NSF 10-605: Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP)
Program Solicitation
Document Information
Document History
- Posted: August 26, 2010
- Replaces: NSF 04-575
- Replaced by: NSF 12-554
Program Solicitation NSF 10-605
 |
National Science Foundation |
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
November 23, 2010
Important Information And Revision Notes
For AGEP, this solicitation supersedes NSF 10-522 in which AGEP appears with a note that says "the program is not currently accepting proposals."
Informed by multiple NSF-funded evaluations and assessments of the AGEP program as a whole (available upon request) and by discussions with AGEP Principal Investigators and other interested individuals, the NSF has concluded that some modifications to this successful program will enable it to fulfill its goals even more effectively. Accordingly, to give interested institutions time and support to develop stronger, more innovative and more successful AGEP alliances, NSF is soliciting proposals and plans to award a series of smaller grants in FY2011. Current and recent AGEP awardees will be eligible to apply for grants to assess and evaluate their programs. Institutions that have not been awarded an AGEP or that wish to establish new alliances can apply for planning grants to establish alliances and develop new proposals for FY 2012.
Please be advised that the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) includes guidelines implementing the mentoring provisions of the America COMPETES Act (ACA) (Pub. L. No. 110-69, Aug. 9, 2007.) As specified in the ACA, each proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers must include a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. Proposals that do not comply with this requirement will be returned without review (see the PAPP Guide Part I: Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II for further information about the implementation of this requirement).
Summary Of Program Requirements
General Information
Program Title:
Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP)
Synopsis of Program:
The Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) program aims to develop the human capital and administrative and academic infrastructure that will enable the placement of underrepresented minorities (URMs; African-Americans, Alaska Natives, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Pacific Islanders) in faculty positions at American universities, colleges and community colleges. Please note that AGEP welcomes participation by URM students with disabilities. From its inception in 1998 as the Minority Graduate Education (MGE) program, it has grown from 8 participating universities to 108 institutions, including about 80% of the top producers of African American and Hispanic PhDs. AGEP institutions have been successful at increasing the numbers of URMs enrolled in and graduated from their STEM graduate programs. The educational research portfolio contributes to the body of literature of successful practices in student recruitment, retention, persistence, and attainment of STEM undergraduate and graduate degrees, especially for populations underrepresented in STEM disciplines: African-Americans, Alaskan Natives, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Pacific Islanders. AGEP welcomes the participation of URM persons with disabilities.
AGEP alliances further the graduate education of underrepresented STEM students through the doctorate level, preparing them for fulfilling opportunities and productive careers as STEM faculty and research professionals. AGEP also supports the transformation of institutional culture to attract and retain STEM doctoral students into the professorate.
Cognizant Program Officer(s):
Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
-
Jessie A. DeAro, telephone: (703) 292-5350, email: jdearo@nsf.gov
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
- 47.076 --- Education and Human Resources
Award Information
Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Supplement
Estimated Number of Awards: 10 to 20 Awards will be made for 1- or 2-years duration, in amounts of up to $150,000.
Anticipated Funding Amount: $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 in FY 2011, pending the availability of funds.
Eligibility Information
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
Universities and Colleges - Universities colleges accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
Applicant organizations must offer the PhD in at least two fields normally supported by the NSF.
Because AGEP is centered on sustainable institutional changes in graduate education, the Provost or Graduate Dean of the lead Institution should serve as the Principal Investigator. A full explanation should be provided for a PI designation in variance with this requirement. Co-Principal investigators from partner institutions may be designated as appropriate for the project.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 1
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 1
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
- Letters of Intent: Not Applicable
- Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable
- Full Proposals:
- Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.
- Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide)
B. Budgetary Information
- Cost Sharing Requirements: Cost Sharing is not required under this solicitation.
- Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable
- Other Budgetary Limitations: Not Applicable
C. Due Dates
- Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
November 23, 2010
Proposal Review Information Criteria
Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria apply.
Award Administration Information
Award Conditions: Standard NSF award conditions apply.
Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.
I. Introduction
The U.S. continues to suffer from a long-standing underrepresentation of minorities (i.e., African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders), including URM students with disabilities, among science, mathematics and engineering doctorates. This untapped talent has serious consequences for the nation's ability to compete in a world economy driven by technological advances, as well as for a large segment of the nation's citizens who suffer loss of opportunity. This underrepresentation is evident in all sectors: academe, industry, and government. Over the years, both government and private sectors have invested significant resources to increase URM representation in advanced STEM study and careers. While some exemplary programs exist, limited progress has been made overall.
The Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) program is intended to increase significantly the number of students receiving doctoral degrees in the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), with special emphasis on those population groups underrepresented in these fields (i.e., African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, including such students with disabilities). In addition, since lack of role models and mentors in the professoriate constitutes a significant barrier to producing URM STEM graduates, NSF is particularly interested in increasing the number of URMs who will enter the professoriate in these disciplines. Specific objectives of the AGEP program are:
1. to develop and implement innovative models for recruiting, mentoring, and retaining URM students in STEM doctoral and postdoctoral programs and
2. to develop effective strategies for identifying and supporting URMs who want to pursue academic careers.
II. Program Description
The goal of the AGEP program is to increase the number of underrepresented minority (URM) students pursuing advanced study, obtaining doctoral degrees, and entering the professoriate in NSF-supported disciplines. Alliances participating in this program are expected to engage in comprehensive institutional cultural changes that will lead to sustained increases in the conferral of STEM doctoral degrees and placement of URMs in faculty positions, significantly exceeding historic levels of performance.
Informed by multiple NSF-funded evaluations and assessments of the AGEP program as a whole and by discussions with AGEP Principal Investigators and other interested individuals, the NSF has concluded that some modifications to this generally successful program will enable it to fulfill its goals more effectively. Accordingly, to give interested institutions time and support to develop stronger, more innovative and more successful AGEP alliances, NSF plans to solicit proposals and award a series of assessment/evaluation and planning/pilot grants during FY 2011 to be followed by a new cycle of full grants in 2012. Universities that have or have had active AGEP alliances will be eligible for funds to evaluate the success of their programs. Universities that have not had active alliances, or those that wish to form new alliances, may apply for planning/pilot grants.
Planning Grants provide support to undertake the establishment of new strategic alliances that will submit full proposals in the next two years. Planning grants should also research activities and strategies that could be implemented in a proposed project to improve the quality of graduate and postdoctoral STEM education and to increase the number of URM faculty at the institution. Typical activities include: data collection and analysis, stakeholder consultation, research of potential activities and strategies, site visits to model programs, and other activities that would lead to preparation of a proposal for implementation of a new AGEP project. An AGEP grantee institution that applies for a planning grant to form a new alliance should clearly explain its reasons for doing so.
Project Evaluation Grants must have an evaluation plan that is appropriate to the goals of AGEP and the project and explicitly describes the approach that the alliance intends to use in assessing its successes and failures and meeting its strategic objectives. Specific performance indicators and metrics appropriate to the goals of AGEP must be identified and included. Project evaluations should be sufficiently distant from the project to be objective but should be designed to be of most help to the project team pursuant to its responsibilities to the field.
All evaluation projects must have a substantive external expert review mechanism (e.g., evaluator or advisory committee) that provides regular feedback on the project's research methods and progress, analysis procedures, interpretation of data into findings, and dissemination activities. Finally, proposals should describe how evaluation input will be used to shape the subsequent AGEP proposal.
Programs should keep in mind the characteristics expected of AGEP alliances. Alliances consist of two or more doctoral degree granting institutions serving the STEM graduate education needs. One institution must be designated as the lead institution for the project. Institutions in the U.S. and its territories having documented success in translating URM matriculates into degree recipients are strongly encouraged to participate. A single institution may participate in only one alliance. Through the alliance, it is anticipated that the strengths of the respective individual institutions will be maximized to serve AGEP goals. Alliances must be established and developed strategically, and the roles of each partner institution in the alliance must be stated. It is expected that all partner institutions will have substantial roles in the activities under the grant, including the planning, carrying out and assessment of programs and activities. Alliance commitment will be assessed with respect to willingness and ability of participating institutions to align relevant financial and operational resources to the goals articulated by this program. To ensure commitment and the potential for success, the Provost or Graduate Dean of the lead institution should serve as the Principal Investigator (PI). A full explanation should be provided for a PI designation in variance with this agreement.
ACTIVITIES
Activities in support of planning grants may include, but are not limited to:
- Faculty release time to manage and participate in planning activities,
- Involving visiting faculty or consultants in the planning process,
- Consultation with stakeholders (for example students, faculty, administrators, as well as STEM industry representatives) and/or exemplars,
- Data collection,
- STEM program assessment and evaluation,
- Review of STEM education research findings and effective implementation strategies, and adaptation to needs of the participating institutions in the proposed alliance,
- Travel for site visits to exemplar institutions including existing AGEP project sites or other institutions utilizing documented successful practices,
- Professional travel and professional development directly associated with improving the planning grant activities.
Activities in support of evaluation grants may include, but are not limited to:
- Provide a formative evaluation plan (for ongoing projects) with strategies to monitor operations and activities of the project as they evolve and to inform and guide these efforts.
- Describe the criteria to be used in evaluating the quality and impact of the alliance and the process for collecting and analyzing information at the institutions.
- Provide a summative evaluation plan with strategies to assess the effectiveness and impact of the alliance in achieving its goals and for identifying positive and negative findings when the project is completed.
- Include the capability statement and credentials of the external evaluator as supplementary documents.
Under AGEP, NSF intends to support a portfolio of projects that serve as effective models for bringing more URM students through the PhD and into successful careers in the professoriate in NSF-supported fields. Proposals should clearly describe strategies for increasing URM graduate student admissions, for creating supportive environments for these students at both the institutional and departmental levels, for increasing URM entrance into and successful completion of postdoctoral positions, as well as for developing student interest in, preparation for, and entry into academic careers (teaching and other faculty roles). Relevant strategies may include, for example, developing partnerships with undergraduate institutions that produce large numbers of URM STEM majors (e.g., Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs)); providing URM undergraduates with enriched academic and research experiences that place strong emphasis on obtaining doctorates and pursuing academic careers; developing partnerships to facilitate the transition of AGEP graduates through postdoctoral and into faculty positions; and/or developing student networks or mentoring programs at the undergraduate and/or graduate and postdoctoral levels. Projects are also strongly encouraged to develop linkages with Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) projects, which also produce large numbers of URM STEM graduates. The activities described are merely illustrative of the broad range of activities that are possible under AGEP. Project strategies that do not specifically address the AGEP goals will not be considered competitive. The AGEP program stresses the building of a well-documented knowledge base of successful strategies.
DISCIPLINES
Projects involving any of the fields normally supported by NSF are eligible. Projects are expected to be comprehensive, broadly covering STEM departments. All participating departments must be explicitly identified in the proposal. Multiple STEM departments must be involved at AGEP institutions, and additional departments can be transitioned in over the 5-year cooperative agreement.
III. Award Information
Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant
Estimated Number of Awards: 10 to 20. Awards will be made for 1- or 2-years duration, in amounts of up to $150,000.
Anticipated Funding Amount: $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 in FY 2011, pending the availability of funds.
Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.
IV. Eligibility Information
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
Universities and Colleges - Universities colleges accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
Applicant organizations must offer the PhD in at least two fields normally supported by the NSF.
Because AGEP is centered on sustainable institutional changes in graduate education, the Provost or Graduate Dean of the lead Institution should serve as the Principal Investigator. A full explanation should be provided for a PI designation in variance with this requirement. Co-Principal investigators from partner institutions may be designated as appropriate for the project.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 1
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 1
V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.
- Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.
- Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.
In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:
Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.4 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.
B. Budgetary Information
Cost Sharing: Cost sharing is not required under this solicitation.
C. Due Dates
- Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
November 23, 2010
D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
-
For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:
Detailed technical instructions regarding the technical aspects of preparation and submission via FastLane are available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.
Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Further instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp.
- For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide provides additional technical guidance regarding preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.
VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures
Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program where they will be reviewed if they meet NSF proposal preparation requirements. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal.
A. NSF Merit Review Criteria
All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board (NSB)-approved merit review criteria: intellectual merit and the broader impacts of the proposed effort. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
The two NSB-approved merit review criteria are listed below. The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which the reviewer is qualified to make judgements.
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?
Examples illustrating activities likely to demonstrate broader impacts are available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf.
Mentoring activities provided to postdoctoral researchers supported on the project, as described in a one-page supplementary document, will be evaluated under the Broader Impacts criterion.
NSF staff also will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:
Integration of Research and Education
One of the principal strategies in support of NSF's goals is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives.Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities
Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.
B. Review and Selection Process
Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Panel Review.
Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.
After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.
A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.
In all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.
VII. Award Administration Information
A. Notification of the Award
Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)
B. Award Conditions
An NSF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award letter; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1); * or Research Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.
*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
C. Reporting Requirements
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require more frequent project reports). Within 90 days after expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.
Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for that PI. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.
PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on activities and findings, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and contributions. PIs will not be required to re-enter information previously provided, either with a proposal or in earlier updates using the electronic system. Submission of the report via FastLane constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.
VIII. Agency Contacts
Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
-
Jessie A. DeAro, telephone: (703) 292-5350, email: jdearo@nsf.gov
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
- FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: fastlane@nsf.gov.
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
- Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: support@grants.gov.
IX. Other Information
The NSF Website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this Website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, National Science Foundation Update is a free e-mail subscription service designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Regional Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail when new publications are issued that match their identified interests. Users can subscribe to this service by clicking the "Get NSF Updates by Email" link on the NSF web site.
Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this new mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov.
About The National Science Foundation
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."
NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.
NSF receives approximately 40,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.
The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.
The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov
|
Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements
The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Division of Administrative Services
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230
