• Provides funding in support of faculty seeking to position themselves for work on JEDI-related projects in the future.  Level 1 awards can also provide seed funds for certain JEDI-related institutional initiatives.
• This level is designed to provide funding in support of:
  • faculty skill development, particularly in JEDI/DEI theoretical approaches and/or research methodologies for social impact research
  • networking activities for development of novel interdisciplinary partnerships that will lead to future work on JEDI-related research projects
  • the purchase or development of survey instruments or datasets for use in JEDI-related research projects
  • Climate surveys necessary for external funding strategies and/or thoughtful plans of action for institutional change.  Please reach out to the OVPR for more information if you are seeking funding for this kind of project
• Awards may be used over 1 year
• 3-5 Level 1 awards are expected
• Note: the OVPR Scholarship Facilitation Fund (SFF) has been established to support small scale pilot projects, requests for publication support, and other costs related to the initiation and completion of research (see guidelines for details).  Smaller projects that are a strong fit for the SFF should be submitted to that program instead.

• Provides funding in support of scholarly and creative projects with strong promise to make substantive contributions to JEDI-related conversations/areas of inquiry
• This level is designed to provide funding for the development of scholarly monographs, journal articles, mid-scale pilot projects, community engagement projects, creative works, exhibitions, and performances—provided such works make contributions to JEDI-related discourses
• Projects that include novel collaborations across disciplines are encouraged
• Awards may be used over 1-2 years
• 2-3 Level 2 awards are expected

• Provides funding in support of research projects designed:
  • To expand our understanding of factors leading to racism, bias, injustice, and/or inequity
  • To deepen our knowledge about the impact of racism, bias, injustice, and/or inequality on the health and well-being of individuals, specific groups, and society at large
  • To develop/test novel interventions designed to ameliorate the harms caused by systemic bias, injustice, and inequality or to advance the values of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion
  • To implement research drawing on critical and/or justice-oriented methods and theories
• This level is designed to develop and enhance the competitiveness of teams that are seeking external funding for JEDI-related projects.
• Projects that transcend disciplinary boundaries, foster unique collaborations, or productively reshape fields of study/practice are strongly encouraged.
• Awards may be used over 1-2 years.
• 1-2 Level 3 awards are expected.

JEDI Research awards are available to individuals with a primary, full-time faculty appointment to UConn/UConn Health, within the following parameters:

• Eligibility
  • Applicants (lead PIs) must be tenured/tenure-track, clinical, research, or in-Residence faculty at the rank of Assistant Professor or higher.  Faculty of other ranks or titles, postdocs, staff, and community partners may serve as co-PIs, collaborators, or consultants.
  • Applicants may be from any department or discipline within the University, so long as the project makes a strong contribution to research topics/critical conversations strongly related to JEDI.
• Submission Limits:
  • Eligible faculty may submit only one proposal for JEDI funding as PI, across all tracks.  There are no limits to how many proposals an individual may participate in as a co-PI or collaborator.
  • The same project cannot receive funds from JEDI and other OVPR internal award mechanisms (SFF, REP, SCHARP, etc.).
• Faculty Salary: Salary support for any faculty PIs/co-PIs/collaborators is not allowable.
• Additional approvals: Release of awarded funds will be contingent upon approval/confirmation of appropriate IRB protocols (if applicable).

Proposals for JEDI Level 1 Awards should contain the following elements and adhere to the structure and guidelines indicated.  All length guidelines assume 1” margins, 11-12pt fonts, single spacing, and single side pages.

• Quest Portal forms:
  • OVPR Faculty Applicant Information Form – brief form gathering information about you, as the PI of the project.  Some information will auto-feed based on your NetID and past submissions in Quest.
    • Submitting PI Name
    • Home Department
    • School/College
    • Email
    • Phone
    • Faculty/Academic Rank
    • Primary Employer
    • Question - is your position contingent on grant funding?
  • JEDI Application form – brief form gathering basic information about the project for the purpose of competition management.
    • JEDI Level/Category
    • Special Reviewer Expertise needed
    • Size of team (besides yourself)
    • Name/affiliation/project role of team members
    • Project title
    • Amount Requested
    • Resubmission Y/N (has the project previously been submitted for internal or external funding?)
    • Project Abstract/Lay Summary
    • Future Funding Targets (not required for level 1)
    • Results from prior OVPR-funded projects
• Cover Page: Title of Project, Applicant information, and a list of collaborators.
• Project Narrative: Describe the project and its anticipated outcomes.  Project narratives should address the following and not exceed 1 page for Level 1 Awards. References should be included and do not count against page limits.
  • Area of need: Succinctly describe the area of need / gap that you wish to address through this project.
  • Proposed work/plan: Briefly describe the specific activities that you propose undertaking.
  • Project Rationale: Provide a brief rationale explaining how your proposed activities will address the need/gap that you’ve identified and how the project will enable future JEDI-related scholarly/scientific/creative contributions.
• Budget describing and justifying use of JEDI funds.  Please use the OVPR Internal Funding Budget Template.xlsx.
• Updated CVs for all key project contributors that include recent work or work that is most relevant to the project proposed.

Proposals for JEDI Level 2 Awards should contain the following elements and adhere to the structure and guidelines indicated.  All length guidelines assume 1” margins, 11-12pt fonts, single spacing, and single side pages.

