reading level. If a potential subject cannot read, the investigator must be prepared to read the form to him or her. Before you develop your own consent form, consult with your IRB to inquire whether there is a particular format or standard language that is required. Box 13.6 outlines the 14 basic elements that are included in any type of informed consent.
BOX 13.6 ELEMENTS OF INFORMED CONSENT 1. Name of project (scientific and lay) 2. Introduction and purpose of study 3. Procedures/treatments 4. Time commitment 5. Right of refusal 6. Risks/discomforts associated with study participation 7. Description of benefits to subjects 8. Explanation of compensation for participation (if relevant) 9. Statement regarding protection of subject confidentiality 10. Statement regarding use, protection, and sharing of protected health information (PHI) 11. Final statement that subject has read and understood form and has received copy of consent form 12. Name and telephone numbers of investigators or person to contact to discuss study if questions; telephone number of IRB of institution 13. Signature of subject and date 14. Signature of witness, principal investigator or designee, and date
1. Name of project: Informed consent forms often require two titles for a project, a formal title and then a lay title that can be understood by the public. Thus, investigators need to state the scientific title of the project first and then provide its translation into lay language. 2. Study purpose: The purpose of the study needs to be clearly stated, so that a lay person easily understands it.
Learning About Your Institution
259
3. Procedures: Each procedure must be accurately described so that a potential study participant understands the full extent of their participation. 4. Time: The time involved in each procedure as well as the length of time of the entire study needs to be described. 5. Refusal: Potential subjects must be informed that they have the right to refuse to participate in the study and that refusal will not effect their right to medical treatment or any other types of services. Also, subjects need to be informed of their right to withdraw from participation at any time without penalty, as well as their right to refuse to respond to interview questions. 6. Risks/discomforts: Potential subjects must be informed about any risks associated with participation as well as any discomforts that they may experience. Each risk needs to be carefully explained along with a description of alternative treatments that may be available. 7. Benefits: Any immediate or long-term benefits to subjects must also be described. Benefits may include participation in a novel treatment, contribution to the research process, or other more tangible benefits that may be experienced. 8. Explanation of compensation: The compensation for study participation, if relevant, must be clearly specified so that a participant understands the circumstances under which they can expect remuneration. 9. Subject confidentiality: The procedures that will be used to assure confidentiality of the information that is collected must be discussed. For example, the use of identification numbers to refer to subjects and keeping all subject data in locked filing cabinets are two important and traditional research procedures that should be discussed in a consent form. Despite precautions, there is always the risk, although it may be minimal, that confidentiality might be broached. This should be discussed as well. 10. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act: With the passage of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), it is now necessary to include a statement in an informed consent as to what type of protected health information (PHI) will be collected, how it will be used (e.g., for statistical analyses) and how it will be handled. Also, you will need to indicate if any of the PHI
260
Submitting the Proposal
that will be collected will be shared with others (e.g., funding agency, insurance companies). If PHI will be shared with others, then a statement as to their legal responsibilities for protecting (or not) PHI data will need to be included. PHI refers to any information that identifies an individual with data collected in the study. It includes such things as a person’s name, address, health information (even if selfreport), or date of birth.
SUMMARY In this chapter, four major points have been made: 1. Each institution has its own set of procedures and rules for submitting an application as well as for the start-up and administrative and budgetary oversight of a funded grant. It is best to identify early in the proposal development stage the procedures that need to be followed to obtain institutional approvals, the regulations associated with hiring of personnel and administering the budget, and other grant-related institutional policies. 2. In addition to providing information about institutional requirements, administrators may also have helpful suggestions as to how to facilitate program development and implementation at the pre-award and post-award phases of your grant. 3. Protection of human subjects is essential in scientific research. Therefore, all organizations engaged in research have procedures to ensure that the participation of human subjects involves safe and ethical procedures. The institutional review board is responsible for monitoring this aspect of research. 4. Each institution establishes guidelines for obtaining IRB approval. Information that must be provided includes the nature of the subject pool, the potential risks to these subjects, the benefits of participation, and the procedures that will be used to protect against or minimize these risks.
Chapter 14 Electronic Considerations
• • • •
Benefits of Online Grant Submissions Common Challenges With Electronic Submissions Getting Ready for Electronic Submission The Process
The grant application process is rapidly changing with improvements in Web and Internet technologies. At this time, most government agencies and foundations require all grants to be submitted electronically. It is now the rare exception to have to submit a paper copy of an application. This is also the case for almost all other grant-related work, such as obtaining official institutional signoffs on grant submissions; submitting progress reports, endof-grant financial status reports, responses to reviewer comments; and receiving notification of a grant award. Thus, the new world of grantsmanship involves having knowledge of, and facility with, the Internet and Web-based technologies. At this writing, the use of the Internet for grant submissions is still evolving and is expected to dramatically change and become much more advanced in the next few years. This chapter provides some general tips for the current challenges involved with online submissions of grant applications and what it takes to be efficient and ready to submit an application electronically.
261
262
Submitting the Proposal
14.1 BENEFITS OF ONLINE GRANT SUBMISSIONS There are both positive and negative aspects to the electronic submission process. Perhaps the chief benefit of the technological move toward online grantsmanship is the ease with which proposals, continuation reports, and final grant work can be submitted. Since an application can be submitted directly from your office, you will not have to be concerned about scheduling mail delivery, duplicating multiple copies, or rushing to the post office or airport to deliver your application. This translates into some potential cost savings. Another benefit is that a potential applicant has immediate access to application packages as soon as they are released by a funding agency rather than waiting for mail delivery. A third benefit is that communication with program officers is easier and more efficient. Instead of playing “phone tag,” you can send e-mail messages that then can be answered at any time by a program officer. Yet another benefit is that technology makes file sharing with colleagues at other national and international institutions much easier. This is particularly important for multisite or international projects. Finally, technological advances have afforded greater access to the most up-to-date publications, government reports, and news releases. Thus, it is easier to efficiently identify the most upto-date information and statistics that are necessary to support a project aim. With many journals moving to online access, writing a literature review for a grant is becoming much easier, although with ease of access is the expectation that your literature review be as up-to-date as possible.
14.2 COMMON CHALLENGES WITH ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS The transfer from paper to electronic grantsmanship does present some potential drawbacks or limitations. Electronic submissions do take a significant amount of time. If it is the first time you are submitting an application online, you will need to allow extra time to learn the peculiarities of the submission process and the particular
Electronic Considerations
263
information and forms that are required. It also requires learning a different approach to preparing an application, particularly if you are most familiar with paper format. Since your institution will have rules about who needs to approve your proposal and provide required signatures of approval, adjustments to the process of obtaining signoff for your proposal will have to be made. Some agencies currently using online applications require that a letter from an official in the institution be faxed or mailed prior to final acceptance of the electronic application. Other agencies accept the application but require official documentation from the grantee’s institution prior to making the award. The NIH requires that that the individual with official signing capacity actually send the final grant application. For electronic submissions, a grants administrator can help with the preparation and upload of required administrative forms, budget information, and narrative sections. However, it is also important for you, as the principal investigator, to be involved in the actual uploading process because, in many instances, only you will have the specific information and knowledge requested as part of the submission process. Because of inevitable electronic glitches, starting as early as possible in developing the grant application as well as submitting it electronically is critical. In some cases, online submissions do not save money. You still need to print out all files, proofread hard copies of the application, and duplicate hard copies for inter-office records. There are numerous other challenges with electronic submissions. In Table 14.1, we list some of the more common glitches that occur and possible solutions.
14.3 GETTING READY FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION As in paper submissions of grant applications, one of the most important steps in preparing the proposal is becoming familiar with all transmittal forms, completing required fields of information, and formatting the narrative according to the specifications for electronic transmission. In some cases, either you or your institution will need to establish an account with the electronic system being used
TABLE 14.1
Common Glitches in Electronic Submission
Problem
Potential Solution
Computer crashes. Make sure that you routinely save and back up all working drafts and related materials on a flash stick. Make sure you have an alternative computer to work on in addition to your own. Have readily available the telephone contact information of your institution’s technical assistance. Be prepared by having back-up plans and remain flexible.
264
Application will not transmit due to overload on sponsor’s system.
Be sure to allow plenty of time to work on, complete, and then transmit a grant proposal to a sponsor. Do not wait to send a proposal electronically at the last minute that it is due. Often, the sponsor’s mechanism for receipt of electronic submissions can become overloaded. We recommend beginning the transmittal process a few days to one week in advance of the actual due date to avoid any last-minute snafus at the sponsor’s end.
Poor labeling of files results in wrong documents uploaded.
To avoid this problem, devise a system for labeling drafts. For example, rename each draft the date it is worked on so you have a running set of identified files. Only work on the most up-to-date file. Label the final version as “final” so it is clear when you upload which files are completed. Most electronic grant submission steps involve checking, verifying, and approving the version being sent. For the NIH, you will also have three working days from submission to review and validate the grant application files.
Application is transmitted but final verification of receipt cannot be obtained.
There can be numerous glitches in electronic submissions and this is only one of them. Be sure to know ahead of time the technical assistance number of the sponsor and/or e-mail of the sponsor who can troubleshoot this and other transmittal difficulties. Keep a record of all e-mail communications concerning any technical glitches so that you can verify that you submitted the application on time but that electronic issues occurred.
You forgot your log-in name and password.
Be sure to record your log-in name and password and keep in a secure but available location. While you can usually request a new log-in or password, this can take time.
Electronic Considerations
265
by a sponsor in order to successfully transmit an application. Most electronically based programs will enable an investigator to print all required forms prior to their completion. Unlike a paper submission in which each narrative section of the grant is continuously paginated, in most electronic submissions each section of the application (e.g., budget justification, aims, background and significance, research methods), must be uploaded as separate files. Understanding the format and process for an electronic submission is important because it will shape how you develop the required application sections. Thus, it is important to spend some upfront time to learn the electronic system and submission requirements so you will not be surprised at the time of the deadline or actual submission. Two of the most common electronically based systems for proposal transmission are Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov/), used by the federal government, and Proposal Central (https://pro posalcentral.altum.com/), which is used by numerous foundations. We highly recommend you visit their Web sites to obtain general information about their systems, availability of technical help, and their application processes. Also, the NIH provides very helpful tips for electronic submissions which should be reviewed (http://era. nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/files/PI_Advice.pdf). To submit an application electronically, there are various system and technology requirements. Table 14.2 outlines key equipment you may need to submit a proposal electronically. First, we recommend that you purchase a flash stick with sufficient capacity to hold documents, forms, and appendices. The flash stick is useful as a back-up system, and/or in the case when you need to share your grant documents with other departments and/or your research administration and the files are too large to be transmitted as e-mail attachments.
TABLE 14.2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Key Equipment Needs
Flash stick Adobe/PDF capacity Scanner Electronic signature capacity Back-up computer Extra time and patience
266
Submitting the Proposal
Some electronic grant applications require that you convert your document files into PDFs (files created and used by Adobe Acrobat software) prior to uploading and submitting. Although some agencies and electronic software programs will convert your grant files into PDFs, this is not true in all cases. Programs to convert files to PDF are relatively inexpensive and well worth the investment. We also recommend that you purchase a scanner. This is particularly useful when you need to transmit letters of support with signatures and the participating parties do not have electronic signature capacity. We have also found that some materials such as recruitment brochures may not be available in Microsoft Word document format and will need to be scanned and uploaded for inclusion in the application or as appendix materials. While not all institutions have the capacity for electronic signature capacity, this is an invaluable asset for submission of grant proposals and something that you should encourage your department/institution to adopt. Be prepared to have a back-up to the computer you are using so that you can take your flash stick to another work station and continue writing/working without losing time. This is essential to being in a state of readiness in this new electronic grant world. Also, time and patience remain of utmost importance. Although, as noted previously, efficiency is gained with electronic submissions, you must start earlier in the process of submission than previously with paper copies and allow more time due to the potential for technical glitches and imperfect software systems. At this time, glitches are a normal part of the electronic submission process. As with paper proposals, great care must still be given to writing and proofreading your work. Some people find it more difficult to work online, and it may be easier to miss small mistakes. Remember that once you hit the send button, it may not be possible to retrieve your proposal unless the electronic process allows for this. As we have stressed, even with an electronic submission, you must allow sufficient time to submit your proposal. You should also have a back-up plan in case your computer crashes, you are unable to access your application materials online, or your computer network is not available. Although most computers do have sufficient memory, if your computer is old, make sure it has sufficient capacity to handle large files, because most applications and their instructions will be extensive. Finally, it is wise to contact your institution’s technology services to assure that you have the correct software to read and overwrite on electronic applications. Find out what type of
Electronic Considerations
267
emergency services are offered by your technology to help create your back-up plan when writing and submitting the proposal.
14.4 THE PROCESS For most electronic submissions, you can begin the process of uploading information immediately. Much of the information required on the face page, such as name of institution, name of grantee, address, name of signing official, and so forth, can be entered at the beginning of the process by an assistant or grants administrator. In most programs as you complete each section, you may upload it to the system; thus your grant can be a work-in-progress until you have finalized all application sections and transmitted it. As you submit your work, be sure to follow the directions of the electronic program and use the “save and continue” or the “save and exit” button often. Coordinate with your grants administrator how and when you need to get institutional approvals prior to final submission. In the case of NIH, only the signing official of the organization can transmit the final application. Thus, the principal investigator cannot make this final “click” but must coordinate this with the appropriate offices. Upon uploading all documents, most electronic programs will require that you review the completed application and verify that the correct files have been uploaded. If your transmission has been successful, you should receive e-mail notification that your application has been received by the agency. Be sure to print this message and save it with your grant file records. This may be your only documentation that you submitted the proposal on time if you should need proof of this. In the NIH system, you will receive a series of e-mail notifications concerning the receipt of your application, its validation, error warnings, and final acceptance and submission of the application for review. You can review the notification sequence and actual wording and meaning of these e-mails at: http://era.nih.gov/Electronic Receipt/submit_app.htm#3. The first e-mail notification you will receive will be issued by the Grants.gov system and will confirm receipt of your application within two days from when you submitted your grant application.
268
Submitting the Proposal
A second e-mail will indicate whether the application has been successfully validated by the Grants.gov system prior to transmission to the agency or whether there are errors that need to be addressed. If the latter is the case, you will have several working days to make any corrections and resubmit the entire application through Grants. gov following the process you used for the initial submission (e.g., logging on to NIH eRA Commons, see chapter 1; uploading corrected files; submitting to your institution’s research administration for review and retransmission). Once your application has been validated, it will be sent to the NIH. The NIH then assembles the application as reviewers will receive it. This assembled version will then be available to you for your final review and approval. You will have only two full weekdays to view the application to assure it was assembled properly. If the assembled application is not correct, it will need to be addressed immediately by uploading corrected documents and going through the validation process again. Thus, in organizing your time, it is important to assure your availability for up to a week after submitting an application.
SUMMARY Electronic submission represents a new approach to developing and submitting grants. This process is still in its developmental phase and will evolve and improve over time. Electronic submission represents a significant leap forward in increasing efficiency in the submission and processing of grant applications. Despite the immediate challenges, it represents a welcome new approach for grantsmanship. The key to success at this development phase is allowing sufficient time and having patience with system and computer bungles. In the long run, this approach will be beneficial to all.
Part VI Life After a Grant Submission
Yes, there is a life after a proposal submission! After the hard work and hectic pace of submitting an application, you might not want to think about the proposal anymore, or at least for awhile. That is okay, because it will take some time for your proposal to be evaluated and a funding determination made. But what does happen to your proposal when it leaves your hands? Knowledge of this process and how applications are reviewed can enhance the quality of your submission. Understanding the review process is an important aspect of grantsmanship and the focus of chapter 15. In this chapter, we describe the grant review process, the criteria used by reviewers to evaluate applications, the potential outcomes of a review, and categories of acceptance and rejection. The worst mistake of new investigators is to feel so 269
270
Life After a Grant Submission
overwhelmed by a rejection that the comments of the review panel are not even read. However, there are a number of options if you are not funded. These are considered in chapter 16. It is important to recognize that few grant applications receive funding on the first submission, so consideration of and planning for a resubmission is a basic aspect of the process of grantsmanship. Program officers often claim that just by reading proposals, applicants enhance their ability to develop a competitive grant. Chapter 17 provides a case study in which we present an excerpt from a proposal and demonstrate how it would be critiqued. In addition to carefully examining chapter 17, try to arrange other opportunities for reading applications and the comments of reviewers, so that you can become more skilled at developing proposals and interpreting reviewers’ evaluations.
