National Science Foundation Releases Survey on the Impact of Proposal
and Award Management Mechanisms
For further information, please go to:
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pr07096
The National Science Foundation's Impact of Proposal and Award
Management Mechanisms Working Group (IPAMM) presented its findings to
the National Science Board (Board) during its August 2007 meeting at NSF
headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, USA. The working group was created
in 2006 "to recommend policies and preferred practices to improve NSF's
program announcement and solicitation processes in ways that achieve
appropriate balances between proposal funding rates, award sizes and
award durations."
The IPAMM Final Report is available at:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/newsmedia/IPAMM_Report_Final.pdf
Findings:
- NSF funding rates declined due to a surge in proposals, as NSF was
making a concerted effort to increase the average award size (absorbing
overall NSF budget growth). The annual number of awards stayed constant.
Funding rates dropped between fiscal year (FY) 2000 and FY 2004, and
leveled off in FY 2005 and FY 2006.
- Proposals have increased as the applicant pool has increased - due in
part to growth in the research community's capacity, decreases in
funding from other sources, and increases in targeted solicitations in
new areas - and the number of proposals per applicant has increased.
- NSF's peer review system is under stress with great demands on
reviewers, posing challenges in order for NSF to maintain scientific
integrity and stellar quality.
- The overall decrease in funding rate has affected the entire NSF
proposer community proportionately - there has been no disparate effect
on any particular group.
- Reduced funding rates and increased proposal submission rates have
increased the work for all involved.
- The quality of proposals submitted and awarded has not declined due to
increased competition or lowered funding rates.
Because the results of this study do not support a single best or
preferred approach to managing proposal submissions and funding rates,
or in establishing an appropriate balance between funding rate and award
size, IPAMM presented to the Board several recommendations for
consideration.
IPAMM's Recommendations
1. NSF should require that each of the directorates and research offices
develop an overarching strategic framework, incorporating flexible
management approaches.
2. Long-term planning for accommodating growth in the communities and
infrastructure built by research investments (including both physical
infrastructure and human resources) must be incorporated when developing
new funding opportunities.
3. The practice of limiting the number of proposals that a principal
investigator or institution may submit is appropriate in some situations
but should be considered in the context of relevant trade-offs and
impacts on the community.
4. Careful consideration should be given to the short-term use of
various management practices to increase the number of awards and reduce
the need to revise and resubmit highly rated proposals.
5. NSF management should inform the appropriate internal and external
communities when implementing new proposal management practices and
should monitor their concerns during implementation.
6. NSF should ensure that the community has access to specific and
accurate statistical data on funding rates; this will include evaluating
the Budget Internet Information System (NSF's public portal to award
information) and updating it, as needed.
7. NSF should annually update trend analyses for internal review and
include them in the Annual Report on the NSF Merit Review Process to the
Board.
Media Contact:
Lisa-Joy Zgorski, NSF
Phone: 703-292-8311
E-mail: lisajoy [at] nsf.gov
Program Contact:
Joanne S. Tornow, NSF
Phone: 703-292-7134
E-mail: jtornow [at] nsf.gov
The full NSF press release is available at:
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pr07096
The IPAMM Final Report is available at:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/newsmedia/IPAMM_Report_Final.pdf