Bridges to the Future Technical Assistance Workshop - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Bridges to the Future Technical Assistance Workshop PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 4f52c8-NTNlZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Bridges to the Future Technical Assistance Workshop

Description:

NIGMS Bridges to the Future Technical Assistance Workshop Division of Minority Opportunities in Research National Institute of General Medical Sciences – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:132
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 136
Provided by: tupa5
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Bridges to the Future Technical Assistance Workshop


1
Bridges to the Future Technical Assistance
Workshop
NIGMS
Division of Minority Opportunities in
Research National Institute of General Medical
Sciences National Institutes of Health,
USDHHS June 19, 2009
2
Bridges To the Future Program
  • Clifton Poodry, Ph.D.
  • Director, MORE Division
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences
  • National Institutes of Health, USDHHS
  • June, 19 2009

3
Outline of Presentation
  • Overview of Bridges to Baccalaureate (PAR-07-411)
    Bridges to Doctorate (PAR-07-410) programs
  • Guidance for Bridges Program Development

4
Bridges Program Goals
  • An institutional program with a focus on
    increasing the number of community
    college/masters degree students from
    underrepresented groups and/or health disparities
    populations (URMs) who transfer and complete the
    baccalaureate/PhD degree, respectively, in
    biomedical and behavioral sciences.

5
The Bridges Program Emphasizes
  • Institutional Focus impact on Bridges and
    non-Bridges students alike so more URMs transfer
    and complete the baccalaureate/PhD degree
  • Partnerships 2-year community college(s) with
    four-year institution(s), masters
    degree-granting institution(s) with PhD
    degree-granting institution(s)
  • Developmental Activities well-integrated
    activities that will provide students with the
    necessary academic preparation and skills to
    enable their transition and successful completion
    of the baccalaureate/PhD degree in
    biomedical/behavioral sciences
  • Clear Expectations

6
Partnership/Consortium
  • Purpose To facilitate a seamless transition of
    targeted
  • students from associate to baccalaureate
    degree-granting institution, and from masters to
    the PhD degree-granting institution in
    biomedical/behavioral sciences
  • Size Up to 4 institutions for BTB, and 3 for
    BTD, including the applicant institution, unless
    strongly justified otherwise
  • An institution may participate in more than one
    Bridges partnership if strongly justified by the
    potential to magnify the programs and
    institutions outcomes

7
Bridges Students
(Students who receive support in the form of
salaries/wages)
  • Students from groups underrepresented in the
    biomedical and behavioral research enterprise of
    the nation and/or populations disproportionately
    affected by health disparities (targeted groups).
    Nationally, these groups include, but are not
    limited to, African Americans, Hispanic
    Americans, Native Americans (including Alaska
    Natives), Natives of the U.S. Pacific Islands,
    and/or rural Appalachians.
  • Must be U.S. citizens or non-citizen nationals or
    permanent residents.
  • Must be matriculated full-time in
    associate/masters degree program in biomedically
    relevant science fields at the partner community
    college/masters degree institution.

8
Student Selection Critical Mass
  • Student Selection
  • Institutions responsibility to establish student
    qualifications
  • Describe the criteria for selection and retention
    of Bridges students into the program
  • Critical Mass Number of students in the program
    each year
  • BTB 15-20, with 4 from each CC
  • BTD 6-8, with 3 from each masters degree
    institution

9
Key Program Expectations
  • Baseline Data Goals to Improve
  • Effective Partnerships
  • Strong Pool of Targeted Students
  • Well-integrated Student Development Activities
    year-round
  • Strong Institutional Commitment
  • Sound Evaluation Plan

10
What Are the Baseline Data Measurable
Objectives?
  • Baseline
  • The baseline is a starting point it serves as a
    guide to capacity,
  • and is necessary to gauge the impact of the
    program. For example,
  • an increase of 100 on a base of 1 is not nearly
    as impressive as if
  • it were on a base of 10.
  • Usually its an average data over a 3-5 year
    period
  • Measurable Objectives
  • These are brief (and focused) statements of end
    results
  • connected to the long-term goal. They can be
    qualitative and
  • quantitative, but must be measurable.
  • They are not a means to an end, or a checklist of
    to do list.

11
Examples of Goals, Baseline Data Measurable
Objectives
  • Goal To increase the number of CC/masters
    degree students who transfer to four-year/PhD
    degree-granting institutions in biomedically
    relevant sciences.
  • Baseline How many and what percent of the
    students currently transfer to baccalaureate/PhD
    degree programs?
  • Measurable objective What is the proposed
    number and percentage of students who will
    transfer to baccalaureate/PhD degree programs
    during the grant period?

12
Examples of Baseline Data Objectives, cont.
  • Institutional Baseline
  • Out of a total of 40 students in biomedically
    relevant fields (40 URM 60 non-URM), 4 URMs
    (25) 9 non-URMs (37.5) actually transfer to
    programs in biomedically relevant disciplines per
    year (average data from 2005-2008).
  • Institutional Objective
  • The URM transfer in biomedically relevant
    disciplines will increase from the current rate
    of 25 to 37.5 (from an average of 4 to 6
    students per year) by the fourth year of the
    grant award.

13
Examples of Baseline Data Objectives, cont.
  • Bridges Baseline on Transfer - An average of 4
    out of 8 (50) Bridges students transferred to
    programs in biomedically relevant disciplines per
    year (average data from 2005-2008).
  • Objective - The transfer of Bridges students to
    programs in biomedically relevant disciplines
    will increase from the current rate of 50 to 75
    (from an average of 4 to 6 students per year) by
    the fourth year of the grant award.
  • Bridges Baseline on Degree Completion - An
    average of 2 out of 4 (50) transferring Bridges
    students completed the baccalaureate/PhD degree
    in biomedically relevant disciplines per year
    (average data from 2005-2008).
  • Objective - Bridges students degree completion
    in biomedically relevant disciplines will
    increase from the current rate of 50 to 75 (to
    an average of 4.5 graduates per year) by the
    fourth year of the grant award.

14
Goals to Improve the Track Record
  • Clearly stated goals, and measurable objectives
    relative to the baseline and in context of NIH
    expectations
  • Must improve on the previous record and make
    substantial progress towards meeting the NIH
    expectations during the next 5 years

15
NIH Expectations
  • Institutional
  • Increase in the institutional transfer of
    targeted students (Bridges non-Bridges) to
    baccalaureate/PhD degree programs in biomedically
    relevant sciences by 50 in five years
  • Bridges
  • Increase in academic preparation and skills
    development
  • Increase in the transfer of students to
    baccalaureate/PhD degree programs (70-75 in five
    years)
  • Increase in the baccalaureate/PhD degree
    completion of transferring students (75-80 in
    five years)

16
BASELINE DATA AND OBJECTIVES
Applicant Institution/ Unified Institutional Program Partner Institutions Institutional Baseline for Transfer of URMs and non-URMs ( of students who transfer/ of full-time students in biomedically relevant disciplines) Institutional Objectives for Transfer of URMs Bridges Baseline for Transfer ( of Bridges students who transfer/ total of Bridges students in the program) Degree Completion ( of Bridges students who complete the baccalaureate/PhD degree/ of transferring Bridges students) Bridges Objectives for Transfer Degree Completion
Great University Champion College        
         
Valley State College        
       
Unified Institutional Program          
17
Examples of Developmental Activities
  • To Move the Institution Forward from Baseline to
    NIH Expectations
  • Bridges to Baccalaureate
  • Developing community college courses and
    curricula that are fully transferable to the
    baccalaureate institution
  • Faculty from the four-year institution serving as
    visiting lecturers at the two-year institution,
    or developing joint team-taught courses
  • Introduction of research concepts into the
    community college
  • curriculum and/or offering a research skills
    course to stimulate
  • students interest in science
  • Supplementary instruction in gate-keeping
    courses at the community college
  • Mentored research experiences for the Bridges
    students,
  • including summer research internships

18
Examples of Developmental Activities, Cont.
  • Bridges to Baccalaureate, cont.
  • Skills development (e.g., critical thinking,
    communications skills, study and time management
    skills) workshops, and research careers seminars
  • Preparing community college students, through
    college orientation classes, etc., for transfer
    to the 4-year institution
  • Peer mentoring and tutoring, and research career
    seminars
  • Research education conferences for Bridges
    faculty (CC), and advanced or special courses at
    the partner 4-year institution
  • Research conferences for 4-year faculty mentors,
    if accompanying students making presentations
  • Others

19
Examples of Developmental Activities
  • Bridges to Doctorate
  • Faculty from the two types of institutions
    jointly developing courses and curricula,
    including updating existing or developing
    new/advanced courses at the masters degree
    institution
  • Faculty from the doctorate institution serving as
    visiting lecturers, offering lectures and/or
    laboratory courses at the masters degree
    institution
  • Faculty from the doctorate institution providing
    mentored research experiences to Bridges
    students, including the summer research
    internships, and serving on their thesis advisory
    committees
  • Fostering research capacity of the masters
    degree institution via research collaborations

20
Examples of Developmental Activities
  • Bridges to Doctorate, cont.
  • Allowing Bridges students to take some courses,
    and complete part of their masters thesis
    research at the doctoral institution
  • Providing Bridges students access to computer and
    library facilities, seminars, and workshops,
    etc., at the doctoral institution
  • Establishing a mentoring and academic counseling
    program for masters students with faculty at the
    doctoral institution
  • Advanced or special courses and scientific
    research conferences for Bridges faculty from the
    masters degree institution

21
Institutional Commitment
  • Strong commitment to the goals of the proposed
    program from all participating institutions,
    including commitment to
  • Provide the institutional data on the transfer of
    URMs and non-URMs in biomedically relevant
    sciences
  • Provide the data on transfer and
    baccalaureate/PhD degree completion by Bridges
    students in biomedically relevant sciences
  • Track Bridges students over a ten-year period as
    they progress through the pipeline
  • Institutionalize the most effective activities
    supported by the Bridges program

22
Evaluation
  • Purpose Provide information useful to the
    applicant and the partner institutions for
    improving the program, and for institutionalizing
    the most effective activities supported by the
    Bridges program.
  • Provide a sound evaluation plan, with timeline,
    thats in-line with measurable goals and
    objectives
  • Identify a qualified evaluator and include
    his/her biosketch

23
Consortium Agreement
  • Consortium agreement between the associate and
    baccalaureate, and between masters and PhD
    degree-granting institutions define the
    participating institutions respective roles in
    administering the Bridges program.
  • The application must include a letter from each
    collaborating
  • institution signed by the appropriate
    institutional officials and
  • program director/program coordinator,
    acknowledging participation in the program. These
    letters must also include the following
  • THE APPROPRIATE PROGRAMMATIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE
    PERSONNEL
  • OF EACH INSTITUTION INVOLVED IN THIS GRANT
    APPLICATION ARE AWARE
  • OF THE NIH CONSORTIUM GRANT POLICY AND ARE
    PREPARED TO
  • ESTABLISH THE NECESSARY INTER-INSTITUTIONAL
    AGREEMENT(S)
  • CONSISTENT WITH THAT POLICY.