Chapter 15 Understanding the Review Process
• • • •
Structure of the Review Process Review Criteria Scores and Categories of Acceptance and Rejection Tips for Understanding the Review Process
Once you have mailed or delivered your grant application to a funding agency, take the opportunity to sit back, relax, and reflect on the grant writing process. For most agencies, and particularly those in the federal government, it may take six to nine months or longer to learn whether your proposal will be funded. You may wonder what happens to your proposal once it is submitted to an agency. Knowledge of the review process provides a better understanding of how to write a grant and analyze the final review score you will receive. It will also help you prepare a more competitive application if it is necessary to resubmit your application. Before submitting a proposal to an agency, whether federal or a foundation, it is importation to understand its review process and the criteria that will be used to evaluate grant applications. As we discussed in chapter 2, the review process and evaluative criteria are typically available in the program announcement, a Request For Applications (RFA), or in the case of foundations, on their Web sites. In this chapter, we examine the review process in more detail. In chapter 16, you will learn how to interpret reviewers’ comments and decide whether to resubmit your application if it is not funded. As you move through this chapter, refer to Table 15.1, which lists the key acronyms related to the review process. 271
272
TABLE 15.1
Life After a Grant Submission
Key Acronyms Related to the Review Process
CSR—Center for Scientific Review (formerly referred to as the Division of Research Grants (DRG) GAN—Grant Award Notice from the Department of Education IRG—Integrated Research Group SRA—Scientific Review Administrator NIH—National Institutes of Health NGA—Notice of Grant Award from the NIH PHS—Public Health Service ORA—Office of Research Administration
15.1 STRUCTURE OF THE REVIEW PROCESS Each funding agency establishes its own set of procedures to guide the conduct of a rigorous and comprehensive review of proposals. As noted previously, review procedures can differ across agencies and even for each competition sponsored by an agency. Foundations tend to establish special review panels for each competition, have members of their board review applications, or seek expertise from the scientific community on an ad hoc basis to review proposals. In contrast, federal agencies use a peer-review system except for special funding opportunities such as supplementary or discretionary funding, minority supplement awards, or certain fellowships. In these cases, applications are reviewed internally by program officers or special emphasis panels composed of selected scientists from the established review committees. Here we discuss the most common review process, the peer review system used by the Public Health Service (PHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The PHS has a sequential review process that is referred to as a “dual review system” for investigator-initiated applications such as the R01, R03, or R21 funding mechanisms. First, all applications are sent to a general receiving office called the Center for Scientific Review (CSR), formerly referred to as the Division of Research Grants (DRG). For each funding cycle, over 10,000 applications may be
Understanding the Review Process
273
received by the CSR; and in one year over 40,000 applications will be reviewed. At the CSR, more than a dozen staff members, referred to as referral officers, assign a referral number to the application once they have examined it for completeness. Then, on the basis of keywords in the title or abstract, the referral officers make several assignments. First, they assign proposals to an institutional center (IC) that is one of the institutes of the NIH, such as the National Institute on Aging, or the National Institute of Mental Health. In your cover letter to the CSR, it is helpful to indicate to which institute you want your proposal assigned (for a list of the NIH institutes see: http://www.nih. gov/icd). Second, the CSR assigns proposals to what is called an integrated review group (IRG); and then within the IRG, to a particular study section. This process is referred to as triaging the proposal. There are 23 IRGs, each representing a broad category of research (e.g., Musculoskeletal, Oral and Skin Sciences IRG [MOSS]; Biobehavioral and Behavioral Processes IRG [BBBP]). For a list of the IRGs and specific study sections, go to: http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ PeerReviewMeetings/CSRIRGDescription/. Each IRG is in turn composed of different study sections. Study sections consist of research scientists, usually appointed for three years, who are responsible for reviewing applications for their scientific merit. Study section members are selected based on rigorous academic and scholarly standards and tend to be scientists with strong funded programs of research and significant publications. There may be 15 to 30 individuals per study section. In your cover letter to the CSR, you may request a particular study section that you think is most appropriate for the review of your application. To learn more about the Center for Scientific Review, go to http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ and follow the links to the different IRGs and their study sections. It is important to understand that the triaging of your proposal is based principally on your title and brief abstract. Thus, these aspects of the proposal must be carefully constructed so it is assigned to the study section that is best suited to review it. A project officer can be very helpful in suggesting which IRG and study section would be most appropriate and what to say in the cover letter to the CSR. It may take anywhere from six to eight weeks to assign a proposal to a study section. Once the assignment is made, the CSR will notify the investigator via e-mail that the following information is available through the NIH eRA Commons: (a) the IRG assignment; (b) the name of the scientific review administrator (SRA); (c) the
274
Life After a Grant Submission
institute assignment (e.g., National Institute on Aging, National Eye Institute); and (d) the reference number the agency assigned to your proposal. If you have any questions about your proposal, you will need to use the information and proposal reference number for the CSA to identify it. Study section members are brought together to evaluate proposals for their scientific and technical merit and make recommendations for funding. In most federal reviews, members of the review panel typically have four to eight weeks to review the proposals assigned to them. A review panel typically has 20 to 50 applications to review, although the number of applications will vary depending on the agency and particular competition. Although now rare, other review processes may be used by federal agencies. For some competitions, reviewers do not receive the applications in advance. Instead, they must travel to Washington, D.C., for about a week of work that involves independent reading of proposals in a hotel room followed by group meetings. If there are only a few applications to a particular competition, a small panel will be required. The review in this case may be conducted by teleconference. Not uncommon is to have a special expert join a study section to review an application either by joining the review panel face to face or via telephone conferencing. In each study section, a representative from the funding agency moderates or oversees the deliberations of the review panel. This representative, referred to as the scientific review administrator (SRA) in the PHS system, or as the project officer in the Department of Education, assures that each application receives a fair and thorough review. In preparation for the review, the SRA assures that the application is complete and assigns a reviewer from the study section to be the primary reviewer. This individual will be responsible for presenting the application to the panel and writing a summary of the evaluation. The SRA also assigns other members of the study section as secondary and tertiary reviewers, who also must provide a written and oral review of an application. Most study sections also have a chairperson appointed from their membership who is responsible for overseeing the conduct of the review meeting. Although typically three people are responsible for a thorough review of an application, all members of the study section will receive the applications and are asked to review them. At the review meetings, the chair will ask each of the three main reviewers, starting with the primary reviewer, to provide their score. The range of the scores provides the study section members with
Understanding the Review Process
275
an immediate understanding of how each of the assigned reviewers rated the proposal. Next, the primary reviewer provides the panel with an overview of the proposal, followed by a concise critique based on the five evaluation criteria (significance, approach, innovation, investigators, and environment). The secondary reviewer then indicates whether he or she agrees or disagrees with the review and provides any additional points. The third reviewer then presents any additional points not already addressed by the previous reviewers. This is then followed by questions or comments from other members of the study section. Members may ask for clarification, particularly if there are discrepancies in the points raised or large differences in the scoring between the three main reviewers. Following this brief discussion, the three reviewers are asked once again to indicate their score for the proposal in view of the points raised by the other panel members. They are encouraged to modify their scores, particularly if there are extremely divergent opinions, so that a consensus is reached on the evaluation of the application. Once this occurs, the primary reviewer is asked to comment on the budget and the adequacy of human subject treatment. If there are concerns with either one, these are indicated as an administrative note that will be handled by the program officer and addressed by the applicant if the proposal is funded. Issues related to the budget and human subjects can also influence the final score of the review panel. Finally, each member of the panel is asked to record their score independently based on the presentation and discussion that ensued. All members of the study section, regardless of whether they have actually read the proposal, are required to provide a score. They will base their score on the review, the discussion, and their evaluation of the significance of each critical point or concern raised by the reviewers. The presentation of the three reviews, the discussion, rescoring, and scoring by all panel members typically takes 15–20 minutes. Under the new “streamlining procedures” in NIH, one week prior to convening a study section, the SRA obtains a list from each member of the study section of the applications that received initial scores for scientific merit in the lower half (typically 2.5 or higher). These applications will not be discussed at the meeting of the study section, unless, at the meeting, one or more reviewers request that an application be discussed. If the application is not reviewed at the face-to-face meeting, the grant will not be scored. However, the applicant will receive comments from the initial
276
Life After a Grant Submission
reviewers. These “unedited” summaries represent each reviewer’s independent review and not the concerns or integrated perspective of the review group. During the panel discussion of those applications that will be scored, the role of the SRA is to provide technical assistance, clarify agency policies, and, in some agencies, write a summary of the review for each proposal and/or edit the written reviews to assure appropriateness and clarity of language. He or she may not express an opinion about an application. This summary statement represents a synthesis of the deliberations of the review panel. It includes a description of the proposed project, its areas of strength and weakness, and the rationale for the panel’s recommendation, as well as a numeric rating of the proposal. It is this summary, once called the “pink sheet” in the NIH system (because it used to be printed on pink paper), that the investigator receives whether or not he or she receives funding. Following completion of this review, the agency prepares a master list of all the applications reviewed by the panels and their rankings based on their scores. A summary sheet is prepared for each application that includes the reviewers’ comments, a summary of strengths and weakness from the discussion of the panel, and a score. The summary sheets and the ranking of each application are then submitted to the program staff of the IC and to the investigator. Once the written review is complete, you will receive an e-mail notification that it is available to be retrieved through the NIH eRA Commons. The IC staff refers the list of recommendations for funding to their board, who evaluate and make the final decision for funding. In the PHS system, this board is referred to as the “National Advisory Council.” The council is composed of scientists and nonscientists who review each funding recommendation with regard to whether the proposal reflects the overall mission of the agency and the adequacy of protection for human subjects. The National Advisory Council meets three times a year. An application must be approved at both levels, the study section and National Advisory Council, in order for funding to occur. The CSR Web page has excellent resource material about the review procedures of the NIH, including a video of an actual NIH study panel and the materials, including grant applications, that were reviewed. It will help you obtain a concrete understanding of how application are reviewed (go to http://cms.csr.nih.gov/Resources forApplicants/InsidetheNIHGrantReviewProcessVideo.htm). In contrast to the NIH system, other divisions of the government, such as the Bureau of Health Professions (BHPr) and De-
Understanding the Review Process
277
partment of Education, do not have standing study sections. These agencies appoint reviewers, three to five for the Department of Education and about 10 or 15 for the BHPr, for each competition. Typically, a program officer is responsible for identifying appropriate individuals. This is a time-consuming process in which the program officer must select scientists who have expertise in the particular area of the competition. In some cases the legislation will specify that consumers who are not employed by the federal government must also sit on the review panel. The program officer must also assure representation from diverse geographic regions and minority groups. Usually, only one member of an institution can serve on the same review panel, and in some competitions, it is prohibited to have a panelist from the same state as an applicant. Let’s look at a typical review situation in the NIH system. Dr. S. is an associate professor at a major university with special expertise in disability research and serves on a study section dealing with musculoskeletal problems that is scheduled to meet in the second week of April. Six weeks prior to the group meeting in Washington, D.C., he receives an overnight package with a disk containing the following materials: (a) all of the applications that will be reviewed, (b) a list of reviewers and application assignments, (c) written guidelines for writing up a review, (d) scoring criteria, (e) NIH conflict of interest policy; (f) funding opportunities addressed by the applicants; (f) NIH procedures concerning data monitoring, data sharing, and other related NIH information. Dr. S. is assigned eight proposals to review, for four of which he is given the responsibility of primary reviewer, for two he is a secondary reviewer, and for two he is the tertiary reviewer. Upon receiving the applications, he must immediately check that he does not have a conflict of interest that would prevent him from reviewing his assigned applications. A conflict of interest exists if Dr. S. actively collaborates with a principal investigator or key personnel either as a consultant or as a coauthor. Also, if Dr. S. is related to or is a close friend of an applicant or key personnel on an application, it would also be considered a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict, Dr. S. must notify the scientific review administrator immediately so that the application can be reassigned. The administrator will request that he return the application or destroy it. At the time of the panel review of this application, Dr. S. will have to recuse himself by leaving the room during the deliberations.
278
Life After a Grant Submission
On those applications for which he is the primary reviewer, Dr. S. will need to write a comprehensive description and critique of the project to present during panel deliberations. He will also be responsible for presenting a summary of the application to the review panel. If a member of the review panel has a question regarding a particular procedure in the application, Dr. S. would be responsible for clarifying the issue based upon his careful reading. In addition to his responsibilities as a reviewer, Dr. S. has a full teaching load, committee assignments, his own research, and commitments for presentations, manuscripts, and grant applications. Each proposal may need one to three careful readings to provide an adequate evaluation. In order to fulfill his other obligations, Dr. S. will need to review most of the proposals in the evenings and on weekends if he expects to meet the review deadline. Obviously, Dr. S. is not going to be too happy if a proposal he is reviewing at 10 o’clock in the evening is difficult to read, filled with typographical errors, has sections missing, or omits information that addresses the evaluation criteria. Dr. S. finishes evaluating the proposals and travels to Washington, D.C., for the panel meeting. He arrives on a Sunday night and, upon check-in at the hotel, he receives a packet of information orienting him to the next day of reviews. Included are seating assignments, review panel member’s names and affiliations, a list of grant applications that scored over 2.5 and thus will not be reviewed, and an agenda. On Monday morning, his 25-member panel meets and begins to review a total of 40 proposals. Dr. S. spends about 5 to 10 minutes summarizing the application and providing a critique. The secondary reviewer then spends a few more minutes providing additional comments and indicating areas of agreement or disagreement with Dr. S., and his or her evaluation. The third reviewer, however, has identified a potential problem with the methodology of the study and spends an additional 5 minutes explaining why this is a problem. Members of the panel, after reading the abstract and listening to the two evaluations, begin asking questions of the reviewers. After about 15 minutes, the chair of the panel interrupts the discussion and tries to obtain clarification concerning the areas of disagreement and attempts to reconcile these differences and reach a consensus. He asks Dr. S. to clarify the points he has made and whether the methodological flaw identified by the third reviewer is really a flaw. As you can see, Dr. S. must be prepared to answer questions, clarify misconceptions, and argue in support of or against an application. In some respects, for those 15 minutes, he is in the hot seat.
Understanding the Review Process
279
After consensus is reached, each reviewer is then asked to restate his or her score, taking into consideration the points made in the discussion and Dr. S.’s clarifications, and to modify their scores if it is appropriate. Following this, each panel member privately scores the application using a scoring sheet provided by the SRA, which is collected at the end of the review. Upon completion of this discussion, the SRA and chair of the panel realize they have spent too much time discussing a controversial aspect of this one proposal and they have 39 applications more to discuss before the end of the day. Each member silently hopes that the remaining proposals will not be difficult to review so that they can make fair decisions and still get back home before their children are grown. The NIH review process that Dr. S. participated in highlights the basic elements of grant reviews followed by most agencies and foundations. You may have noticed that regardless of the fact that you may have spent 9 months preparing an application and that assigned reviewers may have spent anywhere from 2 hours to a day reading and writing up their critiques, only about 15 minutes will be allotted to its actual review by a full review panel. As you can see, being a reviewer is a time-consuming and arduous task. Reviewers have limited time to read and fully comprehend their assigned proposals. Also, they must represent the proposal to their peers, and thus they are under a great deal of pressure to be thorough, precise, and above all, concise. Therefore, it is very important for you to make it as easy as possible for a reviewer to understand your ideas and plan of action. This can be accomplished, in part, by assuring that your writing is clear, that you present your ideas in an organized, concise, and logical manner, and that you check for typographical errors and overall appearance of the application prior to its submission.
15.2 REVIEW CRITERIA Specific evaluative criteria are used for each grant competition to appraise the scientific and technical merits of proposals. Evaluative criteria differ by agency as well as by type of competition. For investigator-initiated proposals submitted to the NIH system, five
280
Life After a Grant Submission
standard criteria are used. These are outlined in Box 15.1 (for more detailed information about these criteria and the review process, consult the NIH Web site: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm).
BOX 15.1 NIH EVALUATIVE CRITERIA Significance: Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field? Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics? Innovation: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches, or methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies? Investigator: Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience, level of the PI and other researchers (if any)? Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of organizational support?
Also, in accordance with NIH policy, study section members are required to review applications with respect to (a) the adequacy of the investigator’s plans to include both men and women and minority groups in recruitment and retention; (b) the reasonableness of the proposed budget and length of the project; and (c) the adequacy of protection of human subjects or animals.
Understanding the Review Process
281
15.3 SCORES AND CATEGORIES OF ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION How are applications scored and what are the possible outcomes of a review? Categories of acceptance and rejection vary from agency to agency. We first describe the system used by the Public Health Service and then examine the Department of Education.
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE The PHS uses a scoring system such that the best possible score is 1.00 and the worst is 5.00, and each application is scored to two figures (e.g., 1.50). Each application that is discussed by the study section is given one score that reflects the final overall appraisal of the review panel. The individual scores on each panel are averaged and multiplied by 100 to yield a single overall priority score (e.g., 150). At the study section meeting, reviewers are then asked to spread the final scores of approved applications to achieve a median score of either 250 or 300. For most competitions, but not all, the institutes also compute a percentile rank. This percentile rank indicates the position of a priority score compared to all priority scores assigned by that IRG in its last three meetings. The calculation of the percentile rank includes all applications, even those that were not given a full review by the study section (e.g., those applications that initially scored too high). For example, a percentile rank of 20 means that only 20% of the applications reviewed by that study section during the last three meetings had equal or better priority scores. These two scores serve as the primary indices of scientific merit and are a major factor in determining whether an application is actually funded. Some agencies also determine a percentile pay line, which is a score based primarily on availability of funds. Each institute has a different pay line. Some may fund up to the 20th percentile, others are as low as the 7th. Applications that have a percentile rank equal to or better than the percentile pay line are funded. In other agencies, the proposal that has the highest percentile rank is funded first. Funding proceeds with the next highest ranked proposals until the available money runs out. For agencies that do not compute a percentile rank, the proposal with the highest priority score is funded
282
Life After a Grant Submission
first. Investigators who are funded from the initial pool of money are notified by a letter sent to the university single point of contact, usually the office of research administration. Prior to this notification, some agencies will notify your local congressional representative about the funding. Approved proposals whose scores are not high enough for the first round of funding are placed on a waiting list arranged by percentile rank or priority score. Applications on this list may receive either full or partial funding if additional money becomes available. These proposals are eligible for funding for up to one year. Unfortunately, after the initial distribution of funds, future funding is rare for these proposals. If the study section decides that an application does not demonstrate sufficient scientific or technical merit, it is not recommended for further consideration and is not scored. It is returned to the applicant as unscored and, as described earlier, the applicant will receive an unedited version of the reviewers’ comments. These are the applications that are not reviewed by the full panel. Proposals in this category are ones that the reviewers believe demonstrate significant conceptual, scientific, or technical weakness such that they should not be given further consideration for a full review by the panel. Examples of potential reasons for not being scored include an inadequately developed or scientifically unsound project idea, a significantly flawed methodology, inadequate human subject protection, or a lack of match with the agency’s priorities. This is serious and indicates that the application will not be considered in the future for funding in its current form. Although you may resubmit the proposal, it will need to be substantially changed before you do. You will need to give careful consideration to the reviewers’ comments, and discuss any proposed revisions with a project officer who can advise you whether the agency will accept a future submission. In some cases, a study section may decide that they cannot make an accurate decision about an application until additional information is obtained. This information usually is in reference to nontechnical aspects of the proposal that are unrelated to its scientific merit. Methods of responding to the panel depend on the information that is required. For administrative or straightforward concerns that need clarification, such as a budget item or a missing letter of support, a project officer will contact the investigator by e-mail or telephone. More substantive issues raised by a panel
Understanding the Review Process
283
may need to be addressed in writing by the investigator to indicate how the concern will be addressed. For example, the review panel may request clarification or additional information as to the composition of a data safety monitoring board, or about a particular measure being proposed. If this is the case, the investigator will have to prepare a written response and submit it to the project officer for final review and approval prior to receiving funding. In some competitions, especially those involving the development of a large “center” for research or training, a site visit may be performed. The site visit is attended by a representative from the funding agency and either all members of the review panel or just the primary and secondary reviewers. This visit may last from one to three days depending upon the nature of the competition and the extent to which there is a need to clarify the proposed activities. During the site visit, all members of the proposed project team must be present and a formal agenda followed. The site visitors may question any aspect of the proposal and also examine the physical resources of your institution. Following the site visit, the reviewers will prepare a report and make a final recommendation for funding. This is evaluated by the project officer, who may also make specific suggestions as to funding and whether substantive changes in budget or procedures are necessary.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DOE) Funding agencies within the Department of Education follow a different set of scoring procedures. For most competitions, a proposal is rated on a scale of 0–100 where 100 represents the best possible score and 0 the worst, based on an assessment from three to five reviewers. In the DOE, each section of a proposal has a point value attached to it. The reviewers evaluate and assign points to each section independently and then have the opportunity to revise these scores based upon the group discussion. An overall score of the proposal is then calculated to represent the average of each panel member’s total score. Approved proposals are those that receive a panel rating of 80 or above. However, for most competitions, a score of 90 or above is necessary to make it eligible for funding. Those that are scored below 80 are classified as disapproved. Box 15.2 is an example of how three reviewers might evaluate a proposal.
284
Life After a Grant Submission
BOX 15.2 Section/ Criterion 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Reviewers’ Score Point Value
1
2
3
0–10 0–10
8 8
9 8
9 8
0–30
25
26
19
0–20
18
19
12
0–10
9
9
8
0–10
9
9
8
0–5
5
5
4
0–5
5
5
5
100
87
90
73
Evidence of need Relevance Plan of operation Nature of curriculum Quality of personnel Budget/costeffectiveness Evaluation plan Adequacy of resources
Total Average Score = 83.3
Once the scores are submitted, the agency project staff meets to discuss the proposals that are in funding range to evaluate their fit with the agency’s mission and long-term goals. For the most part, the agency funds the proposal that receives the highest panel rating and continues funding proposals in descending order (all above 80), until the money runs out. However, it is possible for a proposal with a lower score than another to be funded if it more closely fits the agency’s goals. The proposal in the example above received an average score of 83. This score is just within the funding range, but because it is close to the cut-off score of 80, it is unlikely to be funded in this round. If you examine the pattern of scores, you will see that there was a significant discrepancy among the reviewers. Two of the reviewers scored the proposal much higher than the third. The third reviewer did not rate the plan of operation or the nature of the curriculum very highly. Since these two sections are the
Understanding the Review Process
285
ones with the highest importance, this reviewer had a major impact on the overall score and, possibly, the funding decision. To resubmit the application, it would be important to obtain feedback from the program officer to find out how to address the issues raised by the third reviewer and if you can expect to have the same set of reviewers on the next submission. The Bureau of Health Professions, even though it is in the PHS, uses yet a different scoring method. The bureau uses the same scoring design as the Department of Education, with 100 being the best possible score and 0 being the worst. However, there are three differences in the way funding decisions are made: (a) the bureau does not usually publish the point values for each section of the proposal; (b) the review panel recommends approval and disapproval of each proposal and then assigns an overall score to each, and (c) the scores of approved proposals are ranked from high to low and funding continues until the money is depleted.
15.4 TIPS FOR UNDERSTANDING THE REVIEW PROCESS Before submitting a proposal to an agency, whether federal or a foundation, it is important to understand its review process and the evaluation criteria that will be used to evaluate grant applications. As we discussed in chapter 2, the review process and evaluative criteria are typically available in the program announcement, a Request For Applications (RFA), or in the case of foundations, on their Web sites. Also, it is helpful to ask a program officer whether it is possible to obtain the names of the reviewers to learn of their degrees and scientific backgrounds. This can provide important insights as to the particular areas of expertise that will be represented on a panel and the lens through which your grant application will be reviewed. The NIH publishes a list of members on all its standing review groups and updates this publication yearly. In the NIH system, if you submit a proposal for which special expertise is required and members on the existing scientific review panel do not represent this expertise, you may request, in the form of a letter with your application, that a specialist review your proposal. Other agencies such as the Department of Education only release the names of their reviewers at the conclusion of a funding
286
Life After a Grant Submission
cycle. This is much less helpful because it is difficult to discern the particular competition for which a reviewer participated, and you only receive the names after the fact so it does not help for the preparation of an application. Occasionally, foundations provide a list of their reviewers either as part of their annual reports, on their Web pages, or upon request. For competitions for which it is not possible to obtain the names of reviewers, it is important to try to obtain as much information as possible about the general backgrounds of the reviewers. One excellent source for this information would be the project officer, who should be able to provide some general information about the backgrounds of those on the panel. For example, it would be important to know if consumers as well as research scientists will be reviewing your work. If so, it would have implications about the language you would use to convey your idea. If the review panel is composed of physicians, then addressing the clinical and medical implications of your project would be important. This information, then, provides insight as to how best to explain your ideas in the proposal so that it is clear to members of the panel. Each agency applies different evaluative criteria in reviewing applications. Furthermore, within an agency, different criteria may be applied for specific competitions. Most funding opportunities or requests for applications will describe the evaluation criteria that will be applied to proposals responding to the announcement. Review these criteria carefully. It is very important to address each of them in your application. For example, one competition may emphasize innovation and significance of the proposed research topic or education idea, whereas another may place greater emphasis on dissemination and weight this section higher than the others. Thus, how you develop your ideas and the level of detail you provide will be influenced in large part by the importance the agency attributes to different sections. Finally, as part of understanding the review process, you should inquire whether an application can be resubmitted if it is not funded on the first review cycle and, if so, the number of resubmissions that are permissible. For NIH unsolicited applications, it is possible to submit the same application up to three times. However, this may not be the case for other agencies or special competitions in which a one-time announcement is made because an agency has funds that are restricted for addressing one particular topic.
Understanding the Review Process
287
SUMMARY The following three major points have been made in describing the proposal review process. 1. The review process is an arduous and time-consuming activity for reviewers, in which proposals are given a fair and thorough review. It is very important to present a clearly written proposal that closely follows the proposal or evaluative outline provided by the agency to help facilitate the review process and improve your chances of funding. 2. Two major federal funding sources for health and human service projects, the Department of Education and the Public Health Service, have different systems for evaluating proposals. Understanding these systems will help you write a stronger proposal as well as determine the appropriateness of resubmitting your proposal if it is not funded the first time. 3. The majority of proposals submitted to a competition are approved but not funded. This reflects the lack of money available to federal agencies, rather than the quality of the projects that are submitted. Therefore, it is important to learn about and avoid the common mistakes in nonfunded proposals so that you can improve your chances of funding.
