Fulbright: U.S.-Germany International Education Administrators Program

Overview:

Fulbright International Education Administrators (IEA) Awards are fully funded opportunities for U.S. higher education administrators to participate intensive two-week seminars abroad to learn about other countries’ higher education systems. By participating in a Fulbright IEA seminar, you can build your institution’s capacity for international education, gain a cross-cultural perspective, and open doors to collaboration with colleagues and students throughout the world.
 
Seminar Activities Include:

• Campus visits to a wide range of universities and colleges
• Briefings from faculty and administration at public and private higher education institutions as well as from leading educational experts and government officials
• Tours of historical and cultural sites

Award Activity: This group seminar is designed to familiarize U.S. higher education administrators from universities, colleges, and community colleges in the U.S. with the latest trends in Germany's higher education system. Through lectures, workshops, and campus visits in Berlin and other regions of Germany, participants will explore opportunities for cooperation and academic exchanges in Germany as well as the challenges to be overcome in times of crisis. Participants will also learn about higher education mobility trends in the broader European context.

During their stay in Berlin, participants are provided with a comprehensive overview of Germany and its higher education system through presentations, discussions with colleagues and experts as well as campus visits. Participants will also travel to other destinations throughout Germany to visit further institutions of higher education such as research universities and universities of applied sciences. Beyond the German perspective, the seminar also offers the opportunity to explore and discuss the German higher education system within the European Union.

We strongly encourage administrators from community colleges to apply for this award. 

Locations Detail: Berlin and other cities in Germany

All travel, accommodations, and schedules are provided by the Fulbright IEA Program.

Number of recipients: up to 17
Awards start period: October 2025 - November 2025

Solicitation limitations:

To be eligible for the Fulbright U.S. Scholar Program, you must be a U.S. citizen.

Fulbright: U.S.- France International Education Administrators Program

Overview:

Fulbright International Education Administrators (IEA) Awards are fully funded opportunities for U.S. higher education administrators to participate intensive two-week seminars abroad to learn about other countries’ higher education systems. By participating in a Fulbright IEA seminar, you can build your institution’s capacity for international education, gain a cross-cultural perspective, and open doors to collaboration with colleagues and students throughout the world.
 

Seminar Activities Include:

• Campus visits to a wide range of universities and colleges
• Briefings from faculty and administration at public and private higher education institutions as well as from leading educational experts and government officials
• Tours of historical and cultural sites

Award Activity: Participate in a group seminar designed to familiarize U.S. higher education administrators with France's higher education and research system. The program consists of briefings, campus visits, appointments with selected government officials, networking and cultural activities, and meetings with French international education professionals. 

In addition to being a prestigious academic exchange program, the Fulbright Program is designed to expand and strengthen relationships between the people of the United States and citizens of other nations and to promote international understanding anLocations Detail: d cooperation.

Paris and one other region in France to be determined

All travel, accommodations, and schedules are provided by the Fulbright IEA Program.

Number of recipients: exactly 14
Awards start period: October 2025

Solicitation limitations:

To be eligible for the Fulbright U.S. Scholar Program, you must be a U.S. citizen.

Education for American Civic Life initiative

Overview:

Through this initiative, the Foundation seeks ambitious projects that confront gaps in undergraduates’ civic knowledge and prepares them for the intellectual demands of democratic participation. Successful proposals will seek to promote learning about the formation of the American republic, the crafting of its Constitution, the history of contention over the interpretation of the Constitution, the development of representative political structures, and the principles of democracy. Civic education is strongest when it is not treated as a subject in isolation but becomes part of the student experience across disciplines. For example, the study of history and literature can help students recognize recurring themes and problems in American life such as the tension between individual rights and national security, or the challenges and opportunities faced by immigrants. 

We give priority to proposals designed to reach a significant proportion, if not all, of the undergraduate student body and that infuse civic education across the curriculum. While innovative pedagogies that advance civic engagement are acknowledged and appreciated (e.g., service-learning, public sphere pedagogy), please note our chief interest is in content, i.e., what students will learn. There are a variety of curricular approaches to and considerations for addressing this objective. Some examples are offered below.

Specific Areas of Interest 
The Education for American Civic Life Initiative is focused on funding in three particular areas. While we continue to accept applications that cross or go beyond these areas, we also value proposals that help deepen, expand, and scale the work we are currently funding. 

