• Assistant/Associate/Full Professors in a tenured/tenure-track position
• Assistant Professor rank or higher clinical and extension faculty
• Assistant/Associate/Full Professors-in-Residence 
• Although no minimum effort level is required for USG projects, a PI/Co-PI must have institutionally funded research time available during the award period. 
• Research Professors / those whose positions are contingent on grant-funding (soft money positions) must include details about their institutionally funded research time as part of the budget justification to confirm eligibility. 
• The USG program is open to faculty who do not have access to any investigator accounts with available balances over $10,000.00 (after specific costs committed for the next 6 months have been deducted). 

Please be sure to read all the guidelines thoroughly. Proposals must be submitted electronically through the UConn Quest Portal by 9/14/2026 12 noon and will require the following information:

Faculty Applicant Information Form: (some information may pre-populate into the form)

• Submitting PI Name 

• Home Department 

• School/College 

• Email 

• Faculty/Academic Rank 

• Primary Employer 

• Question - is your position contingent on grant funding? 

Urgent Seed Grant Application Form 

• Project Title

• Statement of Urgent Need – In 2-3 paragraphs articulate why seed funding is urgently needed and address funding needs within the research group, other funding sources available, and the importance of the work proposed. 

• Proposed Budget Requested – Indicate the total budget requested (capped at $25,000.00) 

Project Proposal (pdf upload)

Proposals should be written in straightforward language, keeping in mind that reviewers will possess general content knowledge but not necessarily specific expertise in the area of study. References should be included in the appendices and will not be counted against page limits. The Project Plan document (2-3 pages, 12-pt font and 1” margins) should address each of the areas below in sufficient detail using the headings provided. 

• Significance/Importance: Provide a clear and compelling rationale for the proposed project, scholarly activity, or creative work matters. Indicate how the proposed project will advance knowledge, address an important scientific or scholarly problem, demonstrate intellectual or creative significance, and/or benefit society in meaningful ways. If applicable, include hypotheses to be tested, specific goals/aims, and relevant background/information or preliminary data in support of the project. 

• Approach and Timeline: Describe the plan for carrying out the proposed activities, including research design, work plan, and methodological approach.  Describe how the environment in which the work will be done and the resources available will contribute to the probability of success. Describe the timeline projected for completing this work.  If funding is requested for more than one year, provide a rationale and justification for the request. 

Team: (pdf upload)

•  Upload one page overview of the team (names, roles, activities) 

Proposed budget: (pdf upload)

• List and justify each budget item. Please see Internal Funding Budget Guidelines for instructions and download the internal funding program budget template needed; either for 6 months or 1 year.  Be sure to list the items and their respective costs. Please provide a justification for each budget item in the appropriate column in the spreadsheet. If additional space is needed, you may include a budget justification document as an appendix. 

Appendices: (PDF upload, single document)

• Additional information may be included when it is truly essential for review of the proposal. 

All proposals will be evaluated using review criteria referenced below by a review committee composed of Associate Deans for Research, Center/Institute Directors, and members of the Research Advisory Council (RAC) and overseen by the OVPR. 

• The review committee will make their recommendations to the OVPR. 

• Final awards are made by the OVPR leadership based on the review committee recommendations, program objectives, equity factors (including disciplinary representation), recent internal funding history, and alignment of projects with other institutional priorities or investments. 

Review Criteria 

Awards are made based on the justification of the statement of urgent need and proposed budget as well as the criteria listed below. 

Using a 5-point rating scale from 1 (Excellent) to 5 (Poor), reviewers will rate and evaluate 2 criteria (Significance/Importance and Approach/Timeline) 

 Significance/Importance 

• Does this study address an important scientific / scholarly / creative problem or gap? 

• How well articulated are the project's hypotheses, aims, and/or goals?  Are these goals well-reasoned and adequately supported? 

• If the aims of the project are achieved, will scientific knowledge, technical capability, clinical practice, and/or social conditions be advanced in meaningful ways? 

• Does the proposed project significantly contribute to the concepts, theories, methods, technologies, applications, treatments, outcomes, services, and/or preventive interventions that drive the field/discipline? 

Approach/Timeline

• To what degree does the proposal outline a clearly articulated and well-reasoned plan of action? 

• Are the conceptual, theoretical, or clinical frameworks and research methods adequately developed and clearly articulated?  To what degree are they appropriate to the aims of the project and reflective of intellectual rigor? 

• Is the timeline adequate for achieving goals and meeting the project aims? For proposals requesting funding to exceed one year, is the request justified and supported? 

• Are the resources and time available for this project adequate to ensure success? 

• Does the environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? 

Budget Evaluation 

• Is the project budget appropriate and sufficient to carry out the proposed work? 

• Are the budget requests adequately justified, clearly articulated, and necessary for the scope of work and timeline? 

Funding Recommendations 

Reviewers will be asked to make funding recommendations based on the merits of each proposal. 

After awards are made and the project has been completed, the OVPR (Office of the Vice President for Research) needs to evaluate project progress and to learn more about the impact of the work that has been done.  To this end, you will receive a link to a short survey asking you questions about the outcomes and impacts of your project once your project has been completed and then again, one and three years post award project completion.