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 16 Responding to the Proposal Review
• • • • •
Resubmission Options Considerations in Reading Reviewer Comments What to Do if You Believe the Review Was Unfair or Incorrect Resubmission Process The Three-Strike Rule
Most proposals, especially those submitted to the NIH, are not funded on the first submission. This is particularly true for applications submitted by new investigators, but it is also true for veterans. With decreased federal funding for research and training projects, it is becoming more difficult to obtain funding. Thus, resubmission of an unfunded proposal is an unfortunate but basically normal process of grantsmanship today, and a reality for even the most experienced grant writer or veteran researcher. Although no one enjoys rejection, you may need to submit an application more than once before you are successful. Some agencies, such as the NIH, will allow resubmission of an application up to three times, others allow unlimited resubmissions, whereas still others, particularly foundations and industry sources, will not consider a resubmission. If your proposal is not funded on the first submission, it can be disappointing, but all may not be lost. You will need to carefully consider and interpret reviewers’ comments to determine whether or not a resubmission has potential for success.
289
290
Life After a Grant Submission
16.1 RESUBMISSION OPTIONS WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS IF YOU ARE NOT FUNDED? In some competitions, such as those sponsored by certain foundations, or for a one-time specific Request For Applications (RFA), there is no opportunity to resubmit. However, for most open competitions it is permissible to resubmit an application. We recommend following these three steps to determine whether you should resubmit. These are: • First, assess the priority score in the context of the agency’s funding climate. • Second, carefully analyze the reviewers’ comments. • Third, discuss reviewer comments and the priority score with a project officer.
ASSESSING THE PRIORITY SCORE If your proposal was submitted to the NIH, you should carefully examine both the priority score and the percentile rank (see chapter 15). Both scores provide an indication of the strength of your proposal. The priority score indicates its technical or scientific merit, whereas the percentile rank compares it to other proposals evaluated in the funding cycle. The percentile rank also provides an indication of how close you were to being funded by comparing it to the percentile pay line. For example, in the NIH system, currently a score of 190 to 210 implies that the proposal idea has merit but either lacks sufficient detail or contains a methodological concern. Unscored grants tend to be in the range of 250 and higher and suggest that the reviewers may not have liked the proposed idea, or the design may have had serious flaws. In any case, major revisions will be necessary before resubmitting. If, for example, you receive a score of 185 with a percentile rank of 25%, and the agency funds up to 18%, you know you were very close to being funded. In this case, you should give serious consideration to a resubmission. Alternately, if you receive a score of 215 and a percentile score of 50%, you were not close to being funded. However, the fact that you even received a score suggests
Responding to the Proposal Review
291
that you should carefully consider the reviewers’ comments to determine whether you should resubmit. If you submitted an application to the Department of Education, you need to assess both your overall score and the score from each reviewer. Box 16.1 contains the example of a review from the Department of Education that was also presented in chapter 15. The proposal received a total average score of 83 but was not funded. Since a score of 80 is the cut-off point for eligibility of funding, you know you were eligible, but not very close, because only grants scoring 92 or higher were funded. Had all three scores of the reviewers been close to 80, it would have indicated that the panel was consistent in how they judged the quality of your proposal, although not very excited about it. But the opposite may also be true. In this case, the two high scores suggest that your proposal has funding potential but that one reviewer had significant concerns about it. BOX 16.1 Section/ Criterion
Reviewers’ Score Point Value
1
2
3
0–10 0–10
8 8
9 8
9 8
0–30
25
26
19
0–20
18
19
12
0–10
9
9
8
0–10
9
9
8
0–5
5
5
4
0–5
5
5
5
100
87
90
73
1. Evidence of need 2. Relevance 3. Plan of operation 4. Nature of curriculum 5. Quality of personnel 6. Budget/costeffectiveness 7. Evaluation plan 8. Adequacy of resources Total
Average Score = 83.3
292
Life After a Grant Submission
A proposal with a score less than 60 typically indicates that the panel had significant concerns. If the panel’s concerns can be addressed, then a resubmission may be possible. However, such a low score would warrant a very close examination of the reviewers’ comments to understand their reasons for rating your proposal so poorly. If the panel expresses disinterest in the topic area, or finds a fatal flaw in the design or a substantial issue that cannot be adequately addressed, then resubmission of the proposal would not be a realistic option. Each agency tends to use a different approach and timeline in notifying applicants of the outcomes of the review process. In the NIH system, scores from the review panel are available within three working days from the date that the panel met. You will receive notification via e-mail that the scores are available on the NIH eRA Commons system. You will need to log in and click on your proposal status to see whether your proposal was unscored or if a score is posted. The reviewer comments will become available several weeks after the score is posted and you will once again receive e-mail notification when they can be accessed on the eRA Commons system. Most other federal agencies and foundations also use e-mail notification to inform applicants of the outcomes of the review process.
16.2 CONSIDERATIONS IN READING REVIEWER COMMENTS Review panels communicate explicitly and implicitly important messages and suggestions to applicants through their comments. Therefore, it is critical to read the reviewers’ comments carefully and learn how to interpret what they are trying to relay to you. The format of the summary sheet or reviewers’ comments varies from agency to agency. Some agencies provide an overall evaluation of your proposal with the scores in each section, as well as evaluative comments that are made by each panel member. Other agencies provide a summary of the major strengths and weaknesses that were identified during the panel discussion. Still others will list the major strengths and weaknesses. The “pink sheets” from NIH typically contain the following information:
Responding to the Proposal Review
293
• A comprehensive description of your project and the proposed methodology • A one- to three-page critique of each section of the proposal • An assessment of the adequacy of each of the five evaluative criteria • A brief appraisal of the adequacy of the proposed budget and concerns about human subjects • A summary statement regarding the recommendation for funding Regardless of the format or timing, the comments by a review panel should be carefully evaluated because they identify the issues that will need to be carefully addressed if you decide to resubmit the proposal. Take a deep breath before reading comments of the review panel. It is never pleasant to receive criticism about your work, especially after you have put so much time and effort into it. This is true not only for new investigators, but also for those who have received many awards. Some comments will be straightforward and identify a particular weakness. For example, “There is no budget justification.” Other comments may be less direct and open to multiple interpretations. For example, consider the meaning of the following comment: “While this appears to be an intriguing intervention, it is difficult to see how the results will have a significant impact on the day-to-day behavior of practicing therapists.” One interpretation is that the reviewers liked the idea but did not think its significance was clearly communicated. The second interpretation is that the reviewers did not think the intervention would ultimately contribute significantly to clinical practice. If the first interpretation is correct, you would need to carefully explain the significance of the intervention for practice. If the second interpretation is correct, you would need to reexamine the intervention and decide whether it is as significant as you believe or whether you didn’t make a strong enough case for its impact on health practitioner behaviors. Sometimes it is difficult to discern which interpretation is accurate. In this case, discussing the critique with the project officer and sharing the intervention with colleagues to elicit feedback will assist you in determining whether a resubmission is reasonable and would be competitive.
294
Life After a Grant Submission
As you read and interpret the reviewers’ comments, look for comments that say “yes” and comments that say “no” to a resubmission. Consider the examples that are in Box 16.2. Panel members may try to encourage investigators, particularly for proposals that present innovative and interesting ideas but may not be fully developed and ready for funding. On rare occasions, review panels will encourage resubmission of proposals that are disapproved. This usually occurs when the proposal contains a highly innovative or important idea but needs significant refinement or better organization. On the other hand, they may also send the opposite message if they do not think the proposal will be competitive even if it is revised.
BOX 16.2 Examples of Comments That May Say “Yes” 1.
2.
3.
Although this proposal has a number of weaknesses, the panel would like to urge the investigator to consider resubmission. While this proposal has a number of significant weaknesses, the intervention that is being tested is highly innovative, the research team assembled is exceptional, and the study has the potential to make a significant impact on the quality of life of patients. Despite the methodological concerns, enthusiasm for this application is strong.
Examples of Comments That May Say “No” 1.
2.
3.
Even if these changes were made, it is questionable whether this proposal could be improved sufficiently to warrant funding. While this is an interesting approach, there is some question as to its overall potential to significantly improve the delivery of services. The methods, intervention, and approach are not particularly innovative.
Responding to the Proposal Review
295
Finally, proposals that contain what are called “fatal flaws” cannot be resubmitted. A fatal flaw represents a fundamental problem with the design or proposed program that cannot be remedied. A fatal flaw requires you to rethink the entire project idea and set of procedures. Box 16.3 provides an example. BOX 16.3 COMMENTS THAT ILLUSTRATE A FATAL FLAW 1.
2.
It is apparent that this intervention would require a minimum involvement of between 8 and 10 hours per day of clinical staff time, which does not appear feasible given the staffing levels of the participating clinical sites. This research design cannot be accomplished without random assignment of patients to experimental and control groups. It does not appear that this is possible because to do so would compromise patient treatment plans at this facility. Without random assignment, however, it is difficult to see how the study outcomes can be interpreted.
Comments from a review panel are an important guide to help you make a decision about whether to resubmit the proposal and the kinds of changes that would be necessary to make the proposal competitive. We suggest that you share reviewers’ comments with colleagues to obtain their reading of the panel’s critique. Box 16.4 provides a strategy that may be helpful in reviewing summary statements. BOX 16.4 STRATEGY FOR ASSESSING REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS 1. 2. 3.
Take a deep breath, then take another deep breath. First read comments for general impressions and to determine if there is a fatal flaw. Take another deep breath.
296
Life After a Grant Submission
4. 5.
6. 7. 8.
9. 10. 11.
Ask a colleague familiar with your project to read the comments and provide their interpretation. Reread comments to determine if they a. say “yes” to resubmit b. say “no” to resubmit c. suggest you have a fatal flaw Discuss the reviewers’ comments with the project officer. List each concern or area of weakness noted by reviewer. For each concern, start drafting a plan or a description of how you will address each listed concern or issue raised by reviewers. If possible, share the plan and draft letter with consultants or colleagues and obtain their feedback. Call the project officer to review your plan and obtain feedback. If you resubmit, the outline as to how you will address each concern will serve as the detailed letter of introduction to your reapplication, which is typically required by an agency.
DISCUSSIONS WITH PROGRAM OFFICERS It is very important to talk to the program officer or, if possible, the scientific review administrator who was involved with the review panel in the NIH. He or she may have insights about the discussion that occurred among panelists. Often, by sitting in on the deliberations, they will have a sense of whether the panel members were excited about your proposal ideas or not. This is something that you might not be able to learn from the written comments. Program officers are also adept at interpreting reviewers’ written comments, and they may be able to provide specific suggestions about ways to improve your proposal based on these comments. They will provide an honest assessment of your chances if you decide to resubmit, and if your idea does not fit agency priorities or the review panel had substantive issues with the project, they will let you know this as well. In addition to discussing the nature of the review panel’s deliberation and their comments, other questions to a program officer
Responding to the Proposal Review
297
may help you understand where your application falls in relation to the others that were submitted. Examples of questions you may want to pose to a program officer are listed in Box 16.5. BOX 16.5 WHAT TO ASK A PROGRAM OFFICER ABOUT THE REVIEW 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
How many applications were submitted/reviewed? In the NIH system: What percent of applications were triaged (unscored)? How many grants will be funded? Or in the NIH system: What is the pay line for this funding cycle? What were the priority scores of funded grants? Given reviewer comments and score, would resubmission be recommended? Will the same panel of reviewers evaluate a resubmission? How should you indicate that the application is a resubmission?
16.3 WHAT TO DO IF YOU BELIEVE THE REVIEW WAS UNFAIR OR INCORRECT If you believe that you received an unfair review, you do have some recourse. You can submit a letter of complaint to your program officer or the branch chief of the agency. We should stress that this option should be used only for a glaring mistake and not because you disagree with the panel’s decision. The only reason for you to write a letter like this would be to help improve the review system. You will not receive a change in your score or funding as a result of this letter. For more information concerning NIH’s peer review process, go to the following Web site: http://www.csr.nih.gov and http://www.csr.nih.gov/review/policy.asp. Information also is available by e-mail at
[email protected] or
[email protected], or by calling, writing, or faxing a request to the Center for Scientific Review (CSR). For more information about the Department of Education’s
298
Life After a Grant Submission
peer review approaches, search their Web site for the competition of interest. Go to http://www.ed.gov/search or http://www.ed.gov/ pubs/peerreview/execsumm.html.
16.4 RESUBMISSION PROCESS What are your next steps if you receive notification that your proposal was approved but not funded? You should strongly consider a resubmission if your priority score was reasonably high, the review panel did not cite major weaknesses, and the program officer confirms the panel’s enthusiasm, and if he or she encourages you to revise the proposal. Here are basic points to keep in mind when resubmitting an application. 1. Your first step will be to meet with your project team to determine if resubmission is feasible and if they are still interested. 2. Remember that a resubmission needs to be given the same careful thought as the original proposal. Do not assume that only a few editorial changes based on the suggestions of the review panel will suffice. One effective strategy is to put the panel suggestions in one of three categories: major changes, minor changes, and editorial changes. Major changes are those that require you to change a substantive part of the proposal. An example of a major change in an educational grant may be a modification in the sequence or content of the courses, modification in objectives and evaluation procedures, or readjustment of the overall program. In a research grant, an example of a major change is a revision in the design, analytic direction, or research instrument. 3. Minor changes are those that require additional information that augments the proposal or statements that clarify procedures. For example, if you did not include adequate information in your statement of the need for the project or a clear plan for self-sufficiency, you would need to gather additional information to place in these sections. 4. Editorial changes are those that require you to rewrite portions of a section to assure greater clarity, to correct typographical errors, or to add figures or tables that summarize
Responding to the Proposal Review
299
and clarify major points. Start working on the major changes first, because they will require the most effort and time. 5. You should update all materials, including literature reviews, biographical information, funding information, and letters of support. 6. Under certain circumstances you may want to request that an individual with special expertise be assigned to review the resubmission. For example, if you proposed an ethnographic study and the panel members only had expertise in quantitative designs, you would want to request that an anthropologist be appointed to the review panel. This would provide the expertise that is required to review your application. While it is not possible to address the range of comments you may receive from a review panel, Table 16.1 outlines some of the most common concerns we have provided in our reviews or have read in our own grant summaries and those of our colleagues.
TABLE 16.1
Common Comments and Possible Solutions
Some Common Reviewer Comments
Possible Solutions
Inconsistent use of concepts
Be sure to name and frame your primary concepts and be consistent throughout the application as to their use. Simplify the terms you use.
Methodological issue concerning power
Reevaluate calculation of power analyses and make sure that the evaluation plan for each aim has adequate power.
Missing information
If the information is actually provided, then the comment suggests that it may not have been described adequately for a reviewer to understand; or the information was not presented in an organized, logical flow so the reviewer thought it missing. In this case
(continued)
300
TABLE 16.1
Life After a Grant Submission
(continued)
Some Common Reviewer Comments
Possible Solutions you I would need to rewrite the section. If information is missing, then you must address this by adding the requested information.
Lack of sufficient detail
Despite page limitations, be sure to provide detailed descriptions of each methodological decision and steps that will be taken.
Concern with lack of or inadequate control group
If testing an intervention, most reviewers will want to see as much attention given to describing the control group as the experimental group.
Concern with clinical significance
Be wary of such comments because the reviewer may be asking the “So What” question. You must develop a strong argument that can convince the reviewer of the significance of the question you are addressing through additional data and/or discussion of how it will affect the health of the public. Determine whether you have provided the right citations to support your arguments.
Most agencies will require that you indicate that the application is a resubmission. Ask the program officer how best to present this to the review panel, because each agency has a different set of requirements for the way you must provide this notification. Most agencies will require that you write a letter detailing your response to the reviewers’ main comments and that you highlight the places in the narrative where you have made substantive changes by using some identifier such as bolding the section or neatly drawing a vertical line in the margin by the section. Some agencies will place a page limitation on your response. In any case, you need to indicate that you carefully reviewed the recommendations by the panel and
Responding to the Proposal Review
301
have revised and strengthened your proposal in accordance with their comments.
16.5 THE THREE-STRIKE RULE We mentioned earlier that, in the NIH system, you may not submit a proposal more than three times whereas some agencies will allow you to submit as many times as you like. Generally, it has been our experience that if you are not funded after the third submission, it is unlikely that this particular project will be funded. If you have been diligent with each resubmission and follow the advice of the reviewers and program officers and still do not receive funding, you should seriously reconsider whether your idea is a competitive one for the agency you have targeted or whether your idea is innovative and worthy of funding. There are just so many changes you can make to a project. After three submissions, your project team will also probably become tired of the idea. The only time you might want to consider a fourth submission is in a case in which your scores become significantly better with each submission and the last one is extremely close to the pay line, and your program officer encourages one more submission. Remember, just because one project idea is not funded, there is no penalty on you as an investigator. It is always important to keep trying with different ideas. Finally, it is important to remember that a resubmission does not automatically lead to a better score. Thus, be prepared for the possibility of receiving a score that is actually worse than that received for your previous submission and the need to resubmit the application yet another time.
SUMMARY In this chapter we have focused on strategies for responding to the review of your grant application. Interpreting scores and reviewers’ comments can be challenging, but is important in order to
302
Life After a Grant Submission
effectively address concerns in a resubmission. The following major points were made in this chapter. 1. Read reviewers’ comments to determine if there is a fatal flaw or comments that suggest that a resubmission is not welcomed. 2. Discuss reviews with the program officer and colleagues who are familiar with the review process in order to gain additional insights as to the concerns raised. 3. Reviewer comments typically suggest that either you were not clear in your presentation, that there are significant methodological flaws, or that the proposal is not innovative. 4. In resubmitting an application, be sure to systematically address all reviewers’ concerns.
Chapter 17 A Case Study
• Excerpt From a Proposal • A Critique Remember Ms. L. from chapter 1? She was interested in developing an educational program to prepare an interdisciplinary group of students to work with residents of homeless shelters. Let’s see what has happened to Ms. L. and her team. If you recall, Ms. L. had been advised to cast a wide net to identify external funding sources and develop a team involving other health and human service professionals. After searching for funding agencies using the sources described in chapter 2, she and her team identified 10 foundations from the Foundation Directory and obtained a computer listing of federal agencies about an inch thick from an electronic search conducted by the reference librarian. These searches generated a number of agencies that appeared interested in funding a range of programs for underserved populations. The team then began to review the information about each of the agencies to determine whether there was a potential match between each agency’s funding priorities and the original idea of the project. After reviewing descriptions of the foundations, the team concluded that their idea did not match any of the priorities identified. They then spent the next few weeks examining the Web sites of federal agencies that sponsor likely programs. They reviewed the goals and funding priorities of each, titles of previously funded projects, size of awards, and due dates for the next competition. They also identified the program officers in charge of each competition. 303
304
Life After a Grant Submission
From this review the team identified four potential funding sources whose priorities seemed relevant to their idea. They spent the next two months refining their ideas, updating their literature review, and developing a two-page concept paper describing their proposed project. Ms. L. then called the program officers in each of the agencies they had identified from the Web site. She introduced herself to the program officers and explained her team’s idea and asked if she could make an appointment to visit the agency in the next month. She also asked if they would be willing to review their concept paper for discussion at the meeting. Two of the program officers agreed and a date was set for the meeting. The third program officer apologized, indicating that his agency would be in the midst of reviewing proposals on the planned date and that he would not be available. He did agree to review the concept paper and suggested that Ms. L. schedule a conference call in about two weeks, so he could discuss the project with the team. The fourth program officer also apologized, saying that she would be conducting site visits of some of her funded projects during Ms. L.’s planned visit, but that she planned to attend the annual meeting of Ms. L.’s professional association, which was scheduled for the following week. The program officer agreed to review the concept paper and meet with Ms. L. during the conference. At the professional meeting, Ms. L. and the program officer met during one of the coffee breaks between sessions to discuss the concept paper. The program officer indicated that she liked the idea of the project and thought that it had potential for funding but felt that the proposed budget was a little higher than her agency normally funded. She also suggested that the closing date for the agency’s next competition was too close for Ms. L. and her team to put together a competitive proposal, even if they were able to reduce the budget. Finally, she suggested another agency that would have interest in the project idea. Ms. L. was heartened by the last remark, because the suggested agency was one they had identified. When Ms. L. returned to her university, it was time for the scheduled conference call to the next funding agency. During the call, the program officer encouraged the team to pursue their idea and gave them a number of suggestions to make the project stronger. However, he told them that the primary focus of his agency was on homeless women and children. He asked them if it would be possible for them to change the focus of their project to this population.
A Case Study
305
Ms. L. thanked him for his suggestions and indicated that they would seriously think about the change of focus. After the call, the team discussed the possibility of revising their idea but decided that their real interest lay in helping the homeless men, who made up the bulk of the residents of the shelters they were working in. A week later, Ms. L. made the trip to Washington and visited the last two of the agencies they had identified. She found both of the program officers to be very friendly and helpful. At the first agency the program officer told her that, while he thought the team’s idea was a good one, his agency was really more interested in rural underserved populations. He did, however, provide some suggestions about how to strengthen the team’s project. Ms. L.’s second meeting was much more encouraging. Dr. C., the program officer, indicated that her agency was very interested in programs providing services to medically underserved communities. She also said that her agency strongly encouraged both interdisciplinary approaches and demonstrated linkages between universities and community agencies. Dr. C. then made some suggestions for improving the team’s proposed plan and identified an announcement in the Federal Register and on the agency Web site. An excerpt of this announcement is shown in Box 17.1.
BOX 17.1 EXCERPT OF AN ANNOUNCEMENT Section 767 authorizes the Secretary to award grants to eligible entities to assist such entities in meeting the costs associated with expanding or establishing programs that will increase the number of individuals trained in allied health professions. Programs funded under this section may include: 1.
