SIP Funding

  1. How did you become involved in funding a SIP?

  2. Please describe the topic, development of the RFA, the type of proposals you received, and the selection process. (PROBE: Was the project “wired” for a specific center? Did centers play a role in crafting the RFA?)

  3. Which center was awarded the SIP? What was your experience with the project?

  4. Have you been involved in other SIP projects? Would you consider working with the centers program again?

  5. From the perspective, what are the opportunities and limitations of SIPs relative to other funding mechanisms?

  6. How could the SIP process be improved to better serve your purpose and to foster the centers work and mission?

(PROBE: Could there be more lead time?—Perhaps a list of “tentative” project areas could be distributed early for discussion.

Could there be more “network” SIPs, which seem to work well for centers in that they allow the topic to be framed with input from centers?

Could the reviews be improved?—Centers have stated that the reviews are very general and do not provide useful feedback.

At times, the quality of the review is lacking—erroneous comments supplied. Some centers think specific SIPs are “wired” and this information is not communicated to all centers, leading to wasted efforts in proposal development.)

CDC Atlanta, July 2, 1996

Participants included the following staff from CDC: James Barrow, Don Benken, Barbara Bewerse, Sarah Kuester, Dan Miller, David McQueen, Kate McQueen, Michael Pratt, Patricia Riley, and Jean Smith.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement