1.5 For each of the following, how much advice did you get from NSF staff when you were preparing your grant proposal:

		MARK ONE FOR EACH
		A Great Deal	Some	Not Much	None At All
a.	The amount of funding.............	12%	27%	17%	43%
b.	The duration of the grant proposal.................................	11%	21%	16%	51%
c.	The substance or focus of the grant......................................	7%	25%	19%	49%

1.6 Based on the advice provided by NSF staff, did you increase, not change, or decrease:

		Increase		Not Change	Decrease	Not Asked
a.	The amount of the award you proposed.......................................		4%	36%	27%	31%
b.	The award duration you proposed....		3%	58%	6%	31%

SECTION 2

As part of the review process, NSF may ask principal investigators to revise their proposal before they are awarded funding. The following questions are about your revised budget and award duration.

ONLY ANSWER Q2.1 IF #5 AMOUNT CHANGE >5% IS LABELED “YES.” See inside cover.

2.1 In your proposal, you requested [#3 REQUESTED AMOUNT] and in your award you received [#4 AWARDED AMOUNT].

Overall, how much will this change in the award amount impact your ability to do what you expected to accomplish with this 2001 NSF grant?

mark one

1% Can do a great deal more than expected

2% Can do somewhat more than expected

7% Can do about the same as expected

28% Can do somewhat less than expected

15% Can do a great deal less than expected

1% Don’t know

47% Not asked

ONLY ANSWER Q2.2 IF #8 DURATION CHANGE >1 YEAR IS LABELED “YES.” See inside cover.

(IF BOTH #5 AMOUNT CHANGE >5% AND #8 DURATION CHANGE >1 YEAR ARE LABELED “NO,” PLEASE SKIP TO SECTION 3).

2.2 In your proposal, you requested [#6 REQUESTED DURATION] and in your award you received [#7 AWARDED DURATION].

Overall, how much will this change in award duration impact your ability to do what you expected to accomplish with this 2001 NSF grant?

mark one

1% Can do a great deal more than expected

1% Can do somewhat more than expected

1% Can do about the same as expected

4% Can do somewhat less than expected

5% Can do a great deal less than expected

88% Not asked

IF YOU RESPONDED AS 6 “CAN’T ANSWER” OR -1 “DON’T KNOW” TO BOTH Q2.1 AND Q2.2, PLEASE SKIP TO SECTION 3.

ONLY ANSWER Q2.3 IF YOU PROVIDED A RESPONSE OF 1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5 TO EITHER Q2.1 OR Q2.2.

2.3 The following are some possible consequences of the changes in your NSF award funding and/or duration. Will this change have a positive impact, no impact, or negative impact on your ability to ...

		Positive Impact	No Impact	Negative Impact	Not Applicable	Not Asked
A. Goals and Objectives
a.	Pursue innovative ideas.............................................................	4%	25%	23%	1%	47%
b.	Pursue high-risk ideas..............................................................	3%	20%	26%	4%	47%
c.	Obtain other funding.................................................................	6%	35%	6%	5%	47%
B. Applications and Outcomes
d.	Disseminate research findings...................................................	4%	32%	17%	1%	47%
e.	Develop instrumentation or other enhancements for the research and education infrastructure......................................................	2%	17%	20%	13%	47%
f.	Develop partnerships with industry, other educational institutions, or national laboratories..............................................................	3%	26%	13%	11%	47%
g.	Integrate research activity into your teaching and training.............	4%	27%	18%	4%	47%
h.	Nurture connections between research activity and its potential for: health benefits, economic benefits, and national security benefits...................................................................................	2%	24%	10%	16%	47%
i.	Develop programs with K‑12 teachers and/or students.................	1%	23%	7%	22%	47%
j.	Improve public understanding of the project.................................	3%	31%	11%	9%	47%
C. Process and Team Building
k.	Collaborate with researchers in your area of research..................	5%	21%	26%	1%	47%
l.	Broaden participation of under-represented groups in the research activity....................................................................................	3%	27%	18%	6%	47%
m.	Collaborate with researchers in different areas of research............	4%	25%	21%	3%	47%
n.	Achieve the research objectives within the specified time.............	4%	14%	34%	1%	47%
o.	Obtain quality personnel...........................................................	3%	17%	28%	4%	47%
p.	Establish mentoring or other research-based education activities..	3%	23%	21%	5%	47%
D. Research Tools							4%	47%
q.	Access state-of-the-art equipment.............................................	2%	28%	17%	6%	47%
r.	Access facilities.......................................................................	2%	34%	10%	6%	47%

SKIP Q2.4a IF NO POSITIVE ITEMS IN Q2.3

2.4a Among the items you marked “Positive Impact,” please rank order (write in the number(s)), up to three, those that had the most positive impact.

SKIP Q2.4b IF NO NEGATIVE ITEMS IN Q2.3

2.4b Among the items you marked “Negative Impact,” please rank order (write in the number(s)), up to three, those that had the most negative impact.

2.5 Please describe any other impact(s) that resulted from the change in your 2001 NSF award or give more details on any in the list that need further explanation.

SECTION 3

The next group of questions is your assessment of how this grant fits into your ongoing body of research and educational activities.

· Our records indicate that your 2001 NSF grant is for $[#4 AWARDED AMOUNT] over a period of [#7 AWARDED DURATION] Years. See inside cover.

3.1 Thinking about the timeframe for your ongoing body of research and educational activities, about how many additional years do you think you would need to accomplish your key goals?

· DO NOT include the years for the 2001 NSF grant

· Enter “0” for “Do not need any additional years”

Median=2

Mean=3

Mode=2

Range: 0 to 40

3.2 If you think about your ongoing body of research and educational activities as 100 percent of what you’d like to accomplish in the next five years, about what percent of what you’d like to do will be achieved with your 2001 NSF research grant?

Median=30

Mean=37

Mode=20

Range: 0 to 100

Now, speculate on what changes, if any, you would need to accomplish all you would like to in the next five years.

3.3 In the next five years, how much additional funding from all sources, if any, would you need to achieve what you would like to with your ongoing body of research and educational activities?

· Exclude funding you currently have for this NSF grant and from any other funding sources

· Enter “0” for “Do not need any additional funding”

Median=$500,000

Mean=$1,149,000

Mode=$500,000

Range: $0 to $300,000,000

IF YOU DO NOT NEED ADDITIONAL FUNDING OR DON’T KNOW, SKIP TO Q3.6.

3.4 What percent of this additional amount do you think is appropriate for NSF to fund?

Median=70%

Mean=67%

Mode=100%

Range: 0% to 100%

3.5 About how many additional grants do you think you would need to get this funding?

Median=2

Mean=2.39

Mode=2

Range: 0 to 32

ONLY ANSWER Q3.6 IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL YEARS (Q3.1) AND/OR ADDITIONAL FUNDING (Q3.3).

IF YOU RESPONDED “0” OR “DON’T KNOW” TO Q3.1 AND Q3.3, SKIP TO SECTION 4.

3.6 If NSF provided this additional funding and/or duration to support your ongoing research and educational activities, would there be a positive impact, no impact, or a negative impact on each of the following:

		Positive Impact	No Impact	Negative Impact	Not Applicable	Not Asked
A. Goals and Objectives
1.	Pursue innovative ideas.............................................................	87%	2%	<1%	<1%	10%
2.	Pursue high-risk ideas..............................................................	76%	9%	<1%	4%	10%
3.	Obtain other funding.................................................................	54%	26%	5%	3%	10%
B. Applications and Outcomes
4.	Disseminate research findings...................................................	74%	14%	<1%	1%	10%
5.	Develop instrumentation or other enhancements for the research and education infrastructure......................................................	61%	16%	<1%	13%	10%
6.	Develop partnerships with industry, other educational institutions, or national laboratories..............................................................	62%	19%	<1%	8%	10%
7.	Integrate research activity into your teaching and training.............	73%	13%	<1%	2%	10%
8.	Nurture connections between research activity and its potential for: health benefits, economic benefits, and national security benefits...................................................................................	48%	24%	<1%	16%	10%
9.	Develop programs with K‑12 teachers and/or students.................	32%	36%	<1%	20%	10%
10.	Improve public understanding of the project.................................	58%	25%	<1%	5%	10%
C. Process and Team Building
11.	Collaborate with researchers in your area of research..................	83%	6%	<1%	<1%	10%
12.	Broaden participation of under-represented groups in the research activity....................................................................................	62%	23%	<1%	3%	10%
13.	Collaborate with researchers in different areas of research............	76%	12%	<1%	2%	10%
14.	Achieve the research objectives within the specified time.............	83%	6%	<1%	1%	10%
15.	Obtain quality personnel...........................................................	76%	9%	<1%	3%	10%
16.	Establish mentoring or other research-based education activities..	71%	14%	<1%	3%	10%
D. Research Tools
17.	Access state-of-the-art equipment.............................................	60%	22%	<1%	7%	10%
18.	Access facilities.......................................................................	49%	32%	<1%	8%	10%

SKIP Q3.7a IF NO POSITIVE ITEMS IN Q3.6

3.7a Among the items you marked “Positive Impact,” please rank order (write in the number(s)), up to three, those that had the most positive impact.

SKIP Q3.7b IF NO NEGATIVE ITEMS IN Q3.6

3.7b Among the items you marked “Negative Impact,” please rank order (write in the number(s)), up to three, those that had the most negative impact.

3.8 Please describe any other impact(s) that would result if NSF provided you what you need for what you want to accomplish, or give more details on any in the list that needs further explanation:

3.9 If you received this additional funding and/or duration from NSF that you need for your ongoing body of research and educational activities, how likely would you increase each of the following?

MARK ONE FOR EACH

Very

Likely

Somewhat

Likely

Neither

Likely

Nor

Unlikely

Somewhat

Unlikely

Very

Unlikely

Not

Applicable

Not

Asked

Personnel

The number and/or months of senior personnel.....................................

29%

21%

13%

10%

The number and/or months of post doctoral associates........................

43%

22%

10%

The number and/or months of technicians..............................................

15%

14%

16%

19%

10%

The number and/or months of programmers..........................................

11%

14%

19%

24%

10%

The number and/or months of graduate students...................................

70%

11%

10%

The number and/or months of undergraduate students..........................

45%

26%

10%

Equipments

The number of equipment purchases.....................................................

33%

31%

11%

10%

The quality of equipment purchases........................................................

28%

22%

20%

10%

Travel

The number of trips..................................................................................

29%

32%

18%

10%

10.

The cost per trip.......................................................................................

36%

11%

29%

10%

Experiments

11.

The number of experiments, tests, subjects...........................................

49%

14%

20%

10%

12.

The size of the experiments or tests.......................................................

30%

17%

14%

22%

10%

13.

The quality of the experiments or tests....................................................

36%

13%

20%

10%

Other Direct Costs

14.

Participant support...................................................................................

21%

18%

19%

10%

16%

10%

15.

Consultant services.................................................................................

10%

19%

23%

22%

10%

16.

Computer/Publication costs....................................................................

16%

28%

21%

11%

10%

17.

Other (Please Specify)............................................................................

27% gave a response

3.10 Among the items you are “Very Likely” to increase, rank order (write in the numbers), up to three, those that would have the most impact on what you want to accomplish.

3.11 And, if you received this additional funding and/or duration from NSF that you need for your ongoing research and educational activities, would your ability to do each of the following be:

		MARK ONE FOR EACH
		Increased A Great Deal	Increased Somewhat	About the Same	Decreased Somewhat	Decreased A Great Deal	Not Applicable	Not Asked
a.	Recruit post doctoral associates.......................................	47%	23%	8%	<1%	<1%	9%	10%
b.	Recruit graduate students.................................................	56%	23%	6%	<1%	<1%	4%	10%
c.	Recruit undergraduate students........................................	27%	31%	24%	<1%	<1%	6%	10%
d.	Provide adequate support for a graduate student to shorten time to degree.................................................................	29%	26%	25%	<1%	<1%	8%	10%
e.	Provide stability for technicians........................................	17%	15%	13%	<1%	<1%	42%	10%
f.	Provide stability for programmers......................................	8%	9%	14%	<1%	<1%	57%	10%
g.	Conduct more experiments, tests or subjects.....................	42%	22%	5%	<1%	<1%	19%	10%
h.	Have higher-quality experiments or tests............................	31%	22%	16%	<1%	<1%	20%	10%
i.	Duration of experiments...................................................	17%	19%	24%	1%	1%	26%	10%
j.	Other (Please Specify)....................................................

29% gave a response

3.12 Thinking about all the different aspects of what you would like to accomplish, which of the following would have the greatest impact on your ongoing body of research and educational activities:

mark one

54% More funding

35% Longer duration

10% Not asked

SECTION 4

The following are questions about NSF funding and your general field of research.

4.1 In your opinion, if NSF increased the funding and the duration of the awards in your field of research, how likely would these changes …?

		MARK ONE FOR EACH
		Very Likely	Somewhat Likely	Neither Likely Nor Unlikely	Somewhat Unlikely	Very Unlikely	Not Applicable
a.	Widen the focus of the research in your field......	63%	28%	7%	1%	1%	<1%
b.	Increase the number of proposals to NSF with innovative ideas.................................................	46%	35%	13%	3%	1%	1%
c.	Increase the number of proposals to NSF with high-risk ideas..................................................	37%	38%	17%	4%	2%	2%
d.	Attract more established researchers to apply for NSF funding......................................................	37%	31%	23%	4%	2%	2%
e.	Decrease the amount of time to answer research questions..........................................................	31%	32%	20%	6%	6%	4%
f.	Attract more graduate students...........................	65%	26%	6%	<1%	<1%	2%
g.	Attract better graduate students..........................	62%	25%	8%	1%	<1%	2%
h.	Improve access to facilities and databases..........	36%	34%	20%	1%	1%	7%
i.	Decrease interruptions in funding.......................	70%	23%	4%	<1%	<1%	1%

4.2 If NSF had more money to award each year, please rank in descending order of importance from (1) most important to (3) least important, the following possible actions for awards in your area of research:

rank order 1^st2^nd3^rd

Increase only the amount of funding per award................................... 40% 36% 23%

Increase only the length of time per award.......................................... 24% 37% 38%

Increase only the total number of awards per year.............................. 36% 26% 37%

NSF is considering increasing the amount and duration available for grants. Think about how these potential changes would impact how your institution applies for and administers NSF grants.

4.1 If NSF had more money to award each year, please rank from most important (1) to least important (3), the following possible actions for awards to your institution.

mark one
Ranking
1	2	3
44%	38%	13%	Increase only the amount of funding per award
9%	23%	62%	Increase only the duration per award
50%	30%	17%	Increase only the total number of awards per year

4.2 Overall, if NSF made each of the following changes, would it increase, decrease, or not make any difference in the administrative time your institution uses to mange all aspects of NSF awards?

		Increase Time Needed		Decrease Time Needed	No Difference in Time Needed
a.	Increasing the amount of funding for NSF awards................................................................		12%	7%	81%
b.	Increasing the duration of NSF awards...........		42%	24%	33%
c.	Increasing the total number of NSF awards....		86%	--%	14%

4.3 In your opinion, what, if any, would be the 2 or 3 most significant changes for your institution if NSF increased the average dollar amount for each grant award?

4.4 Now, what, if any, would be the 2 or 3 most significant changes for your institution if NSF increased the average duration for each grant award?

4.5 Please outline any suggestions you have for NSF changes that would result in a reduction of the amount of time and resources used by your institution to manage NSF grants.

The following questions are about the process of negotiating grant proposal revisions.

2.1 Does your institution have a formal, standardized process that is followed to negotiate grant proposal revisions?

65% Yes

34% No

2.2 Are there specific individuals or administrative offices assigned to work with grant proposal revisions?

· Do not include principal investigators

85% Yes

14% No SKIP TO Q2.4a

2.3 What is the total number of each of the following assigned to grant proposal revisions:

| | | individuals Median=3 Mean=4 Mode=2

| | | administrative offices Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1

2.4a In the grid below, please identify, up to five, the key administrative offices at your institution involved in the proposal revision process for grants.

· Do not include individual academic departments or research centers

2.4b For each office, please give your best estimate of the average number of hours individuals in that office spent on a typical FY 2001 NSF grant proposal revision.

Administrative Office	Average Number of Hours Per NSF Grant Proposal Revision
	Median=1 Mean=3 Mode=1
	Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1
	Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1
	Median=2 Mean=5 Mode=1
	Median=7 Mean=7 Mode=*	*No value calculated

2.5 For a typical NSF grant that your institution is awarded, approximately how many hours are spent communicating directly with NSF on revisions to the original proposal?

· Do not include principal investigator hours

| | | | average number of hours per nsf grant

Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1

NSF is considering increasing the amount and duration available for grants. Think about how these potential changes would impact how your institution applies for and administers NSF grants.

4.1 If NSF had more money to award each year, please rank from most important (1) to least important (3), the following possible actions for awards to your institution.

mark one
Ranking
1	2	3
36%	39%	12%	Increase only the amount of funding per award
6%	28%	52%	Increase only the duration per award
46%	20%	21%	Increase only the total number of awards per year

4.2 Overall, if NSF made each of the following changes, would it increase, decrease, or not make any difference in the administrative time your institution uses to mange all aspects of NSF awards?

		Increase Time Needed		Decrease Time Needed	No Difference in Time Needed
a.	Increasing the amount of funding for NSF awards................................................................		17%	5%	77%
b.	Increasing the duration of NSF awards...........		41%	20%	38%
c.	Increasing the total number of NSF awards....		85%	1%	14%

4.3 In your opinion, what, if any, would be the 2 or 3 most significant changes for your institution if NSF increased the average dollar amount for each grant award?

4.4 Now, what, if any, would be the 2 or 3 most significant changes for your institution if NSF increased the average duration for each grant award?

4.5 Please outline any suggestions you have for NSF changes that would result in a reduction of the amount of time and resources used by your institution to manage NSF grants.

APPENDIX D – A

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR SURVEY - VERBATIM RESPONSE CODING FRAME

Q.2.5 Please describe any other impact(s) that resulted from the change in your 2001 NSF award or give more details on any in the list that need further explanation.

A. Goals and Objectives

101. Reduced project scope

102. Reduced data quality

103. Reduced lab analysis

104. Reduced field work

105. Delayed start of project

106. Slower rate of project progress

107. Elimination of follow-on work

108. Possible project termination

109. Increased ability to travel

110. Increased project scope

111. Increased research efforts

112. Increased rate of project progress

113. Reduced time/rushed results

114. Reduced duration of research

115. Reduction in high-risk projects

B. Applications and Outcomes

No other impacts have been identified that differed from those already listed in section 2.3B of the survey.

C. Process and Team Building

301. Ability to recruit/retain staff

302. Staff eliminated

303. Salaries reduced

304. Advisor involvement curtailed

305. Team morale harmed

306. Travel reduced

307. Increased time spent on seeking funding rather than research

308. Increased time spent on other projects to generate income

309. Project continuity jeopardized

310. Training curtailed

311. Increased ability to concentrate on project/research

312. Enabled to develop more effective international collaborations

313. Eliminated collaboration with other scientists

314. Enabled to hire more students (under grads, minority)

315. Increased community interaction (teachers, schools)

D. Research Tools

401. Ability to purchase supplies and equipment

402. Limited funding to cover emergencies/equipment repairs

403. General increase in funding

E. No Impact/Impact Unknown

501. No additional impact

502. Minor impact only

503. Too early to determine impact

504. No impact because funding cut was compensated by another institution

F. Other

601. Possible termination of relationship with NSF

Q.3.8 Please describe any other impact(s) that would result if NSF provided you what you need for what you want to accomplish, or give more details on any in the list that needs further explanation.

B. Goals and Objectives

101. Expand planned project scope

102. Research new ideas/information discovered during planned research (innovative/high risk)

103. Improve data quality

104. Increase data analysis

105. Increase amount of field work

106. Faster rate of project progress

107. Pursue longer-term projects

108. Without NSF support my research would never have been supported/continue

B. Applications and Outcomes

201. Improve dissemination:

Web-site development
Publishing
Conference/meeting attendance

202. Enhanced integration of research with education

203. Development of new course material

204. Conservation

205. Enhance national and international public health

206. Positive impact on reputation of institution

207. Positive career impact/tenure for PI

208. Increase public outreach

209. Increase technology transfer to underdeveloped countries

210. Lend credibility to project

211. Keep up with inflation

212. Implementation and commercialization of research results

213. Maintain competitiveness within international scientific community

214. Positive agricultural implications

215. Enhanced possibility of developing patents

216. Specific description of a scientific advance

217. Increased interaction/collaboration with colleagues/peers/other scientists

218. NSF grant increases my ability to receive matching funds from other sources

C. Process and Team Building

301. Ability to recruit/retain staff

302. Increase travel

303. Decrease time spent on seeking funding; increase time spent on research

304. If a larger grant were to be given rather than multiple smaller ones, less time would be spent on administrative activities.

305. Increased ability to mentor women and minority students

306. Increasing duration of grant would better correlate with the length of time needed for a student to earn a graduate degree.

307. Improve productivity/continuity of project with less staff turnover

308. Improve student productivity by funding them as Research Assistants

instead of as Teaching Assistants.

309. Increased ability to attract bright, quality, graduate and post doctorate students/ability to encourage/excite scientists of the future

D. Research Tools

401. Increase ability to purchase supplies and equipment

402. Establish separate course and research labs possible

403. New methodologies for research/experimentation

404. Establish research facilities

E. No Impact

501. No additional impact

502. Question is not applicable

Q.5.14 Questionnaires by their nature are limited. Please write in any other comments you have about your experiences with the NSF grant process that you think are important.

A. General Award Comments

101. NSF is the only source of funding for the particular type of project

102. Project would not have been possible but for NSF funding

103. NSF funding enabled a new area of research within a program

104. NSF funding allows researchers more flexibility than other agencies

105. NSF funding enables more fundamental research rather than applied research only

106. NSF funding helped the investigator’s career

107. NSF funding enabled more funding to be obtained

108. Funding for new scientists should be facilitated

109. Funding of international projects is excellent

110. There should be an award appeal process

111. More awards should be given, even if that would necessitate smaller grants

112. Non-US citizens should be able to be supported by awards

113. Program directors should have term limits

114. Program directors should not rotate for improved continuity

115. More focus should be placed on research programs than individual projects

116. Individual awards should not be eliminated in favor of awards to larger groups

117. More graduate student scholarships should be given

118. The CAREER program emphasizes teaching too heavily

119. Valuable to have teaching/training incorporated with research

120. NSF should have a larger total budget

121. NSF budget cuts during projects are problematic

122. Require more funding of international projects

123. Funding for new scientists is satisfactory

124. Probability of receiving NSF grants is low

B. Award Size

201. Grant size should be larger

202. Grant size should not be larger to allow more researchers to receive grants

203. Perceived disparity regarding size of grants awarded within different programs

204. Principle Investigators deliberately request larger budgets in anticipation of reduction in award

205. Award size is not keeping up with inflation

206. Award size is not keeping up with growing costs of conducting research

207. Award size is not keeping up with scientists’ now-higher standard of living

208. Additional funding needed for more students

209. Additional funding needed for publication and dissemination of results

210. Additional funding needed for equipment

211. Additional funding needed for technical support

212. Overhead should not be included in awards but handled separately

213. Salary-release funding should be included in awards

214. Grant should cover summer salaries

215. Grant should not cover summer salaries

216. Grant amount should be smaller

217. Receiving funding for smaller projects is difficult

218. Funding for new scientists is good/satisfactory

219. Additional funding for information management is needed

220. Need for more starter grants

C. Award Duration

301. Grant duration should be longer

302. Grant duration should remain shorter to allow more researchers to receive grants

303. 3 years is not enough time to complete project

304. 2-3 years is not enough time for a graduate student to complete his/her degree

305. Longer award duration is better as it provides more stability and ability to plan ahead

306. Projects with shorter term awards lose research assistants, who seek projects with longer-term funding.

307. Impossible to define a finite end to research, so cannot determine how much award duration should be increased

308. Difficult to maintain program continuity with breaks in funding

309. No-cost extensions are useful

310. Award renewals should be facilitated

311. Grant duration should be shorter

D. Proposal Process

401. Smaller award size requires more time to be spent on proposal preparation

402. Excessive amounts of time required for proposal preparation

403. Reasonable amounts of time required for proposal preparation

404. Increased program officer involvement is needed

405. Program officer involvement was satisfactory/helpful

406. NSF should require justification for any proposal not including student involvement

407. Investigators must promise more than can be delivered in proposals

408. The proposal process is becoming too competitive to be a cost-effective way to obtain funding.

409. Investigator uncertain of the criteria used to determine a fundable proposal

410. Page limit of proposals should be increased

411. Proposal deadlines are inappropriate for the field season

412. Investigators should be allowed to submit proposals to more than one organization.

413. NSF should increase the number of proposal due dates to help eliminate funding gaps.

414. NSF should not put so much emphasis on inclusion of outreach and/or elementary education activities in proposals

415. Multiple submissions for the same project is draining/a waste

416. Proposal process is beneficial to clarify goals

417. Must have results in hand in order to be funded

E. Review Process

501. Reviews do not enable multidiscipline work

502. Reviews enable multidiscipline work

503. Panel review should not replace mail review

504. Investigators should be able to respond to review feedback.

505. Reviewers should be made more accountable for their reviews

506. Some reviewers appear unqualified

507. Some reviewers appear not to be conscientious in their efforts

508. Award decisions are risk-averse

509. Award decisions support risky projects

510. Reviewers are too influenced by requested budget

511. Reviews should be completed in a shorter timeframe

512. Review completion timeframe was satisfactory

513. Publication of books as well as peer-reviewed articles should be considered

514. Too much delay between notification of award and the time when funds actually became available.

515. Investigators should be notified that they did not receive an award in time to resubmit for the next deadline.

516. More information should be provided on the details of how a panel arrives at its decision.

517. Reviewer comments were inappropriate

518. Investigators should not be penalized for already having another grant

519. Peer review process is satisfactory

520. Reviewer(s) who review an initial proposal should also review resubmissions

521. Reviewers should focus on conceptual aspects of the proposal only

522. Past results from awards should not be considered

523. Past results from awards should be considered more

524. Review process is overly political/biased; more anonymity with respect to researchers (names, salaries) reviewers favor colleagues’ interests

525. Rating system appears arbitrary and ratings assigned by reviewers are given too much consideration by project managers

526. Review process needs improvement (not further specified)

527. Review panel participants should be changed periodically

528. Larger and/or more prestigious institutions/universities are favored in reviews

F. Award Administration

601. FASTLANE is satisfactory/convenient

602. FASTLANE is improved

603. FASTLANE is difficult/inconvenient

604. The paper process is preferred over the automated process

605. Satisfaction with NSF grant officer

606. Annual report should be required after rather than prior to the end of the first year

607. Administration workload is too heavy

G. Communication between NSF and Investigators

701. Open workshops are very helpful

702. More guidance on determining appropriate funding levels is needed

703. NSF’s main web site is difficult to navigate

704. An on-line chat site should be available where investigators can post questions concerning the proposal preparation process.

705. New scientists need more assistance with budget formulation

706. More feedback is needed on annual reports

707. Means for providing anonymous feedback regarding program officers should be made available to PIs.

708. More orientation is needed for new awardees

709. Workshops should be held for writing and managing proposals

710. Researchers should receive annual updates indicating NSF’s targeted areas of support.

711. Investigators need more assistance/guidance overall

H. Survey Feedback

801. The number of articles co-authored should be considered in addition to number of articles where the PI is the primary author, since many PIs allow students to be listed first.

802. The number of books authored should also be considered

803. Survey respondents should be provided with a summary of survey responses

804. The survey is too long

805. Survey is not easily applicable to the respondent’s project

806. Overall satisfaction with NSF grant

I. No Additional Comments

[1] Cochran, WG (1977) Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

A-5

January 2001	NSF Director Dr. Rita R. Colwell sends PIs e-mail message announcing the survey.
January 30, 2002	MPR begins sending PI e-mail invitations with Web site access username and password on a rolling schedule.
February 4-19, 2002	MPR sends e-mail remiders to non-responders on a 3 day schedule.
February 15, 2002	MPR sends questionnaire mail packets to 778 PIs who have responded to the Web questionnaire.
March 8, 2002	Deadline for data collection

Original PI grants in NSF data file	6,180
PIs with multiple grants randomly selected a single grant for the survey (375) or questionable grant information (12)	5,793
Total completes and partials	5,221
Cases screened out during quality assurance process for criteria such as inconsistent grant award or duration information	232
Total cases used for analysis	4,989

January 2001	NSF Director Dr. Rita R. Colwell sends institution presidents an e-mail message announcing the two surveys.
January 24, 2002	MPR sends e-mail messages to institution contact people identified on the NSF data file to identify the appropriate person to participate in the survey.
February 15-March 6, 2002	Questionnaire mail packets are sent as institutional representatives contact information is identified.
March 8-30, 2002	MPR contacts non-responders in the institution sample by phone and e-mail.
March 30, 2002	All data collection is completed.

Total institutions with 2001 NSF grant recipients	582
No contact information	60
Total number with contact information	471(total); 105 (sample)
Total questionnaires returned	369 (total); 95 (sample)
Questionnaires not acceptable after quality assurance	359 (total); 95 (sample)

#1	Grant Title	__________________________________
#2	Grant Effective Date	__________________________________
#3	Requested Amount	__________________________________
#4	Awarded Amount	__________________________________
#5	Amount Change 5% or Greater	__________________________________
#6	Requested Duration	__________________________________
#7	Awarded Duration	__________________________________
#8	Duration Change 1 Year or Greater	__________________________________

C. SAMPLE APPROACH

1. Principal Investigator Survey

2. Institutional Survey

Q.2.5 Please describe any other impact(s) that resulted from the change in your 2001 NSF award or give more details on any in the list that need further explanation.

A. Goals and Objectives

B. Applications and Outcomes

D. Research Tools

F. Other

Q.3.8 Please describe any other impact(s) that would result if NSF provided you what you need for what you want to accomplish, or give more details on any in the list that needs further explanation.

B. Goals and Objectives

B. Applications and Outcomes

D. Research Tools

Q.5.14 Questionnaires by their nature are limited. Please write in any other comments you have about your experiences with the NSF grant process that you think are important.

A. General Award Comments

B. Award Size

C. Award Duration

D. Proposal Process

E. Review Process

F. Award Administration

G. Communication between NSF and Investigators

H. Survey Feedback

APPENDIX E - A

	Number of Institutions
Strata	Sample Size	Equal Size Strata	Square Root Algorithm	Cube Root Algorithm
1	20	116	269	197
2	20	116	154	159
3	20	116	79	106
4	20	117	47	70
5	20	117	33	50
Half-Width of 95% Confidence Interval		0.098	0.115	0.100

Administrative Office	Average Number of Hours Per NSF Grant Proposal
	Median=4 Mean=6 Mode=1
	Median=2 Mean=4 Mode=1
	Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1
	Median=3 Mean=10 Mode=1
	Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1

Administrative Office	Average Number of Hours Per NSF Grant Proposal Revision
	Median=2 Mean=3 Mode=1
	Median=1 Mean=2 Mode=1
	Median=1 Mean=1 Mode=1
	Median=1 Mean=3 Mode=1
	Median=0 Mean=<1 Mode=1

Administrative Office	Average Number of Hours Per NSF Grant Administration
	Median=8 Mean=21 Mode=5
	Median=5 Mean=10 Mode=1
	Median=4 Mean=11 Mode=1
	Median=2 Mean=5 Mode=1
	Median=10 Mean=7 Mode=<1

Administrative Office	Average Number of Hours Per NSF Grant Proposal
	Median=4 Mean=8 Mode=2
	Median=2 Mean=4 Mode=1
	Median=1 Mean=3 Mode=1
	Median=1 Mean=4 Mode=1
	Median=2 Mean=7 Mode=1

Administrative Office	Average Number of Hours Per NSF Grant Administration
	Median=8 Mean=18 Mode=2
	Median=5 Mean=16 Mode=1
	Median=6 Mean=14 Mode=1
	Median=6 Mean=10 Mode=1
	Median=9 Mean=13 Mode=*	*No value calculated

	Total Responses (329)
Grant Process	50
General comments (22) Reduce budget revisions, requests (3) Comments on FastLane improvements (5) Positive experience with FastLane (20)
General Comments on Award Amount and Duration	8
No Suggestions	6
Experience with NSF Staff No Comments/No Response	4 32
TOTAL	100

	Total Responses (313)
NSF Staff	5
- Positive experiences (3) - Other comments (2)
Technology/Fast Lane	19
Level of Effort for Grant Process	21
Award Duration and Amount	*
Other Comments	7
No Comments	47
TOTAL	99