Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Grant Proposal Writing is Exciting, Imaginative Work

Download this Handout PDF

Overview Additional Resources about Grants and Grant Writing Considering the Audience, Purpose, and Expectations of a Grant Proposal Common Elements of Grant Proposals General Tips Successful Sample Proposals

So, you want to write a grant proposal? This is exciting! This means that you have valuable research to do or a particular nonprofit to build or a community resource you’re passionate about developing. You have a distinct vision for how something could be improved or advanced, and you’re ready to ask for funding or other support to help this vision become a reality.

project grant instructions

As you reach toward this unrealized vision by developing a grant proposal, you should think about successful grant writing as an act of imagination. Professor Kate Vieira, a Curriculum and Instruction professor at UW-Madison with considerable grant writing experience, describes grant proposal writing as a creative process akin to fiction writing—these are works of imagination. Professor Vieira recommends approaching the task of writing a grant proposal with an attitude of wonder and excitement as you strive to turn your ideas into something real. You have a great idea, and you think that you’re the best person to achieve a specific goal. Now you just need to convince others to get excited about this vision as well.

On this page, we offer some ways of thinking about grant proposals and advice about the process of planning and writing a proposal. We consider grant proposals; overall purposes, audiences, and expectations in order to make this information applicable across a range of contexts. However, this general approach has important limits . First, you will need to get more tailored advice about grant writing within your specific discipline or sphere. Second, you’ll need to follow very carefully the exact instructions about proposals from the granting agencies to which you are applying.

Talk with professors, mentors, previous grant recipients, the funding agency/group you are applying to, and trusted advisers in your field to learn more about what successful grant proposals look like in your situation and to get feedback on your plan and on your drafting process.

Before you start writing your grant proposal, you’ll want to make sure that you:

  • develop a specific, meaningful, actionable plan for what you want to do and why you want to do it;
  • consider how your plan will achieve positive results;
  • locate a granting organization or source that funds projects like the one you have in mind;
  • research that organization to make sure that its mission aligns with your plan;
  • review the organization’s proposal guidelines; and
  • examine sample proposals from your department, peers, and/or the organization.

When you’ve done all of this, you’re ready to start drafting your proposal!

Additional Resources about Grants and Grant Writing

For students, faculty, or staff at UW–Madison, a great place to learn more about grants, grant proposal writing, and granting institutions is the Grants Information Collection at UW–Madison’s Memorial Library. Check out their website and our review of some of their materials as well as links to other useful grant resources here.

Considering the Audience, Purpose, and Expectations of a Grant Proposal

A grant proposal is a very clear, direct document written to a particular organization or funding agency with the purpose of persuading the reviewers to provide you with support because: (1) you have an important and fully considered plan to advance a valuable cause, and (2) you are responsible and capable of realizing that plan.

As you begin planning and drafting your grant proposal, ask yourself:

  • Who is your audience? Think about the people from the agency offering this grant who will read this proposal. What are the agency’s mission and goals? What are its values? How is what you want to do aligned with what this agency is all about? How much do these readers know about what you are interested in? Let your answers to these questions inform how you present your plan, what vocabulary you use, how much background you provide, and how you frame your goals. In considering your audience, you should think about the kind of information these readers will find to be the most persuasive. Is it numbers? If so, make sure that you provide and explain your data. Is it testimonials? Recommendations from other collaborators? Historical precedent? Think closely about how you construct your argument in relationship to your readers.
  • What are the particular expectations for this grant? Pay attention to everything the granting organization requires of you. Your proposal should adhere exactly to these requirements. If you receive any advice that contradicts the expectations of your particular situation ( including from this website ), ignore it! Study representative samples of successful proposals in your field or proposals that have received the particular grant you are applying for.
  • How do you establish your credibility? Make sure that you present yourself as capable, knowledgeable, and forward thinking. Establish your credibility through the thoroughness of your plan, the intentional way that you present its importance and value, and the knowledge you have of what has already been learned or studied. Appropriately reference any past accomplishments that verify your ability to succeed and your commitment to this project. Outline any partnerships you have built with complementary organizations and individuals.
  • How can you clearly and logically present your plan? Make sure that your organization is logical. Divide your proposal into predictable sections and label them with clear headings. Follow exactly the headings and content requirements established by the granting agency’s call for proposals.Grant proposals are direct and to–the–point. This isn’t a good place for you to embroider your prose with flowery metaphors or weave in subtle literary allusions. Your language should be uncluttered and concise. Match the concepts and language your readers use and are familiar with. Your readers shouldn’t have to work hard to understand what you are communicating. For information about writing clear sentences, see this section of our writer’s handbook. However, use a vivid image, compelling anecdote, or memorable phrase if it conveys the urgency or importance of what you are proposing to do.

Common Elements of Grant Proposals

General tips, pay attention to the agency’s key interests..

As mentioned earlier, if there are keywords in the call for proposals—or in the funding organization’s mission or goal—be sure to use some of those terms throughout your proposal. But don’t be too heavy–handed. You want to help your readers understand the connections that exist between your project and their purpose without belaboring these connections.

Organize ideas through numbered lists.

Some grant writers use numbered lists to organize their ideas within their proposal. They set up these lists with phrases like, “This project’s three main goals are . . . ” or, “This plan will involve four stages . . . ” Using numbers in this way may not be eloquent, but it can an efficient way to present your information in a clear and skimmable manner.

Write carefully customized proposals.

Because grant funding is so competitive, you will likely be applying for several different grants from multiple funding agencies. But if you do this, make sure that you carefully design each proposal to respond to the different interests, expectations, and guidelines of each source. While you might scavenge parts of one proposal for another, never use the exact same proposal twice . Additionally when you apply to more than one source at the same time, be sure to think strategically about the kind of support you are asking from which organization. Do your research to find out, for example, which source is more likely to support a request for materials and which is more interested in covering the cost of personnel.

Go after grants of all sizes.

Pay attention to small grant opportunities as well as big grant opportunities. In fact, sometimes securing a smaller grant can make your appeal for a larger grant more attractive. Showing that one or two stakeholders have already supported your project can bolster your credibility.

Don’t give up! Keep on writing!

Writing a grant proposal is hard work. It requires you to closely analyze your vision and consider critically how your solution will effectively respond to a gap, problem, or deficiency. And often, even for seasoned grant writers, this process ends with rejection. But while grant writers don’t receive many of the grants they apply to, they find the process of carefully delineating and justifying their objectives and methods to be productive. Writing closely about your project helps you think about and assess it regardless of what the grant committee decides. And of course, if you do receive a grant, the writing won’t be over. Many grants require progress reports and updates, so be prepared to keep on writing!

Successful Sample Grant Proposals

One of the best ways to learn how to write grant proposals is to analyze successful samples. We’ve annotated and uploaded three very different kinds of successful proposals written by colleagues associated with UW–Madison. We encourage you to carefully read these samples along with the annotations we’ve provided that direct your attention to specific ways each one is doing the work of a strong proposal. But don’t stop with these! Find additional samples on your own of successful proposals like the one you’re writing to help guide and further your understanding of what has worked and been persuasive.

  • Sample Grant Proposal 1 (PDF) Fellowship Proposal for UW–Madison’s Center for the Humanities’ Public Humanities Exchange (HEX)
  • Sample Grant Proposal 2 (PDF) Proposal for a 3–Year National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship
  • Sample Grant Proposal 3 (PDF) Madison Writing Assistance’s grant proposal to the Evjue Foundation

project grant instructions

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

  • Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
  • Guided brainstorming exercises
  • Get more help with your essay
  • Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

Dynamic title for modals

Are you sure.

  • Bureaus and Offices
  • Contact HRSA
  • Apply for a Grant

How to Prepare Your Application

Completing a grant application can take 40 hours or more. We want to help you navigate the process.

Where to begin

Before you begin, ask yourself the following questions:

  • Have I read the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)? Do I understand it?
  • Is my organization eligible to apply, based on the eligibility criteria in the NOFO?
  • Does my organization have the technical expertise, personnel, and financial capacity to successfully implement the project described in the NOFO?
  • Are all my organization’s stakeholders supportive of applying for this grant?
  • Is my organization prepared to successfully implement the project within the budget we're proposing?

Be sure you can answer “yes” to each of these questions. If you can, you’re ready to apply.

How we help you through the process

Our application guides help you prepare and submit your application through grants.gov .

When you apply, you need to fill out an SF-424 application form.

We created a guide for each of these forms:

  • HRSA Application Guide (PDF - 668 KB)
  • HRSA Two-Tier Application Guide (PDF - 702 KB)
  • HRSA Research & Related (R&R) Application Guide (PDF - 826 KB)
  • HRSA Research & Related Two-Tier Application Guide (PDF - 822 KB)

Note:  If you use assistive technology, you may not be able to access information in these files. For help, please email Doretha Dixon or call 301-443-1783.

Remember : these guides give you general HRSA information about the application and submission process.  Refer to the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for specific instructions.

Updated requirements in SF-424B & SF-424D

The government made the general certification and representation requirements standard in the following:

  • SF-424B - Assurances - Non-Construction Programs
  • SF-424D - Assurances - Construction Programs

Review Assurances: Non-Construction Programs .

On January 1, 2020 :

  • The  System for Award Management (SAM) began storing the updated common certification and representation requirements.
  • When you apply for federal financial help, you must confirm these requirements through the SAM each year.

How to write a strong application

Applications must be 80 pages or less. So, be brief, but precise as you describe:

  • Define them clearly
  • Be specific
  • The need for the service or activity that the grant will support
  • Your organization's track record in fulfilling that need
  • Show how you plan to achieve the program’s purpose
  •  Include supporting data whenever possible
  • Elaborate on your organization’s knowledge, staffing, and fiscal stability
  • Explain how these ensure you can carry out your proposal and meet the goals of the grant program
  • A realistic plan that matches your goals and objectives
  • Include a narrative that justifies the costs

Follow our ten tips

  • Allow plenty of time to gather required information.
  • Submit well before the deadline.
  • Power failures aren’t an excuse for applying late.
  • Place all information in the order we request.
  • Write clearly.
  • Complete all application elements and responses to the program requirements.
  • Do not assume that reviewers are familiar with your organization, service area, barriers to health care, or health care needs in your community.
  • Think about the review criteria when you write the application.
  • Include candid accounts of problems and realistic plans to address them.
  • If you omit any required information or data, explain why.
  • Match content in tables, charts, and attachments with the proposal narrative.
  • Your budget should reflect back to the proposed activities.
  • Fill out forms accurately and completely.

Many applications fail to receive a high score because reviewers:

  • Cannot follow the applicant’s thought process.
  • Determine that application parts do not fit together.

Your application should show that you'll be responsible with public funds.

  • An expired SAM registration is the top reason for failing to submit an application.
  • Exceed grants.gov's 50 character limit for file names
  • Include special characters in the file name
  • Save in the wrong version of Adobe Acrobat 
  • Save in any file type that we do not accept.
  • Do not use attachments for information we require in the body of the application.
  • Cross-reference all tables and attachments to the appropriate text in the application.
  • Upload the attachments in the order the NOFO requires.

Before you apply, print out your application. Review to ensure you:

  • Complied with page limits
  • Included all attachments

We will not

  • Consider additional information or materials you submit late.
  • Accept e-mailed applications or supplemental materials once we receive your application.

Contact Us 1-877-464-4772 TTY: 877-897-9910 Mon - Fri | 8 a.m.- 8 p.m. (except federal holidays)

Contact Grants.gov

Call 800-518-4726 Email grants.gov support

Announcements

Review the latest announcements

Track Your Application

Use our track application tool

Find Funding

  • Grants & Cooperative Agreements
  • Loans & Scholarships
  • Search Grants.gov

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

  • Heart-Healthy Living
  • High Blood Pressure
  • Sickle Cell Disease
  • Sleep Apnea
  • Information & Resources on COVID-19
  • The Heart Truth®
  • Learn More Breathe Better®
  • Blood Diseases and Disorders Education Program
  • Publications and Resources
  • Blood Disorders and Blood Safety
  • Sleep Science and Sleep Disorders
  • Lung Diseases
  • Health Disparities and Inequities
  • Heart and Vascular Diseases
  • Precision Medicine Activities
  • Obesity, Nutrition, and Physical Activity
  • Population and Epidemiology Studies
  • Women’s Health
  • Research Topics
  • Clinical Trials
  • All Science A-Z
  • Grants and Training Home
  • Policies and Guidelines
  • Funding Opportunities and Contacts
  • Training and Career Development
  • Email Alerts
  • NHLBI in the Press
  • Research Features
  • Past Events
  • Upcoming Events
  • Mission and Strategic Vision
  • Divisions, Offices and Centers
  • Advisory Committees
  • Budget and Legislative Information
  • Jobs and Working at the NHLBI
  • Contact and FAQs
  • NIH Sleep Research Plan
  • Grants and Training
  • < Back To Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines

Guidelines for Program Project Grants

Q1. what are the requirements for a p01 application.

A1. It is critical that your application adhere to the requirements of the funding opportunity announcement (FOA). Failure to do so may result in your application being returned without review. Specifically, these requirements are:

  • The direct cost budget caps of $1,515,000 for traditional (no ESI Project) and $1,765,000 for a minimum 4-project P01 containing an ESI-led Project must be adhered to in all requested years (no budget increases are allowed in any future year).
  • Each Program Project Grant application must have a minimum of three distinct/individual Project Leaders. Although individual investigators are not precluded from leading more than one Project in a Program Project, justification must be provided for all such instances. In no case may one person serve as Project Leader on more than 2 Projects.
  • The multi-PI mechanism is available only for the overall Program Director (PD/PI) position. Any multi-PI must direct his/her own project plus provide an additional 5% effort elsewhere in the application. Multiple leaders on Projects or Cores are not permitted.
  • Project Leaders must devote a minimum of 20% effort (2.4 calendar months) to their Project (a consistent and sustained effort over the 12 month period). The overall Program Director must lead his/her own Project with the aforementioned minimum 20% (2.4 calendar months effort) plus devote a minimum additional 5% (0.6 calendar months) effort elsewhere in the Program. There is no minimum effort requirement for Core Leaders.
  • Each proposed Scientific Core must contain an institutional letter from the departmental chair or dean indicating the necessity of the Scientific Core. The letter must confirm that the proposed Scientific Core does not duplicate existing institutional resources and describe existing related core facilities at the institution. A separate letter should be included for each proposed scientific core.
  • Applications containing an ESI-led Project must include two separate letters from (a) sponsoring institution (Dean or Departmental Chair) and from (b) the Program Project Director (PD/PI) addressing the issues of commitment and leadership skills development as detailed in the FOA. These are 2 separate letters signed by 2 different people.

Q2. The PPG FOA lists two different types of applications: typical applications, with direct costs limited to $1.515 million per year, and applications containing an ESI-led project, limited to $1.765 million per year. What process will these applications go through to gain approval to submit?