• Knowledge for Freedom -- In 2018, the Foundation made a commitment to expand nationwide a uniquely rewarding program called Knowledge for Freedom. Knowledge for Freedom Programs invite underserved high school students to study humanity’s deepest questions about leading lives of purpose and civic responsibility. Between the junior and senior years of high school, students come into residence on a college campus, where they experience the intensity of a seminar-sized discussion taught by college professors focused on major works of philosophy and literature. Over the following year, while applying to college as high school seniors, the students engage in civic initiatives inspired by the recognition that their lives are interconnected with the lives of others. High school students who typically find themselves shut out from opportunities available to their more affluent peers are thus provided with an opportunity to undertake college-level work in the humanities, to build meaningful relationships with college faculty and college students, who serve them as mentors, and to develop, through practice, civic skills with their peers. Knowledge for Freedom programs, as demonstrated by the flagship “Freedom and Citizenship Program” at Columbia 3 University, dramatically improve college readiness, admission prospects, and college graduation persistence while building interest in humanistic writing and issues, as well as habits of civic engagement, that persist during and after college. 

• Big Questions & Coherent Answers -- In 2019, the Foundation began working with colleges and universities invested in creating comprehensive civic education for a significant portion of their student body. Some of our partner institutions are designing freshman core curricula, others are working inside divisions such as an honors college or a pre-professional program, to ask faculty to design a series of courses and extracurricular opportunities to ensure that their students prepare to be informed and engaged civic participants in their local and national communities. These programs explicitly help students grasp the lived experience—past and present-- of their neighbors outside the campus gates as a valuable aspect of a civic education that builds on their education in areas like governance, history, and law. Typically, these programs are anchored by a significant question concerning the past and present challenges of the community in which the college or university is located-- whether this is a metropolitan center such as Newark, New Jersey, with a long history of successive migrations into and out of the city, or rural Virginia, site of a major Civil War campaign and the struggle over segregation and civil rights. 

• Professional Development -- In 2019, the Foundation began partnering with colleges and universities that are working to deepen civic education and that recognize the need to provide faculty with their own learning opportunities to ensure that they are equipped to teach in the new civic curriculum. The Foundation is invested in building professional development opportunities for faculty focused on the knowledge and skills they need to give undergraduates a comprehensive civic education. Our partners have offered intensive summer seminars with leading scholars, created stipends for professors to learn to teach texts outside their area of expertise, and are investigating new ways to create faculty learning communities.

Requests from single institutions and multiple institutions partnering together will be considered, following our two-stage process.
1. First, we ask that prospective grantees share brief concept papers. 
2. After review of the concept papers, a limited number of applicants will then be invited to submit full proposals.

We consider concept papers on a rolling basis. The Teagle Board of Directors reviews all grant requests when it meets in February, May, and November. If a proposal is invited, program staff will confer with applicants to determine the appropriate timeline for submitting a full proposal in line for potential review by the board.
--

Grants of varying amounts, ranging from $100,000-$400,000 over a 24-36-month period, will be made to each funded project participating in this initiative. Requests from both single institutions and multiple 2 institutions partnering together will be considered. The size of the grant will be based on the scope of the project. Planning grants in the range of $25,000 over 6-12 months will also be considered. 

We expect this grant program will remain open for approximately three to five years.

Exploratory Grantmaking in Technology (LOI)

Overview:

Program Goal: To identify areas at the intersection of research and technology where a strategic investment of Foundation resources might be leveraged to empower scholarship.

The Sloan Foundation continually explores the intersection of research and technology to identify emerging focus areas where recent innovation, changing contexts, or scarce funding open up potential opportunities for new programs. Exploratory grantmaking is intended to bring community needs and priorities into sharper focus and allow us to determine whether there is a clear strategy and potential impact for the Foundation in a specific area. Supported activities may include workshops and other expert convenings, early software development and prototyping, landscape analyses, development of protocols and standards, initial research on and engagement with potential user communities, and demonstration or other proof-of-concept projects.

Focus Areas:

1. Open Hardware: Open and cheap hardware has the potential to revolutionize the creation and deployment of sensors and other scientific instruments, expanding access and lowering barriers to innovation in data-driven research methods. Grants in this focus area seek to explore the potential for Foundation support to have an impact on the development of best practices, data standards, and emerging new practitioner communities in open hardware.
2. Trust in Algorithmic Knowledge: The complexity and opacity of AI-driven research methods has raised new questions about the degree to which their results can or should be trusted. Issues examined in this focus area include identifying and mitigating algorithmic bias, the role of training and benchmarking datasets in AI development, how Machine Learning techniques enhance or degrade rigor and reproducibility, and the ways that algorithmic recommendation systems influence trust in knowledge.  Grants focus on exploring these issues with an eye toward understanding the potential for Foundation impact.
3. Virtual Collaboration: Health, safety, and travel restrictions imposed in response to the global coronavirus pandemic made co-located scientific activities impossible. From conferences to classrooms to lab work, research communities responded by using new approaches and technology platforms to continue the practice of science. Grants in this focus area explore these innovations, their effects on research outcomes, and their post-pandemic durability, and encourage continued experimentation by research communities in how scientific practice might be effectively mediated by digital platforms and immersive technologies.

Recent grants award range: $23,000 to $890,000

The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation makes grants year-round, though major grants (>$250K) are approved only quarterly. Grantseekers should take care to work with their program director to ensure there is sufficient time for submission, redrafting, independent review, and amendments subsequent to review.
---
Letter of Inquiry is required; 2-page max.

Response Times for Letters of Inquiry: Due to the volume of inquires we receive, it can take up to one month to receive a Foundation response to a letter of inquiry.  If more than a month has passed since you submitted your letter of inquiry, it is appropriate to send an email to the relevant program director to inquire about its status.

Computer Science for All (CSforAll: Research and RPPs)

Overview:

This program supports efforts that aim to provide opportunities for all students to participate in CS and CT learning at the pre-k, elementary, middle, and high school grade levels through research-practice partnerships (RPPs) that connect research to practice through long running and diverse collaborations. The program also supports traditional research that builds knowledge across educational pathways. Proposals are encouraged from teams in early stages of RPP formation, as well as advanced stages of RPP implementation. Proposals will be funded in four "strands" that collectively foster design, implementation at scale, and/or research:

• For the PreK-8 Strand, the focus is on designing, developing, and piloting instructional materials that integrate CS and/or CT into preK-8 classrooms.
• For the High School Strand, the focus is on preparing and supporting teachers to teach rigorous CS courses.
• For PreK-12 Pathways Strand, the focus is on designing pathways that support school districts in developing policies and supports for incorporating CS and/or CT across all grades and potentially the transition into introductory levels at community or four-year institutions of higher education and/or the workforce.
• For the Research Strand, the focus is on building strategically instrumental, or "high leverage" knowledge about the learning and teaching of introductory computer science to support key CS and/or CT understandings and abilities for all students.

Proposals in the PreK-8 Strand, High School Strand, and the Pathways Strand must involve RPPs, whereas proposals in the Research Strand are not subject to this requirement. A proposal can be submitted to only one strand, and that strand must be designated in the first line of the Project Summary.

To ensure that advances in computing education are inclusive of diverse student populations (the "for All" part of "CS for All"), proposals in any strand must address, in a significant manner, longstanding underrepresentation of many groups in computing relative to their participation in preK-12, postsecondary education, and the workforce (https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315). All proposals will be evaluated on the two additional Broadening Participation Criteria specific to this solicitation (see Section V.A, Project Description, below).

B. CSforAll RPP strands
RPPs require well-organized teams of researchers, PreK-12 practitioners (teachers, administrators, and counselors), and potentially other community, foundation, policy, and industry partners. There are many ways RPP teams can work together; however, central to the partnership is shared participation in rigorous research about problems of practice by all team members. Members of these teams work together to iteratively define and refine common goals, research questions, metrics, and implementations. RPPs vary across several dimensions, such as their goals, the composition of participating partners, and the approaches to and uses of research. However, they share a set of principles 3:

• They are long-term collaborations;
• They work toward educational improvement or equitable transformation;
• They feature engagement of research with practice as a leading activity; and
• They are intentionally organized to bring together a diversity of expertise.

RPPs aim to strengthen the capacity of an organization to reliably produce valued CS and CT education outcomes for diverse groups of students. The focus is on building efforts that can succeed when implemented at scale. RPPs involve a range of stakeholders in different stages of inquiry, and research findings from the field are translated into practical use, just as practical challenges can motivate articulation of solutions and subsequent sharing of those with the field.