2.
those that establish community-based training programs that link academic centers to medically underserved or rural communities in order to increase the number of individuals trained; those that expand or establish demonstration centers to emphasize innovative models to link allied health clinical practice, education, and research;
306
3.
Life After a Grant Submission
those that establish interdisciplinary training programs that promote the effectiveness of allied health practitioners in the areas of prevention and health promotion, geriatrics, long-term care, ethics, and rehabilitation.
To maximize program benefit, programs that provide financial assistance in the form of traineeships to students will not be considered for funding. When preparing the detailed description of the Innovative Project Grant, information should be presented according to the following outline: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII.
Background and Rationale Objectives Project Methods Evaluation Applicant Summary and Resources Budget and Justification Self-Sufficiency
Special Consideration In determining the order of funding of approved applications, special consideration will be given to the following: Applicants demonstrating affiliation agreements for interdisciplinary training experiences in nursing homes, hospitals, or community centers for underserved populations. Applicants demonstrating affiliation agreements with migrant health facilities. Funding Approximately $1,900,000 will be available in the current fiscal year for this program. It is anticipated that approximately 10 new awards will be made, with a period of support not to exceed three years.
Excited, Ms. L. returned to her university and shared the announcement and feedback with members of her team, who decided to submit an application to this competition and request special
A Case Study
307
consideration. As a first step in proposal development, Ms. L. and her team identified the roles each would assume to write the proposal (as described in chapter 11) and on the project itself, if it was funded. The following section presents excerpts from the team’s proposal, which is then followed by its critique.
17.1 EXCERPT FROM A PROPOSAL Title: A Program to Train Interdisciplinary Health Care Teams to Work With the Homeless
I. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE Introduction and Purpose of the Project The departments of social work, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and nursing at the University of Excalibar propose to develop, implement, and evaluate a new program by which to educate students to provide interdisciplinary community-based health care, including health promotion and restorative services, to individuals who are homeless. This three-year project will be accomplished in three overlapping phases: development, implementation, and evaluation. The development phase involves the formation of a partnership among social work, allied health, and nursing faculty, and community leaders. The purpose of this partnership is to plan and implement a new program of didactic and clinical experiences for students in each of the programs. The implementation phase involves executing the collaboratively derived educational activities. Didactic and experiential community-based interdisciplinary training opportunities will be designed to move the student from being an independent practitioner with a uni-disciplinary focus to a collaborator and member of an interdisciplinary, community-based team. The evaluation phase involves appraising the success of the project. Evaluation will be conducted by the Community Advisory Board, which will assess the effectiveness of the program.
308
Life After a Grant Submission
Changing Needs and Growing Numbers of Homeless This project targets the homeless, because of the demonstrated lack of health care services for this population, their clear need for both comprehensive health promotion and health restoration services, and the cost-effective role of nursing and allied health professionals in the delivery of such services. As a heterogeneous group with complex and diverse health care needs, this population challenges the present service delivery system and underscores the pressing need for community-based strategies that are effective, culturally appropriate, and comprehensive.
Who Are the Homeless? Homelessness is defined as the situation of an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence; or has a primary night-time residence that is (a) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations; or (b) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized. Since the 1980s, homelessness has increased in the United States due, in part, to a decreased availability of affordable housing. Those who are most affected are individuals who are poor with limited education and job skills, those who have mental illness and substance abuse issues, and women and children affected by domestic violence. It is estimated that 6.5% of individuals in the United States have been homeless at some point in their life, and 3.6% of individuals had been homeless sometime between 1989 and 1994. Based on existing demographic data, there is consensus that the current homeless population ranges in age between 35–40 on average. At least one-half of the population is non-White. Thus, national statistics strongly support the need for the model program that is proposed in this application.
II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The primary goal of the proposed program is to test an approach for developing a new community-based health care program in education, service, and research for an underserved population.
A Case Study
309
There are three specific program objectives to accomplish this goal. Objective #1: Participate in year-long activities to develop a curriculum. Objective #2: Expand the knowledge base and clinical abilities of faculty and community-based providers for the homeless so that they can develop and teach an innovative interdisciplinary curriculum focused on community-based health care for the homeless population. Objective #3: Enable faculty, in collaboration with communitybased providers for the homeless, to understand and apply the linkages among theory-based practice, research, and policy formation to curriculum development.
III. PROJECT METHODS The specific activities in each project phase are based upon a proven learning process to develop competence in interdisciplinary team approaches. This process first involves faculty and student mastery of discipline-specific knowledge and skills in clinical decision making, clinical leadership, and health care delivery systems. Building upon “uni-disciplinary” knowledge and skill, participants will explore potential multidisciplinary relationships. Finally, through specially designed course work in team building and practicum experiences in community-based team care, faculty and students will gain competence in working on interdisciplinary, community-based teams.
IV. EVALUATION The evaluation process will determine the extent to which the program represents an effective and workable model for preparing social work, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and nursing students to work on interdisciplinary community-based teams. To this end, the project director will charge the Community Advisory Board with overseeing and guiding the systematic evaluation of each phase and component of the program with special emphasis on assessing the training curriculum. Both a formative and summative evaluation process will be developed.
310
Life After a Grant Submission
V. BUDGET AND JUSTIFICATION Project Director (Ms. L.): Ms. L. will devote 35% of her time to the project. She will direct the didactic and clinical curriculum development activities and serve as liaison to participating social service agencies and community advocates for the homeless. She will also work with each department representative to coordinate the clinical activities of each department. Department Representatives (Dr. G., Ms. L., Dr. T.): These individuals will each devote a 10% effort and will be involved in curriculum planning, teach a specially designed course in the program, recruit and advise students from each of their departments, and serve as advisors to student research projects.
Supplies Clerical supplies, postage, telephone, and minor occupational and physical therapy equipment, such as splinting material and foam theraband, will be required to support the operation of the project. An amount of $3,500 during each year of the project is requested.
Staff Travel Travel funds in the amount of $5,200 for the first year, $5,000 during the second year, and $6,000 in the third year is being requested. Funds will be used for local travel by faculty, travel to three professional conferences, and travel to an international meeting in London, England, on homelessness.
Trainee Expenses Partial support for the 16 students in the program is requested. A stipend of $2,000/student/year is requested.
APPENDICES A: Letter of support from a community shelter B: Curriculum vitae of project personnel C: Selected publications of project team
A Case Study
311
17.2 A CRITIQUE The team’s proposal arrived at the Grants Management Office of the Bureau of Health Professions on the day of the deadline. It was logged in and assigned a unique identification number. One hundred and twenty proposals were received for the competition and the program officer was very busy organizing three 10-person review panels. Each reviewer received eight proposals, four to review as a primary reviewer and four to review as a secondary reviewer. The proposals were mailed to the reviewers six weeks before the scheduled panel meeting. Ms. L’s proposal was reviewed on the second day of deliberations. Although the proposal was well-written and avoided the common writing problems identified in chapter 5, there were some fundamental issues raised by the review panel. Can you identify the issues reviewers might have had? Here is an outline of some of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal that would have been raised by a review panel.
STRENGTHS 1. This is a well-written, innovative approach that appears to have the potential to improve the health status of an underserved population. 2. National data on the homeless population and a strong justification for the need for services for this population is provided. 3. The proposal addresses a critical need for training students to work with an underserved population. 4. The involvement of multiple disciplines and the emphasis of the program on both health promotion and restoration is an important approach to solving the complex problems facing individuals who are homeless. 5. The organization of three project phases represents a logical ordering of activities to accomplish the two goals of the project. 6. The involvement of members of the community and academic faculty in the implementation of this project appears to have the potential for ensuring its success.
312
Life After a Grant Submission
7. The project director has had extensive experience working within shelters for the homeless and organizing a volunteer program for students. 8. The project team seems well qualified to conduct this project.
WEAKNESSES 1. Although the national significance of developing a program to serve the homeless is adequately demonstrated, the applicant does not provide sufficient data or information as to the local need for and benefit of this program. It is unclear whether there are any such programs existing in the applicant’s region and no needs assessment is presented. 2. The applicant proposes to develop curriculum materials based on a partnership and collaboration between community members and academic faculty. However, there is insufficient evidence of the involvement of key community members and an inadequate plan for the development of such a collaborative relationship. Such a partnership should involve members of the community in the actual planning of the grant. 3. There is only one letter of support from one of the shelters that will be involved in the program. Support letters from the other shelters and key members of the community would be advisable to assure that this is a feasible program and acceptable to the shelters. 4. The plan for evaluation is weak and underdeveloped. Although the use of a Community Advisory Board to assist in the evaluation is appropriate, there is no specification as to how they are going to evaluate the program, the criteria that will be used, or the process by which the evaluation will be carried out. 5. Objective #1 is stated as an activity, so it is difficult to determine what will be accomplished or who will participate in the curriculum development activities. 6. There is no strong reason given for why the professions that will participate in the program were chosen, what each of their contributions will be, or what evidence exists
A Case Study
313
that they will be cost-effective. Absent from the multidisciplinary group are nutritionists, dental hygienists, educators, job placement counselors, and others who have important skills to contribute to the care and well-being of the homeless. 7. It is unclear as to the ultimate goal of this project—is it the provision of service to the homeless or development of an education program for students in the health professions? 8. Although the budget appears appropriate to accomplish the activities of the program, the applicant requests funds for trainee expenses. This expense is disallowed in this competition. 9. Applicant also requests funds for travel to an international meeting. Government funds can not be used for travel outside of the United States except to Canada and Mexico. Based on this review, the panel approved the proposal but assigned it a score of 79 out of a possible 100 (see chapter 15 for a discussion of scoring procedures). When Ms. L. contacted Dr. C., the project officer in the bureau, to discuss their score, she was told that it was probably just outside the range for funding. However, Dr. C. also told her that the review panel was sending a clear and positive message to her and her team. This message was that the program was innovative and of great importance but needed further refinement, particularly in the plan for implementation and evaluation. Look again at each weakness that was identified. Each point can easily be addressed by Ms. L. and her team. The review panel did not identify a fatal flaw. Although very disappointed with their score, Ms. L. and her team decided to resubmit the application. Let’s review how they used the reviewers’ comments as a guide to develop their resubmission. There were nine weaknesses cited by the review panel. The first had to do with the lack of data on local need for the program, the existence of other programs in the region, and the lack of a needs assessment. Ms. L. assigned one of her team members to update the literature review of the original proposal and to conduct a new review of local statistics on the homeless population. Other members of the team conducted a needs assessment. They met with representatives of city and county social services agencies to determine what programs were available to individuals who
314
Life After a Grant Submission
were homeless and to identify the most pressing physical, mental, medical, and social needs of this population. The second weakness suggested that there was no community input into the planning of the proposed curriculum materials or in the grant project itself. In conducting the needs assessment, members of the team had made contact with a number of community leaders. The team decided to expand the size of their Community Advisory Board by asking some of these individuals to participate. At the first meeting of the board, Ms. L. divided the members into three small task groups. She asked one of the groups to review the curriculum materials and a second to review the overall project plan of action and make suggestions for improvement. The third task group was asked to develop an evaluation plan for the project, which was the fourth weakness identified by the review panel. Once these tasks were completed, the team began revising the application. The first step was to incorporate the results of the updated and expanded literature review and needs assessment into the introduction and rationale section of the proposal, and add a paragraph explaining the rationale for the selection of the four professions to participate in the project (weaknesses #1 and #6). They then clarified the goal of the project (weakness #7), by indicating that the primary goal was to develop a program to prepare interdisciplinary groups of students to provide health care services to individuals residing in four homeless shelters. Following this, objective #1 was rewritten as: “Develop curriculum materials to enable students to work as members of an interdisciplinary team in the provision of health care services to individuals who are homeless” (weakness #5). The team then made modifications to the section on project methods by clarifying the role of the Community Advisory Board, indicating that the board would work collaboratively during the first year of the project to develop the interdisciplinary curriculum materials as specified in objective #1 (weakness #2). In the evaluation section of the revised proposal, the team described the evaluation materials and the process by which they were developed by the task group of the Community Advisory Board. These materials were included in one of the appendices of the proposal (weakness #4). The team then amended the budget by removing the requests for international travel and for traineeship money (weaknesses #8 and #9). Finally, they requested letters of support from community leaders on the Community Advisory Board, the heads of some of
A Case Study
315
the major social services agencies in the city, and directors of each of the participating shelters. As you can see, addressing the weaknesses cited by the review panel was relatively time-consuming, but not difficult. As part of the submission of the revised proposal, Ms. L. included a letter to the reviewers that outlined each weakness cited by the review panel and the team’s response. Upon completion of the revised proposal, Ms. L. and her team realized they had improved both their proposal and project significantly. The second review panel agreed, and funding was obtained on the second submission.
This page intentionally left blank
Part VII Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
When you receive notification of an award (by letter, telephone, or e-mail)—celebrate! A funded grant is a significant accomplishment and indicates that your proposal has been ranked very high in comparison to the other proposals submitted by your peers to that competition. You are now entering what is referred to as the “post-award” phase of grantsmanship. The post-award phase involves not only the implementation of your proposed project, explored in chapter 18, but also the management of the award as outlined in chapter 19. Again, congratulations on your success. These next chapters will help to keep you organized and on target for your next grant submission. 317
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 18 Welcome to the World of Post-Award
• • • • •
Initiating a Grant Award: Administrative Matters Scientific Start-Up Tasks Yearly Reports and Administrative Responsibilities Budgetary Considerations Getting Ready for the Next Grant Submission
Congratulations on receiving a notice of grant award! You have now moved from what is referred to as pre-award (proposal development and submission) to post-award (receipt of a grant award). But now what? Understanding what is involved in getting started with a new grant award and managing it effectively is important to assure the success of your activities. Also, having knowledge about postaward start-up processes and on-going management and reporting requirements can help you become more efficient and successful in writing future grant proposals. The very first step in the post-award stage is to celebrate! Take your team out to a kick-off lunch or dinner or make sure to have a congratulatory meeting (with food) in which key personnel participate. Obtaining a grant and then implementing it is hard work and you should take a moment to fully cherish the moment and thank all those who helped to make it a success. We find that marking the receipt of a grant award in this way is very meaningful to a grant writing team; it is a way of recognizing the important contributions of team members, and reaffirming the common goal of excellence in enacting the proposal aims. 319
320
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
This chapter introduces you to the post-award world and suggests the basic administrative and programmatic steps that you will need to follow when implementing a new grant, whether it be for research, service, or education activities.
18.1 INITIATING A GRANT AWARD: ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Implementing a new grant award requires numerous administrative and bookkeeping steps prior to actually beginning the scientific or education work of the project. In some cases there are also important steps that you may have to complete just prior to the actual issuance of official grant award notification. Table 18.1 outlines 15 key administrative steps that are involved in establishing a new award. We suggest that you refer to this table when you receive a notice of award and use it as a handy “to do” checklist. Let’s examine each task.
ADDRESS SPONSOR CONCERNS Prior to receiving final and official notification of a grant award, you might be asked by a program officer to address, in writing, your response to any concerns that may have been raised by reviewers. Your written response to these concerns should be thoughtful and comprehensive, but concise and brief. You will be held accountable for any adjustments to methodology, specific procedures, or activities that you indicate in your response, so be sure that you are prepared to carry out any changes that you agree to. For NIH, a program officer will ask you to respond to reviewers’ concerns only if you have received a score that falls within the range for funding and if your application is placed on the institute’s list for funding consideration. You may be asked to address such things as human subject and/or budgetary concerns that were raised. Your responses will be reviewed by the program officer, who may ask for further clarification or indicate that he/she supports your response. The program officer will then use your response to represent your proposal to the institute’s scientific council for their final approval for funding. At this meeting, the program officer will review the
Welcome to the World of Post-Award
321
TABLE 18.1 Checklist for Initiating a Funded Grant: Administrative Tasks 1. Address sponsor concerns in writing. 2. Begin just-in-time procedures a. Modification of budget b. Other support c. IRB approval d. IRB certification for key personnel requests in written form 3. Review grant award for accuracy. 4. Initiate paperwork for formalizing subcontracts, if relevant. 5. Initiate paperwork for formalizing professional service contracts, if relevant. 6. Work with relevant administrative offices to set up grant budget account and monitoring of expenditures. 7. Initiate institutional paperwork to adjust percent effort of personnel and payroll deductions. 8. Develop job descriptions and initiate process for hiring required new personnel. 9. Establish personnel structure specifying specific roles/ responsibilities of project staff. 10. Review timeline for grant activities, and refine/modify as necessary. 11. Establish a project staff meeting schedule. 12. Notify public relations office of award so they can develop press release. 13. If relevant, inform Data Safety and Monitoring Board (DSMB) members and provide members with relevant material. 14. If randomized clinical trial, register the study at https://register. clinicaltrials.gov/. 15. Set up or learn about your institution’s system for monitoring effort reporting for key grant personnel.
main aims of the project and briefly discuss how it supports the agency’s mission and funding opportunity announcements as well as how well you addressed the reviewers concerns. Your written responses will help the officer effectively represent your proposal to the council and answer any questions they might have. Although this describes the NIH approach, many other government agencies and foundations follow similar procedures.
322
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
JUST-IN-TIME (JIT) PROCEDURES If your response to reviewers’ concerns is satisfactory, and funding is approved, you will be asked to move forward with what is referred to in the NIH as “Just-in-Time” procedures. This refers to the submission of specific information that in the past had to be submitted with the grant proposal. JIT saves significant time for the applicant, the institution, and the funder by only requiring detailed information from those with a high probability of being funded. JIT documents include the following: (a) modifications to the budget if required; (b) Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for the specific protocol; (c) IRB certification forms for key personnel; and (d) a form listing all outside support that is being received by key personnel on your project. These materials can be uploaded from the NIH eRA Commons and then sent by your authorized institutional official. Let’s examine each of these documents. First—the budget. In many cases, an agency will request adjustments to your budget. Adjustments may be required because of a budgetary error on your part that has been identified by the agency, a recommended budget cut by the reviewers, or an agency-imposed budget cut. With regard to the latter, most NIH institutes impose a 10% to 20% budget cut on every new award, so this should not come as a surprise to you if it happens. If you propose to conduct a research study, then you will have to submit your protocol for review and approval by your IRB prior to receiving award notification. Once you receive your score and determine, in discussion with a program officer, that you are in funding range, you should begin the IRB application process immediately. Obtaining approval may take one to two months, so the sooner you submit your IRB request, the faster you will be able to receive your grant approval notification. All individuals who plan to work on a federally funded grant project are required to take a yearly IRB training course. This is a relatively short course that can be done online, generally through your office of research administration. You will need to send your program officer the certification form for each member of your team listed as key personnel on the NIH abstract form page indicating that they have passed the course. Finally, NIH and most government agencies require a delineation of any other federal support that is being received by all
Welcome to the World of Post-Award
323
key personnel on your grant. This is required to assure that their participation on this new award will not exceed 100% effort. Your institution will also require that you account for your effort on all externally supported projects to insure that your total effort does not exceed 100% of your time. Although JIT procedures are specific to NIH, most agencies follow similar procedures. For example, most funders will require IRB approval only after an application has been approved for funding and just prior to sending the award notification.
REVIEW GRANT AWARD FOR ACCURACY In the NIH arena, once the scientific council has granted final approval for funding, JIT paperwork has been received and approved, and budget adjustments finalized, you will receive a Notice of Award via e-mail. The award notice is an important document. It outlines your total monetary award (direct and indirect) for each year and the conditions of the award, including subawards, start and stop dates, list of key personnel, and accounting responsibilities. In some cases, the award notice will specify the number of subjects you will need to recruit in order to receive yearly budget approvals. To learn more about the Notice of Award and how to read it, go to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases tutorial at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/manage/ manage_c5.htm. Upon receipt of the award notification, it is imperative that you read it word-for-word and check for its accuracy. Don’t be surprised if there are errors. If so, notify your research administrator immediately to review the issue. They in turn will contact the NIH or other funding agency to determine how to address any mistakes. Since this is a legal document, a new corrected notice will need to be issued.
INITIATE PAPERWORK FOR FORMALIZING CONSULTANTS AND SUBAWARDS, IF RELEVANT Now that you have the award notice, you are truly ready to start implementing your project. The award notice will trigger the
324
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
establishment of a budget account in your institution that you will need to use for all transactions. Once an account is established, you can begin formal arrangements with consultants and/or with other institutions. Your grants administrator or research administration will help with this. Most institutions will have legally approved contract and professional service agreements that you will need to use to formalize these agreements. Also, keep in mind that funding support for consultants and subawards is based on the approval and availability of funds from one year to the next. Thus, agreements are confined to a specific budget year and will have to be renewed each year that funding is received.
SET UP GRANT BUDGET ACCOUNT AND MONITORING OF EXPENDITURES As mentioned earlier, once you receive a notice of award, a grant budget account will be established. It is important to understand how your institution monitors expenditures and whether you will need to develop a system in your own department to assure accurate record keeping. Keep in mind that the principal investigator is responsible for approving all charges posted to the grant account. As principal investigator you will also be responsible for signing off on all budget and financial reports required by the funding agency.
INITIATE INSTITUTIONAL PAPERWORK TO ADJUST PERSONNEL EFFORT If your project involves personnel in your institution, then you will need to make adjustments in their time-keeping and effort reports to include their new time commitments. Each institution will differ as to how the effort of personnel on grants is monitored, so you must become acquainted with the mechanisms used by your research administration or fiscal departments. Adding individuals to a new grant account or adjusting percent efforts may take some time, so try to start this process as soon as you have the grant award in hand.
