STEM, Education, Training

No Applicants  // Limit: 1 // Tickets Available: 1 

This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is a program within the NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research in conjunction with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) and the National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders (NIDCD).

Program Objective

The purpose of the Jointly Sponsored Predoctoral Training Program in the Neurosciences (JSPTPN) program is to provide strong, broad-based neuroscience training that will  develop a cohort of well-trained   researchers at a time when the field is advancing at a rapid pace. Neuroscience research increasingly requires investigators who can cross boundaries, draw on knowledge and interdisciplinary approaches and levels of analysis, and apply this breadth of knowledge in original ways to yield new discoveries about the function of the nervous system.

Broad-based research training. The JSPTPN supports programs of broad-based education and research experience during the first two years of graduate training. As such, training programs supported by a JSPTPN training grant must have a comprehensive, two-year training plan. During this training period, students should obtain a working knowledge of the different kinds of approaches and techniques that make up the field of neuroscience. A key component of this training should be acquiring a strong foundation of experimental methodology (e.g. experimental design, quantitative data analysis and interpretation) and a robust development of professional skills (e.g. written and oral communication and data presentation).

Core Knowledge Expectations. JSPTPN Programs should define the core knowledge that each student is expected to gain. Programs must have a clear comprehensive plan that will ensure that each student will have the tools and research experience necessary for a future career as an independent investigator in areas directly related to biomedical research in neuroscience. Each program is expected to define the core knowledge and research experience expected of all trainees. However, programs may provide a specific tailored curricula based on individual trainee background and needs.

Trainees are expected to participate in a curriculum that incorporates education in multiple levels of analysis, which may include genetics, molecular, cellular, system, behavioral and/or computational approaches. Trainees should also gain an understanding of the tools, technologies, and methods used in contemporary neuroscience research. Note that not all programs will necessarily need to cover all levels of analysis and types of technologies. However, there must be enough coverage to be considered adequate for a broad understanding of neurobiological function and the current tools used for research in neuroscience. Breadth may be achieved through any combination of formal courses, laboratory rotations, workshops and other programmatic activities. Regardless of their individual curricular plans, all students are expected to gain a general understanding of the neurobiological basis underlying diseases and disorders of the nervous system. Trainees are expected to leave the JSPTPN programs with the fundamental knowledge and skills that will allow them to lead, and confidently adapt to the rapidly growing and technologically changing field of neuroscience research.

Laboratory Rotations. Programs are expected to include laboratory rotations that allow students to explore different research areas, scientific approaches, and laboratory cultures. Rotations should have specific purpose and goals and should be designed to provide trainees with a practical understanding of the tools and experimental approaches that drive the research in the rotation laboratory. Rotations should be of sufficient duration to generate a product that results from the scientific and technological knowledge gained in the rotation laboratory.

Experimental design and statistical methodology

Experimental Design. Programs are expected to provide formal instruction in the principles of rigorous experimental design to ensure that trainees understand the practices required for robust and unbiased experimental design, hypothesis testing and the application of these principles and practices to their individual research.

Statistical Methodology. Programs should equip students with a solid understanding of statistical methodology relevant to contemporary neuroscience research and provide exposure to quantitative approaches used for a variety of experimental systems. The goals of this training are to educate trainees in 1) the importance of considering statistical principles in the design of their research, 2) the need for appropriate use of statistics in analyzing data, interpreting results and forming conclusions and 3) the practical application of statistics to date in different experimental paradigms.

Ideally, trainees will begin to develop a depth and breadth of statistical understanding that will enable them to adapt and appropriately apply statistical approaches as their experimental repertoire changes. Programs must ensure that all trainees have a solid understanding of the value and proper use of statistics, including an understanding of the many types of scientific failures that can occur due to inappropriate application of statistical tests. An introductory course in statistics is not sufficient to achieve these goals.

Quantitative Literacy and the Use of Quantitative Approaches

Quantitative Literacy. JSPTPN programs are expected to provide the background necessary for the development of quantitative skills and literacy needed to conduct rigorous research. Programmatic activities should instill an appreciation of the benefits of quantitative approaches to experimentation (and the potential pitfalls associated with a lack of quantitative consideration of their scientific system). An important specific goal of these programs is to foster the incorporation of quantitative thinking into the trainees’ research experience throughout their careers. To that end, the training activities provided by the program should equip trainees with the tools and knowledge required to examine their experimental systems quantitatively.

Quantitative Tools and Approaches. Programs are expected to provide experience in the use of practical tools for quantitative exploration, interpretation, and evaluation of biological data relevant to neuroscience research. Training in quantitative tools and approaches should be integrated into the program and reinforced during the students’ graduate careers. Ideally, training will be ongoing and progressive, with proactive approaches in place to encourage the application of quantitative thinking in the trainees’ dissertation research. For example, a program may wish to cover general principles early in the training and incorporate quantitative approaches that are directly applicable to each trainee’s research topic as they advance.

Scientific rigor. Trainees should have a thorough understanding of the principles and practices of rigorous scientific research. These principles should be examined in the context of the collection, appropriate analysis and interpretation of scientific data. Programs are also encouraged to provide education in human decision-making tendencies and cognitive biases, and how they can lead to erroneous interpretation of data (c.f. Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York. Farrar, Straus and Giroux).

Professional Skills. Regardless of career choice, an individual’s impact and success in science depends heavily on the ability to clearly articulate ideas and results in a variety of settings and to a variety of audiences. Programs are expected to provide students with strong training in professional skills such as written and oral communication. Programs should also provide training in the skills necessary for grant applications, such as grant writing, understanding the grant submission and review process, as well as understanding and addressing critiques. When appropriate, programs should encourage students to apply for individual support, such as fellowships and other individual awards from federal and non-federal sources. 

Understanding Career Opportunities.  Training programs should provide trainees access to structured career development advising and learning opportunities (e.g., workshops, discussions, and exposure to invited speakers from various career paths). Through such opportunities, trainees should obtain a general working knowledge of a variety of potential career options that would allow them to use the skills learned during their training, as well as the steps required to successfully transition to the next stage of their chosen career path.

Oversight of trainee mentoring and progression. In addition to outstanding scientific training, solid mentoring and regular career guidance are critical for advancement and success of science. Consequently, graduate programs supported by the JSPTPN are expected to have a formal oversight plan to ensure that students who obtain a Ph.D. degree do so in a timely manner, and with 1) a publication record that will allow them to progress to outstanding research opportunities, 2) written and oral presentation skills that facilitate their ability to publish their results, submit competitive grant applications , speak at national meetings to present their results, and interview for future positions, 3) an understanding of the many career opportunities available to them as Ph.D. scientists and what is required for them to compete for these different career opportunities.

This wide range of skills and knowledge needed for success in a scientific endeavor cannot be gained by students entirely within the first two years of graduate school but can be achieved with ongoing training and mentoring throughout their graduate school careers. The longitudinal oversight process designed to ensure appropriate student progress is a critical aspect of the environment in which the JSPTPN operates. Although the JSPTPN is not responsible for providing guidance beyond graduate year two, a strong JSPTPN program can only exist in an environment that is dedicated to the long-term success of its students.

Enhancing workforce diversity. NIH’s ability to help ensure that the nation remains a global leader in scientific discovery and innovation is dependent upon a pool of highly talented scientists from diverse backgrounds who will help to further NIH's mission.  See, NOT-OD-20-031. The research enterprise will be strongest when it involves individuals from a wide variety of backgrounds, who may bring new and innovative perspectives to solve the mysteries of brain function, identify the mechanisms that underlie disease and disorders and develop novel approaches to clinical treatment. Within the framework of this program’s longstanding commitment to excellence, T32-funded programs play a critical role in training individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those underrepresented in biomedical sciences.  To help address all of these critical needs, JSPTPN programs are expected to recruit students from a wide variety  of backgrounds and foster their successful completion of the graduate program and transition to their next position.

Training programs are expected to implement robust plans to enhance diversity and to promote inclusive research environments (i.e. institutional and departmental environments in which trainees from all backgrounds feel represented and integrated in the community). 

Exposure to a variety of role models. To enhance diversity, it is essential that trainees have exposure and access to a variety of role models.  Programs should actively strive to recruit prospective individuals for  program leadership, participating faculty and mentors, as well as invited speakers with varying backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences.This may include women, senior faculty who have the benefit of long experience, and junior faculty who have more recent experience in transitioning from training to independent positions.

Training Program Evaluation. Is it expected that JSPTPN programs will undergo both internal, as well as external evaluation in order to promote innovation and evolution, as well as to bring attention to any deficiencies that may arise.

Expectations for Training Program Outcomes. Trainees should leave the T32 training program with the appropriate accomplishments and skills to move on to the next step of an independent research (or research related) career pathway. Outcomes expected of training programs include strong trainee publications and other accomplishments appropriate to their training.

Special Note: Consultation with the Chair of the JSPTPN steering committee prior to application preparation is encouraged (see JSPTPN homepage).

No Applicants // Limit: 1 // Tickets Available: 1

The purpose of this NOFO is to solicit proposals from highly qualified clinical sites in the US to join the Network through an X01 Resource Access Program award. Accepted sites will be designated as a “Diagnostic Center of Excellence (DCoE)” and will be responsible for generating participant clinical, phenotypic and sequencing data to be submitted to the DMCC through a Data Use Agreement with the Center.  X01 recipients will have access to DMCC resources and infrastructure including access to high-quality phenotypic and genotypic data and collaboration with highly skilled physicians, researchers, and bioinformaticians. Using team science, DCoEs will be able to collaborate with Network members to implement strategies that will expand equity and accessto health disparity populations and increase the discovery of new disease-associated genes and genomic variants, immunologic and metabolic abnormalities, as well as environmental insults that are causative in previously undiagnosed patients. DCoEs will be invited to submit their most challenging, unsolved cases for acceptance into the Network, and partner in their evaluation with the Network’s virtual case review committee(s), which will be coordinated by the DMCC.

Successful applicants will demonstrate that they have the appropriate expertise and a track record of diagnosing rare and difficult-to-diagnose disorders, along with the infrastructure and resources needed to conduct the clinical evaluation and DNA sequencing of participants enrolled at their sites. Specifically, applicants will be expected to demonstrate the expertise, independent resources (e.g., institutional support, plans for billing insurance, obtaining support from outside partnerships, etc.), and capacity to:

• Enroll a minimum of 5 participants per year who are accepted into the Network, although some sites may have the capacity to enroll more participants. Typically, only the most difficult, unsolved cases will be accepted into the Network (e.g., those cases requiring specialized, non-routine diagnostic testing procedures or collaboration among a team of clinicians and researchers).
• Perform comprehensive clinical evaluations of undiagnosed participants enrolled at their site including medical record review, routine and specialized diagnostic testing procedures, consultations, and referral to other sites with necessary expertise if appropriate.
• Have the resources (in-house or outsourced) to perform DNA and/or RNA sequencing and re-analysis of existing genome-sequencing data.
• Capability to work with Network data stored in a cloud architecture, such as AnVIL.
• Have the genomics capability including medical genetics and associated informatics expertise needed to identify pathogenic variants from human genomics sequence data. This includes the infrastructure to return genetic results to study participants and provide post-test genetic counseling.
• Demonstrate sufficient clinical metabolomics and other omics expertise to interpret or re-interpret lab and research-grade findings.
• Have sufficient clinical staff to review medical records from applicants (so as to enroll a minimum of five cases per year into the Network) and to rigorously discuss the results to arrive at a diagnosis or to interrogate candidate genes.
• Collect and store DNA, fibroblasts from skin biopsies, and other biological specimens produced by clinical evaluations as needed for the diagnosis.
• Organize incoming records and return results to participants, family members, and referring physicians.
• Support a site coordinator or equivalent position to serve as the DCoE’s point of contact for data sharing, case coordination, collaboration, data retrieval for research projects and patient follow-up.

No applicants // Limit: 1 // Tickets Available: 1 

Only one application can be submitted per institution. Each application submitted under this announcement must address one, and only one, of the Project Areas.

Through this grant program, EPA is soliciting applications to assist in the development and utilization of innovative activities relating to workforce development and career opportunities in the water utility sector, which may include:
(A) expanding the use and availability of activities and resources that relate to the recruitment, including the promotion of diversity within that recruitment, of individuals to careers in the drinking water and wastewater utility sector, including stormwater;
(B) expanding the availability of training opportunities for (i) individuals entering the water and wastewater utility sector; and (ii) individuals seeking to advance careers within the water and wastewater utility sector;
(C) expanding the use and availability of activities and strategies, including the development of innovative activities and strategies, that relate to the maintenance and retention of a sustainable workforce in the water and wastewater utility sector; and
(D) expanding the availability of workforce development and training that enables drinking water and wastewater utility workers to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other air pollutants to benefit disadvantaged communities. 

Project areas:

• Project Area 1: Targeted internship, apprenticeship, pre-apprenticeship, and post-secondary bridge programs for skilled water utility trades.
• Project Area 2: Education programs designed for elementary, secondary, and higher education students.
• Project Area 3: Regional industry and workforce development collaborations to address water utility employment needs and coordinate candidate development, particularly in areas of high unemployment or for water utilities with a high proportion of retirement eligible employees.
• Project Area 4: Leadership development, occupational training, mentoring, or cross-training programs that ensure incumbent drinking water and wastewater utility workers are prepared for higher level supervisory or management-level positions.
• Project Area 5: Education and training programs, including internship or apprenticeship programs, designed for decentralized water workers (i.e., private well and/or septic system service professionals) to support public health outcomes for communities that rely on private wells for drinking water or decentralized systems for adequate treatment and disposal of wastewater.

Limit: 2  // PIs: 
Kenry (Pharmaceutics & Pharmacokinetics)
S. Song (Biomedical Engineering)

Only two nominations are allowed per institution.

These competitive research awards provide seed money for junior faculty members that often result in additional funding from other sources. The award amount provided by ORAU is $5,000. The applicant’s institution is required to match the award with at least an additional $5,000. This is a one-year grant (June 1 to May 31).

Eligibility for the Powe Awards is open to full-time assistant professors at ORAU member institutions within two years of their tenure track appointment at the time of application. If there is a question about eligibility, your ORAU Councilor makes the final determination. Only two nominations are allowed per institution.

Research projects must fall within one of these five disciplines:

• Engineering and Applied Science
• Life Sciences
• Mathematics/Computer Sciences
• Physical Sciences
• Policy, Management, or Education

Junior faculty members interested in applying should consult their ORAU Councilor, and visit the frequently asked questions.

Institutionally Coordinated // Limit: 1 // PI: R. Deil-Amen ( College of Education)
 

UArizona may submit one proposal.

Through this solicitation, NSF seeks to foster a network of S-STEM stakeholders and further develop the infrastructure needed to generate and disseminate new knowledge, successful practices and effective design principles arising from NSF S-STEM projects nationwide. The ultimate vision of the legislation governing the S-STEM parent program[1] (and of the current S-STEM-Net solicitation) is that all Americans, regardless of economic status, should be able to contribute to the American innovation economy if they so desire.

To support collaboration within the S-STEM network, NSF will fund several S-STEM Research Hubs (S-STEM-Hub). The S-STEM Network (S-STEM-Net) will collaborate to create synergies and sustain a robust national ecosystem consisting of multi-sector partners supporting domestic low-income STEM students in achieving their career goals, while also ensuring access, inclusion, and adaptability to changing learning needs. The Hubs will investigate evolving barriers to the success of this student population. It will also disseminate the context and circumstances by which interventions and practices that support graduation of domestic low-income students (both undergraduate and graduate) pursuing careers in STEM are successful.

The target audience for this dissemination effort is the community of higher education institutions, faculty, scholars, researchers and evaluators, local and regional organizations, industry, and other nonprofit, federal, state, and local agencies concerned with the success of domestic low-income STEM students in the United States.

Limit: 1  // PI:  M. Romero-Ortega (Bioengineering)

One application per institution (normally identified by having a unique DUNS number or NIH IPF number) is allowed. This FOA seeks to support programs that include innovative approaches to enhance biomedical engineering (BME) designeducation to ensure a future workforce that can meet the nation’s needs in biomedical research and healthcare technologies.

Applications are encouraged from institutions that propose to establish new or to enhance existing team-based design courses orprograms in undergraduate biomedical engineering departments or other degree-granting programs with biomedical engineeringtracks/minors. This FOA targets the education of undergraduate biomedical engineering/bioengineering students in a team-basedenvironment. Health equity and universal design topics must be integrated throughout the educational activities. While current bestpractices such as multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary education, introduction to the regulatory pathway and other issues related tothe commercialization of medical devices, and clinical immersion remain encouraged components of a strong BME program, thisFOA also challenges institutions to propose other novel, innovative and/or ground-breaking activities that can form the basis of thenext generation of biomedical engineering design education.

Institutionally Coordinated // Limit: 2 //  PIs: 
Track 3 - Inter-institutional Consortia:
K. Ogden (Chemical and Environmental Engineering) 

Track 3 - Inter-institutional Consortia:
D.Glickenstein (Mathematics)

An institution may submit up to two proposals (either as a single institution or as a subawardee or a member of an inter-institutional consortia project (lead or co-lead) for a given S-STEM deadline. Multiple proposals from an institution must not overlap with regard to S-STEM eligible disciplines. See Additional Eligibility Information below for more details (see IV. Eligibility Information).

Institutions with a current S-STEM award should wait at least until the end of the third year of execution of their current award before submitting a new S-STEM proposal focused on students pursuing degrees in the same discipline(s).

The above restrictions do not apply to collaborative planning grant proposals.

The S-STEM program provides institutions of higher education (IHEs) with funds for scholarships to encourage and enable domestic low-income students with academic ability, talent or potential and demonstrated financial need to enter the US workforce following completion of associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degrees in S-STEM eligible disciplines. To enable social mobility of these students with academic talent, funds should be allocated to support scholars in areas of regional or national need. 

Description of Program Tracks

• Track 1 (Institutional Capacity Building)
  UA is not eligible to apply to Track 1, due to a previous award under this track.
   
• Track 2 (Implementation: Single Institution)
  Track 2 proposals have the same S-STEM goals as Track 1 proposals. They generally involve and benefit only one institution, but they will serve more scholars than Track 1 proposals. Any IHE (as described under the eligibility section) can submit a Track 2 proposal, whether or not the institution has received prior S-STEM or STEP awards.
  Track 2 proposals may, in some cases, also include a focus on student transfer or progression to graduate school. In this case, if needed, two or more institutions could partner.
  Track 2 projects must be led by a PI who is (a) a faculty member currently teaching in one of the S-STEM eligible disciplines being pursued by the targeted scholars, or (b) an academic administrator who has taught in one of the eligible disciplines in the last two years from submission and can dedicate the time necessary to assure project success. The PI must be a member of the proposed project's leadership and management team. The leadership and management team should also include a STEM administrator (department head or above). Faculty members from all departments or academic units involved should have a role in the project either as Co-PIs, senior personnel, or scholar mentors. The project team could include, if appropriate, a non-teaching institutional, educational, or social science researcher to support evidence-based responses to items raised by the external evaluator through formative evaluation. This additional researcher cannot take the place of the external evaluator. Proposals for Track 2 may request up to $2,500,000 total for up to 6 years.

   

• Track 3 (Inter-institutional Consortia)
  Track 3 projects support multi-institutional collaborations that focus on a common interest or challenge. Inter-institutional Consortia projects represent diverse collaborations, including partnerships between 2-year colleges and 4-year colleges and universities, between 4-year colleges and graduate programs, or between comparable institutions looking to implement and study parallel interventions. For example, a collaboration among community colleges and four-year institutions may focus on issues associated with successful transfer of low-income students from 2-year institutions to 4-year programs. In another example, a multi-institutional collaboration may focus on factors that contribute to the success or degree attainment of domestic, low-income students in different types of institutions.
  Proposals with a strong focus on the transfer or advancement of students from one educational level to another should collaborate with appropriate institutional partners. For example, proposals focused on the transfer of students from 2-year institutions to 4-year institutions should include faculty and administrators from 2-year institutions and 4-year institutions in the leadership team; likewise, proposals focusing on the advancement of undergraduate students at predominately undergraduate institutions to graduate programs should include institutions, administrators and Co-PIs representing both the undergraduate programs and the receiving graduate programs.
  Track 3 projects have the same overall goals as Track 1 and 2 projects but seek to accomplish these goals at a very large scale by leveraging multi-institutional efforts and infrastructure. In addition to the expectations stated below in section II.B.2 for all tracks, Track 3 projects are also expected to:

1. Establish an authentic, strong and mutually beneficial collaboration across all institutions involved in the consortia, providing comparable benefits to all institutions in terms of number of scholarships as well as in the infrastructure established to serve low-income students;
2. Establish strong technical assistance and processes that support and manage project activities across institutions involved in the collaborative effort.
3. Engage in high quality educational or social sciences research to advance understanding of how to adapt, implement and scale up effective evidence-based programs and practices designed to foster positive outcomes for low-income students in STEM.

   NSF does not favor a particular research design over others. How the chosen research methods and approaches are aligned with and appropriate for the research goals should be fully explained in the proposal. The ultimate goal of S-STEM is to support low-income students with awards covering their unmet need, up to the maximum allowable scholarship amount (whatever is less). Projects are strongly discouraged from allowing a desired sample size to play a role in the determination of the size of awarded scholarships.
   Track 3 projects are managed by leadership and management teams composed of faculty members who are currently teaching in an S-STEM eligible discipline(s), STEM administrators, and non-teaching institutional, educational, or social science researchers. The PI of Track 3 proposals must be either (a) a faculty member currently teaching in one of the S-STEM eligible disciplines, (b) a STEM administrator (department head or above), or (c) a non-teaching researcher whose expertise is in institutional, educational, or social science research in higher education. Faculty from all the institutions and disciplines involved need to be included in the leadership team and/or senior personnel. The lead PI needs to demonstrate the capacity, experience and resources needed to manage a complex, large-scale project and the necessary time to dedicate to assure project success.
   Track 3 proposals may request up to $5 million total for up to 6 years.
   Proposers should be aware that Track 3 projects will be formally reviewed by NSF during their third year to determine whether satisfactory progress has been made, with continued funding contingent on the result of the third-year review. See section VII.C on reporting requirements.

• Collaborative Planning Grants to Develop an Inter-institutional Consortium
  Collaborative Planning projects provide support for groups of two or more IHEs and other potential partner organizations to establish fruitful collaborations, increase understanding of complex issues faced by low-income students at each institution, establish inter-institutional agreements when necessary and develop mechanisms for cooperation in anticipation of a future Track 3 proposal that will benefit all institutions and their scholars as equal partners.
  This category of projects aims to provide proposers from two or more institutions the funds and time to establish the relationships and agreements necessary for submitting an Inter-institutional Consortia S-STEM proposal. It is expected that proposers will be ready to write and submit this Inter-institutional Consortia proposal within 1-2 years of receiving a Collaborative Planning grant award. Any subsequent proposals to S-STEM based on this work must describe the results of the planning effort.

New institutional restrictions for this program for 2022:

1. An institution may submit up to two proposals (either as a single institution or as subawardee or a member of an inter-institutional consortia project) for a given S-STEM deadline. Multiple proposals from an institution must not overlap with regard to S-STEM eligible disciplines. See Additional Eligibility Information below for more details (see IV. Eligibility Information).
2. Institutions with a current S-STEM award should wait at least until the end of the third year of execution of their current award before submitting a new S-STEM proposal focused on students pursuing degrees in the same discipline(s).

The above restrictions do not apply to collaborative planning grant proposals.

Limit: 3  // PIs: 
O. Zhupanska (Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering)
E. Butcher (Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering)
H. Fasel (Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering)

For more information about this funding program, please contact:

• Cody Nicholls, PhD, Associate Director, National Security Programs
• Nate Gahr, Senior Director, National Security Programs

UArizona may submit three (3) applications.

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)), in the Department of Defense (DOD), released a funding opportunity announcement (FOA) for the fiscal year (FY) 2024 DOD Research and Education Program for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions (HBCU/MI).  As you know, this effort is DOD’s premiere program in providing support to advance basic research at HBCUs and MIs.  In particular, this FOA seeks to:

• Improve the programs and capabilities of HBCUs/MIs in science and engineering disciplines relevant to DOD;
• Increase the participation of HBCUs and MIs in flagship DOD research programs by furthering HBCU/MI capacity; and
• Increase the number of underrepresented minority graduates in STEM fields relevant to the Department.

Principal Investigators (PIs) should consider novel approaches for proposed projects, with a focus on enhancing the capabilities of their institutions to develop stronger STEM programs to better HBCU/MI participation in competitive defense research programs.  The ultimate goal of the program is to promote STEM research to underrepresented students and encourage them to pursue STEM careers in disciplines of importance to DOD.  Proposed research should align with the areas of interests that have been identified by each of the branches, which can be found in previous broad agency announcements (BAAs) from the Army Research Laboratory (ARL), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR).  More information on each of these BAAs can be found in the full solicitation.  

DOD anticipates awarding a total of $50 million, up to $1 million per grant, for a performance period of 48 months. 

Institutionally Coordinated // Limit: 1 // PI:  M. franco (Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) Initiatives)

The submission for this funding program is coordinated by the Office of Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) Initiatives.
Please contact Riley McIsaac, Associate Director of Grants Development, for more information.

The purpose of this program is to equitably improve postsecondary student outcomes, including retention, transfer (including successful transfer of completed credits), credit accumulation, and completion, by leveraging data and implementing, scaling, and rigorously evaluating evidence-based activities to support data-driven decisions and actions by institutional leaders committed to inclusive student success.

This grant program seeks to fund evidence-based (as defined in this notice) strategies that result in improved student outcomes for underserved students (as defined in this notice). The program has two absolute priorities that correspond to varying evidence standards. This multi-tiered competition invites applicants that are in the “early phase” or “mid-phase/expansion” of their evidence-based work to support students through degree completion. This grant also supports the evaluation, dissemination, scaling, and sustainability efforts of the activities funded under this grant.

In this competition, eligibility is limited to institutions that are designated as eligible under the HEA titles III and V programs, nonprofits that are not IHEs or associated with an IHE in partnership with institutions that are designated as eligible under the HEA titles III and V programs, States in partnerships with institutions that are designated as eligible under the HEA titles III and V programs, and public systems of institutions. Institutions designated as eligible under titles III and V include Historically Black Colleges or Universities (HBCUs), Tribally Controlled Colleges or Universities (TCCUs), Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) and other institutions with high enrollment of needy students and below average full-time equivalent (FTE) expenditures—including community colleges. The Department believes that targeting funding to these IHEs is the best use of the available funding because these institutions disproportionately enroll students from groups who are underrepresented among college completers, such as low-income students. Supporting retention and completion strategies at these institutions offers the greatest potential to close gaps in postsecondary outcomes. Additionally, these under resourced institutions are most in need of Federal assistance to implement and evaluate evidence-based postsecondary college retention and completion interventions.

Early-Phase

Early-phase grants provide funding to IHEs to develop, implement, and test the feasibility of a program that prior research suggests is likely to improve relevant outcomes, for the purpose of determining whether an initiative improves student retention and completion of postsecondary students. Early-phase grants must “demonstrate a rationale” (as defined in this notice) and include a logic model (as defined in this notice), theory of action, or another conceptual framework that includes the goals, objectives, outcomes, and key project components (as defined in this notice) of the project, and that demonstrates the relationship between such proposed activities and the relevant outcomes the project is designed to achieve. The evaluation design will be assessed on the extent to which it would meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards with or without reservations. The evaluation of an Early-phase project should be an experimental or quasi-experimental design study (both as defined in this notice) that can determine whether the program can successfully improve postsecondary student success outcomes for underserved students.

Early-phase grantees during their grant period are encouraged to make continuous and iterative improvements in project design and implementation before conducting a full-scale evaluation of effectiveness. Grantees should consider how easily others could implement the proposed practice, and how its implementation could potentially be improved. Additionally, grantees should consider using data from early indicators to gauge initial impact and to consider possible changes in implementation that could increase student outcomes.

Mid-Phase/Expansion

Mid-phase/Expansion grants are supported by moderate evidence (as defined in this notice) or strong evidence (as defined in this notice), respectively. These grants provide funding to IHEs to improve and/or expand initiatives and practices that have been proven to be effective in increasing postsecondary student retention and completion. Mid-phase/Expansion projects should provide vital insight about an intervention's effectiveness, such as for whom and in which contexts a practice/intervention is most effective. Mid-phase grantees should also measure the cost-effectiveness of their practices using administrative or other readily available data.

Mid-phase/Expansion grant projects are distinctly situated to provide insight on scaling an initiative to a larger population of students or across multiple campuses.

These grants must be implemented at a multi-site sample (as defined in this notice) with more than one campus or in one campus that includes at least 2,000 students. Project evaluations must evaluate the effectiveness of the project at each site.

