Your TL;DR: NSF’s investment in expanded technical support for emerging innovation signals that evaluation is moving upstream. Teams that wait to engage evaluators until after solicitations drop risk misalignment, missed requirements, and slower starts. The smart move is establishing evaluator relationships now, while program models, metrics, and learning agendas can still shape competitive proposals. Learn More Here 👉 https://www.nsf.gov/tip/updates/nsf-invests-expanded-technical-support-emerging-innovation?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
NSF Is Expanding Technical Support, and That Changes the Role of Evaluation
The National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships is making a clear statement with its latest investment in expanded technical support for emerging innovation efforts. Technical assistance is no longer an accessory to funding; it is infrastructure. NSF is reinforcing that innovation programs are expected to be intentional, measurable, and continuously improving from day one.
This matters because technical support, by design, is tightly linked to learning, performance, and outcomes. When NSF invests in coaching, capacity-building, and structured support for innovators, it is also signaling heightened expectations around how programs define success, track progress, and adapt in real time. Evaluation sits squarely in the middle of that equation.
If it’s helpful, this is a moment where having a second set of eyes on your evaluation posture before solicitations open can prevent unnecessary scrambling later.
Evaluation Is No Longer a Post-Award Afterthought
Historically, many teams treated evaluation as something to “plug in” once funding was secured. That approach is increasingly misaligned with how NSF is designing and administering its programs. Expanded technical support implies active oversight, learning loops, and evidence-informed decision-making throughout the lifecycle of an award.
NSF is not just asking whether a program achieved outcomes at the end. The agency is paying attention to how programs operate, how participants are supported, how barriers are identified, and how adjustments are made along the way. Those questions require evaluation frameworks that are integrated into program design, not retrofitted after the fact.
This is the gap that trips up otherwise strong teams. When evaluation is bolted on late, it often results in generic metrics, unclear data ownership, and reporting structures that do not align with how the program actually functions. Reviewers notice. Technical assistance providers notice too.
Why Evaluators Need to Be Involved Before Solicitations Drop
When solicitations are released, timelines compress fast. Teams are suddenly making high-stakes decisions about partners, scopes, and compliance under pressure. Trying to identify and onboard an external evaluator during that window is inefficient at best and risky at worst.
Engaging evaluators now allows programs to clarify their theory of change, align metrics with intended technical support activities, and ensure that learning questions are realistic and funder-relevant. It also allows evaluators to understand the ecosystem context, partnerships, and operational constraints that will shape implementation.
From NSF’s perspective, this early alignment reduces risk. Programs that can articulate how evaluation informs technical support delivery, rather than simply documenting it, demonstrate maturity. They show that they understand accountability, not just compliance.
Technical Support and Evaluation Are Becoming Interdependent
NSF’s expanded technical support investment underscores a broader shift in federal funding. Agencies are moving toward models where support, performance, and learning are intertwined. Technical assistance is not just about advising participants; it is about generating insight into what works, for whom, and under what conditions.
Evaluation provides the structure that makes that insight credible. It ensures that technical support efforts are not anecdotal or personality-driven, but evidence-informed and adaptive. Programs that treat evaluation as a strategic partner can use data to refine support models, justify resource allocation, and communicate impact in ways NSF increasingly expects.
Waiting until after an award to sort this out often leads to mismatches between what was proposed and what is feasible. Early evaluator involvement helps teams avoid that disconnect.
What Strong Teams Are Doing Right Now
Teams paying attention to NSF’s signals are using this window to pressure-test their program models. They are asking how technical support activities map to participant outcomes, what data is realistically collectible, and how learning will inform decision-making during the award period.
They are also establishing relationships with external evaluators who understand NSF‘s expectations and the realities of innovation ecosystems. That relationship-building happens well before a solicitation is released, so that when the opportunity arrives, evaluation is already integrated into the proposal narrative and work plan.
If you want a faster path through that thinking, having an experienced evaluator involved early often saves time, revisions, and avoidable missteps.
The Takeaway for Emerging Innovation Programs
NSF’s expanded technical support investment is not just about more resources; it is about higher expectations. Evaluation is moving upstream, closer to program design and strategy, and teams that recognize this shift will be better positioned when solicitations roll out.
Programs that wait risk playing catch-up. Programs that prepare now can move forward with clarity, confidence, and credibility.
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.