The Shared Leadership Council (SLC) will oversee the policy and procedure by which a PI/group will submit a grant proposal when only one proposal from the SON is permitted. Pre-award support (department-based) will be provided by a staff person who has requisite knowledge and skills to support the submission. Assuming school-wide benefit of the proposed project, pre-award support will be funded by the central administration budget. Faculty will have an opportunity to provide input on briefs submitted for consideration and will approve final single proposals. The SLC sub-committee (one Faculty Council [FC] member from each department plus one department chair) will, using established criteria and faculty input, select which brief proposal moves forward for the final single proposal to be submitted for each specific call. The FC Chair will facilitate faculty input into the proposal selection. The relevant Coordinating Committee(s) will review proposals to submit motions through FC for SON faculty review, discussion, and approval.
- Each Spring, the faculty will vote to approve educational priorities for submission of proposals to funding agencies.
- The Associate Dean for Academic Affairs will send a general announcement to faculty and staff when funding calls are expected; that any faculty members who would like to submit to these calls should send a one-page brief to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs. The brief will include the name of PI and probable collaborators; grant mechanism (e.g., ANE, NEPQR); goal, purpose, and objectives. Briefs are due within 7 business days of the general announcement. All proposed grants that affect course requirements of a degree program or involve the establishment of a new track or re-establishment of a previous track must fit with faculty-approved educational priorities.
- The Associate Dean for Academic Affairs collects and distributes briefs to SLC sub-committee members. Simultaneously, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs asks the FC Chair to notify faculty of submitted briefs and to post briefs on the Faculty Discussion Board for a 2-week discussion period. The SLC sub-committee monitors and considers faculty discussion in their evaluation of briefs.
- The SLC sub-committee evaluates and selects one or no brief per call using the following criteria:
- Fits with faculty-approved educational priorities and,
- Minimal-to-no concerns expressed on the Faculty Discussion Board and,
- Supports degree program (in case of CNE, supports the school mission) and has no negative impact on core curricula either in place or being developed as applicable and/or,
- Aligns with SON strategic mission, vision, values, and priorities and/or,
- Does not obligate the SON to something not likely to be central to mission, vision, values, and priorities and/or,
- High degree of fit with purpose of the grant call (or what we know of it in advance of call) and/or,
- High alignment with “pros” and low alignment with “cons” of Grant Outcomes as in Table 1.
- The SLC sub-committee notifies the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs of their decisions.
- The Associate Dean for Academic Affairs notifies each PI of the SLC sub-committee’s decision to recommend or not recommend further development of the brief after the specific call is announced.
- WAIT PERIOD FOR CALLS TO BE RELEASED. Associate Deans (Research and Academic Affairs) monitor solicitations for calls with assistance from others.
- When the specific call is released,
- The Associate Dean for Academic Affairs sends released call school-wide.
- Faculty with a brief proposal recommended by the SLC sub-committee have 72 hours to fine-tune their brief in relation to specifics in the call and send the proposal to FC Chair. The proposal needs to remain consistent with faculty-approved educational priorities and responsive to the specific call.
- The FC Chair sends the proposal to the relevant Coordinating Committee Chair for review and formulation of a motion to be submitted to the faculty for approval.
- If the lead time for the single proposal allows for a 2-week posting, an in-house SON meeting for discussion, and a 2-week vote period before submission, the relevant Coordinating Committee will review the proposal and submit a motion to the FC Chair.
- If the lead time for the single proposal to be submitted to the funding agency does not allow for a 2-week posting, an in-house SON meeting for discussion, and a 2-week vote period before submission, the relevant Coordinating Committee will review the proposal, consider provisional approval, and submit a motion for relevant SON faculty vote as soon as possible following submission.
Table: Desirable and Less Desirable Attributes of Grant Projects
Less (or not) Desirable
- School-wide benefit
- High degree of fit with UW and SON vision, mission, goals and SON 3-year strategy map
- High degree of fit with IOM report The Future of Nursing; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; AACN Essentials, etc.
- Resources are available and/or easily kept updated or sustained (human and technology)
- Sustainability plan is clear, detailed, specific, and actionable after grant period ends
- High degree of alignment with demographic and/or population imperatives
- Prepares students for something for which there is no certifying exam; role is too specialized; or, low demand for role
- Business case is not or has not been made for how this would be sustainable, including but not limited to student pipeline, faculty expertise, certification, employer demand
- Faculty capacity or expertise resides in one person or very few people; once that person leaves/retires, ability to maintain is severely compromised
- Adds an isolated option with limited faculty expertise/capacity
- Grant includes a lot of student tracking/ monitoring that requires a significant amount of unit (e.g., AS, TIER, Finance) time/cost that is not covered in the grant funding or adversely affects other units. (In other words, budget should cover costs of unfunded mandates.)
Approved by SLC September 17, 2013; updated March 13, 2014
Academic Services Memo No. 51