1

NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY

Federal Agency Name: Corporation for National and Community Service 

Funding Opportunity Title: FY 2018 Community Conversations Research

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement 

CFDA Number: 94.026

Disclosure: Publication of this Notice of Funding Opportunity (Notice) does not obligate the Corporation for 

National and Community Service (CNCS) to award any specific number of cooperative agreements or to 

commit any particular amount of funding.

Important Dates

•

•

•

CNCS strongly encourages applicants to submit a Notification of Intent to Apply for this competition.

Notifications of Intent to Apply should be submitted by Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern

Time.

Applications are due Tuesday, April 10, 2018 by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Successful applicants will be notified by mid-July 2018.

FULL TEXT OF THE NOTICE

A. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

1. Purpose of Community Conversations Research Funding

CNCS’s mission is to improve lives, strengthen communities, and foster civic engagement through service and 

volunteering. Through AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and the Volunteer Generation Fund, CNCS has helped to 

engage millions of citizens in meeting community and national challenges through service and volunteer 

action.

Deepening understanding of how communities identify issues of concern, and deploy service or volunteering 

to address them, can improve the agency’s ability to achieve its mission. Research on civic engagement, 

volunteering, and how every day citizens can solve local issues in their communities allows the agency to 

invest its resources more strategically. For example, research findings may identify communities fertile for 

growing national service programs where none currently exist. Alternatively, research findings may identify 

ways to strengthen existing national service efforts and improve collaboration with ongoing citizen efforts.

Moreover, research shows that civic engagement promotes the quality of life in a community.1 Communities 

with strong citizen participation enjoy positive economic, social and health outcomes.2 Communities with 

strong civic infrastructure and civic health can resolve challenges and become more sustainable and vibrant 

places to live.3

1 For example: Ehrlich, T. (ed) (2000), Civic Responsibility and Higher Education. Westport, CT: The American Council on Education

and The OrynxPress, Preface;Sampson, R. J (2001) “Crime and PublicSafety: Insights from Community- Level Perspectives on

Social Capital,” in Social Capital and Poor Communities, edited bySusan Saegert, S, J. Phillip Thompson, and Mark R. Warrren, New

York: Russell SageFoundation, pp. 89-114.

2 For example: benefits ofsocial capital seePutnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Shuster; Putnam, R. D. (2002)

Democracies in Flux:The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress; for political

engagement and democratic governance see Tavits, M (2006) Making Democracy Work More? Exploring the Linkage betweenSocial

Capital and Government Performance,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 211-225.; for bridge to employment see

Granovetter, M. (1983) “TheStrength of Weak Ties Revisited.” Sociological Theory 1, pp. 201-233.; for public safety seeSampson

(2001); and for health of a community see Ziersch, A. M., Baum, F. E., MacDougall, C., & Putland, C. (2005). Neighborhood life and

social capital: the implications for health. Social Science & Medicine, 60(1), 71-86.

3 Berger, B. (2009). Political theory, political science and the end of civic engagement. Perspectives on Politics, 7(02), 335-350.
2

This competition focuses on engaging communities in conversations about their civic health using 

participatory research approaches4to facilitate civic engagement and strengthen community capacity to 

address local issues, both of which are central to CNCS’s mission. CNCS isseeking applications from 

institutions of higher education that work with and in local communities to use a participatory research 

approach to:

•

•

•

•

actively engage residents and other local stakeholders in a research process, 

identify a local issue of concern to the community, 

understand what may facilitate or hinder participation to address the issue, and 

create a collaborative action plan to increase civic engagement and build relationships to tackle the 

community-identified issue.

CNCS has a strong belief in the importance of scholarly research to conduct credible and meaningful research 

on national service, volunteering, civic engagement, and social capital. Through research grants, 5 CNCS’s 

Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) engages a broad community of academic and applied researchers in 

this effort. ORE also supports the use of multifaceted research approaches and introduces cutting-edge 

research methods and designs into their studies.

For example, CNCS has sponsored nationally representative data collection on volunteering and civic 

engagement through supplements to the Current Population Survey for 15 years. In re-evaluating its data 

collection efforts, the National Research Council reviewed the questions and one of their recommendations6

was to supplement and complement existing survey data collection conducted by the federal statistical system 

with “new, innovative, experimental alternatives” and to sponsor studies at the subnational-level, and use 

more non-experimental, in-depth and longitudinal studies that could tap into more of the complex 

relationships among civic engagement, social cohesion and social capital. To address this recommendation, 

ORE incorporated field research into some of their studies in order to understand these complex relationships 

in a local setting.7 Field research is a social science research approach that is a “systematic study of ordinary 

activities in the settings in which they occur. Its primary goal is to understand these activities and what they 

mean to those who engage in them.”8 Field research allows a researcher to acquire an understanding of 

people’s daily lived experiences from the “perspectives of people in a setting or social group of interest to the 

researcher.”9

 

4 A few citations about participatory research include: Bergold, J. & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory Research Methods: A 

Methodological Approach in Motion. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13 (1). Art. 30, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-

fqs1201302; Fals Borda, O. (1998) People’s Participation: Challenges Ahead. New York and London: Apex Press and Intermediate 

Technology Publications; Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group; 

Israel, B., Eng, E., Schulz, A.J., Parker, E.A. (eds) (2005) Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, San 

Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; Jason, L A., Keys, C. B., Suarez-Balcazar, Y, Taylor, R.R., and Davis, M.I. (eds.) (2004) 

Participatory Community Research: Theories and Methods in Action, Washington DC: American Psychological Association; Minkler, 

M. and Wallerstein, N. (eds.) (2008) Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes, 2nd Edition. 

San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons; Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds.) (2001) Handbook of Action Research: Participative 

Inquiry and Practice, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications Inc.; Stinger, E (1999) Action Research, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks CA: 

Sage Publications Inc.

5 CNCS Office of Research and Evaluation, Evidence and Research: www.nationalservice.gov/

6 National Research Council (2014) Civic Engagement and Social Cohesion: Measuring Dimensions of Social Capital to Inform 

Policy, Washington DC: The National Academies Press (www.nap.edu/catalog/18831/civic-engagement-and-social-cohesionmeasuring-dimensions-of-social-capital)

7 ORE weaved in NAS recommendations and developed two programs: the National Service and Civic Engagement Research grant 

competition for Institutions of Higher Education and a pilot project, also entitled Community Conversations.

8 Bailey, C. (2007), A Guide to Qualitative Field Research, 2nd Edition, California: Pine Forge Press, 1.

9

Ibid., p. 2.
3

Taking this a step further, ORE is also working on how to make research meaningful and useful not only for 

researchers but for local communities so that communities can use this knowledge to strengthen civic

infrastructure and tackle community identified concerns. Participatory research10 is one type of cutting-edge 

field research that ORE is supporting to gain a local perspective as well as make research more relevant to the 

needs of the community. A participatory research approach includes actively engaging residents and other local 

stakeholders to learn about and research community conditions and develop and implement action plans that 

are culturally competent and reflect the needs and situation of a local community. In addition, using this 

research approach can assist in building skills and local capacity of community members and stakeholders (i.e., 

community researchers, co-researchers) and increase collaboration among stakeholders, and thus, contribute to 

strengthening civic infrastructure.

For the purposes of this competition:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

“Communities” include a group of people including residents, local stakeholders, organizations or other 

institutions that are working collectively, share a common concern, or identity.

“Civic engagement” is defined as a cluster of individual efforts and activities oriented toward 

making “a difference in the civic life of ... communities and developing the combination of

knowledge, skills, values and motivation to make that difference. It means promoting the quality of

life in a community, through both political and non-political processes”

11 and through informal or

formal networks.

“Civic infrastructure” is defined as the “invisible structures and processes through which the 

social contract is written and rewritten in communities,” “the formal and informal processes 

and networks through which communities make decisions and solve problems”,

12 or “the 

network that exists among local groups such as community development corporations (CDCs), 

foundations, other nonprofits, local governments, public housing authorities, businesses, and 

voluntary associations”.

13

“Civic health” is defined as the way that communities are organized to define and address 

public problems.

14

A “field research site” is a local community or communities identified as the location(s) where 

the research will take place and where community residents and stakeholders will be recruited 

and trained as community researchers (i.e., co-researchers). 

“National service” is defined as a structured opportunity for individuals to serve their 

communities for an extended period of time through volunteering with or without a stipend. 

CNCS is the largest supporter of national service, though other avenues for national service exist 

and this competition is not exclusive to opportunities funded by CNCS.

“Participatory research” is a broad term to denote approaches that focus on collaborative 

knowledge production and co-learning, social change, capacity building, and strengthening 

communities. Knowledge is produced jointly, between social researchers and a group of people or 

“community,” for the goal of addressing communities’ concerns with practical solutions. With 

participatory research, “the process of conducting research is as important as the research 

outcome”

15 and there is mutual benefit for all partners. Participants are actively engaged in the 

entire research and action process and gain skills and knowledge that can bring about individual

collective change.16 

 

10 This research methodology is referred to in many ways including Participatory Action Research, Community Based Participation 

Research, Action Research, etc.

11 Ehrlich, (2000), Preface. pp. vi-x.

12 Parr, J. (1993) Civic infrastructure: A new approach to improving community life. National Civic Review, 82(2), 93–100.

13 Lang, R. E., & Hornburg, S. P. (1998) What is social capital and why is it important to public policy? Housing Policy Debate,

9(1), 1–16.

14See National Conference on Citizenship: www.ncoc.org/

15 Krishnaswamy, A. 2004. Participatory Research: Strategies and Tools. Practitioner: Newsletter of the National Network of Forest 

Practitioners 22: 17-22.

16 See Footnote 7.
4

• “Social capital” can be understood as the “shared norms or values that promote social 

cooperation, instantiated in actual social relationships”17 or as the facilitating agent for social 

cohesion and civic engagement.

• “Volunteering” is unpaid, noncompulsory work, specifically, time one gives without pay to activities

performed either through organizations such as schools, nonprofits, churches; civic, or political

organizations (e.g., formal); or directly for others outside one’s own household (e.g., informal).

Activities to be funded

Activities to be funded through this competition include:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

supporting academics, applied researchers, and other university staff such as graduate students, working 

with and in communities;

creating and establishing a research team, training a research team to engage in the research process, and

project meetings;

using a participatory research approach to actively engage residents and other local stakeholders in a 

research process to identify a local issue and understand the factors that facilitate or hinder community 

participation in tackling the issue;

developing a community-driven action plan that includes and incorporates the perspective and feedback 

from local stakeholders to tackle a community issue;

making presentations or developing material to report results such as reports, or other publications such as 

journal articles and briefs, and creating other culturally appropriate material such as videos, podcasts, 

performances, etc.;

implementing an action plan to tackle a community identified issue and examining outcomes of the 

participatory research project in terms of project goals, skill-building, strengthening networks, 

community engagement and other relevant outcomes; and,

building networks and relationships with organizations, institutions, and decision makers to 

strengthen civic infrastructure and tackle the community-identified issue.

Although not required, applicants may consider incorporating national service18 into some aspect of the project 

design including, but not limited to: being part of the research team, serving as an audience to hear from the 

research team about the study findings, and participating as partners in an action plan to tackle a community 

issue.

Please note that CNCS will not fund studies that are duplicative of current CNCS studies 

(www.nationalservice.gov/impact-our-nation/research-evaluation/research-competition ).

 

17 Fukuyama, F. (2002). Social Capital and Development: The Coming Agenda. SAIS Review 22(1), 23-37. The Johns Hopkins 

University Press.

18 To contact CNCS National Service offices and programs see Leveraging National Service in Your Schools, p. 35, 

(www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/SuperintendentToolkit-01102018-508.pdf ) and the weblink “National Service 

in Your State” (www.nationalservice.gov/impact-our-nation/state-profiles). National service is likely present in many of these priority

communities given the agency’s mission and authorized focus areas.
5

2. Funding Priorities

CNCS seeks to support participatory research in three types of communities, with equal priority:

•

•

•

Communities that are already working collaboratively to tackle a locally identified issue. This 

includes groups of people such as residents, local stakeholders, organizations or other institutions that 

are already working collectively toward a common goal or issue. 

Communities that have experienced a disaster. This includes communities that have experienced a 

natural or manmade disaster and are in a recovery phase.

Communities in social crisis. This includes communities that are experiencing a type of social crisis 

e.g., persistent poverty, rising unemployment, increasing opioid use. 

Each of these three types of communities may have different questions they want to address or issues they 

need to tackle, but some questions of interest to CNCS and that are applicable to the three types of 

communities listed above include:

•

•

•

•

•

•

How does a community tackle a community-identified issue? Who needs to be involved? How do you 

build community engagement to address the issue?

How does a community define civic engagement? 

What roles do different community partners, institutions, and networks play in strengthening civic 

infrastructure, and what combinations of community partners have been most beneficial for increasing

civic engagement and tackling community issues?

What contributes to or hinders civic engagement for individuals or communities? For example, what 

motivates individuals to volunteer informally or through formal channels?

What community characteristics act to inhibit or promote active civic involvement, community

engagement, social cohesion and problem-solving behaviors?

How does national service play a role in tackling community issues and strengthening civic

infrastructure?

Crises and disasters can affect civic behaviors in a variety of ways.19 They can strengthen as well as weaken 

social ties. They can engage individuals from within and outside of the community who would normally not 

be civically engaged and lead to a greater sense of responsibility. A sudden natural disaster can leave 

individuals, such as seniors or low income families who may have lost their homes or jobs, more isolated

from resources and networks. Other questions of interest for communities in crisis for CNCS include:

•

•

Do different types of events trigger higher levels of civic activity? How can higher levels of civic

activity be sustained? Does this make a difference for the long-term well-being of a community?

How do different individuals (i.e., demographic groups) respond to crisis? How does this affect recovery 

of individuals, families, neighborhoods?

3. National Performance Measures

National Performance Measures are not applicable for this Notice.

4. Other Programmatic Requirements

a. Approval from Institutional Review Board. Awardees must submit protocols and receive approval 

from their institution’s Institutional Review Board.

 

19 www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/katrina_research_factsheet.pdf
6

5. Program Authority

Awards under this Notice are authorized by the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended,

(42 U.S.C. § 12501 et seq.) and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 4950 

et seq.).

B. FEDERAL AWARD INFORMATION

1. Estimated Available Funds

CNCS anticipates approximately $500,000 for FY 2018 Community Conversations Research competition 

awards. The actual level of funding is subject to the availability of annual appropriations.

2. Estimated Award Amount

Award amounts will vary, as determined by the scope of the projects. CNCS expects to make awards in the

range of $50,000 to $100,000.

3. Project Period

CNCS anticipates making two-year cooperative agreement awards. CNCS generally makes an initial award 

for the first year of operation, based on one year project period. Continuation awards for subsequent years 

depends upon availability of appropriations and satisfactory performance, and is not guaranteed.

4. Type of Award

The funding mechanism for the 2018 Community Conversations Research competition is a cooperative

agreement. Under a cooperative agreement, CNCS is substantially involved with the recipient grant 

organizations (i.e., legal applicants) as the approved cooperative agreement activities are implemented. CNCS

will assign a program officer, who will confer with the award recipient regularly and frequently to develop 

and/or review service delivery and project status, including work plans, budgets, periodic reports, evaluations, 

etc. CNCS anticipates having substantial involvement in:

•

•

•

•

•

reviewing and providing feedback to project plans, reports, and progress;

making links between the awardee and national service programs, if applicable;

convening recipients to discuss projects and share feedback with one another, CNCS staff, and

external experts;

facilitating access to data and program staff; and,

disseminating research results.

C. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

1. Eligible Applicants

This competition is only open to institutions of higher education who have DUNS numbers and are 

registered in System for Award Management (SAM). For CNCS, an institution of higher education is defined 

in the Higher Education Act of 1965 as an educational institution in any State that:

•

•

•

•

•

admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing

secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate;

is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of education beyond secondary education;

provides an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor’s degree or provides no 

less than a 2-year program that is acceptable for full-credit toward such a degree;

is a public or other nonprofit institution; and

is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, or if not so accredited, is an 

institution that has been granted pre-accreditation status by such an agency or association that has been 

recognized by the Secretary for the granting of pre-accreditation status, and the Secretary has determined 

that there is a satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the accreditation standards of such an 

agency or association within a reasonable time.
7

The institution of higher education (the legal applicant for this competition) is required to submit an 

application from a “Program Director” (i.e., Principal Investigator). The legal applicant must select one or

more academics, researchers, and postdoctoral researchers who will actually be doing the research with and 

in communities on behalf of the legal applicant, although the institution of higher education will be

responsible for meeting the performance objectives and other agreed upon criteria set forth in the 

Cooperative Agreement (see B.4.). 

Please note that Program Directors (i.e., Principal Investigators) can include academics, researchers, and 

postdoctoral researchers, with a proven track record of research and engaging communities. Legal applicants can 

submit more than one application from Program Directors. CNCS seeks to fund a diverse pool of applicants 

and it is therefore unlikely that more than one application per legal applicant will be funded

2. Cost Sharing or Matching

There is no cost share or matching requirement.

3. Other Eligibility Requirements

Applications that propose to engage in activities that are prohibited under CNCS’s statutes, regulations, or the

terms and conditions of its awards are not eligible to receive CNCS funding.

Note that under Section 745 of Title VII, Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, if CNCS 

is aware that any corporation

11 has any unpaid federal tax liability—

•

•

•

that has been assessed

for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed

that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible 

for collecting the tax liability—

that corporation is not eligible for an award under this Notice. However, this exclusion will not apply to a

corporation which a federal agency has considered for suspension or debarment and has made a determination 

that suspension or debarment is not necessary to protect the interests of the federal government.

Pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, an organization described in the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986, 26 U.S.C. 501 (c)(4) that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to apply for CNCS funding.

D. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

This Notice should be read together with the Community Conversations Research Application Guidance. These

documents are available online at: http://www.nationalservice.gov/build-your-capacity/grants/fundingopportunities.

1. Address to Request an Application Package

Applicants should refer to CNCS Funding Opportunities for more information and instructions on 

how to fully respond to this Notice. Applicants can also send an email to

NationalServiceResearch@cns.gov or call (202) 606-3778 for a printed copy of application materials. 

The TTY (Text Telephone) number is (800) 833-3722.
8

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

a. Application Content

Complete applications must include the following elements:

•

•

o

o

o

o

•

•

Standard Form 424 (SF-424) Face Sheet: This is automatically generated when applicants 

complete the data elements in the eGrants system.

Narrative Sections:

Executive Summary: This includes the title of the study and a brief description of the

proposed research study. Executive summaries for all compliant applications are published 

on the CNCS website following cooperative agreements awards.

Program Design (i.e., Participatory Research Design)

Organizational Capability

Cost-Effectiveness & Budget Adequacy

Standard Form 424A Budget

Authorization, Assurances, and Certifications

b. Page Limits

Applications may not exceed 16 double-space pages as the pages print out from eGrants. The application

sections that count towards the page limit are the:

•

•

•

SF-424 Face Sheet

Executive Summary

Program Design (i.e., Participatory Research Design), Organizational Capability, and Cost -

Effectiveness and Budget Adequacy narratives.

The application page limit does not include the Budget or any required additional documents (see section

D.7.b. Submission of Additional Requirements).

Please note that the length of the application as a word processing document may differ from the length of the 

document printed out from eGrants. CNCS strongly encourages applicants to print out the application 

from the “Review and Submit” tab in eGrants prior to submission in order to confirm that the 

application does not exceed the page limit.

CNCS will not consider the results of any alternative printing methods when determining if an application 

complies with the page limit. Reviewers will also not consider material that is over the page limit, even if 

eGrants allows applicants to enter and submit additional text.

3. Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) and System for Award 

Management (SAM)

Applications must include a DUNS number and an Employer Identification Number. The DUNS number does 

not replace an Employer Identification Number. Applicants can obtain a DUNS number at no cost by calling

the DUNS number request line at (866) 705-5711 or by applying online at the DUNS Request Service. CNCS 

recommends registering at least 30 days before the application due date.

After obtaining a DUNS number, all applicants must register with the SAM and maintain an active SAM 

registration until the application process is complete. If an applicant is awarded a cooperative agreement, it 

must maintain an active SAM registration throughout the life of the award.
9

SAM registration must be renewed annually. CNCS suggests that applicants finalize a new registration or

renew an existing one at least two weeks before the application deadline, to allow time to resolve any issues 

that may arise. Applicants must use their SAM-registered legal name and address on all grant 

applications to CNCS.

Applicants that do not comply with these requirements may become ineligible to receive an award. See the 

SAM Quick Guide for Grantees.

4. Submission Dates and Times

a. Notification of Intent to Apply

CNCS strongly encourages applicants to submit a Notification of Intent to Apply by Monday,

March 26, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Please submit your intent by using this link:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/communityconversations2018. 

The Notification of Intent to Apply must include: the name of the applicant organization (i.e., Legal Applicant) 

and address; name of each Program Director (i.e. Principal Investigator) including their contact information

(i.e., email and telephone) and the main university department of the Program Director(s); and, the focus 

community in which the research will take place including a contact information of a community partner that 

will be collaborating on this research project. All Notifications of Intent to Apply will receive an email 

response acknowledging receipt.

b. Application Submission Deadline

Applications are due Tuesday, April 10, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

CNCS will not consider applications submitted after the deadline, except as noted in section

D.4.d. Late Applications. CNCS reserves the right to extend the submission deadline. CNCS will post a 

notification in the event of an extended deadline on CNCS’s website.

c. Additional Documents Deadline

Additional documents are due by the application submission deadline. See Sections D.4.b. Application 

Submission Deadline and D.7.b. Submission of Additional Documents for more information.

d. Late Applications

All applications received after the submission deadline published in the Notice are presumed to be noncompliant. In order to overcome this presumption, the applicant must:

•

▪

▪

▪

▪

•

provide a written explanation or justification of the extenuating circumstance(s) that caused the 

delay, including:

the timing and specific cause(s) of the delay

the ticket number if a request for assistance was submitted to the National Service Hotline

any information provided to the applicant by the National Service Hotline

any other documentation or evidence that supports the justification

ensure that CNCS receives the justification and any other evidence that substantiates the claimed 

extenuating circumstance(s) via email to LateApplications@cns.gov no later than one business day

after the published application deadline stated in the Notice.

Communication with CNCS staff, including an applicant’s program officer, is not a substitute for the letter.

Applicants are required to continue working in eGrants, CNCS’s web-based system and with the National 

Service Hotline to submit the application. CNCS will determine whether or not to accept a late application on 

a case-by-case basis.
10

Applicants that do not submit a justification or any other evidence to overcome the presumption of noncompliance within the published timeframe will not be reviewed or selected for award.

Please note: CNCS will not consider an advance request to submit a late application. Please carefully review

and follow the guidance in this section, and submit your application as soon as possible.

5. Intergovernmental Review

This notice is not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal

Programs.”

6. Funding Restrictions

Section F.2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements of this Notice contains the regulations that 

outline the funding restrictions.

a. Award Funding Requirements

Awards under this Notice are not subject to cost share or matching requirements.

b. Indirect Costs

Application budgets may include indirect costs. Based on qualifying factors, applicants may either use a 

federally-approved indirect cost rate, a 10 percent de minimis rate of modified total direct costs, or may claim 

certain costs directly, as outlined in 2 CFR § 200.413. All methods must be applied consistently across all 

federal awards. Applicants that have a federal negotiated indirect cost rate or that will be using the 10 percent 

de minimis rate must enter that information in the Organization section in eGrants.

c. Pre-Award Costs

Federal funds awarded pursuant to this Notice will not allow reimbursement for pre-federal award costs (See 2 

CFR 200.209 and 200.458).

7. Other Submission Requirements

a. Electronic Application Submission in eGrants

Applicants must submit applications electronically via eGrants, CNCS’s web-based application system. CNCS 

recommends that applicants create an eGrants account and begin the application at least three weeks before the 

deadline. Applicants should draft the application as a Word document, then copy and paste the text into the 

appropriate eGrants field no later than 10 days before the deadline.

The applicant’s authorized representative must be the person who submits the application. The authorized 

representative must use his or her own eGrants account in order to sign and submit the application. A copy of 

the governing body’s authorization for this official representative to sign must be on file in the applicant’s 

office.

Applicants should contact the National Service Hotline at (800) 942-2677 or eGrants Questions if they have a 

problem when they create an account or prepare or submit the application. National Service Hotline hours are:

•

•

Mon - Fri, 9 am – 7 pm ET (Jan, May, June, July, Aug, Sept) 

Mon - Thu, 9 am – 7 pm ET (Feb, Mar, Apr, Oct, Nov, Dec).

Be prepared to provide the application ID, organization’s name, and the competition to which the organization 

is applying. If the issue cannot be resolved by the deadline, applicants must continue working with the 

National Service Hotline to submit via eGrants.
11

If circumstances make it impossible for an applicant to submit in eGrants, applicants may send a paper copy of 

the application via overnight carrier to the following address:

Corporation for National and Community Service 

ATTN: Office of Grants Policy and Operations/Community Conversations Research Application 

250 E Street, SW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20525

Please use a non-U.S. Postal Service carrier to avoid security-related delays. All deadlines and 

requirements in this Notice also apply to paper applications. CNCS does not accept applications 

submitted via fax or email.

b. Submission of Additional Documents

Applicants are required to submit the following additional documents by the application submission 

deadline:

•

•

•

•

•

Current indirect rate cost agreement, if used to claim indirect/administrative costs (see section D.6.b.

Indirect Costs).

References; include only citations used in the narrative. Each reference must include the names of all 

authors (in the same sequence in which they appear in the publication), the article and journal title, book 

title, volume number, page numbers, and year of publication. If the document is available electronically, 

the website address also should be identified.

Biographical Sketches (not to exceed two pages) for each Program Director (i.e., Principal Investigator).

Please see Appendix I. The biographical sketch should include the Program Director’s academic

background, previous appointments, past research experience, a list of publications, and/or other pertinent 

information (e.g., awards, skills and abilities) you consider relevant to determining your overall 

suitability for receiving this grant.

A letter(s) of support from community partner(s), or a Memorandum of Understanding from the 

community partner(s) that specify the history of their relationship, and how the partner(s) and 

communities will be involved in the project. 

A Gantt chart work plan for the main activities - see example Work Plan for Community Conversations: 

https://www.nationalservice.gov/build-your-capacity/grants/funding-opportunities/2018/communityconversations-research-competition

Failure to submit the required additional documents by the deadline will have a negative effect on the 

assessment of their application.

Applicants have an option to submit supporting visual material by the application deadline:

• An appendix up to two pages that can include Figure(s), Table(s), or Graph(s) that support the Narrative. 

Figures, Tables or Graphs must be labeled and referenced in the applicant’s narrative.

All additional documents must be emailed to AdditionalDocuments@cns.gov with the following subject line: 

“Legal Applicant Name” – “Application ID Number.” Emails should include:

•

•

•

•

the legal applicant name and its point of contact information,

the application ID number,

a list of documents that are attached to the email, and

individually attached files that are clearly labeled and that include the legal applicant name and application 

ID number within the heading of each document.

Do not submit any items that are not requested in this Notice [and Application Guidance]. CNCS 

will not review or return them.
12

E. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

1. Review Criteria

Applications should include a well-designed plan with clear and compelling justifications for receiving the

requested funds. Reviewers will assess the quality of applications by using the selection criteria and will rate 

them accordingly. They will also consider the weights assigned to each criterion.

Categories/Subcategories Percentage

Executive Summary 0

o Executive Summary 0

Program Design (i.e., Participatory Research Design) 65

o

o

o

o

o

o 

o

Project Information 5

Community Background 10

Research Objectives and Literature Review 5

Preliminary Research Design 10

Action Plans 10

Work Plan and Justification of the Timeline 10

Community Involvement and Participatory Research Approach 15

Organizational Capability 20

o Legal Applicant’s Ability to Manage Federal Funds and Work with 

Community Partners and Experience in Supporting Community Research

5

o Program Director’s Ability to Deliver Proposed Activities 15

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Adequacy 15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (0 percent)

Executive summary (0 percent)

Please provide the following information:

• Brief description of the proposed participatory research project including the focus community, 

community issue, objectives or research questions, and expected outcomes from the project.

PROGRAM DESIGN (i.e., Participatory Research Design) (65 percent)

Project Information (5 percent)

The reviewers will consider whether the following information is listed:

•

•

•

•

•

Title of the Participatory Research Study

Type of Community (i.e., 1, 2, or 3) under Funding Priorities (see A.2.: Funding Priorities)

Total years of funding to complete the project (i.e., 1 or 2 years)

Project Director(s) (i.e., Principal Investigator(s)) and department affiliation(s) 

The community of focus (i.e., where the participatory research project will take place), community partner, 

including contact information and their affiliation 
13

Community Background (10 percent)

The reviewers will consider the quality, relevance and clarity of:

•

•

•

The description and background of the community of focus and potential usefulness of 

participatory research to the community

The existing relationship between the program director or legal applicant and the community or 

community partner

The description of the networks and the relationships that this project may strengthen with local 

partners, national service or other institutions 

Research Objectives and Literature Review (5 percent)

Reviewers will assess the quality, relevance and clarify of: 

•

•

The research objectives and how relevant the objectives are to the priority areas defined in the 

Funding Priorities (see A.2.)

Literature review with citations and relevant background research that provides adequate context for the 

research objectives; References are included as an additional document (See section D.7.b. Submission 

of Additional Documents)

Preliminary Research Design (10 percent)

The reviewers will consider:

• The feasibility and clarity of a preliminary research design including data collection methods, sample, and 

analytical approach(es) with an understanding that this might change with input from the research team

Action Plans (10 percent)

The reviewers will assess the extent to which creating action plans are feasible, relevant and clear and 

consider:

•

•

•

The types of materials that will be created to disseminate findings to a broad audience including nonacademic and academic audiences and whether they are culturally appropriate for the focus 

community

How community stakeholders, and other relevant audiences (e.g., academics, policymakers, national 

service staff) will be included in developing and implementing the action plan

How the action plan will increase community engagement and build relationships with community 

partners and institutions to strengthen civic infrastructure and tackle the community identified issue

Work Plan and Justification of the Timeline (10 percent)

The reviewers will consider the quality, feasibility, relevance, and clarity of the:

•

•

Work plan (See section D.7.b. Submission of Additional Documents) including major steps in the study

such as recruiting and training team members, obtaining approval from their Institutional Review

Board (IRB), conducting the research, creating and implementing an action plan

Justification for the desired length of time, from 1 year and up to 2 years, required to complete the 

project 
14

Community Involvement and Participatory Research Approach (15 percent)

The reviewers will consider the extent of community involvement throughout the research process and 

adherence to participatory principles including:

•

•

•

•

The diversity of the proposed research team (e.g., university staff, residents, and/or community 

stakeholders)

The extent the research team will be trained to carry out a research study including human subjects 

training and consistent opportunities to meet throughout the duration of the research project

The extent to which the research team are actively engaged in the research and action process including 

finalizing a research strategy, data collection, analyzing/interpreting data, presenting findings, and 

creating and implementing action plans or a justification of why they would not be included throughout

the full research-to-action process

The extent there are opportunities to ensure the principles of participatory research, including colearning and collaboratively engaging in knowledge production

ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITY (20 percent)

Legal Applicant’s Ability to Manage Federal Funds and Work with Community Partners (5 percent)

Reviewers will consider the capacity of the legal applicant to deliver their proposed activities based on:

•

•

A description of the legal applicant’s ability to manage a Federal grant and/or apply sound fiscal 

management principles to grants, as evidenced by previous grants experience

A description of how the legal applicant supports research with and in communities

Program Director’s Ability to Deliver Proposed Activities (15 percent)

Reviewers will consider the capacity of the Program Director to deliver their proposed activities based on:

•

•

A description of the Program Director(s) (i.e., Principal Investigator) experience working with 

participatory research approaches and with and in communities, and a two-page Biographical Sketch of 

the Program Director is included (Section D.7.b. Submission of Additional Documents and Appendix I)

A letter of support or Memorandum of Understanding from the community partner(s) is included (See

section D.7.b. Submission of Additional Documents). This letter includes a description of the history and 

activities to date of working with the Program Director(s) and how the community partner and 

researchers will be involved in the research activities.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND BUDGET ADEQUACY (15 percent)

Reviewers will assess the budget to determine:

•

•

•

•

The level of impact on research outcomes to the extent that projects distribute the maximum possible funds 

to the community level such as paying community researchers (i.e., co-researchers) a living wage to 

participate in the research team, travel for community researchers, a training space, and incentives to 

increase the sample size

Whether there is adequate information to assess how each line item is calculated 

That it is without mathematical errors, and costs are reasonable and allowable (Current indirect rate cost

Agreement is included--Section D.7.b. Submission of Additional Documents)

That travel and associated expenses are included for at least a Program Director and a representative from 

the focus community to attend one meeting (up to three nights) in Washington D.C. (see section F.4

Reporting)
15

2. Review and Selection Process

CNCS will engage Staff Reviewers with relevant knowledge and expertise to assess and provide input on the 

eligible applications. The review and selection process is intended to produce a diversified set of high-quality

programs that represent the priorities and strategic considerations described in this Notice. The stages of the

review and selection process follow:

a. Compliance and Eligibility Review

CNCS will conduct a Compliance Review to determine if an application meets the compliance requirements published in 

this Notice and advances to the next stage of the review process. An application is compliant if the applicant: 

• is an eligible organization

• submitted an application by the submission deadline

• submitted an application from a “Program Director” (i.e., Principal Investigator)

Reviewing for eligibility is intended to ensure that only those applications that are eligible for award are further 

reviewed. However, determinations of eligibility can take place at any point during the application review and 

selection process. Applicants that are determined to be non-compliant and/or ineligible will not receive an 

award.

b. Application Review 

Internal Review

CNCS Staff Reviewers will assess the applications based on the Program Design (i.e., Participatory Research

Design), Organizational Capability, and Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Adequacy Selection Criteria. Staff

Reviewers will also consider the priorities and strategic considerations detailed in this Notice. CNCS will 

recruit and select Staff Reviewers on the basis of demonstrated expertise in research in the Priority Areas of 

this Notice, as well as experience assessing applications. All Staff Reviewers will be screened for conflicts of 

interest.

c. Applicant Clarification

CNCS may ask an applicant for clarifying information. CNCS staff will use this information to make funding

recommendations. A request for clarification does not guarantee an award. Applicants may be recommended for 

funding even if they are not asked for clarifying information. An applicant’s failure to respond to a request for 

clarification adequately and in a timely manner may result in the removal of its application from consideration. 

CNCS staff may conduct a site visit inspection as part of the clarification process, as appropriate.

d. Risk Assessment

CNCS staff will evaluate the risks to the program posed by each applicant, including conducting due diligence 

to ensure an applicant’s ability to manage federal funds. This evaluation is in addition to the assessment of the 

applicant’s eligibility and the quality of its application on the basis of the Selection Criteria. Results from this 

evaluation will inform funding decisions. If CNCS determines that an award will be made to an applicant with 

assessed risks, special conditions that correspond to the degree of assessed risk may be applied to the award. 

Additionally, if CNCS concludes that the reasons for applicants having poor risk assessment are not likely to 

be mitigated, those applications may not be selected for funding. 

In evaluating risks, CNCS may consider: 

• financial stability

• quality of management systems and ability to meet the management standards prescribed in applicable 

OMB Guidance

• applicant’s record in managing previous CNCS awards, cooperative agreements, or procurement awards, 

including: 

o timeliness of compliance with applicable reporting requirements
16

o accuracy of data reported

o validity of performance measure data reported

o conformance to the terms and conditions of previous federal awards 

o if applicable, the extent to which any previously awarded amounts will be expended prior to 

future awards

• information available through OMB-designated repositories of government-wide eligibility qualification 

or financial integrity information, such as:

o Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

o DUNS and SAM

o “Do Not Pay” 

• reports and findings from single audits performed under 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F – Audit 

Requirements and findings and reports of any other available audits

• IRS Tax Form 990

• applicant organization’s annual report

• publicly available information, including information from the applicant organization's website

• applicant’s ability to effectively implement statutory, regulatory, or other requirements

e. Consideration of Integrity and Performance System Information

Prior to making any award that exceeds $150,000, CNCS is required to review and consider any information 

about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM and 

FAPIIS (see 41 U.S.C. 2313). Additionally, CNCS may expand upon these requirements and use its discretion 

to review and consider information about any applicant receiving an award, including those under $150,000.

Any applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems 

accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a federal awarding agency 

previously entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through 

FAPIIS.

