Title: Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences (OEDG)
Date: 09/10/08
Replaced: NSF 04-590



Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences (OEDG)

Program Solicitation
NSF 08-605

Replaces Document(s):
NSF 04-590



[NSF Logo]  National Science Foundation

            Directorate for Geosciences
                 Division of Atmospheric Sciences
                 Division of Earth Sciences
                 Division of Ocean Sciences



Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

     November 11, 2008

          OEDG Track 1 and Track 2 Proposals (Required)

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

     December 11, 2008

          OEDG Track 1 and Track 2 Proposals

     May 01, 2009

          OEDG Planning Grant Proposals Only

     November 03, 2009

          OEDG Planning Grant Proposals Only

REVISION NOTES

   * Proposals may be submitted under one of three Tracks described in this
     solicitation. A new Planning Grant option has been added.
   * New eligibility limitations have been identified for Track 1 and Track 2
     proposals.  An individual may be Principal Investigator on only one
     proposal submitted to the FY 2009 OEDG Program competition, regardless of
     which Track is used.  Institutions may submit only one Track 2 proposal as
     the Lead Institution but may participate in other Collaborative Track 2
     Proposals as a non-Lead Institution.
   * Institutions with Track 2 projects that were previously funded by the OEDG
     Program are eligible to seek up to three years of additional support for
     their OEDG project, but only for activities that lead to long-term
     sustainability of the program.
   * Track 2 proposals are required to include a letter of support from a
     high-ranking administrative official (e.g., Department Chair, Dean, Vice
     President) describing how the proposed project aligns with institutional
     diversity plans and goals and indicate the level of commitment toward
     sustaining activities that are shown through evaluation to be effective.
   * Track 2 proposals from institutions that participate in LSAMP or AGEP
     alliances are not required to partner with these alliances, but if they
     will not be partners, the proposal must discuss how the proposed OEDG
     project will align with, or complement, the activities offered through
     these alliances.
   * Letters of intent are still required for Track 1 and Track 2 proposals, but
     are not required for OEDG Planning Grant proposals.
   * The duration and funding levels for Track 1 projects have been revised.
     Track 1 proposals may now request funding for up to three years, with
     maximum total funding of $200,000.
   * Proposals submitted under Track 1 and Track 2 must include funds in the
     first year budget to support attendance of the Principal Investigator, or
     another project representative, at a meeting for OEDG Principal
     Investigators, to be held in 2009 in Washington, DC.  OEDG PI meetings are
     held on a biannual basis; Track 2 projects have the option of requesting
     additional travel funds to attend the meeting to be held in 2011.
   * Proposal preparation and submission instructions have been revised and
     clarified.
   * The OEDG Program is normally competed on a biannual basis.  This
     solicitation provides one opportunity to submit Track 1 and Track 2
     proposals (in FY 2009 only) and two opportunities to submit OEDG Planning
     Grants (one each in FY 2009 and 2010).  A revised OEDG Program solicitation
     may be issued in 2010.
   * Funding for the OEDG Program is expected to be $4.6 million in FY 2009 and
     $4.6 million in FY 2010.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

General Information

Program Title:

     Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences (OEDG)

Synopsis of Program:

     The Directorate for Geosciences of the National Science Foundation
     supports research and education in the Atmospheric, Earth, and Ocean
     Sciences. The Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences
     (OEDG) Program is designed to address the fact that certain groups are
     underrepresented in the geosciences relative to the proportions of
     those groups in the general population. The primary goal of the OEDG
     Program is to increase participation in the geosciences by African
     Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans (American Indians and
     Alaskan Natives), Native Pacific Islanders (Polynesians or
     Micronesians), and persons with disabilities. A secondary goal of the
     program is to increase the perceived relevance of the geosciences
     among broad and diverse segments of the population. The OEDG Program
     supports activities that will increase the number of members of
     underrepresented groups who:

        * Are involved in formal pre-college geoscience education programs;
        * Pursue bachelor, master, and doctoral degrees in the geosciences;
        * Enter geoscience careers; and
        * Participate in informal geoscience education programs.

     The OEDG Program offers three funding Tracks: OEDG Planning Grants;
     Track 1: Proof-of-Concept Projects; and Track 2: Full-Scale Projects.

     OEDG Planning Grants - This new Track supports planning workshops,
     conferences, symposia and related short-term activities that
     facilitate either: 1) development of new strategic plans to implement
     systemic, community-wide programs to broaden participation in the
     geosciences; or, 2) development of new partnerships or collaborations
     between multiple institutions seeking to establish sustainable
     projects that address the goals of the OEDG program.

     Track 1: Proof-of-Concept Projects - This Track supports short-term
     activities. Track 1 projects include activities that will occur only
     one time, as well as those that are intended as the testing phase of
     an anticipated long-term Full-Scale Project.

     Track 2: Full-Scale Projects - This Track supports longer-term
     activities that will identify and promote pathways to geoscience
     careers among members of underrepresented groups.  It is expected that
     Track 2 proposals will establish programs that are sustainable without
     additional OEDG funding.  Prior Track 1 OEDG funding is not a
     pre-requisite for submitting a Track 2 proposal.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

   * Jill L. Karsten, Program Director for Education and Diversity, 705 N,
     telephone: (703) 292-7718, fax: (703) 292-9042, email: jkarsten@nsf.gov

   * Nicole D. LaDue, telephone: (703) 292-5314, email: nladue@nsf.gov

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

   * 47.050 --- Geosciences

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award:  Standard Grant or Continuing Grant

Estimated Number of Awards:    42   (of the awards, 30 Track 1 awards, 5 Track 2
awards, and 7 OEDG Planning Grant awards are anticipated)

Anticipated Funding Amount:   $9,200,000  - ($4,600,000 is anticipated in both
FY 2009 and FY 2010, pending availability of funds)

Eligibility Information

Organization Limit:

     None Specified

PI Limit:

     None Specified

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

     Institutions are allowed to submit more than one Track 1 proposal.

     Institutions may submit only one Track 2 proposal as either the Lead
     Institution of a Collaborative Proposal or the sole submitting
     organization.  Institutions may participate as a non-Lead Institution
     for additional Collaborative Proposals submitted to Track 2.

     Institutions may obtain funding for only one Planning Grant proposal
     over the lifetime of this solicitation (FY 2009 and 2010).

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI:

     None Specified

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

   * Letters of Intent: Submission of Letters of Intent is required. Please see
     the full text of this solicitation for further information.

   * Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable

   * Full Proposals:

        * 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:
          http://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: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/docs/grantsgovguide.pdf)

B. Budgetary Information

   * Cost Sharing Requirements: Cost Sharing is not required under this
     solicitation.

   * Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:  Not Applicable

   * Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see
     the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

   * Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local
     time):

          November 11, 2008

               OEDG Track 1 and Track 2 Proposals (Required)

   * Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

          December 11, 2008

               OEDG Track 1 and Track 2 Proposals

          May 01, 2009

               OEDG Planning Grant Proposals Only

          November 03, 2009

               OEDG Planning Grant Proposals Only

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:   Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text
of this solicitation for further information.

Reporting Requirements:   Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see
the full text of this solicitation for further information.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

     Summary of Program Requirements

  I. Introduction

 II. Program Description

III. Award Information

 IV. Eligibility Information

  V. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
       A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
       B. Budgetary Information
       C. Due Dates
       D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

 VI. NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
       A. NSF Merit Review Criteria
       B. Review and Selection Process

VII. Award Administration Information
       A. Notification of the Award
       B. Award Conditions
       C. Reporting Requirements

VIII.Agency Contacts

 IX. Other Information

I. INTRODUCTION

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has an express mandate from Congress to
promote the full use of human resources in science and engineering. The Science
and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act of 1980 gives NSF broad authority to
assist in "full development and use of the science and engineering talents
of men and women, equally, of all ethnic, racial, and economic
backgrounds."  In the geosciences, which are inclusive of the disciplines
of Earth, Atmospheric, and Ocean Sciences, the scientific workforce requires a
complex set of 21st century skills that enable integration of interdisciplinary
concepts and sophisticated technologies to investigate global-scale phenomena,
while working in a highly collaborative, international community.  With the
growing importance of the geosciences for both the daily lives of individuals
and our national security and prosperity, it is anticipated that workforce needs
within the geosciences will expand in coming years and the need to engage all
segments of the population in understanding planet Earth will become even more
critical.  As such, there is a great need to engage a diverse workforce in the
geosciences and educate all communities about important geoscience concepts.

Yet, the most recently available statistical data (e.g., see Huntoon and Lane,
2005; NSF data available at www.nsf.gov/statistics/degrees/) confirm the
underrepresentation of certain groups in science and engineering in general, and
in the geosciences in particular. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native
Americans (American Indians and Alaskan Natives), Native Pacific Islanders
(Polynesians or Micronesians), and persons with disabilities represent nearly
30% of the general population, but earned only 17% of the total number of
bachelor's degrees granted in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) fields in 2005. The geosciences have the lowest diversity of
any of the STEM disciplines. In 2005, only 6% of students graduating from
bachelor's-level geoscience degree programs were from underrepresented
groups. In the same year, only 5% of M.S. and 6% of Ph.D. graduates in the
geosciences were members of underrepresented groups. In contrast, members of
underrepresented groups earned 11% of the master's degrees and 10% of the
doctorate degrees awarded in all STEM fields combined in 2005.

In 2001, the Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) established the Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the
Geosciences (OEDG) Program, in order to address these disparities, as well as
some of the unique obstacles facing the geosciences community.  The OEDG Program
has since held funding competitions on a biannual basis, investing nearly $25
million in programs selected through the NSF merit review process.  A recently
published special issue of the Journal of Geoscience Education focused on
Broadening Participation in the Earth Sciences (Riggs and Alexander, Co-Editors,
2005) highlights results from several OEDG-supported projects and summarizes
many of the lessons learned and best practices that have been defined through
these and other Federal investments in the past decade.  While some progress has
been made in engaging more underrepresented minorities in geoscience education,
research and careers, there is still much work to be done.  Of particular
priority are activities that build capacity in the geosciences at institutions
that serve minority populations and disseminate more widely those practices
which have been shown to be particularly effective in recruiting and retaining
members of underrepresented communities in geoscience education and career
pathways.  Projects that engage or improve access for persons with disabilities
are also of high priority.

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Directorate for Geosciences of the National Science Foundation supports
research and education in the Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric sciences. The
primary goal of the Opportunities for Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences
(OEDG) Program is to increase participation in the geosciences by African
Americans, Hispanics/Latinos/Chicanos, Native Americans (American Indians and
Alaskan Natives), Native Pacific Islanders (Polynesians or Micronesians), and
persons with disabilities. An important but secondary goal is to strengthen
understanding of geoscience and its relevance to modern society among broad and
diverse segments of the population. The ultimate goal of the OEDG Program is to
bring more members of underrepresented groups into geoscience disciplines.
While there is still significant underrepresentation of women geoscientists at
the highest professional levels within academia, the community has made
reasonable progress in achieving parity for women earlier in the pipeline for
most sub-disciplines within the geosciences.  As such, while the OEDG Program
will accept proposals that focus on retaining women in the geosciences, priority
will be given to projects that address participation of underrepresented
minorities.

Specifically, the OEDG Program supports activities that increase the number of
members of underrepresented groups who:

   * Are involved in formal pre-college geoscience education programs;
   * Pursue bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees in the geosciences;
   * Enter geoscience careers; and
   * Participate in informal geoscience education programs.

Proposals to the OEDG Program must be firmly grounded in best practices
identified through current research about the participation of underrepresented
groups in STEM fields in general, and the geosciences in particular.
Prospective PIs are strongly encouraged to review the abstracts of projects
previously funded through the OEDG Program, available on the NSF web site, as
well as build on lessons learned and best practices that are summarized in the
publications and reports cited in the Additional Information section below.

Proposals that include activities to establish or enhance geoscience education
and research capabilities in Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), institutions serving persons with
disabilities, and other Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), Tribal Colleges
and Universities (TCUs), and community colleges, which often have high minority
student populations are encouraged.  It is expected that any collaborations with
these institutions will be true partnerships that serve the missions and goals
of all participating institutions and are respectful of institutional needs.

The OEDG Program offers three funding Tracks, OEDG Planning Grants; Track 1:
Proof-of-Concept Projects; and Track 2: Full-Scale Projects.

OEDG Planning Grants: This new Track supports planning workshops, conferences,
symposia and related short-term activities that facilitate either: 1)
development of new strategic plans to implement systemic, community-wide
programs to broaden participation in the geosciences; or, 2) development of new
partnerships or collaborations between multiple institutions seeking to
establish sustainable projects that address the goals of the OEDG Program.  OEDG
Planning Grants offer up to 12 months of funding, not to exceed $40,000.

Track 1: Proof-of-Concept Projects: This Track supports short-term activities,
including those that will occur only once, or are intended to be the testing
phase of an anticipated long-term Full-Scale Project. Track 1 projects may test
innovative mechanisms for increasing the participation of members of
underrepresented groups in the geosciences. Alternatively, Track 1 projects may
test the effectiveness of strategies that have been successful in a different
geographic region, with a different target audience, at a different educational
level, in a different academic discipline, or in a different venue (e.g., at a
museum rather than in an after-school program). Track 1 awards support projects
with durations of up to three years. The maximum award under Track 1 is $200,000
(3-year total), with appropriate justification. The average award size under
Track 1 is anticipated to be $125,000 - $150,000. Track 1 awards are eligible
for renewal.

