External Grants and Contracts

The year 2001-2002 was a year of records! The CSULB Foundation logged in a record $40,773,990 in awards, and the Office of University Research cleared a record 244 proposals for submission to external agencies totaling $110,017,209--also a new record! On the left sidebar are 151 names of those members of the University community who submitted a proposal, received an award, or both.

It is interesting to note that as the institution matures, the percentage of proposals submitted for support of research has increased.

.

By comparison, the dollar amounts requested for research (exclusive of cost-sharing) show an even more dramatic swing toward research.

.

Seventy percent of the dollars requested are for research; 18% for instruction and training activities, 8% for services, and 4% for the miscellaneous category. Ten percent of the dollars requested are due to one very large proposal. Nevertheless even without this proposal in the mix, 60% of the dollars requested are for research activities!

There has been a dramatic increase in the awards from cities and counties category reflecting the activities in several centers and other areas.

An additional category type is displayed this year: school districts, since the activity with them has increased significantly over the past year. Most of the school district funding is federal flow-through.

The distribution of federal awards by departments of the government changed significantly since last year. Funding from the National Institutes of Health (DHHS) declined from about 35% to 20% and from the National Science Foundation (NSF) from about 20% to 8%, while funding from the US Department of Education went up from about 25% to 66%.

This is the result of new funding in student services from Education, new grants for faculty research in Education, and the fact that many life and physical science faculty are in the 2nd year of multi-year grants from NSF and NIH.

Student involvement in faculty research and student research directly supported by external funding continues to increase. Over 2,000 students are listed as being involved in proposed projects. Notable among the direct support programs are the McNair Program which annually produces excellent results among the undergraduate students.

Ten proposals for external funding involved the use of laboratory or field animals. A total of forty-four protocols were approved for using animals. Forty-nine proposals for external funding involved the use of human subjects in research. There were 321 protocols received during the year for using human subjects in research.

The University proposed pledges of $4,497,203 in cost-sharing during the fiscal year. Including about $1 million in cost-sharing by third parties and collaborating institutions, the total cost-sharing commitments for proposed research and other sponsored programs is up approximately $500,000 over last year. The increase is probably related to the record number of proposals, rather than a policy change at funding agencies.

Indirect cost recovery continues to lag expectations. The Foundation reports an overall effective rate of 12.9%, taking into account the large number of grants from private foundations and other not-for-profit agencies that do not pay F&A costs and federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Education which usually pays only 8% F&A. Nevertheless, well over $4.6 million dollars of F&A redistributions were projected on the year's proposals, $1.2 million for the next FY and the remainder spread out over the following four years. During the year the Office of University Research inaugurated a new practice for coming to grips with the persistent problem of rate cutting. A rate exception log is now available on the INTRAnet, showing which grants have been budgeted at less than the federally negotiated rates.

Internal Operations

The Scholarly and Creative Activities Committee administered three internal grant programs this year. Over $209,000 were allocated for MiniGrants (up to $4,000) and Summer Stipends (one month's salary) in the fall competition. One hundred eight 3-unit assigned time awards were made in the spring. A $25,000 fund was made available for the Conference Grant Program for faculty members who actively participated in academic and scholarly conferences.

The eClearance process continues to be refined after five quarters of experience. Proposals have been routed through persons on the east coast and in such far away places as Beijing, China, accomplishing the clearance process despite absence from campus.

The Office of University Research, with the cooperation of the Department of Grants and Contracts Administration CSULB Foundation, has made available a grant budget development workbook on line via the Research INTRAnet. This Excel-based spreadsheet program is viable for 80% of the grant proposals encountered at the University and actually produces the Internal Clearance routing document as well.

Thanks to the following members of the faculty and staff for their work during the year:

• Dr. Al Russo, Chair, Scholarly and Creative Activities Committee
• Dr. Jim Till, Chair of the IRB,
• Dr. Kenneth Green, Chair, AWB
• Ms. Paulette McIntosh, Sr. Assistant Director for University Research
• Ms. Carolyn Dersch, Assistant Director for Sponsored Projects

And special thanks to Rosanna Mogi, JoAnn Haworth, Ellen Teneriello, Frank Gutierrez, Sam Sangalang, Dr. John Young, Dr. Elena Macias, and Dr. Ron Vogel.

Cordially,

James R. Brett, Ph.D.
Director, Office of University Research
August 20, 2002