Upload
kamin
View
35
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Challenges, Opportunities and New Directions. NSF Regional Grants Conference October 4- 5, 2004 St. Louis, MO. Hosted by: Washington University. Tom Cooley Chief Financial Officer & Director, Office of Budget, Finance & Award Management [email protected] (703) 292-8200. Jean Feldman - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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
[email protected] (703) 292-8200
Jean Feldman Head, Policy Office Division of Institution
& Award Support [email protected] (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 - [email protected]
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