Cancer Center Support Grant Preparation

1. Cancer Center Support Grant Preparation Michael Darling Associate Director for Administration IU Simon Cancer Center

2. Challenges • Planning: September due date with guidelines published in January impacted the planning stage • Experience: Several key members new to CCSG preparation and submission or in a new role since previous submission: Director; 4 out of 6 Associate Directors; 7 out of 10 Program Leaders; 2 new cores with new directors • Guidance: EAB in old guideline mode during construction of CCSG • Logistics: Difficulty in developing template for 12 page research narrative

3. Research Program Narrative CCSG Guidelines: Briefly discuss the following • How the interests, expertise and research approaches of the Program members facilitate achievement of the central themes listed in the description above (80-90 pages above!) • The most significant scientific accomplishments of the Program • Briefly describe how the cancer research relevant to the catchment area is addressed

4. But… Our folks and the EAB asked “where are these items?” • Response to summary statement critique • Value added to the Program from the Cancer center (also in review criteria) • Value added to the Cancer Center from the Program • Research Program Training and Education activities • Future Plans

5. The Problem Page Limit: 12 Pages!

6. Template Page 1 • Program Goals and Themes (restated from program description) • Response to Previous Summary Statement (brief and just the critical ones) Pages 2-10 • Major Scientific Accomplishments Pages 11-12 • Program Relevance to the Catchment Area • Research and Clinical • Education and Outreach Activities • Value Added to the Cancer Center from the Program • Vision and Future Plans

7. Value Added By Cancer Center Retitled Section • Value Added by the Cancer center to the Research Program: Shared Resource and Services Usage (also in review criteria for research program) • We added support through: • Seminars • Pilot projects • Grand Rounds speakers • Faculty recruitment

8. Formatting Shared Facilities • Major services/equipment • Management Structure • Cost Effectiveness • Qualifications of personnel • Use of Service • Policies on Operation

9. Shared Facilities Review Criteria • What are the quality and cost efficiency of the service provided, and how effective are accessibility policies governing institutional and other specialized shared resources? • How appropriate are the qualifications of the staff and their time commitment? BUT… • FOA/Guideline Changes: More emphasis on support of science as opposed to usage metrics

10. FAO/Guideline Changes Additions • More emphasis on support of science as opposed to usage metrics Template • 6 pages addressing the formatting from above including response to summary statement • 6 pages on importance to Center’s Scientific Needs and Objectives; short science stories and publications

11. Other Hurdles / Lessons Learned • Get everyone to know and use the new terms: e.g. Interventional therapeutic, Interventional non-therapeutic, Non-therapeutic and where they are used • Use an EASY mechanism to transmit files to internal and external reviewers: IU Box is too complicated • Clever ideas for metrics created 6-9 months earlier need an easy to find place for the data details

12. Other Things What I won’t miss: Lugging over 8,000 single sided pages of paper across campus to our Office of Research Administration