Detailed Information on the
Support for Individual Researchers Assessment

Continue to develop innovative programs for broadening participation in CAREER, GRF, IGERT, and GK-12 using guidance from the recently issued NSF-wide Report on Broadening Participation.

Initiate a targeted review of the priority area across the agency through an external committee of visitors.

Continue to strengthen performance targets and continue to improve monitoring of performance against those targets.

All Individuals programs will ensure increased timeliness of yearly project reports from investigators.

Redouble efforts to increase numbers of applicants for Graduate Research Fellowships from groups that are underrepresented in the science and engineering workforce.

Implement the Corrective Action Plan developed in response to the NSF IG finding on Post-Award Oversight for High Risk Grants and Cooperative Agreements.

NSF will develop new ways and measures to monitor its efforts to broaden participation in this and other programs.

Continue to broaden participation in these programs.

EHR refined its outreach efforts to target more precisely individuals underrepresented in STEm in order to broaden the Graduate Fellowship applicant pool.

Measure: External validation of "signficant achievement" in promoting diversity in the science and engineering workforce through increased participation of underrepresented groups in NSF activities.

Explanation:This objective speaks directly to NSF's statutory responsibilities. It will be evaluated through the external Advisory Committee for GPRA (ACGPA).

Measure: Number of applicants for Graduate Research Fellowships from groups that are underrepresented in the science and engineering workforce.

Explanation:Graduate Research Fellowships are NSF's flagship investment in graduate education and training, and outreach efforts to increase the number of applicants from underrepresented groups are an ongoing priority.

Measure: Number of applications for CAREER awards from investigators at minority-serving institutions.

Explanation:CAREER is NSF's flagship investment in the development of young faculty, and broadening the institutional base of applicants to the program is a continuing priority. Outreach efforts have specifically focused on attracting faculty from minority-serving institutions and from a broader geographic base.

Measure: External validation of "significant achievement" in attracting and preparing U.S. students to be highly qualified members of the global S&E workforce.

Explanation:This objective speaks directly to NSF's statutory responsibilities. It will be evaluated through the ACGPA process.

Measure: Number of U.S. students receiving fellowships through GRF, IGERT, and GK-12 programs.

Explanation:GRF and IGERT are the two principal sources of graduate student support in the Individuals portfolio.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of NSF's investments in individuals is to "ensure development of world-class scientists, mathematicians, technologists and educators" (NSF Revised GPRA Strategic Plan). This statement of purpose is derived directly from the statutes that govern the Foundation. The NSF Act of 1950 authorizes NSF to support science and engineering education at all levels, including providing graduate fellowships in science and engineering. Other statutes, notably the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act, have expanded this authority to address the underrepresentation of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. These purposes have since been further expanded and clarified in recently-enacted NSF Authorization Act of 2002.

Evidence: NSF Revised GPRA Strategic Plan; National Science Foundation Act of 1950, 42 USC 1861 et. Seq.; Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act, 42 USC 1885; NSF Authorization Act of 2002, P.L. 107-378

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The national imperative for NSF's investments in Individuals is addressed in Paragraph 4 of Section 2, (Findings) of the NSF Authorization Act of 2002: "The research and education activities of the National Science Foundation...prepare future generations of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers who will be necessary to ensure America's leadership in the global marketplace."

Evidence: NSF Authorization Act of 2002, P.L. 107-378

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: NSF is the only Federal agency charged with promoting the progress of science and engineering research and education in all fields and disciplines. As such NSF's activities through its investments in Individuals address unique national science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce needs that are not under the purview of mission-oriented federal, state or local agencies.

Evidence: NSF has specific, statutory authority to evaluate the status and needs of the various sciences and engineering and to consider the results of this evaluation in correlating its research and educational programs with other Federal and non-Federal programs. (www.nsf.gov/home/about/creation.htm)

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: NSF's investments in Individuals rely upon the competitive merit review process, NSF Program Officers, and Committees of Visitors to ensure program effectiveness and efficiency. Merit review by peers has been recognized as a best practice for administering R&D programs. Independent reviews by COVs and other external groups (e.g., Advisory Committees, National Science Board, NAS/NRC, PCAST) provide additional scrutiny of the portfolio and program goals. This follows the guidance provided in the R&D Criteria, as outlined in the OMB/OSTP Guidance Memo.

