Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar Validation Grants Competition Overview May 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please.

Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar Validation Grants Competition Overview May 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official documents published in the Federal Register.

General Information A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document is available on the i3 website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/faq.html.http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/faq.html This document addresses many questions that applicants have asked previously. The Department may update it throughout the competition with questions that applicants submit that are of general applicability. The Department is unable to address applicant-specific questions at any time during the competition. The Department will hold a live webinar session on May 14, 2013 at 2 PM EDT to address applicant questions related to the information presented today. If you have questions prior to that date, please send them to i3@ed.gov.i3@ed.gov

Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2012 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing

Overview of the i3 Grant Program Purpose To generate and validate solutions to persistent educational challenges and to support the expansion of effective solutions across the country and to serve substantially larger numbers of students. Funding $135 million (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2013.

Overview of the i3 Grant Program Eligibility Requirements Applicants Eligible applicants are: (1)Local educational agencies (LEAs) (2)non-profit organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools To provide competitive grants to applicants with a record of improving student achievement, attainment or retention in order to expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on: Improving student achievement or student growth; Closing achievement gaps; Decreasing dropout rates; Increasing high school graduation rates; or Increasing college enrollment and completion rates

What Makes i3 Different? Builds portfolio of different solutions to address key challenges; Aligns amount of funding with level of evidence; Aims explicitly to scale effective programs by creating a pipeline of funding for effective programs; and Provides funding for required independent evaluation in order to build a common understanding of “what works.”

i3 Development Validation Scale-up Types of Awards Available Under i3 *$135M (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2013

Cautions from First Three Competitions SUBMIT EARLY – The deadline for applications is Tuesday, July 2 nd at 4:30:00pm (Washington, DC time). We will reject applications submitted after the deadline, and some applicants find it takes longer than anticipated to submit in Grants.gov.Grants.gov WRITE CLEARLY – Peer reviewers can only judge your application based on what you tell them, clearly and comprehensively, in your application. UNDERSTAND ELIGIBILITY – We will declare applicants ineligible for funding if they do not meet all of the eligibility requirements. READ THE NOTICES and FAQs, UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS, AND PLAN AHEAD

Major Changes from 2012 In the i3 Notice of Final Priorities (the 2013 i3 NFP) published on March 27, 2013, the Department redesigned key aspects of the i3 program to increase the program’s impact.i3 Notice of Final Priorities Structure of priorities remains similar but priority language is more focused Includes many of the same broad priority areas (e.g., teacher and principal effectiveness); Maintains flexibility to select different priorities for each grant competition; Creates specific sub-parts to reflect needs in the field; and Strengthens rural priority. Proposed requirements better reflect actual expectations for grantees Strengthens focus on high-need students; Strengthens focus on K-12; and Tightens focus of grantee evaluation on impact.

Major Changes from 2012 (cont’d) Revised evidence standards and definitions so that applicants can better understand what is required to meet each level of evidence Modified the process for applicants to secure, and demonstrate evidence of, the required private-sector match. Applicants must secure a percentage of their Federal grant awards but the timeframe has been expanded. Highest-rated applicants must submit evidence of 50% of the required private-sector match prior to the awarding of an i3 grant. Evidence of the remaining 50% of the required private-sector match must be provided no later than six months after the project start date (i.e., 6 months after January 1, 2014, or by July 1, 2014).

MUST All Eligible Applicants Must Implement Practices, Strategies, or Programs for High-Need Students High-need student means a student at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools (as defined in the NFP), who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English learners. Note: To be eligible for an i3 award, an applicant must identify how the proposed project serves high-need student populations. However, while the definition provides examples of high-need students, it does not attempt to define all possible populations. Applicants must identify how their project serves high-need students.

i3 Has Two Types of Eligible Applicants 1)A local educational agency (LEA) and 2)A non-profit organization in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools There is no competitive advantage to applying as one type of applicant or the other, but an applicant must meet the relevant eligibility requirements.

Understanding Partnerships and Eligibility If you apply as… An LEA…A partnership… The LEA that is the lead applicant must have a record of improvement (defined on the next slide). There may not be any subgrants. Partners may receive funding through contractual arrangements, or participate in other ways. A non-profit that is part of the partnership must have a record of improvement (defined on the next slide). Any LEA or school in the consortium, or the non- profit with a record of improvement, can be the lead applicant. Sub-granting is allowed, but only to LEAs or schools in the consortium, or to non-profits that have a record of improvement. Partners may receive funding through contractual arrangements, or participate in other ways.

