Challenges, Opportunities Challenges, Opportunities and and

New DirectionsNew Directions

NSF Regional Grants NSF Regional Grants ConferenceConference

October 4- 5, 2004October 4- 5, 2004

St. Louis, MOSt. Louis, MO

Hosted by: Washington University

Ask Us Early, Ask Us Ask Us Early, Ask Us Often!!Often!!

Tom Cooley Chief Financial Officer

& Director, Office of Budget, Finance & Award Management

tcooley@nsf.gov (703) 292-8200

Jean Feldman Head, Policy Office Division of Institution

& Award Support jfeldman@nsf.gov (703) 292-8243

CoverageCoverage

Challenges, Opportunities & The Long Hard Road Ahead Tom Cooley

Electronic Initiatives Jean Feldman

Challenges, Challenges, Opportunities & the Opportunities & the

Long Hard Road AheadLong Hard Road Ahead

What’s the latest on …..What’s the latest on …..

Challenges Political Landscape Management Challenges Congress and the Budget

Opportunities Research Business Models Subcommittee

The Continuing Long, Hard Road Ahead

Cost Sharing Policy Award Size/Duration Study

ChallengesChallengesPolitical Landscape Election Year Growing Deficit ($422B est.) “War Time” Environment Economic/Job Uncertainty

Continuing Management Challenges Visas Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 Other issues such as export controls, etc.

VisasVisas

IPASS (Interagency Panel on Advancing Science & Security) moving to Department of Homeland Security Broader definition of “sensitive research” Challenge: To balance National Security vs. “cutting

edge” Science & Technology Research More stringent & thorough review of passport &

VISA requests

Current Environment Delays in VISA processing Prominent Scientists delayed coming to

conferences

VisasVisas

Impacts – Decline in % foreign students studying in U.S. Process may become so onerous - best & brightest

foreign students choose to go elsewhere Potential cost increases to universities for SEVIS

reporting requirements (Student & Exchange Visitor Program) may have negative impact on admissions

Increased scrutiny in “sensitive” research disciplines will reduce participation in some areas over time

POC: Jack Mitchell - (703) 292-8010 - jmitchel@nsf.gov

Improper Payments Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 Information Act of 2002

History The Federal Government makes more than $35 billion in

improper payments each year in programs that represent $1 trillion in outlays

IPIA requires agencies to report on programs or activities with estimated improper payments exceeding $10 million and detail actions the agency is taking to reduce these improper payments

OMB further expanded the definition: An erroneous or improper payment includes any payment that was made to an ineligible recipient or for an ineligible service

NSF is the only research grant-making agency required to measure improper use of grant funds. All others are required to report entitlement or block grants programs

Improper Payments Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 Information Act of 2002 (cont’d)(cont’d)

Current Action NSF sampled improper payments on all site visits to

high-risk grantees as identified in our Award Monitoring Program

A BFA team is analyzing the results of the site visits for the Performance and Accountability Reports (PAR)

Continue innovative efforts for administering an improper payments program as part of a holistic grants monitoring approach, which assures accurate award institution identity and grant eligibility

Congress and the Budget:Congress and the Budget:

The Future is Dimly LitThe Future is Dimly Litandand

For R&D the Future May be DimFor R&D the Future May be Dim

NSF’s Key Congressional NSF’s Key Congressional PlayersPlayers

House and Senate Budget Committees

Authorization Committees House Science Committee/Sub-committees Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions

Committee Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation

Committee

Appropriations Committees House and Senate VA, HUD & Independent

Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees

OLPA-5

Ag CJS DC E&W

ForOps Int LHHSEd Leg

Transp TPS VA-HUD

Role of the Appropriations Role of the Appropriations CommitteesCommittees

Disperses >$660 Billion Through Subcommittees

Works With Congressional Leadership and Members to Address Priorities of Budget Resolution

National Defense

Net Interest

All Other

Payments to Individuals

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00 04

Fiscal Year

2007

$1,582 B

$258 B

$185 B

$442 B

Percentage Composition of Percentage Composition of Federal Government OutlaysFederal Government Outlays

R&D BudgetR&D Budget

Budget Authority(dollar amounts in millions)

2005 Proposed

Percent Change

Defense 69,856 7%Health and Human Services 29,381 4%

NASA 11,308 4%Energy 8,893 1%

National Science Foundation 4,252 3%Agriculture/USDA 2,105 -9%Veterans Affairs 772 -6%Commerce 1,075 -5%Homeland Security 1,216 15%Transportation 749 7%Interior 648 -4%

Environmental Protection Agency 577 0%Other 1,034 -5%TOTAL 131,866 5%

Defense

Energy

Agriculture

Transportation

Education

Justice

Housing &Urban Development

EPA

NRC

NSF

Veterans Affairs

Labor

NASA

Departments & Agencies

Development of the Federal R&D BudgetShowing Fields of Science and Executive and Legislative Decision Units

Engineering

PhysicalSciences

EnvironmentalSciences

LifeSciences

Psychology

SocialSciences

OtherSciences

Fields of Science

National

Defense

Affairs

International

Energy

Agriculture

Transportation

Health

Budget Review Offices (OMB)

House & Senate Budget Committees (Budget

Functions)

Agriculture & Related Agencies

Commerce, Justice, State,

Judiciary

Energy and Water

Development

ForeignOperations

VA-HUD-Inde-pendent Agencies

Interior

Labor, Health & Human Services, &

Education

Transportation & Related Agencies

Defense

House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees

Armed Services

Labor and Human

Resources

Banking, Housing

& Urban Affairs

Foreign Relations

Veterans Affairs

Senate Authorization Committees

Energy & Natural

Resources

Environment &

Public Works

Commerce, Science,& Transportation

National Security

Economic & Educational

Opportunities

Banking & Financial Affairs

International Relations

Veterans Affairs

Commerce

Resources

Transportation & Infrastructure

Science

AgricultureAgriculture,

Nutrition, & Forestry

House Authorization Committees

(With significant R&D $)

Judiciary Judiciary

International Science, Engineering and

Technology

International Science, Engineering and

Technology

National SecurityNational Security

ScienceScience

TechnologyTechnology

Math & Computer Science

Agency for International Development

Commerce

Health & Human Services

Interior

National Security &

International Affairs

Natural Resources, Energy, and

Science

Economics & Government

Human Resources,

Veterans, and Labor

General Science, Space & Technology

Natural Resources & Environment

Commerce & Housing Credit

Community & Regional Development

Education, Training, Employment, & Social

Services

Veterans Benefits & Services

Administration of Justice

National Science and Technology Council Research Committees

Connecting lines indicate location of agency budget decisions, but not decision sequences.

Environment and Natural

Resources

Environment and Natural

Resources

New OpportunitiesNew Opportunities

OSTP Subcommittee on Research Business Models Impact of Federal funding policies on

recipient organizations’ business practices

Working with the FDP, COGR, and others

Current NSTCCurrent NSTCStructureStructure

Biotechnology

National Security R&D

Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures

International

Social, Behavioral & Econ.

Infrastructure

IWG on Dioxin

WMD Medical Countermeasures

Health and the Environment.

Oceans

WH: DaleDOD: WynneDHS: McQueary

WH: RussellDOC: Bond

WH: OlsenDOC: LautenbacherEPA: Gilman

NSTCDirector, OSTP

Technology Dev.

Nanoscale Science, Eng.& Technology

Aerospace

Networking Information & Technology

Under development

Informal

Legend

WH: OlsenNSF: BementNIH: Zerhouni

Aquaculture

Human Subjects Research

IWG Dom. Animal Genomics

IWG Plant Genome

IWG Physics of the Universe

Large Scale Science

Education & Workforce Dev.

Research Business Models

R&D Investment CriteriaResearch Misconduct Policy

Global Change Research

IWG Earth Observations

Disaster Reduction

Ecosystems

Toxics & Risks

Water Availability & Quality

Air Quality Research

Standards

Committee on Environment &

Natural Resources

Committee on Environment &

Natural Resources

Committee on Science

Committee on Technology

Committee on Homeland and

National Security

Status Report: Research Business Status Report: Research Business Models (RBM) Subcommittee of the Models (RBM) Subcommittee of the Committee on Science/NSTCCommittee on Science/NSTC

Three working groups created (2003)

Common Practices (EPA and NSF Co-Chair)

Alignment of Funding Mechanisms with Scientific Opportunities (DOE and NSF Co-Chair)

Cost Determination, Recovery, and Accountability (ONR and HHS Co-Chair)

Status Report: RBMStatus Report: RBM

Request for Information issued in Federal Register August 6, 2003

Comments received thru December 2003

Community outreach to AAU, FDP, COGR, NCURA, SRA, NASULGC, etc.

Research Business Models Research Business Models (RBM)(RBM)

Community identified 43 priority items; Ten items marked as initiatives and endorsed by the Committee on Science

Winter 2003: Created one high priority group to be addressed immediately

Developing communication and action plans; involving IGs

Research Business Models Research Business Models (RBM)(RBM)High Priority ItemsHigh Priority Items

Facilitating Collaborative Multidisciplinary Research Acknowledgement of Co-PIs in proposals and

agency information systems; Stability and predictability of support for

research facilities and instrumentation independent of individual projects;

Support for graduate and postdoctoral students with regard to salary, stipends, tuition, benefits, etc.;

Collaboration between universities, federal laboratories, and industry

Research Business Models Research Business Models (RBM)(RBM)High Priority Items (Cont’d)High Priority Items (Cont’d)

Improving Consistency of Agency Practice Standard progress and financial reporting

procedures Broader use of the Federal Demonstration

Partnership model subagreement Consistent award notices format and terms and

conditions

Harmonizing Stewardship and Accountability A-133 monitoring requirements for A-133 compliant

institutions Consistent Federal-wide policies for Research Misconduct Consistent Federal-wide policies for Research Conflict of

Interest

Research Business Models Research Business Models (RBM)(RBM)Next StepsNext Steps

Report to Committee on Science (COS) on October 7

Likely to recommend action on 3-5 of the high priority initiatives (Co-PIs, institutional subagreements, more consistent support for graduate students)

Resulting policy, models, and templates will be published in a “Tool Kit for Multidisciplinary and Collaborative Research” on the RBM website.

Other initiatives will be brought to COS and published in the Tool Kit as they are ready

The Continuing Long, The Continuing Long, Hard Road AheadHard Road Ahead

Cost Sharing Policy

Award Size & Duration

Cost SharingCost Sharing

National Science Board clarified policy: 2002

NSF instituted procedures: 2003

Requires continued attention by all of us

Next NSF step – eliminate cost sharing on MRI proposals

Continued incremental steps will be taken to reduce/eliminate cost sharing requirements in NSF program solicitations

NSB will review again in October 2004

Cost Sharing Data: Cost Sharing Data: FY 2000-2004FY 2000-2004

Fiscal C/S Dollars Awards Total Award %

Year Actions

FY2000 $508M 3109 19,789 15.71

FY2001 $534M 3346 20,529 16.30

FY2002 $419M 3188 21,369 14.92

FY2003 $325M 2359 22,782 10.35

FY2004 $233M 1545 22,708 6.80

(FY 04 as of 9/27)

Cost SharingCost Sharing

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/docs/csfaqs.pdf

Award Size/DurationAward Size/Duration

Surveys of PI’s & Institutions in 2001

Study Results Published July 2002

New average grant size goal

From $100K/3 years to $250K/5 years

Overtime: currently at $138K/2.9 years

Declining success rates (33% 25%)

Trade-offs will have to be made

Electronic Initiatives Electronic Initiatives

What’s the Latest On?What’s the Latest On?

FastLane

Grants.gov

Grants Management Lines of Business

NSF FastLaneNSF FastLane

FastLane is over 40 externally facing interactive web-based systems used by scientists, engineers, educators, research and financial administrators to conduct business with NSF electronically.

Began ten years ago as experimental project

Electronic Proposal Submission through FastLane became required in October 2000.

www.fastlane.nsf.gov

An eGovernment Success An eGovernment Success StoryStoryFY 04 StatsFY 04 StatsOver 40,000 Electronic Proposals Received

190,000 Electronic Reviews

25,000 Electronic Grantee Progress Reports

9,000 Electronic Graduate Research Fellowships

15,000 Electronic Cash Requests

$3.5 Billion Distribution of Funds

Electronic Proposal PercentBy Fiscal Year (FY 97-03)

100

417

4481

99.6

FY97

FY98

FY99

FY00

FY01 FY02

99.96

99.99

FY03

NSF Summary Proposal and NSF Summary Proposal and Award InformationAward Information

OrgF Y

Number of Proposals

Number of Awards

Funding Rate

Average Decision Time (months)

Mean Award Duration (years)

Median Annual Size

NSF 03 40,073 10,844 27% 5.31 2.55 $99,200

02 35,157 10,406 30% 5.65 2.65 $80,000

01 31,940 9,926 31% 6.02 2.65 $77,161

00 29,508 9,850 33% 6.24 2.63 $70,000

99 28,579 9,190 32% 6.05 2.67 $63,640

98 28,422 9,381 33% 5.92 2.67 $58,750

97 30,258 9,936 33% 6.07 2.59 $54,133

96 30,200 9,116 30% 6.86 2.58 $51,163

95 30,442 9,676 32% 6.62 2.49 $50,591

94 30,337 10,047 33% 6.59 2.49 $50,000

FastLane UsersFastLane Users

7,000 registered FastLane organizations Universities and Colleges including

Community Colleges and Minority Serving Institutions

Large and Small Businesses Non-profits State and Local Governments

270,000 registered FastLane users Principal Investigators (PIs) & Co-PIs Reviewers Sponsored Projects Offices (SPO) Financial Offices

Recent Enhancements to Recent Enhancements to FastLaneFastLane

Enhance Proposal File Update Module Ability to change proposal data. Ability to add files where none exist.

Create Letter of Intent Module

Port “look and feel” of the new Research Administration module to FastLane Home Page and login pages

Planned Enhancements to Planned Enhancements to FastLaneFastLane

Enhance Guest Travel and Payment systemRedesign Project Reports System

Implement Sophisticated Help Functionality

The Grants.gov InitiativeThe Grants.gov InitiativeMandate - President’s Management Agenda and PL106-107

Originally called the E-Grants Initiative

Eleven Partner Agencies HHS (managing partner), NSF, Defense, Education,

HUD, Justice, Transportation, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, and Homeland Security/FEMA

Produce a simple, unified “storefront” for all customers of Federal grants to electronically Find grant opportunities – Launched in February 2003 Apply for grants – Launched in October 2003 with

SF424 forms

Grants.gov Solution – One place Grants.gov Solution – One place to go to find opportunities and to go to find opportunities and submit proposalssubmit proposals

.….

.….

Benefits Both Grant Applicants and Agencies

Applicant 2 Applicant 3 Applicant N

Agency 1 Agency 2 Agency 3 Agency N

Applicant 1

Grants.gov Current Grants.gov Current Status Status and Next Stepsand Next StepsAll 26 grant-making agencies posting funding opportunities to the FIND mechanism. As of September 13, 2004, 1,429 funding opportunities have been posted. Of these, NSF has posted 361 opportunities of

which 200 are currently active. This is the highest number of any agency besides HHS.

Grants.gov Current Status Grants.gov Current Status and Next Stepsand Next Steps

Deployed APPLY functionality As of August 3, 2004, 959 applications to 164

federal programs from 15 agencies have been accepted via Grants.gov

Additional Forms Development for agencies not using the SF424 to collect additional data

Build Functionality to support the Research & Related Application Data Set – NSF was one of the agencies that led the design and development

Agency System to System Interface – Successfully tested with several agencies including NSF

Applicant System to System Interface – Gathering requirements, piloting in Fall 2004

Integration with Apply Integration with Apply capability of Grants.govcapability of Grants.gov

NSF will integrate with Government-wide Grants.gov so that proposals can be submitted to NSF via Grants.gov and then processed electronically by NSF.

By Fall 2004, NSF will be able to accept proposals through Grants.gov

If your university wants to pilot our integration with Grants.gov please contact us and we will contact you!

E-Authentication E-Authentication Federated Identity Federated Identity Architecture PilotArchitecture Pilot

To establish a system that allows applications to leverage credentials from other systemsGrants.gov, NSF and USDA will demonstrate the ability to serve as credential providers to each others’ systems. On FastLane Test Server, NSF has demonstrated that users can use their Grants.gov or USDA credentials to access the FastLane PI and SPO functions.Pilot involves several phases and expects to issue a report in Fall 2004.

Lines of Business Lines of Business OpportunitiesOpportunities

The following LOBs share core business requirements and similar business processes.

Financial Management (FM) Human Resources Management

(HR) Grants Management (GM) Federal Health Architecture (FHA) Case Management (CM)

April: RFI issued for FM, HR, GM May: RFI responses received and analyzedJune: Developed of Target Architecture and Common Solution

Common Solution: A business process and/or technology based shared service made available to government agencies.

Business Driven (vs. Technology Driven): Solutions address distinct business improvements that directly impact LoB performance goals.

Developed Through Architectural Processes: Solutions are developed through a set of common and repeatable processes and tools.

Common Solution: A business process and/or technology based shared service made available to government agencies.

Business Driven (vs. Technology Driven): Solutions address distinct business improvements that directly impact LoB performance goals.

Developed Through Architectural Processes: Solutions are developed through a set of common and repeatable processes and tools.

OMB and the Line of Business Task Forces are focused on a business-driven, common solution developed through architectural processes.

OMB and the Line of Business Task Forces are focused on a business-driven, common solution developed through architectural processes.

Grants Management: Visions & Grants Management: Visions & GoalsGoals

Vision A government-wide solution to support end-to-end grants management activities that promote citizen access, customer service, and agency financial and technical stewardship.

GoalsImprove customer access to grant opportunities

Facilitate the development and distribution of solicitationsSupport for the development and submission of grant proposalsIncrease lead-time for announcementFacilitate client/customer authentication and accesses to grant programs

Increase efficiency of the submission processImprove decision making

More effective and efficient review and decision processImproved communication to customer

Integrate with Financial Management processes Improve the efficiency of the reporting procedures in order to increase the usable information content

Address the customer input endPublic access to archival information

Optimize the post-award and closeout actions

ScopeScopeThe continuum of grants management business processes from application intake through award close out and financial reconciliation

Federal assistance funding for competitive and non-competitive awards

Award recipients include states; local units of government; the research community; private, non-profit organizations; and, individuals

ExpectationsExpectationsA common, end-to end solution to support Federal grantors and grantees that would result in:

Transparency and efficiency in the grants decision making process

Improved access to grants-related programmatic and financial information

Enhanced ability to report on award-related accomplishments

Improved post award monitoring and oversight