Submitted Projects for December 2013

College of Education – Submitted Projects – December 2013
Principal Investigator: Keith Miller (Health Outcomes and Policy)
Co-PI: Albert Ritzhaupt (STL)
Funding Agency: National Institutes of Health
Proposal Title: A Master Course on Power for Multilevel and Longitudinal Health Behavior Studies
Requested Amount: $90,728.00
Principal Investigator: Hajar Kadivar (Health Outcomes and Policy)
Co-PI: Mirka Koro-Ljungberg (SHDOSE)
Funding Agency: American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation
Proposal Title: fPAIR UP: Family-Provider Asthma InteRvention for Underserved Populations—Phase 1
Requested Amount: $2,000.00
Principal Investigator: Joseph Gagnon (SESPECS)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: National Science Foundation
Proposal Title: Collaborative Research: Universal Access for Students with Mathematics Difficulties (USMD)
Requested Amount: $138,549.00
Principal Investigator: Timothy Jacobbe (STL)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: National Science Foundation
Proposal Title: Informal Virtual Experience in Statistics for Teachers (INVEST)
Requested Amount: $2,829,858.00
Principal Investigator: Timothy Jacobbe (STL)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: Loyola Marymount University (Subcontract)
Proposal Title: Collaborative Research: Project-SET: Increasing Teacher Preparation and Student Learning in Statistics
Requested Amount: $1,140,725.00
Principal Investigator: Philip Poekert (Lastinger Center for Learning)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: The School Board of Miami-Dade County
Proposal Title: M-DCPS/Kellogg i3 Match
Requested Amount: $74,026.59
Principal Investigator: Philip Poekert (Lastinger Center for Learning)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: The School Board of Miami-Dade County
Proposal Title: Miami Dade VPK Academy
Requested Amount: $750,000.00
/by

How to Win Government Grants in Tough Times: Part 4

Using Data to Win Grants

Providing data is critical to writing a successful proposal. Data can be used to demonstrate a need, demonstrate results, and show an impact.

Demonstrate a Need

Sources of data… can be used as shown in the sample table:

  • U.S. Census Bureau
  • U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  • Florida Department of Education

For example, poverty data can be used to show that the target population is experiencing poverty at a higher rate than average poverty rates.

Table X
Data on Students Served by the Project (by School)

Attribute School #1 School #2 State U.S.
Enrollment 324 120
National School Lunch Program 66% 64% 49% 45%
Title I Eligible Yes Yes
Poverty Rate 23% 18% 12%
Per Capita Income $12,440 $16,477 $21,587
Unemployment 6.1% 5.1% 5.3%

 

Demonstrate Results

Evaluation data are used to demonstrate results:

  • Recommended to use a database if applicable
  • Implementation of results guided by proposal
  • Useful to track all activities and measure all objectives
  • Must adhere to evaluation plan
  • Relevant for reports and continued funding

Show an Impact

  • Data show you are reaching desired target populations.
  • Data show you are reaching the neediest, highest-risk populations.
  • Data show positive results and illustrate the extent of your impact.

Excerpted from The Chronicle of Philanthropy Webinar, August 13, 2013

/by

Awarded Projects for November 2013

College of Education – Awarded Projects – November 2013
Principal Investigator: Philip Poekert (Lastinger Center)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: Duval County School Board
Project Title: Duval County Professional Development
Project Period: 10/12/13—06/01/14
Award Amount: $86,000.00
/by

Submitted Projects for November 2013

College of Education – Submitted Projects – November 2013
Principal Investigator: Lynda Hayes (PK Yonge)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: Florida Department of Education
Proposal Title: Technology Transformation Grants for Rural School Districts
Requested Amount: $43,315.00
Principal Investigator: Ruth Lowery (STL)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: Spencer Foundation
Proposal Title: Voices of Jamaican Immigrant Parents and Students’ Perspectives on Their Experiences in a New Educational System
Requested Amount: $16,550.00
/by

New Policy on Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs

An important announcement regarding IDC rate for funded projects is that the university will no longer allow a reduced IDC rate without a published policy from the funding agency indicating a restriction in IDC rate.

Here is an abbreviated version of the announcement from the UF Administrative Memo October 2, 2013

F&A Costs, also known as indirect costs (IDC) or overhead costs, are fixed costs in support of research and other sponsored activities. F&A costs provide reimbursement for actual expenses that support extramural activities but cannot be directly charged to a project.

