Grant Relief
Grants provide the opportunity to secure resources in a manner that is consistent with the mission of a research university. In short, a grant from an external funding agency provides funds in exchange for research or service. In all except for rare cases, grants are not awarded simply because the funding agency recognizes that someone has expertise. Usually they must be actively sought through funding proposals that are often part of a competitive process. Like publishing an article in a strong professional journal, the best grants are often the most difficult to obtain and require persistence and a willingness to revise, revise, and then revise.
Grants provide resources for the College in at least three ways. First, there are the funds that go directly to pay for the research or service project. These are often referred to as "direct funds" because they directly pay for the expenses of the project. These monies make the project possible and should always be the primary purpose for securing a grant. As much as we talk about the need to secure external funding in order to address College resource deficits, I believe that the first and foremost reason for securing external funding should be increase our understanding or to use our expertise to bring some benefit to society.
The second way that grants provide resources is through "indirect funds." These are funds intended to pay the hidden costs that might be associated with the project. Such costs include space costs, administrative services, and day-to-day costs such as lighting and local phone calls. Indirect funds are usually provided as a percentage of the direct funds. For example, research grants obtained from the federal government provide for an additional 45% of the direct cost to be added as indirect funds. (For a complete list of indirect fund rates go to http://sam.research.sc.edu/guideindirectcosts.html.) For every dollar of indirect funds that comes to the University, 14 cents are set aside for building a research infrastructure. The remaining 86 cents are split into two parts: 43 cents goes to the University and 43 cents is sent to the College. The College of Education has adopted a policy that 50% of the indirect money it receives will be returned to the department that runs the project. When grant and contract proposals are developed by faculty or staff members from more than one department, an agreement is made to govern the distribution of the departments' share of indirect funds.
The third way that we obtain resources from grants and contracts is a bit hidden, yet is of significant consequence to the College and departments. In fact, of the three sources of revenue from a grant, this source is the only one for which all of the monies stay with the College without restrictions. These unrestricted funds can be used to enhance our operations in any way that matches our College priorities. This method of revenue generation is known as "salary savings." Grants and contracts necessarily require the use of someone's time to perform the research or provide the service. In almost all cases we should charge this time as a direct cost in the funding proposal. That is, we agree to spend part of our professional time working on a project in exchange for the agency funding part of our salary. This portion of the salary is money that the College had anticipated paying but now does not have to pay because of external funding. This is where the term "salary savings" comes from.
In the new budgeting system that we are using in the College, salary savings is reflected as an income to the College and to departments. Whenever a grant results in salary savings, 50% of the savings is put in the College reserve. In the worst of times, this reserve is used to address budget cuts or deficits. In the best of times, this becomes discretionary money that the Dean can appropriate for special projects, infrastructure upgrades, or other needs within the College. The other 50% of the savings is sent to the department conducting the research or running the project. The department can then decide how to use these monies, but most departments have a policy of allocating at least some portion of the funds (often around 50%) for the investigators' professional use. (For those not familiar with the term, "investigators" are those who are conducting the research. The "principal investigator" is the person who assumes primary responsibility for the research or project.) Faculty members can use professional funds for professional travel, computer hardware or software, and professional dues, to name a few common uses.
There is one situation that slightly changes the distribution of salary savings. Some departments or offices secure grants or projects through the work of faculty members from another "home department." Two good examples of these kinds of offices are the Office of Program Evaluation and the Policy Center. These offices have been established to provide specific kinds of services, but the faculty members who conduct this work usually reside in one of the academic departments. It is the work of the faculty and staff that enables the offices to generate funding, but these faculty and staff members benefit from having the administrative support and resources of these offices. To acknowledge the services of these offices and support their growth, while at the same time maintaining the revenue flow into the home department of the faculty or staff member, the College has adopted a policy of a 50-40-10 split in salary savings when the funding is generated by one of these offices. The College continues to receive 50% of the salary savings, the home department will receive 40% of the savings, and the office will receive 10% of the salary savings. This method of distribution allows us to sustain and enrich our revenue offices and at the same provides home departments a return on the salary savings.
One final word on salary savings: In the past many grant proposals were written without including a portion of salary as a direct cost. This helps keep down project costs and also addresses match requirements (i.e. the requirement of a funding agency for the recipient to contribute resources to the project). Though these reasons may be admirable, they are often not necessary. Many funding agencies do not expect a match of funds. Furthermore, when matching funds are required there are other ways to do this that result in a proposal that is just as competitive as if salary had been used. We must acknowledge that time is our most precious resource right now. Faculty and staffing levels have had to be kept low in order to address budget cuts. It makes little sense to give away our time for free when most of us feel the pressure of maintaining large work loads in order to address budget cuts. I will be reviewing all proposals carefully to make certain that salary charges are included on grant proposals. When the funding agency requires a salary match, my policy will be to restrict our portion of the match to no more than 50% of the time commitment.