Volume 11, number 7: january 5, 2005
FUNDING TIPS
Confused About the Differences in Federal Funding Types?
Federal funding opportunities go by many names: Requests for Applications (RFA), Requests for Proposals (RFP), Program Announcements with Set-Aside Funds (PAS), Program Announcements Reviewed by an Institution (PAR), contracts, and others. It can sometimes be confusing to understand the differences between these funding vehicles. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NIDMS) has a quick reference description of the different types of federal grant mechanisms, which is helpful if you want clarification of the goals and functions of the various federal award types. NIDMS also has resources for those who are writing research grants or who want to learn more about the contract process. READ MORE.
New Resource for Finding Funding in Health and Biomedicine Research
The GrantSource Library has recently received the new 2005 edition of the Directory of Biomedical and Health Care Grants, which provides current, accurate information regarding funding for research programs and projects in biomedicine and human health. Funding programs range from laboratory investigations to those designed to study the needs of society in health care delivery. These programs represent all areas of research, with a special emphasis placed on foundation and corporate sponsors in addition to federal and state programs. The library invites you to come to 307 Bynum Hall to use this and other valuable resources to identify funding opportunities for your research. For information about other publications in the library’s print collection, click here.
Federal Agency PART Program Evaluations
Federal agencies evaluate federal grant programs for effectiveness by using a Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) uses these agency PART evaluations in order to establish budget requests. If you would like to see which grant programs are expected to sustain or lose their funding, see the PART evaluations from 2004 and 2005 for individual programs. Programs that have received an “ineffective” rating are the ones with the highest risk of losing funding.
Basic Proposal Writing Tips
The Federal Assistance Monitor (FAM) recently participated in the grant-review process for a national youth organization awarding its 2004 grants. FAM offers the following lessons from the competition:
- Almost all grant competitions are so tight these days there is no tolerance for the proposal that “has a nice idea” but clearly is trying to fit its square-peg proposal into round-hole guidelines.
- Address ALL points of a proposal, in order, by following the application package, proposal guidelines. Having to hunt through an application to see whether a priority has been addressed causes a great deal of annoyance among those reading proposals (especially late in the day).
- When showing community support, try to provide more than a laundry list of people who have expressed general appreciation. Demonstrate specific instances of support (including financial) in the past.
- Because there is a real emphasis on diversity these days, try as much as possible to show that an underserved population is being helped and will play a significant role in developing programs, setting priorities, and other activities.
Federal Assistance Monitor, “Grant Tip Basics” November 18, 2004.
Changes in Upjohn Institute Grant Programs
The Upjohn Institute’s grant program for policy-relevant research on employment issues announces two new features in its 2005 grant program. A “Priority Research Topic” has been added to elicit research in an area where the institute believes additional work is needed. For the 2005 competition, this topic will be the effects of health-care costs on labor demand. The other new feature involves the addition of a second competitive-review round for the grant program. READ MORE.