Additional Program Information

Program Budget:
In Fiscal Year 2003 a total of approximately $5 million was spent. This included new awards made after Fall and Spring panels, dissertation awards, infrastructure and HOMINID awards as well as yearly increments to continuing awards funded in earlier years. The base budget for the program itself was approximately $3 million.

Funding Criteria and Success Rates:

All programs within the National Science Foundation consider two review criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. You must address each in separate paragraphs within you Project Summary. Please make certain to refer to the Grant Proposal Guide as to NSF's definition of Broader Impacts. Proposals that do not comply will be returned without review.

NSF is committed to the principle that research supported with public funds should be made widely available. Under NSF's data sharing policy, the Foundation expects investigators to share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the data, samples, physical collections, and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of the work. To implement that policy in ways appropriate to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology, beginning July 1, 2005 these Programs will require that all proposals include a one-page detailed description of the applicant's data access plan in the "Supplementary Documents" section. This page will be in addition to the standard 15-page project description. Applications lacking this statement will not be reviewed. The Programs realize that individual cases may differ widely and recognize that any absolute timeline or rigid set of rules is not possible. They also recognize that revision and adjustment may often be required as the work proceeds. The data access plan, however, will be considered an integral part of the project and therefore subject to reviewer and panel evaluation. Major departure from it will constitute a significant project change and require NSF approval. Successful applicants will be required to address this issue in every progress and final report. PIs on all awards made under these guidelines will be expected to discuss implementation of their plans in the "Results of Prior Research" section when they submit subsequent applications.

Proposals are evaluated by both outside reviewers selected for specific expertise in the applicant’s subject area and a panel of physical anthropologists which convenes twice yearly. The Fall panel generally meets in October/November and the Spring meeting is usually in March or April. Applicants are invited to contact the Program Director to determine panel dates and then to inquire about application outcome. They are also directed to the Fastlane template which permits them to suggest names of potential reviewers and to note individuals they would prefer not to be asked for reviews.
Applicants should follow instructions in the Grant Proposal Guide and are required to submit proposals electronically through the NSF Fastlane system.

In a normal panel cycle the program receives approximately 40-50 proposals spread across the sub-fields. The panel of experts reviews each proposal in light of the two criteria, as well as the reviews of each. Usually each proposal has been commented upon by 3-5 experts, in addition to the panelists. Each proposal is then categorized on a scale from "Must Fund" to "Decline."

Many PIs strategize about their budget, for instance hoping that a small budget may increase chances for funding. The recommendations for awards are made based upon scientific merit and the broader impacts of the research, not the budget. A meritorious proposal will not be summarily declined because of a large budget. At the very least there will be discussion about providing support within the realities of the program's resources. In constructing your budget, you should make a reasonable request. If a recommendation to fund is made, negotiations will follow if necessary.

Over the past several years, approximately 25% of the senior awards received at least some degree of funding. The smallest awards have been under $10,000 and the largest in excess of $115,000/year for 3-5 years. In addition, some physical anthropologists have received very large awards through applications to other cross-directorate programs. NSF maintains a database of abstracts of all awards at which you can perform a fielded search (use 1392 in the Program Element field). One of the best ways to construct a successful proposal is to read several that were funded. One way to obtain these might be to contact PIs that were funded and request a copy of theirs.

A word on co-review. Given the basic nature of our discipline, coupled with the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of research activities, many proposals could benefit from co-review with other programs in the foundation. Some PIs fear that a co-review increases the chances for declination. In practice the culture of the Foundation is such that it enhances the likelihood of funding. If two programs view a proposal as meritorious it decreases the cost to each. If one does not recommend funding the proposal, it generally does not negatively impact the considerations of the other. If you think that your research might be reviewed by more than one program, contact the program officer of physical anthropology to discuss the matter. Often co-review is sought even in the absence of a PI request to do so, but feel free to contact the program director regarding co-review.