Some Eligibility Requirements Differ Based on Type of Applicant An LEA must: Demonstrate that it: (1) Significantly closed achievement gaps between groups of students; or (2) demonstrated success in significantly increasing academic achievement for all groups of students; Made significant improvement in other areas; and Establish partnerships with private sector. A partnership must: Demonstrate that the non-profit organization has a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention through its record of work with an LEA or schools.

Some Eligibility Requirements All applicants must: 1.Address one absolute priority and subpart. 2.Meet the evidence requirement 3.Secure commitment for required private sector match – for Validation grantees– 10% of the federal award.

Notes on Eligibility Requirements Applicants should fully address all eligibility requirements in the application. IMPORTANT: Applicants that do not sufficiently address the eligibility requirements in the application will not be able to supplement their original application with additional information to meet the requirements if they are deemed ineligible.

i3 Evidence Requirements All applications must meet the evidence requirement for the type of grant they are seeking. Applications that do not meet the evidence requirement will not be eligible for a grant award, regardless of scores on the selection criteria. If an application does not meet the “evidence standard” of the grant type under which it was submitted, it will not be considered for a different type of i3 grant. An applicant must either ensure that all evidence is available to the Department from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance indicating where it is available; or, in the application, include copies of evidence in Appendix D.

i3 Evidence Standards Validation Scale-up Note: Greyed-out cells indicate criteria on which the updated standards are silent. *See What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19 Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2

Validation Grant Evidence Requirements To be eligible for an award, an application for a Validation grant must be supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness. An applicant should identify up to two study citations to be reviewed against WWC Evidence Standards for the purposes of meeting the i3 evidence standard requirement. An applicant should clearly identify these citations in Appendix D, under the “Other Attachments Form,” of its application. The Department will not review a study citation that an applicant fails to clearly identify for review.

i3 Validation Priorities Required for all applications Improve Achievement for High-Need Students Must address one absolute priority Teacher or Principal Effectiveness Improving STEM Education English Learners Effective Use of Technology Improving Rural Achievement

i3 2013 Priority Structure and Subparts The i3 Validation Notice Inviting Applications (the NIA) was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2013. An applicant for a Validation grant must choose one of the five absolute priorities and one of the subparts under the chosen priority to address in their application. Applicants for Validation grants, who choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority and subpart.

Absolute Priority 1: Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas: a)Developing and implementing models of induction and support for improving the knowledge and skills of novice teachers or novice principals to accelerate student performance, including but not limited to strategies designed to increase teacher retention or improve teacher or principal effectiveness. Or b)Extending highly effective teachers’ reach to serve more students, including strategies such as new course designs, staffing models, technology platforms, or new opportunities for collaboration that allow highly effective teachers to reach more students, or approaches or tools that reduce administrative and other burden while maintaining or improving effectiveness. Encouraging applicants to identify effective methods for supporting, evaluating, or retaining effective teachers or principals.

Absolute Priority 2: Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas: a)Developing and implementing new methods and resources for recruiting individuals with content expertise in STEM subject areas into teaching. Or b)Increasing the high-quality preparation of, or professional development for, teachers or other educators in STEM subjects, through activities that include building content and pedagogical content knowledge. Focusing on recruiting individuals with content expertise in STEM into teaching roles in public schools and on increasing the high-quality preparation or professional development for teachers or educators in STEM subjects.

Absolute Priority 3: Improving Academic Outcomes for English Learners Applicants must address the following subpart area: a)Increasing the number and proportion of ELs successfully completing courses in core academic subjects by developing, implementing, and evaluating new instructional approaches and tools that are sensitive to the language demands necessary to access challenging content, including technology- based tools. Ensuring that students who cannot speak, read, or write English well enough to participate meaningfully in educational programs to achieve the academic outcomes of which they are capable.

Absolute Priority 4: Effective Use of Technology Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas: (a)Providing students and teachers with equitable “anytime, anywhere” access to learning materials and experiences, such as rigorous coursework that is not offered in a particular school, or effective professional development activities or learning communities enabled by technology. Or b)Developing new methods and resources for teacher preparation or professional development that increase teachers’ abilities to utilize technology to enhance their knowledge and skills to improve student achievement and to close achievement gaps. Supporting projects that use online tools to provide customized instruction for different learners, and continuous feedback, or to produce high-quality learning resources that can reach learners wherever and whenever needed.

