Transcript The Role of Start-up Packages in Faculty Recruiting

The Role of Start-up Packages in
Faculty Recruiting
Paul Gemperline
Associate Vice Chancellor
Division of Research and Graduate
Studies
East Carolina University
October 13, 2006
1
Strategic Role
Recruiting faculty members with substantial
research potential is a highly competitive
endeavor
Start-up
–
–
2
packages:
Provide a recruiting advantage for faculty with outstanding
research potential
Help new faculty jump-start their research programs at ECU
Outline










3
Why invest in faculty start-up packages?
ECU’s Goal
Review of last year’s start-ups, Phase I
Next year’s start-ups, Phase II
Expected outcomes
Examples of opportunities and successes
The application package
The application process
What items will / will not be funded
Administering the award
Why Invest?

One measure of a university’s prestige is its
research prowess

How does ECU compare?
–
–
4
Grants awarded compared to UNC sister
institutions
R&D Expenditures compared to UNC-BOG Peers
ECU Grants Awarded Compared to
UNC Sister Institutions
$45,000
ECU
UNC-G
$40,000
UNC-C
$35,000
NC A&T
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
2000
5
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
ECU R&D Expenditures FY 1997-2004
R&D expenditures in science and engineering fields at universities and
colleges, ranked by FY 2004. Includes all Federal agencies, state and local
agencies, industry, institutional funds and other sources. Does not include
expenditures in other fields. Source: National Science Foundation.
(Dollars in thousands)
6
Rank Institution
1997
1998
1999
2000
101
131
143
150
158
174
176
181
191
202
248
250
259
78,948
52,703
17,359
46,645
20,899
21,008
17,291
18,583
11,734
19,995
10,035
6,600
7,466
80,538
45,476
17,880
53,126
16,938
21,469
19,676
20,150
12,875
20,807
11,532
7,644
6,725
79,785
47,939
25,061
58,488
16,999
21,437
23,131
23,030
14,331
21,325
13,727
9,014
6,455
88,220
56,248
34,649
66,263
17,343
23,767
29,092
25,058
19,647
20,010
14,230
8,461
7,431
VA Commonwealth
U. NV, Reno
FL International U.
TX Tech U.
U. ND all campuses
OH U. all campuses
Wright State U. all ca
Old Dominion U.
U. MO-Kansas City
U. WI Milwaukee
Western MI U.
East Carolina U.
Northern IL U.
2001
2002
99,180 109,619
59,229 66,721
44,291 47,654
69,918 82,785
19,692 33,973
27,146 36,601
32,033 30,962
24,659 29,223
18,795 24,060
23,492 24,933
14,976 19,023
10,535 11,513
9,028 10,366
2003
2004
126,451
80,553
52,175
92,515
41,803
37,527
34,860
30,324
31,104
27,259
21,571
12,520
12,368
132,839
83,552
63,545
57,592
49,595
38,704
38,052
34,819
31,968
28,268
13,912
13,296
11,687
% Change,
7 years
168%
159%
366%
123%
237%
184%
220%
187%
272%
141%
139%
201%
157%
ECU Goal

Increase ECU’s annual sponsored research activities to $100 M
per year

5 year period ending April 2006
–
–

485 ECU Principal Investigators rec’d $132,423,800
95% of this funding was produced by 223 Principal Investigators
How do we reach this goal?
–
Increase productivity of existing faculty

–
Hire new faculty with significant potential

7
Research / Creative Activity & Research Development awards
Start-up packages
Recent Successes


ECU’s awards increased 15% in FY 2005-06 to
$38 M
In the first three months of FY 2006-07:
–
–

8
ECU’s awards increased from $9.65 M to $14.6 M
ECU’s submissions increased from $32.9 M to
$52.3 M
These positive trends suggest ECU’s investments
and the good work of our faculty are paying off!
Review of Last Year’s Start-up
Packages, Phase I
College
Allied Health
Brody School of Medicine
Business
Education
Fine Arts & Commun.
Harriott College A&S
Health & Human Perf.
Human Ecology
Nursing
Tech. & Comput. Sci.
TOTAL


