2011 Competitive Program for Science and Museums and Planetariums Plus Opportunities for NASA Visitor Centers and Other Informal Education Institutions (CP4SMP) | Apply Online

FAQs: NASA CP4SMP (2011 Competitive Program for Science and Museums and Planetariums Plus Opportunities for NASA Visitor Centers and Other Informal Education Institutions)

What is CP4SMP?

CP4SMP (the 2011 Competitive Program for Science and Museums and Planetariums Plus Opportunities for NASA Visitor Centers and Other Informal Education Institutions) was a NASA Headquarters funding opportunity intended to strengthen informal STEM education by supporting projects that are distinctly NASA-themed.

Which NASA office ran this opportunity?

The program was run through NASA's Office of Education (Integration Division, Informal Education Program) in coordination with the Offices of Communications and the Chief Technologist and multiple Mission Directorates.

What was the main goal of the program?

The goal was to translate NASA missions, science, engineering, exploration activities, and technologies into engaging learning experiences for the public, with an emphasis on inspiring interest in STEM and supporting inquiry-based learning.

What kinds of institutions were this program designed to support?

It was designed for informal education institutions (IEIs) such as museums, science centers, planetariums, visitor centers, libraries, and similar informal learning environments that provide STEM programming, including exhibits.

What does "distinctly NASA-themed" mean in this solicitation?

Projects needed to feature NASA content and translate NASA mission-related work into informal learning experiences. Strong proposals were expected to align with NASA education outcomes and the NASA Strategic Plan, and to pay attention to content priorities defined by participating Mission Directorates.

What STEM topic areas could projects focus on?

NASA-themed content areas mentioned include space exploration, aeronautics, space science, Earth science, microgravity, or combinations of those topics.

What types of projects were eligible for funding?

Examples included permanent, traveling, or virtual exhibits; public-facing STEM programs serving educators, students, youth, families, and general audiences; and professional development for informal educators and others involved in informal learning (such as afterschool leaders, docents, exhibit designers, curriculum developers, community education leaders, and education and public outreach staff).

Did the solicitation support research and evaluation in informal learning settings?

Yes. The solicitation made room for informal learning research related to STEM education and program effectiveness, including evaluation studies and approaches involving data use and analysis.

Were technology development and curriculum-related efforts allowed?

Yes. The opportunity explicitly mentioned work involving data use and analysis, curriculum support for informal science education, and technology development as possible elements of proposed projects.

Could arts-based or culturally focused projects be included?

Yes. The solicitation indicated that performing arts or culturally focused activities could be part of the work when aimed at specific audiences, including women, minorities, and people with disabilities.

How important were partnerships in CP4SMP?

Partnership-driven work was a major priority. Projects were expected to primarily support the NASA Education Strategic Coordination Framework, especially Outcome 3, which focuses on building effective partnerships between formal and informal education.

Were partnerships with K-12 schools encouraged or required?

Collaboration was strongly encouraged, particularly with K-12 schools, to advance inquiry-based STEM learning and connect informal learning spaces with formal K-12 education.

Did NASA encourage partnerships with minority-serving institutions?

Yes. The solicitation highlighted the value of partnerships with Tribal Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions, reflecting an interest in broadening participation and reaching communities historically underserved in STEM.

How were applicants expected to justify the need for their project?

Proposals were expected to be grounded in real educational needs. Applicants were encouraged to use needs assessments or other evidence to describe a local, regional, or national challenge and explain how the proposed approach could produce meaningful, measurable impact.

What did NASA say about alignment with agency priorities?

NASA stated that the strongest projects would align with NASA education outcomes and the NASA Strategic Plan and would consider the content priorities defined by participating Mission Directorates (as referenced in the solicitation technical content sections).

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was limited to US-based nonprofit informal education institutions (including those located in US Territories) that provide STEM programming, including exhibits.

Did an organization need to have "museum" or "planetarium" in its legal name to qualify?

No. An organization did not need to have "museum," "science," "planetarium," or "visitor center" in its legal name, as long as it met the functional definition and requirements described in the solicitation.

Who had to serve as the principal investigator (PI)?

The PI had to be a senior executive of the eligible institution (for example, President, Vice President, CEO, CFO, Board Chair, or an equivalent role), which required top-level institutional ownership of the project.

How many proposals could an organization submit?

Each eligible organization was limited to one proposal per DUNS number, meaning organizations needed to prioritize and submit their strongest single concept rather than multiple competing proposals.

Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. The opportunity did not require cost sharing or matching funds.

What funding instruments were used?

The solicitation indicated funding instruments could include cooperative agreements, grants, and other mechanisms under the discretionary category.

What were the key dates for this opportunity?

The opportunity was posted on April 4, 2011, and closed on June 29, 2011. It was archived on July 29, 2011.

What was the Funding Opportunity Number and CFDA number?

The Funding Opportunity Number was NNH11ZHA004N and the CFDA number was 43.008.

What registrations were required to submit a proposal?

Administrative readiness by the proposal due date included having a DUNS number, an active registration in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR), and registration in NASA's NSPIRES system. Registrations were also required for any proposed subawardees or contractors.

Could projects involve working with people as research participants (surveys, observations, testing, etc.)?

Yes. The solicitation anticipated some projects could involve research with participants, including evaluation studies, surveys, observations, ethnographic methods, or educational testing.

What human subjects rules applied to participant research under this solicitation?

Compliance expectations were tied to human subjects protections under 14 CFR 1230 (the Common Rule). Applicants were responsible for budgeting and documenting compliance and for determining whether the work required full Institutional Review Board (IRB) review or qualified as exempt.

Did NASA expect most CP4SMP participant research to be exempt from full IRB review?

Yes. NASA anticipated most CP4SMP-related research would be exempt, as long as it did not collect identifiable information in ways that could place participants at risk if disclosed.

When did NASA advise applicants to begin the IRB determination process?

The solicitation advised principal investigators to start the IRB determination process soon after proposal submission by working with a non-NASA IRB approved by the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protections.

Where was the project leadership expected to reside?

Project leadership had to reside at an eligible informal education institution, even though collaboration and partnerships were strongly encouraged.

What kinds of audiences were projects expected to serve?

Examples in the solicitation included educators, students, youth, families, and general audiences, along with professionals in the informal learning ecosystem through professional development activities.

What made a proposal "competitive" under this program, based on the description provided?

Competitive proposals needed to be NASA-relevant and distinctly NASA-themed, aligned with NASA education outcomes and the NASA Strategic Plan, responsive to documented educational needs, partnership-forward (especially with schools and minority-serving institutions), and prepared to handle participant research and evaluation responsibly under federal human subjects protections.