THE FEDERAL DEMONSTRATION PARTNERSHIP PHASE V UPDATE

Transcription

1 THE FEDERAL DEMONSTRATION PARTNERSHIP PHASE V UPDATE 1

2 What is the FDP? The FDP is a cooperative effort among federal research agencies, universities and other research organizations aimed at streamlining and improving the federal/university research support relationship and reducing administrative burden. The National Academy of Science s Government- University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR) serves as the neutral convener and secretariat of the FDP. The FDP began in 1988 as the Florida Demonstration Project and is now in Phase V which will extend through 2014.

3 FDP MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the FDP is to examine, improve and streamline the administrative processes involved in the competitive appointment, allocation and management of federal funds which support research activities at institutions of higher education throughout the country. This supports the primary goal of streamlining with accountability to decrease researcher time focused on administrative requirements and so maximize the time available for research. 3

4 Institutional Members 119 Research Organizations Large, Medium & Small Research Universities Emerging Research Institutions (ERI) Hospitals Independent Research Organizations

5 Federal Agencies 10 Federal Agencies National Institutes of Health National Science Foundation Office of Naval Research US Department of Agriculture National Aeronautics and Space Administration Army Research Office Air Force Office of Scientific Research Army Medical Research and Material Command Environmental Protection Agency US Department of Homeland Security

6 Affiliate Organizations 8 Affiliate Organizations National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA) Society of Research Administrators (SRA) Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) Association of Independent Research Institutes (AIRI) American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) Association of American Universities (AAU) National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP) American Association for the Advancement of Science

7 MEETINGS Three meetings per year Format of the meetings is informal utilizing Broad plenary sessions Break out sessions for working groups, committee and task force meetings Networking opportunities 7

8 PARTICIPATION Being a member of the FDP is about participation. All members are encouraged to join and be active participants in standing committees and task forces. Participation from the floor during general sessions is always encouraged and ample time is provided for questions and comments. The membership, by design, is diverse so as to represent all parties affected by new research funding and administrative requirements. 8

9 FACULTY AT FDP Faculty representation at FDP was introduced in Phase III and this group is still evolving although its influence and participation has grown significantly over the last two phases. The faculty representatives elect a Co-Chair of their standing committee who also sits on the Executive Committee along with the Chair. The Faculty Chair serves as the Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee. 9

10 FDP STANDING COMMITTEES Executive Committee Operational Standing Committees Membership Mentoring Initiative Finance FDP Foundation Investment strategies Communications Update Promotional Material and Website Publish Papers & Data from Demonstrations 10

11 FDP STANDING COMMITTEES Functional Standing Committees Faculty Update of Faculty Workload Survey Growing Burden Associated with Compliance Activities Working with NSF & NIH on Work/Life Balance Issues Electronic Research Administration (ERA) Joint Application Design (JAD) Team providing information to Grants.gov SCIenCV Demonstration InCommon SSO Single Sign-on for Agency Portals 11

12 FDP STANDING COMMITTEES (cont d) Functional Standing Committees Research Administration Committee Open Government Subcommittee Contracts (Troublesome Clauses Study Phase III) Subawards Task Force (FDP Clearinghouse) STAR METRICS Working Group Finance, Audit and Costing Committee Project Certification Pilot Project Research Compliance Committee Human Subjects Subcommittee Animal Care and Use Subcommittee Conflict of Interest Export Controls

13 Success Stories Expanded Authorities Faculty Burden Survey Subaward Agreement Standard Government-wide Terms and Conditions Emerging Research Institutions GUIRR Partnership Workshop STAR METRICS Pilot Demonstration FDP as key sounding board for Research Business Models Subcommittee of the Committee on Science, grants.gov, research.gov, etc. Report on family and parental benefits available to research trainees FDP FCOI Clearinghouse 13

14 Current Projects Research Administration OMB Uniform Guidance on Administrative Requirements STAR Metrics Working Group PHS FCOI Clearinghouse Research Compliance IRB Exempt Status Decision Tool FAQs for the Use of Wildlife in Research Costing and Audit Project Certification Demonstration Faculty Faculty Workload Survey II

15 Current Projects ERA Grants.gov Joint Application Design Team SCIenCV Demonstration GSA System for Award Management (SAM) Single Sign On (SSO) Initiative Contracts Developed New Subcontract Template to Supplement the Subaward Template 15

16 OMB Uniform Guidance on Administrative Requirements 2CFR 200 published in December 2013 Update to A-21, A-87, A-89, A-102, A-110, A-122 & A-133 FDP working with agencies on implementation DoD project on providing metrics for new procurement provisions in the new guidance 16

17 STAR METRICS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR AMERICA S REINVESTMENT: Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science Collects data from various sources to document the outcomes of science investments to the public Build on this information in future to allow for measurement of science impact on economic outcomes, scientific outcomes, and social outcomes Gathers information from existing sources with minimal effort once the feeds are set up Level II data expansion

18 STAR METRICS Pilot has been completed, Level II started Two working groups established to work on Data Consistency (Data In) and Data Utilization (Data Out) Over 100 organizations participating For more information go to 18

19 Project Certification Effort Certification Alternative Purpose: to make effort certification a more relevant and effective process in the management of sponsored research awards. Process being piloted: require certification of all direct effort allocated to a sponsored award on an annual basis and at the end of the project. The annual cycle being defined by the project anniversary date. Currently there are four FDP schools that have submitted proposals to their cognizant federal agency under OMB Circular A-21. George Mason University Michigan Technical University UC Irvine UC Riverside

20 Research Compliance IRB Exempt Status Decision Tool IRB Practical Guide to Reducing Regulatory Burden FAQ for the Use of Wildlife in Research FCOI Model Policy

21 Subaward Working Group FFATA Coordination Revised and clarified Subaward Template Revised Subaward Templates Updated Agency-specific attachments (including new NIH COI requirements) On-going encouragement to use Templates where applicable

22 Subaward Working Group FDP Clearinghouse One Stop Shop for PHS FCOI subaward compliance monitoring Open to all organizations (not just FDP) 2 step registration process Over 740 participants Searchable by name & DUNS number Looking at expansion (A-133 info, rate agreements, and other subaward info) 22

23 Joint Application Design Team FDP ERA committee working with Grants.gov to deliver the applicant perspective and priorities for fixes and new development Focusing on System-to-System issues, Forms and Documentation Helps test system changes before they are moved into production

24 Faculty Workload Survey II The survey was conducted last year Over 13,000 respondents (26% response rate) Initial reports have been published Final report should be published soon More detailed analysis is ongoing

25 Workload on Federally-funded Projects Post- Award Activities, 19.7% 2005 Pre- Award Activities, 22.6% Active Research, 57.7%

26 Workload on Federally-funded Projects Post- Award Activities, 19.7% 2005 Post- Award Activities, 21.2% 2012 Pre- Award Activities, 22.6% Active Research, 57.7% Pre- Award Activities, 21.1% Active Research, 57.7% Researchers still report spending less than 60% of their research time actually engaged in research. 42% of their federally-funded research time is spent completing pre- and post-award requirements.

27 Workload on Federally-funded Projects Post- Award Activities, 19.7% 2005 Postaward Admin, 13.6% Report Prep, 7.6% 2012 Pre- Award Activities, 22.6% Active Research, 57.7% Pre-award Admin, 5.7% Proposal Prep, 15.4% Active Research, 57.7% On average, 23% of researchers federal research time is spent writing proposals and progress reports; almost 20% is spent on other administrative requirements.

28 Burden Ratings in 2005 Administrative Workload Type Mean Time Away Rating (2-little to 5-much)

29 Mean Time Away Rating (2-little to 5-much) Burden Rating Comparisons Between 2005 and Administrative Workload Type

30 Phase VI Each FDP Phase is 6 years Time to reevaluate and fine tune the organization Is the FDP still needed? Application process completed on March 28 th New members announced in May New Phase starts October 1 st 30

31 QUESTIONS 31