NSF 19-600: Inclusion Across the Nation of Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science (NSF INCLUDES)
Program Solicitation
Document Information
Document History
- Posted: September 9, 2019
Program Solicitation NSF 19-600
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time): December 03, 2019 July 13, 2020 Important Information And Revision Notes
Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the revised NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 19-1), which is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after February 25, 2019. Summary Of Program RequirementsGeneral InformationProgram Title:
Synopsis of Program:
Contact Information: Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
Award InformationAnticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant Estimated Number of Awards: 20 to 30 An NSF INCLUDES Planning Grant is for 12-16 months in duration and the proposed budget for each Planning Grant must not exceed $100,000. Anticipated Funding Amount: $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 Subject to the quality of proposals received and availability of funds. Eligibility InformationWho May Submit Proposals:
Who May Serve as PI:
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:
Proposal Preparation and Submission InstructionsA. Proposal Preparation Instructions
B. Budgetary Information
C. Due Dates
Proposal Review Information CriteriaMerit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Award Administration InformationAward Conditions: Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply. I. IntroductionDiversity – of perspectives, backgrounds and approaches – is essential for excellence in research and innovation in science and engineering.1 Full participation of all of America's STEM talent is critical to the advancement of science and engineering for national security, health, and prosperity. Women, persons with disabilities, African Americans/Blacks, Hispanic Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, Native Pacific Islanders, and persons from economically disadvantaged backgrounds have been historically under-engaged in various fields of science and engineering across all levels, from preK-12 to long-term workforce participation.2,3 Inclusion of talent from all sectors of American society is necessary for the health and vitality of the science and engineering community and its societal relevance. To broaden participation in STEM, NSF is investing in the development of the NSF INCLUDES National Network, composed of Design and Development Launch Pilots, Alliances, the Coordination Hub, NSF-funded broadening participation projects, other large-scale NSF-funded projects, and other organizations that support the goals of NSF INCLUDES. New networks, systems, partnerships, approaches to using data for change, and a focus on communicating about impact and results at scale are all hallmarks of NSF INCLUDES. The initiative fosters the creation of a collection of exemplars over time for designing, implementing, studying, and refining collaborative change models that are based on collective impact-style approaches, and on networks that support adoption and adaptation at scale. 4,5,6,7 Development of the NSF INCLUDES National Network Design and Development Launch Pilots. NSF INCLUDES began in FY2016 (NSF 16-544) and continued in FY 2017 (NSF 17-522) with the funding of Design and Development Launch Pilots. These two-year projects explored the feasibility of using collaborative change strategies in bold, innovative ways on a limited scale to solve broadening participation challenges in STEM. Coordination Hub. The NSF INCLUDES Coordination Hub was funded in FY 2018 (NSF 17-591). The Coordination Hub leads the development of collaborative infrastructure across the National Network to align NSF INCLUDES activities, establish common metrics and measurement practices and provide support for communication and networking, network assistance and reinforcement, implementation research and evaluation, and visibility and expansion for the NSF INCLUDES National Network as a whole.8 Alliances. In FY 2018, NSF funded the first cohort of NSF INCLUDES Alliances (NSF 18-529), which built upon the achievements of the Design and Development Launch Pilots and have the potential to substantially broaden participation in STEM fields.9,10 Alliances take collaborative change strategies, lessons learned, promising practices, and evidence-based mechanisms from the Design and Development Launch Pilots; the science of broadening participation literature; and the research and evaluations from past and present efforts related to broadening participation in STEM and employ them at a larger scale. Alliances bring together programs, people, organizations, technologies, and institutions to achieve results at scale, provide new research, and leverage NSF’s broadening participation investments. Each Alliance is committed to collectively achieving common goals through a well-defined set of common objectives. The NSF INCLUDES approach requires that each Alliance focus not only on its own vision and goals, but also work with other organizations within the NSF INCLUDES National Network. This work is facilitated through the NSF INCLUDES Coordination Hub. Alliances are also supported by their own independent backbone or support organization. On Ramps. Starting in FY 2017, NSF INCLUDES funded “on ramps” as one element of its multi-faceted approach. These activities represent opportunities for novel approaches in which new and currently-funded NSF projects from across all NSF directorates engage with the NSF INCLUDES National Network. On ramps proposals are submitted through NSF INCLUDES Dear Colleague Letters (NSF 17-111, NSF 19-038, and NSF 19-042) and include Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER), conferences and workshops, and supplements that support the tenets of NSF INCLUDES and provide connections to the NSF INCLUDES National Network. Through this solicitation, NSF INCLUDES will support Planning Grants to build capacity for the development of collaborative infrastructure to: (a) facilitate innovative partnerships, networks, and theories of action for broadening participation in STEM at scale and (b) lead to the establishment of future centers, alliances, or other large-scale networks to address a broadening participation challenge. This solicitation invites submissions from a broad range of diverse institutional partnerships, principal investigators, and contexts. This solicitation is open to all, but NSF INCLUDES Design and Development Launch Pilots are especially encouraged to apply, as a Planning Grant could serve as an intermediate conduit for bringing their exploratory pilot work to scale. Prior NSF INCLUDES support is not required to be eligible for a Planning Grant. A Planning Grant is also not a prerequisite to participate in a future NSF INCLUDES competition.
II. Program DescriptionNSF INCLUDES Planning Grants (Planning Grants) are designed to facilitate and support the development of partnerships and networks, by building capacity for collaborative infrastructure to help prepare competitive proposals that might lead to the establishment of future centers, alliances, or other large-scale networks to address a broadening participation challenge. There are five elements of collaborative infrastructure that are integral to NSF INCLUDES: Shared Vision: NSF INCLUDES projects identify a common agenda that reflects a collective understanding of the broadening participation challenge and links to existing research, promising practices, and/or to the previous and ongoing activities of partnering organizations. Large scale networks and partnerships develop a strategic plan to address the broadening participation challenges, including technical infrastructure, which facilitates the implementation of a set of specified activities to achieve targeted outcomes. Partnerships: NSF INCLUDES projects consist of a set of primary organizations and additional partners that come together locally, regionally, nationally, by disciplinary focus, or by other multisector categories. Partners are supported by an independent “backbone” or support organization to help coordinate and facilitate the collaboration. Goals and Metrics: NSF INCLUDES projects have well-defined relevant goals and measurable objectives and outcomes including progress indicators; they outline the role the "backbone" or support organization plays in collecting and coordinating data on outcomes from the proposed partner institutions. This statement of goals and measurable objectives includes describing the types of data that might be collected and how data will be used. Projects have an evaluation plan that use benchmarks, indicators, logic models, road maps, or other evaluative methods to document progress toward goals, objectives, and outcomes. Leadership and Communication: Projects include internal and external communication plans and explain how they develop leadership capacity within and among all partnering organizations. They describe their strategy to engage participating organizations in change management. Expansion, Sustainability and Scale: Projects include plans that will lead to the expansion, sustainability, and scale of their activities. They describe their overall contribution to broadening participation in the nation's scientific and engineering workforce. For large scale partnerships and networks, a "backbone" or support organization facilitates and sustains these efforts over the long term with support from the NSF INCLUDES Coordination Hub. Proposers funded through this solicitation may use the Planning Grant funding to organize catalytic activities (including, but not limited to, workshops and conferences) that can help collaborating organizations to crystallize their broadening participation vision and to develop one or more of the five NSF INCLUDES design elements of collaborative infrastructure. NSF recognizes that teams may identify an important, complex broadening participation challenge to address, but may not have the full complement of skills and expertise needed to successfully address the challenge through the development of the five NSF INCLUDES design elements of collaborative infrastructure. Planning Grants can be used to support team formation activities (e.g., filling gaps in expertise); develop and nurture relationships with potential partners; and access specialized frameworks or resources needed to better develop one or more aspects of the five NSF INCLUDES design elements of collaborative infrastructure . As a result of planning grant activities, partners should be better equipped to create the collaborative infrastructure needed to address the broadening participation challenge that is identified in the shared vision. Each proposal must explain how the Planning Grant funding will be used to plan for developing the infrastructure necessary to foster collaboration and achieve impact by emphasizing one or more of the five NSF INCLUDES design elements . Funding for Planning Grants may not be used to create or implement interventions. III. Award InformationAnticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant Estimated Number of Awards: 20 to 30 The NSF INCLUDES Planning Grant is for 12-16 months in duration and the proposed budget for each Planning Grant must not exceed $100,000. Anticipated Funding Amount: $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 Subject to the quality of proposals received and availability of funds. IV. Eligibility InformationWho May Submit Proposals:
Who May Serve as PI:
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:
Additional Eligibility Info:
V. Proposal Preparation And Submission InstructionsA. Proposal Preparation InstructionsFull Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via FastLane, Research.gov, or Grants.gov.
See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions. Special instructions for submitting to this Big Idea solicitation FastLane Users: Proposers are reminded to identify the program solicitation number (located on the first page of this document) in the first block on the NSF Cover Sheet. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Please note that even though proposals must be submitted to EHR/HRD, once received the proposals will be managed by a cross-disciplinary team of NSF Program Directors. Research.gov Users: The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number (located on the first page of this document). Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. As stated previously, even though proposals must be submitted to EHR/HRD, once received the proposals will be managed by a cross-disciplinary team of NSF Program Directors. Grants.gov Users: The program solicitation number will be pre-populated by Grants.gov on the NSF Grant Application Cover Page, however you will need to locate the Division Code, Program Code, Division Name, and Program Name for the specific solicitation you are applying to by visiting https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/pgmannounce.jsp. As stated previously, even though proposals must be submitted to EHR/HRD, once received the proposals will be managed by a cross-disciplinary team of NSF Program Directors. NSF INCLUDES Planning Grant proposals must contain the items listed below and adhere strictly to the specified page limitations. No additional information may be provided as an appendix or by links to Web pages. Figures and tables must be included within the applicable page limit (described below). Planning Grant proposals that are not compliant with these guidelines will be returned without review. No separately submitted collaborative proposals will be accepted. Title of Proposed Project: The title should begin with “NSF INCLUDES Planning Grant:” followed by the rest of the title. Project Summary (1 page): The Project Summary must be prepared in accordance with the guidance in the PAPPG and individually address the project’s Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts, with the following supplemental guidance: The Overview Section should include the broadening participation challenge to be addressed. Project Description (maximum 6 pages total): In addition to separate sections labeled "Intellectual Merit" and "Broader Impacts" as required by the PAPPG, the Project Description must contain the following sections:
Shared Vision: All NSF INCLUDES projects identify a broadening participation challenge(s) and vision for effecting change. If the Planning Grant is to focus on developing a shared vision, proposers must include a description of how the Planning Grant would help to:
Partnerships: NSF INCLUDES projects with large-scale partnerships and networks consist of a set of primary organizations, additional partners, and an independent “backbone” or support organization to support the collaboration. If the Planning Grant is to focus on developing partnerships, proposers must include a description of how the Planning Grant would help to:
Goals and Metrics: NSF INCLUDES projects with large-scale partnerships and networks have relevant goals and measurable objectives and use their "backbone" or support organization to collect and coordinate data on outcomes from partners. If the Planning Grant is to focus on developing goals and metrics, proposers must include a description of how the Planning Grant would help to:
Leadership and Communication: NSF INCLUDES projects with large-scale partnerships and networks require internal and external communication plans and have plans to develop capacity for leadership within and among all partnering organizations. If the Planning Grant is to focus on developing leadership and communication, proposers must include a description of how the Planning Grant would help to:
Expansion, Sustainability and Scale: NSF INCLUDES projects with large-scale partnerships and networks have a plan that will lead to the expansion, sustainability, and scale of their activities. If the Planning Grant is to focus on developing the potential for expansion, sustainability, and scale, proposers must include a description of how the Planning Grant would help to:
Deviation from the PAPPG: Proposers are not required to include the results from prior NSF support in the Project Description. References Cited (maximum 3 pages): See PAPPG for format guidelines. Biographical Sketches (2-page limit for each): See PAPPG for guidelines. Should be included for the PI and up to four co-PIs responsible for managing the Planning Grant. Budget: Budget justification should explain how the budget allocation supports the overall goals of the Planning Grant. Reviewers will closely examine all allowable expenses such as salary/wages, materials and supplies, travel, and participant support costs for planned workshops. Proposal budgets should include travel funds to support one PI or co-PI to attend two NSF-sponsored meetings in the Washington DC area. Funds are not allowed for student support or to implement intervention programs. The Planning Grant duration is for a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 16 months and the maximum budget for each Planning Grant is $100,000. Data Management Plan: Proposals must include a supplementary document of no more than two pages labeled "Data Management Plan." This supplementary document should describe how the proposal will conform to NSF policy on the dissemination and sharing of project results. See Chapter II.C.2.j of the PAPPG for full policy implementation. For additional information on the Dissemination and Sharing of Research Results, and for specific guidance for Data Management Plans please consult https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp. Letters of Collaboration: Proposals must include letters of collaboration from major collaborating organizations involved in the Planning Grant. Unless required by the PAPPG, no other items, appendices, supplementary documents are permitted: If any supplementary documents and appendices are submitted, the planning grant proposal will be returned without review. B. Budgetary InformationCost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. C. Due Dates
D. FastLane/Research.gov/Grants.gov RequirementsFor Proposals Submitted Via FastLane or Research.gov:
For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
Proposers that submitted via FastLane or Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application. VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review ProceduresProposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. 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 either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with 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. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1. A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/. Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Building the Future: Investing in Discovery and Innovation - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2018 – 2022. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities. One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning. NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which 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. A. Merit Review Principles and CriteriaThe National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects. 1. Merit Review Principles These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities. These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent. 2. Merit Review Criteria All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities. The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal. When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:
The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:
Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education. Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate. Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria In addition to the standard NSF Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts Criteria, reviewers will be asked if the proposal addresses the following questions with meaningful explanations and compelling rationale:
B. Review and Selection ProcessProposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. 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 strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation. 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. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform 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. Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, 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. VII. Award Administration InformationA. Notification of the AwardNotification 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 ConditionsAn NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, 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 notice; (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 notice. 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) 292-8134 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 Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. Special Award Conditions: Grantees will be required to include appropriate acknowledgment of NSF support under NSF INCLUDES in any publication (including World Wide Web pages) of any material based on or developed under the project, in the following terms: "This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation NSF INCLUDES Big Idea under Grant No. (Grantee enters NSF grant number.)" Grantees also will be required to orally acknowledge NSF support using the language specified above during all news media interviews, including popular media such as radio, television and news magazines. C. Reporting RequirementsFor all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following 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 all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. 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 Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also 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. More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. VIII. Agency ContactsPlease 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:
For questions related to the use of FastLane or Research.gov, contact:
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
IX. Other InformationThe 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, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system 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 Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website. Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov. About The National Science FoundationThe 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 55,000 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 (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.E.6 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.
Privacy Act And Public Burden StatementsThe 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 System of Record Notices, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records.” 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 |