Absolute Priority 4: Effective Use of Technology (cont’d) Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas: Or (c) Integrating technology with the implementation of rigorous college- and career-ready standards to increase student achievement, student engagement, and teacher efficacy, such as by providing embedded, real-time assessment and feedback to students and teachers. Supporting projects that use online tools to provide customized instruction for different learners, and continuous feedback, or to produce high-quality learning resources that can reach learners wherever and whenever needed.

Absolute Priority 5: Serving Rural Communities Applicants must address the following subpart area: (a)Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing one of the absolute priorities established for the 2013 Validation i3 competition and under which the majority of students to be served are enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in the NIA). Addressing the plethora of challenges that rural communities face as they work to provide a high-quality education for all students.

Notes on Absolute Priority 5: Improving Rural Achievement Please note that applicants that choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority and subpart. The peer-reviewed scores for applications submitted under the Serving Rural Communities priority will be ranked with other applications under this priority, and not included in the ranking for the additional priority that they identified. This design helps to ensure that applicants under the Serving Rural Communities priority receive an “apples to apples” comparison with other rural applicants.

Competitive and Invitational Priorities Competitive Preference Priorities (CPPs) Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective Practices Supporting Novice i3 Applicants Invitational Priority Supporting High-Quality Early Learning

Competitive and Invitational Priorities CPP1: Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity Under this priority, projects must address one of the following areas: a)Substantially improving student outcomes without commensurately increasing per-student costs. b)Maintaining student outcomes while substantially decreasing per-student costs. c)Substantially improving student outcomes while substantially decreasing per-student costs.

Other requirements related to CPP1 An application addressing this priority must provide-- (1) A clear and coherent budget that identifies expected student outcomes before and after the practice, the cost per student for the practice, and a clear calculation of the cost per student served; (2) A compelling discussion of the expected cost-effectiveness of the practice compared with alternative practices; (3) A clear delineation of one-time costs versus ongoing costs and a plan for sustaining the project, particularly ongoing costs, after the expiration of i3 funding; (4) Identification of specific activities designed to increase substantially the cost- effectiveness of the practice, such as re-designing costly components of the practice (while maintaining efficacy) or testing multiple versions of the practice in order to identify the most cost-effective approach; and (5) A project evaluation that addresses the cost-effectiveness of the proposed practice.

Competitive and Invitational Priorities CPP2: Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective Practices Under this priority, applicants must: a)Identify the practice or practices that the application proposes to prepare for broad adoption, including formalizing the practice (i.e., establish and define key elements of the practice), codifying (i.e., develop a guide or tools to support the dissemination of information on key elements of the practice), and explaining why there is a need for formalization and codification. b)Evaluate different forms of the practice to identify the critical components of the practice that are crucial to its success and sustainability, including the adaptability of critical components to different teaching and learning environments and to diverse learners. c)Provide a coherent and comprehensive plan for developing materials, training, toolkits, or other supports that other entities would need in order to implement the practice effectively and with fidelity. d)Commit to assessing the replicability and adaptability of the practice by supporting the implementation of the practice in a variety of locations during the project period using the materials, training, toolkits, or other supports that were developed for the i3-supported practice.

Competitive and Invitational Priorities CPP 3: Supporting Novice i3 Applicants To expand the reach of the i3 program and encourage entities that have not applied previously for an i3 grant. Novice applicants have never directly received a grant under the i3 program.

Competitive and Invitational Priorities Invitational Priority: Supporting High-Quality Early Learning The Secretary encourages applicants to propose projects that incorporate high-quality early learning components that are aligned with the early learning, elementary and secondary education systems in participating schools and help ensure that all children, especially those from low-income families, enter kindergarten and ready to succeed. Note: Applicants addressing this invitational priority will not receive additional points.

Notes on i3 Selection Criteria and Points The selection criteria are the criteria against which the peer reviewers score each application. The Department selects grantees based on peer reviewer scores, so clearly addressing the selection criteria is critical. Detailed wording for each selection criterion may be found in the Notices at the i3 website: http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html. http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html

Selection Criteria Point Allocation A. Significance B. Quality of the Project Design C. Quality of the Management Plan D. Personnel E. Quality of Project Evaluation Total Points 20 points 10 points 30 points 100 points i3 Selection Criteria and Points

Validation Selection Criterion: A. Significance Estimated Impact and Scale National Expansion 1)The likelihood that the project will have the estimated impact, including the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that unmet demand for the proposed project or the proposed services will enable the applicant to reach the proposed level of scale. 2)The feasibility of national expansion if favorable outcomes are achieved.

Notes on Validation Selection Criterion: A. Significance Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: How the proposed project will address unmet demands and enable the applicant to reach the proposed level of scale. How the applicant will ensure future scaling given positive results.

Validation Selection Criterion: B. Quality of the Project Design Addressing National Need and Absolute Priority Clarity of Goals and Strategies 1)The extent to which the proposed project addresses the national need and priorities the applicant is seeking to meet. 2)The extent to which the proposed project has a clear set of goals and an explicit plan or actions to achieve the goals, including identification of any elements of the project logic model that require further testing or development. 3)The extent to which the applicant will use grant funds to address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant, in the past, from reaching the level of scale proposed in the application. Addressing Barriers to Scaling

Notes on Validation Selection Criterion: B. Quality of the Project Design Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: The unmet needs within the context of the absolute priority, and the barriers to scaling and how the proposed project will address and overcome these barriers.

Validation Selection Criterion: C. Quality of the Management Plan Key Responsibilities and Objectives Clarity of Applicant’s Model and Operational Plan 1)The extent to which the management plan articulates key responsibilities and well-defined objectives, including the timelines and milestones for completion of major project activities, the metrics that will be used to assess progress on an ongoing basis, and annual performance targets the applicant will use to monitor whether the project is achieving its goals. 2)The clarity and coherence of the applicant’s multi-year financial and operating model and accompanying plan to operate the project at a national or regional level (as defined in the NIA) during the project period.

Notes on Validation Selection Criterion: C. Quality of the Management Plan Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: How the project team will evaluate the success or challenges of the project and use that feedback to make improvements to the project. How the project team will achieve expanding the project to the national or regional level by the end of the grant.

Validation Selection Criterion: D. Personnel Adequacy of the Project’s Staffing Plan Qualifications of Project Director and Key Personnel 1)The adequacy of the project’s staffing plan, particularly for the first year of the project, including the identification of the project director and, in the case of projects with unfilled key personnel positions at the beginning of the project, that the staffing plan identifies how critical work will proceed. 2)The qualifications and experience of the project director and other key project personnel and the extent to which they have the expertise to accomplish the proposed tasks.

Notes on Validation Selection Criterion: D. Personnel Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: The staffing plan and key personnel positions for the project, especially for the first year. How the project team’s prior experiences have prepared them for implementing the proposed project successfully.

Validation Selection Criterion: E. Quality of Project Evaluation Clarity of Questions and Appropriateness of Methods 1)The clarity and importance of the key questions to be addressed by the project evaluation, and the appropriateness of the methods for how each question will be addressed. 2)The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project’s effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards without reservations. 3)The extent to which the evaluation will study the project at the proposed level of scale, including, where appropriate, generating information about potential differential effectiveness of the project in diverse settings and for diverse student population groups. Studies Project at Proposed Level of Scale Evidence of Effectiveness

Validation Selection Criterion: E. Quality of Project Evaluation Clear and Credible Analysis Plan Clearly Articulates Key Components and Outcomes 4)The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a clear and credible analysis plan, including a proposed sample size and minimum detectable effect size that aligns with the expected project impact, and an analytic approach for addressing the research questions. 5)The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key components and outcomes of the project, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.

Notes on Validation Selection Criterion: E. Quality of Project Evaluation Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: The key evaluation questions and address how the proposed evaluation methodologies will allow the project to answer those questions. These methods for evaluation should include whether the evaluation would meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards. How the project will be evaluated at the proposed scale, including a description of the proposed sample size and project impacts as well as the key components of the proposed project for implementation.

Key Requirements That Must Be Met Before an Award Is Made The Department, before awarding i3 grants, will confirm that all eligibility requirements have been met by potential grantees, including that applicants: Address one absolute priority; Implement practices that serve high-need students; Implement practices that serve students in grades K-12; Be supported by evidence; Demonstrate evidence of prior improvement (different requirements for LEA vs. non-profit (partnership) applicants); and Provide evidence of at least 50% of the private-sector match.

