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 !