Engaging Students in Computing Research (ESCR)

Engaging Students in Computing Research (ESCR) is sponsored by National Science Foundation. Supports computing education research and curriculum development for AI-native projects to engage undergraduates in innovative AI applications. This program should be reviewed carefully against your organization's mission, staffing capacity, timeline, and compliance readiness before you commit resources to a full application. Strong submissions usually translate sponsor priorities into concrete objectives, clear implementation milestones, and measurable public benefit.

For planning purposes, treat rolling deadlines or periodic funding windows as your working submission target unless the sponsor publishes an updated notice. A competitive project plan should include a documented need statement, implementation approach, evaluation framework, risk controls, and a realistic budget narrative. Even when a grant allows broad program design, reviewers still expect credible evidence that the proposed work can be executed within the grant period and with appropriate accountability.

Current published award information indicates $300,000 - $1,200,000 Organizations should verify the final funding range, matching requirements, and allowability rules directly in the official opportunity materials before preparing a budget. Finance and program teams should align early so direct costs, indirect costs, staffing assumptions, procurement timelines, and reporting obligations all remain consistent throughout drafting and post-award administration.

Eligibility guidance for this opportunity is: Universities, research institutions If your organization has partnerships, subrecipients, or collaborators, define responsibilities and compliance ownership before submission. Reviewers often look for implementation credibility, so letters of commitment, prior performance evidence, and a clear governance model can materially strengthen the application narrative and reduce concerns about delivery risk.

A practical approach is to begin with a focused readiness review, then build a workback schedule from the sponsor deadline. Confirm required attachments, registration dependencies, and internal approval checkpoints early. This reduces last-minute issues and improves submission quality. For the most accurate requirements, always rely on the official notice and primary source links associated with Engaging Students in Computing Research (ESCR).

NSF 14-562: Computer and Information Science and Engineering Research Initiation Initiative (CRII) | NSF - U. S. National Science Foundation An official website of the United States government Official websites use .

gov A . gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .

gov websites use HTTPS. or https:// means you've safely connected to the . gov website.

Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Research Experiences for Undergraduates For Early-Career Researchers Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) How We Make Funding Decisions Request a Change to Your Award Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) NSF Public Access Repository Who to Contact With Questions Facilities and Infrastructure Updates on NSF Priorities Our Directorates & Offices Biological Sciences (BIO) Computer & Information Science & Engineering (CISE) Integrative Activities (OIA) International Science & Engineering (OISE) Mathematical & Physical Sciences (MPS) Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences (SBE) Technology, Innovation & Partnerships (TIP) National Center for Science & Engineering Statistics (NCSES) National Science Board (NSB) Computer and Information Science and Engineering Research Initiation Initiative (CRII) Archived funding opportunity This solicitation is archived.

NSF 14-562: Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) Research Initiation Initiative (CRII) Download the solicitation (PDF, 0.

6mb) National Science Foundation Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering Division of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Division of Computing and Communication Foundations Division of Computer and Network Systems Division of Information & Intelligent Systems Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p. m.

proposer's local time): Fourth Wednesday in September, Annually Thereafter Important Information And Revision Notes Solicitation Update: May 30, 2014 The Additional Eligibility Requirement that the PI be a US Citizen, Permanent Resident or National has been removed and is no longer a requirement for this solicitation.

Summary Of Program Requirements Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) Research Initiation Initiative (CRII) With the goal of encouraging research independence immediately upon obtaining one's first academic position after receipt of the PhD, the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) will award grants to initiate the course of one's independent research.

Understanding the critical role of establishing that independence early in one's career, it is expected that funds will be used to support untenured faculty or research scientists (or equivalent) in their first two years in an academic position after the PhD.

One may not yet have received any other grants in the Principal Investigator (PI) role from any institution or agency, including from the CAREER program or any other award post-PhD. Serving as co-PI, Senior Personnel, Post-doctoral Fellow, or other Fellow does not count against this eligibility rule.

It is expected that these funds will allow the new CISE Research Initiation Initiative PI to support one or more graduate students for up to two years. Cognizant Program Officer(s): Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact .

Jeremy Epstein, Program Director, CNS, Almadena Y. Chtchelkanova, Program Director, ACI & CCF, Ephraim P. Glinert, Program Director, IIS, Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s): --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant Estimated Number of Awards: 25 CISE expects to make 25 to 30 awards each year.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $3,500,000 to $4,500,000 CISE expects the total funding to be between $3. 5 Million to $4. 5 Million each year, depending on the availability of funds.

Who May Submit Proposals: Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.

Only one principal investigator per proposal is allowed; co-principal investigators and senior personnel are not permitted. Please see Additional Eligibility Information below for more information on who is eligible. Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: A PI can submit one proposal per annual competition. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions A. Proposal Preparation Instructions Letters of Intent: Not required Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply.

The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www. nsf. gov/publications/pub_summ.

jsp? ods_key=gpg . Full Proposals submitted via Grants.

gov: NSF Grants. gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants. gov Guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.

gov Application Guide is available on the Grants. gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www. nsf.

gov/publications/pub_summ. jsp? ods_key=grantsgovguide ).

Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable Other Budgetary Limitations: Not Applicable Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p. m.

proposer's local time): Fourth Wednesday in September, Annually Thereafter Proposal Review Information Criteria Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information Award Conditions: Standard NSF award conditions apply. Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply. Summary of Program Requirements Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions Proposal Preparation Instructions FastLane/Grants.

gov Requirements NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures Merit Review Principles and Criteria Review and Selection Process Award Administration Information Notification of the Award The Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering's (CISE) mission is to promote the progress of computer and information science and engineering research and education, and advance the development and use of cyberinfrastructure across the science and engineering enterprise; to promote understanding of the principles and uses of advanced computer, communications, and information systems in service to society; and to contribute to universal, transparent, and affordable participation in an information-based society.

CISE supports ambitious long-term research and research infrastructure projects across the many sub-fields of computing, as well as cyberinfrastructure for all areas of science and engineering; contributes to the education and training of all computing professionals; and more broadly informs the preparation of a US workforce with computing and computational competencies essential to success in an increasingly competitive global market.

The goal of this program is to contribute to the growth and development of future generations of scientists and engineers who will dedicate their careers to advancing research and education in the fields that CISE funds. This solicitation encourages potentially transformative proposals in any area of CISE research from PIs who are in their first academic position post-PhD.

The goal is for the PI to achieve research independence early in his or her career. (See Section IV: Additional Eligibility Information later in this document.) The CISE Research Initiation Initiative (CRII) is part of CISE's strategy to increase its investments in the development and growth of the research capabilities of future generations of computer and information scientists and engineers.

This solicitation provides the opportunity for early-career researchers to recruit and mentor their first graduate students, which is one critical step in a career pathway that is expected to lead to research independence and a subsequent stream of projects, discoveries, students and publications.

CRII awards will be given to researchers to undertake exploratory investigations, to acquire and test preliminary data, develop collaborations within or across research disciplines, and/or develop new algorithms, approaches, and system designs/prototypes, which together or separately may lead to improved capacity to write successful proposals submitted to other programs in the future.

In preparing this proposal, PIs should refer to Section V. A for guidance about the organization of the proposal.

PIs should be aware that reviewers will be asked to consider the following: 1) the appropriateness of the research objectives for the relatively short duration of the CRII award; 2) the potential of the research initiation activities to produce sufficient preliminary results to serve as the basis for future competitive research proposals; and 3) whether the activities are seen to be the necessary and critical steps for the PI to achieve research independence.

Early-career researchers who are themselves members of underrepresented groups are especially encouraged to apply. Underrepresented groups include the following: women, persons with disabilities, and ethnic/racial groups that are in the minority in computer and information science and engineering, specifically African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Pacific Islanders.

CISE expects to make 25 to 30 awards each year. CISE expects the total funding to be between $3. 5 Million to $4.

5 Million each year, depending on the availability of funds. IV. Eligibility Information Who May Submit Proposals: Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty members.

Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions. Only one principal investigator per proposal is allowed; co-principal investigators and senior personnel are not permitted. Please see Additional Eligibility Information below for more information on who is eligible.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: There are no restrictions or limits. Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: A PI can submit one proposal per annual competition. Additional Eligibility Info: Principal Investigators are eligible to apply to this CRII solicitation only if ALL the following criteria are met at the time of submission .

The PI should: Hold a primary appointment in a computer science, information science, or electrical or computing engineering department, or in a related field of computational science (where the PI would normally submit proposals to CISE programs); and Be in the first two years of a tenure-track or research science or education position (or equivalent).

The number of years includes any academic position held post-PhD, exclusive of postdoctoral appointments. Only official leaves of absence (for illness, family, etc.) may be subtracted from the total time in the position, as certified by the PI's department chair/head in the required letter of support, to be included in the Supplementary Documents section of the proposal.

In addition, at the time of the award , the PI may not have received any other grants in the PI role from any institution or agency. (One could have received an award as a co-PI or Senior Personnel on another grant.)

Exceptions include the following: Workshop or student conference travel awards; Doctoral dissertation improvement grants; Post doctoral research fellowship awards, such as SEES Fellows or CI Fellows; A Graduate Research Fellowship or similar fellowship award from NSF; SBIR or STTR awards that were received while the PI worked in industry. V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions A.

Proposal Preparation Instructions Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants. gov or via the NSF FastLane system. Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG).

The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www. nsf. gov/publications/pub_summ.

jsp? ods_key=gpg . Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.

gov . Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines.

Failure to submit this information may delay processing. Full proposals submitted via Grants. gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.

gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants. gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants. gov.

The complete text of the NSF Grants. gov Application Guide is available on the Grants. gov website and on the NSF website at: ( https://www.

nsf. gov/publications/pub_summ. jsp?

ods_key=grantsgovguide ). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants. gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button.

Paper copies of the Grants. gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf. gov .

Important Proposal Preparation Information: FastLane will check for required sections of the full proposal, in accordance with Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) instructions described in Chapter II. C. 2.

The GPG requires submission of: Project Summary; Project Description; References Cited; Biographical Sketch(es); Budget; Budget Justification; Current and Pending Support; Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources; Data Management Plan; and Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan, if applicable. If a required section is missing, FastLane will not accept the proposal.

Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the GPG instructions. If the solicitation instructions do not require a GPG-required section to be included in the proposal, insert text or upload a document in that section of the proposal that states, "Not Applicable for this Program Solicitation." Doing so will enable FastLane to accept your proposal.

Please note that per guidance in the GPG, the Project Description must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a discussion of the broader impacts of the proposed activities. Unless otherwise specified in this solicitation, you can decide where to include this section within the Project Description . The following guidance supplements and/or deviates from guidance in the GPG.

Cover Sheet: The primary division for submission could be any CISE Division [Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (ACI); Computing and Communication Foundations (CCF); Computer and Network Systems (CNS); and Information and Intelligent Systems (IIS)], but must represent the area closest to the PI's own research interests and expertise.

Furthermore, the title of the research project must begin with "CRII:" in the title section of the NSF Cover Sheet, followed by the acronym of the CISE program closest to the PI’s research interests and expertise from the list of possible programs noted below.

Algorithmic Foundations (AF) Communications and Information Foundations (CIF) Software and Hardware Foundations (SHF) Computer Systems Research (CSR) Networking Technology and Systems (NeTS) Information Integration and Informatics (III) Cyber-Human Systems (CHS) Computing Education for the 21 st Century (CE21) Cyberlearning and Future Learning Technologies (Cyberlearning) Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC) Smart and Connected Health (SCH) As a pair of examples, the title of a proposal submitted to the Algorithmic Foundations core program within CCF would take the form CRII: AF: Title ; and the title of a proposal submitted to the Cyberlearning and Future Learning Technologies crosscutting program led by IIS would take the form CRII: Cyberlearning: Title .

Co-principal investigators are not permitted. Project Summary (one-page limit): Refer to the GPG for instructions. Project Description (ten-page limit): Because this award is for up to two years, the project description can be up to ten pages long.

Budget: Prepare a realistic budget that is consistent with the proposed activities not to exceed $175,000 for up to 24 months. No summer salary, course buyouts, or academic year salary costs are allowed. Most of the funds should go to student(s).

1) Letter of Support from Department Chair/Head: A letter of support from the PI's department chair/head certifying that the PI meets the eligibility criteria, including that he or she is in the first two years of a tenure-track or research science or education position (or equivalent), must be included. Only official leaves of absence (for illness, family, etc.)

may be subtracted from the total time in the position, as certified by the PI's department chair/head in this required letter of support. 2) Data Management Plan (required): Proposals must include a supplementary document of no more than two pages labeled "Data Management Plan." This supplementary document should describe how the proposal will conform to NSF policy on the dissemination and sharing of research results.

See Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Chapter 11. C. 2.

j for full policy implementation. For additional information, see: https://www. nsf.

gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp. jsp For specific guidance for proposals submitted to the CISE Directorate, see: https://www. nsf.

gov/cise/cise_dmp. jsp . Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p. m. proposer's local time): Fourth Wednesday in September, Annually Thereafter D.

FastLane/Grants. gov Requirements For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane: To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www. fastlane.

nsf. gov/a1/newstan. htm .

For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf. gov . The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system.

Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity. For Proposals Submitted Via Grants. gov: Before using Grants.

gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants. gov website.

Comprehensive information about using Grants. gov is available on the Grants. gov Applicant Resources webpage: http://www.

grants. gov/web/grants/applicants. html .

In addition, the NSF Grants. gov Application Guide (see link in Section V. A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.

gov. For Grants. gov user support, contact the Grants.

gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants. gov . The Grants.

gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants. gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants. gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.

gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing. Proposers that submitted via FastLane are strongly encouraged to use FastLane to verify the status of their submission to NSF.

For proposers that submitted via Grants. gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants. gov.

After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research. gov should be used to check the status of an application. VI.

NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures 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. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process.

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. Submission of such names, however, is optional.

Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. 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 in the GPG as Exhibit III-1 . A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: http://nsf. gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/ .

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Investing in Science, Engineering, and Education for the Nation's Future: NSF Strategic Plan for 2014-2018 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part.

NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities. One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF’s mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions.

These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U. S. technology-based economy.

NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation’s most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports. 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.

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the 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: What is the potential for the proposed activity to Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)? To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?

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? How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?

Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities? Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project.

NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes.

Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria Additional review criteria include: 1) the appropriateness of the research objectives for the relatively short duration of this award; 2) the potential of the research initiation activities to produce sufficient preliminary results to serve as the basis for future competitive research proposals; and 3) whether the activities are seen to be the necessary and critical steps for the PI to achieve research independence.

B. Review and Selection Process Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria.

A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months.

Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement.

Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer.

A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk. Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents.

Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding. VII.

Award Administration Information A. Notification of the Award Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program.

Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI. B.

for additional information on the review process). An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the