Individual award amount is up to $50,000 for one year (multiple smaller awards may be issued depending on applications).
Total funding for March 2023 = $50,000.
- IGHS Affiliate Program Member, IGHS Core Faculty, UCSF Faculty* in any series (Ladder Rank, In Residence, Clinical X, Health Science Clinical, Adjunct) in any rank (Instructors, Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor), and Appointees to the Professional Research Series and the Librarian Series may apply.
- Proposed project should address health equity challenges locally or internationally. We strongly encourage multi-disciplinary projects that combine distinct scholarly approaches to focus on a single problem. For projects primarily conducted off campus, we strongly encourage multiple PIs and inclusion of a PI from the host site or community.
*UCSF Fellows who are participants in the IGHS Affiliate Program AND who have a commitment from UCSF for a faculty position are eligible to apply.
- Applications open February 1, 2023
- Applications close March 15, 2023
- Awardee notifications April 15, 2023
- FUNDING DECISIONS MADE WITHIN 30 DAYS
Create a single document containing these components, in this order and to be submitted as a single PDF:
- Cover Page: Cover page with name of award program, deadline, title of proposal, amount of funding requested, Principal Investigator name(s), academic title(s), number of years at UCSF, department(s), phone number(s), UCSF box number(s), and email address(es). Identify the UCSF department that will manage the award, the accounting manager/contact name, UCSF box number, grant manager email address, and phone number.
- Project Description: Description (2 pages or less) of proposed global health equity scholarly project, innovative features, and potential impact. Figures need to be included in these 2 pages; references do not.
- Budget and Budget Justification: Detailed budget and budget justification, explaining how the funds will be used (any format – see details below). Please clearly note if UCSF Global Programs for Research and Training Office (Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Laos) will be engaged to support logistics and implementation of this project and service costs have been adequately budgeted.
- Current & Pending Support: All current and pending intramural and extramural research support information for each PI, following the NIH format.
- Biosketch: An NIH Biosketch (using current format), including personal statement, for each PI.
- Submission status: State if new submission or resubmission. For resubmissions please include a brief summary addressing feedback from the original submission review.
Submission: As a single PDF file, please email the documents outlined above to IGHSaffiliates@ucsf.edu no later than March 15, 2023 (5:00 pm PDT).
|PI Salary *
|Post Doc Salary
|International collaborator salary
|Network Recharge Rates
|General Automobile and Employee Liability (GAEL)
|Research Staff Support (e.g. SRA; Lab. Technician)
|Global Programs Service Costs
|Indirect costs on subcontracts
*The NIH base salary cap applies. PIs are required to list their effort whether it is paid or in kind.
PI partial salary support should be well-justified with respect to project activities. Due to their small size, IGHS grants are designed for project support and are not intended to provide PI salary support unrelated to the project. PI salary amounts greater than ~30% of the requested award amount (e.g., $15,000 of a $50K award proposal, not 10% FTE) must be well justified and it should reflect work done by the PI to conduct specific tasks on the project (e.g. data collection, computation, implementation) and not merely general supervision of project goals and personnel.
Multiple PIs can decide how to distribute the 30% salary support among themselves (e.g., 15%/15%).
- The 30% limit on salary support is a guideline and includes SALARY & FRINGE BENEFITS.
- Update: General Automobile and Employee Liability (GAEL) are NOT allowable costs.
- The award amount is DIRECT COST ONLY.
Please clearly justify all costs. For all personnel, clearly identify any discrepancies between the actual effort (i.e. real percent time) the individual will contribute to the project, versus the amount of salary effort they are requesting. This is particularly important for personnel/PI’s who expect to contribute project effort with little or no salary, such as those whose salary is above the NIH base salary cap.
Recall: PI salary amounts greater than ~30% of the requested award amount must be well justified.
If you have additional questions on potential costs for international projects or need advice on implementation in a foreign setting, please contact Joe Novotny (firstname.lastname@example.org) in the International Research Support Operations (IRSO) Office.
Criteria and Process for Application Review
The scoring committee is composed of ~5-10 invited, voluntary IGHS Affiliate Program peer reviewers and chaired by the Affiliate Program Director or appointed Chair. Each committee member reviews ~2 applications and provides a score and brief, general comments for these 2 proposals using a provided google form. Each proposal is scored by 2 committee members. Once all proposals have been scored as above, the scores and comments are shared with all scoring committee members and discussed as a group to establish consensus. After discussion, all committee members submit scores for each proposal and averaged scores are used to select award recipients and distribution of funds.
Ratings are provided only in whole numbers. Three scores will be provided: an overall impact score, a strength of partnership score, and an early-stage investigator score. Proposals will be ranked by impact score, and within the top proposals, priority will be given to those with the highest partnership and early-stage investigator scores.
|Guidance on strengths/weaknesses
|Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses
|Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses
|Very strong with only some minor weaknesses
|Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses
|Strong but with >1 moderate weaknesses
|Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses
|Some strengths but with >1 major weakness
|A few strengths and a few major weaknesses
|Very few strengths and numerous major weaknesses
|Minor Weakness: An easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen impact
Moderate Weakness: A weakness that lessens impact
Major Weakness: A weakness that severely limits impact
|LMIC institution/community partnership and collaborator involvement
|Exceptional partnership, clear collaborator involvement, significant amount of budgetary funding to partner
|Satisfactory partnership, collaborator involvement, amount of budgetary funding to partner
|Unclear/weak in any aspect (partnership, collaborator involvement, budget allocation to partner)
|Early stage investigator
|PI is an early stage investigator*
|PI is not early stage, but proposal supports an early stage investigator
|No evidence of support for an early stage investigator
(These comments WILL be shared with the applicant)
Reviewers will provide brief comments/feedback using a structured google form with these sections:
- General critique and summary of the proposal.
- Significance. Does the proposal address an important problem?
- Approach. Are methods, study or implementation design and analysis appropriate?
- Innovation. Is the proposed project original and innovative?
- Investigator(s). Is the team trained to do the project? Strong relevant track record? Diverse? Includes appropriate co-leadership from the host community? Priority may be given to early career investigators or those without current significant grant funding.
- Environment/Departmental support. Is departmental support or cost share utilized or attempted? Does the applicant(s) have access to the necessary tools?
- Future potential. Is the project likely to lead to future extramural funding?
- Budget. Does the budget adhere to grant terms? Any concerns?