Blog

Becoming a Grant Reviewer

Have you ever read a grant reviewer’s comments and ended up shaking your head in frustration? We have! You wonder how the reviewer could have missed the part of your proposal that clearly provides the information the reviewer claims is missing – and you provided the information exactly where the RFP instructions indicated. You might wonder if the grant reviewer was actually scoring your proposal based on that particular grant’s criteria or was relying on personal knowledge of a totally different Department of Education (ED) grant program. We understand!

Since JCCI works with numerous clients on any given grant competition, we can ascertain patterns from the grant review process that reveal discrepancies among grant reviewers and even entire review panels and their responses to/scoring of grant proposals. In fact, one of the key benefits of hiring JCCI to assist in preparing a competitive proposal is that our clients get the collective wisdom of JCCI associates and their years of reviewing such patterns to gain a better sense of what works in a proposal. Ultimately, though, the process is imperfect because it relies on individuals with varying levels of experience and personal biases, but the Department of Education (ED)—and other federal agencies—do their best to ensure that each grant reviewer is knowledgeable and understands the specific grant program requirements.

What Makes Someone Qualified to be a Grant Reviewer?

ED is always looking for competent education professionals to serve as grant reviewers and announces opportunities for peer reviewers annually in the Federal Register. Having access to a greater number of qualified peer reviewers is the best way to make the process work effectively. Ideally, a reviewer for a specific grant competition would have some practical experience in that grant program. For instance, a former Title III Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP) project director might be the perfect candidate to serve on a review panel for a Title III SIP competition, but might be far less qualified to serve as a reviewer for a TRIO grant competition. The programs are quite different, thus the requirements and proposals are also quite different.

ED has a list of Frequently Asked Questions about serving as a peer reviewer on its website. The process for becoming a grant reviewer for ED’s Office of Postsecondary Education involves completing an application on ED’s G5 site. Applicants provide information about their educational backgrounds, work experience, specific experience with grant programs, and any past experience serving as a peer reviewer. ED selects reviewers on an as-needed basis dependent upon personal qualifications that align with a particular grant competition—as well as their willingness and ability to serve as a reviewer.

While ED may have more reviewers available than needed for some competitions, perhaps more frequently ED is scrambling to get enough qualified reviewers on board to manage a timely scoring of all submissions. When ED needs more qualified peer reviewers than are available, the department may select readers who don’t have as much experience as they really need. Unfortunately, for most grant competitions, there is no “do over” if reviewers simply get it wrong or fail to understand fully the program and scoring criteria.

The Pros and Cons of Serving as a Grant Reviewer

Since qualified grant reviewers are in demand, if you have relevant experience and time to serve as a reviewer, JCCI encourages you to apply. One obvious restriction to note is that you cannot serve as a reviewer for a competition if you are affiliated with an institution that is competing for a grant award in that program. The role is certainly not one to take lightly as it requires a significant amount of time and energy on each reader’s part. Typically, readers will score about 10 different proposals for a single competition. Using an average proposal length of 50 pages, that’s some serious reading and critical reviewing in a short time frame. Additionally, reviewers must devote time to participating in ED training sessions, conversing  with members of the review panel multiple times, and working with an ED education specialist to finalize comments and scores. While grant reviewers receive flat-rate stipends for each proposal they review, the amount is nominal.

Despite being a lot of work with little monetary reward, there are some great benefits to being a federal grant reviewer for ED:

  • Having grant review experience is a great item to include on a résumé.
  • Grant reviewers have a unique opportunity to learn what higher education institutions are doing to help students and promote better educational outcomes.
  • Reviewers build connections with peers they might not otherwise meet.
  • Reviewers are better prepared to help craft future successful grant proposals. 

Ultimately, having more qualified reviewers helps make the process better for everyone. Applicants receive useful and relevant feedback. Qualified reviewers gain insight into the scoring and selection process, and ED grant programs become stronger through a process that increases the likelihood that quality proposals receive a fair review.

NSF Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Education and Human Resources (IUSE: EHR)

PROGRAM SOLICITATION: PD 19-601

Application Deadline: NSF has announced multiple deadlines beginning December 2019 and February 2020. Review the full announcement for details on applicable deadlines.

Summary

NSF has announced a new version of its IUSE: EHR grant. The new announcement features two different grant tracks with three levels of grant competition in each track. The tracks and accompanying levels have different deadlines, with annual deadlines noted after the initial 2019 and 2020 deadlines. NSF expects that all grantees receiving awards under these new tracks and levels will increase the knowledge about effective STEM education. Successful applicants will demonstrate how their projects will have a widespread impact in STEM education in the areas of improved diversity among both students and faculty and professional development that meets the changing needs of students and promotes collaboration in research and development. NSF also states in the grant announcement that it welcomes proposals that also align with efforts of the NSF INCLUDES grant.

Tracks/Levels and Funding Amounts

NSF’s IUSE: EHR grant offers funding under two main categories: the Engaged Student Learning track and the Institutional and Community Transformation track. Three different “levels” are available for applicants in each track.

Under the Engaged Student Learning (ESL) track, NSF will award between $300,000 and $2 million over three to five years, depending on the level. Institutional and Community Transformation (ITC) grants will range from $150,000 for capacity building efforts to $3 million for multi-institutional collaborations, again, depending on the level.

Engaged Student Learning (ESL) Track

NSF offers funding under the ESL track to support projects that promote student engagement and learning, either directly or indirectly, in STEM. NSF will consider proposals that cover a wide range of research and development activities that are both evidence-based and knowledge-generating. Among other activities, NSF lists the following items as potential project concentrations:  

  • Innovative pedagogy and multi- and inter-disciplinary approaches,
  • Assessment efforts that track learning outcomes and the effectiveness of teaching methods,
  • Dissemination of information and resources to aid in STEM teaching and learning,
  • Professional development for faculty, and
  • Restructured learning environments.

The three ESL funding levels should reflect the scale (number of students, faculty, departments, institutions, or other groups involved) and scope (range of project components involved) of proposed projects as well as the organizational capacity to conduct the proposed study.

ESL Level 1 Projects

ESL Level 1 grantees can receive up to $300,000 over a maximum of three years. Level 1 projects should focus on early-stage or exploratory research projects or small-scale projects aimed at adapting teaching methods and incorporating novel environments. Under the Level 1 category, NSF will consider proposals from a single institution and projects may focus on small numbers of faculty members in a single discipline or across multiple disciplines. NSF will also consider small projects at this level that involve partnerships. The initial Level 1 deadlines are February 4, 2020, and August 4, 2020. Annual deadlines will be the first Tuesday in February and August moving forward.

ESL Level 2 Projects

The award range for ESL Level 2 project is slightly higher, at $300,001 to $600,000 over a maximum grant period of three years. NSF expects Level 2 projects to have a larger scale and scope than an ESL Level 1 project. For instance, a Level 2 project would support department-wide changes, interdisciplinary or multi-disciplinary collaborations, or multi-institutional partnerships such as partnerships between institutions of higher education (IHE) or between IHEs and industry or community partners. The initial deadline for ESL Level 2 proposal submission is December 4, 2019. After this initial deadline, applicants may submit ESL Level 2 proposals by the first Tuesday in December each year.

ESL Level 3 Projects

Projects that aim to benefit large numbers of students and have a far-reaching impact on large numbers of faulty and/or a large-scale multi-institutional impact are appropriate at this level of funding. In this category, NSF will award between $600,001 and $2 million for projects with a  maximum duration of five years. Proposals at this level should include detailed research plans and large-scale evaluation plans. NSF will consider proposals from single institutions, but anticipates that the scale and scope will likely result in applications at this level that involve multiple institutions. The initial Level 3 deadline is December 4, 2019, with annual proposals accepted yearly by the first Tuesday in December afterwards.

Institutional and Community Transformation (ITC) Track

NSF wants to fund projects under the ITC track that focus on systemic change that have a measurable impact at departmental, institutional, or multi-institutional levels or across larger communities of STEM educators and/or educational researchers. ITC track proposals should include at least one theory of change that guides the project. NSF lists a range of approaches that ITC track proposals might take, including the following items:

  • Including evidence-based teaching practices in high-enrollment, lower-division courses,
  • Developing teaching evaluation rubrics (disciplinary or interdisciplinary) with a common research-based framework,
  • Re-envisioning the learning environment and support networks that best aid faculty and students, and
  • Identifying common methods of supporting students from underrepresented groups to be successful in STEM studies.

ITC Capacity-Building Projects

NSF will consider both individual and collaborative projects under this category. Awards can be up to $150,000 for a single applicant or up to $300,000 for a collaborative effort; projects have a maximum duration of two years. This category provides funding for applicants to review previous institutional efforts and gauge institutional needs, develop buy-in across institutional sectors, build relevant partnerships, determine which theories of change are applicable to future work, and articulate plans to transform the institution and/or STEM community. Ideally, capacity-building projects will lead to a subsequent ITC Level 1 or Level 2 proposal. The initial deadlines for capacity-building proposal submission are February 4, 2020, and August 4, 2020. Applicants may submit proposals on an annual basis afterwards with a deadline of the first Tuesday in February and August.

ICT Level 1 Projects

Proposals at this level should involve early exploration or small- to mid-range projects that build on previous institutional work. Grantees can receive up to $300,000 over a maximum grant period of three years. The initial deadlines for Level 1 submissions are February 4, 2020, and August 4, 2020. Annual deadlines after this time frame will be the first Tuesday in February and August.

ICT Level 2 Projects

At this level, NSF expects grantees to carry out projects that include strong research plans with significant research questions or a large-scale evaluation and assessment of results and impact. NSF will fund between $300,001 and $2 million for projects from a single institution or up to $3 million for collaborative projects that involve two or more institutions or from research centers. Projects under this category have a maximum duration of five years. The initial deadline for Level 2 submissions is December 4, 2019. Annual deadlines afterwards will be the first Tuesday in December.

Application Guidelines

Applicants should refer to NSF-published guidelines for instructions on preparing proposals. Pertinent guidelines for submission of a proposal for IUSE: EHR grant funding are included in the NSF’s Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide.

Gifts Versus Grants

Many in the nonprofit world use the terms “gifts” and “grants” interchangeably, so if you’re second-guessing yourself or are confused about the terminology many nonprofits and funders alike are using, you’re not alone. In fact, larger nonprofits have developed and published guidelines to help their staff distinguish between gifts and grants. JCCI has witnessed a growing number of private and corporate funders that previously offered “gifts” to nonprofits that are now moving to a grant model for their philanthropic support. We’ve also worked with clients who were making unsuccessful attempts to reshape their priorities to fit a grant’s stated goals and objectives. Gifts and grants are two distinct philosophies of giving, and—accounting principles aside—understanding the philosophical differences between the two can help you effectively research prospective donors and respond to funding opportunities. Here’s how JCCI distinguishes between gifts and grants.

Gifts

Nonprofits benefit greatly from gifts that help them sustain general operations or special programming. A gift philosophy is one without strings attached—at least not in the way that grants have strings attached to the funds. Instead, donors who give gifts are supporting an organization without a preconceived expectation of specific outcomes. Gifts may be restricted to certain purposes, but within those constraints, gifts support organizational needs and priorities. Gifts don’t support a funder’s goals and priorities, though the funder’s goals and the nonprofit’s goals are usually closely aligned. While you may submit a stewardship report and let your donor know how your organization used the gifted funds, the organization isn’t held accountable for achieving funder-identified goals. You may also provide donors with a budget and breakdown of expenditures, but donors who provide gifts are typically more interested in overall impact rather than with detailed accounting and outcomes. Gifts are often smaller amounts than grants, but, collectively, gifts can be the mainstay of nonprofit operations.