F&A costs result from shared services such as libraries; physical plant operation and maintenance; utility costs; general, departmental, and sponsored projects administrative expenses; and depreciation or use allowance for buildings and equipment.

Further, OMB Circular A-21 Section G. 1.a.(3). states “Each institution’s F&A cost rate process must be appropriately designed to ensure that federal sponsors do not in any way subsidize the F&A costs of other sponsors…”

Appropriate recovery of F&A for all activities is a necessary means to support those projects and to support compliance with state and federal laws and regulations. Under-recovery of the costs for any individual project places a disproportionate burden on UF rather than the sponsor of the activity.

Significant reductions in the state appropriations for the university’s activities have made the recovery of F&A costs on sponsored agreements more crucial to UF’s ability to provide the research infrastructure required for excellence in research and scholarship.

To this end, the university is reiterating its policy to budget the full federal negotiated F&A rate on all applications and awards unless that sponsor has a published policy restricting recovery or is a public entity listed on the Division of Sponsored Programs F&A Rates webpage.

Any questions can be directed to Stephanie Gray, Director, Division of Sponsored Research at 352-273-4062 or slgray@ufl.edu.

 

/by

How to Win Government Grants in Tough Times: Part 3

Building a Collaborative Grant-seeking Team

Writing a successful grant proposal involves teamwork. To assemble the best team possible, you will need to identify tasks, secure the necessary partnerships, and develop a timeline.

Main PI – Manages and is responsible for the overall project. Develops strategy and timeline. Determines and secures programmatic team members. Writes job descriptions. Creates proposal outline based on the Request for Proposal (RFP). Coordinates writing process with other team members. Guides process and quality assurance. Connects bigger picture with details. Plans fundraising strategy for matching funds. Makes final decision on proposal approach.

  • Programmatic Team – Includes key individuals with specific knowledge who serve as writers and/or provide content for their particular area of expertise (e.g., methodology, supportive services, institutional research data, logic model, evaluation). Provides feedback on proposal drafts.
  • Administrative Team – Accurately completes all forms and obtains required signatures. Has in-depth knowledge of RFP requirements. Develops a checklist of RFP requirements. Sets deadline dates for team tasks. Keeps team on task. Ensures proposal is complete, including supporting documentation. Checks details.
  • Budget Team – Develops budget according to RFP guidelines. Has specific knowledge of fiscal requirements. Works closely with programmatic team. Serves as liaison between the college and other units related to the grant process.
  • Editor – Compiles information (e.g., letters of commitment, biographies and CVs for project personnel). Proofreads for grammatical errors. Ensures clarity and consistency throughout proposal. Provides boilerplate text. Checks formatting and ensures each section meets RFP requirements.
  • Outside Readers – Confirm proposal is written for an education lay person.

A team approach with regular meetings ensures information is communicated immediately to the appropriate team member. The silo approach is ineffective in this competitive market. Remember, the more time the team spends on the front end, the more time will be saved in the long run.

Look for Part 4 of “How to Win Government Grants in Tough Times” in the December issue of the ORB.

Excerpted from The Chronicle of Philanthropy Webinar, August 13, 2013

/by

National Institutes of Health Funding and Public Access Policy

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy ensures that published results of NIH-funded research are accessible to the public.

Effective July 1, 2013, NIH moved into the enforcement stage, requiring full compliance with the policy before continuing year (type 5) funds will be released.

Final peer-reviewed manuscripts must be posted to the NIH Manuscript Submission (NIHMS) system upon acceptance for publication and be made publicly available on PubMed Central (PMC) no later than 12 months after the official date of publication.

Here are some important points to consider:

  • Awards are being withheld if there are publications not in compliance with the policy.
  • Alternatively, awards have been released but restricted so no spending is allowed until publications are in compliance.
  • NIH is identifying non-compliant articles during progress report submissions where the PI is instructed to identify new publications associated with the award. As a result, NIH has withheld the award funds.
  • NIH has published a list of known non-compliant articles. The UF Office of Research and the UF Libraries have been reaching out to the authors of the articles to assist them in bringing these articles into compliance.

