1 Grantsmanship Basics for Graduate Study for McNair Scholars Program Bess de Farber UF Libraries Grants Management Program NSF-funded I-cubed Program January 20, 2010

Objectives 1. Provide context 2. Understand “grantsmanship” processes 3. Learn basic research activities 4. Inspire confidence, desire and participation in grant seeking 2

Questions  What’s your past experience in grants management activities?  What question do you have about grant applications or grant processes or grant awards? 3

Why proposals are important?  Fellowship $ support  They empower you to do your own research  They prove you: Have good ideas Can communicate those ideas Will be able to support your work IMPORTANT: Size doesn’t matter 4

Practice = Results 5

Road blocks 1. Fear of failure (If I don’t try, I can’t fail) Flip this around: What is the best predictor of success in writing grant proposals ? Number of times you submit average = 2.7 for NSF 6

Road Blocks 1. Fear of failure (If I don’t try, I can’t fail) 2. It’s too complicated and overwhelming 7

What’s the question you want the sponsor to ask? Will you MARRY ME? 8

What is a grant proposal? Tells an engaging “story” about an opportunity to fill a gap, eliminate a need, solve a problem, or research ways to do these things Presents business plan Denotes image Defines friends and partners Provides assessment of capacity 9

What is grants management? The effective administration and oversight of:  Researching  Matching to a specific grantmaker  Matching a dollar amount to a funder’s history  Learning about reviewers and priorities  Creating the best mental movie  Learning from declinations  Ensuring start-to-finish positive relationship 10

Grant writing is ….. the art and science of developing granting relationships with funder, by: 1) converting a mental image picture of a fundable project; 2) using words and financial information to hook the reviewer on the importance, legitimacy and creativity of the project and why it is a good investment for a specific sponsor; 3) requesting specific funds for specific purposes, to be used sometime in the future. 11

Know your sponsor AKA CUSTOMER Public Private Corporate 12

Public Sponsors Generally make larger awards Reliable for long-term Information available to public Established process, format, timetable Large staff Public meetings, training sessions Accountable to public officials Process is very time consuming Involves more reporting and evaluation Doesn’t generally take risks with new ideas Restrictions on use of funds 13

Private Sponsors Awards generally smaller Mostly fund one year projects Info not public Processes, proposal formats and timetables may or not be established Very few staff - sometimes no paid staff Most have policies that target local community Process is simpler and more flexible Reporting/evaluation requirements are lenient More likely to invest in new or innovative ideas Likely to be flexible: funding for various expenses 14

Corporate Sponsors Usually require “give” “get” agreements Foundations may behave as private corporations Funding for fund-raising events Funding for special events Funding for marketing Multiple “buckets” to choose from In-kind usually part of the package 15

Know the Sponsor What organizations or programs have been funded? What is the range of funding? What is the funder’s focus now? What was is it the past? What language does the funder use to describe funding practices/interests? How can you get a copy of what has been funded? Who can you talk to? What is their role? Are you ready to ask your questions? Who makes the decisions? What is the funder’s history within the community? How does the funder like to be treated? 16

Know Yourself Part I What are your positive attributes or assets 17

Know Yourself Part II What are your negative attributes or liabilities 18

Assessing Readiness What is the deadline? What is the grant period? Do you have enough time to prepare and package? Do you have enough information? Who needs to approve the proposal? What’s the cost/benefit analysis? Can you stay on mission if you get the award? How will this change the way you operate? Can you deliver expected results? What are the benefits if you don’t get funded? 19

Organizing the Process  Read the guidelines, especially evaluation criteria  Create your own checklist  Develop activities list  Develop timeline  Determine involvement to complete project  Determine cost  Decide whether or not to keep going  Request support letters  Finish narrative/other components  Submit to mentor/meet with Linda Isaacs in DSR  Edit; Edit; Edit  Submit proposal (either to DSR or to Sponsor) 20