24
Budget and Years of Support
  • The program provides support for student,
    faculty, and institutional development activities
  • Average awards range from 150,000 to 300,000
    (DC) per year.
  • Budget must be reasonable, well documented, and
  • fully justified and commensurate with the scope
    of
  • the proposed program
  • Awards for up to five years

25
Guidance for Bridges Program Development
26
Develop a Plan
  • Read the FOA and FQs
  • Conduct an institutional assessment and gather
    baseline data how many transferring and
    graduating why not more transferring and
    graduating? what can change so more will transfer
    and graduate?
  • What are the institutional needs?
  • What is your long range goal?
  • What are your measurable objectives?
  • What activities will help your institution
    achieve these objectives
  • How will you evaluate your program outcomes?
  • Follow all of the instructions in writing your
    application!!

27
Application Components/Organization
  • Project Summary, Performance site (s)
  • Facilities other Resources
  • Key Persons and their Biographical Sketches
  • Budget
  • Research Plan

28
Application Components/Org., Cont.
  • Research Plan
  • (Introduction)
  • Specific Aims and Measurable Objectives
  • Background and Significance Institutional
    student data vision and anticipated value
  • Preliminary Studies or Progress Report Specific
    Outcome Data Impact on the Institution
  • Research Design Methods

29
Application Components/Org., Cont.
  • Research Design Methods
  • PD, PCs, and Program Faculty
  • Developmental Activities
  • The rationale and detailed description
  • Who will implement and the timeline
  • Possible pitfalls and alternative approaches
  • Responsible Conduct of Research
  • Evaluation Plan
  • Consortium Agreements

30
Presentation of Data
  • Present data in figures, graphs, tables or text
  • Place figures, tables, and graphs close to where
    they are referred to in the text
  • Make all figures, tables, and graphs clearly
    legible
  • Avoid irrelevant information
  • Do not use the Appendix to circumvent the page
    limitations of the Research Plan

31
Common Reasons for Failure
  • Missing or inadequate baseline data
  • Lack of clear and well-defined measurable
    objectives
  • Lack of adequate progress
  • Activities poorly related to the objectives
  • Poorly developed or missing evaluation plan
  • Lack of institutional commitment or support
  • Lack of coordination with other institutional
    programs aimed at accomplishing similar goals
  • Program-centric application vs. institutional
    application

32
Summary Bridges Essentials
  • Institutional and Bridges baseline data
  • Clear statement of program goals, specific aims,
    and measurable objectives
  • Detailed progress report, if applicable
  • PD/PI, Coordinators, and program faculty with
    appropriate training and experience
  • Detailed description of developmental activities
  • Sound evaluation plan (see for example,
    http//oerl.sri.com/ and http//www.nsf.gov/pubs/2
    002/nsf02057/start.htm)
  • A plan for training in responsible conduct of
    research
  • Evidence of strong institutional commitment
  • Consortium Agreement with specific language
  • A well justified budget that is commensurate with
    the scope of the proposed program

33
Program Evaluation
NIGMS
  • BRIDGES TO THE DOCTORATE (PAR-07-410)
  • BRIDGES TO THE BACCALAUREATE (PAR-07-411)
  • Clifton Poodry, Ph.D.
  • Division of Minority Opportunities in Research
  • National Institutes of General Medical Sciences
  • National Institutes of Health, USDHHS
  • June 19, 2009

34
NIGMS
Evaluation What is it?
Program evaluations are individual,
systematic studies that use objective measurement
and analysis to answer specific questions about
how well a program is working. -
GAO/GGD-00-204 Program Evaluation Program
evaluation and the tracking of students are not
the same thing.
35
NIGMS
Program Evaluation Answers Questions Like.
  • Does it work?
  • How well does it work?
  • Does it do what we want it to?
  • Does it work for the reasons we think it does?
  • Is it cost effective?
  • Are the benefits worth it?
  • What are the unintended consequences?

36
NIGMS
Why bother?
  • Supports continuous program improvement
  • Increases understanding of the program how are
    activities and strategies linked to results?
  • Leads to improved planning and management
  • Provides shared understanding of program

37
NIGMS
Guidelines for Conducting Successful Evaluations
  • Invest heavily in planning early on
  • Use knowledgeable, experienced evaluators
    (usually social scientists)
  • Integrate evaluation into ongoing activities of
    the program

38
NIGMS
Typical Evaluations
  • Needs Assessment
  • What is nature extent of the issues program
    should address?
  • Planning phase
  • Process Evaluation
  • Is program being conducted producing output as
    planned?
  • How can process can be improved?
  • Outcome Evaluation
  • Extent to which a programs goals have been met?

39
NIGMS
Sample Study Questions
Needs Assessment What problem is the program attempting to address? Whom does this program serve to what extent are their needs met? What should be the documented goals of the program?
Process Evaluation Is the program being implemented as planned? If not, why? How could the programs processes be improved? Has the program achieved recognized standards of performance?
40
NIGMS
Sample Study Questions
Outcome Evaluation To what extent has the program achieved its goals? Is the current performance different from the past? Has the program been more successful than a comparable program? Which characteristics/ activities are most related to success? What are the intended/ unintended effects of the program?
41
NIGMS
Why should you care?
  • If you dont know where youre going, any road
    will take you there.
  • - Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

-Illustration by Sir John Tenniel, eBooks_at_
Adelaide, 2004
42
NIGMS
Key Steps in Evaluation
  • Engage stakeholders
  • Describe the program
  • Focus the evaluation design
  • Gather credible evidence
  • Justify conclusions (present data, analysis used,
    and findings)
  • Ensure use and share lessons

43
1. Engage Stakeholders Who are the
stakeholders? Those involved in program
operations, those affected by the program
operations, and primary users of evaluation
results
44
  • Describe the program
  • What are the goals and specific aims of the
    program?
  • What problem or need is it designed to address?
  • What are the measurable objectives?
  • What are the strategies to achieve the
    objectives?
  • What are the expected effects?
  • What are the resources and activities?
  • How is the program supposed to work?

