U.S. National Science Foundation:
Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
January 19, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL30930
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
U.S. National Science Foundation: 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 29 jurisdictions, including 27 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. To 2006, the NSF had 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.
On November 18, 2011, President Barack Obama signed into law the Commerce, Justice,
Science, and Related Appropriations Act, FY2012, P.L. 112-55. The law provides, among other
things, funding for the NSF. The law provides a total of $7,033.1 million for the NSF in FY2012,
$173.2 million above the FY2011 enacted level. Included in the total funding for NSF is $150.9
million for EPSCoR, approximately $5.5 million above the FY2011 level. The FY2012
appropriation for EPSCoR supports a portfolio of three complementary investment strategies—
research infrastructure improvement ($109.1 million), co-funding ($40.2 million), and outreach
($1.6 million). It is anticipated that approximately 24.0% of the funding for EPSCoR in FY2012
will be used for new research awards. The remaining will be directed at providing support for
grants made in previous years. This report will be updated periodically.
Congressional Research Service
U.S. National Science Foundation: EPSCoR
Contents
Background...................................................................................................................................... 1
EPSCoR Goals and Mission ............................................................................................................ 4
Operation and Funding .................................................................................................................... 5
Program Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................... 7
Issues.............................................................................................................................................. 10
Congressional Activity................................................................................................................... 11
Figures
Figure 1. NSF EPSCoR Jurisdictions .............................................................................................. 3
Tables
Table 1. Estimated EPSCoR Funding: FY2003-FY2012................................................................. 6
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 13
Congressional Research Service
U.S. National Science Foundation: EPSCoR
Background
The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) was authorized by Congress in 1978,1 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 directed spending3—allocating funds for specific institutions
or research projects.4 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.”5
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.”6 The
premise of the program is that “academic research activity underpins every state’s overall
competitiveness.”7 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
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 Technology, 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/news/speeches/colwell/rc90323epscor.htm, 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, Section 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 Also known as Congressional earmarks.
4 Congressional earmarking continues to be a concern in the scientific and academic community. See for example CRS
Report RL34462, House and Senate Procedural Rules Concerning Earmark Disclosure, by Sandy Streeter, Dennis,
Steven T., “Artfully Redefining Earmarks,” Roll Call, January 12, 2009,pp.1, 22, and Brainard, Jeffrey and JJ Hermes,
“Colleges’ Earmarks Grow, Amid Criticism,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 54, March 28, 2008, p. A1.
5 The historic concentration of federal R&D support to institutions has changed slightly. In FY2007, the first 100
institutions (in terms of receipt of federal R&D funds) accounted for 82.6% 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 2007, NSF09-315, Arlington, VA, September
2009, 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 FY2007 reveal
that the top 10 states accounted for 57.4% of federally funded academic R&D, while the 10 states with the smallest
share totaled 3%. The states with the smallest share are all EPSCoR states. National Science Foundation, Science and
Engineering State Profiles: 2006-2008, NSF10-302, Arlington, VA, November 2009, Summary Tables. State profiles
are based on data for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
6 National Science Foundation, Annual Report FY2002, Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research,
Education and Human Resources Directorate, Arlington, VA, October 23, 2002, p. 1.
7 [National Computer Science Alliance] NCSA Access: EPSCoR Conference, http://access.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Stories/
97Stories/EPSCoR.html, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
1
U.S. National Science Foundation: EPSCoR
universities in their competition for federal research funds.”8 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.”9 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.10 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.”11
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.12 Currently,
EPSCoR jurisdictions receive approximately 12% of all NSF research funding.13 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.14 This report is limited to a discussion of EPSCoR programs at the NSF.
8 Savage, James D., Funding Science in America: Congress, Universities, and the Politics of the Academic Pork,
Cambridge University Press, New York, 1999, p. 61.
9 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/rcp/epscor/lambright.htm, p. 2.
10 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.
11 Lambright, W. Henry, Workshop on Academic Research Competitiveness, p. 3.
12 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 current 29 participating jurisdictions account for more 20% of the U.S. population,
18% of employed scientists and engineering, and approximately 25% of research institutions. Note: A summary of
EPSCoR funding since its inception to the present will be available following the release of the FY2013 budget request.
(Email communication with NSF’s Office of Legislative and Public Affairs and the EPSCoR program office, January
19, 2012).
13 Schopf, Jennifer, NSF, Office of Integrative Activities, EPSCoR-Regional Grants Conference, March 21, 2011,
Nashville, TN, http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/docs/epscor_nash.pdf.
14 Currently, EPSCoR and EPSCoR-like programs are operational in the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of
Defense (DOD), National Institutes of Health (NIH, Institutional Development Award, IDeA), and Department of
Agriculture (USDA). 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. 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 FY2010, 6 agencies provided a total of approximately $449.9 million for
EPSCoR/EPSCoR-like programs. (In FY2006, EPA discontinued releasing separate EPSCoR program solicitations).
The estimated FY2010 EPSCoR budgets by agency are as follow: NSF, $145.4 million, DOE, $22.0 million, USDA,
$26.2 million; NIH, $228.9 million; NASA, $25.0 million; and DOD, funding level not available.
Congressional Research Service
2
Figure 1. NSF EPSCoR Jurisdictions
Source: NSF, 2009 EPSCoR Jurisdiction Map; http://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=EPSC.
CRS-3
U.S. National Science Foundation: EPSCoR
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.”15 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.16 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.17
In a prepared statement before the NSF EPSCoR 21st 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.”18
15 Written remarks of Arden L. Bement, Jr., Former Director, National Science Foundation, before the NSF EPSCoR
Project Directors and Administrators Annual Meeting, Arlington, VA, August 11, 2008. (Bement resigned his position
at NSF in May 2010 to become Director, Global Policy Research Institute, Purdue University. Subra Suresh was sworn
in on October 18, 2010, as the 13th director of NSF. Suresh had been Dean, School of Engineering, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.)
16 Approximately 30% of minority-serving colleges institutions are in EPSCoR jurisdictions. This includes 50% of
historically black colleges and universities, 69% of tribal colleges and universities, and 29% of Hispanic serving
institutions.
17 About EPSCoR, http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/epscor/about.jsp.
18 Arden L. Bement, Jr., Former Director, NSF, “From the Top,” Luncheon Remarks, NSF EPSCoR 21st Annual
Conference, Arlington, VA, October 21, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
4
U.S. National Science Foundation: EPSCoR
Operation and Funding
EPSCoR, while designed as a sheltered program, has been integrated into the performance of all
NSF directorates.19 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.”20 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.21 In FY2010, NSF provided an estimated $145.4 million for EPSCoR activities, an
increase of $12.4 million (9.3%) above the FY2009 level.22 (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.23
19 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.
20 National Science Foundation, EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement Grant Program (RII), Program
Solicitation, NSF 03-528, Arlington, VA, January 2003, p. 5.
21 National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2006-08, Detailed
Statistical Tables, NSF10-303, Arlington, October 2009, VA, Table 84.
22 Funding levels include support for EPSCoR in the EHR Directorate and also co-funding available through the
Research and Related Activities Account.
23 Different investment strategies existed prior to the transfer of EPSCoR from the EHR to IA.
Congressional Research Service
5
U.S. National Science Foundation: EPSCoR
Table 1. Estimated EPSCoR Funding: FY2003-FY2012
(dollars in millions)
Research
Infrastructure
Outreach/Technical
Funding Year
Fiscal Year
Improvement Co-Funding
Assistance
Totals
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
FY2008 72.8
46.7
0.5
120.0
FY2009 91.5
40.0
1.5
133.0
FY2010
99.2
44.8
1.4
145.4
FY2011
105.3
38.9
1.2
145.4
FY2012
109.1 (est.)
40.2 (est.)
1.6 (est.)
$150.9 (est.)
Total $766.3
$398.6
$6.9
$1,171.8
Note: Funding levels provided by NSF Budget Office and NSF budget justifications. The FY2012 levels are
estimates and based on a overall reduction of 6.0% from that requested.(Email communication from NSF’s Office
of Legislative and Public Affairs, January 10, 2012.
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.24 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 $109.1 million, a $3.8 million decrease
from the FY2011 level.
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-
24 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.
Congressional Research Service
6
U.S. National Science Foundation: EPSCoR
directorate, NSF funding mechanism.25 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.26 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.27 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 $40.2 million, a $1.3
million increase above the FY2011 enacted level.
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 participating states.28
Funding for the outreach strategy in the FY2012 appropriation is $1.6 million, slightly above the
$1.2 million provided in FY2011. It is anticipated that funding in FY2012 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.29
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
25 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.
26 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.
27 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.
28 EPSCoR Outreach http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/epscor/outreach.jsp.
29 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.
Congressional Research Service
7
U.S. National Science Foundation: EPSCoR
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.30
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.31 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: 32 Expanding State Participation in Research in the 21st
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.33 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.34
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.35
30 Ibid., pp. 19-20.
31 “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.
32 A workshop is planned for January 19-20, 2012 for EPSCoR 2030, with a report to follow at a later time. (Email
communication with NSF’s Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, January 11, 2012.)
33 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.
34 Ibid., p. iv.
35 (At the time of this particular workshop, there were 27 jurisdictions. Currently, there are 29.) Speaking before the
18th Annual EPSCoR National Conference, Sherry Farwell, Head, NSF EPSCoR Office, stated that it is necessary to
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
U.S. National Science Foundation: EPSCoR
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.”36
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
21st century.”37
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.38 The workshop participants maintained that “Developing expertise in topics
of national importance will enhance success of proposals in other competitions.”39
(...continued)
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.
36 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.
37 National Science Foundation, FY2008 Budget Request to Congress, Arlington, VA, February 2007, p. IA-1.
38 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.
39 EPSCoR 2020: Expanding State Participation in Research in the 21st Century, p. 13. For update of this workshop see
for example National Science Foundation, Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, Update: The
EPSCoR 2020 Scorecard, August 11, 2008, http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/epscor/presentations/
HNBUpdate081108.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9
U.S. National Science Foundation: EPSCoR
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.”40 Questions remain concerning the length of time
states should receive EPSCoR support.41 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.42 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 FY2004.43 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.44
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
40 Lambright, W. Henry, Workshop on Academic Research Competitiveness, p. 4.
41 What constitutes success and termination from the program was included in the talking points at the EPSCoR Annual
Meeting, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, October 24-27, 2011, “EPSCoR Through the Lens of NSF’s Strategic Plan,” Clifford
Gabriel, Acting Director, Office of Integrative Activities, NSF.
42 In April 2006, it was announced that Tennessee would begin the process of transitioning out of the EPSCoR
program. (Reflections, v.1, July 2006, p.1.) However, this did not occur. Tennessee did not transfer out and continued
in a status that allowed full participation in the program. (The reason was that for a brief period of time, Tennessee was
above the participation threshold level). Email communication with NSF’s program office of EPSCoR, June 30, 2011.
43 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.
44 Ibid., p. 21.
Congressional Research Service
10
U.S. National Science Foundation: EPSCoR
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%.45 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.46
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.”47 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.”48 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 112th 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,
45 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.
46 Ibid., p. 23.
47 Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), Final Report, p. 12.
48 Ibid., p. 24.
Congressional Research Service
11
U.S. National Science Foundation: EPSCoR
$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.”49 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).50 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. 51
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.
On November 18, 2011, the President signed into law the Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY2012 (P.L. 112-55).52 The law provides a total of
$7,033.1 million for the NSF in FY2012, $733.9 million below the Administration’s request and
$173.2 million above the FY2011 enacted level. EPSCoR is contained within the Integrative
Activities account and is funded at $150.9 million in FY201253, $9.6 million below the request
and $5.5 million above the FY2011 level. The FY2012 appropriation supports a portfolio of three
49 S. 753, EPSCoR Research and Competitiveness Act of 2007, Section 3.
50 For expanded discussion of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act see CRS Report R41819, Reauthorization
of the America COMPETES Act: Selected Policy Provisions, Funding, and Implementation Issues, by Heather B.
Gonzalez. Note: This act reauthorizes selected provisions from the 2007 America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69).
51 P.L. 111-358, Section 517 (b).
52 P.L. 112-55, H.R. 2112, Consolidated and further Continuing Appropriations Act, FY2012, H.Rept. 112-284.
53 In the FY2012 appropriation, NSF estimates that the number of people impacted by EPSCoR will be 2,190—682
senior researchers, 87 postdoctorates, 620 graduate students, 533 undergraduates, and 268 other professionals.
Congressional Research Service
12
U.S. National Science Foundation: EPSCoR
complementary investment strategies—research infrastructure improvement ($109.1 million), co-
funding ($40.2 million), and outreach ($1.6 million)—for the 29 EPSCoR jurisdictions. The NSF
indicates that approximately 24.0% of the funding for EPSCoR is to be used for new research
awards in FY2012. The remaining funding is to provide continuing support for grants made in
previous years.
Author Contact Information
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
cmatthews@crs.loc.gov, 7-7055
Congressional Research Service
13