Bill Overview
Title: Federal Grant Accountability Act
Description: This bill limits the indirect costs that are allowable under federal research awards to institutions of higher education (IHEs). Specifically, the total amount of indirect costs allowable under a federal research award may not exceed the total amount of indirect costs allowable under private research awards. The Office of Management and Budget must determine the average indirect cost rate applicable to private research awards. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office must study and report on (1) the indirect cost rates allowable under federal research awards to IHEs, including awards made by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and other such organizations; and (2) the indirect cost rates allowable under private research awards to IHEs.
Sponsors: Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals at institutions of higher education supported by federal research awards
Estimated Size: 3000000
- Indirect costs usually include necessary overhead expenses for institutions, such as utilities and administrative support, that contribute to the research but are not directly linked to a specific project.
- IHEs rely on federal research grants for funding a significant portion of research activities, hence a cap on indirect costs could mean less overall funding for these institutions.
- Reducing allowable indirect costs may lead institutions to reallocate funds from other sources to cover research costs, impacting resources available to faculty, staff, and students.
- Research professionals employed by these IHEs, including faculty members and research assistants, may find themselves working with tighter budgets and reduced support, potentially impacting their research efficiency and outcomes.
- Students at these IHEs, particularly those involved in research projects, may see a reduction in available resources or support, attaining research skills, or access to funded research opportunities.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes individuals associated with institutions of higher education (IHEs) that receive federal research awards. This includes faculty, researchers, administrative staff, and students involved in research projects.
- The impact of the policy will largely depend on how reliant an institution is on federal grants and how much of their funding is expendable.
- Reducing indirect costs could lead to tighter budgets for research, potentially impacting the quality and quantity of research outputs.
- High-research institutions might see a bigger impact due to their reliance on federal funding. Smaller institutions may not be as affected if they already operate with smaller overheads.
- We must ensure a variety of perspectives, including both people who will be significantly impacted and those who might not notice a change.
Simulated Interviews
Research Scientist (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about how these restrictions will reduce our ability to fund essential services around our research.
- It might limit our opportunities for exploration if we have to justify every indirect cost.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Assistant Professor (Ann Arbor, MI)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry this will make securing grants more competitive and stressful.
- Our department's capacity to bring in outside collaborators might be limited.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could impact my ability to complete my research efficiently.
- I'm concerned it could affect future students' opportunities as well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
University Administrator (Palo Alto, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Tighter budgets might force restructuring of departments and services.
- We may need to seek additional private funding to fill the gap.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Postdoctoral Fellow (Austin, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes in funding might delay my career progression.
- Concerned about losing research assistants due to budget cuts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Director of Sponsored Projects Office (Chicago, IL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will necessitate stricter internal audit procedures.
- It might reduce the diversity of funding applications our faculty can pursue.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Professor Emeritus (Columbus, OH)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having lived through similar changes, adaptability is key.
- May see more partnerships with private entities enhancing resilience.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Research Assistant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about discontinuing work due to lack of funds.
- Concern for fewer upcoming funding opportunities in academia.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Campus Operations Manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill could make it challenging to keep up with facility improvements.
- May drive us to reduce resources or staffing in other areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Durham, NC)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could have far-reaching effects on educational equity.
- Might prompt new models of efficiency across institutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Federal and private research awards differ significantly in their allocation of indirect costs, and rebasing federal awards could lead to larger budget shifts within institutions.
- Potential reductions in federal funding efficiency may lead institutions to compensate by increasing tuition or seeking alternative funding sources, which could have wider economic consequences.
- Indirect cost caps could result in increased financial reporting and compliance burdens for IHEs, possibly increasing administrative costs.