Order Code RL30930
U.S. National Science Foundation:
Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
Updated August 7, 2008
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

U. S. National Science Foundation: Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
Summary
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 in Congress and the concerns of some in academia and the
scientific community about the geographic distribution of federal research and
development (R&D) funds. It was argued 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.”

EPSCoR began in 1979 with five states and funding of approximately $1.0
million. Currently, EPSCoR operates in 25 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. To date, the NSF has invested approximately
$920.0 million in EPSCoR programs and activities. When established, it operated
solely in the NSF. EPSCoR was expanded in the mid 1980s and early 1990s; by
1998, seven other agencies had established EPSCoR or EPSCoR-like programs.
EPSCoR is a university-oriented program, with the goal of identifying,
developing, and utilizing the academic science and technology resources in a state
that will lead to increased R&D competitiveness. The program is a partnership
between NSF and a state to improve the R&D competitiveness through the state’s
academic science and technology (S&T) infrastructure. Eventually, it is hoped that
those states receiving limited federal support would improve their ability to compete
successfully for federal and private sector funds through the regular grant system.
Some have questioned the length of time states should receive EPSCoR support.
It continues to be called an experimental program after 28 years, and observers have
noted that no state has yet to graduate, or leave the program. 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 review was centered
on determining when states would become independent of EPSCoR resources. The
COV acknowledged that graduation/progression from the EPSCoR program is a
“challenging” issue and it has become necessary to revisit what it means to graduate
from the program.
On March 2, 2007, Senator Rockefeller introduced S. 753, EPSCoR Research
and Competitiveness Act of 2007. The bill authorizes appropriations for FY2009-
FY2012. S. 753 would require the NSF Director to obligate not less than 20% of the
EPSCoR budget on co-funding projects that are ranked in the top 20% of all
submitted grant proposals.
On June 30, 2008, the President signed into law the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 ( P.L. 110-252, H.R. 2642). The act provides an additional
$62.5 million for the NSF in FY2008. Report language directs that $5.0 million of
the supplemental be available solely for EPSCoR activities. This report will be
updated periodically.

---

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
EPSCoR Goals and Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Operation and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Program Effectiveness
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Congressional Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
List of Figures
Figure 1. NSF EPSCoR- Participating States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
List of Tables
Table 1. Estimated EPSCoR Funding: FY1998 - FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

---

U.S. National Science Foundation:
Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
Background
The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) of the
National Science Foundation (NSF) was authorized by Congress in 19781, 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.2 Additional concerns resulted from the practice of
congressional earmarking - 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.”3
1 Initial support for EPSCoR was contained in P.L. 95-392 (H.Rept. 95-1265), Department
of Housing and Urban Development-Independent Agencies Appropriation Act, 1979.
2 House Committee on Science and Technoloy, Subcommittee on Science, National Science
Board: Science Policy and Management for the National Science Foundation, 1968-1980,
Report, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., January 1983, p. 121. See also Colwell, Rita, Director,
National Science Foundation, Speech before the Tenth Anniversary of Coalition of EPSCoR
States, Washington, DC, March 23, 1999, [http://www.nsf.gov/search97cgi/vtopic], p. 2.
The charter of the NSF directs the agency to, among other things, “... avoid undue
concentration of such research and education.” National Science Foundation Act of 1950,
Sec. 3. 7(c). U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Astronautics, A Bill to Amend
the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 19, 20, and 21,
1966, pp. 2-3.
3 The historic concentration of federal R&D support to institutions has changed slightly. In
FY2005, the first 100 institutions (in terms of receipt of federal R&D funds) accounted for
78.6% of the total federal R&D support for science and engineering to colleges and
universities. In FY1996, the top 100 institutions commanded 83.4% of support; in FY1986,
the proportion was 85.5%. National Science Foundation, Federal Science and Engineering
Support to Universities, Colleges, and Selected Nonprofit Institutions, Fiscal Year 2005,
NSF07-333, Arlington, VA, October 2007, Table 19, Federal Science and Engineering
Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions, Fiscal Year 1996, NSF98-331,
September 1998, Table B-4, and Federal Support to Universities, Colleges and Selected
Nonprofit Institutions FY1986, NSF87-318, January 1988, Table B-9. An analysis of state
profiles for FY2005 reveal that the top 10 states accounted for 57.2% of federally funded
academic R&D, while the 10 states with the smallest share totaled 2.5%. The states with
the smallest share are all EPSCoR states. National Science Foundation, Science and
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
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.”4 The premise
of the program is that “academic research activity underpins every state’s overall
competitiveness.”5 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.”6 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.”7 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.8 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.”9