Welcome to the World of Post-Award
325
HIRE OF NEW PERSONNEL Similarly, you may need to hire new personnel. This can take time if you haven’t identified individuals during the proposal-writing stage. Thus, part of start-up of a new grant is developing job descriptions and initiating the hiring process through your human resource department. Allow plenty of time for identifying and interviewing individuals because it is important to hire the right person. Staff turnover can drain a grant budget and compromise the ability to accomplish the aims of the project.
ESTABLISH PERSONNEL STRUCTURE SPECIFYING SPECIFIC ROLES/RESPONSIBILITIES As you learned in previous chapters, the delineation of roles and responsibilities of members of a grant team are critical for success of the project. Establish an organizational chart for your grant work if it involves others, and be sure to review with each individual privately his/her role and percent effort. Follow this up at a team meeting so that everyone is clear about their role and those of others.
REVIEW TIMELINE FOR GRANT ACTIVITIES, AND REFINE/MODIFY AS NECESSARY Be sure to reread the grant application. It may be as long as a year between submission and the actual award, so you should become familiar again with all of the details of the project. At this start-up phase, take some time to revisit the timeline for grant activities and construct an even more detailed version to help you and your staff stay on task. You will be surprised to see how fast time goes by, even for a five-year grant. It is therefore critical to keep to your planned timeline, particularly because you will be asked to report your yearly progress to the funding agency.
ESTABLISH A PROJECT STAFF MEETING SCHEDULE Part of setting up an infrastructure for the conduct of a grant project is to establish a regular meeting schedule with key personnel on the
326
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
grant. Your consultants and key personnel are busy folks, so get these meetings on their calendars as soon as possible.
NOTIFY YOUR PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICE OF THE AWARD SO THEY CAN DEVELOP A PRESS RELEASE A grant award is an important event. Thus, be sure to contact your public relations department to see how they can help publicize it through press releases and other public notices. To develop a press release, they will need the title of the grant, the name of the funding agency, the total amount of the award, and either the abstract or a statement about the goals and objectives of the grant in lay language. In addition to drawing attention to your work, a press release can be advantageous in other ways. For example, it may raise attention to your study and serve as a recruitment tool for enrolling study participants, it may attract qualified individuals who wish to work with you now or in the future, or it may attract the eye of political figures in the area who might provide help to you in getting future funding. So, don’t be shy about getting your public relations department involved in advertising your success.
DATA SAFETY AND MONITORING BOARD (DSMB) If you have proposed a Phase III randomized trial, you will need to establish a DSMB. Most likely you had to propose a DSMB as part of your application and a plan for monitoring human subject safety and recruitment and enrollment. Once you have received your award notice, make sure you share the good news with your DSMB and set up a time in the near future for their first meeting. Also, begin to outline and gather the materials they will need to review. These might include the final approved IRB consent forms and protocols, grant application, intervention manual, randomization procedures, adverse event procedures, and interview and intervention manuals of operations. Determine a timeline for sending materials to the board and setting up the initial and subsequent meetings in advance so that members can fully understand your study and all procedures.
Welcome to the World of Post-Award
327
REGISTER WITH CLINICAL TRIALS If you are conducting a randomized clinical trial, then you will need to register the study at https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/. This is now required for all randomized trials and serves several purposes; it informs the public of an ongoing trial that they may have interest in following or participating in; registration is required for the publication of trial outcomes; it is another form of monitoring of trial progress.
SET UP SYSTEM FOR MONITORING PERSONNEL FOR EFFORT REPORTING As contained in Circular A-21 (see chapter 9), the effort of all personnel working on federal grants must be accounted for and monitored. Effort reporting confirms (based on best judgment of the principal investigator) the percentage of effort each person spends on your grant during specified reporting periods. It also serves to substantiate the salary being charged to federal grants and contracts. Each institution that accepts federal funds must establish an effort accounting system. As principal investigator, you must become familiar with this effort monitoring system and identify how you will monitor the effort of personnel on your grant. You should also apprise each person you employ of their expected effort distribution.
18.2 SCIENTIFIC START-UP TASKS As you see, there is a fair amount of up-front administrative work to setting up a new grant award prior to digging into the heart of the matter—implementing the scientific or educational activities. Obviously, the extent and specific nature of start-up tasks will differ depending upon the proposed research or education goals and the complexity of your project. Table 18.2 lists seven basic practical activities that we engage in for most of our new grant awards. We recommend that you use this checklist or custom design one for yourself to keep you on track in this start-up phase. Let’s examine each activity.
328
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
TABLE 18.2 1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Basic Start-Up of Grant Activities
Develop a three-ring binder to include grant application, reviewers’ comments, IRB protocol, and relevant readings, and distribute to project team. Consider reviewers’ comments in project design refinements. Conduct literature review to update knowledge from time of grant submission. Review proposed measures and refine in view of recent publications. Develop training manuals and manuals of operations. Provide DSMB with study manuals and protocols. Send protocol modifications to IRB.
Develop a three-ring binder: We recommend developing a threering binder to house your grant narrative, reviewers’ comments, your responses, timeline, notice of grant award, and any other pertinent materials needed for day-to-day grant work. You will find that you will need to refer to this binder, mostly in the start-up phase and in grant personnel meetings to assure that you are proceeding as intended. Consider reviewers’ comments in project design refinements: Be sure to re-review the comments provided by reviewers. There may be important points that will require adjustments to either your design or procedures and these should be made in the start-up phase. Conduct literature review to update knowledge from time of grant submission: Given that it can be anywhere from 3 months to 1 year from the time of grant submission to award (depending upon the competition and agency), it is always wise to update a literature review on your topic. Consider developing another three-ring binder of key articles that inform your study or educational program or your selection of measurement instruments. This will come in handy when you are ready to write a manuscript for publication on your work, agency progress report, and IRB annual reports, which may request whether there have been scientific changes or updates based on new scientific literature. Review proposed measures and refine in view of recent publications: If you are carrying out a research study, this is the time to reconsider your proposed measures. Your updated literature review
Welcome to the World of Post-Award
329
may point to new or revised measures that may be appropriate for your work. Although you are not permitted to significantly change a design or key methodological element, refinement of a measurement approach constitutes good scientific practice and does not require approvals from the funding agency. Develop training manuals and manuals of operations: The start-up phase of a project will involve developing or refining all manuals of operations (MOP) and training of key personnel. MOPs are critical records of key project decisions and procedures that guide the conduct of the research or education program. It serves as a running record and reference point. Provide DSMB with IRB and study protocols: If you are engaging in a randomized trial and have a DSMB, start organizing materials that will need to be sent to and reviewed by this committee. This would include the grant narrative, IRB consent and protocol, MOP, intervention details, and randomization procedures. Send protocol modifications to IRB: If you are conducting a research study, you will need to inform the IRB of all individuals who are involved with study participants. Also, you will need to submit protocol modifications (e.g., new measures added, change in study eligibility criteria) and any project-related brochures or recruitment letters and materials for final approval by the IRB.
18.3 YEARLY REPORTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES Now that you have an understanding of start-up activities, let’s review other grant management considerations and administrative responsibilities. Table 18.3 lists the primary reports that will be required for most grant activities. To be responsive to each of these reporting requirements, it is helpful to develop a tickler system for when each is due. Although you will be notified by your IRB and funding agency as to when a progress report is due, it is still helpful to keep your own calendar and organizational system for issuing these reports. For example, the NIH will issue an e-mail notification 2 months prior to when a progress report is due. It is helpful to keep a special file of all grant-related
330
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
TABLE 18.3
Grant Reporting Requirements
Report
Time Frame
Description
Effort reporting
Will vary from monthly to biannually depending upon whether employees are nonexempt or exempt employment status
The investigator or employee needs to certify (based on best judgment) the amount of time contributed to a particular grant activity.
Agency progress report
Yearly
Each agency has its own reporting requirements. Most NIH grants follow e-SNAP reporting requirements, which involve a 2-page summation of progress and budgetary questions.
IRB updates
Yearly
Annual report requires updates regarding enrollment and occurrence of adverse events.
DSMB reports
Will vary based on DSMB policy
For Phase III randomized trials, DSMBs typically require periodic updates as to recruitment, enrollment progress, and adverse events.
Final reports: – Financial status report (FSR) – Final intervention statement and certification – Final progress report
Within 90 days of the end of grant support
Three reports are due at the end of grant support. Failure to submit these reports on time can affect future funding.
Welcome to the World of Post-Award
331
professional activities (e.g., presentations, manuscripts, publications), so you can easily find this information when required for reports.
18.4 BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS There are three primary budget considerations at the post-award stage: monitoring expenditures, rebudgeting, and reporting requirements. It is very important to monitor your grant expenses so that you do not under- or over-spend. Over-spending has serious consequences for your department/institution in that they will have to absorb the difference between the allowed expenses and any overages. Over-spending can occur for at least two reasons. First, if you do not have an effective monitoring system to track real-time expenditures, you may believe you have more money available than you actually do. Sometimes payment of invoices can take time to go through the institutional system and may not be posted for several months. Thus, setting up a monitoring system of both expected and actual costs is important in order to track real-time expenses. Second, overspending can occur if you have more expenses than initially planned for or you spend ahead of schedule. The latter may occur if you implement proposed grant activities ahead of schedule. Thus, working with your grants manager to set up an effective budget management system is imperative. There are numerous grant management software programs that may be helpful. However, these can be costly for any one individual to purchase, so it is best to work within the system your institution has set up for grant monitoring. Under-spending is of equal concern. Your institution accrues indirect cost recovery only when you spend from the direct costs of a grant. That is, if you spend $5,000 of $10,000 direct costs, your institution will only receive Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs for the $5,000 that you have spent. Thus, if your department/institution planned to use the cost recovery for the entire $10,000, they will in essence have lost money for that budget period. In the NIH arena, another concern with under-spending is that if your unspent funds are 25% or higher of the direct budget for the year, you will have to carefully justify why this occurred and how you intend to use the unspent funds in the forthcoming year. Under-spending is
332
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
also a red flag to the funding agency that there may be insufficient grant activity or that there may be significant challenges that are compromising the aims of the grant. This is why it is important to know whether the agency allows carry-over funds from one year to the next, because if they don’t, unspent funds will be lost. Monitoring your grant budget should occur on a regular basis. Review of variance reports that show up-to-date expenditures compared to the actual balance available as well as projected obligated costs will help you stay on target. Also, depending upon the system used for posting expenses, you may need to check that the charges placed against your grant are accurate and belong to your account. As you begin to work on your grant, various challenges may arise that necessitate rebudgeting. For example, in research projects, recruitment is typically a category that invariably requires more personeffort or media advertising than that which was initially planned. Most agencies will allow investigators to move monies between budget categories; however, many impose various rules for such changes. For example, the NIH requires that an investigator obtain advance authorization from the funding institute for a change in work effort of key personnel that results in more than a 25% decrease. There are several budget reports that will be due, but the frequency and type of reports will depend upon the sponsor or agency. Typically, a yearly and end-of-grant-period report is required (see Table 18.3). Your financial department will most likely be responsible for generating this report; however, as the primary investigator, you will be responsible for agreeing to the report and signing it as well.
18.5 GETTING READY FOR THE NEXT GRANT SUBMISSION It is never too soon to start thinking about the next grant submission. As we discussed in chapter 1, your goal should be to build a logical, sequential approach to funding and grant activity, such that one grant systematically builds on the next. Thus, as you enter the field with your newly funded award, new challenges, questions, problems will emerge that may suggest the direction to take in the next grant proposal. You will find that even a 3-, 4-, or 5-year funded effort passes rather quickly. Each year will be filled with
Welcome to the World of Post-Award
333
grant-related activity deadlines and pressures to present and publish experiences related to the funded effort, such that the time will quickly fly by. Thus, as you move forward with your new award, start keeping a log of ideas and challenges and think about how the experiences/data/information you are obtaining serve as a basis for creating another related proposal. If you are in the position of wanting to continue the external funding support for key personnel, then within year 2 of a 3- or 4-year grant and year 3 of a 5-year grant, you will need to start writing a new grant proposal.
SUMMARY Making it to the world of post-award should be celebrated, as it is the result of a competitive process and is a signal to you that your work is of public importance. There are numerous administrative and daily management considerations that become part of your grant life, including the establishment of the award, budget monitoring, hiring and readjusting personnel efforts, and monitoring continual work efforts. All of this may initially be confusing and overwhelming, but as you set into place the necessary infrastructure and organizational schemas, it will become easier and you will be efficient in managing yearly required reporting functions.
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 19 More Post-Award Considerations
• • • • • •
Federal Agency Requirements Notification and Implementation Process Common Agency Reports Institutional Rules Budget Management Academic Policies
The requirements for managing a grant project go beyond the specific implementation considerations discussed in chapter 18. In carrying out a project, there are a myriad of important legal, institutional, and administrative details, discussed in the previous chapter, that must be carried out by your institution, the funding agency, and you as the principal investigator or project director. There are various rules and regulations that are set forth by the funding agency and specified in the particular award. It is also necessary for all of your project-related activities to comply with state and local laws and ethical standards of professional and clinical conduct. This chapter builds on the previous one and examines in more depth some of the key federal agency regulations associated with funded projects, the interim and final reports that you will have to submit to a funding agency, and the specific offices in most universities that provide oversight to the requirements of a granting agency. It also describes critical policies regarding conflict of interest and authorship that you need to be aware of, as well as suggestions for managing your budget. While the focus is on federal rules and regulations, private foundations follow similar policies. Regardless of the funding source, all agencies engage in some form 335
336
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
of monitoring of the activities of grantees, and thus it is important to learn the oversight and reporting structure.
19.1 FEDERAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS Recent high-profile cases of research misconduct and financial irregularities that have been reported as occurring in a few elite universities have raised significant concerns in the scientific community and the federal government. Although these cases may be the minority, their transgressions have been so egregious that, in response, federal agencies have begun to monitor grants with more scrutiny. A number of new regulations, including those that require institutions to provide mandatory research training programs, have been initiated to prevent misconduct in science and rectify poor research practices. The importance of following these regulations is critical. Violations can have serious implications for you as the principal investigator and for your institution. Most of these regulations emanate from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of the federal government and are found in three documents called OMB Circulars. There are other rules and regulations that you must follow in addition to those in the OMB Circulars. First, each funding agency sets forth specific guidelines for all of their programs. These rules must fall within the framework outlined in the OMB Circulars but may be specific to a particular program. Second, an award notice also provides a specification of the terms of the award. For example, in the Department of Health and Human Services, most investigatorinitiated grants are considered under “expanded authority,” which allows the principal investigator to shift monies from one budget category to another (e.g., you can shift $500 from your supply line to your travel line) without notifying the agency. However, other grants not under expanded authority require written notification and approval for any such modifications. The third set of rules that must be followed is the policies and procedures set forth by your institution with regard to hiring and oversight of grant personnel, budgetary reporting, and institutional review board requirements. Box 19.1 contains a brief description and the Web address where the OMB Circulars can be found, along with the policy statements of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science
More Post-Award Considerations
337
Foundation (NSF) (see also chapter 9). These references contain most of the regulations you need to know to manage your grant project. It is important to become familiar with the basic rules within each of these documents. BOX 19.1 IMPORTANT RESOURCES IN GRANTS MANAGEMENT OMB Circular A-21 is the federal “rule book” for university financial arrangements. It sets the rules for spending the money you receive in your grant and identifies allowable and nonallowable expenses (http://whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/ a021.html). OMB Circular A-110 sets the administrative standards for grants and other agreements. It is designed to assure that grants are managed consistently among all federal agencies (http://whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a110/a110.html). OMB Circular A-133 specifies the rules for audits of compliance with federal regulations (http:whitehouse.gov/ omb/circulars/a133/a133.html). NIH Grants Policy sets specific rules for all grant projects funded by the NIH (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nih gps_2001/). NSF Grants Policy Manual sets specific rules for all grant projects funded by the National Science Foundation (http:// www.nsf.gov/pubs/stis1995/nsf9526.txt).
In addition to the regulations discussed in Box 19.1, a program officer who is assigned to your award will also monitor your grant. The degree of monitoring will vary from one agency to another as well as across specific competitions within one agency. In some cases, monitoring may occur through regular telephone contact or a periodic post-award site visit. However, for most grant awards, you will be required to submit a yearly written progress report and that will be your only contact with an officer. Keep in mind, however, that you must always notify a program officer of any significant changes or substantial difficulties that occur. For
338
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
example, if you are unable to recruit study participants, or if you are significantly delayed in implementing a particular grant-related activity, you should alert your program officer and discuss potential modifications to the project and strategies. Keep in mind that funding agencies need to demonstrate the productivity of their grantees and the impact of their funding programs. Therefore, you should share any manuscripts, manuals, and products that result from your grant with the funding agency. Any materials that you develop as part of the grant effort legally belong to the funding agency. Remember to always provide a footnote indicating that your manuscript or product was developed as a result of support by the agency.
19.2 NOTIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS A research or training grant is awarded to you through your institution. Therefore, they are legally responsible for the conduct of your project and for compliance to OMB rules and regulations. However, you are also held accountable. In most cases, you will first receive the official notification of funding from someone in your institution designated as the “single point of contact.” The federal government has initiated the “single point of contact” with universities and other agencies for the purpose of streamlining communications with those that they have funded. This means that all grant notifications and other correspondence are sent directly to a central office for distribution to all the appropriate grantees in the institution. If you are at a major university, this number can be very large, and the sheer volume of correspondence can result in delays in processing award notifications and other announcements. Recently, the federal government has begun to send these notices electronically and may notify you at the same time as the single point of contact. This is standard procedure for the NIH. Even so, you should learn who at your institution is the single point of contact. It is also important for you to become aware of the dates of expected notification of awards and the deadline dates for required reports. Do not hesitate to contact your single point of contact if you believe notifications of award or renewal have been delayed.
More Post-Award Considerations
339
Grant notification from the NIH is referred to as the Notice of Grant Award (NGA). Once you receive the NGA, you should carefully review its specifications and the budget amounts that are allocated per year. If you have any questions or identify inconsistencies, then you must notify your research administration office as well as the grant management office of the funding agency. Once the university has received the NGA, the budget office, often called the Sponsored Program Accounting Office (SPAO), will set up a special account for the grant budget. In some cases you are permitted to allocate to a grant expenditures that were incurred 90 days prior to the official notification.
19.3 COMMON AGENCY REPORTS All funding agencies, private or federal, require periodic and standard reports of your budget expenses and progress in implementing the proposed activities. Each agency has its own requirements, so it is important to read the pertinent instructions or communicate with your officer so you know what is expected in these reports. When you have received federal funding, there are three reports you must make in each year of the grant award: a progress report on your project, a budget reconciliation report, and an effort report. Whereas the progress and budget reports occur annually, effort reports are submitted periodically, usually every six months for key personnel and sometimes monthly for support personnel. Effort reports certify the amount of time each individual has worked on your grant.
PROGRESS REPORTS Most multiyear grant projects are referred to as noncompeting renewals. Progress reports are required for each project year, and funding for the next year is contingent on submitting a satisfactory progress report. The funding agency usually provides a detailed set of directions to write this report. For most NIH progress reports, the PHS 2590 forms must be used. Some agencies also require supplementary reports mandated by Congress. For example, the Bureau of
340
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
Health Professions in the Department of Health and Human Services requires that you include a report on the number of minorities participating in your grant, either as trainees, research subjects, or faculty. A few projects fall into a category called competing renewals. In this case, you need to prepare a much more detailed and persuasive progress report, because a panel will review your report in much the same way as your original application. It is best to confirm with your project officer the category your grant falls under.
BUDGET REPORTS Each year you also have to make a report that summarizes your use of the funds allocated in the budget. Usually this report is compiled by the SPAO. However, you should maintain ongoing communication with this office, because you may have to provide them with information required for the report. You will also have to notify them of any changes to the budget. The SPAO will also compile the final budget report to the granting agency. Although you do not have to compile these reports, you will have to attest to their accuracy and sign the reports. That is why it is essential that you maintain your own records of your grant expenses and carefully review the accounting records to assure that there are no discrepancies between your figures and the official reports. Both the yearly and final budget reports are due to the Office of Grants Management 90 days after the conclusion of the yearly grant cycle or the grant itself.
EFFORT REPORTING The federal government also requires all of their grantees to submit what are called effort reports. This report requires you, as the principal investigator or project director, to assure that each individual has devoted the required amount of time on the project over the past six months or year. For example, if you hired a statistician at 10% effort, you will need to certify that the individual actually spent that amount of time working on the project. If the individual worked more or less time, then you must alter the effort report to reflect the actual amount of time he or she worked on the grant. It is important to remember in completing this form that the amount of time or
More Post-Award Considerations
341
effort spent on a particular grant may not reflect the original budget that was allocated for that person. For example, a person may spend a 25% effort on a grant when only 10% of his or her time is actually paid for by the grant budget. Both of these categories will be reflected in the report. Effort reports are usually prepared by the office of research administration (ORA) or, in some institutions, an office of internal audit and sent to you periodically, usually every six months, although for some grant personnel, such as secretaries, it may be more often. Again, while you do not have to compile this report, you are responsible for its accuracy and must sign it.
FINAL REPORT At the completion of your grant project, most agencies require that you submit a final report that summarizes your work effort and how you completed the project goals and objectives. There are usually standard forms and/or explicit directions for compiling this report. In the final report, you need to list any products, manuscripts in progress and press, and completed publications that were developed from the grant activity.
