what is research proposal summary

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How To Write A Research Summary

It’s a common perception that writing a research summary is a quick and easy task. After all, how hard can jotting down 300 words be? But when you consider the weight those 300 words carry, writing a research summary as a part of your dissertation, essay or compelling draft for your paper instantly becomes daunting task.

A research summary requires you to synthesize a complex research paper into an informative, self-explanatory snapshot. It needs to portray what your article contains. Thus, writing it often comes at the end of the task list.

Regardless of when you’re planning to write, it is no less of a challenge, particularly if you’re doing it for the first time. This blog will take you through everything you need to know about research summary so that you have an easier time with it.

What is a Research Summary?

A research summary is the part of your research paper that describes its findings to the audience in a brief yet concise manner. A well-curated research summary represents you and your knowledge about the information written in the research paper.

While writing a quality research summary, you need to discover and identify the significant points in the research and condense it in a more straightforward form. A research summary is like a doorway that provides access to the structure of a research paper's sections.

Since the purpose of a summary is to give an overview of the topic, methodology, and conclusions employed in a paper, it requires an objective approach. No analysis or criticism.

Research summary or Abstract. What’s the Difference?

They’re both brief, concise, and give an overview of an aspect of the research paper. So, it’s easy to understand why many new researchers get the two confused. However, a research summary and abstract are two very different things with individual purpose. To start with, a research summary is written at the end while the abstract comes at the beginning of a research paper.

A research summary captures the essence of the paper at the end of your document. It focuses on your topic, methods, and findings. More like a TL;DR, if you will. An abstract, on the other hand, is a description of what your research paper is about. It tells your reader what your topic or hypothesis is, and sets a context around why you have embarked on your research.

Getting Started with a Research Summary

Before you start writing, you need to get insights into your research’s content, style, and organization. There are three fundamental areas of a research summary that you should focus on.

• While deciding the contents of your research summary, you must include a section on its importance as a whole, the techniques, and the tools that were used to formulate the conclusion. Additionally, there needs to be a short but thorough explanation of how the findings of the research paper have a significance.
• To keep the summary well-organized, try to cover the various sections of the research paper in separate paragraphs. Besides, how the idea of particular factual research came up first must be explained in a separate paragraph.
• As a general practice worldwide, research summaries are restricted to 300-400 words. However, if you have chosen a lengthy research paper, try not to exceed the word limit of 10% of the entire research paper.

How to Structure Your Research Summary

The research summary is nothing but a concise form of the entire research paper. Therefore, the structure of a summary stays the same as the paper. So, include all the section titles and write a little about them. The structural elements that a research summary must consist of are:

It represents the topic of the research. Try to phrase it so that it includes the key findings or conclusion of the task.

The abstract gives a context of the research paper. Unlike the abstract at the beginning of a paper, the abstract here, should be very short since you’ll be working with a limited word count.

Introduction

This is the most crucial section of a research summary as it helps readers get familiarized with the topic. You should include the definition of your topic, the current state of the investigation, and practical relevance in this part. Additionally, you should present the problem statement, investigative measures, and any hypothesis in this section.

Methodology

This section provides details about the methodology and the methods adopted to conduct the study. You should write a brief description of the surveys, sampling, type of experiments, statistical analysis, and the rationality behind choosing those particular methods.

Create a list of evidence obtained from the various experiments with a primary analysis, conclusions, and interpretations made upon that. In the paper research paper, you will find the results section as the most detailed and lengthy part. Therefore, you must pick up the key elements and wisely decide which elements are worth including and which are worth skipping.

This is where you present the interpretation of results in the context of their application. Discussion usually covers results, inferences, and theoretical models explaining the obtained values, key strengths, and limitations. All of these are vital elements that you must include in the summary.

Most research papers merge conclusion with discussions. However, depending upon the instructions, you may have to prepare this as a separate section in your research summary. Usually, conclusion revisits the hypothesis and provides the details about the validation or denial about the arguments made in the research paper, based upon how convincing the results were obtained.

The structure of a research summary closely resembles the anatomy of a scholarly article . Additionally, you should keep your research and references limited to authentic and  scholarly sources only.

Tips for Writing a Research Summary

The core concept behind undertaking a research summary is to present a simple and clear understanding of your research paper to the reader. The biggest hurdle while doing that is the number of words you have at your disposal. So, follow the steps below to write a research summary that sticks.

1. Read the parent paper thoroughly

You should go through the research paper thoroughly multiple times to ensure that you have a complete understanding of its contents. A 3-stage reading process helps.

a. Scan: In the first read, go through it to get an understanding of its basic concept and methodologies.

b. Read: For the second step, read the article attentively by going through each section, highlighting the key elements, and subsequently listing the topics that you will include in your research summary.

c. Skim: Flip through the article a few more times to study the interpretation of various experimental results, statistical analysis, and application in different contexts.

Sincerely go through different headings and subheadings as it will allow you to understand the underlying concept of each section. You can try reading the introduction and conclusion simultaneously to understand the motive of the task and how obtained results stay fit to the expected outcome.

2. Identify the key elements in different sections

While exploring different sections of an article, you can try finding answers to simple what, why, and how. Below are a few pointers to give you an idea:

• What is the research question and how is it addressed?
• Is there a hypothesis in the introductory part?
• What type of methods are being adopted?
• What is the sample size for data collection and how is it being analyzed?
• What are the most vital findings?
• Do the results support the hypothesis?

Discussion/Conclusion

• What is the final solution to the problem statement?
• What is the explanation for the obtained results?
• What is the drawn inference?
• What are the various limitations of the study?

3. Prepare the first draft

Now that you’ve listed the key points that the paper tries to demonstrate, you can start writing the summary following the standard structure of a research summary. Just make sure you’re not writing statements from the parent research paper verbatim.

Instead, try writing down each section in your own words. This will not only help in avoiding plagiarism but will also show your complete understanding of the subject. Alternatively, you can use a summarizing tool (AI-based summary generators) to shorten the content or summarize the content without disrupting the actual meaning of the article.

SciSpace Copilot is one such helpful feature! You can easily upload your research paper and ask Copilot to summarize it. You will get an AI-generated, condensed research summary. SciSpace Copilot also enables you to highlight text, clip math and tables, and ask any question relevant to the research paper; it will give you instant answers with deeper context of the article..

4. Include visuals

One of the best ways to summarize and consolidate a research paper is to provide visuals like graphs, charts, pie diagrams, etc.. Visuals make getting across the facts, the past trends, and the probabilistic figures around a concept much more engaging.

5. Double check for plagiarism

It can be very tempting to copy-paste a few statements or the entire paragraphs depending upon the clarity of those sections. But it’s best to stay away from the practice. Even paraphrasing should be done with utmost care and attention.

Also: QuillBot vs SciSpace: Choose the best AI-paraphrasing tool

6. Religiously follow the word count limit

You need to have strict control while writing different sections of a research summary. In many cases, it has been observed that the research summary and the parent research paper become the same length. If that happens, it can lead to discrediting of your efforts and research summary itself. Whatever the standard word limit has been imposed, you must observe that carefully.

7. Proofread your research summary multiple times

The process of writing the research summary can be exhausting and tiring. However, you shouldn’t allow this to become a reason to skip checking your academic writing several times for mistakes like misspellings, grammar, wordiness, and formatting issues. Proofread and edit until you think your research summary can stand out from the others, provided it is drafted perfectly on both technicality and comprehension parameters. You can also seek assistance from editing and proofreading services , and other free tools that help you keep these annoying grammatical errors at bay.

8. Watch while you write

Keep a keen observation of your writing style. You should use the words very precisely, and in any situation, it should not represent your personal opinions on the topic. You should write the entire research summary in utmost impersonal, precise, factually correct, and evidence-based writing.

9. Ask a friend/colleague to help

Once you are done with the final copy of your research summary, you must ask a friend or colleague to read it. You must test whether your friend or colleague could grasp everything without referring to the parent paper. This will help you in ensuring the clarity of the article.

Once you become familiar with the research paper summary concept and understand how to apply the tips discussed above in your current task, summarizing a research summary won’t be that challenging. While traversing the different stages of your academic career, you will face different scenarios where you may have to create several research summaries.

In such cases, you just need to look for answers to simple questions like “Why this study is necessary,” “what were the methods,” “who were the participants,” “what conclusions were drawn from the research,” and “how it is relevant to the wider world.” Once you find out the answers to these questions, you can easily create a good research summary following the standard structure and a precise writing style.

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to write a research proposal

What is a research proposal?

What is the purpose of a research proposal , how long should a research proposal be, what should be included in a research proposal, 1. the title page, 2. introduction, 3. literature review, 4. research design, 5. implications, 6. reference list, frequently asked questions about writing a research proposal, related articles.

If you’re in higher education, the term “research proposal” is something you’re likely to be familiar with. But what is it, exactly? You’ll normally come across the need to prepare a research proposal when you’re looking to secure Ph.D. funding.

When you’re trying to find someone to fund your Ph.D. research, a research proposal is essentially your “pitch.”

A research proposal is a concise and coherent summary of your proposed research.

You’ll need to set out the issues that are central to the topic area and how you intend to address them with your research. To do this, you’ll need to give the following:

• an outline of the general area of study within which your research falls
• an overview of how much is currently known about the topic
• a literature review that covers the recent scholarly debate or conversation around the topic

➡️  What is a literature review? Learn more in our guide.

Essentially, you are trying to persuade your institution that you and your project are worth investing their time and money into.

It is the opportunity for you to demonstrate that you have the aptitude for this level of research by showing that you can articulate complex ideas:

It also helps you to find the right supervisor to oversee your research. When you’re writing your research proposal, you should always have this in the back of your mind.

This is the document that potential supervisors will use in determining the legitimacy of your research and, consequently, whether they will invest in you or not. It is therefore incredibly important that you spend some time on getting it right.

Tip: While there may not always be length requirements for research proposals, you should strive to cover everything you need to in a concise way.

If your research proposal is for a bachelor’s or master’s degree, it may only be a few pages long. For a Ph.D., a proposal could be a pretty long document that spans a few dozen pages.

➡️ Research proposals are similar to grant proposals. Learn how to write a grant proposal in our guide.

When you’re writing your proposal, keep in mind its purpose and why you’re writing it. It, therefore, needs to clearly explain the relevance of your research and its context with other discussions on the topic. You need to then explain what approach you will take and why it is feasible.

Generally, your structure should look something like this:

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Research Design
• Implications

If you follow this structure, you’ll have a comprehensive and coherent proposal that looks and feels professional, without missing out on anything important. We’ll take a deep dive into each of these areas one by one next.

The title page might vary slightly per your area of study but, as a general point, your title page should contain the following:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• The name of your institution and your particular department

Tip: Keep in mind any departmental or institutional guidelines for a research proposal title page. Also, your supervisor may ask for specific details to be added to the page.

The introduction is crucial   to your research proposal as it is your first opportunity to hook the reader in. A good introduction section will introduce your project and its relevance to the field of study.

You’ll want to use this space to demonstrate that you have carefully thought about how to present your project as interesting, original, and important research. A good place to start is by introducing the context of your research problem.

Think about answering these questions:

• What is it you want to research and why?
• How does this research relate to the respective field?
• How much is already known about this area?
• Who might find this research interesting?
• What are the key questions you aim to answer with your research?
• What will the findings of this project add to the topic area?

Your introduction aims to set yourself off on a great footing and illustrate to the reader that you are an expert in your field and that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge and theory.

The literature review section answers the question who else is talking about your proposed research topic.

You want to demonstrate that your research will contribute to conversations around the topic and that it will sit happily amongst experts in the field.

➡️ Read more about how to write a literature review .

There are lots of ways you can find relevant information for your literature review, including:

• Research relevant academic sources such as books and journals to find similar conversations around the topic.
• Read through abstracts and bibliographies of your academic sources to look for relevance and further additional resources without delving too deep into articles that are possibly not relevant to you.
• Watch out for heavily-cited works . This should help you to identify authoritative work that you need to read and document.
• Look for any research gaps , trends and patterns, common themes, debates, and contradictions.
• Consider any seminal studies on the topic area as it is likely anticipated that you will address these in your research proposal.

This is where you get down to the real meat of your research proposal. It should be a discussion about the overall approach you plan on taking, and the practical steps you’ll follow in answering the research questions you’ve posed.

So what should you discuss here? Some of the key things you will need to discuss at this point are:

• What form will your research take? Is it qualitative/quantitative/mixed? Will your research be primary or secondary?
• What sources will you use? Who or what will you be studying as part of your research.
• Document your research method. How are you practically going to carry out your research? What tools will you need? What procedures will you use?
• Any practicality issues you foresee. Do you think there will be any obstacles to your anticipated timescale? What resources will you require in carrying out your research?

Your research design should also discuss the potential implications of your research. For example, are you looking to confirm an existing theory or develop a new one?

If you intend to create a basis for further research, you should describe this here.

It is important to explain fully what you want the outcome of your research to look like and what you want to achieve by it. This will help those reading your research proposal to decide if it’s something the field  needs  and  wants,  and ultimately whether they will support you with it.

When you reach the end of your research proposal, you’ll have to compile a list of references for everything you’ve cited above. Ideally, you should keep track of everything from the beginning. Otherwise, this could be a mammoth and pretty laborious task to do.

Consider using a reference manager like Paperpile to format and organize your citations. Paperpile allows you to organize and save your citations for later use and cite them in thousands of citation styles directly in Google Docs, Microsoft Word, or LaTeX.

Your project may also require you to have a timeline, depending on the budget you are requesting. If you need one, you should include it here and explain both the timeline and the budget you need, documenting what should be done at each stage of the research and how much of the budget this will use.

This is the final step, but not one to be missed. You should make sure that you edit and proofread your document so that you can be sure there are no mistakes.

A good idea is to have another person proofread the document for you so that you get a fresh pair of eyes on it. You can even have a professional proofreader do this for you.

This is an important document and you don’t want spelling or grammatical mistakes to get in the way of you and your reader.

➡️ Working on a research proposal for a thesis? Take a look at our guide on how to come up with a topic for your thesis .

A research proposal is a concise and coherent summary of your proposed research. Generally, your research proposal will have a title page, introduction, literature review section, a section about research design and explaining the implications of your research, and a reference list.

A good research proposal is concise and coherent. It has a clear purpose, clearly explains the relevance of your research and its context with other discussions on the topic. A good research proposal explains what approach you will take and why it is feasible.

You need a research proposal to persuade your institution that you and your project are worth investing their time and money into. It is your opportunity to demonstrate your aptitude for this level or research by showing that you can articulate complex ideas clearly, concisely, and critically.

A research proposal is essentially your "pitch" when you're trying to find someone to fund your PhD. It is a clear and concise summary of your proposed research. It gives an outline of the general area of study within which your research falls, it elaborates how much is currently known about the topic, and it highlights any recent debate or conversation around the topic by other academics.

The general answer is: as long as it needs to be to cover everything. The length of your research proposal depends on the requirements from the institution that you are applying to. Make sure to carefully read all the instructions given, and if this specific information is not provided, you can always ask.

• Research Process

Writing a Scientific Research Project Proposal

• 5 minute read
• 99.2K views

Table of Contents

The importance of a well-written research proposal cannot be underestimated. Your research really is only as good as your proposal. A poorly written, or poorly conceived research proposal will doom even an otherwise worthy project. On the other hand, a well-written, high-quality proposal will increase your chances for success.

In this article, we’ll outline the basics of writing an effective scientific research proposal, including the differences between research proposals, grants and cover letters. We’ll also touch on common mistakes made when submitting research proposals, as well as a simple example or template that you can follow.

What is a scientific research proposal?

The main purpose of a scientific research proposal is to convince your audience that your project is worthwhile, and that you have the expertise and wherewithal to complete it. The elements of an effective research proposal mirror those of the research process itself, which we’ll outline below. Essentially, the research proposal should include enough information for the reader to determine if your proposed study is worth pursuing.

It is not an uncommon misunderstanding to think that a research proposal and a cover letter are the same things. However, they are different. The main difference between a research proposal vs cover letter content is distinct. Whereas the research proposal summarizes the proposal for future research, the cover letter connects you to the research, and how you are the right person to complete the proposed research.

There is also sometimes confusion around a research proposal vs grant application. Whereas a research proposal is a statement of intent, related to answering a research question, a grant application is a specific request for funding to complete the research proposed. Of course, there are elements of overlap between the two documents; it’s the purpose of the document that defines one or the other.

Scientific Research Proposal Format

Although there is no one way to write a scientific research proposal, there are specific guidelines. A lot depends on which journal you’re submitting your research proposal to, so you may need to follow their scientific research proposal template.

