U.S. National Science Foundation: Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
Released: 2012-02-28T00:00:00

Background

The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) of the National Science Foundation (NSF) was authorized by Congress in 1978, partly in response to concerns from Congress and from some of those in academia and the scientific community about the geographic distribution of federal research and development (R&D) funds. Additional concerns resulted from the practice of congressional directed spending —allocating funds for specific institutions or research projects. Historical data revealed that there was a concentration of federal R&D funds in large and wealthy states and universities, and that the continuation of such funding patterns might ensure a dichotomy between the "haves" and "have-nots."

As designed, EPSCoR is to help achieve broader geographical distribution of R&D support by improving the research infrastructure of those states that historically have received limited federal R&D funds. While these states fall outside of the top 10 states in receipt of federal R&D support, according to the NSF, they have "demonstrated a commitment to improve the quality of science and engineering research and education conducted at their universities and colleges." The premise of the program is that "academic research activity underpins every state's overall competitiveness." James Savage, writing in Funding Science in America , describes EPSCoR's creation as a type of "affirmative action program designed to aid less successful states and their universities in their competition for federal research funds." W. Henry Lambright, Director, Center for Environmental Policy and Administration, Syracuse University, stated that "EPSCoR was not intended as an entitlement, but rather as a catalyst." Lambright noted further that EPSCoR had a "troubled birth," having been rejected in its first vote by the National Science Board, the policy-making arm of NSF. In order to win approval, the program had to be modified, expressing values consistent with those of the NSF: "... merit, with the emphasis on an institution, the university."

EPSCoR began in 1979 with five states and funding of approximately $1.0 million. Currently, EPSCoR operates in 29 jurisdictions, including 27 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. (See Figure 1 for the participating jurisdictions.) To 2006, the NSF had invested approximately $920.0 million in EPSCoR programs and activities. Currently, EPSCoR jurisdictions receive approximately 12% of all NSF research funding. When established, it operated solely in the NSF. Congressional action led to its expansion in the mid-1980s and early 1990s, and by 1998, seven other agencies had established EPSCoR or EPSCoR-like programs. This report is limited to a discussion of EPSCoR programs at the NSF.

EPSCoR Goals and Mission

Arden L. Bement, Jr., Former Director, NSF, stated that "EPSCoR is based on the premise that no one region and no one group of institutions has a corner on the market of good ideas, smart people, or outstanding researchers." EPSCoR is a joint program of NSF and selected states and territories. Its goal is to build competitive science by developing science and technology (S&T) resources through partnerships involving state universities, industry, government, and the federal R&D enterprise. The program is a partnership between the NSF and a state to improve the R&D competitiveness through the state's academic S&T infrastructure. The mission of EPSCoR is to raise the capability of a research institution or to assist in making a less-competitive institution more research intensive. Eventually, EPSCoR supporters hope those states receiving limited federal support would gain some level of equity in competing for federal and private sector funds through the regular grant system.

The goal of the program as described by NSF is to

Provide strategic programs and opportunities for EPSCoR participants that stimulate sustainable improvements in their R&D capacity and competitiveness, and to advance science and engineering capabilities in EPSCoR jurisdictions for discovery, innovation and overall knowledge-based jurisdictions. EPSCoR achieves its objectives by: (1) catalyzing key research themes and related activities within and among EPSCoR jurisdictions that empower knowledge generation, dissemination and application; (2) activating effective jurisdictional and regional collaborations among academic, government and private sector stakeholders that advance scientific research, promote innovation and provide societal benefits; (3) broadening participation in science and engineering by institutions, organizations and people within and among EPSCoR jurisdictions; and (4) using EPSCoR for development, implementation and evaluation of future programmatic experiments that motivate positive change and progression.

In a prepared statement before the NSF EPSCoR 21 st Annual Conference, Arden Bement stated that "Over the past 30 years, EPSCoR has evolved into a Program of Experimentation. It is a federal-state partnership that continues to show how to create and sustain robust infrastructures that support world-class research and education in science and engineering."

Operation and Funding

EPSCoR, while designed as a sheltered program, has been integrated into the performance of all NSF directorates. Its grants are awarded on a competitive peer- or merit-reviewed basis. Proposals submitted vary, and come from academic, state, profit and nonprofit organizations, and individuals. Also, support is provided to cooperative programs among institutions in different EPSCoR states, or between a state's research institution and a primarily undergraduate institution. All principal investigators of NSF EPSCoR projects are required to be associated with research institutions, organizations, or agencies within the participating state. In addition, all of the projects must be designed to contribute to the research competitiveness of the colleges and universities in the particular state.

EPSCoR funding was not intended to replace existing federal, state, institutional, or private sector support, but to "... add specific value to the state's academic infrastructure not generally available through other funding sources." Responsibility for operating the program rests within the individual states. A state is required to provide matching funds. An EPSCoR governing committee is established in each participating state to identify opportunities for EPSCoR awards. States devise strategies that allow them to adapt to vastly different federal funding environments. The programs are reviewed periodically by external panels and assessments are performed by independent organizations.

Data reveal that the 29 EPSCoR jurisdictions account for more than 20% of the U.S. population, about 25% of research institutions, and an estimated 16% of employed scientific and technical personnel. As a whole, these 29 jurisdictions receive approximately 13.6% of all NSF R&D funding. In FY2010, NSF provided an estimated $145.4 million for EPSCoR activities, an increase of $12.4 million (9.3%) above the FY2009 level. (See Table 1 for funding levels of previous years.) Funding was provided through three complementary investment strategies—research infrastructure improvement grants, co-funding, and outreach and workshops.

NSF's current portfolio for EPSCoR includes three complementary investment strategies—research infrastructure improvement (RII) grants, co-funding of disciplinary and multidisciplinary research, and outreach and workshops. RII grants support S&T infrastructure improvements that have been designated by a governing committee in the EPSCoR state as essential to the state's future R&D competitiveness. RII grants are of two types—RII Track 1 and RII Track 2. RII Track 1 grants are made to individual jurisdictions and are awarded up to $15.0 million for a period of up to 60 months. RII Track 2 grants are made to consortia of EPSCoR jurisdictions and are limited to a maximum of $2.0 million for up to 36 months. Examples of RII grants include startup funding for faculty research, faculty exchange projects with major research centers, development of nationally competitive high-performance computing capabilities, acquisition of state-of-the-art research instrumentation that is unavailable through the NSF's regular grant system, creation of graduate research training groups that encourage multidisciplinary experiences, developing linkages between industry and national laboratories, and development of programs to expand minority participation in science, engineering, mathematics, and technical disciplines. RII grants are the principal focus of the EPSCoR program. NSF funding for EPSCoR RII grants in the FY2012 appropriations is estimated at $110.0 million, a $5.3 million decrease from the FY2011 level. The Administration's request for RII in the FY2013 request is $116.2 million.

The co-funded grant mechanism encourages EPSCoR researchers and institutions to move into the mainstream of federal and private sector R&D support. Co-funding is an internal, cross-directorate, NSF funding mechanism. Co-funding activities are applicable in the various directorates, the Office of Polar Programs, the Office of International Science and Engineering, the Office of Cyberinfrastructure, and the Office of Integrative Activities. Co-funding allows states to receive more support than would have available under EPSCoR alone. Proposals supported are in areas that have been identified by the state's EPSCoR governing committee as critical to the future R&D competitiveness of the state or jurisdiction, and include, among other things, individual investigator-initiated research proposals and R&D encompassed by the various crosscutting and interdisciplinary programs in NSF. To receive support for co-funding, a grant proposal must be, among other things, rated at or near the same level as the highly rated grants in the regular grant process. The FY2012 appropriation for co-funding is $39.4 million, a slight increase over the FY2011 level of $38.9 million. The Administration requests $40.0 million in FY2013 for co-funding.

The outreach and workshops funding mechanism of EPSCoR provides support for NSF program directors and relevant personnel to visit participating researchers in EPSCoR states and to further familiarize the states and researchers with NSF policies, practices, and programs. Also, it allows agency personnel to become more cognizant of the availability of resources within the states and their institutions. Outreach and workshops visits take two forms—those initiated by a host of an EPSCoR state or jurisdiction, and those initiated by NSF program officers. The visits may result in colloquia or seminars. It is NSF's contention that the contact provided by outreach visits will lead to an increase in both the quality and quantity of grant proposals submitted by participating states. Funding for the outreach strategy in the FY2012 appropriation is estimated at $1.5 million, slightly above the $1.2 million enacted in FY2011. It is anticipated that funding in FY2012 will allow for expansion of activities that build regional and jurisdictional research infrastructure. The budget request for outreach and workshops in FY2013 is $2.0 million.

Program Effectiveness

In 1994, an evaluation of the EPSCoR program was conducted by the COSMOS Corporation. The evaluation, released in May 1999, covered the period 1980-1994, and was designed to, among other things, determine whether participating states and their institutions had increased their share of federal R&D funds and to identify the EPSCoR program strategies that led to improvement of the states' and institutions' research competitiveness. The evaluation found that states' R&D competitiveness did improve and that EPSCoR had contributed to this competitiveness. The report stated that

Based on the observed changes in federal and NSF shares, it can be concluded that the EPSCoR states' share of R&D funding did increase relative to the shares of the other states. To this extent, EPSCoR was associated with a lessening of the undue geographic concentration of R&D in the United States. Although the changes were small in absolute terms, this was a notable accomplishment in an era when research universities in non-EPSCoR states also were thriving and upgrading substantially.

The report noted that NSF EPSCoR had facilitated the development of partnerships and linkages among institutions, state and federal government, and the private sector. It also revealed that while no state had graduated from EPSCoR (no longer receiving EPSCoR support), many EPSCoR research clusters had become fully competitive and no longer sought EPSCoR resources. The evaluators determined that for colleges and universities in EPSCoR states, the cluster strategy may have been a more effective approach to improving research capability than that of supporting individual researchers or single research projects, a strategy used in the early years of EPSCoR.

An August 2006 report, EPSCoR 2020: Expanding State Participation in Research in the 21 st Century—A New Vision for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) , found that while some participating states and jurisdictions had developed S&T capabilities that address national issues, they needed to progress at a faster pace in order to benefit more fully in a national research agenda. The report stated that

The task now is to accelerate the positive trends in building research infrastructure and capacity in the states, and to incorporate the expertise and capabilities of these states into the larger national research agenda. As we move into a time of doubling the federal commitment to basic research, it is particularly critical and appropriate to make a new commitment to the EPSCoR states that have been left behind in the S&T community... . It is imperative that all of NSF's science, engineering, and education programs adopt the concept of broadening geographical and cultural participation in NSF activities as part of their objectives. Programmatic planning should consider how best to include all states and their research institutions as potentially important S&T resources.

The workshop that generated this report proposed that a more flexible RII grant program should be instituted. The position of the workshop participants was that since the states were heterogeneous, a "one-size program" should not be applied to the then 27 different jurisdictions. Rather, the individual needs of the states should be a factor in determining the most effective strategy for infrastructure improvement. The current award structure is viewed as being no longer adequate for some jurisdictions to achieve a higher level of competitive science in some areas of research. It was proposed that RII grants be awarded for a period of up to five years, in the amount of $3.0 million-$5.0 million per year, per state or jurisdiction. The longer period of time for the grant would enable states to better implement their strategic plans. The increased level of funding would be related to the size of the jurisdiction and the extent of the "S&T transformative challenge."

Another suggestion from the workshop was to place the EPSCoR program in NSF where its cross-directorate interactions would be maximized and integrated into all of the cutting edge initiatives of the agency. The FY2008 budget request for NSF did transfer the EPSCoR program from the Education and Human Resources Directorate to the Integrative Activities in the Research and Related Activities account. The FY2008 budget submission stated that "The relocation will allow the EPSCoR program greater leverage for improving the research infrastructure, planning complex agendas, and developing scientific and engineering talent for the 21 st century."

An additional recommendation of the workshop was for EPSCoR states and jurisdictions to become a "test bed" for new initiatives. The report noted that because EPSCoR has matured as a program, it should expand its research capacity by developing expertise in areas of national importance, such as homeland security and national defense, cyberinfrastructure, environmental observatories, coastal and ocean issues, and energy expenditures. With the proposed flexibility to the RII grant mechanism, the participating states and jurisdictions could pursue multiple strategies, such as support for transformative research and innovation that has been outlined in NSF's strategic plan. The workshop participants maintained that "Developing expertise in topics of national importance will enhance success of proposals in other competitions."

Issues

At the beginning of the EPSCoR program, some questioned the length of time required for a state to improve its research infrastructure. It was suggested to be five years, but that proved to be "... unrealistic, both substantively and politically." Questions remain concerning the length of time states should receive EPSCoR support. There are those in the scientific community who believe that some states and their institutions should assume more responsibility for building their research infrastructure and become less dependent on EPSCoR funds. They argue that some researchers and states have become comfortable with EPSCoR funding and are not being aggressive in graduating from the program. It continues to be called an experimental program after three decades, and no state has yet graduated from the EPSCoR program. The issue of graduation from the program has generated considerable Congressional interest.

In August 2005, the NSF's Committee of Visitors (COV) released a review of the EPSCoR program for the period FY2000 through FY2004. One of the issues in the August 2005 review was centered on determining when states would become independent of EPSCoR resources. Questions included What initiatives are there to promote graduation from EPSCoR and mainstreaming in the regular grant making process? What level of progress must a state achieve to justify that it is no longer eligible for EPSCoR resources? The COV admitted that graduation/progression from the EPSCoR program is a "challenging" issue and has been debated from the beginning of the program within NSF and among the various stakeholders and participating states and jurisdictions. The review determined that it has become necessary to revisit what it means to "graduate" from the program. Because of the importance in developing a mechanism or measure for graduation from the program, the COV proposed the creation of a dedicated EPSCoR Advisory Committee (external) that would make recommendations for both eligibility for and graduation from EPSCoR. The report stated that

Clearly, a fixed definition of graduation would be a moving target, especially in an environment where jurisdictions are still being added to the EPSCoR family. The current Office Head has articulated a vision of "programmatic graduation/progression," which necessarily includes the evolution of the EPSCoR programs themselves as infrastructure continues to grow. This vision should be further developed, vetted, and eventually implemented.

The issue of increasing the number of states seeking support through the program was addressed in the review. The COV noted that the increase in the number of eligible jurisdictions has strained limited resources. In FY2002, 5,595 proposals were received, and 1,511 awards were made with a funding rate of 27.0%. In FY2006, 7,037 proposals were received, and 1,489 awards were made with a funding rate of 21.0%. The report stated that

Given the likely budgetary constraints to be imposed on EPSCoR in the coming years, the program runs the danger of not being able to serve its core clientele with the limited funds available if the number of eligible states and institutions continues to increase. At some point, the Foundation must more fully address infrastructure, capacity, and geographic distribution in its other grant programs. One solution might be for the Foundation to re-organize some of its existing programs in order to create an EPSCoR-like program that used "institutional competitiveness" rather than "state competitiveness" as the primary definitional criterion for support.

Additional issues and questions were included in the August 2005 review by the COV. The review found that the majority of EPSCoR programs were capacity building based (infrastructure). The COV proposed that the significant number of capacity building programs should be supplemented with "complementary programs for building capability and competitiveness." The SBRC grant mechanism was cited as important to expanding the "competitiveness" building component of EPSCoR. Also, the COV report found that while EPSCoR's program portfolio was diverse, and included minority serving institutions, community colleges, and high schools, it was determined that EPSCoR jurisdictions should further strengthen the linkages between faculty at minority serving institutions and those at research intensive institutions.

An examination of the review process for large RII-type proposals concluded that the review process should be more rigorous. The COV proposed including site visits in the review process, and in enlarging the pool of reviewers in the scientific and technical areas proposed for research. The review noted that with the current, relatively small number of reviewers of EPSCoR programs, there is "insufficient injection of new viewpoints in the review process." The report suggested that the pool of reviewers should be expanded by rotating in a minimum of 25.0% new reviewers each year. The report further proposed that EPSCoR management use the review model employed by NSF's Engineering Research Centers, Science and Technology Centers, and Science of Learning Centers.

Many of the questions posed by the EPSCoR COV following its review of the program are those that are being debated by the various stakeholders in the EPSCoR community. In particular, questions concerning the criteria used to determine when a state or jurisdiction graduates from the EPSCoR program may continue to receive Congressional attention during the 112 th Congress.

Congressional Activity

On March 2, 2007, Senator Rockefeller introduced S. 753 , EPSCoR Research and Competitiveness Act of 2007. S. 753 would have authorized appropriations for FY2008-FY2012 to NSF for EPSCoR in the following amounts: FY2008, $125.0 million; and FY2009-FY2012, $125.0 million and "... $125,000,000 multiplied by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the Foundation's budget request for such fiscal year exceeds the total amount appropriated to the Foundation for fiscal year 2008." Language in the bill would have required the development of plans that allow EPSCoR states and jurisdictions to participate in NSF's Cyberinfrastructure Initiative and Major Research Instrumentation program. S. 753 would have required the NSF Director to obligate not less than 20.0% of the EPSCoR budget on co-funding projects that are ranked, by peer review, in the top 20.0% of all submitted grant proposals. Also, EPSCoR states and jurisdictions participating in the RII grant mechanism would have had to include in the proposals, partnerships with out-of-state research institutions. S. 753 was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. It saw no further action.

On January 4, 2011, President Obama signed into law the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, FY2010 ( P.L. 111-358 ). The law authorizes appropriations for the NSF from FY2011 through FY2013 (FY2011, $7,424.4 million; FY2012, $7,800.0 million; and FY2013, $8,300.0 million). The authorization does not provide any specific funding levels for EPSCoR. However, the legislation includes language stating that

The NSF Director shall continue EPSCoR to help eligible states develop their research infrastructure that will make them more competitive for research funding. The program shall continue to increase as NSF funding increases. A cross-agency evaluation of EPSCoR and other federal EPSCoR-like programs will be conducted, examining accomplishments, management, investment, and metric-measuring strategies implemented by the different agencies directed at increasing the number of new investigators receiving peer-reviewed funding. The examination will also include the degree of broadening of participation, knowledge generation, application, and linkages to national research and development competitiveness.

The legislation also directs the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the EPSCoR program to determine, among other things, the effectiveness of each state program; recommendations for improvements for all participating agencies to reach EPSCoR goals; and an assessment of the effectiveness of participating states in using awards to develop and build their science and engineering infrastructure. This study of EPSCoR and EPSCoR-like programs will provide recommendations that may result in policy implications for various federal agencies. It is anticipated that this study will be completed in August 2013.

On November 18, 2011, the President signed into law the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY2012 ( P.L. 112-55 ). The law provided a total of $7,033.1 million for the NSF in FY2012, $120.5 million above the FY2011 enacted level of $6,912.6 million. EPSCoR is contained within the Integrative Activities account and was funded at $150.9 million in FY2012, $4.1 million above the FY2011 level. The FY2012 appropriation supported a portfolio of three complementary investment strategies—research infrastructure improvement ($110.0 million), co-funding ($39.4 million), and outreach and workshops ($1.2 million)—for the 29 EPSCoR jurisdictions. The NSF indicated that approximately 24.0% of the funding for EPSCoR is to be used for new research awards in FY2012, with the balance providing continuing support for ongoing grants.

The Administration's FY2013 budget request for the NSF is $7,373.1 million, a 4.8% increase over the FY2012 estimate of $7,033.1 million. Included in the total is $158.2 million for EPSCoR, an increase of 4.8% over the FY2012 level. NSF estimates that approximately 40.0% of the FY2013 requested funding will be made available for new awards. The balance will be directed at supporting awards made in prior years.