Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byMyron Skinner Modified over 8 years ago
1
Cindy Fitch, Ph.D., RD Director, Families and Health Programs Extension Associate Professor, West Virginia University Mark Poth, PhD Division Director – Sustainable Bioenergy National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA
2
OSTP = the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Interagency Working Groups – coordination of who will do what on national issues Starting point for interagency activities and joint programs Critical for future formulations of the President’s budget
3
State Liaison/Plan of Work reviews Hatch Multistate Project Director Meetings All funded investigators meet annually May be in Washington or at a national scientific meeting Portfolio reviews Includes progress on issues across programs Can include external review of progress
4
Congressional questions and controlled correspondence OMB (White House Office of Management and Budget) budget cross cuts OBPA (USDA Office of Budget and Program Assessment) budget cross cuts
5
NAREEEAB – the National Agricultural Research Education, Economics and Extension Advisory Board Energy Council (USDA and DOE) Biomass Research and Development Advisory Board APLU NRC Many others
6
Grantsmanship workshops Scientific meetings Authoring publications Initiating highlights and press releases
7
To insure that competition is fair, RFA development is an inherently federal responsibility Teams of NPLs write the RFA Some NPLs responsible for up to 4 panels and RFAs Conflicts of interest will be avoided throughout the approval chain For those programs not strictly defined by legislation the RFA team will typically develop a logic model
8
Legislative boundaries must be followed Stakeholder input including all advisory boards, congressional language (managers notes), Scientific Societies, APLU, NGOs, etc. Must adhere to the agency mission as defined in USDA, REE and NIFA Strategic plans NPLs determine priorities, review criteria, submission requirements Weigh the opportunities, program scope and burden on the applicant community
9
RFA is reviewed by the NIFA Science Board RFA is reviewed by NIFA policy staff May also need review by the USDA Office of General Council RFA is reviewed by the Office of the Chief Scientist (REE Undersecretary) RFA is reviewed by the Secretary’s office Once approved due dates are set and the RFA is Posted to Grants.gov
10
NPL responds to inquiries from potential applicants Emails Phone Calls Other NPL responds to Congressional Support Letters (not shared with panel) NPL recruits Panel Manager
11
NPL responds to inquiries from potential applicants Panel Manager is hired on a part time basis by NIFA Qualifications of Panel Manager Reviewed by the Division Director / approved / hired Panel Manager Active in the field Panel experience
12
NPL and Panel Manager recruit the panel which must be diverse Geographically Type of institution (1862, 1890, MSI, Fed, etc.) Career stage (not all full professors!) Research or Education or Extension expertise Needed fields of science
13
NPL and Panel Manager review the Letters of Intent Used to recruit panelists appropriate for the scope and # of applications Panel composition must be approved by the Division Director and Assistant Director Once applications are submitted at least 3 panelists are assigned to each application Avoiding all conflicts of interest
14
Panel travels to Washington (NIFA makes arrangements and pays for travel) Panelist will have completed their reviews and entered them into the peer review system before coming to Washington All content aspects of the panel meeting and the applications are confidential NPL and Panel Manager oversee a fair process and offer no opinions on the merits of any application
15
Cindy Fitch, Ph.D., RD
16
Panel members understand your discipline False – panel members come from a variety of disciplines. Write your proposal so that it is clear to your grandmother.
17
Panel members are paid by the USDA to review grant proposals. False – panel members get a small honorarium but volunteer the bulk of their time. They read the proposals on nights, weekends, and early mornings. Make them easy to read. They may need to read 15+ proposals and write their evaluations. Be organized, thorough, but succinct.
18
Invited to serve on a specific panel; register for access on line Sent list of proposal titles and investigator names to identify COI Select proposals that we would like to review based on interest and experience (not guaranteed)
19
Proposals are assigned to reviewers – primary, secondary, and tertiary Reviewers read and complete evaluation based on guidelines Submit reviews on-line by the deadline NPL and panel manager read reviews Need for ad hoc review Eligible for triage
20
Is the submission compliant with instructions? Is the objective clear? Is the methodology appropriate to meet the objective? Is the literature review current and thorough? Is the budget and timeline realistic for the proposed project?
21
Is the outreach or educational piece integral to the project or an afterthought? Are their objectives and outcome measures related to the outreach or educational piece? Is dissemination more than just report at professional meetings and publish in peer- reviewed journals?
22
Proposals are triaged and may be eliminated from further review Primary reviewer presents the proposal Discussion among panel (but sometimes only the reviewers have read the proposal) Proposal placed on scale (excellent to poor) Primary reviewer writes summary of panel discussion for the investigator
23
Proposals are ranked for possible funding Discussion may become animated! Do we give preference to innovative ideas or those that are proven effective? Do we support successful researchers or those who are at the beginning of their work? Life in the Real World – there are more great proposals than dollars to fund them.
24
Mark Poth, Ph.D.
25
NPL and Panel Manger prepare funding report Shows highest ranked applications in order For each application- funding requested and funding to be awarded Use of funds in set aside categories (AFRI Strengthening) Options for the application at the end of the funding list (partial funding?)
26
Funding report reviewed at a meeting with the Assistant Director and Division director Usually includes Panel Manager (may participate by phone) Reviewed for Scope of the funded work (what are we funding?) Funds from correct source (research? Integrated? set aside?) Problems (scientific misconduct)
27
Declines Notified and reviews sent Awards called and reviews sent Begin collecting needed materials (CRIS reports, IRB approvals, NEPA, etc.) Timing of award (start date and award window) Application is recommended for funding by NPL Completed file moves to the office of Grants and Financial Management for two more approvals for funding
28
Award completed and funds available NPL approves any budget modifications as project progresses NPL approves no cost extensions NPL evaluates progress on continuation grants NPL looks for accomplishments to communicate to Under Secretary, Secretary, White House, Congress, others Time to begin RFA and panel process again !
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.