Presentation on theme: "International Environmental Health Conference Presented by: John S. Petterson, Ph.D. Director, Sequoia Foundation Sponsored by: Shanghai Health Bureau."— Presentation transcript:
International Environmental Health Conference Presented by: John S. Petterson, Ph.D. Director, Sequoia Foundation Sponsored by: Shanghai Health Bureau Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control & Prevention California Department of Health Services Environmental Health Investigations Branch National Institutes of Health, Fogarty International Program Sequoia Foundation Shanghai, People’s Republic of China April 6-8, 2004
Overview of Presentation Sources of Money (Tom Kelly) Kinds of Requests (RFP, unsol., invited) Purpose of the Proposal Components of Proposal – and Weighting Structure of Proposal Preparing a Budget Proposal Review Process Award Process Managing and Administering Grant
Kinds of “Requests for Proposal” Many names for “money is available” Unsolicited Proposals “Requests for Proposals” (RFP) Specific Area General Areas – Quarterly/Annually “Requests for Applications” (RFA) Granting Agency or Foundation “Areas of Interest” Contracts
Components of the “Request for Proposals” Purpose of this RFA Research Objectives Mechanism of Support Funds Available (expected award level) Eligible Institutions Individuals Eligible to be Principal Investigators Special Requirements Where to Send Inquiries Letter of Intent Submitting an Application Peer Review Process Review Criteria Award Criteria
Components of the Proposal Face Page Description, Performance Sites, Key Personnel Table of Contents Detailed Budget (Initial Budget Period) Budget for Entire Proposed Period of Support Biographical Sketch Format Page (& Sample) Resources Research Plan Human Subjects Appendix. Checklist. Personal Data FORM PHS 398: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html#forms
Components of the Research Plan Specific Aims (1 page) Background and Significance (2-3 pages) Preliminary Studies (6-8 pages) Research Design and Methods (remainder of 25 pages) Literature Cited (not counted in total pages) Appendix (additional materials, not counted in total pages)
Specific Aims Larger long-term goal Specific objectives to be accomplished Solve a specific problem? Test a specific hypothesis? Create new methods? Develop new technology?
Background and Significance Background leading to present application Critical review of existing knowledge Identification of data or analytic gaps to be filled Importance and health relevance of the proposed research
Preliminary Studies Prior studies of pertinence completed by proposed P.I Information reflecting experience and competence of the specific investigator to pursue the proposed project. Likelihood of project success (information considered essential by Review Committee)
Research Design and Methods Describe the research design and procedures to be used to accomplish the specific aims How data will be collected, analyzed, and interpreted Data sharing plan as appropriate Describe any new methodology and its advantage over existing methodologies Discuss the potential difficulties and limitations of the proposed procedures and possible alternative approaches Schedule or timetable Identify any procedures, situations, or materials that may be hazardous to staff or subjects precautions to be employed
Budget Design-1 PERSONNEL Name Role on Project Type of Appointment/Months Percent of Effort on Project Institutional Base Salary Salary Requested Fringe Benefits Total
Budget Design-2 CONSULTANT COSTS EQUIPMENT (Itemize) SUPPLIES (Itemize by category) TRAVEL OTHER EXPENSES
Proposal Review Process Who reviews the proposals? What are they looking for? “Preliminary” screening Reviewer “principles” – finding the most important proposal, most likely to succeed 50,000 federal grants/year, 4 reviewers (minimum) each Each reviewer must evaluate many proposals – really seeking “easy” or obvious reasons to eliminate proposals
General Principles-1 Objective is to WIN Assume YOU are doing the evaluation Most important component is the “so what?” -- why is this project worth funding? Make your case clearly, confidently ! “Everything counts” – attention to detail critical – all components must function as integrated “whole” The “first” grant is the hardest!
General Principles-2 Funders looking for reason NOT to give you the money (i.e., very competitive) Is the project important? Is it “doable” as presented? Is this team capable of doing it? What is the likelihood of success? Technical approach & methods Personnel expertise & mix – proven ability to complete projects Management indicators