We've submitted two or three modular grants and have asked PI's for detailed budgets
to check salaries and the other things that other respondents have listed. So far
as I can see, this is one of those streamlining devices that streamlines the
sponsor's work but not the applicant's.
Pat Hawk wrote:
> Hi Jane,
>
> We out here in Duck Country (Univ. of Oregon) have made an announcement
> about the availability of modular grants via our office listserve, but
> haven't worked out how we're going to handle them yet. We're wrestling
> with the questions you raise; I'm still not sure how we can avoid asking
> for a detailed budget for our internal processing. Seems to me we still
> have to know if there are graduate students on the budget (tuition
> remission issue), in addition to other things like subcontracts and
> equipment. I think we also need to be assured that the PI has thought
> about all of his/her costs as a "check" to ensure that the budget matches
> the technical narrative (I get hung up on the A-110 language that says
> the budget is the financial expression of a project). The institution
> continues to have a responsibility to submit an appropriate application,
> even if NIH doesn't want an itemized budget.
>
> This reminds me very much of Phase II of the Federal Demonstration
> Project when FDP schools were given the expanded authorities that all
> colleges and universities now enjoy thanks to A-110 revisions (no-cost
> extensions, rebudgeting, etc.). These FDP schools still had to have an
> OPAS/IPAS type system in place to do these things--the difference was
> that the institution approved them instead of the funding agency. There
> was no change in the "paperwork" or process involved at UVa (where I had
> my FDP experience). There still had to be a system in place to review
> and approve those changes, and there still had to be a justification for
> these actions even though the sponsor didn't care to know about them.
>
> I'll be interested to hear what others say about this.
>
> By the way, I think the Scarlett O'Hara method is a great philosophy to
> follow. Beats the heck out of the Rhett Butler method.
>
> Pat Hawk
> Sponsored Projects Administrator
> Research Services and Administration 106 Riverfront Research Park
> voice: 541/346-2504
> fax: 541/346-5138
> internet: xxxxxx@oregon.uoregon.edu
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: NIH Modular Grants
> Author: Research Administration Discussion List <xxxxxx@hrinet.org> at
> GATEWAY
> Date: 1/14/99 12:37 PM
>
> After the next big NIH deadline on February 1, the new era of modular grants
> is upon us. I'm wondering if any of you have given thought to how you are
> going to handle these, particularly at the proposal end. Will you required
> detailed budgets or not? Are you planning on having any special faculty
> awareness programs regarding the modular grants? Are you planning on
> putting any special procedures into effect for modular grants? Or, do you
> just want to get through February 1 and think about modular grants later
> (aka the Scarlett O'hara syndrome, of which I am chronically afflected...)?
>
> Admittedly, the NIH Guide announcement was fairly recent, but I was just
> curious if any of you had given this much thought yet.
>
> Hoping all of you in the cold country are staying warm...
>
> Jane
>
> Jane A. Youngers
> Director
> Office of Grants Management
> University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
> 7703 Floyd Curl Drive
> San Antonio TX 78284
> voice: 210-567-2333
> fax: 210-567-2344
> email: xxxxxx@uthscsa.edu
>
> =============================================================================
>
> =============================================================================
--
Peter J. Dolce, Ph.D., Director
Office of Research Support Services
Meharry Medical College
Nashville, TN 37208
P (615) 327 6703
F (615) 327 6716
============================================================================
