Proposal Resources

Facilities Description Library

The Facilities Description Library contains text descriptions of facilities, colleges, departments and other UK resources for inclusion in proposals. A linkblue login is required to access this resource

Institutional Letters of Support

Many grant proposals require a letter of support from an institutional signing official, typically provided by the Vice President for Research (VPR).  For letters of institutional support towards grant applications that (1) require an official signature from the VPR, or (2) commit the Office of Research financially to an award, we are standardizing the process. In addition, this streamlined process ensures that leadership within Colleges and Centers are aware of the request, and that these relevant university offices have been involved in decisions of financial support towards the application.  

As early as possible, optimally four weeks before the due date, the PI should determine whether an institutional letter from the Office of the VPR and/or the Provost is required. Extra time may be needed if financial commitments are requested, or to answer questions about the sponsor and/or collaborators that may arise prior to receiving an official signature. 

  1. If the letter is to approve and/or endorse a submission without the need for specific financial institutional commitment: The PI, through their Associate Dean for Research (ADR) and/or Center Director, must supply the following information with the request for a letter to the VPR (send to 
    1. a draft of the requested letter
    2. information about the funding opportunity 
    3. abstract of the project 
    4. date the letter should be returned to the PI to be included in the application  
  2. If the letter requires a financial commitment from the Office of the VPR: While it is understood that many grant applications call for (or reviews are favorably impacted by) institutional support, the first approach should be provision of support from the units involved in the research, which is best achieved and/or coordinated by the unit ADR(s) and/or Center Directors. The ADR and/or Center Director should send an email to the VPR ( with the following information:
    1. description of the funding opportunity, including any matching or cost-share requirements
    2. breakdown of financial commitment sources - the financial request to the VPR must be clearly described 
    3. abstract of the project
    4. date the letter should be returned to the PI to be included in the application
    5. once the financial commitments have been discussed and approved, the ADR will send a draft of the letter to the VPR. The VPR will respond by providing the final letter, copying all relevant parties for budgeting purposes.

If a letter will be requested from the Provost, provide the information above to Rachel Kikendall ( who will review and obtain the Provost signature. Please also copy the college dean in these communications.

In all cases, the Proposal Development Office (PDO) can assist with creating a draft letter. If the PI and/or ADR wish to provide the draft, PDO will make various types of letter templates available on their password-protected website. They will also draft or edit letter drafts for the PI and ADR, but the ADR must be the one to email the VPR.

Once the VPR receives the final version of the letter, it will be signed and returned to the PI and ADR within two business days, depending on VPR availability.

Copies of a support letter that makes financial commitments, along with the email correspondence pertaining to it, should be retained by the PI until an awarded grant is closed or until the PI knows an award will not be made.  When a proposal for which the VPR has committed resources is not funded, the VPR would like to be notified for budgetary planning purposes.


Updated 10-27-23

Fact Sheet – Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing

Fact Sheet – Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing

What is the new Data Management and Sharing (DMS) policy in brief?

  • The final NIH DMS Policy requires submission of Data Management and Sharing Plans and compliance with NIH Institute, Center, or Office-approved Plans. It also emphasizes the importance of good data management practices and establishes the expectation for maximizing the appropriate sharing of scientific data generated from NIH-funded or conducted research, with justified limitations or exceptions. Non-compliance may affect future NIH funding decisions. 

How will it be implemented?

  • Inclusion of a new “Other Plans” field in the SF424 application package
  • Compliance with the plan as part of the terms and conditions of the award
  • Implementation of the plan as described in the proposal and approved by NIH
  • Review of compliance with the plan as part of regular progress reports

How does this differ from the previous requirement to submit a Resource Sharing Plan?

  • As indicated in the notice on Implementation Details, previously required data sharing plans and genomic data sharing plans will no longer be attached in the Resource Sharing Plan of the Forms-H, SF424 application. The expanded DMS Plan incorporates those details but requires additional detail, as specified in the policy and the SF424 application package guidelines.

When does the DMS Policy take effect?

  • The DMS Policy is effective for proposals submitted on or after January 25, 2023.

What proposals are affected?

  • All NIH proposals that generate scientific data, regardless of funding level (research projects, career development awards, SBIR/STTR, research centers)

What data are to be shared?

  • Data commonly accepted in the scientific community as of sufficient quality to validate and replicate research findings, regardless of whether the data are used to support scholarly publications.
    •  All data must be managed, but not all data generated is to be shared. However, NIH expects researchers to maximize sharing of appropriate data.
    • Researchers have the responsibility to determine both what constitutes their scientific data and to propose how they will maximize appropriate sharing of that data, including identification of data that will not be shared along with justifications for these determinations.
  • Exclusions include:
    • Data not necessary for or of sufficient quality to validate and replicate research findings
    • Laboratory notebooks
    • Preliminary analyses
    • Completed case report forms
    • Drafts of scientific papers
    • Plans for future research

What are elements of the DMS Plan?

  • Two-page plan (preview of this format page) covering six sections:
    • Data type – summary of types and estimated amount of data to be generated; data modality, level of aggregation, degree of data processing
    • Related tools, software, code needed to access and manipulate data (e.g., open source, fee-based, from research team)
    • Data standards – standards to be applied to scientific data and metadata
    • Data preservation, access, timelines – data repository to be used, persistent unique identifier, and indication of when and how long data will be available
    • Access, distribution, reuse considerations – description of factors for data access, distribution, or reuse
    • Oversight of data management – compliance monitoring, management, frequency, responsible individual for oversight

What special considerations for sharing data from human participants or with intellectual property are expected?

  • Consistency with privacy, security, and proprietary issues
  • Consideration of factors affecting access, distribution, or reuse of data that are related to Informed consent, privacy and confidentiality (i.e., de-identification, Certificates of Confidentiality, and other protective measures); applicable federal, Tribal, state, and local laws, regulations, policy

Where are data expected to be shared?

What is the timeline for sharing?

  • Data sharing is expected no later than the time of publication or end of grant period, whichever occurs earlier.
  • In the event of a no-cost extension, data sharing is expected no later than the time of publication or end of the extension period, whichever occurs earlier.

What costs may be charged to the grant?

  • Curation fees, data repository fees incurred during the project period – proposed as direct costs indicated as “Data Management and Sharing Costs” with budget justification

How will the DMS Plan be reviewed?

  • NIH program staff will assess DMS Plans to ensure the specified elements have been adequately addressed and to assess the reasonableness of the plan. Any issues will be resolved through standard Just-in-Time procedures, including potentially a revised DMS Plan.
  • Peer reviewers will not be provided with the separate DMS Plan attachment.
  • During peer review, reviewers may comment on the reasonableness of the requested costs in the budget based on information in the budget justification, which will contain a brief description of the DMS Plan, but these comments will not impact the score.

Where can I find detailed information/resources or FAQs?

Is there a tool to help develop the NIH DMS Plan?

  • The Research Data Services at UK webpage, hosted by UK Libraries, provides a link to DMPTool, a user-friendly resource providing templates and guidance on creating data management plans aligned with agency guidelines, as well as a brief visual tutorial.
  • Log in access to DMPTool is via the user’s UK linkblue username and password.

Where can I access NIH training on the DMS Policy?

  • NIH’s two-part webinars on the New Data Management and Sharing Policy
  • PDO workshop upon request (

Where can I access sample DMS Plans?

Broader Impacts & Community Outreach Resources

The Broader Impacts & Community Outreach Resources sharepoint site contains information on possible resources to plan for outreach activities. 

Proposal Development Route

Step 1: Develop an Original Idea



  • Identifies potential funding sources and/or collaborators
  • Identifies previously funded projects


Step 2: Pre-Proposal Activities


  • Review potential sources
  • Prepare brief pre-proposal with budget estimate
  • Contact potential sponsors


  • Assists in proposal planning
  • Serves as liaison with agency personnel
  • Provides institutional descriptions of UK facilities and resources


Step 3: Draft Your Proposal


  • Prepare complete draft and ask colleagues to review
  • Contact College Grants Officer for budget assistance
  • Contact ORI for compliance requirements
  • Submit separate protocols to institutional review committees


  • Critiques proposal drafts
  • Provides feedback and necessary referrals

Office of Sponsored Projects Administration (OSPA)

  • Assists with budget preparation
  • Assists with sponsor guidelines and forms


Step 4: Prepare and Submit Formal Proposal


  • Revise final draft
  • Obtain approval from institutional review committee
  • Complete Internal Approval Form
  • Brief deans or other administrative personnel on the project

Office of Sponsored Projects Administration (OSPA)

  • Reviews proposal for compliance with sponsor and UK guidelines
  • Transmits proposal to sponsor


Step 5: Follow-up


  • Be available for negotiation discussion and revision
  • If not funded, contact PDO for assistance in planning resubmission

Office of Sponsored Projects Administration (OSPA)

  • Determines status of pending proposal
  • If funded, reviews award terms and negotiates any changes


  • If not funded, advises on resubmission strategies


Step 6: Activate Your Award


  • Provide any required sponsor forms or internal documents (e.g. revised budgets, IRB approval)

Office of Sponsored Projects Administration (OSPA)

  • Transmits award information to Research Financial Services

Research Financial Services

  • Establishes an account number and informs OSPA


Step 7: Revised Application


  • Respond to reviewer comments
  • Draft resubmission application


  • Reviews & critiques resubmission application


New online portal Scholars@UK will facilitate access to research expertise and innovation at Kentucky’s flagship land-grant institution through individual researcher profiles, network analysis, and direct access to research output and resources.

Scholars@UK Support Page

Find Collaborators

The Sponsored Projects Search Portal provides access to the OSPA database of externally funded sponsored projects at UK through SPIFi and a Keyword Search. A linkblue login is required to access the keyword search. 

Writing Guides

Evaluation Resources

  • The Evaluation Center at UK College of Education operates as an independent evaluation resource for the college, university, and state, with the benefit of consultation and collaboration with the experts in the College of Education regarding quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methodologies. 
  • The Human Development Institute (HDI) Evaluation Unit at the University of Kentucky  provides expertise in delivering comprehensive evaluation and consultation services within the domains of disability, education, health and workforce development. The unit plays a pivotal role in enhancing the quality and impact of projects within HDI and throughout UK, and it takes part in numerous state and Federal initiatives, often in partnership with other universities. With a dedicated team of seasoned professionals, the HDI Evaluation Unit is committed to ensuring that projects and programs receive rigorous, evidence-based assessments. Its primary mission is to provide unbiased, data-driven insights and evidence that inform decision-making, program improvements, and policy development – with the ultimate goal of improving life outcomes for Kentuckians with disabilities and their families. This commitment extends to diverse sectors, including education, healthcare, social services, and community outreach.

Data Management Planning Tool

The DMP Tool provides templates and detailed instructions for the design of data management plans required by NSF, NIH NEH NOAA, GBMF and IMLS.  This service is offered free to University of Kentucky researchers with a valid linkblue login.