Oregon State University

Funding Opportunity

Funding opportunities and sources.

The OSU Federal Agenda

Background and Guidelines for Researchers

 

Contents:

This information was authored by Rich Holdren, Senior Associate Vice President for Research, for use by the Oregon State University community.

Introduction

The Federal Agenda is a set of initiatives and requests that OSU submits each year to Oregon's federal Congressional delegation, asking for its assistance in promoting our educational and research programs, and more generally, in maintaining the health of federally supported research in general. The Federal Agenda is vital to our efforts to attract the federal funds needed to support OSU

Some requests are for earmarking funds for specific programs. For example, OSU has received wonderful, ongoing support for a national oyster brood stock program. Other requests highlight especially worthwhile legislative initiatives benefiting a broader constituency than OSU alone. OSU's support of the Pharmacist Aid Act of 2002 is an example of this type of activity.

Projects considered for the Federal Agenda align with OSU's priorities, promise to become self-sustaining, and offer benefits statewide.

Based on feedback received from the campus community in recent years, the Federal Agenda apparently is a mysterious and poorly understood aspect of OSU's overall development strategy. The purpose of this document is to add some clarity about the purpose of the Federal Agenda, how it is assembled, and generally, to demystify the process. The objective is to improve the Federal Agenda by assuring the best input. We cannot be successful unless we know about the full range of needs, strategies, and opportunities

As you think about the Federal Agenda as a potential funding option, please be aware: the Federal Agenda is NOT a substitute or alternative funding option for projects or programs that should be submitted through a competitive process. If you have an idea that is primarily a research concept, the Federal Agenda is probably NOT the proper venue to consider for funding.


Image of arrow pointing up.

How the Federal Agenda Document is Organized

The Federal Agenda packet compiles two types of information.

First, we reaffirm annually that students are our top priority. To this end, we provide the Congressional delegation with demographic information about our student body, and about the level of federal assistance students receive from the various programs supported by Congress. Typically, we request that our delegation look at the level of funding of Pell Grants - a major source of assistance to OSU students - and ask that they increase the maximum per award amount. (The current administration has maintained a constant funding level for these grants, which, in these tight financial times, has limited access for some students.)

The second, larger portion of our Agenda packet is devoted to requests for our Oregon delegation to personally support specific appropriations for projects, programs, or specific pieces of legislation that will be coming before Congress. The requests are grouped into categories. The first two categories include priority OSU needs that have not previously received federal funding. The Federal Agenda also contains a series of requests for continued support for existing, funded programs. Finally, we include requests for legislative authorizations or appropriations that only indirectly benefit OSU faculty and students - usually through some competitive mechanism.

Brief descriptions of these categories are provided below.


Image of arrow pointing up.

Oregon University System (OUS) Initiatives

The Oregon University System approves and submits to our delegation up to a maximum of 21 initiatives each year; by their rules, we are allowed to submit only three proposals for inclusion in the OUS packet. The Chancellor supports the OUS initiatives, and these are the ONLY initiatives that he allows the system's legislative liaison to work on to obtain congressional support. In all cases, these are initiatives that have not, to-date, received federal funding, and it is not uncommon for these initiatives to appear in several consecutive federal agenda packets.

Because the OUS Initiatives receive the highest visibility and the best system support, they generally have the highest probability of receiving funding .

We try to align these selections with OSU's strategic priorities, build in disciplinary diversity, and identify programs that will sustain congressional interest over several years.

Oregon State University (OSU) Initiatives

Frequently, we receive more high-quality proposals than can be accommodated by OUS. We can include a limited number of these in the Federal Agenda package as OSU initiatives. However, our delegation has asked us to restrain our requests to no more than four initiatives. In general, these proposals have the same characteristics as the OUS proposals.

The System does not support these initiatives, so most of the "leg work" required to keep these in front of our delegation falls to the OSU community.

Continuing OSU-Specific Programs

The continuing initiatives are those projects that now receive federal funding and where sustained funding is appropriate. Most of these programs are related to agriculture, extension, and forestry, although we also include requests for ongoing support of our Radiation Center, Space Grant, Sea Grant and a few other programs.

If the original proposal requested funding for a fixed period of time, e.g., two or three years, the members of our delegation expect that at the end of this time, they will not receive additional, unsolicited requests for funding, even if the project has not received the level of funding requested.

Continuing Regional and National Programs Involving OSU Partnerships

OSU faculty are involved in a number of multi-state and national programs for which the leadership frequently resides at other institutions. The purpose of this section of the agenda helps to make sure our delegation is aware of these larger programs and their benefit to Oregon. Frequently, the delegations from other states will have the lead for making sure the requests are built into the appropriations legislation, but if they are to successfully wend their ways through the myriad committees, the support of our delegation is essential.

Ongoing National Programs: Formulaic and Competitive Programs

A number of programs provide large competitive opportunities for research funding (as opposed to earmarks for a specific institution). OSU has proven time and again to be very competitive in these programs. They are highlighted here to encourage our delegation to remain supportive of these programs and to encourage the Congress to retain them as purely competitive programs (free of earmarks). While earmarks may seem appealing, if competitive programs become subject to earmarks, it will be very difficult for Oregon institutions to compete with those in other states with larger delegations.

New Program Proposals: Requesting Oregon Delegation Support

These projects are ones for which OSU receives no direct benefit, but that would put a program into place for which members of the OSU community could compete for funding. For example, the Pharmacist Aid Act of 2002 created scholarships for students in pharmacy schools. No funding came directly to OSU, but our students' benefit from the scholarship and loan funds made available.


Image of arrow pointing up.

Background Information

In contrast to the state fiscal year, which runs from July 1 through June 30, the federal fiscal year operates from October 1 through September 30. What we hear in the newspaper each spring and summer (and frequently into the fall) are the wranglings of Congress as it works to build the budget for the coming federal fiscal year. In reality, however, the budget process is much more thoughtful than what we see in the newspapers.

There are generally two categories of legislation pertinent to the budgeting process: authorizing legislation, and appropriations

Authorizing Legislation

This is legislation under which specific programs are created and operate. It may provide spending authority and set spending ceilings on expenditures, but it does not provide the money. Most of the programs and projects we pursue are covered under existing authorizing legislation. For example, programs directed at improving undergraduate and graduate education falls under the Department of Education's FIPSE program (Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education), and the majority of agricultural programs fall under the umbrella of the USDA-CSREES or the USDA-ARS.

The development of authorizing legislation is an ongoing process. There is no particular time of the year when bills are introduced, and the only deadlines generally encountered are those imposed when a particular program needs to be re-authorized.

Because authorizing legislation generally deals with very large, broad issues, it is inappropriate to pursue budgetary earmarks at this level. (However, be aware that OSU could seek authorizing legislation for Oregon-specific programs. For example, if we wanted to have HMSC in Newport serve as the data hub for incoming data from an ocean observing system, OSU could ask the delegation to build this into a specific bill.)

The Appropriations Process

The normal appropriations process is fairly lengthy and thoughtful. Most of the process occurs behind the scenes and is rarely highlighted in news stories. Briefly, the key parts of the process include:

Image of graph showing information in text about FY 02, FY 03, and FY 04.

  1. January 2002: Agencies begin formulating budgets for Fiscal Year 2004.
  2. June 2002: Agencies and Departments begin working with OMB to create the President's budget proposal.
  3. February 2003: President presents budget proposal to Congress.
  4. February 2003 thru Fall 2003: Congress reviews, revises budget proposals. Works to pass Appropriations legislation.
  5. October 2003: Fiscal Year 2004 begins. Agencies operate under either Continuing Resolutions (commonly) or newly passed Appropriations Legislation

 

  1. Twenty-one months prior to the beginning of a fiscal year (almost two years before a budget is supposed to begin), federal agencies and departments begin assembling budget proposals. Commonly, although not exclusively, these budgets are built based on long-range strategic plans that help to maintain consistent mission and goals for a group and also provide the basis for their budget recommendations. One strategy to incorporating an initiative into the federal budget would be to work with an agency to get your project built into the budget at this point.
  2. Around June or July in the calendar year prior to the beginning of the fiscal year (fifteen months before the beginning of the fiscal year), the department or agency as a whole begins working with the Office of Management and Budgets (OMB) - the branch of the Administration that coordinates and assembles the President's budget. It is OMB's job to make sure that budget proposals are aligned with presidential priorities. This effort continues up to the time when the President delivers the budget proposal to Congress.
  3. The President delivers the budget to Congress. There is a statutorily prescribed date for this in the first half of February.
  4. Now comes the public part of the process. Congress begins formulating its response to the President's budget proposal, and shapes its response into 13 separate appropriations bills. While the majority of packages and proposals assembled in steps 1 and 2 of this process survive, this is also the place where congress leaves its mark with regard to spending priorities and major policy decisions. Earmarks are placed into the budget at this point, usually during sub-committee or committee meetings, although amendments can be introduced at any point up to the passage of a bill by both chambers of Congress. Members of the Oregon delegation receive due dates for specific earmark requests from the chairs of the various appropriations subcommittees. Usually these dates are in March. Our Congressional delegation members often require those seeking earmarks to complete and submit forms that facilitate their communication with appropriations subcommittee chairs.
  5. The budget is passed and signed by the President. This is supposed to occur before the beginning of the federal fiscal year. However, continuing resolutions are common, and some of the appropriations bills may not be passed until several months into a fiscal year.

The Federal Agenda attempts to influence the budgeting process after the President has released the budget proposal. Hence, the packet is delivered to the members of our delegation shortly after the President's budget proposal is released. The most effective way to fund an initiative would be to have that initiative already in the budget when it is released to Congress (in this case, the primary function as part of our Agenda would be to track the progress of the activity through the budget process). Otherwise, we can focus on obtaining funds through the appropriations process via the mechanism of hard or soft earmarks

Hard earmarks

These are created when an institution and dollar amount are specifically named in the appropriations language. For example, if an appropriation indicated that Oregon State University is to receive some amount of money to study African HIV/AIDS that would be a hard earmark.

Soft earmarks

A soft earmark means that a dollar amount is not specified, but the project will receive priority consideration when an application is made for federal funds, assuming all eligibility criteria are satisfied.

Who is Responsible?

The process is complicated because many individuals need to be coordinating their work toward the same goals, if we are to be successful at having our priority needs met through the federal legislative process. Therefore, we ask that all contacts and activities with our Federal Congressional Delegation and their staffers be coordinated through the office of the Vice President for University Advancement.

The process, and much of the responsibility for moving a project forward, starts with the investigator. The proposal has to be realistic from a political as well as a pragmatic perspective. It helps tremendously if the investigator has worked with the agency from whose budget the funds will eventually come. Obviously, it helps if the agency is excited about the initiative. At a minimum, they must see it as supportive of their mission. Occasionally, Congress will ask an agency about proposed earmarks. If the agency is not supportive or doesn't know anything about your request, it is frequently passed over (many proposed earmarks meet their untimely death in this manner). Therefore, it is vital for the investigator to work with the agency to coordinate the request with its mission and goals throughout the budget process.

A variation on this theme is to work directly with our delegation's staff. If a representative or senator has a particular concern or goal, and if the initiative is supportive of that goal, one may be able to work with the delegation's staff to get the proposal into an appropriate package. For example, employment in Oregon currently is of high interest to our delegation. If what you have to propose will contribute significantly to long-term, family wage jobs in Oregon, our delegation may be interested in helping to move the initiative forward. If you believe that this is an appropriate path to pursue, you must work through the office of the Vice President for University Advancement to coordinate our efforts. It is bad for your credibility and bad for the university if we don't present a unified front to our delegation!

 

A Note about our Delegation and their Staffers

Our elected representatives are very busy, so on visits to D.C., we frequently meet with members of the delegate's staff. While these individuals are also exceptionally busy, they also tend to be unfailingly attentive, positive, and supportive. Part of their job is to act as the elected official's community liaison, and happy constituents are important. More than one individual has left a congressional office feeling as though their request had suddenly scooted to the top of the delegate's priority list. This means two things: first that the staffer is good at their job, and second, that 29 other people have probably left the office that day with the same feeling. So, keep perspective. What is important to you may or may not be a priority for the senator or representative, depending on their overall agenda!


Image of arrow pointing up.

Proposal Development and Application

The above is a general description of the legislative process and of broad strategies for becoming more effective in the federal legislative/appropriations process. In the next section, we give a brief overview of how the Federal Agenda development works internally within OSU.

As alluded to above, it is best to think of proposal development as a two-stage process: an informal developmental process that may require a year or two of effort by the investigator working with one or more agencies, and a formal application process that is completed in about four months.

The Development Process

The development process can come about in any number of ways. In most cases, concepts are investigator-originated. Other ideas develop out of an existing relationship that one of our faculty have with a company, industry group, state agency, hospital, or non-governmental organization (NGO), or with collaborators at other academic institutions. Regardless of the players, once the idea is hatched, the group decides that the most appropriate funding vehicle would be a federal earmark.

The developmental process should evolve around a strategic plan for obtaining the federal funding. Although each plan will be different, it is important to consider the following:

  • Determine if the concept or idea is covered under existing authorizing legislation. In most cases, it will be, so try to determine what the legislative authority is. If no authorization legislation exists, the process is likely to take at least one additional year because authorization will have to be obtained first.
  • Identify the most likely federal agency through which the funding would be funneled. Authorizing legislation should help guide this determination.
    • Identify the account or accounts from which the funds would be drawn.
    • Develop support within the agency for the concept
    • If your proposal comes to us with a "shopping list" of agencies from which OSU or the delegation would be expected to identify budget, the proposal will not be accepted for the Federal Agenda. To maximize success, we need well-researched proposals for which the alignment with federal priorities has already been established.
  • Before you put significant effort into full development, notify the OSU Vice President for University Advancement. An email with a couple of sentences about the concept would be appreciated. That office will be able to give you guidance about whether your concept is viable for inclusion in OSU's Federal Agenda.

The Formal Application Process

This begins in late September or early October of each year, when the OSU Research Office issues a call for proposals for the Federal Agenda. The call will include a set of instructions for submission. There will be two submission deadlines identified in the call. New initiatives will be due to the Research Office (RO) in the first half of November. Continuing project descriptions will be due in the RO in early December. An administrative panel will review proposals, and projects accepted will be assigned to one of the project categories within our agenda. For those projects that are selected for inclusion within the Federal Agenda, the descriptions will be returned to the lead author for formatting.

Because of the limit on the number of proposals accepted by OUS and our delegation, we must be selective in building the agenda. Every attempt is made to promote those proposals that are strategically aligned and that have the best prospects of success.


Image of arrow pointing up.

Guidelines for Evaluating Federal Agenda Proposals

The following criteria are given to the evaluating committee for their use in evaluating previously unfunded requests:

  • A good fit with the OSU mission
  • Major statewide, national or international social or economic impact (good science, by itself, is usually not sufficient.)
  • OSU's unique ability to conduct the activity
  • Likely Congressional support beyond that of our own delegation
  • Demonstrated broad support by stakeholders in favor of the program
  • A significant addition to OSU's long term ability to accomplish its mission
  • Identified potential funding sources enabling the activity to continue once Congressional funding has terminated
  • Alignment with one or more of a Congressional delegate's legislative agenda issues
  • Demonstrated support for the program by the targeted funding agency
  • Ongoing institutional commitment to support the proposal. We need to support OUS proposals (especially) through several budget cycles, or have some clearly articulated reason for displacing them from our "top priority" list. The reason for this commitment is that it frequently requires several budget cycles to get something into federal legislation. Our Congressional delegates and their staffers need to see the proposals multiple times if we are to be successful.

For continuing proposals, i.e., those that are receiving funding in the current fiscal year, and for which a plan is in place to continue that funding, there is minimal review. These are incorporated into our packet based on previous commitments.

The Evaluation Panel

The evaluation panel varies in composition from year to year. Generally, we try to assemble a 7-person panel including the following:

  • Vice President for University Advancement
  • Vice President for Research
  • One representative from three or four of the thematic areas:
    • Engineering, Technology and Business
    • Arts and Science
    • Health and Bioscience
    • Natural Resources
    • Earth Systems Science
  • One or two at-large members - typically
    • Academic Affairs
    • One other

Members may be deans, heads, chairs, or senior faculty members.
In the identification of evaluation panel members, an effort is made to minimize potential conflicts-of-interest: a panel member who is or should be an advocate for a particular proposal will be excluded from conversations about it. We do not concern ourselves with conflicts on proposals for continuing projects. Those projects are active and, for the most part, move unencumbered through our system.

 

If Your Proposal is Included

Advocacy

Once a concept is incorporated into the university agenda, our Congressional delegation will champion the concept through the legislative process. The principal investigators should not directly participate in legislative advocacy, unless our delegation makes specific requests.

Forms

If your proposal is included in our Federal Agenda, expect the Research Office to request that you prepare multiple sets of forms describing your request. Both Oregon senators and several of the representatives request information in a format specific to their office. The Congressional offices will send forms to the University, which will we forward to each principal investigator in an email with an attached blank form. Each principal investigator will be expected to fill out the forms for each senator or representative for their initiative and return it to the OSU Research Office. We will email the forms to the appropriate offices. The Congressional offices usually require a short turn-around time for the finalized form (7-10 days).

Choice of Topics

The members of our delegation have provided some tips about information they look for when deciding on initiatives for support. They have also cautioned us against some types of projects.

Tips for Viable Topics

First, understand that earmarks are difficult to get, especially with a relatively junior delegation such as ours. It helps if there are multiple institutions supporting the request. Following are some of the things our delegation looks for when deciding where to put their energy:

State-wide Benefits

Will the project, if funded, serve interests that transcend those of the university? The members of our delegation are profoundly interested in demonstrable impacts on the environmental, social, and economic welfare of the state. In the current economy, family wage jobs and opportunities for long-term employment are high priority issues. Similarly, poverty and hunger are topics of interest, especially if projects involve developing support systems for the very old or very young.

Sustainability of the Project

Will the project, if funded, become self-sustaining after a defined period of time? If the project is going to require federal subsidies indefinitely, the members of our delegation will be less excited about spending political capital to make the project happen - unless the funding agency is strongly supportive of the proposal.

Programmatic Diversity

The evaluation panel will generally not put more than one proposal forward in any thematic area.


Image of arrow pointing up.

What to Avoid

The following are topics that will not be considered:

Capital construction projects

Our delegation has asked that we not submit major capital construction projects as hard earmarks. There may be help on the front end with funds for design and architectural drawings or if we have a building almost built, it might provide two to three million dollars for accoutrements (e.g., furniture, network backbone). - But the delegation has been clear that it will not consider requests for bricks and mortar.

Research that would be more appropriate for the peer-review system

Avoid proposals for research projects that could and should be submitted through the peer-review system. The intention of the federal requests is not to supplant or circumvent the peer-review, competitive system. Exceptions may be made IF the proposal provides prospects of significant net employment gains in Oregon, or IF the proposal provides prospects of significant cost benefits to the federal government. (Look for benefit-to-cost ratios in the hundreds!)

Previous Federal Agendas

Refer to recent examples: (For questions about accessibility of these documents, contact OSU Government Relations, 541-737-3307. )


Image of arrow pointing up.

Comments and Questions

Help us refine this document! Please let us know if this explanation of the Federal Agenda is helpful: Is this the information you need? Is there additional information or explanation that would help further clarify the process? Have we presented the wrong information? Is there some aspect of the process that needs additional clarification? Please send comments to Rich Holdren in the Research Office: rich.holdren@oregonstate.edu.

For Further Information

Each Fall, the Research Office releases the Call for Proposals. (Link to the Call - version on the web) For additional information, please contact Rich Holdren in the Research Office: rich.holdren@oregonstate.edu.

Also, refer to OSU Government Relations http://oregonstate.edu/government/

Undergraduate Research, Innovation, Scholarship, and Creativity

Undergraduate Research, Innovation, Scholarship, and Creativity

Summer Term 2010

Proposal Deadline: Monday, March 1, 2010
Award Announcement: Approximately Friday, April 16, 2010

For more information, please visit OSU Research Incentive Programs.

Funding Opportunities and Sources

  • The Federal Agenda background and guidelines about OSU's annual list of institutional priorities for support from our federal congressional delegation.
  • Sponsored Programs the OSU Office of Sponsored Programs offers information on funding, proposal preparation, submission to external sponsors, and regulatory compliance.

  • Indirect Costs information about OSU's Facilities and Administrative Costs.

  • Venture Fund unique legislation enables donors to invest in research at Oregon State University, while reaping the benefits of generous tax credits.

Undergraduate Research, Innovation, Scholarship, and Creativity

Current Solicitation

Summer Term 2010

PROPOSAL DEADLINE: Monday, March 1, 2010
Award Announcement: Approximately Friday, April 16, 2010

Contents


Description

URISC is a Research Office program that supports OSU undergraduate research activities. "Research" at OSU is interpreted broadly to reflect what goes on not only in laboratories and field stations, but also in libraries, art studios, and music practice rooms. The Research Office seeks to involve undergraduate students from all academic disciplines within the University.

Hundreds of opportunities exist for students to become actively involved in the scholarly pursuits of the faculty and to take part in a compelling learning experience. This kind of involvement provides insight into the creation of knowledge that is often not a part of classroom learning. It gives the student a hands-on opportunity to apply what they have been learning in the classroom, as well as to develop a mentoring relationship with a faculty member.

The URISC Fund is intended to enable undergraduate students to initiate a scholarly relationship with faculty early in their academic careers. Faculty mentors are expected to assume financial responsibility for student research activities if they continue beyond the initial URISC sponsorship.


Eligibility

Only faculty with professorial rank are eligible to serve as Faculty Project Advisor.

Full-time undergraduate students currently pursuing a baccalaureate degree at OSU and who are in good academic standing are eligible to apply.

Students completing graduation requirements before or during term(s) support is requested are not eligible. (i.e. students graduating in June would not be eligible to participate in the summer program following graduation.)


Award Information

Preference may be given to undergraduate students having their first research experience. Multiple proposals submitted from the same faculty project advisor are unlikely to be funded.

For the academic year program the maximum award is $1,000 for 1 term; $1,500 for 2 terms; and $1,800 for the full academic year (3 terms). Awards must be spent in the quarters for which the funds were requested.

For the summer program the Research Office will provide 60% of the total budget request (see Matching Funds), to a maximum of $1,800.

A student may receive an award only once from the academic year URISC program and once from the summer URISC program .

Applicants will be notified via e-mail of award decisions by the announcement date listed at the top of this page.


Matching Funds

For the academic year program no matching funds are required. However, for projects lasting two (2) or three (3) academic terms, a financial contribution by the unit does provide evidence about the level of commitment of the faculty member to the success of the project.

For the summer program the participating faculty project advisor, the department, or college must provide at least 40% of matching funds, and 100% of approved funds in excess of $3,000. It is the responsibility of the student and the faculty project advisor to identify and secure commitments for these funds prior to submitting the application.


Use of Funds

Awards are made to support scholarly, creative, and research activities. Research Office support will not be in lieu of existing grant funds previously budgeted for undergraduate research assistance. Work schedules are to be negotiated between the student and the faculty project advisor.

Budget Items ELIGIBLE for support

  • Student salaries, wages or stipends
  • Travel to conduct research or visit libraries/archives
  • Library costs (i.e. duplication costs, acquisition of reference materials)
  • Equipment rental
  • Expendable materials and supplies

Budget Items NOT ELIGIBLE for support

  • Faculty, postdoctoral or graduate student travel
  • Equipment purchases
  • Costs to prepare, copy or bind undergraduate theses
  • Travel to meetings or conferences (includes related fees, lodging and travel expenses)

Application Procedure

The URISC application form is available in MS Word format. If you are unable to access this electronic form, contact the Research Office at 541-737-8390 to request a paper copy. Please allow one week for delivery.

  1. Complete all sections of the application form.
    • Complete Items 1-10 within the space provided. Proposals must be initiated and written by the student, but should be done in close coordination with the Faculty Project Advisor.
    • Item 9, Regulatory Compliance: A complete application will include marking the appropriate boxes in the regulatory compliance section of the application. Due to the regulatory compliance requirements inherent in research it is the responsibility of the FACULTY PROJECT ADVISOR to submit the proper forms and receive approval from the appropriate compliance committee(s) PRIOR to the initiation of the research project with sufficient time to allow for the review process. The review process could require 4 to 8 weeks.
    • NOTE: Documentation of approval from the appropriate compliance committee(s) MUST be received in the Research Office, Incentive Programs before the award funds will be transferred.
  2. Obtain signatures Item 10 from the student, Faculty Project Advisor and the Faculty Project Advisor's Department Head/Chair.
  3. Attach the following supporting documentation to the end of the proposal packet:
    • Items 11 and 12, limit to 2 additional pages per item to provide the information requested.
    • Item 13, student's resume. The resume should include the student's academic major, current academic standing, and expected date of graduation.
    • Item 14, transcript (unofficial is acceptable, including GPA).
    • Item 15, letter of support from the Faculty Project Advisor.
    • Item 16, Appendix. Applicants are permitted to provide a one page supplement that describes the proposed methodology (optional). IF the proposed methodology involves survey research, a copy of the study instrument MUST be provided (required).
  4. Submit the completed proposal packet.
    • One (1) original (single-sided) and four (4) copies (double-sided) by 5:00 P.M. by the deadline date to the Research Office, Incentive Programs, A312 Kerr Administration Building.

Incomplete proposal packets will not be considered for funding.


Deadlines

All application materials, including supporting documentation, must be received at the Research Office, Incentive Programs, A312 Kerr Administration Building, by 5:00 p.m. by the deadline indicated at the top of this page.


Review Procedure

The Research Office reviews all proposals for eligibility. Requests that qualify are then given to the URISC Advisory Panel for competitive review and evaluation. The URISC Advisory Panel provides a prioritized list of recommendations for funding to the Vice President for Research based on the quality of the proposals as reflected in the review criteria. The Vice President for Research will make award decisions based on available funds.


Review Criteria

The URISC Advisory Panel is composed of faculty members appointed by the Vice President for Research who represent the diversity of the University's research enterprise. Proposals that describe the research project to this general audience, providing clear explanations of the purpose, importance and methodologies of the proposed topic, and avoiding the use of jargon and unexplained acronyms, will fare better than those written to reviewers from a highly focused discipline perspective.

