Linda, we are also a small institution.  (With research activities growing
until this year.  Like many schools, we are restructuring, which has
taken most of our attention.  That, plus disorganization in Washington,
has led to a decline in number of proposals submitted during 1995-96.
Others have noticed the same phenomenon, I believe.)

We measure everything by academic year: number of proposals
submitted, number of them funded, direct and indirect costs requested,
direct and indirect costs funded, etc.  That means that we are about to
close the books on 1994-95, since many of the 94-95 proposals were
just recently decided upon.  We'll close the 1995-96 books next summer.
Each August I write a final report detailing the activities of the past two
years and summarizing previous years.

We count every submission as a separate proposal, even if it is a
duplicate of one submitted elsewhere.

I have to work a little to reconcile my reports with that of the post-award
folks, since they count total dollars received during our fiscal year, with
no regard for the year in which the proposal was submitted.  Worth it to
me.  I established this counting system when I came here for two
reasons:

1. My primary measure of success is number of proposals submitted.  I
wanted a way to measure the number of proposals submitted, year by
year.

2. The academic side of the university, where I am located, measures
everything by academic year; therefore, so should I.

It works pretty well.  So far I have been able to produce far more data
than anyone pays attention to.  (The first rule for bureaucrats: drown 'em
in paper.)

Bill Campbell
Director, Grants & Research
University of Wisconsin-River Falls