Grants

A grant philosophy, on the other hand, is very much tied to a funder’s goals and objectives. Government grant programs, for instance, typically provide funding as a means of accomplishing specific identified goals that the government entity cannot accomplish independently. A grantor seeks an organization with the expertise and capacity to carry out work—work that the grantor is unable to carry out itself—that achieves the grantor’s goals rather than the grantee’s goals. As such, RFPs and other grant announcements include the rationale for offering grant funding and provide a detailed scope of work expected and identified goals and objectives that grantees should achieve. Ideally, applicants for grant funds share the funder’s goals and are already conducting work that aligns with those goals. Ultimately, though, grant funders expect grantees to make a pre-determined impact that accomplishes the funder’s agenda.

Grants are often large amounts, and grantors may provide funding for grantees to conduct projects over several years. Grant agreements stipulate reporting requirements that include a detailed accounting of all expenditures and demonstrate the impact of grant-funded activities. If grantees wish to use funds in a manner that is different from information in their initial proposal, grantors reserve the right to approve this type of change, and grantors may ask that grantees return funds if agreed-upon conditions are not met or if funds are unspent.

Mixed Messages

No wonder many in the nonprofit world are confused over terminology. Funders themselves are sending mixed messages. In the current climate, more and more funders have their own agendas. Many corporate and private foundations are developing giving programs that look and act much more like grants than gifts, though their donations are still, technically, gifts. While providing gifts to nonprofits, these funders are also adopting grant strategies such as pre-defined goals and objectives that they expect nonprofits to achieve. Additionally, many funders are now requesting components of proposals that typically appear in grant applications. For instance, more funders expect gift requests to include logic models, work plans and timelines, and evaluation plans. These items, when thoughtfully constructed, should strengthen a nonprofit’s development of specific projects and lead to improved outcomes, so having your team consider these application elements—whether requested or not—can often help you craft a better case for support whether through grants or gifts.

Finding the Right Fit

Since more funders are taking a mixed philosophical approach to funding and have more pre-defined agendas, nonprofits must take even more care to research the best prospects for funding. In an ideal world, nonprofits can identify projects and work already underway that aligns with philanthropic goals of both private and corporate foundations as well as government entities. Adhering to your organization’s mission rather than trying to develop projects that fit a funder’s priorities, though, will always be the best recipe for funding success.

Federal Grant Eligibility for Title III and Title V Programs

Knowing your organization’s federal grant eligibility is key to monitoring and applying for grants that help sustain and grow institutional programs and priorities, but questions of federal grant eligibility can often be confusing. That’s especially true regarding eligibility for the multiple programs offered under the Title III and Title V umbrellas. The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has taken steps to simplify the eligibility determination process by using data that’s readily available; however, higher education institutions still need to understand the process and take steps to ensure their information is accurate and, if appropriate, apply for a waiver of eligibility. Competition for these grants is rigorous, and even if your organization doesn’t receive grant funding through the Title III and Title V programs, there are many benefits to having this federal grant eligibility designation.

A Little History

The Title III grant program was part of the Higher Education Act (HEA) that Congress passed in 1965. The grant program was designed to bolster postsecondary institutions whose student populations included a high percentage of low-income and minority students and was aimed primarily at supporting what are now Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU). DOE awarded Title III funding to help these institutions improve the quality of academic programs, strengthen institutional management, and ensure fiscal stability, and that’s still the purpose of the grant program even after a long history of Congressional renewal of the HEA and changes over the grant’s 50+-year history. In 1998, Congress added Title V as a separate grant category under HEA. Title V grants support postsecondary institutions that serve a large percentage of Hispanic and low-income students.

Who’s Eligible?

DOE determines eligibility for these two grant programs based on two factors: 1) core expenses per FTE and 2) percentage of needy students served. DOE considers an institution’s core expenses in proportion to the number of students enrolled in undergraduate programs during the academic year and compares data across similar institutions to determine an average value. To obtain federal grant eligibility under Title III and Title V, an institution’s core expenses per FTE must be lower than the average for similar institutions. The second factor affecting eligibility is student need. To be eligible, an institution must show that half of its degree-seeking student enrollment receives aid through programs such as Pell Grants and the Federal Work Study Program. Alternatively, an institution can demonstrate student need if the percentage of students enrolled at least half-time who receive aid through federal programs such as Pell Grants and Federal Work Study is greater than the percentage of these students enrolled at similar institutions.

What’s the Process?

Early in the calendar year, a notice will appear in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Application for Designation as an Eligible Institution from the OPE Institutional Service (IS) office. (Federal Student Aid will also publish an announcement so financial aid staff are aware that the application process is open.) Institutions can check eligibility for Title III and Title V funding by entering their OPE identification numbers. Institutions will fall in one of two categories at this point:

  • Pre-Determined as Eligible: Each year, the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) automatically pulls data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and uses this data to determine an institution’s eligibility for Title III or Title V programs. Once the automated process is complete, institutions can check their eligibility by simply entering the college’s OPE ID number to see if the organization is pre-determined as Title III- and Title V-eligible. If OPE’s process pre-determines your institution is eligible for Title III and/or Title V programs, great! No further action is needed, and your institution can immediately print its letter of eligibility.   

But if your organization does not appear on the list of pre-determined eligible colleges, you can submit an application for eligibility/waiver request.

  • Not Pre-Determined as Eligible—Can Submit an Application/Waiver for Eligibility: The application process gives institutions who weren’t pre-determined as eligible a chance to correct or submit critical information to demonstrate eligibility. Organizations must submit this application prior to the annual deadline, which is typically in March.

Historically, 99% of institutions that submit waivers become eligible (in 2017, only six colleges that applied were not deemed eligible, and those failed to submit all data requested). If you feel your institution meets the criteria, you should definitely complete the application for eligibility.

The Department of Education has created a helpful document outlining the steps for checking eligibility and for completing a waiver application. JCCI Resource Development Services has also successfully worked with clients to prepare waiver requests that were approved, thereby making the institution Title III- and Title-V eligible.

What are the Benefits?

Obviously, federal grant eligibility for these two grant programs benefits institutions because they can apply for grant funding, but there are other benefits to being eligible and to understanding the federal grant eligibility rules.