In general, however, there are fairly universal sections to every scientific research proposal. These include:

• Title: Make sure the title of your proposal is descriptive and concise. Make it catch and informative at the same time, avoiding dry phrases like, “An investigation…” Your title should pique the interest of the reader.
• Abstract: This is a brief (300-500 words) summary that includes the research question, your rationale for the study, and any applicable hypothesis. You should also include a brief description of your methodology, including procedures, samples, instruments, etc.
• Introduction: The opening paragraph of your research proposal is, perhaps, the most important. Here you want to introduce the research problem in a creative way, and demonstrate your understanding of the need for the research. You want the reader to think that your proposed research is current, important and relevant.
• Background: Include a brief history of the topic and link it to a contemporary context to show its relevance for today. Identify key researchers and institutions also looking at the problem
• Literature Review: This is the section that may take the longest amount of time to assemble. Here you want to synthesize prior research, and place your proposed research into the larger picture of what’s been studied in the past. You want to show your reader that your work is original, and adds to the current knowledge.
• Research Design and Methodology: This section should be very clearly and logically written and organized. You are letting your reader know that you know what you are going to do, and how. The reader should feel confident that you have the skills and knowledge needed to get the project done.
• Preliminary Implications: Here you’ll be outlining how you anticipate your research will extend current knowledge in your field. You might also want to discuss how your findings will impact future research needs.
• Conclusion: This section reinforces the significance and importance of your proposed research, and summarizes the entire proposal.
• References/Citations: Of course, you need to include a full and accurate list of any and all sources you used to write your research proposal.

Common Mistakes in Writing a Scientific Research Project Proposal

Remember, the best research proposal can be rejected if it’s not well written or is ill-conceived. The most common mistakes made include:

• Not providing the proper context for your research question or the problem
• Failing to reference landmark/key studies
• Losing focus of the research question or problem
• Not accurately presenting contributions by other researchers and institutions
• Incompletely developing a persuasive argument for the research that is being proposed
• Misplaced attention on minor points and/or not enough detail on major issues
• Sloppy, low-quality writing without effective logic and flow
• Incorrect or lapses in references and citations, and/or references not in proper format
• The proposal is too long – or too short

Scientific Research Proposal Example

There are countless examples that you can find for successful research proposals. In addition, you can also find examples of unsuccessful research proposals. Search for successful research proposals in your field, and even for your target journal, to get a good idea on what specifically your audience may be looking for.

While there’s no one example that will show you everything you need to know, looking at a few will give you a good idea of what you need to include in your own research proposal. Talk, also, to colleagues in your field, especially if you are a student or a new researcher. We can often learn from the mistakes of others. The more prepared and knowledgeable you are prior to writing your research proposal, the more likely you are to succeed.

Language Editing Services

One of the top reasons scientific research proposals are rejected is due to poor logic and flow. Check out our Language Editing Services to ensure a great proposal , that’s clear and concise, and properly referenced. Check our video for more information, and get started today.

• Manuscript Review

Research Fraud: Falsification and Fabrication in Research Data

Research Team Structure

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Research Proposal Example/Sample

Detailed Walkthrough + Free Proposal Template

If you’re getting started crafting your research proposal and are looking for a few examples of research proposals , you’ve come to the right place.

In this video, we walk you through two successful (approved) research proposals , one for a Master’s-level project, and one for a PhD-level dissertation. We also start off by unpacking our free research proposal template and discussing the four core sections of a research proposal, so that you have a clear understanding of the basics before diving into the actual proposals.

• Research proposal example/sample – Master’s-level (PDF/Word)
• Research proposal example/sample – PhD-level (PDF/Word)
• Proposal template (Fully editable) 

If you’re working on a research proposal for a dissertation or thesis, you may also find the following useful:

• Research Proposal Bootcamp : Learn how to write a research proposal as efficiently and effectively as possible
• 1:1 Proposal Coaching : Get hands-on help with your research proposal

FAQ: Research Proposal Example

Research proposal example: frequently asked questions, are the sample proposals real.

Yes. The proposals are real and were approved by the respective universities.

Can I copy one of these proposals for my own research?

As we discuss in the video, every research proposal will be slightly different, depending on the university’s unique requirements, as well as the nature of the research itself. Therefore, you’ll need to tailor your research proposal to suit your specific context.

You can learn more about the basics of writing a research proposal here .

How do I get the research proposal template?

You can access our free proposal template here .

Is the proposal template really free?

Yes. There is no cost for the proposal template and you are free to use it as a foundation for your research proposal.

Where can I learn more about proposal writing?

For self-directed learners, our Research Proposal Bootcamp is a great starting point.

For students that want hands-on guidance, our private coaching service is recommended.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

10 Comments

I am at the stage of writing my thesis proposal for a PhD in Management at Altantic International University. I checked on the coaching services, but it indicates that it’s not available in my area. I am in South Sudan. My proposed topic is: “Leadership Behavior in Local Government Governance Ecosystem and Service Delivery Effectiveness in Post Conflict Districts of Northern Uganda”. I will appreciate your guidance and support

GRADCOCH is very grateful motivated and helpful for all students etc. it is very accorporated and provide easy access way strongly agree from GRADCOCH.

Proposal research departemet management

I am at the stage of writing my thesis proposal for a masters in Analysis of w heat commercialisation by small holders householdrs at Hawassa International University. I will appreciate your guidance and support

please provide a attractive proposal about foreign universities .It would be your highness.

comparative constitutional law

Kindly guide me through writing a good proposal on the thesis topic; Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Financial Inclusion in Nigeria. Thank you

Kindly help me write a research proposal on the topic of impacts of artisanal gold panning on the environment

I am in the process of research proposal for my Master of Art with a topic : “factors influence on first-year students’s academic adjustment”. I am absorbing in GRADCOACH and interested in such proposal sample. However, it is great for me to learn and seeking for more new updated proposal framework from GRADCAOCH.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Executive Summary
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

An executive summary is a thorough overview of a research report or other type of document that synthesizes key points for its readers, saving them time and preparing them to understand the study's overall content. It is a separate, stand-alone document of sufficient detail and clarity to ensure that the reader can completely understand the contents of the main research study. An executive summary can be anywhere from 1-10 pages long depending on the length of the report, or it can be the summary of more than one document [e.g., papers submitted for a group project].

Bailey, Edward, P. The Plain English Approach to Business Writing . (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 73-80 Todorovic, Zelimir William and Marietta Wolczacka Frye. “Writing Effective Executive Summaries: An Interdisciplinary Examination.” In United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Conference Proceedings . (Decatur, IL: United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 2009): pp. 662-691.

Importance of a Good Executive Summary

Although an executive summary is similar to an abstract in that they both summarize the contents of a research study, there are several key differences. With research abstracts, the author's recommendations are rarely included, or if they are, they are implicit rather than explicit. Recommendations are generally not stated in academic abstracts because scholars operate in a discursive environment, where debates, discussions, and dialogs are meant to precede the implementation of any new research findings. The conceptual nature of much academic writing also means that recommendations arising from the findings are distributed widely and not easily or usefully encapsulated. Executive summaries are used mainly when a research study has been developed for an organizational partner, funding entity, or other external group that participated in the research . In such cases, the research report and executive summary are often written for policy makers outside of academe, while abstracts are written for the academic community. Professors, therefore, assign the writing of executive summaries so students can practice synthesizing and writing about the contents of comprehensive research studies for external stakeholder groups.

When preparing to write, keep in mind that:

• An executive summary is not an abstract.
• An executive summary is not an introduction.
• An executive summary is not a preface.
• An executive summary is not a random collection of highlights.

Christensen, Jay. Executive Summaries Complete The Report. California State University Northridge; Clayton, John. "Writing an Executive Summary that Means Business." Harvard Management Communication Letter (July 2003): 2-4; Keller, Chuck. "Stay Healthy with a Winning Executive Summary." Technical Communication 41 (1994): 511-517; Murphy, Herta A., Herbert W. Hildebrandt, and Jane P. Thomas. Effective Business Communications . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997; Vassallo, Philip. "Executive Summaries: Where Less Really is More." ETC.: A Review of General Semantics 60 (Spring 2003): 83-90 .

Structure and Writing Style

Writing an Executive Summary

Read the Entire Document This may go without saying, but it is critically important that you read the entire research study thoroughly from start to finish before you begin to write the executive summary. Take notes as you go along, highlighting important statements of fact, key findings, and recommended courses of action. This will better prepare you for how to organize and summarize the study. Remember this is not a brief abstract of 300 words or less but, essentially, a mini-paper of your paper, with a focus on recommendations.

Isolate the Major Points Within the Original Document Choose which parts of the document are the most important to those who will read it. These points must be included within the executive summary in order to provide a thorough and complete explanation of what the document is trying to convey.

Separate the Main Sections Closely examine each section of the original document and discern the main differences in each. After you have a firm understanding about what each section offers in respect to the other sections, write a few sentences for each section describing the main ideas. Although the format may vary, the main sections of an executive summary likely will include the following:

• An opening statement, with brief background information,
• The purpose of research study,
• Method of data gathering and analysis,
• Overview of findings, and,
• A description of each recommendation, accompanied by a justification. Note that the recommendations are sometimes quoted verbatim from the research study.

Combine the Information Use the information gathered to combine them into an executive summary that is no longer than 10% of the original document. Be concise! The purpose is to provide a brief explanation of the entire document with a focus on the recommendations that have emerged from your research. How you word this will likely differ depending on your audience and what they care about most. If necessary, selectively incorporate bullet points for emphasis and brevity. Re-read your Executive Summary After you've completed your executive summary, let it sit for a while before coming back to re-read it. Check to make sure that the summary will make sense as a separate document from the full research study. By taking some time before re-reading it, you allow yourself to see the summary with fresh, unbiased eyes.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Length of the Executive Summary As a general rule, the correct length of an executive summary is that it meets the criteria of no more pages than 10% of the number of pages in the original document, with an upper limit of no more than ten pages [i.e., ten pages for a 100 page document]. This requirement keeps the document short enough to be read by your audience, but long enough to allow it to be a complete, stand-alone synopsis. Cutting and Pasting With the exception of specific recommendations made in the study, do not simply cut and paste whole sections of the original document into the executive summary. You should paraphrase information from the longer document. Avoid taking up space with excessive subtitles and lists, unless they are absolutely necessary for the reader to have a complete understanding of the original document. Consider the Audience Although unlikely to be required by your professor, there is the possibility that more than one executive summary will have to be written for a given document [e.g., one for policy-makers, one for private industry, one for philanthropists]. This may only necessitate the rewriting of the introduction and conclusion, but it could require rewriting the entire summary in order to fit the needs of the reader. If necessary, be sure to consider the types of audiences who may benefit from your study and make adjustments accordingly. Clarity in Writing One of the biggest mistakes you can make is related to the clarity of your executive summary. Always note that your audience [or audiences] are likely seeing your research study for the first time. The best way to avoid a disorganized or cluttered executive summary is to write it after the study is completed. Always follow the same strategies for proofreading that you would for any research paper. Use Strong and Positive Language Don’t weaken your executive summary with passive, imprecise language. The executive summary is a stand-alone document intended to convince the reader to make a decision concerning whether to implement the recommendations you make. Once convinced, it is assumed that the full document will provide the details needed to implement the recommendations. Although you should resist the temptation to pad your summary with pleas or biased statements, do pay particular attention to ensuring that a sense of urgency is created in the implications, recommendations, and conclusions presented in the executive summary. Be sure to target readers who are likely to implement the recommendations.

Bailey, Edward, P. The Plain English Approach to Business Writing . (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 73-80; Christensen, Jay. Executive Summaries Complete The Report. California State University Northridge; Executive Summaries. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Clayton, John. "Writing an Executive Summary That Means Business." Harvard Management Communication Letter , 2003; Executive Summary. University Writing Center. Texas A&M University;  Green, Duncan. Writing an Executive Summary.   Oxfam’s Research Guidelines series ; Guidelines for Writing an Executive Summary. Astia.org; Markowitz, Eric. How to Write an Executive Summary. Inc. Magazine, September, 15, 2010; Kawaski, Guy. The Art of the Executive Summary. "How to Change the World" blog; Keller, Chuck. "Stay Healthy with a Winning Executive Summary." Technical Communication 41 (1994): 511-517; The Report Abstract and Executive Summary. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing Executive Summaries. Effective Writing Center. University of Maryland; Kolin, Philip. Successful Writing at Work . 10th edition. (Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2013), p. 435-437; Moral, Mary. "Writing Recommendations and Executive Summaries." Keeping Good Companies 64 (June 2012): 274-278; Todorovic, Zelimir William and Marietta Wolczacka Frye. “Writing Effective Executive Summaries: An Interdisciplinary Examination.” In United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Conference Proceedings . (Decatur, IL: United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 2009): pp. 662-691.

• << Previous: 3. The Abstract
• Next: 4. The Introduction >>
• Last Updated: Apr 24, 2024 10:51 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Recommended pages

• Undergraduate open days
• Postgraduate open days
• Accommodation
• Information for teachers
• Maps and directions
• Sport and fitness

How to Write a Research Proposal

As part of the application for admission onto our MJur, MPhil and PhD programmes, you must prepare a research proposal outlining your proposed area of study.

What is a research proposal?

A research proposal is a concise and coherent summary of your proposed research. It sets out the central issues or questions that you intend to address. It outlines the general area of study within which your research falls, referring to the current state of knowledge and any recent debates on the topic. It also demonstrates the originality of your proposed research.

The proposal is the most important document that you submit as part of the application process. It gives you an opportunity to demonstrate that you have the aptitude for graduate level research, for example, by demonstrating that you have the ability to communicate complex ideas clearly, concisely and critically. The proposal also helps us to match your research interest with an appropriate supervisor.

What should you include in the proposal?

Regardless of whether you are applying for the MJur, MPhil or PhD programmes, your research proposal should normally include the following information:

This is just a tentative title for your intended research. You will be able to revise your title during the course of your research if you are accepted for admission.

Examples of the thesis titles of some of our current and recent research students can be seen on our Current Projects page .

2. Abstract

The proposal should include a concise statement of your intended research of no more than 100 words. This may be a couple of sentences setting out the problem that you want to examine or the central question that you wish to address.

3. Research Context

You should explain the broad background against which you will conduct your research. You should include a brief overview of the general area of study within which your proposed research falls, summarising the current state of knowledge and recent debates on the topic. This will allow you to demonstrate a familiarity with the relevant field as well as the ability to communicate clearly and concisely.

4. Research Questions

The proposal should set out the central aims and questions that will guide your research. Before writing your proposal, you should take time to reflect on the key questions that you are seeking to answer. Many research proposals are too broad, so reflecting on your key research questions is a good way to make sure that your project is sufficiently narrow and feasible (i.e. one that is likely to be completed with the normal period for a MJur, MPhil or PhD degree).

You might find it helpful to prioritize one or two main questions, from which you can then derive a number of secondary research questions. The proposal should also explain your intended approach to answering the questions: will your approach be empirical, doctrinal or theoretical etc?

5. Research Methods

The proposal should outline your research methods, explaining how you are going to conduct your research. Your methods may include visiting particular libraries or archives, field work or interviews.

Most research is library-based. If your proposed research is library-based, you should explain where your key resources (e.g. law reports, journal articles) are located (in the Law School’s library, Westlaw etc). If you plan to conduct field work or collect empirical data, you should provide details about this (e.g. if you plan interviews, who will you interview? How many interviews will you conduct? Will there be problems of access?). This section should also explain how you are going to analyse your research findings.

6. Significance of Research

The proposal should demonstrate the originality of your intended research. You should therefore explain why your research is important (for example, by explaining how your research builds on and adds to the current state of knowledge in the field or by setting out reasons why it is timely to research your proposed topic).

7. Bibliography

The proposal should include a short bibliography identifying the most relevant works for your topic.

How long should the proposal be?

The proposal should usually be around 2,500 words. It is important to bear in mind that specific funding bodies might have different word limits.

Can the School comment on my draft proposal?

We recognise that you are likely still developing your research topic. We therefore recommend that you contact a member of our staff with appropriate expertise to discuss your proposed research. If there is a good fit between your proposed research and our research strengths, we will give you advice on a draft of your research proposal before you make a formal application. For details of our staff and there areas of expertise please visit our staff pages . 

Read a sample proposal from a successful application  

Learn more about Birmingham's doctoral research programmes in Law:

Birmingham Law School is home to a broad range of internationally excellent and world-leading legal academics, with a thriving postgraduate research community. The perfect place for your postgraduate study.

Law PhD / PhD by Distance Learning / MPhil / MJur

• Privacy Policy

Home » How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide [With Template]

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide [With Template]

Table of Contents

How To Write A Proposal

Writing a Proposal involves several key steps to effectively communicate your ideas and intentions to a target audience. Here’s a detailed breakdown of each step:

Identify the Purpose and Audience

• Clearly define the purpose of your proposal: What problem are you addressing, what solution are you proposing, or what goal are you aiming to achieve?
• Identify your target audience: Who will be reading your proposal? Consider their background, interests, and any specific requirements they may have.

Conduct Research

• Gather relevant information: Conduct thorough research to support your proposal. This may involve studying existing literature, analyzing data, or conducting surveys/interviews to gather necessary facts and evidence.
• Understand the context: Familiarize yourself with the current situation or problem you’re addressing. Identify any relevant trends, challenges, or opportunities that may impact your proposal.

Develop an Outline

• Create a clear and logical structure: Divide your proposal into sections or headings that will guide your readers through the content.
• Introduction: Provide a concise overview of the problem, its significance, and the proposed solution.
• Background/Context: Offer relevant background information and context to help the readers understand the situation.
• Objectives/Goals: Clearly state the objectives or goals of your proposal.
• Methodology/Approach: Describe the approach or methodology you will use to address the problem.
• Timeline/Schedule: Present a detailed timeline or schedule outlining the key milestones or activities.
• Budget/Resources: Specify the financial and other resources required to implement your proposal.
• Evaluation/Success Metrics: Explain how you will measure the success or effectiveness of your proposal.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main points and restate the benefits of your proposal.

