The NSF Pathways to Enable Open-Source Ecosystems (POSE, NSF 24-606) program funds initiatives that strengthen open-source software ecosystems and improve community sustainability. Awards range from $300,000 to $1.5 million, supporting projects that foster collaboration, governance, and measurable impact across academia, nonprofits, and industry.
The official NSF solicitation highlights that successful proposals must demonstrate ecosystem health, governance effectiveness, and evidence of impact, all of which require rigorous evaluation. NSF explicitly expects grantees to measure progress through quantitative and qualitative metrics that track participation, adoption, and community outcomes.
While the solicitation does not mandate hiring an external evaluator, its structure and evaluation criteria make clear that comprehensive metrics frameworks are essential. This expectation places EBHC’s expertise squarely at the center of what reviewers look for: credible, data-informed evaluation capable of capturing open-source ecosystem health over time.
Your TL;DR
NSF’s Pathways to Enable Open-Source Ecosystems (POSE) program demands measurable evidence of community growth, governance, and sustainability. EBHC delivers evaluation frameworks—logic models, dashboards, and ecosystem metrics, that align with NSF’s expectations and strengthen your proposal’s credibility.
Evaluation Is the Backbone of Ecosystem Sustainability
POSE is designed to ensure that open-source initiatives can scale beyond the funding period. NSF requires applicants to outline clear, measurable pathways showing how their ecosystem will thrive, grow, and sustain community participation after the award ends.
To meet these expectations, proposers must include mechanisms to assess:
- Ecosystem health: engagement, governance transparency, and inclusivity;
- Contributor growth: new developer participation, retention, and leadership diversity;
- Impact: adoption of tools, data, and best practices by the broader community; and
- Sustainability: long-term governance models, partnerships, and usage continuity.
These are not mere reporting metrics, they are the evaluation criteria that determine funding success. Without a credible plan to track and analyze these indicators, proposals risk appearing incomplete or noncompliant with NSF’s merit review emphasis on measurable outcomes.
EBHC: The Evaluation Partner Behind Sustainable Open-Source Success
EBHC’s evaluation approach mirrors the exact principles NSF promotes: transparency, accountability, and continuous learning. Our evaluators specialize in developmental, formative, and summative evaluation frameworks designed for dynamic, multi-stakeholder environments like open-source ecosystems.
Drawing on our mixed-methods methodology, combining quantitative analytics (dashboard data, contribution metrics, regression analysis) with qualitative insight (community interviews, governance reviews), EBHC enables your team to measure both performance and perception.
Our core differentiators, as detailed in our [Capabilities Statement], include:
- Expertise in logic model and theory of change development to align NSF-funded activities with measurable impacts,
- Proven frameworks for Collaborative Outcomes Reporting, ensuring stakeholder input validates results,
- Advanced data systems integration (SPSS, R, Power BI, Tableau) for transparent metric tracking,
- Full compliance with HIPAA, FERPA, and SOC 2, essential when handling contributor data,
- Evaluations conducted exclusively by U.S.-based, W-2 employees, ensuring consistency, security, and accountability, and
- Alignment with American Evaluation Association (AEA) and Grant Professionals Association (GPA) ethics standards.
Through these methods, EBHC provides NSF-funded teams with more than compliance, it delivers actionable insights that guide adaptation and long-term sustainability.
Budget Considerations for Evaluation in POSE Projects
The POSE solicitation, like CSSI, does not impose an explicit cap on evaluation spending. NSF’s Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) governs general cost principles, allowing proposers to allocate evaluation costs under “consultant services” or “other direct costs.”
This flexibility allows PIs to budget realistically for the scale and scope of evaluation activities. EBHC recommends that teams treat evaluation as a strategic investment, not an ancillary cost, aligning its budget with tasks such as:
- Baseline metric design and logic model creation,
- Annual data collection and dashboard reporting,
- Governance and community health assessments, and
- Final sustainability evaluation tied to NSF’s long-term impact goals.
For POSE budgets, allocating approximately 7% of total direct costs for evaluation remains a defensible, industry-standard benchmark. This level allows for robust evaluation coverage, including metrics design, data visualization, and ecosystem reporting, without exceeding federal cost norms.
The key is justification: clearly explain how each evaluation activity contributes to ecosystem sustainability and community outcomes. EBHC’s team is adept at writing this justification language directly into your proposal’s Budget Justification and Project Description sections.
Why Partnering with EBHC Gives Your Proposal an Edge
Evaluation is one of the most underestimated factors in NSF proposal success. Reviewers often cite lack of measurable outcomes as a reason for lower competitiveness. EBHC’s evaluation designs ensure that your proposal doesn’t just check the boxes, it exceeds expectations with:
- Clear, credible metrics frameworks reviewers can immediately assess;
- A sustainability narrative backed by quantifiable community impact data; and
- A data management approach that meets NSF’s transparency and reproducibility standards.
Your open-source ecosystem proposal deserves an evaluation plan that reflects its vision for lasting impact. EBHC delivers exactly that.
Ready To Take the Next Step?
We assist our clients in locating, applying for, and evaluating the outcomes of non-dilutive grant funding. We believe non-dilutive funding is a crucial tool for mitigating investment risks, and we are dedicated to guiding our clients through the entire process—from identifying the most suitable opportunities to submitting and managing grant applications.