March 2009 (FY09)

March 2009

Wishing You the Luck of the Irish on St. Patrick's Day!!

As always, please allow extra time for our office to assist you in processing your grant proposals to avoid unnecessary delays or missed deadlines.

REMINDER: Office Hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) on Externally Sponsored Programs

What does the recently enacted ARRA mean for recipients of federal grants?  Obviously there will be a tremendous scramble for applicants trying to respond quickly to these very tight deadlines (termed “Urgent.”)  Our staff will work with all applicants to meet these deadlines with the very best applications. We anticipate that the strain on Grants.gov (the mandatory online submission portal) will significantly delay submissions. With an expected 60 percent increase in volume because of the ARRA $787 billion stimulus bill, there will be major capacity and speed issues.  Grants.gov is recommending making submissions 72 HOURS/3 days in advance of published deadlines to avoid delays and possible disqualifications of applications. In turn that means making certain to observe the university’s processing expectation of 5 business day’s lead time on all submissions, particularly those that require Grants.gov submissions. There is no ‘workaround’ to avoid using Grants.gov and no requirement for agencies to accept ‘late’ proposals caused by system delays.

To help yourselves, please notify Office of Sponsored Programs as SOON as you have located a program that you want to apply for. Office of Sponsored Programs will develop a budget for you based on your input. It is very important that this conversation occur EARLY in the process and not as an afterthought to the technical portion of your application.  Our staff will complete the required federal forms for you within Grants.gov and submit for you but we have to be involved early to facilitate a quality submission!

After clearing the pre-award dash to submit an application, all funds received via the ARRA will require even more regulatory “transparency” than normal. Many sources note additional post award reporting tied to funding received from ARRA stimulus dollars.

The President has made it clear that every taxpayer dollar spent on our economic recovery must be subject to unprecedented levels of transparency and accountability.  He has identified five crucial objectives for Federal agencies, to ensure that:

• Recovery funds are awarded and distributed in a prompt, fair, and reasonable manner;
• The recipients and uses of all recovery funds are transparent to the public, and that the public benefits of these funds are reported clearly, accurately, and in a timely manner;
• Recovery funds are used for authorized purposes and every step is taken to prevent instances of fraud, waste, error, and abuse;
• Projects funded under the recovery legislation avoid unnecessary delays and cost overruns; and,
• Programs meet specific goals and targets, and contribute to improved performance on broad economic indicators.

The federal government will issue official guidance to cover, at a minimum, requirements and guidelines for:
• Providing spending and performance data that will be posted on the
www.recovery.gov web site to give Americans detailed and timely information on
how and where recovery dollars are spent;
• Establishing rigorous internal controls, oversight mechanisms, and other approaches
to meet the accountability objectives of the bill; and
• Enhancing, as necessary, standard processes for awarding and overseeing funds to
meet accelerated timeframes and other unique challenges posed by the recovery bill’s
transparency and accountability framework. 

More information can be found at the following URL: http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/accountability-and-transparency

Detailed guidance on this site outlines necessary enhancements to standard processes for awarding and overseeing funds to meet accelerated timeframes and other unique challenges posed by the Recovery Act’s transparency and accountability framework. More specifically, the Guidance:

• Answers questions and clarifies issues related to the mechanics of implementing the Recovery Act;
• Provides initial clarification on what information will be reported on Recovery.gov and what information will be required to be reported on agency websites;
• Instructs agencies on initial steps which must be taken to meet these reporting requirements, including incorporation of recipient reporting requirements in award documents and communications with funding recipients; and
• Establishes a common framework for agencies to manage the risks associated with implementing Recovery Act requirements.

The Recovery Act and this Guidance include several provisions that require agencies to take steps beyond standard practice, including reporting, information collection, budget execution, risk management, and specific actions related to award type.

• Transparency and Reporting

• Information Collection and Dissemination
• Budget Execution
• Risk Management

Though we do not have a specific set of reporting instructions in hand yet, it is important to know that there will be an increased scrutiny of the use of these funds and greater reporting required about the results of the funding. More detailed guidance covering a fuller range of items will be issued 30-60 days after enactment. Internally at the university, as awards are received they will be clearly marked as ARRA in source and we will work individually with our PI recipients to ensure that additional requirements are communicated and met.

