Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on

Building Capacity in the Building Capacity in the

FieldField

A Cycle of Continuous A Cycle of Continuous ImprovementImprovement

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on

A facilitated discussion by A facilitated discussion by program staff of the National program staff of the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Math and Science Partnership Math and Science Partnership

(MSP) Program(MSP) Program

Diane Spresser, Diane Spresser, Senior Program CoordinatorSenior Program Coordinator

Kathleen Bergin, Kathleen Bergin, Program DirectorProgram Director

Joyce Evans, Joyce Evans, Senior Program DirectorSenior Program Director

James Hamos, James Hamos, Program DirectorProgram Director

Joan Prival, Joan Prival, Program DirectorProgram Director

Elizabeth VanderPutten, Elizabeth VanderPutten, Program DirectorProgram Director

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on

Session Purpose Session Purpose

Enhancing the Competitive Award Process

Building Capacity

Responding to the question:

From this session, what one or two changes might enhance your process—from RFP Development through Award Management?

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on

Whose Capacity? Whose Capacity?

ProposersProposers

ReviewersReviewers

AwardeesAwardees

Award ManagersAward Managers

And OthersAnd Others

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on

Capacity Building—Focus on Capacity Building—Focus on Coherence & Continuous Coherence & Continuous

Learning: Learning:

Content of the Content of the Solicitation/RFP/Application Solicitation/RFP/Application

Community Outreach Community Outreach

Composition of Review Panels Composition of Review Panels

Review Process Review Process

Negotiations Negotiations

Declinations Declinations

Managing Awards Managing Awards

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on Content of the Content of the

Solicitation/RFP/ApplicationSolicitation/RFP/Application

What do you want What do you want to be accomplished?to be accomplished?

How do you expect How do you expect this work to be this work to be accomplished?accomplished?

What criteria will What criteria will you use to assess you use to assess whether the whether the proposal answers proposal answers these questions?these questions?

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on Content of the Content of the

Solicitation/RFP/ApplicationSolicitation/RFP/Application

What do you want What do you want to be accomplished?to be accomplished?

How do you expect How do you expect this work to be this work to be accomplished?accomplished?

What criteria will What criteria will you use to assess you use to assess whether the whether the proposal answers proposal answers these questions?these questions?

What do they What do they intend to intend to accomplish? accomplish?

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on Content of the Content of the

Solicitation/RFP/ApplicationSolicitation/RFP/Application

What do you want What do you want to be accomplished?to be accomplished?

How do you expect How do you expect this work to be this work to be accomplished?accomplished?

What criteria will What criteria will you use to assess you use to assess whether the whether the proposal answers proposal answers these questions?these questions?

What do they What do they intend to intend to accomplish? accomplish?

How do they How do they

expect to do it? expect to do it?

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on Content of the Content of the

Solicitation/RFP/ApplicationSolicitation/RFP/Application

What do you want What do you want to be accomplished?to be accomplished?

How do you expect How do you expect this work to be this work to be accomplished?accomplished?

What criteria will What criteria will you use to assess you use to assess whether the whether the proposal answers proposal answers these questions?these questions?

What do they What do they intend to intend to accomplish? accomplish?

How do they How do they

expect to do it? expect to do it?

How will they How will they

evaluate your work? evaluate your work?

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on Components of NSF-MSP Over Components of NSF-MSP Over

Time Time

Comprehensive Partnerships and Comprehensive Partnerships and Targeted PartnershipsTargeted Partnerships

Research, Evaluation and Technical Assistance (RETA)

Targeted Partnerships, Institute Targeted Partnerships, Institute Partnerships and RETAsPartnerships and RETAs

Institute Partnerships and RETAsInstitute Partnerships and RETAs

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on

Community Outreach Community Outreach

Regional and local D.C. Regional and local D.C. workshopsworkshops

National Professional MeetingsNational Professional Meetings

Postings on WebsitePostings on Website

E-mail and phone E-mail and phone communicationcommunication

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on

Proposal Review Proposal Review

1.1. What do you view as the What do you view as the

Intellectual Merit of this Intellectual Merit of this

proposal?proposal?

2.2. What do you view as the Broader What do you view as the Broader

Impacts of this proposal?Impacts of this proposal?

3.3. If you were negotiating with this If you were negotiating with this

Partnership, what major Partnership, what major

questions (1 or 2) would you questions (1 or 2) would you

want answered before funding? want answered before funding?

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on

NSF Merit Review Criteria NSF Merit Review Criteria

Intellectual Merit

Broader Impacts

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on Reviewer RatingReviewer Rating

Excellent:Excellent: Outstanding proposal in all respects;

deserves highest priority for support.

Very Good:Very Good: High quality proposal in nearly all

respects; should be supported if at all possible.

Good:Good: A quality proposal, worthy of support.

Fair:Fair: Proposal lacking in one or more critical

aspects; key issues need to be addressed.

Poor:Poor: Proposal has serious deficiencies.

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on

Review Process—Ratings Review Process—Ratings

What do you see that is gained What do you see that is gained

by this rating approach? by this rating approach?

What alternatives are there?What alternatives are there?

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on

Review Process Review Process

Individual Written Reviews,Individual Written Reviews,

Individual Ratings,Individual Ratings,

Panel Discussion and Panel Panel Discussion and Panel Summary Summary

Finalized Individual Written Finalized Individual Written Reviews and RatingsReviews and Ratings

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on Composition of Review Panels—Composition of Review Panels—

Mirror of PartnershipMirror of Partnership Diversity of Expertise—Distinguished Diversity of Expertise—Distinguished

STEM researchers, educators and STEM researchers, educators and practitionerspractitioners

Diversity of Institutions/OrganizationsDiversity of Institutions/Organizations Institutions of Higher Education K-12 Schools, LEAs and SEAs Business and Industry Non-profit organizations Other Stakeholders

Ethnic/Racial/Gender DiversityEthnic/Racial/Gender Diversity Geographic Diversity Geographic Diversity Experienced and New ReviewersExperienced and New Reviewers

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on Confidentiality and Conflicts of Confidentiality and Conflicts of

Interest Interest

No discussion before or after panels No discussion before or after panels with those outside the review processwith those outside the review process

Proposals should not be kept by Proposals should not be kept by panelistspanelists

No ideas or other information from No ideas or other information from proposals may be usedproposals may be used

Panelists who have any current or Panelists who have any current or recent or known potential connection recent or known potential connection to individuals or institutions in a given to individuals or institutions in a given proposal may not serve as a reviewer proposal may not serve as a reviewer nor enter into panel discussions or nor enter into panel discussions or deliberationsdeliberations

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on

Declinations Declinations

Individual ReviewsIndividual Reviews

Panel SummaryPanel Summary

Common Areas Requiring Common Areas Requiring StrengtheningStrengthening

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on

Managing AwardsManaging Awards

Award LanguageAward Language

Annual Progress ReportsAnnual Progress Reports

Annual Project Evaluation ReportsAnnual Project Evaluation Reports

Annual MeetingsAnnual Meetings

Site Visits and Reverse Site VisitsSite Visits and Reverse Site Visits

On-going communications between On-going communications between NSF staff and Partnership PI/PDNSF staff and Partnership PI/PD

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on

From this session, what one or two changes might enhance your

process—from RFP Development through Award Management?

Math

an

d S

cie

nce

Part

ners

hip

Nati

on

al S

cie

nce F

ou

nd

ati

on