Title : IG 96-3505 -- University of New Hampshire Inspection Report Type : Report NSF Org: OIG Date : October 9, 1996 File : ig963505 UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Institute for the Study of Earth, Ocean, and Space Inspection Report OIG 96-3505 July 1996 Office of Inspector General National Science Foundation CONTENTS Introduction Background Purpose and Scope Findings Recommendations and Summary of Responses ACRONYMS Division of Atmospheric Sciences ATM Association for Women in Science AWIS College of Engineering and Physical Sciences CEPS College of Life Sciences and Agriculture COLSA Drug Advisory Committee DAC Formal Investigation Committee FIC Grant General Conditions GC-1 Grant Policy Manual GPM National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA Office of Environmental Health and Safety OEHS Office of Sponsored Research OSR Office of Management and Budget OMB Office of Sponsored Research OSR Personnel Activity Reports PARs Principal Investigator PI Small Grants for Exploratory Research SGER Society of Women Engineers SWE University of New Hampshire at Manchester UNHM University System of New Hampshire USNH INTRODUCTION The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducts inspections, which are on-site reviews that assess NSF-funded organizations' compliance and effectiveness in three major areas: finance, administration, and achievement of program goals in research as well as in science and engineering education. Inspections supplement OIG's ongoing audit and investigative activities by broadening accountability beyond financial and administrative requirements to assess the responsiveness of research activities to the goals of individual programs. In addition, OIG inspection reports provide agency managers with timely information to supplement program monitoring activities. Inspection teams use a variety of study methods and are usually composed of two to four OIG staff members. The composition of any team depends on the expertise required to understand the research, education, or other activity to be inspected. Team members may include scientists, engineers, auditors, computer specialists, investigators, lawyers, or management and program analysts. If the expertise required is not represented by OIG staff, consultants from the private sector or other federal agencies may be used to assist in the inspection. Inspections highlight well-managed operations and help agency managers intervene quickly when problems are identified. They also promote an increased awareness by principal investigators (PIs) and their sponsoring institutions of the importance of accountability in the management of, and performance under, NSF awards. Conclusions and recommendations about conditions described in any inspection report are generally limited to the NSF directorate or the department, laboratory, or other sector of the sponsoring institution described in the "Purpose and Scope" section. Observations made during an inspection may, in some cases, apply to the entire institution. BACKGROUND The University of New Hampshire (the University) is a federal land grant institution established in 1866 as the New Hampshire College of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts (the College). In 1893, the College moved to its present location in Durham, a small town about 70 miles north of Boston and about 15 miles west of the Atlantic Coast. In 1923, enrollment had grown to 1,188 students, and the state legislature granted the College university status. Initially, the University was comprised of the Colleges of Agriculture, Liberal Arts and Technology. The University is New Hampshire's only public institution of higher learning with university status. The University is the largest of the four institutions that comprise the University System of New Hampshire (USNH), the state's public higher education system. USNH also includes two fully accredited undergraduate colleges (Keene State College and Plymouth State College) and the statewide College for Lifelong Learning, which is a nonresidential college that offers some traditional degree programs in addition to noncredit courses and workshops. A Board of Trustees sets USNH's policies and appoints USNH's chief executive officer, the Chancellor. A labor union represents all 608 full-time academic faculty members at the University. The union's collective bargaining unit negotiates agreements with the USNH Board of Trustees to develop policies and procedures governing such issues as work load, promotion and tenure, salary and benefits, and faculty development. The University offers 97 undergraduate programs through the College of Liberal Arts, the College of Life Sciences and Agriculture (COLSA), the College of Engineering and Physical Sciences (CEPS), the Whittemore School of Business and Economics, and the School of Health and Human Services. Enrollment at the University's Durham campus for the 1995-1996 academic year consists of nearly 10,000 baccalaureate students, of which about 6,000 (60 percent) are New Hampshire residents. Another 600 students are enrolled in associate degree programs through the Division of Continuing Education and the Thompson School of Applied Science. The Graduate School, which was established in 1928, is comprised