  • Institutions that are eligible for Title III and Title V funding are also eligible for a waiver of their cost-sharing requirements under some categories of the Federal Work Study (FWS) and the Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) programs. Without a waiver, institutions are generally responsible for supplying 25% of any earnings through these federally-sponsored student work opportunities.
  • Eligibility opens the door to multiple grant programs within Title III and Title V.
  • Eligible institutions can use their eligibility designation to substantiate service demographics when seeking funding from private and corporate funders interested in supporting education initiatives for under-served students.

How Often Should You Check Eligibility?

Already receiving Title III or Title V funding? Fantastic! You should still check your federal grant eligibility under these programs each year to ensure your institution’s information is still accurate and to take advantage of additional benefits of eligibility. If your college isn’t receiving Title III or Title V funding, but you want to apply, you’ll definitely want to review your eligibility status annually as you monitor grant announcements and plan for grant submission.

NSF Campus Cyberinfrastructure (CC*)

Campus Cyberinfrastructure (CC*)

PROGRAM SOLICITATION NSF 19-533

Application Deadline: February 20, 2019

 

Summary

The Campus Cyberinfrastructure (CC*) program supports “coordinated campus-level networking and cyberinfrastructure improvements, innovation, integration, and engineering for science applications and distributed research projects. Learning and workforce development (LWD) in cyberinfrastructure is explicitly addressed in the program.” As with all NSF grants, projects must be focused on science-related improvements and initiatives.

 

The NSF program solicitation outlines a few notable changes to the CC program compared to previous years:

  • NSF has renamed and made some changes to what was previously known as the Network Design and Implementation for Small Institutions program area. The new program name is the Regional Connectivity for Small Institutions of Higher Education program area.
  • NSF has added two new program areas: Campus Computing and the Computing Continuum and Cyber Team-Research and Education CI-based Regional Facilitation.
  • The former Network Performance Engineering and Outreach program area is no longer a funded program area.

 

NSF anticipates awarding between $10 million and $17 million across five program areas:

  1. Data-Driven Networking Infrastructure for the Campus and Researcher awards (5-10 awards anticipated) will be up to $500,000 for a period of up to 2 years;
  2. Regional Connectivity for Small Institutions of Higher Education awards (3-5 awards anticipated) will be up to $800,000 for a period of up to 2 years;
  3. Network Integration and Applied Innovation awards (2-5 awards anticipated) will be up to $1,000,000 for a period of up to 2 years;
  4. Campus Computing and the Computing Continuum awards (5-15 awards anticipated) will be up to $400,000 for a period of up to 2 years, with some exceptions limiting the award total to $100,000; and
  5. Cyber Team–Research and Education CI-based Regional Facilitation awards (3-5 awards anticipated) will be up to $1,400,000 for a period of up to 3 years.

 

 

Program-wide Criteria

All NSF-supported projects are to be science-driven, which includes research and education functions. Successful proposals will demonstrate the project’s science-enabled research and/or educational foundation.

 

NSF views partnerships as a critical component of successful projects. Projects must show collaborative partnerships among campus-level CI experts (including campus Information Technology (IT)/networking/data organization), contributing domain scientists, research groups, and educators. These partnerships will support the ability for stakeholders to engage in and drive new networking capabilities and approaches in support of scientific discovery. NSF will evaluate proposals on the strength of these institutional partnerships since these partnerships are expected to play a central role in developing and implementing the eventual network and data infrastructure upgrades.

 

 

Proposals must include a Campus Cyberinfrastructure (CI) plan that describes the need for CI improvements and proposed design and implementation that fits within a comprehensive campus-wide strategy and approach to CI that involves horizontal integration on campus and vertical integration with regional and national CI investments and best practices. The Campus CI plan is limited to five pages and should address the following topics:

  • Sustainability of proposed work/ongoing operational and engineering costs
  • Campus-wide approach to cybersecurity including data and privacy issues as well as scientific research and educational infrastructure
  • Campus status and plans with respect to federated identity and specifically InCommon, including: if the campus is registered with InCommon as supporting the Research and Scholarship (R&S) Entity Category to streamline integration with research applications; and if the campus meets the InCommon Baseline Expectations for Trust in Federation
  • The plan should also describe campus IPv6 deployment.

 

NSF provides examples of CI plans from funded proposals.

 

Campus Computing and the Computing Continuum

This program area appears to be the most promising one for smaller institutions. In fact, NSF says that it “encourages proposals in this program area from under-resourced institutions and preference will be given to proposals demonstrating a compelling need for access to campus/cloud resources, including institutions lacking necessary computing and storage resources on campus.”

 

Proposals must address campus-wide computing needs, and NSF will not consider any proposal that focuses on a single science domain or project use.

 

All proposals for this program area must address the following items:

  • Scientific and engineering projects and their research computing needs, describing project-specific scenarios for scientific computing tied to the proposed computing resources;
  • Features, capabilities, and software platforms representing the proposed computing resources; and
  • Scientific computing codes expected to run on the resources.

 

Proposals must also include expected outcomes and make a compelling case for proposed computing resources by describing the current state of available computing resources and the expected benefits of the proposed resources to the identified science drivers and applications.

 

NSF will consider proposals that target one of these three options as described in the program solicitation:

 

  1. Campus Cluster Resource (Requests of up to $400,000)

Campus Cluster Resource proposals request funding for the acquisition of a shared, high-performance, network-connected computing resource available to scientific computing users on campus and outside of campus.

 

Project Descriptions for these proposals must include:

  • A summary table of the science drivers and their computing environments—these requirements may be specified in terms of compute job profile parameter ranges, core count ranges per job, times to completion or as part of a composition or scientific workflow profile;
  • The platform architecture specifying cluster components, including compute node type and count, per-node memory, interconnect fabric, storage, and open source software/platform;
  • An open source-based approach to cluster monitoring, measurement, management, and instrumentation;
  • A sustainability plan addressing the institution’s commitment to providing an ongoing level of sustained access to computational resources;
  • A High-Performance Network Connectivity and Specification—(described below); and
  • A description of the cluster as a Shared Resource Intra-campus and Inter-campus—(details below).

 

NSF encourages consideration of open source virtualization technologies for these proposals.

Itemized vendor quotes accompanying the budget are required for all proposals in this program area.

 

High-Performance Network Connectivity and Specification:

Proposals should describe the network connectivity of the proposed computing resource, both intra-campus and inter-campus. Proposals should include plans for the deployment of a PerfSonar-based network performance measurement capability to initially measure achievable end-to-end network performance for scientific data flows between the resource and relevant end points of researchers.

 

The Cluster as a Shared Resource Intra-campus and Inter-campus:

Proposals should describe (1) their approach to sharing the proposed computing resource across the science drivers and researchers at their institution; (2) how the resource will be accessed by external research groups; and (3) how the resource is coordinated with external resources allowing the institution’s researchers to seamlessly access computing resources at other campuses,

regional and national computing resources, and/or production cloud resources, if appropriate.

 

Proposals should commit to a minimum of 20% shared time on the cluster and describe their approach to making the cluster available as a shared resource external to the campus, with access and authorization according to local administrative policy. Conversely, the proposal should describe the approach to providing on-demand access to additional external computing resources to its targeted on-campus users and projects. One possible approach to

implementing such a federated distributed computing solution is joining the Open Science Grid. Whatever opportunistic, federated, scalable, distributed computing platform is chosen, the proposal is expected to justify the choice by including a discussion on the shared platform’s track record in the community, its current scientific computing production capability, and its scaling properties. Applicants are encouraged to include a letter of collaboration from the selected platform.

 

The proposal is expected to document campus IT and research leadership commitment to operations and maintenance (O&M) given that the proposal budget is expected to be dominated by equipment, with some travel and project coordination staff time. Costs associated with software license fees are not allowed.

 

  1. Cloud Computing Resources (Requests of up to $100,000 in the NSF budget and up to $100,000 in cloud credits/resources in the supplementary document)

Cloud Computing Resource proposals include a technical justification for use of cloud resources coupled with the cost computation used to arrive at the requested amount of credits/resources as well as the detailed annual plan for usage of these credits/resources over the duration of the project. Amazon Web Service and Google Cloud Platform are participating in the CC* program to provide cloud credits/resources to campuses whose scientific research requires additional and external computational and storage resources. These providers are also expected to provide support and training to those campuses. If additional cloud providers join the program, resources/credits from those providers will be available under the same terms and conditions as described in this solicitation, and will be added to the NSF CC* program webpage.

 

While the technical description and justification for use of cloud resources are expected to be part of the Project Description, details of the cloud resource costing and annual cloud resource usage should be included in the Supplementary Documents section of the proposal. Note that cloud providers participating in this program have explicitly waived ingress data charges and most educational and non-profit institutions are eligible for waiver of egress data charges.

 

Applicants must include a plan addressing the institution’s commitment to providing an ongoing level of sustained access to computational resources.

 

  1. Hybrid (Requests of up to $400,000 in the NSF budget and up to $100,000 in the supplementary document)

Hybrid proposals describe an approach that uses both Campus Cluster Resource and Cloud Computing Resources. For proposals using a hybrid approach, follow the guidance included in the Campus Cluster Resource category for the justification and specification of a shared

local compute cluster.

 

The Project Description must include the following items:

  • A summary table of the science drivers and their computing environments – these requirements may be specified in terms of compute job profile parameter ranges, core count ranges per job, times to completion or as part of a composition or scientific workflow profiles;
  • The platform architecture specifying cluster components, including compute node type and count, per-node memory, interconnect fabric, storage, and open source software/platform;
  • An open source-based approach to cluster monitoring, measurement, management, and instrumentation;
  • A sustainability plan addressing the institution’s commitment to providing an ongoing level of sustained access to computational resources;
  • A High-Performance Network Connectivity and Specification (details below) and;
  • A description of the cluster as a Shared Resource Intra-campus and Inter-campus (details below).

 

NSF encourages proponents to consider open source virtualization technologies.

Proposals must include itemized vendor quotes.

 

High-Performance Network Connectivity and Specification:

Proposals should describe the network connectivity of the proposed computing resource, both intra-campus [for example, the campus network path(s) connecting the resource with the

researchers and driving science applications on campus], and inter-campus (for example, showing the network path connecting with the regional exchange point or Internet2). Proposals should include in their plans the deployment of a PerfSonar-based network performance measurement capability to initially measure achievable end-to-end network performance for scientific data flows between the resource and relevant end points of researchers.

 

The Cluster as a Shared Resource Intra-campus and Inter-campus:

Proposals should describe (1) their approach to sharing the proposed computing resource across the science drivers and researchers at their institution; (2) how the resource will be accessed by external research groups; and (3) how the resource is coordinated with external resources allowing the institution’s researchers to seamlessly access computing resources at other campuses, regional and national computing resources, and/or production cloud resources, if appropriate.

 

Proposals should commit to a minimum of 20% shared time on the cluster and describe their approach to making the cluster available as a shared resource external to the campus, with access and authorization according to local administrative policy. Conversely, the proposal should describe the approach to providing on-demand access to additional external computing resources to its targeted on-campus users and projects. One possible approach to implementing such a federated distributed computing solution is joining the Open Science Grid. Whatever opportunistic, federated, scalable, distributed computing platform is chosen, the proposal is expected to justify the choice by including a discussion on the shared platform’s track record in the community, its current scientific computing production capability, and its scaling properties. Proponents are encouraged to include a letter of collaboration from the selected platform.

 

The proposal is expected to document campus IT and research leadership commitment to O&M given that the proposal budget is expected to be dominated by equipment, with some travel and project coordination staff time. Costs associated with software license fees are not allowed.

 

This area supports the campus integration of commercial cloud computing and storage resources while challenging institutions to define a multi-layer resource strategy in meeting the needs of their scientific communities. Proposals are expected to address their approach to using cloud resources in combination with campus resources as well as the national shared distributed computing fabric chosen. Amazon Web Service and Google Cloud Platform are participating in the program to provide cloud credits/resources, as well as support and training, to campuses whose scientific research requires additional and external computational and storage resources, for example, to provide on-demand bursting capability during peak aggregate demand times. If additional cloud providers join the program, resources/credits from those providers will be available under the same terms and conditions as described in this solicitation, and will be added to the CC* Program Page.