9

AY 2005-06
New Amount
2
4
8
4
6
3
AY 2006-07
New Cont. Amount
$86,250 1
1
$27,191
$364,204 1
1
$75,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 1
$10,612
$318,000 18
5
$745,965
$132,500 4
3
$170,663
$21,900 3
$31,223
$0
$0
$87,407
3
$57,224
$1,010,261
$1,118,378
Most requests were honored as submitted
Requests for faculty already on-board this year were accepted
Applications from diverse disciplines, colleges, and departments were
encouraged
Recruiting the 2007-08 Cohort, Phase II





10
The successful candidate and application will
demonstrate a carefully thought out research agenda
with significant potential for future research
productivity
The candidate’s research agenda must have a good
fit with the College’s strategic research directions
Return on investment is expected
Measurable outcomes will include grants and peer
reviewed publications
Candidates who have signed an employment
contract with the university will be ineligible to
receive start-up packages.
Expected Outcomes

Increased research capabilities of faculty we recruit at all levels
–

Increased research productivity as measured by:
–
–
–

Scholarly works
Peer reviewed publications
External grants
Deans and department chairpersons are asked to set
appropriate performance benchmarks during employment
negotiations with candidates.
–
–
11
junior through senior hires
RGS will assess unit and college research productivity over a
period of several years
Future start-up investments will depend on success in meeting
appropriate benchmarks
Example: Return on Investments
Institutional investments, 5 year period from 2001 to 2006
Department A
Amt.
No.
Faculty Senate Research/Creative Activity Grants
$174,961 11
Research & Grad Studies:
Research Dev. Awards
$105,213 4
Matching Funds
$57,450 1
Start-Up Funds (a)
$437,240 3
Total Institutional Support
$774,864
Department B
Amt.
No.
$183,306 11
$97,703
$61,900
$616,761
$959,670
4
2
3
Department C
Amt.
No.
$107,447 6
$55,401
$22,149
$230,330
$415,327
2
2
2
Department D
Amt.
No.
$89,259 5
$49,000
$20,000
$217,371
$375,630
2
1
2
Productivity measures, 5 year period from 2001 to 2006
Inclusive Grant Activity
Submissions
Awards
Department B
Amt.
No.
Department C
Amt.
No.
Department D
Amt.
No.
$42,545,651 151
$6,753,386 91
$26,670,213 93
$2,843,761 38
$19,794,845 79
$4,540,067 44
$44,974,720 48
$3,139,152 21
$29,568,411 123
$5,205,062 81
$3,936,541
171
158
$21,159,897 86
$2,587,339 39
$1,815,553
185
78
(b)
Exclusive Grant Activity (c)
Submissions
Awards
Sponsored Research Expenditures
Publ., 2001-2005 (all)
Publ., 2001-2005 (journal )
A Includes
Department A
Amt.
No.
$8,808,482 71
$3,991,025 42
$2,536,192
179
64
$28,244,901 35
$2,793,161 15
$2,352,360
252
114
commitments through AY 2006, additional commitments in 2007, 2008 not shown
B Inclusive
grant activity: Amounts shown are attributed to departments by the PI or Co-PI affiliations
(leads to some double counting)
12
C Exclusive
grant activity: Amounts shown are attributed to departments by the PI's affiliation only
Example: Return on Investments
Ratios, 5 year period from 2001 to 2006
Avg No. TT Faculty
Institutional support per TT FTE per yr.
Grant Awards per TT FTE per yr.
Publications per TT FTE per yr.
Journal articles per TT FTE per yr.
Awarded $ / Institutional $
Expended $ / Institutional $



13
Department A
24.5
$6,325
$42,490
1.4
1.3
6.72
5.08
Department B
14.5
$13,237
$35,687
2.6
1.1
2.70
1.89
Department C
10.8
$7,691
$73,908
3.3
1.2
9.61
6.11
Department D
18.4
$4,083
$30,360
2.7
1.2
7.44
6.26
Measurement of research productivity is a multifaceted problem that
cannot be addressed by numerical figures alone.
Many other factors must be considered that cannot be easily
quantified.
Reliable data is the starting point, but can never replace sound human
judgment.
Recent ECU Successes
14

$1,195,048, NSF: "TechMath"; Real-World Math, Technology,
and Business Connections, Ernie Marshburn (RGS), Rose
Sinicrope, Ron Preston (Math & Sci. Ed.), Beth Eckstein
(DSCI.)