Areas to receive significant boosts in funding:
Education
Total: $90.9 billion, including the following programs for which our PI’s have been active:

• $12.2 billion for IDEA special education
• $2.1 billion for Head Start
• $2 billion for childcare services
• $650 million for educational technology

Scientific research will see an infusion of funding for a total of $8.9 billion:

• $3 billion to the National Science Foundation
• $2 billion to the United States Department of Energy
• $1.3 billion for university research facilities
• $1 billion to NASA
• $600 million to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
• $580 million to the National Institute of Standards and Technology
• $230 million for NOAA operations, research and facilities
• $140 million to the United States Geological Survey

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, (the "economic stimulus bill"), provides a total of $10.4 billion to the National Institutes of Health (NIH):

• $1.3 billion to National Center for Research Resources ($1 billion for competitive extramural facilities; $300 million for shared instrumentation). 
• $500 million for intramural facilities
• $400 million to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).  Mechanisms for distributing AHRQ dollars not yet finalized. 
• $8.2 billion to NIH Office of the Director (OD):  $7.4 billion is transferred to Institutes and Centers (I/C); $800 million remains in OD for trans-NIH initiatives. 
    
  Three major mechanisms for distributing the $7.4B--the bulk of the funding goes to mechanisms 1 and 2: 
  
  • R01 applications already in the funding queue
    Two years of funding will be provided for those applications that can benefit from two years of funding and align with I/C priorities.  A few applications may get four years of funding 
    
  • Administrative Supplements to existing grants
    Existing grants with at least one year to run may be given the opportunity or asked to submit supplements that further the goals of the I/Cs.  These will be handled at least in part by requests from the I/Cs and likely with some calls for proposals and could involve equipment, extended funds for postdocs who were not able to move to their own position, summer students, related projects, etc.  There may be other priority issues that the I/C staff want to see funded 
    
  • Challenge Grants
    A new RFA will be released within a week or two for a new, two-year program of cross-cutting, highly innovative projects, $1 M total per project

Link to stimulus bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/h1/Recovery_Bill_Div_A.pdf

return to the top of the page

The mission of the NIH is to support science in pursuit of knowledge about the biology and behavior of living systems and to apply that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.  As part of this mission, applications submitted to the NIH for grants or cooperative agreements to support biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.  In June 2007, the NIH initiated a formal, agency-wide effort to review the NIH peer review system (http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/). After careful deliberation and consideration of the recommendations resulting from this year-long effort, a number of key actions will be implemented in the NIH peer review system.  
 
In current practice, each scored application is assigned a single, overall priority score that reflects the consideration of all review criteria.  Individual reviewers assign scores on a 1 to 5 scale in 0.1 increments (e.g., 2.2), resulting in 41 possible rating discriminations for reviewers to make.  The reviewers’ individual scores then are averaged and multiplied by 100 to yield a single overall priority score for each scored application (e.g., 253).

Although this rating system has served the NIH and the research community well, several concerns led the NIH to consider a revised rating system for grant applications.  Making 41 discriminations is difficult for reviewers to do reliably, and scores increasingly have become compressed toward the positive end of the scale.  In addition, by averaging reviewer scores and multiplying by 100, the resulting priority score appears to have more precision than it actually has.  To address these concerns, the NIH considered scoring systems with fewer rating options to increase potential reliability and with sufficient range and appropriate anchors to encourage reviewers to use the full scale.  To increase transparency, the NIH also considered methods to communicate ratings from assigned reviewers even when the application is streamlined and not discussed, or discussed and scored by the full committee.

Additional information is available in Guide Notices NOT-OD-09-023 “Enhancing Peer Review: The NIH Announces Updated Implementation Timeline” and NOT-OD-09-025 “Enhancing Peer Review: The NIH Announces Enhanced Review Criteria for Evaluation of Research Applications Received for Potential FY2010 Funding”.

