Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Home Back Issues No. 21: Grant Clinic: Budgeting for Effort: A Delicate Task

Mar 22
2010

No. 21: Grant Clinic: Budgeting for Effort: A Delicate Task

Posted by: PIA in

Tagged in: Untagged 

Sign Up to receive free weekly articles like these

Grant Clinic:

Budgeting for Effort: A Delicate Task

Reader Question: How do I know how much effort to allot to co-investigators and how much to pay consultants?

Expert Comments:

Again, we find ourselves in subtle territory.

Let’s start with consultants. When you budget for a consultant, you will describe, in the budget justification section, not only what he or she will do, but for how many days per year — this often will vary — and at what fee per day. The cost may be broken down by days or number of hours. The fee, of course, varies with the specialty, the consultant’s seniority, and the letters behind the consultant’s name. A lower-level consultant might be, say, a person (at another institution) with an M.A. in psychology who will score your heart rate variability data. Such a person might be budgeted at $30/hour, or around $250/day. A more senior consultant could be paid $500 to $1,000/day, depending on his or her seniority and fame. I suggest not paying any one consultant too much per day; it sticks out a bit. Instead, if you must, pay them a lower per diem but for more days per year.

Now for the co-investigators. Begin with the pragmatic analysis: How much time will the target investigator need to allocate to accomplishing his project-related duties? Think of this: There are 40 hours in a standard work week (don’t snicker). Twenty percent effort would mean that person would in theory work on the project one full day a week. Try not to skimp here. Everything takes more time than you think.* But this gives you a starting point.

However, as always, there are more subtle considerations. Say you plan to list a senior colleague as a co-investigator. He frankly is not expected to actually do anything, but his well-known name will be useful, perhaps politically expedient, and you might feel awkward if you left him out. So, there he is — in for 5 percent or 10 percent (10 percent of a senior-level salary could run, with fringe, around $25,000).

As to the co-investigators who are expected to do the work, you have to find the balance between what they have to do, how much you can afford, and what would appear questionable to a reviewer. The reviewer might wonder why a co-investigator in charge of, say, all the lab work, has been budgeted only 3 percent of her salary; or, they might wonder why 20 percent a year, for all five years of a grant, has been budgeted to a co-investigator whose main job is to help with data analysis that doesn’t really begin until Year 4? So, the effort allotments have to be determined by (1) actual effort as matched to the anticipated level of work; (2) political and personal considerations; (3) the funds that are available; and (4) the appropriateness of the level of effort as perceived by reviewers.

* When you start to trim the budget, cutting effort is always a favorite target because you can free up a great deal of money very quickly — the more so because of the fringe, and especially in more senior people who draw higher salaries. I caution you to be careful about going too far with this, or you can end up with a problem that lasts as long as the grant does.

Comments by William Gerin, PhD, P.I. e-Alert's Chief Grants Consultant, Professor of Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania State University, and author of “Writing the NIH Grant Proposal: A Step-by-Step Guide,” SAGE Books (2006)

Dr. Gerin provided additional articles on this topic in Principal Investigator Advisor monthly newsletter. View his previous article in last month's issue: Should You Use Co-Investigators or Consultants?

Enjoy this article? Sign Up to receive these free every week

Do lab animal regulations and compliance issues concern you? You should see our NEW sister e-newsletter, Lab Animal e-Alert, which is devoted exclusively to providing Principal Investigators WEEKLY alerts on the welfare and regulatory compliance issues pertaining to laboratory animal research. It is distributed worldwide, without charge, to hundreds of thousands of Principal Investigators whose research involves animals. Just register your email to get your issues flowing.

Comments (8)
...
written by Anonymous, March 23, 2010
Streetwise, please don't get bent out of shape at Anonymous' comment regarding the wisdom of including a do-nothing big name in your project/budget in hopes of increasing the probability of funding. I wondered about the very same thing! Other than that, I thought Dr. Gerin's response was very well done. Putting "names" on proposals is akin to putting "names" on manuscripts. Yes, it is done. Should it be? I'd say no. We all know it happens. Just because it happens doesn't make it right.
...
written by Anonymous, March 23, 2010
"However, as always, there are more subtle considerations. Say you plan to list a senior colleague as a co-investigator. He FRANKLY IS NOT EXPECTED TO ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING, but his well-known name will be useful, perhaps politically expedient, and you might feel awkward if you left him out. So, there he is — in for 5 percent or 10 percent (10 percent of a senior-level salary could run, with fringe, around $25,000)." I am SURPRISED by this statement from a group that I have learned to expect the MOST ethical principles. How can it be ethical to request funding "TO ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING"!!! In addition, the statement assumes that the senior and successful colleague is a male such as in "his well-known name". Just your worst posting so far.
...
written by dministrator, March 23, 2010
and I would add that you should always make sure that every PI/CO-PI listed is comfortable certifying to the effort they are paid on the grant. You do-nothing big name will have to legally certify that he 'worked' for the funds compensated for him time and any auditor will tell you that there are HUGE fines and potential fraud charges for anyone who is paid and doesn't put in effort.
...
written by Streetwise, March 23, 2010
I cannot believe the naivete of the prior writer. When millions of dollars are at stake in grants, every angle, backscratch, "political debt" etc finds a crevice. We even had a grant with a horrible five-percenter (effort) who tried to take over the grant. We actually "bought him off" (sorry, "diverted him") by helping him corral a new grant for himself. Kudos to Dr. Gerin for daring to be frank about stuff we all know happens now and then.Thanks to ezine for having the guts to publish reality instead of just "political correctness!
...
written by Anonymous, March 24, 2010
Really, now! Can any PI or auditor honestly discern the diffeence betweeen 5% effort and 6%? 12%? The whole "gradation of effort" scale is well meant but is a farce.
...
written by Numerologist, March 25, 2010
The NIH and NSF could tabulate out of their thousands of grant applications what percent effort (or the range) typically promised by PI,by the asst PI, by the consultant etc. (I hope there are no "weird numbers" floating about falsly trying to indicate precison in effort--which simply isn't there--e.g. 11.7% .When the tabulation was published, we could have mean and srandard deviation of percent effort by title of investigator. And this "norm" could then bcome expected--unless otherwise explained as a special case. Hello! Anybody awake in OER?
...
written by Idealistic realist, March 25, 2010
Overall, I thought the information was good. After one has done enough grants in life,it is realized that the official budget is not the real budget, but rather translates the realistic needs of the project to meet the constraints of the budget guidelines. For example, as a senior investigator who helps especially in the front and end of a grant application, I contribute most of what I have of value to the grant application before it is submitted, and then again after funds have run out but analyses and publications are just beginning. During the official period of the grant I do much less. During the initial phase, study implementation I am helpful. Once the data collection process begins I exert a weak quality assurance control. When we finally get to data analysis (in the one year no cost extension and beyond) my level of effort increases significantly. Bottom line: where I put my effort in most is before the grant gets funded and after funding has run out. Therefore to compensate me for my time (as a consultant)the number of hours I put in while the grant is funded are inflated to balance the time I put in on the study before and after it gets funded. Provided the PI and I have integrity in arriving at a reasonable estimate of what the value of my contribution to the study is,pumping up hours during the period of the grant appears to me to approximate "distributive justice". If level of effort appears to be significantly out of whack, a reviewer will pick up on this and it will be reflected in the priority score (even though it is officially incorrect to do so). Bottom line: the PI has to work through in her/his own mind what is "fair".
...
written by whp, March 26, 2010
"Say you plan to list a senior colleague as a co-investigator. He frankly is not expected to actually do anything, but his well-known name will be useful, perhaps politically expedient, and you might feel awkward if you left him out. So, there he is — in for 5 percent or 10 percent (10 percent of a senior-level salary could run, with fringe, around $25,000)." There has been an alternative solution to this issue for several years now. Name the senior colleague as an "other significant contributor" at no effort with no salary. This approach provides the colleague with "credit" for participating and leaves the budget untouched. From the NIH Guide 4.2.4 Other Significant Contributors This category identifies individuals who have committed to contribute to the scientific development or execution of the project, but are not committing any specified measurable effort (i.e., person months) to the project. These individuals are typically presented at "effort of zero person months” or "as needed." Individuals with measurable effort may not be listed as Other Significant Contributors (OSCs). Consultants should be included if they meet this definition.

Write comment
smaller | bigger


Write the displayed characters