Evidence: FY 2002 Performance Report (www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03023/pdf/chapter4.pdf); Report to the NSB on the NSF Merit Review Process ' FY 2002 (www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/merit_rprt/mrreport_2002_final.doc); June 2003 OMB/OSTP Guidance Memo (www.ostp.gov/html/OSTP-OMB%20Memo.pdf).

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: NSF's investments in Individuals rely upon two mechanisms to ensure that the program is effectively targeted and that funding addresses the programs purpose directly. First, the program solicitations for each activity contain a clear statement of the program's purpose in the context of the particular activity. Then, the merit review process ensures that funding is awarded to proposals that best address the programs purpose.

Evidence: Information on program solicitations (including URLs) for investments in Individuals is included in the Account Information tab. Key excerpts include: -NSF's most prestigious awards for new faculty members (CAREER) recognizes and provides direct support for the early career-development activities of those teacher-scholars who are most likely to become the academic leaders of the 21st century. -Graduate Research Fellowships provide three years of support for graduate study leading to research-based master's or doctoral degrees in STEM fields and are intended for students in the early stages of their graduate study. -IGERT meets the challenges of educating U.S. Ph.D. scientists, engineers, and educators with the interdisciplinary backgrounds, deep knowledge in chosen disciplines, and technical, professional, and personal skills to become in their own careers the leaders and creative agents for change. -The NSF Director's Award for Distinguished Teaching Scholars (DTS) recognizes and rewards individuals with distinguished records of educating undergraduates....

Does the program effectively articulate potential public benefits?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

If an industry-related problem, can the program explain how the market fails to motivate private investment?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Specific long-term performance measures for NSF's investments in Individuals are listed in the 'Measures' tab. These are drawn from the objectives set forth in the NSF Revised GPRA Strategic Plan, and they encompass NSF's commitment to broadening participation in science and engineering and to strengthening the U.S. workforce in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

Evidence: Measures Tab

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The long-term measures for NSF's investments in Individuals are verifiable, as assessed by external advisory committees. This ensures that the goals and timeframes for these activities are appropriately ambitious and that they promote continuous improvement. The primary mechanisms for external evaluation are the Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment (last meeting 6/24-25/2003) and the Committee of Visitors process. Other external guidance includes 3rd party program assessments and PI meetings.

Evidence: AC GPA Report: www.nsf.gov/od/gpra/reports/final_report_1107.doc FY 2002 Performance and Accountability Report/PEOPLE Discussion: www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03023/pdf/chapter3.pdf

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures?

Explanation: NSF is in the process of developing appropriate measures, baselines, and targets for its investments in Individuals. Until now, NSF's assessment processes have been based on qualitative evaluations (under the 'alternative format' authorized by GPRA). The agency has identified a number of potential quantitative annual measures, shown in the Measures Tab, that relate directly to the agency's strategic goals.

Evidence: Measures Tab

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures?

Explanation: As is described in Q2.3 (above), NSF is developing measures, baselines, and targets for its investments in individuals. The annual measures shown in the measures tab provide valuable indicators of progress, but further analysis is required before specific baselines and targets can be identified.

Evidence: Measures Tab

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The key partners for NSF's investments in Individuals both commit to and work toward the goals of the program. The commitment is ensured through the mechanisms described in the response to Q1.5 -- namely the combination of the program purpose being expressed in program solicitations and the selection of awards through the merit review process. NSF then ensures that its partners are working toward the goals of the program via the following mechanisms: 1) continuing support (i.e. renewals, continuations) is based upon annual progress reports submitted by grantees and reviewed by NSF program officers; 2) to receive further support (subsequent awards), all applicants are required to report on the results of previous NSF support, which is then considered in the merit review process.

Evidence: Annual Reports, Final Project Reports. CAREER places special emphasis on document the commitment of grantees. The following statement is included in the CAREER solicitation with respect to annual reports: "For CAREER awards, the report must be approved by the principal investigator's department head or equivalent, thereby reaffirming the department's endorsement of the work plan and continuing partnership in the individual's career-development plan."

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Evaluations are conducted regularly in order to inform program improvements and influence program planning. Each activity at NSF is reviewed once every three years by a COV. NSF's approach to evaluation was recently highlighted by GAO as an "evaluation culture--a commitment to self-examination, data quality, analytic expertise, and collaborative partnerships." Advisory Committees review Directorate performance, and as of FY 2002 the Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment assesses performance on an NSF-wide basis for the Strategic Goals. NSF conducts workshops, PI meetings, and various aspects of the Individuals program have been reviewed by external entities. NSF staff and external experts conduct site visits for major activities, such as IGERT sites. All these activities inform NSF senior management and contribute to development of plans for the agency. NOTE: The weight of this question has been increased to 20% to reflect the importance of independent evaluation in verifying the relevance, quality, and performance of NSF's investments in Individuals.

Evidence: * Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity GAO-03-454 May 2, 2003 * COV reports and NSF responses. * AC reports, including the Advisory Committee for GRPA Assessment (AC/GPA) report (Fall 2002). * External reviews. * Community workshops. * Three-year reviews that include external experts for IGERT and VIGRE.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Performance information informs NSF's budget decisions and is incorporated into NSF's budget requests to the Congress. The FY 2004 Congressional justification was built around the R&D Criteria, thereby highlighting specific performance information for NSF's investment portfolio. For NSF's investments in Individuals, for example, the FY 2004 highlights the accomplishments of recipients of NSF graduate fellowships, noting that four former GRF recipients received the Nobel Prize in 2001 and two received the National Medal of Science. The budget also clearly presents the resource request for each program and outlines the activities that will be supported with the funds. In addition, the FY 2004 Request provided full budgetary costing by the program framework in use at that time (Strategic Goals and Directorates). For the FY 2005 Budget, NSF will display the full budgetary cost associated with the new program framework defined in the Revised GPRA Strategic Plan.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Justification, www.nsf.gov/bfa/bud/fy2004/toc.htm. Full budgetary costing discussion begins on page 144.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: For NSF's investments in Individuals, the Committee of Visitors process (COV) provides a valuable mechanism for identifying and addressing planning-related issues. Through the COVs, NSF receives feedback on the activity's goals and overall effectiveness. Steps to address identified weaknesses are identified. For example, in the FY 2001 COV review of the CAREER program, one of the recommendations of the COV was to broaden the base of applicants to include, among others, minority investigators and minority-serving institutions. In response, NSF awarded a grant in FY 2002 to fund a three-year series of CAREER workshops for minority investigators and investigators at minority serving institutions. The first workshops were held in January and March of 2003, in preparation for submission to the FY 2004 CAREER competition.

Evidence: * COV reports and NSF responses. * AC reports. * External Evaluations.

If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program to other efforts that have similar goals?

Explanation: NSF's investments in Individuals address unique national STEM workforce needs that are not under the purview of the more mission-specific federal, state or local agencies. The Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science and Technology Council, the National Science Board, OMB, the Congress, and other policy-making bodies regularly review NSF's investments in Individuals in the context of the overall Federal investment in science and engineering.

Evidence: NSTC Subcommittee on Education and Workforce Development, NSB Report on National Workforce Policy.

Does the program use a prioritization process to guide budget requests and funding decisions?

Explanation: NSF's investments in Individuals employs rigorous prioritization processes for developing its budget requests and determining its funding decisions. For budget requests, each of the activities within the program provides input to senior management about past performance and future needs. Senior management integrates that information, prioritizes budget requests within and between programs, and determines funding levels, all of which is reviewed by the National Science Board. For funding decisions, the program relies on the external merit review system as well as internal factors (addressing NSF's core strategies, maintaining a diverse portfolio, etc.) to prioritize proposals.

Evidence: Budget requests: Strategic Plan, Congressional Justifications Funding decisions: Grant Proposal Guide

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Performance information is collected via interim, annual and final project reports. Site visits to larger projects are another mechanism used to collect performance information. COV reviews and recommendations are utilized to improve program performance. Process-related goals such as dwell time can be monitored via the agency's Enterprise Information System (EIS).

Evidence: Interim, annual and final project reports Site visit reports COV reports EIS

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: NSF awardees must meet annual and final reporting requirements as well as financial record-keeping requirements. Performance is monitored by NSF Program Officers and funds can be withheld pending satisfactory project performance. The efforts of NSF Program Officers are reviewed by their supervisors and by COVs. Corrective actions are taken as needed to assure accountability. Examples: - VIGRE awards are made for five years, but each VIGRE site is subject to a third year review to determine whether it should receive the last two years of funding. Since the activity began, a total of six VIGRE sites did not successfully pass this review and consequently did not receive funding for the final two years. - IGERT has held up Continuing Grant Increments to grantees until necessary progress was demonstrated.

Evidence: Performance Evaluations of NSF Employees COV Reports Annual and final reports NSF Grant General Conditions

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: NSF funds are routinely obligated in a timely manner. A study conducted by PwC found no erroneous payments. NSF's grant monitoring activities ensure that the funds are used for their intended purpose.