Write the Proposal

• Grab attention: Start with a compelling opening statement or a brief story that hooks the reader.
• Clearly state the problem: Clearly define the problem or issue you are addressing and explain its significance.
• Present your proposal: Introduce your proposed solution, project, or idea and explain why it is the best approach.
• State the objectives/goals: Clearly articulate the specific objectives or goals your proposal aims to achieve.
• Provide supporting information: Present evidence, data, or examples to support your claims and justify your proposal.
• Explain the methodology: Describe in detail the approach, methods, or strategies you will use to implement your proposal.
• Address potential concerns: Anticipate and address any potential objections or challenges the readers may have and provide counterarguments or mitigation strategies.
• Recap the main points: Summarize the key points you’ve discussed in the proposal.
• Reinforce the benefits: Emphasize the positive outcomes, benefits, or impact your proposal will have.
• Call to action: Clearly state what action you want the readers to take, such as approving the proposal, providing funding, or collaborating with you.

Review and Revise

• Proofread for clarity and coherence: Check for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
• Ensure a logical flow: Read through your proposal to ensure the ideas are presented in a logical order and are easy to follow.
• Revise and refine: Fine-tune your proposal to make it concise, persuasive, and compelling.

Add Supplementary Materials

• Attach relevant documents: Include any supporting materials that strengthen your proposal, such as research findings, charts, graphs, or testimonials.
• Appendices: Add any additional information that might be useful but not essential to the main body of the proposal.

Formatting and Presentation

• Follow the guidelines: Adhere to any specific formatting guidelines provided by the organization or institution to which you are submitting the proposal.
• Use a professional tone and language: Ensure that your proposal is written in a clear, concise, and professional manner.
• Use headings and subheadings: Organize your proposal with clear headings and subheadings to improve readability.
• Pay attention to design: Use appropriate fonts, font sizes, and formatting styles to make your proposal visually appealing.
• Include a cover page: Create a cover page that includes the title of your proposal, your name or organization, the date, and any other required information.

Seek Feedback

• Share your proposal with trusted colleagues or mentors and ask for their feedback. Consider their suggestions for improvement and incorporate them into your proposal if necessary.

Finalize and Submit

• Make any final revisions based on the feedback received.
• Ensure that all required sections, attachments, and documentation are included.
• Double-check for any formatting, grammar, or spelling errors.
• Submit your proposal within the designated deadline and according to the submission guidelines provided.

Proposal Format

The format of a proposal can vary depending on the specific requirements of the organization or institution you are submitting it to. However, here is a general proposal format that you can follow:

1. Title Page:

• Include the title of your proposal, your name or organization’s name, the date, and any other relevant information specified by the guidelines.

2. Executive Summary:

•  Provide a concise overview of your proposal, highlighting the key points and objectives.
• Summarize the problem, proposed solution, and anticipated benefits.
• Keep it brief and engaging, as this section is often read first and should capture the reader’s attention.

3. Introduction:

• State the problem or issue you are addressing and its significance.
• Provide background information to help the reader understand the context and importance of the problem.
• Clearly state the purpose and objectives of your proposal.

4. Problem Statement:

• Describe the problem in detail, highlighting its impact and consequences.
• Use data, statistics, or examples to support your claims and demonstrate the need for a solution.

5. Proposed Solution or Project Description:

• Explain your proposed solution or project in a clear and detailed manner.
• Describe how your solution addresses the problem and why it is the most effective approach.
• Include information on the methods, strategies, or activities you will undertake to implement your solution.
• Highlight any unique features, innovations, or advantages of your proposal.

6. Methodology:

• Provide a step-by-step explanation of the methodology or approach you will use to implement your proposal.
• Include a timeline or schedule that outlines the key milestones, tasks, and deliverables.
• Clearly describe the resources, personnel, or expertise required for each phase of the project.

7. Evaluation and Success Metrics:

• Explain how you will measure the success or effectiveness of your proposal.
• Identify specific metrics, indicators, or evaluation methods that will be used.
• Describe how you will track progress, gather feedback, and make adjustments as needed.
• Present a detailed budget that outlines the financial resources required for your proposal.
• Include all relevant costs, such as personnel, materials, equipment, and any other expenses.
• Provide a justification for each item in the budget.

9. Conclusion:

•  Summarize the main points of your proposal.
•  Reiterate the benefits and positive outcomes of implementing your proposal.
• Emphasize the value and impact it will have on the organization or community.

10. Appendices:

• Include any additional supporting materials, such as research findings, charts, graphs, or testimonials.
•  Attach any relevant documents that provide further information but are not essential to the main body of the proposal.

Proposal Template

Here’s a basic proposal template that you can use as a starting point for creating your own proposal:

Dear [Recipient’s Name],

I am writing to submit a proposal for [briefly state the purpose of the proposal and its significance]. This proposal outlines a comprehensive solution to address [describe the problem or issue] and presents an actionable plan to achieve the desired objectives.

Thank you for considering this proposal. I believe that implementing this solution will significantly contribute to [organization’s or community’s goals]. I am available to discuss the proposal in more detail at your convenience. Please feel free to contact me at [your email address or phone number].

Yours sincerely,

Note: This template is a starting point and should be customized to meet the specific requirements and guidelines provided by the organization or institution to which you are submitting the proposal.

Proposal Sample

Here’s a sample proposal to give you an idea of how it could be structured and written:

Subject : Proposal for Implementation of Environmental Education Program

I am pleased to submit this proposal for your consideration, outlining a comprehensive plan for the implementation of an Environmental Education Program. This program aims to address the critical need for environmental awareness and education among the community, with the objective of fostering a sense of responsibility and sustainability.

Executive Summary: Our proposed Environmental Education Program is designed to provide engaging and interactive educational opportunities for individuals of all ages. By combining classroom learning, hands-on activities, and community engagement, we aim to create a long-lasting impact on environmental conservation practices and attitudes.

Introduction: The state of our environment is facing significant challenges, including climate change, habitat loss, and pollution. It is essential to equip individuals with the knowledge and skills to understand these issues and take action. This proposal seeks to bridge the gap in environmental education and inspire a sense of environmental stewardship among the community.

Problem Statement: The lack of environmental education programs has resulted in limited awareness and understanding of environmental issues. As a result, individuals are less likely to adopt sustainable practices or actively contribute to conservation efforts. Our program aims to address this gap and empower individuals to become environmentally conscious and responsible citizens.

Proposed Solution or Project Description: Our Environmental Education Program will comprise a range of activities, including workshops, field trips, and community initiatives. We will collaborate with local schools, community centers, and environmental organizations to ensure broad participation and maximum impact. By incorporating interactive learning experiences, such as nature walks, recycling drives, and eco-craft sessions, we aim to make environmental education engaging and enjoyable.

Methodology: Our program will be structured into modules that cover key environmental themes, such as biodiversity, climate change, waste management, and sustainable living. Each module will include a mix of classroom sessions, hands-on activities, and practical field experiences. We will also leverage technology, such as educational apps and online resources, to enhance learning outcomes.

Evaluation and Success Metrics: We will employ a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Pre- and post-assessments will gauge knowledge gain, while surveys and feedback forms will assess participant satisfaction and behavior change. We will also track the number of community engagement activities and the adoption of sustainable practices as indicators of success.

Budget: Please find attached a detailed budget breakdown for the implementation of the Environmental Education Program. The budget covers personnel costs, materials and supplies, transportation, and outreach expenses. We have ensured cost-effectiveness while maintaining the quality and impact of the program.

Conclusion: By implementing this Environmental Education Program, we have the opportunity to make a significant difference in our community’s environmental consciousness and practices. We are confident that this program will foster a generation of individuals who are passionate about protecting our environment and taking sustainable actions. We look forward to discussing the proposal further and working together to make a positive impact.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at [your email address or phone number].

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How to choose an Appropriate Method for Research?

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Anaesth
• v.60(9); 2016 Sep

How to write a research proposal?

Department of Anaesthesiology, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Devika Rani Duggappa

Writing the proposal of a research work in the present era is a challenging task due to the constantly evolving trends in the qualitative research design and the need to incorporate medical advances into the methodology. The proposal is a detailed plan or ‘blueprint’ for the intended study, and once it is completed, the research project should flow smoothly. Even today, many of the proposals at post-graduate evaluation committees and application proposals for funding are substandard. A search was conducted with keywords such as research proposal, writing proposal and qualitative using search engines, namely, PubMed and Google Scholar, and an attempt has been made to provide broad guidelines for writing a scientifically appropriate research proposal.

INTRODUCTION

A clean, well-thought-out proposal forms the backbone for the research itself and hence becomes the most important step in the process of conduct of research.[ 1 ] The objective of preparing a research proposal would be to obtain approvals from various committees including ethics committee [details under ‘Research methodology II’ section [ Table 1 ] in this issue of IJA) and to request for grants. However, there are very few universally accepted guidelines for preparation of a good quality research proposal. A search was performed with keywords such as research proposal, funding, qualitative and writing proposals using search engines, namely, PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus.

Five ‘C’s while writing a literature review

BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer.[ 2 ] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about the credibility, achievability, practicality and reproducibility (repeatability) of the research design.[ 3 ] Four categories of audience with different expectations may be present in the evaluation committees, namely academic colleagues, policy-makers, practitioners and lay audiences who evaluate the research proposal. Tips for preparation of a good research proposal include; ‘be practical, be persuasive, make broader links, aim for crystal clarity and plan before you write’. A researcher must be balanced, with a realistic understanding of what can be achieved. Being persuasive implies that researcher must be able to convince other researchers, research funding agencies, educational institutions and supervisors that the research is worth getting approval. The aim of the researcher should be clearly stated in simple language that describes the research in a way that non-specialists can comprehend, without use of jargons. The proposal must not only demonstrate that it is based on an intelligent understanding of the existing literature but also show that the writer has thought about the time needed to conduct each stage of the research.[ 4 , 5 ]

CONTENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The contents or formats of a research proposal vary depending on the requirements of evaluation committee and are generally provided by the evaluation committee or the institution.

In general, a cover page should contain the (i) title of the proposal, (ii) name and affiliation of the researcher (principal investigator) and co-investigators, (iii) institutional affiliation (degree of the investigator and the name of institution where the study will be performed), details of contact such as phone numbers, E-mail id's and lines for signatures of investigators.

The main contents of the proposal may be presented under the following headings: (i) introduction, (ii) review of literature, (iii) aims and objectives, (iv) research design and methods, (v) ethical considerations, (vi) budget, (vii) appendices and (viii) citations.[ 4 ]

Introduction

It is also sometimes termed as ‘need for study’ or ‘abstract’. Introduction is an initial pitch of an idea; it sets the scene and puts the research in context.[ 6 ] The introduction should be designed to create interest in the reader about the topic and proposal. It should convey to the reader, what you want to do, what necessitates the study and your passion for the topic.[ 7 ] Some questions that can be used to assess the significance of the study are: (i) Who has an interest in the domain of inquiry? (ii) What do we already know about the topic? (iii) What has not been answered adequately in previous research and practice? (iv) How will this research add to knowledge, practice and policy in this area? Some of the evaluation committees, expect the last two questions, elaborated under a separate heading of ‘background and significance’.[ 8 ] Introduction should also contain the hypothesis behind the research design. If hypothesis cannot be constructed, the line of inquiry to be used in the research must be indicated.

Review of literature

It refers to all sources of scientific evidence pertaining to the topic in interest. In the present era of digitalisation and easy accessibility, there is an enormous amount of relevant data available, making it a challenge for the researcher to include all of it in his/her review.[ 9 ] It is crucial to structure this section intelligently so that the reader can grasp the argument related to your study in relation to that of other researchers, while still demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. It is preferable to summarise each article in a paragraph, highlighting the details pertinent to the topic of interest. The progression of review can move from the more general to the more focused studies, or a historical progression can be used to develop the story, without making it exhaustive.[ 1 ] Literature should include supporting data, disagreements and controversies. Five ‘C's may be kept in mind while writing a literature review[ 10 ] [ Table 1 ].

Aims and objectives

The research purpose (or goal or aim) gives a broad indication of what the researcher wishes to achieve in the research. The hypothesis to be tested can be the aim of the study. The objectives related to parameters or tools used to achieve the aim are generally categorised as primary and secondary objectives.

Research design and method

The objective here is to convince the reader that the overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the research problem and to impress upon the reader that the methodology/sources chosen are appropriate for the specific topic. It should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

In this section, the methods and sources used to conduct the research must be discussed, including specific references to sites, databases, key texts or authors that will be indispensable to the project. There should be specific mention about the methodological approaches to be undertaken to gather information, about the techniques to be used to analyse it and about the tests of external validity to which researcher is committed.[ 10 , 11 ]

The components of this section include the following:[ 4 ]

Population and sample

Population refers to all the elements (individuals, objects or substances) that meet certain criteria for inclusion in a given universe,[ 12 ] and sample refers to subset of population which meets the inclusion criteria for enrolment into the study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined. The details pertaining to sample size are discussed in the article “Sample size calculation: Basic priniciples” published in this issue of IJA.

Data collection

The researcher is expected to give a detailed account of the methodology adopted for collection of data, which include the time frame required for the research. The methodology should be tested for its validity and ensure that, in pursuit of achieving the results, the participant's life is not jeopardised. The author should anticipate and acknowledge any potential barrier and pitfall in carrying out the research design and explain plans to address them, thereby avoiding lacunae due to incomplete data collection. If the researcher is planning to acquire data through interviews or questionnaires, copy of the questions used for the same should be attached as an annexure with the proposal.

Rigor (soundness of the research)

This addresses the strength of the research with respect to its neutrality, consistency and applicability. Rigor must be reflected throughout the proposal.

It refers to the robustness of a research method against bias. The author should convey the measures taken to avoid bias, viz. blinding and randomisation, in an elaborate way, thus ensuring that the result obtained from the adopted method is purely as chance and not influenced by other confounding variables.

Consistency

Consistency considers whether the findings will be consistent if the inquiry was replicated with the same participants and in a similar context. This can be achieved by adopting standard and universally accepted methods and scales.

Applicability

Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to different contexts and groups.[ 13 ]

Data analysis

This section deals with the reduction and reconstruction of data and its analysis including sample size calculation. The researcher is expected to explain the steps adopted for coding and sorting the data obtained. Various tests to be used to analyse the data for its robustness, significance should be clearly stated. Author should also mention the names of statistician and suitable software which will be used in due course of data analysis and their contribution to data analysis and sample calculation.[ 9 ]

Ethical considerations

Medical research introduces special moral and ethical problems that are not usually encountered by other researchers during data collection, and hence, the researcher should take special care in ensuring that ethical standards are met. Ethical considerations refer to the protection of the participants' rights (right to self-determination, right to privacy, right to autonomy and confidentiality, right to fair treatment and right to protection from discomfort and harm), obtaining informed consent and the institutional review process (ethical approval). The researcher needs to provide adequate information on each of these aspects.

Informed consent needs to be obtained from the participants (details discussed in further chapters), as well as the research site and the relevant authorities.

When the researcher prepares a research budget, he/she should predict and cost all aspects of the research and then add an additional allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays and rising costs. All items in the budget should be justified.

Appendices are documents that support the proposal and application. The appendices will be specific for each proposal but documents that are usually required include informed consent form, supporting documents, questionnaires, measurement tools and patient information of the study in layman's language.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your proposal. Although the words ‘references and bibliography’ are different, they are used interchangeably. It refers to all references cited in the research proposal.

Successful, qualitative research proposals should communicate the researcher's knowledge of the field and method and convey the emergent nature of the qualitative design. The proposal should follow a discernible logic from the introduction to presentation of the appendices.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on 30 October 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on 13 June 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organised and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, frequently asked questions.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: ‘A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management’
• Example research proposal #2: ‘ Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use’

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesise prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasise again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement.

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, June 13). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/the-research-process/research-proposal-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, how to write a results section | tips & examples.

How to Write a Proposal Summary

by Ben Taylor

Published on 26 Sep 2017

A proposal summary, sometimes called an executive summary, provides a concise overview of the proposal itself. Summaries are an important part of a proposal because they're usually the first part of the summary a supervisor or other authority reads. A person’s impression of the summary influences whether or not he decides to continue reading the proposal. If he stops reading, he most likely won’t approve the proposal. To write the most effective proposal summary, condense in plain language the most important aspects of the proposal, including the proposal’s objectives, methodology, anticipated outcomes, financial necessities and time constraints.

Write the summary last. Though it's the first thing a reviewer reads, writing the summary last ensures familiarity with every aspect of the proposal, which allows you to be thorough when writing the summary. One goal of a summary is to persuade the reader to further consider the proposal, but it's also important to convince the reviewer that the solution is practical and appropriate, according to Georgia Perimeter College. Identify the most important aspects of the entire proposal, then think of ways to express them in writing so that anyone can understand them.

