We asked all the interviewees about areas of research administration where functionalities could be, or should be, improved. We have considered those suggestions in developing our own Recommendations in this Report. But on a more anecdotal basis, here are some of the comments received:
The RF could benefit from more robust systems for having data “at our fingertips.”
53
The RF could put more effort into communicating better to the field P.I.s what is changing in the research space.
There should be periodic meetings with the Grants Officers at the Colleges.
Some CUNY personnel complained about a degree of RF “Mission Creep.” They wondered why the RF needed to acquire and own its building. The RF counters that acquiring the headquarters building met an immediate space need following 9/11 and its inability to occupy the old space; that it has proven to be a very wise purchase; and that it yields $2.5 million per year in added income from subtenants to support RF operations.
Likewise, some questioned the RF’s getting involved in tangential activities like managing annuities for other non-profits and conducting the “Grants Plus” program. The RF counters that these activities together consume a tiny proportion of RF time or effort and are not being expanded. The Grants Plus program is being phased out.
A number of high-level CUNY people told us that the RF needs to be more communicative and embrace training of P.I.s on the campuses as part of its core job–
since that is a pre-requisite to more efficient administration of grants.
There has been some tension between Colleges that do not believe that certain funding to their Foundations for particular tasks (e.g., training) should go through the RF, and the RF staff that think they should generally administer those training grants/contracts. The Graduate School of Journalism, for example, objected that a grant to bring journalists to conferences really did not require RF oversight.
The RF engaged Beta Research to perform a detailed survey of the satisfaction level of its CUNY customers with various aspects of RF functioning. More than 1,600 responses were tabulated. The Report is professional and detailed. It doubtless will be useful for many purposes. 17/ Among the important illustrative findings that bear on the subject of this Report were these:
“Satisfaction levels varied from [RF] Office to Office for communication, turnaround time and staff. However, Professionalism, Competence/Knowledge and Easy to Work with repeatedly popped up as top [RF] staff attributes throughout.” (p. 8).
“A strong majority was satisfied with the overall service provided by many of the Offices, and felt the services were better than a few years ago…[Half believed the RF]
was better than a few years ago, as did that many for the Office of Human Resources…Four in ten thought Grants and Contracts was better than a few years ago [and the same for the Office of Procurement and Payables]…One-third said Legal Affairs, Finance and Human Resources…were better than a few years ago.” (p. 8). This is accurate, but the Survey may be viewed in an unrealistically rosy light unless one also notes the negative numbers. For example, only 27% said Legal Affairs was better than before—and 23% said it was worse. (p. 65). This is in contrast to Grants and Contracts,
17/ 2018 RF Foundation of CUNY Survey Results Presentation, available at https://www.rfcuny.org/RFWebsite/about/announcements/beta-research-releases-rfcuny-survey-results/.
54
where 39% said it improved, and only 8% said it was worse. (p. 89). For Procurement and Payables, 40% said it was better than before, and only 8% said it was worse. (p. 111).
These are very different ratings.
Overall “the results were fairly positive.” (p. 9). In our view, this is not an especially helpful observation, unless one specifies what the expectations are. In this context, do you expect the “student” to get an A, B, or C on the test—and is that the pivot point for a rating of “fairly positive”? More insight is needed.
The top methods of interacting with the RF staff were via website (26%) or email (24%) once a week or more often. 45% of respondents had no in-person contact with the RF.
(p. 11).
Among the areas cited most often for the RF performing “extremely well” were: Finance (17%); Helpfulness (11%); Responsiveness (11%); and Grants and Contracts (10%). But these ratings of “extremely well” were only given by 11–17% of the respondents. (p. 19).
The areas of RF functioning most often cited as needing improvement were Communication (11%); Finance (10%); Online Systems (7%); and Quality of Interaction (5%). (p. 19).
In evaluating the responses to the RF, it is also important to note that some Offices simply interact far more frequently with the researchers than others. For example, 78%
of the respondents had some interaction with the HR department—but only 10% with the legal department. (p. 21). This may affect the validity of the reported numbers.
It may not be the RF’s “fault” or CUNY’s “fault” that many researchers do not feel very well-informed about the contract/grant administration process. But that is a fact. Only 27% said they understood the process “well” or “extremely well”—while 28% said “not at all well” and 26% said “somewhat well.” (p. 34).
The “top box” scores (i.e., combined ratings for “very satisfied’ and “somewhat satisfied”
with RF services) varied markedly among RF Offices: Human Resources (55%);
Communications (45%); Procurement and Payables (37%); Grants and Contracts (36%);
Finance (21%); Legal Affairs (20%); and Pre-Proposal Support (19%) (p. 35). This is a wide disparity and may suggest where greater attention should be focused.
The Report contains much more granular findings that could be useful for targeting areas to improve, and we assume that the RF is embracing this goal.
55