The Ins and Outs of NSF Funding

Kevin Mandernack, PhD

Department of Earth SciencesIUPUI

• Basic Information on NSF• Who they serve• Recent budgets and funding rates• Merit review criteria• Overview of review process

• Tips on Writing a Successful Grant Application, do’s and don’t’s

• Contacting your Program Officer

• Interpreting proposal reviews

• What to do after you receive an NSF proposal• Leveraging your existing funds

• Non-conventional sources of NSF funding

• Some useful links to NSF

• Answer YOUR Questions

Today’s Agenda

NSF Considers Proposals for Research Support in any Field of Science

Astronomy Atmospheric

Sciences Biological Sciences Behavioral Sciences Chemistry Computer Science Earth Sciences

Engineering Information

Science Materials Research Mathematical

Sciences Oceanography Physics Social Sciences

Including but not limited to:

NSF-7

Who receives awards?

Universities and colleges Academic consortia Nonprofit institutions Small businesses University and industry collaborations

National research centers International research and education efforts NSF-14

Awards (Research): 6,636

Average annual award: $165,831

Median annual award: $125,171

Average duration (research): 2.89 years

NSF RESEARCHGRANT PROFILE

(FY 2012)

NSF Funding Profile

Recent NSF research budgets

2012: $5.7 billion

2013: $5.5 billion (sequester)

2014: $5.8 billion

NSB Recommendations:

Three Merit Review Principles

and

Five Review Elements

Three Merit Review Principles

1. All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the

frontiers of knowledge.

2. NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These “Broader

Impacts” may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to

specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project.

Three Merit Review Principles (continued)

3. Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics,

keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to

implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these

activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

Five Review Elements1.What is the potential for the proposed activity to:

a. advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields

(Intellectual Merit); b. benefit society or advance desired societal

outcomes (Broader Impacts)?

2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially

transformative concepts?

Review Elements (continued)

3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan

incorporate a mechanism to assess success?

4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or institution to conduct the proposed activities?

5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed

activities?

NSF Proposal & Award Process Timeline

NIH only gives you 2 shots, not so at NSF, but it is still good to follow this rule. Consult with Program officer regarding resubmittals.

Page limits impact getting your ideas and plans across to reviewers

Congress and economy are not being researcher-friendly

NSF:The Challenges

Be Informed & Efficient ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_

Do not be afraid to ask questions The more you know, the better you can

plan

Time is your most precious commodity It is crucial you make the most of it

Advice will vary Seek guidance from more than one

source

The key to success is persistence Learn from your mistakes, try again

Don’t put all your eggs in one basket Diversify your funding portfolio

Strategies for Success: Proposal ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_

1. Target programs with high success rates.

2. Target special programs you may qualify for

3. Run your own mini-review.

4. Suggest appropriate and available reviewers.

5. Learn from rejection.

6. Know how to interpret reviews/feedback.

7. Be persistent, but know when it’s time to move on.

Strategies for Success: Professional ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_

1. Write down ideas as soon as you get them.

2. Volunteer to be a reviewer.

3. Volunteer to be a panelist.

4. Arrange to meet and talk with agency Program Officers at national meetings.

5. Visit the agency and “do the walk”.

6. Attend and participate in agency sponsored “community workshops.

1. Address agency/program mission

2. Discuss size and scope of intellectual payoff

3. Hypothesis driven proposal, with tests

The Essential Requirements of a Successful Proposal

Must have novel ideas and show evidence of being transformative (not a simple extension of Ph.D. thesis or postdoc work)

Clearly stated hypotheses (no “fishing expeditions”)

Limit hypotheses to ~3, which capture the overarching goals of the entire proposal

The Essential Requirements of a Successful Proposal

Sell the “Big Picture” and global significance early

How your proposed work will significantly advance the “Big Picture” presented above

Hypotheses should come soon after both of the above (~page 3-4)

Address any external or negative issues directly.

Other Requirements of a successful Proposal

Periodically bring your reader back to the “big picture”

Summarize for the non-expert (panel member) the relevance and implications of the details/methods you presented

The above tips are particularly important for interdisciplinary proposals that necessitate diverse reviewers, and for any proposal receiving a panel review

Other Requirements of a successful Proposal

Broader Impacts need to be creative and original at many levels◦ Scientific impact◦ Societal impact, public outreach,

underrepresented groups◦ Educational impact, including creative approaches

that foster learning amongst diverse communities, different levels (K-12, teachers, undergrad., grad.), policy makers

◦ Utilize in-house facilities (eg., CTL, Signature Centers)

Other Requirements of a Successful Proposal

Simple as possible is best, but with all details and necessary methods included, at least briefly – convince panel you can do this

Panelists read stacks of proposals, the faster and easier they can see the idea and remember it the better; use frequent informative subheadings, flow charts, figures

Show good productivity from prior results (PAPERS!)

Requirements of a successful Proposal

Topic appropriate for intended program?◦ The “black holes” of NSF (eg., coastal processes

often do not get reviewed by NSF OCE)◦ Have a conversation with the Program Director

first

Final Thought for a Successful Proposal

1. “This proposal suggests a clear, elegant, well-documented approach to a problem that has plagued this field for decades.”

2. “This is certainly adventurous, and I frankly would have doubted it could be done. Yet the PI has proven the method in preliminary work AND had it accepted by a peer-reviewed journal!”

3. “The PI has a beautiful plan. Undergraduates or new graduate students can step right into this work, yet it solves a major problem and will be publishable in a first-rate journal.

4. “This reads like a dream. I have rarely seen a proposal, even from long-established investigators, that shows such careful thought and meticulous presentation.”

Common Reasons for High Ratings

Stuff not to do Include a picture of students doing something

without safety gear Leave out clearly visible hypotheses Scope of work not proportional to budget or

time requirements (don’t be overly ambitious) Not enough details of methodology/sampling Frequent typos, grammar mistakes, using

smaller font for added verbage Failure to reference previous & important

studies Oversell the value of what you are doing

The Program Officer: Your Secret Weapon ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_

• Answers questions

• Solicits proposal evaluations

• Runs merit review process

• Informs/makes funding recommendations

• Administers grant, revises budgets

• Helps you prepare competitive proposals

Seek their input, preferably in person

Program Officer: Not All Are Created Equal

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• Some are permanent, some are rotators

• Some are activists, others more conservative

• Some more knowledgeable than others

• Some travel more than others

• Some more autonomous than others

Program Officer: Questions ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_

• Do you fund the kind of thing I want to do?

• Am I eligible? (if applicable)

• What is the review process and who makes the final recommendation?

• What is the projected success rate?

• How much money is for new initiatives?

• Are there special programs I qualify for?

Everyone Gets Bad Reviews! Reasons: 1. Flaw in idea, logic, or approach 2. Written in a way that allows that criticism 3. Reviewer wrong (if noted by more than one reviewer, you’ve got a

problem)

Strategy: Read review Blow off steam (in private, not to the program people) Read again, annotate trouble spots in proposal Now read pretending this is someone else’s proposal Think about what they are REALLY saying

How to Interpret a Review

Don’t be Fooled by High Marks!*

An Example: “An excellent proposal, but….” (Analysis: Not ready for prime time)

It is the content, not the score that matters!

*Note: People in the same subdiscipline always feel that work is very important. People who rank proposals across the scientific spectrum do not always agree with that view.

How to Interpret a Review (cont.)

Proposal Quality DistributionN

um

ber

of

Pro

posals

Poor

Goo

d

Fair

Out

stand

ing

Excell

ent

Very

Goo

d

Who Gets FundedN

um

ber

of

Pro

posals

Poor

Goo

d

Fair

Out

stand

ing

Excell

ent

Very

Goo

d

Almost Never funded

AlmostAlways funded

Typically funded

Grey Zone

After you receive your first NSF Award

• Supplemental funding• International travel funds

• Research Experience for Undergraduates (REUs)

• Other (early June is a good time to approach your PD for supplements, before fiscal year end, including “Careers”)• Approved up to 20% of original funded level at

sole discretion of PD (external review if > 20%)

• Give a seminar at NSF of results from your grant

NSF Proposal Resources

• Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?gpg

• Early Concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER), section II.D.2 of GPG

• RAPID Response Grants, section II.D.1 of GPG www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpg_2.jsp#IID1

NSF Proposal Resources• RAPID Response Grants, section II.D.1

of GPG“proposals having a severe urgency with regard

to availability of, or access to data, facilities or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic disasters and similar unanticipated events”

Contact relevant Program Officer first

3-5 page project description

up to $200k for one year, no external review

No-cost extension OK, supplemental funding possible, renewal possible with external review

NSF Proposal Resources• EAGER Grants, section II.D.2 of GPG

“to support exploratory work in its early stages on untested, but potentially transformative, research…"high risk-high payoff”…”

Contact relevant Program Officer first

5-8 page project description

up to $300k for two years, no external review

No-cost extension OK, supplemental funding possible, renewal possible with external review