• Quest Portal forms:
  • OVPR Faculty Applicant Information Form – brief form gathering information about you, as the PI of the project.  Some information will auto-feed based on your NetID and past submissions in Quest.
    • Submitting PI name
    • Home department
    • School/College
    • Email
    • Phone
    • Faculty/Academic rank
    • Primary employer
    • Question - is your position contingent on grant funding?
  • JEDI Application form – brief form gathering basic information about the project for the purpose of competition management.
    • JEDI level/category
    • Special reviewer expertise needed
    • Size of team (besides yourself)
    • Name/affiliation/project role of team members
    • Project title
    • Amount requested
    • Resubmission Y/N (has the project previously been submitted for internal or external funding?)
    • Project abstract/lay summary
    • Future funding targets (optional for level 2)
    • Results from prior OVPR-funded projects
• Cover Page: Title of Project, Applicant information, and a list of collaborators
• Project Narrative: Describe the project and its anticipated outcomes.  Project narratives should address the following and not exceed 2-3 pages for Level 2 Awards. References should be included and do not count against page limits.
  • Project framing: Provide background on your project's field of study/practice to provide context for the work you are proposing.
  • Proposed Work: Describe the work you wish to accomplish through this project, scholarly/artistic approaches you may be drawing on, the specific activities you are proposing, and the expected products of the project (e.g. performances, exhibitions, publications, community-based projects, media, public engagements, etc.).
  • Impact/Outcomes: Explain the contribution your proposed activities will make to advancing JEDI-related goals/discourses, describing expected outcomes, their significance for your area of inquiry and society in general, and also your plans for extending/sustaining the impact of the work beyond the funding period (could include seeking follow-up external funding or plans for activities that build on the work proposed in the current project).
  • Access and Resources: If the project requires special technical expertise or resources, describe how this need will be addressed.  If the project requires access to archives/collections/resources at another institution, describe the arrangements that have been made to gain access to them.
• Budget describing and justifying use of JEDI funds.  Please use the OVPR Internal Funding Budget Template.xlsx.
• Updated CVs for all key project contributors that includes recent work or work that is most relevant to the project proposed.

Proposals for JEDI – Level 3 funding should contain the following elements and adhere to the structure and guidelines indicated.  All length guidelines assume 1” margins, 11-12pt fonts, single spacing, and single side pages.

• Quest Portal forms:
  • OVPR Faculty Applicant Information Form – brief form gathering information about you, as the PI of the project.  Some information will auto-feed based on your NetID and past submissions in Quest.
    • Submitting PI Name
    • Home Department
    • School/College
    • Email
    • Phone
    • Faculty/Academic Rank
    • Primary Employer
    • Question - is your position contingent on grant funding?
  • JEDI Application form – brief form gathering basic information about the project for the purpose of competition management.
    • JEDI Level/Category
    • Special Reviewer Expertise needed
    • Size of team (besides yourself)
    • Name/affiliation/project role of team members
    • Project title
    • Amount Requested
    • Resubmission Y/N (has the project previously been submitted for internal or external funding?)
    • Project Abstract/Lay Summary
    • Future Funding Targets (required for level 3)
    • Results from prior OVPR-funded projects
• Cover Page: Title of Project, Applicant information, and a list of collaborators
• Project Narrative: Describe the project and its anticipated outcomes.  Project narratives should address the following and not exceed 5 pages for Level 3 Awards. References should be included and do not count against page limits.
  • Project framing: Provide background on conversation/area of inquiry with which your project will engage to provide context for the work you are proposing.  Be sure to clearly identify and describe the problem/issue/gap in knowledge/obstacle to be overcome that your project will address.
  • Proposed work: Describe the work you wish to accomplish with this project. Explain the scholarly/scientific approach and any theoretical or methodological framework you are applying, the specific activities that you propose undertaking to advance your project, and the anticipated outputs or products of that work.  Proposals should specifically address the ways in which the project is innovative/novel/transformative compared to existing work in your area of inquiry.
  • Impact and outcomes: Explain how your proposed activities will address the JEDI-related problem/issue/gap/obstacle you’ve identified, describing expected outcomes, their significance for your area of inquiry and society in general, and also how the work done in this project will prepare your team to be competitive for the external funding opportunities you are targeting.
  • Expertise/Skills, Access, and Resources: If the project requires special technical expertise, describe how this need will be addressed.  If the project requires access to particular resources or study populations, describe the arrangements that have been made to gain access to them.  If your project includes collaboration, describe how the skills and expertise of each team member contributes to the success of the project and explain how the collaboration is innovative/novel compared to what is common within your discipline.
• Budget describing and justifying use of JEDI funds.  Please use the OVPR Internal Funding Budget Template.xlsx
• Updated CVs for all key project contributors that includes recent work or work that is most relevant to the project proposed.

• Allowable costs include: graduate research assistant salary (AY and Summer), Storrs/Regional Campus faculty summer salary ($3K limit, 9/10-month faculty only), postdoc or other research assistant salary, undergraduate researcher salary, Storrs/Regional Campus faculty course buyouts (approval letter from department head required), fringe costs, equipment purchases, travel to conduct research or meet with collaborators, materials and supplies, participant costs, contractual services.
  • Note: Course buyout funding will be limited to one per PI/co-PI per award and will be limited to the minimum adjunct rate for the course being bought-out (not a percentage of the PI’s salary).  PIs requesting buyouts must explain why release time is vital for the project.
• Unallowable costs include: clerical or administrative personnel salaries, including personnel whose primary purpose is to explore funding sources and/or prepare funding applications; faculty academic year salary; institutional memberships in professional organizations; travel to professional meetings to present the results of the research; travel to explore extramural funding opportunities; costs associated with the publication of results of the research, including page charges, purchase of reprints, or journal costs.  Generally speaking, basic office equipment such as computers/laptops/tablets are not supported on OVPR awards unless the equipment meets a specialized need within the project which cannot be met through equipment from other sources.