A2. All PPG applications will go through the process for applications requesting $500,000 or more. Please refer to Part 2 Section IV of the FOA for further instructions on "Requests of $500,000 or more for direct costs in any one year." Please also see the NHLBI Policy for Applications with Direct Costs of $500,000 or More in a Single Year

Q3. I am considering submitting a Resubmission (A1). Do I need to go through the NHLBI process for applications requesting more than $500,000, including a staff consultation, before submitting?

A3. In most cases, Resubmission (A1) applications will not need to obtain a new staff consultation. This information is detailed under “Requests of $500,000 or more for direct costs in any year” in the FOA. However, if you plan to increase your direct costs requested in any year, for example with the addition of an ESI-led Project, you will need a new staff consultation. In addition, if you plan to make major changes to the application, for example if there is a change in scope or Project leadership, you may find it helpful to consult with NHLBI staff before submitting. Applicants are limited to one renewal (Type 2). No renewal (Type 2) applications beyond year 10 will be accepted.

Q4. When I am applying for a PPG Renewal (Type 2), do I need to go through the NHLBI process for applications requesting more than $500,000, including a staff consultation, before submitting?

A4. A4. In most cases, Renewal applications will not need to obtain a new staff consultation. This information is detailed under “Requests of $500,000 or more for direct costs in any year” in the FOA. However, if you plan to increase your direct costs requested in any year, for example with the addition of an ESI-led Project, you will need a new staff consultation. In addition, if you plan to make major changes to the application, for example if there is a change in scope or Project leadership, you may find it helpful to consult with NHLBI staff before submitting. Applicants are limited to one renewal (Type 2). No renewal (Type 2) applications beyond year 10 will be accepted.

Q5. My PPG application contains a second tier consortium/subcontract. Are facilities and administrative costs for the second tier consortium included in the direct costs?

A5. Yes, facilities and administrative costs for second tier consortium / third tier award (subcontract of a subcontract) are included in the direct costs. These costs must be within the PPG budget cap.

Q6. What amount of effort is required by Project Leaders in a PPG?

A6. The Project Lead must devote a minimum of 2.40 calendar months (20% effort) to the Project. If the Project Lead is also a PD/PI for the Overall Program, they must devote a minimum of 5% effort to one other component (e.g., another Project or a Core) for a total minimum of 3.0 calendar months (25% effort).

Q7. I am planning on submitting a PPG application with an ESI-led Project. Will my application, or the ESI-led Project, be reviewed any differently than a standard/typical PPG application?

A7. In general, no. ESI-led Projects, and PPG applications that include an ESI-led Project, will be reviewed with the same review criteria and general scoring system as standard/typical applications. There will, however, be additional review questions under the "Investigator" and "Environment" criteria for the ESI-led Project. In addition, letters of institutional support will be required to demonstrate that the ESI Project Leader is an independent investigator, and that the PPG will provide an adequate opportunity for leadership mentoring.

Q8. How will the independence of a proposed ESI Project Lead be assessed?

A8. Reviewers will use a combination of information to assess ESI Project Leader independence, including the biosketch, research background, letters of support, and available resources. All ESI projects must include a letter from the Overall Program Director and a letter from the sponsoring institution demonstrating commitment to the candidate’s leadership development and providing assurance that the research facilities, resources, and development opportunities, including faculty capable of productive collaboration with the candidate, will be available for the candidate’s career development and research programs. Evidence for independence may include:

  • The candidate has a full-time faculty position.
  • The candidate received a start-up package for support of his/her independent research.
  • The candidate has research space dedicated to his/her own research.
  • The candidate may attend faculty meetings, be the responsible supervisor for graduate students, and/or hire technical support or postdoctoral fellows.
  • The candidate is eligible to apply for independent research funding as the PD/PI of an NIH research grant.

Q9. I am an ESI, and plan to be included as a Project Lead for an upcoming PPG application. If awarded, will I lose my ESI/New Investigator status?

A9. No. A PPG Project is not an independent research grant. Therefore, serving as a Project Leader, but not Program Director/Principal Investigator, in a PPG grant will not impact the investigator’s New Investigator or ESI status .

Q10. Can I replace an ESI Project Lead after Review or after Award of my PPG?

A10. Post-award changes to ESI Project Lead will be handled on a case-by-case basis. However, the replacement must be an ESI. In most cases, if an ESI Project Lead is replaced after review or award of a PPG application, the awarded budget will be adjusted so that it does not exceed $1.515 million/year direct costs. Replacement of any Key Personnel, including Project Leads, requires prior approval of NHLBI.

Q11. I originally submitted my (A0) application as a three-Project PPG. For the Resubmission (A1), I would like to include a fourth ESI-led project. Can I submit this as an A1 application, with the larger budget?

A11. Yes, however your letter granting you permission to submit was based on the structure and budget of the Program as proposed. Significant deviations from that proposal and/or budget would require a new staff consultation and a new letter. In addition, you might want to discuss this with your Program Officer, as significant changes to your Program may warrant a New application.

Q12. I am submitting a Renewal (Type 2) PPG application. Can I add an ESI-Led Project with the increased budget in my renewal?

A12. Yes, however your letter granting you permission to submit was based on the structure and budget of the program as proposed. Significant deviations from that proposal and/or budget would require a new staff consultation and a new letter. In addition, you might want to discuss this with your Program Officer, as significant changes to your Program may warrant a New application.

Q13. Can I include an ESI-Led Project in a PPG application that includes only two other Projects if I adhere to the $1,515,000 direct costs per year budget cap?

A13. No. To include an ESI-Led Project, the Program must include at least 3 other Project Leaders who have demonstrated the ability to lead an R01, or R01-equivalent, grant. Applicants may only include an ESI-Led Project if there is a minimum of 4 total Projects comprising the Program.

Q14. I am currently PI on a PPG that is past its tenth year. I would like to submit a Renewal (Type 2) PPG application to continue this Program. Can I do that?

A14. No. The new PPG FOA limits PPG awards to one competitive Renewal. This will allow for a total award period of 10 years maximum for a Program. However, you may always submit a New PPG application, even if it is a continuation of an existing scientific Program.

Q15. I submitted a PPG application containing four Projects, one of which is led by an ESI, and we requested $1,765,000/year direct costs. After we submitted the PPG application, the ESI lost ESI status due to award of an R01 or time after terminal degree. Can we still receive the requested budget if the application is awarded?

A15. Yes. Applications will be assessed at time of submission for ESI eligibility. If the application contains at least four projects, one of which is led by an ESI at time of submission, NHLBI will consider it compliant with requirements for the higher budget when making funding decisions./p>

Q16. I submitted a PPG application containing four Projects, one of which is led by an ESI, and we requested $1,765,000/year direct costs. After we submitted the PPG application, the ESI lost ESI status due to award of an R01 or time after terminal degree. We are now considering submitting a Resubmission (A1) of the PPG application. Can we request the higher budget, even though the Project is no longer led by an ESI?

A16. Yes. The application can be submitted as a Resubmission (A1) with the increased budget, provided the ESI-led project retains the same Project Lead. This remains true even if the ESI Project Lead has lost ESI status in the interim. Eligibility is determined at submission of the original (A0) application.

Q17. I was awarded a PPG with four Projects, one of which is led by an ESI, with a budget of $1,765,000/year direct costs. After 5 years of support, we would like to submit a Renewal (Type 2) application. Will we be able to submit an application with the increased budget if the ESI Project Lead loses ESI status due to award of an R01 or time after terminal degree in the intervening years?

A17. No. For an application to be eligible for the increased budget, one of the four Project Leads must be an ESI at the time of submission of the Renewal (Type 2 A0) application. The ESI Project Lead in the Renewal application need not be the original ESI Project Lead.

Q18. I do not plan to include an Administrative Core in my application. How will reviewers know how I plan to organize and lead my PPG?

A18. Applicants that do not propose an Administrative Core must provide the required information in the Overall Program component of their application. Please refer to Part 2 Section IV of the FOA for information on what needs to be included in the PHS 398 Research Plan for the Overall Program if an Administrative Core is not included.

Q19. How will justification of a Scientific Core be assessed?

A19. Any proposed Scientific Core must include an institutional letter from the Department Chair/Division Head/Dean documenting the need for this Scientific Core and include information regarding other related Core facilities that are currently provided at the Institution. This is to provide the review panel with adequate information to determine if the Scientific Core is necessary, or if the work can be accomplished through other means at the institution (for example, included as a fee-for-service within the Project budgets).

Q20. Can I include an NIH-defined clinical trial as part of my PPG application?

A20. Clinical trials, excluding Phase III clinical trials, are permitted as part of a PPG application. However, NIH is imposing new policies on applications containing clinical trials. You are strongly encouraged to familiarize yourself with the new NIH policies before applying. Please see https://grants.nih.gov/ct-decision/index.htm   for more information on submitting applications containing clinical trials.

Q21. I was recently awarded an NHLBI R35 grant. Can I apply for an NHLBI PPG?

A21. Yes, an R35 PI can serve either as a PD/PI or Project Lead of a PPG application. However, the R35 PI must document any overlap in the Just-In-Time submitted for that application (per standard NIH rules) and explain how potential overlap due to the nature of the R35 will be mitigated. Before applying, investigators should consider whether the proposed research could be accomplished under the R35 award.

Q22. Is the Progress report for Projects/Cores included in the page limitations of my renewal application (Type 2)?

A22. Yes, the Progress report is included within the page limitations of the Research Strategy section of any Projects or Cores in renewal applications.

Q23. Is the Progress Report Publication List for Projects/Cores included in the page limitations of my renewal application (Type 2)?

A23. No, the Progress Report Publication List is uploaded as a separate document in ASSIST and is not included in the page limitations.

Q24. If the Vertebrate Animal Sections of the Projects fully describe the involvement of live vertebrate animals, do we need to include a vertebrate animal section in the Cores as well?

A24. You can refer to the description provided in the Projects, but it is advised that you upload a statement in place of uploading the Vertebrate animal descriptions for the Core, to direct reviewers to the correct place for the information. An exception would be a Vertebrate Animal Core, in which this information might be expected in the Core.

Q25. If the Protection of Human Subjects Sections of the Projects fully describe the involvement of human subjects, do we need to include a Protection of Human Subjects section in the Cores as well?

A25. You can refer to the description provided in the Projects, but it is advised that you upload a statement in place of uploading the Protection of Human Subjects descriptions for the Core, to direct reviewers to the correct place for the information. An exception would be a Clinical Core, in which this information might be expected in the Core.

Q26. How are PPGs reviewed at NHLBI?

A26. All NHLBI Program Project Grant applications are reviewed through a two-step process by a Tailored Review Committee and by the Heart, Lung, and Blood Program Project Review Committee (HLBP) prior to review by the NHLBI Advisory Council.

The Tailored Review Committee is composed of scientific peers convened to review a Program Project Grant application in their area(s) of expertise. The Tailored Review Committee will:

  • Provide an overall assessment of each Project based on its intrinsic and scientific merit within the field and provide a percentile descriptor ranking score of that Project broken down into seven categories (i.e., top 1% of projects within the field, 1%-10% of projects within the field, 10-20% of projects within the field, 20-30% of projects within the field, 30-40% of projects within the field, 40-50% of projects within the field, and 50% or less of projects within the field).
  • Assign numerical scores to each scored criterion and provide written critiques of the strengths and weaknesses of the scored review criteria.
  • Rate each Core as "Recommended" or "Not Recommended" based on whether it is essential and justified for the proposed research and has the capability to fulfill the proposed function.
  • Assess whether the proposed budget is appropriate.

The HLBP considers the review reports from the Tailored Review Committee, makes recommendations, and assigns an overall impact score to each application. It may not change an individual Project assessment assigned by the Tailored Review Committee, but it is asked to provide written comments to be included in the summary statement if HLBP's impression of project merit significantly differs from the Tailed Review Committee.

Q27. What is the new review criterion "Integration?"

A27. This is an additional scored criterion that will evaluate the following questions for the Projects: How well-integrated is the Project within the Program? Does inclusion of this Project within a Program offer distinct advantage or scientific gain over pursuing the Project independently? Is the Project interrelated and synergistic within the overall Program? How well does the Project fit into the overall theme of the Program?

Q28. How will funding decisions be made?

A28. Please refer to the NHLBI Funding and Operating Guidelines .

For more information:

Notice of Intent to Publish a Funding Opportunity Announcement for NHLBI Program Project Applications (P01)

Allowable Requested Direct Costs for Program Project Grants (P01s)

NHLBI Policy for Applications with Direct Costs of $500,000 or More in Any One Year

NHLBI Two-Step Review Process for Program Project Grant Applications

Heart, Lung, and Blood Program Project Review Committee Rosters

NHLBI Funding and Operating Guidelines

NIH Early Stage and Early Established Investigator Policies (contains definition of ESI)

New NIH Clinical Trials Policy

Policy on Reinstatement of Program Project (P01) Subprojects

How to Write a Successful Grant Proposal

Research budgets are getting tighter. Funding agencies are enforcing stricter guidelines and restrictions. All the while, few researchers receive formal training on how to write effective grant applications. Here we improve your career prospects as a researcher by writing better grant proposals.

Updated on May 26, 2022

Hospital Researchers' binders that are full of successful grant proposals

Research budgets have become more stressed, while funding agencies enforce strict guidelines and restrictions. At the same time, few researchers receive formal training on how to write effective grant applications. Writing better grant proposals will hugely improve your career prospects as a researcher.

Grant writing is especially challenging if you're an early-career researcher and/or English isn't your first language. However, it's not rocket science (unless it's a grant for researching rocket science). You can get what you want if you know how to get it.

Here we outline the key components of a successful grant proposal to help you navigate the intricacies of the application process, including:

  • Searching for and identifying grant opportunities
  • Writing and reviewing a grant proposal
  • What to do after you submit your proposal

What's a grant proposal and why do you need one?

A grant proposal or application is a document (or set of documents) addressed to an organization or funding agency to get funding for a research project.

Grant proposals differ widely across the scientific disciplines, but there are general tips that work universally.

A successful grant proposal can be a key to achieving your research goals by getting money. But writing a grant application also offers many indirect benefits, such as:

  • If you're a researcher on a fixed-term contract, getting funding can extend your contract.
  • You can use a successful grant proposal to take on a temporary position with another research group or institution.
  • Receiving a research grant can mean that an expert review panel views your research ideas as better than others.

Conducting pre-proposal research

The efforts you put in before you send your proposal can improve your chances of acceptance a great deal. You'll hone in on what you really need and you'll see ways of successfully getting it. Think ahead and you'll benefit.

Tough competition

Competition for grants has never been tougher.

Look at the European Commission's Horizon 2020 program. Horizon is the EU's most extensive research and innovation program. Nearly 80 billion euros (~US$84 billion)in funding was set aside in 2014–2020.

A Nature article shows that EU Horizon 2020 reported a 14% success rate for its first 100 calls for proposals—submissions to some categories had lower success rates.

