International Environmental Health Conference Presented by: John S. Petterson, Ph.D. Director,...
-
Upload
reynard-russell-casey -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of International Environmental Health Conference Presented by: John S. Petterson, Ph.D. Director,...
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
Sources of Money
Tom Kelly
Purpose of the Proposal
To win
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