Mid-phase/Expansion grants must meet the “moderate evidence” threshold or “strong evidence” standard and include a logic model that demonstrates the relationship between the key project components and the relevant outcomes the project is designed to achieve. Mid-phase/Expansion grants are also required to submit an evaluation design that will be assessed on the extent to which it would meet WWC Evidence Standards without reservations.

Note that all research that meets the strong evidence standard also meets the moderate evidence standard. As such, the effective evidence standard for Absolute Priority 2 is moderate evidence. However, we encourage applicants to propose projects based on strong evidence and to expand services even beyond the scale requirements under Absolute Priority 2. We have combined the two types of grants into a single tier given funding limitations and the fact that this is the first year of implementing a tiered evidence structure in this program.

All Grant Tiers

PSSG applicants should consider how these evidence-based practices are implemented and the impact these practices have on their student population given their context. PSSG applicants seek to explore the effectiveness of practices/strategies that can improve student persistence and retention, leading to degree completion.

The evaluation of a PSSG project should be designed to determine whether the program can successfully improve postsecondary student persistence, retention, and completion. As previously stated, the evaluation design for early phase applications will be assessed on the extent to which it could meet WWC Evidence Standards with or without reservations while the evaluation design for mid phase/expansion applications will be assessed on the extent to which it could meet WWC Evidence Standards without reservations.

The Department intends to provide grantees and their independent evaluators with technical assistance in their evaluation, dissemination, scaling, and sustainability efforts. This could include grantees and their evaluators providing to the Department or its contractor updated comprehensive evaluation plans in a format as requested by the technical assistance provider and using such tools as the Department may request. Grantees will be encouraged to update this evaluation plan at least annually to reflect any changes to the evaluation. Updates must be consistent with the scope and objectives of the approved application.

PSSG applicants should consider their organizational capacity and the funding needed to sustain their projects and continue implementation and adaptation after Federal funding ends.

Priorities: This notice contains two absolute priorities and one competitive preference priority. We are establishing the absolute priorities and competitive preference priority for the FY 2023 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). Applicants have the option of addressing the competitive preference priority and may opt to do so regardless of the absolute priority they select.

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2023 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet one of these priorities.

These Priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1 (AP1)—Applications that Demonstrate a Rationale. “Early-phase”.

Under this priority, an applicant proposes a project that demonstrates a rationale to improve postsecondary success for underserved students, including retention and completion.

Absolute Priority 2 (AP2)—Applicants that Demonstrate Moderate Evidence, “Mid-phase” or Strong Evidence, “Expansion”.

Under this priority, an applicant proposes a project supported by evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of “Moderate Evidence” or “Strong Evidence,” to improve postsecondary success for underserved students, including retention and completion. Projects under this priority must be implemented at a multi-site sample or include at least 2,000 students.

(a) Applicants addressing this priority must:

(1) identify up to two studies to be reviewed against the WWC Handbooks (as defined in this notice) for the purposes of meeting the definition of moderate evidence or strong evidence;

(2) clearly identify the citations and relevant findings for each study in the Evidence form; and

(3) ensure that all cited studies are available to the Department from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance indicating where each is available.

No applicants // Limit: 1 // Tickets Available: 1 

The goal of the Bridges to the Baccalaureate Research Training Program is to provide structured activities to prepare a diverse cohort of research-oriented students to transfer from associate degree-granting institutions to baccalaureate degree-granting institutions and complete a baccalaureate degree in disciplines related to the biomedical sciences. This funding opportunity announcement (FOA) provides support to eligible, domestic institutions to develop and implement effective, evidence-informed approaches to biomedical training and mentoring that will keep pace with the rapid evolution of the research enterprise. NIGMS expects that the proposed research training programs will incorporate didactic, research, mentoring, and career development elements. This program requires strong partnerships between at least two post-secondary educational institutions offering science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degrees. At least one partner must be an institution that offers the associate degree as the highest STEM degree and the other partner(s) must offer baccalaureate degrees in biomedically relevant STEM fields. Upon completion of the Bridges to the Baccalaureate Research Training program, trainees are expected to be well positioned to pursue research-oriented biomedical higher degree programs or enter careers in the biomedical research workforce.

Training related expenses are limited to a maximum of $10,000/trainee/year. The maximum cap for the TRE portion of the proposed budget is $100,000/year.