 

While the technical description and justification for use of cloud resources are expected to be part of the Project Description, details of the cloud resource costing and annual cloud resource usage should be included in the Supplementary Documents section of the proposal. Note that cloud providers participating in this program have explicitly waived egress data charges. The request for cloud credits/resources must adhere to a maximum of $100,000 and cannot exceed 50% of the overall proposed budget. The proposal is expected to document campus IT and research leadership commitment to O&M given that the proposal budget is expected to be dominated by equipment, with some travel and project coordination staff time.

NSF Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI)

National Science Foundation (NSF)

Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Hispanic-Serving Institutions  (HSI Program)

Program Solicitation: NSF 19-540

Application Deadlines: March 6, 2019 and September 18, 2019

Annually in September (third Wednesday) moving forward

 

Eligible Applicants:

Accredited higher education institutions that offer undergraduate educational programs in STEM and that meet the definition of an HSI as specified in section 502 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

 

Webinar Dates:

Monday, December 17, 2018

3:00 – 4:00 p.m. ET

Click for registration information.

 

Thursday, January 10, 2019

3:00 – 4:00 pm ET

Click for registration information.

 

Summary

NSF’s Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) has a goal of increasing retention and graduation rates for undergraduate students at HSIs who are working toward degrees in STEM studies. Notably, NSF desires to partner with HSIs that may not typically receive NSF grant funding in order to build undergraduate STEM educational capacity at these institutions.

 

The HSI grant program has two tracks: building capacity and HSIs new to NSF.

 

  1. The Building Capacity track is open to all eligible HSIs and focuses on three areas: Critical Transitions, Innovative Cross-Sector Partnerships, and Teaching and Learning in STEM. NSF will award up to $2.5 million over 5 years under this track.
  2. The HSIs New to NSF track has limited eligibility. Only HSIs that have never received NSF funding or have not received funding in the five years prior to the grant deadline (based on award end date) are eligible to apply under this track. NSF will award up to $300,000 over 3 years. Institutions eligible for this track may submit only under this category, may elect to submit a proposal for building capacity funds, or may submit under both tracks.

 

Application Guidelines

Applicants should refer to NSF-published guidelines for proposal preparations. Pertinent guidelines for submission of a proposal for this grant are included in Chapter II of the NSF’s Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trade School and Community College Scholarship Program

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Scholarship and Fellowship Education Grant, Faculty Development Grant, and Trade School and Community College Scholarship Grant, Fiscal Year (FY) 2019

Application Deadline: 11-30-2018—this grant is usually announced annually

Estimated Award Date: 6-30-2019

 

Summary of Trade School and Community College Grant Track

Funding and Time Frame

This is a two (2) year program. Trade School and Community College funds may be requested for up to $150,000.00 total costs (direct costs and associated facilities and administrative costs) for the project period.

 

A scholarship student may not receive more than $5,000.00 per year or exceed $10,000.00 over a 2-year period. Students have up to 6 months after graduation to secure nuclear related employment. If a student does not obtain nuclear related employment in the 6 month timeframe, a waiver can be requested or the NRC will seek repayment of funds.

 

Trade schools and community colleges may only apply to the Trade School and Community College Scholarship Grant program. Trade schools and community colleges are not eligible for Scholarship, Fellowship, or Faculty Development tracks.

 

FOA notes that cost-sharing is not required, but is encouraged.

 

Funding Objective

The primary objective is to support scholarships for nuclear science, engineering, technology, and related disciplines to develop a workforce capable of supporting the design, construction, operation, and regulation of nuclear facilities and the safe handling of nuclear materials. The nuclear-related discipline supported by this funding is intended to benefit the nuclear sector broadly.

 

Trade Schools and Community Colleges Scholarship Criteria/Eligibility

The Trade School and Community College scholarship program provides funding to institutions to award scholarships to individuals pursuing certifications or associate degrees in disciplines that may be beneficial in developing and maintaining a nuclear workforce. Institutions receiving NRC grants must establish programs to monitor the academic progress of the scholarship recipients. The application must clearly state how the funds will be applied.

Student applicants must meet the following criteria to receive a scholarship:

  1. Maintain satisfactory academic progress in the student’s field of study.
  2. Maintain a course load of at least 12 credit hours per semester or be classified as a full-time student as defined by the recipient.
  3. Be matriculated in a certificate or associate degree program for the field of study for which the scholarship was approved.
  4. Must be United States citizens or a noncitizen national of the United States, or have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence (i.e., in possession of a currently valid Alien Registration Receipt Card I-551, or other legal verification of such status).

 

Allowable Costs

Allowable costs include, but are not limited to, the following items:

  • Materials
  • Supplies
  • travel to professional meetings
  • support to defray student participation expenses such as student compensation (when appropriate) and other student costs (e.g., fees, books, tuition and lab fees) for no more than the amounts specified in the section entitled “Budget and Project Period.”

The recipient must provide documentation of tuition rates, if included in the application. Grant funds may not be used to supplant funds otherwise available at the applicant institution.