Please use the OVPR Internal Funding Budget Template.xlsx

Significance/Importance

The "significance" criterion evaluates the degree to which the project as described addresses an scholarly/artistic/scientific challenge that is well defined, well contextualized, and of great importance/consequence for the field.  Reviewers will consider:

• The degree to which the proposal clearly defines the issue/gap/challenge the project will address
• The degree to which the proposal clearly contextualizes/situates the area of focus within the large field of study or practice
• The degree to which the area of focus is of high importance for JEDI-related discourses
• The degree to which success within the area of focus can advance JEDI-related goals/discourses and improve competitiveness for JEDI-related external funding (if applicable)

Approach/Timeline

The "approach/timeline" criterion evaluates clarity, coherence, and theoretical/methodological soundness of the specific activities the applicant proposes.  Reviewers will consider:

• The degree to which the proposal describes the work to be accomplished in a clear and sufficiently detailed manner
• The degree to which the activities are described as part of a coherent plan of action that is well reasoned and sound
• The degree to which any theoretical or methodological frameworks employed in the work are clearly articulated, well conceptualized, appropriate to the context, and appropriately applied
• The degree to which the plan of work includes a well developed and reasonable timeline for completion

Innovation/Novelty

The "innovation/novelty" criterion evaluates whether the project stands out as particularly groundbreaking or innovative in comparison to other work in this domain.  Reviewers will consider:

• The degree to which the project proposes creative/fresh approaches to JEDI-related challenges
• The degree to which the proposed activities/methodologies are groundbreaking rather than incremental improvements on/expansions of established approaches

Feasibility and Resources

The "feasibility" criterion evaluates whether the project is achievable as described, given available resources and expertise.  Reviewers will consider:

• To what degree is the project, as described in proposal, achievable?  Are there any concerns about feasibility?  If so, does the proposal anticipate possible problems and articulate alternative approaches?
• If specialized skills or special access are required for completion of the project, to what degree does the proposal establish their availability?

Team

The "team" criterion evaluates the expertise of those participating in the project, their fitness for the work proposed, and the strength/importance/innovation of any collaborative efforts proposed.  Reviewers will consider:

• The degree to which the members of the team well prepared and well suited to carry out the project
• The degree to which the members of the team have complementary expertise
• If the project includes a novel collaboration, compared to what is common in their discipline(s), to what degree does this unusual collaboration add something meaningful to the project?

After JEDI awards are made, the OVPR would like to check in with awardees periodically to evaluate project progress and to learn about the impact of the work that has been done.

In the short term, the OVPR will follow up with awardees at the end of each year during the award period.  If the award was given for multiple years, we will ask for a brief update on how your project is progressing and for an updated budget for the following year.  If significant budget changes are needed at any point within an award period (i.e., because of unanticipated delays, new costs, significant shifts of funding between categories), awardees may contact research@uconn.edu to work out a revised budget.

After the award period has ended, we would like to continue receiving updates on outcomes as a result of the award.  We understand that the full realization of many projects may appear some time after the funded work is complete.  Therefore, the OVPR will reach out to awardees (via email) to request follow-up reports on JEDI projects annually for several years following the completion of the award period.  We’ll be interested in hearing about the results of your project, the significance of those results, and gathering statistics about graduate students supported, publications, external awards received, other projects launched, etc.

• Awards available: up to 10 awards of up to $10K are anticipated to support projects initiated by clinical faculty members
• Eligibility: limited to full-time UConn/UConn Health faculty serving in clinical roles.  Open to those at any campus with Assistant/Associate/Full Professor titles (including titles such as Clinical Assistant Professor), within the following constraints:
  • UConn Health – open to faculty who spend at least 60% of their time on clinical or teaching responsibilities.
  • UConn (Storrs and Regional Campuses) – open to faculty who have Assist/Assoc/Full Clinical Professor titles or faculty with other titles who have clinical credentials and who spend at least 60% of their time on clinical or teaching responsibilities.
  • Investigators from JAX or CCMC are eligible to participate providing they have affiliate status with either UConn Health or UConn.

• Award Period: Awards will be made for activities that can be completed during a one-plus year award period (anticipated 6/1/2022-6/30/2023).
• Anticipated outcomes: Track 1 will fund activities that support/enable clinical faculty to engage in their own research projects and to prepare them for seeking NIH (K- or R-series) awards and/or external funding from foundation, industry and other sponsors
• Sample activities: Track 1 funds could be used for:
  • Project-related materials and supplies
  • Student Research Assistant salary (Graduate or Undergraduate. If you’d like to promote a student research position to undergraduates, please take advantage of services offered by UConn’s Office of Undergraduate Research.)
  • Participant incentive costs
  • Facility / instrumentation use costs
  • Training programs designed to enhance research-related skillsets
  • Programs to facilitate collaboration or mentorship
  • Please see budget guidelines for further detail about what is and is not allowable
• Faculty Salary: Salary support for any faculty PIs/co-PIs/collaborators is not allowable.
  
• Submission limits: Eligible faculty may submit only one proposal to CRISP as PI, across all tracks. There are no limits to how many proposals an individual may participate in as a co-PI or collaborator.
• Additional approvals: Release of awarded funds will be contingent upon approval/confirmation of appropriate IRB protocols.

• Awards available: 6-8 awards between $30K and $60K are anticipated to support pilot/exploratory human subjects and clinical research.
• Project focus: Projects in Track 2 should be primarily focused on work with human subjects that has clinical focus (e.g., clinical populations, clinical phenomena, clinical training, clinical trials, etc.).
• Anticipated outcomes: Awards at this level are intended to seed early career investigators, established investigators looking to change research directions or re-establish research programs, feasibility studies, or to explore novel collaborations among established investigators.

• Eligibility: PIs must be full-time UConn/UConn Health faculty. Open to those at any campus with Assistant/Associate/Full Professor titles (including titles such as Clinical Assistant Professor).
  • Investigators from JAX or CCMC are eligible to participate providing they have affiliate status with either UConn Health or UConn.

• Award Period: Awards will be made for activities that can be completed during a one-plus year award period (anticipated 6/1/2022-6/30/2023).
• Team Composition: Projects that include cross-campus and clinical faculty involvement are especially encouraged, but not required.
• Faculty Salary: Salary support for any faculty PIs/co-PIs/collaborators is not allowable.
• Submission limits: Eligible faculty may submit only one proposal to CRISP as PI, across all tracks. There are no limits to how many proposals an individual may participate in as a co-PI or collaborator.
• Additional approvals: Track 2 finalists may be asked for additional information about human subjects research plans before awards are finalized. Release of awarded funds will be contingent upon approval/confirmation of appropriate IRB protocols.

• Awards Available: 1-4 awards between $60K-$100K each are anticipated to support larger-scale human subjects and clinical research projects.
• Project focus: Projects in Track 3 should be primarily focused on significant work with human subjects research with clinical populations.
• Anticipated outcomes: Projects should target specific external follow-up funding, from the NIH (R21, R01, etc), foundations, industry, or other sponsors. Awards at this level are intended to catalyze activities that are larger/more ambitious than what is currently being done by a particular PI/Team.

• Eligibility: PIs must be full-time UConn/UConn Health faculty. Open to those at any campus with Assistant/Associate/Full Professor titles (including titles such as Clinical Assistant Professor).
  • Investigators from JAX or CCMC are eligible to participate providing they have affiliate status with either UConn Health or UConn.  For Track 3, teams lead by JAX or CCMC investigators must include a collaborator from UConn or UConn Health.

• Award Period: Awards will be made for activities that can be completed during a one-plus year award period (anticipated 6/1/2022-6/30/2023).
• Team Composition: Projects that include cross-campus and clinical faculty involvement are especially encouraged, but not required.
• Faculty Salary: Salary support for any faculty PIs/co-PIs/collaborators is not allowable.
• Submission limits: Eligible faculty may submit only one proposal to CRISP as PI, across all tracks. There are no limits to how many proposals an individual may participate in as a co-PI or collaborator.
• Additional approvals: Track 3 finalists may be asked for additional information about human subjects research plans before awards are finalized. Release of awarded funds will be contingent upon approval/confirmation of appropriate IRB protocols.

Proposals for CRISP Awards should contain the following elements and follow the structure and guidelines indicated.  All length guidelines assume 1” margins, 11-12pt fonts, single spacing and single-side pages.

• Cover Page: Title of Project, Principal investigator(s) with contact information, List of other team members (including department, title, area of expertise), Specific follow-on funding mechanism targeted (if applicable).
• Project Description: Proposals should address the following areas (adapted from general NIH Research Plan guidelines). Track 1 proposals should be 2-3 pages in length; Track 2 and 3 proposals should be no more than 5 pages.  Page totals include the specific aims page but do not include references, which do not count against the page limits.
  • Specific Aims (Track 1, half page max; Tracks 2 and 3, 1-Page max): Provide a summary of the goals of the project, the need being addressed, expected outcomes, and anticipated impact of the work.  Include a brief description of the specific objectives of the project.
    • For Track 1, the project can either be focused on research aims or on training/career development aims in support of research goals.
    • For Tracks 2 and 3, the aims must be focused on human subjects research.
  • Significance: Describe the research problem being addressed, the rationale behind the proposed work, how the proposed work relates to existing work in the field, and the significance of the work for the field.
    • Track 1: If training/career development activities are being proposed, this section can be used to address the applicant’s scientific background and how the proposed activities advance the applicant’s career goals.
    • Track 3: Include discussion of how the work you are proposing will position you/your team to be competitive for your targeted external funding mechanism.
  • Innovation: Describe and justify the novelty (of approach, population, research question/problem, etc.) of the work proposed
    • Track 1: If training/career development activities are being proposed, this section may be omitted.
  • Approach: Describe the research strategy and methodology to be used to accomplish the specific aims of the project, including project timelines and key milestones.
    • Track 1: If training/career development activities are being proposed, use this section to provide details about the specific activities proposed
    • Tracks 2 and 3: applicants should ensure that sufficient information is provided about proposed human subjects studies so that plans and strategies can be evaluated.  Additional information may be requested of finalists before awards are finalized.
  • Environment: Describe the facilities and other resources available that are necessary for the completion of the project. If there are any commitments needed to access spaces or resources, letters of support are needed to demonstrate that appropriate approvals have been obtained.
• Budget describing and justifying use of CRISP funds. Please use this budget template.
• Biosketches / CVs for all PIs and Co-PIs: Please include an updated biosketch consistent with NIH format.
• NIH-style letters of support from facilities providing specific support during the CRISP award period.  Given that these are internal awards, letters of support can be quite brief, and serve only to demonstrate that PIs have made any necessary arrangements needed to secure access to facilities and other resources.  If no specific arrangements need to be made to gain access to a resource, no letter of support is needed.

Below are general guidelines regarding allowable/unallowable costs that are consistent with other OVPR internal funding opportunities.  If you have a budget need that does not fit within these guidelines, you may include it, but we ask that you provide strong justification in support of the request.  Please use this budget template.

• Allowable costs include: graduate research assistant salary, postdoc or other research assistant salary, undergraduate researcher salary, fringe costs, equipment purchases, travel to conduct research or meet with collaborators (travel approval may be required), materials and supplies, participant support costs, animal/animal care costs, contractual services, costs related to training (Track 1 only).
• Unallowable costs include: subawards to other institutions; faculty member salaries; clerical or administrative personnel salaries, including personnel whose primary purpose is to explore funding sources and/or prepare grant applications; service/maintenance contracts on equipment; laboratory renovations, or other infrastructure renovations; institutional memberships in professional organizations; travel to professional meetings to present the results of the research; travel to explore extramural funding opportunities; costs associated with the publication of results of the research, including page charges, purchase of reprints, or journal costs.

• Significance:
  • Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field?
  • Is there a strong scientific premise for the project?
  • If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved?
  • How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
• Investigators:

• • Are the PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project?
  • If the project is collaborative or multi-PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise?

• Innovation:
  • Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies?
  • Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense?
  • Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
• Approach:
  • Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed?
  • Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented?
  • If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
  • If the project involves human subjects and/or clinical research, are those plans justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?  Are there appropriate plans to protect human subjects from research risks?
• Environment:
  • Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success?
  • Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed?
  • Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
• Budget – Are funds to be used efficiently and effectively to achieve project goals?

• Reporting requirements: PIs will need to prepare a brief report summarizing project progress at the end of the award period.
• Further reports on project outcomes may be requested in the future to track return on investment.

The NEUCORSE Program is available to UConn / UConn Health faculty members, within the following parameters:

• UConn Primary Appointment: PIs must be full-time faculty whose primary appointment is at UConn/UConn Health. Investigators with primary appointments to CCMC, Jackson Labs, TIP companies, or other institutions are not eligible to lead projects, but they may be named as Co-PIs, collaborators, or consultants on an eligible PI’s project.  Proposals that include external Co-PIs should be careful to describe how responsibility for the project will be divided between institutions, and they must describe how costs related to the participation of external partners will be covered.
• Effort and Salary: Although no minimum effort level is required for NEUCORSE projects, a UConn/UConn Health PI/Co-PI must have departmental research time available during the award period or address in the application how they will handle the time commitment required by the project. PIs/Co-PIs must each make significant and distinct intellectual contributions to the design and direction of the project. Generally speaking, awards are only available to UConn/UConn Health tenure-track and clinical faculty and in-Residence faculty at the Storrs/Regional campuses. UCH in-residence faculty and research faculty are not eligible to apply as PI but can be named as Co-PIs, collaborators, or consultants on an eligible PI’s project.
• Application Limits: Eligible faculty may submit multiple proposals, so long as each are scientifically distinct. Investigators may also serve as collaborator on multiple projects.

Proposals for NEUCORSE Awards should contain the following elements and follow the structure and guidelines indicated (adapted from NSF Planning Grant proposals for programs like the ERC).  All length guidelines assume 1” margins, 11-12pt fonts, single spacing and single side pages.

• Cover Page: Title of Project, Principal investigator(s) with contact information, List of other team members (including institution, department, area of expertise), Specific funding mechanism targeted, Target submission date
• Project Description: Proposals should address the following areas and should not exceed 5 pages in length:
  • Targeted future activities and rationale for collaboration: Describe the core research questions and approaches the team is being formed to explore, the significance of that work, and why sustained interdisciplinary efforts like those you are planning are necessary for having the impact you anticipate.
  • Team Rationale: Describe the approach you are taking to assemble a team prepared to be successful in the work you’ve described above.
  • NEUCORSE Grant Activities and significance: Describe the research and team development activities to be supported with NEUCORSE funds and how these activities build on and expand any existing collaborations.  Specifically highlight the new activities the NEUCORSE grant would enable.
  • Anticipated Impacts: How will the activities you propose advance the development process and prepare your team to successfully meet your scientific and broader impact goals and to be competitive for significant external funding in this area.
• Budget describing and justifying use of NEUCORSE funds.  You can use this budget template.
• Biosketches / CVs for all PIs and Co-PIs: Please include an updated biosketch consistent with NSF format.
• NSF-style Letters of support from any facilities providing support during the NEUCORSE award period

Below are general guidelines regarding allowable/unallowable costs that are consistent with other OVPR internal funding opportunities.  Given the unique nature of the NEUCORSE mechanism, we understand that these guidelines may not include all budget items that are necessary to enhance competitiveness for your work.  If you have a budget need that does not fit within these guidelines, you may include it, but we ask that you provide strong justification in support of the request.  You can use this budget template.

• Allowable costs include: graduate research assistant salary, Postdoc or other Research Assistant salary, Undergraduate Researcher salary, Course buyouts (approval letter from Department Head required), Fringe costs, equipment purchases, travel to conduct research or meet with collaborators (travel approval may be required), materials and supplies, participant support costs, animal/animal care costs, contractual services
• Unallowable costs include: subawards to partner institutions, faculty member salaries, clerical or administrative personnel salaries, including personnel whose primary purpose is to explore funding sources and/or prepare grant applications; service/maintenance contracts on equipment; laboratory renovations, or other infrastructure renovations; institutional memberships in professional organizations; travel to professional meetings to present the results of the research; travel to explore extramural funding opportunities; costs associated with the publication of results of the research, including page charges, purchase of reprints, or journal costs.

• Targeted Future Activities
  • Significance/Merit—Does the team being formed aim to address significant scientific questions / technical problems in the area of renewable and sustainable energy?  Is the proposed approach promising and methodologically sound?  Does this work require sustained, interdisciplinary efforts that draws on the resources of the New England region?
  • Innovation/Novelty – Does this project approach the problem in a new/innovative way?
  • Environment/Resources – Are available resources/facilities sufficient to successfully complete the work? Are external partners adequately supported by their institutions?
  • PI/Team qualifications – Who will be working on this project, and how are they uniquely suited to accomplish this work?  Does the team have the required expertise to be successful?  Does the team demonstrate interdisciplinary and diversity?
• Proposed NEUCORSE Activities
  • Significance/Merit—are the proposed research and development activities well-designed/conceptualized?  Do they build on existing collaborations and extend them in ways that expand the capacity of the team?
  • Feasibility of Approach – are the proposed research and development plans feasible and likely to succeed?
  • Outcome – will the activities proposed adequately prepare the team to achieve their scientific and broader impact goals and to be competitive for significant external funding in this area?
  • Assessment – Does the project have a reasonable plan for measuring and determining success?
  • Budget – Are funds to be used efficiently and effectively to achieve project goals?

• Reporting requirements: PIs will need to prepare a brief report summarizing project progress at the end of the award period.
• Further reports on project outcomes may be requested in the future to track return on investment.

What we provide: A phone call or video chat to discuss how your proposed research meets the described funding opportunity and the funder’s overall priorities, as well as margin comments on your document to enhance competitiveness. We may also suggest that you contact a funding agency program officer or other experts and can provide suggestions on what to say during this discussion.

What you provide: The funding opportunity you are interested in applying to (website link or PDF document) and a one-page concept paper or specific aims document describing your research and how you will respond to the funding opportunity.

Timeline: This consultation requires a minimum of one week. We recommend that this step is completed several months before the proposal due date.

What we provide: High-level comments on narrative structure and content. Changes will be tracked and notes made in the margin of your document. Comments may relate to alignment with funder objectives, the logical flow of the narrative, completeness, and general grantsmanship suggestions.

What you provide: A completed draft of the project narrative or description and the funding opportunity you are interested in applying to (website link or PDF document). For any resubmissions/revisions, please also provide the previous submission and any reviews or comments from the funder.

Timeline: This brief review requires a minimum of two weeks. We recommend that the review is completed one to two months before the proposal due date to allow time for modifications.

What we provide: High-level comments on narrative structure and content. Changes will be tracked and notes made in the margin of your document. Comments may relate to alignment with funder objectives, the logical flow of the narrative, completeness, and general grantsmanship suggestions. Review of written supporting documents if provided by the PI. Line edits for improved wording, grammatical structure, etc. are available upon request, scheduling permitting.

What you provide: A completed draft of the project narrative or description, the project abstract or summary, and other supporting documentation you would like to have reviewed. Please also provide the funding opportunity you are interested in applying to (website link or PDF document). For any resubmissions/revisions, please also provide the previous submission and any reviews or comments from the funder.

Timeline:  High-level comments on narrative structure and content should take place 1-2 months before the proposal is due. Follow-up review with line edits should take place within three weeks of proposal submission.

What we can provide:

1. Planning support – review of funding opportunity (proposal requirements), analysis of funding agency expectations, establishing proposal development timeline
2. Writing and editing – document review, writing support as needed (generally non-scientific sections)
3. Document management – coordinate with PI, research team, and budget and administrative support staff

What you provide: The funding opportunity you are interested in applying to (website link or PDF document), your anticipated team of PIs/personnel, and a one- to two-page concept paper describing your research and how you will respond to the funding opportunity.

Timeline: This service should be requested at least 3-6 months prior to the proposal due date.

What we can provide:

1. Planning support – review of funding opportunity (proposal requirements), analysis of funding agency expectations, establishing proposal development timeline
2. Organizational – coordination among research team, external partners, administrative staff, etc.; tracking progress towards proposal completion; keeping process on track.
3. Writing and editing – document review, writing support as needed (generally non-scientific sections)
4. Document management – coordinate with PI, research team, and budget and administrative support staff

What you provide: The funding opportunity you are interested in applying to (website link or PDF document), your anticipated team of PIs/personnel, and a one- to two-page concept paper describing your research and how you will respond to the funding opportunity.

Timeline: This service should be requested at least 6 months prior to the proposal due date.

The mission of the Research Development Services (RDS) team is to support the research growth of the University by increasing the competitiveness of proposals submitted by UConn/UConn Health investigators seeking external funding.  We prioritize support for proposals that align with one or more of the University’s strategic priorities.  We aim to provide targeted support of the proposal development process, using our skills and experience to extend and refine the capacity of UConn/UConn Health faculty to develop and submit larger and more compelling proposals.  Our goal is to provide high-level support in our areas of expertise, including:

• Technical writing and editing
• Interpreting and applying the requirements and proposal conventions of major funders, funding programs, and funding opportunity announcements
• Knowledge of grantsmanship strategies
• Project Management
• Familiarity with UConn/UConn Health research capacities, faculty, resources, and systems

Investigators are the driving force behind the writing and submission of grant proposals.  Without the scientific/scholarly expertise, ambition, and dedicated work of PIs, proposals don’t get done!  However, we also know that PIs rarely work alone as they seek external funding; proposal preparation and submission is usually a team effort.  Let’s take a look at the different players in the grantseeking process and see how research development fits in.

Scientific/Scholarly Team: The PI(s) and their team(s) of collaborators are the creative center of the grantwriting process.  Together, they set the direction of the work, draft technical sections of the proposal, and work to ensure that the research proposed is of high scientific/scholarly merit, consulting when necessary with other disciplinary experts.

Budget and Administrative Support: The staff in the investigators’ departments, school/college office, or in OVPR Faculty Services are essential members of the team who assist with the preparation of budgets, proposal assembly, and other administrative aspects of the proposal development process.

SPS Pre-award: The staff in Sponsored Program Services, while not involved in the creation of a proposal, are responsible for conducting a final compliance review and certification of the proposal, and in most cases are responsible for its final submission to the sponsor.

Research Development Services Support: The Research Development Services team provides an additional layer of proposal development support, filling gaps between what the PI team is responsible for and what the budget and administrative support team is responsible for.

• While not necessarily scientific/scholarly experts in the PI(s) field(s), the RDS team are experts in writing, editing, and organization and in the requirements/expectations of funders. The RDS team can join with the PI team to help produce proposal narratives that are clearer, more compelling, and better aligned with funder expectations—i.e. proposals that are more fundable!
• For larger and more complex proposals, the RDS team can provide a project management function for the proposal development process. RDS can help set and manage timelines, facilitate group interactions, assist with document management, and help coordinate connections among the differing areas of budget and administrative support that may be involved with a large/complex proposal.

The COVID-RSF Program is available to UConn / UConn Health faculty members, within the following parameters:

• UConn Primary Appointment: PIs must be full-time faculty whose primary appointment is at UConn/UConn Health. Investigators with primary appointments to CCMC, Jackson Labs, TIP companies, or other institutions are not eligible to lead projects, but they may be named as Co-PIs, collaborators, or consultants on an eligible PI’s project.  Proposals that include external Co-PIs should be careful to describe how responsibility for the project will be divided between institutions, and ideally they will include cost-sharing commitments from external partners
• Effort and Salary: Although no minimum effort level is required for COVID-RSF projects, a UConn/UConn Health PI/Co-PI must have departmental research time available during the award period or address in the application how they will handle the time commitment required by the project. PIs/Co-PIs must each make significant and distinct intellectual contributions to the design and direction of the project. Generally speaking, awards are only available to UConn/UConn Health tenure-track and clinical faculty and in-Residence faculty at the Storrs/Regional campuses. UCH in-residence faculty and research faculty are not eligible to apply as PI but can be named as Co-PIs, collaborators, or consultants on an eligible PI’s project.
• Application Limits: Eligible faculty may submit multiple proposals, so long as each are scientifically distinct. Investigators may serve as collaborator on multiple projects.

Proposals for COVID-RSF Awards should contain the following elements and follow the structure and guidelines indicated.  All length guidelines assume 1” margins, 11-12pt fonts, single spacing and single side pages.

• Cover Page: Title of Project, Principal investigator(s) with contact information, List of other team members, Specific funding mechanism targeted, Target submission date
• White Paper: Briefly describe the project, how it will be conducted, and anticipated outcomes. White papers should address the following areas and should not exceed 2-3 pages in length:
  • Core Research Questions to be addressed and their significance
  • Currently available resources and personnel and how they will support the project
  • Proposed activities under COVID-RSF Award and how they will advance the project towards the goal of impacting the fight against COVID-19.  If you have a specific funding mechanism in mind for follow-up funding, also address how the work under this award will improve competitiveness for that mechanism.
• Budget describing and justifying use of COVID-RSF funds.  You can use this budget template.
• Biosketches / CVs for all PIs and Co-PIs: Please include an updated biosketch consistent with NIH (max 5 pg)/NSF (max 2 pg) format.  If your field is not typically funded by NSF/NIH, please include a brief CV following your discipline’s conventions.
• NSF/NIH-style Letters of support from any facilities providing support during the COVID-RSF award period

Below are general guidelines regarding allowable/unallowable costs that are consistent with other OVPR internal funding opportunities.  Given the unique nature of the COVID-RSF mechanism, we understand that these guidelines may not include all budget items that are necessary to enhance competitiveness for your targeted external mechanism.  If you have a budget need that does not fit within these guidelines, you may include it, but we ask that you provide strong justification in support of the request.  You can use this budget template.

• Allowable costs include: graduate research assistant salary, Postdoc or other Research Assistant salary, Undergraduate Researcher salary, Course buyouts (approval letter from Department Head required), Fringe costs, equipment purchases, travel to conduct research or meet with collaborators (Provost approval may be required), materials and supplies, participant support costs, animal/animal care costs, contractual services
• Unallowable costs include: faculty member salaries, clerical or administrative personnel salaries, including personnel whose primary purpose is to explore funding sources and/or prepare grant applications; service/maintenance contracts on equipment; laboratory renovations, or other infrastructure renovations; institutional memberships in professional organizations; travel to professional meetings to present the results of the research; travel to explore extramural funding opportunities; costs associated with the publication of results of the research, including page charges, purchase of reprints, or journal costs.

