From NIH: FY2012 By The Numbers

In a recent post over at the National Institutes of Health's Rock Talk blog Dr. Sally Rockey, the NIH's Deputy Director for Extramural Research, presents a summary of the FY2012 NIH numbers. This post presents information on success rates, applications, awards, and many other points of interest.

Dr. Rockey is pleased with the FY2012 numbers. She states in the post, "Despite a flat budget and complex fiscal times, we maintained last year’s success rate and slightly increased the amount of award dollars that went to research project grants."

Click here to read the post.

From {Centered}: How to avoid common errors in federal grant applications

The competition for federal grants is already fierce, and the pressure to reduce the federal budget overall is almost certain to intensify it. How, then, can you increase your proposal's chances of surviving the review process? In "From a Proposal Reviewer's Perspective" (CharityChannel, August 22, 2012), Ron Flavin, who reviews grant applications for the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Education, and Health and Human Services, offers practical advice.

Having reflected, with his fellow reviewers, on why only 3% of the applications he has reviewed were recommended for funding, he has concluded that the most common reasons for rejection are:

• You failed to follow the directions in the funding agency guidelines, especially by omitting any information for one of the review criteria.
• You submitted a boiler plate proposal - one you used with other potential funders and that does not respond to the particular proposal requirements and format mandated by the RFP.
• You failed to adequately explain how the project will be sustained after the grant money is gone.
• You didn't bother to fully describe the applicant organization, the community, or the problem being addressed, because - having been funded by the agency previously - you assumed the description was unnecessary. This is dangerous because you're unlikely to get the same set of reviewers every time. 
• Your budget appears to be padded, because it's for exactly the maximum amount available. To avoid this, always develop your budget from the bottom up to total all necessary expenses, even if that total is less than the maximum allowed.

{Centered} September 2012 - Volume 5, Issue 9 
© 2012 The Grantsmanship Center. All rights reserved.
 www.tgci.com

From NIH OER: OMB Asks for Comments on Potential Reforms to Federal Grant Policies

The Office of Management and Budget just published a notice in the Federal Register asking for public comment on potential reforms to federal grant policies contained in OMB circulars such as A-21, A-133, and A-122. These include ideas that would standardize information collection across agencies, adopt a risk-based model for single audits, and provide new administrative approaches for determining and monitoring the allocation of federal funds. These ideas reflect the input of a number of groups that have been considering these issues over the past few months, including the A-21 Task Force, which I have mentioned here before.

I encourage you to read the notice in full. To give you an idea of the scope of the proposed reform, here are some of the ideas discussed:

• Exploring alternatives to time-and-effort reporting requirements for salaries and wages 
• Charging directly allocable administrative support as a direct cost Including the cost of certain computing devices as allowable direct cost supplies 
• Consolidating the cost principles into a single document, with limited variations by type of entity 
• For indirect (“facilities and administrative”) costs, using flat rates instead of negotiated rates 

As you can see, some of these changes, if implemented, will have a broad, long-lasting effect on how federal grants are administered. Therefore, it is important to take advantage of this opportunity to provide input to OMB as they consider the proposed reforms.

You can submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov. The comment period closes on March 29, 2012.

Read the original post on the Extramural Nexus Rock Talk here.

From GRC: FY 13 Budget Request Highlights

The White House submitted its FY 13 budget request on February 13, 2012. The $3.8 trillion proposal advances a $350 billion stimulus package focused on job growth and $140 billion for research and development funding, including $2.2 billion for advanced manufacturing research and development and $30.6 billion for basic research.

The National Institutes of Health would receive level funding, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) would receive $7.37 billion, a 4.8 percent increase. The OneNSF initiative — which includes funding for Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems; Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering; Expeditions in Education; Innovation Corps; Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Education; Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace; and Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability — would be funded at $807 million. Funding for CAREER and Graduate Research Fellowships awards would increase slightly, and STEM education would retain significant support through these initiatives:

• NSF and the U.S. Department of Education would provide $30 million each for an evidence-based program to improve K-16 mathematics education and knowledge building. This new opportunity will support researchers and educators who have the greatest potential to transform mathematics learning. At NSF, the Discovery Research K-12 and Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM programs would be the vehicles.
• The Widening Implementation and Demonstration of Evidence-based Reforms (WIDER) program would receive $20 million for research and demonstration projects exploring how to achieve widespread sustainable implementation of evidence-based undergraduate instructional practices to improve student outcomes. 
• Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM would receive $61.5 million to improve the quality of STEM education for all undergraduate students by supporting efforts to create, adapt, and disseminate new learning materials and teaching strategies to reflect advances both in STEM disciplines and in what is known about teaching and learning. 

Other budget highlights include a commitment to reset the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, along with NSF, on a path to doubled budgets; modest increases, 5.5 percent each, for the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities; and $24 billion in cuts, consolidations, and savings across the agencies.

Ball State University student, faculty, or staff? Read more from the Grants Resource Center! Visit the SPO credentials page.