undergraduate research opportunities

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Attention: Multifactor authentication is required to sign into Research.gov effective on Oct. 27, 2024. See Dear Colleague Letter (NSF 25-011 ) .

Active funding opportunity

Nsf 23-601: research experiences for undergraduates (reu), program solicitation, document information, document history.

• Posted: June 29, 2023
• Replaces: NSF 22-601

Program Solicitation NSF 23-601

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):

     September 27, 2023

     August 21, 2024

     Third Wednesday in August, Annually Thereafter

Important Information And Revision Notes

The student stipend amount and the generally expected maximum for total project costs (including other student costs) have been increased.

The non-PI faculty/professionals who will serve as research mentors for students are no longer required to be listed as Senior Personnel in REU Site proposals. However, Collaborators & Other Affiliations (COA) documents for anticipated non-PI research mentors must be uploaded into the Additional Single Copy Documents section of the proposal.

Students' names (as coauthors) are no longer required to be labeled with asterisks (*) in bibliographic citations in the Biographical Sketches of the PI and other Senior Personnel.

NSF's Education & Training Application (ETAP) is described and encouraged as a means of managing student applications and collecting student demographic information. Some NSF units may require their REU Sites to use ETAP.

Proposers are reminded of Federal and NSF non-discrimination statutes and regulations (PAPPG Chapter XI.A), which apply to the selection of students for REU opportunities.

A description of a new partnership with the Department of Energy (DOE), which offers the possibility of DOE co-funding for relevant REU Site proposals, has been added to the "Special Opportunities (Partnerships)" section.

Minor edits and reorganizations of text have been made to improve clarity. Links and references have been updated.

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. The NSF PAPPG is regularly revised and it is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements specified in this solicitation and the applicable version of the PAPPG. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General information.

Program Title:

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Sites and Supplements

The Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program supports active research participation by undergraduate students in any of the areas of research funded by the National Science Foundation. REU projects involve students in meaningful ways in ongoing research programs or in research projects specifically designed for the REU program. This solicitation features two mechanisms for supporting student research: REU Sites are based on independent proposals to initiate and conduct projects that engage a number of students in research. REU Sites may be based in a single discipline or academic department or may offer interdisciplinary or multi-department research opportunities with a coherent intellectual theme. REU Supplements may be included as a component of proposals for new or renewal NSF grants or cooperative agreements or may be requested for ongoing NSF-funded research projects. REU projects with an international dimension are welcome. Undergraduate student participants in either REU Sites or REU Supplements must be U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or U.S. permanent residents. Students do not apply to NSF to participate in REU activities, and NSF does not select students for the opportunities. Investigators who receive REU awards establish their own process for receiving and reviewing applications and selecting students, and students follow the instructions provided by each REU Site or REU Supplement to apply. (In some cases, investigators pre-select students for REU Supplements.) To identify appropriate REU Sites, students should consult the directory of active REU Sites on the Web at https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_search.cfm .

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

• NSF REU Site Contacts: https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp
• 47.041 --- Engineering
• 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
• 47.050 --- Geosciences
• 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
• 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
• 47.076 --- STEM Education
• 47.079 --- Office of International Science and Engineering
• 47.083 --- Office of Integrative Activities (OIA)
• 47.084 --- NSF Technology, Innovation and Partnerships

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or Cooperative Agreement

Estimated Number of Awards: 1,300 to 1,350

This estimate includes approximately 175 new Site awards and 1,150 new Supplement awards each year.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $84,800,000

in FY 2024 — This estimate includes both Sites and Supplements, pending availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

The categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to the National Science Foundation are identified in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), Chapter I.E. Unaffiliated individuals are not eligible to submit proposals in response to this solicitation.

Who May Serve as PI:

For REU Site proposals, a single individual may be designated as the Principal Investigator. This individual will be responsible for overseeing all aspects of the award. However, one additional person may be designated as Co-Principal Investigator if developing and operating the REU Site would involve such shared responsibility. After a proposal is awarded , some NSF units may allow the addition of more Co-PIs if an exceptional case can be made for why the management of the REU Site must be distributed.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI:

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. proposal preparation instructions.

• Letters of Intent: Not required
• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .
• Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ).

B. Budgetary Information

C. due dates, proposal review information criteria.

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

Standard NSF award conditions apply.

Reporting Requirements:

Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

I. Introduction

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) is a Foundation-wide program that supports active participation in science, engineering, and education research by undergraduate students. REU proposals are welcome in any of the research areas supported by NSF (see https://new.nsf.gov/funding ), including the priority areas and cross-cutting areas that NSF identifies on its website and in its annual Budget Request to Congress ( https://new.nsf.gov/budget ).

The REU program seeks to expand student participation in all kinds of research — both disciplinary and interdisciplinary — encompassing efforts by individual investigators, groups, centers, national facilities, and others. It draws on the integration of research and education to attract a diverse pool of talented students into careers in science and engineering (including teaching and education research related to science and engineering) and to help ensure that these students receive the best education possible.

This solicitation features two mechanisms for support of student research: REU Sites and REU Supplements .

II. Program Description

Research experience is one of the most effective avenues for attracting students to and retaining them in science and engineering and for preparing them for careers in these fields. The REU program, through both Sites and Supplements, aims to provide appropriate and valuable educational experiences for undergraduate students through participation in research. REU projects involve students in meaningful ways in ongoing research programs or in research projects specifically designed for the REU program. REU projects feature high-quality interaction of students with faculty and/or other research mentors and access to appropriate facilities and professional development opportunities.

REU projects offer an opportunity to increase the participation of the full spectrum of the nation's diverse talent in STEM. Several million additional people — specifically, individuals from groups historically underrepresented in STEM fields — are needed for the U.S. science and engineering workforce to reflect the demographics of the U.S. population. (See the reports Vision 2030 [ https://nsf.gov/nsb/publications/vision2030.pdf ], The STEM Labor Force of Today [ https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20212/ ], and Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities [ https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/ ].) Reaching these "missing millions" is central to the nation's economic competitiveness and is a priority for NSF.

Historically, the vast majority of REU participants have been junior- or senior-level undergraduates — students who have typically already committed to a major in science or engineering. So that the REU program can succeed in attracting students into science and engineering who might not otherwise consider those majors and careers, projects are encouraged to involve students at earlier stages in their college experience. Some REU projects effectively engage first-year and second-year undergraduates by developing partnerships with community colleges.

NSF welcomes proposals that include efforts to broaden geographic and demographic participation in REU projects. Proposals involving experienced researchers at institutions in EPSCoR-eligible jurisdictions , minority-serving institutions, and emerging research institutions are encouraged.

REU projects may be carried out during the summer months, during the academic year, or both.

International REU Projects

The REU program welcomes projects with an international dimension. International REU Sites (iREUs) or Supplements usually involve a partnership between U.S. researchers and collaborators at a foreign institution or organization. These projects are expected to entail (1) true intellectual collaboration with a foreign partner and (2) benefits to the students from the unique expertise, skills, facilities, phenomena, or other resources that the foreign collaborator or research environment provides. International REU projects generally have higher travel costs and a higher per-student cost than domestic projects. They also often have more complex logistics and require a more complex mentoring arrangement.

Proposals for international REU projects should include a description of the foreign collaborator's role in the project; a Biographical Sketch of up to two pages (in any format) for the foreign collaborator, uploaded in the Other Supplementary Documents section of the proposal; and a letter of collaboration from the foreign institution or organization, which assures that the foreign institution or organization is committed to the collaboration and will give students appropriate access to facilities.

Investigators planning an international REU project should discuss their idea with the relevant program officer — either the REU Site contact for the relevant discipline ( https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp ) in the case of an international REU Site proposal, or the cognizant program officer for the underlying award in the case of an REU Supplement request.

NSF's International Research Experiences for Students (IRES) program, which is managed by NSF's Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE), also supports proposals for cohorts of U.S. students to engage in international research.

Research Experiences for Teachers

NSF encourages research experiences for K-12 teachers of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and the coordination of these experiences with REU projects. Most directorates support Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) as a formal activity and announce their specific interests (e.g., RET Sites, RET Supplements) either in solicitations, in Dear Colleague Letters, or on directorate/division websites. Other NSF units have no formal announcement but respond to requests for RET support on a case-by-case basis or permit the inclusion of an RET component (with a distinct description and cost breakdown) as part of an REU proposal. Teachers may also be included in an international REU project. Proposers who wish to include an RET component in an REU proposal may wish to contact the appropriate REU program officer for guidance. REU Site proposals that include a significant RET component should begin the project title with the label "REU/RET Site:" to ensure appropriate tracking at NSF.

A. REU SITES

REU Sites are based on independent proposals, submitted for an annual deadline date, to initiate and conduct projects that engage a number of undergraduate students in research.

REU Sites must have a well-defined common focus that enables a cohort experience for students. Sites may be based in a single discipline or academic department or may offer interdisciplinary or multi-department research opportunities with a coherent intellectual theme. (Although interdisciplinary or multi-department proposals must be submitted to a single NSF disciplinary unit, these proposals are often reviewed by two or more NSF units, at the discretion of the NSF program officer who manages the proposal.) A proposal should reflect the unique combination of the proposing organization's interests and capabilities and those of any partnering organizations. Cooperative arrangements among organizations and research settings may be considered so that a project can increase the quality or availability of undergraduate research experiences. To extend research opportunities to a larger number of undergraduates, proposers may incorporate approaches that make use of cyberinfrastructure or other technologies that facilitate research, learning, and collaboration over distances ("virtual projects").

REU Sites are an important means for extending high-quality research environments and mentoring to diverse groups of students. In addition to increasing the participation of students from underrepresented groups in research, the program aims to involve students who might not otherwise have research opportunities, particularly those from academic institutions where research programs in STEM are limited. Thus, a significant fraction of the student participants at an REU Site must come from outside the host institution or organization, and at least half of the student participants must be recruited from academic institutions where research opportunities in STEM are limited (including two-year colleges).

High-quality mentoring for the student participants is very important in REU Sites. Grantees must ensure that research mentors receive appropriate training or instruction, both to promote the quality and success of the students' research and to reinforce expectations for positive, professional interactions between mentors and students. REU Sites should also encourage continued interaction of mentors with students during the academic year, to the extent practicable, to help connect students' research experiences to their overall course of study and to help the students achieve success in courses of study leading to a baccalaureate degree in a STEM field.

Three years is the typical duration for REU Site awards in most NSF directorates; however, a duration of up to five years may be allowed in some cases. New REU Sites are encouraged to apply for no more than three years of funding. Proposals for renewal REU Sites are welcome, but the PI should discuss the project duration with the cognizant program officer prior to requesting support for more than three years. Investigators are reminded that renewal proposals will be reviewed through the normal merit review process and there is no guarantee that a renewal grant will be awarded.

The REU Site Contacts web page ( https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp ) provides contact information for the REU program officers in each NSF disciplinary unit that manages REU Sites, and that page also lists discipline-specific REU web pages for units that have them. Prospective PIs should consult those web pages or the points of contact for more specific information about characteristics of REU Sites that vary by discipline.

Special Opportunities (Partnerships)

Some proposers for REU Sites might be interested in the following opportunities. These are optional ; proposals are not required to respond to them.

Partnership with the Department of Defense

For over two decades, NSF has engaged in a partnership with the Department of Defense (DoD) to expand undergraduate research opportunities in DoD-relevant research areas through the REU Sites program. The DoD activity is called Awards to Stimulate and Support Undergraduate Research Experiences (ASSURE). Any proposal submitted to NSF for the REU Sites program that is recommended for funding through the NSF merit review process may be considered by DoD representatives for possible support through ASSURE. Proposals that are selected for the DoD funding will involve DoD-relevant research and may come from any of the NSF directorates or offices that handle REU Site proposals.

A proposer to the NSF REU Sites program does not need to take any additional steps to be considered for funding through ASSURE. Investigators who are interested in the opportunity may e-mail [email protected] with any questions.

Partnership with the Department of Energy

NSF's Engineering Directorate (ENG) engages in a partnership with the Department of Energy (DOE) to expand undergraduate research opportunities in DOE mission-relevant areas through the REU Sites program. REU Site proposals that are managed by ENG will be considered for DOE funding. Such proposals will involve DOE mission-relevant topics, which include, but are not limited to, electric power sector research; clean energy technology research; and risk science, decision science, social science, and data science using power sector data sets.

Proposals that are considered for co-funding by DOE will be shared with DOE staff to assess alignment with DOE's research interests, and the unattributed reviews and panel summaries for those proposals will also be shared with DOE.

A proposer to the REU Sites program in ENG does not need to take any additional steps to be considered for co-funding through this partnership. Investigators who are interested in the opportunity may e-mail [email protected] with any questions.

Partnership with the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC)

In early 2022, the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) and NSF's REU Sites program launched a partnership to expand undergraduate research opportunities related to advancements in semiconductors. This partnership fosters the development of a diverse science and engineering workforce skilled in an area of high national priority. Proposals for REU Sites that involve research that advances semiconductors may be supported as part of this partnership and may come from NSF's Directorate for Engineering, Division of Materials Research, Division of Physics, or Division of Chemistry. Research involving the monolithic and heterogeneous integration of 3D integrated devices and circuits is of special interest. Areas of technical interest include, but are not limited to, materials, devices, circuits, wafer fabrication processes and techniques, packaging materials and processes, thermal management and modeling, and integrated photonics, design, and testing. Also relevant are the critical Systems & Technology (S&T) themes described in SRC's JUMP 2.0 research announcement and resulting JUMP 2.0 research center selections .

Proposals that are considered for co-funding by SRC will be shared with SRC staff to assess alignment with SRC's research interests, and the unattributed reviews and panel summaries for those proposals will also be shared with SRC.

A proposer to the NSF REU Sites program does not need to take any additional steps to be considered for co-funding through this partnership. Investigators who are interested in the opportunity may e-mail [email protected] with any questions.

B. REU SUPPLEMENTS

An REU Supplement typically provides support for one or two undergraduate students to participate in research as part of a new or ongoing NSF-funded research project. However, centers or large research efforts may request support for a number of students commensurate with the size and nature of the project. REU Supplements are supported by the various research programs throughout the Foundation, including programs such as Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).

High-quality mentoring is important in REU Supplements, just as it is in REU Sites, and investigators should give serious attention not only to developing students' research skills but also to involving them in the culture of research in the discipline and connecting their research experience with their overall course of study.

Investigators are reminded that support for undergraduate students involved in carrying out research under NSF awards should be included as part of the research proposal itself instead of as a post-award supplement to the research proposal, unless such undergraduate participation was not foreseeable at the time of the original proposal.

A request for an REU Supplement may be submitted in either of two ways: (1) Proposers may include an REU Supplement activity as a component of a new (or renewal) research proposal to NSF. For guidance, contact the program officer who manages the research program to which the proposal would be submitted. (2) Investigators holding an existing NSF research award may submit a post-award request for supplemental funding. For guidance, contact the cognizant program officer for the NSF grant or cooperative agreement that would be supplemented.

For a post-award REU Supplement request, the duration may not exceed the term of the underlying research project.

III. Award Information

An REU activity may be funded as a standard or continuing grant (for REU Sites), as a supplement to an existing award, or as a component of a new or renewal grant or cooperative agreement. REU Sites and Supplements are funded by various disciplinary and education research programs throughout NSF, and the number of awards made varies across the Foundation from year to year, as does the amount of funds invested.

Three years is the typical duration for REU Site awards in most NSF units; however, a duration of up to five years may be allowed in some cases. The typical REU Site hosts 8-10 students per year. The typical funding amount is $100,000-$155,000 per year, although NSF does not dictate a firm upper (or lower) limit for the amount, which depends on the number of students hosted and the number of weeks.

The REU experience is a research training experience paid via a stipend, not employment (work) paid with a salary or wage. In this case, the student's training consists of closely mentored independent research. For administrative convenience, organizations may choose to issue payments to REU students using their normal payroll system. (This is an option, not a recommendation. The mechanism used to pay the stipend does not affect the nature of the student activity.) The funds received by students may be taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and may also be subject to state or local taxes. Please consult the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for additional information. Students might find the IRS's "Tax Benefits for Education" website to be particularly helpful.

The estimated program budget, number of awards, and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.

IV. Eligibility Information

Additional Eligibility Info:

Eligible Student Participants: Undergraduate student participants supported with NSF funds in either REU Supplements or REU Sites must be U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or U.S. permanent residents. An undergraduate student is a student who is enrolled in a degree program (part-time or full-time) leading to a baccalaureate or associate degree. Students who are transferring from one college or university to another and are enrolled at neither institution during the intervening summer may participate. High school graduates who have been accepted at an undergraduate institution but who have not yet started their undergraduate study are also eligible to participate. Students who have received their bachelor's degrees and are no longer enrolled as undergraduates are generally not eligible to participate. Some NSF directorates/divisions encourage inclusion in the REU program of K-12 teachers of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Please contact the appropriate disciplinary program officer for guidance. For REU Sites, a significant fraction of the student participants should come from outside the host institution or organization. Within the framework of the basic eligibility guidelines outlined above, most REU Sites and Supplements further define recruitment and selection criteria, based on the nature of the particular research and other factors. Investigators are reminded that they may not use race, ethnicity, sex, age, or disability status as an eligibility criterion. Selection of REU participants must be done in compliance with non-discrimination statutes and regulations; see PAPPG Chapter XI.A. Eligibility Restrictions Associated with the SRC-NSF Partnership: Because of the partnership between the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) and the REU Sites program, SRC and its employees and assignees are ineligible to be involved in any proposals submitted to this solicitation, including as unfunded collaborators, via letters of collaboration or support, or through other means. Employees of SRC member companies (see below) are eligible to be involved in proposals submitted to this solicitation, including as unfunded collaborators, via letters of collaboration, or through other means. REU Site proposals involving employees of SRC member companies participating in the SRC-REU partnership activity are not eligible to receive SRC co-funding but may be funded using NSF REU funds. Participating SRC member companies include Analog Devices, Arm, Boeing, EMD Electronics, GlobalFoundries, HRL Laboratories, IBM, Intel, MediaTek, Micron, Qorvo, Raytheon Technologies, Samsung, SK hynix, and TSMC.

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions : Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg . Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] . The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.
• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov . The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: ( https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via Research.gov. PAPPG Chapter II.E.3 provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

See PAPPG Chapter II.D.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

Note that the REU Site Contacts web page ( https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp ) provides contact information for the REU program officers in each NSF disciplinary unit that manages REU Sites, and that page also lists discipline-specific REU web pages for units that have them. Prospective PIs should consult those web pages or the points of contact for more specific information about characteristics of REU Sites that vary by discipline.

A. PROPOSAL FOR REU SITE

The following instructions supplement those found in the PAPPG or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide.

Proposal Setup: In Research.gov, select "Prepare New Full Proposal" or "Prepare New Renewal Proposal" (* see Note below), as appropriate. Search for and select this Funding Opportunity in Step 1 of the proposal preparation wizard. (Grants.gov users: The program solicitation will be pre-populated by Grants.gov on the NSF Grant Application Cover Page.) Select the Directorate/Office to which the proposal is directed, and if applicable, select the appropriate Division(s).

If the proposal has an interdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary research focus, choose the Directorate/Office/Division that seems most relevant (often this is the unit corresponding to the departmental affiliation of the Principal Investigator), and NSF staff will ensure that the proposal is reviewed by individuals who have expertise that is appropriate to the proposal's content. (Often such proposals are co-reviewed by two or more NSF disciplinary units.)

The REU-associated program within the Division(s) that you selected will appear automatically in the Program field in Research.gov. (Grants.gov users should refer to Section VI.1.2. of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide for specific instructions on how to designate the NSF Unit of Consideration.)

* Note : If the proposal is requesting continued funding for a previously funded REU Site but you were not the PI or Co-PI on the previous award , Research.gov will not allow preparation of the proposal as a "Renewal Proposal"; you will need to use the "Full Proposal" option. However, the relevant "Project Element" in the Project Summary (see below) should indicate that the proposal is a "renewal," and the outcomes of the previous Site should be described in the "Results from Prior NSF Support" section of the Project Description.

Proposal Title . Begin the Proposal Title with the label "REU Site:" and carefully choose a title that will permit prospective student applicants to easily identify the focus of the site.

Personnel (Cover Sheet) . A single individual should be designated as the Principal Investigator (PI); this individual will be responsible for overseeing all aspects of the award. One additional person may be designated as Co-PI if developing and operating the REU Site would involve such shared responsibility.

Project Summary (limited to one page). The "Overview" section of the Project Summary must begin with the following list of "Project Elements":

PROJECT ELEMENTS:

• New REU Site, or renewal of previously funded REU Site (provide previous NSF Award Number)? (* see Note at the end of "Proposal Setup" above)
• Project title (as shown on Cover Sheet): "REU Site: ..."
• Principal Investigator:
• Submitting organization:
• Other organizations involved in the project's operation:
• Location(s) (universities, national labs, field stations, etc.) at which the proposed undergraduate research will occur:
• Main field(s), sub-field(s), and keywords describing the research topic(s):
• No. of undergraduate participants per year:
• Summer REU Site, or academic year REU Site?:
• No. of weeks per year that the students will participate:
• Does the project include an international component or an RET component?:
• Name, phone number, and e-mail address of point of contact for student applicants:
• Web address (URL) for information about the REU Site (if known):

In the remainder of the Project Summary, briefly describe the project's objectives, activities, students to be recruited, and intended impact. Provide separate statements on the intellectual merit and broader impacts of the proposed activity, as required by the PAPPG.

Project Description . Address items "(a)" through "(g)" below. The Project Description must not exceed 15 pages and must contain a separate section labeled "Broader Impacts" within the narrative.

(a) Overview. Provide a brief description of the objectives of the proposed REU Site, targeted student participants, intellectual focus, organizational structure, timetable, and participating organizations' commitment to the REU activity.

(b) Nature of Student Activities . Proposals should address the approach to undergraduate research training being taken and should provide detailed descriptions of examples of research projects that students will pursue. So that reviewers can evaluate intellectual merit, this discussion should indicate the significance of the research area and, when appropriate, the underlying theoretical framework, hypotheses, research questions, etc. Undergraduate research experiences have their greatest impact in situations that lead the students from a relatively dependent status to as independent a status as their competence warrants. Proposals must present plans that will ensure the development of student-faculty interaction and student-student communication. Development of collegial relationships and interactions is an important part of the project.

(c) The Research Environment . This subsection should describe the history and characteristics of the host organization(s) or research setting(s) with respect to supporting undergraduate research. This subsection should also outline the expertise, experience, and history of involvement with undergraduate research of the PI and the faculty who are anticipated to serve as research mentors. The description should include information on the record of the research mentors in publishing work involving undergraduate authors and in providing professional development opportunities for student researchers. This subsection should also discuss the diversity of the mentor pool and any plans by which mentoring relationships will be sustained after students leave the REU Site.

(d) Student Recruitment and Selection . The overall quality of the student recruitment and selection processes and criteria will be an important element in the evaluation of the proposal. The recruitment plan should be described with as much specificity as possible, including the types and/or names of academic institutions where students will be recruited and the efforts that will be made to attract members of underrepresented groups (women, minorities, and persons with disabilities). Investigators are encouraged to conduct comprehensive outreach, awareness, and recruitment efforts to encourage students representing the full spectrum of diverse talent in STEM to apply for REU opportunities. In general, the goal should be to achieve a diverse pool of applicants and then to consider all eligible applicants in that diverse pool when selecting students for the opportunities.

Mention how the Site will receive applications. Be aware that NSF offers the NSF Education & Training Application (ETAP) as one approach, as described in Section VII.C. (Reporting Requirements) below. (Use of ETAP may be required by some NSF units.)

A significant fraction of the student participants at an REU Site must come from outside the host institution or organization, and at least half of the student participants must be recruited from academic institutions where research opportunities in STEM are limited (including two-year colleges). The number of students per project should be appropriate to the institutional or organizational setting and to the manner in which research is conducted in the discipline. The typical REU Site hosts eight to ten students per year. Proposals involving fewer than six students per year are discouraged.

Undergraduate student participants supported with NSF funds in either REU Sites or REU Supplements must be U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or U.S. permanent residents.

Investigators are reminded that they may not use race, ethnicity, sex, age, or disability status as an eligibility criterion for applicants. Selection of REU participants must be done in compliance with non-discrimination statutes and regulations; see PAPPG Chapter XI.A.

(e) Student and Mentor Professional Development and Expectations of Behavior. This subsection should describe (1) plans for student professional development, including training in the responsible and ethical conduct of research; (2) how research mentors have been or will be selected; (3) the training, mentoring, or monitoring that research mentors have received or will receive to help them mentor students effectively during the research experience; and (4) the REU Site's plans for communicating information on expectations of behavior to ensure a safe, respectful, inclusive, harassment-free environment for all participants.

NSF does not tolerate sexual harassment, or any other form of harassment, where NSF-funded activities take place. Proposers are required to have a policy or code of conduct that addresses sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, and sexual assault. Proposers must provide an orientation for all participants in the REU Site (REU students, faculty, postdocs, graduate students, other research mentors, etc.) to cover expectations of behavior to ensure a safe and respectful environment for all participants, and to review the organization's policy or code of conduct addressing sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, and sexual assault, including reporting and complaint procedures. For additional information, see the NSF policies at https://www.nsf.gov/od/oecr/harassment.jsp and the "Promising Practices" at https://www.nsf.gov/od/oecr/promising_practices/index.jsp .

For REU Sites that will involve research off-campus or off-site, proposers are reminded that when submitting the proposal, the AOR must complete a certification that the organization has a plan in place to ensure a safe and inclusive working environment for the REU project, as described in PAPPG Chapter II.E.9.

(f) Project Evaluation and Reporting . Describe the plan to measure qualitatively and quantitatively the success of the project in achieving its goals, particularly the degree to which students have learned and their perspectives on science, engineering, or education research related to these disciplines have been expanded. Evaluation may involve periodic measures throughout the project to ensure that it is progressing satisfactorily according to the project plan, and may involve pre-project and post-project measures aimed at determining the degree of student learning that has been achieved. In addition, it is highly desirable to have a structured means of tracking participating students beyond graduation, with the aim of gauging the degree to which the REU Site experience has been a lasting influence in the students' career paths. Proposers may wish to consult The 2010 User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation for guidance on the elements in a good evaluation plan. Although not required, REU Site PIs may wish to engage specialists in education research (from their organization or another one) in planning and implementing the project evaluation.

(g) Results from Prior NSF Support (if applicable) . If the PI has received NSF support within the past five years, or if the proposal is requesting renewal of an existing REU Site, or if the department or center (or similar organizational subunit) that will host the proposed Site has hosted another REU Site during the past five years, provide information about the prior support as described in PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d.(iii).

The REU program is particularly interested in the outcomes of the related prior REU Site award (if any). Those outcomes should be described in sufficient detail to permit reviewers to reach an informed conclusion regarding the value of the results achieved. Valuable information typically includes results from the project evaluation; summary information about recruiting efforts and the number of applicants, the demographic make-up of participants and their home institutions, and career choices of participants; and a list of publications or reports (already published or to be submitted) resulting from the NSF award.

References Cited . A list of bibliographic citations relevant to the proposal must be included.

Budget and Budget Justification . The focus of REU Sites is the student experience, and the budget must reflect this principle. Project costs must be predominantly for student support , which usually includes such items as participant stipends, housing, meals, travel, and laboratory use fees. Costs in budget categories outside Participant Support must be modest and reasonable. For example, for summer REU Sites, many NSF units consider up to one month of salary for the PI, or distributed among the PI and other research mentors, to be appropriate for time spent administering and coordinating the REU Site, training mentors, and similar operational activities. Other NSF units consider slightly larger salary requests to be appropriate. (NSF expects that research mentors will be supported with appropriate salary for their research activities, though not necessarily through the REU grant.) Some budgets include costs for limited travel by project personnel and for various activities that enhance students' professional development.

An REU Site may not charge students an application fee. An REU Site may not charge students tuition, or include tuition in the proposal budget, as a requirement for participation (although it is permissible to offer students the option of earning academic credit for participation). An REU Site may not charge students for access to common campus facilities such as libraries or athletic facilities.

Student stipends for summer REU Sites are expected to be approximately $700 per student per week. Other student costs include housing, meals, travel, and laboratory use fees and usually vary depending on the location of the site. Amounts for academic-year REU Sites should be comparable on a pro rata basis. All student costs should be entered as Participant Support Costs. Indirect costs (F&A) are not allowed on Participant Support Costs.

Total project costs — including all direct costs and indirect costs — are generally expected not to exceed $1,550 per student per week. However, projects that involve exceptional circumstances, such as international activities, field work in remote locations, a Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) component, etc., may exceed this limit.

The Budget Justification should explain and justify all major cost items, including any unusual costs or exceptional circumstances, and should address the cost-effectiveness of the project. As noted above, projects that involve an international component or field work in remote locations often have larger budgets than other projects. This feature is understandable, but the extra costs, with detailed breakdown, should be described in the Budget Justification.

So as not to create a financial hardship for students, REU Sites are encouraged to pay students their stipend and living expenses on a regular basis or at least on an incremental basis — not, for example, in a lump sum at the end of the summer.

Although the informal seminars, field trips, and similar gatherings through which students interact and become attuned to the culture of research and their discipline are often vital to the success of undergraduate research experiences, proposers are reminded that costs of entertainment, amusement, diversion, and social activities, and any expenses directly associated with such activities (such as meals, lodging, rentals, transportation, and gratuities), are unallowable in the proposal budget. Federal/NSF funds may not be used to support these expenses. However, costs of "working meals" at seminars and other events at which student participation is required and for which there is a formal agenda are generally allowable.

When preparing proposals, PIs are encouraged to consult the discipline-specific web pages (for units that have them) or to contact the appropriate disciplinary REU program officer (see https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp ) with any questions about the budget or the appropriateness of charges in it.

Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources . Complete this section in accordance with the instructions in the PAPPG.

Senior Personnel Documents . Provide Biographical Sketches, Current & Pending Support information, and Collaborators & Other Affiliations information for Senior Personnel.

The REU program no longer requires that non-PI faculty/professionals who are anticipated to serve as research mentors be designated as Senior Personnel. Therefore, Biographical Sketches and Current & Pending Support information for those faculty/professionals are not required. The program also no longer requires that students' names (as coauthors) be labeled with an asterisk (*) in Biographical Sketches. As indicated above, the Project Description should list the anticipated research mentors and outline their expertise, experience, and history of mentoring undergraduates in research.

However, to assist NSF in managing reviewer selection, Collaborators & Other Affiliations information is required for each anticipated non-PI research mentor. Use the COA Excel template to collect this information for each mentor, convert each .xlsx file to PDF, and upload the PDF files in the Additional Single Copy Documents section of the proposal (instead of the Senior Personnel Documents section).

Data Management Plan . Complete this section in accordance with the instructions in the PAPPG.

Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan . If applicable, complete this section in accordance with the instructions in the PAPPG.

Other Supplementary Documents. The proposal may include up to ten signed letters of collaboration documenting collaborative arrangements of significance to the proposal (see PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.i(iv)). For an international REU Site, a letter of collaboration from the foreign institution or organization should be included. The letters may be scanned and uploaded into the Other Supplementary Documents section.

For an international REU Site proposal, a Biographical Sketch of up to two pages (in any format) for the foreign collaborator should be included in the Other Supplementary Documents section.

If the project will employ an external evaluator, a Biographical Sketch of up to two pages (in any format) for that professional may be included in the Other Supplementary Documents section.

Additional Single Copy Documents. As indicated above, a Collaborators & Other Affiliations document for each anticipated non-PI research mentor must be uploaded (as a PDF file) into the Additional Single Copy Documents section.

B. REQUEST FOR REU SUPPLEMENT

Many of the research programs throughout the Foundation support REU activities that are requested either (1) as a component of a new (or renewal) research proposal or (2) as a post-award supplement to an existing grant or cooperative agreement. Specific guidance for the use of either mechanism is given in the last two paragraphs of this section (below).

Contacts: For guidance about preparing an REU Supplement request as a component of a new (or renewal) research proposal, contact the program officer who manages the relevant research program. For guidance about preparing an REU Supplement request for an existing NSF award, contact the program officer assigned to the NSF award that would be supplemented. Do not contact the list of disciplinary REU program officers at https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp about REU Supplements.

Regardless of which mechanism is used to request an REU Supplement, the description of the REU activity should discuss the following: (1) the nature of each prospective student's involvement in the research project; (2) the experience of the PI (or other prospective research mentors) in involving undergraduates in research, including any previous REU Supplement support and the outcomes from that support; (3) the nature of the mentoring that the student(s) will receive; and (4) the process and criteria for selecting the student(s). If a student has been pre-selected (as might be true in the case of a supplement for an ongoing award), then the grounds for selection and a brief Biographical Sketch of the student should be included. (PIs are reminded that the student[s] must be a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or U.S. permanent resident.)

Normally, funds may be requested for up to two students, but exceptions will be considered for training additional qualified students who are members of underrepresented groups. Centers or large research efforts may request support for a number of students commensurate with the size and nature of the project.

Student stipends for summer projects are expected to be comparable to those of REU Site participants, approximately $700 per student per week. Other student costs include housing, meals, travel, and laboratory use fees and usually vary depending on location. Amounts for academic-year projects should be comparable on a pro rata basis.

Total costs for a summer — including all direct costs and indirect costs — are generally expected not to exceed $1,550 per student per week. However, projects that involve international activities, field work in remote locations, or other exceptional circumstances may exceed this limit.

Results from any REU Supplement activities must be included in the annual project report for the associated award. The term of an REU Supplement may not exceed that of the associated award.

A request for an REU Supplement as part of a proposal for a new or renewal grant or cooperative agreement should be embedded in the proposal as follows. Include a description of the REU activity (namely, the information described above in the fourth paragraph under the subheading "B. REQUEST FOR REU SUPPLEMENT") in the Other Supplementary Documents section. Limit this description to three pages. Include the budget for the REU activity in the yearly project budget. Enter all student costs under Participant Support Costs. (Indirect costs [F&A] are not allowed on Participant Support Costs.) As part of the Budget Justification, provide a separate explanation of the REU Supplement request, with the proposed student costs itemized and justified and a total given for the items plus associated indirect costs.

If the intent is to engage students as technicians, then an REU Supplement is not the appropriate support mechanism; instead, support should be entered on the Undergraduate Students line of the proposal budget.

A request for an REU Supplement to an existing NSF award may be submitted if the need for the undergraduate student support was not foreseen at the time of the original proposal submission. Before preparing a request for supplemental funding, the PI should discuss it with the cognizant program officer for the award unless the PI is responding to a Dear Colleague Letter or other announcement that specifically calls for REU Supplement requests. The PI should prepare the request in Research.gov in accordance with the guidelines found in the PAPPG. The following instructions supplement those found in the PAPPG. After logging into Research.gov, choose "Supplemental Funding Requests" (under "Awards & Reporting") and then "Prepare New Supplement." Next, select the award to be supplemented. In the form entitled "Summary of Proposed Work," state that this is a request for an REU Supplement. In the form entitled "Justification for Supplemental Funding," include the information described above in the fourth paragraph under the subheading "B. REQUEST FOR REU SUPPLEMENT"; limit your response to three pages. If an REU student has been pre-selected, you may upload a Biographical Sketch for the student (up to two pages, in any format) in the Other Supplementary Documents section. Prepare a budget, including a justification of the funds requested for student support and their proposed use. All student costs should be entered as Participant Support Costs (Line F) in the proposal budget. (Indirect costs [F&A] are not allowed on Participant Support Costs.)

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

Recovery of indirect costs (F&A) is prohibited on Participant Support Costs in REU Site proposals and requests for REU Supplements.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

For summer REU projects, the total budget request — including all direct costs and indirect costs — is generally expected not to exceed $1,550 per student per week. (The budget request for an academic-year REU project should be comparable on a pro rata basis.) However, projects that involve exceptional circumstances, such as international activities, field work in remote locations, a Research Experience for Teachers (RET) component, etc., may exceed this limit.

D. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via Research.gov:

To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.gov, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html . For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail [email protected] . The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html . In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: [email protected] . The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation. Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to Research.gov for further processing.

Proposers that submitted via Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/ .

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
• Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

• Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

• Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
• Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
• To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
• Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
• How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
• Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

Reviewers will be asked to interpret the two basic NSF review criteria in the context of the REU program. In addition, they will be asked to place emphasis on the following considerations:

• Appropriateness and value of the research and professional development experience for the student participants, particularly the appropriateness of the research project(s) for undergraduate involvement and the nature of the students' participation in these activities.
• Quality of the research environment, including the facilities, the preparedness of the research mentor(s) to guide undergraduate research, and the professional development opportunities for the students.
• Appropriateness of the student recruitment and selection plans, including plans for conducting outreach, awareness, and recruitment of applicants from underrepresented groups, from outside the host institution, and from academic institutions with limited research opportunities in STEM.
• Quality of plans for student preparation and for follow-through designed to promote continuation of student interest and involvement in research.
• Appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of the budget, effectiveness of the plans for managing the project and evaluating the outcomes, and commitment of partners, if relevant.
• For renewals of previously funded REU Sites: effectiveness of the previous Site.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. notification of the award.

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF . Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Build America, Buy America

As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America's Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF's Build America, Buy America webpage.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

The NSF Education & Training Application (ETAP) is a customizable common application system that connects individuals (such as students and teachers) with NSF-funded education and training opportunities and collects high-quality data from both applicants and participants in NSF-funded opportunities. It was initially developed to serve the REU Sites program but now serves multiple programs, and its use is growing. All investigators with REU Site awards or REU Supplement awards are welcome to use ETAP, which offers benefits to the PIs, the students, and NSF. Some NSF units require their REU Sites to use ETAP to manage student applications and collect student demographic information. When use of ETAP is required, it will be indicated in the award notice for the REU Site. Prospective PIs may find out whether specific NSF units require use of ETAP by consulting the discipline-specific REU web pages (for units that have them) or by contacting the program officers listed on the NSF REU Site Contacts web page .

PIs are required to provide the names and other basic information about REU student participants as part of annual and final project reports. In particular, in the report, each REU student who is supported with NSF REU funds must be identified as an "REU Participant," and the PI must provide the student's home institution and year of schooling completed (sophomore, junior, etc.). The REU students (like all participants listed in project reports) will receive an automated request from Research.gov to self-report their demographic information. PIs of REU Sites may also be required to provide additional information that enables NSF to track students beyond the period of their participation in the Site. For PIs who use NSF's ETAP to receive REU applications, that system collects, and provides reports on, the demographic information and other characteristics of both applicants and participants, and it will support efforts in longitudinal tracking.

REU Site awardees are expected to establish a website for the recruitment of students and dissemination of information about the REU Site and to maintain the website for the duration of the award. PIs are required to furnish the URL for the website to the cognizant NSF program officer no later than 90 days after receiving notification of the award.

VIII. Agency Contacts

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:

• NSF Help Desk: 1-800-673-6188
• Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: [email protected]

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

• Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: [email protected] .

IX. Other Information

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences . Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website .

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov .

Some NSF directorates/offices/divisions that manage REU Site proposals post discipline-specific REU web pages or fund an awardee to host a website providing information for the community of REU awardees in the discipline. These discipline-specific websites are listed, along with the NSF REU point of contact for each discipline, on the web page at https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp . The following resources, which summarize research on the impact of undergraduate research experiences, could be helpful to investigators as they are designing those experiences and considering approaches to evaluating them: Brownell, Jayne E., and Lynn E. Swaner. Five High-Impact Practices: Research on Learning, Outcomes, Completion, and Quality ; Chapter 4: "Undergraduate Research." Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2010. Reviews published research on the effectiveness and outcomes of undergraduate research. Laursen, Sandra, et al. Undergraduate Research in the Sciences: Engaging Students in Real Science . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Examines the benefits of undergraduate research, and provides advice for designing and evaluating the experiences. Linn, Marcia C., Erin Palmer, Anne Baranger, Elizabeth Gerard, and Elisa Stone. "Undergraduate Research Experiences: Impacts and Opportunities." Science , Vol. 347, Issue 6222 (6 February 2015); DOI: 10.1126/science.1261757 . Comprehensively examines the literature on the impacts of undergraduate research experiences, and identifies the gaps in knowledge and the opportunities for more rigorous research and assessment. Lopatto, David. Science in Solution: The Impact of Undergraduate Research on Student Learning . Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation for Science Advancement, 2009. Findings from the author's pioneering surveys exploring the benefits of undergraduate research. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Undergraduate Research Experiences for STEM Students: Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2017; DOI: 10.17226/24622 . NSF-commissioned study that takes stock of what is known, and not known, about undergraduate research experiences and describes practices and research that faculty can apply to improve the experiences for students. Russell, Susan H., Mary P. Hancock, and James McCullough. "Benefits of Undergraduate Research Experiences." Science , Vol. 316, Issue 5824 (27 April 2007); DOI: 10.1126/science.1140384 . Summary of a large-scale, NSF-funded evaluation of undergraduate research opportunities, conducted by SRI International between 2002 and 2006. The study included REU Sites, REU Supplements, and undergraduate research opportunities sponsored by a range of other NSF programs. Several additional resources offer practical help for designing particular components of REU projects: Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science . Information, references, and case studies for exploring ethics in engineering and science and designing training on the responsible and ethical conduct of research. Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research (CIMER). Publications and online resources, including an assessment platform, focusing on effective mentoring of beginning researchers. EvaluateUR . A service (available through subscription) for evaluating independent student research. Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA). Online survey instrument for use in evaluating student outcomes of undergraduate research experiences. (Most REU Sites in the Biological Sciences use a version of this tool. See https://bioreu.org/resources/assessment-and-evaluation/ .) Although some of the resources above were partially developed with NSF funding, the list is not meant to imply an NSF recommendation, and the list is not meant to be exhaustive. Some NSF programs that support centers and facilities encourage the inclusion of REU activities as one component of those large projects; see the individual solicitations for details. Other NSF funding opportunities, such as the following, focus on providing structured research experiences similar to those supported by the REU program: Directorate of Geosciences - Veterans Education and Training Supplement (GEO-VETS) Opportunity Geoscience Research Experiences for Post-Baccalaureate Students (GEO-REPS) Supplement Opportunity High School Student Research Assistantships (MPS-High): Funding to Broaden Participation in the Mathematical and Physical Sciences International Research Experiences for Students (IRES) Post-Associate and Post-Baccalaureate Research Experiences for LSAMP Students (PRELS) Supplement Opportunity Research and Mentoring for Postbaccalaureates in Biological Sciences (RaMP) Research Assistantships for High School Students (RAHSS): Funding to Broaden Participation in the Biological Sciences Research Experience for Teachers (RET) Supplement Opportunity: Directorate for Biological Sciences Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) in Engineering and Computer Science Research Training Groups in the Mathematical Sciences (RTG) Veterans Research Supplement (VRS) Program: Directorate for Engineering As funding opportunities are added or expire, the above list will not remain current. Visit the NSF website ( https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities ) for up-to-date information.

About The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.F.7 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices , NSF-50 , "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51 , "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records." Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

Suzanne H. Plimpton Reports Clearance Officer Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management National Science Foundation Alexandria, VA 22314