Please review and comment. The yellow highlighted column is the proposed budget for the 2013 funds for grants.
Off the top of my head (teaching, can’t look up records), could IPGs be limited to $2000? I think it would still be a stretch, given numbers of grants and amount funded, but it would highlight our problem to LS leaders. Would have to advertise that funds are limited, funding more competitive without discouraging local sections.
I’d like to know more about the thinking behind the leadership funding. I would think that having travel funds for Leadership Institute would be more important than funding Leadership Development in local sections. I wouldn’t want any disincentive to attending Leadership Institute, be the new LS section leaders inexperienced or experienced. Am I missing something?
Cuts have to be made somewhere. I think that the breakdown of allocations is reasonable given the situation. I agree with Carol's concern about IPGs. We may need to announce that funding has gotten tighter and so more competition for IPGs should be expected. I think that the $3k amount for IPGs should remain. IPGs are meant for LS to think big and if we decrease the award amount, that may change the proposals. This new allocation will mean that judging IPG proposals will be more difficult. However, we now have a rubric to help rank our decisions.
Comparing 2012 with 2013, the overall expected cut in LSAC Discretionary Funds is about 35%. Continuing with that type of calculation, the Spring IPGs have been cut 41%, and the Fall IPGs by 34%, for an overall cut of 38%. Given that cuts must be made, those values seem painfully reasonable. Certainly a cap in the funds awarded to any particular grant should also be considered. If LSAC intends to target Local Sections that have NOT had an IPG, is it possible that those Sections may not have expectations about the total amount possible? In any case, I agree that helping Local Sections understand the reality of these cuts and the reasons for them will be essential.
Again, comparing 2012 with 2013, the overall expected cut in Leadership Institute Travel is 40%, and that is pretty high in my view. I do think that sending a representative to the Leadership Institute is very important for Local Sections and that we should help encourage as many as possible to attend. I certainly would not like to cut further any funding for Leadership Courses at Local Sections, currently at a 38% cut, although we discussed making those awards for a smaller amount of money. These awards, like IPGs, will necessarily be more competitive than in the past. A smaller amount could still bring success, particularly if the Local Section finds additional sources of funding.
As a last thought, tell me more about the new budget item, the $6,500 for Bridging the Gap: Planning for Success. How does the money from President Shakhashiri fit into all this?
Shakashiri's money is for 2012 Science Cafes.
LaTrease E. Garrison
American Chemical Society
Assistant Director/Member Communities
About the budget for IPG's, a point to be aware of--we have already promised $4425 to be paid out of 2013 monies. This reduces amount available for new grants. The situation was that 2 IPGs in the 6/30 group were for 2013 events, but well planned and deserving and we didn't want to penalize that. Stephanie's point about keeping the amount max IPG at $3000 is valid (think big), but it can also be said that we (G&A) often feel that IPG budgets are padded to get to $3000. Regardless, I am confident that the subcommittee is able adjust award amounts and also use our rubric to prioritize funding to work within the financial constraints (but I would object to further reductions from the proposed budget).
Sorry to be late in responding.....I think the proposed budget is reasonable. I would support keeping IPGs at 3,000 and giving a smaller number out. It has also been my impression that LS pad to get to 3,000, but G+A often makes awards for less than 3,000. LS should be made aware that the number of grants we make will be less this year. I see that LI travel is cut as well as LD in local sections, but this is what we have to do. I think we need to fund both as they accomplish separate goals. Making the LI materials available following the weekend hopefully will be helpful for those who can't attend. We are strapped but I don't want to do away with any one program for the year....