1. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 NSF Proposal Process March 28, 2007 Office of Integrative Activities National Science Foundation Dr. Joan M. Frye, Staff Associate jfrye@nsf.gov ~ 703-292-8040 jfrye@nsf.gov

2. What to look for in Program Solicitation Goals of program Eligibility Specific proposal review criteria Special proposal preparation and/or award requirements

3. Types of Proposal Submission No deadlines Deadlines Target dates Submission Windows Preliminary proposals

4. Commandments for Writing Competitive NSF Proposals “Thou shalt propose a brilliant idea.” “Thou shalt read Grant Proposal Guide & Program Solicitation.” “Thou shalt get help with proposal writing.” “Thou shalt write for the right audience.” “Thou shalt not irritate the reviewers.” "Thou shalt not steal."

5. DO YOUR HOMEWORK! So You Need Outside Support Before You Write That Proposal Determine –What you want to do –Other efforts related to yours –The appropriate agency and program

6. Getting Support in Proposal Writing NSF Publications –Program Announcements/ Solicitations –Grant Proposal Guide –Web Pages –Funded Project Abstracts –Reports, Special Publications Program Officers –Incumbent –Former “Rotators” Mentors on Campus Previous Panelists Serve As Reviewer Sponsored Research Office Successful Proposals

7. Sections of an NSF Proposal Cover Sheet Project Summary Table of Contents Project Description References Cited Biographical Sketch(es) Budget Current & Pending Support Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources Special Information & Supplementary Documentation

8. Proposal Development Key Questions for Prospective Investigator 1. What do you intend to do? 2. Why is the work important? 3. What has already been done? 4. How are you going to do the work?

9. Proposal Development Strategies Individual Investigator Determine your long-term research/education goals Develop your idea –Survey the literature –Contact Investigators working on topic –Prepare a brief concept paper –Discuss with colleagues/mentors Prepare to do the project –Determine available resources –Realistically assess needs –Develop preliminary data –Present to colleagues/mentors/students

10. Proposal Development Strategies – Funding Sources Determine possible funding sources Ascertain overall scope and mission –Read carefully solicitation instructions –Determine where your project fits –Ascertain evaluation procedures and criteria

11. Proposal Development Strategies – Funding Sources Talk with NSF Program Officer: –Your proposed project –Specific program requirements/limitations –Current program patterns Coordinate with your organization’s sponsored projects office

12. Budgetary Guidelines Amounts –Reasonable for work - Realistic –Well justified - Needs established –In-line with program guidelines Eligible costs –Personnel –Equipment –Travel –Participant Support –Other Direct Costs (including subawards, consultant services, computer services, publication costs)

13. Budgetary Guidelines (cont’d) General Suggestions All funding sources noted in Current and Pending Support Help from Sponsored Projects Office Special Note: No cost sharing required

14. Reviewer Selection Identifying reviewers: –PI reviewer suggestions –Program Officer’s knowledge of what is being done and who’s doing what in the research area –References listed in proposal –Recent technical programs from professional societies –Recent authors in Scientific and Engineering journals –S&E Abstracts by computer search –Reviewer recommendations

15. Research & Education Communities Proposal Preparation Time Org. submits via FastLane N S F Program. Office NSF Program. Office Program Office Analysis & Recomm. Program Office Analysis & Recomm. DD Concur DD Concur Via DGA Via DGA Organization Min. 3 Revs. Req. DGA Review & Processing of Award Proposal Receipt to Division Director Concurrence of Program Officer Recommendation GPG Announcement Solicitation GPG Announcement Solicitation NSF Announces Opportunity Returned Without Review/Withdrawn Mail Panel Both Award NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline Decline 90 Days6 Months 30 Days Proposal Receipt at NSF DD Concur Award

16. NSF Merit Review Criteria NSB Approved Criteria include: –Intellectual Merit –Broader Impacts Additional Criteria as listed in Solicitation (if any)

17. Reasons For Funding A Competitive Proposal Likely high impact PI Career Point (tenured?/“established”/ “young”) Place in Program Portfolio Other Support for PI Impact on Institution/State

18. What is the intellectual merit? Potential Considerations: –Will the proposed activity advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? –How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) –To what extent does the proposed activity explore creative and original concepts? –How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? –Is there sufficient access to resources?

19. What are the broader impacts? Potential Considerations: –How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning? –How well does the activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? –To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks and partnerships?

20. What are the broader impacts? Potential Considerations (continued): –Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? –What are the potential benefits of the proposed activity to society?

21. Role of the Review Panel Peer review nTaking Risks Budget Constraints nBalancing Priorities

22. Reasons For Funding A Competitive Proposal A good proposal is a good idea, well expressed, with a clear indication of methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the findings, making them known to all who need to know, and indicating the broader impacts of the activity.

23. Funding Decisions Program Officer decision Feedback to PI Informal and formal notification Scope of work and budget discussions

24. Some Reasons for Proposal Declines Lack of evidence the PI is aware of the relevant literature and is building upon it Diffuse, superficial and unfocused plan Lack of sufficient detail Lack of requisite expertise or experience of the PI Lack of a clear plan to document and evaluate activities and outcomes

25. Myths about NSF Only funds researchers from elite institutions Once declined…always declined Only funds “normal” science Advisory committees make funding decisions

26. Advice Learn to love rejection Contact the program officer with specific questions Revise and resubmit Collaboration is good, if appropriate Discover alternative funding sources

27. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Major Research Instrumentation Office of Integrative Activities National Science Foundation Dr. Joan M. Frye, Staff Associate jfrye@nsf.gov ~ 703-292-8040 http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/mri jfrye@nsf.gov http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/

28. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Major Research Instrumentation MRI solicitation (NSF 07-510) published electronically on the NSF website; other MRI resources: –FAQ’s –lists of MRI awards (1997-2006) –MRI presentations Proposals required to be submitted electronically using FastLane or Grants.gov; At time of submission, PI should identify NSF division to review proposal.

29. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Purpose The MRI program – is designed to increase access to scientific and engineering equipment for research and research training in U.S. academic institutions. –seeks to improve the quality and expand the scope of research and research training in science and engineering, and to foster the integration of research and education by providing instrumentation for research-intensive learning environments. –encourages the development and acquisition of research instrumentation for shared use across academic departments, among research institutions, and in concert with private sector partners.

30. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Goals Support the acquisition or development, of major state-of- the-art instrumentation for research, research training, and integrated research/education activities at U.S. Institutions; Improve access to and increase use of modern research and research training instrumentation by scientists, engineers, and graduate and undergraduate students; Enable academic departments or cross-departmental units to create well-equipped learning environments that integrate research and education; Foster the development of the next generation of instrumentation for research and research training; and Promote partnerships between academic researchers and private sector instrument developers.

31. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Eligible Institutions Ph.D. granting organizations –academic organizations that have produced more than 20 Ph.D.s or D. Sci’s in all NSF-supported fields during the previous two academic years Non-Ph.D. granting organizations –two and four year colleges and universities that have produced 20 or fewer Ph.D.s or D.Sci’s in all NSF-supported fields during the previous two academic years Non-degree granting organizations –independent non-profit research organizations, research museums, and consortia of eligible institutions

32. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 2007 Overview Instrumentation Acquisition or Development Two proposals for acquisition or development; a third for development; an institution may be part of a consortium Award size--$100,000 to $2 million –(lower limits for undergraduate institutions and for mathematical, social, behavioral and economic sciences) Cost sharing—None required Deadline for proposal submission: 4 th Thursday in January

33. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Evaluation Criteria Intellectual merit Broader impacts of the proposed activity Additional Review Criteria: –For both acquisition and development proposals: Plans for using the new or enhanced research capability in teaching, training or learning. Management Plan. –For instrument development proposals Rationale for development of a new instrument.

34. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Strengths of Funded MRI Proposals “…This is an excellent proposal from a high quality liberal arts college. They have a healthy and vigorous incorporation of collaborative student-faculty research, both externally funded and leading to publication in peer-reviewed research journals. There is no doubt that the requested NMR spectrometer will be well cared for and put to good use for research and research training….” “... all institutions have made a commitment to operation & maintenance...”

35. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Strengths.... “... most colleges... have large number of women and minority students... proposal will have a positive effect on the education of minority scientists.” “The panel noted that this was a resubmission (according to two reviewers) and improvements in the proposal were noted.” “... the hardware requested is essential for the research objectives to be accomplished. “ “... the group is highly qualified based on research records and history of UG research.”

36. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Weaknesses of Declined MRI Proposals “…it is unclear how the lack of the proposed 300 MHz instrument will be detrimental to the proposed research.” “…the proposal lacks any comment on how the proposed instrument will be involved in university outreach and teaching.” “…the low funding level of current faculty researchers, the lack of student researchers, and lack of publications involved in the proposed activities is problematic.” “…the PI's should explicitly make clear how NMR has been used in the past by each of the users...” “There were several issues with the science. The research proposals were not well developed... work is of relatively low-impact... there is no broad- based science or distribution in crystal structure determination. It was not clear that the CCD instrument was well justified.” “It is not clear why (institution) is not involved in the cost sharing or the upkeep of the instrument. The program needs more personnel.... The projected output of structures is minimal....” “... significant number of typographical errors... suggest care was not given to its preparation....”

37. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Strategies for Success Student involvement: co-authors on papers & presentations. Aggressive search for research funding Strong maintenance of existing equipment and plans for requested equipment Involvement of under-represented groups Innovative and important research Wide use Demonstrated need, e.g., # samples Preliminary results/measurements Primary use is research Equipment, including bells and whistles, is essential

38. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 2006 Proposal and Award Snapshot Number of Proposals Submitted: 769 Dollars Requested: $437,403,458 Number of Awards: 233 MRI Dollars Awarded: $88,308,325 NSF Dollars Awarded: $96,962,197 Success Rate: 30.3% MRI Average Award: $379,006 NSF Average Award: $416,147 Number of Institutions that Participated: 413 Number of Institutions Awarded: 194

39. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Non-Ph.D. Granting Institutions FY 2006 Number of Proposals Submitted: 270 Dollars Requested: $94,409,449 Number of Awards: 92 MRI Dollars Awarded: $19,478,024 NSF Dollars Awarded: $20,669,110 Success Rate: 34.1% Average MRI Award: $211,718 Average NSF Award: $224,664 Number of States Represented: 39* Number of Institutions Represented: 192 FY 2005 Number of Proposals Submitted: 281 Dollars Requested: $97,697,185 Number of Awards: 109 MRI Dollars Awarded: $25,829,731 NSF Dollars Awarded: $26,422,103 Success Rate: 38.8% Average MRI Award: $236,970 Average NSF Award: $242,405 Number of States Represented: 43* Number of Institutions Represented: 206 *includes Puerto Rico

40. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Minority Serving Institutions FY 2006 Number of Proposals Submitted: 66 Dollars Requested: $23,211,136 Number of Awards: 24 MRI Dollars Awarded: $4,823,738 NSF Dollars Awarded: $5,564,581 Success Rate: 36.4% Average MRI Award: $200,989 Average NSF Award: $231,858 Number of States Represented: 15^ Number of Institutions Represented: 41 FY 2005 Number of Proposals Submitted: 79 Dollars Requested: $41,065,845 Number of Awards: 26 MRI Dollars Awarded: $9,203,854 NSF Dollars Awarded: $9,241,854 Success Rate: 32.9% Average MRI Award: $353,994 Average NSF Award: $355,456 Number of States Represented: 21* Number of Institutions Represented: 52 * includes Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico ^ includes Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)

41. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Summer Scholars Internship Program National Science Foundation

42. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 2006 Interns Meeting NSF’s Director and Deputy Director

43. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 SSIP: Mission Develop undergraduate and graduate student potential through exposure to: –relevant science and engineering policy –funding programs –research and education issues Promote graduate education Increase growth of STEM workforce

44. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 SSIP: Mission (cont.) Helps NSF to fill one of its strategic outcome goals: –Learning: Cultivate a world-class, broadly inclusive science and engineering workforce, and expand the scientific literacy of all citizens

45. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 SSIP: Components Work assignment completed under the guidance of a mentor Participation in enrichment and professional development activities Final report Formal oral presentation

46. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 SSIP: Summer Assignment Duration: 9-10 weeks Mentors and interns create work plans for the summer Interns work on issues involving science administration, program evaluation, STEM education policy, and on various research projects

47. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Intern Testimonial My experience at NSF has been incredible, and I now have a much better understanding of the entire astronomy research process, from traveling to Kitt Peak and being able to take part in data collection, to data reduction and analysis, and finally the paper submission process Alexis Cornish Class of 2005 and presentation at the AAS meeting. I can look back and say that a lot of progress has been made, as the final accepted paper has come a long way since the first draft. I am truly grateful for the opportunities provided by NSF and HACU, and Sherrie Green’s willingness to assist me in this transition to graduate studies. Your mentorship is greatly appreciated!

48. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Summer Activities To complement their work assignments, interns participate in group activities that have included: –White House and Capitol tours –Congressional hearings –Coalition for National Science Funding events –Graduate school and student funding seminars

49. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Summer Activities (cont.) –Visits to American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) –UMBC Summer Horizons –Guided museum tours –Diversity training –Distinguished lectures

50. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 SSIP: Opportunities Some interns have opportunities to travel: –site visits –professional conferences –seminars Networking and interacting with diverse STEM professionals and educators

51. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Participating Organizations Students are recruited by four current partner originations: –AESIS: American Indian Science and Engineering Society (http://www.aises.org/)http://www.aises.org/ –HACU: Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (http://www.hacu.net/)http://www.hacu.net/ –QEM: Quality Education for Minorities Network (http://qemnetwork.qem.org/)http://qemnetwork.qem.org/ –WINS: Washington Internships for Native Students (http://www.american.edu/wins/)http://www.american.edu/wins/

52. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Participating Organizations (cont.) Strive to increase participation in STEM fields among underrepresented minorities Students can only apply for a SSIP internship through these organizations

53. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Selection Process 1.Students must meet sponsoring organizations eligibly criteria 2.Three-tier review process 3.Final offer of internship placement made by sponsor organization

54. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Interns’ Home Institutions

55. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Status of Interns Upon Entry

56. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Promoting Graduate Education Interns learn about the graduate school application process and funding opportunities, and attend Summer Horizons at UMBC Former interns are currently pursuing PhDs at schools such as Emory, Purdue, Howard, Virginia, Syracuse, Missouri, and Maryland

57. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Promoting Graduate Education (cont.) Many interns have attended graduate school following their summer experience at NSF, at schools including: Arizona StateCharles DrewDe PaulGeorgetown HarvardIllinois-ChicagoIowaJohns Hopkins KansasMiami-LawMichiganMississippi State Missouri-MedicineNC StateNYUOklahoma State StanfordSUNY-BinghamTexas-AustinTexas-HSC UNCWashingtonWilliam & MaryYale Other interns have joined the STEM workforce: 3MBoston ScientificDean WhitterDeloitte & Touche IBMIntelProctor & GambleRaytheon

58. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Current Status of Interns (based on self reporting of interns, as of 2/20/2007)

59. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Internship Summit In 2005, more than 60 former interns returned to NSF to participate in a two-day internship summit NSF learned about the impact of SSIP on interns’ careers Speakers talked about graduate school and career opportunities

60. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Intern Testimonials At the summit, interns reflected on how their time at NSF affected their career paths: Working at NSF was definitely a life changing experience. Unaware of the endless possibilities available to African American engineers in academia and in the industrial arena, this experience broadened my horizons, giving me a true vision of what I could become. Today I work at Nissan as an industrial engineer. With two degrees under my belt from Oakwood College and the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I now walk with confidence knowing that I am more than capable of accomplishing anything that I put my mind to achieving. Keisha Wallace Class of 2001

61. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Intern Testimonials (cont.) The summer internship reassured me that I could move to a new place, meet new people, and learn how to function in a new environment far from my home. I gained the self-confidence that has propelled me to take on new opportunities in my life, such as continuing other summer internships in college and pursuing graduate school. Working for a government agency provided me with an understanding of how scientific funding works. I was able to work with a mentor that provided me guidance and advice in pursuing a field in the environmental sciences. I have now finished my master’s degree from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Jaqueline Guzman Class of 2001

62. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Intern Testimonials (cont.) During the summer, the opportunity to meet with mentors, advisors, and professionals opened my eyes and allowed me to see the diverse career opportunities available to individuals with graduate education. Additionally, the personal support gained through networking with other students cannot be measured. During rough times in my graduate program, during exams and busy weeks, knowing that I was only an email away from other students in my similar position helped carry me through. I hope to influence and give advice to younger students who are beginning their journey in graduate school. I enjoy sharing my experiences, good and bad, in the hope that I can show others that being young, black, and gifted is not a rare thing. Jennifer James Class of 2002

63. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Intern Testimonials (cont.) Working in the chemistry division at NSF, I created a database of minority chemists. I learned that NSF wanted to diversify chemistry panels. The division sought to leave a lasting impression by perfecting the panel to the last detail. I learned that things can always be made a little better if we care enough to go the extra mile. I took this philosophy with me as I left NSF. With this new attitude, my mentors encouraged me to apply to the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program. I obtained an REU position at the University of Puerto Rico - Río Piedras. Before my REU experience, I was a die- hard pre-medicine student on my way to medical school, but my life took off in a new direction as I applied to graduate school in chemistry. All of the graduate schools to which I applied accepted me, and I currently attend Emory University. Ronald Hunter Class of 2002

64. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Intern Testimonials (cont.) My internship at NSF opened the door to opportunities that I had not previously considered. This internship afforded me access to and understanding of the value of research that has contributed to shaping my academic path. At NSF I witnessed first- hand the impacts of research on people’s daily lives. My exposure to NSF contributed to my decision to pursue a master’s degree in Disability and Human Development. Most recently, I have been appointed as a research specialist for the National Center for Capacity Building on Minorities with Disability Research. In this capacity I provide technical assistance on program evaluation to agencies offering services to minorities with disabilities. My NSF experience is a common denominator in many of my accomplishments as well as my decision to pursue a PhD in Disability Studies. Alberto Guzman Class of 2002/2003

65. NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007 Contact Internship Coordinator Sherrie Green Program Manager Office of Integrative Activities sbgreen@nsf.gov http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/interns