How to Apply / Current Opportunities / 2017 RFP Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

Follow this link to the question submission form at the bottom of this page.  Please keep an eye on this page for new questions and replies.

Application Deadline: Wednesday, February 22, 2017, 11:59 PM Pacific Time.

Click on a category below to open and close the list of questions. Click on the link for this page in the menu at left to clear filters from using searches or tags.

Application Guidelines

True, and that is a good observation. In section A we ask you to distinguish the total project costs from JRS’ contributions. This is important to help us understand the resources that will support your success.  Our budget form does not include lines for those contributions.  Generally, applicants use the Budget Narrative section to describe any co-funding or institutional matches of funding; that section has no Word Limit.  Our budget spreadsheet can be modified and edited and some applicants have added lines for other funding or added tabs to the spreadsheet.  Please do what you think is best to help us understand how funds connect to resources, outputs and outcomes.  If we need additional detail on co-funding, we will ask and that is not likely to be a detail that would determine approval or decline of an application.

Tags: budgets, Forms

I’d say that whether a proposal advances to the final tier of consideration is really determined by the big things and not by the details though its is understandable that grant applicants worry about the details. Applications advance for the big things: (1) is it in scope? (2) does it develop biodiversity informatics capacity? (3) is data accessible and valuable to end-users? and (4) is it well planned?  By well planned, we look for whether the inputs of staffing, time, expertise, partnerships, technology, and money can be connected to specific outputs and results, and whether those activities and outputs fit into a logical causal change of valuable outcomes.  Virtually all proposals represent good ideas and intentions but most declined proposals fail for lack of focus, being too ambitious, claiming unlikely outcomes, unclear plans, weak informatics detail, and lack of end-user engagement.  Proposals need a strong budget narrative that explains the costs, their timing, and connections to goals – we are a financial institution and money matters really matter!

No. I’m sorry that I can’t extend the deadline due to the timeline for other review stages.  If you have a gap in the proposal that would be the closed with additional time, just note that explicitly and then reviewers can consider if that gap were closed, would it change the standing of the proposal. Before our final stage of internal review, applicants are offered the chance to revise applications in response to feedback and questions and that gives a chance to fill in gaps in information or plans.

No.  This is not mandatory but was just a service offered to help applicants.  We are always happy to review a summary sent by email.

The indirect costs charged to you by your subcontractor or your sub-grantee are up to you and your institutional policies.  In terms of JRS policy, we view subgrants and subcontracts as indirect costs themselves and usually do not permit grantees to charge overhead on top of the subcontracts or we ask this be a minimal rate.  Our policy is not to say that we are unwilling to pay the real costs of projects but we wish that those costs be accounted for as direct costs so they can be assessed and audited.  We note in particular that JRS makes grants to many types of foreign organizations that require us to have a degree of financial oversight, termed “expenditure responsibility” and that, from time to time, we may audit a grantee’s expenditures.

JRS is unlikely to change our Indirect Cost Policy for a government institution but we also make decisions on a case-by-case basis.  One alternative, is to take costs that your institution wishes to recover in the indirect cost rate such as facilities costs and financial administration and put those as direct costs in the budget and note that in your budget narrative.  Our decision whether to fund a project will be determined by many other factors other than indirect cost rates.  We suggest that you apply as is consistent with your institutional policy with the forewarning that JRS may decline that rate or ask you to put those costs as direct costs.

Yes, but it generally does not help the proposal at this stage.  Put another way, if the proposal form does not make a compelling case for your project, additional documentation won’t help.  The Foundation may refer to additional documentation in the course of reviews and revisions, but these documents (aside from the Budget and Work Planning Table) are not sent to our expert external reviewers.

We do not have a CV form and we do not require CVs. There is a short section in the online application form to provide brief biographies of the Project Director(s) and a section to describe Partner(s) qualifications.  We advise against adding additional documents to the proposal as documents other than the Results Table and Budget may be used by the Foundation but will not be sent to reviewers.

We have no preference, design projects for success. Like any donor, want the most impact for our dollar. An excellent site-specific project that yields transferable technology, skills, success and lessons may have greater impact over the long-term than regional scale projects.  Any regional project proposal would need to cite how it compares to any other regional biodiversity informatics projects that have (or have not) resulted in a strong residual national or local capacity. JRS might be at our best when we invest in capacity at the individual or network level.  We don’t have the staff, resources and on-the-ground presence to add significant value to regional efforts.  Our advice is always that you should, propose what will be most successful since you are the experts in your domains and your countries.  We have no principle of equitable funding across countries – just the pursuit of results.

We prefer to invest directly in African institutions, however if you look at our grant portfolio you will see about half our U.S., U.K., and European grants.  We always seek significant African partnership in terms of roles and resources. Our overall foundation goal is capacity development in Africa for biodiversity informatics and capacity development in the sense of helping support African processes to enhance skills that serve their needs.  Projects should be designed to be most successful which sometimes favors an non-African institution leading the project, but project management, authority and responsibility is a critical capacity to support in African institutions.  We are the rare funder that will risk investing in African institutions in any sector so we lean toward African grant recipients.  So, while we indicate a preference for African recipients, that choice has to support the capacity development goal and should not risk the overall goal or be a symbolic pass-through of funds. Many donors fund capacity development projects without seeing that authority and responsibility doesn’t devolve to the recipients of the skill-building. As a politically independent and risk-bearing funder, we can put money into low capacity organizations that others won’t.

Don: Short answer: We’d most likely fund only one but best to send both.  Long answer: We are very unlikely to fund two proposals from the same institution – particularly outside of Africa.  However, submitting two proposals does not diminish the funding chances of either one and only positively reflects the strength and capacity of the applicant institution.  I generally advise not to second guess or debate our interests, but to apply and let our reviewers decide.  Of course, our funding level is likely to be around 10-15% of the in-scope proposals so it is up to every applicant to weigh the odds of funding against the effort in applying.

Yes. All proposals are due on February 22nd.  Why so soon? We need a week for internal review, a few weeks for external review, a few weeks for Board Review, and time for proposal revisions in order to make decisions at the end of May.  Please do your best!  We understand that you may not have time for “planning for planning grants” or that technical implementation grants still need ‘start-up’ time for planning and partnership formation.  It is also acceptable that proposals have not yet full review by all partners and that plans change during proposal revision.  Even after our grant approvals, we work with applicants to refine and improve their plans.  Generally, whether a project is of interest or not is based in the “big ideas” and not the details and whether the overall connections between budgets, activities, outputs and goals are clearly described.

Yes! You can certainly be a collaborator on multiple project applications to JRS.  We always encourage applicants to actively engage collaborators and partners of different types in the proposal development process and in its review. Engagement of partners ensures good planning, accurate resourcing, and a fast start if there is funding.  If you are a partner on multiple proposals, we advise transparency with your partners.  We always encourage people to apply and not to second guess JRS’ interests.  We make grants on a “portfolio” basis in which a project that might be deemed to be less-well designed might fit well with other projects in our portfolio.  Also, we aim to develop capacity and we might support lower-capacity project teams to help raise an organization’s capacity.  In any case, we advise applicants to seek our preliminary feedback on your project concept or draft application to be sure you are in scope and that your proposal addresses key questions.

No.  All JRS proposals must be submitted in English as this is the common language to the JRS staff and Trustees and to our external grant reviewers. The grant proposals become part of the legal agreement of the grant award and must be in English.

We expect to fund many types of organizations. Data sharing partnerships often include the types of organizations in your question. Our interest is to support sustainable systems for biodiversity data and information use. We will examine organizations for their long-term commitments to open access to data and to maintaining and using biodiversity data and knowledge. For-profit businesses are subject to special scrutiny by U.S. law and specific foundation practices to ensure that grant products are used for charitable purposes.

We hope to have the grants awarded by mid-June and all grant agreements and payments made by August. Sometimes an administrative glitch or the need for a revision could push those dates later. The majority of JRS projects are designed for 2 or 3 years yet we have also made some 12, 18, and 48 month grants. If we are excited by an idea but feel it needs more time or less time, we will work with the applicant to redesign the project.

It is very typical for our grants to have funds flow to multiple partners or sub-contractors.  We usually make the award to one recipient organization. However, we do have cases where transferring money first to Africa and then to Europe or the U.S. is costly, time-consuming, loses value in currency exchanges, is charged unnecessary overhead, or risks corrupt practices.  In those cases, the award is made to the African institution but the grantee requests that JRS make direct wire transfers to other African or ex-Africa partners. [Q: 23 Jan, A: 23 Jan]

No, we don’t grant to individuals. JRS only makes grants to organizations. Please see the first section on our Grantmaking page for ‘The Basics’ of what we support and do not support. We do examine whether the project director and key project staff are employees of the applying organization and whether they have stable salary support for the duration of the project. We aim to invest in long-term capacity in biodiversity informatics in sub-Saharan Africa at both the level of individual training and organizational development. Individuals may find training opportunities through JRS grantees and announcements on our website and we often fund Ph.D. and Master’s programs within our grant projects. [Q: 13 Jan 2017 – A: 13 Jan 2017]

Thank you for your question about European or African leadership of the project. My general answer is that you should design the leadership and management of the project for its success.  My second answer is that our goal is to support Africans to develop capacity for biodiversity data and information systems in Africa so a key criteria for us to consider funding is whether there is the investment in biodiversity informatics in Africa with African partners and institutions that will sustain the activity.  It is too often the case, that partnerships with European and U.S. institutions do not fully transfer know-how, technology, and leadership to their African counterparts.  We examine projects closely to see how resources and roles are allocated among partners. In 2016, two of our seven grants went to UK and European project leaders, two to African institutions, and two to African institutions with international collaborators.  Should you choose European leadership, please make sure your proposal is clear about how the project supports capacity development in Africa and that African  partners have meaningful roles to sustain the project activity in the future. [Q: 13 Jan 2017 – A: 13 Jan 2017]

Yes! I, JRS’ ED, personally apologize for not meeting this commitment. I would be very happy to provide feedback on your 2016 proposal or concept note. Please just send an email to JRSRFP2017@jrsbiodiversity.org. [Q: 12 Jan 2017 – A: 12 Jan 2017]

Yes and Yes. We understand that organizations have different units and might apply as a lead applicant in some proposals and apply as a partner in another organization’s proposals. We encourage applications. Leaders within an organization should not debate or second guess which application is more appropriate for JRS – let us decide!  JRS funds on a project-basis rather than by institutions and the proposals are judged independently.  We also approve grants as a ‘portfolio’ and we may choose grants that complement each other from different organizations or even ones that take different approaches to the same problem. All to say, it does not hurt in any way to submit multiple proposals and it would help show the strength of the institution.  We offer one caveat – it is helpful to acknowledge that there are other applications from your organization or that you and your partners are involved in multiple projects as this shows there is good communication within the institution and among partners.   Competitive proposals that don’t acknowledge each other may create a perception among reviewers that there is not communication or collaboration within the institution or partnership.  Please do not mention partner individuals or organizations without consulting them as they may also be involved in other proposals to JRS. [Q: 11 Jan 2017 – A: 11 Jan 2017]

General Scope

There is some element of what is the current jargon but also a genuine difference in philosophy and approaches between capacity building vs. capacity development. Capacity building has an external orientation of ‘we will build their capacity’ and ‘capacity development’ has more of a partner orientation of ‘we’ll support their processes that develop capacity for them to achieve their goals.’  There are a variety of definitions on the web and most feature a statement like:

Capacity-development is the process through which individuals, groups and organisations, and societies deploy, adapt, strengthen, and maintain the capabilities to define, plan and achieve their own development objectives.

The operative idea here is ongoing processes for the local actors’ objectives and priorities.  For example, a one-time workshop to train people in how to use an informatics tool developed overseas may be valuable capacity-building.  Conducting workshops and experiential training over time in locally-defined priority areas so that people can access new skills and tools on their own, train others, create new tools, and build their organizations would be capacity development.

Category: General Scope

We debate the tension between investing in international platforms vs. more local platforms and there are good arguments for both. We aim to expand access to and use of biodiversity data and information services in Africa and to support local capacity development to do so. We know that it is vital to involve end-users in system design and data content and it appears more likely to get locally relevant services if there are local partners and local ownership. We will always favor projects that make a compelling case that data will be used and have users involved. Yet there is greater capacity outside of Africa and the international data platforms are important for decision making in major development banks and development agencies of OECD governments. Enhancing an international platform to improve access to and visualization of African biodiversity data would certainly be good but we’d have to understand the benefits to African capacity development. An interesting question may be how an African host/mirror or an African front end to international data platforms might increase the use and relevance of the platforms for local needs?

Category: General Scope

Neither. We are looking to invest in biodiversity data and information services that have applications to conservation actions and sustainable development decisions. Such data, information and knowledge is often applicable to research but we are not looking to solely fund research. There may be cases where answering a research questions is critical to a conservation or development decisions. JRS only funds the biodiversity informatics components of conservation and development projects and does not fund direct interventions such as land purchase, livelihood development, and public education. We typically fund data collection, data enhancement, portal development, mobile technologies, IT infrastructure, and training as is described in the projects in our Grant Portfolio.

Category: General Scope

Your concept is one of several we have received that seek to make improvements to global databases or to link global databases.  Our focus is on capacity development for biodiversity informatics in Africa.  We would need to see a compelling case why JRS should support a project that has not been supported by global and regional funders in other areas and how such a project involves the transfer of technical know-how and responsibilities to African partners.  It has been more typical that we fund an Africa-centered project that includes a small global contribution than we fund a global project with a small African contribution.  In any case, we would look for user engagement in Africa to create a sustained demand for the biodiversity information knowledge or tools. We are happy to review any project concepts to see how JRS may contribute and perhaps partner with other international donors.  [Q: 20 Jan, A: 20 Jan]

Category: General Scope

As there are inquiries, we will update the answer to this question.  We don’t expect to make grants in Cameroon, Egypt, Madagascar, Mauritius, or Sao Tome and Principe.  It is always hard to focus and there is no value judgment that is implied in our choices; we have one full-time staff person and focus is needed to to build networks, develop local knowledge, and visit grantees.  The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Namibia, and Zimbabwe are eligible for applications, however applicants from these countries will need strong rationale for the enabling conditions for success and sustainability as these countries are widely recognized as facing challenges of good governance, safety, and political stability. [Q: 11 Jan 2017 – A: 17 Jan 2017]

Category: General Scope

Freshwater Scope

We are interested in technical platforms and methods for data collection that can be deployed at large geographic scale, are low cost, and can be used by field staff with relatively little formal training or expertise.  Such methods sometimes fall under the category of “citizen science” and employ mobile technologies, distributed teams of experts, community review, or other methods to generate high quality data and data that can be collected and shared using global data standards.  Platforms used by JRS Biodiversity Foundation grantees include – but are not limited to – Cybertracker, iNaturalist, and SMART.  The geographic scale, threats to biodiversity, rate of biodiversity change, and knowledge gaps are so great on the African continent that a meaningful coverage of biodiversity data cannot be obtained at the funding, speed, and expertise levels available in some other parts of the world.  Just as the African continent leap-frogged the need for hard-wired telephone service, a similar technical leap is needed for biodiversity data collection and access.

No. Like most donors, we hope to have the greatest effects with our investment by investing in (a) important problems and solutions that (b) might be transferred and replicated. For example, a data platform that could be applied to many freshwater key biodiversity areas is more attractive than a very local database. Or, a data sharing partnership that spans a major catchment basin where there are many human needs and pressures from near-term hydropower and mining development would be more attractive than digitizing a legacy dataset from a single lake. Many of the important decisions about biodiversity are being made in economic sectors other than the conservation sector and over time we hope to see uses that influence economic development decisions and decisions such as dam locations, land-use, and energy development. We do not make very large grants and a problem and project might be too big for our resources. Thus, we must balance creating access to biodiversity data that might have multiple uses for important problems with our available resources.

Tags: Dams, Habitats

IAS are not mentioned in the call as a specific interest but certainly would be in scope if there is good argument for the value of the data and there is a clear use and user.  Please be cautious about proposals built on the premise that creating the information resource will let unidentified users to take actions.  Given the multiple efforts to create IAS data resources, we’d have to understand why a new one is better designed for success that is relevant to users. Our experience is that projects without specific users being involved and a use case being the driver are not sustained in the long-term.  In a proposal to JRS, you would be able to cut most of the rationale for why IAS are important and would need to focus upon demonstrated demand for the data. [Q: 19 Jan, A: 20 Jan]

Yes, we fund primary data collection if we understand how that data supports the aims of information and knowledge that supports users’ needs and fosters the development of the related biodiversity information system.  We often fund primary data collection when it fits within a full concept such as the new data collection helps to develop capacity in the full pathway from the field to data access and use, or develops some particularly valuable data sets, or answers a conservation science or ecological question. It is just a matter of balance between resources spent on data collection and resources spent on data access. Whereas there are other funders that support data collection, we are the only funder focused on biodiversity-related information technology and its use. [Q: 19 Jan, A: 20 Jan]

That work is not likely to fall within our scope. Our goal is to help Africans develop capacity in biodiversity informatics. We believe that biodiversity information systems for research and conservation will only be sustained if the systems meet demand for biodiversity information and knowledge.  Since you say this is a species of low concern, that suggests there isn’t a demand for this information.  The information you seek at the level of differentiating cryptic species is a level of taxonomic research that is hard to connect to immediate information needs for conservation and sustainable development. Finally, the project concept does not indicate investment in biodiversity informatics or capacity development in biodiversity informatics.  [Q: 12 Jan 2017 – A: 12 Jan 2017]

Yes.  Estuaries are in scope but they might be less in the bulls-eye of the target than a pure freshwater system project. Our choice of freshwater systems is to find intersections of conservation and human needs where there is a high demand for biodiversity information systems.  That demand for information, in turn, sustains the capacity for biodiversity information systems that is our goal. A project focused on estuaries would need to demonstrate partnership between data users and data providers and development of capacity.  A focus on species or technical platforms or partners that are applicable to purely freshwater ecosystems would make the project of greater interest than one with a focus on the marine end of the estuary. [Q: 23 Jan, A: 23 Jan]

No, West Africa is not within the current scope.  We have a geographic focus since our overall goal is to help countries develop the capacity for biodiversity informatics and that requires knowledge and networks within a country, physical infrastructure and expertise, and a critical mass of data providers and data users. As a small organization, JRS cannot serve grantees across many countries. [Q: 11 Jan 2017 – A: 11 Jan 2017]

Pollinators Scope

We are interested in technical platforms and methods for data collection that can be deployed at large geographic scale, are low cost, and can be used by field staff with relatively little formal training or expertise.  Such methods sometimes fall under the category of “citizen science” and employ mobile technologies, distributed teams of experts, community review, or other methods to generate high quality data and data that can be collected and shared using global data standards.  Platforms used by JRS Biodiversity Foundation grantees include – but are not limited to – Cybertracker, iNaturalist, and SMART.  The geographic scale, threats to biodiversity, rate of biodiversity change, and knowledge gaps are so great on the African continent that a meaningful coverage of biodiversity data cannot be obtained at the funding, speed, and expertise levels available in some other parts of the world.  Just as the African continent leap-frogged the need for hard-wired telephone service, a similar technical leap is needed for biodiversity data collection and access.

No.  We are sorry that we do not support direct development activities such as bee-keeping, tree-planting, agricultural training, women’s livelihood development, participatory environmental planning, education and other direct development interventions.  We recognize that grass-roots participation, community stewardship of biodiversity, and sustainable livelihoods are key to conservation.  Our narrow focus is financial support for the information technologies that support conservation such as data collection, database development, mobile applications, websites, and related capacity development activities.

This is a very good point.  As we pursue this program in pollinator biodiversity we may discover that we underestimated the taxonomic gaps and that our greater investment in the primary taxonomy is essential.  Our foundation’s goal is to help countries develop the capacity for biodiversity informatics.  Pollinator knowledge is important in its own right and it may be a sustaining driver of capacity development in biodiversity data systems because of economic and conservation interests in pollination and their use as indicators of climate change.  We changed the wording of the scope to indicate that “projects that are primarily aimed at taxonomic revision” are out of scope. This is really a matter of degree.  A project that is entirely focused on resolving the taxonomic detail of a complex of subspecies in an apparently economically unimportant species, is not of interest.  However, a project that included some taxonomic clarification and/or digitization of collections as a component of other goals related to knowledge creation and global access, could easily be in scope.  We have a lot of experience is seeing how fast that biodiversity informatics capacity in Africa can degrade without sustained demand for that capacity and we are trying to bridge the gap between data providers and users. [Q: 11 Jan 2017 – A: 11 Jan 2017]

No, that is not within the current scope. You raise two species-related questions in terms of the pollinator and plants.  In 2016, we approved grants Diptera and Lepidoptera and want to balance our species portfolio by making grants in bees and wasps this year.  We are seeking biodiversity data that will have both high scientific value and value for policies and practices relating to conservation and sustainable development.  For grants that propose to study a particular pollinator interaction, there would also need to be a strong rationale of how that data and knowledge would be valuable to both scientists and policy-makers.  Our hypothesis is that endangered and iconic plants and agricultural plants will be of greatest interest for conservation and development.  [Q: 11 Jan 2017 – A: 11 Jan 2017]

IAS are not mentioned in the call as a specific interest but certainly would be in scope if there is good argument for the value of the data and there is a clear use and user.  Please be cautious about proposals built on the premise that creating the information resource will let unidentified users to take actions.  Given the multiple efforts to create IAS data resources, we’d have to understand why a new one is better designed for success that is relevant to users. Our experience is that projects without specific users being involved and a use case being the driver are not sustained in the long-term.  In a proposal to JRS, you would be able to cut most of the rationale for why IAS are important and would need to focus upon demonstrated demand for the data. [Q: 19 Jan, A: 20 Jan]

Yes, we fund primary data collection if we understand how that data supports the aims of information and knowledge that supports users’ needs and fosters the development of the related biodiversity information system.  We often fund primary data collection when it fits within a full concept such as the new data collection helps to develop capacity in the full pathway from the field to data access and use, or develops some particularly valuable data sets, or answers a conservation science or ecological question. It is just a matter of balance between resources spent on data collection and resources spent on data access. Whereas there are other funders that support data collection, we are the only funder focused on biodiversity-related information technology and its use. [Q: 19 Jan, A: 20 Jan]

Planning Grants

Please use the same online application form and adapt it as best as possible for the planning grant. Please see other FAQs in this section.  We fund planning efforts based on the potential value of the ultimate project being planned.  A planning grant should make the case for the ultimate outputs and outcomes and clearly define what questions, uncertainties, and risks are being addressed by the planning phase.

Category: Planning Grants

Planning grants are used when there is too much uncertainty or too many unknowns to produce a strong project plan in a proposal.  A planning grant should pursue specific questions and unknowns, perhaps be guided by a decision tree, and even lead to a go/no-go decisions on specific elements.  If you are exploring a risky idea, the planning phase might result in your decision not to pursue the idea.  If your project just needs a start up phase for planning but you know your aims and partners, you might be best to just include that start-up phase within your project proposal. The planning proposal should define the critical questions and unknowns and show how the proposed activities close those gaps.

We fund planning grants that have some concept and description of the end result AND if that end product is within our strategy and our financial means.  There should be strong hypotheses about the end product and its cost. For example, we would not fund a planning effort to design a $1,000,000 regional project since we couldn’t fund the implementation phase.

Finally, we encourage all our planning efforts to develop a mindset that the final product is a project plan and not a grant proposal.  Most planning grants are first drafted with too much time and effort in convening and workshops and not enough time and money spent on planning. A grant proposal is a way to sell a project plan to JRS, but the strength of the proposal is rooted in the strength of the underlying project plan.

Category: Planning Grants

In the past, our planning grants have been in the $15,000-$30,000 range. The planning grant award may not cover all planning costs, but those costs above and beyond your usual efforts at planning and fund-raising.  Typically, funds are used to assess needs, convene partners for planning, hire consultants with specific technical expertise, and travel to partners.  If the planning phase produced an output that was a public good – e.g., proceedings and analyses from the planning workshops, we might fund at the higher end of the range or above since there is a public benefit and tangible output.

Category: Planning Grants

A planning grant may be  your best approach if there are critical gaps in areas that the JRS Biodiversity Foundation has identified as critically important. For example, you may need a planning grant if (1) you do not know who your partners will be, (2) you do not have a partnership with the end-users of the data or knowledge tool, (3) you do not yet know what hardware and software technology you might employ, or (4) this is your first project in pollinator or freshwater biodiversity.  Even in a technical implementation project, you may schedule for a “ramp up” period for planning and formal partnership agreements. [Q: Jan 25, A: Jan 25]

Category: Planning Grants

Yes. Please use the same online form for your planning grant idea.  Some of the questions may not quite fit the planning grant, but do your best.  For example, the question on data access may not apply to a planning grant but you might comment on whether the project you are planning will promote open access to data.  [Q: Jan 25, A: Jan 25]

Category: Planning Grants

RFP Question Form

Please enter your question below. You will receive email confirmation and answers will be added to the FAQ above within 48 hours.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Which are your primary communications interest?