9:15 Registration
9:30 Welcome and Introduction.
Susan Barefoot, Chief Operating Officer, Clemson Experiment Station
Geoff Zehnder, IPM & Sustainable Agriculture Coordinator, Clemson Univ.
9:45 Introduction to the IPM Center; Overview of Center activities that support IPM
Jim VanKirk, Director, Southern Region IPM Center
10:00 Review Panel Process: An overview of the review panel selection and review process. Jim VanKirk
10:30 Overview of CSREES Funding Programs: Targeting your proposal to the appropriate program.
Rick Meyer, CSREES National Program Leader for Plant and Animal Systems
11:00 Tips for Successful Grant-Writing; Successful grant writers share their experiences with specific CSREES funding programs.
George Kennedy, North Carolina State University Dept. of Entomology
Guido Schnabel, Clemson Dept. of Entomology, Soils & Plant Science
Tony Keinath, Clemson Coastal Research & Education Center
11:45 Discussion
12:15 Lunch
Participants will serve on a mock review panel where they will review and discuss proposals of varying quality and merit (download RFA and proposals below). Discussion following the review will focus on the positive and negative aspects of each proposal in addressing grant program priorities, formatting guidelines, etc.
1:15 Explanation of the mock review process and charge to the panels Jim VanKirk
1:30 Participants assigned to review panel; panels meet, rate and rank proposals Rick Meyer and Jim VanKirk, Panel Managers
2:30 Reconvene; review panel participants report on strengths and weaknesses of the proposals.
3:00 Wrap-up activity. Participants write down key lessons learned and share with the group.
3:30 Questions and open discussion
4:00 Adjourn
Three proposals below originated with the Southern Region IPM (S-RIPM) grants program. Only funded projects are available as part of the public record. Another proposal below was fabricated to help demonstrate some of the pitfalls. For all proposals we are including only narrative and budget portions.
Please note - the S-RIPM review panel uses a two-part review. The relevance review is undertaken by one panel, with members reading only the relevance statement. The technical panel reads the full proposal. The RFA includes separate scoring criteria for each part of the review. Workshop participants (afternoon session) should be familiar with both parts of each proposal.
