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