Grant Stories Good, Bad, Ugly A. Beginnings B. In the middle C. Endings 21

FAQs in Grant Applications  Scientific merit?  Broader impacts?  Evaluation methods?  Timeline of activities?  Partners? 22

essential grant project components Partnerships and Partners 23

Making job easier for reviewers  Assume the reviewer is a generalist in your field, who knows little about your particular topic. Thus …  Job #1 is to convince them your idea is worthwhile. Paint the big picture first. Then, highlight how your project fits into the big picture.  Friendly formatting Follow exactly the order of sections requested Use different fonts to highlight important points State hypotheses (or goals) Explicitly link anticipated results to your hypotheses. Or, how will goals be assessed? Make sure you’ve addressed all criteria 24

Testing an Ecological Cost of Habitat Corridors: Spread of Invasive Species Background: As extensive tracks of habitat become fragmented, populations in the remaining habitat become isolated and increasingly vulnerable to extinction. A frequently touted solution is the creation or maintenance of habitat corridors – strips of habitat that connect otherwise isolated patches of the same habitat and that presumably increase animal movement between patches 1-3. Although corridors make intuitive sense, their actual effectiveness remains controversial 4,5. The controversy has arisen because: (1) studies frequently reach opposite conclusions 1, (2) the vast majority of studies are non-experimental, small-scale or poorly replicated 2, (3) confounding factors are often overlooked (e.g., the additional area and edge habitat that corridors inevitably bring with them) 1, and (4) corridors may facilitate the spread of invasive species 6. I will test the effectiveness of corridors in restoring communities of native ants in a highly threatened ecosystem, longleaf pine savanna. I am fortunate to be able to address or overcome many of the above problems and constraints of previous studies. Specifically ….. A novel twist The issue 25 NSF Graduate Research Fellowship J. Resasco - A

Testing an Ecological Cost of Habitat Corridors: Spread of Invasive Species Background: As extensive tracks of habitat become fragmented, populations in the remaining habitat become isolated and increasingly vulnerable to extinction. A frequently touted solution is the creation or maintenance of habitat corridors – strips of habitat that connect otherwise isolated patches of the same habitat and that presumably increase animal movement between patches 1-3. Although corridors make intuitive sense, their actual effectiveness remains controversial 4,5. The controversy has arisen because: (1) studies frequently reach opposite conclusions 1, (2) the vast majority of studies are non-experimental, small-scale or poorly replicated 2, (3) confounding factors are often overlooked (e.g., the additional area and edge habitat that corridors inevitably bring with them) 1, and (4) corridors may facilitate the spread of invasive species 6. I will test the effectiveness of corridors in restoring communities of native ants in a highly threatened ecosystem, longleaf pine savanna. I am fortunate to be able to address or overcome many of the above problems and constraints of previous studies. Specifically ….. A novel twist The issue The solution NSF Graduate Research Fellowship J. Resasco - B 26

Testing an Ecological Cost of Habitat Corridors: Spread of Invasive Species Background: As extensive tracks of habitat become fragmented, populations in the remaining habitat become isolated and increasingly vulnerable to extinction. A frequently touted solution is the creation or maintenance of habitat corridors – strips of habitat that connect otherwise isolated patches of the same habitat and that presumably increase animal movement between patches 1-3. Although corridors make intuitive sense, their actual effectiveness remains controversial 4,5. The controversy has arisen because: (1) studies frequently reach opposite conclusions 1, (2) the vast majority of studies are non-experimental, small-scale or poorly replicated 2, (3) confounding factors are often overlooked (e.g., the additional area and edge habitat that corridors inevitably bring with them) 1, and (4) corridors may facilitate the spread of invasive species 6. I will test the effectiveness of corridors in restoring communities of native ants in a highly threatened ecosystem, longleaf pine savanna. I am fortunate to be able to address or overcome many of the above problems and constraints of previous studies. Specifically ….. A novel twist The issue The contro- versy 27 NSF Graduate Research Fellowship J. Resasco - C The solution

