NSF Broader Impacts: Link Activities to Outcomes

NSF Broader Impacts asks how your work could help society. A strong plan names who could use the work, what you will do, and why those steps could lead to a useful change. NSF's merit review criteria ask you to address this alongside Intellectual Merit, which concerns advances in knowledge.

Start with the current funding rules, then link your project and partner sources to the plan. The worked map below keeps source support, planned work, and open questions apart. Use Atlas to compare those files and draft an outline, then check each claim yourself.

What NSF Broader Impacts means

Broader Impacts concerns how a project could help people. Make the path to that goal clear while keeping future results open. The definition below comes from NSF's PAPPG 24-1.

NSF PAPPG 24-1, printed page III-2, PDF page 110. Direct excerpt of the Broader Impacts criterion.

An Intellectual Merit claim might explain what a new sensing method could teach researchers. A Broader Impacts claim could explain how a tool, training session, or shared finding might help people beyond that research question. Both claims can draw on the same work, but each needs its own reasons.

The research itself may help people, as may work linked to it or other work the project supports. NSF's statement-writing tips explain that outreach need not be a separate add-on. Choose a route that fits your skills, the people you hope to serve, and the time and funds you have.

If you are also preparing an NIH application, its Project Summary/Abstract guide covers a different public attachment. Follow each funder's instructions rather than using the NSF Broader Impacts section as an NIH template.

Start with current NSF instructions

Policy checked October 2, 2026: NSF's current PAPPG page lists PAPPG 24-1. It also lists Supplement 1, which applies to assistance awarded on or after December 8, 2025, and Supplement 2, which applies on or after January 22, 2026.

Read the notices that apply to your work with the base guide. Use the effective rules rather than a draft guide released for comment.

Under the general proposal preparation instructions, the Project Summary includes a Broader Impacts statement. The Project Description needs a separate section with Broader Impacts as a heading on its own line.

Your funding notice and proposal type may change or add rules. Use this guide to plan a research proposal, and check the exact format for your programme. GRFP statements have their own instructions.

Check NSF's current priorities too. Its guidance says outreach, recruitment, and participation must be open and available to all Americans.

Older examples can help you think, but their rules about who can take part may be out of date. Ask your sponsored-research office or counsel about policy questions that affect your plan.

Record the funding notice number, guide version, supplements, and date checked in your notes. You and your institution should recheck the rules before you submit.

Build a credible activity-to-outcome path

Start with a need you can explain from a source or a real discussion with users. “We will improve science literacy” leaves the work unclear. Ask which people need what knowledge or tool, and what they could do with it.

Use these prompts to develop the path:

1. Name the users and need. Explain who could use the work and how you know it matters to them. Keep a source or checked partner note beside that claim.
2. Choose the activity. State what your team will do, when, and with whom. A workshop, dataset, lesson pack, or tool needs a plan for who will make it and how people will use it.
3. Name the output. An output is what you produce or do: sessions held, lesson packs shared, or people reached.
4. Name the intended outcome. An outcome is a change you hope to support, such as teachers using a lesson pack or learners gaining a skill. Explain how your work could help bring it about.
5. Assign owners and resources. Name the lead, partner role, time, costs, and space or equipment needed. Mark choices that are still open.
6. Plan what you will check. Choose evidence that fits the claim and the funds you have. A log can show that a session took place, while lasting change needs other evidence.

UNT's research-development guidance asks you to match the plan's scope to your work, skills, and community needs. Our research objectives guide helps turn a broad aim into specific work. Keep what you plan to do apart from what you have achieved.

Find possible partners early. Northwestern's resource directory lists routes for teaching, mentoring, and sharing work at one institution.

Find out what your own institution can offer and speak with the people involved. Check what a partner has agreed to do before you include them in the plan.

A worked Broader Impacts evidence map

In this fictional teaching example, a research team plans to study low-cost sensors and share a lesson pack that teaches people to question noisy data. The project and partner notes are made up. No proposal has been funded and no outcomes have been tested.

The source packet contains three notes:

• Project note P1: The team plans one lesson pack with sample sensor readings, a teacher guide, and a short data-checking task.
• Partner note P2: A local teacher group has shown interest in reviewing the pack. Dates, staff time, and access to learners are still open.
• Planning note P3: The draft budget includes writing time and two pilot sessions. Review time and follow-up costs have not been agreed.

The map connects each planned step to its source support and a gap you need to resolve before submission.

Table 1: The plan seeks a modest teaching benefit without claiming that the pack will transform schools or that everyone will learn. The NSF SBE framework helps you connect products to their users, the good they could do, and actions that make that result more likely.

NSF issued this guidance for SBE proposals in 2021. It leaves the review criteria unchanged.

A draft paragraph for this example could say:

We plan a lesson pack that uses sample sensor readings to teach data-quality checks. It will include a teacher guide and a short practice task. A teacher group has shown interest in reviewing it, with its role and schedule still to be agreed. We plan two pilot sessions once staffing, access, and budget are confirmed. We will record the sessions and use task responses to see where learners need more help. A follow-up plan would check whether teachers use the pack. We still need to agree on the measures and costs before submission.

The draft shows the intended benefit while keeping P2's interest apart from a firm commitment. Resolve the open choices before using it in a final proposal. If you plan a substantial unfunded collaboration, check NSF's documentation requirements and the funding notice for the required record of intent to collaborate.

Plan assessment without promising impact

Choose evidence based on what you claim. A sign-in sheet can show reach, and teacher feedback can show how useful they found the pack. A well-designed task may help assess a defined skill. Those measures alone cannot prove that the project caused lasting change in society.

For the example, keep making the pack apart from its later use. Ask whether teachers tried it, what they changed, and what would support a claim about learning. Have someone with suitable skills review the task and follow-up plan. Our evaluation plan guide links questions to evidence, measures, timing, and who will do the work.

Match the effort to the scale of the work. NSF's merit review principles note that it may make sense to assess small activities together at an aggregate level. Each project still needs clear goals, planned work, and records of outputs. Do not promise a large causal study your team cannot carry out.

If the link from the work to its intended benefit is weak, review the path with partners. Our program theory guide explains how to state assumptions and conditions. A plausible path helps you plan without forecasting a result.

Check the plan in Atlas

Use only files you are allowed to use with AI. Atlas can compare named sources and draft an outline for you to review. Keep the funding rules apart from claims about your project:

1. Add the sources. In your project, select Add a source, then Upload files for PDFs. Add the current funding notice, guidance, and allowed project and partner files. Wait for processing and check the pages.
2. Mention them in chat. In Ask a question, type @ and select each source you want compared. Use clear names so you can tell a requirement from a project claim.
3. Ask for a map from those sources. Request planned work, goals, source support, owners, costs, ways to check results, and gaps. Use the prompt below.
4. Check each key claim. Open the numbered citation and read the text around it. A PDF citation can open a page or passage if it has a precise location. Find the text yourself when needed.
5. Correct and keep the outline. Remove made-up commitments and overstated results. Select New, then Note, add your corrected plan and source references, and wait for Saved.

Compare the named funding notice and project and partner files. Draft a Broader Impacts outline showing what we plan to do, who could use it, the outputs and outcomes, who will do the work, costs, and ways to check results. Cite the source for each rule and factual claim. Keep partner interest apart from firm commitments. Flag gaps, policy questions, and unfunded work. Do not predict impact or certify compliance.

In the example, reject an answer that describes P2 as a confirmed partnership or says the two sessions improved learning. The packet supports neither claim. Atlas cannot commit partners, determine current NSF priorities, certify compliance, forecast societal impact, or secure an award.

Draft and review the final section

Write the section from your checked outline. Explain who could benefit, the planned work, who will do it, the costs, and what you will check.

Match the text to the budget and partner files. NSF's program-officer tips stress planning how to assess and fund the work alongside the research.

Keep the Project Description self-contained under the PAPPG instructions. Links in your notes help you check claims. Explain the work in the submitted text itself and stay within the required page limit.

Ask your institution to review policy, partner scope, costs, and the plan to assess results. Return to the live guide and funding notice for a final check. The source map makes the plan easier to review while leaving the open choices with you and your institution.