Don't play the short game, think longer-term

Considering those odds, it's critical to start the process early. Give yourself at least 4–6 months to put your proposal together.

To increase your chances of success, before you begin drafting your grant proposal, you need to develop a SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and anchored within a Timeframe) plan for what you want to do and why you want to do it.

View samples of successful grant proposals

Look at what's worked (and what hasn't) and you'll save yourself time repeating other people's mistakes. Look for previous proposals you can get from your:

  • University library
  • Trusted peers
  • Supervisor or mentor
  • Past or prospective funding body
  • Online sites and databases

For example, on Open Grants, you can read 250+ grant proposals , both successful and unsuccessful, for free.

Focus on samples of successful proposals in your discipline or applications that have obtained the grant you're applying for. But don't overlook the failures. Read them critically and think how you can do better.

Identifying a grant opportunity and pitching your proposal

Just like choosing the right school, scientific niche, and journal to publish your research, you're seeking the right grant for your future work.

Search grant databases

The easiest way to find grant opportunities is via a database. Although some require a subscription, they can do in seconds what could take days of Googling. This is also a much easier way to organize and keep track of grant opportunities.

Pivot , Scientifyresearch , and ResearchConnect are free, structured databases providing global funding information. They also guide you on how to navigate their interface and use filters (scientific field, submission deadline, allocated budget, etc.) to refine your results.

Evaluate requirements in the solicitation

Finding the right funding body takes more than researching available grants. It takes a critical eye.

If you're unclear about what they're looking for, then writing that grant application may not be worth your time. And knowing that will save you time.

Once you decide to apply for funding, read the grant guidelines carefully. Stick to the suggested structure (e.g., subheadings), format (e.g., font), and language (terminology used).

While reading the instructions, make a list of everything needed for submission, and who on your side will be responsible for gathering this information.

Understand the sponsor's scoring system

Find out how the grant will be evaluated. This will ensure your proposal is tailored to the assessment criteria. For example, the UK Research and Innovation scoring matrix is based on

  • Scientific quality and impact
  • Scientific leadership
  • Justification of resources
  • Other: ethical and governance issues

The deadline is also a critical factor, not just in terms of being on time. If it's in three weeks, it might not be worth your time trying to prepare a proposal. As noted above, it's more realistic to think in months rather than weeks. You'll save yourself wasted time, not to mention stress.

Identify the funder's mission

Granting agencies don't exist solely to give out money. Their priorities vary based on their foundations' missions. Research the organization to see if its mission statement closely aligns with your project and target your request to their mission.

Among others, the Economic and Social Research Council funding priorities now include understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals, groups, and institutions in society. So, a medical researcher studying the impact of COVID-19 on neonatal mortality is better off targeting a different funder.

For example, the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Research focuses on health and social care research.

Make friends with the program manager

Directly contact the granting source if you've read the grant instructions and you're still not sure if your project is eligible. Making a human connection is generally a good thing, unless they specifically indicate they don't want to be contacted. In this regard, it's quite like a job application and networking.

They'll have a dedicated grants officer (maybe called a program manager or director) helping applicants like you. Beyond clearing up what's eligible and what's not, developing a relationship with them can help build their confidence in you and your work.

Note that the role of the program manager varies greatly among granting agencies. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), for example, encourages young researchers to contact program managers. It offers step-by-step instructions on whom you should contact and how .

In some smaller foundations, however, program officers are very busy and might discourage you from getting in touch. To figure this out, you need to research the sponsor's culture on a case-by-case basis.

Make friends with your research support office

Writing a grant proposal doesn't have to be a solo journey. Your institution will likely have a research support office/department (also called a sponsored research office).

These valuable folks can give administrative help with the grant submission process. They'll be able to help fill out relevant forms and double-check that the proposal meets the granting agency's guidelines.

Writing the main body of your grant proposal

All the agencies, people, and processes of grant writing are crucial. But the fundamental part of any grant application remains the written proposal itself.

To get your grant, you need to make a strong case for the importance of your research, particularly regarding community benefit and social impact.

Prove your research will solve real-world problems

Many researchers don't put much thought into the real-world relevance of their work. Yet, most funders want to finance proposals that promise to solve society's biggest challenges.

Before you draft your proposal, you need to consider how your research will confer value to society.

You want to be able to argue that it might save lives or money, improve people's well-being, or have another tangible impact.

Team up with project partners

Involving suitable research collaborators can also increase your chance of success.

If you're conducting cancer research, you could liaise with hospital clinicians or an association against a particular type of cancer. You could team up with a museum or heritage foundation if you're a history researcher. This will help translate your research into practice.

You don't have to go far to find collaborators. Start from your peers and direct contacts or links that your institution or research group might have.

Networking with fellow researchers or industry representatives in your field in conferences and seminars will also help you identify suitable grant collaborators. You can also look for them when you go through previously funded research projects.

Involve peers from relevant disciplines

Interdisciplinary research is seen as innovative because insights from each field contribute to the others. This extends the impact across different scientific specialties and across society.

For example, if you're a social psychologist studying drivers' perceptions of speeding risks. Involving researchers in transport studies, engineering, and related disciplines, not to mention community organizations and law enforcement, will make your proposal look more robust. And it'll actually be more robust.

Adopt research storytelling

Grant proposals can all start to sound the same for those who read and assess them. They're like job applications. As the applicant, you need to set yourself apart and inspire the reader.

You can do this by marketing yourself and your science in an engaging story. Spend less time formulating complex research questions and more time stressing how your research will benefit society. Providing an effective solution will give the reviewers positive emotions. It's like storytelling.

Getting some science communication training will help with this. Try using free science-storytelling tools, like Message Box . This easy-to-use solution lets you convey the information in your head about your work in ways that resonate with your audience. Start by reading real Message Boxes .

Set realistic research questions

A common mix-up among first-time applicants is that promising lots of work will make your proposal look better. It might be tempting to argue that you can solve these big, challenging problems in a single project. But, realistically, that's not often feasible.

For a 2–3-year project, have no more than four research questions. Even after you have proposed these, you'll have just enough space to provide a literature review, a research plan, and a list of expected impacts for each question.

Gather supplementary documents

The proposal itself is the core document, but it's the product of many supporting documents.

Describe the research environment

Other than your expertise, the funders will also want to confirm if you (or your research team) have the capacity to deliver the proposed project successfully.

Do you have access to the necessary facilities to complete the project? This might include access to a university library, to laboratory resources and equipment, or to your study population.

Your proposal needs to prove that you have everything required to start and complete the proposed research project successfully (within time and budget). You cannot be too thorough here.

Create biosketches for the research team

Most funding agencies and institutions ask for a biographical sketch (biosketch): a simplified version of the research team members' CVs. Biosketches stress team members' expertise and experience related to the research project.

Agencies like the National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) and the National Science Foundation both use standard biosketch formats that are regularly updated. They even provide tools to help you create your biosketch and format it according to NIH requirements.

We can't reprint them here, but you can view NIH sample biosketches here .

However, foundations and industry sponsors also set specific requirements for your CV/Biosketches. Follow these precisely.

Create a project timeline

Explain the timeframe for the research project in some detail. When will you begin and complete each step? Presenting a visual version of your timeline makes it easier to understand.

For complex multi-year research proposals, a timeline diagram can clarify the study's feasibility and planning (see below).

Here's a sample timeline to give you a general idea.

productivity table for work packages in a grant proposal

Gather supporting documentation

The supporting documents you'll need entirely depend on the sponsors' requirements. Most often, these include a cover letter, letters of support, and CVs.

Write the executive summary

The executive summary (abstract) outlines the most critical elements of your proposal in a condensed form. For longer proposals, you may be able to use a whole page. For others, you'll have to stick to just one paragraph. Either way, tell the reviewers:

  • What's the goal of your project, the need you're addressing, and/or the real-world problem you're solving?
  • What are your project's projected outcomes and broader impact, and how will you achieve them?
  • How will you evaluate your project's success?
  • Who are you, and why do you deserve this funding?

Let the mission and funding proprieties of the granting agency inform your abstract. Although the summary is the first part of your proposal, it's best to write it at the end. In the same way, it's best to write your manuscript abstract after writing your manuscript. That's the point where you have all your details, your entire story. Now you just have to write it out in a concise and accessible way.

Develop a grant budget

The funder will want to know precisely how you plan to spend their money. They want to ensure that your research project's cost-effective and that you've considered the actual costs of running your project.

In their calls for proposals, agencies provide information on the number of grants expected to be funded and the estimated size of each grant award. This information should inform the creation of your budget.

Meet with the grant office to talk through expenses

As mentioned, most institutions have grant administrators who can work with you to create the budgets and complete any budget forms required by the funder. If you're awarded the grant, they are most likely to manage these budgets.

In preparing a grant budget, there are three main considerations:

  • Policies and requirements of the funding agency
  • Policies of your institution
  • Costs related to each project task

Knowing these rules before developing a grant application will save you time. The grant office can help you understand them, plus translate your project's goal and objectives into money.

Identify categories

Budgets are typically formatted in tables and figures. They contain three components:

  • Direct costs
  • Facilities and administrative costs
  • Institutional commitments

The latter describes your institution's agreement to share the expenses of a research project with the funding body.

Each component is divided into separate categories.

For example, direct costs refer to expenses linked to the performance of specific activities and the resources needed to deliver the project. These often comprise:

  • Personnel: research project team members' salaries
  • External consultants: e.g., you might need an expert adviser to do a cost-benefit analysis for your project
  • Equipment: furniture or laboratory equipment
  • Travel expenses: transportation, accommodation, and/or daily subsistence costs

Create and justify a budget

On top of providing a line-by-line budget, you'll need to justify each expense. This involves a brief explanation for each line item in your budget. When writing this, follow the order in which budget items are presented.

In computing your budget, be as realistic as possible.

If your proposed budget is under the grant limit, think bigger. Think about how your research plans could be better, such as by choosing a bigger population sample or conducting more experiments.

If your estimated budget is over the available limit, you may be proposing too much. Think about removing a research question or staff involved.

The following is a sample 12-month research project budget (in which the university and sponsor share project expenses):

Budget Period: 10/15/2022 to 10/14/2023

budget costs for work packages in a grant proposal

Create a budget timeline

You've established your project's specific aims. Now it's time to create a timeline of key activities and specify when each activity will be completed. This is key to the construction of a sound budget.

Imagine you're proposing a two-year study. You plan to enroll 80 research participants over 12 months (around six people monthly). You'll interview each one for 1 hour in their home.

In year one, you'll need to budget for recruiting and interviewing study participants and traveling to their houses. In year two, though, the project won't involve such activities. Instead, the budget might reflect data entry, analyses, and report generation.

Get down to specifics. Explain yourself clearly. Show your plan.

Finalize, review, and polish your proposal

Think like the reviewer (just like you need to think like a journal editor when you submit a manuscript, or a job interviewer when you're trying to get hired).

Suppose you're tired and hungry. You've got multiple applications to read in a short period. How can you make it as easy as possible for the reviewers?

Avoid jargon

No matter how innovative your ideas are, sloppy or unfocused writing can hide them.

Use clear, concise, and accessible language. Flow clearly from one idea to the next. Use a “plain” word instead of a “smart-sounding” one.

Compare these pairs of sentences:

Bad: I propose dissecting the wartime mnemonic practices of externally displaced Afghan populations.

Better: I would like to see how Afghan refugees remember and talk about the war in their country.

Bad: I aim to explore the heterogeneity of forest ecosystems in spatial and temporal recovery following numerous turbulences.

Better: I hope to see what occurs when a forest grows back after being logged, burned, and cultivated.

Avoiding scientific jargon will help you tell your story from the heart, in words that many more people can understand. Take that type of thinking into your manuscript writing, and you'll increase your research impact.

Use reader-friendly formatting

Along with omitting jargon, formatting also increases readability.

White space, bold headings, standard fonts, and illustrations all make proposals easier to read. Widening margins and reducing the font size to 9-point (or less!) to squeeze in more text may add detail. But it also makes your document harder to read.

Organize ideas with numbered lists. Lists are easier to scan and encourage succinctness. Preface the lists with phrases like, “This project's three main goals are:” or “This work will involve four stages:”

Make sure your English is grammatically correct and readable

Spelling errors, bad grammar, unnatural word choice, exceeding the word limit... these issues can make the reader doubt how rigorous your research is. They might also wonder how careful you'll be with their money.

English errors can result from both a lack of English skills and from hurried writing.

Apart from the usual advice about getting a professional edit or proofread , and using a grammar tool , allow plenty of time. If you wait until the last day, week, or even month to prepare your grant, you're almost guaranteed to make language mistakes.

Even if you're a good writer, you'll probably miss a chance to write something more clearly, remove jargon and idioms, and have a consistent, professional tone.

Once your proposal's clearly written and you've edited it until it seems “perfect,” set it aside for a week. Yes, you're in a hurry, but you'll benefit from this break.

Then go back to it and edit/proofread/revise. Better yet, do it twice.

Get lots of feedback

Peer review is key to all research funding applications.

Even if you follow the advice outlined above, there might still be unclear bits of your proposal (at least to some). To strengthen your proposal, get other people to read it. Don't limit yourself to colleagues from your field. They'll probably be familiar with research jargon and methods.

  • Former grant recipients
  • The funding agency you're applying to
  • Trusted peers in your field

They'll all help you learn more about what successful grant proposals look like in your career stage.

The more feedback you receive, and from a greater variety of people, the better. Arrange early on when and which person will look at your proposal and revise the proposal after each set of feedback.

Life after grant submission

There's no guarantee of funding, no matter how strong your application is. In fact, rejection is common because of the tough competition (see above).

Even renowned scientists aren't always successful.

The Nature article cited above notes that on the day molecular biologist Dr. Carol Greider was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, she learned her recently submitted grant proposal got the thumbs down. Wonder how that grant funder felt when they read the news the next day!

So, even if your proposal ends up not getting funded, the process of planning and writing is valuable, to say the least. Why? Because…

  • You'll generate new ideas.
  • You'll expand your horizons by talking to peers or involving project partners.
  • You may even decide there's a better way to do your study or another research question that's important for you.

Grant writing can be frustrating and tiring, especially if you're an early-career researcher and not used to it.

Take your time to learn from past rejections and negative feedback. It will increase your chances of nailing your next grant proposal.

Final thoughts

Need help with your grant proposal? We can create a concise and polished proposal according to the funder's requirements while communicating the impact of your proposed research project. Learn more about our grant services .