Outline the most important proposal aspects that will be in the summary. Judge and prioritize these aspects based upon information that's unique to your proposal and the requirements of the authority to which the proposal is addressed. Start with bullet points for the introduction, conclusion and major points in the body. The body of the summary should include a unique paragraph or section for each part of your proposal narrative, such as a problem statement, objectives, methodology, evaluation and anticipated outcomes. If the proposal is submitted to a foundation, include the total cost of the project, the amount of time it will take and the amount of money requested, according to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Enhance the outline with specific details from the body of the proposal. Focus on the details that make your project unique and enhance its appeal to the reviewers. Be clear, direct and nontechnical — predicting the reviewers’ background is difficult. Write no more than 750 words or one single-spaced page for the summary. Spend an equal amount of time on each section, and consider all sides of the issue at hand, but be sure to demonstrate how your approach is superior to others, according to Georgia Perimeter College.

Document any research or other work on which the proposal summary depends. State the sources clearly and attribute them to the correct author. If the agency to which you're submitting the proposal asks for a specific format, be sure to adhere to it. After checking facts, proofread the summary and then the entire proposal. Giving the document two separate readings allows your mind to focus on one task at a time and decreases the likelihood of factual, spelling or grammatical errors. Place the summary at the beginning of the proposal and submit it to the appropriate agency.

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Writing the Introduction/Background of a Research Article

Writing the introduction and background of a research article can be daunting. Where do you start? What information should you include?

A great place to start is creating an argument structure for why your research topic is relevant and important. This structure should clearly walk the reader through current, relevant literature and lead them to the gap in the literature that your topic fills. To do this I use the following 4-step argument creation structure.

• Create argument funnel questions/statements
• Harvest article quotes that explain/backup each of the argument funnel questions/statements
• Organize article quotes to best support each section of the argument funnel
• Write prose that utilizes the article quotes to progress your argument from most well known to your specific topic

1. Argument Funnel Creation

Create an argument funnel with statements that take the reader form the most well known and widely accepted knowledge connected to my topic down to your specific research topic.

Completed Argument Funnel Example

When creating your funnel statements think about what research exists related to your topic. Where are the gaps in the existing literature? How do you know those are the gaps? If you get stuck, think about the 50,000 ft view of your topic and how you would explain the necessity of your research to people not in your field.

2. Harvesting Article Quotes

Find research articles that pertain to each of your funnel statements to back them up with evidence. As you find the articles put them into a citation manager (e.g., Zotero) now to save yourself time later. While reading the articles, pull (copy and paste) article quotes/excerpts that MAY be relevant. Pull more than you think you need, especially duplicates of the same idea by different authors to strengthen your argument. Store your quotes/excerpts in a document organized by your funnel statements with in-text citations with the page number you pulled it from. The National Academy of Engineering reports can be valuable top of funnel resources.

3. Organizing Article Quotes

Once you have harvested many article quotes for each of your funnel statements, organized them in an order that walks your reader through the literature landscape in a logical way. As you do this assume the reader doesn’t know anything about your topic so start at the beginning. Chronological order is a good place to start but may not always fit your argument. Think about your quotes/excerpts as puzzle pieces, where do they logically fit together?

4. Writing Prose

Now that your article quotes are organized, summarize the quotes in your own voice with appropriate citations. This is the time to begin including transition/connecting words and phrases between summarized quotes to bring your reader through your argument. Don’t forget to include “so what?” sentences and phrases after summarized quotes. In other words don’t only report what other authors said or found, tell the reader why that is important to your argument.

Multi-fun Res Admin Mgr (Inst)

• Madison, Wisconsin
• VC FOR RESEARCH AND GRADUATE EDUCATION/ADMINISTRATION-GEN
• Sponsored Programs, Grants, and Contracts
• Partially Remote
• Staff-Full Time
• Opening at: Apr 26 2024 at 14:40 CDT
• Closing at: May 10 2024 at 23:55 CDT

Job Summary:

This position may oversee a Pre- and/or Post-Award team at Research and Sponsored Programs. This position will oversee pre- and/or post-award staff and will contribute to the culture, direction, and success of research administration services at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, one of the top research institutions in the country. Responsibilities may include coordinating and overseeing the technical activities in the review and processing of proposals, receipt and negotiation of grants, contracts, and other agreements, segregated account creation for sponsored awards and award modifications, and financial monitoring and reporting on new research awards. The manager monitors regulatory compliance and collaborates with pre- and/or post-award leadership and staff. This position participates in the planning, developing, and implementation of approaches, including service-oriented training and outreach, with RSP leadership in order to accommodate changes in policies, procedures, and practices affecting Federal and Non-Federal grants management operations.

Responsibilities:

• 20% Implements research administration operational policies and procedures including financial, administrative, staffing, and compliance
• 20% May review and approve programmatic transactions spanning the life-cycle of sponsored projects to ensure compliance with policies and procedures
• 10% Exercises supervisory authority, including hiring, transferring, suspending, promoting, managing conduct and performance, discharging, assigning, rewarding, disciplining, and/or approving hours worked of at least 2.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees
• 10% Serves as a key resource to leadership and staff in the unit as well as a liaison to partners and stakeholders
• 5% Executes activities related to proposal submission, contract negotiation, and/or award setup on behalf of a unit
• 15% Executes activities related to financial compliance, audit, or reporting on behalf of a unit
• 10% Provides training and guidance to campus partners regarding policies, activities, procedures, or systems necessary for sponsored projects management
• 10% Interacts with and provides expertise to sponsors. Provides guidance related to the sponsors to team, RSP staff, and campus

Institutional Statement on Diversity:

Diversity is a source of strength, creativity, and innovation for UW-Madison. We value the contributions of each person and respect the profound ways their identity, culture, background, experience, status, abilities, and opinion enrich the university community. We commit ourselves to the pursuit of excellence in teaching, research, outreach, and diversity as inextricably linked goals. The University of Wisconsin-Madison fulfills its public mission by creating a welcoming and inclusive community for people from every background - people who as students, faculty, and staff serve Wisconsin and the world. For more information on diversity and inclusion on campus, please visit: Diversity and Inclusion

Required Bachelor's Degree Degree in Business (e.g., Accounting, Finance, etc) is preferred.

Qualifications:

Well-qualified applicants will have the following preferred experience: -Knowledge of applicable University, State, Federal and Non-Federal sponsor fiscal and administrative rules, regulations and procedures, including Federal A-21, A-110, and A-133 circulars. -Knowledge of computer systems, software, and accounting practices related to sponsored project administration. -Knowledge of supervisory procedures and techniques. -Knowledge of written and oral communication techniques including presentational skills. -Knowledge of data retrieval, mathematical/computational and statistical analysis techniques. -Knowledge of UW-Madison's policies and procedures for administering extramural support. -Knowledge of financial management including budgeting, financial reporting, and accounting. -Knowledge of overall regulatory environment including financial compliance with respect to the conduct of grants, cooperative agreements and contracts. -Knowledge of training techniques. -Knowledge of information systems development and implementation.

Full Time: 100% This position may require some work to be performed in-person, onsite, at a designated campus work location. Some work may be performed remotely, at an offsite, non-campus work location.

Appointment Type, Duration:

Ongoing/Renewable

Minimum $95,000 ANNUAL (12 months) Depending on Qualifications The minimum salary for this position is $95,000 but is negotiable based on experience and qualifications. This position will receive a comprehensive benefits package, including generous paid time off, competitively priced health/dental/vision/life insurance, tax-advantaged retirement savings accounts, and participation in the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) pension fund.

Additional Information:

University of Wisconsin Madison has consistently ranked in the top research institutions in the country over the past 20 years. The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (RSP) is established to facilitate and manage the sponsored research portfolio of UW-Madison. The primary functions in RSP include: reviewing and submitting proposals for research; negotiating contracts and other funding arrangements; establishing funding accounts for projects; managing revenues and billings; providing oversight of all financial transactions; submitting financial and other reports to the sponsoring agencies; and responding to audits and questions related to financial compliance on behalf of the University. RSP has 92 permanent employees and approximately 30 temporary and student employees. RSP staff provides campus leadership on policy and regulatory development, training programs for faculty and staff, and interpretations of agency terms and conditions. In addition, RSP provides guidance on sponsored project activities to all campus departments, colleges, and research centers. RSP interacts with approximately 3,000 extramural sponsors and partners, including the Federal government, State and local governments, corporations, foundations, non-profits organizations and other universities. The University's sponsored programs represent approximately 35% of the University's budget; thus the responsibility for compliance with policy and regulatory mandates is significant. There are more than 12,000 active research projects, and the research portfolio for these active projects is approximately $4 Billion. RSP negotiates and manages over $1.5 Billion in new research awards each year.

How to Apply:

To be considered, applications must be submitted online. Please click on the "Apply Now" button to start the application process. You will be required to upload a cover letter and resume.

Your resume and cover letter should include all relevant education and/or work experience as it relates to this position, where it was performed if applicable, and should specifically address your experience in: research administration, experience interpreting policy and procedures, and experience in leadership and management. Cover letters will be used as a writing sample and to determine the best qualified applicants. A successful applicant will be responsible for ensuring eligibility for employment in the United States on or before the effective date of the appointment. University sponsorship is not available for this position.

Kelly Marks [email protected] 608-262-5802 Relay Access (WTRS): 7-1-1. See RELAY_SERVICE for further information.

Official Title:

Multi-fun Res Admin Mgr (Inst)(SC017)

Department(s):

A34-OVCR/ADMIN/RSP

Employment Class:

Academic Staff-Renewable

Job Number:

The university of wisconsin-madison is an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer..

You will be redirected to the application to launch your career momentarily. Thank you!

Frequently Asked Questions

Applicant Tutorial

Disability Accommodations

Pay Transparency Policy Statement

Refer a Friend

You've sent this job to a friend!

Website feedback, questions or accessibility issues: [email protected] .

Learn more about accessibility at UW–Madison .

© 2016–2024 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System • Privacy Statement

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Active funding opportunity

Nsf 24-566: national science foundation research traineeship institutional partnership pilot (nrt-ipp) program, program solicitation, document information, document history.

• Posted: April 23, 2024

Program Solicitation NSF 24-566

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

     July 22, 2024

Important Information And Revision Notes

This National Science Foundation Research Traineeship Institutional Partnership Pilot (NRT-IPP) Program represents a collaboration between the Directorates for STEM Education (EDU) and Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP). The key goal of this program is to pilot a new partnership approach that will support research and education projects with high industry relevance and that may subsequently be integrated as a separate Track of the NRT program .

Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation must represent an effective partnership among: (a) a non-R1 Institution of Higher Education (IHE) (lead institution), (b) an non-lead IHE (an R1 or non-R1) that has either an ongoing or completed NRT program in at least one of the focus areas defined for this pilot (see below), and (c) two to three industry partners in the same focus area(s). For R1 and non-R1 IHE classifications, please refer to Carnegie Basic Classifications: https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/carnegie-classification/classification-methodology/basic-classification/ .

The NRT project at the participating non-lead IHE partner should have successfully completed at least three years of work, as demonstrated by three approved annual reports at the time of submission. The lead institution should not have an existing master’s degree in the chosen focus area(s). Investigators from a lead institution that has an existing graduate certificate, a track within an existing master’s program that is broader than or distinct from the chosen focus area(s), or a Ph.D. program in one or more of the chosen focus areas are encouraged to contact the Program Officers to inquire about eligibility.

Focus Areas:

• Artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomy, and related advances.
• High performance computing, semiconductors, and advanced computer hardware and software.
• Quantum information science and engineering.
• Robotics, automation, and advanced manufacturing.
• Natural and anthropogenic disaster prevention or mitigation.
• Advanced communications technology and immersive technology.
• Biotechnology, medical technology, genomics, and synthetic biology.
• Data storage, data management, distributed ledger technologies, and cybersecurity, including biometrics.
• Advanced energy and industrial efficiency technologies, such as batteries and advanced nuclear technologies, including but not limited to, for the purposes of electric generation (consistent with section 15 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1874)).
• Advanced materials science, including composites 2D materials, other next-generation materials, and related manufacturing technologies.

Please note restrictions on institutional eligibility detailed in Section IV of this solicitation. The number of NRT proposal submissions allowed per lead institution is limited to two (2) submissions total in response to this solicitation. A non-lead IHE NRT project partner can participate in only one (1) proposal in response to this solicitation. The number of NRT proposal submissions per PI or co-PI is limited to one (1) submission total. Eligible non-R1 institutions may submit proposals as either lead institutions, non-lead institutions, or both, with a total institutional limit of three (3) proposals per institution.

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. The NSF PAPPG is regularly revised and it is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements specified in this solicitation and the applicable version of the PAPPG. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General information.

Program Title:

National Science Foundation Research Traineeship Institutional Partnership Pilot (NRT-IPP) Program

The NSF Research Traineeship (NRT) Program seeks proposals that explore ways for graduate students in research-based master’s and doctoral degree programs to develop the skills, knowledge, and competencies needed to pursue a range of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers. This solicitation describes a pilot for a potential new track for the existing NRT Program that will support research and education projects that will result in a new master’s degree, certificate, or a track within an existing master’s or Ph.D. program with high industry relevance in at least one focus area identified in this pilot. This will be accomplished through an effective partnership among: (a) a non-R1 Institution of Higher Education (IHE) (lead institution), (b) an non-lead IHE (an R1 or non-R1) that has either an ongoing or completed NRT program in at least one of the focus areas defined for this pilot (see below), and (c) two to three industry partners in the same focus area(s). The overall purpose is to train the STEM workforce in focus areas specified in this solicitation by stimulating collaborations among non-R1 institutions, institutions with existing or completed NRT projects, and industry partners.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

Daniel Denecke, telephone: (703) 292-8072, email: [email protected]

Daniel R. Marenda, telephone: (703) 292-2157, email: [email protected]

Rebecca Shearman, telephone: (703) 292-7403, email: [email protected]

Elizabeth A. Webber, telephone: (703) 292-4316, email: [email protected]

• 47.041 --- Engineering
• 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
• 47.050 --- Geosciences
• 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
• 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
• 47.076 --- STEM Education
• 47.079 --- Office of International Science and Engineering
• 47.083 --- Office of Integrative Activities (OIA)
• 47.084 --- NSF Technology, Innovation and Partnerships

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Continuing Grant

NRT-IPP awards (approximately 5 awards each year) are expected to be up to five (5) years in duration with a total budget up to $4,500,000.

No more than 30% of the total award budget can be provided to the non-lead IHE partner. Collaborative proposals may only be submitted as a single proposal, in which a single award is being requested (with subawards administered by the lead organization). Simultaneous submission of collaborative proposals from different organizations, with each organization requesting a separate award, is not permitted.

Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation must represent a partnership among: (a) a non-R1 Institution of Higher Education (IHE) (lead institution), (b) a non-lead IHE (an R1 or non-R1) that has either an ongoing or completed NRT program in at least one of the focus areas defined for this pilot (see below), and (c) two to three industry partners in the same focus area(s). For R1 and non-R1 IHE classifications, please refer to Carnegie Basic Classifications: https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/carnegie-classification/classification-methodology/basic-classification/ . The NRT project at the participating non-lead IHE partner must have successfully completed at least three years of work, as demonstrated by three approved annual project reports at the time of proposal submission. The lead institution should not have an existing master’s degree in the chosen focus area(s). Investigators from a lead institution that has an existing graduate certificate, a track within an existing master’s program that is broader than or distinct from the chosen focus area(s), or a Ph.D. program in one or more of the chosen focus areas are encouraged to contact the Program Officers to inquire about eligibility.

Who May Serve as PI:

The PI must hold a tenured faculty appointment at the Associate/Full Professor rank or equivalent at an eligible non-R1 organization.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 2

Eligible non-R1 IHEs may submit up to two (2) proposals as lead institution. Eligible R1 and non-R1 IHEs may participate in one (1) proposal as a non-lead partner. Eligible non-R1 institutions may submit a total of up to three (3) proposals per institution regardless of whether they are a lead or non-lead.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: 1

An individual may serve as Principal Investigator (PI) or co-PI on only one (1) proposal submitted to this program solicitation. Proposals that exceed the PI/co-PI eligibility limit (beyond the first submission based on timestamp), will be returned without review regardless of the individual's role (PI or co-PI) in the proposal.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. proposal preparation instructions.

• Letters of Intent: Not required
• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required

Full Proposals:

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .
• Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ).

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing Requirements:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

Not Applicable

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

Proposal review information criteria.

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

Standard NSF award conditions apply.

Reporting Requirements:

Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.

I. Introduction

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduate education is in need of major transformations. There are multiple factors driving the need for change including: (i) recent major national reports on the state of STEM graduate education; (ii) the accelerating pace of science and engineering discoveries and technological innovations; (iii) national STEM workforce and demographic trends; (iv) the growing globalization of science and engineering; (v) the potential to align graduate education practices and models with an understanding of how people learn; and (vi) calls for new models for graduate education at the national and international levels leveraging the high impact educational practices that enhance student engagement and increase student success. [ 1 ][ 2 ][ 3 ][ 4 ][ 5 ][ 6 ][ 7 ][ 8 ][ 9 ][ 10 ][ 11 ] In addition, there is increasing recognition that addressing the grand challenges in science and engineering requires approaches that are interdisciplinary and convergent , (e.g., where knowledge, theories, methods and data and research communities from multiple disciplines increasingly mingle and where new frameworks, paradigms, and even disciplines may emerge), broader geographic distribution of research and educational opportunities shaping the U.S. STEM workforce including in EPSCoR jurisdictions, as well as broader professional training than is currently characteristic of most graduate programs. [ 11 ][ 12 ][ 13 ]

Employment in STEM occupations has grown 79% since 1990, and the last decade has seen a steady upward trend in the percent of STEM doctoral degree recipients in the United States pursuing careers in industry or business. Industry internships and related experiential learning opportunities provide an important form of professional development for these careers that require interdisciplinary problem solving, team science, and effective communication skills. To recognize the increasing appeal and availability of career paths in industry for today’s STEM master’s and PhDs, and to build the national STEM workforce needed to lead, innovate and meet national priorities in critical fields, new approaches to STEM graduate education are needed. Accordingly, this pilot for a potential new track for the NRT Program encourages proposals to test, develop, and implement innovative and effective STEM graduate education models leading to industry-relevant graduate programs (a master’s degree, certificate, or track within an existing graduate program) at non-R1 institutions in collaboration with: (i) industry partners, and (ii) partners at institutions of higher education (IHEs) who have successfully implemented/are implementing NRT projects in the chosen focus area(s) identified for this pilot for a new track for NRT. [ 14 ][ 15 ][ 16 ][ 17 ][ 18 ][ 19 ]

[1] The Path Forward: The Future of Graduate Education, Commission on the Future of Graduate Education in the United States, 2010

[2] Advancing Graduate Education in the Chemical Sciences, American Chemical Society, 2012

[3] Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report, National Institutes of Health, 2012

[4] Understanding PhD Career Pathways for Program Improvement, Council of Graduate Schools, 2014

[5] Revisiting the STEM Workforce: A Companion to Science and Engineering Indicators 2014, National Science Board, 2015

[6] Professional Development: Shaping Effective Programs for STEM Graduate Students, Council of Graduate Schools, 2017

[7] Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2018

[8] The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEM, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2019

[9] Promising Practices for Addressing the Underrepresentation of Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine: Opening Doors, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2020

[10] “PhD training is no longer fit for purpose — it needs reform now”, Editorial, Nature, 613, 414 (2023).

[11] Convergence: Facilitating Transdisciplinary Integration of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Beyond, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2014

[12] Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2015

[13] Kuh, G.D., High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them and Why They Matter. Report from the Association of American Colleges and Universities , 2008

[14] Women and Men in STEM Often at Odds Over Workplace Equity, Pew Research Center, 2018

[15] Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) 2022, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Science Foundation, September 2023

[16] Juskewitz, E, Heck, K.A., Banono, N.S., ‘Why industry internships can be your golden ticket to a prosperous career’, Nature (2021), March 18, 2021

[17] Jain, H., Urban, N., Calabrese, G.S., ‘PhD training: exposing obstacles to reform’, Nature, 615, 216 (2023)

[18] Jain, H., Dierolf, V., Jagota, A., Pan, Z., Urban, N., ‘Redesigning US STEM doctoral education to create a national workforce of technical Leaders’, Proc. 2023 Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education. June 25-28, Baltimore, MD

[19] Funk, C. and Parker, K. Diversity in the STEM Workforce Varies Widely Across Jobs, Pew Research Center, 2018

II. Program Description

A. Focus and Goals

The NRT Program is dedicated to shaping and supporting effective training of STEM graduate students in high priority interdisciplinary or convergent research areas using comprehensive traineeship models that are innovative, evidence-based, and aligned with changing workforce and research needs. The goals of the program are to:

• Catalyze and advance cutting-edge interdisciplinary or convergent research in high-priority areas;
• Increase the capacity of U.S. graduate programs to produce diverse cohorts of interdisciplinary STEM professionals with technical and transferable professional skills for a range of research and research-related careers within and outside academia; and
• Develop innovative approaches and knowledge that will promote transformative improvements in graduate education.

The pilot program described in this solicitation advances these goals with an emphasis on specific focus areas. The overall purpose of the pilot program is to stimulate collaborations among non-R1 institutions, current or former NRT awardee institutions, and industry partners. The program is expected to develop sustainable programmatic capacity at the lead institutions for training members of the STEM workforce in the specific focus areas. The program will also lead to development of successful models of collaboration between non-R1 institutions and institutions with active/successful NRT programs.

B. NRT Traineeships and Trainees

NRT traineeships are dedicated to the comprehensive development of graduate students as versatile STEM professionals for a range of research and research-related careers within and outside academia. This pilot for a potential new track for the NRT program seeks proposals that focus on providing experiential learning experiences to trainees in addition to their research and education activities by leveraging experiences of (i) the project leadership team (lead non-R1 IHE institution and R1 or non-R1 non-lead IHE partner) and (ii) 2-3 industry partners identified for the project. Proposed curricula and experiences should prepare trainees to solve interdisciplinary and/or convergent research problems, work in diverse teams, and be able to communicate information about problems and solutions effectively.

The NRT program is intended to benefit a population of STEM graduate students beyond those who receive an NRT stipend. An NRT trainee is thus defined as a STEM graduate student, irrespective of funding source, who is accepted into an institution’s NRT program and completes the program’s required NRT elements (e.g., courses, workshops, projects, and other training activities specific to the NRT experience). Typically, a successful NRT project includes both funded and non-funded trainees.

To further maximize the number of students benefiting from NRT activities, proposers are expected to make NRT program elements available to other STEM graduate students who are not NRT trainees (within the capacity and budget limitations of the award).

NRT trainees for this pilot should be graduate students with an interest in the focus area(s) chosen for the project. NRT stipends and support for customary costs of education (tuition and required fees) are limited to U.S. citizens, nationals, and permanent residents. However, students who are not eligible for stipend and tuition support can participate as non-stipend-supported NRT trainees or as non-trainees and can receive a lump sum support for research supplies, travel, or other NRT-project-relevant activity within the limitations of the budget.

C. Key Features of NRT Projects

NRT projects demonstrate comprehensive approaches to graduate training, and this pilot for a potential new track for NRT seeks proposals that include the following key features that are central to the NRT Program :

• Development of innovative and potentially transformative interdisciplinary approaches to STEM graduate education (for the purposes of this solicitation, in one or more focus areas identified above);
• Extension of NRT project elements to non-stipend-supported NRT trainees and to non-trainees to benefit a larger population of STEM graduate students across an institution;
• Dissemination of insights gained and results from NRT training approaches;
• Comprehensive training of STEM graduate students, including the development of technical and professional skills for careers (for this solicitation, in industries related to one or more focus areas);
• Incorporation of evidence-based strategies to broaden participation of students from diverse backgrounds; and
• Implementation of robust program assessment and evaluation that is central to the traineeship and routinely informs and improves practice.

D. Focus Areas

The focus areas for this pilot for a new track for NRT are listed below. The focus area(s) of the proposal and the national workforce need in the chosen focus area(s) should be clearly identified.

• Advanced energy and industrial efficiency technologies, such as batteries and advanced nuclear technologies, including but not limited to for the purposes of electric generation (consistent with section 15 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1874)).

III. Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Continuing Grant Estimated Number of Awards: 5

NRT IPP awards (approximately 5 awards each year) are expected to be up to five (5) years in duration with a total budget up to $4,500,000.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $15,000,000

IV. Eligibility Information

Additional Eligibility Info:

Collaborative proposals may only be submitted as a single proposal, in which a single award is requested (with subawards administered by the lead organization). Simultaneous submission of collaborative proposals from different organizations, with each organization requesting a separate award, are not permitted. The lead institution should not have an existing graduate program (master’s degree) in the chosen focus area. Investigators from lead institutions that have an existing graduate certificate or a track within an existing graduate program in the chosen focus area are encouraged to contact the Program Officers to inquire about eligibility. The non-lead partner’s NRT program must have successfully completed at least three years indicated by three approved annual reports at the time of submission. Participation includes serving as a lead organization or non-lead partner on any proposal. Organizations participating only as evaluators on projects are excluded from this limitation. Proposals that exceed the organizational eligibility limit will be returned without review regardless of whether the organization on such a proposal serves as lead or non-lead IHE partner. Only US IHEs are eligible to submit as a lead or non-lead partner. Potential PIs are advised to contact their sponsored research office regarding institutional processes used to select proposals for submission.

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions : Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg . Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] . The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.
• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov . The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: ( https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

See PAPPG Chapter II.D.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

The following instructions supplement or deviate from the guidance in the PAPPG:

Proposal Set-up: Select "Prepare New Full Proposal" in Research.gov. Search for and select this solicitation title in Step One of the Full Proposal wizard. In the proposal details section, select "Single proposal (with or without subawards)." Separately submitted collaborative proposals are not permitted and will be returned without review.

Project Title: Provide a short informative title that must begin with “NRT-IPP:”.

1. Cover Sheet : If international activities are proposed, whether or not they will be funded via the NRT award, the international activities box should be checked and the individual countries listed. For planning purposes, use September 15, 2024 for the requested starting date for the FY2024 competition.

2. Project Summary : The Project Summary must include the following sections: Overview, Intellectual Merit, and Broader Impacts. Overview: Provide a summary description, in a section labeled Overview, that addresses the focus area and justification for picking the non-lead IHE partner and how this collaboration with the non-lead partner will help develop research and traineeship activities at the non-R1 lead institution. The selection and engagement of the industry partners should be clearly highlighted. This section should include a succinct statement about regional or national workforce needs in the proposed focus area, and describe why employees with STEM graduate credentials are needed. The Overview must include the expected number of NRT trainees who will receive an NRT stipend, the number of additional NRT trainees who will not receive an NRT stipend, and the estimated total number of graduate students that will participate in project-funded activities at both lead institution and non-lead IHE partner. The number should be disaggregated between the lead institution and non-lead partner. The Overview should be written in a manner that will be informative to STEM professionals working in the same or related fields and understandable to a scientifically literate lay reader. Keywords: The last line of the Overview section must also include 8-10 keywords that describe the project’s research and/or education focus area(s). This information is intended to assist in identifying reviewers with the knowledge and expertise needed to review the proposal. The keywords should describe the main scientific/engineering areas explored in the proposal. Keywords should be prefaced with the word "Keywords" followed by a colon and each keyword set should be separated by semicolons. For example, they might appear as, Keywords: semiconductors; biotechnology; robotics; advanced materials; quantum information science and engineering; equity.

3. Project Description (20-page limit): The Project Description must contain only Sections 3a through 3o as described below, with the provided headings used and in the order listed. The Project Description cannot exceed 20 pages, including tables and illustrations.

3a . List of Core Participants : Include a table on page 1 of the Project Description that lists up to 10 core participants, including the PI, co-PIs, and other Senior/Key personnel including other faculty, lead evaluator, and external collaborators. The core participants must be designated as Senior/Key personnel in the proposal and must provide the Senior/Key Personnel Documents required by the PAPPG. At least five (5) core participants should be affiliated with the lead institution. The program will allow one (1) PI and up to four (4) co-PIs, including at least two (2) co-PIs from the lead institution and at least one (1) co-PI from the non-lead IHE partner. Remaining core participants should be listed as Other Senior/Key personnel. Core participants may include one (1) co-PI from an industry partner, but this is not required. Provide each core participant’s name, project role, departmental and/or institutional/organizational affiliation, and discipline(s). The lead evaluator (internal or external) must be one of the 10 core participants and should be recruited by the lead institution. It is acceptable to recruit the lead evaluator associated with the ongoing or completed NRT project at the non-lead institutional partner but this is not a requirement.

3b . Focus Area(s) and Brief Description of the Accomplishments of the NRT Program at the non-lead Institutional Partner : Clearly identify the focus area(s) of the project and justify inclusion of the ongoing/completed NRT project in this proposal by highlighting the accomplishments of the chosen NRT project that will be leveraged to accomplish the goals of this project. The non-lead partner must have demonstrated expertise in developing an innovative research and traineeship model that addresses the focus area that the project team has identified for this project. Additionally, the team (lead institution and/or non-lead partner) must demonstrate prior successful collaboration with two to three industry partners who are recruited to participate in the project. Clearly address the experiential learning opportunities that were or are being provided to trainees at the non-lead partner in collaboration with industry partners in the ongoing/completed NRT project and how these opportunities will be leveraged to develop experiential opportunities for the trainees in the planned program at the lead institution. The commitment of the industry partner(s) for the proposed activities in the proposal should be clearly articulated in the Industry Support Letters. Additional details are provided below.

3c . Vision and Goals: Describe the overarching research theme, vision, and goals of the proposed NRT-IPP with a focus on implementing new approaches to training STEM graduate students in the targeted focus area at the lead institution though a comprehensive traineeship model that will lead to developing new graduate-level opportunities (master’s program, certificate, or track in an existing master’s or PhD program, etc.) in the focus area at the lead institution. Clearly describe how: (i) this NRT-IPP will create graduate-level opportunities (master’s degree, certificate, or a track within an existing master’s or PhD program) at the lead institution, (ii) experiential learning will be incorporated into the proposed graduate opportunity leveraging the successful experiences of the project team, and (iii) prior industry collaboration of the leadership team (lead and non-lead partner(s)) will be leveraged to recruit industry partners for this project. Proposers should describe how the NRT project would benefit STEM graduate students beyond the NRT trainees at the lead institution and how training innovations from the program will be communicated broadly beyond both the lead institution and non-lead institutional partner. Proposals should also address implications of the proposed NRT project for broadening participation in STEM programs and careers to include students from underrepresented groups.

3d . Organization and Management: Present the plans for the organization and management of the NRT-IPP project, including the responsibilities of key personnel and reporting lines at both the lead institution and non-lead institutional partner. Describe how the leadership team will foster a sense of community among project participants (faculty, trainees, evaluator(s), staff, and collaborators) from the lead institution, non-lead partner, and industry partners. The PI must possess the project management experience necessary to lead and administer the project; core teams should represent relevant expertise in all of the primary fields engaged through the project. Projects should include a full-time Project Coordinator (75%-100%) at the lead institution as a member of the management team. Proposers from the lead institution should clearly identify formal mechanisms for recurring, substantive communication with administrators (e.g., department chairs, college deans, graduate school dean(s), provost, and others) about any institutional barriers in implementing the proposed graduate opportunity at the institution.

3e . Education and Training: The NRT Program focuses on creating innovations in STEM graduate education within a traineeship environment to prepare the scientists and engineers of the future. Describe the non-lead partner’s traineeship model and the experiential learning components that will be incorporated, including the justification and rationale for their inclusion. Describe how non-lead partner’s experiences will be leveraged to develop the NRT project at the lead institution. Approaches should be innovative, evidence-based, and aligned with the needs of the lead institution in the chosen focus area. Identify what is lacking in the current approaches to STEM graduate education nationally and at the lead institution and how this NRT project will help address those issues. Projects should be aligned with the mission of the lead institution, and proposals should include evidence of alignment to support the expected outcome of developing sustainable programmatic capacity at the lead institution.

The proposal should describe the STEM graduate population that will be served at the lead institution. Accordingly, the proposal should specify the anticipated numbers of NRT trainees at the lead institution supported with NRT stipends and NRT trainees not supported with NRT stipends. An estimate of the number of other STEM graduate students expected to take one or more of the NRT project’s elements should also be provided. Experienced trainees associated with the ongoing or completed NRT project from the non-lead partner can also be funded through the NRT-IPP Program, particularly if these trainees help implement the proposed NRT-IPP project at the lead institution.

Projects must articulate explicit approaches to provide trainees with training and vocational counseling for industry-related careers. Additionally, preparation and structured use of annual updated individual development plans is required and must be certified in annual and final annual project reports. See PAPPG Chapter VII.B.7.

It is expected that the project will result in a sustainable programmatic capacity at the lead institution. Therefore, all proposals should include a plan to institutionalize effective training elements after award expiration and provide appropriate supplementary documentation of institutional support for such efforts. See Section 6a, below.

3f . Required Skills and Competencies: Projects must provide explicit, formal training to project trainees in communication, team science, and ethics. Clearly articulate how the professional development activities developed at the non-lead partner will be adopted/adapted to provide training in these three required skills (and other skills as appropriate) to the trainees from the lead institution. Provide separate sub-headings for: 3f(i) Communication, 3f(ii) Team Science, and 3f(iii) Ethics when discussing these professional development components. Additionally, include another sub-section (3f(iv)) to discuss Additional skills (e.g., interdisciplinary problem solving, project management, leadership, organizational, entrepreneurship, etc.) that are particularly relevant to the proposed career paths of trainees in the chosen focus area.

3g . Industry Partnership Plan : Active engagement of the industry partners is a critical component of the NRT-IPP Program. The project team must demonstrate a proven track record of working with industry to offer experiential learning opportunities for the trainees. Experiences of the team (lead institution and non-lead partner) should be leveraged to develop the traineeship program, including experiential learning opportunities for the trainees. Clearly describe the experiential learning component of the traineeship program that will be implemented at the lead institution. Support letter(s) from the industry partners must be included that will clearly highlight the roles and commitment of these partners in implementing the NRT project in collaboration with the lead institution and non-lead partner. See section 9 for additional details.

