This site provides answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the Extramural Associates Research Development Award (EARDA) Program (PAR-08-096). The Announcement for this program is found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-08-096.html. This information provided here will be useful for applicants as well as for those who review the applications. The inquiries (and their answers) are clustered into four general categories:

Residency Training for New Extramural Associates (EAs) at the NIH;
Renewal Applications;
Technical Assistance; and
Review Considerations.

NIH Residency Training

1. What changes are being made for Extramural Associates (EAs) in the NIH Residency Program?

Historically, the NIH Residency Training Program for EAs consisted of a single, 10-week session. Effective with the 2009 class, the on-site training will consist of two, 3-week courses (Parts 1 and 2).

2. What will be covered in each part of the NIH Residency Training?

The first 3 week session, Part 1, will take place during the first budget year of the EARDA grant award. It will provide core training on NIH processes and procedures and the skills needed to administer NIH and other grants. The second 3 week session, Part 2, will take place during the third budget year of the EARDA grant award. It will focus on grantsmanship, scientific review policies and procedures, extramural funding mechanisms and opportunities, and other Federal and private or non-profit funding programs and opportunities.

For 2009 EARDA awardees, NIH Residency Training, Part 1 is scheduled for November 2009. NIH Residency Training, Part 2, which is scheduled in Year 3 of the grant, will take place during the months of either June or July.

3. How will the second session be paid for?

Funds for travel for each of the two sessions should be requested in the application.

Renewal Applications

1. Is the multiple Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) option encouraged in renewal applications even in cases where there was only one PI on the previous EARDA grant award?

Yes. The new PD/PI on the renewal EARDA application should be a high level official at the institution (i.e., Provost, Dean, Vice President for Research, or director of the Office of Sponsored Programs) who has decision-making authority in the area of research administration infrastructure. This PD/PI should contribute up to 3 percent effort and is responsible for program oversight and ensuring that the EA has the appropriate level of authority to successfully execute the transitional Institutional Development Plan (IDP). This IDP focuses on integrating EARDA-supported capacity building activities into any existing research administration infrastructure at the institution.

2. Who should be listed in the Senior or Key Person(s) section of the application?

Minimally, the EA and the other PD/PI (i.e., Provost, Dean, Vice President for Research, or director of the Office of Sponsored Programs) should be listed as Senior/Key Persons.

3. What key information should be provided in the Research Plan component of renewal applications?

The Research Plan for renewal applications should include the following key components:

• Goals and Objectives. On one page, describe the goals and objectives for continuing to strengthen the research administration infrastructure at the EARDA institution. Indicate which of the goals and objectives are new, staying the same, or that reflect the expansion of an objective(s) from the previous period of support.
  
  
• Progress/Accomplishments. This section replaces the Background and Significance component of the PHS 398 Research Plan. Describe progress in accomplishing the goals and objectives of the Research Administration IDP during the previous period of support. Emphasize the outputs and outcomes over the last 5 years under each of the stated objectives in the original EARDA application, and in particular address the following items, as relevant:
  
  
  • Staff recruitment.
  • Training received by the EA, including but not limited to courses offered by the Society of Research Administrators or National Council of Research Administrators, training provided for support staff (i.e., electronic research administration, database development, etc.) and for other stakeholders (i.e., grants management).
  • Development and implementation of an evaluation tool for assessing progress toward strengthening the research administration infrastructure at the EARDA institution. Additionally, describe processes for developing the evaluation component and provide a copy in the appendix materials.
  • Other outputs and outcomes:
    
    
    • Faculty outreach and development (i.e., research methodology workshops, grantsmanship workshops, etc.), including outreach to neighboring institutions.
    • Research administration services provided, including but not limited to research information services, support services in developing/submitting research applications.
    • Pilot projects supported and related outcomes (i.e., students supported, scientific meetings attended, applications submitted by pilot project PIs based on the data obtained through the funding of their EARDA pilot research project, and the outcomes of the submitted applications, etc.).
      
      
  • Institutional impact of EARDA support, as applicable:
    
    
    • Increase in number of faculty members in biomedical and behavioral science disciplines with doctorate or equivalent degrees;
    • Increase in the number of faculty engaged in biomedical and behavioral sciences research.
    • Increase in number of faculty with external research support. Research and research capacity building funding should be presented on a separate chart or listed and included in the Appendix. For each project, the chart should include the NIH project number, key personnel from the applicant institution, and their designations in the grant (e.g., PI, subproject director, investigator, etc.), grantee institution, title of project, total grant award (or subcontract or subproject award), and project period (start and completion dates).
    • Increase in students involved in research.
    • Faculty research collaborations with investigators at other institutions.
    • Presentations at local, regional, national and international meetings.
      
      
• The Investigator.
  
