NSF Postdoc Mentoring Plan: What to Write, With a Template

Q: What is the difference between the mentoring plan and an IDP?

The mentoring plan is a one page statement at proposal time of what mentoring the project will provide. An IDP is a personal plan, written after the award by each qualifying postdoc or student with the PI. NSF requires an IDP for each postdoc and graduate student with one person month or more of support in the reporting period, and the PI certifies it in annual and final project reports.

An NSF postdoc mentoring plan is a one-page supplementary document that any proposal requesting funds for postdoctoral scholars or graduate students has to include. It describes the mentoring those people will actually receive, covers everyone the project supports with a single plan, is uploaded under "Mentoring Plan" in Research.gov, and is judged as part of Broader Impacts. It has no required template, so most of the work is deciding what you will really do and saying it specifically.

This guide sticks to what NSF's own Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide says, separates that from our advice, and ends with a template. The version we read is PAPPG 24-1. NSF's page also lists later supplemental notices, so check the version your solicitation names before you submit, because a program can add its own requirements.

What the rule says

From Chapter II.D.2.i of the PAPPG:

Who triggers it. A proposal that requests funding for postdoctoral scholars or graduate students must include a mentoring plan.
Length. No more than one page. The guide says the plan must describe the mentoring that will be provided to those people.
Who it covers. All postdoctoral scholars and graduate students supported by the project, including those at subrecipient or other collaborating organizations in a collaborative proposal submitted at the same time. You do not need a separate plan for each group, though the plan may explain how the program differs for postdocs and for graduate students.
Where it goes. Uploaded as "Mentoring Plan" in the supplementary documentation section in Research.gov. It is separate from the 15-page Project Description.
How it is judged. Mentoring activities are evaluated under the Broader Impacts review criterion.
What it cannot do. It cannot be used to get around the 15-page Project Description limit.

The guide lists examples of activities a plan can include: career counseling, training in preparing proposals and publications, guidance on teaching and mentoring skills, guidance on collaborating with researchers from diverse backgrounds, and training in responsible professional practices. These are examples. NSF does not publish a template or fixed headings.

The plan is not the IDP

People confuse these two, and reviewers and program officers know the difference.

	Mentoring plan	Individual development plan (IDP)
Written when	At proposal time	After the award, for each person
By whom	The PI	The postdoc or student, with the PI
About	What mentoring the project will provide	One person's goals, exploration and training
Length	One page, whole project	As long as the person needs
Checked	By reviewers, under Broader Impacts	By the PI's certification in annual and final project reports

On the IDP side, Chapter VII.B of the PAPPG says each postdoctoral scholar and graduate student who receives substantial support from an NSF award needs one, updated annually. Substantial support means one person-month or more during the annual reporting period. The IDP maps educational goals, career exploration and professional development. The PI or co-PI certifies in each annual and final annual project report that each qualifying person has one. The IDP itself is not described as something you submit. Our guide to the individual development plan for PhD students covers how to write one.

A good mentoring plan therefore promises the IDP process: "each postdoc will complete an IDP in their first month and review it with the PI twice a year". That one sentence connects what you tell reviewers now to what you certify later.

What a strong plan looks like

The guide gives the categories. These are our observations about what separates a plan that reads as a commitment from one that reads as a paragraph of intentions. They are judgment, not NSF rules.

Name frequencies and owners. "Weekly one-on-one meetings with the PI" says more than "regular meetings". "A second mentor outside the lab, chosen with the postdoc in the first three months" says more than "access to multiple mentors".
Tie each activity to this project. If the project involves a field campaign, say how a postdoc will lead part of it. Generic lists that could be pasted into any proposal are easy to spot.
Cover both groups if you fund both. Postdocs and graduate students need different things. A short sentence for each is enough.
Say how you will know it is working. An annual check against the IDP, an anonymous end-of-year note from the group, a record of who presented where.
Use institutional resources, and say which. Teaching workshops, grant-writing programs and career offices exist at most universities. Naming them is more credible than promising to build them.
Keep to one page. A cramped page with tiny type reads badly. Cut the activity you are least likely to do.

A template

Adapt it, delete what you will not do, and keep the final version to one page.

MENTORING PLAN: [Project title], [PI name]

Who this covers
[Number] postdoctoral scholars and [number] graduate students supported
by this project, including those at [subrecipient, if any].

At the start (first month)
- Each person completes an individual development plan with the PI,
  covering research goals, skills to build and career direction.
- Each is introduced to a second mentor of their choice, in the lab or
  elsewhere at [institution].

Every week
- One-on-one meeting with the PI (30 minutes), with written notes and
  action items kept by the mentee.
- Group meeting where each person presents work in progress.

Every term / twice a year
- IDP review with the PI: progress, new goals, training taken.
- Feedback on a draft: [a paper, a conference abstract, a proposal section].

Training and career development
- Proposal and publication writing: each postdoc co-writes a section of
  [a proposal] and leads at least one manuscript.
- Teaching and mentoring skills: [institutional workshop], plus mentoring
  an undergraduate or a new student under supervision.
- Responsible conduct of research: [institutional training], revisited
  annually.
- Presenting: at least one conference talk a year, supported by the project.

Careers
- Time to attend career events and informational interviews in academic,
  industry and government settings.
- Help with applications and references in the final year.

How we check it is working
- Annual review of each IDP and a short written note from each person.
- Adjustments recorded, and reported in the annual project report.

Keeping the promise after the award

The plan is a commitment you will be asked about in the annual report. The practical failure is not bad intent but lost records: nobody remembers whether the second mentor was ever assigned or whether the mid-year IDP review happened.

The cheap fix is to turn each line of your plan into something that has a date and an owner. A recurring one-on-one with notes. An IDP review as a dated task per person. A milestone for "first manuscript drafted". Our supervision meeting agenda gives a structure for the weekly meeting, and the lab expectations document is where the same commitments live in writing for the whole group.

LetRelay can hold that record: one-on-one notes where any line becomes a task with an owner and a due date, milestones with reminders 30, 7 and 1 days ahead, and weekly updates that show who is blocked. It does not write the plan for you, and it does not contain an IDP form. It is a place to see whether what you promised is happening. Printable progress reports are a Pro feature. The new PI checklist shows where mentoring fits among the other first-year systems.

FAQ

Is the NSF mentoring plan required for every proposal?

No. It is required when the proposal requests funding for postdoctoral scholars or graduate students. A proposal with no such support does not need one. Check the specific solicitation as well, since programs can add requirements.

How long can the mentoring plan be?

One page. The PAPPG says the plan must describe the mentoring in no more than one page, and it cannot be used to get around the 15-page limit on the Project Description.

Do I need a separate plan for postdocs and for graduate students?

No. One plan covers all the postdoctoral scholars and graduate students supported by the project, including those at collaborating organizations in a collaborative proposal submitted at the same time. The plan may explain how the program differs between the two groups.

Where do I upload it?

In Research.gov, under "Mentoring Plan" in the supplementary documentation section.

How is the mentoring plan evaluated?

As part of the Broader Impacts review criterion. That is why specific, believable commitments matter more than a long list of activities.

What is the difference between the mentoring plan and an IDP?

The mentoring plan is a one-page statement at proposal time of what mentoring the project will provide. An IDP is a personal plan, written after the award by each qualifying postdoc or student with the PI. NSF requires an IDP for each postdoc and graduate student with one person-month or more of support in the reporting period, and the PI certifies it in annual and final project reports.

Does NSF give a template?

Not in the PAPPG. It describes the content and the page limit and gives examples of activities, but no required headings. Your research office may have a sample. Use ours above as a starting structure.