Office of International Science and Engineering

To enable the U.S.

to maintain its leadership within the global scientific community by strengthening international partnerships to advance scientific discovery and contribute to the scientific strength and welfare of the Nation; to promote research excellence through international collaboration;
to develop a diverse, globally engaged U.S.

science and engineering workforce by providing U.S.

students and faculty with international research and education experiences.

The research supported is basic in character.

OISE programs includes support of international research and education projects that are innovative and catalytic.

OISE programs complement and enhance the Foundation's research and education portfolio to overcome barriers involved in international collaboration.

Grants are made in all the disciplinary fields supported by NSF.

Support is provided for international collaborative research; research workshops and planning visits; activities that will develop the next generation of U.S.

scientists and engineers such as graduate traineeships, postdoctoral fellowships, special opportunities for junior faculty for research support, and dissertation enhancements; and for U.S.

Government support to key multilateral organizations.

Support is provided for undergraduate student international research and education experiences, and for research opportunities for women, minorities, and disabled scientists and engineers.

Agency - National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation is an independent Federal agency created to promote the progress of science, to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare and to secure the national defense. The NSF annually funds approximately 20 percent of basic, Federally-supported college and university research.




Selected Recipients for this Program


RecipientAmount Start DateEnd Date
Arizona State University $ 1,031,746   2019-10-012024-09-30
New School, The $ 968,254   2019-10-012024-09-30
Trustees Of Indiana University $ 499,827   2019-10-012024-09-30
Northeastern University $ 602,421   2019-10-012024-09-30
Worcester Polytechnic Institute $ 350,211   2019-09-012024-08-31
Johns Hopkins University, The $ 525,204   2019-09-012024-08-31
University Of Chicago, The $ 1,102,149   2017-10-012023-09-30
University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill $ 1,773,404   2018-01-012023-09-30
Kansas State University $ 1,789,472   2018-01-012023-09-30
University Of Arkansas System $ 450,000   2019-09-012023-08-31



Program Accomplishments

Fiscal Year 2016: In Fiscal Year 2016, 314 proposals were received, and 237 awards made. Fiscal Year 2017: In Fiscal Year 2017, 620 proposals will be received, and 310 awards will be made. Fiscal Year 2018: In Fiscal Year 2018, 400 proposals will be received, and 300 awards will be made.

Uses and Use Restrictions

International cooperative scientific activities provide funds for U. S. scientists and engineers to carry out studies abroad, to conduct research, to engage in joint research projects with foreign counterpart organizations, and to support international workshops focused on well-defined scientific opportunities in the United States and abroad; travel must be on U. S. flag carriers.

In some programs, support is provided by paying costs necessary to conduct research, such as salaries, equipment, supplies, travel, publications, and other direct and indirect costs.

Primary responsibility for general supervision of all grant activities rests with the grantee institution; the project director or principal investigator is responsible for the execution of the research activities.

Grants are made on a competitive basis.

For all programs, funds may not be used for purposes other than those specified in the proposal.

Eligibility Requirements

Applicant Eligibility

Individuals and organizations in the following categories may submit proposals: Universities and colleges; Non-profit, non-academic organizations; For-profit organizations; State and local governments; and unaffiliated individuals.

See the NSF Grant Proposal Guide, Chapter I.E., for a full description of eligibility requirements: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.

Beneficiary Eligibility

Not applicable.

Credentials/Documentation

Proposals must be signed electronically by an official authorized to commit the institution or organization in business and financial affairs and who can commit the organization to certain proposal certifications. Applicants must show evidence of ability such as academic records, letters of recommendation, graduate record examination scores, and grade point average. 2 CFR 200, Subpart E - Cost Principles applies to this program.

Aplication and Award Process

Preapplication Coordination

Pre-application coordination may be required.

Environmental impact information may be required for this program.

This program is eligible for coverage under E.O.

12372, 'Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.' An applicant should consult the office or official designated as the single point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review.

Environmental impact information is not required for this program.

This program is eligible for coverage under E.O.

12372, 'Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.' An applicant should consult the office or official designated as the single point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review.

Application Procedures

This program is excluded from coverage under 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. By electronic submission via FastLane or Grants.gov of a formal proposal, and in some programs, a preliminary proposal, describing the planned project and the proposed amount of the grant. For guidelines, see specific funding opportunities and the Grant Proposal Guide: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub summ.jsp?ods key=gpg.

Award Procedures

NSF staff members review and evaluate all proposals based on a set of criteria established by the National Science Board and, if applicable, solicitation-specific review criteria. In most cases reviews are undertaken with the advice of scientist, engineers, educators and other appropriate persons who are specialist in the fields covered by the proposals. NSF makes awards on a competitive basis. Notification of an award is transmitted electronically to the submitting organization by a NSF Grants and Agreements Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements.

Deadlines

Contact the headquarters or regional office, as appropriate, for application deadlines.

Authorization

National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.

Range of Approval/Disapproval Time

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration o appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.

Appeals

The principal investigator may request, in writing, within 90 days of a declination or return, that NSF reconsider its action in declining or returning any proposal application.

Renewals

A renewal proposal competes with all other proposals and must be developed fully as though the proposer is applying for the first time. Renewal proposals must be submitted at least six months before additional funding is required or consistent with an established deadline, target date or submission window. Principal investigators are encouraged to discuss renewal proposals with the NSF Program Officer prior to submission.

Assistance Considerations

Formula and Matching Requirements

This program has no statutory formula. This program has no matching requirements. Mandatory cost sharing will only be required for NSF programs when explicitly authorized by the NSF Director, the National Science Board, or legislation. In those rare instances, cost sharing requirements will be clearly identified in the pgram solicitation. Inclusion of voluntary, committed cost sharing is prohibited. MOE requirements are not applicable to this program.

Length and Time Phasing of Assistance

Award durations of up to 5 years. Method of awarding assistance: Standard or continuing grant, fellowship, or cooperative agreement. Please note: EPSCoR assistance is limited to continuing grants and cooperative agreements. Method of awarding/releasing assistance: lump sum. Method of awarding/releasing assistance: lump sum.

Post Assistance Requirements

Reports

No program reports are required.

No cash reports are required.

Annual Project Reports should be submitted at least 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period.

Within 90 days following the expiration of the award, a Final Project Report and a Project Outcomes Report for the General Public must be submitted.

Grantees are required to report the status of funds received from NSF on a quarterly basis through the submission of a Federal Financial Report (FFR).

Information about reporting requirements is contained in the Award and Administration Guide: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub summ.jsp?ods key=aag.

No performance monitoring is required.

Audits

In accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR 200, Subpart F - Audit Requirements, non-Federal entities that expend financial assistance of $750,000 or more in Federal awards will have a single or a program-specific audit conducted for that year. Non-Federal entities that expend less than $750,000 a year in Federal awards are exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in 2 CFR 200.503. In accordance with the provisions of,' 2 CFR 200. Subpart F ? Audit Requirements, a non-Federal entity that expends $750,000 or more during the non-Federal entity?s fiscal year in Federal awards must have a single or a program-specific audit conducted for that year. A non-Federal entity that expends less than $750,000 during the non-Federal entity?s fiscal a year in Federal is exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in 2 CFR 200.503.

Records

Records, supporting documents, statistical records, and other records pertinent to a grant must be retained by the grantee for a period of 3 years from submission of the Final Project Report. Special record keeping requirements may apply to fellowships.

Financial Information

Account Identification

49-0100-0-1-251.

Obigations

(Project Grants) FY 16 $49,070,000; FY 17 est $48,980,000; and FY 18 est $44,020,000 - 1) FY 2016 Obligation projections are the FY 2016 NSF Current Plan 2) FY 2016 Obligations are the FY 2016 NSF Appropriations Actual 3) FY 2017 Obligations estimates are the FY 2017 NSF Current Plan 4) FY 2018 Obligations estimates are the FY 2018 NSF Congressional Request.

Range and Average of Financial Assistance

Range Low $400 Range High $523,000 Average $20,150.

Regulations, Guidelines, and Literature

NSF Website: www.nsf.gov; 48 CFR Chapter 25; 45 CFR Chapter VI; Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide: (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pubsumm.jsp?ods key=papp), which incorporates the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) and Award & Aministration Guide (AAG).

Information Contacts

Regional or Local Office

None.

Headquarters Office

Simona Gilbert 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite W17220, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Email: sgilbert@nsf.gov Phone: 703-292-7216

Criteria for Selecting Proposals

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included as GPG Exhibit III-1. A comprehensive description of the Foundation?s merit review process is available on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/meritreview/. Proposal review is one step in the NSF program planning and implementation process. Embedded in this process are core strategies that are fundamental to the fulfillment of NSF?s mission. More information about NSF?s mission and strategies can be found in Empowering the Nation Through Discovery and Innovation: NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2011-2016. NSF?s mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities. A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria; The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF?s mission ?to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.? NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects. 1. Merit Review Principles; These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply: ? All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge. ? NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified. ? Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project. With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities. These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent. 2. Merit Review Criteria. All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities. The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.(i) contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal.) Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.(i), prior to the review of a proposal. When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria: ? Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and ? Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes. The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria: 1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to: a. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and b. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)? 2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? 3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success? 4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities? 5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?.



Social Entrepreneurship
Spotlight



Social Enterprise Wins Start-up of the Year Award with $10,000 Prize


Social Enterprise Wins Start-up of the Year Award with $10,000 Prize

Bettr Barista Coffee Academy, a social enterprise that adopts a whole-person approach devoted towards enriching the lives of disadvantaged women and at-risk youth, bagged the President’s Challenge Social Enterprise Start-up of the Year award with a trophy and $10,000 prize money.




Not for Profit Jobs in Louisiana

  Executive Director Jobs
  Social Work Jobs
  Foundation Related Jobs
  Substance Abuse Jobs
  Executive Director Jobs





More Federal Domestic Assistance Programs


Tribal Registry | Criminal and Juvenile Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program | Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property | Children's Justice Grants to States | Highway Research and Development Program |  Site Style by YAML | Grants.gov | Grants | Grants News | Sitemap | Privacy Policy


Edited by: Michael Saunders

© 2004-2019 Copyright Michael Saunders