NSF 24-528: EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement Program – EPSCoR Research Fellows
NSF’s EPSCoR Research Fellows program supports early- to mid-career investigators in EPSCoR jurisdictions to build research capacity through hosted collaborations with major institutions, with annual competition cycles and recurring April deadlines.
NSF 24-528: EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement Program – EPSCoR Research Fellows
If you are planning for the 2026/2027 federal cycle, this is a strategic fit for institutions that can produce a strong, institution-building proposal rather than a broad generic science project. The EPSCoR Research Fellows mechanism is not a standard single-lab grant. It is a career- and capability-oriented fellowship model designed to help researchers from EPSCoR jurisdictions spend time at high-capability host sites and return with stronger, sustainable research capacity at their home institution.
Key details
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Official call | NSF 24-528: EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement: EPSCoR Research Fellows (ERF) |
| Program | EPSCoR RII Program |
| Funding type | NSF fellowship-like research capacity grant |
| Tracks | EPSCoR Research Fellows: NSF and EPSCoR Research Fellows: @NASA |
| Anticipated budget | Total $15,000,000; NSF track $12,000,000; NASA track $3,000,000 |
| Estimated awards | Up to 50 total (approx. up to 40 NSF + up to 10 NASA) |
| Official submission date | Full proposal deadline is recurring annually: second Tuesday in April |
| Recurring for planning | 2026 and 2027 target windows |
| Application platform | Research.gov or Grants.gov |
| Cost sharing | Voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited |
What this opportunity is for
The program sits within NSF EPSCoR and is explicitly framed as a workforce and infrastructure-development instrument, not a conventional one-off research award. Its core goal is to strengthen jurisdictions that do not enjoy historically high federal research funding by moving individual investigators into research environments where they can access unique capacity and then bring that capacity back.
The fellowship design has two major consequences for applicants:
- Your proposal is scored on scientific quality, but also on whether the planned host experience is realistic and likely to strengthen the investigator and home institution.
- The strongest submissions show a clear path from individual development to institutional benefit.
This helps explain why the NSF page describes the program in terms of STEM workforce development and sustainable scientific capacity, and why the tracks are separated into NSF and NASA pathways with different expectations.
Who is this for (and who should skip it)
Good fit
- Research groups in EPSCoR-eligible states, territories, or commonwealths (RII-eligible jurisdictions).
- Institutions that can host a strong mentor relationship and provide meaningful re-integration support after the fellowship period.
- Investigators in early-career or mid-career-track roles who can clearly justify why collaboration at a premier host is necessary for future capacity growth.
- Teams where institutional leadership can support proposal compliance and post-award administration.
Likely misfit
- Highly mature labs with fully mature internal infrastructure and little need for host access.
- Senior-only teams without early/mid-career alignment to PI position requirements.
- Applicants expecting large unrestricted funds with minimal reporting burden.
- Groups not eligible in an RII-eligible EPSCoR jurisdiction.
The PI restrictions are tight enough that this is not the right mechanism for everyone. The solicitation is explicit that only single-PI proposals are allowed and co-PIs are not permitted.
Eligibility map (translated from the solicitation)
The call has multiple layers. In practice, eligibility must pass three gates:
Jurisdiction and organization gate
- The submitting organization must be in an RII-eligible EPSCoR jurisdiction.
- Acceptable submitters include eligible institutions of higher education and certain non-degree-granting nonprofit organizations with proper administrative and tax structure.
PI gate
- PI must be in non-tenured/tenured Assistant or Associate professor categories (or equivalent) or, for the fellowship track, in early-career non-degree-organization role requirements where applicable.
- A letter confirming PI eligibility is required.
- Only one proposal per PI.
Track-specific constraints
- The NASA track adds institutional type restrictions (notably PUIs and minority-serving institutions in certain contexts).
- Track choice matters, especially for institutions that could qualify for both; you can only apply for one track per cycle.
Because of this structure, early-stage teams often fail by treating EPSCoR Fellows like a universal NSF instrument. Eligibility is not a technical afterthought. It is a central review signal.
Application process and mechanics
The NSF solicitation provides a straightforward structure:
- No letters of intent.
- No preliminary proposal required.
- Full proposals through Research.gov or Grants.gov.
- No required cost sharing.
This does not mean it is easier. It means your work shifts to two areas:
- Proposal architecture: proposal must be complete and clean in one pass.
- Institutional checks: with single-PI and limited submissions per institution rules, proposal offices must gate-check everything early.
Submission platform
Applicants may submit via Research.gov or Grants.gov depending on institutional preference and setup. The NSF solicitation references the standard proposal and grants instructions; your institution should confirm current versions of:
- NSF Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG)
- NSF Grants.gov Application Guide
Given the recurring annual deadline pattern, the biggest tactical mistake is waiting for “the date to appear on the right cycle” and then submitting a rough draft. The process is stable; your competitiveness depends on writing quality and eligibility certainty.
Funding and proposal strategy: how reviewers usually read this
You should assume reviewers evaluate proposals across three linked questions:
Can this fellowship materially improve the PI trajectory? You should show what the investigator cannot do at home institution right now, and exactly how the host visit changes that.
Does the activity build institutional capacity, not just a single publication? NSF’s EPSCoR framing asks for broader developmental impact.
Can this be delivered compliantly with one PI and no co-PIs? Since co-PIs are disallowed, your leadership model should avoid distributed accountability.
Your narrative is stronger when it:
- names one primary host collaboration plan and one clear output pathway;
- names the institution-level gains (students, methods, labs, partnerships);
- links the planned work to the PI’s long-term trajectory in their discipline.
Timeline and planning for 2026/2027
The solicitation states recurring annual full proposal deadlines with the second Tuesday in April cycle after the listed 2024 and 2025 dates. The program page also lists an April 2027 due date (which is commonly shown as 13 April 2027).
For planning, structure backward from that date:
10–12 weeks before deadline
- Confirm institution jurisdiction and PI eligibility against current RII list.
- Fix track choice (NSF vs NASA) with explicit rationale.
- Align host contact, collaboration plan, and trainee participation.
6–8 weeks before
- Build full proposal first draft.
- Draft host-site justification with specific activities and milestones.
- Draft research plan that is measurable and realistic for collaboration duration.
4–6 weeks before
- Run internal compliance check: PI rank, non-co-PI rule, institution limits, proposal caps, and submission method.
- Prepare budget assumptions with “no cost sharing” constraint in mind.
2–4 weeks before
- Submit internal approvals for sponsored projects and legal/administrative sign-off.
- Convert all narratives into platform-ready text and clean tables.
- Final compliance audit with all mandatory contact fields and formatting instructions.
Final week
- Export and validate the submission package.
- Double-check due time and local-time interpretation.
- Reserve time for platform delays and manual verification.
Required materials and preparation checklist
The page itself states no LOI and no pre-proposal requirement, which is useful. However, this does not replace strong packaging. At minimum, your internal checklist should include:
- One-page rationale for why the host partnership is essential.
- Research plan linked to host access and transferability.
- Institutional capacity gains with explicit implementation pathway.
- Trainee integration plan (if used).
- Clean budget with allowable categories and no committed cost sharing.
- Signed eligibility/administrative letters where required.
Because a single PI is the only option, your narrative should be coherent around that one principal lead. Collaborative language is still possible, but decision authority and accountability belong to one PI.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Assuming general NSF merit criteria are enough
Many good science plans fail when they do not explain why the EPSCoR pathway is the right route. You need explicit capacity-development framing.
- Overlooking PI or submission limits
Single PI only, one proposal per PI, and capped institutional submissions are strict. This frequently leads to disqualification or avoidable returns.
- Treating the NASA track like a generic NSF follow-on
The two tracks share a platform but differ in eligibility and institutional context. If your campus is aiming at the @NASA track, make that explicit in every narrative section.
- Ignoring admin office requirements
The solicitation places explicit responsibility on the sponsored office for compliance on proposal limits and submission conditions.
- Overpromising host outcomes
Reviewers discount vague “we will collaborate deeply” language. Spell out concrete host activities, outputs, and institutional transfer milestones.
What to include in your review-ready narrative
A high-quality proposal for this opportunity usually includes five linked threads:
- Need statement: what the investigator cannot do without host access.
- Plan: specific host activities and timeline.
- Transfer model: what returns to the home institution and to EPSCoR capacity.
- Team model: PI role, trainees, institutional support.
- Risk control: what could derail the collaboration and mitigation.
Do not over-engineer terminology. Clear, evidence-led structure beats stylistic sophistication.
FAQ for quickly deciding fit
Is this a personal stipend fellowship?
It is structured as an EPSCoR fellowship mechanism with standard grant terms, but it is fundamentally tied to institutional capacity and a host-collaboration model rather than just personal career funding.
Can you apply for both NSF and NASA tracks?
If eligible for both, you must apply to only one track per competition cycle.
Are co-PIs allowed?
No. Only a single PI.
Are postdocs eligible as PI?
General restrictions include specific PI rank constraints; transitional fixed-term postdoctoral positions are generally not permitted as PI.
Can you recover from a weak institution-level eligibility review?
No. Most compliance failures are hard failures and may be returned without review. Fix eligibility before scientific writing.
Why this matters for 2026/2027 planning
Because the program uses recurring April cycles, this is one of those opportunities where the 2026/2027 years reward early preparation. Even if your proposal is not yet at final writing, you should begin in early 2026 if your institution is in the right jurisdiction and has a viable PI.
A disciplined approach is:
- Track the NSF solicitation and program pages for any PI wording changes.
- Maintain one internal pre-assembled package for required admin details.
- Keep host conversations active to avoid weak collaboration plans.
- Build your narrative around measurable institutional outcomes.
If your institution has a solid record in proposal support but few direct research access opportunities, this program is often one of the most practical levers for growth.
Official links
- Program page: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/epscor-research-infrastructure-improvement-epscor-research
- Solicitation NSF 24-528: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/epscor-research-infrastructure-improvement-epscor-research/nsf24-528/solicitation
- Program contact listed in solicitation: [email protected] (confirm current contact before applying)
- NSF EPSCoR site for eligibility table: new.nsf.gov (linked from solicitation)