Additional resources

  • Ardehali, H. (2014). How to Write a Successful Grant Application and Research Paper. Circulation Research, 114(8), 1231–1234.
  • Brownson, R. C., Colditz, G. A., Dobbins, M., Emmons, K. M., Kerner, J. F., Padek, M., Proctor, E. K., & Stange, K. C. (2015). Concocting that Magic Elixir: Successful Grant Application Writing in Dissemination and Implementation Research . Clinical and Translational Science, 8(6), 710–716.
  • Chung, K. C., & Shauver, M. J. (2008). Fundamental Principles of Writing a Successful Grant Proposal . The Journal of Hand Surgery, 33(4), 566–572.
  • MacKellar, P. H. (2011). Writing Successful Technology Grant Proposals: A LITA Guide. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.
  • Pequegnat, W., Stover, E., & Boyce, C. A. (1995). How to Write a Successful Research Grant Application: A Guide for Social and Behavioral Scientists. New York: Plenum Press.
  • Porter, R. (2005). What Do Grant Reviewers Really Want, Anyway? (PDF)
  • Przeworski, A., & Salomon, F. (2012). Some Candid Suggestions on the Art of Writing Proposals . Revised for the Drugs, Security and Democracy Fellowship Program by SSRC staff (PDF)
  • Ries, J. B., & Leukefeld, C. (1994). Applying for Research Funding: Getting Started and Getting Funded (1st ed.). California, London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  • Squitieri, L., & Chung, K. C. (2014). Funding Research in the Twenty-First Century . Hand Clinics, 30(3), 367–376.
  • Wisdom, J. P, Riley, H, Myers, N. (2015). Recommendations for Writing Successful Grant Proposals , Academic Medicine: 90(12), 1720-1725.

The AJE Team

The AJE Team

See our "Privacy Policy"

  • Application Planning Resources
  • Grant Application Process

Related Resources

  • Grant Writing
  • Letter of Inquiry Instructions

Grant Application Overview

The staff and Trustees of the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust look forward to reviewing your grant application. While the application is detailed, we hope these questions will be helpful to your organization and may help to clarify and better define your proposed project. Take a moment to review the instructions before starting. More complex projects may invite a more detailed response. Please stay true to the scope of the project described in your Letter of Inquiry (LOI) approved by the Trust; if anything other than minor adjustments have occurred in the project planning, please contact us before proceeding. Be as concise and specific as possible, edit carefully and invite others in your organization to review a draft of the application before submission.

Once your LOI is approved, a new grant application request will populate in your Grants Portal under Full Application Requests. The information you submitted with your LOI will appear at the beginning of the grant application, followed by the Full Application, which is comprised of two components:

  • The first portion of the application is broken out into six sections that you will fill out in the online form. These sections include Organizational Background, Project Information, Organizational Summary, Organizational Programs and Services, Board Governance and Full Project Description .
  • The second portion of the application consists of document uploads in the Project Documents section. Required documents include Organizational Financial Summary, Project Expense Budget, Project Funding Plan, Project Outcome Evaluation and Future of Project Sustainability (Pro Forma) . We invite you to upload your responses to these sections in Word, Excel or PDF format. The instructions will provide page limits for each of these sections. To assist Trust staff and Trustees in reviewing the grant request, please use no less than 11-point font in narrative areas and no less than 10-point font in a matrix, chart or spreadsheet. It is important to adhere to the page limits and font sizes described in the instructions.

Application Documents and Resources

Download the full application instructions for more detailed explanations of each of the components.

  • Application Instructions for Strategic Projects

The explanations, tips, and sample documents found here may prove helpful in both your project planning and the completion of your application. They are intended to help inform your thinking; however, each organization and project is unique and may require a different approach than what is suggested here. Feel free to apply a format that works for you.

  • Preparing a Project Budget
  • Expense Budget Sample – Capital
  • Expense Budget Sample – Equipment
  • Expense Budget Sample – Program Expansion, No Staff
  • Expense Budget Sample – Program Expansion, Program and Staff
  • Expense Budget Sample – Program Expansion, Staff
  • Expense Budget Sample – Program Expansion Multiple Staff Positions

Funding Plan and Pro Formas

  • Project Funding Plan and Goals Sample – Capital
  • Project Funding Plan and Goals Sample – New Staff
  • Pro Forma Sample

IRS Documentation

  • IRS 509(a) or 170(b) Explanation
  • Government Entity Status Letter
  • Tribal Government Status Letter
  • CEO Certification Letter Sample
  • Organizational Financial Summary

Please note that the Organizational Financial Summary will not be required for applications after January 2024.

  • Organizational Financial Summary Section A Explanation
  • Organizational Financial Summary Section A Tips
  • Organizational Financial Summary Section B Explanation and Tips
  • Revised Organizational Financial Summary

The Trust guides nonprofit organizations through every level of their development through grants and other resources.

  • Grant Opportunities
  • Grants Awarded

Enrichment Activity

  • Leadership and Capacity Building
  • Science Research & Education

Grant Resources

  • Strategic Grant Application Process
  • Grant Writing Resources
  • Grants Administration & Reporting Resources

Sectors the Trust is committed to enriching in the Pacific Northwest:

  • Arts & Culture
  • Human Services
  • Scientific Research

Grant Stories

project grant instructions

Grant Story: Covenant House Alaska

project grant instructions

Grant Story: Wassmuth Center for Human Rights

The Trust has a wealth of knowledge and experience that can make all the difference to you and your organization.

Resource Categories

  • Personal Development
  • Nonprofit Development
  • Organizational Leadership

Featured Resources

project grant instructions

Starting a Nonprofit

project grant instructions

How to Put Your Best Foot Forward When Applying for a Grant

  • About the Trust
  • Annual Reports
  • Investments
  • Publications & Reports

News & Announcements

project grant instructions

February Staffing Updates

project grant instructions

Grants in Action: Black History Month

project grant instructions

Stories of Impact: Free Geek

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to "About this site"
  • Departments

Language selection

  • Search and menus

Project Grant Program: Application Process

On this page.

  • Peer Review Committee Mandates – Project Grant Program

What is a resubmitted application?

Resubmitting an application: response to previous reviews, commercialization projects, section 1 - the need for a trial, section 2 - the proposed trial, section 3 - trial management, other important issues.

  • The Need for a Trial
  • The Proposed Trial
  • Trial Management

Project Grant Competition FAQs

Priority announcements and the project grant - frequently asked questions, peer review committee mandates – project grant program.

As of the Fall 2022 Project Grant Competition, please note the following changes to the indicated peer review committees:

  • Developmental Biology (DEV) and Endocrinology (E) have permanently been dissolved due to consistently low application pressure, and their focus areas have been embedded into other committees' mandates, for example, Cell and Developmental Physiology (CBC) and Clinical Investigation A: Reproduction, Maternal, Child and Youth Health (CIA)
  • Immunology & Transplantation (IT) has been replaced by Immunology (IMN)
  • The NSA committee has changed its name from Systems & Clinical Neurosciences to Systems & Circuits Neurosciences
  • The CBC committee has changed its name from Cell Biology – Physiology to Cell and Developmental Physiology

These changes were developed in consultation with the reviewer community during the Spring 2021, Fall 2021, and Spring 2022 Project Grant competitions, to ensure that the mandates remain relevant in the current research environment. Please ensure that you read the mandates carefully prior to submitting your registration, as most of them have changed slightly.

The following table presents an alphabetized list of peer review committees and their corresponding mandates for the Project Grant Program. When applying for funding, at the time of registration, you should suggest up to two committees whose mandates most closely align with your research project. Please review the committee mandates before applying in order to correctly identify the best committees for the review of your application. Suggested committees must remain unchanged between registration and application. If your application overlaps with more than one area of science, please select the peer review committees that best reflect the research area and objectives of your application. CIHR will consult with committee Chairs and Scientific Officers in assigning applications to specific committees, and will make the final decision on which peer review committee will review each application based on the summary of proposed research received during the registration stage. The final committee selected may not necessarily be your first or second choice as the authority for the assignment of applications to a peer review committee rests with CIHR.

The final list of committees held for a given competition may differ from the list of committees available at the time of the registration. Applicants will be informed of which peer review committee reviewed their application on their Notices of Recommendation and of Decision.

Resubmissions: How CIHR handles resubmissions

All applicants that were unsuccessful in their previous submission may resubmit their application to a subsequent Project Grant competition. These applications are considered resubmissions. Note, the question "Is this a resubmission of an unsuccessful application to the same Funding Opportunity?" is specifically asking if the application is a previous submission to the Project Grant competition.

Committee members are instructed to treat all applications, including resubmissions, as new applications . This is done in an effort to ensure that all applications are reviewed relative to each other.

If you are resubmitting an unsuccessful application, you may provide a response (maximum of 2 pages) to previous reviewers' comments from a previous Project Grant competition(s) It should be noted that addressing previous reviews does not guarantee that the application will be better positioned to be funded as it is placed in a new competition and will be evaluated relative to new applications. Furthermore, given the dynamic nature of committee membership between competitions, applications are not necessarily evaluated by the same peer reviewers from one competition to the next, although every effort is made to ensure some continuity between reviews where possible.

Peer Reviewers do not have access to the previous iteration of the application and are instructed to evaluate the application submitted as a stand-alone entity. However, they are asked to evaluate the "Response to Preview Review" section.  Depending on the cohort of applications received by a committee, an application may receive higher or lower rating and/or ranking than in previous competition depending on how it compares to the evaluation criteria and other applications' ratings/rankings.

For more information and instructions on submitting a response to previous reviews please refer to the Project Grant: Application Instructions .

Knowledge Translation  is a dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically-sound application of knowledge to improve the health of Canadians, provide more effective health services and products, and strengthen the health care system.

Commercialization and innovation refer to the component of knowledge translation that is focused on bringing intellectual property (IP) (new products, tools, or services; for full definition see below) to a state of use in the private, not-for-profit, or public sectors. CIHR is also committed to facilitating the commercialization of health research in Canada in support of its overall mandate to excel, according to internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence, in the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health for Canadians, more effective health services and products and a strengthened Canadian health care system.

Many of the inventions and discoveries arising through academic research are at a stage beyond discovery-driven research and yet are often of uncertain utility or insufficiently developed to be of interest to relevant receptor companies, organizations, and potential investors. Such IP may never be licensed, commercialized, or otherwise applied, without additional targeted research, market research, investment, and business development activities. These activities are of paramount importance, because they serve to validate, better define and add value to the IP but they require resources that typically cannot be obtained through the traditional funding mechanisms.

Commercialization projects can currently be considered for funding as part of the Commercialization (CMZ) peer review committee of the Project Grant Competition.

Commercialization projects are designed to advance discoveries/inventions towards commercializable technologies, with a view to attract new investment, create new science-based businesses, organizations and initiatives, and ultimately improve health outcomes for Canadians.

For commercialization projects, the applicant(s) should include a Research/Technical Plan and a Commercialization Plan as part of their research proposal.

Note that evaluation of applications reviewed in the Commercialization (CMZ) committee will include the assessment of both the Research and Technical plan and the Commercialization plan based on the following criteria:

  • Description, feasibility and appropriateness of the research plan;
  • Originality of the research plan and impact of the expected contributions;
  • Relevance and description of the scientific and/or technical requirements to move the invention/discovery towards commercialization;
  • Identification of the potential hurdles and how they will be addressed;
  • Qualifications and track record of the applicant(s);
  • Applicants' familiarity with the literature in the field and the current competitive, or emerging, technologies;
  • How the proposed experiments will strengthen the IP position or generate new IP.
  • Description, feasibility and appropriateness of the commercialization plan;
  • Demonstration of a need for the research;
  • Impact of proposed product/service on the health of Canadians and/or the Canadian health economy;
  • Description of the IP protection strategy, prior art, market evaluation and opportunity as appropriate;
  • Consideration of the potential barriers to commercialization;
  • Industry/sector contacts, appropriateness of the receptor company/organization;
  • Qualifications and track record of persons associated with the commercial aspects of the project and identification of the business expertise needed to complete the plan;
  • Capacity and commitment of the applicant's institution to take the project through the commercialization process;
  • Appropriateness of the milestones and follow-on steps planned at the conclusion of the project.

Definition of Intellectual Property (IP): Intellectual Property means all materials, methods, concepts, products, processes, discoveries, genetic constructs, know-how, show-how, formulae, inventions, improvements, industrial designs, processes, patterns, machines, manufactures, compositions of matter, compilations of information, whether or not legally protectable, including patents and patent applications, copyrights, trade secrets, technology, technical information, software, prototypes and specifications, including any rights to apply for protections under statutory proceedings available for those purposes, provided they are capable of protection at law.

RCT Evaluation Criteria and Headings

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experiment in which investigators randomly assign eligible human research participants or other human units of study (e.g., classrooms, clinics, playgrounds) into groups to receive or not receive one or more interventions that are being compared. The results are analyzed by comparing outcomes in the groups.

Please refer to the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS-2), Chapter 11 for important information including key requirements and recommendations for conducting trials.

Of note, irrespective of the suggested peer review committee , evaluation of all applications containing an RCT as a major component will need to consider the specific RCT evaluation criteria below . In addition, such applications containing an RCT as a major component must also be structured according to the specific headings below .

Applications considered to contain RCT as a major component include:

  • Applications exclusively containing an RCT (or multiple RCTs)
  • Studies including multiple aims where the main focus is an RCT (such as a combination of development or pre-clinical work, with a trial or a trial, with some follow-up work)
  • Any application where the majority of the budget resources are directed towards an RCT component

Applications not considered to contain RCT as a major component include:

  • Applications with multiple aims, with a small RCT being only one of those aims
  • Studies where the possibility of a small RCT is discussed, but is centered around animal-work
  • Studies where no randomization is occurring (participants may have been previously randomized, but no new randomization is being done in the context of the work proposed)
  • Studies about RCTs, but that do not contain an RCT component (e.g. translational work following a completed RCT)
  • Systematic reviews of RCTs which do not include an RCT component
  • Any non-randomized clinical trial

Evaluation Criteria

The peer review committees will take into account the following key questions when assessing each section of the application containing an RCT as a major component.

Has the importance of the issue been adequately explained in terms of:

  • Present and future resource implications for Canadian healthcare and the economy in general.
  • Are the hypotheses to be tested and/or the study objectives specified and described clearly?
  • Is the trial addressing the right question(s)?
  • Is this the right time to conduct the trial with respect to current knowledge of the intervention and current use of existing technologies?
  • Are the reasons for the study and the changes that might be implemented as a result of the study adequately explained?
  • What evidence is available to inform the need for and design of this trial (e.g.: systematic reviews)?
  • Is the proposed research compatible with the extent of the available knowledge, nationally and internationally?
  • What impact will the results have on practice or our understanding of the proposed intervention or underlying condition?
  • Will the results of the trial be generalizable beyond the immediate research setting of the trial in a way that will maximize the impact of the results?
  • Is the study design appropriate to answer the research questions posed?
  • Has sufficient account been taken within the study design of the issues of generalizability and representativeness?
  • What is the justification for the hypothesis underlying the power calculations?
  • Are the outcomes, and their measures, clearly described and appropriate to the scientific hypothesis?
  • Has the trial population been defined adequately in relation to the target population so that the results will have meaning?
  • Have the measures been validated specifically for the target population(s)?
  • Is the control group appropriate?
  • How will sources of bias be avoided or taken account of?
  • Does the proposed team of investigators have the necessary range of disciplines and experience necessary to carry out the study?
  • Does the trial team include people with experience in successfully running large multi-center trials?
  • Has adequate statistical advice been sought and incorporated?
  • Has adequate advice been sought and incorporated on other health services research issues if they are to be addressed?
  • How will the trial be coordinated?
  • What are the roles of members of the trial team?

