As a professional learning community (PLC), PROSPECT abounds with dedicated professionals who are S-STEM experts. To capture this expertise, we interviewed many of our partners and gathered their collective wisdom about developing, implementing, and sustaining vibrant S-STEM programs, asking : “What do you want the National Science Foundation to know about S-STEM program development, implementation, or sustainability?”. We analyzed their responses and identified common themes across the conversations, highlighting financial support, the labor involved in sustaining the partnership, and the aspects they proudly noted as working well. Further, we illuminated the areas that should continue to be recognized and strengthened to ensure the programs’ ongoing success. Finally, we conclude by offering a few practical suggestions for the upcoming academic year. In some instances interviewers deviated slightly from the exact language in the original protocol. To address this, we reviewed the transcripts and identified questions that, while phrased differently, captured the same themes. These were included in the analysis alongside the verbatim interview protocol questions.
Something has to give: the hidden demands of running an S-STEM program
Many participants spoke about the often unseen labor required to maintain and sustain the partnership. This frequently unrecognized, and at times under-supported, effort includes what one interviewee described as building an “ecosystem of support”, referring to the work of investing in relationships, while anticipating turnover without adequate support or recognition. As one interviewee put it, building a strong partnership takes “time and effort”, and an unexpected human capital disconnection you’re not prepared to face may be a hard challenge, “I feel like that ecosystems of support take a long time to build and can fall apart in an instant, and are based on both real resources - so in other words, time and effort invested in human resources - and when those human resources are cut and there's not recognition of who's going to, how things are going to be done differently, that that's really problematic.” This challenging was also mentioned about another partner member when they say, “The turnover rate, I would think that that was the major thing talked about last fall at the NSF in DC that you get somebody in and in a few weeks or months or one semester, they're gone and then you have to train another person. And again, I don't know what the NSF can do about that, that's a campus-based issue, but to be thoughtful about who is chosen in those roles.”
It was clear that partners consistently go above and beyond. They have built strong teams, met NSF standards, and worked really hard to see the success of their students. A partner member emphasized that their connections to students are not just about increasing the number of enrollments, they are rooted in genuine care for the human beings in their programs. One member 's comment once again highlighted the often unseen labor involved in running S-STEM programs: “I don't know what the NSF can do about it, but they can be assured that we are doing everything that we can to find out where that person is. Everybody sees challenges, everybody experiences grief in their life, health issues, whatever it might be, that we are always open to helping and creating a space where they can feel safe and comfortable talking about those
things.”
It’s well known that time is a scarce resource, but the expectations on the program can stretch patterns’ capacity and create pressure to, as a partner expressed, “every time put in a new project proposal or innovate and do a new exciting thing”. During the interviews the word resources came up often, and from a human capacity lens, one partner made it clear that when all these demands pile up, “something has to give”. Another partner expressed frustration to the continued push to show the program’s success, noting that “evaluation and research force everyone to overemphasize positive outcomes”, while “challenges in local contexts of resources” as she put it, are often overlooked.
For example, a few PIs said that while they’re glad the NSF wants two-year institutions to be more involved with implementing these grants but are concerned that the structural differences between community colleges and universities are causing ineffective incentivization. Universities operate with more “slack” so if funding is available, a professor can (and often will) get reduced teaching responsibilities so they have time to work on the project and other professors can cover the teaching instead. Community college personnel, however, are already stretched very thin so there’s no one who can cover the teaching responsibilities. Therefore, offering funding to work on the grant is futile, they explained, urging the NSF to reconsider their tactics in this situation.
These issues may not be specific to any one site. One partner called attention to the value of creating space for people to come together, share experiences, and work through the difficulties of running S-STEM programs. As she puts it: “So there's some different dials there and you need to think of a few of them at the same time, and then bring people together. There needs to be a worthwhile purpose. People are way too busy and there needs to be incentives, but when you can do that, you're going to get traction, and otherwise you're going to work and work and work and not get any traction.”
This is working: investment that shapes identity, impact, and inclusion
Money was also a major topic when the PIs reflected on what has been working in their programs. Many emphasized the importance of NSF financial support for continuing these partnerships, pointing to their program's success as clear evidence of their sustainability and value. Several described the program as a strong return on investment, with one calling it “money well spent” and another affirming that partners are “doing or valuing the right things.” A third even went so far as to implore NSF to “please keep supporting programs like this.” Others highlighted operational features that contribute to this success, such as the “flexibility” in program “implementation” and the clarity of guidelines that allow the program to run smoothly year after year - even when there is a “new program director.”
Critically, these structural supports also benefit students, especially those with “unmet needs.” One participant wished he could “teleport” NSF representatives into the institutions to witness the “beautifully diverse tapestry of experiences” his students represent, describing that success as the “ultimate measure.” Another expressed satisfaction not only with recruiting efforts, but also with knowing many students would not have been able to “finish their program” without this support. Others noted the importance of identity and recognition. For example, an interviewee shared that his students begin to see themselves as part of “the education forum” and feel “proud” to have a NSF scholarship.
PIs also described how the program’s focus on community college transfers helps reach underserved populations. One PI explained that many of her scholars are Asian students who are “very underrepresented” and “need that support.” In the same vein, another emphasized how removing financial barriers allows students from “rural communities and low-income backgrounds” to reach “places they didn’t think possible.” Finally, a different participant reflected on the personal transformation that occurs when students can see “their future through someone else,” noting how students say, “If they struggled, I struggled... it’s okay.”
Some also urged NSF to consider the limitations of standardized metrics in capturing program success. A PI noted that even students who did not complete the program had a “much better experience” than peers outside it, an outcome that “you can’t quantify.” Similarly, another emphasized that these students are “succeeding in a system that wasn’t built for them.” Even when things don’t run perfectly - like how one PI expressed frustrations with NSF’s outdated reporting website exemplify - the overwhelming sentiment across partners was clear: these programs are working.
Money well spent: Will we have more?
As mentioned before, participants consistently emphasized the importance of continued monetary support; what they hoped NSF would understand about the critical role of ongoing funding. PIs have been encouraged by the outcomes of these S-STEM projects, considering both statistics and anecdotes, and urged the NSF to expand their funding so that they can continue to help students.. One PI commented, “I think [the students are] bright, they’re talented, they’ve learned self-advocacy. And they’ve persevered in their education, but I think this gives them the extra nudge to get towards that finishline”
Looking towards the future, one concern many PIs brought up is the cap on how much funding students can receive from S-STEM each year. They pointed out that the cost of higher education has increased so they need to be able to provide greater financial support too. One PI explained that for many students from under-resourced backgrounds, there is a threshold that funding must meet because “if they don’t make the threshold [...] they’re just not gonna come.” He recalled that the funding was enough when the program started in 2020, but “tuition has gone up and so it no longer meets the threshold.” He also suggested that a system where funding increased every year alongside inflation would be nice. Several PIs also mentioned taking into account costs beyond tuition that impact students, such as fees and housing.
Another PI emphasized the benefits of supporting multi-institutional (track 3) projects. “They’re big and they’re highly scrutinized,” he acknowledged, but believes it is worth it. He says “I’ve learned so much working with these other institutions” and points out that more institutions and more people within the same consortium grants additional flexibility in terms of getting funds and other resources to where they’re the most useful. He suggested that, perhaps one day, current projects could be replicated then connected to become the basis of a regional or even state-wide model, “It’s something I’d love to see.”
We are all in this Together
While the concerns PROSPECT partners shared for NSF may be site-specific to some extent, they highlight areas of common struggle where S-STEM programs can grow stronger. Also, these reflections should not be read as shortcomings alone. Rather, they point to a shared commitment across institutions to continually improve transfer pathways. Because advising NSF directly is beyond the scope of this newsletter, we bring these voices together in a spirit of solidarity, acknowledging these challenges while also affirming that we are all in this together. What follows is a concise summary of the challenges of developing, implementing, and sustaining these partnerships:
- Turnover adequate support and recognition.
- Time and effort in building an ecosystem of support.
- Genuine care for the human beings in their programs.
- Overlooked challenges in local contexts of resources.
- Attractive incentives.
- Need for financial continuity.
- Expect change - be flexible!
- Ineffective incentivization due to different educational systems
- Measure success by the full tapestry.
- Eyes on those typically unseen.
- Rising education and living costs requiring greater scholarship caps.
Big, multi-institutional projects are more complicated but provide many benefits
PROSPECT Research Team thanks participants for their time and insights provided during the interviews.
With thanks to Camilla Morone (Project Manager and Research Scientist, UNL), Brianna Mann (Graduate Research Assistant, UMKC) and Angela Vichitbandha (Graduate Research Assistant, UNL) for the original text; revised by Michelle Maher (Professor, UMKC) and Wendy Smith (Project Director, UNL).