IGHS Affiliate Seed Award Program (ASAP)

Award Amount

Indivisual award amount is up to $50,000 for one year (multiple smaller awards may be issued depending on applications). Total funding for March 2022 = $50,000.

Eligibility

  • ​​UCSF IGHS Affiliate Program Member or IGHS Core Faculty
    AND
  • UCSF Faculty* in any series (Ladder Rank, In Residence, Clinical X, Health Science Clinical, Adjunct) in all ranks (Instructors, Assistant, Associate, Full Professors) or Appointees to the Professional Research Series and to the Librarian Series may apply.
    AND
  • Proposed project addresses health equity challenge 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.

Deadlines

  • Applications open February 15, 2022
  • Applications close March 15, 2022
  • Awardee notifications April 15, 2022
  • FUNDING DECISIONS MADE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Application instructions

Create a single document containing these components, in this order and to be submitted as a single PDF:

  1. 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, email address, and phone number.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Current & Pending Support: All current and pending intramural and extramural research support information for each PI, following the NIH format.
  5. Biosketch: An NIH Biosketch (using current format), including personal statement, for each PI.
  6. 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 [email protected] no later than March 15, 2022 (5:00 pm PDT).

Allowable expenses

Allowable Not Allowable

PI Salary *

X

Co-Investigator(s) Salary

X

Post Doc Salary

X

International collaborator salary

X

Network Recharge Rates

X

General Automobile and Employee Liability (GAEL)

X

Administrative Support

X

Supplies

X

Equipment

X

Software

X

Personal Computers

X

Mailing

X

Tuition

X

Travel

X

Research Staff Support (e.g. SRA; Lab. Technician)

X

Patient Care

X

Global Programs Service Costs

X

International Subcontracts

X

Indirect costs on subcontracts

X

General guidelines

*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.

Budget Justification

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 ([email protected]) 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.

Scoring System

Ratings are provided only in whole numbers, as an overall score

Impact Score Descriptor Guidance on strengths/weaknesses

High

1

Exceptional

Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses

2

Outstanding

Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses

3

Excellent

Very strong with only some minor weaknesses

Medium

4

Very Good

Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses

5

Good

Strong but with >1 moderate weaknesses

6

Satisfactory

Some strengths but also some moderate weaknesses

Low

7

Fair

Some strengths but with >1 major weakness

8

Marginal

A few strengths and a few major weaknesses

9

Poor

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

General Review

(These comments WILL be shared with the applicant)

Reviewers will provide brief comments/feedback using a structured google form with these sections:

  1. General critique and summary of the proposal.
  2. Significance. Does the proposal address an important problem?
  3. Approach. Are methods, study or implementation design and analysis appropriate?
  4. Innovation. Is the proposed project original and innovative?
  5. Investigator(s). Is the team trained to do the project? Strong relevant track record? Diverse? Includes appropriate co-leadership from the host community?
  6. Environment/Departmental support. Is departmental support or cost share utilized or attempted? Does the applicant(s) have access to the necessary tools?
  7. Future potential. Is the project likely to lead to future extramural funding?
  8. Budget. Does the budget adhere to grant terms? Any concerns?

Related Links

For additional information, contact [email protected] 

Executive Committee

  • Michael Lipnick
  • Phuoc Le
  • Madhavi Dandu
  • Kim Baltzell
  • Arian Hatefi
  • Gabriel Chamie
  • Jim Kahn
  • Ling Zhan
  • Meg Autry
  • Joe Derisi