2006 faculty well-being survey: contracts and grants
DESCRIPTION
2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants. Research Operations Council Presentation February 15, 2007 Nancy Whelchel, PhD Assistant Director for Survey Research University Planning and Analysis http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/survey/faculty/. Overview. Survey background - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants
Research Operations CouncilPresentation
February 15, 2007Nancy Whelchel, PhDAssistant Director for Survey ResearchUniversity Planning and Analysishttp://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/survey/faculty/
![Page 2: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Overview Survey background Awareness of grant/contract activities College and university pre- & post-award
support Overhead/indirect costs Challenges to grant/contract related activities Challenges to working at NC State &
suggested improvements
![Page 3: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Survey objectives
Provide readily accessible, “centralized” information
Collect relevant & actionable data
![Page 4: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Survey development
Advisory committee– UPA, Faculty Senate, FCTL, ODAAA, HR, OEO
Feedback from– EOs, VP, Deans, Faculty Senate, Legal Affairs,
IRB
Pre-tests– Tenure-track faculty, lecturers, department head
![Page 5: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
The questionnaire
Included 13 areas related to ‘well-being’ @350 closed-end 8 open-end
![Page 6: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Survey Topics Image and vision Leadership Faculty-Administration relationships Diversity/Multiculturalism Working relationships Faculty support & professional development (including
contracts/grants) RPT PTR Pay & compensation Campus infrastructure Recreation/wellness Work activities Overall satisfaction
![Page 7: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Survey Population
On campus Tenure/non-tenure track
faculty/lecturers (including dept heads, music, PE, FYC)
FTE .75 AY04-05 & AY05-06 Final population = 1,625 No sampling
![Page 8: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Survey methods & response rate
Web-based Available Sept. 6 – Oct. 10, 2006 (29
days) 69.7% response rate (1,132 of 1,625) Margin of error +/- 0.9 percentage pts No significant differences in response
rate between subgroups
![Page 9: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Reports available online www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/survey/faculty Introduction, Research Methods, & Response Rates Executive Summary (overall results) Annotated Questionnaire Tables of Results
– College– Academic profile (rank, tenure status, admin experience)– Demographic profile (gender, race/ethnicity, citizenship, age,
# yrs at NCSU) Feedback
![Page 10: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Contracts/Grants questionsHow satisfied are you with:
Very Satisfied
Satisfied DissatisfiedVery
Dissatisfied
Insufficient evidence to
judge
Not applicable
a. Pre-award support from my college for grant/contract-related activities
O O O O O O
b. Post-award support from my college for grant/contract-related activities
O O O O O O
c. Pre-award support from the university for grant/contract-related activities
O O O O O O
d. Post-award support from the university for grant/contract-related activities
O O O O O O
e. The way indirect costs are allocated to the investigator on a grant
O O O O O O
f. The way indirect costs are allocated to the department
O O O O O O
g. The amount of control the principal investigator has over the allocation of indirect costs generated by external funding
O O O O O O
![Page 11: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Contracts/Grants question
What are the biggest challenges you face related to grant/contract-related activities at NC State? (open-end)
![Page 12: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Awareness of grant/contract-related activities…
![Page 13: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
(Un)Awareness of Contracts & Grants Related Activities
26.6
31.1
37.6
40.5
34.5
40.1
35.1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Pre-Award
Post-Award
Pre-Award
Post-Award
Allocation to PI
Allocation to Dept
PI Control
Col
Sup
port
Uni
vS
uppo
rtIn
dire
ctC
osts
Percentage of All Respondents
Don't Know /NA
![Page 14: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
(Un)Awareness of Pre-Award Support from College
(by College)
57.7
53.0
45.8
20.8
16.8
15.7
14.3
13.1
7.4
6.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
COM
CHASS
DESIGN
CVM
PAMS
CED
CNR
CALS
COT
COE
Percentage of Respondents
Don't Know/NA
![Page 15: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
(Un)Awareness of Pre-Award Supportfrom College
(By Gender & Race/Ethnicity)
39.0
21.5
35.5
6.4
38.1
27.7
0 10 20 30 40 50
Female
Male
Af Amer
Asian
Hispanic
White
Gen
derR
ace/
Eth
nici
ty
Percentage of Respondents
Don't Know /NA
![Page 16: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
(Un)Awareness of Pre-Award Supportfrom College
(By Tenure Status and Number of Years at NCSU)
75.0
12.7
17.4
31.7
25.8
23.5
23.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
NTT
Non-Ten
Tenured
< 7 yrs
7-15yrs
16-25yrs
> 25 yrs
Tenu
reS
tatu
sN
Yea
rs a
tN
CS
U
Percentage of Respondents
Don't Know /NA
![Page 17: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
(Un)Awareness of Pre-Award Supportfrom College
(by Percentage of Work Time Spent on Research/Scholarly Activities)
13.0
12.9
21.3
44.8
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
>50%
26% - 50%
11% - 25%
1% - 10%%
of
Tim
e
Percentage of Respondents
Don't Know /NA
![Page 18: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Satisfaction with pre- and post-award support
![Page 19: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Satisfaction with Pre- and Post-Award Support
7.7
9.8
11.4
18.2
51.9
53.0
55.0
50.4
26.8
25.3
21.8
20.8
13.6
11.9
11.8
10.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Univ Post-AwardSupport
Univ Pre-AwardSupport
Col Post-AwardSupport
Col Pre-AwardSupport
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
![Page 20: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Satisfaction with Support for Research Activities
20.5
18.2
11.4
12.3
9.8
7.7
10.0
10.7
6.7
49.0
50.4
55.0
53.6
53.0
51.9
48.3
46.1
34.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Lab Space
Col Pre-Aw ard Support
Col Post-Aw ard Support
Available Equipment
Univ Pre-Aw ard Support
Univ Post-Aw ard Support
Opps for Scholarly Leave
Opps for Teach LoadReduct
$ for Scholarly Leave
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisfied Satisfied
![Page 21: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Pre-award support from college
![Page 22: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Satisfaction with Pre-Award Support from College (by College**)
60.5
29.2
12.0
15.8
14.3
25.0
12.1
9.1
12.6
0.0
25.6
56.2
64.0
59.6
57.1
43.8
56.4
54.5
29.1
30.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CED*
PAMS
COT*
CVM
CALS
CNR*
COE
COM*
CHASS
DESIGN*
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 23: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Satisfaction with Pre-Award Support from College (by Tenure Status** and N Years at NCSU**)
13.0
28.9
15.7
28.7
13.1
17.2
50.0
46.7
51.5
44.0
48.8
53.0
58.611.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
NTT*
Non-Ten
Tenured
< 7 yrs
7-15yrs
16-25yrs
> 25 yrsT
enur
e S
tatu
sN
Yea
rs a
t N
CS
U
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 24: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Satisfaction with Pre-Award Support from College (by Gender** & Race/Ethnicity**)
27.7
15.0
37.9
13.5
15.4
17.9
37.2
54.8
20.7
62.2
46.2
50.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Female
Male
Af Amer
Asian
Hispanic
WhiteG
ende
rR
ace/
Eth
nici
ty
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 25: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Satisfaction with Pre-Award Support from College (by % of Time Spent on Research/Scholarly Activities)
18.3
18.6
20.8
17.6
60.2
49.9
45.7
41.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
>50%
26% - 50%
11% - 25%
1% - 10%
% o
f Tim
e
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 26: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Post-award support from college
![Page 27: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Satisfaction with Post-Award Supportfrom College (by College**)
13.8
11.1
14.9
8.1
6.3
20.0
8.0
36.1
0.0
11.4
58.6
61.1
55.3
60.7
62.5
48.0
58.5
27.8
58.3
40.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
PAMS
CVM
CNR*
COE
COM*
COT*
CALS
CED*
DESIGN*
CHASS
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 28: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Satisfaction with Post-Award Supportfrom College
(by Tenure Status and N Years at NCSU)
10.5
13.2
11.0
15.4
7.8
12.4
10.0
52.6
60.5
53.9
53.7
51.7
54.5
62.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
NTT*
Non-Ten
Tenured
< 7 yrs
7-15yrs
16-25yrs
> 25 yrs
Ten
ure
Sta
tus
N Y
ears
at
NC
SU
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 29: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Satisfaction with Post-Award Supportfrom College
(by Gender** & Race/Ethnicity**)
14.0
10.6
17.4
6.0
15.4
11.7
48.0
57.2
39.1
62.7
61.5
54.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Female
Male
Af Amer*
Asian
Hispanic*
WhiteG
en
de
rR
ace
/Eth
nic
ity
