“$how me the money”: funding opportunities in the usda joint meetings of aaea & rss july,...

“$HOW ME THE MONEY”: Funding Opportunities in the

USDA

Joint Meetings of AAEA & RSS

July, 2003

Montreal, Quebec

FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

The National Research InitiativeCompetitive Programs Unit

Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service


MARKETS AND TRADE PROGRAM

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

OTHER NRI PROGRAMS

Research programs

Integrated programs

OTHER USDA PROGRAMS


MARKETS AND TRADE PROGRAM

• Forces that affect competitiveness and sustainability of U.S. food, fiber, and bio-based products in domestic and/or international markets

• Implications of globalization . . .• Implications of U.S. and world trade policy, regulation, and

practices . . .• Effects of macroeconomic policy, industry structure, business

behavior, and/or changing consumer behavior . . .

. . . on U.S. food, fiber, and bio-based products and

the agricultural and rural sectors.


RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

• Forces and opportunities that affect rural places and the people who live there

• Implications of globalization for rural community viability and prosperity

• Consequences of structural changes in agriculture and their affect on rural communities and landscapes

• Rural development potential of agricultural and non-agricultural rural entrepreneurship


MARKETS AND TRADE, and

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

• Request for Applications (RFA) posted to CSREES website: www.reeusda.gov

• Click on “Funding Opportunities”• National Research Initiative FY2004 RFA (@

August 1, 2003)

http://www.reeusda.gov/




• FY2004 Proposals due in early December, 2003

• Funding ceiling will rise in FY2004• Awards are planned at $300-500K for 3-4

years




• Funding ceiling will rise in FY2004, but• Program budget not expected to increase • Problem-centered, rather than discipline-centered

– FY2003 applicants represented >20 disciplines

• Multidisciplinary approaches encouraged• Policy implications bonus• Practical implementation bonus




Patricia (Pat) C. Hipple, Ph.D.

National Program Leader and Program Director

• Phone: 202-401-2185• Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


ADDITIONAL NRI PROGRAMS• NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

• NUTRITION, FOOD SAFETY, and HEALTH

• ANIMALS

• BIOLOGY and MANAGEMENT of PESTS and BENEFITICAL ORGANISMS

• PLANTS

• ENHANCING VALUE and USE of AGRICULTURAL and FOREST PRODUCTS


NATURAL RESOURCES and the ENVIRONMENT

• Plants and Environmental Adaptation

• Managed Ecosystems

• Soils and Soil Biology

• Watershed Process and Water Resources


NUTRITION, FOOD SAFETY, AND HEALTH

• Improving Human Nutrition for Optimal Health

• Food Safety

• Epidemiological Approaches for Food Safety

• Food Safety Organized Research Unit


ANIMALS

• Animal Reproduction

• Animal Growth and Nutrient Utilization

• Animal Genomics

• Animal Genome Reagent and Tool Development

• Animal Protection


BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF PESTS AND BENEFICIAL ORGANISMS

• Integrative Biology of Arthropods and Nematodes

• Arthropod and Nematode Gateways to Biology and Genomics

• Biology of Plant-Microbe Associations

• Biology of Weedy Invasive Plants


PLANTS

• Plant Genome

• Genetic Processes and Mechanisms of Crop Plants

• Plant Translational Genomics Organized Research Unit

• Developmental Processes of Crop Plants

• Biochemistry of Plants and Plant Symbionts


ENHANCING VALUE and USE of AGRICULTURAL and FOREST PRODUCTS

• Improving Food Quality

• Biobased Products and Bioenergy Production Research

• Improved Utilization of Wood and Wood Fiber


NRI INTEGRATED PROGRAMS• AIR QUALITY• HUMAN NUTRITION AND OBESITY• ANIMAL BIOSECURITY• PLANT BIOSECURITY• HOMELAND SECURITY TRAINING • FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS OF

• Animals• Insects and Mites• Microbes• Plants


OTHER USDA/CSREES PROGRAMS• New Integrated Programs through the NRI

• 406 Integrated Programs– Biotechnology Risk Assessment

– National Integrated Food Safety Initiative

– Water Quality

– Pest Management

• SBIR – Small Business Innovation Research

• National Needs Graduate Fellowships

• Higher Education Challenge Grants


BEYOND CSREES

Economic Research Service (ERS)• Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program (FANRP)

