Toolkit for Finding Grants: Elements for a Successful Grant Search Office of Sponsored Programs Raubinger Hall, Room 309 William Paterson University November 2015

The Office of Sponsored Programs  Primary Focus:  Proposals to government agencies, public charities and professional/scholarly organizations  Support for research, teaching, community service, public programs, creative endeavors, conferences, other  Three Major Areas of Activity:  Pre-Award Services & Resources  Post-Award Services & Support  Compliance

Pre-award Services & Resources  Training by WPU and outside experts  Idea and project development  Funder identification  Proposal preparation guidance/assistance, institutional review, submission  Publications:  Web site  Funding Opportunity Announcement s  Support and encouragement:  University Research & Scholarship “Day”  Conferences, meetings with funding agencies

Step 1: Idea Development Develop terms that describe your project ▫Keywords related to your topic, area of interest ▫Outcomes ▫Type of activity ▫Location of activity ▫Who is involved in the activity ▫Necessary/obvious expenses ▫Facility or equipment needed to support activity ▫Scale of project

Database searches using your terms ▫PIVOTPIVOT ▫GrantSearchGrantSearch ▫Grants.GovGrants.Gov Other sources of information ▫Professional associations, conferences ▫ListServs, announcements ▫Grants Resource Center (GRC)Grants Resource Center (GRC) ▫Agencies related to your discipline or idea Step 2: Hunt!

Talk through your ideas and potential funders with others, unit leaders, OSP Study the sponsor and opportunity Contact the Program Officer  introduction then conference call Gather support materials  People/advisors  Sample winning proposals  Sponsor guides and “how to” materials Step 3: Confirm Your Findings

Review Criteria: Content  The first and most important review issue is Intellectual Quality/Merit/Significance:  How will the project advance “knowledge and understanding in its own field or across different fields?” (NSF)  Does it “address an important problem?” & “How will scientific knowledge or practice be advanced?” (NIH)  ”Is it “broadly conceived, based on sound scholarship, and appropriately analytical?” (NEH)  ” The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.” (US Dept of Education)

Review Criteria: Content  The second most important review issue is Potential Broader Impact  On project participants (you, others; direct, indirect)?  On the service/support environment/infrastructure of your project, department, the University?  Of the data or insights to be produced?  Of how others will use the outcomes?  Dissemination  How will your project inform others doing similar work?

Review Criteria: Technical  Was a Letter of Intent or Preliminary Proposal Required?  Forms: Cover sheet, summaries, assurances  Format: Length, margins, font size, attachments  Organization: Specific sections in specific order  Special Requirements: Human Subjects, ADA  Letters of Commitment: Partners, Evaluators  THESE ARE EASY EXCUSES TO REJECT PROPOSALS

General Tips for Success 1.Follow the directions/answer their questions 2.Talk to the Program Officer 3.Fulfill their review criteria 4.Ask for what you need 5.Be thorough in describing the project 6.Do not do the project or writing alone 7.Schedule time to write 8.Start early to insure there is enough time 9.Everything must “fit together”:

Contact Information Staff:  Martin Williams, DirectorEXT 3263  TBH, Assistant Director, Pre-Award ServicesEXT 3794  Maureen Peters, Program AssistantEXT 2852  Maria Slump, Post Award Coordinator EXT 3895  Stephen Hahn, Associate ProvostEXT 2565 Office  Raubinger Hall 309  Fax: Webpage: