The Office of the President, in partnership with the Office of the Provost and the Office of Research and Innovation, invites proposals for Graduate Student and Faculty Research Continuity Support, to help offset specific funding disruptions due to executive orders, grant cancellations, and stop-work orders. This initiative is designed to provide strategic, targeted, time-limited assistance to graduate students who have lost funding and to faculty experiencing disruptions in research funding. A total of up to $5 million annually will be allocated for this purpose over each of the next three years. There are three categories of funding that can be requested. A single proposal could request from more than one category. If faculty have access to discretionary funds (e.g., startup accounts), they must provide a strong justification for why they are seeking support from the Jenison funds. All proposals must include evidence of the funding disruption motivating the application.

I. Graduate Student Completion Support

Support (in the form of a Jenison Fund Fellowship) may be provided for graduate students who are nearing the completion of their target degree program. This assistance is intended to help students reach completion of their degree or serve as a bridge to new research or funding opportunities for up to one year. Eligible expenses may include fellowship stipends, research-related support, tuition, and other costs associated with education and professional development. A faculty mentor must submit the application and will need to have oversight responsibilities to route the support through the financial system. 

Criteria: 

• Those who have lost funding directly (e.g., termination of fellowships, canceled research grants/programs), or indirectly (e.g., mentor's loss of funding).
• Those whose degree progress is at risk without interim support.
• Those with viable plans to complete or transition within the funding period.
• Priority may be given to students: 
  • Whose research is expected to result in scholarly contributions (e.g., publications, presentations).
  • Who are near (or within one year) of degree completion.
  • Whose advisor does not have access to discretionary funds that could be used to fund the student.

Notes:

• Budgets are expected to include stipend, tuition and fees. Modest amounts of funding for research expenses may be requested.
• Letters should explicitly state the year of the student, the (likely) time to graduation, the impact of the loss of funds on the student’s degree progress, and if funding will be needed after a year of Jenison support, the plan to fund the student to graduation.
• Applications should include the student’s CV.

II. Pre-Tenure Faculty Retooling Support

Support may also be available for pre-tenure faculty who need to retool their research due to loss of funding opportunities. Funding cycle is a maximum of one year and can include: 1) Course buyouts for study leaves (approx. $15,000 per faculty member) to provide time for research reorientation; 2) Small grants (up to $50,000) to sustain research partnerships and facilitate new funding opportunities,  or to provide short-term funding for a post-doctoral research associate. 

Criteria:

• Pre-tenure faculty 
• Impacted by change in federal funding priorities with a clear connection to tenure progress.
• Clear evidence that the project has potential for new funding or to advance the career goals of the applicant. 
• Feasibility within the proposed timeline and budget to be realistically completed.
• Faculty who do not have access to sufficient discretionary funds that could be used to fund the project.
• Applications should include the faculty CV.

Notes:

• Junior faculty who have lost a grant and are completing work or trying to bring their work to a natural pause should apply for track 3 funding. 
• Chair letters should explicitly state the year the faculty member is expected to undergo review for tenure and promotion, the impact of the change of national funding priorities to the faculty member’s tenure case, and if the proposed retooling work will substantially contribute to their ability to get tenure.

III. Support to complete, partially complete, or paused research

Proposals may also be considered to support cancelled projects that are deemed of high importance with respect to the university mission and are nearing completion, or can be brought to a stage where they can be meaningfully paused in order to secure additional funding at a later date (e.g., completing surveys), or where a partial completion will allow for preliminary or partial findings to be disseminated to the scientific community. These grants are not designed for projects that require multi-year funding. 

Criteria:

• Any faculty or academic staff impacted by a terminated grant or similar action by funding agencies.
• Initiatives that can reach a natural pause point—either by generating preliminary results that are valuable to the scientific or scholarly community, or by positioning the project for future funding. 
• Should provide meaningful momentum and sustainability, even if external funding is temporarily unavailable.
• A plan for meaningful scholarly output or future external funding.
• Faculty who do not have access to sufficient discretionary funds that could be used to fund the project.

IV. Bridge Funding for Sustained Research Programs

Support may be provided for faculty with established, continuously funded research programs who are experiencing temporary funding gaps due to delays in federal agency grant reviews. This assistance is designed to maintain research momentum and retain personnel during administrative delays, with the expectation that funding will resume once the review process is completed. Funding is available for up to one year and can include support for research personnel (graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, research staff), essential research activities, and other costs necessary to maintain program continuity.

Criteria:

• Faculty with demonstrated track record of continuous external funding in their research area.
• Clear evidence of funding gap caused by federal agency review delays (e.g., delayed review cycles, backlogged study sections, agency processing delays).
• Strong indication that pending application(s) are competitive and likely to be funded (e.g., within historical paylines, positive preliminary feedback, resubmission with improved scores).
• Risk of significant research disruption, including potential loss of trained personnel or critical project momentum.
• Faculty who do not have access to sufficient discretionary funds that could bridge the gap.

Notes:

• Priority may be given to:
  • Applications with pending proposals at or above historical paylines for the relevant program.
  • Research programs where personnel retention is critical to project success.
  • Programs that demonstrate broader impact or serve as training environments for students and postdocs.
• Budgets should focus on personnel costs and essential research activities needed to maintain continuity.
• Applications should include the faculty CV and documentation of the review delay (e.g., correspondence from program officers, evidence of delayed study section schedules).
• Letters from department chairs should explicitly state the faculty member's funding history, the expected timeline for review completion, and the potential impact of the funding gap on the research program and personnel.
• Modest equipment or supply costs may be requested if essential to maintaining program operations.
• This track is not appropriate for research where the primary granting agency or program has been eliminated.
• Once the delayed grant review is completed and a funding decision is made, the following provisions apply:
  • If the grant is awarded: Bridge funding may continue until the new award funds are available and accessible. Any unused Jenison Fund allocation must be returned once the external funding becomes active.
  • If the grant is declined: Bridge funding may continue for a grace period of up to 3 months following the funding decision to allow for orderly transition, identification of alternative funding sources, or submission of revised applications. Any unused Jenison Fund allocation must be returned at the end of this grace period.

V. Funding Parameters & Application Guidelines

• Deadline: The next deadline is November 17, 2025. 
• Subject to the number of applications, additional information may be requested from colleges and/or departments.
• Review Rounds: Review after November 17, 2025.
• First Year Budget: Up to $5 million total.

Funding will be provided at the minimal level necessary to support the proposed objective. Full backfilling of lost funding should not be expected. No faculty salaries (though course buy-out for track 2 is an option) or sub-contracts will be funded. Priority may be given to proposals with unit matches.

Reporting by those receiving awards on the use of funds and results or progress made is expected at end of the period.

VI. Proposal Review Committee

Proposals will be reviewed by a committee co-chaired by representatives from the Provost’s Office and the Office of Research and Innovation. The committee will be comprised of representatives from: 

• Office of Research and Innovation
• Provost’s Office
• Graduate School 
• Council of Research Deans (CORD) – 3 representatives (will rotate annually)

Funding recommendations will be made to the President for consideration and decision.

VII. Review Rubrics

Graduate Student Completion Grants: 

1. Severity of Impact: (in order from highest to lowest)
   • Unexpected termination of fellowship the student obtained through a competitive process. 
   • Unexpected termination of an already funded project that was counted on to support the student. This can include loss of the ability to receive a no-cost extension that would have supported the student. 
   • Delay in receipt of a fellowship or an already funded continuing award where the funds would have supported the student. 
   • Elimination of a fellowship funding opportunity that the student was planning to apply for.
   • Delay in funding agency review of an application that was within the historical payline (last 2 years of payline- need to show evidence).
2. Degree Progress: Is the student’s degree progress at risk without support?
3. Completion Plan: Does the applicant have a clear plan to complete their degree or transition to other funding after the award period? 
4. Access to Other Funding: Does the student have access to other funding (e.g., an advisor’s discretionary funds or teaching assistantship)?

Pre-Tenure Faculty Retooling Grants 

1. Severity of Impact: (in order from highest to lowest)
   • Elimination of primary federal agencies that fund research in this area.
   • Research area has been targeted for termination of funded grants with little likelihood of future funding.
   • Likely significant reduction in future funding for this research area, though agencies still exist and research area has not been targeted for termination of funded grants.
   • Potential reduction in future federal funding for this research area with no viable non-federal funding sources.
   • Potential reduction in future federal funding for this research area, but with viable non-federal funding sources.
2. Connection to Tenure: Is the applicant’s ability to achieve tenure at risk without this support? 
3. Future Funding: How close is the applicant to securing funding (e.g., pending submission, scored proposal, study sections scheduled)? If the grant was terminated, how likely will they be successful in future grant application (different agency, different research topic, etc.), or how likely is the proposed pivot to allow them to be successful in attracting funding for the new area of research? 
4. Plan Feasibility: Is the proposal plan feasible in the timeline and budget proposed? 
5. Access to Other Funding: Does the faculty have access to other funding (e.g., a start or gift account)? 

Project Pause/Completion Grants: 

1. Severity of Impact: (in order from highest to lowest)
   • Unexpected termination of project already funded, people, effort, activities already underway.
   • Delay in receipt of an already funded continuing award. Expectation of funds already committed to people and projects, might already have a hardship account.
   • Delay in receipt of a new award that is clearly within the payline (and has already been favorably reviewed). Expectations of continuing efforts with existing staff, students, postdocs etc.
2. Scope of Work: Is the project close to a natural pause point this funding will help reach?
3. Plan Feasibility: Is the proposed plan feasible in the timeline and budget proposed? 
4. Access to Other Funding: Does the faculty have access to other funding (e.g., start up or gift account)?

Bridge Funding for Sustained Research Programs

1. Severity of Impact: (in order from highest to lowest)
   • Delay in review of a continuing grant renewal for a program with continuous funding history, with imminent risk of personnel loss.
   • Delay in review of a new application that replaces expiring funding, where the application is at or above historical paylines.
   • Delay in review of a competitive resubmission with improved scores from previous cycle.
   • Delay in review of a new application with strong indicators of competitiveness but no prior score.
   • General delays in agency review processes with pending applications but unclear competitiveness.
2. Program Continuity Risk: Will the delay result in loss of key personnel, critical data collection windows, or irreversible disruption to the research program?
3. Likelihood of Future Funding: How strong is the evidence that the pending application(s) will be funded once reviewed (e.g., score trajectories, payline data, program officer feedback)?
4. Plan Feasibility: Is the proposed bridge plan feasible and appropriately scoped to cover the anticipated delay period?
5. Access to Other Funding: Does the faculty have access to other funding sources (e.g., startup, gift accounts, or other active grants) that could bridge the gap?

VIII. Program Evaluation

The initiative will be evaluated after Year 1, second allocation, to inform planning for Years 2 and 3. Additional insights from Year 1 final reports may also influence future allocations. 

For questions or to submit proposals, please contact the Office of Research and Innovation at proposal@msu.edu. 

For a list of commonly asked questions, please review the FAQs.