Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Challenges, Opportunities and New Directions NSF Regional Grants Conference October 4- 5, 2004 St. Louis, MO Hosted by: Washington University.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Challenges, Opportunities and New Directions NSF Regional Grants Conference October 4- 5, 2004 St. Louis, MO Hosted by: Washington University."— Presentation transcript:

1 Challenges, Opportunities and New Directions NSF Regional Grants Conference October 4- 5, 2004 St. Louis, MO Hosted by: Washington University

2 Ask Us Early, Ask Us Often!! Tom Cooley  Chief Financial Officer & Director, Office of Budget, Finance & Award Management   (703) Jean Feldman  Head, Policy Office  Division of Institution & Award Support   (703)

3 Coverage Challenges, Opportunities & The Long Hard Road Ahead  Tom Cooley Electronic Initiatives  Jean Feldman

4 Challenges, Opportunities & the Long Hard Road Ahead

5 What’s the latest on ….. Challenges  Political Landscape  Management Challenges  Congress and the Budget Opportunities  Research Business Models Subcommittee The Continuing Long, Hard Road Ahead  Cost Sharing Policy  Award Size/Duration Study

6 Challenges Political Landscape  Election Year  Growing Deficit ($422B est.)  “War Time” Environment  Economic/Job Uncertainty Continuing Management Challenges  Visas  Improper Payments Information Act of 2002  Other issues such as export controls, etc.

7 Visas IPASS (Interagency Panel on Advancing Science & Security) moving to Department of Homeland Security  Broader definition of “sensitive research”  Challenge: To balance National Security vs. “cutting edge” Science & Technology Research  More stringent & thorough review of passport & VISA requests Current Environment  Delays in VISA processing  Prominent Scientists delayed coming to conferences

8 Visas Impacts – Decline in % foreign students studying in U.S.  Process may become so onerous - best & brightest foreign students choose to go elsewhere  Potential cost increases to universities for SEVIS reporting requirements (Student & Exchange Visitor Program) may have negative impact on admissions  Increased scrutiny in “sensitive” research disciplines will reduce participation in some areas over time POC: Jack Mitchell - (703)

9 Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 History  The Federal Government makes more than $35 billion in improper payments each year in programs that represent $1 trillion in outlays  IPIA requires agencies to report on programs or activities with estimated improper payments exceeding $10 million and detail actions the agency is taking to reduce these improper payments  OMB further expanded the definition: An erroneous or improper payment includes any payment that was made to an ineligible recipient or for an ineligible service  NSF is the only research grant-making agency required to measure improper use of grant funds. All others are required to report entitlement or block grants programs

10 Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (cont’d) Current Action  NSF sampled improper payments on all site visits to high-risk grantees as identified in our Award Monitoring Program  A BFA team is analyzing the results of the site visits for the Performance and Accountability Reports (PAR)  Continue innovative efforts for administering an improper payments program as part of a holistic grants monitoring approach, which assures accurate award institution identity and grant eligibility

11 Congress and the Budget: The Future is Dimly Lit and For R&D the Future May be Dim

12 NSF’s Key Congressional Players House and Senate Budget Committees Authorization Committees  House Science Committee/Sub-committees  Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee  Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee Appropriations Committees  House and Senate VA, HUD & Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees

13 OLPA-5 AgCJSDCE&W ForOpsIntLHHSEdLeg TranspTPSVA-HUD Role of the Appropriations Committees Disperses >$660 Billion Through Subcommittees Works With Congressional Leadership and Members to Address Priorities of Budget Resolution

14 Percentage Composition of Federal Government Outlays

15 R&D Budget Budget Authority (dollar amounts in millions) 2005 Proposed Percent Change Defense69,8567% Health and Human Services29,3814% NASA11,3084% Energy8,8931% National Science Foundation4,2523% Agriculture/USDA2,105-9% Veterans Affairs772 -6% Commerce1,075-5% Homeland Security1,21615% Transportation7497% Interior648-4% Environmental Protection Agency5770% Other1,034-5% TOTAL131,8665%