3h . Major Research Efforts: Describe examples of the research projects that the NRT will catalyze at the lead institution through the proposed collaboration with the non-lead institutional partner and industry partners. Clearly describe the linkages between these research projects and the research projects of the ongoing or completed NRT project at the non-lead partner. The research projects are expected to meet the requirements for a graduate credential (master’s degree, certificate, or a track within an existing graduate program) at the lead institution. Trainees at the lead institution can have mentors from the lead institution, non-lead partner, and industry partners.

3i . Broader Impacts: The Project Description must contain, as a separate section within the narrative labeled 'Broader Impacts', a discussion of how both the training components and the major research efforts will contribute more broadly to the achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes in the context of this pilot for a potential new track for NRT include but are not limited to: development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce in the focus area; participation of the full spectrum of diverse talent in STEM; enhanced infrastructure for industry-relevant research and education at the lead institution; increased partnerships and collaborations between academia and industry. Proposers should indicate how the project will impact the training of STEM graduate students beyond the disciplines and lead institution described in the proposal. Further, potential contributions to the development and adoption of evidence-based teaching and learning practices, and research on effective traineeship models for graduate education in the focus areas at non-R1 institutions should be clearly articulated.

3j . Recruitment, Mentoring, and Retention: Experiences of the non-lead partner should be leveraged in developing plans for recruiting, mentoring, and retaining trainees with a particular emphasis on broadening participation of the full spectrum of diverse talent in STEM by engaging members of groups underrepresented in the focus area . Clearly describe how the lessons learned by the non-lead partner in this area will be leveraged to develop effective recruitment, mentoring and retention plans for trainees at the lead institution.

3k . Performance Assessment/Project Evaluation: Projects should include plans to evaluate the success of the research and traineeship activities. Experiences of the non-lead partner should be appropriately leveraged to develop the evaluation plan. Evaluation should be led by an unbiased evaluator recruited by the lead institution. The proposal should identify specific competencies and intended outcomes along with performance measures and an evaluation timetable. Special attention should be given to evaluate the effectiveness of the partnership (the lead institution and non-lead partner and the industry partners). The evaluation plan should describe how and when assessment outcomes would be shared with the project participants, including trainees and institutional administration. Describe mechanisms for regular feedback from the evaluator(s) and the trainees to the leadership team and how that feedback will inform the project implementation practices at the lead institution. Proposals should include plans for communicating assessment results both within the NRT community and more broadly through publications and professional meetings. Awardees should be prepared to contribute to NRT program evaluation, including participation in systematic data collection via NRT monitoring systems, contributions at NSF-sponsored PI meetings, and periodic cross-award video conferences to share insights, effective practices, and evaluation findings.

Project evaluator(s) can be from an internal or external assessment unit or consulting entity. If a project chooses to involve an individual from the lead institution or non-lead partner in the evaluation, then the project must provide justification and explain how lack of bias is ensured. The lead program evaluator from the ongoing or completed NRT project at the non-lead partner can be recruited to lead the program evaluation. The lead evaluator must be listed as one of the 10 core participants. This requirement does not impact institutional eligibility, as organizations participating solely as project evaluators are excluded from the eligibility limit (see Section IV).

3l . Independent Advisory Committee: An independent advisory committee that includes individuals internal to the lead institution and non-lead-partner, external to the institution(s), and representatives of the industry partners is required to provide guidance on a regular basis. The committee must meet regularly (at least twice/year) to provide advice to the leadership team based on the evaluator’s findings and other formal and informal information obtained from the leadership team, other participants, trainees, and administrators.

3m . Deliverables:

3m(i) Lead Institution: (1) A series of research projects in the focus area(s) that are suitable for trainees pursuing the proposed graduate opportunities at the lead institution, (2) An institution-level graduate-level opportunity (a new certificate or a new track within an existing graduate program, etc.) in the focus area that will be awarded to the trainees participating in the program at the lead institution, (3) A plan demonstrating the demand and feasibility for a new master’s program in the focus area at the lead institution at the end of year three, and (4) A detailed plan (a) to develop the new master’s program at the lead institution along with a plan for sustaining this master’s program beyond the grant period if the outcome of (3) indicates feasibility – or, if the feasibility plan identifies insufficient employer or student demand or other significant barriers, then – (b) to sustain the developed graduate opportunity (2) at the lead institution beyond the grant period.

3m(ii) Non-lead Partner Institution: (1) Inclusion of NRT trainees who actively participate in this partnership for their research and traineeship activities, (2) A plan for sustaining the successful elements of the partnered NRT project and scaling it up at regional and/or national levels, and (3) Articulation of best practices disseminated in the form of a peer-reviewed publication and industry-relevant publication regarding development of a successful NRT collaboration model between an active/successful NRT institution and a non-R1 institution.

3n . Recent Student Training Experiences: Describe the experience of the PI and co-PIs/senior personnel with leading or participating in STEM education and training over the past five years, particularly emphasizing lessons learned by the non-lead partner implementing NRT program activities at their institution.

3o . Results from Prior Support: The PI and co-PIs who have received NSF funding (including any current funding) from an award with an end date in the past five years must provide information on the prior award, including the project’s major achievements and relevance to the proposed NRT project. Individuals who have received more than one prior award must report on the award most closely related to the proposal. A complete bibliographic citation for each publication resulting from an NSF award must be included in either the Results from Prior NSF Support section or in the References Cited section of the proposal.

Additional Proposal Elements

The information that follows provides guidance regarding additional required elements of the proposal package. These elements are not part of the Project Description

4. Budget and Budget Justification: Provide an annual budget for up to five years. The system will automatically generate a cumulative budget. The cumulative proposed budget can be up to $4,500,000 (maximum). The non-lead IHE partner can request a maximum of 30% of the total request amount. The proposed budget should be consistent with the costs to develop, offer, administer, and evaluate the program elements (e.g., courses, workshops, internships) and the number of trainees supported. Requests for trainee support and programmatic elements must be commensurate with the goals specified in the proposal. All travel (both domestic and foreign) must be justified. For foreign travel, the proposed destinations must be included in the budget justification.

4a. Trainee Support: Include all trainee support (i.e., stipend, costs of education, travel, materials and supplies needed specifically for trainees) as Participant Support Costs in the budget. The NRT stipend and education costs are intended for those trainees (i.e., graduate students) whose research is aligned with the project’s focus area(s). Trainees receiving stipend and cost-of-education support (i.e., NRT-funded trainees) must be full-time students and be United States citizens, nationals, or legal permanent residents. The NSF minimum contribution to NRT stipends is $37K per year per NRT-funded trainee for a 12-month appointment. Funded trainees are expected to receive at a minimum, the equivalent of one year of $37K stipend support that may be distributed over their traineeship tenure. NRT-funded trainees cannot be charged tuition or any other required costs of education while they are receiving an NRT stipend. Thus, the budget should include customary costs of education (i.e., tuition and required fees) for NRT-funded trainees. Additional costs for all trainees (NRT-funded and non-NRT-funded) to participate in programmatic and training elements should be designated as Travel, Subsistence, or Other Participant Support Costs in the budget.

4b. Faculty/Senior Personnel Salaries: Salary support must be consistent with contributions to the traineeship. Support for postdoctoral fellows is not allowed unless they explicitly have an instructional or other training role.

4c. Other Budget Items: Other budget requests (e.g., non-trainee travel, equipment, and research support) must reflect the training focus of the program, including programmatic elements and non-NRT-stipend-supported trainee support. Projects should budget for an NRT Project Coordinator (75%-100% appointment) and an evaluator. The budget should include funds for the PI, one trainee, the Project Coordinator, and an evaluator to attend the annual NRT meetings plus funds for the PI to attend a one-day orientation meeting for new PIs in Washington, DC during the first year of the project.

5. Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources: Provide a description of the facilities and major instrumentation that are available for training purposes.

6. Special Information and Supplementary Documentation: Some supplementary documents are required (e.g., institutional support letter, letters of collaboration for certain organizations that appear in the budget, and Data Management and Sharing Plan), while others are optional (e.g., partner letters of support [maximum one page]). Letters of collaboration have mandatory eligibility language that must be added. Proposals that lack required supplementary documents or that exceed the page limitations described below will be returned without review.

6a. Letters of Support and Collaboration: (i) Institutional Letters of Support: Two letters are required , each up to two pages in length; one from the appropriate senior university administrator(s) at the lead institution and the second from the appropriate senior university administrator(s) at the non-lead IHE partner. These letters should be submitted as a Supplementary Document and should describe institutional support for the traineeship program and how successful programmatic elements and any associated institutional policies and infrastructure will be sustained after award closure. The letter from the lead institution must describe institutional support that will be provided to the project team for the development and approval of the graduate opportunities the program creates. Additionally, both Institutional Support letters should describe the support that will be provided to the project team for enhancing the collaborative activities between the lead institution and non-lead institutional partner. (ii) Letters of Support (Other): Up to eight other letters of support, each no more than one page long, may be provided from partner organizations or institutions, including international entities, that would play a significant collaborative role in the project. Each industry partner identified in the proposal must provide a letter. These letters of support should detail specific commitments and contributions (e.g., internships, laboratory access, mentorship, time commitment, etc.) to the NRT project. (iii) Letters of Collaboration: A letter of collaboration (see the PAPPG) is required from each NRT-eligible partner organization that appears in the budget. A letter of collaboration from the non-lead IHE NRT partner is not needed since they will provide an institutional support letter. Each letter of collaboration must include the following appropriate statement at the conclusion of the letter: “We agree to partner on this NRT project as a sub-awardee." No letters should include endorsements or advocacy for the project.

6b. Data Management and Sharing Plan: All proposals are required to include a Data Management and Sharing Plan of up to two pages as a separate Supplementary Document. The Data Management Plan should describe how the project would conform to the NSF policy on dissemination and sharing of research results as well as any educational products (e.g., curricular materials). This plan will be reviewed using the intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria. Data management requirements and plans relevant to Directorates, Offices, Divisions, Programs or other NSF units are available on the NSF website at https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp . The PI should follow the data management requirements and plans for the Directorate, Office, Division, Program, or other NSF unit most closely aligned with the research theme of the NRT traineeship.

6c. Mentoring Plan: A Mentoring Plan is required for graduate students who receive NRT support and for proposals that request funding to support postdoctoral scholars; the inclusion of postdoctoral scholars is allowed only if they participate in an instructional or other training capacity.

No other items or appendices are to be included. Full proposals containing items, other than those required above or by the PAPPG, will not be accepted or will be returned without review.

Cost Sharing:

No more than 30% of the total award budget can be provided to the non-lead IHE partner.

D. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via Research.gov:

To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.gov, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html . For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-381-1532 or e-mail [email protected] . The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html . In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: [email protected] . The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to Research.gov for further processing.

The NSF Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov informational page provides submission guidance to applicants and links to helpful resources including the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide , Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide , and Grants.gov Submitted Proposals Frequently Asked Questions . Grants.gov proposals must pass all NSF pre-check and post-check validations in order to be accepted by Research.gov at NSF.

When submitting via Grants.gov, NSF strongly recommends applicants initiate proposal submission at least five business days in advance of a deadline to allow adequate time to address NSF compliance errors and resubmissions by 5:00 p.m. submitting organization's local time on the deadline. Please note that some errors cannot be corrected in Grants.gov. Once a proposal passes pre-checks but fails any post-check, an applicant can only correct and submit the in-progress proposal in Research.gov.

Proposers that submitted via Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/ .

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
• Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

• Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

• Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
• Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
• To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
• Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
• How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
• Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management and Sharing Plan and the Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

Integration of Research and Education

Does the proposal address training needs that are not currently available at the institution(s) and/or in disciplines related to the proposed project’s focus? Are there clear and compelling connections between the training elements and the focus area? Is there a clear plan to offer a graduate credential to participants before a master’s degree program is fully developed and approved? Is there clear integration of research in the focus area with the timeline, requirements, and milestones of the credential-bearing programs, including the planned master’s degree? Is there evidence that program activities will persist beyond the duration of the award?

Industry Engagement

What is the quality of the project team’s prior engagement with the industry partners identified in the proposal? Do support letters from the industry partners and related proposal content clearly identify their role and commitment for the proposed NRT program? Are plans for continued industry engagement to support sustainability within graduate program(s) at the lead institution included in the proposal that?

Professional Development

What is the breadth and quality of the plan to provide NRT trainees with professional development training for a range of research and research-related career pathways, both within and outside academia, with an emphasis on industry? Does the project provide the training in communication, team science, collaboration, and ethics? Are the training expectations sufficient, and is the training structured in such a way that they will not hinder trainee research or degree progress?

Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities

Are the recruiting and retention plans likely to broaden participation? Is there evidence of sufficient engagement of key personnel? Are collaborations and/or existing programs appropriately engaged?

Does the evaluation plan include intended outcomes, performance measures, benchmarks, and an evaluation timetable, as well as a description of how formative evaluation will improve practice? Are both research and educational activities addressed by the evaluation plan? Is there a plan to share insights, practices, and findings broadly? Will the evaluation generate evidence to inform efforts to sustain the program?

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell proposers whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new recipients may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. notification of the award.

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF . Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Build America, Buy America

As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF’s Build America, Buy America webpage.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final annual project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final annual project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final annual project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

VIII. Agency Contacts

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:

• NSF Help Desk: 1-800-381-1532
• Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: [email protected]

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: [email protected] .

IX. Other Information

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences . Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website .

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov .

Related Programs:

National Science Foundation Research Traineeship (NRT) Program

About The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.F.7 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by proposers will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding proposers or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices , NSF-50 , "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51 , "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records.” Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

Suzanne H. Plimpton Reports Clearance Officer Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management National Science Foundation Alexandria, VA 22314

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key facts about Americans and guns

Guns are deeply ingrained in American society and the nation’s political debates.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and about a third of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun. At the same time, in response to concerns such as rising gun death rates and  mass shootings , President Joe Biden has proposed gun policy legislation that would expand on the bipartisan gun safety bill Congress passed last year.

Here are some key findings about Americans’ views of gun ownership, gun policy and other subjects, drawn primarily from a Pew Research Center survey conducted in June 2023 .

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to summarize key facts about Americans and guns. We used data from recent Center surveys to provide insights into Americans’ views on gun policy and how those views have changed over time, as well as to examine the proportion of adults who own guns and their reasons for doing so.

The analysis draws primarily from a survey of 5,115 U.S. adults conducted from June 5 to June 11, 2023. Everyone who took part in the surveys cited is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the  ATP’s methodology .

Here are the  questions used for the analysis on gun ownership , the questions used for the analysis on gun policy , and  the survey’s methodology .

Additional information about the fall 2022 survey of parents and its methodology can be found at the link in the text of this post.

Measuring gun ownership in the United States comes with unique challenges. Unlike many demographic measures, there is not a definitive data source from the government or elsewhere on how many American adults own guns.

The Pew Research Center survey conducted June 5-11, 2023, on the Center’s American Trends Panel, asks about gun ownership using two separate questions to measure personal and household ownership. About a third of adults (32%) say they own a gun, while another 10% say they do not personally own a gun but someone else in their household does. These shares have changed little from surveys conducted in 2021  and  2017 . In each of those surveys, 30% reported they owned a gun.

These numbers are largely consistent with rates of gun ownership reported by Gallup , but somewhat higher than those reported by NORC’s General Social Survey . Those surveys also find only modest changes in recent years.

The FBI maintains data on background checks on individuals attempting to purchase firearms in the United States. The FBI reported a surge in background checks in 2020 and 2021, during the coronavirus pandemic. The number of federal background checks declined in 2022 and through the first half of this year, according to FBI statistics .

About four-in-ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 32% who say they personally own one,  according to an August report based on our June survey. These numbers are virtually unchanged since the last time we asked this question in 2021.

There are differences in gun ownership rates by political affiliation, gender, community type and other factors.

• Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are more than twice as likely as Democrats and Democratic leaners to say they personally own a gun (45% vs. 20%).
• 40% of men say they own a gun, compared with 25% of women.
• 47% of adults living in rural areas report personally owning a firearm, as do smaller shares of those who live in suburbs (30%) or urban areas (20%).
• 38% of White Americans own a gun, compared with smaller shares of Black (24%), Hispanic (20%) and Asian (10%) Americans.

Personal protection tops the list of reasons gun owners give for owning a firearm.  About three-quarters (72%) of gun owners say that protection is a major reason they own a gun. Considerably smaller shares say that a major reason they own a gun is for hunting (32%), for sport shooting (30%), as part of a gun collection (15%) or for their job (7%). 

The reasons behind gun ownership have changed only modestly since our 2017 survey of attitudes toward gun ownership and gun policies. At that time, 67% of gun owners cited protection as a major reason they owned a firearm.

Gun owners tend to have much more positive feelings about having a gun in the house than non-owners who live with them. For instance, 71% of gun owners say they enjoy owning a gun – but far fewer non-gun owners in gun-owning households (31%) say they enjoy having one in the home. And while 81% of gun owners say owning a gun makes them feel safer, a narrower majority (57%) of non-owners in gun households say the same about having a firearm at home. Non-owners are also more likely than owners to worry about having a gun in the home (27% vs. 12%, respectively).

