2006 faculty well-being survey: contracts and grants
Post on 05-Jan-2016
40 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants
Research and Graduate Studies RetreatPresentation
March 1, 2007Nancy Whelchel, PhDAssistant Director for Survey ResearchUniversity Planning and Analysishttp://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/survey/faculty/
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 Things to think about?
3
Survey Population & Response Rate
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) 69.7% response rate
– No significant differences in response rates among subgroups
4
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
5
Contracts/Grants question
What are the biggest challenges you face related to grant/contract-related activities at NC State? (open-end)
6
Awareness of grant/contract-related activities…
25% or more said they had ‘insufficient experience’ to answer the questions about contracts/grants support
Awareness is higher for:– Pre-award support (compared to post-
award)– College-level support (compared to
university-level)
7
Awareness of grant/contract-related activities…
Two-thirds or more said they had ‘insufficient experience’ to answer the questions about indirect costs
8
(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
9
(Un)Awareness pre-award support from college
By college– Most unaware (by far):
• COM (58%), CHASS (53%), Design (46%)
– Least unaware• COE (7%), COT (7%)
By tenure status– Non-tenured less aware than tenured
(also by gender and race/ethnicity)
10
(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
11
Satisfaction with pre- and post-award support
60% - 69% ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with pre- & post-award support from college and university
Slightly more positive about– Pre-award support (compared to post-
award)– College-level support (compared to
university-level)
12
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
13
Satisfaction with support for research activities
Faculty generally give lower ratings to support for research activities compared to other aspects of working at NC State.
14
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
15
Pre-award support from college
Most likely to be “very satisfied”– CED (60%)– PAMS (29%)– CNR (25%)
16
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
17
Post-award support from college
Most likely to be ‘very satisfied’– CED (36%)– COT (20%)
18
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
19
Comparisons of ratings for college pre- & post-award support, by college More positive about pre-award than
post-award (largest ‘gap’)– CHASS– Design
More positive about post-award than pre-award (largest ‘gap’)– CVM– PAMS
20
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
21
Pre-award support from the university
Most likely to be ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’– By college
• PAMS (74%), CED (74%), CNR (72%), CALS (68%), COE (64%)
– By years at NC State• >25 years (71%), < 7 years (69%)
– By race/ethnicity• Hispanic (75%), Asian (66%), White (63%)
22
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
23
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
24
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
25
Post-award support from the university
Most likely to be ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’– By college
• COM (85%)
– By years at NC State• >25 years (69%), < 7 years (65%)
– By race/ethnicity• Hispanic (75%), Asian (66%), White (59%)
26
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
27
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
28
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
29
Comparisons of ratings for university pre- & post-award support, by college More positive about pre-award than
post-award (largest ‘gap’)– CED– PAMS
More positive about post-award than pre-award (largest ‘gap’)– COM– Design
30
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
31
(Dis)Satisfaction with Indirect Costs
About two-thirds or more dissatisfied with indirect costs
Most dissatisfied with PI control over allocation (38% ‘very dissatisfied,’ 35% ‘dissatisfied’)
32
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
33
Highest Dissatisfaction with Indirect Costs (by college)
Allocation to PI– COE (77%), PAMS (72%)
Allocation to department– PAMS (78%), COE (75%)
PI control over allocation– COE (85%), PAMS (76%), etc.
34
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
35
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
36
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
37
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!
38
Open-end comments: Biggest challenges to grant/contract-related activities
Most problematic– Support– Budgeting/Accounting
39
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)
40
Administrative Support
41
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
42
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
43
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)
44
Accounting System/Budgeting
45
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
46
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
47
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)
48
Administration/Bureaucracy
49
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
50
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
51
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
52
Obtaining Funding
53
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
54
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
55
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
56
Workload/Time
57
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
58
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
59
Personal Issues/Concerns
60
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
61
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
62
Closing Open-Ends: Comments Related to Contracts and Grants
“Most positive aspect of being a member of the faculty at NC State” (N=869)– 5 comments
“Most serious problems or concerns that you have in working at NC State” (N=873)– 35 comments
Most significant changes that should be made at NC State to improve/enhance the quality of your work life.” (N=818)– 32 comments
63
Summary: Things to Think About? Increase awareness/familiarity with services Provide/enhance support staff
– Increase number of staff (both pre- and post-award)
– Limit turnover– Improve training– Have ‘can-do’ attitude
Improve accounting/budgeting– Complexity– Delays
Help faculty to understand indirect costs (e.g., where the money goes and why)
top related