1. NSF Funding June 23, 2004 NCAR ESCA Peter Milne, NSF

2. Agenda Federal support for research NSF beyond one discipline Commitment to Peer-review Disciplinarity/multidisciplinarity FY-04/05 budgets Single vs Multiple PIs Age vs success rates

8. NSF engages in a diverse set of activities that support its complex mission Foster the interchange of scientific information Evaluate status & needs of scientific and engineering communities in the broader context of Federal and non-Federal programs Foster/support the development and use of new technologies in research and education in the sciences Research & Education Community Partnerships Vision Enabling the Nation’s future through discovery, learning, and innovation Mission To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense. Source: NSF website http://www.nsf.gov/home/about/creation.htmhttp://www.nsf.gov/home/about/creation.htm Proposals & Awards Management Conduct Merit Review and Award Graduate fellowships in sciences & engineering Initiate and support basic & applied research at academic and non-profit institutions and, at the direction of the President, support applied research at other organizations Recommend and promote national policies to strengthen basic research, science, and education Initiate and support broader scientific and technological initiatives (e.g. national security, international cooperation) Support initiatives to increase women, minorities participation in science & technology Policy Recommendations & Support Information Gathering, Analysis & Reporting Generate reports on the amount of federal funds invested in facilities construction, basic and applied research Provide central repository for scientific information Appraise the impact of research upon industrial development and the general welfare NSF’S CORE ACTIVITIES

9. NSF interacts within multiple stakeholders in a complex environment Award Recipients & Program Beneficiaries Academic Institutions State & Local Agents Nonprofit Organizations International Researchers Congress OMB OIG GAO Oversight NSB OSTP Federal Government Broader Society Private Funding Groups Science Interest Groups International Science Organizations Federal Research Agencies Collaborators Researchers & Educators Research & Education Fellows Research & Education Centers Small Businesses School Districts Review Panels NSF Advisory Committees Policy and Advisory Societal Partners State & Local Agents

10. NSF currently evaluates selected performance goals in order to better meet the needs of the research community Dwell TimeAward Size & DurationCriteria ConsiderationsBroadening Participation FY2003 Goal Progress Towards Goal in FY2002 Strategy for Achieving Goal 70 percent of proposals decided within 6 months Average annualized award size of $125K and 3.0 years of duration Achieved in FY2002, 74 percent decided within 6 months Management guidance and active monitoring Management guidance Management guidance and direction Management guidance Achieved award size, but not duration (2.9 years) in FY2002 Achieved in FY2002, 84 percent commented and 78 respectively Not achieved and not currently measured 70 percent of reviewers address basic criteria; 80 percent of PDs More diverse representation in merit review activities, establish a baseline NSF’s Current Major GPRA Goals

11. In FY2002, NSF received more than 35,000 proposals – an increase of 28 % over the past 5 years Percentage Funded Total Proposals and Funding Rates Competitive Proposals Source: Enterprise Information System, October 15, 2002 From 1998-2002, number of proposals NSF receives has grown 28 percent Funding rate relatively flat between 30-32 percent

12. Increase in volume of proposals is making recruiting and attracting reviewers more difficult Research community “donates” an estimated $17-20M in time and effort to prepare for panel reviews and/or submit “ad hoc” reviews Total number of reviews has increased by 15 percent during the past 4 years, reflecting the increase in the total number of proposals received NSF has trended towards an increase in panel reviews as the percentage of mail reviews has declined Contributing to the problem of panelist overuse is the fact that NSF continues to exceed the required number of reviews -- on average, a proposal receives more than 5 reviews Mail reviews have been especially problematic in supporting NSF’s merit review process –Percentage of mail review declines has climbed 29 percent in the past 4 years –Mail review return rates have dropped by 6 percent during the past 4 years Interviews of panelists indicate that the ‘community’ embraces the review process and has very positive experiences at NSF

13. NSF research community ‘donates’ an estimated $17-20 million worth of time and effort in preparing for panels and/or submitting ‘ad hoc’ reviews Source: Enterprise Information System, February 17, 2003; Panelist Interviews (1)Note: Median salaries were calculated by using the median salaries for S&E master’s, doctorates, & professionals contained in the FY2002 S&E Indicators report; calculation does include reviewer overhead costs 124,989 59,501 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 No. of Panel Reviews No. of Mail Reviews FY2002 No. of Panel and Mail Reviews Type of Review No. of Reviews

14. Total number of reviews has increased by 15 percent as the mail return rates have declined by 6 percent 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 19951996199719981999200020012002 Total No. of Panel Reviews Total No. of Mail Reviews No. of Panel and Mail Reviews Fiscal Year Source: Enterprise Information System, January 31, 2003; Booz Allen Hamilton Analysis Total No. of Panel and Mail Reviews From 1999 to 2002, the number of reviews has increased by 15 percent Mail (Ad Hoc) Return Rates Fiscal Year 61% 60% 58% 64% 65% 66% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 19951996199719981999200020012002 Mail Review Return Rates From 1999 to 2002, the mail return rate has decreased by 6 percent

15. Relative to other agencies, the research community believes that NSF is performing better in Merit Review and Award Management 55% 42% 49% 33% 35% 43% 12% 22% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Award ApplicationProposal ReviewPost-Award Management BetterSameWorse NSF Comparison by Process to Other Federal Institutions % of Responses Source: 2003 Applicant Survey Data, Booz Allen Hamilton Analysis

16. Budgets NSF Budget for FY 04 (appropriation) –$5,578 an increase of 5.0% over FY 03 –$267.9 million increase for FY 2004 Research and Related up $220.1 million or 4.8% MREFC up 4.3% EHR up 4.0%

18. NSF Proposal Statistics FY 2004 estimates: Competitive proposal actions: ~40,000 Awards likely made: ~11,000 ~28% proposal success rate Mean annual research grant:~$120,000 Mean grant duration: ~2.9 years (Success rate and $ amount generally higher for ATM) FY 2004 Funding: $5.58B

19. FY Budget for FY 2004 by Account TOTAL$5,310$5,5785.0% $167 $5,7453.0% R&RA$4,056$4,2774.8%$201 $4,452 4.7% MRE$149$1564.3%$58 $21337.6% EHR$903$9454.0%-$168 $771-17.9% S&E$189$22016.4%$75 $29434.4% OIG$9$1011.1%$0.17$10 1.7% NSB$3.5$3.911.4%$4$0.071.8% ACCT NSF C.P. % Chg FY03FY0403 to 04 04 to 05 Req. FY 05 $ Chg

20. NSF Budget Request by Directorate/Major Activity FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 PlanPlanRequestFY 05 Req/FY 04 Plan Plan Request FY 05 Req/FY 04 Amount Amount Amount % Change Biological Sciences570.7592.0 599.913.0 2.2% CISE581.9609.6618.113.0 2.2% Engineering540.5561.0575.910.8 1.9% Geosciences692.2719.0*728.515.42.2% Geosciences692.2719.0*728.515.4 2.2% Math & Physical 1041.01100.01115.524.0 2.2% Sciences Social, Behavioral & 167.52205.0224.720.9 10.3% Economic Sciences OISE 26.830.034.05.9 21.1% Office of U.S. 319.1345.0349.7 7.7 22.0% Polar Research Integrative Activities 116.7145.0240.095.9 66.5% Total, Research & 4,056.54,276.04,306.4206.9 4.9% Related Activities * All increased funding will be applied towards increased funding targets in priority areas

21. $ (%) change 99/04  People $22.74 M (165.1%)  Tools $52.92 (27.1%)  Core $65.60 (24.5%)  Priority $62.08 (n/a) areas  TOTAL $203.34 (42.7%) Growth Priority Areas: BE, ITR, NANO, Math, HSD

22. Funding Rates for NSF/GEO Priority Areas FY 2003 Biocomplexity –258 Proposals, 47 Awards, 18% Info. Tech. Research –1590 Proposals, 324 Awards, 23% Water Cycle (2003 Competition) –91 Proposals, 16 Awards, 18% BioGeosciences –97 Proposals, 10 Awards, 10% Mathematical Geosciences –95 Proposals, 17 Awards, 18%

23. Geosciences Atmospheric Sciences Earth Sciences Ocean Sciences Lower Atmosphere Upper Atmosphere UCAR & Facilities Atmospheric Chemistry Program (ATC) Climate Dynamics Program (CDP) Physical Meteorology Program (PMP) Large Scale Dynamics Program (LDP) Mesoscale Meteorology Program (MDM) Paleoclimate Program (PCP) Other NSF programs: OPP, CHE, INT, MRI, ICCR, BE, Nano; RUI, REU

24. Geosciences Atmospheric Sciences Earth Sciences Ocean Sciences Lower Atmosphere Upper Atmosphere UCAR & Facilities Magnetospheric Physics Aeronomy Solar Terrestrial Program Upper Atmospheric Facilities Other NSF programs: OPP, CHE, INT, MRI, ICCR, BE, Nano; RUI, REU

25. Division of Atmospheric Sciences FY 2004 OP (in millions of dollars) Program ElementAmount Change 03/04 Remarks Atmos. Sciences Proj. Support $148.9173.50% Includes Op. cost for AMISR & Priority $ Mid-size Infrastructure $12.0000% Second year of four year project Deployment Pool $3.8620% CSL $7.5000% NCAR $72.3291.4%* Includes $1M one-time* BE funds Unidata $3.3690% Total Atmospheric Sciences $227.7452.2% Most of increase towards priority areas

26. NSF Request in FY 2005: Better Than Some Total Federal Outlay is + $5.5bn – increases to weapon systems and homeland security

27. Future Opportunities and Challenges for ATM

28. Single vs. Multiple PI Awards Changing NSF award demographics

35. Success Rates of Young PI Awards Changing NSF award demographics

39. Funding Rates for Proposers by Professional Age Funding Rate Fiscal Year Years Since PI Degree

40. Funding Rates for Proposers by Professional Age 55% of young proposers (<7 years since degree) are also new (never had a NSF award) Funding Rate Years Since PI Degree Fiscal Year

41. Proposer Status and Funding Rate 55% of young proposers (<7 years since degree) are also new (never had a NSF award) A bias exists in favor of proposers with prior support –Have experience in grant writing –Have established a track record

42. HIAPER MREFC Instrumentation Solicitation released November 2003 Proposals received on or before February 15, 2004 46 proposals representing 39 projects Mail reviews nearly completed Panel met at NSF May 10-11, 2004 Panel “Highly Recommended” 15 proposals (3 collaborative proposals) with a total funding $12.5M Includes:Trace Gas Analysis for Organics and Inorganics; Ozone; Lidar systems; GPS; Cloud Physics; Aerosols; Radiation and Spectroscopy, and Radar systems

43. ATM Program % to NCAR 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 FY72FY75FY78FY81FY84FY87FY90FY93FY96FY99FY02 Year % of ATM oper. Funds