Working Group Grant NOFO

Application and Submission Instructions

All materials must be submitted through the USDA NIFA Regional IPM Centers Grant Management System to be eligible for review. Applicants must enter project narrative text directly into Grants Management System text boxes and upload required forms as PDF or Excel files.

Pre-Submission Preparation

1. Access the Grant Management System, and log in or create an account.
2. Click Start a new grant proposal, then under the North Central region’s 2027 North Central IPM Center – Working Group, click the Begin a new proposal button. 
3. Download required templates found in the Grant Management System:
   • Cover and Assurances Form
   • Budget Worksheet
   • Budget Narrative
   • Conflict of Interest Form
   • Working Group Member List

Proposal Questions

Input the following into the online text and selection fields within the Grant Management System:

General Information

• Project Type
  • New Working Group
  • Continuing Working Group – defined as funded in either or both of the last two years by the NCIPMC.
• Proposal Abstract (500-word limit): A plain-language summary of the core problem or opportunity, primary objectives, proposed approach, and expected impact.
• NCIPMC priorities addressed.
• Other general questions: lead state and organization, cooperating states, funding requested, project discipline, performance dates, target audience(s) or end users, commodities, target organism(s), practices, benefits and impacts, outreach methods.

Key Personnel

Working Group Project Narrative

Organize your Project Narrative using the following outline.

Problem and Justification (800-word limit)

Describe the stakeholder-identified pest management problem, need, or opportunity at the regional level the Working Group will address and explain why multistate collaboration or coordination is needed. Include:

• Need and significance: Describe the situation facing stakeholders and who or what is affected. Identify important gaps in information, information dissemination, IPM adoption or implementation, coordination, or other areas the Working Group will address regionally. Provide relevant information or evidence demonstrating the importance of the problem or opportunity, including economic, environmental, agricultural, or other impacts when appropriate. Evidence may include research findings, evaluation findings, stakeholder input, or practice- or experience-based knowledge. Describe how the regional need was identified or validated, including how stakeholders or intended audiences across collaborating states were engaged in identifying the problem and/or developing the proposed response.
• Need for a Working Group: Explain why a Working Group is an appropriate approach to addressing the problem or opportunity at the regional level and why multistate collaboration or coordination is needed. Describe the types of expertise, perspectives, organizations, or stakeholders that need to be brought together, and, in general terms, who will participate in the Working Group (by role, specialty, or organization type rather than by name). Explain what a coordinated regional effort can accomplish that individual organizations or existing efforts cannot. When applicable, identify existing regional or national IPM infrastructure relevant to the proposed work—such as the Crop Protection Network and its decision-support resources, EDDMapS, Pest Management Strategic Plans (PMSPs), Crop Profiles, and other Center-supported networks, data systems, communication platforms, and resources—and explain how the working group will build upon, contribute to, or complement those efforts. If existing infrastructure cannot adequately address the identified need, briefly explain the gap.
• Anticipated benefit: Describe what the Working Group will make possible or improve beyond current conditions through regional collaboration, coordination, information exchange, or shared resources. Explain how these efforts will benefit identified stakeholders or intended audiences and contribute to improved IPM information, capacity, implementation, or adoption.
• Alignment with priorities: Explain how the Working Group addresses one or more NCIPMC priority areas and supports relevant USDA NIFA priorities.

Continuation or Expansion of Previously Funded Work (400-word limit)

If you are submitting a continuing Working Group project, state the reason for continuation, expansion, or adaptation. Summarize its relevant accomplishments or results, and explain what needs to be addressed and how the proposed project will build upon, extend, or differ from the earlier work.

Working Group Goal, Objectives, and Evaluation

• Goal (40-word limit): State the proposed project’s overall goal. The goal is a broad statement of purpose or long-term change (impact) that the proposed project seeks to advance. It should be grounded in and logically flow from the proposed project context and rationale described in the preceding sections.

• Objectives: Proposals should include 1–3 objectives appropriate to the available funding and one-year project period. Objectives should describe the primary intended change or result and identify the stakeholders, audiences, organizations, or systems expected to benefit. Objectives should be specific, achievable, and measurable.