of nearly 1,800 degree students in the 1995- 1996 academic year and offers 80 masters and Ph.D. programs. Since 1985 the University has offered selected degree and non- degree programs through the University of New Hampshire at Manchester (UNHM), located in central New Hampshire to serve the most densely populated region of the State. Approximately 700 degree candidates were enrolled at UNHM during academic year 1995- 1996. As a land grant institution, one of the University's missions is public service outreach to improve the welfare of the state's citizens. This is accomplished in large part through its Cooperative Extension division, which was established in 1914 to deliver research-generated knowledge, programs, and services through educators based in 10 county offices. Cooperative Extension encompasses two broad program areas: natural resources and family, community, and youth. In addition to its land grant status, the University achieved joint Sea Grant College program status with the University of Maine in 1980 and in 1991 the University was recognized as a space grant institution. The University offers interdisciplinary study opportunities in addition to its core academic and professional curriculum. The University's Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space (the Institute), which was founded in 1985, is a multidisciplinary research institute dedicated to studying the earth and its space environment. The Institute emphasizes training and educating students to be future earth and space scientists by expanding upon existing graduate degree programs, although courses are also available for undergraduates. In FY 1995, total support for research and sponsored programs at the University was $41.2 million, of which $17.9 million (43.5 percent) was awarded to PIs associated with the Institute. The Institute, which was the focus for this inspection, is more fully described in the Program and Research Review section. The University's external support for research is provided by federal, state, and local governments; private industry; foundations; and foreign and multinational sources. The University received $25.1 million in FY 1990 and $41.2 million by FY 1995 from these aggregate sponsors, with most of this financial growth occurring in the early 1990s. Federal funding for research and sponsored programs also increased from $18.1 million in FY 1990 to $27.5 million in FY 1995. Fifteen federal departments and agencies fund research at the University. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and NSF have been the largest federal sponsors of the University in every year but two (FYs 1985 and 1987) since as least FY 1980. From FYs 1994 to 1995, NASA's funding to the University decreased from $10.9 million to $9.6 million and NSF funding increased from $4.5 million to $5.0 million, respectively. Funding provided directly from New Hampshire State agencies to support research and sponsored programs at the University was about $3.6 million in FY 1995, which declined from $6.2 million in FY 1994. Federal support transferred to the University by other U.S. universities was about $4.6 million in FY 1995. The University regards these transfers as external recognition for its unique facilities and capabilities. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This inspection was conducted at the University (Durham campus) by a team of four OIG employees: two financial auditors, a management analyst, and a scientist whose Ph.D. is in geology. We conducted our site visit from February 26 through March 1, 1996. We limited our review to eight grants that NSF's Directorate for Geosciences awarded to PIs affiliated with the Institute and CEPS. All were basic research awards from NSF's Division of Atmospheric Sciences for the study of the earth's climate and upper atmosphere. (See Appendix A for detailed information about these awards.) We assessed compliance and performance in three areas: (1) financial compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars, grant award terms and conditions, and other federal financial regulations; (2) management and administrative compliance with NSF's Grant Policy Manual (GPM), important notices, and other agency guidance; and (3) achievement of program goals, as described in NSF's requests for proposals and other program solicitations, the award document, proposals submitted for funding, and as prescribed by generally accepted research practices. We reviewed paperwork that documented compliance with award requirements and interviewed senior University officials and administrators, faculty members, and graduate and undergraduate students. The methodology used to assess compliance and effectiveness for each component of the review is described in more detail below. FINDINGS A. FINANCIAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW Background The objectives of this portion of the inspection were to evaluate the adequacy of the University's internal controls and to determine whether the University was complying with its own financial policies and procedures as well as federal laws and regulations. We limited the scope of this portion of the inspection to testing accounting and administrative controls for eight grants NSF made to the University. Inspections are