• Timing – Is the project capable of spinning up immediately?
• Significance/Importance – Does this project address a significant scientific question / technical problem?
• Innovation/Novelty – Does this project approach the problem in a new/innovative way?
• Feasibility of Approach – Does this project have a clear and methodologically sound approach?  Is the plan of work described likely to succeed?
• Environment/Resources – Are available resources/facilities sufficient to successfully complete the work?
• PI/Team qualifications – Who will be working on this project, and how are they uniquely suited to accomplish this work?  Does the team have a strong track record of external grant success?
• Outcome – Does the project promise to produce significant value / high impact?
• Assessment – Does the project have a reasonable plan for measuring and determining success?
• Budget – Are funds to be used efficiently and effectively to achieve project goals?

• Reporting requirements: PIs will need to prepare a brief report summarizing project progress within six months.
• Further reports on project outcomes may be requested in the future to track return on investment.

The COVID-RSF2 Program is available to UConn / UConn Health faculty members, within the following parameters:

• UConn Primary Appointment: PIs must be full-time faculty whose primary appointment is at UConn/UConn Health. Investigators with primary appointments to CCMC, Jackson Labs, TIP companies, or other institutions are not eligible to lead projects, but they may be named as Co-PIs, collaborators, or consultants on an eligible PI’s project.  Proposals that include external Co-PIs should be careful to describe how responsibility for the project will be divided between institutions, and ideally they will include cost-sharing commitments from external partners
• Effort and Salary: Although no minimum effort level is required for COVID-RSF2 projects, a UConn/UConn Health PI/Co-PI must have institutionally-funded research time available during the award period or address in the application how they will handle the time commitment required by the project. PIs/Co-PIs must each make significant and distinct intellectual contributions to the design and direction of the project. Generally speaking, awards are only available to UConn/UConn Health tenure-track and clinical faculty and in-Residence faculty at the Storrs/Regional campuses. UCH in-residence faculty and research faculty are not eligible to apply as PI but can be named as Co-PIs, collaborators, or consultants on an eligible PI’s project.
• Application Limits: Eligible faculty may submit multiple proposals, so long as each are scientifically distinct. Investigators may serve as collaborator on multiple projects.
• COVID-RSF Resubmissions:  Faculty who submitted white papers for the previous COVID-RSF mechanism are eligible to resubmit if they wish, provided the white papers and budgets are appropriately reconfigured to be commensurate with a $10K award.

Proposals for COVID-RSF2 Awards should contain the following elements and follow the structure and guidelines indicated.  All length guidelines assume 1” margins, 11-12pt fonts, single spacing and single side pages.

• Cover Page: Title of Project, Principal investigator(s) with contact information, List of other team members, Specific funding mechanism targeted, Target submission date
• White Paper: Briefly describe the project, how it will be conducted, and anticipated outcomes. White papers should address the following areas and should not exceed 2-3 pages in length:
  • Core Research Questions to be addressed and their significance
  • Currently available resources and personnel and how they will support the project
  • Proposed activities under COVID-RSF2 Award and how they will advance the project towards the goal of impacting the fight against COVID-19.  If you have a specific funding mechanism in mind for follow-up funding, also address how the work under this award will improve competitiveness for that mechanism.
• Budget describing and justifying use of COVID-RSF2 funds.  You can use this budget template.
• Biosketches / CVs for all PIs and Co-PIs: Please include an updated biosketch consistent with NIH (max 5 pg)/NSF (max 2 pg) format.  If your field is not typically funded by NSF/NIH, please include a brief CV following your discipline’s conventions.
• NSF/NIH-style Letters of support from any facilities providing support during the COVID-RSF award period

Below are general guidelines regarding allowable/unallowable costs that are consistent with other OVPR internal funding opportunities.  If you have a budget need that does not fit within these guidelines, you may include it, but we ask that you provide strong justification in support of the request.  You can use this budget template.

• Allowable costs include: graduate research assistant salary, Postdoc or other Research Assistant salary, Undergraduate Researcher salary, Course buyouts (approval letter from Department Head required), Fringe costs, equipment purchases, travel to conduct research or meet with collaborators (Provost approval may be required), materials and supplies, participant support costs, animal/animal care costs, contractual services
• Unallowable costs include: faculty member / professional staff salaries, clerical or administrative personnel salaries, including personnel whose primary purpose is to explore funding sources and/or prepare grant applications; service/maintenance contracts on equipment; laboratory renovations, or other infrastructure renovations; institutional memberships in professional organizations; travel to professional meetings to present the results of the research; travel to explore extramural funding opportunities; costs associated with the publication of results of the research, including page charges, purchase of reprints, or journal costs.

• Significance/Importance – Does this project address a significant scientific question / technical problem?
• Innovation/Novelty – Does this project approach the problem in a new/innovative way?
• Feasibility of Approach – Does this project have a clear and methodologically sound approach?  Is the plan of work described likely to succeed?
• Environment/Resources – Are available resources/facilities sufficient to successfully complete the work?
• PI/Team qualifications – Who will be working on this project, and how are they uniquely suited to accomplish this work?  Does the team have a strong track record of external grant success?
• Outcome – Does the project promise to produce significant value / high impact?
• Assessment – Does the project have a reasonable plan for measuring and determining success?
• Budget – Are funds to be used efficiently and effectively to achieve project goals?

• Reporting requirements: PIs will need to prepare a brief report summarizing project progress at the conclusion of the project.
• Further reports on project outcomes may be requested in the future to track return on investment.