Feelings about gun ownership also differ by political affiliation, even among those who personally own firearms. Republican gun owners are more likely than Democratic owners to say owning a gun gives them feelings of safety and enjoyment, while Democratic owners are more likely to say they worry about having a gun in the home.

Non-gun owners are split on whether they see themselves owning a firearm in the future. About half (52%) of Americans who don’t own a gun say they could never see themselves owning one, while nearly as many (47%) could imagine themselves as gun owners in the future.

Among those who currently do not own a gun:

• 61% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats who don’t own a gun say they would consider owning one in the future.
• 56% of Black non-owners say they could see themselves owning a gun one day, compared with smaller shares of White (48%), Hispanic (40%) and Asian (38%) non-owners.

Americans are evenly split over whether gun ownership does more to increase or decrease safety. About half (49%) say it does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, but an equal share say gun ownership does more to reduce safety by giving too many people access to firearms and increasing misuse.

Republicans and Democrats differ on this question: 79% of Republicans say that gun ownership does more to increase safety, while a nearly identical share of Democrats (78%) say that it does more to reduce safety.

Urban and rural Americans also have starkly different views. Among adults who live in urban areas, 64% say gun ownership reduces safety, while 34% say it does more to increase safety. Among those who live in rural areas, 65% say gun ownership increases safety, compared with 33% who say it does more to reduce safety. Those living in the suburbs are about evenly split.

Americans increasingly say that gun violence is a major problem. Six-in-ten U.S. adults say gun violence is a very big problem in the country today, up 9 percentage points from spring 2022. In the survey conducted this June, 23% say gun violence is a moderately big problem, and about two-in-ten say it is either a small problem (13%) or not a problem at all (4%).

Looking ahead, 62% of Americans say they expect the level of gun violence to increase over the next five years. This is double the share who expect it to stay the same (31%). Just 7% expect the level of gun violence to decrease.

A majority of Americans (61%) say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in this country. Another 30% say the ease of legally obtaining a gun is about right, and 9% say it is too hard to get a gun. Non-gun owners are nearly twice as likely as gun owners to say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun (73% vs. 38%). Meanwhile, gun owners are more than twice as likely as non-owners to say the ease of obtaining a gun is about right (48% vs. 20%).

Partisan and demographic differences also exist on this question. While 86% of Democrats say it is too easy to obtain a gun legally, 34% of Republicans say the same. Most urban (72%) and suburban (63%) dwellers say it’s too easy to legally obtain a gun. Rural residents are more divided: 47% say it is too easy, 41% say it is about right and 11% say it is too hard.

About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) favor stricter gun laws. Another 26% say that U.S. gun laws are about right, and 15% favor less strict gun laws. The percentage who say these laws should be stricter has fluctuated a bit in recent years. In 2021, 53% favored stricter gun laws, and in 2019, 60% said laws should be stricter.

About a third (32%) of parents with K-12 students say they are very or extremely worried about a shooting ever happening at their children’s school, according to a fall 2022 Center survey of parents with at least one child younger than 18. A similar share of K-12 parents (31%) say they are not too or not at all worried about a shooting ever happening at their children’s school, while 37% of parents say they are somewhat worried.

Among all parents with children under 18, including those who are not in school, 63% see improving mental health screening and treatment as a very or extremely effective way to prevent school shootings. This is larger than the shares who say the same about having police officers or armed security in schools (49%), banning assault-style weapons (45%), or having metal detectors in schools (41%). Just 24% of parents say allowing teachers and school administrators to carry guns in school would be a very or extremely effective approach, while half say this would be not too or not at all effective.

There is broad partisan agreement on some gun policy proposals, but most are politically divisive,   the June 2023 survey found . Majorities of U.S. adults in both partisan coalitions somewhat or strongly favor two policies that would restrict gun access: preventing those with mental illnesses from purchasing guns (88% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats support this) and increasing the minimum age for buying guns to 21 years old (69% of Republicans, 90% of Democrats). Majorities in both parties also  oppose  allowing people to carry concealed firearms without a permit (60% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats oppose this).

Republicans and Democrats differ on several other proposals. While 85% of Democrats favor banning both assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, majorities of Republicans oppose these proposals (57% and 54%, respectively).

Most Republicans, on the other hand, support allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in K-12 schools (74%) and allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places (71%). These proposals are supported by just 27% and 19% of Democrats, respectively.

Gun ownership is linked with views on gun policies. Americans who own guns are less likely than non-owners to favor restrictions on gun ownership, with a notable exception. Nearly identical majorities of gun owners (87%) and non-owners (89%) favor preventing mentally ill people from buying guns.

Within both parties, differences between gun owners and non-owners are evident – but they are especially stark among Republicans. For example, majorities of Republicans who do not own guns support banning high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault-style weapons, compared with about three-in-ten Republican gun owners.

Among Democrats, majorities of both gun owners and non-owners favor these two proposals, though support is greater among non-owners. 

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on Jan. 5, 2016 .

• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Issues

Katherine Schaeffer is a research analyst at Pew Research Center

About 1 in 4 U.S. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year

Striking findings from 2023, for most u.s. gun owners, protection is the main reason they own a gun, gun violence widely viewed as a major – and growing – national problem, what the data says about gun deaths in the u.s., most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Federal Budget 2024: Summary and Analysis, CUPE National Research

Share this page in your online social circles, overview/summary.

Budget 2024 makes small tweaks to address big issues facing the country. Many of the changes announced are moving in the right direction, but some still reflect an over-reliance on market-led approaches that have failed in the past. There are also some promising proposals that will need more details before we can fully evaluate them.

Much of the proposed spending won’t actually flow until after the next federal election, and announcements made in previous budgets have been pushed even further into the future. The federal government has prioritized moving closer to a balanced budget over investing what was required to address the issues identified. This approach fails to consider the broader long-term costs of inaction.

• Meaningful shift on tax fairness, finally increasing the proportion of capital gains profits that are included in corporate and individual taxable income, raising $19 billion in additional revenue over 5 years.
• Some funding to protect existing affordable housing and to support tenant’s rights.
• Additional funding for blue sky research at Canadian post-secondary institutions, and substantial increases to graduate student stipends.
• Proposal of a high-level working group focused on encouraging pension funds to privatize public infrastructure.
• Invisible cuts as some programs are phased out and not replaced or replaced with less money.
• Insufficient funding to critical areas, such as housing, health care, and municipal infrastructure.

Social Services

The Canada Social Transfer (CST) is the main source of financial contribution from the federal government to the provinces and territories for social services. This funding is badly needed to help address some of the major challenges facing the sector, such as: high levels of staff vacancies and turnover, low wages, and workplace violence due to low staffing levels. No increase to the CST was announced in Federal Budget 2024.

Changes were proposed to the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and the Canada Students Loans Act . They will apply to persons who choose to work in social service professions in rural and remote communities, including child care, personal support, and social workers. This could increase access to services by attracting much needed workers to these areas, while also helping to alleviate financial burdens students face when they graduate from training programs.

Two new consultations were announced in the social services sector. The first is a Sector Table on the Care Economy. The second is the development of a National Caregiving Strategy. It is hoped that these multi-sector consultations will lead to the development of a new caregiving strategy in line with the CLC’s Care Economy Action Plan. CUPE awaits further information on the timeline of this development.

Canada Disability Benefits

In our pre-budget submission to the federal Finance committee, CUPE called on the federal government to accelerate the development and implementation of the new Canada Disability Benefit. Disability Without Poverty estimated that $10 billion, would need to be allocated annually (indexed to inflation) to lift people above the poverty line. Unfortunately, what was announced in the federal budget has fallen well short of that need. Budget 2024 only committed to $6.1 billion over 6 years, with $1.4 billion ongoing.

The announcement falls short on both the amount of the benefit and the eligibility requirements. CUPE believes that the benefit must be inclusive and available to all persons living with disabilities. Eligibility should be tied to a self-reported disability, rather than limiting eligibility to individuals who are registered for the Disability Tax Credit, since not all persons with disabilities are registered. At minimum, everyone who currently receives disability benefits should automatically receive the Canada Disability Benefit (e.g., recipients of provincial/territorial disability social assistance programs, Disability Tax Credit, CPP-D/QPP-D, veterans’ benefits). Disability without Poverty estimated that this would cover approximately 1 million individuals.

Budget 2024 limits eligibility to individuals with a Disability Tax Credit certificate. Currently, 492,000 working-age adults have the certificate, and the government is hoping to be able to increase this number to 600,000 in the first few years following implementation of the benefit. The maximum amount of the benefit is $2,400 per year, instead of at least $12,000 suggested by advocates. The claw-back rate is determined based on family income, instead of individual income, which also goes against the recommendations of advocates.

Libraries are mentioned in announcements related to infrastructure spending, and they’re recognized for the vital role they play in promoting literacy, but there are no guarantees that any of the infrastructure funding will be spent on building new or retrofitting existing libraries. Library workers will applaud the additional investments in housing as they work daily with people who are underhoused and know the stress and challenges people are facing due to the housing crisis.

Municipalities

CUPE has been calling for new funding tools for municipalities to give them increased and sustainable funding for public services. This is not addressed in Federal budget 2024.

Infrastructure deficits for Canadian municipalities have been estimated between $110 and $270 billion. The 2024 federal budget’s $12.8 billion commitment for municipalities is earmarked for housing, water and wastewater infrastructure and the emergency treatment of the opioid crisis. It is woefully inadequate to address the real crisis in municipal asset needs. 

CUPE welcomes the $1.5 billion under the Green and Inclusive Community Buildings Program, which supports green and physically accessible retrofits, repairs, and upgrades of public community facilities, and new builds of publicly accessible community spaces.

The budget does include $2.4 billion for water and wastewater infrastructure and $1.6 billion for safe drinking water and treated wastewater for First Nations communities, but these are both announcements are from previous commitments. 

CUPE has called on the federal government to update the National Housing Strategy to include the human rights requirements contained in new National Housing Strategy Act. In order to address the affordable housing crisis, CUPE believes that the federal government should prioritize building new non-market housing including public, non-profit and co-operative housing. To address the financialization of housing, CUPE recommends establishing national standards for tenant protections that provinces and territories must meet, as well as closing tax loopholes for Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs).

The budget did not update the National Housing Strategy to include the human rights requirements under the National Housing Strategy Act , but it does take some steps towards protecting existing affordable housing and increasing non-profit and public housing.

Major housing announcements:

• $1 billion top up to the Affordable Housing Fund, which provides capital for new affordable housing and renovation and repair of existing affordable and community housing.
• $15 billion for the Apartment Construction Loan Program, which provides low-cost loans to for-profit, non-profit and municipalities.
• $1.5 billion for the launch of the Canada Rental Protection Fund, which will provide $1 billion in loans and $470 million in contributions to non-profit organizations and other partners so they can acquire units to preserve rent prices in the long term; and,
• the Public Lands for Homes Plan will convert public lands to housing, including leasing and acquiring other public lands for housing, retaining ownership whenever possible.

CUPE supports the new money going toward non-market housing in the Rapid Housing Stream under the Affordable Housing Fund, as well as protecting existing affordable housing through the Canada Rental Protection Fund. Unfortunately, the bulk of the 2024 federal budget money will go to for-profit housing developers through the Apartment Construction Loan Program. This will inevitably increase financialization in the sector and increases the risk that newly built housing will not be affordable.

There are some measures that could contribute to better protections for tenants, such as $15 million over five years for a new Tenant Protection Fund. The fund will provide funding to organizations that provide legal and informational services to tenants, as well as for tenants’ rights advocacy organizations to raise awareness of renters’ rights. This is a positive approach, but the funding level will not meet the existing need. The proposed Canadian Renters’ Bill of Rights could be a useful tool, but more information is needed on its development, implementation, and enforceability. Strong and enforceable national standards for tenant protections are needed to ensure federal transfers to build housing do not act as windfalls for developers.

There is only one measure in the 2024 federal budget to address the financialization of housing and there are a number of measures that would increase the financialization of housing. The housing plan states they intend to restrict the purchase and acquisition of single-family homes by large corporate investors. Further detail will be provided in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement. This is unlikely to make a significant difference.

Budget 2024 didn’t respond to CUPE, ACORN and other housing advocates demands to close tax loopholes for REITs, a measure that would address financialization of housing and long term care. The 2024 federal budget does announce a working group to encourage Canadian pension funds to invest in domestic infrastructure including “building more homes, including on public lands”. This will only serve to further financialize the housing sector. More information on this proposal can be found in the pensions section.

CUPE has called on the federal government to ensure that there is sufficient funding for new not-for-profit and public child care spaces to meet the demand. We have also called for a comprehensive workforce strategy for care workers, which must include recruiting and training as well as retention strategies. This includes higher wages, full-time jobs, paid sick days, benefits and pensions for all workers in the sector. In March, CUPE launched an e-action campaign specifically asking the government to invest $7 billion dollars to resolve the labour crisis in the sector, and $10 billion to expand the early childhood education system.

What we got in the 2024 federal budget is not enough to address the issues of expansion that the program is facing and often leaves out child care workers that are not Early Childhood Educators (ECE), many of whom are Indigenous, Black, racialized, or newcomers. However, the budget does acknowledge many of the access problems and takes initial steps to address them. Canada-wide early learning and child care transfer payments are expected to increase from $5.6 billion in 2023-2024 to $7.7 billion in 2028-2029.

The 2024 federal budget 2024 extends student loan forgiveness to Early Childhood Educators who work in rural and remote communities. The amount of student loan forgiveness will increase the longer an ECE stays in the profession in a rural or remote area. This builds on enhanced student loan forgiveness provided to attract more doctors and nurses to rural and remote communities. This is expected to benefit over 3,000 ECEs per year who work in rural and remote communities. The cost of these measures is estimated to be $48 million over four years, starting in 2025-26, and $15.8 million ongoing.

The 2024 federal budget will provide $10 million over two years to increase training for Early Childhood Educators, through Employment and Social Development Canada’s Sectoral Workforce Solutions Program, an employer-led training program.

On wage and pensions, the federal government is calling on provinces and territories to ensure that the ECEs are fairly compensated for the important work they do. CUPE believes this should include the creation of robust pension regimes and be extended to all child care workers.

The Child Care Expansion Loan Program will offer $1 billion in low-cost loans and $60 million in non-repayable contributions to public and not for-profit child care providers to build more spaces and renovate their existing child care centres.

To launch the program, the 2024 federal budget will provide the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) with $179.4 million over five years, starting in 2024-25. This will also allow CMHC to coordinate the requirement for provinces and territories to consider the expansion of non-profit child care when accessing Canada Builds funding for affordable housing projects.

The 2024 federal budget also proposes to reallocate up to $41.5 million over four years, starting in 2025-26, and up to $15 million ongoing from within Employment and Social Development Canada to establish a new capacity building program to help providers apply for funding through the Child Care Expansion Loan Program, and to support Early Learning and Child Care research initiatives.

Finally, the 2024 federal budget proposes $100 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, to DND for child care services for Canadian Armed Forces personnel and their families.

Post-Secondary Education

CUPE has called on the federal government to increase funding to research, specifically increasing scholarship amounts for graduate students and index these amounts to inflation. These scholarship amounts have been at the same level for over 20 years. Budget 2024 increases the annual value of master’s and doctoral student scholarships to $27,000 and $40,000, respectively, and post-doctoral fellowships to $70,000. This is a long overdue, and very welcome change. However, these amounts are not indexed to inflation.

There is also an investment of $734.8 million over 3-5 years for various large research projects at universities, and $30 million over three years to support Indigenous participation in research, with $10 million each for First Nation, Métis, and Inuit partners. This research funding is very welcome.

There are several changes to Canada Student Loans and Grants that add up to an additional $650 million annually. CUPE was looking for an increase to Canada Student Grants from $4,200 to $6,000 to match the level that was provided during the pandemic. Instead, the 2024 federal budget only extends the current level of $4,200 for one additional year, returning to the pre-pandemic level of $3,000 afterwards.

Student loan and grant changes:

• Students with disabilities will have access to more generous repayment assistance, as well as loan forgiveness for those with severe permanent disabilities.
• Adjusting the shelter allowances used by the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program when determining financial need, increasing support for approximately 79,000 students per year; and
• permanently eliminate the credit screening requirement for mature students applying for Canada Student Grants and Loans.

Not all families have been able to take advantage of the federal money in Registered Education Savings Plans (RESPs), so this program has tended to benefit higher income families. Starting in 2028, children born 2024 or later, who do not already have a RESP, will be automatically enrolled and the eligible Canada Learning Bond payments would be auto deposited in these accounts. This would mean an additional 130,000 children would benefit from the Canada Learning Bond. The 2024 federal budget 2024 also extends the length of time that a student can retroactively claim the Canada Learning Bond, from 20 years to 30 years.

CUPE is disappointed that we did not see an increase to the provincial transfer dedicated to PSE that would be in addition to provincial funding, lower tuition for all students, and provide fair wages and less precarity for workers at PSE institutions. We also did not see offsets for loss of revenue related to the impact of international student enrollment reductions.

In terms of funding for university and college housing, we saw a very minor change that would relax the conditions under which university housing can qualify for GST exemption. While this is supposed to incentivize new construction, it is only estimated to provide $19 million in reduced costs. Universities and colleges require substantial funding for housing and sustainable retrofits, and this gap was not addressed in this budget.

Tax Fairness

Tax cuts implemented since 2000 have reduced federal revenues by over $50 billion annually, and the major beneficiaries have been large corporations and the wealthiest Canadians. These cuts have left a huge hole in federal budgets and had a ripple effect across provincial budgets as the federal government stepped back from funding essential public services. CUPE called for the federal government to increase the federal corporate tax rate, eliminate tax loopholes and fossil fuel subsidies, improve transparency rules, and introduce a wealth tax.

The 2024 federal budget takes a step towards this by increasing the proportion of capital gains that are included in corporate and individual taxable income. Capital gains are the profit that is made when you sell assets, such as stocks or real estate other than your primary residence. Currently, only 50% of this profit is included in taxable income for corporations and individuals. The 2024 federal budget proposes to increase this to two-thirds for all capital gains realized by corporations and trusts, and for annual capital gains over $250,000 for individuals, effective June 25, 2024.

This tax increase is slightly offset by two exemptions. There is currently a lifetime capital gains exemption of $1 million on the sale of small businesses, as well as farming and fishing property. This will be increased to $1.25 million as of June 25, 2024, and indexed to inflation. The 2024 federal budget proposes an additional exemption for entrepreneurs, which would reduce the inclusion rate for capital gains to 33.3% on a lifetime maximum of $2 million.

These changes are expected to increase federal revenues by $6.7 billion in 2024-2025, and by $19 billion over 5 years. As an added benefit, these changes will automatically be applied to most provinces as well. Quebec runs their own income tax system independently, and so can decide whether or not they want to mirror the change in capital gains inclusion rates at the provincial level. Alberta has an independent system for corporate taxation, and so only the individual taxation changes will apply at the provincial level in Alberta.

The federal government has been talking about encouraging pension funds to invest more money in Canada, partly with the justification that this is needed to boost lagging private sector business investment and productivity. The 2024 federal budget proposes to create a working group, led by Stephen Poloz (former Governor of the Bank of Canada) to identify priority investment opportunities, specifically mentioning several areas where CUPE is concerned about privatization. This proposal appears to be nothing more than a veiled repeat of previous privatization schemes, like the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

CUPE has already expressed concerns that encouraging pension funds to build housing will only exacerbate the financialization of housing. Pension funds have already become significant investors in the financialization of long-term care and seniors’ retirement residential housing. They are now increasingly invested in the financialization of purpose-built rental housing whose business model relies on the displacement of lower income tenants in favour of higher income tenants through unaffordable rent increases and renovictions – a tactic known as “repositioning.” In Toronto alone, tenants of multiple rental buildings across the city are organizing against major above guideline rent increases imposed by their pension fund landlord – PSP Investments.

Another example that should be an indication that this is a failed approach is the impending failure of Thames Water, a private water company in the UK. The money that OMERS and other pension funds have invested in this project may be entirely written off unless the UK water regulator will allow water rates to increase by 40%. CUPE’s position is that pension fund returns for workers should not be secured at the cost of accessible public services.

As part of the 2022-2024 Triennial Review of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), the federal government is proposing some technical amendments to CPP legislation. These amendments would provide a top-up to the Death Benefit for certain contributors; introduce a partial children’s benefit for part-time students; extend eligibility for the disabled contributors children’s benefit when a parent reaches age 65; and end eligibility for a survivor pension to people who are legally separated after a division of pensionable earnings. CUPE will follow these proposals and evaluate the implications as we get more details.

Employment Insurance

CUPE has been calling for a reform to the Employment Insurance (EI) program to meet the needs of all workers. We saw that this was possible with the federal government’s quick expansion of EI during the early stages of the pandemic. CUPE continues to call for expanded access to EI to ensure more workers are covered, which will boost support for women as well as precarious and migrant workers; increased benefit levels and a minimum benefit of $500 per week; and increased EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks.

While there is some good news that the federal government did extend the rules until 2016 to allow an additional 5 weeks of EI to eligible seasonal workers, CUPE is disappointed that the budget will allow EI premiums to decrease. The EI Part II top-up, which has been extended since 2017, has not been renewed. The federal government has failed to introduce even minimal changes to make EI more accessible, equitable and affordable for workers across the country.

Earlier this year, CUPE held a press conference ( CUPE demands EI fairness for women workers | Canadian Union of Public Employees ) on Parliament Hill calling on the federal government to allow new parents who have been laid off to combine both parental benefits and EI benefits. Women are still more likely to take the majority of a parental leave, which means not being able to combine their parental and EI benefits, which puts them in a vulnerable position if they get laid off before, during, or after maternity leave. Although we have highlighted this issue to the federal government, CUPE was very disappointed that the government chose not to fix the issue in the 2024 budget.

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been a hot topic in Canada for the past couple of years. This year it made its debut in the federal budget. $2.4 billion has been allocated to AI, yet legislation addressing AI is only beginning to make its way through the government in the form of Bill 27, Digital Charter Implementation Act.

CUPE has made a submission to the government outlining some concerns that we have with Bill 27, but none of those changes have yet to be addressed including the need to add protections for workers and ensure they and their unions are consulted when AI systems are deployed in the workplace.

The $2.4 billion dollars for AI is proposed for building and providing access to computing capabilities and technological infrastructure for AI researchers, start-ups and scale-ups; $200 million to market and accelerate AI adoption in sectors such as agriculture, clean technology, health care and manufacturing; $50 million for the Sectoral Workforce Solutions Program to support workers who may be impacted by AI, such as creative industries, to provide new skills training for workers in potentially disrupted sectors and communities, among others.

CUPE continues to have concerns with the way AI is being introduced. For this announcement in the federal budget, we believe the Office of the AI and Data Commissioner should be independent of government in order to provide proper oversight; government funding should not subsidize corporate profits and flow toward AI adoption in particular sectors; $50 million for workers affected by AI is completely inadequate given the risks with continued AI growth; any money allocated to training through the Sectoral Workforce Solutions Program must include trade unions in the workplace as a key partner in program development; and lastly, the Canadian AI Safety Institute should include an explicit role for trade unions given that workers will have frontline experience of dealing with AI systems in workplaces across the country.

Health Care

Major announcements were just recently made about the beginning of a universal pharmacare program in Canada. Despite this exciting start, the federal budget has not maintained the momentum. CUPE has long advocated for a single-payer, universal pharmacare program. To begin a comprehensive program, Canada would need to allocate at least $3.5 billion eventually reaching $15.3 billion. However, the Liberal government has only committed $1.5 billion over 5 years, starting with $59 million in 2024-2025. While we know this first phase of pharmacare is set to cover some diabetes and contraceptive devices and medication, it is unclear exactly which devices and medications will be available where and when. Currently, people in Canada spend $3 billion annually on contraception and diabetes treatment, while not all of those devices will be covered, and with federal bulk purchasing the cost of treatment should decrease, an average of $300 million per year is far from the $3 billion currently being spent. CUPE will continue to advocate for a comprehensive, universal, single-payer pharmacare program for Canada.

Dental Care

Through the Supply and Confidence Agreement, the NDP was able to secure a dental care program as part of our public health care system. The program is currently means-tested, and no funding was allocated in the budget to provide an expansion to the plan. We expect the plan will continue as is. CUPE will continue to advocate with the NDP for a universal dental care program.

Long-Term Care

Canada witnessed the horrifying reality of a long-term care system in dire need of support when the 2020 pandemic hit. Before, then and after, CUPE continues to demand better hours of care for residents, at least 70 per cent of staff to be permanent and full-time, and to have the conditions and criteria of the Canada Health Act applied to long-term care (publicly administered, universal, comprehensive, portable, with no extra-billing or user-fees).

The 2024 federal budget 2024 commits to the Aging with Dignity bilateral agreements made to support provinces and territories in improving long-term care standards. $5.4 billion over five years has been committed. However, the budget does not contain many details on the content of these standards (i.e., no reference to the 4.1 hours of direct care for residents that is necessary for good care). There is no mention of how these standards will be enforced – something CUPE and our allies raised concerns about last year ( Health Canada says it won’t mandate standards for long-term care homes – Canadian Health Coalition ). Lastly, many of the bilateral agreements do not include funding for frontline services or hiring. This raise concerns that federal dollars for long-term care could be used to subsidize private long-term care rather than ensuring needed investments are made in our public care facilities.

Public Health Care

The cost of delivering public health care in Canada is shared between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. CUPE has been calling on the federal government to increase their share of health care funding from 22% to 35% of total health care spending.

We have been calling on the government to address recruitment and retention issues in the sector which have worsened since the pandemic. In the budget, the Liberal government has reiterated their previous commitments to bilateral agreements, but no new money has been allocated. This is a lost opportunity to invest in one of the most important social programs in the country and ensure everyone in Canada has improved access to high quality public health care.

The Budget proposes two new consultations. The first is a sectoral table on the care economy that will consult and provide recommendations to the federal government on concrete actions to better support the care economy. The second is a series of consultations on the development of a National Caregiving Strategy. CUPE welcomes these new forums for conversation, but we’re also hoping that action to support workers in health care will follow quickly. We know that health care is facing an enormous crisis, workers desperately need support and resources, staffing shortfalls and burnout are chronic in this sector. We are open to these consultations but many of the problems and their solutions are well known, we will continue to fiercely advocate to improve the working conditions in health care now.

Indigenous Health

As written in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) Calls to Action, the Federal government, in consultation with Indigenous people, needs to: increase funding for indigenous healing centres; establish measurable goals to identify and close the gaps in health outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities; and publish an annual progress report, among the other TRC calls for health care. CUPE calls for the federal government to make good on its commitment to truth and reconciliation for Indigenous health.

CUPE has called on the federal government to prioritize clean energy investments that are publicly owned and operated. While it doesn’t go as far as prioritizing public ownership, the Clean Electricity investment tax credit announced in Budget 2023 was designed to be available to public entities. Budget 2024 announces the design and implementation details of this tax credit.

The Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit is a 15 % refundable tax credit rate for eligible investments in new equipment or refurbishments related to:

• Low-emitting electricity generation systems using energy from wind, solar, water, geothermal, waste biomass, nuclear, or natural gas with carbon capture and storage.
• Stationary electricity storage systems that do not use fossil fuels in operation, such as batteries and pumped hydroelectric storage; and
• Transmission of electricity between provinces and territories.

The Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit would be available to certain taxable and non-taxable corporations, including corporations owned by municipalities or Indigenous communities, and pension investment corporations. Provided that a provincial and territorial government satisfies additional conditions, the tax credit would also be available to provincial and territorial Crown corporations investing in that province or territory.

Robust labour requirements to pay prevailing union wages and create apprenticeship opportunities will need to be met to receive the full 15% tax credit, but these are limited to male dominated occupations. The Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit is expected to cost $7.2 billion over five years starting in 2024-2025, and an additional $25 billion from 2029-2030 to 2034-2035. This is less than was expected in the 2023 federal budget.

The 2024 federal budget also proposes to provide $3.1 billion over 11 years, to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to support Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ ongoing nuclear science research, environmental protection, and site remediation work.

Climate and Just Transition

CUPE has been calling on the federal government to implement climate solutions faster and to do so in consultation with unions to ensure a just transition for workers in carbon-intensive industries. But the federal budget focuses less on just transition for workers and more on carbon pricing and carbon credits, fuel rebates for small and medium sized business, EV stations and zero emission transport, helping farmers who are already facing the effects of a changing climate, and trying to reach net-zero by 2050. The Liberals discuss the need to create new jobs for young workers that are focused on climate, but they do not discuss how they will transition current workers from carbon-intensive work.

This budget announces only $2 billion in net new climate spending over the next five years, with an additional $9 billion that wouldn’t start to flow until 2029-2030.

On top of the investments in energy, Via Rail will receive $462 million for operational funding over the next 5 years. A new Crown corporation, VIA HFR-VIA TGF Inc., receives $362 million over the next 6 years to deliver high frequency rail.

The Canada Greener Homes Affordability Program replaces the Greener Homes Grant. The new program is expected to cost $800 million over five years and will target energy efficiency retrofits for lower income households. The previous program spent $2.6 billion over seven years but wasn’t targeted. Despite spending less money, the new program will probably have a bigger impact on affordability for low-income families.

CUPE has called for the federal government to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels, which could have been used to fund much needed climate investments. However, the government shows no desire to move away from fossil fuels and in fact applauded the “golden weld” aka the completion of the Trans Mountain pipeline during the 2024 budget speech. 

To reach our goals of slowing climate change and ensuring a sustainable future for generations to come, the 2024 federal budget missed an opportunity to end subsidies to fossil fuel industries, provide funding to municipalities for more investment in public transit, and focus on transitioning workers into climate friendlier work.

Federal Labour Code

The 2024 federal budget promises Right to Disconnect legislation for the federally regulated sector. It allocates $3.6 million over five years to enable the Labour Program at Employment and Social Development Canada to implement legislative amendments to the Canada Labour Code that would require employers in federally regulated sectors to establish a policy limiting work-related communication outside of scheduled working hours. This is expected to benefit up to 500,000 employees in federally regulated sectors.

On worker misclassification, Employment and Social Development Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency will enter into necessary data-sharing agreements to facilitate inspections and enforcement.

Following the recommendations of the arm’s length Task Force that reviewed the Employment Equity Act , the 2024 federal budget 2024 announces the government’s intention to propose legislative amendments to modernize the Act, including by expanding designated equity groups.

CUPE is concerned about the federal government’s proposal to spend $3.1 million over two years to review labour disputes in Canada’s ports. The proposal says that Labour Canada will conduct this review, and that funding will be sourced from existing departmental resources. In CUPE’s experience, the use of scabs and premature back-to-work legislation are the main stumbling blocks to productive collective bargaining in the port sector.

Social Equity

Federal budget documents regularly include a section analyzing new spending, identifying main beneficiaries based on categories such as gender, income level, age, as well as how budget measures impact groups such as Indigenous peoples, 2SLGBTQI+ people, persons with disabilities and Black and racialized individuals. Budget 2024 is missing the impact assessment found in last year’s budget that analyzed the GBA+ process used to develop budget measures as well as their expected impact.

Overall, Budget 2024 adds very little new spending compared to previous budgets, and very few new measures are aimed at gender equity or Black and racialized individuals. There is some new spending for Indigenous peoples and people with disabilities, but the level falls far below the need identified. Budget 2024 does have some measures aimed at low-income people, such as the Canada Rental Protection Fund, improvements to Student Loans, and the National School Food Program. The Gender and Diversity statement points out that single parents, Black and racialized people, and new Canadians are more likely to benefit from these measures, even though there are no specific elements to ensure that this help reaches those communities. The budget does include $12 million in funding for projects aimed at combatting hate against the 2SLGBTQI+ community.

The main equity focus of Budget 2024 was intergenerational fairness, and investments in housing and research were the main areas with new spending. As a result, the largest beneficiaries identified in the Statement on Gender, Diversity, and Inclusion is “Specific Industry/Sector/Region”, which includes spending that will benefit sectors such as construction and AI research.

Approximately 10% of new spending is targeted towards persons with disabilities. The largest piece of this is the funding for the new Canada Disability Benefit, which will provide up to $2,400/year to around 5,000 people with disabilities. This is a huge disappointment. Advocates were calling for a benefit that provided a maximum of at least $12,000/year to a much larger group of people with disabilities.

Chapter 6 in the budget is dedicated to measures related to reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, and about 15% of Budget 2024’s new spending is found in this chapter. This is equal to $9 billion over 6 years. Major investments include expanding On-Reserve Income Assistance to eligible people with disabilities who live in First Nations communities, support for community-led, prevention-based solutions to reduce the number of Indigenous children in care, investments in First Nations K-12 education and education infrastructure, as well as temporary increases to income supports for post-secondary education. Like other areas of Budget 2024 the biggest numbers come in the form of loan guarantees, an approach that has limited benefit in closing physical and social infrastructure gaps.

Investments in housing, health care, and other infrastructure are far below what advocates have identified as necessary. The Assembly of First Nations recently released a report that identified the need for $349 billion in infrastructure investments for First Nations communities to close the gap by 2030. Inuit advocates have identified the need for $75 billion in infrastructure investments, and the Metis National Council is asking for infrastructure investments of $2.7 billion.

The budget acknowledges that 6% of First Nations communities still do not have access to clean drinking water, with 4% who have a project under construction, 1% that are in the design phase, and a final 1% that are still conducting a feasibility study to address their water advisory. Despite this acknowledgement, there is no additional funding provided to ensure long term access to clean drinking water. The Assembly of First Nations has called for $670 million to end boil water advisories and $9,200 million towards wastewater treatment in order to close infrastructure gaps by 2030.

The Assembly of First Nations recommends $3,675 million towards implementing the Calls for Justice from the 2019 National Inquiry into MMIWG2S. The inquiry report advocated for a National Hotline to report MMIWG2S. Budget 2024 proposes to provide the first tangible funding commitment towards this in five years, with $1.3 million over three years, starting in 2024-25, to co-develop a regional Red Dress Alert system with Indigenous partners.

Related content

• Budget 2024 identifies the problems but offers few solutions
• Inflation: We’ve been here before
• Video: Bargaining during inflation

Our social site pages

Subscribe to our newsletters.