Health Economics

CIHR does not require that health economic measures be included as outcomes in all its trials. However, it does require a clear and informed justification of why these measures are to be either included or excluded.

Quality of Life

CIHR does not require that quality of life measures be included as outcomes in all its trials. However, it does require a clear and informed justification of why these measures are to be either included or excluded.

Consumer Involvement in Trial Development

CIHR encourages the involvement of consumers and patient advocate groups with the aim of better trial design and greater acceptability of both trials and its findings.

Biological samples for future genetic analysis

The potential value of RCTs as a source of well-characterized samples for future genetic analysis is being increasingly recognized and proposals for collection of this type of sample within a trial are welcomed. However, applicants should carefully consider the balance between the potential value of the samples and the impact on recruitment and logistics of the trial.

International Collaboration

Please discuss the nature of and need for international collaboration.

If relevant, discuss the involvement of any proposed partner(s).

Irrespective of the suggested peer review committee, all applications containing an RCT as a major component must be structured according to the headings provided below.

Applications should include only the main headings by title, while the subheadings may be referred to only by number.

An entry is required under every heading and subheading.

Please note that failure to comply with these requirements can negatively impact the evaluation of your application.

1. The Need for a Trial

  • 1.1 What is the problem to be addressed?
  • 1.2 What is/are the principal research question(s) to be addressed?
  • 1.3 Why is a trial needed now? E.g. Provide evidence from the literature. Furthermore, give references to any relevant systematic review(s) Footnote 1 and discuss the need for your trial in the light of the(se) review(s). If you believe that no relevant previous trials have been done, give details of your search strategy for existing trials.
  • 1.4 How will the results of this trial be used? (E.g. contribute to knowledge translation, such as improving understanding, informing decision making and treatment guidelines, etc.)
  • 1.5 Are there any risks to the safety of participants involved in the trial? Please describe.

2. The Proposed Trial

  • 2.1 What is the proposed trial design? E.g. Open-label, double or single blinded, etc.
  • 2.2 What are the planned trial interventions? Both experimental and control.
  • 2.3 What are the proposed practical arrangements for allocating participants to trial groups? E.g. Randomization method. If stratification or minimization are to be used, give reasons and factors to be included.
  • 2.4 What are the proposed methods for protecting against sources of bias? E.g. Blinding or masking. If blinding is not possible please explain why and give details of alternative methods proposed, or implications for interpretation of the trial's results.
  • 2.5 What are the planned inclusion/exclusion criteria?
  • 2.6 What is the proposed duration of treatment period?
  • 2.7 What is the proposed frequency and duration of follow up?
  • 2.8 What are the proposed primary and secondary outcome measures?
  • 2.9 How will the outcome measures be measured at follow up?
  • 2.10 What is the proposed sample size and what is the justification for the assumptions underlying the power calculations? Include both control and treatment groups, a brief description of the power calculations detailing the outcome measures on which these have been based, and give event rates, means and medians etc. as appropriate.
  • (N.B. It is important to give the justification for the size of the difference that the trial is powered to detect. Does the sample size calculation take into account the anticipated rates of non-compliance and loss to follow-up given below?)
  • 2.11 If applicable, are health service research issues be addressed? Justify inclusion/exclusion of health economics and quality of life measures. If these measures are to be included full details should be given including power calculations.
  • 2.12 What is the planned recruitment rate? How will the recruitment be organized? Over what time period will recruitment take place? What evidence is there that the planned recruitment rate is achievable?
  • 2.13 Are there likely to be any problems with compliance? On what evidence are the compliance figures based?
  • 2.14 What is the likely rate of loss to follow up? On what evidence is the loss to follow-up rate based?
  • 2.15 How many centers will be involved?
  • 2.16 What is the proposed type of analyses?
  • 2.17 What is the proposed frequency of analyses?
  • 2.18 Are there any planned subgroup analyses?
  • 2.19 Has any pilot study been carried out using this design?

3. Trial Management

  • 3.1 What are the arrangements for day to day management of the trial? E.g. Randomization, data handling, and who will be responsible for coordination.
  • 3.2 What will be the role of each principal applicant and co-applicant proposed?
  • 3.3 Describe the trial steering committee and if relevant the data safety and monitoring committee.

CIHR requires that you adhere to all instructions and requirements to ensure fairness to all applicants. This includes using the correct font sizes, spacing, page limits etc. The reason for these formatting requirements is to ensure that all applicants have exactly the same amount of space to write their proposals. Failure to comply with these requirements may negatively impact the evaluation of the application. In cases of non-compliance, CIHR reserves the right to withdraw your application.

The Summary of Progress task is mandatory for all Nominated Principal Applicants applying to the Project Grant competition.

When completing your Project Grant application on ResearchNet, the Summary of Progress is found under “Task 2: Enter Proposal Information,” sub-task “Attach Summary of Progress.” This ensures it is appropriately placed within the Proposal section of the application for reviewers to access when completing their review. Instructions on how to complete the Summary of Progress, and what to include in this document, can be found in the Project Grant application instructions .

While some will recall the Summary of Progress from when it was last used in 2015 (in the Open Operating Grant Program, or OOGP), the scope of this current document is much wider. In 2015, the purpose of the Summary of Progress was to summarize the progress under your current grant (for returning applicants) and to summarize previous relevant work (for new applicants).

The current Summary of Progress goes further, by asking applicants to write a narrative that includes, as appropriate, the progress of their line of research; any impacts on their research (e.g., leave history, career stage, family responsibilities, pandemic impact or other circumstances); and their budget requested in relation to overall funding. For more information, consult the Project Grant application instructions .

The Summary of Progress is a narrative that will allow you to describe the reason you are requesting funding for your proposed project in the context of your broader research activities. It is not expected that applicants will provide a detailed accounting of their research history but rather, only what is relevant to the current application. It should include progress made on your research to date (including contextualizing research activities, contributions and impacts that support your current application) and any impacts on the progress of your research. Tables, figures or graphs are not permitted in the Summary of Progress. It is suggested to not duplicate the information found in your ‘Significant Contributions’ section or CV. Additionally, please note that all information necessary to adjudicate the science of your research proposal must be found in the 10 pages for English applications and 12 pages for French applications Footnote * of the research proposal (i.e., the Summary of Progress is not to be used as an extension to your proposal).

When contextualizing the amount requested vis-à-vis your funding profile, you do not need to list all grants currently or previously held or duplicate what is already found in your CCV but rather include information that helps inform and convince reviewers that this funding is needed and how it fits in to the overall research program. Any pending applications under review (CIHR or other source of funding) related to the current submission should be indicated in the Summary of Progress to help reviewers understand any potential funding overlap. It will be incumbent on the applicant to illustrate clearly to reviewers why the requested funds are needed, how they are distinct from the funds currently held, and how they will advance research.

When contextualizing your progress, productivity, and impact, there is not a specific number of years that should be provided; rather, this is an opportunity to list any activities, contributions, and impacts that are relevant to the current application .

If you are an ECR who has never held a CIHR grant before, you should use the Summary of Progress to write a narrative about your intended program of research, relevant research undertaken as a trainee and independent investigator, other sources of funds held (e.g., awards, start-up funding), and how the requested funds will advance your research activities.

If this is a new application, a narrative explaining how you came to submit this application, or where this current proposal stems from, is relevant information to share with the reviewer. If you have held a Foundation Grant, contextualize your Foundation Grant.

The Summary of Progress will provide added context that will enable a more robust peer review of your application. It will help peer reviewers understand your progress, productivity, and impacts as they relate to your ability to deliver on the project and how your proposed activities fit into your overarching research program and address why the requested funds are needed and how will they advance your research.

Contextualizing your current and pending funding will help peer reviewers assess your progress, productivity and impact as well as the need for new funds in the context of the overall research program and provide them with the confidence to move forward with a recommendation. This also adds more accountability in respect to applicants’ requests for funding.

The Summary of Progress will provide CIHR with valuable information as we move toward removing the across-the-board budget cuts applied to all funded applications. Our intent is to provide greater discretion to peer review committees on budget allocations, and the Summary of Progress is a tool to allow them to make these judgements.

If an applicant provides a response to previous reviews, they must attach all the reviews and Scientific Officer (SO) notes (if provided) they received related to reviews to which they are responding. Applicants may choose to respond only to comments that are relevant to their revised application.

For example, an applicant submits an application to the spring competition, and it is not approved for funding. They reapply to a subsequent competition (e.g., the next fall competition) and choose to respond to previous reviews from their previous submission in the spring. They must attach all the reviews and SO notes (if provided) from the spring competition. Should the application submitted to the fall competition also not be approved and they reapply to the next spring competition (this would be their third submission of that application), the applicant can respond to comments from only the fall application, only again from the previous spring competition or both competitions. When an applicant refers to comments from a particular competition, all reviews and SO notes (if provided) of that competition MUST be attached.

Scenario 1:

The applicant has been unsuccessful in two competitions and is preparing for their third resubmission (and therefore has two sets of reviews from two previous competitions that they may choose to address as part of their response to previous reviews).

For their third resubmission, in the 2-page response to previous reviews, the applicants chose to address certain comments only from their latest round of evaluations. They are addressing one comment from Reviewer 1 and one comment from Reviewer 2; they chose to not address any comments from Reviewer 3.

In this scenario, the applicants must include all the reviews from the latest round of evaluations (Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, and Reviewer 3) and SO notes (if provided), even though they have chosen to not address any comments from Reviewer 3. Because they chose not to address any comments from the reviews from their very first submission, those reviews do not need to be attached.

Scenario 2:

For their third resubmission, in the 2-page response to previous reviews, the applicant chose to address certain comments from the latest competition, and from their very first submission. They are addressing one comment from Reviewer 1 and one comment from Reviewer 2 from the previous competition and choosing not to address any comments from Reviewer 3. In addition, they are addressing a comment from Reviewer 1 from their very first submission.

In this scenario, the applicants are expected to provide previous reviews from all reviewers and SO notes (if provided) stemming from BOTH competitions.

No, previous reviewer comments may only stem from previous Project Grant competitions.

All Canadian academic applicants, regardless of their role on the application, must submit a Biosketch CV which is completed through the Canadian Common CCV. CIHR continues to pull important data from the CCV and it is closely linked to the underlying infrastructure of CIHR’s grants management system.

If you are a knowledge user, non-academic, an Indigenous organization, or an international applicant, you have the option of submitting either a Biosketch CV or a streamlined Applicant Profile CV. The instructions for how to complete an Applicant Profile CV can be found on the CIHR website. Although the Applicant Profile CV may not exceed three pages, there are no section restrictions; therefore, as an applicant you can choose what to emphasize. If you are a non-academic, it is possible that not all sections are applicable to you.

Collaborators are not required to provide a CV.

In their evaluation of the application, peer reviewers assess whether or not sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) is a strength, weakness, or not applicable; this is to be reflected within their written evaluation and the overall score assigned to the application.

We have taken steps to prepare for former Foundation Grant-holders to transition back into the Project Grant program, by providing transition options to Foundation grantees (including staggering former Foundation grantees’ return to Project, deferrals, and grant-size reductions). You can read about transition planning considerations for Foundation grant-holders on the CIHR website.

CIHR is investing the funding previously allocated for the Foundation Grant program, as it becomes available, directly into the Project Grant program. When the Foundation program sunsetted, the planned investment per annual Foundation competition was $100M. This means that, starting with the Spring 2021 Project Grant competition, approximately $50M is being added to each twice-yearly Project Grant competition. Total budgets for Project Grant competitions are therefore being increased from $275M to approximately $325M, for a total investment in CIHR’s investigator-initiated research program of approximately $650M per year.

CIHR will ensure that the proportion of grants funded for ECRs, female NPIs and applicants submitting in French is at least equal to the proportion of ECRs, female NPIs and applicants submitting in French who apply to the competition. In other words, we are equalizing success rates for these groups, if needed. A separate funding envelope is reserved for these equalization exercises and if it is not fully needed, it is reinvested within the Project Grant competition.

If highly ranked applications from ECRs , female NPIs, and applications written in French are not funded at a level at least equal to the rates at which these groups have applied, then CIHR intervenes by funding additional applicants based on their percent rank. ECRs, female NPIs, and applicants submitting in French funded through this process are combined and treated as separate cohorts for the purpose of making funding decisions. This means that the intervention is completed at the competition level and not the committee level to ensure that the top applicants are selected.

The peer review process hosted virtually mimics the in-person face-to-face process. While CIHR has made some adjustments to account for the technology and the fact that meetings have moved online, all core aspects of in-person peer review have been retained.

We have heard from the community that there are benefits to virtual peer review (e.g., improved work-life balance, reduced carbon footprint). Virtual peer review also makes it possible for some individuals to participate in peer review where face-to-face meetings would not be feasible for them. This allows us to include a greater diversity of individuals across panels and provides the agency with a broader pool of reviewers. Virtual peer review also benefits diversity by including more international reviewers. This feedback and on-going evaluation of the virtual process is informing our thinking as we determine, with the community, our approach to peer review moving forward.

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) is a global initiative whose purpose is to support the development and promotion of best practices in the assessment of scholarly research. DORA recognizes the need to improve the ways in which research is evaluated, beyond widely used journal-based metrics. As a signatory of DORA , CIHR has reaffirmed its commitment to excellence in research evaluation. CIHR recognizes and values a broader range of contributions and emphasizes their quality and impact.

CIHR's approach to research assessment within the Project Grant Competition already reflected many of the DORA principles, such as encouraging peer reviewers to consider a range of research outputs broader than published journal articles. The updates to the guidance further encourage the assessment of research rather than prestige, including directing reviewers that they should not use journal-based metrics as surrogate measures of the quality of individual research publications. The updated guidance materials provide examples of more inclusive and expansive contributions to help in the crafting and assessment of applications.

Applicants can highlight a range of research contributions and impacts in their CV, Summary of Progress and/or in their Most Significant Contributions sections of their applications. This could include contributions such as: research publications, reports, books, guidelines, datasets, code, tools, training and mentorship, volunteerism, community engagement, standards, software, and commercialized products—and impacts such as how your work has influenced policy and practice, health outcomes, societal outcomes, and whether you have engaged in distinctions-based, meaningful, and culturally safe health research.

Peer reviewers are directed to consider a range of contributions and impacts in their assessment of applications. Peer reviewers are also directed to consider the context of applicants and how that may have affected their productivity.