– Workforce Attachment, Income Volatility, & Administrative Costs

– Food Assistance as a Safety Net

– Targeting High Needs Subgroups

– Eating Patterns, Food Choices, and Health Outcomes

– Nutrition Education: Public and Private Returns on Information


BEYOND CSREES

Rural Business-Cooperative Services (RBCS)• Value-Added Agricultural Marketing Development Grant• Agricultural Marketing Resource Center• Agriculture Innovation Center Demonstration Project• Rural Cooperative Development Grant• Research on Rural Cooperative Opportunities and Problems• Research on Cooperative Energy Alternatives• Unsolicited Cooperative Research Agreements

CAPACITY-BUILDING OPPORTUNITIES

COMPETITIVE PROGRAMS

• Serve as an Ad Hoc (External) Reviewer of Requests for Applications

• Serve as a Panel Member for Competitive Programs

• Serve as a Panel Manager for Competitive Programs

• Participate in USDA “Listening Sessions” to Develop Competitive Programs, Advise Research Directions, and Devise Requests for Application

• Rotational Service as USDA as an IPA, LOA, Chief Science Advisor, Chief Education Advisor, or Other

APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING

NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE

• REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS (RFA)

– Developed annually by the CSREES with input from stakeholders

• RFA is published

– In the Federal Register in late July, and

– Posted to the CSREES website by August 1



• Project Directors (formerly, Principal Investigators)

– Develop proposal of research in accordance with

» Accepted standards of discipline

» Specific NRI program goals

» Competitive program eligibility requirements

» Application constructions rules laid out in RFA (i.e., page length, formatting, form completion, etc.)



• National Program Leader and/or Panel Manager– Identify and invite prospective panel members

» Expertise and research experience to “cover” portfolio of applications

» Diverse representation by professional rank, geography, experience, minority-status

– Assign proposals for peer-review» 5-6 external (ad hoc) reviewers» 3 panelists

– Organize and conduct panel meeting» Panelists evaluate, discuss, and rank each proposal» Highest ranked proposals are funded » Make award recommendations and administer grants» Provide feedback and consultation on declined proposals



From release of RFA to issuance of awards and declines takes 1 year. If you have questions

during any part of this process, CONTACT the NPL!

Email address and telephone number of each responsible NPL is provided with each program

description in the RFA.



Prepare EARLY for submission by studying former RFAs and program descriptions.

Get a copy of a successful grant proposal!

Work CLOSELY with your Office of Contracts and Sponsored Programs!



• Review Process

• Evaluation Criteria

• Confidentiality

• Conflicts of Interest

• Awards

• Declines


Review Process Ground Rules

• Single-blind Process• Confidentiality• Conflicts of Interest• Diversity of Reviewers


Confidentiality

• Contents of any proposal

• Identity of panel members and reviewers

• Proceeding of panel meeting

• Contents of any review (outside panel & PI)


Conflicts of Interest

• Applicants identify all COIs in application

• Reviewers identify themselves as COIs and decline to review

• Panelist identify themselves as COIs and are sequestered and not allowed to participate in discussion, rating, ranking, and funding decisions


Conflicts of Interest continued

• Lifetime – graduate advisors/advisees

• Current – applications from same institution

• 4 years – former institutions, former co-authors, former research collaborators

• Other – if reviewer holds any financial stake in the outcome of a proposal


Review Process

• 5-6 external (ad hoc) reviewers

– critique between 1 and 3 proposals

– send written evaluations for use by panel

• 3 panel members

– Primary, secondary, reader

– Review and provide written or oral evaluations


Review Process continued

• Proposal and all written reviews presented as evidence in discussion

• Primary, secondary, and reader presentations

• Panel discusses, then rates proposal

• Before closing, panel provides relative ranking

• Team of Primary, Secondary, and Reader write panel summary

– Strengths

– Weaknesses

– Synthesis


Review Process continued

• Speed and Fatigue

– Discussion & ranking are thorough but very fast

– 120 proposals permits only 10-20 minutes for discussion

» Review 35 proposals each day of panel

– Fast pace tends to punish vague or bland writing styles

– Exciting, unique, well-written, feasible proposals can be quickly identified


Evaluation Criteria• Scientific merit

– Novelty, uniqueness, originality

– Conceptual adequacy (hypotheses or research questions)