designed to make quick assessments and therefore do not include the detailed testing used during financial audits. We interviewed administrative personnel, reviewed prior audits, analyzed accounting and financial records, and performed compliance testing. Observations and Conclusions The University generally complied with NSF's grant documents, the GPM, the Grant General Conditions (GC-1), and other federal requirements. However, we did identify two instances of noncompliance for which we made recommendations for corrective action. The University's administrative personnel did not have a suitable means of verifying employees' work, as reported on their Personnel Activity Reports (PARs), and the University inappropriately allocated costs on one NSF grant and could not explain its method of allocating costs to another NSF grant. We also noted minor instances of noncompliance and weaknesses in the internal control structure. Descriptions of the financial and internal control deficiencies we identified follow. We believe the University can increase its compliance with federal regulations and strengthen its internal controls by complying with our recommendations. Verifying Personnel Activity Reports The University's administrative personnel did not have a suitable means of verifying employees' work as reported on their PARs. Administrative personnel who signed PARs included a departmental secretary and business managers in the Institute. The departmental secretary and business managers did not supervise the employees, and they did not have first-hand knowledge of the employees' scientific work. At the end of each semester, 1 business manager signed PARs for over 100 employees, and another business manager signed PARs for over 60 employees. These employees included graduate students and PIs. We do not believe that 1 person can adequately monitor the activities of over 60 employees in a given semester. OMB Circular A-21, "Cost Principles for Educational Institutions," states that salary costs may be confirmed by responsible persons with a suitable means of verifying that the employees performed the work. The University's PAR procedures recommended that the PI sign the PARs. If PARs are not certified by individuals with a suitable means of verification, the risk that the University would not detect errors in reported work effort increases. These errors could result in overcharges of salary costs to federal grants and contracts. We recommend that the University have the actual employee; the PI; or someone who is familiar with, and involved in, the research project, sign PARs. Cost Allocations The PIs inappropriately allocated costs to one NSF grant and could not explain its method of allocating costs to another NSF grant. OMB Circular A-21 states that organizations can charge costs to a grant only to the extent the costs benefit the grant. If costs benefit two or more grants, an institution should make a reasonable attempt to allocate those costs proportionally based on the benefit that each grant received. In our opinion, the University did not demonstrate how it apportioned certain costs to NSF grants. Below are examples of inappropriate cost allocations made by two PIs. Inappropriately Allocated Costs. A PI in the Physics Department inappropriately allocated costs to federal grants. The PI used NSF funds to pay salaries that benefited the NASA grant, and he used NASA funds to pay salaries that benefited the NSF grant. The PI should have charged the costs to the grants based on how the costs benefited the grants' objectives. We believe the following pattern of events illustrates our concern. The PI transferred approximately $4,000 in salary expenses from an NSF grant to a NASA grant so that the NASA grant's expenses equaled that grant's funding. This transfer occurred just 2 weeks before the NASA grant expired. OMB Circular A-21 states that organizations may not transfer costs between grants for reasons of convenience. The PI rebudgeted $6,000 in tuition, materials, and indirect costs to the equipment cost category on an NSF grant so he could purchase computer equipment before the NSF grant expired. The PI acknowledged that the computer equipment would be used on a different NSF grant he had recently received. We do not believe the computer equipment benefited the objectives of the expiring grant. We believe the PI purchased the computer equipment only as a means of expending the full amount of the grant funds. If a grantee does not expend all of the grant funds, it is required to return the unused funds to NSF. The PI allocated 100 percent of three graduate students' salaries to an NSF grant, but acknowledged that the graduate students also worked on a NASA grant during the same time period. The PI stated that he alternated charging 100 percent of the students' salaries between the two grants. We do not believe this was an appropriate allocation of the students' salaries. OMB Circular A-21 requires that institutions proportionally allocate an employee's salary based on where the employee expended effort. Method of Allocating Costs Not Explained. A PI at the Institute did not have a basis for allocating costs between an NSF grant and a NASA grant. The following illustrate our concern. The PI arbitrarily divided computer usage and maintenance charges between an NSF and a NASA grant. The PI could not explain how he allocated the computer charges to the NSF grant. In one instance, he charged $3,000 (60 percent) of a $5,000 computer usage charge to the NSF grant; while in another instance, he charged $1,965 (39 percent) of a $5,000 computer usage charge to the same NSF grant. The PI arbitrarily divided travel costs between an NSF and a NASA grant. The PI incurred almost $3,000 in travel costs while attending conferences in Colorado and California. The PI charged all of the airfare ($911) to the NSF grant and all of the registration fees ($565) to the NASA grant. The PI allocated $301 of the other travel expenses to the NSF grant, and the remaining $1,050 to the NASA grant. The PI could not provide a basis for allocating the travel expenses to the NSF grant. We recommend that the University inform PIs that they must allocate grant costs based on the proportional benefit that each grant received. The method of allocation should be clearly stated on the source document. The University runs the risk of charging unallowable costs to grants when costs are not properly allocated. The University should provide PIs with examples of acceptable methods of allocating costs. For example, the University may want to consider allocating computer usage fees and travel costs based on an individual's effort as reported in the PARs. Minor Lapses in Financial Management and Internal Controls The University did not require that persons working on NSF grants have their travel approved in writing before they incurred travel costs. The University required that its employees get prior approval only when they used University funds to obtain airline tickets from the University's travel agent. Advance approval of all planned travel costs would help protect the University from incurring costs for unauthorized travel. NSF's GC-1 requires that grantees document advance approvals for each expenditure or action that affects the grant. We suggest that the University require that persons working on NSF grants have all planned travel costs approved in writing before they incur travel costs. A departmental secretary and business managers approved PIs' travel expenditures but did not have supervisory authority over the PIs. We do not believe a departmental secretary or business manager is in a sufficient position of authority to question the PIs' expenditures. We believe the person approving travel costs should have supervisory authority over the person requesting the travel reimbursement. Preferably, the PI's immediate supervisor should review and approve travel expenditures. We suggest that the University require that persons only with supervisory authority over travelers review and approve travel costs submitted for reimbursement. The University inadvertently charged $450 in travel costs to an NSF grant. A University official acknowledged that the costs were inadvertently charged to the NSF grant. We suggest that the University credit the grant for these costs. One traveler did not document his reason for incurring 2 days' hotel and meal costs that were outside of the official travel period. University officials stated that the traveler incurred additional hotel and meal costs so that he could take advantage of cheaper airfare, which resulted in an overall savings to the NSF grant. While we accept the University's rational for incurring the additional hotel and meal costs, we believe that traveler should have documented the cost savings. We suggest that the University require that its travelers document the cost savings before incurring travel costs that are outside of the official travel period. The University did not have documentation to justify an employee's use of a foreign-flag air carrier while traveling in Thailand. The GPM requires that air transportation to, from, between, or within a foreign country be performed by a U.S. flag air carrier if service provided by such a carrier is available. We suggest that the University document a traveler's need to use a foreign- flag air carrier when a U.S. flag air carrier is not available. The University did not monitor its cost-sharing requirements. The University did an excellent job of establishing a cost-sharing account at the inception of each NSF grant. The University set up an account that tracked NSF's 1-percent cost sharing requirement as well as specific cost-sharing requirements. However, the University did not review its cost-sharing progress until the grant ended. When the University did not monitor its cost-sharing effort, it increased the risk of not meeting its cost-sharing obligations. We suggest that the University establish procedures to periodically monitor each grant's cost-sharing requirements. B. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE REVIEW Background The objective of this portion of the inspection was to evaluate the University's ability to resolve allegations of misconduct in science and determine the adequacy of the University's handling of misconduct allegations; assess the University's compliance with requirements for a drug-free workplace, investigator financial disclosure, lobbying certification and reporting, and nondiscrimination; and to assess the climate for advancement by women and racial minorities as scientists and faculty members. Observations and Conclusions The University adequately complied with applicable regulations, disclosure requirements, and restrictions identified as the principal objectives of this portion of the review. Except as noted below in the Misconduct in Science section, we did not find any significant deviations from, or failure to comply with, essential elements of federal or agency requirements in the areas encompassed by this portion of the review. Misconduct in Science We reviewed the University's "Definition of Professional Misconduct Including Research Misconduct (Definition)" and "Procedures for Handling Allegations of Professional Misconduct Including Research Misconduct (Procedure)" as well as the "Bulletin of the University of New Hampshire;" the "Student Rights," "Rules," and "Responsibilities; the Professional, Administrative and Technical Handbook;" the "Personnel Policies as of January 1995;" the "Commonplace Book," "A Faculty Guide to the University and Community Resources;" and the "Faculty Handbook." We interviewed the University's Interim Vice President for Research and Public Service, who is the designated university misconduct official, and the Executive Director of the Office of Sponsored Research. We also discussed misconduct in science during our interviews with the dean, chairpersons, faculty members, students, and support staff. General Definition of Misconduct. The University's "Definition" does not articulate a general definition of misconduct in science. Instead, it lists several examples of misconduct. We believe the absence of a definition leaves faculty members and students without a clear idea of what is covered by the "Definition," beyond the stated examples. We are concerned that the lack of a general definition could hamper the University, if challenged, from justifying the pursuit of an unlisted example as an issue of misconduct in science. Procedure Requires Two Inquiries. The University's "Procedure" appears to require two inquiries. When an allegation of misconduct in science is reported "to the department chair, dean of the college or next higher administrative officer of the accused individual," an "administrative review" is conducted. [T]he immediate administrative supervisor (usually the Chair), shall, within ten (10) working days, report the allegation in full and in writing to the accused individual without identifying the individual(s) who initiated the report. During this 10-day period, the department Chair and his/her college Dean (and the Vice President for Research where research matters are involved) shall conduct a confidential administrative review. If they find the charge is without substance, they shall document their decision, and the case will be dropped. . . . However, if they "find reasonable grounds to the charge, they shall advise the accused of their findings in writing, identify the accuser(s) to the accused, present the accused with a copy of the procedures document, and immediately thereafter appoint a committee of peers of the accused to determine whether a formal investigation is warranted. . . ."[1] The University's "Procedure" states that "[w]ithin 10 days following transmittal of the Peer Committee report to the chair and the college Dean (and Vice President for Research where applicable), the Peer Committee along with the Chair and Dean will vote to pursue or drop the charges, based on the evidence." In the event "the vote is to pursue the charge based on evidence collected and importance of the misconduct to the University, then the parties (accused versus Chair/Dean) may agree to binding adjudication by the Peer Committee. . . ." However, "[i]f the option for binding adjudication by the Peer Committee is not agreed upon by the parties, then a formal investigation committee shall be appointed." In our discussion with the Interim Vice President for Research and Public Service, we noted that NSF's "Misconduct in Science and Engineering" regulation, C.F.R. 45 part 689.1(c), specifies that "[a]n 'inquiry' consists of preliminary information- gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of misconduct has substance. An investigation must be undertaken if the inquiry determines the allegation or apparent instance of misconduct has substance." The "administrative review" as described by the University's "Procedure" appears to be the initial inquiry that determines whether the allegation "is without substance," or has "reasonable grounds." We think that if "reasonable grounds" are determined as a result of this initial inquiry, NSF should be notified and a University investigation initiated. However, the University's "Procedure" requires the formation of a Peer Committee to do a second, more rigorous, inquiry that appears to go beyond preliminary information gathering and fact-finding, and, in fact, appears to be more like an informal investigation. After the Peer Committee submits its inquiry report to the "Chair and college Dean (and Vice President for Research where applicable), the Peer Committee along with the Chair and Dean will vote to pursue or drop the charges, based on the evidence." If the vote is to pursue, "the parties (accused versus Chair/Dean) may agree to binding adjudication." However, in