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 - 1760 - Advisory Panel for Methods, Cross-Directorate and Science and Society - Agency Authority

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee Name	Advisory Panel for Methods, Cross-Directorate and Science and Society	Agency Name	National Science Foundation
Fiscal Year	2001	Committee Number	1760
Original Establishment Date	10/1/1993	Committee Status	Terminated
Actual Termination Date	6/30/2001	Committee URL
Actual Merged Date		Presidential Appointments*	No
New Committee This FY	No	Max Number of Members*	Unlimited
Terminated This FY	Yes	Designated Fed Officer Position Title*	Acting Division Director, Social and Economic Sciences
Merged This FY		Designated Federal Officer Prefix	Dr.
Current Charter Date	6/30/1999	Designated Federal Officer First Name*	Daniel
Date Of Renewal Charter	6/30/2001	Designated Federal Officer Middle Name	H.
Projected Termination Date		Designated Federal Officer Last Name*	Newlon
Exempt From Renewal*	No	Designated Federal Officer Suffix
Specific Termination Authority		Designated Federal Officer Phone*	703-292-7270
Establishment Authority*	Agency Authority	Designated Federal Officer Fax*	703-292-9068
Specific Establishment Authority*	ADM IV-100	Designated Federal Officer Email*	dnewlon@nsf.gov
Effective Date Of Authority*	10/1/1993
Exempt From EO 13875 Discretionary Cmte
Committee Type*	Continuing
Presidential*	No
Committee Function*	Grant Review Committee

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

Agency Recommendation*	Continue
Legislation to Terminate Required	No
Legislation Status
How does cmte accomplish its purpose?*	The Methods, Cross-Directorate and Science and Society Advisory Panel reviewed and evaluated 525 proposals in FY01. The panel discussions and evaluations provided critical information for making decisions as to awards and declinations. Along with individual reviews, summaries of panel deliberations are distributed to all applicants and provide useful material for their consideration in undertaking award activities or further action on unsuccessful submissions. In addition to regular research proposals, panelists evaluated and discussed dissertation improvement proposals, infrastrature competition and survey methods research proposals. The panelists discussed current and future activities in various areas of research, including trends that extend across numerous reseach areas.
How is membership balanced?*	The panel members are men and women throughout the United States selected for their expertise in the various research and education areas. Major categories include all areas of social and behavioral science; practical and professional ethics; history, philosophy and social science studies of science, engineering and technology; statistics; and science policy analysis, and cross directorate activities. The panelists bring different subject area knowledge to bear on the broad spectrum of proposals considered including cross-disciplinary proposals.Panelists are also selected to represent a wide range of theoretical and methodological approaches, and to provide balanced and objective views. Balance by gender, geographical distribution, public and private institutions, and representation of ethnic minorities is also a goal in panel selection.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*	This FY01 the panel met ten times, to review and evaluate proposals in the research areas of Science and Technology Studies; Societal Dimensions of Engineering, Science, and Technology; and Methodology, Measurement, and Statistics and Cross Directorate Activities. The members of the Panel are usually those researchers who currently are the most influential and prolific publishers in their subfields of research. The discussion among the panel members (something that cannot be achieved without a Panel) adds coherence and consensus to the evaluation process.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*	The panel role in the merit review process provides (a) a context in which to consider and interpret comments received from individual mail reviews of proposals, (b) a context in which to compare proposals and their strengths and weaknesses and consider both depth and balance in the program, (c) by their stature and involvement, increased credibility to the review process, and (d) historical memory. This is particularly important in a transdisciplinary field with a goal of dissemination for project results beyond the specialists undertaking them. Interactive discussion is essential to identifying the strengths and weaknesses of proposals, thereby assisting management in its decision-making processes.
Why close or partially close meetings?	To review proposals that included information or a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals.
Recommendation Remarks

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*		Action Reorganize Priorities*
Outcome Trust In Government		Action Reallocate Resources
Outcome Major Policy Changes		Action Issued New Regulations
Outcome Advance In Scientific Research		Action Proposed Legislation
Outcome Effective Grant Making		Action Approved Grants Or Other Payments
Outcome Improved Service Delivery		Action Other
Outcome Increased Customer Satisfaction		Action Comment
Outcome Implement Laws/Reg Requirements		Grants Review*
Outcome Other		Number Of Grants Reviewed
Outcome Comment		Number Of Grants Recommended
Cost Savings*		Dollar Value Of Grants Recommended
Cost Savings Comment		Grants Review Comment
Number Of Recommendations*		Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*
Number Of Recommendations Comment		Access Agency Website
% of Recs Fully Implemented*		Access Committee Website
% of Recs Fully Implemented Comment		Access GSA FACA Website
% of Recs Partially Implemented*		Access Publications
% of Recs Partially Implemented Comment		Access Other
Agency Feedback*		Access Comment
Agency Feedback Comment*		Narrative Description*

COSTS

1. Payments to Non-Federal Members*	$54,320.00	1. Est Paymnts to Non-Fed Membrs Nxt FY*	$0.00
2. Payments to Federal Members*	$0.00	2. Est. Payments to Fed Members Next FY*	$0.00
3. Payments to Federal Staff*	$17,866.00	3. Estimated Payments to Federal Staff*	$0.00
4. Payments to Consultants*	$0.00	4. Est. Payments to Consultants Next FY*	$0.00
5. Travel Reimb. For Non-Federal Membrs*	$18,243.00	5. Est Travel Reimb Non-Fed Membr nxtFY*	$0.00
6. Travel Reimb. For Federal Members*	$0.00	6. Est Travel Reimb For Fed Members*	$0.00
7. Travel Reimb. For Federal Staff*	$0.00	7. Est. Travel Reimb to Fed Staf Nxt FY*	$0.00
8. Travel Reimb. For Consultants*	$0.00	8. Est Travel Reimb to Consltnts Nxt FY*	$0.00
10. Other Costs	$3,943.00	10. Est. Other Costs Next FY*	$0.00
11. Total Costs	$94,372.00	11. Est. Total Next FY*	$0.00
Date Cost Last Modified		Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*	0.00
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*	0.29	Est Cost Remarks
Cost Remarks

Interest Areas

No interest areas selected for this committee.

Custom Links

Committee Level Reports