– Clearly delineated objectives

– Good description of undertaking

– Suitability of methods

– Feasibility demonstrated through preliminary data or other work

– Probability of success


Evaluation Criteria continued• Capacity of personnel and institution

– Experience indicated in vita

– Appropriate collaboration

– Facilities and support to be successful

• Relevance and importance of project

– To U.S. agriculture or rural well-being

– As appropriate investment of public funds

– Likely to make a significant contribution to knowledge


Evaluation Criteria continued• Substance

– Timely, important topic

– Creative approach to problem

– Superior description of problem, literature, research design and methods, analysis, expected outcomes, and dissemination plan.

• Presentation

– Easy to read

– Stellar project summary

– Formatting compliance

– Well-edited


Evaluation Score & Rank

• Rating or Score

– Outstanding

– Very Good

– Good

– Fair

– Poor

• Ranking– Outstanding– High Priority– Medium Priority– Low Priority– Some Merit– Do Not Fund

• Relative Ranking


Awards and Declines

• Awards

– Telephone call

– Fax of panel summary, reviews, and relative ranking

– Exchange of required documents (budget & design revisions)

– Processing of awards

• Declines

– Email and/or letter with decision and panel summary, reviews, and relative ranking

– Decisions regarding future resubmission


Award Follow-up

• Annual Progress Reports• Final Report• Other

• PD Transfers• No-cost Extensions• Voluntary Service


Decline Follow-up

• Understand Relative Ranking• Fundable rankings are “Outstanding”, “High

Priority”, and “Medium Priority”• Limited budget precludes awards to all ranked as

fundable• Non-fundable rankings are “Low Priority”, “Some

Merit”, and “Do Not Fund”


Decline Follow-up

• M&T 119 proposals $16.1 M $1.8 M

• RD 76 proposals $11.9 M $1.6 M


Decline Follow-up• Prepare for resubmission, if appropriate

• Resubmission of proposals ranked “Fundable” is strongly encouraged

• Recommendations and guidance for submission of proposals ranked Low Priority or Some Merit will be indicated in Panel Summary

• Do Not Fund = Do not resubmit


Decline Follow-up• Rationales for Do Not Fund

• NOT a good fit with goals of program• NOT a good investment of public research dollars• Resubmission that totally ignored previous reviews• Fatal flaws that could not be redeemed • Disqualification for egregious breach of submission

rules


SUCCESSFUL NRI PROPOSALS

• Excited the reviewers• Were easy to read and understand• Contained:

• Clear objectives and rationale that fit with program goals• Clear hypotheses or research questions• Appropriate review of literature• Detailed methods, sample selection, survey instruments or example of questions• Detailed description of secondary data, shortcomings of data, and amelioration plans• Discussion of expected outcomes• Good dissemination plan• Well-communicated importance of topic and potential contributions of research

• Were reviewed and edited by colleagues before submission• Followed the submission rules



Types of Proposals• Standard Research Proposals

• Conferences

• Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards (AREA)• New Investigator Awards• Postdoctoral Fellowships • Seed Grants• Equipment Grants• Research Career Enhancement Awards (RCEA)• Standard Strengthening Awards

Note eligibility requirements for each type

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

• Where is the science heading?

• What directions should we take the science?

• What should be the 3 top priorities for future Markets and Trade research?

• What should be the 3 top priorities for future Rural Development research?




Patricia (Pat) C. Hipple, Ph.D.

National Program Leader and Program Director

• Phone: 202-401-2185• Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

“$how me the money”: funding opportunities in the usda joint meetings of aaea & rss july,...

Documents

rural communities

rural sectors

rural places

trade programforces

rural community viability

world trade policy

use of agricultural

management of pests