 

Application Requirements

  • Executive Summary of no more than half a page
  • Project Description of no more than five pages (specifics for Trade Schools and Community Colleges program are listed below)
    • Describe the proposed program including the number and size of the scholarships and any associated institutions. State the management structure and the capability for administering the program. Provide a schedule of tuition fees and other pertinent costs for students who would participate in this program.
    • Describe the recruitment activities and specific marketing strategies designed to attract a large and diverse pool of student applicants. Describe the selection process that will ensure the most qualified student applicants are selected based on academic merit, with consideration given to financial need and the goal of promoting the participation of minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
    • Identify an evaluation plan that will provide information on the effectiveness of the project in attracting, preparing and retaining individuals in nuclear careers. This plan should include methodologies for measuring the effectiveness of the program. The evaluation plan should include a mechanism for tracking the trade school and community college scholarship students as they fulfill their academic obligation and for reporting to the NRC.
    • State whether or not these scholarships are contemplated as an integrated element of a State or regional strategic plan including innovative approaches covering such arrangements as consortia, partnerships with other institutions (including Minority Supporting Institutions), shared or distance learning programs, etc. Post-Secondary Minority Institutions are listed at: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/edlite-minorityinst.html.
    • State any arrangements with other non-federal entities that provide additional support, usually in the form of cost sharing or matching, to the goals of this grant (a written agreement or letter is required with the application).
    • Institutions must agree to require individual trade school and community college scholarship students to accept the service agreement terms as defined in this FOA. (See http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/grants/trade-svc-agreement.pdf at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/grants.html ).
  • Summary of Current and Pending Support (projects that are or could impact PI’s time)
  • Curriculum Vitae of two-page maximum for each PI or senior personnel
  • Detailed Budget Narrative
  • A current copy of the institution’s A-133 audit report

 

Scoring Criteria for Trade Schools and Community College Scholarship Program

  1. Capacity and ability of the institution to effectively conduct the program including quality and feasibility of the recruitment and marketing strategies. (25 points)
  2. Type and degree of proposed student support (i.e., mentoring or advisor assistance). Including quality of technical programs for scholars. (25 points)
  3. Feasibility and completeness of an evaluation plan to measure the effectiveness of the scholarship program. (15 points)
  4. Institutional support for the program and plans for sustainability as well as number and quality of students that will be served by the program. (25 points)
  5. Innovation demonstrated through establishment of consortia or partnerships with other institutions to increase the universe of students reached through distance learning, shared courses, facility sharing, etc. (10 points)

NSF Community College Cyber Pilot Program (C3P)

National Science Foundation (NSF)

Community College Cyber Pilot Program (C3P)

PROGRAM SOLICITATION: PD 18-1668

Application Deadline: Rolling Basis

 

Summary

NSF has established this pilot program to support cybersecurity education initiatives in order to build a stronger cybersecurity workforce and a cybersecurity-literate citizenry. The grant targets community colleges that offer degrees and industry-recognized credentials that prepare students to fill high-demand cybersecurity jobs.

 

In particular, this grant seeks innovative cybersecurity educational programs serving military veterans and/or individuals who have already attained a bachelor’s degree. The pilot program also follows criteria and requirements established under CyberCorps® SFS: graduates must work in a cybersecurity-related position for federal, state, local, or tribal government organizations for a time frame equal to the length of any scholarship.

 

Projects should produce information that bolsters effective cybersecurity education and should focus on the following issues:

  • reskilling workers who can meet the nation’s cybersecurity needs;
  • helping nontraditional students enter or re-enter the educational system;
  • increasing diversity among the cybersecurity workforce;
  • using applied research to build real-world skills and competencies; and
  • collaborating with other stakeholders, including IHEs, businesses, industry, and government.

Projects that address these issues and offer innovative educational programming for targeted students may have a broader impact.

 

Application Guidelines

Applicants should refer to NSF-published guidelines for proposal preparations. Pertinent guidelines for submission of a proposal for this pilot project are included in Chapter II of the NSF’s Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide.

NEH Dialogues on the Experience of War

National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)

Dialogues on the Experience of War

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 45.163

Funding Opportunity Number: 20181115-AV

 

Submission Deadline: November 15, 2018—stay tuned for a grant announcement in 2019!

Summary

NEH offers the Dialogues on the Experience of War (Dialogues) program as part of its current initiative, Standing Together: The Humanities and the Experience of War, which aims to use the humanities as a means of encouraging open discussion and “helping Americans to understand the experiences of service members and in assisting veterans as they return to civilian life.” Dialogues supports the study and discussion of important humanities sources about war because these materials can help U.S. military veterans and others consider issues that their wartime and military service raise. The program’s goal is to reach veterans, but programs should also be open to active military service members, their families, and the public at large.

Projects may being as early as May 1, 2019, but must begin no later than September 1, 2019.

Applications have a 15-page limit (double-spaced) with font of at least 11 points.

 

Eligibility

Any U.S. nonprofit organization with 501(c)(3) status is eligible, as are state and local governmental agencies and federally recognized Indian tribal governments. Eligible organizations include institutions of higher education.

 

Awards

Up to $100,000 over 12 to 24 months for

  • conducting at least two sustained discussion programs for no fewer than fifteen participants; and
  • creating a preparatory program to recruit and train program discussion leaders

 

Unallowable Expenditures

  • preparation of courses for high school students, undergraduates, or graduate students (other than those designed to train undergraduates or graduate students—in particular, veterans who are undergraduates or graduate students—as NEH Discussion Leaders);
  • commercial, for-profit, or proprietary textbook research or revision;
  • doctoral dissertations, theses, or research pertaining to a graduate degree program;
  • promotion of a particular political, religious, or ideological point of view;
  • advocacy for a particular program of social or political action;
  • support of specific public policies or legislation;
  • psychological therapy, medical treatment, and career counseling;
  • lobbying; or
  • projects that fall outside the humanities; the creation or performance of art; creative writing, memoirs, and creative nonfiction; and empirically based social science research or policy studies.
  • costs related to social events such as banquets, receptions, and entertainment;
  • tuition or enrollment fees for participants (participation in the discussion groups must be made available free of charge); and
  • the cost of travel associated with scholarly research unrelated to the project.

 

“Musts”

Preparatory Training Requirement

Applicants must demonstrate their ability to create a program that will train discussion facilitators (NEH Discussion Leaders). Applicants will need to demonstrate they can put together a team to develop this training portion of the grant. The training program should include the following:

  • close study of the humanities sources at the heart of the discussions;
  • modeling and practice in leading humanities discussions (for example, posing questions designed to explore texts and elicit discussion of the texts’ contemporary relevance; articulating rules of civil discourse; encouraging group inquiry; moderating disagreements);
  • developing the discussion leaders’ knowledge and awareness of the diverse backgrounds and perspectives of military veterans and service members; and
  • building a virtual or actual network of discussion leaders and resources for future versions of the program and/or new programs.

Successful applicants will show a commitment to thorough and sustained discussion.

Suggestions regarding the format and methodology for the training program include items like these: lectures with break-out discussion groups, how-to demonstrations on the art of close reading, modeling how to conduct fruitful conversations or moderate online forms, the creation of videos, and practice in facilitating sample discussion sessions.

 

Discussion Programs

For the discussion portion of the grant, discussions must include the following items:

  • treat at least two historically distinct conflicts in depth: one from the earliest wars through World War I, and a second from the wars after World War I;
  • focus on the close study of sources drawn from at least two distinct genres (such as historical writings, memoirs, military biographies, speeches and letters, philosophical writings, documentaries, fiction, and artworks); and
  • engage participants in sustained dialogue about the selected humanities sources and the issues that they raise.

All discussions should encourage participants to seriously explore questions about war and military service. Topics for discussion may include the ethics of war, ideals of military service, the place of veterans in society, heroism, suffering, loyalty, and patriotism.

Discussion programs should involve multiple meetings of a sufficient duration to allow participants to engage in deep and inclusive discussion.

 

Evaluation

Proposals are evaluated based on grant announcement criteria and focus on these three areas:

  • Intellectual quality (incorporation of humanities sources),
  • Feasibility of preparatory training program and discussion sessions, and
  • Impact.

The Importance of Grant Planning

If you wait until you see the latest funding announcement or RFP from a private or federal funder before beginning the grant planning process, you’re already behind. Funding announcements typically have tight turnaround deadlines for applications and don’t allow time for gathering data and formulating a competitive project and proposal. Theoretically, the reasoning behind those tight deadlines is that funders want to provide support for organizations that already have clearly identified needs and concerns and that have already developed strategies and solutions they want to implement.

 

Planning to apply for a grant well before a notice of funding availability or RFP is released can help your organization in two ways: 1) your organization can pursue the best funding match for your needs instead of chasing funding dollars that may not entirely align with your mission or primary goals and 2) your organization has more time to fully develop projects or programs, obtain data, and involve collaborative internal and external partners during the program development phase. The grant planning tips below will get you started with the grant planning process and increase your organization’s odds of submitting a competitive proposal.

 

Begin with Strategic Planning and Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Processes

All planning, including grant planning, should begin with a strategic plan because a strategic plan gives your organization a solid basis upon which to make decisions about organizational priorities and needs. With a strategic plan in place, an organization is better able to prioritize specific needs related to maintaining or expanding services and meeting the needs of consumers.

 

While continuous quality improvement (CQI) is a term more commonly used in the business sector, nonprofits and higher education institutions can benefit in many ways from supplementing strategic planning with CQI techniques. In other words, solutions to problems and organizational priorities should always reflect the purpose of the organization and be aligned with what the organization hopes to accomplish. If proposed solutions and needs don’t align with the organization’s basic mission and purpose, you may experience “mission creep” which hinders the organization’s overall success.

 

CQI involves an ongoing and systematic process to pinpoint, analyze, and define what works well and what doesn’t and usually involves processes rather than people. CQI also involves positing appropriate solutions and process improvements, trying those solutions out, and revising them if needed. For instance, if your college has identified student advising as an area that needs improvement, putting together a team to conduct CQI around that issue will help you formulate improvements to the process of student advising and test your theories.

 

Since the CQI process helps organizations identify problems and propose solutions, it can be fundamental to any grant planning. Once you know what problems your organization wants to address and once you’ve developed an appropriate response to those problems, your organization will need funding to implement your solutions. At that point, your organization can begin to research the types of funding available for your specific needs. This pro-active approach is more effective in meeting organizational priorities since you are focused on finding funding opportunities that match your needs rather than trying to create programs and organizational priorities in response to funding announcements that you otherwise might not pursue.

 

Be Aware of the Grant Cycle

Grants, especially established federal grant programs, are often announced on a rolling basis. For instance, some grant programs are announced annually or bi-annually at approximately the same time of year. These cyclical grant announcements and criteria usually don’t vary much from year to year, so once you know what types of funding will best benefit your organization, you can review past grant announcements that match your funding needs. One way to search the availability and prior RFPs for federal grants is to conduct a keyword search on Grants.gov. Many times you can also review information about the specific projects that were successfully funded in the past and, therefore, explore the similarities to your proposed projects.

 

Having access to previous RFPs or NOFAs is invaluable in the grant planning process because you have all the information needed to begin planning an application well in advance of the formal grant announcement. Because federal grants are extremely competitive, JCCI Resource Development Services recommends planning at least a year ahead of an anticipated grant announcement. This time frame allows your organization to gather data, seek input from a variety of stakeholders, develop a comprehensive plan, and craft a competitive proposal. During this planning phase, working with an external grant consulting team such as JCCI Resource Development Services can improve your organization’s focus on identified problems and solutions and will bring an objective perspective to the table.

 

Check All Applicable Registrations

Often, organizations believe they are ready to apply for a grant, only to discover that the user name and passwords for federal portals such as Grants.gov and SAM.gov are no longer accessible. Personnel changes and upgrades to these services make checking accounts well ahead of any grant submission a best practice. Online tools such as Grants.gov and SAM.gov also must be able to “talk” to one another and must be linked organizationally. If you need to update any information or account settings, the process could take several weeks. SAM.gov offers online tips for setting up accounts.  Similarly, Grants.gov will walk you through the applicant registration process and also provides an overview of tools such as the Workspace feature.

 

From Planning to Submission

Taking time to prepare adequately for a grant submission will improve the competitiveness of your organization’s proposal. Once a funding deadline is announced, you will still have adequate time to craft a compelling case and discuss a strategy for meeting identified needs that is based on data, feedback and input, and evidence that you’ve had time to gather. You will also have time to have an external reviewer read your draft and make helpful comments prior to submission. The grant process is typically extremely competitive, and taking advantage of the grant planning strategies recommended here can make a difference in earning a winning application score.