uconn

UConn Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) Research Initiative

Purpose:

The UConn JEDI Research Initiative aims to support innovative research, scholarship, and creative work in topic areas related to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI). We seek to fund projects that have the potential to make significant contributions to ongoing scholarly/scientific/artistic conversations in these vitally important domains. Projects that aim to improve UConn’s competitiveness for emerging external funding opportunities related to JEDI or that propose novel interdisciplinary collaborations are particularly encouraged. Proposals from all disciplines are invited.

Topics that may be of interest under this initiative include:

Contributing factors to the growth/persistence of racism, bias, and/or inequities
The intersection of race, gender, class, sexuality, and/or ability
The impact of systemic racism or implicit bias on civic life
Development of research-based interventions designed to address/mitigate inequities
Novel approaches to raising awareness of or reflection on JEDI-related issues
Other topics consistent with the overall goal of understanding challenges related to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion and developing innovative solutions

Note: As the main purpose of this funding opportunity is to seed innovative research into JEDI-related topics, applications focusing on the implementation of internally focused JEDI trainings, events, speakers, etc. will not be considered under this program.

Timeline/Details:

Proposals are due August 15, 2022 by 12:00 noon (deadline has been extended)
Submissions should be made via the UConn Quest Portal. The portal will open to receive applications by Monday, May 9.
Review will be conducted by a team of faculty and other scholars with expertise in JEDI-related research topics and methodologies.
Award notices are expected in February 2023. Award setup will begin immediately after notice, pending the completion of compliance review.
Program timelines for FY23 have not yet been determined.

Award Categories:

Level 1 - Faculty/Institutional Development - awards up to $5K
Level 2 - JEDI Scholarly/Creative Expansion - awards up to $20K
Level 3 - JEDI Research Expansion - awards up to $60K

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.

Clinical Research and Innovation Seed Program (CRISP)

Purpose

UConn’s Clinical Research and Innovation Seed Program (CRISP) is a targeted seed funding program for FY22 created to: 1) help unlock the research creativity of UConn/UConn Health faculty who serve in clinical roles and 2) to support faculty who are doing human subjects research and working with clinical populations.

CRISP aims to support faculty in clinical roles who have compelling research ideas they would like to pursue. Clinical faculty at UConn and UConn Health are world-class practitioners in their areas of expertise, but due to their clinical and teaching responsibilities, they often do not have the resources or opportunity to develop research programs that can lead to external funding. CRISP is designed to provide the seed funding or development resources needed for clinical faculty to get exciting research projects started.

Faculty who work with human subjects and clinical populations know that this work can be challenging and sometimes cost-prohibitive, particularly for those who are in the early stages of projects or who are seeking pilot data to support large-scale external submissions. CRISP also aims to provide the support needed to launch significant human subjects/clinical research projects and to move them towards external funding success.

While not a requirement of all proposals, the CRISP program supports collaboration across disciplines and between UConn and UConn Health faculty. Given external funders’ growing interest in supporting interdisciplinary and convergent research, the demonstrated excellence of our faculty, and the complementary expertise available across disciplines, proposals that include novel interdisciplinary and cross-campus partnerships are particularly encouraged.

To assist faculty who are considering creating new cross-campus partnerships, OVPR is sponsoring a panel discussion on UConn/UCH Cross-Campus Research Collaboration on Thursday, March 3 from 12-1pm. This panel aims to address UConn/UCH system and procedural questions and challenges that arise in cross-campus research by sharing our faculty success stories. Register for this event!

Program Timeline

Program opens 2/16/22. Applications can be submitted through the UConn Quest Portal
Proposal deadline Friday, 4/1/22 (12 noon)
Awards expected in January 2023
Program timeline for FY23 has not yet been determined

The CRISP program offers awards in three different tracks, one focused on clinical faculty-initiated research, and two open to both clinical and non-clinical faculty that is focused on human subjects and clinical research.

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?

New England University Collaboration on Renewable and Sustainable Energy (NEUCORSE)

UConn’s NEUCORSE initiative is designed to catalyze collaboration among universities in New England to address our nation’s urgent need for renewable and sustainable energy. Building on UConn’s existing strengths in clean energy engineering, this program seeks to support the development of cross-institutional teams with the expertise and capacity to successfully tackle the most challenging scientific and technical problems in this area. NEUCORSE awards should be thought of as planning grants that will provide seed funding and support team development activities to prepare teams for larger-scale activities in the future. We welcome proposals focusing on any topic that is relevant to the larger goal of developing renewable and sustainable energy solutions and that can be best addressed through sustained, interdisciplinary efforts within New England. It is expected that proposed teams be diverse, including investigators from underrepresented groups and a mixture of early-career and more senior investigators. It is also expected that the planning activities proposed include activities that prepare for future work that will have significant broader impacts, including workforce development.

Program Timeline

Program opens 9/27/21.
Submissions to be made through the UConn Quest Portal. Follow the link to submit an NOI. For each subsequent stage (LOI, full proposal), you can log in to Quest and "continue" your application to access new tasks.
Notification of Intent to Submit (NOI) due 11/8/21. The NOI will give the OVPR a sense of how many teams are interested. If a sizable number of NOIs are received, the OVPR may request a brief pre-proposal as part of an initial screening process.
Pre-proposal deadline 11/15/21, if required. Responses will be given by 10/22/21.
Full proposal deadline 12/13/21, by invitation only. Invitations will be provided either after the NOI stage or the pre-proposal stage.
Program is not being offered in FY23, but it is expected to run again in Fall 2023 (FY24)

Program/Award Details:

3-4 awards of $75K-$100K will be made. One year award periods are expected (generally 1/1/22-12/31/22), though alternate timelines can be proposed.
Teams must, at minimum, consist of a UConn/UConn Health PI and an academic partner from a New England institution. Other academic or industry partners are also welcome.
It is the expectation that this funding mechanism will help develop bridges between institutions that have active groups working in areas of interest and to build on existing collaborations. Applications from teams that do not have some level of previous collaboration are encouraged to consider other OVPR Internal Funding Programs.
Funds can be used to support research activities at UConn/UConn Health and team development activities for the full team. Salary for external partner faculty and funding for research activities at other institutions must be supported by those institutions.
Review of full proposals will be carried out by a team of experts in the area of renewable and sustainable energy.
NEUCORSE-funded teams should be preparing to submit to significant external funding targets. Some of the funding opportunities of greatest interest are the NSF ERC, the DOE EFRC, and potential opportunities for regional collaboration that may come as part of the reconfiguration of the NSF. Other large-scale funding targets in this area can also be considered. Applicants are expected to address their external funding strategy as part of their applications.

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?

Proposal Dashboard

Below are the definitions for the statuses used in the Proposal Dashboard.

This is the first version of the dashboard. If you have suggestions for future versions, please contact brenda.lowther@uconn.edu.

For more information on the policy, visit the Proposal Submission Policy webpage.

OVPR-RDS Event Registration

Thank you for your interest in our event! Please provide some information about yourself so we can can complete your registration.

Registrant Information
Name*
First Last
Position/Job Title*
Please select the job title that best describes your current position
Email*
Please use your University Email Address
Department*
Please list your home department
School/College/Unit*
Comments / Requests
Please let us know if you have any comments for the presenters or if you require any accommodations in order to participate
Event Registration
Please check the box next to the workshop(s) you would like to attend.
- How to be an Anti-Racist Investigator, April 19
Email
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Important Notice on Proposal Submission Policy

Posted on December 15, 2020March 11, 2021 by Jessica McBride

Revision Date: March 8, 2021 – revisions in italics

As an applicant organization, UConn/UConn Health has an institutional responsibility to verify the accuracy, validity, conformity, and eligibility of all applications submitted to a sponsor on behalf of the University. We have been exploring how to ensure the best delivery of services, meet sponsor and institutional policy requirements that were highlighted in the recent NSF audit, and to ensure that the University has sufficient time to review and certify proposals and increase the number of successful applications. To that end, we have conducted a survey of all faculty who submitted grant proposals within the last two years, listened to the research community’s comments at town halls, and solicited input from the President, Provost, deans, associate deans for research, the President’s Research Advisory Council, University Senate, and other faculty groups.

This listening process revealed that one of the main challenges for both investigators and staff is the bottleneck that occurs immediately prior to proposal submission. In recent years, nearly two-thirds of proposals submitted (with all components ready) are received by Sponsored Program Services (SPS) within one working day or less of the sponsor deadline.

Numerous proposals are being submitted just barely in time, meaning there is little time for a thorough review. Additionally, proposals that have been submitted to SPS far in advance also routinely lack a timely and thorough review because other proposals with an earlier deadline came in and “cut the line.”

To begin to remedy the proposal submission bottleneck, beginning May 5, 2021, the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) will implement the current policy on internal deadlines for the review and submission of sponsored project proposals. The process change aims to reduce last day proposal submissions and will prioritize proposals as received. Once the policy is implemented, final administrative components of a proposal must be received by SPS Pre-Award at least five full business days in advance of the submission due date (along with a draft of the scientific components). The final submission ready proposal is due to SPS no later than noon the day before the sponsor deadline.

Exceptions include short turnaround RFPs, last minute sponsor requests, or a last minute opportunity to join a proposal under submission by another institution. Also, each UConn investigator will be given one pass to use in the event they are not able to meet the internal five-day deadline. As is the current practice, SPS Pre-Award will make every effort to submit these proposals when possible. Please visit the OVPR website for additional information and FAQs regarding the internal deadline policy.

To increase faculty support related to proposal preparation, the OVPR will be taking the following additional steps:

The OVPR is working to address situations where investigators do not have dedicated administrative support for the preparation of a proposal; we will continue to increase staff training opportunities, extend faculty service offerings, and work to simplify the submission process.
The OVPR will implement a dashboard to increase transparency and provide information on the status and order of review.
The OVPR will provide additional research development services, such as grant editing and proofreading, proposal review, large and complex grant support, and research funding consultation. Further information regarding these services and how to request them is available on the OVPR Research Development section of this website.
The OVPR will continue to work with and incorporate feedback from faculty working groups. Upon recommendation of the University Senate, the President formed a sponsored projects working group to identify impediments to the expeditious review of sponsored project proposals in advance of deadlines. The group’s report is available on the University Senate website.

Development, review, and submission timeline:

Full Business Days Before Submission Deadline

>6 days: PI provides application components to local grants administrator (or Faculty Services)

5 days: Complete application (plus draft scientific components) and IPR submitted to SPS

5-2 days: SPS reviews proposal and provides feedback

2 days: Corrections made and all approvals in place

Noon day before deadline: Final proposal and PI authorization to submit to sponsor provided to SPS

1-0 days before deadline: Proposal submitted

SPS is responsible for ensuring that applications are compliant and that institutional and sponsor guidelines are met including administrative, management, and scientific information. Please contact Paul Hudobenko (hudobenko@uchc.edu/UConn Health) or Mark Reeves (mark.reeves@uconn.edu/Storrs and Regionals) with questions as we move to a consistent and sustainable process.

Thank you for your continued cooperation in our collaborative efforts to advance UConn’s mission through innovative research, scholarship, and creative pursuits.

Proposal Development, Review, and Submission Timeline

Full Business Days Before Submission Deadline

>6 days: PI provides application components to local grants administrator (or Faculty Services)

5 days: Complete application (plus draft scientific components) and IPR submitted to SPS

5-2 days: SPS reviews proposal and provides feedback

2 days: Corrections made and all approvals in place

Noon day before deadline: Final proposal and PI authorization to submit to sponsor provided to SPS

1-0 days before deadline: Proposal submitted

RDS Contacts

Bethany Drews Javidi has worked in proposal development at UConn since fall of 2013, primarily in the School of Engineering (SoE), where she supported numerous large-scale research and education proposals to a range of agencies, including NSF, NIH, the US Departments of Education, Energy, Defense, and Transportation, and others. She also cultivated junior faculty grantsmanship skills through NSF CAREER proposal development workshops and mentoring, which led to 20 NSF CAREER awards to SoE faculty since 2016.

Matt is responsible for the management of the OVPR’s portfolio of internal seed and commercialization funding opportunities, the selection processes for Limited Submission grant and award opportunities, Grantwriting Training, and the coordination of proposal development support services. Matt earned his doctorate in English from UConn in 2015 (research interests: English Renaissance Literature and Rhetoric), and he has teaching and administrative experience in early modern literature and rhetoric and composition.

RDS Proposal Development Policies

Policies – Prerequisites
- We consider investigators to be our partners in this process. Having access to thoughtful and complete responses to our requests for information enables us to provide the highest level of support possible.
- Incomplete requests will be returned to the PI. Requests that are resubmitted may not retain their original position in the service queue. Any questions regarding prerequisite documents may be sent to ovpr-rds@uconn.edu.
Policies – Project Timelines
- Our Service Descriptions give estimated timelines that are based on the minimum length of time required for completion of service after approval of your request. Some services may require additional meetings, background research or consultation efforts that can add to project timelines.
- Maintaining scheduled timelines is a joint effort between RDS and the investigators. We will make every effort to accommodate your schedule into our workflow. As part of our project onboarding process, we will agree on a timeline with the PI. Please be aware that we may need to curtail support if mutually agreed upon deadlines aren’t met.
- Requests submitted within 14 days of the proposal due date are unlikely to receive service.
Policies- Sharing of funder reviews and comments
- Access to funder comments or reviews is helpful to our team to understand how we can enhance the competitiveness of submissions and improve our services. For this reason, researchers who submit proposals after receiving support from RDS are asked to provide follow-up information on the outcome of their proposal submission, including funder reviews or comments.
- Any funder data, reviews, or comments will be used ONLY by the RDS staff to assess our services and monitor the funding landscape. These documents will remain confidential and will not be shared or used for any other purpose.

Request Research Development Services

Request Process

All requests will be routed through the Proposal Development Request webform (NetID required for submissions). Requestors will receive a confirmation email after submitting the form. We will follow up with an email if more information is needed to evaluate the request. Please submit requests as early as possible.

Request RDS Service

Evaluation Process

Requests for support will be evaluated by the Research Development Services team on a regular basis. Investigators should expect to receive a response from RDS within 3-5 days. Due to limited resources, not all requests can be supported at this time. Factors such as RDS team capacity, other potential support resources, project scope and timeline, and strategic imperatives will be considered during evaluation. Hanover Research and other external partners/consultants will be used to extend the capacity of the RDS team as needed. RDS services are supported by the OVPR and are open to all UConn/UConn Health faculty free of charge.

Priority will be given to:

Proposals that align with institutional, school/college, and OVPR priorities
Large, complex, and multidisciplinary proposals

Questions? Please contact the RDS team at OVPR-RDS@uconn.edu

Proposal Development Services Offered

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 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:

Planning support – review of funding opportunity (proposal requirements), analysis of funding agency expectations, establishing proposal development timeline
Writing and editing – document review, writing support as needed (generally non-scientific sections)
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:

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

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

What we provide: A full read-through of the proposal by a member of our proofreading pool to identify and correct typos, formatting errors, or minor grammatical issues. Track changes will be used to allow the investigator an opportunity to review all changes made prior to the proposal moving forward.

What you provide: A final version of all proposal documents the investigator would like reviewed. Documents provided should be as close to a final polished form as possible; the proofreading service is intended to give proposal documents a final review, not more substantive revision and editing.

Timeline: Proposal proofreading requires a minimum of 3-5 business days. We recommend that this step is requested no later than 10 business days before the proposal due date to the sponsor (5 business days prior to the SPS Pre-award internal deadline).

Research Development Services (RDS): Proposal Development Services Overview

As a University, we’ve committed to work together to substantially grow UConn/UConn Health’s capacity for high-level research, scholarship, and creative endeavors. As part of its Research Development (RD) efforts, the Office of the Vice President for Research now offers proposal development services to increase the competitiveness of proposals UConn/UConn Health investigators submit to funders. The services offered include consultation, brief and in depth proposal reviews, and large and complex proposal support. They are open to all UConn/UConn Health faculty free of charge.

Proposal development services build on the success of OVPR RD initiatives such as grantwriting training and seed funding programs by providing grantwriting support, including grantsmanship reviews, proposal editing, and project management support for large and complex proposals. These services are designed to ensure that high-quality science and scholarship proposed by UConn investigators can be as competitive as possible.

To learn more about the role and mission of our Research Development Services team, the services we offer, and UConn’s priority areas for research growth, please explore our website.

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.

Data Security Guidance for Human Subjects Research

Federal regulations for human subjects research require Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to determine that adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and the confidentiality of data are in place and that researchers include adequate provisions for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects in their research plan. This page will help investigators plan for the collection, transmission, and storage of research data in a secure manner consistent with University policies and federal regulations. Methods for working with research data often evolve over time given rapid changes to technology. As a result, periodic updates will be made to this page. Researchers are encouraged to reference this page as information is often updated to reflect new technology and security parameters.

The Principal Investigator is responsible for all aspects of research, including the collection, transmission, storage, backup, and security of data and ensuring those listed as key personnel are informed and trained on the procedures related to data security. Research team meetings should include documentation of training and discussion about the safeguards in place to protect research data. This is particularly important should a breach occur or loss or theft of a device that stores identifiable data. These occurrences must be immediately communicated to the IRB, Information Technology Services (ITS), or UConn’s Privacy Office. To assist researchers with documenting these procedures and for the IRB to review and make appropriate determinations, any human subjects research at UConn that involves the collection of identifiable data must include a completed Data Security Assessment Form. Any changes regarding the use of technology in research must be submitted to the IRB (via an amendment to an approved protocol) for approval prior to implementation of the changes.

Questions related to the security or allowable use of software for the collection, transmission, and storage of research data can be directed to UConn’s Information Security Office security@uconn.edu.

Definitions

Anonymous Data: Records including tissue and samples that do not have a code assigned that would permit the data to be traced back to an individual. This includes any information that was recorded or collected without any of the 18 identifiers as defined by HIPAA. Note that IP addresses are considered by the University and some international standards to be identifiable even though the address is linked to the computer and not specifically to the individual.

Confidential data under UConn policy is data that is regulated by Federal or State laws including but not limited to Family Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), or the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Sensitive data include information related to alcohol or drug use, traumatic experiences, child/elder abuse, or illegal behavior, or where disclosure outside of the research study has the potential to place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to their financial standing, employability, educational advancement, or reputation.

De-identified Data: Data that are stripped of all identifying information and there is no way the data could be linked back to an individual through a key or other coding method. Best practice when de-identifying data is to use the safe harbor method where all HIPAA identifiers are removed.

Coded Data: Data, including tissue and samples are coded when a link or key to the code exists, such as a number, letter, symbol, pseudonym, or any combination, that is linked to an individual participant’s identifiers. The code should not include information related to an individual, such as initials or date of birth.

Protected Health Information(PHI): Individually identifiable health information, held or maintained by a covered entity or its business associates acting for the covered entity, that is transmitted or maintained in any form or medium (including the individually identifiable health information of non-U.S. citizens). This includes identifiable demographic and other information relating to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual, or the provision or payment of health care to an individual that is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse. For purposes of the Privacy Rule, genetic information is considered to be health information.” UConn is designated as a Hybrid Entity under HIPAA. Under the Hybrid status, UConn’s Speech & Hearing Clinic is a covered Entity. Please contact UConn’s Privacy webpage for more information regarding HIPAA.

Private Information: includes information about behavior that occurs in a context in which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is taking place, and information that has been provided for specific purposes by an individual and that the individual can reasonably expect will not be made public (e.g., a medical record).

Identifiable Private Information: is private information for which the identity of the subject is or may readily be ascertained by the investigator or associated with the information. An identifiable biospecimen is a biospecimen for which the identity of the subject is or may readily be ascertained by the investigator or associated with the biospecimen.

Data Collection and Storage:

All University owned computers and laptops must have encryption enabled by default and must be used for all storage of UConn Confidential Data or identifiable participant data and comply with UConn’s Confidential Data Policy. Research data may be stored on UConn secure drives, such as P and R, or the use of university authorized cloud services, such as UConn Office 365 (e.g. OneDrive/SharePoint).

University devices must be used when research involves collection or storage of photographic images or voice recordings of research participants, and data protected under HIPAA and FERPA. At times, researchers purchase cell phones and other devices to be used by the research team. Personal devices, such as laptops, cell phones, or digital recorders that are owned by the researcher or member of the study team are not an acceptable method to collect identifiable or UConn Confidential data due to inherent risk of loss of confidentiality. If it is not possible to use a university device, the consent form must reference loss of confidentiality as a risk to research participants. Data should be held on personal devices only for the time necessary to be promptly moved to a secure university managed location. A personal device, such as a cell phone may be used for appointment reminders, as long as personal identifiers are not paired with other identifiable information. Personal laptops may be used for storing public data. All personal devices must be password protected. ITS recommends using university applications and sponsored software for identifiable data collection because there are secure controls in place to help minimize risk.

When using wearable devices, such as an activity trackers, a smartwatch, voice recording devices, location trackers, or other technology to collect research data, information must be included in the informed consent form that states participants will be required to download and agree to terms of service or other agreements applicable to the app if the participant is using their own device and not one provided to them by the researchers. If an app meets the regulatory definition of a mobile medical application as defined by the FDA, additional regulatory determinations may need to be made depending on its intended use.

Transmission of Research Data:

UConn does not recommend the transmission of identifiable datasets by email due to the inherent risk of compromise. When emailing data that do not contain any personal identifiers, include [encrypt] in the subject line of an email when sending from a university email account. If emails are compromised, this could place data at risk and result in loss of confidentiality for research participants. Identifiable data should be transmitted via a secure service, such as Office365, FileLocker, a secure website, or by using secure protocols, such as a File Transfer Protocol (FTPS). Filelocker is an encrypted web-based application that is used to provide short term secure storage and encrypted transport of files both across campus and anywhere with web access. The level of security should be appropriate to the risk.

Informed Consent:

Human subjects regulations allow researchers to obtain written consent in an electronic format. The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance for obtaining informed consent electronically. Electronic informed consent (eIC) should be easy to navigate, allowing the user to proceed forward or backward within the system and stop and continue at a later time. If the consent process takes place remotely and is not personally witnessed by study personnel, the electronic system must include a method to ensure that the person electronically signing the informed consent is the subject who will be participating in the research or the subject’s legally authorized representative (LAR) (see 21 CFR 11.100 (b)). Examples may include verification of a state issued ID or other documents, use of personal questions, biometric or visual methods. At UConn, an example is the use of the NetID and password. However, minimal risk social behavioral research may not warrant such verification. FDA-regulated clinical investigations must comply with criteria under 21 CFR part 11. For this type of research, the electronic system must capture and record the date the subject or LAR provided consent and a copy of the informed consent must be provided to the person signing the form. Consent forms that include a hand-written signature may be returned via fax or postal mail.

For anonymous internet-based surveys or for research that the IRB grants a waiver of signed consent, include “I agree” or “I do not agree” check boxes on the information sheet or consent form for participants to click to indicate their active choice of whether or not they consent to participate. Please be sure to use the most updated forms found on the IRB’s Forms & Templates page. These forms are periodically updated and include other applicable required statements.

Web Conferencing for Collecting Research Data

The use of web conferencing to conduct research interviews and/or to collect research data has increased significantly. To comply with UConn ITS guidelines and policies, researchers should use UConn approved software or services when conducting these activities. This guidance has been developed in conjunction with Research Compliance Services (RCS) and UConn’s ITS Security to assist researchers in understanding what platforms may be appropriate.

The nature of the data dictates which platforms may be appropriate. For example, investigators who will collect identifiable sensitive data (e.g. personal health information, illegal behaviors, substance use, etc.) that could place research participants at risk if disclosed may use Microsoft Teams or WebEx to conduct remote research interviews. Investigators collecting research data that is not sensitive may also use Google Hangouts/Meet when conducting research interviews remotely. In all cases, researchers must ensure their data collection activities are properly secured against outside (non-invited) guests. Most platforms provide specific controls to help prevent inappropriate access; for example, please visit online instructions for WebEx. When using software that is not secured or sponsored by university ITS, the consent form must include loss of confidentiality and possibility of data mining as risks.

Other web-based software may be allowable on a case-by-case basis, but must first be cleared through ITS and/or Procurement. Some web conference software allows the researcher to record sessions, share screens, and automatically transcribe the recording. When recording sessions, researchers are asked to ensure that the recordings are stored in one of the following ways: on a University secure server, UConn’s version of Office 365, NetApp, or SharePoint.

Internet Based Research

Computer and Internet-based methods for collecting, storing, and transmitting data in research involving human participants are increasing in use and constantly evolving. As new methods are developed and used by researchers, they present new challenges to the protection of research participants. The IRB reviews computer and Internet-based research protocols using the same considerations and standards of approval of research under human subjects regulations and UConn policies.

Internet-based survey instruments should be formatted in a way that will allow participants to skip questions if they wish or provide a response such as “I choose not to answer.” If all of the questions in a survey require a response, then the Information Sheet or consent form must include a statement about this requirement. Also, at the end of the survey, there should be two buttons: one to allow participants to discard the data and the other to submit it for inclusion in the study.

Computer-and internet-based procedures for advertising and recruiting potential study participants (e.g., social media, internet advertising, e-mail solicitation, banner ads) must follow the IRB guidelines for recruitment that apply to any traditional media, such as newspapers and bulletin boards. All advertising and recruitment material must be reviewed and approved by the IRB prior to implementation.

Investigators are advised to review the University’s policy on Use of Official Email Lists prior to soliciting participants by email. If you plan on using LISTSERVs at UConn, please contact list moderators for individual list policies regarding solicitations for research.

Online Data Collection Software:

The UConn Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness (OIRE) has obtained a license from Qualtrics as an on-line data collection tool. Qualtrics is available to all faculty members, students, and staff with a UConn Net ID and password.

Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) is also available to UConn researchers for a fee. REDCap is a secure web application for building and managing online survey databases.The use of on-line survey software should be administered by a professionally trained person with knowledge in computer and internet security. Access to the data housed in the survey software must only be limited to key project personnel.

The informed consent form must include what individuals have access to the data (e.g., survey software panel personnel) and must state how data will be collected, transmitted stored. Both Qualtrics or REDCap may be configured to allow use of a mouse or finder to obtain a written signature.

For international research, investigators are cautioned that encryption standards vary from country to country and that there are legal restrictions regarding the export of certain encryption software outside US boundaries. Similarly, data privacy regulations vary between states. Investigators are responsible for understanding the data privacy laws where data collection occurs under their protocol.

Data Storage/Disposal:

If a server is used for data storage, personal identifying information should be kept separate from the data. It is recommended that competent data destruction services be used to ensure that no data can be recovered from obsolete electronic media. Researchers must adhere to the UConn Information Security Office’s Confidential Data Security Standard Policy, and Data Storage Guidelines. As a reminder, federal regulations require human subjects records be retained for at least 3 years after completion of the research.

Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)

Researchers working with children online are subject to COPPA in addition to human subjects regulations. Researchers are prohibited from collecting personal information from a child without posting notices about how the information will be used and without getting “verifiable parental consent”. For minimal risk research written permission may be obtained by paper, mail, or fax. If the research is more than minimal risk, parental permission should be obtained in a face-to-face meeting.

The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA)

PPRA, 34 CFR Part 98, is a Federal law governed by the Department of Education that outlines 8 categories of protected information for survey responses and requires that parents be afforded the right to inspect surveys before they are given to students. The law requires schools to obtain written consent from parents before minor students are required to in any U.S. Department of Education funded survey, analyses, or evaluation collects information in the following areas: Political affiliations; mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to the student and his/her family; Sex behavior and attitudes; Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior; Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships; Legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers; Religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or student’s parent*; or income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program.)

Source material for this policy guidance was provided by the Pennsylvania State University and the University of Georgia IRBs. The UConn IRB gratefully acknowledges this support as well as guidance from Chris Bernard, UConn’s Chief Information Security Officer.

Additional Resources:

UConn Security Policy Manual.pdf

UConn Password Standards

Information Security Office Security Tips

Information Security Office Confidential Data Handling Suggestions

March 2021

UConn COVID-19 Research Seed Funding (COVID-RSF2) Program

Note: The guidelines below are for the second cycle of COVID-RSF funding. Click here to for the first cycle guidelines. The COVID-RSF program is now closed and no additional funding cycles are anticipated.

Purpose

COVID-RSF (Rapid Start Funding) and COVID-RSF2 (Research Seed Funding) are initiatives of the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) that support the development of promising projects related to COVID-19. Given the enthusiastic and high-quality response to the first COVID-RSF cycle (37 white papers were received, resulting in 5 awards of up to $50K each), Vice President Maric has allocated additional funds to support COVID-19 related research. The OVPR anticipates offering an additional 10 awards of up to $10K each.

This new competition, COVID-RSF2, expands the scope of the previous call to include longer-term projects and additional topics. In addition to seeking mature projects promising very near-term impact on the detection, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19, we also welcome proposals for earlier-stage COVID-19 seed projects, small scale pilot projects, projects related to the social and medical impact of COVID-19, and other related topics.

Applications will be collected and rapidly reviewed in mid-to-late October, with the goal releasing funding by early November.

Timeline:

Proposals (brief whitepapers, plus budget and biosketches) due Friday, October 16, 2020 by 12 noon.
Submissions should be made via the UConn Quest portal.
Award notices expected by October 30. Award setup will begin immediate after notice, pending the completion of compliance review.

Program/Award Details:

Up to 10 awards of up to $10K will be made
Standard award period will be November 2020 through December 31, 2021.

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

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?

UConn COVID-19 Rapid Start Funding (COVID-RSF) Program

Note: The guidelines below are for the first cycle of COVID-RSF funding, which is now closed. Click here for updated and expanded COVID-RSF2 (COVID-19 Research Seed Fund) guidelines.

Purpose

COVID-RSF is an initiative of the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) that supports the development of promising projects related to COVID-19. Many funding agencies have responded to the pandemic by creating emergency/rapid funding mechanisms that address key scientific problems related to the detection, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of this disease. A recent and notable example is the NIH RADx-rad program, which seeks to advance capabilities related to COVID-19 testing.

This internal funding mechanism seeks to identify and support novel technologies and approaches with strong potential to be competitive for emergency funding opportunities addressing COVID-19. Proposals should be able to make a compelling case that the technology/approach is unique and can have a significant impact on COVID-19 related challenges in the near term. Given the rapidly-changing nature of the COVID-19 funding landscape, projects with the potential for this kind of impact will be considered regardless of whether a specific external funding opportunity currently addresses it.

COVID-RSF seeks proposals for potentially high-impact projects that are ready to launch in a short period of time. As such, early-stage seed projects or other developmental work will not be competitive. Applications will be collected and rapidly reviewed in early September, with funding to be released by October 1. It is expected that COVID-RSF funding will be used to support a short ramp-up period for these highly-competitive projects while they are being submitted and considered for rapid-response external funding.

To give a sense of the NIH’s current interests related to COVID-19, some of the topics addressed by the recent RADx-rad program include:

Wastewater detection of SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19)
Exosome-based Non-traditional Technologies Towards Multi-Parametric and Integrated Approaches for SARS-CoV-2
Chemosensory Testing as a COVID-19 Screening Tool
Predicting Viral-Associated Inflammatory Disease Severity in Children with Laboratory Diagnostics and Artificial Intelligence (PreVAIL kIds)
Multimodal COVID-19 surveillance methods for High Risk Populations in densely populated facilities
Novel Biosensing for Screening, Diagnosis and Monitoring of COVID-19 From Skin and The Oral Cavity
Automatic detection and tracing of SARS-COV-2
RADx-rad will also have a Data Coordination Center (DCC) which will provide management, direction, and overall coordination across RADx-rad awardees in areas such as data sharing, data management standards, terminologies, and common data elements.

Other topics from across all disciplines will also be considered, so long as they have potential to make an immediate impact on the detection, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19.

Timeline:

Proposals (brief whitepapers, plus budget and biosketches) ~~due Friday, Sept 11 2020 by 12 noon.~~ Program now closed.
~~Submissions should be made via the UConn Quest portal.~~
Award notices expected by Sept 18. Award setup will begin immediate after notice, pending the completion of compliance review.

Program/Award Details:

Several awards of up to $50K will be made
As these are rapid-response grants, it is expected that projects would spin up quickly following award and the scope-of-work completed within a few months. Projects with a scope longer than 6 months are strongly discouraged.

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?

Level 1 – Faculty/Institutional Development for JEDI (up to $5K) – Details

Level 2 – JEDI Scholarly/Creative Expansion (up to $20K) – Details

Level 3 – JEDI Research Expansion (up to $60K) – Details

Additional Details and Eligibility

Proposal Guidelines – Level 1

Proposal Guidelines – Level 2

Proposal Guidelines – Level 3

Budget Guidelines

Review Criteria for Level 2 and Level 3 Awards

Project Evaluation Guidelines

Program Contacts

Track 1 (Clinical Faculty-Initiated Research) Details and Eligibility – $10K

Track 2 (Human Subjects and Clinical Populations Research) – $30K-$60K

Track 3 (Human Subjects and Clinical Populations Research) – $60K-$100K

Proposal Guidelines

Budget Guidelines

Review Criteria

Post-award Considerations and Reporting

Program Contacts

Purpose

Eligibility

Proposal Guidelines

Budget Guidelines

Review Criteria

Post-Award Considerations

Program Contacts

Registrant Information

Development, review, and submission timeline:

Full Business Days Before Submission Deadline

Full Business Days Before Submission Deadline

Meet the Research Development Services Team!

Bethany Drews Javidi, MA – Large/Complex Proposal Development Specialist

Matthew Mroz, PhD – Manager, Research Development Services

Caitlin O’Connell, PhD – Research Development Specialist

Consultation to determine fit with funding opportunity

Brief review of an early draft

In-depth review of a completed draft

Mid-scale proposal development support ($1M-$5M)

Large and complex proposal development support ($5M+)

Now available! – Proposal Proofreading

Overview

RDS Proposal Development Mission

The role of the RDS team in the proposal development process

Eligibility

Proposal Guidelines

Budget Guidelines

Review Criteria

Post-Award Considerations and Reporting

Program Contacts

Eligibility

Proposal Guidelines

Budget Guidelines

Review Criteria

Post-Award Considerations and Reporting

Program Contacts