Implementation

New Scoring System. The new scoring system will be effective for all applications for research grants and cooperative agreements that are submitted for funding consideration for fiscal year 2010 (FY2010) and thereafter.  The first standing due date for FY2010 is January 25, 2009; the new scoring system will be used for applications submitted in response to Parent Announcements and Program Announcements, including PARs and PASs published before or after this Guide Notice.  An important aspect of the implementation of the new scoring system is to use it in a consistent manner for applications considered in a given fiscal year.  Therefore, some RFAs and PARs for funding consideration in FY2010 have due dates before January 25, 2009, and responses to those will be evaluated using the new scoring system.  Likewise some RFAs and PARs for FY2009 have due dates after January 25, 2009, and responses to those will be evaluated using the present scoring system.

The new scoring system will utilize a 9-point rating scale (1 = exceptional; 9 = poor).  Although a 7-point scale was planned initially, a 9-point scale was selected based on the desire for a scale with sufficient range.  The NIH also has prior experience with the distribution of scores from a 9-point scale, based on data on the 1-5 scale when only 0.5 increments were allowed1.  Moreover, prior recommendations from measurement and decision science experts regarding the scoring system suggested that an 8 to 11 point scale is appropriate2. 

Not Recommended for Further Consideration. An application may be designated Not Recommended for Further Consideration (NRFC) by the Scientific Review Group if it lacks significant and substantial merit; presents serious ethical problems in the protection of human subjects from research risks; or presents serious ethical problems in the use of vertebrate animals, biohazards, and/or select agents.   Applications designated as NRFC do not proceed to the second level of peer review (National Advisory Council/Board) because they cannot be funded.

Percentile Rankings.  Percentile rankings will be calculated anew, starting with scores from the May 2009 cycle of review, and reported to the nearest whole number.

Scores for Individual Criteria.  Before the review meeting, each reviewer and discussant assigned to an application will give a separate score for each of five core review criteria (Significance, Investigator(s), Innovation, Approach, and Environment).  For all applications, even those not discussed by the full committee, the scores of the assigned reviewers and discussant(s) for these criteria will be reported individually on the summary statement.

Priority Scores – Discussed Applications. Before the review meeting, each reviewer and discussant assigned to an application will give a preliminary impact score for that application.  The preliminary impact scores will be used to determine which applications will be discussed.  For each application that is discussed, a final impact score will be given by each eligible committee member (without conflicts of interest).  Each member’s impact score will reflect his/her evaluation of the overall impact that the project is likely to have on the research field(s) involved, rather than a weighted average applied to the reviewer’s scores given to each criterion (see above).
 
The overall impact score for each discussed application will be determined by calculating the mean score from all the eligible members’ impact scores, and multiplying the average by 10; the overall impact score will be reported on the summary statement.  Thus, the 81 possible overall impact scores will range from 10 - 90. (Overall impact scores will not be reported for applications that are not discussed.)

Funding Decisions.  The new scoring system may produce more applications with identical scores (“tie” scores).  Thus, other important factors, such as mission relevance and portfolio balance, will be considered in making funding decisions when grant applications are considered essentially equivalent on overall impact, based on reviewer ratings.

Report of the Committee on Rating of Grant Applications (May 17, 1996) (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/rga.pdf)

Cicchetti, D.V., Showalter, D., and Tyrer, P.J. (1985) The effect of number of rating scale categories on levels of interrater reliability: A Monte Carlo investigation.  Appl. Psych. Meas. 9: 31-36.

Inquiries

Questions should be directed to EnhancingPeerReview@mail.nih.gov.
For more information on NIH’s Enhancing Peer Review effort visit  http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/. 

return to the top of the page

http://www.jmu.edu/sponsprog/fsources.html

return to the top of the page

Nursing Research Grants Program

Special Grant Program in the Chemical Sciences

Understanding the Role of Nonchemical Stressors and Developing Analytic Methods for Cumulative Risk Assessments

Scientific Conferences

Title VIII Program for Research and Training on Eastern Europe and Eurasia

Early-Concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER)
Communicating Research to Public Audiences
Antarctic Research
Broadening Participation in Computing

Challenge America: Reaching Every Community Fast Track Grants
Learning in the Arts for Children and Youth