45
Remember
  • Activity ? Program
  • You cannot evaluate a program by assessing only
    an activity

46
Model of a Training Program
Resources Activities
Impact
(Inputs) (Outputs)
(Outcomes)
What are the changes or benefits?
What is done?
What is invested?
What is invested?
Workshops Seminars
Short term Knowledge Skills Attitudes Intermedia
te Behaviors Practices Long term Enter PhD
Program
Faculty Staff
Money
Training in scientific methods
Equipment Technology
Mentoring by faculty member
Research base
47
3. Focus the evaluation design
  • What do you want to know? (key questions)
  • Who will be involved in or affected by the
    evaluation or use the findings? (stakeholders)
  • To focus an evaluation, consider its purpose,
    uses, questions, methods, roles, budgets,
    deliverables etc.
  • An evaluation cannot answer all questions for
    all stakeholders

48
4. Gather credible evidence
  • Evidence must be
  • believable, trustworthy, and relevant
  • Select methodological approach data collection
    instruments
  • Determine who is studied and when


49
5. Justify conclusions
  • Consider data
  • Analysis and synthesis
  • - determine findings
  • Interpretation
  • - what do findings mean?
  • Judgments
  • - what is the value of findings based on
    accepted standards?
  • Recommendations
  • - what claims can be made?
  • - what are the limitations of your design?

50
An evaluation plan should include
  • Program description with baseline data
  • Purpose rationale for evaluation
  • Evaluation Design
  • Data Collection Analyses
  • Products of evaluation their use
  • Project Management
  • Budget estimate

51
If you remember nothing else
Evaluation is a tool to help you make decisions
about program management
52
Application Submission and Review Considerations
  • Mona R. Trempe, Ph.D.
  • Scientific Review Officer
  • NIGMS Office of Scientific Review

53
Application Process
  • First step - Grants.gov
  • Electronic application via this site now required
    for all R and most K mechanisms
  • Tentative transition dates for other mechanisms
  • F transition scheduled for August 2009
  • T and K12 scheduled for January 2010
  • P and U transition indefinite at this point

54
Application Process
  • Second Step - eRA Commons
  • Retrieves the application from Grants.gov and
    checks it against NIH-specific requirements
  • Allows applicants to electronically track the
    status of submissions and to receive/transmit
    application and award information
  • Provides contact information for assigned NIH
    staff MORE Division, Review Office, and Grants
    Management

55
Online Resources
  • Overview of Electronic Submission
    http//era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/
  • Frequently Asked Questions http//era.nih.gov/Elec
    tronicReceipt/faq.htm
  • Avoiding Common Errors http//era.nih.gov/Electron
    icReceipt/avoiding_errors.htm
  • Training Resources, Videos, Quick Reference
    Materials http//era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/tra
    ining.htm

56
Finding Help
  • Grants.gov Contact Center
  • Toll-free 1-800-518-4726
  • Email support_at_grants.govHours Mon-Fri, 7
    a.m. to 9 p.m. ESTSupport for Grants.gov
    registration, Mac issues,
  • Adobe forms
  • eRA Commons Help Desk
  • Phone 301-402-7469Hours Mon-Fri, 7a.m. to 8
    p.m. EST
  • Online Help Ticket http//ithelpdesk.nih.gov/eRA
    /
  • Support for Commons registration, application
    status,
  • post-submission questions

57
Review Process Usual Timeline
  • Timeframe Activity
  • 1 - 2 months Referral
  • 2 - 6 months Review Panel
  • 6 - 7 months Summary Statement Available
  • 7 - 8 months Advisory Council
  • 8 - 9 months Funding Decisions
  • 9 - 10 months Award Start Date

58
Review Process NIH Contacts
  • Who and when?
  • Scientific Review Officer - Prior to summary
    statement
  • Program Officer - After summary statement
  • Grants Manager - During award activities
  • How to find them?
  • Information always available in eRA Commons
  • If need help, ask your SRO or PO

59
Review Process Reviewers
  • Review Panel
  • Organized by a Scientific Review Officer in the
    NIGMS Office of Scientific Review
  • Special Emphasis Panel or Standing Committee
  • Temporary committee members included on standing
    committees for particular expertise
  • Reviewer Characteristics
  • Experience with multiple education levels
  • Involvement with research training programs
  • Educators, researchers, and institutional
    administrators

60
Enhanced Peer Review Criteria
  • Core Review Criteria
  • For R mechanisms Significance, Investigator(s),
    Innovation, Approach, Environment
  • For T mechanisms Training Program and
    Environment, Training Program Director,
    Preceptors/Mentors, Trainees, Training Record
  • Additional Review Criteria/Considerations
  • Resubmission/Renewal (as applicable)
  • Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion
    Vertebrate Animal Use Biohazards (as applicable)
  • Training in Responsible Conduct of Research

61
Enhanced Peer Review Scoring
  • Scale
  • Nine-point whole number scale (1 exceptional 9
    poor)
  • Overall Impact and Criterion Scores
  • All discussed applications receive a two digit
    impact/priority score this is the average of the
    score given by each eligible review committee
    member
  • Scores are given for each of five core review
    criteria by each of the assigned reviewers
  • ND not discussed (previously unscored)
    applications will receive criterion scores but no
    impact/priority score

62
Enhanced Peer Review Amendment Limits
  • For original new applications (never submitted)
    and competing renewal applications only one
    resubmission (previously amended or revised
    application) will be accepted
  • If funding is not received after two submissions,
    the program must be substantially re-designed
    rather than slightly altered in response to
    previous reviews in order to be submitted as a
    new application.
  • There are no more A2 applications
  • For details, see NIH Guide Notice NOT-OD-09-003

63
Details of Enhanced Peer Review
  • NIH Guide NOT-OD-09-024, NOT-OD-09-025,
    NOT-OD-09-003
  • http//enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov

64
Tips about Format
  • Page Limits
  • Supply all requested materials within page limits
  • Do not use appendices to get around the limits
  • Appendices
  • Follow general guidelines (NIH Guide
    NOT-OD-07-018) and ones specific to the program
    announcement
  • Relevant material only, such as large tables,
    survey instruments, publications that are NOT
    available online
  • NO catalogs, lengthy reports, or material that
    should be in the body of the application

65
Application Preparation Tips
  • Content
  • Read the program announcement and ensure that
    your application contains the necessary elements
  • Successful submission through Grants.gov and eRA
    Commons does not mean appropriate responsiveness
    to the program announcement
  • Context
  • Present the institutional framework and
    environment of your program
  • Be realistic in your programs goals

66
Application Preparation Tips
  • Comprehensive
  • Address all of the requirements of the program
    announcement
  • For example
  • If you dont have institutional baseline data,
    explain how you plan to obtain it
  • If you havent fully formed your evaluation plan,
    at least acknowledge that you are working on it
  • Describe how your program works
  • For example
  • How are students recruited and selected? By whom?
  • What does the advisory committee do? How often do
    they meet?
  • How have you used evaluation information in
    designing/improving your program?

67
Application Preparation Tips
  • Clear
  • Dont bury important information in appendices or
    expansive prose
  • Dont expect reviewers to read between the
    lines to figure out what you are proposing
  • Present outcomes data in a straightforward
    manner
  • Dont exaggerate
  • Dont hide data (reviewers will do the math)
  • It is far better to present results as they are
    and address how the program aims to improve

68
Application Preparation Tips
  • Current
  • Make sure faculty biosketches are up-to-date
  • Provide data on current and prior students
  • Use the most recent institutional data
  • Consistent
  • Data in tables and text should match
  • Data should be consistent across tables
  • Match justification to budget items
  • Refer to the correct program in text and tables

69
ESSENTIAL MUSTS FOR THE BRIDGES PROGRAM
APPLICATIONS
NIGMS
  • BRIDGES TO THE DOCTORATE (PAR-07-410)
  • BRIDGES TO THE BACCALAUREATE (PAR-07-411)

Jermelina Tupas, Ph.D. Division of Minority
Opportunities in Research National Institutes of
General Medical Sciences National Institutes of
Health, USDHHS June 19, 2009
70
ESSENTIAL MUSTS FOR THE BRIDGES PROGRAM
APPLICATIONS
NIGMS
  • BRIDGES TO THE DOCTORATE (PAR-07-410)
  • BRIDGES TO THE BACCALAUREATE (PAR-07-411)

Jermelina Tupas, Ph.D. Division of Minority
Opportunities in Research National Institutes of
General Medical Sciences National Institutes of
Health, USDHHS June 19, 2009
71
9 Essential Items for A Bridges Program
Application
  • Institutional program
  • Partnership
  • Applicant pool
  • Student Development
  • Specific Aims
  • Budget
  • Responsible Conduct of Research
  • Evaluation Plan
  • Progress Report

72
1. Institutional Program
  • baseline data
  • goals and measurable objectives
  • activities or interventions
  • evaluation plan

73
Challenge to the consortium
  • Create a partnership program that will focus
    attention and adequate resources on the
    institution(s) granting associates or masters
    degrees and enhance competitiveness of its
    (their) science graduates and science programs

74
Institutional Program Review Qs
  • Significance
  • Are you proposing a program that is important to
    the mission of NIGMS and NICHD and the science
    they support?
  • What will be the impact of the proposed program
    on each participating institutions, i.e. the
    number of students transferring and graduating
    (with baccalaureate or PhDs) in the
    biomedical/behavioral sciences?

75
Institutional Program Review Qs
  • Innovation
  • Is this a duplication of other programs currently
    supported at the applicant institution or
    available within the consortium?
  • Environment
  • What are the unique features of the institutions
    that will contribute to achieving the proposed
    goals?
  • Are the plans to coordinate the planned
    activities in multiple sites adequate?
  • Is the institutional commitment to the proposed
    program appropriate?

76
Institutional Commitment
  • Official letter of agreement to
  • provide the institutional data on transfer and
    subsequent graduation of its students in
    biomedical and behavioral sciences
  • track Bridges students over a ten-year period as
    they progress through the pipeline and
  • provide the data on transfer, and degree
    completion (bachelors or Ph.D.) for Bridges and
    non-Bridges students at the partner institutions.
  • Tracking must be carried out.

77
2. Partnership
  • Consortium-no more than 4 baccalaureate or 3
    doctorate institutions
  • Partners-one must be a 2-year or masters degree
    institution, another must be a bachelors or
    Ph.D. degree institution
  • Applicant institution (only one)- must name the
    PD
  • Role of each partner institution- must be
    well-defined include partnership/consortium
    agreement in Appendix

78
Requirement for the partners(Bridges to the
Baccalaureate)
  • 2-year institution offers the associate degree
    as the only undergraduate degree in the
    biomedical and behavioral sciences within the
    participating departments
  • Baccalaureate institution must be a college or
    university granting the baccalaureate degree in
    biomedical or behavioral sciences.

79
Requirement for the partners(Bridges to the
Doctorate)
  • Masters institution MS- terminal degree in
    biomedical or behavioral sciences as the highest
    degree must have a high enrollment of targeted
    MS students
  • Ph.D. institution must be a research
    institution have a significant number of mentors
    with extramural research support awards doctoral
    degrees in biomedical or behavioral sciences.

80
Requirement for the partners(Bridges to the
Doctorate)
  • MS institutions with RISE programs that include
    masters students must justify the need for the
    Bridges program and provide evidence that there
    is a large pool of targeted students
  • A list of faculty research mentors at the
    doctoral institution must be provided include in
    their biosketches past student training record
    and extramural support

81
Partnership Review Qs
  • Approach
  • Are the roles of the participating institutions
    well developed, well integrated, and appropriate
    to the aims of the program?
  • Are the partnership arrangements reasonable and
    are likely to facilitate the seamless transition
    of the students?