For each objective, provide:

• • Inputs: Identify the key resources, expertise, partnerships, data, existing tools or technologies, or other assets that will be used to accomplish the objective.
  • Activities: Describe the specific activities that will be undertaken to accomplish this objective. Examples may include convening and facilitating Working Group meetings, developing educational resources, tools, or technologies; delivering training; coordinating research efforts; and facilitating partnerships, networks, or other coordinated efforts. Activities should be relevant and achievable within the one-year project period.
  • Outputs: Describe the immediate, measurable products, services, participation, or reach are expected to result from implementing the activities for this objective. Specify an anticipated number, type, or scope – for example, the number of Working Group meetings to be held monthly; the number of workshops to be conducted; the types of resources to be developed; the number of participants to be trained or to be engaged; or geographic areas to be reached.
  • Outcomes: Please list the expected short- and medium-term for this objective.
    • Short-term outcomes: Short-term outcomes are the changes expected to occur as a direct result of implementing project activities and producing outputs. Short-term outcomes may include changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, awareness, aspirations, confidence, capacity, or access to information or resources. What short-term changes are expected to result from activities and outputs for this objective? Identify who or what is expected to experience each change and, when feasible, the anticipated degree of change and timeframe.
    • Medium-term outcomes: Medium-term outcomes are the changes in actions expected to occur as targeted individuals, groups, organizations, communities, or systems apply or act upon the expected short-term changes. Medium-term outcomes may include changes in behaviors; practices; decision-making; policy adoption or implementation; adoption or use of new strategies or technologies; collaboration; or organizational performance or practices. What medium-term changes are expected to develop from the short-term outcomes for this objective? Identify who or what is expected to experience each change and, when feasible, the anticipated degree of change and timeframe.

• Potential Long-Term Outcomes for all objectives (150-word limit): Long-term outcomes are changes in social, economic, health, environmental, organizational, or system-level conditions. Long-term outcomes generally occur beyond the one-year project period and build on the achievement of short-term and medium-term outcomes. Briefly identify the broader, long-term change to which the proposed project may contribute and explain how it logically builds on the anticipated short- and medium-term outcomes across the project’s objectives. We do not expect you to achieve or measure the identified long-term outcome during the project period.

• Evaluation of all objectives (350-word limit): How will you document and assess the proposed implementation and anticipated results across all objectives? Describe an evaluation approach that is aligned with the project objectives and expected outcomes (results) and is appropriate and feasible given the project’s scope, duration, and available resources.
  • Key evaluation questions: What key question(s) will the evaluation address? Explain how the evaluation questions relate to the project objectives and expected outcomes.
  • Data sources: From whom or where will the evaluation data be obtained/collected? Examples may include workshop participants, Working Group members, intended end-users, partners, and project records.
  • Data collection methods: How will the evaluation data be collected? Examples may include surveys, pre- and post-questionnaires, focus group discussions, individual interviews, observations, document review, and tests or assessments.
  • Evaluation results use and reporting: How will the evaluation findings be used to guide project implementation, learning, improvement, or decision-making? How will the evaluation findings be communicated – for example, through briefings, interim or progress reports, a final report, or an impact report?

Proposal Attachments

Upload documents to their respective fields:

• Cover and Assurances Form (PDF): Signed by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR).
• Budget Worksheet (Excel): Submit the completed Excel budget template using the following guidelines:
  • Indirect Cost Cap: Indirect costs cannot exceed 30% of Total Federal Funds (42.857% of direct costs) or your institutional rate—whichever is lower.

  • Sub-Award Requirements: If your project includes sub-awards to other institutions, you must submit:

    • An overall budget for the lead project that reflects total costs (including all sub-awards).

    • Individual itemized budget breakdowns for each participating institution.

  • Lead Institution Share: It is recommended that the lead institution request at least 50% of the total project budget

• Budget Narrative (PDF): Describe proposed expenditures for each line item. If the project has a sub-award, you will submit a budget narrative for that portion as well.
• Letters of Support (PDF): Letters from participating stakeholders or collaborating organizations.
• Working Group Member List (Excel): Must use the mandatory template detailing multistate representation.
• Current and Pending Support Forms (PDF): Senior/Key Personnel must generate and export their Current and Pending Support forms via SciENcv. Must list this grant as “Pending.”
• Conflict of Interest Form (PDF): Separate form for each Senior/Key Personnel.
• Literature Cited (PDF): List only publications cited in the proposal.

Please note: USDA requires the use of the Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae (SciENcv) system to generate Common Forms for the Current and Pending (Other) Support documents. Free-form versions will not be accepted. SciENcv produces USDA-compliant Common Forms that must be certified and submitted as PDF attachments with the application. Please reference the USDA NIFA Grants Application Guide for eRA Commons and SciENcv instructions.