NSF Proposal Resources

• Workshop proposals

• <$50K, only Program Director approval• >$50k but <$100k, internal review only• >$100K, external review

NSF Proposal ResourcesResources

• Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?gpg

• NSF Publication on Broader Impacts

www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf032/bicexamples.pdf

• 2013 Report on NSF Merit Review system

www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/

• Recently Funded NSF Proposals

www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/A6RecentWeeks

• NSF Program Announcements -- eligibility, goals, special requirements

41

Mathematical& PhysicalSciences

(MPS)

Geosciences(GEO)

Engineering(ENG)

Computer &Information

Science &Engineering

(CISE)

BiologicalSciences

(BIO)

Office of theInspector General

(OIG)

DirectorDeputy Director

National Science Board(NSB)

Office of Diversity & Inclusion

Office of the General Counsel

Office of International &Integrative Activities

Office of Legislative &Public Affairs

Social, Behavioral& Economic

Sciences(SBE)

Education & HumanResources

(EHR)

Budget, Finance & Award

Management(BFA)

Information& Resource Management

(IRM)

NSF Organizational Chart

42

DOD, $71.2

HHS (NIH)$32.0

NASA, $11.6

DOE, $12.7

NSF, $6.2

USDA, $2.5DOC, $2.7

All Other, $6.7

Total R&D =$144.2 billion

FY 2014 Request: Total R&D by AgencyBudget Authority in Billions of Dollars

Research & Related Activi-ties

($6,212 million)

Education & Human Resources

($880 million)Major Research

Equipment & Facilities Construction ($210 million)

Administrative AccountsAOAM ($304 million)

OIG ($14 million)NSB ($4 million)

FY 2014 Request by Account($7,626 million)

Totals may not add due to rounding.

NSF and STEM EducationDivision of Undergraduate Education

(DUE)Education and Human Resources

(EHR)

Kathy MarrsSchool of Science, IUPUI

NSF STEM Education and Workforce Priorities Prepare students to be leaders,

teachers, and innovators in emerging and rapidly changing STEM fields

Develop a scientifically literate populace

Both depend on the nature and quality of the undergraduate education experience

NSF InvestmentsResearch-based and research-generating approaches to: Understand/advance STEM learning Design, test, and study curricular change Widely disseminate and implement best

practices Broaden participation of individuals and

institutions in STEM fields

NSF Goals

Develop the STEM/STEM-related workforce

Advance science Broaden participation in STEM Educate a STEM-literate populace Build capacity in higher education Improve K-12 STEM education Encourage life-long learning

EHR Areas of Investment Experiential learning Assessment/metrics of learning and

practice Scholarships Foundational education research Professional development Institutional change Formal and informal learning

environments Undergraduate disciplinary research

Undergraduate Education (DUE) Active Funding Opportunities

NSF DUE website: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_list.jsp?org=DUE

Includes a variety of specific and cross-cutting programs: Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program March 5, 2014 STEM-C Partnerships: MSP (STEM-CP: MSP) March 18, 2014 Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) May 23, 2014 NSF Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics (S-STEM) August 12, 2014

International Research Experiences for Students (IRES) August 19, 2014

Science of Learning Centers (SLC) (Accepted Anytime)

Replaces previous DUE programs: (TUES, WIDER, STEP)

NSF is seeking projects that: Broaden participation and student retention in

STEM Prepare students to participate in science for

tomorrow Improve students' STEM learning outcomes Generate knowledge on how students learn and

on effective practice in undergraduate classrooms

Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE)

IUSE Projects (cont.) In FY14, NSF is also accepting proposals

for developing “IDEAS Labs” in biology, engineering, and geosciences

Intent: bring together relevant disciplinary and education research expertise to produce research agendas that address discipline-specific workforce development needs

Note: 2/4/2014 deadline; watch for further opportunities

NSF Merit Review Criteria• Intellectual Merit – the potential to

advance knowledge.• Broader Impacts – the potential to

benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

Both criteria, Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact, will be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes. Proposers must fully address both criteria.

Merit Review Considerations (also discussed by Kevin Mandernack)

What is the potential for the proposed activity to: Advance knowledge and understanding within

its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and

Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?

To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original or potentially transformative concepts?

Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?

Merit Review Considerations How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the

proposed activities?

Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home

institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Human Subjects: IRB exemption or approval documentation is required at the time of the

award - in order to receive FY 2014 funding Must plan for the timing necessary to obtain institutional IRB approval

Reviewers are also asked to review: Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources, Data Management Plan, and Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan

Questions?

NSF's FY 2014 budget request is $7.626 billion, an increase of $592.69 million (8.4%) over the 2012 level.

Classroom Resources: http://www.nsf.gov/news/classroom/

Kathy Marrs kmarrs@iupui.edu

How to Write a Good Summary

Jeff Watt

How to Write a Good Summary

The summary is the first thing the reviewers and NSF staff read!

It will determine who the project director selects as reviewers.

It must introduce the reviewer to the story that your proposal is going to tell.

It must be written clearly and concisely, stating:◦ the problem,◦ the objectives◦ the expected outcomes◦ the project activities, and◦ the audience to be addressed

NSF will publish the summary, if funded. Considerable effort and thought should be spent in

preparing a well-written summary.

How to Write a Good SummaryA well-written summary does the following: paints a picture or tells a story that sticks in the reviewer’s

head after reading 20 proposals; uses terms easily understood or known by various reviewers; is jargon free of local or specific institution vocabulary; describes the problem to be studied and why it should be

solved (importance); provides realistic numbers on size and scope of impact; communicates work already done or expertise of the

investigators, on which the proposal will be built; provides an overview of the activities funded by this

proposal; provides an overview of the expected outcomes; and describes how will the project be sustained after the grant

ends.

By Wesley Wright, Grant Services Manager

Indiana UniversityOffice of Research Administration

Understanding the ORA Proposal Process for Successful Proposal

Submission

ORA Process for Proposal Review

Before review begins a Kuali Coeus Proposal Development Document must be fully signed by all Responsibility Centers

A fully signed routing lets our office know there is a Proposal Development Document in the queue for assignment

The e-mail for Proposal Development Documents is monitored by Front Office Staff for assignment to a Grant Consultant

Once the Grant Consultant receives the Proposal Assignment an intro e-mail is sent to the Principal Investigator and Department Contact

The proposal is then reviewed for to ensure compliance with applicable guidelines

ORA Process for Proposal Review continued

As the Grant Consultant is reviewing any corrections that are needed are relayed to the appropriate contacts

An example of this is biosketches being limited to two pages.

Once any needed corrections are completed the proposal is then submitted based on agency guidelines

Ideally ORA likes to submit electronic proposals the day before the due date

For paper proposals it is ideal they are mailed 2 days before the due date.

With respect to NSF we encourage submission in Fastlane.

How ORA can help you

Intro e-mails going out to appropriate parties in a timely manner

Reviewing the proposal’s content for things such as page limits and keeping all parties in the loop of communication

Ensuring the budget categories follow any appropriate guidelines and ensuring they are calculated properly

We can also pre-review budgets upon request

How you can help us

Department contacts and Principal Investigators need to be available to facilitate needed proposal corrections

Contacting ORA when there are technical issues involving routings

Also when multiple Responsibility Centers are involved make sure they are in the communications loop about the need to approve

For agencies that require COI disclosures have them in place before proposal submission

Adherence to the ORA Deadline Policy

ORA Deadline Policy The Deadline Policy became effective in 2011

http://www.researchadmin.iu.edu/Policies/Internal_Submission_Policy_2011_01_04.pdf

It applies to all Sponsored Project submissions For electronic submissions the all pieces except the

technical proposal and cited literature are to be provided to ORA in final form 5 business days before agency deadline

This also includes a fully signed Proposal Development Document in Kuali Coeus

The narrative and cited literature are due 2 days prior to sponsor’s deadline

ORA Deadline Policy continued For paper proposals all pieces except the technical

proposal and cited literature are to be provided to ORA in final form 5 business days before agency deadline

The complete proposal in final form must be delivered to ORA within 3 days prior to sponsor’s submission deadline with the number of copies required by sponsor and one copy for Grant Services

Any violation of the above results in an e-mail being sent to Principal Investigator, Department Contact and Dean or Chair of the respective Center

Once the e-mail is received the Principal Investigator must respond as to why the proposal is late before submission consideration is given

Reminders

Be sure to give Sponsored Research Office (SRO) access so your proposal can be reviewed by ORA staff

Be mindful of spending as Grants Management Officers are monitoring income drawn down in the Award Cash Management System

NSF now requires COI disclosures be in place upon proposal submission this is for all Key Personnel. For Subcontracts a Non IU Conflict of Interest disclosure is required if the organization is not a member of the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP).

Reminders (continued)

Make sure Progress Reports are submitted in a timely manner in Research.gov as funding from NSF is now incremental.

Time is of the essence with things such as Proposal Updates, Letters of Intent, and No Cost Extension Requests

Voluntary Committed Cost Sharing is prohibited unless required by the solicitation

Be sure to include the current proposal being submitted in the Current and Pending Support section

Questions ?