82
Partnership Review Qs
  • Investigators
  • Is there an adequate pool of research mentors at
    the PhD institution who are extramurally funded?
  • Do the key personnel selected for program
    implementation have experience in mentoring
    students, particularly URMs?

83
Partnership Review Qs
  • Environment
  • Is there appropriate collaboration among
    participating departments and institutions?
  • Do the consortium agreements and letters from
    each participating institution provide adequate
    documentation and assurance that each will
    contribute to the success of the proposed Bridges
    to the (Baccalaureate or Doctorate) program?
  • Does the proposed consortium involve appropriate
    number of institutions

84
3. Applicant Pool
  • Targeted students
  • groups underrepresented in the biomedical
    behavioral sciences those disproportionately
    affected by health disparities
  • U.S. citizens, nationals, or permanent residents
  • matriculated full-time in (Associate or MS) in
    targeted areas at the (2-yr or MS)
  • pool at each (2-yr or MS) institution must be
    clearly described include total number of
    targeted students at 2-yr or MS institutions
    total number of targeted Bridges participants

85
Applicant Pool Review Qs
  • Approach
  • Are the recruitment, retention, and follow-up
    activities adequate to ensure a large pool of
    eligible participants?
  • Environment
  • Is there an adequate pool of students from
    targeted groups/populations in the participating
    science department(s) at the (2-year or masters
    degree-granting) institutions who are interested
    in research careers in biomedical/behavioral
    fields?

86
4. Student Development
  • integrated set of student development activities
  • rationale for each developmental activity
  • targeted students needs and requirements
  • contribution of each activity to realization of
    the objectives
  • interventions to increase the number of student
    transfer and completion of B.S. or Ph.D. degree
    in biomedical/behavioral sciences
  • overall impact on the capabilities of the
    masters degree institution(s) to provide
    competitive training to their students, must be
    measured (i.e., measurement of outcomes)

87
Student Development Review Qs
  • Significance
  • Are the proposed developmental activities likely
    to improve the academic preparation of
    (associates or masters degree) students and
    allow them to be admitted to BS or Ph.D. degree
    programs in biomedical/behavioral sciences?
  • What will be the impact of the proposed program
    on the number of students from the targeted
    groups who transfer (to 4-yr or doctoral
    institutions) and complete (B.S. or Ph.D.)
    degrees?

88
Student Development Review Qs
  • Approach
  • Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem
    areas and consider alternative approaches?
  • Is there evidence that the program is based on
    sound research concepts and educational
    principles?
  • Does the program provide details and rationale
    for the activities proposed to enhance the
    academic preparation of targeted students?

89
Student Development Review Qs
  • Innovation
  • Does the project challenge existing paradigms and
    address the critical barriers that prevent
    targeted students from pursuing bachelor or
    doctorate degree programs?
  • Do the proposed academic development activities
    employ novel concepts, approaches, or methods to
    attract, retain, and prepare (associate or
    masters degree) students for more challenging
    academic programs at the (B.S. or Ph.D.)
    degree-granting institution?

90
Student Development Review Qs
  • Environment
  • Does the scientific/educational environment in
    which the program will be conducted contribute to
    the probability of success?
  • Does the proposed research education program
    benefit from unique features of the scientific
    environment, subject populations, or employ
    useful collaborative arrangements?

91
5. Specific Aims
  • must address the overall goals and specific
    measurable objectives (including anticipated
    milestones) that the consortium institutions
    expect to accomplish by the end of the project
    period
  • objectives must be presented as percent
    improvement over the current baseline and the
    baseline must be clearly defined

92
Specific Aims Review Qs
  • Significance
  • How will implementation of the proposed program
    advance the objectives of this funding
    opportunity announcement as well as the mission
    of the NIGMS and NCMHD?
  • Approach
  • Are the conceptual framework, design, methods,
    and analyses adequately developed, well
    integrated, well reasoned, and appropriate to the
    aims of the project?

93
6. Budget(clearly justified single consolidated
budget )
  • fully itemized well justified participant cost
  • requested equipment must be critical to improving
    laboratory instruction at the 2-yr or MS
    institution (25k per project period)
  • cost for faculty teaching/developing new courses
    reasonable and commensurate with the scope of the
    proposed program no salary for mentoring
    activities
  • cost for evaluator who is an employee of an
    institution in the consortium must be included in
    key personnel and listed as person months
  • expenses for items generally available for
    educational programs at the institutions should
    not be duplicated

94
7. Progress Report
  • Information needed
  • summary of the overall progress-
  • overall transfer data on Bridges and non-Bridges
    students from targeted groups
  • number of Bridges students who transferred to (
    4-yr or Ph.D.) institutions
  • number of Bridges students who completed (B.S. or
    Ph.D.) degrees in biomedical sciences)

95
7. Progress Report
  • Information needed
  • student development activities implemented
    number of students served faculty member(s)
    conducting the activity progress made in
    relation to the original goals and objectives
  • list of Bridges students who were supported by
    the Program during the previous grant period
  • lessons learned from the program evaluation
    changes made in the program as a result of the
    evaluation
  • Bridges activities that are now continuing (or
    will continue) on institutional funds

96
Progress Report Review Qs
  • Has the research education program successfully
    achieved its stated objectives, especially in the
    context of Programs expectations during the
    prior project period?
  • What is the track record of the participating
    institutions on the transfer and graduation rates
    of students,
  • How does this record compare to the Bridges
    Program goals (50 increase in the overall
    institutional transfer rate and 75 transfer and
    80 degree completion rates for Bridges
    students)?

97
Progress Report Review Qs
  • Has the program been innovative in the past and
    does it continue to demonstrate innovation?
  • Has the program been adequately evaluated, and is
    the proposed approach for the next project period
    responsive to the results of this evaluation?

