Hi-

Some time ago I posed several questions concerning the way institutions try to prevent problems associated with faculty contact with private foundations. The responses painted different pictures of organization, indifference, and chaos in the overlap of development and research office activities.

The following is based on information from 4 state universities, 5 private universities, 2 medical schools, and 2 primarily undergraduate colleges.  I have used the terms "research office" and "development office" generically to describe the administrative group(s) dealing with sponsored projects and fundraising respectively.

A long-winded summary of the responses can be found below.  The basic conclusions seem to be:
1) Development and Research Offices should work cooperatively on issues concerning faculty funding appeals to private foundations.
2) Policies which restrict faculty contacts with private foundations should consider the actual benefits derived (or catastrophes averted) from different levels of restriction and whether enforcement is necessary or possible.
3) Faculty compliance with policies and success with foundation proposals may be related to the amount of foundation-related assistance provided to them by the Development and/or Pre-Award Offices.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

While no tales of disaster were related to me, most everyone seems to understand the worse case scenario:
Asst. Prof. X of University Q needs $10,000 to repair a centrifuge and submits a proposal to Foundation Y.  Foundation Y is currently being courted, coaxed, and cultivated by University Q's President to donate $4 million for a new science building.  Board member Z embarrasses the President by asking about the research of Prof. X ("Who?") and pointing out inconsistencies between the President's and Prof. X's remarks concerning university resources.  Foundation Y board becomes suspicious.  No new building.  Centrifuge still broken.

Could this have been prevented via policy?

Here are the questions I asked, along with a couple I did not ask but got answers to anyway:

IS CLEARANCE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ANY CONTACT WITH A PRIVATE FOUNDATION?

Requirements vary.

1) Some institutions have no restrictions. While it is possible that foundation funding is not significant for either the institution or faculty, I suspect the absence of policy stems from an absence of institution-wide consideration of the issue.
2) Some institutions require clearance only for approaches to selected foundations.  This select group may comprise local foundations or the major national big money ones and may be listed on a web site.
3) Some institutions have (and many more development offices would LIKE to have) a policy requiring clearance for approaches to ALL foundations.  Many respondents who described this type of system also used words/phrases such as "supposedly", "theoretically", "real world" or quoted from texts on principles of executive conduct...in other words, ENFORCEMENT is nearly impossible.

Of course, clearance requirements should be specific as to what constitutes "contact" with a foundation. Is it telepathy?  Phone calls?  Or only mailed proposals with institutional sign-offs?  A common initial approach to foundations is the 2-5 page pre-proposal (aka letter of inquiry) without institutional sign-off.

Several institutions do not restrict initial foundation contacts provided that pre-proposals are without detailed budgets and seek less than some specified amount (e.g. $25-50K).  These and less formal contacts/requests are not handled by the research office.  This type of distinction prevents misunderstandings about institutional commitment while allowing contact this is perceived as innocuous.  Apparently, disasters are more likely either late in the review process or when funds requested are large.

One institution permitted pre-proposal contacts only after "approval" (apparently unwritten) by the Department Chairperson.  They also encouraged faculty to cc the Research Office on all pre-proposal correspondence with foundations.

Inasmuch as no institution is able to prevent unapproved faculty approaches nor inclined to enforce restrictions (i.e. prepared to turn down awards obtained in part by unauthorized contacts), most policies are accompanied by prayers that nothing really bad happens.

HOW IS CLEARANCE REQUESTED?

This often depends on the nature of relationship between faculty and research offices and development offices.  Many institutions permit proposals to be submitted through either the Research Office or the Development Office (or equivalent administrative entities).  There may or may not be rules governing this.  For example, will the anticipated funding be a "grant" or a "gift"?  Does the funder name contain "foundation" or "corporation"?  Is the funding needed for "research" or for "services/training"?

Despite rules and definitions, several instances were cited in which distinctions were blurred and each office did its own thing.  Ideally, research Offices will review proposals for those which the development people need to see.

In two cases, it was noted that the development office also needs to inform the research office about all submissions so that in the event of an actual award, an account will be set up and proper management procedures applied.

At the pre-proposal stage, a required clearance request is likely a phone call or email: "May I contact this foundation?".

One institution requests a one-page "idea paper".  This is used to formulate a strategy for the specific proposal.  Such  assistance-oriented procedures (see below) will necessarily bring the faculty, research office, and development office together.

One institution relies on the initial stage of its electronic proposal system: faculty send in basic info about intent to submit and this includes name of intended sponsor.  If the sponsor is among those on a pull-down list (see #2 above), the proposal gets routed to Development for approval.

WHAT ARE THE FACTORS CONSIDERED IN GRANTING CLEARANCE?

Whether stated in policy or not, institutional priorities will always take precedence over individual funding searches.  The main factor usually mentioned in policies is whether the institution has an on-going relationship with or agenda for the foundation?

Again, good communication between administrative units may prevent the clearly sub-optimal adversarial situation in which development offices become unnecessarily proprietary about ALL foundations.

WHO MAKES THE DECISION ON CLEARANCE?

Usually the head of the development office or someone higher.  At one institution, the specific person reviewing and granting clearance changed when proposals exceeded $50,000 per year.

In some cases, committees were organized specifically to make these decisions.  Membership included representatives from both research and development sides.  In one case, a "Corporate/Foundations Relations Committee" consisted of 4 people from development and 2 from sponsored research.

At another institution, a committee was formed with a more equal mix, including post-award people and a dean.  However, in this case, the committee served mainly to inform the director of the research office who then makes most decisions, usually with some input from development.

HOW FAST IS A CLEARANCE DECISION MADE?

Most who replied described a fast turn-around.  I assume that this occurs only when policies are clear and the importance of fast turn-around has been emphasized.  Timely decisions may be a good non-draconian way to encourage compliance with clearance requirements.

For the joint development/research committees mentioned above, monthly meetings are held with urgent requests handled (somehow) via email.

DOES RESEARCH ADMIN/SPONSORED PROJECTS SHARE A DATABASE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE?

This varied considerably.  Most seemed to be moving toward some form of joint access.  In a few cases, the alternative was open communication and formal meetings to consider requests for clearance.

Indeed, one response pointed out that while shared data between offices meant nothing to the problem of individual faculty initiating contacts, sharing anything might be a first step toward better communication leading to a more efficient system.

ARE FACULTY ASSISTED WITH THEIR FOUNDATION SEARCHING AND/OR APPROACHES?

Depending on the clearance decision, several institutions have procedures for providing contact info to researchers or suggesting other potential sources of private funding.

Assumptions:
1) Development people know more about approaching foundations than individual faculty or research administrators.
2) Without prior contact or history, unsolicited letters of inquiry have very little chance of success.
3) Faculty are more likely to comply with foundation clearance rules if assistance with private funding searches is available.

If these assumptions are correct, it may be in the best interest of all for development to provide some level of assistance to individual faculty members.
**************************************************************

From my sample, size of institution did not seem to be related to increased recognition of the issues involved and/or perfection of policy.  Complexity of administrative structure and a large research faculty may make solutions more difficult to implement.

Charlie Hathaway
**************************************
Charles B. Hathaway, Ph.D., Director
Office of Grant Support
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
1300 Morris Park Avenue
Bronx, NY 10461
Phone: 718 430-3642     Fax: 718 430-8822
email: xxxxxx@aecom.yu.edu
http://www.aecom.yu.edu/ogs

======================================================================
 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")
======================================================================