CARRY-OVER FUNDS In a move toward efficiency, the federal government has initiated a policy referred to as Expanded Authorities. This is a mechanism in many grant programs that allows institutions and principal investigators some latitude in making budgetary decisions without the need for prior approval by the funding agency. Most federal grant programs fall under Expanded Authorities. If your grant is in this category, it will usually be noted in the Notice of Grant Award. Lately, however, the practice has become so common that many agencies now only indicate if your grant is an exception to the rule. If you have any question about this, talk to your program officer or to your ORA. As part of the Expanded Authority, you are permitted to carry funds forward from one year to the next. That is, if by the end of a project year you have not spent all of the money authorized for that year, you are allowed to move a certain amount of the excess to the next project year without obtaining prior permission from the federal
342
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
government. Under expanded authorities, you are allowed to carry forward up to 25% of the amount allotted for the current year without permission. To carry forward more than that amount, you need to obtain written approval from the agency. This will involve a letter from you explaining the reasons why all of the budgeted money was not spent and what you plan to use it for in the next year. Box 19.2 provides an example of how this might work.
BOX 19.2 AN EXAMPLE Let’s assume that Ms. L. had a first year budget for her training program of $100,000. She had anticipated using $30,000 of this money to hire instructors for the educational portion of the program. However, during the year she had trouble recruiting enough students to participate in the program and decided to offer it in year 2 instead. Under Expanded Authority she would be allowed to keep the $25,000 and add it to her year 2 budget.
Any amount of unspent money over 25% must be returned to the federal government if you cannot present a compelling reason for why it was not spent that project year.
NO-COST EXTENSIONS If at the end of the final year of your grant, you have unspent money, it may be possible to extend your grant and use this unspent money to complete the grant activities. This is called a no-cost extension, since it is at no cost to the federal government. These extensions are usually granted for up to one year. Applying for an extension requires that you write a letter to the grants management office in the funding agency at least 30 days prior to the end date of the grant. This letter should state the reasons for the request, the amount of money that you anticipate having left over, the amount of time you are requesting, and the activities you will undertake during the extension period.
More Post-Award Considerations
343
Although most NIH-awarded grants are eligible for no-cost extensions, this may not be the case for foundation monies. It is important to check with the agency as to their policies. Box 19.3 provides an example of why a no cost extension might be necessary.
BOX 19.3 AN EXAMPLE Ms. L. is approaching the end of her grant funding and realizes that she still has $10,000 that she will not be able to spend. This money was originally designated to conduct an evaluation of the training program. Because the recruitment problems necessitated a delay in implementing the program, Ms. L. did not have adequate time to conduct the final evaluation. Ms. L. composed a letter to the Grants Management Office explaining the delay in program implementation caused by difficulties in recruitment and requested a six-month no-cost extension to conduct the program evaluation.
19.4 INSTITUTIONAL RULES We previously discussed the importance of learning about the requirements of your institution prior to submitting a grant application. It is likewise important to understand the functions of the various offices at your institution that manage the post-award phase and oversee the regulations. Individuals in these offices will have an in-depth understanding of the OMB Circulars and will be able to help you through the morass of requirements. Box 19.4 contains a list of common grant administration offices with a description of their general responsibilities. In some institutions, these functions may be combined or referred to differently. As you can see from the descriptions of these offices, universities have a fairly comprehensive infrastructure from which to manage your grant. Since you will be interacting with these offices
344
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
BOX 19.4 COMMON GRANTS ADMINISTRATION OFFICES Office of Research Administration • Is single point of contact with the government for award notices and other correspondence • Is final signatory for all grants and contracts • Negotiates indirect cost recovery rate for the institution • Provides effort reports to the government • Interprets the various rules and regulations that you have to follow Office of Scientific Affairs • • • •
Oversees animal and human subjects protection Oversees the institutional review board Monitors institutional requirements for bio-safety Oversees clinical trials and establishes a Data Safety and Monitoring Board • Maintains conflict of interest policy • Investigates possible cases of misconduct in science • Develops university research policies Institutional Review Board • Reviews and approves all protocols dealing with animal and human subjects • Assures that subject confidentiality is maintained • Reviews all university research protocols, funded and unfunded Sponsored Program Accounting Office (University Budget Office) • Receives money for a grant project from the funding agency • Disburses money to pay expenses related to a grant • Provides periodic budget summaries to grantees • Makes year-end and financial reports to a funding agency • Monitors grant expenses
More Post-Award Considerations
345
University Counsel • Negotiates legal agreements with government and other outside agencies • Reviews all contracts and agreements with outside agencies • Protects your rights in disagreements with other scientists or outside agencies • Oversees complaints about scientific misconduct • Oversees Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliance • Provides oversight to conflict of interest and conflict of commitment policies
in both the pre-award and post-award phases of your project, it is important to develop a positive relationship with the professionals in these offices. In light of the increased oversight of grants, it is best that you pay particular attention to three areas in managing your grant. These are managing your budget, following academic policies such as avoiding conflicts of interest, and ensuring that appropriate credit is given to the scholarship that arises from your project.
19.5 BUDGET MANAGEMENT One very important function of the university’s research administration is to oversee the budgets of funded grants. After you receive notification of your award, a copy of your approved budget will be sent to the Sponsored Program Accounting Office (SPAO). The SPAO will set up an account for expenses related to your project. This account will be assigned a special number to identify it as a budget for an externally funded project. This is the number that you will use in submitting all grant-related expenses within your institution. The budget categories will correspond to those you submitted in your grant proposal (see chapters 7–9).
346
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
In some cases, this budget will be the same as you requested in your grant proposal. In other cases, the agency will have reduced the budget amount by perhaps as much as 20%. If there has been a reduction, you will have to consider the changes to your proposed activities that will be necessary to meet the reduced budget. The funding agency may or may not specify the categories from which reductions must be taken. If they do not, then you have to recompute your budget and provide the SPAO and the funding agency with a revised budget for their approval. Your institution will have standard forms to use when making purchases or seeking reimbursement for your other grantrelated expenses. You will need to keep a detailed record of these expenses and ensure that they are reported in the correct budget categories. The SPAO will receive a copy of the various purchase orders and travel reimbursement requests that you submit and keep a running account of the amount of money in each category. They will also automatically deduct the budgeted salaries for all project personnel each month. As you conduct the project, you must be aware of the expenses that are allowed and those that are not (from OMB Circular A-21). For example, when traveling, you must travel in the most economical way possible. If you fly, that means that you must fly coach and not business or first class, even if there is enough money in the budget category to do so. There is also a federal law that requires that any time you fly, you do so on an American-based carrier, even if you can obtain a cheaper fare from a foreign airline. There are some exceptions to this law, so you should either read Circular A-21 or check with your office of research administration. In addition, foreign travel, with the exception of Canada and Mexico, is usually not allowed unless you get permission ahead of time from your project officer. The SPAO will keep track of all of your grant expenses and prepare monthly reports based on receipts from vendors or your travel expenses. However, as we have mentioned before, it is wise to keep your own record of expenses. It is important to monitor these expenses, because there is usually a significant lag time between the date you purchase an item and when it is noted on the monthly reports. Your records will provide a more up-to-date summary of how much you have actually spent in each category. It is particularly important to have an accurate picture of your budget
More Post-Award Considerations
347
status at the end of a budget cycle. You will need to know if you have unspent funds, whether the amount of unspent funds exceeds 25% of the total budget for the year, and if you can carry over funds in the next cycle. Another reason to monitor these reports is that, in busy offices, sometimes expenses from other projects are inadvertently charged to your grant account. If this is the case, you need to contact the budget office immediately, since you do not want to find yourself overspent in a category that you need.
19.6 ACADEMIC POLICIES Another important regulation that you should be aware of is your institution’s conflict-of-interest policy. Although not directly related to the management of your grant, you will have to assure your institution and the federal government that the funds you receive to carry out your project do not pose a conflict of interest. In other words, your grant must be carried out to advance the science, rather than to benefit you financially. Potential conflicts of interest can occur in industry-sponsored research, such as drug trials, or those projects that involve technology. For example, if you or a member of your family owned or had significant shares in a company that manufactured assistive devices, it would be a conflict of interest for you to conduct a study that tested the effectiveness of these devices. While policies among universities differ, institutions must assure the federal government that they have a conflict-ofinterest policy in place. As a result, many universities require that all employees sign a statement each year certifying that they do not have significant financial interests in private companies or, if they do, to disclose that interest to the university.
AUTHORSHIP POLICIES Publishing articles based on your research or training grants is usually not required, but it is indeed expected. It is important for you to disseminate the findings of your grant to a wide audience. In many cases, some form of dissemination will be required as part of the
348
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
application. There are at least five reasons why it is important to disseminate information about your project. 1. The findings from your research or training grant can add to the knowledge base and body of literature in your field. 2. Presentations and publications provide you with more credibility and help you secure future funding. 3. The funding agency likes to see the results of its investment publicized. 4. Dissemination of the results of your project is often a requirement for funding. 5. The number of publications and presentations you do is important to your career because they figure heavily into decisions about promotion, tenure, future funding, and other professional opportunities. Two of the most often used ways to disseminate information are through presentations at scientific meetings and publication in the journals in your field. You may want to involve your investigative team in the dissemination process and begin thinking of appropriate forums relatively soon after you receive notice of funding. Here we focus on guidelines for authorship of publications rather than presentations; however, the same general principles apply to both. One important consideration in the dissemination process is the way in which you acknowledge the contributions of each person participating in the development of a manuscript. The scientific community needs to know who deserves credit for the work and who is responsible for its scientific integrity. The issue is important enough that many universities, as well as professional and scholarly journals, have developed policies that help guide this decision. There are two considerations that must be addressed in considering authorship of a manuscript. The first is the question of who should qualify as an author. The second is how the level of involvement in the manuscript should be communicated to the scientific community. There is general agreement regarding the first of these considerations. There is little unanimity of opinion regarding the second.
QUALIFICATION AS AN AUTHOR Generally, the criteria for authorship are that all individuals listed as authors must have made a significant contribution to the work and
More Post-Award Considerations
349
be willing and able to take responsibility for its content. This includes different levels of involvement and roles such as conceptualizing the idea for the manuscript, study design, analysis, and interpretation of data. It also includes the drafting of the original manuscript and/or critically revising the intellectual content and approval of the version to be published. Being a member of a research group does not automatically give a person the right of authorship. Previously, it was not uncommon for someone to be named as an honorary author because of his/her supervisory position in a laboratory or a research group. However, this practice is no longer acceptable in most scientific journals.
LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTION There are a number of ways in which the level of a person’s contribution is assessed. The most common way to communicate the relative contribution of each author is through the order of names in a manuscript. However, the meaning underlying the order of the authors list does vary significantly across scientific disciplines. In many disciplines or scholarly journals the senior author, or the individual who has the most influence on the manuscript, is listed first and others who contributed are listed in order of the magnitude of their contribution. In some cases, most notably in basic science, the head of a laboratory in which a study is carried out is listed as the last author, whether or not he or she had any influence in the work. In other disciplines, the senior author is listed last. There is no systematic approach that is accepted by all journals and in all disciplines. Authorship listing and responsibility should be discussed before a manuscript or presentation is started. Although there is considerable debate about these considerations, the most accepted set of standards, used by over 500 journals in the biomedical and health fields, is called the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.” The Uniform Requirements recommend that the order of listing be determined beforehand. The key consideration in determining authorship is that all individuals listed must have made a significant contribution to the manuscript and take responsibility for its contents. Those that made specific but relatively minor contributions, such as a person who proofread and commented on the manuscript or a statistician who just carried
350
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
out an analysis of the data, should be recognized in a footnote of the manuscript. Given this lack of a systematic approach, many universities in the last decade have developed their own policies or been forced to develop a policy by the federal granting agencies. You should check with the ORA to see if your institution has a written authorship policy. Box 19.5 presents an example of a policy on authorship used at one university.
BOX 19.5 POLICY ON AUTHORSHIP Research activity at the university is governed by the tradition of the free exchange of ideas and prompt delivery of research results. The university is committed to the communication of new knowledge to scholars, students, and the public through publication of research results. In order to conform with the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals and to ensure the publication of scientific manuscripts that link credit and accountability, the university sets forth this policy on authorship. Definitions Responsible Author (primary author): a person who usually drafts the manuscript, contributes significantly to the published work, and who, together with the principal investigator, assumes the public responsibility for the work. Coauthor: a person who has contributed data or made a significant intellectual or practical contribution to the manuscript. Significant contributor: a person who takes on responsibility for one or more of the following: contribution of experimental data or materials, conception and design, execution or direction of the study, analysis and interpretation of data, and/or preparation or revision of the manuscript. “Honorary” author: individual who does not satisfy the criteria of authorship by making a significant contribution as defined above to the manuscript.
More Post-Award Considerations
351
Procedure An individual who is listed as a responsible author or coauthor must make a significant intellectual, technical, or practical contribution as defined above to the project. The concept of “honorary” authorship is prohibited. Such individuals may warrant appropriate acknowledgment in the completed paper. The responsible author must review the primary data on which the manuscript is based and endorse the conclusions. He/she must, if requested by sponsors, journals, or federal agencies, provide the data for examination and/or cooperate fully in obtaining and providing the data on which the manuscript is based. Each coauthor must, to the best of his/her ability and within his/her area of expertise, review the manuscript and approve the version to be submitted for publication. He/she must provide, if requested by sponsors, journals, or federal agencies, information regarding his/her specific contribution to the manuscript.
As you can see, there are many “hidden” responsibilities associated with a grant award. Most institutions have an infrastructure and knowledgeable staff to support you in providing appropriate oversight of the award. In this chapter, we have discussed the key requirements you must meet. However, because institutions and each funding agency and/or competition may have other requirements not covered here, it is always best to follow the maxim, “When in doubt, ask.”
SUMMARY This chapter examines important post-award considerations concerning institutional and federal reporting requirements and other issues about managing a grant award. These considerations, in addition to those covered in chapter 18, are important to understand
352
Strategies for Managing a Grant Award
because they form the backdrop or context in which your research or training grant activity will be conducted. Additionally, knowledge of budgetary authorship guidelines are important to understand because the expectation is that your grant activity results in materials of publishable quality for dissemination to the education and scientific community.
Appendix A Common Questions and Their Answers After reading this book, you may still have questions that are specific to your grant writing situation. Here are 12 questions that individuals commonly ask in our grant writing workshops or while working on a grant application with us, and our responses. We invite other questions you may have after reading this book. 1. How do I know if a grant is “wired” for a particular institution? First, most competitions sponsored by government agencies and foundations are not wired or earmarked for a particular institution. Occasionally, an agency will publish a call for proposals and/or a contract that is designed for a particular institution with a special area of expertise. This occurs when the agency has a specific focused area or question to solve and a particular institution has both the experience and expertise to address it. However, this situation occurs less often than rumor would have you believe. One indication that a competition might be wired is that the eligibility criteria are so specific that they clearly eliminate those without a previous track record or an existing program in the area of the competition. As you network among colleagues who are writing grants, you will quickly learn who has received funding and for what types of projects. This knowledge will increase your understanding of 353
354
Appendix A
who your competitors might be in a funding competition and whether a particular Request For Proposals has been developed for a specific institution. Although a competition may not be wired, it may provide select institutions with a more subtle advantage. For example, in developing a new program area for funding, a program officer in a foundation or federal agency may request the advice and assistance from investigators with a previous record of funding in a similar area. These investigators may be asked to either comment on or suggest a direction for a new program area. A funding announcement that emerges from this process is not wired, but it will obviously reflect the research or educational interests of those who have had input in the process and those funded. This is not to say that other investigators will not be able to develop competitive applications. However, those who have contributed to the development of the new program area will have two advantages. First, they provided input as to the types of projects to be considered for funding, and second, they would have had more time to develop a competitive grant. This is another reason, as you advance along the research career trajectory, to try to become involved in agency planning committees. For a more detailed discussion of how funding priorities are developed, see chapter 2. 2. How do you “read between the lines” in a call for proposals? There is no easy answer to this question. Reading between the lines is an ability one gains from participating in grantsmanship over the years. The best piece of advice is to read the announcement carefully and ask more experienced colleagues who have knowledge about the area and agency. Review the terminology we introduced in chapter 1 to obtain a more in-depth understanding of the terminology used in a call for proposals. Also, learn what journals the agency prefers their funded work to be published in and the language they use to describe the area of inquiry. This will help you identify subtleties in language that will make “reading between the lines” easier.
Appendix A
355
3. Why should I bother to submit an application if it is so competitive? There is a simple answer to this question. If you do not submit a grant application to a competition that has relevance to your work, we guarantee that you will not be funded. Every funded investigator started out with minimal experience and there is no reason why you cannot be successful. Submitting an application gives you the chance of either being funded or, at the very least, obtaining a critical evaluation of your proposal that can be used to improve your next submission. Keep in mind that few investigators are funded on their first submission. Of course you need to select the competitions that most closely fit your idea and for which you have adequate experience and expertise. In chapter 3, we discuss how to match your level of expertise and interests with funding agencies, while in chapter 10 we discuss different project structures and their relevance for an individual’s level of experience. 4. Are there key “buzz words” I should always use in a grant application? You should be able to guess our answer to this question by now. No—there are no magical words or special formulas that can be applied to each grant application, except for the tips, suggestions, and knowledge you have gained by reading the previous chapters. There are keywords, however, that may be used by funding agencies to describe either the population of interest or the problem they wish to see addressed. You can learn these terms by reading the description of the funding priority or call for proposals, the professional literature from which the priority has been developed, and reviewing projects that have been funded in previous competitions. For example, let’s say you plan to submit a grant application to the National Institute on Aging to investigate the role of caregivers of individuals with dementia. In the application, terms such as “caregiver,” “burden,” and “care recipient” could be considered appropriate buzz words since they are clearly defined in the aging literature. However, if
356
Appendix A
you submit an application to the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), Department of Education, this agency approaches caregiving from the disability perspective and labels caregivers as “personal care attendants.” In writing an application to NIDRR then, a different body of literature as well as terminology would be more appropriate. Chapter 3 discusses how to match your areas of interest and knowledge with a funding agency. Although there are no hard and fast rules about words to use in all grant applications, we would suggest that you avoid jargon and terminology that is specific to your discipline. While these words are not wrong, they will not strengthen your proposal and, in fact, might weaken it because reviewers may not understand their meaning. We discuss this issue further in chapter 5. 5. Can I take a program officer to lunch or dinner? The answer to this question is straightforward—NO. Program officers are not permitted to accept gifts. This includes having their lunch, dinner, or participation in an event paid for by a constituent or potential grantee. You may have lunch or dinner with an officer but may not pick up their tab. Chapter 2 describes the questions you might discuss with a project officer. 6. Will a program officer think I’m a nuisance if I call him or her too often? That depends on how often you call and what you call about. It would not be a good strategy to call a program officer once a week, or any time you have a simple question. You should not take their time if you can find an answer to your question elsewhere. However, program officers are public servants, and it is their job to facilitate the submission of high-quality projects. As we discussed in chapter 2, it is in the best interests of an agency to obtain as many good proposals as possible. You will also find that many program officers are scientists, well published, and extremely knowledgeable about their own areas of inquiry. They are therefore personally committed to advancing the field and supporting quality and creative proposals.
Appendix A
357
7. Do I need an evaluation section in my proposal and, if so, how do I develop one? If you are developing an education or service program, then you will most likely need a plan for its evaluation. There are many excellent books and other resources on program evaluation available, which you can use as a guide. A traditional approach typically involves both formative and summative evaluation strategies. The specific components of your plan will depend upon the objectives of the program and may involve the collection of both qualitative and quantitative information. If you are inexperienced in evaluation, consider adding a consultant to your project or collaborating with individuals in an academic institution who have such expertise. Chapters 10, 11 and 12 discuss the project structures that include a consultative, cooperative, or collaborative relationship in more detail. 8. Do I need to use a model or theory to frame the program I am developing? A theory enables an investigator to test a set of principles and explain the outcomes of a research study. Occasionally, a call for proposals will specify that an investigator must explicitly state the theoretical framework on which an intervention or research program is based. An education or service program that is based on a theoretical model will be more competitive than those that are not, since such a program can be replicated and further refined and tested. Review panels recognize that the development of education, service, or research programs grounded in theory or based on testable models are important ways to advance knowledge and practice. Chapter 4 describes the sections of a grant application in more detail and where to introduce and discuss a theoretical framework. 9. Is it unethical to pay someone, as a consultant, who has served on a review panel to give me advice about my proposal? It is not unethical to pay someone to review your proposal. In fact, it is an excellent strategy to improve your work. Individuals who have served on review panels will
358
Appendix A
have an in-depth understanding of the review process and what panel members look for in a proposal. They should also be able to identify “red flags” in your proposal. It is unethical, however, to approach someone who is currently serving on a review panel for a competition in which you have submitted a proposal. Review panel members are ethically bound not to discuss the specific proposals that are submitted. 10. If I get rejected one or two times, does it mean I should not bother to submit again? Not necessarily. Because of the increasingly competitive nature of the funding environment, it is not uncommon for someone to have to submit a proposal up to three times before they are funded. In the NIH arena, the rule is “three strikes and you’re out.” Other agencies may not allow a resubmission. As we discussed in chapter 16, talking to a program officer and carefully reading the reviewers’ comments will provide an excellent idea as to whether you should resubmit the proposal. These are better indices of your chances than one or two rejections. 11. What would you consider the three biggest mistakes that are made in proposals? The biggest mistakes made in proposal writing include failing to read the instructions, disregarding specific topic areas that the application requires to be addressed, and— believe it or not—ignoring deadlines. 12. Do I need a PhD to submit a proposal? Legally, you do not. However, a doctoral degree is critical if you plan to be a principal investigator on a research grant because a PhD is considered a research credential. Having a PhD or EdD is less critical, but still advantageous, if you are writing an education or training grant. As we have discussed throughout this book, it is very important to demonstrate in the proposal that you have the qualifications to carry out a proposed project. One way to show these qualifications is through your academic credentials.