Please log in to myNCBI at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ to ensure you are in compliance or contact the UF Libraries for individual support.

NIH Policy Access Policy is available at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/.

UF resources to assist with compliance are available at http://guides.uflib.ufl.edu/nih.

/by

Awarded Projects for October 2013

College of Education – Awarded Projects – October 2013
Principal Investigator: Lynda Hayes (PK Yonge)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: Florida Department of Education
Project Title: Local Instructional Improvement System
Project Period: 7/1/2013 – 6/30/2014
Award Amount: $58,350.81
Principal Investigator: Lynda Hayes (PK Yonge)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: Florida Department of Education
Project Title: Title I Part A: Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged 2013-2014
Project Period: 7/1/2013 – 6/30/2014
Award Amount: $124,292
Principal Investigator: Lynda Hayes (PK Yonge)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: Florida Department of Education
Project Title: Title II Part A: Teacher and Principal Training
Project Period: 7/1/2013 – 6/30/2014
Award Amount: $24,619
Principal Investigator: Patricia Snyder (CEECS/SESPECS)
Co-PI: Maureen Conroy (CEECS/SESPECS)
Funding Agency: University of Washington (DHHS Subcontract)
Project Title: Head Start National Center for Quality Teaching and Learning
Project Period: 9/15/2013 – 9/14/2014
Award Amount: $128,645
/by

Submitted Projects for October 2013

College of Education – Submitted Projects – October 2013
Principal Investigator: Nicholas Gage (SESPECS)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: University of Alabama (NIH Subcontract)
Proposal Title: Trajectories of Co-morbid Behavior Challenges in Adolescents with Intellectual Disability
Requested Amount: $49,999
Principal Investigator: Danling Fu (STL)
Co-PI: Cynthia Chennault (STL)
Funding Agency: National Security Agency
Proposal Title: STARTALK 2014 at the University of Florida for Teachers of Chinese
Requested Amount: $76,036
Principal Investigator: Michelina MacDonald (PK Yonge)
Co-PI: Christy Garison (PK Yonge)
Funding Agency: NEA Foundation
Proposal Title: Exploring Genetics Through Questions of Race
Requested Amount: $5,000
/by

IES and NSF Release Guidelines for Education Research and Development

A new report from the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation provides important cross-agency guidelines for preparing successful proposals and carrying out research funded by the two agencies—including obtaining meaningful findings and actionable results.

The report describes six types of research that can generate evidence about how to increase student learning:

  1. Foundational Research provides the fundamental knowledge that may contribute to improved learning and other relevant education outcomes.
  2. Early-Stage or Exploratory Research examines relationships among important constructs in education and learning to establish logical connections that may form the basis for future interventions or strategies to improve education outcomes.
  3. Design and Development Research develops solutions to achieve a goal related to education or learning such as improving student engagement or mastery of a set of skills.
  4. Efficacy Research allows for testing of a strategy or intervention under “ideal” circumstances, including with a higher level of support or developer involvement than would be the case under normal circumstances.
  5. Effectiveness Research examines effectiveness of a strategy or intervention under circumstances that would typically prevail in the target context.
  6. Scale-up Research examines effectiveness in a wide range of populations, contexts, and circumstances, without substantial developer involvement in implementation or evaluation.

For each research type, the report describes the purpose and expectations for theoretical and/or empirical justifications, research design, project outcomes, and external review.

To read the full report, go to http://ies.ed.gov/aboutus/.

 

/by

How to Win Government Grants in Tough Times: Part 2

Nothing short of an A+ proposal wins in this environment. Preparing ahead of time is critical to writing a competitive proposal. Typically guidelines are announced only 30 days in advance, so most successful writers have started the process much sooner.

Before the guidelines become available, you can search for the previous RFP. Typically, guidelines do not change much and you can use the previous RFP to start early.

Getting high points from reviewers is key. Most RFPs provide evaluation criteria with the total number of points for each section. Try to secure bonus and priority points wherever possible. You may wish to serve as a reviewer to learn what reviewers expect to see in a proposal.

Once the RFP becomes available, read and re-read the document fully. Design your narrative and budget together. You may wish to develop a logic model so you can see your plan on one page.  Some RFPs now require a logic model.