98
8. Responsible Conduct of Research
  • Include
  • the subject matter of the instruction, the format
    of the instruction, the degree of program faculty
    participation, participant attendance, and the
    frequency of instruction
  • the rationale for the proposed plan of
    instruction.

99
9. Evaluation Plan
  • Remember
  • evaluation must be used as advisory to the PD and
    the participating institutions
  • specific plans, benchmarks, and procedures must
    be described to capture, analyze, and report
    outcome measures that would determine the success
    of the research education program in achieving
    its objectives

100
Evaluation Plan Review Qs
  • Is the evaluation plan and timeline adequate for
    assessing the effectiveness (process and outcome)
    of the program in achieving its goals and
    objectives?
  • Does the application identify an individual with
    appropriate credentials to conduct the proposed
    evaluation?

101
BRIDGES TECHNICAL
WORKSHOPGRANTS MANAGEMENT PAR-07-411
http//grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-0
7-411.html PAR-07-410 http//grants1.nih.gov/gra
nts/guide/pa-files/PAR-07-410.html
  • Lori Burge
  • Grants Management Officer
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences
  • June 19, 2009

102
New BRIDGES to the Baccalaureate Program and
Doctorate Program
Current/New PAR
Submission style Electronic-Grants.Gov SF424
Project Period Up to 5 years
Receipt Date 2009 January 22 and September 18
Number of Trainees BAC Min 4 from each partner institution DOC Min 3 from each partner institution
Length of Training Up to 2 years
103
Features (contd)
Just-in-Time Concepts Used (Other Support, IRB, IACUC submitted to eRA Commons)
Budget Format Categorical
Number of Institutions BAC Maximum 4 (includes the applicant institution) DOC Maximum 3
Salary for Students BAC level comparable to that of other students employed in similar activities DOC 12 an hour max/level comparable to other students
Total Direct Costs No limit
104
Features BRIDGES to the Doctorate
  • Support for students
  • - salary support for up to 20 hours a week
    during the academic year while they are
    fulfilling their course requirements and 40 hours
    a week during the summer if no courses are being
    taken. Bridges students in the masters degree
    program are also allowed tuition remission as
    part of a compensation package.
  • Limited tuition costs of participating faculty
    (from the masters institution) to take one
    advanced course per year at the partner doctoral
    institution is allowed

105
Features BRIDGES to the Doctorate
  • Students must be matriculated full-time.
  • Salary support
  • - for the PD to administer the program is
    limited to a max of 1.8 person months
  • - for a program coordinator at the partnering
    institutions should not exceed 1.8 person months
  • Equipment costs are limited to a maximum of
    25,000 per project period
  • Research supplies for Bridges students (not to
    exceed 2,000/student/year)

106
Features Bridges to the Baccalaureate
  • Students must be Matriculated full-time.
  • Salary support
  • - for the PD to administer the program is
    limited to a max of 2.4 person months
  • - for a program coordinator at the partnering
    institutions should not exceed 1.8 person months
  • Equipment costs are limited to a maximum of
    25,000 per project period
  • Research supplies for Bridges students (not to
    exceed 1,000/student/year)

107
Allowable Costs for all Bridge Grants
  • Consultant costs
  • - If evaluator is an employee of an institution
    within the consortium the cost must be included
    in the category of key personnel salary and
    listed in person months
  • Supplies and equipment
  • Travel for key persons

108
Allowable Costs for all Bridge Grants
  • Personnel
  • - Limited administrative and clerical salary
    costs associated distinctly with the Bridges
    program that are not normally provided by the
    institution when justified
  • Per new guide notice each institution may
    participate in more than one Bridges partnership
    if justified
  • http//grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NO
    T-GM-07-116.html

109
Participants Allowable Costs
  • Must be itemized in section B (other Personnel)
    of Research Related Budget
  • Students may be supported with salary/wages (not
    stipends)
  • STIPENDS

110
All requested costs
  • All must be justified as specifically required by
    the proposed research education program and must
    not duplicate items generally available for same
    purpose at the applicant institution
  • Items must be itemized in appropriate sections on
    424 forms, section C (Equipment), D (Travel) and
    F (Other Direct Costs) of Research Related
    Budget
  • PLEASE JUSTIFY ALL COSTS CLEARLY OR REVIEW MAY
    NOT ALLOW THEM

111
Unallowable Costs for Bridges to the Baccalaureate
  • Costs for students not matriculated full-time at
    the partner associate degree-granting institution
  • Salary support for students who have completed
    the associate degree
  • Faculty if mentoring and other activities with
    students are considered a regular part of an
    individuals academic duties these would not be an
    allowable costs from Bridge grant funds

112
Unallowable Costs for Bridges to the Doctorate
  • Costs for students not matriculated full-time at
    the partner masters degree-granting institution
  • Salary support for students who have completed
    their masters degree and enter a Ph.D program
  • Faculty if mentoring and other activities with
    students are considered a regular part of an
    individuals academic duties these would not be an
    allowable costs from Bridge grant funds

113
Participant Terms Conditions on Notice of Award
  • For compensation the following conditions must be
    met
  • The student must belong to the targeted
    groups/populations, must be a U.S. citizen or
    non-citizen national or permanent resident and
    must be matriculated full-time in degree programs
    in biomedical or behavioral science fields at the
    partner institution
  • The student must be performing necessary work
    relevant to the proposed program
  • There is an employer-employee relationship
    between the student and the institution (NO
    STIPENDS)
  • The total compensation is reasonable for the work
    performed
  • The institution provides compensation for all
    students under similar circumstances, regardless
    of the source of support for the activity

114
Unallowable Costs
  • Foreign Travel
  • Alterations and renovations
  • Housing, food, books, recruitment costs
    incentives to encourage or motivate students
    (such as laptops, internet subscriptions)

115
Consortium Agreements
  • Are a required part of the Bridges Program
  • Agreements between the eligible parent grantee
    and the bridging institution define their
    respective roles in administering the program
  • Application must include a signed letter from
    each collaborating institution

116
Consortium Agreements Language
  • Each letter should include the following
    statement
  • THE APPROPRIATE PROGRAMMATIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE
    PERSONNEL OF EACH INSTITUTION INVOLVED IN THIS
    GRANT APPLICATION ARE AWARE OF THE NIH CONSORTIUM
    GRANT POLICY AND ARE PREPARED TO ESTABLISH THE
    NECESSARY INTER-INSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT(S)
    CONSISTENT WITH THAT POLICY.

117
EXPANDED AUTHORITIES
  • Beginning this fiscal year all Bridge grants are
    under Expanded Authorities
  • http//grants1.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/N
    IHGPS_Part7.htm_Toc54600128

118
Expanded AuthoritiesWhat does it mean?
  • Carryover of unobligated balances from one budget
    period to the next is allowed
  • No cost extension of final budget period can be
    submitted automatically
  • Financial Status Reports (FSR) are no longer due
    after every budget year. FSRs are due 90 days
    after the final budget year of the project period

119
No Cost Extensions
  • 1st No Cost Extension (NCE) may be requested
    through the eRA Commons.
  • Only students already participating in the
    current Bridges program may continue in a NCE
  • No new students may be added to the Bridges
    program during a NCE

120
Submit Annual Progress Reports by eSNAP
  • Bridge progress reports are now eligible for
    Streamlined Non-Competing Award Procedures (SNAP)
    and may file their annual Progress Reports
    electronically using the eSNAP feature of the
    eRA Commons

121
SNAP Questions
122
3 SNAP Question
  • If you answer YES to question 3
  • unobligated balance will be greater than 25
    of the current years total budget
  • - Provide a detailed explanation of why there is
    a large unobligated balance and your specific
    plans to spend these funds.

123
Restrictions to Expanded Authorities for Bridge
Grants
  • The Bridge grantees may not appoint more than the
    approved number of Bridges Participants unless
    approval is first obtained from NIGMS.

124
Reminder
  • Grantees are reminded that they must continue to
    exercise proper stewardship over Federal funds
    and that costs charged to awards are allowable,
    allocable, reasonable, necessary, and
    consistently applied regardless of the source of
    funds.

125
Personnel on 424 Forms
  • For Bridge grants all students must be listed
    under personnel in block B
  • DO NOT add students in block E under
    Participant/Trainee Support Costs

126
Add Students to B. Other Personnel
127
Inclusion Enrollment Report
  • If you mark YES to Human Subjects on the BRIDGES
    application then the 424 format will expect the
    applicant to complete and provide the Target
    Inclusion Enrollment Report.
  • For the Study Title add Bridges to the
    Baccalaureate or Doctorate and add zeros in all
    the total fields.
  • If the application is marked NO to Human Subject
    involvement then no action is needed on the
    Target Inclusion Enrollment Report

128
(No Transcript)
129
For More Information Contact Your Grants
Management Specialist
  • Robert Altieri altierir_at_nigms.nih.gov
  • Irina Alva-Weinstein alvair_at_nigms.nih.gov
  • Michael Mace macem_at_nigms.nih.gov
  • Justin Rosenzweig rosenzwj_at_nigms.nih.gov
  • Lori Burge burgel_at_nigms.nih.gov

130
NIGMS
WORKSHOP SUMMARY THE MORE Website
Jermelina L.G. Tupas, Ph.D. Division of
Minority Opportunities in Research National
Institute of General Medical Sciences National
Institutes of Health, USDHHS June 19, 2009
131
NIGMS
WORKSHOP SUMMARY
  • Key features of the new Program Announcements
  • Bridges to the Doctorate(PAR-07-410)
    http//grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-0
    7-410.html
  • Bridges to the Baccalaureate (PAR-07-411)
  • http//grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-0
    7-411.html
  • - Read the correct Program Announcement
  • - Be responsive to the Program Announcement
  • Case Studies Strengths Weaknesses

132
NIGMS
WORKSHOP SUMMARY
  • Program Evaluation
  • How much did we do?
  • How well did we do it?
  • Are the community colleges baccalaureate
    degree-granting institution and students
    better off ?
  • Are the Masters granting institution Ph.D.
    granting institution and students better off
    ?

133
NIGMS
WORKSHOP SUMMARY
  • Review Issues
  • Essential Items for Bridges Applications
    http//www.nigms.nih.gov/Minority/Bridges/Essentia
    lsBridgesApps.htm
  • also see FAQs http//www.nigms.nih.gov/Minority/B
    ridges/FAQs.htm
  • Grants Management -
  • -allowable/unallowable costs
  • -No caps- Justify, justify, justify

July 25, 2008
134
SUMMARY
  • real partnership
  • measurable program objectives
  • measurable program outcomes, impact,
    implementation for improvement advice
  • transfer and graduation focusing on institutional
    impact

135
NIGMS
The MORE website http//www.nigms.nih.gov/Minorit
y/
  • Other useful website
  • 1. Frequently asked questions
  • http//www.nigms.nih.gov/Minority/Bridges/FAQs.htm
  • 2. Participating institutions
  • http//www.nigms.nih.gov/Minority/Bridges/PartInst
    Bacc.htm
  • http//www.nigms.nih.gov/Minority/Bridges/PartInst
    Doct.htm
  • 3. Program announcements
  • http//grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-0
    7-411.html (Bac)
  • http//grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-0
    7-410.html (Doc)
  • 4. MORE Staff Contacts
  • http//www.nigms.nih.gov/Minority/more_staffcontac
    ts.htm

July 25, 2008
About PowerShow.com