  
  • Describe the specific accomplishments of the EA. As applicable, describe any training the EA received beyond the NIH Residency Training. Comment on the leadership exhibited in implementing the components of the Research Administration IDP.
  • Describe any barriers experienced and the solutions provided. As a change agent, how did the EA help to strengthen the research culture at the grantee institution?
  • Describe the role the Advisory Committee has played in providing guidance to the EA.
    
    
• Future Plans/Transitional IDP: Design and Methods. This section replaces the “Research Design and Methods” component of the PHS 398 Research Plan.
  
  
  • Clearly describe the goals and objectives aimed at the continued strengthening of the research administration infrastructure as well as describe the planned activities designed to accomplish each indicated objective. For example, does the institution plan to maintain EARDA-supported activities at the current level of operation? Does the institution plan to integrate EARDA-supported activities into a pre-existing organizational unit with the same or reduced staffing levels? Does the institution plan to adapt EARDA-supported activities to better meet local needs? What is the institution currently doing to promote their capacity building activities to key stakeholders and constituents?
  • Also describe the type of technical assistance (if any) that might be needed for further developing your sustainability plan or moving toward sustainability. The chart below is intended to assist in focusing and prioritizing your sustainability planning during the 2- to 3-year transition from EARDA to institutional support.

Technical Assistance: Preparing and Uploading the EARDA Research Plan into the PHS 395 Research Plan Component of the Electronic SF 424 (R&R) Application

1. Insufficient guidance is provided in PAR-08-096 on how to prepare and upload the Research Administration IDP (i.e., EARDA Research Plan) into the PHS 398 Research Plan component of the electronic SF 424 (R&R) application form. Are supplementary instructions available?

Yes. Item 1 below provides guidance for developing the EARDA Research Plan in a format that is consistent with that of the PHS 398 Research Plan Component of the electronic PHS SF424 Application form. Item 2 describes the process for converting the IDP into separate attachments for uploading into the PHS 398 Research Plan Component.

Item 1: Developing the EARDA Research Plan Components/Attachments

To facilitate developing the EARDA Research Plan attachments for uploading into the PHS 398 Research Plan Component of the electronic PHS SF424 application form, applicants are encouraged to develop the IDP into sections that closely correspond to the key sections of the PHS 398 Research Plan Component.

• New Applications/Resubmissions. The Research Plan component for new applications and resubmissions should be developed as a single document, no longer than 15 pages, and should have four sections.
  • o Goals and Objectives. This replaces the “Specific Aims” section of the PHS 398 Research Plan. Keep in mind that the goals and objectives must be limited to no more than one page in the 15-page Research Plan.
    
    
  • Current Research Infrastructure. This section replaces the “Background and Significance” component of the PHS 398 Research Plan and describes the current status of the institution’s research administration infrastructure. See PAR-08-096, Items 3A, 3B, and 3C, pp 17-18 for guidance on developing Current Research Infrastructure.
    
    
  • Principal Investigators. This section replaces the “Preliminary Studies” component of the PHS 398 Research Plan. See PAR-08-096, Items 2A and 2B, pp. 16-17 for guidance on developing the section on the EARDA Research Plan/Research Administration IDP.
    
    
  • Research Administration IDP: Design and Methods. This section replaces the “Research Design and Methods” component of the PHS 398 Research Plan. See PAR-08-096, Items 4 and 5, pp. 18-20 for guidance on developing the section on Design and Methods.
• Renewal Applications. The EARDA Research Plan for renewal applications should be developed as a single document, no longer than 15 pages, and have four sections.
  • Goals and Objectives. This section, which replaces the “Specific Aims” section of the PHS 398 Research Plan, addresses the goals and objectives for continuing to strengthen the research administration infrastructure at the applicant’s institution, and should be limited to one page.
    
    
  • Progress/Accomplishments. This section replaces the Background and Significance component of the PHS 398 Research Plan.
    
    
  • The Investigators. This component describes addresses the specific accomplishments of the multiple PDs/PIs (i.e., the EA and high ranking institutional who works in partnership with the EA).
    
    
  • Future Plans/Transitional IDP: Design and Methods. This section replaces the “Research Design and Methods” component of the PHS 398 Research Plan.
  
  
  Question 3 above under “Renewal Applications” provides detailed guidance on the content for each of the components of the EARDA Research Plan IDP listed above.

Item 2: Preparing the Research Plan Component Attachments for Uploading into the PHS 398 Research Plan Component of the SF 424 applications

Upon completing the Research Plan (up to 15 pages) as directed in Item 1 above, convert the single document into four separate documents that contain the following content respectively:

• Goals and Objectives (Attachment 1);
• Current Research Infrastructure (Attachment 2);
• The Principle Investigators (Attachment 3); and
• Research Administration Infrastructure Development Plan: Design and Methods (Attachment 4).

For Renewal Applications, the EARDA Research Plan should be converted into four separate documents that contain the following content respectively:

• Goals and Objectives (Attachment 1);
• Progress/Accomplishments (Attachment 2);
• The Investigators (Attachment 3); and
• Future Plans/Transitional Infrastructure Development Plan: Design and Methods (Attachment 4).

Each of the attachments must be converted to PDF format and filenames must be included without spaces or special characters, and a pdf extension must be used.

Item 3: The Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan

Prepare the Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan according to the guidance provided in Item 2C, Section IV, Application and Submission Information, in PAR-08-096, p. 17 (Attachment 5). Convert the document to a PDF file. Again, a pdf extension must be used.

2. Describe the process for uploading the EARDA Research Plan attachments into the PHS 398 Research Plan Component of the SF 424 application form.

Upload Attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4 as described in Item 2 above in the PHS 398 Research Plan as Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively. See item 5.5 in the PHS SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/SF424_RR_Guide_General_Ver2.pdf) Next, upload Attachment 5—the Multiple PI Leadership Plan—as Item 14 of the PHS 398 Research Plan.

All letters—the three letters of reference for the EA nominee and the letter from the President or equivalent official—should be scanned into a single PDF file (Attachment 6) and attached at Item 16 in the PHS 398 Research Plan.

Review Considerations

1. Is guidance available that clarifies how the standard review criteria (i.e., approach, significance, innovation, investigators, and environment) are used to evaluate the merit of EARDA applications within the context of the key areas of emphasis—Research Administration IDP, Institution/Institutional Commitment, and EA Nominee?

Yes. Specific guidance is provided below on how new and renewal applications are evaluated for scientific merit within the context of the key areas of emphasis for EARDA.

Review Considerations for New Applications/Resubmissions

• Research Administration IDP. The IDP is evaluated in terms of its approach, significance, and innovation.
  
  Approach
  • Given the size and characteristics of the applicant institution, are the design and methods for strengthening the research administration infrastructure adequately developed, well-reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the EA program?
  • How well are the proposed activities integrated into the existing research administration infrastructure at the application institution? For example, does the Research Administration IDP reflect adequate coordination among key faculty and/or administrators in its development?
  • Does the Plan include an evaluative component for monitoring progress in implementing and accomplishing the capacity development goals and objectives in research administration?
  • Does the evaluative component confirm a role for the Advisory Committee in reviewing and monitoring research and/or research administration development activities?
  • Does the plan address outreach to other regional academic/scientific institutions?
  • Does the plan include long-range goals and objectives for sustainability?
  • Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative approaches?
    
    
  Significance:
  • Given the current size, characteristics and research capability of the institution, do the proposed capacity development activities have the potential of significantly enhancing the research administration infrastructure at the applicant institution?
  • What is the likelihood that the proposed capacity development activities will facilitate and/or enhance the development of a culture of research at the institution?
    
    
  Innovation:
  • Will the proposed capacity development activities facilitate the efforts by faculty to develop and submit stronger applications for research support as well as facilitate efforts by Offices of Sponsored Program staff and grants administrators (as appropriate) to effectively carry out pre- and post-award activities respectively?
  • Highlight any innovative methods included in the Research Administration IDP to address critical barriers experienced by faculty at teaching institutions in regard to launching and/or sustaining a research program.
    
    
• Institution/Institutional Commitment. The institution and its commitment to strengthening its research administration infrastructure are evaluated within the context of efforts to provide a supportive research culture for faculty researchers.
  
  Environment:
  • Is there evidence of strong institutional commitment to implementing the Research Administration IDP?
  • Is there evidence of long-range institutional commitment to strengthening behavioral and biomedical research capacity? For example, does the institution currently employ or plan to employ useful collaborative or consultative arrangements with other institutions? Are there policies in place in regard to new faculty hires?
  • Taking into account the institutional context, including the quality of faculty and students in health-related science departments, how do the proposed activities contribute to the strengthening and/or development of a culture of research at the applicant institution?
    
    
• The Investigators. The EARDA program is encouraging the multiple PI option to promote a team approach to accomplishing the goals and objectives of the proposed Research Administration IDP. At least one member of the team must e a high ranking official with decision-making authority in the area of research administration.
  
  The Nominee/Extramural Associate (PD/PI)
  • What are the strengths of the EA Nominee’s personal qualifications as indicated by training, work experience, knowledge, and skills?
  • Does the applicant provide evidence of commitment to and experience in research administration?
  • Is there evidence that the applicant has rapport with faculty and students that would enable him/her to successfully engage these individuals in biomedical and behavioral research activities?
  • Does the application demonstrate the nominee’s ability to commit to function as the EA for the duration of the grant?
  Other (PD/PI)
  • What are the strengths of the official’s personal qualifications as indicated by training, work experience, knowledge, and skills that enable him/her to carry out the important oversight responsibilities in regard to implementing the proposed Research Administration IDP?
  • Is there evidence that the PD/PI will ensure integration of EARDA-supported activities into the existing research administration infrastructure?

  The Multiple PI Leadership Plan. The Leadership Plan should reflect the governance and organizational structure of the leadership team, communication plans, process for making decisions on scientific direction, procedures for resolving conflicts, and delineation of the roles…for the PDs/PIs (i.e., administrative, technical, and scientific responsibilities). (PAR 08-096, Item 2C “Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan,” p. 17)

  • Does the leadership plan reflect a true team approach to strengthening the research administration infrastructure at the applicant’s institution?
  • Based on the multiple PI Leadership Plan, is there evidence that the PD/PI will delegate the appropriate authority to the Extramural Associate to implement the proposed Research Administration IDP for strengthening the institution’s research administration infrastructure?

Review Considerations for Renewal Applications

When evaluating Renewal Applications, the standard review criteria are used to access scientific merit within the context of the following key areas of emphasis: (i) Progress/ Accomplishments; (ii) Future Plans/Transitional IDP; (iii) Institution/Institutional Commitment,; and (iv) Extramural Associate and other PD/PI, as applicable.

• Progress/Accomplishments. The progress and accomplishments made during the first 5 years of the program are evaluated in terms of approach, significance, and innovation.
  
  Approach:
  • Were the milestones as described in the original application met in establishing a functional Office of Sponsored Programs or other office (e.g., Office of Research Development) as a result of EARDA support?
  • What was the extent of institutional commitment during the previous EARDA-support period, including but not limited to: kinds of support provided (e.g., space and location for the office, staff, office equipment, additional funds, additional release time for the PI, etc.)?

  Significance:

  • How effective was the established evaluation plan in documenting the new Office’s role in increasing the number and quality of extramural grant applications submitted; increasing the number of competitive applications funded and/or increasing the amount of extramural support; and increasing the number of faculty and/or students in sponsored research?
  • How effective were EARDA-sponsored activities in improving institutional grants management (e.g., timely and accurate submission of continuation applications and compliance with federal policies related to the receipt of federal funds)?
  • Overall, how would you rate progress toward strengthening the research administration capacity (or research development capacity, if applicable) at the grantee institution? Research administration capacity refers to the ability to assist faculty in the effective development and submission of applications as well as the management of research and related grants. Research development refers to the ability to assist faculty in the development of research programs and to secure support for those programs.

  Environment: Did the new Office participate in strengthening the culture of research at the institution by providing leadership in establishing intra- and inter-institutional partnerships and collaborations to enhance the research environment (i.e., establishing core research related resources, seed grant programs, sponsorship of research methodology workshops, grant-writing workshops, etc.)

  Innovation: Did the new Office show leadership in addressing existing barriers to strengthening the research administration infrastructure at the grantee’s institution?

• Future Plans/Transitional IDP. The proposed plans are also evaluated in regard to “Approach, Environment and Innovation.”
  
  Approach:
  • Do the future plans build on the previous goals and objectives? Highlight any expanded goals and objectives at your institution.
  • What are the milestones for transitioning from EARDA support to full institutional support of the currently supported EARDA activities?
  • What is the level of planned institutional commitment (physical, fiscal, human resources, continued sponsorship of faculty and student research training, etc) to continue performing at the same or greater level of service as demonstrated during EARDA support?

  Environment:

• Are EARDA-supported activities integrated into the existing institutional research administration infrastructure? For example, in regard to existing Offices of Sponsored Programs/Projects, will selected EARDA supported activities be integrated into that structure?
• Additionally, in regard to new Offices of Research Development, in what areas (if any) are there planned collaborations with the Offices of Sponsored Programs/ Projects at the grantee institution?

Innovation: As applicable, are there existing or planned capacity building grants that can contribute to the future sustainability of activities previously supported by EARDA?

• Investigators

The Extramural Associate (PD/PI)

• Did the Extramural Associate (EA) show effective leadership in implementing the goals and objectives of the Research Administration IDP? In particular, was the level of effort appropriate for carrying out the planned activities?
• What was the EA’s level of participation in organizations that promote sponsored-research activity? In particular, how did his/her participation contribute to implementing the goals and objectives of the Research Administration IDP?
• How effectively did the PI use the Advisory Committee in implementing the goals and objectives of the Research Administration IDP?
• Highlight any innovative approaches the PI may have developed to address identified barriers to strengthening the research administration infrastructure at the grantee institution.

The Other PD/PI(s): In what areas were the contributions of the PD/PI the greatest in supporting the EA’s implementation of the goals and objectives of the Research Administration IDP?

The Multiple Leadership Plan:

• Overall, did the PD/PI and EA function as an effective team?
• Does the Leadership Plan innovatively address any weaknesses identified during the previous period of support?