CIHR is pleased to support a number of Priority Announcements as part of the Project Grant competition. The complete listing of Priority Announcements is now available.

Priority Announcements (PAs) are additional sources of potential funding for highly ranked applications submitted to the Project Grant competition. The PAs outline specific research areas relevant to CIHR Institutes, Initiatives and Partners, and applications that align with those areas may be selected for funding – without having to re-apply.

There are three types of PAs:

  • One-year grant / Multi-year Grant : Applications below the Project Grant Competition's funding cut-off that are deemed relevant to a PA will be funded top-down until the PA funds are exhausted.
  • Supplemental Funding (“Top-up”): encourage the inclusion of specific research approaches or analysis in applications funded by the Project Grant Competition.
  • Prizes/Awards : Prizes or Awards are not selected by the applicant. A Prize (or Award) is allocated to the highest ranked funded applications that are relevant to a specific area of research and/or career (stage such as Early Career Investigators) in order to recognize excellence in research. Prizes are supplemental grant funds to support research, they are not a personal award.
  • Applicants submit their applications to the Project Grant competition, following all application instructions as they normally would. The only difference in the application process is that the applicant can also identify up to three PAs for consideration.
  • Each PA will include a description of the target research area that it will support. Applicants are encouraged to read the description of all PAs to identify those that are relevant to their work. Some PAs will require the applicant to complete a relevance form by entering approximately one half-page of free form text to describe how and why their application is relevant to the areas described in the PA. For PAs that do not require a relevance form, the application's relevance to a given PA will be assessed using the summary of your research proposal (from the application).
  • The relevance form provided by the applicant and/or the summary of research proposal (depending on the PA's specific requirements) will be considered by the CIHR Institute or Initiative, or by the funding Partner supporting the PA. Applications deemed relevant to (or in alignment with) the research areas described in the PA will be considered for PA funding.
  • Within their application to the Project Grant competition, applicants must consent to the sharing of information in order to be considered for Priority Announcements. Applicants who do not consent to this sharing of information will be considered ineligible for Priority Announcements.
  • The application is assessed through the Project Grant peer review process, as usual.
  • When the peer review process for the Project Grant competition is complete, funding decisions will be made. CIHR funds applications in rank order until the competition funds are exhausted. This is often described as the “funding cut-off.”
  • Inevitably, highly ranked and meritorious applications fall below the funding cut-off for the competition. It is these applications – the ones that are highly ranked but ultimately not funded through the budget available for the Project Grant competition – that may be supported through a Bridge-type or multi-year grant PA. Note: Applications rated below 3.5 are not eligible for PA funding.
  • Supplemental funding (“Top-up”) will be allocated to the highest-ranking funded Project Grant applications that are relevant to the selected PAs.
  • Prizes (or Awards) will be allocated to the highest-ranking funded Project Grant applications deemed relevant to a Prize PA.

Each PA is different. The funds available for a given PA will be noted in the PA description in the funding opportunity.

If your application is not deemed relevant to the PA, then your application will remain in the Project Grant competition (as per usual) but will not be considered for funding for that PA funding.

Additional funds would only be received if the PA was supplemental funding or a Prize. For any other type of PA, if your application is funded through the Project Grant peer review process, then your full application will only be funded through the Project Grant competition budget and not the PA. In this case, the PA funds would be used to support the next highly ranked application on the list that falls below the funding cut-off.

PAs are a great way to build capacity in different research areas while still encouraging applicants to submit their best and brightest ideas to the Project Grant competition. Through the PA mechanism, CIHR is able to meet its obligation as a federal funder to support investigator-initiated research as well as research into targeted areas addressing some of Canada’s most pressing health concerns.

PAs also reduce applicant and reviewer burden, as applicants do not need to submit a separate application to become eligible for PA funds and reviewers do not need to volunteer their time for a separate competition.

Finally, PAs also offer CIHR’s Institutes an efficient and cost-effective opportunity to support their goals and strategic plans. Some Institutes may wish to dedicate funds to underserved areas of their mandate, while others may use PAs to catalyze important work in emerging research fields.

No. It is not CIHR’s practice to count PA grant funding as part of the competition’s success rate, as the numbers could easily be misunderstood or perceived as inflated. That said, PA grants are important sources of funding and support excellent research across the country.

If your application is the top-ranked application on two PA lists, then you will be awarded one (not both).

No. The “relevance review” process for a PA is separate from the peer review process for the Project Grant competition. The peer reviewers for the Project Grant competition will not assess your application’s relevance to a given PA, nor will your application’s relevance (or lack thereof) have any impact on the peer review deliberations.

The Notice of Decision documentation issued to all applicants at the end of the competition process will include the relevance assessment from the applicant’s PA choice(s).

Representatives from the Institute, Initiative, or Partner funding the PA will complete the relevance review based on relevance forms and/or the summary of your research proposal. Their decisions are final and are not open to appeal. Therefore, it is imperative that you provide a compelling and factual case regarding the application’s relevance to the stated priority areas in the relevance form or demonstrate it clearly in the summary.

The CIHR Contact Centre is available to answer any questions or provide support.

project grant instructions

  • NIH Grants & Funding
  • Blog Policies

NIH Extramural Nexus

project grant instructions

Project Summary/Abstract and Project Narrative: What’s the Difference and What to Include

14 comments.

When writing an NIH grant application, applicants are asked to develop a Project Summary/Abstract and a Project Narrative, two sections that, if funded, are made available on RePORTER to help the public understand the value of NIH-funded research. Check out the table below to see how they compare and what to include.

For more guidance, see the Application Guide for Project Summary/Abstract and Project Narrative .

RELATED NEWS

Why not change the name of the “Narrative” to “Public Health Statement” to more clearly guide applicants?

Your suggestion makes perfect sense, Jed, and we would love to do that. But the form is a fed-wide form used by the research agencies, many of which do not have missions associated with public health, so the field name needs to be generic.

For the Project Summary/Abstract, this page says, “Use plain language understandable by a general audience,” while the application instructions say, “This section should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields and understandable to a scientifically literate reader.” Which is it?

Please follow the application instructions in this case. We have updated the post to reflect this. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Is there a specific form that should be uploaded for the narrative or is a pdf with three sentences in it sufficient?

There is no specific format required.

If the proposal is going to be awarded, can a project summary/abstract be changed/modified before the award is issued?

There may be situations where the summary/abstract is updated prior to award. In such cases, the funding IC will work with the applicant to update as appropriate.

Can we change the summary/abstract during the annual noncompetitive renewal?

Can you please add the Specific Aims to this table comparison? I am confused why you are having us write both a Summary and a Specific Aims, which seems like a duplication of the work. Thanks

I agree. If you submit specific aims in a separate document, why are they to be included in the project summary which is only 30 lines?

For the Project Summary/Abstract, can you please confirm if blank lines do not count toward the 30 lines of text limit and also if a document header does count as a line of text?

Can you include figures in the abstract?

The Project Summary/Abstract format requirement states it’s limited to 30 lines of text, and must follow the required font and margin specifications. There’s further information that states “The entire “Project Summary/Abstract” attachment is limited to 30 lines of text”. Does this mean the heading would be included in the 30 lines of text?

Before submitting your comment, please review our blog comment policies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

National Endowment for the Arts

  • Grants for Arts Projects
  • Challenge America
  • Research Awards
  • Partnership Agreement Grants
  • Creative Writing
  • Translation Projects
  • Volunteer to be an NEA Panelist
  • Manage Your Award
  • Recent Grants
  • Arts & Human Development Task Force
  • Arts Education Partnership
  • Blue Star Museums
  • Citizens' Institute on Rural Design
  • Creative Forces: NEA Military Healing Arts Network
  • GSA's Art in Architecture
  • Independent Film & Media Arts Field-Building Initiative
  • International
  • Mayors' Institute on City Design
  • Musical Theater Songwriting Challenge
  • National Folklife Network
  • NEA Big Read
  • NEA Research Labs
  • Poetry Out Loud
  • Save America's Treasures
  • Shakespeare in American Communities
  • Sound Health Network
  • United We Stand
  • American Artscape Magazine
  • NEA Art Works Podcast
  • National Endowment for the Arts Blog
  • States and Regions
  • Accessibility
  • Arts & Artifacts Indemnity Program
  • Arts and Health
  • Arts Education
  • Creative Placemaking
  • Equity Action Plan
  • Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
  • Literary Arts
  • Native Arts and Culture
  • NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships
  • National Heritage Fellowships
  • National Medal of Arts
  • Press Releases
  • Upcoming Events
  • NEA Chair's Page
  • Leadership and Staff
  • What Is the NEA
  • Publications
  • National Endowment for the Arts on COVID-19
  • Open Government
  • Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
  • Office of the Inspector General
  • Civil Rights Office
  • Appropriations History
  • Make a Donation

GRANTS FOR ARTS PROJECTS

Grants for Arts Projects (GAP) provides expansive funding opportunities to strengthen the nation’s arts and cultural ecosystem. Grants are available for arts projects in a wide variety of artistic disciplines. Each discipline has identified the types of projects that are of greatest interest within this program as well as the characteristics of competitive applications.

Applicants may request cost share/matching grants ranging from $10,000 to $100,000.

Designated local arts agencies eligible to subgrant may request from $30,000 to $150,000 for subgranting programs in the Local Arts Agencies discipline .

A minimum cost share/match equal to the grant amount is required for all grant recipients.

Read the “Program Description” located in the left sidebar to get started .

Stay Connected to the National Endowment for the Arts

Official websites use .gov

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

project grant instructions

FY 2024 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO
Programs Benefiting Refugees in Ethiopia

Funding Opportunity Announcement

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

February 8, 2024

Basic Information

Funding Opportunity Number:   DFOP0005136 Assistance Listings (CFDA) number: 19.517 – Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for Africa Announcement issuance date: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Announcement type: Cooperative Agreement Proposal application submission deadline: Friday, March 22, 2024 at 11:59:59 p.m. EDT (23:59:59) Proposals submitted after this deadline will not be considered. Anticipated timeframe to award for selected proposals:   Pending the availability of funds, PRM anticipates, but makes no guarantee, that awards will be made less than five months from the proposal submission deadline. Advisory:   All applicants must submit proposal application packages through the website Grants.gov.   PRM strongly recommends submitting your application packages early to allow time to address any technical difficulties that may arise on the Grants.gov website.

If you are new to PRM funding, the Grants.gov registration process can be complicated.   We urge you to refer to PRM’s General NGO Guidelines “Application Process” section for information and resources to help ensure that the application process runs smoothly.   PRM also strongly encourages organizations that have received funding from PRM in the past to read this section as a refresher.

PRM strongly recommends application narratives be submitted in Adobe PDF, as Microsoft Word documents may sometimes produce different page lengths based on software versions and configurations when transmitted.   Tables and budget documents should be submitted as Excel documents. Page limits are strictly adhered to, and PRM will not review pages of the narrative beyond the stated limit, which may negatively impact the concept note score.   All documents must be in English and should avoid the use of jargon and should spell out all acronyms upon first use.

Organizations can retrieve PRM’s-recommended templates and NGO guidelines on PRM’s website and in this opportunity’s grants.gov page.

Program Description

This announcement is designed to accompany PRM’s General NGO Guidelines , which contain additional information on PRM’s priorities and NGO funding strategy with which selected organizations must comply.   Please use both the General NGO Guidelines and this announcement to ensure that your submission is in full compliance with PRM requirements and that the proposed activities are in line with PRM’s priorities.   Submissions that do not reflect the requirements outlined in these guidelines will not be considered.

Geographic Regions / Populations

Proposed activities must primarily support refugees in Afar, Amhara, and the Gambella regions of Ethiopia.   Because of PRM’s mandate to provide protection, assistance, and sustainable solutions for refugees and victims of conflict, PRM will consider funding only those programs that include a target program participant base of at least 50 percent refugees.

Program area (For PRM Use)

Proposals must align with one or more of the following program areas.

  • Humanitarian Protection and Assistance
  • Interim and Durable Solutions

Program Sectors and Modalities

Proposals must focus on one or more of the following programmatic sectors (see PRM’s General NGO Guidelines for sector descriptions):

  • Food Security

Note: In order to ensure greater accountability for protection outcomes in all overseas assistance program proposals , three indicators are required for all programs regardless of design or sector.   If the proposed program will not contribute to one or several of these mandatory indicators, the indicator must still be included in the proposal indicator table but with a target of zero.

  • PRM-1. Number of individuals directly reached through PRM funding.
  • PRM-2. Amount of humanitarian funding distributed to local, national, or refugee-led organizations (in USD) – This amount should include any sub-awards or contracts with local, national, or refugee-led organizations.   If the prime applicant is a local, national, or refugee-led organization, they should put the full proposal budget total as the target value.   Refer to the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) working definition of “local” and “national” organizations .   Applicants should put a target of zero for this indicator if it does not apply to them; it will not affect their eligibility.
  • PRM-3. Percentage of participants who report that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible, accountable, and participatory manner – This is a protection mainstreaming indicator developed by the Directorate General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) and adopted by the Grand Bargain.   Research or coordination awards that don’t involve community implementation are exempt from this indicator.   Please refer to the PRM Performance Indicator Reference & Definition Sheets (PIRS) for a sample questionnaire and analysis guidance.

Note:   Cash and Voucher Assistance programs must include the relevant indicator(s) from the selection contained in the NGO Guidelines Appendix D.

Number of Proposal Applications

Organizations may submit a maximum of one application only .   Any subsequent submissions received will be disqualified. Applications may cover multiple refugee sites and multiple sectors.

Country-specific Guidelines

Ethiopia Country-Specific Guidance General Guidance

Proposed activities must primarily support refugee populations in regions as identified below.   PRM will only review proposals for a target population base of at least 50 percent refugees. Programs should, whenever possible, pursue a community-based approach that also benefits host communities.   It is strongly encouraged that programs mainstream protection activities, including gender-based violence (GBV) risk mitigation, inclusion of marginalized groups, mental health and psychosocial support, and prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse and sexual harassment measures (i.e., continuous training for all staff, volunteers and program participants), across proposed sectors and activities.   Given budgetary restraints, PRM encourages joint proposals from two or more NGOs working in complementary sectors.

For activities in the refugee hosting areas of Afar , Amhara , and Gambella , proposals must focus on one or more of the following sectors:

  • Health (Health projects should include an integrated approach to sexual and reproductive health and HIV prevention and treatment.)

Duration of Activity

Program plans for one year will be considered.

Period of Performance

Programs period of performance of 12 months will be considered. Funding limits

Program proposals must not be less than the funding floor and not more than the funding ceiling per year or they will be disqualified.

  • Funding floor per year (lowest $ value) : $500,000
  • Funding ceiling per year (highest $ value) : $2,000,000

Anticipated Number of Awards

The amount of funding available per award for this NOFO will be determined once final FY 2024 appropriations have been made. This NOFO will be cancelled if FY 2024 appropriations are insufficient to support new awards.

