Would any universities be able to share some aspect of their decision making process with regards to “voluntary uncommitted cost share”, specifically as it relates to 9-month faculty appointments?

 

I have seen that some institutions do identify and charge faculty effort to sponsored projects during the academic year, resulting in a cost savings to the university (and allowing the collection of some F&A). In some of these cases, those cost savings are passed back to the faculty member in the form of additional research discretionary funding, in other cases the university appears to simply retain the cost savings.

 

In other cases, some universities appear to avoid identifying and charging faculty effort during the academic year to sponsored projects. If the faculty member spends any time during the academic year on research, it is paid by the university as part of their 9-month contract, regardless of whether or not some of that research is for external sponsors. I believe this results in varying degrees of “voluntary uncommitted cost sharing”.

 

If a faculty member is applying for a grant that will include effort during the summer, for which they are requesting salary, it seems likely that they will also spend some amount of time on the project during the academic year as well. Given that, what compelling reasons would a university have for not requesting funds for the effort during the academic year, and instead just call it “part of the faculty contract” aka “voluntary uncommitted cost sharing”?

 

Thanks,

 

-------

Chris Bond

Director, Sponsored Research Administration

Alfred University

607-871-2964 | xxxxxx@alfred.edu