Plan for multidisciplinary collaborations to build a stronger proposal. Secure partners, evaluators, and letters of commitment in advance. Write job descriptions for key personnel and gather attachments for appendices.

Remember to write your proposal in a journalistic style omitting technical jargon. To improve the clarity of your writing, use headers, short sentences, and repetition. Most importantly, contact the OER as soon as you decide to pursue a funding opportunity, so we can help facilitate the process.

Look for Part 3 of “How to Win Government Grants in Tough Times” in the November issue of the Research Bulletin.

Excerpted from The Chronicle of Philanthropy Webinar, August 13, 2013

/by

Awarded Projects for September 2013

College of Education – Awarded Projects – September 2013
Principal Investigator: Michael Bowie (Recruitment, Retention and Multicultural Affairs)
Co-PI: Theresa Vernetson (Dean’s Area, Administration)
Funding Agency: Florida Department of Education
Project Title: College Reach Out Program (CROP)
Project Period: 09/01/2013—08/31/2014
Award Amount: $82,374.64
Principal Investigator: Patricia Snyder (CEECS/SESPECS)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: Florida State University
Project Title: Embedded Practices and Intervention with Caregivers (EPIC)
Project Period: 06/01/2013—05/31/2016
Award Amount: $87,846.00
Principal Investigator: Alice Kay Emery (SESPECS)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: Florida Department of Education
Project Title: Working with the Experts Project (Part B) 2013—2014
Project Period: 08/01/2013—07/31/2014
Award Amount: $175.000.00
Principal Investigator: Kent Crippen (STL)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: National Science Foundation
Project Title: ChANgE Chem: Transforming Chemistry with Cognitive Apprenticeship for Engineers
Project Period: 09/15/2013—08/31/2015
Award Amount: $194,617.00
/by

Submitted Projects for September 2013

College of Education – Submitted Projects – September 2013
Principal Investigator: Maria Coady (STL)
Co-PI: Ester de Jong (STL), Candace Harper (STL)
Funding Agency: The Spencer Foundation
Proposal Title: Mainstream Teachers of ELLs’ Use of Student Performance Data and Linguistic Pedagogical Knowledge to Inform Instructional Practices
Requested Amount: $297,138.00
Principal Investigator: Suzanne Colvin (STL)
Co-PI: N/A
Funding Agency: Procter & Gamble
Proposal Title: Transforming Higher Education Teaching and Learning for the 21st Century
Requested Amount: $9,350.00
Principal Investigator: Anna McDaniel (College of Nursing)
Co-PI: M. David Miller (SHDOSE)
Funding Agency: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Proposal Title: Simulation Team Training for Timely Intervention During Respirator Deterioration
Requested Amount: $30,642.00
/by

How to Win Government Grants in Tough Times: Part 1

Budgets are shrinking at all levels of government making competition for government grants intense. Now is the time to learn the essentials of a successful grant proposal and how to set yourself apart from the competition.

The federal funding landscape is in an “age of sequestration” and is likely to continue this way into the future. This means fewer dollars for existing programs and fewer competitions. Programs are likely to be combined resulting in less money available.

The initial steps in strategic grant seeking include the following:   

  • Read the RFP thoroughly to make sure you qualify.
  • Always ask: Are we competitive?
  • Don’t be afraid to make tough decisions. Can you fulfill the requirements of the grant?
  • Does the RFP align with your goals and mission? Is it a good fit for you?
  • Look at the number of grants that will be awarded. If they are numerous, you have a better chance.

Here is an RFP checklist to help you decide whether a specific grant opportunity is right for you.

Look for Part 2 of “How to Win Government Grants in Tough Times” in the October issue of the Research Bulletin.

Excerpted from The Chronicle of Philanthropy Webinar, August 13, 2013

/by

How Researchers Network

Researchers rely heavily on networking at conferences and seminars and make little use of personal introductions, online social networking, or proactive self-promotion, according to Straight Talking, a report published by the UK researcher development organization, Vitae.

Vitae surveyed almost 500 researchers at eight UK universities and found that less than one-fifth regularly use online social networking to develop existing work contacts or make new ones. Only 14% feel comfortable asking someone they know to introduce them to an important person in their field, and 85% rarely send copies of their work to these prominent individuals.

Excerpted from Nature Jobs Blog posted by Rachel Bowden, April 17, 2012

/by