Anticipated Amount to be Awarded Total

The amount of funding available per award for this NOFO will be determined as part of the application review process based on applications received and funding made available through appropriations.

Federal Award Information

  • Proposed program start dates:   August 1 – September 1, 2024
  • Duration of Activity:   See country-specific guidelines above.

Eligibility Information

Eligible applicants:.

  • Nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education ( U.S.-based NGOs must be able to demonstrate proof of non-profit tax status) .
  • Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education ( overseas-based NGOs must be able to demonstrate proof of registration in country of domicile) ; and
  • International Organizations.   International multilateral organizations, such as United Nations agencies, should not submit proposals through Grants.gov in response to this NOFO.   Multilateral organizations that are seeking funding for programs relevant to this announcement should contact the PRM Program Officer (as listed below) on or before the closing date of the funding announcement.

Cost Sharing or Matching:   Cost sharing, matching, or cost participation is not a requirement of an application in response to this funding announcement.

Proposals for consideration should describe the sources and amounts of additional funding that may be utilized to complement PRM funding, and meet the following criteria:

  • Are not paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award.
  • Are verifiable from the non-Federal entity’s records.
  • Are not included as contributions for any other Federal award; and
  • Are necessary and reasonable for accomplishment of project or program objectives.

Please include this information in the Budget Summary, Budget Detail, and Budget Narrative of the proposal, and separated from the PRM share of the proposed budget.

Note: Though favorably looked upon, inclusion will not result in a competitive ranking increase when evaluated.

Proposals must have a concrete implementation plan with well-conceived objectives and indicators that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and reliable, time-bound, and trackable (SMART), and have established baselines; objectives should be clearly linked to the sectors.

Proposals must adhere to relevant international standards for humanitarian assistance, especially Sphere Standards .   See PRM’s General NGO Guidelines for a complete list of sector-specific standards including guidance on proposals for programs in urban areas.

PRM strongly encourages programs that target the needs of vulnerable and underserved groups among the program participant population (such groups may include women; children; adolescents; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex (LGBTQI+) individuals; older persons; the sick; persons with disabilities; and members of minority communities) and can demonstrate what steps have been taken to meet the specific and unique protection and assistance needs of these vulnerable groups effectively.

PRM will accept proposals from any NGO working in the above-mentioned sectors although, given budgetary constraints, priority will be given to proposals from organizations that can demonstrate:

  • a working relationship with UNHCR.
  • a proven track record in providing proposed assistance both in the sector and specified location.
  • evidence of coordination with international organizations (IOs) and other NGOs working in the same area or sector as well as – where possible – local authorities.
  • an emphasis on the outcome or impact of program activities.
  • a strong sustainability plan, involving local capacity building, where feasible.
  • where applicable, adherence to PRM’s Principles for Refugee Protection in Urban Areas ; and
  • an understanding of and sensitivity to conflict dynamics in the program location.

Application and Submission Instructions

  • Where to Request Application Package:   Application packages may be downloaded from the website www.Grants.gov .
  • Content and Form of Application:   PRM strongly recommends using the proposal and budget templates that are available on PRM’s website.

Single-Year Proposals:

Single-year program proposal page limits:.

Single-year proposals using PRM’s templates must not exceed 15 pages in length (Times New Roman or Calibri 12-point font, letter sized paper, one-inch margins on all sides).   If the applicant does not use PRM’s recommended templates, proposals must not exceed 10 pages in length.   Organizations may choose to attach work plans, activity calendars, and/or logical frameworks as addendums/appendices to the proposal but are not required to do so.   These attachments do not count toward the page limit total; however, annexes cannot be relied upon as a key source of program information.   The proposal narrative must be able to stand on its own in the application process.

  • PRM strongly recommends application narrative be submitted in Adobe PDF, as Microsoft Word documents may sometimes produce different page lengths based on software versions and configurations. Tables and budget documents should be submitted as Excel documents.
  • Page limits are strictly adhered to, and PRM will not review pages of the narrative beyond the stated limit, which may negatively impact the proposal’s score .
  • All documents must be in English and should avoid the use of jargon and should spell out all acronyms upon first use.

Application Package

To be considered for PRM funding, organizations must submit a complete application package, including:

Proposal Narrative not exceeding stated page limits.

Indicator table: including all required prm indicators and targets for each year (if multi-year)., cash and voucher assistances (cva) modality must report on cva indicators, completed budget table including summary and detail tabs, disaggregated by year and for each year of the program period (for multi-year proposals)., include total costs by objective and estimated costs by sector,, total costs divided by country (if applicable), budget narrative disaggregated by year and for each year of the program period., completed and signed sf-424 andsf-424a.   prm requires that box 21 of the sf-424 be checked. , if the applicant organization has an active registration in sam.gov that was either created or updated on or after february 2, 2019, then the applicant does not need to submit the sf-424b as they will be prompted to complete the representations and certifications in sam.gov., risk assessment and security plan..

  • Note: Codes of Conduct must be consistent with the updated 2019 IASC Task Force’s Six Core Principles . The country/regional implementation plan should outline how employees are trained and otherwise made aware of the Code of Conduct, how violations of the Code of Conduct against program participants are reported and followed up on in a safe and confidential manner, how program participants are made aware of the Code of Conduct and a mechanism to report any violations, and whether there is a focal point in the country or regional office for the Code of Conduct.
  • Applicants must furnish names, titles, and brief biographical information on the education and experience of key personnel in implementing the program and key supervisory personnel; (i.e., the members of the professional staff in a program supervisory position engaged for or assigned to duties under the award).
  • A Market Analysis and a Participant Competency/Capacity Assessment for all proposals that include at least one livelihoods sector objective (or will be disqualified), if applicable.   Please see the General NGO Guidelines for more details.
  • Most recent Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA), if applicable, or a de minimis rate calculation of Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC) if the applicant is eligible and elects to use the de minimis rate .
  • Most recent external audit report is required prior to issuance of an award, if proposal is chosen for implementation.
  • Information in support of any cost-sharing/cost-matching arrangements, if applicable.
  • Information detailing the source of any in-kind contributions, if applicable.
  • Details on any sub-agreements associated with the program including the budget detail (must be part of the budget submission as noted above), if applicable.
  • Organizational Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) Framework (is required prior to issuance of an award, if proposal is chosen for implementation)

Additionally, organizations must consider the following as part of their proposal package:

  • Focus on outcome or impact indicators as much as possible.   At a minimum, each objective should have one outcome or impact indicator. 
  • Include specific information on locations of programs and participants (GPS coordinates highly recommended) to increase PRM’s ability to track the impact of PRM funding.
  • Outline how the NGO will acknowledge PRM funding.   If an organization believes that publicly acknowledging the receipt of USG funding for a particular PRM-funded program could potentially endanger the lives of the program participants and/or the organization staff, invite suspicion about the organization’s motives, or alienate the organization from the population it is trying to help, it must provide a brief explanation in its proposal as to why it should be exempted from this requirement.
  • PRM expects each proposal, regardless of sector, to demonstrate protection mainstreaming, including by identifying potential protection risks associated with the program and how they will be mitigated.   Assistance activities should mainstream protection by analyzing the protection risks in relation to each specific programming sector.   An analysis of the risks should inform how assistance is designed to minimize them and maximize protection of program participants.   Applicants may introduce gender-specific risks in this section but should provide a full analysis in the gender analysis.
  • experiences of men, women, boys, and girls with a focus on the different familial roles, community privileges, and gender dynamics within the target population;
  • associated risks and threats experienced by women, girls, and other vulnerable populations based on their gender;
  • power imbalances and needs that arise based on gender inequalities that exist within the family or community; and
  • proposed responses that will address the above and mitigate any gender differences in access, participation, or decision-making that may be experienced by at-risk groups, particularly women and girls.   The gender analysis should aim to specify and target specific at-risk sub-populations of women and girls, such as women and girl heads of households, out-of-school girls, women and girls with disabilities, women and girl survivors of violence, married girls, adolescent mothers, as well as people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex (LGBTQI+), and those who are often unaware of and excluded from programs and services and who may be the hardest to reach based on their gender.
  • The budget should include a specific breakdown of funds being provided by UNHCR, other USG agencies, other donors, and your own organization.
  • Applicants whose proposals address gender-based violence (GBV) through their programs must estimate the total cost of these activities as a separate line item in their proposed budgets (see PRM’s budget template).   Proposals and budgets must include details of any sub-agreements associated with the programs.
  • For consortia only, a description of how the partnership will be organized and how lines of authority and decision-making will be managed across all team members and between the lead applicant and associate awardees should be included in the proposal. 

C. Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) and System for Award Management (SAM)

Note: On April 4, 2022, the formerly used DUNS Number was replaced by the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) UEI.   For more information on the process, visit GSA’s website on the UEI transition.

Each applicant is required to:

  • be registered in SAM before submitting its application.
  • provide a valid UEI number in its application; and
  • continue to always maintain an active SAM registration with current information during which it has an active PRM award or an application or plan under consideration by PRM.

No federal award may be made to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable UEI and SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the PRM award is ready to be made, PRM may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a PRM award and use that determination as a basis for making a PRM award to another applicant.

D. Applications must be submitted via Grants.gov.   Grants.gov registration requires a UEI number and active SAM.gov registration.   If you are new to PRM funding, the Grants.gov registration process can be complicated.   We urge you to refer to PRM’s General NGO Guidelines “Application Process” section for information and resources to help ensure that the application process runs smoothly.   PRM also strongly encourages organizations that have received funding from PRM in the past to read this section as a refresher.   Applicants may also refer to the “ For Applicants ” page on Grants.gov for complete details on requirements.

Do not wait until the deadline to attempt to submit your application on Grants.gov.   Organizations not registered with Grants.gov should register well in advance of the deadline as it can take several weeks to finalize registration (sometimes longer for non-U.S. based NGOs to receive required registration numbers).   We also recommend that organizations, particularly first-time applicants, submit applications via Grants.gov no later than one week before the deadline to avoid last-minute technical difficulties that could result in an application not being considered.   PRM has extremely limited ability to correct or facilitate rapid resolution to technical difficulties associated with Grants.gov, SAM.gov or UEI number issues.   PRM partners must maintain an active SAM.gov registration with current and correct information at all times during which they have an active federal award or an application under consideration by PRM or any federal agency.

When registering with Grants.gov , organizations must designate points of contact and Authorized Organization Representatives (AORs).   Please note that as of December 2022, organizations based outside of the United States that do not intend to apply for U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) awards are no longer required to have a NATO CAGE (NCAGE) code to apply for non-DoD foreign assistance funding opportunities. If an applicant organization is mid-registration and wishes to remove an NCAGE code from their sam.gov registration, the applicant should submit a help desk ticket (“incident”) with the Federal Service Desk (FSD) online to seek guidance on how to do so. Applicants experiencing technical difficulties with the SAM.gov registration process should contact the Federal Service Desk   online or at 1- 866-606-8220 (U.S.) and 1-334-206-7828 (International).

Applications must be submitted under the authority of the Authorized Organization Representative at the applicant organization.   Having proposals submitted by agency headquarters helps to avoid possible technical problems.

If you encounter technical difficulties with Grants.gov please contact the Grants.gov Help Desk at [email protected] or by calling 1-800-518-4726.

Applicants who are unable to submit applications via Grants.gov due to Grants.gov technical difficulties and.

  • who have reported the problem to the Grants.gov help desk.
  • received a case number.
  • have completed UEI and SAM.gov registrations.
  • and had a documented service request opened to research the problem.

Applicants may contact the PRM NGO Coordinator before the submission deadline to determine whether an alternative method of submission is appropriate.   However, PRM makes no guarantee to accept an application outside of the grants.gov system.

It is the responsibility of each applicant to ensure the appropriate registrations are in place and active.   Failure to have the appropriate organizational registrations in place or are experiencing issues resulting from discrepancies across registration platforms is not considered a technical difficulty and is not justification for an alternate means of submission.

In accordance with 2 CFR §200.113, Mandatory disclosures, the non-Federal entity or applicant for a federal award must disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award.   Non-Federal entities that have received a federal award including the term and condition outlined in Appendix XII—Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters are required to report certain civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings to SAM.   Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 2 CFR §200.338 Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment.   (See also 2 CFR part 180, 31 U.S.C.   3321, and 41 U.S.C.   2313.)

E. Submission Dates and Times

  • Announcement issuance date: February 6, 2024
  • Proposal submission deadline: Friday, March 22, 2024 at 11:59:59 p.m. EDT (23:59:59) Applications submitted after this deadline will not be considered.

F. Intergovernmental Review: Not Applicable

G. Funding Restrictions:   Federal awards will not allow reimbursement of Federal Award costs without prior authorization by PRM.

H. Other Submission Requirements

  • Fully funded by the award: “Gift of the United States Government”
  • Partially funded by the award: “Funding provided by the United States Government”

PRM highly encourages recognition of U.S. Government funding on social media and website platforms to be included in proposals branding and marking strategy.   Recipients should tag PRM’s Twitter account @StatePRM and/or Facebook account @State.PRM (rather than using hashtags).   Additionally, the applicable U.S. Embassy should be tagged as well. 

Updates of actions taken to fulfill this requirement must be included in quarterly program reports to PRM.

All programs, projects, assistance, activities, and public communications to foreign audiences, partially or fully funded by the Department, must be marked appropriately overseas with the standard U.S. flag in a size and prominence equal to (or greater than) any other logo or identity.   The requirement does not apply to the Recipient’s own corporate communications or in the United States.

The Recipient must appropriately ensure that all publicity and promotional materials underscore the sponsorship by or partnership with the U.S. Government or the U.S. Embassy.   The Recipient may continue to use existing logos or project materials; however, a standard rectangular U.S. flag must be used in conjunction with such logos.

Do not use the Department of State seal without the express written approval from PRM. 

Sub non-Federal entities (sub-awardees) and subsequent tier sub-award agreements are subject to the marking requirements and the non-Federal entity shall include a provision in the sub non-Federal entity agreement indicating that the standard, rectangular U.S. flag is a requirement.   Exemptions from this requirement may be allowable but must be agreed to in writing by the Grants Officer.   (Note: An exemption refers to the complete or partial cessation of branding, not use of alternative branding).   Requests should be initiated with the Grants Officer and Grants Officer Representative.   Waivers issued are applied only to the exemptions requested through the Recipient’s proposal for funding and any subsequent negotiated revisions.

In the event the non-Federal entity does not comply with the marking requirements as established in the approved assistance agreement, the Grants Officer Representative and the Grants Officer must initiate corrective action with the non-Federal entity.

  • Recommended if applicable: Partners may consider using these indicators to monitor any related activities as they are aligned with humanitarian standards and best practices.   However, inclusion of recommended indicators is not mandatory and will not affect the proposal scoring.   Please note that in rare cases PRM may request for a partner to use a particular recommended indicator if there is a strong technical/thematic need to track information on that indicator, or if a similar custom indicator was proposed by the partner.

Application Review Information

Eligible submissions will be those that comply with the criteria and requirements included in this announcement.   In addition, the review panel will evaluate the proposals based on the following criteria:

  • Gap/Analysis (10)
  • Profile of Target Population (5)
  • Program Description (25)
  • Objectives & Indicators (10)
  • Monitoring & Evaluation Plan (10)
  • (Note: The AAP section of a NOFO proposal narrative is specific to the program being proposed, is the criterion listed above being evaluated, and is distinct from the organization-level AAP framework.)
  • Coordination (5)
  • Sustainability and Capacity-Building (5)
  • Management and Past Performance (5)
  • Risk Management (10)
  • Budget/Budget Narrative (10 points)

PRM will conduct a formal competitive review of all proposals submitted in response to this funding announcement.   A review panel of at least three people will evaluate submissions based on the above-referenced programmatic criteria and PRM priorities in the context of available funding.

Department of State review panels may provide conditions and recommendations on applications to enhance the proposed program, which must be addressed by the applicant before further consideration of the award.   To ensure effective use of limited PRM funds, conditions or recommendations may include requests to increase, decrease, clarify, and/or justify costs and program activities.

Prior to making a Federal award with a total amount of Federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, PRM is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the U.S. government designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM.gov (see 41 U.S.C. 2313);

An applicant, at its option, may review and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered. Currently, federal agencies create integrity records in the integrity module of the Contractor Performance Assessment and Reporting System (CPARS) and these records are visible as responsibility/qualification records in SAM.gov;

The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, in making a judgment about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in §200.206 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.

Federal Award Administration Information

Federal award administration..

A successful applicant can expect to receive a separate notice from PRM stating that an application has been selected before PRM actually makes the federal award.   That notice is not an authorization to begin performance.   Only the notice of award signed by the Grants Officer is the authorizing document.   Unsuccessful applicants will be notified following completion of the selection and award process.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements.

PRM awards are made consistent with the following provisions in the following order of precedence:

  • applicable laws and statutes of the United States, including any specific legislative provisions mandated in the statutory authority for the award;
  • Code of Federal Regulations (CFR);
  • Department of State Standard Terms and Conditions of the award;
  • the award’s specific requirements; and
  • other documents and attachments to the award.

Successful applicants will be required to submit:

  • Program Reports:   PRM requires program reports describing and analyzing the results of activities undertaken during the validity period of the agreement.   A program report is required within thirty (30) days following the end of each three-month period of performance during the validity period of the agreement.   The final program report is due one hundred and twenty (120) days following the end of the agreement.   The submission dates for program reports will be written into the cooperative agreement.   Partners receiving multi-year awards should follow this same reporting schedule and should still submit a final program report at the end of each year that summarizes the NGO’s performance during the previous year.The Bureau suggests that NGOs receiving PRM funding use the PRM recommended quarterly program report template and annual/final report template.   The suggested PRM NGO reporting templates are designed to ease the reporting requirements while ensuring that all required elements are addressed.
  • Financial Reports:   Financial reports are required within thirty (30) days following the end of each calendar year quarter during the validity period of the agreement (January 30th, April 30th, July 30th, October 30th).   The final financial report covering the entire period of the agreement is required within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the expiration date of the agreement.   For agreements containing indirect costs, final financial reports are due within sixty (60) days of the finalization of the applicable negotiated indirect cost rate agreement (NICRA).Reports reflecting expenditures for the recipient’s overseas and United States offices should be completed in accordance with the Federal Financial Report (FFR SF-425) and submitted electronically in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Payment Management System (HHS/PMS) and in accordance with other award specific requirements.   Detailed information pertaining to the Federal Financial Report including due dates, instruction manuals and access forms, is provided on the HHS/PMS website .
  • Audit Reports:   When a recipient-contracted audit is not required because the Federal award amount is less than the $750,000 threshold, the Department may determine that an audit must be performed, and the audit report must be submitted to the responsible grants office(r) for review, dissemination, and resolution as appropriate.   The cost of audits required under this policy may be charged either as an allowable direct cost to the award or included in the organizations established indirect costs in the award’s detailed budget.

PRM Points of Contact

Applicants with technical questions related to this announcement should contact the PRM staff listed below prior to submission.   Please note that responses to technical questions from PRM do not indicate a commitment to fund the program discussed.

External websites linked above may not be supported or accessible by all web browsers.   If you are unable to link to a referenced website, please try using a different browser or update to a more recent one.   If you continue to experience difficulties to reach external resources, please contact PRM NGO Coordinator .

Section 508

  • Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d), as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, charges the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (US Access Board) with developing and promulgating standards address that access to information and communication technology (ICT) Accessibility Standards (36 CFR part 1194). Section 508 requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use ICT. Federal employees with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency. Section 508 also requires that individuals with disabilities, who are members of the public seeking information or services from a Federal agency, have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to that provided to the public who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency. These standards are part of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The complete text of the Section 508 Final Provisions can be accessed at https://www.access-board.gov/ict/ .
  • The Section 508 accessibility standards applicable to this contract or order are identified in the following paragraph. If it is determined by the Government that ICT supplies and services provided by the Contractor do not conform to the described accessibility standards in the contract, remediation of the supplies or services to the level of conformance specified in the contract will be the responsibility of the Contractor at its own expense.
  • 205 WCAG 2.0 Level A & AA Success Criteria
  • 302 Functional Performance Criteria
  • 502 Inoperability with Assistive Technology
  • 504 Authoring Tools
  • 602 Support Documentation
  • 603 Support Services
  • In the event of a modification(s) to this contract or order, which adds new ICT supplies or services or revises the type of, or specifications for, supplies or services, the Contracting Officer may require that the contractor submit a completed Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) 2.4 or greater, 508 revision (Rev 508) or another format approved by the Department, and any other additional information necessary to assist the Government in determining that the ICT supplies or services conform to Section 508 accessibility standards. If it is determined by the Government that ICT supplies and services provided by the Contractor do not conform to the described accessibility standards in the contract, remediation of the supplies or services to the level of conformance specified in the contract will be the responsibility of the Contractor at its own expense. Information about VPAT can be accessed at https://www.itic.org/policy/accessibility/vpat .
  • If this is an Indefinite Delivery contract, a Blanket Purchase Agreement or a Basic Ordering Agreement, the task/delivery order requests that include ICT supplies or services will define the specifications and accessibility standards for the order. In those cases, the Contractor may be required to provide a completed VPAT and any other additional information necessary to assist the Government in determining that the ICT supplies or services conform to Section 508 accessibility standards.

U.S. Department of State

The lessons of 1989: freedom and our future.

IMAGES

  1. How to Write a Grant Proposal in 2021

    project grant instructions

  2. 8 Free Project Grant Proposal Templates

    project grant instructions

  3. 9+ Grant Project Plan Templates

    project grant instructions

  4. STDF Project Grant Application Form

    project grant instructions

  5. How to Write a Research Project Grant Application

    project grant instructions

  6. 40+ Grant Proposal Templates [NSF, Non-Profit, Research] ᐅ TemplateLab

    project grant instructions

COMMENTS

  1. How to Apply

    How to Apply - Application Guide Use the application instructions found on this page along with the guidance in the funding opportunity to submit grant applications to NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Prepare to Apply Systems and Roles Register

  2. How to write a grant proposal: a step-by-step guide

    1. Write a strong cover letter 2. Start with a short executive summary 3. Introduce your organization 4. Write a direct problem statement 5. State your goals and objectives 6. Project design: methods and strategies 7. The evaluation section: tracking success 8. Other funding sources and sustainability 9. Outline a project budget

  3. Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

    Professor Kate Vieira, a Curriculum and Instruction professor at UW-Madison with considerable grant writing experience, describes grant proposal writing as a creative process akin to fiction writing—these are works of imagination. Professor Vieira recommends approaching the task of writing a grant proposal with an attitude of wonder and ...

  4. PAR-20-077: National Cancer Institute Program Project Applications (P01

    Part 1. Overview Information Participating Organization (s) National Institutes of Health ( NIH) Components of Participating Organizations National Cancer Institute ( NCI) Funding Opportunity Title National Cancer Institute Program Project Applications (P01 Clinical Trial Optional) Activity Code P01 Research Program Projects Announcement Type

  5. PDF Grants.gov Application Guide

    Grants.gov Application Guide A Guide for Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov October 4, 2021 2 SUMMARY OF CHANGES Effective for applications submitted, or due, on or after October 4, 2021 Overall Document

  6. How to Prepare Your Application

    Show evidence of solid fiscal management. 7. Attend to technical details. 8. Be careful when you use attachments. 9. Review your application to ensure it's accurate and complete. 10. Submit all information at the same time.

  7. Guidelines for Program Project Grants

    A6. The Project Lead must devote a minimum of 2.40 calendar months (20% effort) to the Project. If the Project Lead is also a PD/PI for the Overall Program, they must devote a minimum of 5% effort to one other component (e.g., another Project or a Core) for a total minimum of 3.0 calendar months (25% effort). Q7.

  8. How to Write a Successful Grant Proposal

    Give yourself at least 4-6 months to put your proposal together. To increase your chances of success, before you begin drafting your grant proposal, you need to develop a SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and anchored within a Timeframe) plan for what you want to do and why you want to do it.

  9. PDF Grants.gov Form Instructions

    SF-424 Project/Performance Site Location(s) form. Attach an additional list of program/project congressional districts, if needed. 17. Proposed Project Start and End Dates: Required Enter the proposed start date and end date of the project. 18. Estimated Funding: Required Enter the amount requested, or to be contributed during the first

  10. PDF Fy2022 Economic Development Initiative Community Project Funding Grant

    COMMUNITY PROJECT FUNDING GRANT GUIDE (Amended in accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, P.L. 117-328) VERSION 2.0 ... This FY2022 CPF Grant Guide Version 2.0 also provides FY2022 CPF Grant Award Instructions for establishing your grant in HUD's payment and reporting system, the Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting (DRGR ...

  11. Project Grant: Application Instructions

    Before you begin Now that you have submitted your Project Grant Registration on ResearchNet, here are the instructions to guide you in completing your Project Grant Application. Please ensure that you also read the Funding Opportunity details and familiarize yourself with CIHR's funding policies.

  12. Application Planning Resources

    Download the full application instructions for more detailed explanations of each of the components. Application Instructions for Strategic Projects The explanations, tips, and sample documents found here may prove helpful in both your project planning and the completion of your application.

  13. PDF U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Planning and

    Act, 2022, (P.L. 117-103) (the Act). These Community Project Funding (CPF) awards are administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The purpose of the "FY2022 Community Project Funding Grant Guide" (CPF Grant Guide) is to provide instructions for completing the requested information and filling out the required

  14. Determine the Correct Application Instructions for Your Activity Code

    Use the General (G) instructions, available in both HTML and PDF format, to complete the application forms following all standard instructions and the additional callouts for the identified grant program (e.g., Research (R)). Filtered PDFs are also available for each grant program that omit any callouts that don't apply.

  15. GRANTS FOR ARTS PROJECTS: How to Apply

    The Grants.gov Contact Center is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Submitting an application is a multi-step process: Part 1: Submit to Grants.gov the "Application for Federal Domestic Assistance/Short Organization Form"and Part 2: Complete the "Grant Application Form (GAF)" and upload items through the Arts Endowment's ...

  16. Project Grant Program: Application Process

    On this page Peer Review Committee Mandates - Project Grant Program Resubmissions What is a resubmitted application? Resubmitting an application: Response to previous reviews Commercialization Projects RCT Evaluation Criteria and Headings Evaluation Criteria Section 1 - The need for a trial Section 2 - The proposed trial

  17. PDF Fy2023 Economic Development Initiative Community Project Funding Grant

    FY2023 Community Project Funding Grant Guide (Version 1.0) Section 2 / Version 1 / February 28, 2023 4 SECTION 2: GRANT AWARD PROCESS AND INSTRUCTIONS 2.1 Grant Award Process The first step of the Grant Award Process is to execute the Grant Agreement so that grantees can begin to request payment of eligible expenses.

  18. Project Summary/Abstract and Project Narrative: What's the Difference

    When writing an NIH grant application, applicants are asked to develop a Project Summary/Abstract and a Project Narrative, two sections that, if funded, are made available on RePORTER to help the public understand the value of NIH-funded research. Check out the table below to see how they compare and what to include.

  19. GRANTS FOR ARTS PROJECTS

    Designated local arts agencies eligible to subgrant may request from $30,000 to $150,000 for subgranting programs in the Local Arts Agencies discipline. A minimum cost share/match equal to the grant amount is required for all grant recipients. Read the "Program Description" located in the left sidebar to get started. Stories

  20. PDF Community Project Funding Grant Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

    the FY2023 Community Project Funding Grant Guide for additional details about requirements. Community Project Funding Grant Guide (2023) 2) Grant Award and Timelines . How does a grantee find their project description and award amount? For FY2022, the list of Community Project Funding awards begins on page 612 of Congressional Record.

  21. NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01)

    The Research Project (R01) grant is an award made to support a discrete, specified, circumscribed project to be performed by the named investigator (s) in an area representing the investigator's specific interest and competencies, based on the mission of the NIH. Scope

  22. PDF Application for a Pilot Project Grant from American Cancer Society

    Briefly describe the impact of this consult on your proposed project. 3E. References (No specified page limit) - not included . in the 4.5-page Research Plan) 4. Scholar NIH Biosketch and other support (for instructions, see NIH grants & funding). Include "Other Research Support" which should include ALL research support available to the ...

  23. PDF USAID's Responding to a Funding Opportunity Quick Reference Guide

    FUNDING OPPORTUNITY READ THE OPPORTUNITY CAREFULLY The announcement will contain important information, such as the purpose and scope of activities, ... Each solicitation includes specific requirements and instructions for preparing your response. Use the response template provided and answer all the questions. We recommend that organizations

  24. NSF 24-524: Responsible Design, Development, and Deployment of

    Special Instructions for International Branch Campuses of US IHEs: If the proposal includes funding to be provided to an international branch campus of a US institution of higher education (including through use of subawards and consultant arrangements), the proposer must explain the benefit(s) to the project of performance at the international ...

  25. PDF Research Instructions for NIH and Other PHS Agencies

    found in the funding opportunity announcement, to complete your application. The funding opportunity announcement (FOA) will include specific instructions and the forms needed for your application submission. Remember that the FOA instructions always supersede these application instructions. Step 3. Choose an application instruction format.

  26. FY 2024 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting

    Basic Information Funding Opportunity Number: DFOP0005136 Assistance Listings (CFDA) number: 19.517 - Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for Africa Announcement issuance date: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Announcement type: Cooperative Agreement Proposal application submission deadline: Friday, March 22, 2024 at 11:59:59 p.m. EDT (23:59:59) Proposals submitted after this deadline will not be ...