Funding for research facilities has remained at a level of 20 to 25 percent of NSF's budget, excluding administrative costs, in recent years. The National Science Board (NSB) has reaffirmed the importance of maintaining support for facilities at this level.

Facilities priorities are driven predominantly by research opportunities and requirements. A major objective within this key program function is to modify the portfolio in response to changing conditions. Planning and priority-setting involves selecting from among many exciting ideas those to be emphasized in particular programs and budgets. Priorities are reflected not only in the differential rates of budget growth for various facilities but also in the balance of funding between facilities and other Foundation programs. Choices explicitly take into account:

• scientific readiness (e.g., opportunities for forefront research);
• technical feasibility, including the development of innovative technologies;
• response to national needs;
• capital and operating costs;
• the needs of and impact on small-scale, individual researchers;
• capabilities of other facilities funded by NSF and other agencies;
• international partnerships; and
• international availability of comparable facilities.

Before any funding is approved, internal planning for these facilities draws on the considerable NSF staff expertise developed through past facilities planning activities, as well as on the advice of external panels.

Each NSF division and directorate undertakes its own internal priority-setting exercises, including input from external scientific advisory committees or from panels of the National Academy of Sciences or National Academy of Engineering. The NSF Director and senior staff formulate Foundation-wide priorities. Plans for facilities are presented to the National Science Board, which establishes policy and approves budgets for the Foundation, for review and approval.

Facilities proposals receive extensive merit review, often including site visits and mail and panel review, by scientists with expertise in the appropriate fields and/or with other major facilities. Independent cost estimates may be obtained to verify estimates provided in proposals. Plans for major facilities often go through several iterations, providing opportunities for refining designs and budget estimates. The time scale from inception of a facility to its completion sometimes takes as much as 10 years or more.

Unsatisfactory merit reviews may provide the primary justification for the Foundation to modify or terminate support for facilities that fail to meet stated goals. More often, facilities have been terminated for other reasons such as technical obsolescence or the changing requirements of forefront research. The Foundation has ended support for several facilities within recent years, including shutting down some accelerators and decommissioning some ships in the Academic Research Fleet.

Program Managers within the cognizant NSF divisions hold much of the responsibility for oversight of NSF's specialized research facilities. They provide guidance for the research facilities in their disciplines with regard to the Foundation's major research thrusts, funding strategies, long-range priorities, and expected availability of funds. Program Managers review proposed annual program plans and long-range plans, review and evaluate the scientific and administrative performance of the research facilities, and recommend and justify proposed funding awards to these facilities. Program Managers use site visits, interim reviews, and annual reports for information, oversight and monitoring facilities budgets.

NSF's objectives for oversight of specialized research facilities include the efficient and effective operation of the facilities. During FY 1996, NSF developed indicators to be used in assessing annual performance with regard to the above goals. For efficiency of operations of the facilities, NSF will examine:

• the degree to which estimated cost and time schedules for new facility construction, upgrades, major instrumentation and equipment development, and maintenance are met;

• the fraction of total originally scheduled user units lost due to breakdowns or other circumstances considered within the control of the facility (The "user unit" is specific to each facility. Examples are beamtime and observation time.);

• the percentage change in the cost per available user unit from the previous year (calculated in constant dollars).

For the effectiveness of the operation of the facilities, NSF will look at:

• the extent to which the total number of requested user units that represent good research projects exceeds the number of user units available (i.e., the oversubscription rate), and the percentage change from the previous year;

• the fraction of user units used by industry compared to the total number of user units available, and the percentage change from the previous year.

For effectiveness of the activities of the facilities, the ultimate indicator will be the value of the science produced in the use of the facilities. In addition, NSF will consider the results of a number of other activities, including:

• the fraction of undergraduate students using the facilities compared to the total number of users, and the percentage change from the previous year;

• the number of external partnerships, and the percentage change from the previous year;

• the number of PhD's per year granted based on data obtained from the facilities, and the percentage change from the previous year;

• the number of formal non-technical contacts made during the year (e.g., visitors, outside presentations).
  
  

Back to the Key Program Functions page

Next Section: Research Facilities Performance Highlights