2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants

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


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


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*


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



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*



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



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



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



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



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



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


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



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



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



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)

Documents

2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants