nsf funding
Post on 04-Jan-2016
33 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
NSF FundingNSF Funding
June 23, 2004
NCAR ESCA Peter Milne, NSF
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
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 andeducation in the sciences
Research & Education Community Partnerships
VisionEnabling the Nation’s
future through discovery, learning, and
innovation
MissionTo 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.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
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 ScienceOrganizations
Federal ResearchAgencies
Collaborators
Researchers & Educators
Research & Education Fellows
Research & Education Centers
Small Businesses
School Districts
Review PanelsReview Panels
NSF Advisory CommitteesNSF Advisory Committees
Policy and Advisory
Societal Partners
State & Local Agents
NSF currently evaluates selected performance goals in order to better meet the needs of the research community
Dwell Time Award Size & Duration Criteria Considerations Broadening 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
In FY2002, NSF received more than 35,000 proposals – an increase of 28 % over the past 5 years
30,107
27,63028,683
29,664
32,026
35,280
20,00022,00024,00026,00028,00030,00032,00034,00036,00038,000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Competitive Proposals Funding Rate
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
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
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 R
evie
ws
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
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Total No. of Panel ReviewsTotal No. of Mail Reviews
No. of Panel and Mail Reviews
Fiscal Year
Source: Enterprise Information System, January 31, 2003; Booz Allen Hamilton Analysis
Tot
al N
o. o
f Pan
el a
nd M
ail R
evie
ws
From 1999 to 2002, the number of reviews has
increased by 15 percent
Mail (Ad Hoc) Return Rates
Fiscal Year
61%60%
58%
64%64%64%
65%66%
54%
56%
58%
60%
62%
64%
66%
68%
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Mail Review Return Rates
From 1999 to 2002, the mail return rate has decreased by 6
percent
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 Application Proposal Review Post-Award
Management
Better Same Worse
NSF Comparison by Process to Other Federal Institutions
% of Responses
Source: 2003 Applicant Survey Data, Booz Allen Hamilton Analysis
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%
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
FY Budget for FY 2004 by Account
TOTAL $5,310 $5,578 5.0% $167$5,745 3.0%
R&RA $4,056 $4,277 4.8% $201$4,452 4.7%
MRE $149 $156 4.3% $58$213 37.6%
EHR $903 $945 4.0% -$168$771 -17.9%
S&E $189 $220 16.4% $75$294 34.4%
OIG $9 $10 11.1% $0.17$10 1.7%
NSB $3.5 $3.9 11.4% $4 $0.07 1.8%
ACCT NSF C.P. C.P. % Chg % Chg
FY03 FY04 03 to 04 04 to 05 Req.FY 05
$ Chg
NSF Budget Requestby Directorate/Major Activity
FY 03FY 03 FY 04 FY 04 FY 05FY 05PlanPlan PlanPlan RequestRequest FY 05 Req/FY FY 05 Req/FY
0404AmountAmount Amount Amount Amount % Change Amount % Change
Biological Sciences 570.7 592.0 599.9 13.0 2.2%
CISE 581.9 609.6 618.1 13.0 2.2%
Engineering 540.5 561.0 575.9 10.8 1.9%
GeosciencesGeosciences 692.2692.2 719.0*719.0* 728.5728.5 15.415.4 2.2%2.2%
Math & Physical 1041.0 1100.0 1115.5 24.0 2.2%Sciences
Social, Behavioral & 167.52 205.0 224.7 20.9 10.3%Economic Sciences
OISE 26.8 30.0 34.0 5.9 21.1%
Office of U.S. 319.1 345.0 349.7 7.7 22.0%Polar Research
Integrative Activities 116.7 145.0 240.0 95.9 66.5%
Total, Research & 4,056.5 4,276.0 4,306.4 206.9 4.9% Related Activities
* All increased funding will be applied towards increased funding targets in priority areas
Recent Changes in GEO Budget
0 200 400 600 800
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Fisc
al Y
ear
Millions of Dollars
People Tools Core Priority Areas
$ (%) change 99/04$ (%) 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
Funding Rates for NSF/GEO Priority AreasFY 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%
GeosciencesGeosciences
AtmosphericSciences
EarthSciences
OceanSciences
LowerAtmosphere
UpperAtmosphere
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
GeosciencesGeosciences
AtmosphericSciences
EarthSciences
OceanSciences
LowerAtmosphere
UpperAtmosphere
UCAR & Facilities
• Magnetospheric Physics• Aeronomy • Solar Terrestrial Program• Upper Atmospheric Facilities•Other NSF programs: OPP, CHE, INT, MRI, ICCR, BE, Nano; RUI, REU
Division of Atmospheric Sciences FY 2004 OPDivision of Atmospheric Sciences FY 2004 OP(in millions of dollars)(in millions of dollars)
Program Element AmountChange
03/04Remarks
Atmos. Sciences Proj. Support $148.917 3.50%
Includes Op. cost for AMISR & Priority $
Mid-size Infrastructure $12.000 0%Second year of four year project
Deployment Pool $3.862 0%
CSL $7.500 0%
NCAR $72.329 1.4%*Includes $1M one-time* BE funds
Unidata $3.369 0%
Total Atmospheric Sciences $227.745 2.2%Most of increase towards priority areas
NSF Request in FY 2005: Better Than Some
Total Federal Outlay is + $5.5bn – increases to weapon systemsand homeland security
Future Opportunities and Challenges for ATM
Single vs. Multiple PI Awards
Changing NSF award demographics
NSF Research Grants for Single Investigators (SIRPS) and Multiple PI Awards byValue of Grants [bars] and Number of Grants [lines]
$-
$200M
$400M
$600M
$800M
$1,000M
$1,200M
$1,400M
$1,600M
Va
lue
of
Aw
ard
s
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Nu
mb
er
of
Aw
ard
s
By $ - SIRPs $698M $717M $603M $666M $638M $663M $712M $750M $847M $716M $779M $743M $789M $859M $871M $917M $1,084 $1,110 $1,165 $1,290
By $ - >= 2 PIs $161M $224M $255M $286M $238M $306M $327M $448M $498M $415M $442M $485M $464M $606M $658M $744M $1,037 $1,129 $1,255 $1,372
By # - SIRPs 4,597 4,737 3,970 4,221 3,984 4,186 4,353 4,491 4,626 3,975 4,178 3,968 3,837 4,284 4,111 4,221 4,472 4,215 4,351 4,417
By # - >= 2 PIs 706 832 891 942 969 1,118 1,227 1,389 1,498 1,261 1,365 1,477 1,445 1,671 1,663 1,794 2,051 2,016 2,387 2,435
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
NSF Research Grants for Single Investigators (SIRPS) and Multiple PI Awards byValue of Grants [bars] and Number of Grants [lines]
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
rce
nt
of
Aw
ard
Va
lue
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
rce
nt
of
Aw
ard
s
By $ - SIRPs 81% 76% 70% 70% 73% 68% 68% 63% 63% 63% 64% 61% 63% 59% 57% 55% 51% 50% 48% 48%
By $ - >= 2 PIs 19% 24% 30% 30% 27% 32% 32% 37% 37% 37% 36% 39% 37% 41% 43% 45% 49% 50% 52% 52%
By # - SIRPs 87% 85% 82% 82% 80% 79% 78% 76% 76% 76% 75% 73% 73% 72% 71% 70% 69% 68% 65% 64%
By # - >= 2 PIs 13% 15% 18% 18% 20% 21% 22% 24% 24% 24% 25% 27% 27% 28% 29% 30% 31% 32% 35% 36%
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Number [bars] and Value [line] of Research Grants by PIs/GrantFiscal Year 2003
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Nu
mb
er
of
Gra
nts
$-
$200M
$400M
$600M
$800M
$1,000M
$1,200M
Va
lue
of
Gra
nts
Grants 3,506 1,390 600 273 302 48
Amount $1,097M $530M $349M $219M $345M $121M
1 2 3 4 5 6+
Percentage of Research Grants with One PIFiscal Year 2003
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
rce
nta
ge
1 PI 62% 43% 45% 45% 73% 39% 65%
>= 2 PIs 38% 57% 55% 55% 27% 61% 35%
BIO CSE ENG GEO MPS O/D SBE
Funding Rates for Research Awards by PI Involvement
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Single PI 30% 30% 29% 30% 30% 31% 32% 30% 28% 26%
Multiple PIs 28% 28% 23% 28% 29% 27% 27% 23% 25% 21%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
172
209
170
285
178
330
137
358
174
474
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
NCAR Peer-Reviewed Publications
NCAR Authors Joint with Outside Authors
Success Rates of Young PI Awards
Changing NSF award demographics
PIs with Competitive NSF Research Grants by Professional Age, 1994-2003
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Unknown 88 64 46 55 35 43 26 11 7 10
14 Years or More 2,502 2,538 2,518 2,783 2,741 2,844 3,004 3,014 3,178 3,226
7 - 14 Years 1,550 1,596 1,557 1,763 1,722 1,813 1,941 1,758 1,959 1,981
Less than 7 Years 1,137 978 888 1,018 966 962 1,113 1,070 1,128 1,193
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
PIs with Competitive Research Grants by Gender
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
U 28 43 41 41 32 37 46 66 78 128
M 4,520 4,426 4,271 4,687 4,475 4,656 4,909 4,837 5,117 5,129
F 729 707 697 891 957 969 1,129 950 1,077 1,153
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Funding Rates for Proposers by Professional Age
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0<7
7<14
14<21
21<28
28<35
35+
Funding Rate
Fiscal Year
Years SincePI Degree
Funding Rates for Proposers by Professional Age
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
19901991
19921993
19941995
19961997
19981999
0<7
7<14
14<21
21<28
28<35
35+
Prior PI
New PI
55% of young proposers (<7 years since degree) are also new (never had a NSF award)
Funding RateYears SincePI Degree
Fiscal Year
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
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
ATM Program % to NCAR
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
FY72FY75
FY78FY81
FY84FY87
FY90FY93
FY96FY99
FY02
Year
% o
f A
TM
op
er.
Fu
nd
s
top related