The URISC Advisory Panel evaluates each proposal using the following criteria:
(Not in order of importance)

Scholarly Merit

  • Would funding this project create a professional experience for the student that might not otherwise be accessible?
  • What educational/experiential benefits will the student gain?
  • Is the project interesting?
  • Will the proposed activity significantly expand or diversify the student's artistic or scholarly base?

Nature of Proposal

  • Does the proposal provide a clear statement of overall project objectives?
  • Does the proposal provide a clear statement of the student's role?
  • Does the proposal provide independent research study for the student?
  • Are the proposed methods appropriate and accurate?
  • Does the proposal provide clear and specific budget information? (e.g., itemized list of materials and supplies)
  • Is the text of the proposal well written?
  • Is the personal data well-prepared?

Leverage

  • Will the project create opportunities to continue the research / scholarly experience for the student beyond the URISC funding period?
  • Will the project help position the student to pursue further scholarly, professional, creative opportunities (e.g., graduate school)?

Other Considerations

  • Is this a new research experience for the student?
  • Transcript and GPA
  • Does the proposed activity support the student's educational objectives?
  • Has the student received funding in prior years?
  • If provided, does the appendix provide clear information to support the proposed methodology? Also, if a survey is part of the project, is a copy of the study instrument attached?

Other Requirements

Any publications made possible by URISC funding are required to cite URISC support.
Final Reports

From students who receive awards, a final (progress) report will be due at the end of the term(s) for which the research was conducted.

The final (progress) report should contain three (3) points:

  1. How and/or on what were the URISC funds expended?
  2. A brief summary of the work conducted; including a discussion of the information gathered, how the data are being analyzed and if you are far enough along, describe how the data collected supports or refutes your original hypothesis or discovery goal.
  3. State the benefits from the URISC award; including additional scholarly activities, research progress, collaborative relationships, and any publications or other funding made possible for the student as a result of this award.

Please submit the report electronically to Debbie Delmore, Coordinator of Special Programs at debbie.delmore@oregonstate.edu. Recipients who fail to submit the required final report will be ineligible to receive future funding from the Research Office Incentive Programs.

Updated and Current Student Information

Award recipients are asked to notify the Research Office of any changes in mailing address, e-mail address, or telephone number.


For More Information

Contact Debbie Delmore, Coordinator of Special Programs, Research Office
Debbie.Delmore@oregonstate.edu
or call 541-737-8390

Research Equipment Reserve Fund

Current Solicitation

SPRING 2010

 

PROPOSAL DEADLINE: Monday, March 8, 2010 
**Please note: proposals must be submitted electronically. See application procedures for details.**
Award Announcement: Approximately Monday, May 3, 2010

 

Contents

 

Description

Research Equipment Reserve Funds (RERF) may be used to acquire, repair, renovate, or improve EQUIPMENT directly used for research. The equipment may be inventoried capital equipment (technically defined as =>$5,000 per unit), or fabricated capitalized equipment

As a general guideline, the Research Council will NOT review RERF competitive proposals for LESS than $7,500, UNLESS a safety issue is involved and the department head/dean can provide a compelling explanation as to why a central contribution is appropriate. Similarly, proposals requesting equipment acquisitions that EXCEED $100,000 must be able to demonstrate a multi-investigator and/or multi-college impact that will clearly promote the institutional strategic plan. These large dollar-value requests will also be evaluated on the uniqueness of the proposed capability within OSU.

 

 


 

 

Eligibility

Faculty with the rank of instructor and above are eligible to serve as Principal Investigator. The Research Office does not restrict Research Associates from serving as Principal Investigator; however, some colleges do. Therefore, approval by the dean of the unit must be received prior to submission of a proposal to the program. Faculty with courtesy appointments may serve as Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) only.

 

 

The Research Council is interested in supporting new faculty. However, new faculty with uncommitted Research Office start-up funds are not eligible for consideration.

 

 

Principal Investigators and Co-PIs may receive an award from RERF only one time in a 24-month period. Principal Investigators and Co-PIs who reapply after the 24-month period are only eligible if the required final report from the previous award was submitted (see "Other Requirements").

 

 


 

 

Award Information

Award amounts vary, and the budget for each competition will depend upon available funds. The Research Office budgets a total of approximately $800K per year for these competitive distributions, but the actual amount will vary depending upon the magnitude of start-up funds awarded/spent and upon expenditures supporting successful federal equipment proposals.

 

 

Applicants will be notified via email of award decisions by the announcement date listed at the top of this page. For a detailed list of prior awards see OSU Incentive Programs: Award Recipients: Funded Proposals.

 

 


 

 

Matching Funds

Each application must show at least 20% cost sharing from the department, college, or other funds. Grant funds may be used for cost sharing, but RERF money may not replace funds originally budgeted in the grant to purchase the requested piece of equipment.

 

 

 

 

 

Grant funds contracted through National Laboratories (i.e. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory or Lawrence Livermore) and some types of EPA Cooperative Agreements may not be used as matching funds. These organizations retain ownership of equipment purchased with their funds.

 

 


 

 

Use of Funds

The following provides common examples of eligible and ineligible items based on recent proposals submitted to this program:

 

 

Budget items ELIGIBLE for support

 

 

  • Research EQUIPMENT may be:
    • Inventoried capital equipment (technically defined as =>$5,000 per unit)
    • Fabricated capitalized equipment
      • Signed OSU Fabricated Equipment Unit Pre-approval Form is REQUIRED (if applicable)

Budget items NOT ELIGIBLE for support

 

 

  • New equipment that has been previously purchased, encumbered or already on-site.
  • Software (regardless of cost) purchased that is not an integral component of an instrument. That is, if software is invoiced separately from an instrument or appears on an invoice as a separate line item with a unit cost associated with it, we cannot use RERF funds to pay the invoice.

(In most cases, software (excluding the operating system if it is included in the base price for the system) and peripherals, (i.e. printers, plotters, scanners) cannot be purchased using RERF funds unless the individual peripheral fits within the definition of “capital equipment”)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Personal computers/workstations (regardless of cost).
  • Construction and building renovations (i.e. fume hoods, permanent lab benches)
  • Improvements Other Than Building (IOTB).

    (Examples of IOTB might include concrete pads to be used as storage or staging areas, installation of fencing, (chain link enclosures) and construction of flumes or similar experimental structures). 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Labor costs to set up or build an instrument or piece of equipment.

    (If the investigator is proposing to build an instrument or piece of equipment, RERF funds cannot be used to cover labor costs, nor can labor costs be used to meet the matching requirement of the RERF program. The one exception to this rule occurs when an organizational unit has a billing mechanism that allows that unit to develop an audit trail identifying those hours and dollars spent specifically on the construction task. Most units at OSU do not have the accounting mechanisms set up to accomplish this).

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Shipping costs
  • Training costs associated with learning how to operate or use the new equipment.

