The following is a step-by-step guide on how to write the NIH DMP:

Understanding the NIH Data Sharing Policy:

Familiarize yourself with the specific data sharing requirements and policies outlined in the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) or the agency-specific guidelines. Each NIH institute may have slightly different expectations for data sharing, so be sure to tailor your plan accordingly.

Starting early:

Begin working on your DMP early in the grant writing process. This detailed document requires thoughtful consideration, and rushing through it could lead to oversight or errors.

Types of data to be collected:

Clearly outline the different types of data that will be generated in your research project. This can include experimental results, survey responses, clinical data, genomic data, imaging data, etc.

Data collection procedures:

Explain how you will collect and generate the data. Describe the instruments, protocols, and methodologies you will use. Address issues like data quality control and validation.

Data organization and documentation:

Detail how you will organize and document your data during the research project. This can involve establishing a standardized naming convention, using metadata, and creating data dictionaries or codebooks.

Data storage and backup:

Describe how you will store your data securely during the project. This may involve using institutional servers, cloud-based storage, or other dedicated data repositories. Include information on data backup procedures to prevent data loss.

Data sharing:

Clearly state your intentions regarding data sharing. If you plan to share data, specify the timing and conditions under which the data will be made available to other researchers and through which platforms or repositories.

Data access controls and restrictions:

Address any sensitive or confidential data and explain how you will protect the privacy and confidentiality of human subjects, as well as any intellectual property considerations.

Data preservation:

Outline your plan for the long-term preservation of the data beyond the project’s duration. Identify suitable data archives or repositories for depositing the data and explain how you will provide access to the data after the project ends.

Data sharing agreement (if applicable):

If data sharing involves collaborations with other institutions or researchers, mention any data sharing agreements that will be established.

Roles and responsibilities:

Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of team members regarding data management. This includes data ownership, access permissions, and data custodianship.

Compliance and ethical considerations:

Address any compliance requirements related to data management, such as data use agreements or Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals.

Budget:

If data management activities require additional funding, ensure that you include a well-justified budget for these expenses.

The DMP should ultimately be a comprehensive plan along with a timeline that identifies the data types and resources that will be generated, where they will be stored, and who will have access to them. Given the innovative and sensitive nature of the research that agencies such as the NIH and the NSF fund, this is a closely scrutinized part of the proposal.

The post What You Need to Know About the NIH Data Management Plan appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

1. Evaluate your progress – If a Grant Design Chart was developed for the initial proposal, the task of connecting all the pieces, including objectives, timelines, personnel, partners, evaluations, outcomes and budget will go smoothly. You will then be able to show accountability for each of these items as promised.

2. Review the donor’s regulations – In almost all cases, federal granting agencies will supply the specific regulations on how to manage the grant, both in terms of content and financially. Also, the appropriate Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular will specify the rules.

3. Create Gantt charts – The three essential Gantt charts will be: (1) personnel accomplishments, including any partners that may be involved in the project; (2) all activities that have been delineated in the grant; (3) scheduled evaluations that will be ongoing, incremental and will measure the success of each expected outcome.

4. Assure fiscal responsibility – At institutions of higher education, the research office will be responsible for this activity. This office or its equivalent will place and manage all budgetary matters under one dedicated account, including personnel time, salaries, and fringe benefits. This will assure that fiscal issues are handled independently, while at the same time being coordinated with the activities of those running the grant. If you are at another type of organization, your accounting office will probably handle compliance and all financial issues. Audits can become a nightmare if this does not happen. The key rule to remember is: only use funds as approved in the budget and never move funds from one category to another without institutional and donor approval.

5. Time all reports – In all cases, you will write progress reports of all the accomplishments, evaluations and outcomes as promised. These should be laid out in your initial Gantt chart. If you are the Principal Investigator (PI) or Program Director (PD), you will be responsible for all the content reporting. The research or accounting office will be responsible for fiscal reporting. Thus, it is essential that there is coordination on an ongoing basis between those implementing the grant and those responsible for budgetary compliance and audits.

Ensuring a smooth implementation will take place with prompt and careful planning. There are many horror stories from those who have not planned along the way; thus causing serious budgetary and content offenses. To avoid these, deliver what you promised, get permission for any changes, follow the guidelines of what is required, and, most of all, be certain that every penny is accounted for as planned and promised.

The post Five Crucial Aspects of Grant Management appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Institutional Compliance

My institution at the time was a large 501c3 research organization with over $100 million in grant revenue per year, and an award portfolio of almost $1 billion. Like most nonprofits and research institutions, we lived and died by our ability to procure grants and maintain a healthy sponsored projects portfolio. Participation in proposal development was mandatory for researchers, and the institution was constantly forecasting workload needs based on submitted, pending, awarded, and closing grants. The culture at my institution encouraged PIs to aim for large, multi-year grants with padded budgets, since these were the most likely to yield an automatic no-cost extension or two. Furthermore, most researchers could only maintain employment through their grant portfolios. Given this environment, it is easy to understand how this PI believed that the grants being awarded to him were his personally.

Accountability to the Donor

Unveiling the truth about grant awards is rather anti-climactic. In the simplest language, grants are non-repayable funds or products, disbursed by a sponsor to a recipient. Most awards support a specific project and require some level of compliance, evaluation, and reporting. Sponsors of all kinds have the money and desire to advance certain agendas, activities, or research areas, but do not have the internal resources to do so. Specifically, foundations and not-for-profit organizations award funds based on a recipient’s ability to further a mission or goal, as well as fulfilling the work outlined in a proposal submission. Although a PI or team submits the proposal, sponsoring organizations do not recognize individuals as entities that can or will share responsibility on the same level. Instead, that burden falls to the organization or institution to which those PIs and teams belong. Moreover, a single person cannot carry out the proposed work or research to the degree that an organization can.

Tax Liability

The additional issue of tax liability is enough to dispel the erroneous notions of possession from most researchers. Institutions with the capacity to receive grants are either exempt from IRS tax liability, or they are large enough to absorb said tax liability. Excepting most scholarships, fellowships, and some disaster relief aid, if a grant is awarded and accepted by an individual, that person will be responsible for paying all the tax liabilities associated with it. I will never forget a meeting where I met a handful of faculty members who had been accepting grants awarded to them personally. The IRS had finally caught up with them and was demanding over $50,000 in back taxes, with the penalty for non-payment being time in prison. Had the institution accepted these awards, there would have been no tax liability at all.

Remember, grants are made to institutions, not individuals. Understanding why grants are awarded, and what the researcher’s role is in administering the award is vital for an organization’s ability to survive an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) audit. As Project Directors or PIs, you have been selected by your institution to act as the representative for the award. You have been made accountable for managing the programmatic requirements supplied by the sponsoring organization. While this is an awesome responsibility, it does not make the grant funding yours. Should there be an audit issue down the road, you may end up quite grateful for this fact.

The post Whose Money Is It, Anyway? appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.

Internal Control Systems

Grant-winning institutions must have a tight system of policies and procedures in place that are recognized and respected at all levels of the organization. Normally, this system is managed by the Sponsored Research Office or another fiscal administration office, whose ultimate responsibility is to manage grants for the organization. Most often, this office will provide grant management training for staff and grantees, in addition to coordinating programs with similar goals and purposes.

Performance Measures

Monitoring the progress of program objectives to meet short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes in accordance to the request and timelines of the funded grant is a major way to achieve performance measures. Working with grantees to ensure the objectives and outcomes are linked with the activities can lead to compliance and collaboration. This is especially important with new grantees, who may not be aware of the regulations for grant awards. A sound and ongoing training process will greatly facilitate this effort.

Pre-Award Process

During the pre-award process, institutional grant administration personnel review compliance regulations and requirements in the RFPs and RFAs, and convey these to the applicant. Doing so makes certain that all parties are aware of the scope of management and responsibility of the grant. Specifically, the grant administrators will finalize the budget, ensure appropriate internal signatures, and – for a federal grant – submit the proposal through Grants.gov.

Post-award process

If the pre-award process is carefully designed and administered, the post-award procedure to ensure results will be a simpler undertaking. Three main areas control this aspect of grant management: financial compliance, performance monitoring, and time commitments of grantees. Awarded, in-kind, and matching funds will need to be tracked, along with payroll and participant records. Monetary conformity and the time commitment of the staff are essential for success. Poor management in the latter aspect has often resulted in institutions having to return money to donors. When a grant is awarded with a time commitment from existing full-time personnel, the awardee institutions must demonstrate a reduction in the existing duties of said personnel that corresponds to their reported time commitment for grant activities. This is why payroll and participant records need to be especially accurate and specific.

Assessing and Using Results

The donor organization’s monitoring process should be a blanket effort over all awarded grants, which will ensure compliance and grant success. Serving as both a grantee and a compliance team officer has given me the perspective from both sides. As a grantee, I wanted to expedite a program that may or may not have been precisely executed according to what I had promised the donor in my grant request. As a compliance team officer, I had to guarantee that what had been promised by the grantee was being achieved. These two roles are often more cacophonous than harmonious. Nevertheless, grantees must provide progress reports throughout the various phases of their work, including demonstration of achievement. Ongoing and continuous evaluation of the program objectives – along with results assessment and alterations to the program, if needed – is a good method to ensure that the original promise to the donor is met by the end of the grant. At the end of the day, the institution that has a strong system of regulations and reiterates those to their grantees is an institution that need not worry about audits.

The last time your institution was audited, what was the outcome? Share your experience in the comments.

The post Surviving an Audit: How to be Ready appeared first on Grant Training Center Blog.