Evidence: NSF FY 2001 Risk Assessment for Erroneous Payments Data on NSF Carryover, found in NSF's Budget Requests to Congress Risk Assessment and Award Monitoring Guide Clean opinion on NSF Financial statements

Does the program have procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, approporaite incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: NSF's investments in Individuals take have resulted in procedures to achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. For example, IGERT and other key activities have taken steps to reduce workloads on institutions, on NSF, and on the reviewer community. Foremost among these is placing limits on the number of full proposals that an institution may submit to a competitive solicitation. Similarly, CAREER limits investigators to one submission per round and three reviewed submissions total. Such limits mean that many proposals have already faced a competitive process before they reach NSF, which tends to strengthen them while relieving administrative burden on NSF. In addition, CAREER now issues a new solicitation every three years instead of annually, which greatly reduces the workload at NSF . More generally, NSF is a leader in the vigorous and dynamic use of information technology to advance the agency mission. IT improvements permit more timely and efficient processing of proposals. It has also been an NSF-wide priority to increase the size and duration of the awards it provides. The minimum size and duration for CAREER awards, for example, have been increased in recent years (to a total of $400,000-$500,000 for five years) as part of the NSF-wide effort to increase average size and duration.. This enhances efficiency because larger, longer awards allow the research community to spend more time conducting research and less time preparing proposals to continue funding ongoing projects.

Evidence: NSF 2002 Performance and Accountability Report

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: NSF's investments in Individuals have a long tradition of collaborating and coordinating effectively with related programs. Specifically: - NSF's Graduate Research Fellowship activity provides leadership for the 'fellowship roundtable,' which includes representatives of other Federal as well as privately-funded fellowship programs. The roundtable provides a forum for improving coordination and raising issues of common concern. - NSF's Scholarships for Service were developed jointly with the National Security Agency and the Office of Personnel Management. - NSF has developed a cooperative activity with the NIH called "NSF/NIH Scholar in Residence at NIH" to enable physical scientists and engineers to work as visitors within the biomedical research environment at NIH. A similar program has been developed with the FDA. More generally, NSF regularly shares information with other agencies and participates in coordination activities through OSTP and NSTC. Policy guidance provided by the National Science Board also incorporates perspectives from related programs and investments.

Evidence: NSTC Subcommittee on Education and Workforce Development, NSB Report on National Workforce Policy

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: NSF's investments in Individuals use NSF's financial management system. NSF is the only agency to receive a 'green' rating for financial management in the President's Management Agenda, and NSF has received a clean opinion on its financial audit for the past five years. The Individuals portfolio contributes to this outstanding assessment.

Evidence: Executive Branch Management Scorecard Results of NSF Financial Audits

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: All activities are included in reviews by NSF's Management Controls Committee which, chaired by the NSF CFO, provides continuing long-term senior executive attention to NSF's management challenges and reforms. In addition, challenges are identified by the NSF IG and through NSF's annual review of financial and administrative systems as required by the FMFIA. In addition, COVs regularly provide feedback on management-related concerns.

Evidence: Office of Inspector General reports and NSF responses; COV reports.

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: All of the activities in the Individuals portfolio rely upon NSF's competitive, merit review process that includes external peer evaluation. NOTE: The weight of this question has been increased to 20% to reflect the importance of merit review in verifying the relevance, quality, and performance of NSF's investments in Individuals.

Evidence: EIS; NSF Performance and Accountability Reports

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: In FY 2002 NSF established a formal Award Monitoring and Technical Assistance Program (AM&TAP) based on financial and administrative risk assessment of NSF awardee institutions and with a primary focus to on-site monitoring. Consistent with NSF's existing award administration process, AM&TAP is a collaborative effort between administrative and financial managers/technical staff and NSF program managers. Also, to leverage its staff resources, NSF has increased the number of reverse site visits that are especially effective in providing technical assistance to new and other high risk awardees. NSF maintains scientific oversight of all awards through the Annual and Final Project Reports, and funds are tracked (via reporting systems and audits) to verify that funds are used for their designated purpose. S&E limitations on staffing and travel limit our ability to perform the level of oversight that we deem desirable.

Evidence: * COV reports * Quarterly / Annual and Final Project Reports. * Directorate Reviews * FY 2002 Report on the NSF Merit Review System * Annual reviews * Risk Assessment and Award Monitoring Guide * Clean audit opinions * PMA Scorecard for Financial Management

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Program results and other relevant information are made available via a number of mechanisms -- ranging from award information on the NSF web site to publications. It is required under NSF's general grant terms and conditions that all NSF awardees publish the results of their research in public journals. In addition, award abstracts for all funded projects are available on the NSF web site. NSF's investments in Individuals also provide additional information on program accomplishments. Examples include: For IGERT, each project maintains a web site that is aimed at general audiences. For CAREER activities, there is a separate web site through which users can search the abstracts for all CAREER awards. The VIGRE program has a Website that gives information on all current VIGRE sites.

Evidence: NSF Grant Proposal Guide: www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?gpg;IGERT: www.nsf.gov/home/crssprgm/igert/igertprojects.htm; CAREER: www.nsf.gov/home/crssprgm/career/awardsearch2.cfmVIGRE: The URL is www.vigre.org/ but may be migrated to the NSF site in the near future.

Does the program allocate funds through a competitive, merit-based process, or, if not, does it justify funding methods and document how quality is maintained?

Explanation: All NSF programs are administered as competitive grant programs

Evidence:  

Does competition encourage the participation of new/first-time performers through a fair and open application process?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Does the program adequately define appropriate termination points and other decision points?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

If the program includes technology development or construction or operation of a facility, does the program clearly define deliverables and required capability/performance characteristics and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals?

Explanation: NSF relies on external evaluation to determine whether it is achieving its long-term objectives. In FY 2002, the NSF Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment was the focal point for these activities. In FY 2001, these evaluations worked through NSF's Directorate Advisory Committees. In both years, the reviews found that NSF's accomplishments under the PEOPLE goal have "demonstrated significant achievement." Both sets of reviews specifically considered indicators that parallel the objectives of the Individuals portfolio.

Evidence: Measures Tab; NSF FY 2002 PAR, p. II-40-41; FY 2001 NSF GPRA Performance Report (www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?nsf02105).

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: As was noted in Q2.4, NSF is in the process of developing appropriate targets for its annual performance measures. Hence, the answer here can be no higher than "Small Extent," even though NSF has shown progress under all of the indicators identified.

Evidence: See Measures tab.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program performance goals each year?

Explanation: For NSF's investments in Individuals, the stipends provided under GRF and IGERT have met or exceeded NSF's target for the past four years. Efficiency goals were a major reason why NSF has sought this increase, as the increased funding allows students to focus more directly on their education rather than having to devote time and energy to seeking other sources of support. Similarly, the emphasis on increased award size and duration in CAREER means that NSF need not assess as many proposals or fund as many awards over the academic career of that particular individual. Additionally, the changes in practices for programs such as CAREER and IGERT noted in Question 3.4 have all achieved the intended efficiency gains. More generally, NSF is a leader in the vigorous and dynamic use of information technology to advance the agency mission. IT improvements have eliminated grantee mailing costs, significantly reduced printing costs and permitted more timely and efficient processing of proposals.

Evidence: Measures Tab, NSF Budget Justifications, NSF 2002 Performance and Accountability Report, p. II-68

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: NSF's activities through its investments in Individuals address national STEM workforce needs that are not addressed by the mission agencies. Because of their recognized effectiveness, aspects of NSF investments in Individuals are often emulated by other programs in government and the private sector.?? The NSF activities also create a??national response to address the goals of the program.

Evidence: USDA has developed a graduate traineeship program based directly on IGERT with guidance from NSF. GRFs has also been considered a model??for development of fellowship programs in other countries.?? The national response to the NSF program is evidenced by the number of proposals (e.g., in FY 2003, IGERT received 425????preproposals, for??which??only approximately 20 proposals or 5% can be funded due to budget constraints), and the fact that many of the unfunded projects will promote efforts toward the goals of the program.?? ??

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The most recent evaluation that included the entire Individuals portfolio was the 2002 meeting of the ACGPA. The AC GPA wrote: "The 'People' Indicator retrospective portfolio was impressive in its diversity, breadth, and impact. Significant achievements were accomplished in all areas of the People portfolio." In reaching this determination, the committee specifically considered indicators that matched the objectives used here for Individuals. NOTE: The weight of this question has been increased to 20% to reflect the importance of independent evaluation in verifying the relevance, quality, and performance of NSF's investments in Individuals.

Evidence: AC GPA Report: www.nsf.gov/od/gpra/reports/final_report_1107.doc FY 2002 Performance and Accountability Report/PEOPLE Discussion: www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03023/pdf/chapter3.pdf

If the program includes construction of a facility, were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation:  

Evidence: