Internal Approval Process for Externally Sponsored Projects Best Practices by CHPSW as Temple moves from paper to elect

1. “ • Internal Approval Process for • Externally Sponsored Projects • Best Practices by CHPSW • as Temple moves from paper to electronic routing • Presented at eRA@TU Users Group • 2/17/2012

2. PRESENTER Sheri OzardDirector of Research AdministrationCHPSW Dean’s Office(215) 707-9827 sheri.ozard@temple.edu

3. AGENDA • Reason for approvals • Our role as administrators • Who approves • What approvers are looking for • eSPAF memo • Other ideas

4. REASON FOR APPROVALS • Ensure that requests for externally sponsored projects (proposals and contracts for research, community service or other project types) meet all sponsor and university policies including matching resources, release time, additional space, renovations, or other requirements needing department, college/school or University approval.

5. ADMIN ROLE • Collect relevant information from the sponsor guidelines and PIs. • Clearly articulate and disseminate that information - via eRA, the eSPAF and other relevant documents - to each reviewer, so they have the information they need to make an informed decision. • Translate information from one set of lingo (such as the sponsors or PIs) to another (such as Dean’s Office).

6. PI The PI confirms that all aspects of the SPAF are accurate, as they relate to the sponsor, Co-Is, department, college, Grad School and regulatory issues.

7. PI: Comments from the Audience The issue of space is sensitive, and sometimes contradictory, from the PI perspective. Although this is not included in the eSPAF, the paper SPAF directed the PI to contact Space Management, an effort which is often futile. Each college is responsible for their own resolution of space issues.

8. OTHER FACULTY Co-Is (and their related approval line) approve the financial impact on the Co-I and their department and school/college.

9. OTHER FACULTY: Comments from the Audience The Medical School typically does not use IDC split between PIs on a proposal. A template for IDC split issues was suggested. Information would be helpful on how each college handles IDC split.

10. CHAIR The Chair confirms that the project is appropriate, and approves impact on the department’s budget and space.

11. CHAIR

12. DEAN’S OFFICE The Dean’s Office approves that the project is appropriate, impact on the dept and college/school budgets is appropriate, and all Temple policies are followed.

13. DEAN’S OFFICE

14. DEAN’S OFFICE: Comments from the AudienceThe Dean’s office review helps flag issues that are important for audit purposes, to SPA. An additional item not included on this list that was mentioned is equipment.

15. GRAD SCHOOL The Grad School approves requests for tuition remission, confirming that the request meets the criteria for coverage.

16. INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT Institutional Advancement is reviewing the proposal to verify that the corporate or foundation request does not conflict with an existing proposal, and to update their records regarding activity with the sponsoring agency.

17. INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT: Comments from the Audience The role of Institutional Advancement is to make sure the proposed project fits in to already existing relationships with foundation sponsors. IA would like to see the RFP, the project name (general topic area or category) in order to make sure the mechanism is appropriate.

18. SPA SPA conducts the final review to ensure that all Temple and sponsor requirements are met. They also need instructions on how a proposal will be submitted.

19. SPA

20. SPA: Comments from the Audience Noting of IRB status represents a point of conflict between the PI and SPA. There is a discrepancy between the understanding of “pending” status. The PI will use this terminology for any protocol not yet approved, even if it has not been submitted yet. SPA reserves the use of “pending” status only to those protocols already submitted for IRB approval. There are important reasons why PIs do not submit IRB protocols until funding is likely. One suggestion to overcome this issue is to add a place on the eSPAF where the PI can note that the protocol will be submitted for review if the project is funded. Human Subjects exemption status is a point of confusion among some administrators. It was suggested that a webinar may be helpful to clear up the questions surrounding this issue.

21. SPA: Comments from the Audience CST battles with the issue of PIs either not being aware of or not speaking up regarding environmental hazards. Administrators should be aware of the details of each proposal (whether by reading through the budget justification, abstract, or other relevant document, or searching for key words in the proposal itself) to be able to judge whether regulatory approval is needed. In general, a higher level of PI involvement with regulatory questions should be a goal for the future. Sometimes there is a lack of awareness of what exactly they are signing off on. A possible solution under certain circumstances is to print a copy of the eSPAF and ask the PI to physically sign. Per Bob O’Malley, additional regulatory questions will be added to the eSPAF. In addition, EHRS is planned to be connected to eRA@TU in the manner of IRB and IACUC. CITI certification is currently not available through the IRB information in eRA@TU. A suggestion was raised for IRB to upload the CITI certification as PDF into each approval record.

22. FOR THE FUTURE Clear notes should be made on those items that will be important to act upon when the project is funded.

23. FOR THE FUTURE: Comments from the Audience Electronic connection for risk management and insurance was suggested as a potential future item.

24. MEMO

25. EXAMPLE: IDENTIFYING INFO • This memorandum relates to the following sponsored project eSPAF: • PI: Jane Doe • eRA: 261000 • Sponsor: City of Philadelphia (Prime: CDC) • Project Title: Reducing Salt in Take Out Food • Submission Date: 1/26/2012 • Submission Via: PI will hand-deliver to the sponsor

26. EXAMPLE: SPAF-RELATED NOTES • The following notes are being made for the file: • Effort (course buy-out requested, explanation of academic vs. summer effort, etc.): • Dr. Doe’s current teaching load is 1-1. There will not be any reductions to this teaching load due to the 10% effort devoted to this project. • Space (request for additional space if funded, use of another faculty member’s space, comments about off-campus rate): • If the project is funded, office space for one RA will be required. • Cost Share(complete details are noted on the eSPAF and related Cost Share form) • Dr. Doe is cost-sharing 5% of her AY salary in all years of the project. • Tuition remission one calendar appointment RA for each year of the grant, at 18 credit hours per year, will be split by the PI, Dean’s office and Grad School. • Other • The sponsor only allows 10% F&A; guidelines are uploaded into eRA.

27. EXAMPLE: SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS • The following action steps by SPA are requested: • Please obtain university signature on the attached contract. Contact me when it is ready for pick-up. The PI will deliver it to the sponsor for counter-signature, and we will return a fully-executed copy for your files. • Please request an Advance FOAP from RAS. Advance FOAP Request Form is uploaded into eRA.

28. MEMO: Comments from the Audience The memo reduces emails and phone calls, thereby increasing productivity. Some SPA leadership finds it helpful as it collects information in one place, especially for non-system to system proposals. A potential limitation is that when pre- and post-award functions are not separated within the college it may not be as helpful.

29. OTHER IDEAS? The cost-sharing form asks for academic salary, but doesn’t fit the School of Medicine model. A question was raised regarding the need for detailed subcontract budgets for modular grants. SPA clarified that a simpler budget may be entered as long as the detailed subaward budgets are uploaded under Temple Documents.

30. Thank you