Making USDA grant submission more successful:

A panelist’s perspective

Brian S. Baldwin

Dept. of Plant & Soil Sciences

bbaldwin@pss.misstate.edu

Know where to look and look yourself

• You must meet the solicitation objectives

• Is your project relevant to the solicitation?

• If you don’t know, or even if you think you know, ask

• Look at the score sheet in the RFP, and devote your time accordingly

• Get to know the program specialist• Email probably best

• Listen to the program officer

• Webinar for the RFP?• Ask

• The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

• What is the potential for the proposed activity to advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and

• Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?

• To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts ?

• Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?

• How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?

• Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the

• proposed activities?

•A grant submission is like teaching.

• Tell them what you’re going to talk about

• Talk about it

• Tell them what you just said

•State hypothesis/hypotheses• Follow through

•Structure your document • Exactly as the RFP structure it• No free-form outline

•Follow instructions – absolutely

• Format all supplementary material the same

K I S S

•Explain everything completely• While reviewers are peers, their field

will probably differ from yours

•Don’t try to do too much• Makes grant difficult to read and

understand

• If you’re up against the page limit, you ARE trying to do too much.

• Cut the project down.

•Multiple locations/collaborators • Are they necessary?

• Why are they included?

• Is the cooperator truly qualified?

• Is the location valid?• Did you tell them why it was?

•Pre-data• Becoming more necessary

• USDA isn’t going to fund based on blind faith

• Reviewers want to know you know what you are talking about and there is the potential of successful outcomes

• NIFA Seed Grant• SRI from MAFES/FWRC

•Explain everything completely• While reviewers are peers, their field

will probably differ from yours

•Don’t try to do too much• Makes grant difficult to read and

understand• If you’re up against the page limit, you

ARE trying to do too much.• Cut the project down.

•Review Packet returned - negative

• If at first you don’t succeed . . .

•Take the feedback and use it

RESUBMIT