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 30: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Satisfaction with Post-Award Support from College
(by % of Time Spent on Research/Scholarly Activities)
9.2
12.6
11.4
10.3
63.2
52.7
56.3
52.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
>50%
26% - 50%
11% - 25%
1% - 10%
% o
f Tim
e
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 31: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Comparison of Satisfaction with Pre- & Post-Award Support from College
(by College)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0%
"S
atis
fied
" o
r "V
ery
Sat
isfi
ed" Pre-Award
Post-Award
![Page 32: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Pre-award support from the university
![Page 33: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Satisfaction with Pre-Award Supportfrom University (by College**)
13.0
32.4
18.6
10.7
3.9
4.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
60.9
41.2
53.5
57.1
59.8
56.0
58.8
47.8
30.0
40.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
PAMS
CED*
CNR*
CALS
COE
CVM
COM*
COT*
CHASS
DESIGN*
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 34: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Satisfaction with Pre-Award Supportfrom University
(by Tenure Status and N Years at NCSU**)
8.1
18.1
8.2
17.8
7.0
8.0
7.0
54.1
46.7
54.3
50.7
50.3
50.5
63.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
NTT*
Non-Ten
Tenured
< 7 yrs
7-15yrs
16-25yrs
> 25 yrs
Ten
ure
Sta
tus
N Y
ears
at
NC
SU
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 35: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Satisfaction with Pre-Award Supportfrom University (by Gender** & Race/Ethnicity**)
15.9
7.9
29.6
8.1
25.0
8.7
45.0
55.4
25.9
58.1
50.0
54.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Female
Male
Af Amer*
Asian
Hispanic*
WhiteG
en
de
rR
ace
/Eth
nic
ity
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 36: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
Satisfaction with Pre-Award Supportfrom University
(by % of Time Spent on Research/Scholarly Activities)
7.9
10.2
9.4
9.6
56.6
50.5
53.7
50.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
>50%
26% - 50%
11% - 25%
1% - 10%%
of T
ime
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 37: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Post-award support from the university
![Page 38: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Satisfaction with Post-Award Supportfrom University (by College)
0.0
12.5
5.7
6.7
8.5
0.0
4.1
19.4
9.1
10.3
84.6
52.5
58.2
56.0
52.1
55.6
51.0
35.5
45.5
30.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
COM*
CNR*
COE
CALS
PAMS
DESIGN*
CVM
CED*
COT*
CHASS
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 39: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Satisfaction with Post-Award Supportfrom University
(by Tenure Status and N Years at NCSU**)
9.7
13.8
6.4
13.4
5.1
7.0
6.3
48.4
54.3
51.7
51.5
50.6
46.2
62.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
NTT*
Non-Ten
Tenured
< 7 yrs
7-15yrs
16-25yrs
> 25 yrs
Te
nu
re S
tatu
sN
Ye
ars
at N
CS
U
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 40: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Satisfaction with Post-Award Supportfrom University (by Gender & Race/Ethnicity)
10.6
6.8
9.5
8.9
25.0
7.1
44.7
54.0
38.1
57.1
50.0
52.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Female
Male
Af Amer*
Asian
Hispanic*
WhiteG
en
de
rR
ace
/Eth
nic
ity
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 41: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Satisfaction with Post-Award Supportfrom University
(by % of Time Spent on Research/Scholarly Activities)
5.1
8.1
7.1
8.8
57.7
45.3
59.3
55.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
>50%
26% - 50%
11% - 25%
1% - 10%
% o
f Tim
e
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied
![Page 42: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
Comparison of Satisfaction with Pre- & Post-Award Support from University
(by College)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
CALSCED*
CHASSCNR*
COE
COM
*
COT*
CVM
DESIGN*
PAMS
% "
Sa
tis
fie
d"
or
"Ve
ry S
ati
sfi
ed
" Pre-Award
Post-Award
![Page 43: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
Indirect Costs
![Page 44: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
Satisfaction with Indirect Costs/Overhead
3.0
3.6
3.8
33.7
31.7
23.1
37.0
34.6
31.0
27.8
38.5
32.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Alloc to PI
Alloc to Dept
PI Control
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied Dissatisf ied Very Dissatisf ied
![Page 45: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
Satisfaction With Allocation of Indirect Costs to PI (by College)
9.5
1.8
8.1
21.4
0.0
2.4
1.9
4.4
3.8
0.0
57.1
47.3
40.5
21.4
41.7
36.6
36.9
33.8
23.8
22.7
19.0
32.7
40.5
21.4
50.0
29.3
35.0
36.8
17.5
35.9
14.3
18.2
10.8
35.7
8.3
31.7
26.2
25.0
55.0
41.4
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
COT*
CVM
CED*
COM*
DESIGN*
CNR*
CALS
CHASS
PAMS
COE
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied Dissatisf ied Very Dissatisf ied
![Page 46: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
Satisfaction With Allocation of Indirect Costs to Department (by College)
18.8
8.3
21.4
4.6
3.1
3.9
0.0
2.8
0.0
1.4
50.0
38.9
21.4
35.4
35.9
33.3
36.4
33.3
24.5
20.3
25.0
44.4
28.6
38.5
37.5
47.1
45.5
38.9
37.7
25.7
6.3
8.3
28.6
21.5
23.4
15.7
18.2
25.0
37.7
52.7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
COT*
CED*
COM*
CHASS
CALS
CVM
DESIGN*
CNR*
COE
PAMS
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied Dissatisf ied Very Dissatisf ied
![Page 47: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
Satisfaction With PI Control Over Indirect Costs Allocation (by College)
15.4
0.0
1.8
7.7
5.3
2.5
4.0
9.5
5.0
0.0
30.8
45.5
35.7
27.7
28.9
27.5
22.4
14.3
18.8
14.8
15.4
36.4
37.5
33.8
47.4
35.0
38.3
42.9
20.0
33.6
38.5
18.2
25.0
30.8
18.4
35.0
35.3
33.3
56.3
51.6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
COM*
DESIGN*
CVM
CHASS
CED*
CNR*
CALS
COT*
PAMS
COE
Percentage of Respondents
Very Satisf ied Satisf ied Dissatisf ied Very Dissatisf ied
![Page 48: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
Open-end comments: Biggest challenges to grant/contract-related activities 521 respondents Up to 3 coded comments each 14 general categories
– Support -- Accounting– Administration -- Obtaining funding– Workload -- Personal– Recognition/rewards -- Tech transfer, IP– Legal issues -- Funding agency– Political issues -- IRB– Miscellaneous/Other– Positive comments!
![Page 49: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
49
Challenges to Grant/Contract-Related Activites
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Support
Accounting
Administration
Obtaining Funding
Workload
Personal
Recognition/Rew ards
TechTransfer/IP
Legal
Funding Agency
Political Issues
IRB issues
Misc/Other
Positive comments
% of Respondents Mentioning(N = 521)
![Page 50: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
Administrative Support N of
Comments% of
Resps*
Staff competency/attitude/turnover 62 11.9
Pre-award support 39 7.5
Budget/accounting support 27 5.2
Facilities/equipment (e.g., availability, adequacy)
13 2.5
Post-award support 11 2.1
Support for RAs (GSSP, regulations) 10 1.9
Training/guidance for grant writing (e.g., proposal, budget, accounting standards, examples)
7 1.3
Administrative support/Grant management
6 1.2
General/Miscellaneous support 18 3.5
Total Support Comments 193 37.0
![Page 51: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
Challenges to Grant/Contract Related Activities: Administrative Support
(by College)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
COT
CALSCVM
CNR
PAMS
COM
CHASSCED
COE
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
![Page 52: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
Administrative SupportColleges w/
most comments
Colleges w/ fewest
comments
Staff competency/attitude/turnover
COE, PAMS, CNR, CALS, CHASS, COT
CED, CVM,
Pre-award supportCOE, COM,
CHASS, COT, CED
PAMS, DESIGN, CALS
Budget/accounting support COECOT, COM,
DESIGN, CNR
Post-award support CED (all others)
![Page 53: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53
Accounting System/BudgetN of
Comments% of
Resps*
Cost accounting standards/micromanagement (I.e., level of detail required)
36 6.9
Purchasing (e.g., restrictions, flexibility, difficulty) 31 6.0
Delay in setting up accounts/receipt of funds 27 5.2
Budget management (e.g., awareness of up-to-date account balance)
24 4.6
Mismatch between NCSU and funding agency budget/accounting requirements
17 3.3
Complexity of accounting/budget rules 13 2.5
Subcontract/cross-college/cross-institution budgeting/accounting
10 1.9
Rebudgeting 9 1.7
End of grant budget resolution 2 0.4
General/Miscellaneous accounting/budget 7 1.3
Total Accounting System/Budget Comments 176 33.8
![Page 54: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
54
Challenges to Grant/Contract Related Activities: Accounting System/Budget
(by College)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
COM
DESIGN
CED
CHASSCO
ECVM
COT
CNR
PAMS
CALS
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
![Page 55: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
55
Accounting System/BudgetColleges w/
most comments
Colleges w/ fewest
comments
Cost accounting standards/micromanagement (I.e., level of detail required)
CNR, CALS (all others)
Purchasing (e.g., restrictions, flexibility, difficulty)
CALS (all others)
Delay in setting up accounts/receipt of funds
CALS, COT (all others)
Budget management (e.g., awareness of up-to-date account balance)
COT, PAMS (all others)
Subcontract/cross-college/cross-institution budgeting/accounting
CVM (all others)
![Page 56: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
56
AdministrationN of
Comments% of
Resps*
Overhead - indirect costs 40 7.7
Bureaucracy/Red tape (amount of procedures/rules/regulations/requirements)
35 6.7
Paperwork (excessive) 17 3.3
Proposal processing time 17 3.3
Problems w/ online system 12 2.3
Clarity/Complexity of rules/procedures/process 8 1.5
General/Miscellaneous administration 7 1.3
Total Administration Comments 136 26.1
![Page 57: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
57
Challenges to Grant/Contract Related Activities: Administration
(by College)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
CHASS
DESIGN
CEDCO
TCO
ECO
M
PAMS
CALSCVM
CNR
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
![Page 58: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
58
AdministrationColleges w/ most
comments
Colleges w/ fewest
comments
Overhead - indirect costsPAMS,
CNR, COMCVM,
CHASS
Bureaucracy/Red tape (amount of procedures/rules/regulations/requirements)
CVM, CNR, CALS
COT, DESIGN, CHASS
Proposal processing time CVM
![Page 59: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
59
Obtaining FundingN of
Comments% of
Resps*
Identifying funding opportunities 22 4.2
Limited avail of grants in research area 19 3.6
Funding for pilot/preliminary research/proposal development
12 2.3
Low funding rates (agency not funding as many as in past…)
12 2.3
Competition (lack of NCSU prestige/facilities) 7 1.3
Lack of internal funding 5 1.0
Matching funds 5 1.0
Limited availability of funding opportunities/agencies
4 0.8
Bridge funding 3 0.6
General/Miscellaneous funding obstacles 13 2.5
Total Funding Comments 102 19.6
![Page 60: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
60
Challenges to Grant/Contract Related Activities: Obtaining Funding
(by College)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
CNR
PAMS
DESIGN
CALSCED
CVMCO
TCO
E
CHASSCO
M
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
![Page 61: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
61
Obtaining FundingColleges w/ most
comments
Colleges w/ fewest
comments
Identifying funding opportunitiesCHASS,
COM, COT, CED
CVM, COE, PAMS,
CALS CNR
Limited avail of grants in research area COMCOE, CNR,
PAMS, CALS
![Page 62: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
62
Workload/TimeN of
Comments% of
Resps*
Release time 8 1.5
Maintaining research productivity (e.g., multiple grants, soft money, large centers)
4 0.8
General/Miscellaneous workload/time issues
45 8.6
Total Workload/Time Comments 57 10.9
![Page 63: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
63
Challenges to Grant/Contract Related Activities: Workload
(by College)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
COE
COM
CALSCVM
PAMS
CHASSCO
TCNR
DESIGN
CED
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
![Page 64: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
64
Personal IssuesN of
Comments% of
Resps*
Pressure/expectations for funded research 12 2.3
Lack of procedural knowledge/Knowing where/who to go for help
11 2.1
Finding people to collaborate with 10 1.9
Mentoring/guidance 5 1.0
Availability/Quality of RAs 4 0.8
Grant writing ability 3 0.6
Developing research plan/idea 2 0.4
General/Miscellaneous personal issues 6 1.2
Total Personal Comments 53 10.2
![Page 65: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
65
Challenges to Grant/Contract Related Activities: Personal Issues
(by College)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
COM
CVMCO
ECNR
COT
CALS
PAMS
CED
CHASS
DESIGN
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
![Page 66: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
66
Closing comments:“Most serious problems or concerns that you have in working at NC State” (open-end)
35 comments directly related to support for grants/contracts (see handout)
(LOTS of comments about emphasis on grants, time, funding issues, overhead distribution)
![Page 67: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
67
Closing comments:“Most significant changes that should be made at NC State to improve/enhance the quality of your work life.” (open-end)
32 comments directly related to support for grants/contracts (see handout)
![Page 68: 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022013101/568153c6550346895dc1bfcc/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
68
Closing comments:“Most positive aspect of being a member of the faculty at NC State.” (open-end)
5 comments directly related to support for grants/contracts (see handout)