EPSCoR began in 1979 with five states and funding of approximately $1.0
million. Currently, EPSCoR operates in 25 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. (See the following figure for the participating
states). To date, NSF has invested approximately $920.0 million in EPSCoR
programs and activities.10 The EPSCoR program is approximately 1.8% of the NSF
3 (...continued)
Engineering State Profiles: 2003-2005, NSF07-322, Arlington, VA, May 2007, Summary
Tables, pp. 4-5.
4 National Science Foundation, Annual Report FY2002, Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research, Education and Human Resources Directorate, Arlington, VA,
October 23, 2002, p. 1.
5 [National Computer Science Alliance] NCSA Access: EPSCoR Conference,
[http://access.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Archive/AOarchive/EPSCoR.html], p. 1.
6 Savage, James D., Funding Science in America: Congress, Universities, and the Politics
of the Academic Pork, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1999, p. 61.
7 Lambright, W. Henry, Syracuse University, Paper prepared for the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, Workshop on Academic Research Competitiveness, Coeur
d’Alene, Idaho, Building State Science: The EPSCoR Experience, October 1-3, 1999,
[http://www.aaas.org/SPP/DSPP/RCP/coeur/Lambright/lambright.htm], p. 2.
8 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, The National Science
Board: Science Policy and Management for the National Science Foundation, 1968-1980,
Report prepared by the Science Policy Research Division, Library of Congress for the
Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., January 1983,
p. 121.
9 Lambright, W. Henry, Workshop on Academic Research Competitiveness, p. 3.
10 National Science Foundation, EPSCoR 2020: Expanding State Participation in Research
in the 21st Century — A New Vision for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR), A report to the National Science Foundation, August 2006, p. iii. The
(continued...)

---

CRS-3
budget. 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.11 This report is limited to a
discussion of EPSCoR programs at the NSF.
Figure 1. NSF EPSCoR- Participating States
EPSCoR Goals and Mission
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
10 (...continued)
current 27 participating jurisdictions account for 20% of the U.S. population, 18% of
employed scientists and engineering, and approximately 25% of research institutions. Ibid.
11 EPSCoR and EPSCoR-like programs are operational in the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency,
Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Commerce. In
FY1998, the Department of Commerce (DOC) established the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCoT). It was designed as a technology complement
to EPSCoR-like programs. In FY2006, 6 agencies provided a total of $353.4 million for
EPSCoR/EPSCoR-like programs. In FY2006, EPA discontinued releasing separate EPSCoR
program solicitations. National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators
2008, Volume 1, NSB08-01, Arlington, VA, January 15, 2008, p. 5-17. In FY1993,
congressional action led to the creation of the EPSCoR Interagency Coordinating Committee
(EICC), with the purpose of improving coordination among the participating agencies and
ensuring consistency in implementation of EPSCoR policies. NSF is the lead agency within
the Federal-wide effort, and an NSF official serves as chair and executive secretary of EICC.

---

CRS-4
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.12 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:
... Increase the R&D competitiveness of an eligible state through the
development and utilization of the science and technology (S&T) resources
residing in its major research universities, those institutions granting significant
numbers of the state’s Ph.D. degrees in science and engineering disciplines.
EPSCoR achieves its objectives by: (1) stimulating sustainable S&T
infrastructure improvements at the state and institutional levels that significantly
increase the ability of EPSCoR researchers to compete for federal and private
sector R&D support, and (2) providing means to accelerate the movement of
EPSCoR researchers and institutions into the mainstream of federal and private
sector R&D support.13
Operation and Funding
EPSCoR, while designed as a sheltered program, has been integrated into the
performance of all NSF directorates.14 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
12 Approxiamtely 30% of minority-serving colleges institutions are in EPSCoR jurisdictions.
This includes 50% of historically black colleges and universities, 70% of tribal colleges and
universities, 23% of Hispanic serving institutions.
13 EPSCoR Home Page, [http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/EPSCOR/info.HTM].
14 A report of a FY2006 workshop on EPSCoR directed that funding for EPSCoR be moved
from the Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate to Integrative Activities (IA)
of the Research and Related Activities Account (R&RA). It was determined that the
activities, management, and cross-directorate interactions of EPSCoR would be more fully
coordinated and maximized within the R&RA. Beginning in the FY2008, EPSCoR was
transferred from the EHR to the IA account.

---

CRS-5
academic infrastructure not generally available through other funding sources.”15
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 27 EPSCoR jurisdictions account for more than 20% of the
U.S. population, about 25% of research institutions, and an estimated 18% of
employed scientific and technical personnel. As a whole, these 27 jurisdictions
receive approximately 10% of all NSF R&D funding.16 In FY2007, NSF provided
an estimated $102.1 million for EPSCoR activities, an increase of $3.9 million (4%)
above the FY2006 level.17 (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.18
15 National Science Foundation, EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement Grant
Program (RII), Program Solicitation, NSF 03-528, Arlington, VA, January 2003, p. 5.
16 The 10 top NSF funded states account for more than 60% of NSF appropriations.
EPSCoR 2020: Expanding State Participation in Research in the 21st Century — A New
Vision for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), A
report to the National Science Foundation, Prepared by Jerome D. Odom, August 2006, p.6.
17 Funding levels include support for EPSCoR in the EHR Directorate and also co-funding
available through the Research and Related Activities Account.
18 Different investment strategies existed prior to the transfer of EPSCoR from the EHR to
IA. See Note 15.

---

CRS-6
Table 1. Estimated EPSCoR Funding: FY1998 - FY2007
(dollars in millions)
Research
Outreach/
Infrastructure
Technical
Funding Year
Fiscal Year
Improvement
Co-Funding
Assistance
Totals
FY1998
$22.7
$15.5
$0.0
38.2
FY1999
26.3
22.2
0.2
48.7
FY2000
31.0
20.5
0.2
51.7
FY2001
40.4
34.4
0.1
74.9
FY2002
40.7
38.8
0.2
79.7
FY2003
46.9
42.1
0.2
89.2
FY2004
55.9
38.1
0.2
94.2
FY2005
58.1
35.2
0.1
93.4
FY2006
61.7
36.4
0.1
98.2
FY2007
65.8
36.2
0.1
102.1
$449.5
$319.4
$1.4
$770.3
Note: Funding levels provided by NSF Budget Office, March 6, 2008.
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.19 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
19 Eligibility to participate in the EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement competition
is restricted to those states that received 0.75% or less of the total NSF research funds to all
sources within a state averaged over the most recent three-year period. If in a rare instance
a single large NSF-funded national or international facility skews the data, an adjustment
to the eligibility criteria could be made. National Science Foundation, EPSCoR Research
Infrastructure Improvement Grant Program, Program Solicitation, NSF08-500, Arlington,
VA, January 4, 2008, p. 5.

---

CRS-7
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 FY2009 budget
request is $76.0 million, a $2.0 million increase over the FY2008 estimate of $74.0
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.20 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.21 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.22
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 FY2008 estimate for co-funding is $36.0 million. In the FY2009 request, the co-
funding strategy is proposed at level funding — $36.0 million.
The outreach 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 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
20 Proposals can not be submitted directly for co-funding. This mechanism is primarily
internal to NSF, with reviews conducted by the EPSCoR office and the managing program
office of the grant proposal. EPSCoR co-funding is limited to awards made by principal
investigators at the eligible NSF EPSCoR jurisdictions.
21 For expanded discussion of co-funding, see, for example, U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Appropriations, Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations for 2001, 106th Cong., 2nd Sess.,
April 4, 2001, pp. 60-63, and Annual Report FY2002, Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research, pp. 3-4.
22 These crosscutting programs include those supported by multiple directorates in NSF and
also joint agency programs. They include the Faculty Early Career Development Program,
Professional Opportunities for Women in Research and Education, Major Research
Instrumentation, Information Technology Research, Small Business Technology Research,
Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers, Research Experiences for
Undergraduates, Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training, and Grant
Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry competitions.

---

CRS-8
participating states.23 Funding for the outreach strategy in the FY2009 budget request
is $1.5 million, an increase of $400,000 over the FY2008 estimate of $1.1 million.
The increase will allow for expansion of activities that build regional and
jurisdictional research infrastructure.
Program Effectiveness
In 1994, an evaluation of the EPSCoR program was conducted by the COSMOS
Corporation.24 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 state 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.25
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.26 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.
23 EPSCoR Outreach [http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/epscor/outreach.jsp].
24 National Science Foundation, An REC-Sponsored Report on Evaluation, A Report on the
Evaluation of the National Science Foundation’s Experimental Program To Stimulate
Competitive Research, NSF99-115, Arlington, VA, May 1999, 36 pp.
NOTE: The evaluation covered the period 1980-1994.
25 Ibid., pp. 19-20.
26 “A cluster is a related group of research projects, often interdisciplinary, and awards are
made to a cluster’s principal investigator as well as to the component research projects.
This strategy has led to the development of laboratories or centers, and not just the
recruitment of cadres of new, research-oriented faculty in a number of EPSCOR universities.
The cluster strategy also has been used to promote interdisciplinary collaboration among
universities and between universities and industry.” Ibid., p. 36.

---

CRS-9
More recently, an August 2006 report, EPSCoR 2020: Expanding State
Participation in Research in the 21st Century — A New Vision for the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), finds that while some
participating states and jurisdictions have developed S&T capabilities that address
national issues, they need to progress at a faster pace in order to benefit more fully
in a national research agenda.27 The report states 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.28
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 are heterogenous, a “one-size program” should not be applied to the
27 different jurisdictions.29 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 -$5 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.”30
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 states that “The relocation will allow the
27 EPSCoR 2020: Expanding State Participation in Research in the 21st Century — A New
Vision for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), 15 pp.
28 Ibid., p. iv.
29 Speaking before the 18th Annual EPSCoR National Conference, Sherry Farwell, Head,
NSF EPSCoR Office, stated that it is necessary to provide funding opportunities for
EPSCoR jurisdictions that account for their “ . . . inherent jurisdictional heterogeneity.
That is, jurisdictions vary in their current capacities and capabilities, and hence in their
relative positions on the trajectory leading to competitiveness.” Written statement of Sherry
Farwell, 18th EPSCoR National Conference, Puerto Rico, September 26, 2005.
30 EPSCoR 2020: Expanding State Participation in Research in the 21st Century — A New
Vision for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), p. 9.

---

CRS-10
EPSCoR program greater leverage for improving the research infrastructure, planning
complex agendas, and developing scientific and engineering talent for the 21st
century.”31
An additional recommendation of the workshop was for EPSCoR states and
jurisdictions to become a “test bed” for new initiatives. The report notes 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.32 The workshop participants maintain that “Developing
expertise in topics of national importance will enhance success of proposals in other
competitions.”33
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.”34
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 28 years, and no state has yet graduated from the
EPSCoR program.35 The issue of graduation from the program has generated
considerable Congressional interest.
31 National Science Foundation, FY2008 Budget Request to Congress, Arlington, VA,
February 2007, p. IA-1.
32 National Science Foundation, Investing in America’s Future, Strategic Plan FY2006-
2011, NSF06-48, Arlington, VA, September 2006, 19 pp. NOTE: NSF describes
transformative research as “... research that has the capacity to revolutionize existing fields,
create new subfields, cause paradigm shifts, support discovery, and lead to radically new
technologies.” National Science Board, Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at
the National Science Foundation, NSB07-6, Arlington, VA, January 23, 2007, p. 3.
33 EPSCoR 2020: Expanding State Participation in Research in the 21st Century, p. 13.
34 Lambright, W. Henry, Workshop on Academic Research Competitiveness, p. 4.
35 In April 2006, it was announced that Tennessee has become the first state to “begin the
process of successfully transitioning out of the NSF EPSCOR program.” The co-funding
transition period in Tennessee will continue for three years, until April 2009. East
Tennessee State University, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. Reflections, v.1,
July 2006, p.1.

---

CRS-11
In August 2005, the NSF’s Committee of Visitors (COV) released a review of
the EPSCoR program for the period FY2000 through FY2004.36 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.37
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%.
In FY2006, 7,037 proposals were received, and 1,489 awards were made with a
funding rate of 21%.38 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.39
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
36 National Science Foundation, Education and Human Resources Directorate, Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), Committee of Visitors, Final
Report, August 16, 2005, 25 pp.
37 Ibid., p. 21.
38 National Science Board, Report to the National Science Board on the National Science
Foundation’s Merit Review Process, Fiscal Year 2006, NSB07-22, March 2007, p. 31.
39 Ibid., p. 23.

---

CRS-12
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.”40 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.”41 The report suggested that the
pool of reviewers should be expanded by rotating in a minimum of 25% 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 110th Congress.
Congressional Activity
On March 2, 2007, Senator Rockefeller introduced S. 753, EPSCoR Research
and Competitiveness Act of 2007. S. 753 would authorize 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.”42 Language in the bill would require 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 require the NSF
Director to obligate not less than 20% of the EPSCoR budget on co-funding projects
that are ranked, by peer review, in the top 20% of all submitted grant proposals.
Also, EPSCoR states and jurisdictions participating in the RII grant mechanism are
to include in the proposals, partnerships with out-of-state research institutions. S.
40 Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), Final Report, p. 12.
41 Ibid., p. 24.
42 S. 753, EPSCoR Research and Competitiveness Act of 2007, Section 3.

---

CRS-13
753 was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
The America COMPETES Act was signed into law on August 9, 2007 (P.L.
110-69, H.R. 2272).43 The COMPETES Act, among other things, provides an
authorization of $22.1 billion for the NSF over a three-year period — FY2008 ($6.6
billion), FY2009 ($7.3 billion), and FY2010 ($8.1 billion). P.L. 110-69 authorizes
appropriations in the following amounts for EPSCoR: FY2008, $120.0 million;
FY2009, $133.2 million; and FY2010, $147.8 million.44
On June 30, 2008, the President signed into law the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252, H.R. 2642). The Act provides an additional
$62.5 million for the NSF in FY2008. Report language directs that $5.0 million of
the supplemental be available solely for EPSCoR activities.45
43 America COMPETES Act — America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote
Excellence in Technology, Education and Science (COMPETES) Act.
44 NSF’s FY2009 budget request for EPSCoR is $113.5 million, a 2.2% increase ($2.4
million) above the FY2008 estimate of $111.1 million. National Science Foundation,
FY2009 NSF Budget Request to Congress, February 4, 2008.
45 P.L.110-252, Section 7002(b)(2)(A)(iv).

---