Testing an Ecological Cost of Habitat Corridors: Spread of Invasive Species Background: As extensive tracks of habitat become fragmented, populations in the remaining habitat become isolated and increasingly vulnerable to extinction. A frequently touted solution is the creation or maintenance of habitat corridors – strips of habitat that connect otherwise isolated patches of the same habitat and that presumably increase animal movement between patches 1-3. Although corridors make intuitive sense, their actual effectiveness remains controversial 4,5. The controversy has arisen because: (1) studies frequently reach opposite conclusions 1, (2) the vast majority of studies are non-experimental, small-scale or poorly replicated 2, (3) confounding factors are often overlooked (e.g., the additional area and edge habitat that corridors inevitably bring with them) 1, and (4) corridors may facilitate the spread of invasive species 6. I will test the effectiveness of corridors in restoring communities of native ants in a highly threatened ecosystem, longleaf pine savanna. I am fortunate to be able to address or overcome many of the above problems and constraints of previous studies. Specifically ….. A novel twist The issue Statement of Purpose 28 NSF Graduate Research Fellowship J. Resasco - D The contro- versy The solution

Hypotheses: I hypothesize that (H1) Corridors will increase species richness of longleaf pine savanna ants. (H2) Corridors will increase abundance of S. invicta. (H3) S. invicta abundance will be negatively correlated with the species richness and abundance of native ants. (H4) Removal of S. invicta will increase the species richness and abundance of native ants. Methods: The experimental manipulation required for H 1-3 has already occurred. Testing these hypotheses now requires data on spatial and temporal variation in ant abundance. I will census ants…. To test H4, I will …. Analyses: Tests of H1 and H2 will employ the same Mixed Linear Model used in previous studies at this site 1-3, with landscape as a random effect and patch type and distance to edge as fixed effects. Species richness will be standardized via rarefaction. H3 will be tested via regression. H4 will be tested as a Before–After-Control– Impact (BACI) design. Clearly articulated hypotheses 29

Hypotheses: I hypothesize that (H1) Corridors will increase species richness of longleaf pine savanna ants. (H2) Corridors will increase abundance of S. invicta. (H3) S. invicta abundance will be negatively correlated with the species richness and abundance of native ants. (H4) Removal of S. invicta will increase the species richness and abundance of native ants. Methods: The experimental manipulation required for H 1-3 has already occurred. Testing these hypotheses now requires data on spatial and temporal variation in ant abundance. I will census ants…. To test H4, I will …. Analyses: Tests of H1 and H2 will employ the a Mixed Linear Model …. H3 will be tested via regression. H4 will be tested as a Before–After-Control–Impact (BACI) design. Clearly articulated hypotheses Methods and Analyses linked to Hypotheses 30

Broader Impacts: Many conservation plans simply assume that habitat corridors are effective 4. Data are sorely lacking. My project provides an opportunity to integrate straightforward tests of corridor theory with restoration of a highly threatened habitat. Likewise, invasive species are often blindly assumed to have detrimental effects on native species, but restoring native biodiversity may not be as simple as removing non-native species 10. My project will test the extent to which this is the case. Finally, the U.S. Forest Service is keenly interested in applying our results in their longleaf management plans at SRS -- I am already collaborating with them, attempting to bridge research and restoration. Apart from this project’s broader impacts on conservation, I believe ecologists have a responsibility to educate the general public about their work. Such outreach is especially critical for children and youth from groups under-represented in science. I will use this project to bring new material to my current and future outreach activities (STEP and SPICE, respectively; see Personal Statement). How this study fills a need in conservation Integration of theory and practice Novel twist Personal statement of conviction Specific plan and link to other part of application 31

Advice  Start small (but above all, start!)  Proposal writing is a skill, requiring practice  Don’t be afraid of failure  Seek mentoring  Follow directions  Know objectives of funding agency in mind  Put yourself in the shoes of a reviewer 32

Research Funding Opportunities ial-aid-bulletin-board.html ial-aid-bulletin-board.html

Homework 1. Choose 2 workshop videos 2. Watch videos/take notes 3. List questions about video content for future workshop agenda htm 34