1. PreK-8 Strand. RPPs proposed in this strand may address a wide range of topics on the teaching and learning of CS and CT in PreK-8 grades, including but not limited to:

• development and study of prototype instructional materials for PreK-8 both for stand-alone CS and CT courses or modules as well as teaching and testing of CS and CT concepts with other content;
• development of tools and models to support underrepresented students, including girls, in prekindergarten through elementary school in computer science education;
• creation of developmentally appropriate learning progressions that underlie the design of instructional materials;
• design of classroom-based assessments to inform teaching and learning along the way;
• development of professional development (PD) and teacher support — including face-to-face and online learning communities, coaching, and mentoring — as needed for piloting of instructional materials, along with research about their use and effectiveness;
• what and how teachers learn from professional development; and
• relationships between professional development activities and subsequent enactments of instruction.

RPPs focused on innovation in research and development of instructional materials for preK-8 are encouraged, and PIs should make a clear case that curricula and materials do not currently exist to address the teaching and learning of CS and CT in the relevant grade levels or cannot be adapted to those contexts. Strong proposals will document how the new curricula or instructional materials differ in significant ways from already available materials and tools.

2. High School Strand. As schools attempt to respond to the increasing demand for CS and CT in their curricula, they are often faced with a critical shortage of teachers. Proposals in this strand should address key issues in the preparation, professional development (PD), and ongoing support of teachers of high school CS, recognizing the need for quickly scaling effective efforts to reach teachers, many of whom have had little or no formal CS preparation. Additional issues include but are not limited to:

• recruitment of teachers;
• differential PD based on prior experiences;
• creating robust PD materials for teachers and facilitators;
• establishing online and hybrid PD approaches;
• assessing the effectiveness of PD models with respect to content knowledge, pedagogy, classroom equity, and student outcomes;
• adapting and scaling PD models for greater impact, especially with respect to inclusion and equity;
• establishing certification programs and pre-service paths for teacher PD;und
• ertaking studies to inform state or local policy about CS requirements; or
• designing, piloting and assessing scalable mechanisms for ongoing support of classroom teachers.

Whereas the focus of the High School Strand is RPPs conducting implementation and improvement research on teacher preparation and support, it is possible within a project to adapt or enhance instructional materials for high school students. PIs are encouraged to focus their RPPs on studying supports for teachers who are interested in using instructional materials that already have been developed and piloted and are now scaling nationally, such as Exploring Computer Science (ECS), curricula based on the Advanced Placement® (AP) Computer Science courses and exams, or Bootstrap, the curriculum for teaching mathematics and CS together. Proposals could develop and study curricula for integrating modules on artificial intelligence, machine learning, or data science into existing computer science courses.  Strong proposals will document the wide use of the proposed instructional materials with diverse students, include any available results about their effectiveness as part of the argument for focusing on the materials of choice, and will address how findings from the research will inform practitioners' choices about CS and/or CT materials.

3. PreK-12 Pathways Strand. Many districts have begun to make progress at the elementary, middle, and high school levels but need to coordinate the overall efforts, particularly to address articulation across the years of schooling. RPPs proposed in this strand may address the creation of pathways, including but not limited to:

• research and development of course sequences and alignment tools for students for PreK-12 Pathways at the school or district level;
• research and development of articulation from preK-12 Pathways to community or four-year colleges or universities in preparation for entry into CS or computationally intensive majors; or
• design and development of school, district, and/or state systems to assess and track student progress on pathways.

High-quality proposals in any of the above three RPP strands will:

• delineate clearly the CS/CT content to be taught;
• address working with communities that support the full spectrum of diverse computing talent, including the participation of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented or under-served in computing; demonstrating knowledge of the relevant literature on working with the identified communities, and providing concrete plans of action and clear metrics for documenting outcomes4;
• document the extent to which the approach has already scaled and its potential for further scaling;
• specify jointly-developed research questions and document the investment of the partners in those questions;
• provide work plans for implementation, improvement, data collection, analysis, and use; and
• draw from RPP literature on assessing/evaluating the quality of the partnership to articulate plans for assessing the success of the work of the RPP.

Projects in the RPP Strands above should provide research results or findings on one or more of the following:

• strategies for improvement or implementation that address a shared goal of the researcher/practitioner collaborators;
• conceptual frameworks that address issues of scale, human capacity, and technical support for implementation and improvement in educational systems;
• measures of organizational learning that assess the progress of implementation and improvement;
• sustainable communities that can support implementation and improvement in the identified educational system; and/or
• documented practices with an ongoing forum for continued engagement of collaborators from various levels of the educational system.

C. CSforAll Research Strand
The aim of the Research Strand is to support the development of evidence-based knowledge that illuminates how the teaching and learning of computing best occurs and how it can be supported most effectively for diverse students under different circumstances. Like the above three RPP strands, the Research Strand prioritizes a clear relationship between research and practice.

The Research Strand aims to enrich the knowledge base governing how students build on what and how they learn computing throughout their education pathway. Strong Research Strand proposals will support the participation of the full spectrum of diverse computing talent, including groups that have been traditionally underrepresented or under-served in computing relative to their participation in preK-14 education, with the research findings potentially contributing to the preparation of the future CS workforce (for national data, see: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315). Proposals should synthesize or demonstrate knowledge of the relevant literature that pertains to roots of underrepresentation, have a plan that explores ways of improving representation, and have clear metrics and methodologies for documenting outcomes that would test and inform that plan.

Areas of research should be considered broadly and can include but are not limited to: How students learn computer science or computational thinking as a literacy like reading and writing; How computational thinking can be supported and what developmental trajectories for CT look like; How computing competencies are learned in contexts of STEM disciplines; longitudinal impacts of computing education experiences in K-14, especially given advances like AI; How computational thinking development can be framed in ways that invite, value, and build on students' diverse cultural and linguistic resources; and What educators need to know and how they learn instructional abilities.

Strong proposals will bring to bear research expertise, approaches, and tools from scholarship on learning from other domains as appropriate, including but not limited to cognitive science, learning sciences, STEM education, social studies education, and ethics education.

D. CSforAll proposal size classes
The proposal size class should be specified in the first line of the Project Summary. Proposals in the three RPP strands may be submitted in the following size classes:

• Small RPP proposals (maximum of $300,000 for up to 2 years, plus funds for embedded Research Experiences for Undergraduates supplements) are designed to support initial steps in building a strong and well-integrated RPP team that could successfully compete for a Medium or Large proposal. These initial steps could include: establishing partnerships, exploratory research, and/or pilot implementation programs.
• Medium RPP proposals (maximum of $1,000,000 for up to 3 years, plus funds for embedded Research Experiences for Undergraduates supplements) are designed to support promising approaches and feasibility studies by a well-defined RPP team.
• Large RPP proposals (maximum of $2,000,000 for up to 4 years, plus funds for embedded Research Experiences for Undergraduates supplements) are designed to support the scaling of an evidence-based approach and implementation studies by an established RPP team that has demonstrated sustainability.

Research Strand proposals (maximum of $750,000 for up to 3 years, plus funds for embedded Research Experiences for Undergraduates supplements) are designed to support research projects that will contribute to the development of an evidence-informed knowledge base that illuminates how learning in the domain of computer science best occurs and how it can be supported most effectively for diverse students under different circumstances. As above, "Research Strand" should be specified in the first line of the Project Summary.

Estimated Number of Awards: 27
Approximately 12-13 small Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs), 6 medium RPPs, 3 large RPPs, and 4-5 Research strand awards.
Anticipated Funding Amount: $20,000,000

Important Information And Revision Notes

The list of cognizant program officers has been updated.
The descriptions of Small RPP strand and Research strand projects have been updated.
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.

Solicitation limitations:

Proposals that do not comply with the requirements noted below by RWR will be returned without review. (RWR) All proposals must address evaluation plans.

(RWR) For Small RPP projects: The budget shown on the cover page and on the budget sheets must not exceed two years or $300,000, plus funds for embedded REU (Research Experiences for Undergraduates) supplements.

(RWR) For Medium RPP projects: The budget shown on the cover page and on the budget sheets must not exceed three years or $1,000,000, plus funds for embedded REU supplements.

(RWR) For Large RPP projects: The budget shown on the cover page and on the budget sheets must not exceed four years or $2,000,000, plus funds for embedded REU supplements.

(RWR) For Research projects: The budget shown on the cover page and on the budget sheets must not exceed three years or $750,000, plus funds for embedded REU supplements

Global Fund for Children - Partnerships

Overview:

At the core of our model are our partnerships with courageous, dynamic organizations that are improving the lives of children and youth in the heart of their own communities.

We eagerly look for new organizations to partner with across the globe, based on our regional strategies, and particularly when we launch and expand thematic and regional initiatives. Please explore information about our regional strategies and initiatives in Africa, the Americas, Europe and Eurasia, and Asia.

We are committed to selecting partners who align with our values and our mission, and who will leverage the greatest benefit from their partnership with GFC. We use the following eligibility criteria and selection guidelines to help us keep this commitment.

• Know their community and live or work in the areas they serve
• Aim to improve the lives of children and youth
• Embrace discovery, learning, and getting better at what they do
• Appreciate that they can’t make change alone and see themselves as part of a larger system
• Address any of our thematic focus areas of education, freedom from violence and exploitation, gender equity, or youth empowerment
• Have local nonprofit or charitable status and can accept international funds or have a fiscal sponsor that can
• Protect children and youth with a safeguarding policy or agree to implement one

Since we can only fund a small number of courageous groups around the world, we are especially interested in organizations with these characteristics:

• Their vision for change might affect all young people in their area, but they focus on children and youth who are excluded because of their race, gender, gender identity, social class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, national origin, where they live, or other factors
• Young people have founded or lead the organization or have important roles in it
• They are eager to measure the outcomes and impact of their work and excited to get better at it; they have already seen positive change from the work they do
• They look at old problems in new ways, take smart risks, and are creative and flexible to respond to change
• They understand the power of connections with many types of actors to make change and seek to grow their network
• They believe young people can influence decisions affecting their lives and should raise their voices and claim their rights
• They understand that advocacy is a powerful tool to change mindsets, norms, and policies and know what it means for them

If your organization is interested in being considered for future Global Fund for Children partner support, you may submit a brief organizational profile using this online form (https://globalfundforchildren.org/how-to-become-a-partner/organizational-profile-english/) at any time. Completing the form is quick and easy. Many of our current partners first introduced themselves to us this way. Please be aware that we will likely only contact you if and when we have funding that matches your organizational profile.

Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Enriching Learning, Programs, and Student Experiences (HSI:ELPSE)

Overview:

Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) are an important component of the nation's higher education ecosystem and play a critical role in realizing the National Science Board's vision for a more diverse and capable science and engineering workforce. 

Aligned with this vision and the NSF Strategic Plan, the goals of the NSF HSI Program are to:

• Enhance the quality of undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at HSIs.
• Increase the recruitment, retention, and graduation rates of students pursuing associates or baccalaureate degrees in STEM at HSIs.

Meeting these goals requires institutions to understand and embrace their students' strengths, challenges, and lived experiences. While this can happen in many ways and across many parts of an institution, the Hispanic Serving Institutions: Enriching Learning, Programs, and Student Experiences (HSI:ELPSE) solicitation is specifically focused on studying and improving the student experience in the following settings:

• STEM courses, particularly for students pursuing STEM degrees;
• Certificate, minor, and/or degree programs;
• Academic departments or divisions; and
• Schools and colleges that represent a part of the entire institution (e.g., a School of Engineering or a College of Natural Sciences).

Institutions are encouraged to consider how their mission and designation as an HSI could re-imagine and/or strengthen courses, degree programs, departments, or divisions. The HSI:ELPSE solicitation welcomes projects that look to implement, test and refine promising practices and/or conduct research related to broadening participation or improving recruitment, retention, graduation and other positive outcomes for undergraduates in STEM.

The HSI:ELPSE solicitation supports projects that are purposefully designed to meet students where they are, accounting for both their assets and the challenges they may face. Identities and experiences are not determined solely by membership in a single monolithic population of students (e.g., Hispanic, first-generation, commuter, etc.). Consequently, institutions are expected to use institutional data to identify equity gaps, identify areas of need, and unpack the factors that shape students' individual realities and shared experiences. Perspectives gained from these data should be central to the design of the project.

This solicitation includes the following tracks:

Implementation and Evaluation Projects (IEP): Levels 1 and 2
IEP Level 1: Up to 3 Years with a maximum budget of $500,000: Awards at this level will support early-stage or exploratory projects that look to enrich the student experience, improve teaching and learning, broaden participation in undergraduate STEM, or improve student outcomes at HSIs. While IEP Level 1 proposals should be evidence-based as discussed above, they may be more exploratory and would generally be of a smaller scale than IEP Level 2 proposals.

IEP Level 2: Up to 5 Years with a maximum budget of $1,000,000: Projects are supported for up to five years and should include efforts that are beyond the proof-of-concept stage and have potential to result in sustainable positive outcomes that align with the goals of the HSI program. Level 2 projects have a scale and scope beyond what would typically be expected for IEP Level 1 projects. Generally, proposals to the IEP track will center on one or more of the following: courses; curricular improvements; pedagogy; support structures inside and outside of the classroom; degree programs; and student pathways.

Educational Instrumentation (EI)
[NOTE: ASU is not eligible for this track, because ASU does not meet the PUI requirement/EPSCOR state locations.]

IEP Level 1 awards
Project length: Up to three years
Award Size: $500,000

IEP Level 2 awards
Project length: Up to five years ;
Award Size: $1,000,000

Solicitation limitations:

Implementation and Evaluation Proposals: Eligible institutions may submit up to a total of three IEP
proposals per solicitation deadline, regardless of level. An institution may, for example, submit three Level 1 IEP proposals, or one Level 1 IEP proposal and two Level 2 IEP proposals in the same deadline.

Implementation and Evaluation Projects proposals are limited submissions with an Internal Submission Deadline of Wednesday, November 20, 2024. InfoReady link: https://asu.infoready4.com/#freeformCompetitionDetail/1933478

Stephen I. Katz Early Stage Investigator Research Project Grant

Overview:

The Stephen I. Katz Early Stage Investigator Research Project Grant supports an innovative project that represents a change in research direction for an early stage investigator (ESI) and for which no preliminary data exist. Applications submitted to this notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) must not include preliminary data. Applications must include a separate attachment describing the change in research direction.

The proposed project must be related to the programmatic interests of one or more of the participating NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs) based on their scientific missions.

This notice of funding opportunity does not accept applications proposing clinical trials.

Recurring deadlines as follows:
January 26, 2024; May 29, 2024; September 26, 2024; January 28, 2025; May 28, 2025; September 26, 2025; January 27, 2026; May 27, 2026; September 28, 2026.

For this funding opportunity, applications including preliminary data will be considered noncompliant with the NOFO instructions and will be withdrawn. Preliminary data are defined as data not yet published. Existence of preliminary data is an indication that the proposed project has advanced beyond the scope defined by this program and makes the application unsuitable for this funding opportunity.

Saxena Family Foundation STEM Grant

Overview:

Founded in 2002 by Manoj Saxena and his family, the Saxena Family Foundation is a private philanthropic organization committed to improving the quality of life of women, children and senior citizens in the communities in which we live. The foundation has particular focus on initiatives that promote U.S. STEM education (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) and empowerment of girl child and young women so that they have equal rights later in life.  We partner with a wide range of outside individuals and organizations through our programs.

Grants are awarded for a single year. Grants can be renewed based on the review of the previous year's progress and results. We require that a renewal application be submitted for consideration.

Grants Reducing Recidivism

Overview:

The Bob Barker Foundation was established in May 2009 and now grants more than $1,000,000 annually to deserving programs that reduce recidivism.  Our Vision is to reduce recidivism by seeing the lives of incarcerated individuals changed forever by serving God, family and community. Our mission is to develop and support programs that help incarcerated individuals successfully reenter society and stay out for life.

What We Value

• Incarcerated individuals have value in the eyes of God.
• Bob Barker Foundation is giving back to the incarcerated community in order to prepare them physically, spiritually and emotionally for successful reentry into society.
• Bob Barker Company has been serving the physical needs of incarcerated individuals since 1972.
• Reducing recidivism reduces crime resulting in a safer society.

The Bob Barker Foundation strives to reduce recidivism and change the lives of formerly incarcerated individuals, their families, and communities. 

Eligible organizations must work with a minimum of 100 incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals annually and use evidence-based methods or best practices.

Applications are accepted throughout the year.

Visit the Foundation’s website to begin the online letter of inquiry process.