Request Information
Ready to find out what MSU Denver can do for you? We’ve got you covered.
Each academic year, the Provost’s Office provides up to $2,500 in startup funding to support faculty in securing external grants through the Provost Mini Grant program. This program funds preliminary research activities, including refining ideas, testing methodologies, collecting data, and promoting collaboration.
Full-time faculty (tenured, tenure-track, and lecturers) are eligible to apply, and recipients must deliver a draft proposal narrative by the semester’s end. Priority is given to new initiatives aligning with strategic plans. Visit the Academic Affairs Procedural Calendar for deadlines, review the application information below, and submit your application via Watermark. Recommendations from chair and dean levels will be made via Watermark. Final approval from the Provost will also be documented in Watermark and will accompany an email and letter sent from the Office of Faculty Affairs to the applicant.
The Provost’s Office allocates Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs Recovery funds to support faculty grant writing to external agencies during the fall and spring semesters.
Funding Details: Up to $2,500 in startup funds are available to support preliminary investigations, such as:
Deliverables: Recipients must deliver a draft proposal narrative at the end of the semester, including a list of potential funding agencies.
Important Notes:
Eligibility:
Post-Award Report:
Application Deadlines:
Following review and approval at the chair and dean levels, Provost Mini Grant applications are reviewed by the Provost Mini Grant Committee, a group of faculty members from across the MSU Denver colleges and schools who convene once per semester to use the rubric below to evaluate applications and make recommendations to the Provost. These reviews are then used by the Provost to make final decisions on the PMG recipients for a given semester.
Provost Mini Grant Committee Evaluation Rubric | ||||
One (1) Point | Two (2) Points | Three (3) Points | Four (4) Points | Five (5 Points) |
Application makes no effort to meet criterion; completely lacking clarity and detail; significantly below average. | Little effort to meet criterion; not sufficiently clear or detailed; below average. | Application addresses criterion; marginally clear and detailed; average quality. | Application addresses criterion; sufficiently clear and detailed; above average. | Application clearly addresses criterion; very clear and detailed; significantly above average. |
Applications are reviewed (from 1-5 points) according to each criterion below. Criteria are weighted according to the multiplying factor and total points awarded are then used to inform the Provost’s final decision. | ||||
Criterion | Multiplying Factor | |||
All components of the proposed budget are justified in the narrative. | 1.5x | |||
The application clearly describes the “start-up” activities that will take place, including a timeline, which will lead to a draft proposal narrative. | 1.2x | |||
The application clearly demonstrates that the GrantSupport Awards Program is the appropriate source of funds for the project at its current stage. | 1.0x | |||
The application is written for a non-specialist in the field. | 0.8x | |||
The grant project under development aligns with theUniversity and relevant College/School and department missions and strategic plans. | 0.6x | |||
Applications follows all guidelines (includes providing all required documentation) on request for proposals (RFP) and are blunder free. | 1.0x |