$1,354,847, NSF: Biomechanics and Robotics Explorations for
IT Literacy Skills in Rural Schools, Paul Kauffman (TECS), Gail
Ratcliff (Math), Cathy Hall (Psych), Dana Espinosa (EXSS)

$2,635,301. DHHS: Life Skills for Health Marriage: A Family
Readiness Program, Linda Robinson, Elizabeth Carroll (CDFR)
Example Funding Opportunities









15
NSF Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences:
$200 M annual budget
Current active awards: 1001 projects @ $548,833 M (includes
multi-year projects)
$149,583 Attention and the Representation of Scenes and Objects, North Dakota State
University, Fargo
$129,460 Acquisition of English Articles by Child and Adult L2-English Learners
(Linguistics), University of Southern California
$223,745 Archaeological Investigations at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, University of New
Mexico
$480,141 Perceived Facial Expressions of Emotion as Motivational Incentives, University of
Michigan Ann Arbor
$606,187 Comparative Civic and Place Engagement in Three Latino Enclave
Neighborhoods in Transition, Florida International University
$59,957 The Economics and Politics of Banking Regulation in the Industrialized World,
Wesleyan University
$78,000 Methods in the Exact Sciences of the Ancient and Medieval Periods, Nathan
Sidoli
The Start-up Application Package
1.
Properly executed form
–
2.
Candidate’s CV
–
Must be complete and comprehensive
3.
Detailed research plans
4.
Itemized budget
–
–
16
25% matching is required from the College and
Department
Provide reasonable estimates, quotes are not needed
All major items should be listed
What Kinds of Start-up Requests Will
Be Funded?
17

The candidate’s research plan must demonstrate a carefully
thought out line of research with excellent prospects for
productivity

Start-up funds are to be used to provide sufficient seed funding
for the candidate to establish a productive and sustainable
research program

Stand-alone research projects will not be funded

Itemized budgets must be justified. Sufficient detail in the
research plan is needed to enable us to determine that
expenditures will lead to the development of a productive
research program
Suggestions for a
Successful Start-up Application

In the advertisement for the position…
–
–

During the campus interview…
–
–
–
–

Plan a time for the candidate to give a detailed presentation on their
research plans to an appropriate committee
Give the candidate advance warning so he/she can prepare
Critically evaluate the candidate’s potential for success in research
During the exit interview review the candidate’s research start-up needs
(ask the candidate to prepare a list of necessary items in advance)
After the interviews
–
18
Briefly state your research requirements
Require candidates to submit research plans with their application
Don’t wait until you are ready to wrap up negotiations. Notify us in
advance, especially when the candidate is expected to have significant
startup needs
Appropriate / Inappropriate Items for
Start-up Requests
Appropriate items:
 Specialized research
equipment, databases,
software and supplies
 Support for graduate
research assistants
 Computers necessary for
control and operation of
specialized research
equipment or collection of
data
 Travel funds to support field
work or collection of data
19
Inappropriate items:
 Office equipment and
furniture
 Desktop and laptop
computers (these may be
requested from the faculty
workstation program)
 Travel funds to attend
meetings or present papers
(these should be provided
by the department or
college)
Administering the award
20

Some budget flexibility can be afforded the
candidate when spending start-up funds

Submit requests to re-direct budgeted amounts by
email to Andrea Harrell

Accurate records of all expenditures, including items
such as requisitions, invoices, packing slips,
authorizations for direct payments, etc., must be
saved for annual audit reports