Federal relations office draws a circle of funding and support for IU

An IU faculty research proposal goes to D.C. and then circles back, but the process is not as elegantly simple as a geometric form. On that circuitous route, an intersection of university interests and federal funding priorities must occur. The stakes are high and the competition stiff. A new agenda-setting process at IU will help keep the process on target.

By Susan Williams

The stakes are high—and so is the competition. Last year, IU received $157,796,148 in federal grants across its eight campuses. But, while more legislated and agency money has been made available during the past few years, more colleges and universities are looking for federal support. In order to more effectively work within the federal funding system, Walda has reorganized the federal relations process at the university’s central spot on the circle.

“One of my major goals is the development of this new federal relations agenda-setting process to guide our actions with Congress and federal agencies,” he said. “I believe that it is important to have a transparent and inclusive process that is criteria based, for choosing projects that have a good chance at receiving legislatively directed funding and also for targeting higher education and research issues we’ll advocate in Congress and at the federal agencies.”

Walda is starting with two faculty surveys, which should be distributed to deans on or about May 15 for the 2004 appropriations planning process. The first is to determine which issues are most important to IU researchers. Health care, intellectual property, technology transfer?

The second survey asks IU faculty to explain the projects they need to have funded. How does any one project fit into IU’s strategic goals and objectives? Does it serve a national interest?

In mid-September, Walda’s staff will host a conference so that faculty and staff working on proposals have the opportunity to meet with the federal relations team, which in turn will bring everyone up to speed on trends in higher education-related funding. Walda’s goal with the conference, he said, is to give participants a better understanding of how the federal budget will affect research and education funding in the following fiscal year. The conference will provide plenty of time for questions.

Project questionnaires will be due about three weeks after the conference. At that point, a review panel, possibly comprised of faculty peers, will go over the proposals to develop the final appropriations and advocacy agenda. Proposals’ sponsors will have a chance to address the panel, provide any additional information or context, and answer any questions the panel might have.

The panel will look for several criteria in reviewing projects that fit into the appropriations agenda. On the “thumbs-up” side, the members look for proposals that are relevant to the university’s overall goals and objectives, Walda said. Projects that cost somewhere between $1 and $3 million dollars and have finite time frames of perhaps two to three years have a significant advantage, as do those that are aligned with allowable uses of appropriated funds—research or public service. Another plus, if applicable, is having a clear plan for how the project will be continued with other funding once the appropriations portion is completed.

Project proposals also have a better chance of success if they represent more than one person’s good idea, said Walda. So do proposals that can show significant cost sharing, substantive partnerships and/or demonstrated ongoing relationships with federal agencies or other institutions of higher learning.

On the “thumbs-down” side?

“We’ll be less interested in projects that seek facility or equipment upgrades and downright skeptical about those that seek funding for new construction. That is not to say that we’ll seek no money for construction, only that opportunities are limited.”

Walda’s end goal is to have a priority list finalized and project sponsors notified by mid-November of project status. December will be set aside to prepare appropriate request materials, and in January, the federal relations staff will meet with congressional members and their staffs to present IU’s final agenda.

As the circle of one funding process is completed, another begins. Walda emphasized that federal relations activities require the management of two major processes at once. “On one hand, we’re still hard at work on the execution of our current fiscal year congressional agenda, and it’s time to start the planning process for our next.”