Explanation of Limits on Grant Awards Award Cap No grantee may receive more than two grant awards or more than $23 million in grant awards under this program in FY2013. Additionally, no grantee may receive more than one Scale-up or Validation grant in any two-year period. Award Cap No grantee may receive more than two grant awards or more than $23 million in grant awards under this program in FY2013. Additionally, no grantee may receive more than one Scale-up or Validation grant in any two-year period. Allowable Examples Scale-up ($20M) + Development ($3M) Validation ($12M) + Development ($3M) 2 Development ($3M each) Scale-up in 2012 + Development in 2013 Allowable Examples Scale-up ($20M) + Development ($3M) Validation ($12M) + Development ($3M) 2 Development ($3M each) Scale-up in 2012 + Development in 2013 Unallowable Examples 2 Scale-up or Validation Scale-up + Validation Scale-up in 2012 + Validation in 2013 3 Development ($3M each) Unallowable Examples 2 Scale-up or Validation Scale-up + Validation Scale-up in 2012 + Validation in 2013 3 Development ($3M each) Notes: Applicants with more than 2 highest-rated applications may select which 2 applications receive awards The i3 award cap applies to the applicant; official partners and other partners may participate in more than 2 successful applications 2012 Scale-up or Validation grantees may receive up to 2 Development grants in 2013 Notes: Applicants with more than 2 highest-rated applications may select which 2 applications receive awards The i3 award cap applies to the applicant; official partners and other partners may participate in more than 2 successful applications 2012 Scale-up or Validation grantees may receive up to 2 Development grants in 2013

MUST Post Award Requirements All Grantees Must: Submit evidence of the remaining 50% of the required private-sector match no later than six months after the project start date (January 1, 2014). Conduct an independent project evaluation. Cooperate with technical assistance provided by the Department or its contractors. Share broadly the results of any evaluation. Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for the i3 program. Provide the Department, within 100 days of grant award, an updated evaluation plan and management plan.

Parts of a Complete Application Part A  ED Abstract Narrative Form  Project Narrative Form Responses to the Selection Criteria  Budget Narrative Form ED form 524 C Eligible applicants must also provide a detailed budget narrative that describes their proposed multi-year project activities and the costs associated with those activities as well as all costs associated with carrying out the project.  Other Attachments Form Upload appendices here Part B ED Standard Forms  Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424)  Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424  Department of Education Budget Summary Form (ED 524) Sections A & B  Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) Assurances/Certifications  GEPA Section 427  Assurances – Non- Construction Programs (SF 424B)  Grants.gov Lobby Form (formerly ED 80-0013 form) i3 Program Forms  Eligibility Checklist for LEA Applicants  Eligibility Checklist for Partnership Applicants  i3 Applicant Information Sheet (http://www2.ed.gov/program s/innovation/applicant.html)http://www2.ed.gov/program s/innovation/applicant.html

Completing the Applicant Information Sheet Applicants must download this form, which provides information that is crucial for the peer review process, from the i3 website and submit it with their application. In previous years, applicants have failed to submit this form or have submitted it in an unusable format, which impedes peer review. To complete this form: 1.Download it from the i3 website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/applicant.html http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/applicant.html 2.Complete the form in Adobe Acrobat 3.Save the form in Adobe Acrobat as a PDF 4.Upload the PDF to the Other Attachments Form of the application DO NOT: Print the form, complete it, and scan it as a PDF; Save the form in any format other than PDF; Forget to include this form; Merge it with other appendices.

Registering for Grants.gov Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov site (www.Grants.gov).www.Grants.gov In order to apply for an i3 grant, you must complete the Grants.gov registration process. Go to the “Get Registered” link on the left hand side of the Grants.gov homepage. There will be a tutorial on this page that instructs applicants on how to complete the registration process. The registration process can take between three to five business days (or as long as four weeks if all steps are not completed in a timely manner). Ensure that your organization is registered and/or up-to-date in the System for Award Management (SAM). If your organization is not registered within SAM, an authorizing official of your organization must register. This registration may take up to two weeks. Please register early!

Applying Through Grants.gov To apply for an i3 grant, go to the “Apply for Grants” link on the left hand side of the Grants.gov homepage. Next, follow the step-by-step application instructions. The CFDA number you will enter for Step 1 is 84.411. If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1- 800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and keep a record of it. You can also contact them via email at support@grants.gov. support@grants.gov

Other Important Resources Investing in Innovation Fund Website: (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html)http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html Notice Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria Notice Inviting Applications Application Package (includes the Notice Inviting Applications) i3 Applicant Information Sheet Frequently Asked Questions Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official Notice in the Federal Register. All questions about i3 should be sent to i3@ed.govi3@ed.gov

Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar Validation Grants Competition Overview May 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar Validation Grants Competition Overview May 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar Validation Grants Competition Overview May 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar Validation Grants Competition Overview May 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback