A report of IGP program
Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for ResearchOctober 28, 2014
IGP: Intramural Grant Program
Source of Funding: 10% of Indirect Cost Recovery
* $150,000 committed cost share included
Number of grants
Number of PIs with IGP who obtained extramural grants
Is IGP AchievingItsGoals?
Too early to fully tell1,190 proposals by 167PIs submittedinthe last3 years, i.e., 2.4 proposals/PI/Yr(university average <1).72 PIs obtained215 grants in the last3 years, totaling $32.2million, i.e. $154K/PI/Yr(university average $51K/faculty/Yr).Increased interdisciplinary collaborations.Publications, patent, and student training
12 stepstaken for thechanges
Draft developed based onFRCreport, the administrative data, and all feedback;Draft revised bystaff;Draft shared withFRC and ADRs, copied todeans;2nd draft developed based on feedback;Second draft shared withFRC, ADRs, andfaculty, copied todeans;3rddraft developed based on all the feedback;Proposed changes reported toFRCon August 21, 2014; 4thdraft developed;Met with senate leadership andCRG committeeconcerning review processes; 5thdraft developedProposedchangesreportedtoURCon August28,2014;Revisedbased on feedbacks,6thdraft developedProposed changesreportedto theProvost CouncilonSeptember 4,2014;RFPfinalizedonSeptember 5, 2014, with a due date of December 1, 2014.
The purpose ofIGPis to grow the research enterprise and enhance scholarship at Auburn University through increasing extramural funding and high-quality scholarly and creative output.
1. Sharpened the intended purpose
2. Increased accountability and flexibility
Clarified that the responsibility is on the PI;Submission of proposal(s) is required;Mustnothave 2 IGP grants within 3 years, unless: Extramural/intramural grant ratio greater than 3;Efforts and successes in extramural fundingbecomea majorcriterionfor IGPfunding evaluations.Two-year duration, flexible spending by upfront funding;Interdisciplinary collaborationsencouraged but not required
3.The Programs of IGP
LevelIVGrant:Under review by theStrategicEquipmentTask ForceChairs: David Riese, Skip Bartol
4.Making the processes work effectively
Formshave been re-designed.Submission process has been changed to reduce “irregularities”.Thereviewswill be doneby peer-reviewpanels, with the approvalof the senateleadershipand CRGcommittee.Annual progress ismonitored by the ADRs, only final reportto the OVPR&ED is required.