Track 2: Full-Scale Projects: This Track supports longer-term activities that
will identify and promote pathways to geoscience careers among members of
underrepresented groups through activities that can eventually be
institutionalized or sustained via mechanisms other than NSF funding. Track 2
projects should either develop or make use of existing networks to improve
access and retention in the geosciences by members of underrepresented groups.
OEDG networks may be composed of institutions and agencies such as (but not
limited to) K-12 schools and/or districts, two-year colleges, four-year colleges
and universities, graduate-degree granting institutions, informal education
facilities or groups, businesses and industries, and government agencies. The
composition of any individual network will be determined by the characteristics
of the target audience that will be served by the network. The Project
Management Team (Principal Investigators plus Other Senior Personnel) assembled
for Track 2 projects should include professionals with expertise in geoscience,
education, and issues related to diversity in STEM disciplines.  In all
proposals, one institution must be identified as the Lead Institution. The Lead
Institution will have primary responsibility for all aspects of the project.

Networks should be prepared to facilitate access to geosciences education,
research and career pathways among members of underrepresented groups and help
OEDG projects to:

   * Mentor members of underrepresented groups and communicate ways in which
     specific individuals can prepare themselves to enroll in college-level
     degree programs in the geosciences and subsequently pursue graduate degrees
     and careers in the geosciences or related fields;
   * Expose students, families, and communities to the geosciences in culturally
     sensitive, locally relevant, age-appropriate, and pedagogically sound ways;
   * Ensure that members of underrepresented groups receive information about
     career opportunities in the geosciences and related fields; and
   * Provide the support necessary to ensure the success of members of
     underrepresented groups in the geosciences.

NSF currently supports several effective networks that have effectively
contributed to the success of underrepresented minority students in STEM
disciplines.  Collectively, these programs define the Alliances for Broadening
Participation in STEM (ABP) cluster, which enables seamless transitions from the
STEM baccalaureate to attainment of the doctorate and entry to the STEM
professoriate.  Support at the baccalaureate level is through the Louis Stokes
Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) program, which emphasizes
development of broad based regional and national alliances of two- and four-year
degree-granting higher education institutions, school districts, state and local
governments, and the private sector.  Eligible LSAMP undergraduate students may
receive continued support for up to two additional years of STEM graduate study
through the Bridge to the Doctorate (BD) Activity.  The Bridge to the Doctorate
provides significant financial support for matriculating candidates in STEM
doctoral programs at eligible alliance sites.  The LSAMP program also supports
education research projects focused on STEM baccalaureate degree attainment.
Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) further the
graduate education of underrepresented students through the doctorate level,
preparing them for fulfilling opportunities and productive careers as STEM
faculty and research professionals.  AGEP also supports the transformation of
institutional culture to attract and retain STEM doctoral students into the
professorate.

Many successful LSAMP and AGEP alliances do not currently include
geoscience-related activities in their portfolio or engage faculty and advanced
students from geoscience-focused departments.  Track 2 OEDG proposals that
describe activities which coordinate with and introduce or enhance the
geosciences components of existing LSAMP and AGEP networks are strongly
encouraged, but not required.  Track 2 proposals from institutions that
participate in LSAMP or AGEP alliances, but do not include those alliances as
collaborators on the OEDG project, are REQUIRED to describe how the OEDG project
activities will align with, or complement, activities of the existing LSAMP or
AGEP alliances.  In all cases, the partnership with such networks must be highly
collaborative and evidence of this partnership should be documented through
Letters of Commitment.

Track 2 proposals will only be considered for funding when the proposal clearly
demonstrates that the proposed approach will be effective in increasing the
participation of underrepresented groups in the geosciences. Proposers may use
the results of prior projects (including those funded by NSF) to demonstrate
their capability, but it is not necessary that Track 1 funding have been
obtained prior to submission of a Track 2 proposal. Track 2 awards support
projects for up to five years. The maximum award under Track 2 is $2 million,
but the average award size is expected to be on the order of $1 million. The
five-year maximum duration of Track 2 awards is intended to allow networks
sufficient time to either find other support for their project or make the
project self-sustaining.

Renewal Track 2 Proposals: Proposals from projects that have received prior OEDG
Track 2 support are eligible to apply for renewal funding for up to three years
of support but only if evaluation data clearly demonstrate that the program has
been successful in increasing the number of underrepresented students pursuing
degrees and careers in the geosciences and the proposed work plan is focused on
activities leading to institutionalization of the program or long-term
sustainability.

Additional Information:

Before submitting to the OEDG Program, proposers should review the abstracts of
previously funded projects, which can be viewed online by searching the NSF
award database, available at www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/tab.do?dispatch=2.  To view
abstracts for current and historical OEDG awards, specify the Element Code of
1697 in the appropriate box listed under "Program Information".

Proposers may also find one or more of the following documents to be of
interest:

  1. Report of the Geosciences Diversity Workshop, August 2000: National Science
     Foundation (available at: www.nsf.gov/geo/diversity/).

  2. Strategy to Increase Diversity in the Geosciences: National Science
     Foundation Publication NSF 01-53 (available at: www.nsf.gov/geo/diversity/)

  3. Geoscience Education and Diversity: Vision for the Future and Strategies
     for Success, Report of the Second Geoscience Education Working Group, 2005
     (available at: nsf.gov/geo/adgeo/geoedu/GEWGII_Report_sept_2005.pdf)

  4. Special Issue: Broadening Participation in the Earth Sciences, Journal of
     Geoscience Education, Vol. 55, No. 6 (2007) (index and abstracts available
     at www.nagt.org/nagt/jge/abstracts/dec07.html)

  5. A National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S.
     Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System, Report
     from the National Science Board, 2007 (available at:
     www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2007/stem_action.pdf

  6. 2005-2006 Biennial Report to Congress: National Science Foundation,
     Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (available at:
     www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/ceose/reports/2006_Biennial_Report_Print.pdf)

  7. The Science & Engineering Workforce Realizing America's Potential, Report
     from the National Science Board, 2003 (available at:
     www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/nsb0369/start.htm)

  8. Thirty Years of Changing Lives: The AAAS Project on Science, Technology and
     Disability, American Association for the Advancement of Science (available
     at: ehrweb.aaas.org/entrypoint/30years.htm)

  9. Invention and Impact: Building Excellence in Undergraduate Science,
     Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education, sponsored by the
     National Science Foundation Division of Undergraduate Education in
     collaboration with the Education and Human Resources Programs of AAAS.
     (available at: www.aaas.org/publications/books_reports/CCLI/)

 10. Standing Our Ground: A Guidebook for STEM Educators in the Post-Michigan
     Era, by Shirley M. Malcom, Daryl E. Chubin, and Jolene K. Jesse; published
     by American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Action
     Council for Minorities in Engineering; October 2004. (available at:
     www.aaas.org/standingourground/).

 11. In Pursuit of a Diverse Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
     Workforce; Recommended Research Priorities to Enhance Participation by
     Underrepresented Minorities: American Association for the Advancement of
     Science, 2001 (available at: ehrweb.aaas.org/mge/Reports/Report1/AGEP/)

 12. Resources available through the Building Engineering and Science Talent
     (BEST) program (available at: www.bestworkforce.org/)

 13. Blueprint for Change: Report from the National Conference on the Revolution
     in Earth and Space Science Education: TERC (available at:
     www.earthscienceedrevolution.org/)

 14. Land of Plenty: Diversity as America's Competitive Edge in Science,
     Engineering and Technology: Report of the Congressional Commission on the
     Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology
     Development (available at:
     www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=cawmset0409)

III. AWARD INFORMATION

Anticipated funding for the OEDG Program is expected to be $4.6 million in FY
2009 and $4.6 million in FY2010.

A total of 42 awards is anticipated. Of these 42 awards, 30 are anticipated
under Track 1, 5 are anticipated under Track 2, and 7 are anticipated under the
OEDG Planning Grant option.

Track 1 awards are for a maximum duration of 3 years. The maximum allowable
funding request under Track 1 is $200,000 (3-year total award), but the average
award size is expected to be on the order of $125,000 - $150,000. In most cases,
Track 1 funding will be provided through a standard award.

Track 2 awards are for a maximum duration of 5 years (3 years if a Renewal Track
2 project). The maximum allowable funding request under Track 2 is $2 million
(total award), but the average award size is expected to be on the order of $1
million. In most cases, Track 2 funding will be provided through continuing
grant increments.

OEDG Planning Grant awards are for a maximum duration of 12 months. The maximum
allowable funding request under the OEDG Planning Grant Track is $40,000.

Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are
subject to the availability of funds.

IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

Organization Limit:

     None Specified

PI Limit:

     None Specified

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

     Institutions are allowed to submit more than one Track 1 proposal.

     Institutions may submit only one Track 2 proposal as either the Lead
     Institution of a Collaborative Proposal or the sole submitting
     organization.  Institutions may participate as a non-Lead Institution
     for additional Collaborative Proposals submitted to Track 2.

     Institutions may obtain funding for only one Planning Grant proposal
     over the lifetime of this solicitation (FY 2009 and 2010).

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI:

     None Specified

Additional Eligibility Info:

     The categories of proposers identified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide
     are eligible to submit proposals under this program
     announcement/solicitation.

V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Letters of Intent(required):

Letters of Intent are required for both Track 1 and Track 2 proposals, but are
not required for OEDG Planning Grants.  Letters of Intent are used to help NSF
program officers plan for the review process only and are not used to eliminate
proposals from contention.  Letters of Intent must be submitted through
FastLane, available at https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/.

Letters are required to include the following information.

   * Name and affiliation of Principal Investigator
   * Funding Track (Track 1, New Track 2, Renewal Track 2); for proposals
     seeking Renewal Track 2 funding, indicate the award number and Principal
     Investigator of the previous OEDG award
   * Name(s) and affiliation(s) of Co-Principal Investigators
   * Name(s) and affiliation(s) of Other Senior Personnel
   * Name(s) of other participating organizations - for example: school
     districts, research consortia, or museums, etc.
   * Brief description of the proposed project goals and objectives
   * Characteristics of the target audience(s), including demographics and
     academic level

Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions:

When submitting a Letter of Intent through FastLane in response to this Program
Solicitation please note the conditions outlined below:

   * Sponsored Projects Office (SPO) Submission is required when submitting
     Letters of Intent
   * A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 4 Other Senior Project Personnel are allowed
   * A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 4 Other Participating Organizations are
     allowed
   * Submission of multiple Letters of Intent is allowed

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: http://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 pubs@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:
     (http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/docs/grantsgovguide.pdf). 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 pubs@nsf.gov.

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and
submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate
submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane
system. Chapter II, Section D.3 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional
information on collaborative proposals.

Please read the following section carefully as it describes modifications and
supplements to the proposal preparation guidelines that augment those indicated
in the GPG and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide.  Failure to comply with the
formatting requirements described below and in the GPG or NSF Grants.gov
Application Guide may result in the proposal being returned without review.
Proposal preparation instructions for OEDG Planning Grants are described in a
separate section.

Full Proposal Preparation - Track 1 and Track 2 Projects

The following instructions apply to Track 1 and Track 2 proposals only.
Instructions for OEDG Planning Grant proposals are described in a separate
section below.

     Cover Sheet

     The proposal title MUST indicate whether the proposal is a Track 1 or
     Track 2 proposal. If this proposal seeks Renewal Track 2 funding, be
     sure to check the appropriate box and indicate the previous award
     number.  Principal Investigators are encouraged to choose titles that
     include informative key words that indicate, for example, the target
     audience and the approach of the proposed project.  Collaborative
     Projects must have titles that begin with the phrase "Collaborative
     Project:".

     Many proposed OEDG projects undertake education and evaluation
     activities that involve Human Subjects Research.  PIs should review
     the regulations regarding Human Subjects (See 45 CFR 690.101-124
     available at:
     www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/human.jsp).  Please note that Human
     Subjects regulations also govern activities that have to do with
     safeguarding individually identifiable information such as student and
     faculty surveys and data.  Therefore, many OEDG projects may need to
     be reviewed by a Human Subjects Institutional Review Board (IRB). If
     your project is under IRB review at the time of submission, or will be
     reviewed by your IRB after a funding recommendation is received from
     NSF, check the box on the cover sheet and indicate that the review is
     pending. If the proposal has already been reviewed by your IRB and
     found to be exempt, please cite the applicable subsection for the
     exemption on the cover sheet. If the IRB has already been given
     approval, include a letter from the IRB in the Supporting Documents
     and indicate the expiration date of the IRB approval on the cover
     sheet.

     Project Summary

     The 1-page Project Summary should follow the standard format and MUST
     include separate statements addressing the National Science Board
     (NSB) approved review criteria of Intellectual Merit and Broader
     Impacts, or the proposal will be returned without review. Principal
     Investigators are strongly encouraged to use the terms of Intellectual
     Merit and Broader Impacts explicitly in writing the summary, in order
     to avoid ambiguity.  The summary should concisely describe:

        * The problem(s) being addressed by the proposal;
        * The objectives and expected outcomes, including any tangible
          products;
        * How the objectives will be accomplished;
        * Characteristics of audience(s) targeted by the project;
        * Notable collaborations; and
        * Themes addressed in a significant way (such as teacher
          preparation, faculty development, capacity-building, community
          outreach, use of technology, research experiences, mentoring,
          etc.).

     Project Description, including Results from Prior NSF Support

     Failure to comply with the 15 page limit, font size and type, and line
     spacing requirements identified in the GPG and NSF Grants.gov
     Application Guide will cause the proposal to be returned without
     review.  It is the responsibility of the submitting institution to
     verify that the FastLane or Grants.gov version of the proposal
     complies with all formatting requirements.

     The Project Description should clearly address the two NSF merit
     review criteria of Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.  Common
     concerns related to these criteria that arise during the review
     process for OEDG proposals are summarized below; it is not necessary
     to answer these questions directly in the Project Description, but
     consideration of these issues in describing project activities is
     strongly advised.  In addition to addressing the two NSF review
     criteria, the Project Description section should provide information
     that addresses several Additional Review Criteria noted below.

     Examples of Reviewers' Questions Related to Intellectual Merit:  Does
     the project help establish new models for engaging members of
     underrepresented groups in the geosciences and helping them pursue
     degrees and careers in these fields?  Does the project have the
     potential to increase understanding of the geosciences by members of
     underrepresented groups?  Are the goals and objectives, and the plans
     and procedures for achieving them worthwhile, well developed, and
     realistic?  What is the scientific value of the geoscience activity
     being proposed and how well is it integrated with the education
     activities?  Is the rationale for including particular activities or
     undertaking particular development tasks clearly articulated and
     supported by appropriate references?  Does the project design reflect
     consideration of the background, preparation, and experience of the
     target audience?  Is the project informed by research on teaching and
     learning, the efforts of others, and literature relevant to
     diversity?  Are plans for evaluation of the project appropriate and
     adequate for the project's size and scope and will the
     evaluation appropriately inform project development?  Is the project
     led by and supported by capable and qualified personnel who have
     recent and relevant experience in education, research, or the
     workplace?  Have the roles of collaborating partners been delineated
     clearly and is there a management plan described for how these
     collaborations will be coordinated?  Are collaborations between
     multiple institutions "true" partnerships that will be mutually
     beneficial and are partner commitments clearly documented through
     Letters of Commitment?  Is the project supported by adequate
     facilities, resources, and institutional commitment?

     Examples of Reviewers' Questions Related to Broader Impacts:  Are the
     proposed activities catalytic or transformative for the proposing
     institutions with regard to the participation of members of
     underrepresented groups in geoscience programs? Are the proposed
     activities consistent with the proposing institutions' long-term
     goals?  To what extent will the results of the project contribute
     information that will help the geoscience community at large identify
     successful (and unsuccessful) practices related to increasing
     diversity in the geosciences?  Will the project evaluation inform
     others through communication of results?  Are the results of the
     project likely to be exportable to other institutions?  What is the
     potential for the project to develop connections with industry?  Will
     the project result in a significant increase in diversity in the
     geosciences?  Does the project involve MSIs, HBCUs, HSIs,  TCUs,
     institutions that serve persons with disabilities and/or community
     colleges?  Will the project provide increased access to the
     geosciences by persons with disabilities?  Will the project result in
     significant involvement of communities and/or families?  Will the
     project significantly improve the quality and quantity of pre-college
     geoscience instruction in schools with large numbers of students from
     underrepresented groups?  Will the project involve significant numbers
     of underrepresented minorities in informal geoscience programs?

     Additional Review Criteria:  Does the project have the potential to
     significantly increase the diversity of geoscience students, or
     increase understanding of the relevance of the geosciences among
     broad, diverse segments of the population? Is the project team capable
     of successfully carrying out the stated goals?  Does the project align
     with existing diversity plans and goals at the proposing
     institution(s) and does it effectively utilize available resources
     (e.g., LSAMP, AGEP) that are already focused on broadening
     participation in STEM disciplines?  Is there evidence of institutional
     commitment to achieving and realizing the goals of the proposal, and
     sustaining successful projects?  For Track 2 proposals, does the
     project team have prior experience planning and managing successful
     programs directed toward increasing diversity in the geosciences?  For
     Track 2 proposals, is there evidence that the project will become
     self-sustaining or be sustained by funding from sources other than NSF
     at the end of the funding period?

     The Project Description in proposals submitted to both Track 1 and 2
     should contain:

       1. Results from Prior NSF Support: If the prospective PI or Co-PI(s)
          has received support from NSF pertaining to diversity-enhancing
          or geoscience-education efforts in the past five years, briefly
          describe the earlier project(s) and the outcomes of those
          projects. Provide sufficient detail to permit a reviewer to reach
          an informed conclusion regarding the value of the results
          achieved. Include the NSF award number, amount and period of
          support, title of the project, a summary of the results of the
          completed work, and a list of publications and formal
          presentations that acknowledged the NSF award (do not submit
          copies with the proposal).

       2. Goals and Objectives: Describe the goals clearly and concisely.
          Relate the goals to local or national needs and recent trends as
          appropriate.

       3. Detailed Project Plan: This should be the longest section of the
          Project Description. Describe the project's features,
          clearly delineating the need or problem that will be addressed
          and the research base on which the project builds, what will be
          done during the project, how the expected outcomes will be
          achieved, the timetable for executing the project, and the
          facilities and resources available for realizing the
          project's objectives. Where appropriate, include evidence
          of past successes that support the methods proposed. Such
          evidence may come from the current literature or from other
          projects conducted by the proposers. For projects that involve
          multiple investigators or institutions, proposers should clearly
          delineate the responsibilities of each participant or
          participating organization and describe a plan for project
          management.  Note that reviewers of NSF proposals are not
          required to access URLs, and they may not have access to the
          internet during the review process. Therefore, all essential
          materials should be submitted in written format. The literature
          cited in the bibliography should reflect an understanding of the
          state of knowledge related to diversity in science, engineering,
          mathematics, and technology (STEM) generally, and in the
          geosciences particularly. Appropriate literature about research
          on teaching and learning should be cited. Any literature cited
          should be clearly and specifically related to the proposed
          project, and it should be clear to reviewers how referenced
          information played a role in the design of the project.

          Special Requirements for Track 2 proposals:

          Track 2 proposals must include in this section a discussion
          of the results of evaluation of prior, related project(s)
          that can be used to demonstrate that the proposed project
          has a high probability of success. It is not necessary that
          this prior effort have been funded by an OEDG Track 1
          award.  The goals of prior project(s) and the method(s) used
          to measure success at achieving goals must be clearly
          identified and explained. Both quantitative and qualitative
          data may be included and discussed. Up to 5 pages of
          supporting evaluation data tables or figures may be included
          in the Supporting Documents section of the proposal but the
          significant conclusions supported by those data should be
          described within the 15-page Project Description section.
          Track 2 proposals that lack documentation of the
          effectiveness of prior efforts will be returned without
          review.

          In addition, Track 2 proposals being submitted by
          institutions that participate in LSAMP and/or AGEP
          alliances, but which are not using those alliances as
          collaborators for the proposed OEDG project, are required to
          discuss in the Project Description how the proposed
          activities will leverage, align with, or complement the
          activities offered through those alliances, as well as the
          rationale behind the decision to not partner with these
          programs.

          Track 2 proposals are also required to include in the
          Supplemental Documents section a letter from a high level
          Administrator (e.g., Department Chair, Dean, Vice President
          or Provost) describing how the proposed project activities
          are aligned with institutional diversity goals and plans.
          This letter should also indicate the level of institutional
          support for sustaining activities developed through Track 2
          funding if evaluation data show them to be effective at
          broadening participation in STEM disciplines in general, and
          the geosciences in particular.

       4. Experience and Capability of the Principal Investigator(s):
          Briefly describe the experience and capability of the PI(s).
          Include a brief description of the rationale for including
          specific personnel and institutions. State the role of each and
          cite the expertise that each will contribute to the project.

       5. Evaluation Plan: Activities that provide formative and summative
          evaluation of project activities are essential for demonstrating
          the success and impact of the project in advancing OEDG Program
          goals, but the level of evaluation varies by Track.  The OEDG
          Program as a whole is being evaluated through a contract to the
          American Institutes for Research (AIR), who will work with all
          OEDG awardees to collect common data and identify best practices
          for meaningful evaluation. The contractor is also tasked with
          helping to provide technical evaluation support for Track 1
          projects.  As such, Track 1 proposers need not submit a detailed
          evaluation plan in their proposals, but must be prepared to work
          with the contractor to collect and report information as
          necessary.

          Track 2 proposers must also be prepared to work with the
          contractor to support program-wide evaluation efforts, but
          they are also required to include in the proposal an
          independent evaluation plan for their specific project. The
          detailed evaluation plan should describe the criteria that
          will be used to evaluate the project and show how the
          evaluation metrics link to specific project goals for
          achieving diversity in the geosciences.  The process for
          collecting and analyzing information should be described. A
          timeline for evaluation activities should be included. In
          most cases, the use of an external evaluator is strongly
          preferred.  The qualifications of the individual(s) who will
          perform the evaluation tasks should be described.  Ideally,
          the evaluator(s) will be identified prior to proposal
          submission and they will help to ensure that this component
          of the proposal is appropriate for achieving project goals.
          The objectivity and credibility of the evaluation team
          should be made evident to reviewers. The following
          references and resources may be helpful in designing an
          evaluation plan:

          The 2002 User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation (NSF
          02-057) (available at: www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf02057)

          Assessing Learning in Informal Science Contexts, National
          Academies (available at:
          www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Brody_Commissioned_Paper.pdf)

          Evaluation of Learning in Informal Learning Environments,
          National Academies (available at:
          www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/
          Institute_for_Learning_Innovation_Commissioned_Paper.pdf)

       6. Dissemination of Results: Describe plans to communicate the
          results of the project to others in the geosciences, STEM, and
          education communities, both during and after the project, and to
          disseminate any tangible products that may be produced. Identify
          the audiences that will be reached through dissemination efforts,
          and the means of dissemination (e.g., faculty development
          workshops, journal articles, conference presentations, the
          Digital Library for Earth System Education (DLESE), presentations
          to industry, press releases, etc.). It is anticipated that the
          data collected for the evaluation component of Track 2 projects
          will form the basis of scholarly publications.

       7. Sustainability:  Track 1 proposals should briefly describe plans
          for scaling up or sustaining successful pilot projects.  Track 2
          proposals are REQUIRED to include a discussion regarding plans
          for long-term sustainability or institutionalization of project
          activities that have been shown to be effective through NSF
          funding.  Collaborations with industry and other potential
          sponsors are encouraged.

       8. Management Plan: Track 2 proposals should clearly identify the
          roles and responsibilities of collaborating investigators and
          institutions and outline a plan for communication and
          coordination of project activities.

Full Proposal Preparation - OEDG Planning Grants

With the exception of the Project Description section of the proposal, proposers
should follow proposal preparation guidelines that are provided in the GPG or
NSF Grants.gov Application Guide, with the modifications noted above for Track 1
and Track 2 proposals. In addition to the two NSF review criteria, OEDG Planning
Grant proposals will be evaluated for evidence that there is a clear path
between planning activities and future activities or projects that address OEDG
Program goals related to broadening participation in the geosciences.  The
Project Description section for OEDG Planning Grant proposals must not exceed 5
pages in length and should include the following information:

     Background and Context

     For OEDG Planning Grants that support community-wide strategic
     planning activities, information should be provided on the
     institution(s) that will organize this effort.  A summary of past
     accomplishments in the area of broadening participation and a
     rationale for why it is appropriate that they take a leadership role
     in organizing the community, and the resources they offer for
     implementation of any strategic plans which result, should be
     provided.  Proposers should clearly indicate how the proposed effort
     will advance implementation of systemic reforms and build on prior
     community efforts to broaden participation in the geosciences.

     For OEDG Planning Grants that support creation of new partnerships or
     collaborations, information should be provided on the institutions
     that will partner or collaborate.  Provide a rationale for why their
     individual efforts related to broadening participation will benefit
     through the collaboration. Describe how the proposed Planning Grant
     goals and objectives fit the institutions' missions and reflect the
     institutions' long-term STEM related goals and plans. Provide evidence
     of the commitment to the proposed Planning Grant activities of the
     institutional administration, partners and collaborators, if
     applicable, and the STEM faculty and leadership.  Letters of
     commitment to the proposed project activities can be included as
     supplementary documents.  Do not include general letters of support
     from individuals not involved in the implementation of project
     activities.

     Proposed Planning Activities

     Describe the proposed planning process and provide details on the key
     steps along the way.  Information should be provided regarding
     expected outcomes, the timeline for implementation, how participants
     will be recruited and selected (for conferences), and the
     responsibilities of key project personnel during the planning period.
      In general, implementation activities are not allowed under Planning
     Grants.

Budget and Budget Justification - Track 1, Track 2, and OEDG Planning Grant
Proposals

The amounts indicated on the budget forms should include only the amounts
requested from NSF. Text for the budget justification is limited to a maximum of
3 pages.

A meeting for OEDG Principal Investigators is held every other year.  Proposers
for both Track 1 and Track 2 projects must include travel funds in the first
year budget to support attendance of the Principal Investigator or a project
representative at the PI meeting, to be held in Washington, DC during the summer
of 2009.  Track 2 projects have the option of including additional travel funds
to attend another PI meeting in year 3, but it is not required.  OEDG Planning
Grant proposals should not include funding to attend the PI meeting.

For a proposal involving multiple organizations, the budget justification should
include the amount each organization will receive from the grant.  If
collaborating institutions are being supported through subawards, the budget
justification should have a separate section that provides information on the
costs for each subaward, with costs broken out by major budget category (i.e.,
salaries, equipment, travel, participant support costs, other direct costs,
indirect costs).

NSF funds may not be used to support expenditures that would have been
undertaken in the absence of an award, such as the cost of activities that are
considered part of a faculty member's normal duties.

     Preparation of Instrumentation Budget Items and Justification - If
     instrumentation is required for the Track 1 or Track 2 project, the
     need for the instrumentation should be clearly justified as part of
     the Budget Justification. Reviewers must be able to recognize the
     function of any requested instrumentation. Many manufacturers
     routinely offer educational or institutional discounts. When preparing
     the budget, contact manufacturers or distributors to obtain discounted
     prices. If research instrumentation or equipment is requested in a
     proposal to the OEDG Program, the proposal should include plans for
     maintenance and technical support of the instrumentation after the end
     of the award period.

     Participant Support Costs - Proposers should carefully review the
     requirements for the Participant Support Costs category. (See GPG
     Chapter II.C.2g(v).  This budget category refers to costs of
     transportation, per diem, stipends and other related costs for
     participants or trainees (but not employees) in connection with
     NSF-sponsored conferences, meetings, symposia, training activities and
     workshops.  For some educational projects conducted at local school
     districts, however, the participants being trained are employees. In
     such cases, the costs must be classified as participant support if
     payment is made through a stipend or training allowance method. The
     school district must have an accounting mechanism in place (i.e.,
     sub-account code) to differentiate between regular salary and stipend
     payments.

     Generally, indirect costs (F&A) are not allowed on participant support
     costs. The number of participants to be supported must be entered in
     the parentheses on the proposal budget.  Reallocation of Participant
     Support Costs to another budget category after an award has been made
     requires NSF approval, so proposers should be careful to make sure
     that the funds requested in this category are appropriate. Note that
     indirect costs may not be charged on participant support costs.

     Common Uses of Participant Support Costs in OEDG Projects:

     Workshops - The proposal may include participant support costs for
     subsistence (lodging and meals) during workshops. In addition, funds
     may be requested for stipends for participants. Requests for such
     stipends must be specific and fully justified. No tuition or other
     fees may be charged to workshop participants. The host institution is
     expected to provide the facilities and instrumentation necessary to
     conduct the workshop, therefore NSF will not ordinarily support
     permanent instrumentation or new facilities. The host institution is
     also expected to cover expenses incurred by their own faculty
     participants.

     Other Participant Support Costs - Participant support costs necessary
     for the success of the project should be included in the budget. The
     total cost per participant varies with the type of participant and the
     type of activity. For example, to ensure participation by teachers, it
     may be necessary to pay for substitute teachers while the targeted
     teachers participate in the project. Similarly, to ensure
     participation in summer research programs by students who are members
     of underrepresented groups, it may be necessary to provide stipends
     that are competitive with wages received by students who obtain
     full-time summer employment.

Collaborative Proposals

Collaborative Proposals  may be submitted either as a single proposal or as
simultaneously submitted proposals from different organizations. In the latter
case, the collaborating organizations must exactly follow the instructions for
electronic submission specified in GPG. The project titles of the collaborative
proposals must be identical and must begin with the words "Collaborative
Project," and the combined budgets of the related proposals should conform
to the award size limits specified in this solicitation. Please note that  all
collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple
organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section
D.3 of the GPG provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

Special Information (Track 2 proposals only)

Proposals to Track 2 must include the results of evaluation of prior, related
project(s) that can be used to demonstrate that the proposed project has a high
probability of success. It is not necessary that this prior effort have been
funded by an OEDG Track 1 award.  The goals of prior project(s) and the
method(s) used to measure success at achieving goals must be clearly identified
and explained. Both quantitative and qualitative data may be included and
discussed. Up to 5 pages of related evaluation data may be included in the
Supporting Documents section of the proposal but the significant conclusions
supported by those data should be described in the 15-page Project Description
section.  Track 2 proposals that lack documentation of the effectiveness of
prior efforts will be returned without review.

Track 2 proposals are required to include in the Supplemental Documents section
a letter from a high level Administrator (e.g., Department Chair, Dean, Vice
President or Provost) describing how the proposed project activities are aligned
with institutional diversity goals and plans.  This letter should also indicate
the level of institutional support for sustaining activities developed through
Track 2 funding if evaluation data show them to be effective at broadening
participation in STEM disciplines in general, and the geosciences in
particular.

Track 2 proposals being submitted by institutions that participate in LSAMP
and/or AGEP alliances are required to discuss in the Project Description how the
proposed activities will leverage, align with, or be synergistic with the
activities offered through those alliances.  If the project will not be using
the LSAMP and/or AGEP resources, the proposers should discuss the rationale
behind this decision.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:   Cost sharing is not required under this solicitation.

Other Budgetary Limitations:  A maximum allowable funding value has been
identified for each Track, with details provided later in the solicitation.
Budget requests should not exceed the maximum funding allowable for the
appropriate Track, or the proposal will be returned without review.

Budget Preparation Instructions:

At least one Principal Investigator or his/her representative from each funded
project is required to attend an OEDG PI meeting in Washington, DC in the late
summer 2009; travel funds to attend this meeting must be included in the
project's Year 1 budget.  OEDG PI meetings are held biannually.  Track 2
projects that have durations of more than three years are eligible to attend the
OEDG PI meeting in Year 3 (in the year 2011) and may request funds to support
this travel expense.  At these meetings, PIs discuss the basic components of
their projects and work with a professional evaluator to implement and improve
their evaluation strategies and identify key strengths and weaknesses in their
projects. The PI meeting should be viewed as an opportunity for PIs to obtain
assistance with the evaluation component of their project and to share
information about their experiences with other OEDG PIs. The results of these
meetings are anticipated to lead to identification of a set of "best practices"
related to increasing diversity in the geosciences that can be shared with the
geoscience and STEM communities at large.

C. Due Dates

   * Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local
     time):

          November 11, 2008

               OEDG Track 1 and Track 2 Proposals (Required)

   * Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

          December 11, 2008

               OEDG Track 1 and Track 2 Proposals

          May 01, 2009

               OEDG Planning Grant Proposals Only

          November 03, 2009

               OEDG Planning Grant Proposals Only

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

   * For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:

     Detailed technical instructions regarding the technical aspects of
     preparation and submission via FastLane are 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.

     Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized
     Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal
     Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II,
     Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications).
     The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five
     working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Further
     instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website
     at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp.

   * 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. The Grants.gov's Grant Community User Guide is a comprehensive
     reference document that provides technical information about Grants.gov.
     Proposers can download the User Guide as a Microsoft Word document or as a
     PDF document. The Grants.gov User Guide is available at:
     http://www.grants.gov/CustomerSupport. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov
     Application Guide provides additional technical guidance regarding
     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.

VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program where they
will be reviewed if they meet NSF proposal preparation requirements. 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
who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These
reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the 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.

A. NSF Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board
(NSB)-approved merit review criteria: intellectual merit and the broader impacts
of the proposed effort. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional
criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs
and activities.

The two NSB-approved merit review criteria are listed below. The criteria
include considerations that help define them. These considerations are
suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must
address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only
those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for
which the reviewer is qualified to make judgements.

     What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
     How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and
     understanding within its own field or across different fields? How
     well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the
     project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of
     the prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and
     explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
     How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there
     sufficient access to resources?

     What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
     How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while
     promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed
     activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g.,
     gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will
     it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as
     facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the
     results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and
     technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed
     activity to society?

Examples illustrating activities likely to demonstrate broader impacts are
available electronically on the NSF website at:
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf.

NSF staff also will give careful consideration to the following in making
funding decisions:

     Integration of Research and Education
     One of the principal strategies in support of NSF's goals is to foster
     integration of research and education through the programs, projects,
     and activities it supports at academic and research institutions.
     These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals
     may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators,
     and students and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse
     education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through
     the diversity of learning perspectives.

     Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities
     Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all
     citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons
     with disabilities -- 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.

     Additional Review Criteria:

     In addition to the standard NSF review criteria, the following Additional
     Review criteria will be used to evaluate the merit of Track 1 and Track 2
     proposals:

     Does the project have the potential to significantly increase the diversity
     of geoscience students, or increase understanding of the relevance of the
     geosciences among broad, diverse segments of the population?

     Is the project team capable of successfully carrying out the stated goals?

     Does the project align with existing diversity plans and goals at the
     proposing institution(s) and does it effectively utilize available
     resources (e.g., LSAMP, AGEP) that are already focused on broadening
     participation in STEM disciplines?

     Is there evidence of institutional commitment to achieving and realizing
     the goals of the proposal, and sustaining successful projects?

     For Track 2 proposals, does the project team have prior experience planning
     and managing successful programs directed toward increasing diversity in
     the geosciences?

     For Track 2 proposals, is there evidence that the project will become
     self-sustaining or be sustained by funding from sources other than NSF at
     the end of the funding period?

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed
by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review, or Internal NSF Review.

Track 1 projects will be evaluated by a merit review panel only.  Track 2
projects will be evaluated through a combination of ad-hoc review and panel
review.  OEDG Planning Grants will be reviewed internally by NSF staff, with
input from ad-hoc reviewers as deemed necessary.

Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or
decline each proposal. 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 is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals
have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time
interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is
later.  The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program
Officer's recommendation.

A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by
each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents.
Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, 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.

In all cases, 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 and 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.

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.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any special
provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the
budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has
based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or
disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award
letter; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions
(GC-1); * or Research Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other
NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter.
Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative
Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the
applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically
signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to
the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at
http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies
may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703)
292-7827 or by e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov.

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important
information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award &
Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF
Website at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

Special Award Conditions:

Principal Investigators of OEDG Track 1 and Track 2 projects will be required to
participate in meetings held every other year, beginning in 2009, in Washington,
DC.  OEDG Planning Grant recipients are not required to participate in the PI
meeting.  Awardees will collect data as necessary to evaluate the success of
each particular project and the OEDG program as a whole.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the
Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant
Program Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period.
(Some programs or awards require more frequent project reports). Within 90 days
after expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project
report.

Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports will delay NSF
review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending
proposals for that PI. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in
advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available
through FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and final project
reports.  Such reports provide information on activities and findings, project
participants (individual and organizational) publications; and, other specific
products and contributions.  PIs will not be required to re-enter information
previously provided, either with a proposal or in earlier updates using the
electronic system.  Submission of the report via FastLane constitutes
certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and
complete.

NSF has contracted with the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to provide
technical evaluation support for the Track 1 projects and to conduct
program-wide evaluation of the OEDG program.  As part of that evaluation effort,
AIR will provide all new OEDG Track 1 and Track 2 awardees with a Supplemental
Information Form that is to be completed and submitted along with NSF-required
annual project reports.  The Supplemental Information Form collects common
evaluation data that allows comparisons between the individual OEDG projects.
Data collected for each project will be determined by the nature of the project
but will likely include: numbers of individuals served, types of experiences
provided, results of evaluations, and results of longitudinal tracking.

VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

   * Jill L. Karsten, Program Director for Education and Diversity, 705 N,
     telephone: (703) 292-7718, fax: (703) 292-9042, email: jkarsten@nsf.gov

   * Nicole D. LaDue, telephone: (703) 292-5314, email: nladue@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

   * FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: fastlane@nsf.gov.

   * Brian E. Dawson, Information Technology Specialist, 705 N, telephone: (703)
     292-4727, fax: (703) 292-9042, email: bdawson@nsf.gov

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

   * Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives
     (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48
     hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone:
     1-800-518-4726; e-mail: support@grants.gov.

IX. OTHER INFORMATION

The NSF Website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF
Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding
opportunities. Use of this Website by potential proposers is strongly
encouraged. In addition, MyNSF (formerly the Custom News Service) is an
information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other
interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications,
important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming
NSF Regional Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the
user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their
identified interests. MyNSF also is available on NSF's Website at
http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/.

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal
government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed
via this new mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at
http://www.grants.gov.

Related Programs:

ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created
by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The
Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and]
to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research
and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It
does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges,
universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations
and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for
about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 40,000 proposals each year for research, education
and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition,
the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and
postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does
support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic
vessels and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports
cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in
international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at
every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide
funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities
to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section
D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals
with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs,
employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and
(800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703)
292-5111.

    The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific
    progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and
    cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences,
    mathematics, and engineering.

    To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download
    copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the
    NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov

           * Location:                      4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington,
                                            VA 22230
           * For General Information        (703) 292-5111
             (NSF Information Center):
           * TDD (for the hearing-impaired):(703) 292-5090

           * To Order Publications or Forms:

                 Send an e-mail to:         pubs@nsf.gov

                   or telephone:            (703) 292-7827

           * To Locate NSF Employees:       (703) 292-5111

PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited
under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended.
The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection
of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used
for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to
Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and
staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer
institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review
process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government
contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to
complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing
information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application
review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another
Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding
if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be
added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as
peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50,
"Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal
Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and
Associated Records, " 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of
the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information,
however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is
3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect
of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to:

Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Division of Administrative Services
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230


 Policies and Important Links|Privacy|FOIA|Help|Contact NSF|Contact Web Master|SiteMap

[National Science Foundation]The National Science Foundation, 4201         Last Updated:
                             Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia         11/07/06
                             22230, USA                                    Text Only
                             Tel: (703) 292-5111, FIRS: (800) 877-8339 |
                             TDD: (800) 281-8749
                                        [Image]