The two key documents that establish the basic policies and guidance for all EPO activities funded by SMD are a strategic plan entitled "Partners in Education: A Strategy for Integrating Education and Public Outreach Into NASA's Space Science Programs", March 1995), and an implementation plan, entitled "Implementing the Office of Space Science (OSS) Education/Public Outreach Strategy", October 1996). Both of these documents may be obtained on-line at http://science.hq.nasa.gov/research/epo.htm, or in hardcopy from Dr. Larry Cooper, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 02546-0001.
The following overall policies and guidelines apply to the EPO activities proposed for supplementary funding to a Chandra research grant:
- The proposed EPO activity is expected to have a general intellectual linkage to the science objectives of the research proposal and/or the science expertise of its PI and/or the science goals of the Chandra mission.
- Programs of educational or public information merit that could by the nature of their content be funded by other agencies may be declined for funding. Programs are expected to include significant NASA/SMD science, math, engineering, and/or technology content.
- EPO programs funded through SMD are required to make a valuable contribution to K-14 education, to public outreach to enhance public understanding of science, and/or to enhance participation of underserved/underutilized groups and women in science that is consistent with NASA education and public outreach goals and objectives.
- NASA requests (but does not require) that the submitting organization waive PI labor costs and its customary overhead charges on an EPO budget, since in many cases such activities will directly aid a local educational or public science institution, and the budget available for this EPO program is extremely limited.
- At least one of the science team members MUST be directly involved in planning, implementing, oversight, and execution of the proposed EPO program or activity. In the case of institutional or team proposals, it is expected that more than one team member will be involved. This also is meant to preclude proposals that serve only to "pass through" money to an external organization or individual who would then carry out the proposed EPO activity. Such a situation is inconsistent with the intention of SMD that the research community be actively involved in education and public outreach.
- Although the PI of the parent research proposal must be designated as the PI of the supplementary EPO proposal, and must maintain involvement with the proposal program or activity as described in this CfP, an additional qualified person may be identified as the EPO Co-I. This person may be responsible for conducting the EPO activities. The EPO Co-I might be, for example, an appropriately qualified colleague from the PI's science team, or institution, or from a partnering educational or science outreach institution.
- Active involvement of appropriate and qualified education or outreach partners is required. Given the smaller funding scale of these supplemental grants, EPO partners can make significant contributions to a proposed program.
- Proposals for EPO supplements to research grants will be reviewed by panels of qualified science, outreach, and education professionals in accordance with the evaluation criteria outlined below (see Section 3.2). The substance of these reviews will be conveyed to the proposers in a summary report.
3.2 EPO Evaluation Criteria
There are three categories of evaluation criteria against which EPO activities proposed for this Chandra Cycle 8 opportunity will be evaluated. Although creativity and innovation are certainly encouraged, note that none of these sets of criteria concerns the originality of the proposed effort.
The three areas of evaluation criteria are 1) Intrinsic Merit; 2) Relevance to NASA's Objectives; and 3) Cost. Each category is further described through the eight sub-factors below. Note that the failure of a proposal to be highly rated in any one of these three categories is sufficient cause for funding to be declined.
3.2.1 Intrinsic Merit
The category Intrinsic Merit will be evaluated against the following four sub-factors:
Sub-factor 1: The Quality, Scope, Realism, and Appropriateness of the Proposed EPO Program
- general intellectual linkage to the science objectives of the parent research proposal, the PI's science expertise and/or the Chandra mission science goals
- clear organization, consistent with requested budget
- clear lines of management responsibilities
- demonstration of high probability for successful implementation
Sub-factor 2: Customer-Needs Focus
The program has been designed to respond to a need identified by the education community, a science outreach organization or program, or other relevant public information program, organization, or audience sector.
Note that letters attesting to identified "customer-needs" may be attached to the hardcopy that is submitted with institutional signature.
Sub-factor 3: Partnerships/Leverage/Sustainability
- Program achieves high leverage and/or sustainability through intrinsic design or
- Program achieves high leverage and/or sustainability through the involvement of appropriate local, regional, and/or national partners in design, development, and dissemination.
- Active involvement of one or more members of the science team is required
- Active involvement of appropriate and qualified partners is required
Note that signed letters attesting to partnerships should be attached to the hardcopy that is submitted with institutional signature.
Sub-factor 4: The Appropriateness of Evaluation Plans
- Evaluation plans document the program outcomes
- Evaluation plans demonstrate progress toward achieving the objectives of the proposed education/outreach activities
- Scale and methodology of evaluation plans are appropriate to the proposed program
- For proposals requesting funds to continue an on-going program previously funded by NASA or Chandra EPO grants, evidence of program outcomes and/or demonstration of progress toward achieving the objectives of the previous activities or program must be shown.
3.2.2 Relevance to NASA Objectives
3.2.2.1. Background Notes
(1) Overall guidelines for this category:
- Any program that includes a formal education component must show alignment of that component with appropriate education standards.
- All proposals must be responsive to sub-factor 5.
- Proposals must also be responsive to at least ONE of sub-factors 6 or 7.
(2) Note that definitions and explanations for this section (below) have been modified for clarity and appropriateness for the Chandra Cycle 8 EPO CfP.
Version 3, March 2004 of the Explanatory Guide appears to imply that all proposals must be responsive to both of sub-factors 6 and 7. In light of the statement in that same document that scope of proposals should be appropriate to funding, we have chosen to clarify this area by requiring that only one sub-factor be addressed. While both sub-factors are of high interest to NASA, it may be difficult to address both within the scope of the modest funding available through this grant opportunity. You are encouraged to structure a program with both broad application and specifically targeted impact. However, as NASA has stated previously, a genuine and thorough compliance with one of sub-factors 6 or 7 is preferable to an unrealistic attempt to respond to both. A high score on more than one sub-factor may increase this category's rating, but addressing only one well, if that is the most appropriate approach for the proposed program, will not penalize it. Two mediocre scores will not outrank one high score.
(3) Alignment with education standards
Proposals that focus on formal education (including curriculum, remedial or after school programs, or educator enrichment or professional development workshops) must demonstrate substantive and informed alignment with appropriate education standards.
Note that this requirement can apply in two ways:
1. The focus of the proposed activity may be the development and implementation of a formal education program (e.g., curriculum materials, student or educator workshops), which must demonstrate alignment with appropriate education standards. The education program and its alignment with standards should be described under sub-factors 6 or 7, whichever is more appropriate.
2. The main thrust of the proposed program may be an outreach or an informal education program, but if any aspect of the program can be considered a formal education component as defined above (e.g. workshops for students or educators that accompany a museum display), that component must demonstrate alignment with appropriate education standards and should be described and placed in context under sub-factor 6 or 7.
3.2.2.2 The category Relevance to NASA Objectives will be evaluated against the following three sub-factors.
Sub-factor 5: Content (applies to all proposals)
The degree to which the proposed program makes direct use of NASA content, people, or facilities to involve educators, students, and/or the public in NASA Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics (STEM)
Sub-factor 6: Pipeline
The degree to which, through the use of NASA space science, programs, or products, the proposed program makes a demonstrable contribution to attracting diverse populations to careers in STEM.
Note that acceptable response to this sub-factor can cover a large range of program options from outreach or informal programs that meet the NASA goals of inspiration and excitement (such as talks, museum displays and programs, planetarium shows, multi-media products, etc.) to programs specifically addressing career education, to programs addressing informal or formal education (targeting students and/or teachers) in STEM.
Note that the requirement of this sub-factor is to show broad inclusion of diverse populations, either through specific inclusionary steps, choice of partnerships, demographics of probable participants, or other indicators. The proposal should demonstrate that it is reasonable to expect that diverse groups will be included in the audience reached by the activity, as opposed to showing the targeting of specific, more narrowly identified audiences required by sub-factor 7.
Note that alignment with appropriate education standards must be demonstrated for any Formal education programs or program components.
Sub-factor 7: Diversity
The degree to which, and specific steps through which, the proposed program reaches identified, targeted groups, contributing to the involvement, broad understanding, and/or training of underserved/underutilized groups in NASA related space science and technology. Alignment with appropriate education standards must be demonstrated for any Formal education programs or program components.
3.2.3 Cost
Sub-factor 8: Resource Utilization
- The adequacy, appropriateness, and realism of the proposed budget including demonstration of effective use of funds.
3.2.4 Further Information about Evaluation Criteria
NASA has developed a document, entitled "Explanatory Guide to NASA Office of Space Science Education and Public Outreach Evaluation Criteria" to provide additional detailed information for proposers who submit a supplemental EPO proposal.
You are most strongly urged to study the Explanatory Guide while developing your EPO program and writing your proposal. However, note that while the Guide is most useful in conveying the broad NASA education context, it applies to a wide range of NASA proposal opportunities, many of which can, by the nature of the funding program (mission AOs, Long Term research grants) provide an opportunity to propose very ambitious programs. The Chandra grants are funded at more modest levels. Therefore, the sub-factors that are more appropriate to programs of higher funding and thus broader, more ambitious scope have been modified for purposes of this Chandra supplemental CfP. The explanation of evaluation sub-factors 1-5, and the budget sub-factor (8) are interpreted identically as described in the "Explanatory Guide". Sub-factors 6 and 7 have been modified in this CfP; for these sub-factors, the Guide should be used only for broader context and for general clarification of the criteria. Otherwise, the modifications in this CfP prevail.
3.3 More Information about Proposal Budget Guidelines
EPO budgets will be evaluated as an integral part of the EPO proposal and will be judged against sub-factor 8 of the EPO proposal Criteria. It is important that all contributions of education partners or other collaborators be clearly detailed.
3.3.1 Input to Proposal Forms
Discussion of the budget and costs associated with the proposed EPO program are required in three places in the proposal form:
- A total figure for the proposal budget is asked for in the Background Information section.
- A narrative justification of the budget's appropriateness and reasonableness is asked for in the Program Description and Detailed Budget Justification section, under the response to Sub-factor 8.
- A detailed budget and budget explanation are asked for in the Budget Form.
All budget information is to be submitted electronically using the on-line proposal formats. Additional budget forms specific to the PI's institution that are attached in hardcopy will not be considered by the committee.
3.3.2 Content
The detailed Budget Justification should include a breakdown of the work assignments including task description, labor-hours or labor-months, salary, and fringe benefits (as appropriate) for all persons funded by this proposal (whether direct labor, subcontract, or consultant); identification and justification of any major supply or equipment purchases (see Computers or Workstations, below); and a detailed list of expenses categorized as "Other" Overhead costs to be waived should be clearly identified. Proposal budgets not containing the above-described budget detail will receive lower scores as a result of providing insufficient information.
3.3.3 Profit
While proposals from Investigators working at For-Profit Organizations are eligible for funding, profit is unallowable; however, Management Fees of up to 3% may be permitted on a case-by-case basis.
3.3.4 Computers or Workstations
Requests for computers or workstations must be justified in the Budget Justification. Computers or workstations are not allowable as a direct cost unless specifically justified. Any computer or workstation purchase requested to be made as a direct charge under this award must include a description of the equipment, an explanation of how it will be used in the conduct of the proposed education activity and why it cannot be purchased with indirect funds, and a statement certifying that the equipment will be used exclusively for the proposed education activity and not for any other use including general business or administrative purposes. The budget justification should briefly describe the computing capabilities that exist or are expected to exist at the proposer's institution or at the venue of the education activity (i.e., school, museum, etc.) during the period in which the proposed activity would be performed and then explain the impact to the proposed work if the request for the workstation is denied. The budget request for workstations must be clearly stated on the Budget Form as a line item under "equipment".
3.4 Proposal Evaluation and Selection
During the peer review, EPO proposals are judged against each of the 3 categories of sub-factors as outlined above. Each sub-factor is evaluated individually and assigned a rating. Ratings for the sub-factors are totaled to produce a rating for each of the three categories, and the three categories are totaled to provide an overall rating for the proposal. Proposals are recommended for selection according to their overall ratings. However, failure of a proposal to be highly rated in any one of the evaluation categories is sufficient cause for the EPO proposal to be declined for funding. The CXC reserves the right to offer selections at a reduced level of cost in order to fit within the program constraints. Proposers to this program should further understand that the lack of monetary resources is sufficient grounds for not selecting a proposal even though it may have been judged to be of high merit.