FACACLASSIC

Note: An Annual Comprehensive Review, as required by §7 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is conducted each year on committee data entered for the previous fiscal year (referred to as the reporting year). The data for the reporting year is not considered verified until this review is complete and the data is moved to history for an agency/department. See the Data From Previous Years section at the bottom of this page for the committee’s historical, verified data.

Details on agency responses to committee recommendations can be found under the Performance Measures section for each committee in the fields “Agency Feedback” and “Agency Feedback Comment.”

NSF - 1214 - Proposal Review Panel for Undergraduate Education - Agency Authority

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee Name	Proposal Review Panel for Undergraduate Education	Agency Name	National Science Foundation
Fiscal Year	2025	Committee Number	1214
Original Establishment Date	11/17/1988	Committee Status	Chartered
Actual Termination Date		Committee URL
Actual Merged Date		Presidential Appointments*	No
New Committee This FY	No	Max Number of Members*	Unlimited
Terminated This FY	No	Designated Fed Officer Position Title*	Division Director, DUE
Merged This FY		Designated Federal Officer Prefix	Dr.
Current Charter Date	6/28/2024	Designated Federal Officer First Name*	Rosalyn
Date Of Renewal Charter	6/28/2026	Designated Federal Officer Middle Name
Projected Termination Date		Designated Federal Officer Last Name*	Hobson Hargraves
Exempt From Renewal*	No	Designated Federal Officer Suffix
Specific Termination Authority		Designated Federal Officer Phone*	(703) 292-7349
Establishment Authority*	Agency Authority	Designated Federal Officer Fax*	703-292-9015
Specific Establishment Authority*	ADM IV-100	Designated Federal Officer Email*	rhargrav@nsf.gov
Effective Date Of Authority*	1/2/1991
Exempt From EO 13875 Discretionary Cmte	Not Applicable
Committee Type*	Continuing
Presidential*	No
Committee Function*	Grant Review Committee

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

Agency Recommendation*	Continue
Legislation to Terminate Required	No
Legislation Status	Not Applicable
How does cmte accomplish its purpose?*	The Division received 2091 proposals in FY24 of which 510 were funded. The outside expert advice, discussion, reports, and recommendations on the merit and potential of proposals are the primary input the Division uses to make funding recommendations. The committee's advice is weighed carefully by the program staff in making decisions on which proposals should be recommended for funding.
How is membership balanced?*	Over 930 panelists were selected in FY24 for their technical expertise in scientific, mathematical and engineering fields. In addition, members are selected to represent diverse populations. We include all parts of the US and its territories; members represent all kinds of institutions, including 2-year colleges, liberal arts colleges, comprehensive universities, doctoral and research universities, industry, and scientific laboratories; and we make particular efforts to include members who are from underrepresented groups, including women, minorities, and people with disabilities. Members provide evaluation of proposals after discussion with other members with diverse points of view.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*	The Division receives new proposals at announced deadlines throughout the year. Meetings are held to review new proposals shortly after proposal deadlines. In FY24, 337 panels were convened. Panelists meet as a group then break into smaller subgroups before the review process commences.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*	Panel review can provide judgments about the merits of a group of proposals or about a complex multidisciplinary proposal that cannot be obtained in any other way. Often members have complementary expertise, and no one member has the expertise alone to evaluate a proposal or a group of proposals.
Why close or partially close meetings?	To review proposals that included information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals.
Recommendation Remarks	None

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*	No	Action Reorganize Priorities*	Yes
Outcome Trust In Government	No	Action Reallocate Resources	Yes
Outcome Major Policy Changes	No	Action Issued New Regulations	No
Outcome Advance In Scientific Research	Yes	Action Proposed Legislation	No
Outcome Effective Grant Making	Yes	Action Approved Grants Or Other Payments	Yes
Outcome Improved Service Delivery	No	Action Other	No
Outcome Increased Customer Satisfaction	No	Action Comment	NA
Outcome Implement Laws/Reg Requirements	No	Grants Review*	Yes
Outcome Other	No	Number Of Grants Reviewed	2,091
Outcome Comment	NA	Number Of Grants Recommended	510
Cost Savings*	Unable to Determine	Dollar Value Of Grants Recommended	$451,339,893.00
Cost Savings Comment	NA	Grants Review Comment	NA
Number Of Recommendations*	2,091	Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*	Yes
Number Of Recommendations Comment	This is an ongoing committee. Therefore, the number of recommendations produced by the committee is for the fiscal year.	Access Agency Website	No
% of Recs Fully Implemented*	100.00%	Access Committee Website	No
% of Recs Fully Implemented Comment	NA	Access GSA FACA Website	Yes
% of Recs Partially Implemented*	0.00%	Access Publications	No
% of Recs Partially Implemented Comment	NA	Access Other	No
Agency Feedback*	Yes	Access Comment	N/A
Agency Feedback Comment*	Although panelists may not receive direct feedback, each committee member may use the NSF FastLane, a public web-based program, which provides information on awards made by the agency to determine the outcome of proposals reviewed by the panel.	Narrative Description*	The NSF mission as set out in the NSF Act of 1950 authorizes and directs the Agency to initiate and support: basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process; and science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all fields of science and engineering. The involvement of knowledgeable peers from outside the Foundation in the review of proposals is the keystone of NSF’s proposal review system. Their judgments of the extent to which proposals address the merit review criteria are vital for informing NSF staff and influencing funding recommendations.

COSTS

1. Payments to Non-Federal Members*		1. Est Paymnts to Non-Fed Membrs Nxt FY*
2. Payments to Federal Members*		2. Est. Payments to Fed Members Next FY*
3. Payments to Federal Staff*		3. Estimated Payments to Federal Staff*
4. Payments to Consultants*		4. Est. Payments to Consultants Next FY*
5. Travel Reimb. For Non-Federal Membrs*		5. Est Travel Reimb Non-Fed Membr nxtFY*
6. Travel Reimb. For Federal Members*		6. Est Travel Reimb For Fed Members*
7. Travel Reimb. For Federal Staff*		7. Est. Travel Reimb to Fed Staf Nxt FY*
8. Travel Reimb. For Consultants*		8. Est Travel Reimb to Consltnts Nxt FY*
10. Other Costs		10. Est. Other Costs Next FY*
11. Total Costs	$0.00	11. Est. Total Next FY*	$0.00
Date Cost Last Modified	2/19/2025 11:03 AM	Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*		Est Cost Remarks
Cost Remarks

Interest Areas

Category Area Agriculture Plant Biology Applied Science Applied Sciences Engineering Mathematics Statistics Basic Science Chemistry Materials Research Physics Business Manufacturing Civil Rights Equal Opportunity Minorities Native Americans Women Computer Technology Technology Applications Computers Information Technology Internet Semiconductors Systems Engineering Education Education Schools and Academic Institutions Training Environment Earth Sciences Environmental Issues Oceans and Atmospheric Sciences Food and Drugs Biotechnology Social Sciences Social Sciences Space Space and Aeronautics

Custom Links

Committee Level Reports