Changes in Health Care Financing and Organization

Priority Grantmaking

Public Health Informatics Centers

Outreach Grants

Grants

return to the top of the page

• The purpose of the American Nurses Foundation (ANF) Nursing Research Grants Program is to encourage the research career development of all nurses. To effectively achieve this goal, the program supports research of beginning and experienced nurse researchers. Applicants must designate themselves as either a "beginning" or "experienced" nurse researcher.
• Eligibility: In all award categories, the principal investigator must be a licensed registered nurse who has obtained at least one degree, either a baccalaureate degree or higher, in nursing. Beginning researcher: A nurse who has no more than three research-based publications in referenced journals and has received, as principal investigator, no more than $15,000 in extramural funding in one particular research area. Experienced researcher: A nurse who has more than three research-based journal\publications and has received more than $15,000 as principal investigator, in research funding since their degree.
• Funding: Awards for 2009 range from $3,500 to $25,000.
• Web: http://www.anfonline.org/MainCategory/NursingResearchGrant.aspx
  
• Deadline: May 1, 2009

• The Special Grant Program in the Chemical Sciences supports innovative projects in any area consistent with the Foundation's broad objective to advance the chemical sciences.
  
• Eligibility: The Special Grant Program in the Chemical Sciences is open to institutions in the States, Districts, and Territories of the United States of America that have a focus in the chemical sciences. Institutions include schools, colleges and universities, as well as other not-for-profit organizations, such as scientific societies and science museums. Awards are not made directly to individuals, or, in general, to private foundations.
• Funding: The amount of support requested is determined by the applicant. In 2007, awards ranged from about $11,000 to $75,000.
• Web: http://www.dreyfus.org/awards/special_grant_program_chemical.shtml
  
• Deadline: June 4, 2009

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, is seeking applications from interdisciplinary teams to address research needs that currently limit the ability to conduct cumulative risk assessments. Exposure to different combinations of environmental stressors can contribute to increased risk for negative health consequences. It has become clear that cumulative risk assessments should include both chemical and nonchemical stressors, exposures from multiple routes, and factors that differentially affect exposure or toxicity to communities. This RFA is focusing on two challenges that exist in conducting cumulative risk assessments: (a) STAR-E1: The development of statistical and other analytical techniques that will enable the analysis of disparate types of data, and (b) STAR-E2: The evaluation of the combined effects of nonchemical and chemical stressors.
  
• Eligibility: Public nonprofit institutions and organizations (includes public institutions of higher education and hospitals) and private nonprofit institutions/organizations (includes private institutions of higher education and hospitals) located in the U.S., state and local governments, Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments, and U.S. territories or possessions are eligible to apply.
• Funding: About $8 million for approximately 9 awards. Potential Funding per Award: Up to a total of $750,000 for STAR-E1 and up to a total of $1,250,000 for STAR-E2, including direct and indirect costs, with a maximum duration of 4 years. Cost-sharing is not required.
• Web: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2009/2009_star_cumulative_risk.html
  
• Deadline: June 17, 2009

• The Science Directorate of the American Psychological Association (APA) is seeking proposals for research conferences in psychology. The purpose of this program is to promote the exchange of important new contributions and approaches in scientific psychology.

• Eligibility: One of the primary organizers must be a member of APA. Only academic institutions accredited by a regional body may apply. Independent research institutions must provide evidence of affiliation with such an accredited institution. Joint proposals from cooperating institutions are encouraged. Conferences may be held only in the United States, its possessions, or Canada.
• Funding: Grant money, ranging from $500 to $20,000, is available for each scientific conference. The conference must also be supported by the host institution with direct funds, in-kind support, or a combination of the two.
• Web: http://www.apa.org/science/confer2.html
  
• Deadline: June 1, 2009

•  The Department of State, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, invites organizations with substantial and wide-reaching experience in administering research and training programs to serve as intermediaries conducting nationwide competitive programs for U.S. scholars, students and institutions pertaining to advanced research and language training on the countries of Eastern Europe and Eurasia.

• Eligibility: U.S.-based public and private nonprofit organizations and educational institutions may submit proposals to carry out Title VIII-funded programs that 1) support and sustain American expertise on the countries of Eurasia and Southeast Europe, 2) bring American expertise to the service of the U.S. Government, and 3) further U.S. foreign assistance and policy goals. An explicit connection must be made to U.S. policy, the maintenance of U.S. knowledge and expertise, and national capability. This program also works to support outreach and build relationships with the academic community. Intelligence Community analysts and DOS policy staff can benefit from engagement with outside elements to explore new ideas and perspectives and create new knowledge and research.
• Funding: Funding for this program is subject to final Congressional action and the appropriation of FY 2009 funds. In Fiscal Year 2008, the program was funded at $4.959 million, which funded operation expenses and grant awards.
• Web: http://www.grants.gov/search/search.do?&mode=VIEW&oppId=45236
• Deadline: April 17, 2009

Early-Concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER)

• The EAGER funding mechanism may be used to support exploratory work in its early stages on untested, but potentially transformative, research ideas or approaches. This work may be considered especially "high risk-high payoff" in the sense that it, for example, involves radically different approaches, applies new expertise, or engages novel disciplinary or interdisciplinary perspectives. These exploratory proposals may also be submitted directly to an NSF program, but the EAGER mechanism should not be used for projects that are appropriate for submission as "regular" (i.e., non-EAGER) NSF proposals. PI(s) must contact the NSF program officer(s) whose expertise is most germane to the proposal topic prior to submission of an EAGER proposal. This will aid in determining the appropriateness of the work for consideration under the EAGER mechanism; this suitability must be assessed early in the process.
• Funding: Requests may be for up to $300K and of up to two years duration. The award size, however, will be consistent with the project scope and of a size comparable to grants in similar areas.
• Web: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_1/gpg_2.jsp#IID2
• Deadline: Anytime

Communicating Research to Public Audiences

• Communicating Research to Public Audiences is a component of the Informal Science Education program (ISE) in the Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education. ISE projects provide rich and stimulating contexts and experiences for individuals of all ages, interests, and backgrounds to increase their appreciation for, and understanding of, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in out-of-school settings. Requests for up to $75,000 will be considered to support projects that communicate to public audiences the process and results of current research that is being supported by any NSF directorate through informal science education activities, such as media presentations, exhibits, or youth-based activities. The purpose of these efforts is to disseminate research results, research in progress, or research methods.
• Web: http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5362
• Deadline: Anytime

Antarctic Research

• Scientific research and operational support of that research are the principal activities supported by the United States Government in Antarctica. The goals are to expand fundamental knowledge of the region, to foster research on global and regional problems of current scientific importance, and to use Antarctica as a platform from which to support research. The U.S. Antarctic Program provides support for field work only when a compelling justification exists for doing the work in Antarctica (i.e., the work can only be done, or is best done, in Antarctica). The program also supports Antarctic-related analytical research performed at home organizations.
• Funding: $20 million in FY 2010, plus up to $35 million in out year increments for continuing awards. It is estimated that about 50 awards will be made.
• Web: http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5519
• Deadline: June 8, 2009

Broadening Participation in Computing

• The National Science Foundation seeks to significantly increase the number of U.S. Citizens and permanent residents receiving postsecondary degrees in computing disciplines, with an emphasis on students from communities with longstanding under-representation in computing, such as women, people with disabilities, African-Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders. Projects that target stages of the academic pipeline from middle school through the early faculty ranks are welcome. The BPC program will support three category of awards: Alliances-broad coalitions of academic institutions of higher learning, secondary (and possibly middle) schools, government, industry, professional societies, and other nonprofit organizations that design and carry out comprehensive programs addressing underrepresentation in the computing disciplines; Demonstration projects-pilot innovative programs that, once fully developed, could be incorporated into the activities of an alliance or otherwise scaled for widespread impact; Leveraging, scaling, and adapting projects-intended to extend the impact of our most effective practices through leveraging, scaling, or adaptation.
• Funding: Grants range from $100,000 to $750,000.
• Web: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsf09534/nsf09534.html
• Deadline: May 13, 2009

Challenge America: Reaching Every Community Fast Track Grants

• The Challenge America: Reaching Every Community Fast-Track Review Grants category offers support primarily to small and mid-sized organizations for projects that extend the reach of the arts to underserved populations -- those whose opportunities to experience the arts are limited by geography, ethnicity, economics, or disability. Age alone (e.g., youth, seniors) does not qualify a group as underserved; at least one of the underserved characteristics noted here also must be present. This category, as an essential component of the Arts Endowment's goal of providing wide access to artistic excellence, supports local projects that can have significant effects within communities. Grants are available for professional arts programming and for projects that emphasize the potential of the arts in community development. Partnerships can be valuable to the success of these projects. While not required, applicants are encouraged to consider partnerships among organizations, both in and outside of the arts, as appropriate to their project.

• Funding: Grants are $10,000 each.
• Web: http://www.nea.gov/grants/apply/GAP10/Challenge.html
• Deadline: May 28, 2009

Learning in the Arts for Children and Youth

• The Learning in the Arts for Children and Youth category offers funding for projects that help children and youth acquire knowledge and understanding of and skills in the arts. Projects must provide participatory learning and engage students with skilled artists, teachers, and excellent art. Funded projects apply national or state arts education standards. All projects submitted to the Learning in the Arts category must include: (a) Experience - Students and their teachers will have the chance to experience exemplary works of art -- in live form where possible. (b) Study - Through the guidance of teachers, teaching artists, and cultural organizations, students will study works of art in order to understand the cultural and social context from which they come, and to appreciate the technical and/or aesthetic qualities of each work. Where appropriate, study will include the acquisition of skills relevant to practicing the art form. (c) Performance - Informed by their experience and study, students will create artwork. In the case of literature, the primary creative activities will be writing and/or recitation. (d) Assessment - Students will be assessed according to national or state arts education standards. Where appropriate, projects will employ multiple forms of assessment including pre- and post-testing.
• Eligibility: Nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3), U.S. organizations; units of state or local government; or federally recognized tribal communities or tribes may apply. Applicants may be arts organizations, local arts agencies, arts service organizations, local education agencies (school districts), and other organizations that can help advance the goals of the Arts Endowment.
• Funding: An organization may request a grant amount from $5,000 to $150,000. Most grant awards will range from $10,000 to $100,000. Few grants will be awarded below $10,000; grants of $100,000 or more will be made only in rare instances, and only for projects that the Arts Endowment determines demonstrate exceptional national or regional significance and impact. All grants require a nonfederal match of at least 1 to 1.
• Web: http://www.arts.gov/grants/apply/GAP10/LITA.html
• Deadline: June 11, 2009

Changes in Health Care Financing and Organization

• Changes in Health Care Financing and Organization (HCFO) supports policy analysis, research, evaluation and demonstration projects that provide policy leaders timely information on health care policy and financing issues. Supported projects include: (a) examining significant issues and interventions related to health care financing and organization and their effects on health care costs, quality and access; and (b) exploring or testing major new ways to finance and organize health care that have the potential to improve access to more affordable and higher quality health services.

• Eligibility: Researchers, as well as practitioners and public and private policy-makers working with researchers, are eligible to apply. Projects may be initiated from within many disciplines, including health services research, economics, sociology, political science, public policy, public health, public administration, law and business administration. Multidisciplinary teams and researchers who are just beginning their careers--perhaps teaming with a more senior researcher to develop the analytic approach--are especially encouraged to apply. Preference will be given to applicants that are public agencies or are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and are not private foundations as defined under Section 509(a).
• Funding: In October 2007, the Foundation reauthorized this initiative for $11 million over three years. Small grants are for projects requiring $100,000 or less and projected to take 12 months or less. Large grants are for projects requiring more than $100,000 and/or projected to take longer than 12 months.
• Web: http://www.hcfo.net/apply.htm
• Deadline: Anytime

Priority Grantmaking

• The Priority Grantmaking competition (formerly the Solicited Grant Initiative) will fund activities that enhance mechanisms for and advance knowledge and understanding of conflict prevention, conflict management, and post-conflict peace building in Afghanistan, Colombia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Sudan, according to the priority areas identified for each country on USIP's web site.

• Eligibility: American and foreign individuals and non-profit organizations may apply. Individuals whose proposals are funded will be required to identify a non-profit organization to manage the grant. The Institute gives priority to high-quality projects that are likely to generate findings that are accessible to policymakers and practitioners and that show promise of having a substantial impact on the field. Projects that result in findings made widely available to the public through published writings, manuals, curricular materials, web sites, documentary films, etc. are more likely to be funded than those that have limited impact.
• Funding: USIP has awarded 55 priority grants since 2008. The awards generally range from $45,000 to $170,000.
• Web: http://www.usip.org/grants/priority_grantmaking.html
• Deadline: Anytime

Public Health Informatics Centers

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention seeks a new generation of centers of excellence to fulfill a national strategic need to protect and improve the public's health through discovery, innovation, and service in health information technology and informatics. Broad objectives should enhance: electronic personal and medical health record support of public health functions and impacts; basic capabilities that support public health practice; public health decision support; and consumer health platforms to support public health outcomes.

• Eligibility: Colleges and universities; for-profit and nonprofit organizations; research institutions; hospitals; FBCOs; federally or state-recognized American Indian/Alaska Native tribal governments; American Indian/Alaska Native organizations; urban Indian health organizations; state and local governments.
• Funding: $5.5 million for four to five awards averaging $1 million over a 12 month period. Applicants may request funding up to five years.
• Web: http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/HK09-001.htm
• Deadline: April 10, 2009

Outreach Grants

• The American String Teachers Association provides outreach grants to support innovative projects that provide economically disadvantaged school children through grade 12 with the opportunity to study stringed instruments.

• Eligibility: Funds are awarded to projects that offer group string instruction within a larger institutional context (examples: a youth sympathy, ensemble program, summer music camp, or community music school). The project coordinator must be an active ASTA member.
• Funding: Matching grants are for two consecutive years: first year-$2,000, second year-$1,000.
• Web: http://www.astaweb.com/Content/NavigationMenu/CommunityInitiatives/default.htm
• Deadline: April 1, 2009

Grants

• The American Woodmark Foundation Inc. provides funds to education, domestic violence, housing and public safety organizations. Areas of company operations in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.

• Funding: In 2007, the foundation provided more than $300,000 in charitable grants.
• Web: http://www.americanwoodmark.com/about.asp?iAreaID=1&iSectionID=7
• Deadline: Rolling

return to funding opportunities

The following external links are funding deadlines organized by discipline. Please select the applicable discipline to access possible funding opportunities: (courtesy of The Grant Advisor Plus)

• Fine Arts
• Humanities
  
• Sciences
  
• Social Sciences
  
• Federal Register
  
• Education
  
• International
  
• Health Related
  
• Unrestricted / Other
  
• Minorities / Women

return to the top of the page

John Hulvey, Director of Sponsored Programs Administration and Accounting
MSC 5728, JMAC-6, Suite 26
hulveyjd@jmu.edu
x8-3725

Sponsored Programs Administration:
Pre-Award & Post-Award (Non-fiscal)
www.jmu.edu/sponsprog/
jmu_grants@jmu.edu
JMAC-6, Suite 26
MSC 5728
Phone: 568-6872; Fax: 568-6240

Sponsored Programs Accounting :
Post-Award (Grants & Contracts)
www.jmu.edu/acadaffairs/grant.shtml
JMAC-6, Suite 30
MSC 5713
Phone: 568-4623; Fax: 568-2397

Tamara Hatch, Associate Director
hatchtt@jmu.edu
x8-2350

Sally Dickenson, Grants Specialist
dickensr@jmu.edu
x8-2336

Whitney Keister , Grants Specialist
keistejw@jmu.edu
x8-3558

Carolyn Strong, Research Coordinator
IRB & IACUC Contact
strongcd@jmu.edu
x8-2318

Amanda Brown , Executive Assistant
brown2aw@jmu.edu
x8-6872 or x8-4623

Donna Crumpton, Financial Administrator
crumptdl@jmu.edu
x8-8099

Brenda Seifried, Financial Administrator
wilburbc@jmu.edu
x8-8-2314

Kyra Shiflet, Financial Administrator
shiflekl@jmu.edu
x8-7108

return to the top of the page