16 Defense Energy Agriculture Transportation Education Justice Housing &Urban Development EPA NRC NSF Veterans Affairs Labor NASA Departments & Agencies Development of the Federal R&D Budget Showing Fields of Science and Executive and Legislative Decision Units Engineering Physical Sciences Environmental Sciences Life Sciences Psychology Social Sciences Other Sciences Fields of Science National Defense Affairs International Energy Agriculture Transportation Health Budget Review Offices (OMB) House & Senate Budget Committees (Budget Functions) Agriculture & Related Agencies Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Energy and Water Development Foreign Operations VA-HUD-Inde- pendent Agencies Interior Labor, Health & Human Services, & Education Transportation & Related Agencies Defense House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees Armed Services Labor and Human Resources Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Foreign Relations Veterans Affairs Senate Authorization Committees Energy & Natural Resources Environment & Public Works Commerce, Science, & Transportation National Security Economic & Educational Opportunities Banking & Financial Affairs International Relations Veterans Affairs Commerce Resources Transportation & Infrastructure Science Agriculture Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry House Authorization Committees (With significant R&D $) Judiciary International Science, Engineering and Technology National Security Science Technology Math & Computer Science Agency for International Development Commerce Health & Human Services Interior National Security & International Affairs Natural Resources, Energy, and Science Economics & Government Human Resources, Veterans, and Labor General Science, Space & Technology Natural Resources & Environment Commerce & Housing Credit Community & Regional Development Education, Training, Employment, & Social Services Veterans Benefits & Services Administration of Justice National Science and Technology Council Research Committees Connecting lines indicate location of agency budget decisions, but not decision sequences. Environment and Natural Resources Environment and Natural Resources

17 New Opportunities OSTP Subcommittee on Research Business Models  Impact of Federal funding policies on recipient organizations’ business practices  Working with the FDP, COGR, and others

18 Current NSTC Structure Biotechnology National Security R&D Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures International Social, Behavioral & Econ. Infrastructure IWG on Dioxin WMD Medical Countermeasures Health and the Environment. Oceans WH: Dale DOD: Wynne DHS: McQueary WH: Russell DOC: Bond WH: Olsen DOC: Lautenbacher EPA: Gilman NSTC Director, OSTP Technology Dev. Nanoscale Science, Eng. & Technology Aerospace Networking Information & Technology Under development Informal Legend WH: Olsen NSF: Bement NIH: Zerhouni Aquaculture Human Subjects Research IWG Dom. Animal Genomics IWG Plant Genome IWG Physics of the Universe Large Scale Science Education & Workforce Dev. Research Business Models R&D Investment Criteria Research Misconduct Policy Global Change Research IWG Earth Observations Disaster Reduction Ecosystems Toxics & Risks Water Availability & Quality Air Quality Research Standards Committee on Environment & Natural Resources Committee on Environment & Natural Resources Committee on Science Committee on Technology Committee on Homeland and National Security

19 Status Report: Research Business Models (RBM) Subcommittee of the Committee on Science/NSTC Three working groups created (2003)  Common Practices (EPA and NSF Co-Chair)  Alignment of Funding Mechanisms with Scientific Opportunities (DOE and NSF Co- Chair)  Cost Determination, Recovery, and Accountability (ONR and HHS Co-Chair)

20 Status Report: RBM Request for Information issued in Federal Register August 6, 2003 Comments received thru December 2003 Community outreach to AAU, FDP, COGR, NCURA, SRA, NASULGC, etc.

21 Research Business Models (RBM) Community identified 43 priority items; Ten items marked as initiatives and endorsed by the Committee on Science Winter 2003: Created one high priority group to be addressed immediately Developing communication and action plans; involving IGs

22 Research Business Models (RBM) High Priority Items Facilitating Collaborative Multidisciplinary Research  Acknowledgement of Co-PIs in proposals and agency information systems;  Stability and predictability of support for research facilities and instrumentation independent of individual projects;  Support for graduate and postdoctoral students with regard to salary, stipends, tuition, benefits, etc.;  Collaboration between universities, federal laboratories, and industry

23 Research Business Models (RBM) High Priority Items (Cont’d) Improving Consistency of Agency Practice  Standard progress and financial reporting procedures  Broader use of the Federal Demonstration Partnership model subagreement  Consistent award notices format and terms and conditions Harmonizing Stewardship and Accountability  A-133 monitoring requirements for A-133 compliant institutions  Consistent Federal-wide policies for Research Misconduct  Consistent Federal-wide policies for Research Conflict of Interest

24 Research Business Models (RBM) Next Steps Report to Committee on Science (COS) on October 7 Likely to recommend action on 3-5 of the high priority initiatives (Co-PIs, institutional subagreements, more consistent support for graduate students) Resulting policy, models, and templates will be published in a “Tool Kit for Multidisciplinary and Collaborative Research” on the RBM website. Other initiatives will be brought to COS and published in the Tool Kit as they are ready

25 The Continuing Long, Hard Road Ahead Cost Sharing Policy Award Size & Duration

26 Cost Sharing National Science Board clarified policy: 2002 NSF instituted procedures: 2003 Requires continued attention by all of us  Next NSF step – eliminate cost sharing on MRI proposals  Continued incremental steps will be taken to reduce/eliminate cost sharing requirements in NSF program solicitations NSB will review again in October 2004

27 Cost Sharing Data: FY FiscalC/S Dollars AwardsTotal Award% YearActions FY2000$508M310919, FY2001$534M , FY2002 $419M , FY2003$325M , FY2004$233M154522, (FY 04 as of 9/27)

28 Cost Sharing Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

29 Award Size/Duration Surveys of PI’s & Institutions in 2001 Study Results Published July 2002 New average grant size goal  From $100K/3 years to $250K/5 years  Overtime: currently at $138K/2.9 years  Declining success rates (33% 25%) Trade-offs will have to be made

30 Electronic Initiatives

31 What’s the Latest On? FastLane Grants.gov Grants Management Lines of Business

32 NSF FastLane FastLane is over 40 externally facing interactive web-based systems used by scientists, engineers, educators, research and financial administrators to conduct business with NSF electronically. Began ten years ago as experimental project Electronic Proposal Submission through FastLane became required in October

33 An eGovernment Success Story FY 04 Stats Over 40,000 Electronic Proposals Received 190,000 Electronic Reviews 25,000 Electronic Grantee Progress Reports 9,000 Electronic Graduate Research Fellowships 15,000 Electronic Cash Requests $3.5 Billion Distribution of Funds Electronic Proposal Percent By Fiscal Year (FY 97-03) FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01FY FY03

34 NSF Summary Proposal and Award Information Org FYFY Number of Proposals Number of Awards Funding Rate Average Decision Time (months) Mean Award Duration (years) Median Annual Size NSF 03 40,07310,84427% $99, ,15710,40630% $80, ,9409,92631% $77, ,5089,85033% $70, ,5799,19032% $63, ,4229,38133% $58, ,2589,93633% $54, ,2009,11630% $51, ,4429,67632% $50, ,33710,04733% $50,000

35 FastLane Users 7,000 registered FastLane organizations  Universities and Colleges including Community Colleges and Minority Serving Institutions  Large and Small Businesses  Non-profits  State and Local Governments 270,000 registered FastLane users  Principal Investigators (PIs) & Co-PIs  Reviewers  Sponsored Projects Offices (SPO)  Financial Offices

36 Recent Enhancements to FastLane Enhance Proposal File Update Module  Ability to change proposal data.  Ability to add files where none exist. Create Letter of Intent Module Port “look and feel” of the new Research Administration module to FastLane Home Page and login pages

37 Planned Enhancements to FastLane Enhance Guest Travel and Payment system Redesign Project Reports System Implement Sophisticated Help Functionality

38 The Grants.gov Initiative Mandate - President’s Management Agenda and PL Originally called the E-Grants Initiative Eleven Partner Agencies  HHS (managing partner), NSF, Defense, Education, HUD, Justice, Transportation, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, and Homeland Security/FEMA Produce a simple, unified “storefront” for all customers of Federal grants to electronically  Find grant opportunities – Launched in February 2003  Apply for grants – Launched in October 2003 with SF424 forms

39 Grants.gov Solution – One place to go to find opportunities and submit proposals.…. Benefits Both Grant Applicants and Agencies Applicant 2 Applicant 3 Applicant N Agency 1 Agency 2 Agency 3 Agency N Applicant 1

40 Grants.gov Current Status and Next Steps All 26 grant-making agencies posting funding opportunities to the FIND mechanism. As of September 13, 2004, 1,429 funding opportunities have been posted.  Of these, NSF has posted 361 opportunities of which 200 are currently active. This is the highest number of any agency besides HHS.

41 Grants.gov Current Status and Next Steps Deployed APPLY functionality  As of August 3, 2004, 959 applications to 164 federal programs from 15 agencies have been accepted via Grants.gov  Additional Forms Development for agencies not using the SF424 to collect additional data  Build Functionality to support the Research & Related Application Data Set – NSF was one of the agencies that led the design and development  Agency System to System Interface – Successfully tested with several agencies including NSF  Applicant System to System Interface – Gathering requirements, piloting in Fall 2004

42 Integration with Apply capability of Grants.gov NSF will integrate with Government-wide Grants.gov so that proposals can be submitted to NSF via Grants.gov and then processed electronically by NSF.  By Fall 2004, NSF will be able to accept proposals through Grants.gov  If your university wants to pilot our integration with Grants.gov please contact us and we will contact you!

43 E-Authentication Federated Identity Architecture Pilot To establish a system that allows applications to leverage credentials from other systems Grants.gov, NSF and USDA will demonstrate the ability to serve as credential providers to each others’ systems. On FastLane Test Server, NSF has demonstrated that users can use their Grants.gov or USDA credentials to access the FastLane PI and SPO functions. Pilot involves several phases and expects to issue a report in Fall 2004.

44 Lines of Business Opportunities The following LOBs share core business requirements and similar business processes.  Financial Management (FM)  Human Resources Management (HR)  Grants Management (GM)  Federal Health Architecture (FHA)  Case Management (CM) April: RFI issued for FM, HR, GM May: RFI responses received and analyzed June: Developed of Target Architecture and Common Solution Common Solution: A business process and/or technology based shared service made available to government agencies. Business Driven (vs. Technology Driven): Solutions address distinct business improvements that directly impact LoB performance goals. Developed Through Architectural Processes: Solutions are developed through a set of common and repeatable processes and tools. Common Solution: A business process and/or technology based shared service made available to government agencies. Business Driven (vs. Technology Driven): Solutions address distinct business improvements that directly impact LoB performance goals. Developed Through Architectural Processes: Solutions are developed through a set of common and repeatable processes and tools. OMB and the Line of Business Task Forces are focused on a business- driven, common solution developed through architectural processes.

45 Grants Management: Visions & Goals Vision A government-wide solution to support end-to-end grants management activities that promote citizen access, customer service, and agency financial and technical stewardship. Goals Improve customer access to grant opportunities Facilitate the development and distribution of solicitations Support for the development and submission of grant proposals Increase lead-time for announcement Facilitate client/customer authentication and accesses to grant programs Increase efficiency of the submission process Improve decision making More effective and efficient review and decision process Improved communication to customer Integrate with Financial Management processes Improve the efficiency of the reporting procedures in order to increase the usable information content Address the customer input end Public access to archival information Optimize the post-award and closeout actions

46 Scope The continuum of grants management business processes from application intake through award close out and financial reconciliation Federal assistance funding for competitive and non-competitive awards Award recipients include states; local units of government; the research community; private, non-profit organizations; and, individuals

47 Expectations A common, end-to end solution to support Federal grantors and grantees that would result in:  Transparency and efficiency in the grants decision making process  Improved access to grants-related programmatic and financial information  Enhanced ability to report on award-related accomplishments  Improved post award monitoring and oversight


Download ppt "Challenges, Opportunities and New Directions NSF Regional Grants Conference October 4- 5, 2004 St. Louis, MO Hosted by: Washington University."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google