 

 

Application Procedure

The RERF application form is available in MS Word format. If you are unable to access this form, contact the Research Office at 541-737-8390 to request a hard copy. Please allow one week for delivery.

 

 

  1. Download the MS Word file and complete all sections of the application form.
    • Complete items 1-7 within the space provided.
  2. Include the following supporting documentation with the MSWord or PDF file.
    • Items 8-11, limit to three (3) additional pages (single-spaced, 12 pt font, 1 inch margins) to provide the information requested.
    • Item 12, detailed budget for total cost (RERF request plus matching funds) of equipment. It is strongly recommended that you provide equipment specifications, descriptions and cost quotes for the proposed equipment (limit 4 pages).
    • Item 13, SIGNED OSU Fabricated Equipment Unit Pre-approval Form (required, if applicable) and basic schematic diagram which demonstrates how the parts work together.
    • Item 14, one-page summary resume for the Principal Investigator.
    • Item 15, "letters of endorsement" from individuals (non Co-PIs) who are in unique positions to comment on the merit of the proposal (optional).
  3. Obtain signatures (REQUIRED on original paper copy).
    • Item 5, from the individuals authorizing matching funds.
    • Item 7, from the Principal Investigator, Department Head/Chair and College Dean.
  4. Submit the completed proposal packet.
    • Email the completed MSWord or PDF file with supporting documentation (no signatures) to debbie.delmore@oregonstate.edu by 5:00 P.M. on the deadline date.
    • Print one (1) original paper copy WITH SIGNATURES (including signatures authorizing matching funds) and deliver to the Research Office, Incentive Programs, A312 Kerr Administration Building by 5:00 P.M. on the deadline date.

Incomplete proposal packets and proposals not following the guidelines will not be considered for funding.

 

 


 

 

Deadlines

All application materials, MSWord or PDF file and printed copy (including supporting documentation and ALL signatures), must be received at the Research Office, Incentive Programs, A312 Kerr Administration Building, by the deadline indicated at the top of this page.

 

 


 

 

Review Procedure

The Research Office reviews all proposals for eligibility. Requests, or eligible portions of requests, that qualify as capital equipment are then given to the Research Council for competitive review and evaluation. The Research Council provides a prioritized list of recommendations for funding to the Vice President for Research based on the quality of the proposals as reflected in the review criteria. The Vice President for Research will award equipment grants based on available funds.

 

 


 

 

Review Criteria

The Research Council is composed of faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee who represent the diversity of the University's research enterprise. Proposals that describe the science and equipment needs to this general audience, providing clear explanations of the purpose, importance and justification of the need for this equipment, and avoiding the use of jargon and unexplained acronyms, will fare better than those written to reviewers from a highly focused discipline perspective.

 

 

The Research Council evaluates each proposal using the following criteria: (Not in Order of Importance)

 

 

Scientific Merit

 

 

  • Does the proposal provide a compelling argument for both the equipment and resulting research?
  • Is the requested equipment crucial?
  • Does the equipment provide a new/unique capability, previously unavailable at the University?
  • Does the equipment replace or upgrade existing capabilities that are required for OSU investigators to be competitive for national/international funding?

Leverage

 

 

  • Does the equipment support other opportunities for funding? If so, list the potential funding sources.
  • Does it improve chances for funding from existing sources?
  • Does it allow researchers to change directions towards work that is likely to be funded?
  • Does the PI have a track record of using OSU Research Office funding to obtain additional grants and contracts?

Multiple Uses

 

 

  • Will the equipment benefit more than one investigator, or more than one research group?

Need

 

 

  • Does the equipment replace obsolete, but essential equipment?
  • Is the request for emergency repairs on high priority equipment?

Undergraduate Research

 

 

  • Does the equipment contribute to research involving undergraduates?

Reporting

 

 

  • If the investigator(s) has received previous funding from the research office, have all required reports been appropriately completed? (see "Other Requirements")

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

Industrial Collaboration

 

 

  • Does the equipment promote collaboration with industry?

 

 

Other Requirements

For those investigators receiving awards, a final report will be due within 6 months of equipment procurement / repair / construction.

 

 

The report should contain the following information:

 

 

  1. Header:  including Award Information (type, date of award, amount of award), Proposal Title/Instrument, PI, Co-PIs, Department.
  2. Final budget statement describing how the RERF funds were expended.
  3. A brief summary of the scholarly work/activities made possible as a result of the RERF funding.
  4. A brief summary of any additional scholarly activities the RERF funding made possible for the investigator(s).
  5. List all external funding requests (i.e. proposals) that have been developed and submitted as a result of the RERF funding.

Please submit the report electronically to Debbie Delmore, Coordinator of Special Programs at debbie.delmore@oregonstate.edu.

 

 

Recipients who fail to submit the required report will be ineligible to receive future funding from the Research Office Incentive Programs.

 

 

 

 

 


For More Information

Contact Debbie Delmore, Research Office at: | debbie.delmore@oregonstate.edu | 541-737-8390

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incentive Programs

Several programs sponsored by the Research Office provide funding for seed programs, emergencies, time releases, and capital equipment.

Researchers in the lab

Faculty Release Time

Applications are being accepted for 2010-11 Academic Year Release (Fall, 2010, Winter, 2011, or Spring 2011 term)
Proposal Deadline: Monday, February 22, 2010

The Faculty Release Time (FRT) program provides limited funding for individuals developing external grant proposals or who wish to further their scholarly activities. <read more>

 

Artist

General Research Fund

Applications are being accepted for Spring 2010
Proposal Deadline: Monday, February 8, 2010

Funds from the General Research Fund (GRF) are awarded to faculty for research that is not otherwise supported by organized or directed programs. <read more>

 

Researcher with equipment

Research Equipment Reserve Fund

Applications are being accepted for Spring 2010
Proposal Deadline: Monday, March 8, 2010

Research Equipment Reserve Funds (RERF) may be used to acquire, repair, renovate, or improve capital equipment directly used for research. <read more>

 

Two students with equipment

Undergraduate Research, Innovation, Scholarship, Creativity

Applications are being accepted for Summer Term 2010
Proposal Deadline: Monday, March 1, 2010

URISC is a Research Office program that supports undergraduate research activities. <read more>

Faculty Release Time

Current Solicitation

Applications are being accepted for 2010-11 Academic Year Release
(Fall 2010, Winter 2011, or Spring 2011)

Proposal Deadline: Monday, February 22, 2010
Award Announcement:
Approximately Monday, March 15, 2010

Contents

Description

The Faculty Release Time program provides limited funding for individuals developing external grant proposals or who wish to further their scholarly activities.


Eligibility

Tenure-track faculty. Preference will be given to new or junior faculty, (hired in the last three years) and to applicants who describe incisive, innovative research with a strong likelihood of funding. Senior faculty are eligible, particularly if the proposal being developed represents a change in direction for the faculty member's research or scholarship. Pre-approval must be obtained by both the department chair or head, and the college Dean prior to submittal. Full consideration for advance replacement and term scheduling should be evaluated, so as to avoid conflicts in class planning and preparation.


Award Information

Award amounts range between $3,500 and $6,000.

Applicants will be notified via email of award decisions by the announcement date listed at the top of this page. For a detailed list of prior awards see OSU Incentive Programs: Funded Proposals.


Use of Funds

The Research Office will provide funds to support the cost of a replacement instructor to cover one course, or similar responsibilities, normally presented by the applicant. Funds provided are based on the actual cost of the replacement's salary, not on the applicant's salary.


Application Procedure - *Revised January 2009

The FRT application form is available in MS Word format, see attachment below. If you are unable to access this form, contact the Research Office at 541-737-8390 to request a paper copy. Please allow one week for delivery.

  1. Complete all sections of the application form.

    • Items 1-6, should be completed within the space provided.

    • Item 7, Research Compliance: Due to the regulatory compliance requirements inherent in research the PI must submit the proper forms and receive approval from the appropriate compliance committee(s) prior to the start of the research. A complete application will include marking the appropriate boxes in the Regulatory Compliance section. *NOTE: Notification of approval from the appropriate compliance commitee(s) MUST be received in the Research Office before the award funds will be transferred.

    • Item 8, obtain signatures from Principal Investigator, Department Head/Chair and College Dean.
    • Items 9-12, should be completed within three additional pages (single-spaced, 12 pt font, 1 inch margins).
  2. Attach the following supporting documentation to the end of the proposal packet.
    • Item 13, resume (limit to 5 pages, including peer-reviewed publications and funding history).
    • Item 14, support letter from Department or College.
  3. Submit the complete proposal packet by 5:00 P.M. on the deadline date to the Research Office, Incentive Programs, A312 Kerr Administration Building.

Incomplete proposal packets will not be considered for funding.


Deadlines

All application materials, including supporting documentation, must be received in the Research Office, Incentive Programs, A312 Kerr Administration Building, by the deadline indicated at the top of this page.


Review Procedure

The Research Office reviews all materials and prepares summary data. Final funding and award decisions reside with the Vice President for Research.


Review Criteria

Proposals are reviewed based on quality; especially noting those that present clear concepts and specific research methods. Considerations include realistic targeting of funding sources, why those sources should be pursued, and what the scholarly impact of the proposal would be.


Other Requirements

Award recipients are to submit a one-page report at the end of term for which funds were awarded. Please submit the report electronically to Debbie Delmore.

Recipients who fail to submit the required report will be ineligible to receive future funding from the Research Office Incentive Programs.


 

For More Information

Contact Debbie Delmore, Research Office at: | debbie.delmore@oregonstate.edu | 541-737-8390

General Research Fund

Current Solicitation

SPRING TERM 2010

Proposal Deadline: Monday, February 8, 2010
**Please note: proposals must be submitted electronically. See application procedures for details. **
Award Announcement: Approximately Monday, April 5, 2010

Contents

Description

Funds from the General Research Fund (GRF) are awarded to faculty for research that is not otherwise supported by organized or directed programs. The intent of the GRF is to enable faculty to carry out scholarly, creative work that should lead to the pursuit of other funding sources, or promote the development of scholarly activities. Projects funded through the GRF could include: pilot research, emergency funding, emerging research opportunities, new research field or new research field for investigator, developing research laboratories, or centrally-shared research resources.


 

 

Eligibility

Faculty with the rank of instructor and above are eligible to serve as Principal Investigator. The Research Office does not restrict Research Associates from serving as Principal Investigator; however, some colleges do. Therefore, approval by the dean of the unit must be received prior to submission of a proposal to the program. Faculty with courtesy appointments may serve as Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) only.

The Research Council is interested in supporting new faculty. However, new faculty with uncommitted Research Office start-up funds are not eligible for consideration.

Principal Investigators and Co-PIs may receive an award from the GRF only one time in a 24-month period. Principal investigators and Co-PIs who reapply after the 24-month period are only eligible if the required final report from the previous award(s) was submitted. (see Other Requirements)


 

Award Information

Maximum award is $10,000.

Applicants will be notified via email of award decisions by the announcement date listed at the top of this page. For a detailed list of prior awards see OSU Incentive Programs: Funded Proposals.

If a faculty member submits two proposals simultaneously, as Principal Investigator on one proposal and Co-Principal Investigator on another, and both proposals are ranked high enough for funding, then only the proposal with that faculty member as Co-Principal Investigator would receive funding, so as not to disadvantage other investigators.


 

Matching Funds

None required for this program.


 

Use of Funds

Budget Items ELIGIBLE for support

  • Student hourly wages (Graduate students are required to submit a statement that this work is not a part of a thesis.)
  • Salaries/wages for research support personnel (e.g., technicians, postdocs, clerical)
  • Travel to conduct research or visit libraries/archives
  • Laboratory animal care
  • Equipment
  • Supplies
  • Services

Budget Items NOT ELIGIBLE for support

  • Investigator salaries
  • Faculty release time
  • Graduate assistantships
  • Graduate tuition
  • Bridging funds
  • Travel to meetings/conferences (includes related fees, lodging and travel expenses)
  • Expenses related to curriculum development, administration, instruction or training

 

Application Procedure

The GRF application form is available in MS Word format. If you are unable to access this form, contact the Research Office at 541-737-8390.

 

  1. Download the MS Word file and complete all sections of the application form.
    • Complete items 1-8 within the space provided.
    • Item 9, Regulatory Compliance: Due to the regulatory compliance requirements inherent in research it is the responsibility of the Principal Investigator (PI) to submit the proper forms and receive approval from the appropriate compliance committee(s) PRIOR to the initiation of their research with sufficient time to allow for the review process. The review process could require 4-8 weeks.
    • Documentation of approval from the appropriate compliance committee(s) MUST be received in the Research Office, Incentive Programs before the award funds will be transferred.
  2. Include the following supporting documentation for a complete proposal packet.
    • Items 11-12
    • Items 13-14, limit to approximately 200 words each to provide the information requested.
    • Item 15, limit to 5 additional pages (double-spaced, 12 pt. font, 1 inch margins) to provide the information requested.
    • Item 16, limit resume to 5 pages for Principal Investigator and 2 pages for each Co-Principal Investigator.
    • Item 17, use the layout format provided when detailing major budget categories. Itemize and justify the requested budget.
    • Item 18, "letters of endorsement" from individuals (non Co-PIs) who are in unique positions to comment on the merit of the proposal (optional).
  3. Obtain signatures from the Principal Investigator, Department Head/Chair and College Dean (required on the original copy).
  4. Submit the completed proposal packet.
    • Email the completed PDF or MS Word file with supporting documentation (no signatures required) to debbie.delmore@oregonstate.edu by 5:00 P.M. by the deadline date.
    • Print 1 original copy of the complete proposal packet with signatures and deliver to the Research Office, A312 Kerr Administration Building by 5:00 P.M. by the deadline date.

Incomplete proposal packets and proposals not following the guidelines will not be considered for funding.


Deadlines

All application materials, electronic and printed copy (including supporting documentation), must be received in the Research Office, A312 Kerr Administration Building, by the deadline indicated at the top of this page.


Review Procedure

The Research Office reviews all proposals for eligibility. Those requests that qualify are given to the Research Council for competitive review and evaluation. The Research Council will provide a prioritized list of recommendations for funding to the Vice President for Research, based on the quality of the proposals as reflected in the review criteria. The Vice President for Research will make award decisions based on recommendations and available funds.


Review Criteria

The Research Council is composed of faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee who represent the diversity of the University's research enterprise. Proposals that describe the science and equipment needs to this general audience, providing clear explanations of the purpose, importance and methodologies of the proposed topic, and avoiding the use of jargon and unexplained acronyms, will fare better than those written to reviewers from a highly focused discipline perspective.

The Research Council evaluates each proposal using the following criteria: (Not in Order of Importance)

Scholarly Merit

  • Does the proposal provide a compelling argument for the research?
  • Will the proposed work significantly expand or diversify the investigator's artistic or scholarly base?
  • Does the proposed project represent a significant contribution to the investigator's field of study? If so, how?
  • Does the proposal have the potential to significantly affect areas outside of the investigator's field?
  • Is there a probability of publication or public dissemination?
  • Who is the audience for the proposed work, and why will they value it?

Nature of Proposal

  • Does the proposal provide a clear statement of overall project objectives?
  • Are the proposed methodologies appropriate and accurate?
  • Does the proposal provide clear and specific budget information? (for example, price quotes for specific models or quotes for repair)
  • What is the likelihood of definitive results and conclusions?
  • Is the text of the proposal well-written?
  • Is the requested personal data well-prepared?

Leverage

  • Will the project lead to further scholarly activity?
  • Does it improve chances for funding from existing sources?
  • Does the project offer opportunities for funding from new sources?
  • Does it allow researchers to change directions towards work that is likely to be funded?
  • Does the project help build research networks with potential industrial clients?

Reporting

  • If the investigator(s) has received previous funding from the Research Office, have all required reports been appropriately completed? (see Other Requirements)

Other Considerations

  • Is the investigator a new faculty member, or faculty trying to make a significant shift in their research focus?
  • Does the proposed work have real-world significance?
  • Is there a need for personal encouragement?
  • Does the investigator's college/department have limited research support?
  • Does the project have local relevance?
  • Is the project designed to help the investigator network more broadly within their field?
  • Are there contributions from other sources?
  • Is the timeline and budget proposed feasible?

Other Requirements

From investigators receiving awards, a final report will be due 18 months after initiation of the project.

The final report should contain the following information:

  1. Header: including Award Information (type, date of award, amount of award), Proposal Title/Instrument, PI, Co-PIs, Department.
  2. A brief summary of the hypothesis or goals and the scholarly work/activities performed using the GRF support.
  3. A brief summary of any additional scholarly activities the GRF funding made possible for the investigator(s).
  4. How and/or on what were the GRF funds expended?
  5. List all external funding requests (i.e. proposals) that have been developed and submitted as a result of the GRF Funding.

Please submit the report electronically to Debbie Delmore, Coordinator of Special Programs at debbie.delmore@oregonstate.edu.

Recipients who fail to submit the required report will be ineligible to receive future funding from the Research Office Incentive Programs.


 

For More Information

Contact Debbie Delmore, Research Office at: | debbie.delmore@oregonstate.edu | 541-737-8390

Undergraduate Research and Mentoring in the Biological Sciences (URM)

The program limits to one (1) the number of proposals that can be submitted by Oregon State University.

In an effort to provide the highest level of excellence and viability for funding, a review process will be put in place if more than one proposal is submitted. The finalist will be asked to represent Oregon State University and to submit their proposal to the NSF-URM program.

The goal of the Undergraduate Research and Mentoring in the Biological Sciences (URM) program is to increase the number and diversity of individuals pursuing graduate studies in all areas of biological research supported by the NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences. Support will be provided to academic institutions to establish innovative programs to engage undergraduates in a year-round research and mentoring activity. Particular emphasis will be placed on broadening participation of members of groups historically underrepresented in science and engineering: African Americans, Alaska Natives, American Indians, Hispanic Americans, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders, and persons with disabilities.
Guidance for preparation of Letter of Intent to the Research Office:

  • Title of Project
  • PI/Co-PI
  • Project Description
    • Statement of intellectual merit
    • Statement of anticipated broader impacts
    • Describe the program goals, types of research projects involved, and program activities, including plans for recruitment, selection and retention of students
    • Number of students and the length of time students will be engaged in the program
    • Expected outcomes
  • Budget being requested
  • Letters on intent are limited to 5 pages

Be submitted electronically as a MSWord or PDF document to:  debbie.delmore@oregonstate.edu

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP)

The program limits to one (1) the number of proposals that can be submitted by Oregon State University for the NSF-STEP (Type 1A, 1B, 1C) call for proposals. In an effort to provide the highest level of excellence and viability for funding, the Faculty Senate Research Council will review all the Letters of Intent and rank order them for the Vice President for Research. The finalist will be asked to represent Oregon State University and to submit their proposal to the NSF-STEP program.

The STEP seeks to increase the number of students receiving associate or baccalaureate degrees in established or emerging fields within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Type 1 proposals are solicited that provide for full implementation efforts at academic institutions.
Type 1A proposals are submitted by an institution that has not previously been the lead institution on a STEP Type 1 award.
Type 1B proposals are for a new five-year implementation project from an institution that previously has been the lead institution on a STEP Type 1 award.
Type 1C proposals are for a follow-on grant to an institution or consortium that has been the lead on a STEP Type 1 award.

Guidance for preparation of Letter of Intent to the Research Office:

  • Title of Project
  • Type of Project (1A, 1B, 1C)
  • PI/Co-PI(s)
  • Project Description
  • Letters of intent are limited to 2 pages
  • Be submitted electronically as a MSWord or PDF document to:  debbie.delmore@oregonstate.edu

Contact Info

Research Office
Oregon State University
A312 Kerr Administration
Corvallis, OR
97331-2140
Phone 541-737-3467
Fax 541-737-9041
Copyright ©  2014 Oregon State University
Disclaimer

Office for Commercialization and Corporate Development

Office of Sponsored Programs

OSU Advantage

Incentive Programs