I agree with Charlie. We have a "5 day rule" and I would say compliance is about 30%. However, I would say that we do get budgets and other administrative portions earlier than we used to. We have the FULL SUPPORT of our Dean which is extremely helpful. If a grant goes out that is "not 100%" and doesn't get funded, then we could always pull our "5 day rule" jargon on the faculty member stating non-compliance. We won't guarantee a grant will go out if we don't get it at least by Noon of the send by date. We also will not stay after hours to send out a grant. As far as reading RFA guidelines, follow guidelines during proposal preparation, etc. -- we do have an individual here who can help them with writing, etc., but I don't think the service is used as often as it should be. Have a good weekend all! Domenica At 05:03 PM 3/8/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Show me the intrepid soul who sets and strictly enforces a 10 day internal >deadline and I will make my pilgrimage to that Campostela of sponsored >projects office to praise and learn from this warrior, this visionary, >this bodhisattva! > >However, for a strict internal deadline to work you need Presidents and >Deans willing to take off the gloves, and they won't do that unless the >faculty is behind the idea, and the faculty won't be behind the idea >unless they are convinced that all this extra time to "review" increases >their chances of funding. So, if all you propose to do is the usual >budget and regulatory compliance kind of review, you aren't going to >convince the faculty. > >Do all grant applicants at your institution read RFA guidelines, follow >guidelines during proposal preparation, write well, solicit critiques by >experts in their specific area, solicit critiques by other scholars >outside their specific area, budget time well enough so that these >critiques can actually be used to change the proposal, proofread, and have >numerous other grantsmanship skills and common sense? > >No? Then these are the kinds of things that you might promise (if not >actually provide) in arguing for strict early internal deadlines. The >full argument will require some elegant math to convince the >administration how improving the quality of 500 assistant professor >submitted proposals over a 5 year period will result in enough $$ to more >than compensate for the 5 full professor proposals who quit and take their >grants elsewhere because you refused to sign their late proposals. > >Charlie Hathaway > > >At 04:30 PM 3/7/02 -0500, you wrote: > >Hello All. > >UMass would like to pick your collective brains... Like many of you, I > am sure, we > >are stuggling with limited resources and growing demand for our > services. One area > >that we are exploring is a firm internal receipt deadline for proposals > to our > >sponsored research office. I would appreciate knowing how many of you > set a firm > >deadline for your faculty to submit proposals to your office for review > & submission > >to the sponsor. > > > >If you do set an internal deadline, what is it? Do you have a separate > policy for > >NSF Fastlane or other electronic proposals? If you have a firm > deadline, do you not > >accept proposals from faculty members if they don't give you the > requisite lead > >time, or do you have an exception handling policy? If so, what is it? > > > >Also, what level of review do you provide on your proposals: institutional > >compliance, sponsor compliance, or both? Is the level of review you > give a proposal > >related in any way to the amount of time your faculty gives your office > to review it > >before it is due to the sponsor? > > > >Are there other "value added" services you provide, such as copying and > mailing? > >Again, are these related to how long you are given to review & process a > proposal > >before it is due to a sponsor? > > > >If others would like me to share the information I receive, just drop me > an email & > >I'll be happy to do so.... Thanks so much for your help and information! > >-jennifer > >-- > >Jennifer Donais, CRA > >Assistant Director > >Office of Grant & Contract Administration > >University of Massachusetts > >Amherst, MA 01003 > >(413) 545-5888 FAX (413) 577-1595 > >http://www.umass.edu/research/ogca > > > >"If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked > something." > > > > > >====================================================================== > > Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including > > subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available > > via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") > >====================================================================== > > > > > > >====================================================================== > Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including > subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available > via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") >====================================================================== Domenica G. Pappas, CRA Associate Director Office of Sponsored Research and Programs Illinois Institute of Technology 3300 S. Federal Street Main Building, Room 301H Chicago, IL 60616-3793 Phone: (312) 567-3035 Fax: (312) 567-6980 Email: xxxxxx@iit.edu web: www.iit.edu ====================================================================== Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") ======================================================================