CNCS may consider comments by any applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated 

integrity and performance system, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and 

record of performance under federal awards when completing its review of risk posed by the applicant under 

the Risk Assessment Evaluation section of this Notice.

f. Selection for Funding

The review and selection process is designed to:

• identify how well eligible applications are aligned with the application review criteria; and,

• build a diversified portfolio based on the following strategic considerations:

• Funding Priorities (See section A.2. Funding Priorities)

• meaningful representation of:

• Geographic diversity

• Rural communities

• Community colleges and public and non-profit institutions of higher education

Based on the evaluation of these strategic considerations, applications may be selected for funding over 

applications with a greater degree of alignment with the review criteria. In selecting applicants to receive 

awards under this Notice, the Chief Executive Officer will endeavor to include a diverse portfolio of

applications based on staff recommendations and strategic considerations.

CNCS reserves the right to adjust or make changes to the review process, in the event that unforeseen 

challenges or urgent circumstances make it impossible, impracticable, or inefficient to conduct the review 

process as planned. Any such adjustments or changes will not affect the selection criteria that will be used to 

assess applications.
17

3. Feedback to Applicants

Following awards, applicants will receive summary comments from the Staff Review of their compliant 

applications. This feedback will be based on the review of the original application and will not reflect 

information provided during clarification.

4. Transparency in Grant-making

CNCS is committed to transparency in grant-making. The following information for new applications will be

published on CNCS Results of Grant Competitions within 90 business days after all cooperative agreements

are awarded:

• a list of all compliant applications submitted

• executive summaries of all compliant applications

• data extracted from the SF-424 Face Sheet and the submitted program narratives for successful 

applications

F. FEDERAL AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

1. Federal Award Notices

CNCS will make awards following the cooperative agreement selection announcement. CNCS anticipates 

announcing the results of this competition by mid July 2018 contingent on the availability of congressional

appropriations. All applicants, successful or not, will be notified of funding decisions via email.

Notification of an award is not an authorization to begin cooperative agreement activities. The Notice of 

Grant Award signed by the Grant Officer is the authorizing document for cooperative agreement activities. 

An awardee may not expend federal funds until the start of the Project Period identified on the Notice of 

Grant Award.

Changes in the Research Design or Project Work Plan

The award will be made based on the participatory research design proposed in the 2018 application. However,

should there be any changes to the project after the award is granted, the awardee, and academic advisor if 

applicable, will propose the changes and an explanation for the changes to CNCS and in consultation with 

CNCS, the changes may be approved.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

a. Uniform Guidance

All awards made under this Notice will be subject to the Uniform Administrative Requirements,

Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), now 

consolidated in 2 C FR P arts 200 and 2205.

b. Requests for Improper Payment Information

CNCS may, from time to time, request documentation from recipients in order to monitor the award or to 

comply with other legal requirements, such as the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, as amended. 

Failure to make timely responses to these requests may result in award funds being placed on temporary

manual hold, reimbursement only, or other remedies as appropriate.

c. CNCS Terms and Conditions

All awards made under this Notice will be subject to the 2018 CNCS General Terms and

Conditions, and the 2018 Specific Terms and Conditions for the particular program (when applicable). These

Terms and Conditions contain detailed, mandatory compliance and reporting requirements. Current versions 

of the CNCS General and Specific Terms and Conditions for each of its programs is available at: 

www.nationalservice.gov/resources/terms-and-conditions-cncs-grants.
18

d. National Service Criminal History Check Requirements

The awardees receiving funding from the National Service and Civic Engagement Research

Competition are exempt from this requirement.

3. Use of Material

To ensure that materials generated with CNCS funding are available to the public and readily accessible to 

recipients and non-recipients, CNCS reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to obtain, use, 

modify, reproduce, publish, or disseminate publications and materials produced under the award, including

data, and to authorize others to do so (2 CFR §200.315 (b)).

4. Reporting

Recipients are required to submit a variety of reports which are due at specific times during the life cycle of an 

award. All reports must be accurate, complete, and submitted on time.

Recipients are required to provide a draft report (that will be labeled as a first semi-annual report in 

eGrants) and semi-annual financial reports through eGrants, CNCS’s web-based grants management 

system. 

All recipients must provide quarterly expense reports through the Payment Management System (PMS) at 

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In addition, at the end of the award period, recipients must submit a final cumulative research study report 

that will be labeled as a second semi-annual report in eGrants. Also, at the end of the award period, a 

financial report that is cumulative over the entire award period and consistent with the close-out requirements 

of CNCS’s Office of Grants Management must be submitted. The final reports are due 90 days after the end 

of the agreement.

Once the cooperative agreement is awarded, recipients will be expected to have data collection and data 

management policies, processes, and practices that provide reasonable assurance that they are giving CNCS 

high quality performance measure data. At a minimum, recipients should have policies, processes, and 

practices that address the following five aspects of data quality:

•

•

•

•

•

the data measures what it intends to measure

the data reported is complete

the recipient collects data in a consistent manner

the recipient takes steps to correct data errors, and

the recipient actively reviews data for accuracy prior to submission.

Failure to submit accurate, complete, and timely required reports may affect the recipient’s ability to secure

future CNCS funding.

For further guidance and training resources see: Resources: Data Collection and Instruments.

5. Meetings

In-person meetings

New award recipients will be expected to participate in an in-person meeting hosted by CNCS in Year 1. This 

meeting will be held at CNCS’s headquarters in Washington DC. CNCS will do its best to find a mutually

available time for all recipients; however, there is no guarantee that all schedule conflicts will be 

accommodated. Depending on the agenda, this meeting will be between 1 to 3 days and is to be determined. At 

least one Program Director (i.e., Principal Investigator) from each recipient and a representative of the 
19

community must participate in the meeting, and each recipient will be required to deliver a presentation on the

current status of their respective projects and be part of any training or other activities.

The meeting will bring together recipients, relevant CNCS staff, and other subject matter experts. The meeting

will provide an opportunity for recipients to learn more about CNCS’s national service programs, participate

in a joint discussion of their proposed participatory research study, and receive technical assistance from 

CNCS’s staff and invited experts. This will allow for knowledge sharing across the various projects, as well as 

encourage peer-to-peer contacts among each of the recipients if multiple grants are awarded. 

Virtual Meetings

Other meetings will be held throughout the year but will be conducted virtually. Meeting participants will 

include recipients and CNCS staff, and recipients may be expected to report on progress to date, challenges, 

adaptations to the initial study design, findings, and lessons learned. The meetings will be an opportunity for 

recipients to provide feedback to one another and receive feedback and technical assistance from CNCS staff. 

CNCS will do its best to find mutually available times for all recipients, however, there is no guarantee that all 

schedule conflicts will be accommodated. At least one principal investigator or key staff from each recipient 

must participate in each meeting. A first meeting will be a virtual kick-off meeting within 30 days of the award 

notification.

6. Deliverables, Publications and Presentations

In addition to reporting requirements outlined in section F.4. Reporting

20

, awardees’ final research reports must 

have the major sections of an academic journal article such as a general background, literature review, research

questions, data collection methods, analysis, results, and limitations or other sections appropriate to a 

participatory research project such as implications for communities, policymakers or practitioners. Copies of all 

data collection instruments should be included as appendices. CNCS will provide comments on the draft report

within a one month period. Generally, any revisions based on comments from CNCS will be optional unless 

they are related to misrepresentation of CNCS’s programs, policies, or related legislation and regulations. After 

comments have been incorporated into the final research report, the report itself and any derivative products 

can be distributed as desired by the recipient. In addition, CNCS may choose to publish the report (see section

F.3. Use of Material) and may make the data available to the public through its open data platform or through 

other means.

Generally, results cannot be disseminated prior to the closing of the grant period without approval from 

CNCS. Exceptions may be made for projects in the Dissertation Category in order to permit completion of a

dissertation requirement. In all cases, results cannot be disseminated without first providing CNCS 

opportunity of at least 2 weeks for comment.

20 In eGrants and in the Terms and Conditions these reports are referred to as first and second semiannual reports.
20

G. FEDERAL AWARDING AGENCY CONTACTS

For more information or a printed copy of related material(s), call (202) 606-3778 or email:

NationalServiceResearch@cns.gov. The TTY number is (800) 833-3722.

For technical questions and problems with the eGrants system, call the National Service Hotline at (800)

942-2677. National Service Hotline hours are Monday through Thursday, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. May to 

September. Potential applicants can also use this link: eGrants Questions . Be prepared to provide the

application ID, organization’s name, and the name of the Notice to which the organization is applying.

H. OTHER INFORMATION 

1. Technical Assistance

CNCS will conduct one technical assistance call to answer questions about the funding opportunity and 

eGrants. CNCS strongly encourages all applicants to participate in these sessions. Call-in information for the

technical assistance calls is on CNCS’s website:

https://www.nationalservice.gov/build-your-capacity/grants/funding-opportunities/2018/communityconversations-research-competition.

2. Re-Focusing of Funding

CNCS reserves the right to re-focus program dollars estimated for this competition in the event of disaster or 

other compelling needs.

I. IMPORTANT NOTICES 

Public Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for collection of information under this Notice of Funding 

is estimated to average six hours per submission, including reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining 

the data needed, and completing the application and reporting forms. CNCS informs people who may respond 

to this Notice of Funding that they are not required to respond unless the OMB control number and expiration 

date are current valid. (See 5 C.F.R. 1320.5(b)(2)(i).) The OMB Control Number for the information collection 

is 3045-0187. It expires on 9/30/2020.

Privacy Act Statement: The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C § 552a) requires that we notify you that the 

information requested under this Notice of Funding is collected pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12592 and 12615 of the 

National and Community Service Act of 1990 as amended, and 42 U.S.C. 4953 of the Domestic Volunteer 

Service Act of 1973 as amended. Purposes and Uses - The information requested is collected for the purposes 

of reviewing grant applications and granting funding requests. Routine uses may include disclosure of the 

information to federal, state, or local agencies pursuant to lawfully authorized requests. In some programs, the 

information may also be provided to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to determine the 

existence of any prior criminal convictions. The information may also be provided to appropriate federal 

agencies and contractors that have a need to know the information for the purpose of assisting the government 

to respond to a suspected or confirmed breach of the security or confidentiality or information maintained in 

this system of records, and the information disclosed is relevant and unnecessary for the assistance. Effects of 

Nondisclosure - The information requested is voluntary; however, to be a recipient of this grant program, 

disclosure of personal or sensitive information is required to receive federal benefits. 
21

APPENDIX I

CNCS Biographical Sketch Guidelines for Community Conversations research 

competition.

This Appendix has been adapted from the National Science Foundation (NSF) biosketch. See

NSF’s guidelines for more information about the biosketch:

https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf16001/gpg_2.jsp

(i) Senior Personnel

A biographical sketch (limited to two pages) is required for each individual identified as senior

project personnel (i.e., Program Directors). The following information must be provided in 

the order and format specified below.

Do not submit personal information such as home address; home telephone, fax, or cell 

phone numbers; home e-mail address; date of birth; citizenship; drivers’ license numbers; 

marital status; personal hobbies; and the like. Such personal information is irrelevant to the 

merits of the proposal.

(a) Professional Preparation

A list of the individual's undergraduate and graduate education and postdoctoral training as

indicated below:

Undergraduate Institution(s) Major Degree & Year

Graduate Institution(s) Major Degree & Year

Postdoctoral Institution(s) Area Inclusive Dates (years)

(b) Appointments

A list, in reverse chronological order, of all the individual's academic/professional 

appointments beginning with the current appointment.

(c) Past Research Experiences 

A list, in reverse chronological order, of all the individual's academic/professional appointments 

that are most closely related to the proposed project.

(d)Products/Publications

A list of: (i) up to five products most closely related to the proposed project; and (ii) up to five

other significant products, whether or not related to the proposed project. Acceptable

products must be citable and accessible including but not limited to publications, data sets, 

software, patents, and copyrights. Only the list of 10 will be used in the review of the

proposal.

Each product must include full citation information including (where applicable and 

practicable) names of all authors, date of publication or release, title, title of enclosing work 

such as journal or book, volume, issue, pages, website and Uniform Resource Locator (URL) 

or other Persistent Identifier.
22

(e) Synergistic Activities/Awards/Skills

A list of up to five examples that demonstrate the broader impact of the individual’s 

professional and scholarly activities that focuses on the integration and transfer of knowledge

as well as its creation. Examples could include, among others: participatory research activities, 

innovations in teaching and training (e.g., development of curricular materials and pedagogical 

methods); contributions to the science of learning; and, development and/or refinement of 

research tools.

(f) Collaborators & Other Affiliations

List collaborators involved in any of the director’s participatory research experience.