Appendix A
359
However, another way to present expertise is through a track record of prior research and publication. This is one of the reasons that we have suggested the importance of a professional growth plan (chapter 1) by which to build a history of successful publications and funding. Another strategy to help overcome a lack of credentials would be to work collaboratively with others who have a PhD.
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix B Selected Key Acronyms ACYF ADA ADAMHA ADD AHRQ
ANA AoA AOTA AOTF APA APTA BHPr BMCHRD CBD CDBG CDC CSR DADPHP
Administration on Children, Youth, and Families Americans with Disabilities Act Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration Administration on Developmental Disabilities Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (formerly Agency for Health Care Quality and Research) Administration for Native Americans Administration on Aging American Occupational Therapy Association American Occupational Therapy Foundation American Psychological Association American Physical Therapy Association Bureau of Health Professions Bureau of Maternal and Child Health and Resources Development Commerce Business Daily Community Development Block Grant Centers for Disease Control NIH—Center for Scientific Review (formerly the Division of Research Grants) Division of Associated, Dental, and Public Health Professions 361
362
DOC DOD DOE DOI DOJ DOL DOT FDA FIC FIPSE FOA
GAN HIV HMO HP/DP HRSA HUD IDEA IHPO IOM IRB IRG MCH MCHB NCI NIA NIAAA NIAID NIAMS NICHD
Appendix B
Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Energy Department of Interior Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of Transportation Food and Drug Administration Fogarty International Center Fund for the Improvement of PostSecondary Education NIH—Funding opportunity announcement (formerly referred to as Program Announcement) Department of Education—Grant Award Notice human immunodeficiency virus health maintenance organization health promotion/disease prevention Health Resources and Services Administration Department of Housing and Urban Development Individuals With Disabilities Education Act International Health Program Office Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences Institutional Review Board Integrated Research Group maternal and child health Maternal and Child Health Bureau National Cancer Institute National Institute on Aging National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Appendix B
NIDCD NIDDK NIDR NIDRR NIH NIMH NOGA NRFC OBRA OHRP OMB OMB Circular A-21 OMB Circular A-110 OMB Circular A-133 OSEP OSERS PA PHS R01 R03 R21 RFA RFP SBIR SRA TBI VA
363
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases National Institute of Dental Research National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health Notice of Grant Award Not Recommended for Future Consideration Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act Office for Human Research Protection Office of Management and Budget Federal “rule book” for university financial arrangements Administrative standards for grants and other agreements Rules for audits of compliance with federal regulations Office of Special Education Programs Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Program Announcement (now referred to as Funding opportunity announcement) Public Health Service Designation for NIH-funded research projects for independent investigators NIH—Pilot Research Program NIH—Exploratory/Development Mechanism Request For Applications Request For Proposals NIH—Small Business Innovative Research NIH—Scientific Review Administrator traumatic brain injury Department of Veterans Affairs
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix C Selected Web Sites
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.
List of NIH institutes: http://www.nih.gov/icd Roster of study sections: http://www.csr.nih.gov/Commit tees/rosterindex.asp NIH grant review criteria and process: http://www.drg. nih.gov/guidelines/r01.htm NIH Web site: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm NIH e-SNAP guide: http://era.nih.gov/docs/eSNAP_UG_ v.2.8.1.1.pdf NIH Roadmap: http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/overview.asp NIH peer review: http://www.csr.nih.gov/review/policy.asp NIH listserv: https://list.nih.gov Frequently asked questions concerning calculation for person months in budget: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ policy/person_months_faqs.htm Center for Scientific Review: http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ Department of Education peer review: http://www.ed. gov/pubs/PeerReview/index.html Catalog of Domestic Assistance: http://www.cfda.gov Congressional Record: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/ index.html Congressional Quarterly: http://www.cq.com Federal Register: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html Tracking of federal legislation: http://www.govtrack.us Federal Business Opportunities (Previously the Commerce Business Daily Web site): http://www.fedbizopps.gov/ Federal Circulars: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circu lars/index.html 365
366
Appendix C
19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.
Foundation Center Web site: http://www.foundationcen ter.org HRSA Web site: http://www.hrsa.gov Institute of Medicine Web site: http://www.iom.edu/ Notice of Grant Award tutorial: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ ncn/grants/manage/manage_c5.ht Proposal Central for electronic submissions to foundations: https://proposalcentral.altum.com/ Registry for clinical trials: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov U.S. House of Representatives: http://www.house.gov/ U.S. Senate: http://www.senate.gov/ Library of Congress database: http://thomas.loc.gov/ NIH Grants Policy: http://www.grants.nih.gov/grants/pol icy/nihgps_2001 NIH CRISP Web site: http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/ National Science Foundation Grants Policy Manual: http:// www.nsf.gov/pubs/manuals/gpm05_131/index.jsp Healthy People 2010: http://www.healthypeople.gov/ NIH guide (electronic availability): http://grants.nih.gov/ grants/guide/index.html NIH modular budgeting: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ funding/modular/modular.htm
Appendix D Sample Timeline, Budget Sheets, and Flow Charts
367
TABLE A.1
Sample Timeline
Yr. 1 Spring
Yr. 1 Summer
Students work with faculty mentors to develop strategies to work in medically underserved areas.
X
X
X
X
CD & FP
b.
Design and implement an online network of health promotion consultants on the health promotion Web site.
X
X
X
X
CD & FP
c.
Recruit program graduates to serve as health promotion consultants.
a.
Faculty conduct a comprehensive literature search on interactive
Objectives
Component/Activity
1. Increase the number a. of allied health professionals working with underserved populations. 368
2.
Expand the knowledge and skills of faculty to
Yr. 1 Fall
Team Leader(s) of Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Activity
X
X
X
X
X
CD
CD
design and teach an interdisciplinary community health promotion curriculum using interactive health communication skills.
health communication curricula and evaluate the top 20 health promotion Web sites to determine applications that are appropriate for individuals with disabilities. Plan and implement a series of knowledgebuilding meetings for the faculty.
c.
Faculty work closely with the Web design expert to design Interactive Health Communication course.
369
b.
X
X
X
X
X
CD
CD & WC
Key: Team Management Structure Director (D); Co-Directors (CD); Research Coordinator (RC); Web Design Consultant (WC); OT-PT Fieldwork Preceptor (FP); Advisory Board (AB)
370
Appendix D
TABLE A.2
Sample Budget Worksheet Educational Project
Personnel Name
Title
Name #1
Project director
Name #2
Project coordinator
Name #3
Clinical coordinator
Name #4
Academic coordinator
Name #5
Project evaluator
Name #6
Project secretary
Time/Effort %
Hours/ Week
Dollar Amount Requested Salary
Fringe
Subtotals Consultant costs Contracts Staff travel Equipment (itemize) Supplies (itemize by category) Other expenses Other Expenses
Subtotals Total direct costs
Total
Appendix D
371
Recruitment
Stage 1:
Stage 2:
Identify Potential Eligibles
Interested CG Call
Invitational letters to CG1
Telephone Screen
Not interested CG
Ineligible CG
Eligible CG N=272
Baseline (TI) Home Interview
Stratified Randomization (relationship)
Experimental Group N=136 Nurse Visit
• CG Education • Screen for Delirium • Screen For Infection
Control Group N=136 Positive Medical Test • NU contacts CG • Referral to PCP
OT 2 Visit
• Communication Skills • Problem solving • Environmental/Task simplification • Stress Reduction • Referral to PCP if no behavior improvement
4 Month Retest
Maintenance Phone Calls
6 Month Retest
Invitational Workshop CG = Caregivers OT = Occupational Therapist
1 2
FIGURE A.1
Research design. (Gitlin et al., 2007)
372
Appendix D Year
1
Advisory Committee Meeting
Conduct Literature Review
Hold Focus Group Meetings
2
Identify Curriculum for Three Research Institutes
Identify Potential Participants
Hold Research Institute #1
Select Participants
Advisory Committee to Evaluate Institute #1
Participants Receive Technical Assistance from Mentors
Revise/Plan Institute #2
Research Institute #2
3
Advisory Committee to Evaluate Institute #2
Participants Complete Project
Participants Receive Technical Assistance from Mentors
Revise/Plan Institute #3
Final Research Institute
FIGURE A.2
Participants Complete Project
Flow chart of education project.
Appendix E Guidelines for Evaluating Collaborative Teams CHARACTERISTICS OF COLLABORATION 1. Clear statement of goals, expectations, and procedures a. b. c. d.
Are members of the project team aware of the goals of the project? Do all members of the team fully accept the goals of the group? Does each member of the team understand his/her individual responsibilities? Does each member of the team understand the procedures that must be followed to complete the project?
2. Role differentiation a. b.
Does each member of the team have specified roles and responsibilities? Do team members feel responsible for accomplishing the goals of the project?
3. Open communication a. b.
Do members listen and pay attention to what other team members have to say? Are the ideas and feelings of all members expressed openly and honestly?
373
374
Appendix E
4. Open, honest negotiation a. b. c.
Do team members feel free to suggest ideas for the direction of a project? Are differences of opinion sought out and clarified? Do team members feel free to disagree openly with each other’s ideas?
5. Mutual goals a.
b. c.
Are team members committed to carrying out the group’s task as opposed to advancing their own interests? Are goals established by means of group participation? Are these goals and procedures accepted by each member of the team?
6. Climate of trust a.
b. c. d.
Do team members engage in active listening to other members’ ideas, feelings, and reactions to what is taking place in the group? Do team members disclose their ideas, feelings, and reactions to what is currently taking place in the group? Do team members demonstrate respect, confidence, and trust in one another? Do team members engage in friendly interaction with one another?
7. Cooperation a. b.
Do team members seek out opportunities to work with one another on tasks? Do team members take turns volunteering for specific tasks?
8. Shared decision making a. b.
Do team members take responsibility for providing input into group decisions? Do team members have significant input into group decisions for which they have expertise?
9. Conflict resolution a. Are disagreements brought out into the open and faced directly?
Appendix E
375
b. c. d.
10.
When disagreements arise, do members speak freely and openly about their positions? Do members of the team feel free to disagree with others about procedures or ideas? Do team members strive to ensure that they do not change their minds about an issue just to avoid conflict and reach agreement and harmony?
Equality of participation a. b. c.
Does each individual, in light of his/her experience and skills, feel free to provide input to team deliberations? Is discussion distributed among all team members rather than dominated by any one perspective or person? Are the opinions of members of the teams valued by other members?
11. Group cohesion a. b.
c. d. 12.
Do team members try to make sure others enjoy being members of the team? Do team members express acceptance and support when other members disclose their ideas, feelings, and reactions to what is currently taking place in the group? Do team members try to make other members feel valued and appreciated? Do team members include other members in group activities?
Decision by consensus a. b. c.
d.
Do team members listen to and consider other members’ points of view before pressing their ideas? When discussion reaches a stalemate, do team members look for the next most acceptable alternative? Do team members avoid engaging in techniques such as majority rule, voting, and coin tossing to reach a decision? Does the team make sure everybody accepts a solution to a problem for similar reasons?
13. Shared leadership a.
Do members of the team assume responsibility for making decisions for the group related to task accomplishment?
376
Appendix E
b. c. 14.
Does the formal team leader facilitate discussion rather than dominate it? Are members of the team given formal responsibility for guiding the group to accomplish certain tasks?
Shared responsibility for participation a.
Do all members of the team participate in discussions about important issues?
QUESTIONNAIRE ON COLLABORATION: INDIVIDUAL ROLE The following questions are designed to gather information about your participation on [your current] project. Please respond to each honestly using the following scale. 1 = not at all
2 = somewhat
3 = moderately
4 = very
To what extent: 1.
Are you familiar with the goals of this project? 1
2.
2
3
4
2
3
4
Have you been assigned specific responsibilities to carry out the project? 1
5.
4
Do you feel responsible for carrying out the goals of this project? 1
4.
3
Do you endorse the goals of this project? 1
3.
2
2
3
4
Do you understand what is expected of you? 1
2
3
4
Appendix E
6.
377
Do you understand the procedures necessary to complete the project? 1
7.
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
Do you volunteer for specific group tasks? 1
15.
3
Do you have confidence in other group members? 1
14.
2
Do you provide support to others when they make their ideas, feelings, or reactions known? 1
13.
4
Do you feel free to disagree with other group members? 1
12.
3
Do you feel free to suggest ideas about the direction of the project? 1
11.
2
Do you express your feelings honestly about an issue in the group? 1
10.
4
Do you feel free to express your feelings about an issue in the group? 1
9.
3
Do you listen to what other team members have to say? 1
8.
2
2
3
4
Do you take responsibility to provide your expertise in group decisions? 1
2
3
4
378
Appendix E
16.
Do you value the opinions of other group members? 1
17.
2
3
4
2
3
4
Do you feel a real part of the team? 1
20.
4
Do you try to participate in group discussions? 1
19.
3
Are you willing to assume responsibility for making a decision for the group in areas where you have expertise? 1
18.
2
2
3
4
Do you feel comfortable when differences of opinion are expressed or there is conflict? 1
2
3
4
Please circle one: Member of faculty
Community member
Other faculty
Clinician
QUESTIONNAIRE ON COLLABORATION: EVALUATION OF GROUP FUNCTIONING The following questions are designed to gather information about the participation of other members of your group on [your current] project. Please respond to each honestly using the following scale. Try to think of the group as a whole. So, if some members behave in certain ways and other members do not, then respond to the question somewhere in the middle of the scale. 1 = not at all
2 = somewhat
3 = moderately
To what extent do you believe other team members
4 = very
Appendix E
1.
379
Are familiar with the goals of this project? 1
2.
2
3
4
Accept the goals of this project? 1
2
3
4
3. Feel responsible for carrying out the goals of this project? 1 4.
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
Feel free to express their feelings about an issue in the group? 1
9.
3
Listen to what other team members have to say? 1
8.
2
Understand the procedures necessary to complete the project? 1
7.
4
Understand what is expected of them? 1
6.
3
Have been assigned specific responsibilities to carry out the project? 1
5.
2
2
3
4
Express their feelings honestly about an issue in the group? 1
2
3
4
10. Feel free to suggest ideas about the direction of the project? 1 11.
2
3
4
Feel free to disagree with each other about an idea? 1
2
3
4
380
Appendix E
12.
Offer support when other members make their ideas, feelings, or reactions known? 1
13.
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
Feel a real part of the team? 1
21.
3
Look at the tasks of the team? 1
20.
2
Participate in the group discussion? 1
19.
4
Are willing to assume responsibility for making a decision for the group in areas where they have expertise? 1
18.
3
Value the opinions of other group members? 1
17.
2
Take responsibility for providing their expertise in group decisions? 1
16.
4
Volunteer for specific group tasks? 1
15.
3
Have confidence that other group members will complete assigned tasks? 1
14.
2
2
3
4
Feel comfortable when differences of opinion are expressed or there is conflict? 1
2
3
4
Appendix E
381
Please circle one: Member of faculty
Community member
Other faculty
Clinician
This page intentionally left blank
References Abreeu, B. C., Peloquin, S. M., & Ottenbacher, K. (1998). Competence in scientific inquiry and research. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52(9), 751–759. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Community Health Scholars Program. (2006). The Examining Community-Institutional Partnerships for Prevention Research Group: Developing and sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: A skill-building curriculum. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from http://www.cbprcurriculum.info Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/ DePoy, E., & Gitlin, L. (2005). Introduction to research: Understanding and applying multiple strategies (3rd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier/Mosby Year Book. Field, M. J., & Jette, A. M. (Ed.). (2007). The future of disability in America. Washington, DC: Committee on Disability in America, The Institute of Medicine. Findley, T. W. (1989). Research in physical medicine and rehabilitation. American Journal of Physical and Medical Rehabilitation, 68(2), 97–102. Gitlin, L. N., Lyons, K., & Kolodner, E. (1994). A model to build collaborative research and education teams. Educational Gerontology, 20, 15–34. Gitlin, L. N., Winter, L., Dennis, M. P., Hauck, W. W. (2007). A nonpharmological intervention to manage behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia and reduce caregiver distress. 383
384
References
Design and methods of project ACT. Clinical Intervention in Aging, 2(4): 195–703. Homans, B. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Institute of Medicine. (1989). Allied Health Services: Avoiding crises. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Institute of Medicine. (2007). The future of disability in America. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Jacobs, T. O. (1970). Leadership and exchange in formal organizations. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 111–120. Lyon, S., & Lyon, G. (1980). Team functioning and staff development: A role release approach to providing integrated educational services for severely handicapped students. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5, 250–263. “NIH: About NIH.” (2007) Retrieved May 27, 2007, from http:// www.nih.gov/about/ Public Health Service. (2008). Healthy people 2010. Retrieved from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/p4-08-085.html Schumacher, D. (1994). Strategies for helping your faculty get more grants for research. Research Management Review, 7(1), 37–52. Sussman, S. (2006). The transdisciplinary-translation revolution: Final thoughts. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 29(3), 348–352. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Health Resources and Services Administration. (2007). Retrieved September 11, 2007, from http://www.hrsa.gov Whitney, F. W. (1990). Passion and collaboration. Nursing Connections, 3(2), 11–15.
Index Abbreviations, writing problems, 122 Abstracts, 78, 87–88, 253 Academic policies, post-award, 347 Acceptance scores, review process, 281, 313 Accuracy budget development, 189–190 grant awards review, 323 Activities, budget creation, 174 Additional information, review process, 283 Administration grant award responsibilities, 329–331 of grant writing matters, 140–141 grant writing team meeting, 178–180 post-award task checklist, 321 technical writing considerations, 140–141 See also Facilities and administration (F&A); Health Resources and
Services Administration (HRSA); National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA); Office of Research Administration (ORA); Scientific Review Administrator (SRA) Administration on Aging (AoA), 38 Adobe Acrobat software (PDFs), 266 Agencies. See Federal government/agencies; Funding agencies Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 37–38, 133, 272 AIDS. See Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Allied Health Services: Avoiding Crises (IOM), 71 Alteration costs, 164 Analysis, proposals, 106–107, 196 Announcement, grant submissions, 305–306 385
386
AoA. See Administration on Aging Appendix material, proposals, 114, 310 Application kit. See Funding opportunity Application process, IRB, 254–257 Assessment/goal setting, collaboration process, 220–221 Assessment strategy, reviewer’s comments, 295–296 Association meetings, 55 Assumptions budget creation, 174, 179 and key activities, budget development, initial creation, 174, 179 and limitations, studies, 110–111 Attendance, collaborative team, 236–237 Authorship policies, postaward, 348–351 Award limits, 154 Benefits, informed consent, 259 Boilerplate material, 141–142 Broad phrases, writing problems, 122–123 Budget, post-award considerations, 331–332 grant awards account, 324 reports, 340 SPAO, 345 Budget, proposals, 112–113, 310 Budget coordinator, 128 Budget development, initial creation agency considerations, 178
Index
consultant considerations, 183 development, 173–174 evaluation criteria, 175 finalization, 180 funding opportunity, 176–177 grants administrator meeting, 178–180 immediate start, 177 iterative process, 175–176 key activities/assumptions, 174, 179 novice level, 176 peer review panels, 174–175 percent efforts, 181–182 project costs, 180–181 salary considerations, 182–183 subaward considerations, 183–185 timeline, 177–178 your institution, 247–248 Budget development, overview agencies, 152, 156–157 award limits, 154 budget justification, 169–170 components, 159 considerations, 152–157 direct costs, 159–165 F&A costs, 153–156 facilities/administrative costs, 165–166 funding opportunity, 156 institutional commitments cost-sharing, 166 F&A cost recovery allowance, 167 in-kind contributions, 168–169 institutional policies, 157–158 language, 149–152
Index
management, 153 NIH, 155, 170–171 no-cost extensions, 157 project cost considerations, 158–159 research grants, 155–156 Budget development, technical considerations accuracy, 189–190 forms, 188–189 governance, 187–188 OMB, 187–188 RFA, 188 Call for proposals, 9, 57–58 Career trajectory. See Research career trajectory Carry-over funds, 341–342 Case study, grant submission, 303–307 CBPR. See Community-based participatory research Center for Scientific Review (CSR), 272–274 Clinical/professional experience, 66 Clinical trial registration, 327 Co-investigator (Co-PI), 10–11 Collaboration process assessment/goal setting, 220–221 benefits, 212 determining fit, 221–222 differentiation, 213–214 effort requirements, 213 emergent roles, 215–218 evaluation/feedback, 225–226 five-stage model, 218–220 group requirements, 212–213
387
Hierarchical Traditional Research Project, 216 negotiations during, 221–222, 224 NIH, 209 problems with, 220 process model, 219 refinement/implementation, 223–225 resource identification, 222–223 responsibilities, 217–218 RFA, 209 role release, 214–215 social exchange theory, 211 stress during, 223 team effectiveness, 225 team member roles/ responsibilities, 213 theoretical framework, 210–212 Collaborative model/team advantages, 202–203 attendance, 236–237 CBPR, 204–205 characteristics, 202 dynamics, 240 effectiveness, 227–229 examples, 234–237 external reviewer, 232 feedback, 233 formal evaluation, 232–234 general evaluation, 227–229 green lights, 230–231 group-based problems, 240–241 group interaction, 238–239 idea integration, 201–202 individual-based problems, 238–240 informal evaluation, 229–232
388
Collaborative model (continued) institutional-based problems, 241 leadership, 203–204 problems/solutions, general, 237–238 proposal writing process, 235 red flags, 230–232 selection process, 228 timeframe problems, 240 work-style differences, 241 Colleague interaction, 67–68 Community-based participatory research (CBPR), 204–205 Community foundations/ organizations, 40, 72–73 Compensation explanation, informed consent, 259 Competition plans/proposals, 9, 14–15, 57 Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Research (CRISP), 71–72 Concept paper, 131–134 Confidentiality protection, IRB application, 256–257 Congressional offices, federal government, 51 Consortium/contractual costs, 164–165 Consultants considerations, 183 costs, 162 model, project structures, 196–197 proposal formulation, 323–324 Contractual agreements, 139 Contribution levels, post-award, 349–351
Index
Cooperative model, project structures, 197–200 Core constructs/variables, writing problems, 124 Corporate annual reports, 54–55 Corporate funding programs, 63–64 Cost-effectiveness analysis, 196 Costs alteration costs, 164 budget development direct costs, 159–165 F&A costs, 153–156 facilities/administrative costs, 165–166 project costs, 180–181 consortium/contractual costs, 164–165 consultants, 162 direct costs consortium/contractual, 164–165 equipment, 162–163 other expenses, 165 personnel, 161–162 renovations/rental space, 164 supplies, 163, 310 trainee expenses, 163, 310 travel, 163–164, 310 equipment costs/needs, 162– 163, 265 facility costs, 165–166 personnel, grant awards/ costs, 160–162, 324– 325, 327 project structures, 158–159, 180–181
Index
renovation costs, 164 rental space costs, 164 supply costs, 163, 310 travel costs, 310 Cost-sharing, 166 Cover sheet, IRB submission component, 253 Credentials, 16, 113 CRISP. See Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Research CSR. See Center for Scientific Review Data collection, 104–105 Data Safety and Monitoring Board (DSMB), 326 Demonstration grants, 8–9 Department of Education (DOE), 283–285, 291 Description, research/ educational plan, 102–103 Descriptive/inferential statistics, 27–28 Design statements for research designs, 100–101 Direct costs consortium/contractual, 164–165 equipment, 162–163 other expenses, 165 personnel, 161–162 renovations/rental space, 164 supplies, 163, 310 trainee expenses, 163, 310 travel, 163–164, 310 Dissemination plan, projects, 112 Division of Research Grants (DRG), 272
389
DOE. See Department of Education “Do-it-alone” attitude, project structures, 206 Domain expertise, 27 Draft writers, 127–128 DSMB. See Data Safety and Monitoring Board Editor, grant writing team, 127 Educational idea, 19 Efficiency, writing problems, 123 Effort reporting, post-award, 340–341 Effort requirements, collaboration process, 213 Electronic Research Administration Commons (eRA), 13 Electronic Streamlined Noncompeting Award Process (eSNAP), 13 Electronic submissions common glitches, 264 email notifications, 267–268 equipment needs, 265 flash sticks, 266 Grants.gov, 265 institution approval, 263 to NIH, 267–268 online benefits/challenges, 262–263 with PDFs, 266 preparation, 263–267 process, 267–268 Proposal Central, 265 scanners, 266 Email notifications, 267–268, 292
390
Emergent roles, collaboration process, 215–218 Equipment costs/needs, 162–163, 265 ERA Commons. See Electronic Research Administration Commons ESNAP. See Electronic Streamlined Noncompeting Award Process Evaluation collaboration process, 225–226 collaborative team, 229–232 criteria, budget creation, 175 proposals, 309 resources, 78 review process, 286 writing strategies, 120 Expense monitoring, grant awards, 324 External reviewer, 232 F&A cost recovery allowance, 167 Facilities and administration (F&A), 153–156 Facility costs, 165–166 Fatal flaws, 99, 295 Federal government/agencies advisory committees, 55 agency planning groups, 53 application kit, 58–61 call for proposal, 57–58 common reports, 339 competition plan, 57 congressional offices, 51 funding sources, 36–38 main information number, 51 OMB requirements, 336–337
Index
peer review panels, 52 post-award requirements, 335–338 program officers, 47–51 proposal call interpretations, 56–58 published competitions, 52 SF-424 form, 58 See also Funding agencies Federal Register, 35, 47, 48 Feedback, collaborative team, 233 Finalization, budget creation, 180 Final report, post-award, 341 FIPSE. See Fund for the Improvement of PostSecondary Education Five-stage collaborative model, 218–220 Flash sticks, electronic submissions, 266 FOA. See Funding opportunity announcement Forms, budget development, 188–189 Foundation Directory, 39, 53–54 Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE), 37 Funding agencies budget development, 152, 156–157, 178 contact person, 127 dissemination plans, 112 DOE, 283–285 funding priority idea matching, 76–77 goals/priorities, 72 investigators, 68
Index
language of grantsmanship, 9 planning groups, 53 project structures, 198, 207 See also Federal government/ agencies; Funding sources; Private foundations Funding environment/opportunity budget development, 156, 176–177 changes in, 1–2 corporate programs, 63–64 cycle, 12 federal government/agencies, 58–61 grant story example, 5–7 investigators, 68 professional responsibilities, 4–5 proposals, 84–85 research program, 24–25 sources in, 3 track record, 16–17 veteran researcher skills, 27–28 See also Research funding/grants Funding ideas clinical/professional experience, 66 colleague interaction, 67–68 identification, 65–66 integration, collaborative model, 201–202 investigators, 68 knowledge, 27 legislative initiatives, 69–70 priority, idea matching, 76–78 professional literature, 67
391
public documents, 70–72 special interests, 76–77 trends, 68–69 Funding opportunity announcement (FOA), 13 Funding sources community organizations, 72–73 Federal Register, 35 health/human services professions, 36–40 ideas, 73–75 key informants, 72–73 learning/tracking, 41–47 pilot research mechanisms, 36 programs, 62–63 submissions, 304 See also Funding agencies The Future of Disability in America (IOM), 71 General/supplemental instructions, 10 Goals/specific objectives for proposals, 89–90, 308–309 Governance of budgets, 187–188 Grant Award Notice from the Department of Education (GAN), 272 Grant awards accuracy review, 323 budget account, 324 clinical trial registration, 327 consultant formulation, 323–324 DSMB, 326 expense monitoring, 324
392
Grant awards (continued) initiating, 320 institutional paperwork, 324 JIT procedures, 322–323 management, 317 meeting schedule, 325–326 personnel, 324–325, 327 public relations office, 326 reporting requirements, 330 responsibilities, 329–331 scientific startup tasks, 327–329 sponsor concerns, 320–321 studies, 110–111, 258–259, 273 subawards, 323–324 submission consideration, 332–333 task checklist, 321 timeline, 325 yearly reports, 329–331 See also Grantsmanship; Institutional grants; Post-award Grant submissions announcements, 305–306 case study, 303–307 first response, 289 funding sources, 304 ideas, 73–75 IRB components, 253–257 online challenges/benefits, 262–263 post-award, 332–333 post-submission, 269–270 professional meeting, 304 proposals, 243 story example, 5–7 See also Resubmission process; Review process
Index
Grant writing team administrator meeting, 178–180 agency contact person, 127 budget coordinator, 128 draft writers, 127–128 editor, 127 grantee/grantor, 10 graphics coordinator, 129 group-based problems, 240–241 group requirements/ interaction, 212–213, 238–239 knowledge/skill areas, 126 leadership, 28 letters of support coordinator, 128–129 proposal coordinator/director, 126 reference coordinator, 128 typist/proofreader, 129 Grants.gov, 14, 265 Grantsmanship, language of agency/funding source, 9 budget preparation, 150–152 call for proposals, 9 competition, 9 Co-PI, 10–11 demonstration grants, 8–9 funding cycle, 12 general/supplemental instructions, 10 grantee/grantor, 10 IRGs, 11 NIH, 8 peer review panel, 11 PI, 10–11 preferences/priorities/special considerations, 9–10
Index
program/project officer, 11 project director, 10–11 research grants, 7–8 reviewer’s comments, 11–12 training/educational grants, 8 Grantsmanship, overcoming barriers available resources, 30 institutional research culture lack, 31 institutional support lack, 30–31 lack of time/workload, 29–30 novice level, 28–29 supportive academic structure, 31 systematic mentoring lack, 30 Grantsmanship, process funding agencies, 9 funding environment, 4 overcoming barriers, 28–29 research funding/grants, 7–8 reviewer’s comments, 11–12 Graphics coordinator, 129 Green lights, collaborative team, 230–231 Health/human services profession, funding sources, 36–40 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), 259–260 Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), 38 Healthy People 2010, 57, 70 Hierarchical Traditional Research Project, 216
393
Human characteristics/ involvement, IRB application, 254 Human subjects, protection, 110–111 IC. See Institutional center Independent foundations, 39–40 Individuals characteristics, research plans, 102 credentials, 16 members, collaborative team, 238 model, project structures, 195 problems with collaborative team, 239–240 Informants, key, 72–73 Informed consent, IRB submission component, 253, 258–260 Initial review groups (IRGs), 11 Initiating grant awards, 320 In-kind contributions, 168–169 Innovations in proposals, 92 Institute of Medicine (IOM), 70–71 Institutional center (IC), 273 Institutional grants approval, online, 263 commitments, 166–169 lack of support, 30–31 paperwork, awards, 324 policies, 157–158 problems, collaborative team, 241 qualifications, 114 research culture, lack, 31 See also Grant awards
394
Institutional review board (IRB) application process, 254–257 approval by, 250–251 post-award, 344 research application/ protocols, 251–252 review levels, 251 SF-424 form, 254 submission components, 253–254 Integrated Review Group (IRG), 13, 272–273 The Internet, 41, 261 Introduction, proposals, 88–89 Investigative team credentials, 113 IOM. See Institute of Medicine IRG. See Integrated Review Group IRGs. See Initial review groups Iterative process, budget creation, 175–176 Jargon, writing problems, 121–122 Just-in-time (JIT), 322–323 Justification, budget development, 169–170 K01 mentored research scientists award, 22 Knowledge/skills, grant writing team, 27, 126 Language problems, writing, 121 Leadership, collaborative model, 203–204 Learning/tracking funding sources, 41–43, 47 Legislative actions/initiatives, 41–43, 69–70
Index
Letters of support, 128–129, 140 Literature, associations/ theoretical foundation, 20, 56, 93–97 Management plan, 107–110 Material duplication, 142–143 Meetings, review process/ schedules, 274–275, 325–326 Mentoring/mentorship, 17, 30 Methodology/research/ educational plan common mistakes, 99 data collection, 104–105 description/selection, 98, 102–103 fatal flaws, 99 individual characteristics, 102 management plan, 107–110 personal expertise, 108 proposals, common sections, 97–107, 309 research design, 98, 100–101 statistical analysis, 106–107 statisticians, 99 technical writing considerations, 135–136 time tables, 108–109 validity/reliability of design, 106 weak points, 108 Mistakes, technical writing, 144 Models, proposal development, 191–192 National Advisory Council, 276 National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA), 24
Index
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), 37 National Institutes of Health (NIH), 8 budget development, 155 collaboration process, 209 electronic submissions, 267–268 eRA Commons, 13 eSNAP, 13 FOA, 13 Grants.gov, 14 IRG, 13 K01 mentored research scientists award, 22 modular budget format, 170–171 NIH Guide, 48 NIH Road map, 13–14 post-award notification from, 339 project organizational model, 203–204 R03/R21 awards, 22 research career trajectory, 22–23 resubmission process, 301 review process, 272, 277, 280 sponsor concerns, 320–321 SRO, 13 NCURA. See National Council of University Research Administrators Networking ability, 28 Newsletters, 55, 56 NGA. See Notice of Grant Award from the NIH NIDRR. See National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
395
NIH. See National Institutes of Health No-cost extensions, 157, 342–343 Non-scoring, review process, 282 Notice of Grant Award from the NIH (NGA), 272 Notification/implementation process, post-award, 338–339 Novice level budget creation by, 176 overcoming barriers to grantsmanship, 28–29 presentations/publications, 20 research career trajectory, 17–21 research funding, 21 supportive academic structure, 31 Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 187–188, 336–337 Office of Research Administration (ORA), 272, 344 Office of Scientific Affairs, 344 Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS), 37 Operating foundations, 40 Organizational skills, 28 Outlines, writing strategies, 119 Overused phrases, writing problems, 123 Overview, research design, 100
396
PA. See Program Announcement Page limitations, resubmission process, 300 Panel discussions, 276 PDFs. See Adobe Acrobat software Peer review panels, 11, 52, 174–175 Percent efforts, budget creation, 181–182 Percentile pay line, 281–282 Personal development/research plan, 15–16, 108 Person months, 161–162 Personnel, grant awards/costs, 160–162, 324–325, 327 Perspective, writing strategies, 120 PHS. See Public Health Service PI. See Principal investigator Pilot data/research mechanisms, 23, 36, 137–139 Pink sheets. See Reviewer’s comments Plan of management. See Management plan Post-award academic policies, 347 administrative task checklist, 321 authorship policies/ qualifications, 348–351 budget management, 331–332, 340, 345–347 carry-over funds, 341–342 common agency reports, 339 contribution levels, 349–351 effort reporting, 340–341
Index
federal agency requirements, 335–338 final report, 341 grant submissions, 332–333 institutional rules, 343–345 IRB, 344 NIH, 339 no-cost extensions, 342–343 notification/implementation process, 338–339 Office of Scientific Affairs, 344 ORA, 344 progress reports, 339–340 questions, 246, 248–250 receiving grant, 319 SPAO, 344–347 University Counsel, 344 See also Grant awards Pre-award questions, 246–248 Preferences/priorities/special considerations, 9–10 Preparation, budget development, 147 Presentation/publication levels, 20–22, 25–26 Primary reviewer, 275 Principal investigator (PI), 10– 11, 247 Priority score assessment, 290 Private foundations, 39–40, 62–63 Private industry, 40 Problems, collaborative team, 237–238 Procedures, informed consent, 259 Professional associations, 40, 55–56, 63 Professional literature, 67
Index
Program Announcement (PA), 70 Program/project officers discussions, 296–297 federal government experience, 47 NIH Guide, 48 personal visits, 49–51 telephone contact with, 48–49 funding priority, idea matching, 78 grantsmanship, language of, 11 technical writing considerations, 132–133 Progress reports, post-award, 339–340 Project structures choosing, 205–207 collaborative model, 200–205 consultative model, 196–197 cooperative model, 197–200 cost-effectiveness analysis, 196 costs, 158–159, 180–181 defining characteristics, 194 director, 10–11 “do-it-alone” attitude, 206 funding agencies, 198, 207 individual model, 195 model types, 193–194 name, informed consent, 258 NIH model, 203–204 role differentiation, 196 significance, 137 team, budget creation, 181 work relationships, 197 Proposal Central, 265 Proposals abstract, 87–88
397
aims, 90–92 analysis, 106–107, 196 appendix material, 114, 310 application kit, 84–85 assumptions/limitations, 110–111 budgets, 112–113, 310 call interpretations, 56–58 coordinator/director, 126 descriptions, 83–85 development model, 191–192 dissemination plan, 112 evaluation, 309 excerpt from, 307–310 goals/specific objectives, 89–90, 308–309 human subjects, 110–111 innovations in, 92 institutional qualifications, 114 instructions/introduction, 84, 88–89 investigative team credentials, 113 literature review/theoretical foundation, 93–97 mailing/delivering, 143–144 management plan, 107–110 methodology/research or educational plan, 97– 107, 309 rationale, 93, 307–308 references, 114 review response, 290–296 section importance, 92 strengths, 311–312 submissions, 243, 253–257, 262–263, 269–270 title, 86–87
398
Proposals (continued) typing, 142 weaknesses, 312–313 writing process, 235 See also Review process Protection, human subjects, 110–111 Public documents, 70–72 Public Health Service (PHS), 70, 272, 281–283 Public relations office, 326 Published competitions, 52 Questions for your institution, 245–246 R03/R22 awards, NIH, 22 Rationale in proposals, 93, 307–308 Recruitment plan, IRB application, 255 Red flags, collaborative team, 230–232 Redundant phrases, writing problems, 123 Reference coordinator, 128 References for proposals, 114 Refinement/implementation, collaboration process, 223–225 Refusal, informed consent, 259 Rejection scores, review process, 281 Renovation costs, 164 Rental space costs, 164 Reporting requirements, grant awards, 54–55, 330 Request for applications (RFA), 188, 209, 285
Index
Research career trajectory competitive proposal, 14–15 educational idea, 19 with experienced researchers, 17 funded research program, 24–25 funding track record, 16–17 goal, 19 individual credentials, 16 literature review, 20 and mentorship, 17 NCURA, 24 NIH, 22–23 personal development plan, 15–16 pilot data, 23 presentations/publications, 20–22, 25–26 research funding, 21–26 steps, 18 success, 17–18 technical assistance workshops, 23 time frame, 19 Research funding/grants advanced level, 25–26 application, 251 budget development, overview, 155–156 design, methodology plan, 98–101 experienced researchers, 17 expert level, 26 grantsmanship, language of, 7–8 intermediate level, 22–24 material sources, IRB application, 254 novice level, 21 protocols, 251–252
Index
See also Funding environment/opportunity Resource identification, collaboration process, 222–223 Responses, IRB submission component, 253–254 Resubmission process changes, 298–299 common comments, 299–300 next steps, 298–299 NIH, 301 options/plans, 144, 290–292 page limitations, 300 reviewer’s comments, 298–301 solutions, 299–300 three-strike rule, 301 See also Grant submissions Reviewer’s comments assessment strategy, 295–296 considerations, 292–293 fairness, 297–296 fatal flaws, 295 grantsmanship, language of, 11–12 interpretation, 293–294 program officer discussions, 296–297 resubmission process, 298–301 yes/no examples, 294 Review process acceptance scores, 281, 313 additional information, 283 AHRQ, 272 criteria, 279–280, 286 critique, 311–315 CSR, 272–274
399
DOE funding agencies, 283–285 DRG, 272 IC, 273 IRG, 273 key acronyms, 272 meetings, 274–275 National Advisory Council, 276 NIH system, 277, 280 non-scoring, 282 panel discussions, 276 peers, 279 percentile pay line, 281–282 PHS, 272, 281–283 primary reviewer, 275 rejection scores, 281 RFA, 285 scoring criteria, 284–285, 313–314 special requests, 143 SRA, 272–273 study sections, 273 understanding, 285–286 See also Proposals RFA. See Request for applications Risks informed consent, 259 potential, 255–256 vs. benefit ratio, IRB application, 257 Role differentiation/release, 196, 213–214, 214–215 Salary calculations/ considerations, 160–161, 182–183 Scanners, electronic submissions, 266 Scientific Review Administrator (SRA), 272–273
400
Scientific Review Officer (SRO), 13 Scientific startup tasks, 327–329 Scoring criteria, review process, 284–285, 313–314 Search engines, 43 Section importance in proposals, 92 SF-424 form, 13, 58, 254 Significance of proposals, 92–93 Social exchange theory, 211 Societal trends, 68–69 Software expertise, 28 Solutions, collaborative team, 237–238 Sponsor concerns, 320–321 Sponsored Program Accounting Office (SPAO), 344–347 SRA. See Scientific Review Administrator SRO. See Scientific Review Officer Statement of intent, 132 Statistical analysis of research/ educational plan, 106–107 Statisticians, 99 Strategies for literature review, 94–95 Studies, grants assumptions/limitations, 110–111 purpose, informed consent, 258–259 sections, review process, 273 Subawards, 183–185, 323–324 Subject confidentiality, informed consent, 259 Submissions. See Grant submissions
Index
Supply costs, 163, 310 Supportive academic structure, novice, 31 TBH. See To-be-hired Team members/effectiveness, 213, 225 Technical assistance workshops, 23 Technical writing considerations administrative matters, 140–141 AHRQ, 133 boilerplate material, 141–142 concept paper, 131–134 contractual agreements, 139 duplicating materials, 142–143 letters of support, 140 methodology, 135–136 mistakes, 144 needs assessment, 134–136 pilot studies, 137–139 program officer, 132–133 project significance, 137 proposals, 142–144 resubmission plans, 144 review requests, special, 143 statement of intent, 132 Terms, language of grant budgets, 150–152 Theoretical framework, collaboration process, 210–212 Time/timeline budget creation, 177–178 grant awards, 325 informed consent, 259 lack, 29–30 problems, collaborative team, 240
Index
research/educational plan, 108–109 writing strategies, 119 Title for proposals, 86–87 To-be-hired (TBH), 160 Topic area development, 76–77 Training/educational grants, 8, 163, 310 Travel costs, 310 Trendy words, writing problems, 122 Typist/proofreader, grant writing team, 129 Unclear referents, writing problems, 123–124 Unfair review, 297–296 University Counsel, 344 Validity/reliability of research plan, 106 Weak points, research/ educational plan, 108 Work relationships, project structures, 197 Work-style differences, collaborative team, 241 Writing problems abbreviations, 122 ability, 28
401
broad phrases, 122–123 core constructs/variables, 124 efficiency, 123 jargon, 121–122 language, 121 overused phrases, 123 redundant phrases, 123 trendy words, 122 unclear referents, 123–124 Writing strategies evaluation, 120 grant writing team, 125–129 organizing, 118–120 outline, 119 perspective, 120 time, 119 writer’s block, 124–125 Yearly reports, grant awards, 329–331 Your institution, learning about budget development, 247–248 general questions, 245–246 PI, 247 post-award questions, 248–250 pre-award questions, 246–248 review board procedures, 250–260