the event "the option for binding adjudication by the Peer Committee is not agreed upon by the parties, then a formal investigation committee shall be appointed." We are concerned that, if the parties agree to "binding adjudication," according to the "Procedure," NSF would not be notified, even though an allegation has been determined to have substance. If NSF receives an allegation of misconduct in science against an NSF-supported PI, it is our practice to defer allegations that have substance to the grantee institution whenever it is feasible. However, based on the University's "Procedure," it is unclear, if we were to defer an allegation to the University for investigation, whether a Peer Committee would be formed as a prelude to a formal investigation. Consequently, it is possible that the allegation could be resolved through "binding adjudication" without a formal investigation. Further, it is possible that the "binding adjudication" could include the imposition of sanctions. NSF's regulation states that sanctions are only imposed after an investigation is completed and the case is adjudicated (45 C.F.R. part 689.1(c)). Given the current University "Procedure," we are concerned about the University's ability to accept deferral of an allegation of misconduct in science. We also believe the failure to fully investigate substantive allegations of misconduct in science, as is permitted by the University's "Procedure," raises concerns about the "Procedure's" adequacy to protect federal funds and the "Procedure's" capacity to preserve the integrity of science. By accepting "binding adjudication" with a substantive allegation, the University prevents a more thorough and formal investigation and therefore likely leaves some aspects of the allegation unresolved. For example, without a formal investigation, it is unlikely that a complete and careful assessment of the accuracy of the subject's work, including relevant associated publications, is accomplished or that a careful evaluation of the subject's behavior, including whether it was part of a pattern, is assessed. Failure to fully investigate a substantive allegation of misconduct in science associated with an NSF-supported activity does not appear to adequately protect federal funds and could give the impression that the scientific community is reluctant or unable to fairly and fully monitor itself. According to the "Procedure," the Peer Committee is told that, if it votes to pursue an allegation, it is then to consider the "evidence collected and importance of the misconduct to the University. . . ." We are concerned that this charge could influence the Peer Committee as to how rigorously it pursues a substantive allegation of misconduct in science. We believe that any substantive allegation of misconduct in science should be fully investigated regardless of its importance to the University. Allegations Against Students. In our discussion with the Interim Vice President for Research and Public Service and the Executive Director of the Office of Sponsored Research, we were told that the University's "Procedure" could be interpreted as covering students and postdoctoral researchers as well as faculty and professional staff members. We believe that, because the University's "Procedure" does not include students in the Reporting section, students participating in NSF-supported activities, who are alleged to have committed misconduct in science, could be pursued under "The Student Code of Conduct and Judicial Process" described in the "Student Rights," "Rules," and "Responsibilities." There is no provision in the student's code of conduct that specifies that NSF should be notified if an allegation of misconduct in science against a student supported by an NSF grant is determined to have substance. Consequently, it is unclear whether the University would comply with NSF's regulation to notify our agency if such an event occurs. Further, we are concerned that any inquiry or investigation committee formed under the "The Student Code of Conduct and Judicial Process" might not have the necessary scientific expertise to fairly and completely evaluate an allegation of misconduct in science. Protection of Complainants. The University's "Procedure" provides no protection for the complainant once an "administrative review" determines that there are "reasonable grounds" to proceed. We believe this lack of protection may discourage individuals from bringing troubling situations related to misconduct in science to the administration's attention. This would be especially true if the complainant were in a subordinate position with respect to the subject, such as a graduate student alleging misconduct by a faculty member, or an assistant professor alleging misconduct by a full professor. We believe the University should consider procedures that, at a minimum, better maintain the confidentiality of subordinate complainants. Further, we are concerned that the University's "Procedure," in general, provides no protection against possible retaliation against a complainant who brings, in good faith, an allegation of misconduct in science to the administration's attention. Adjudications. The University's "Procedure" states that the College Dean initiates "proceedings for appropriate disciplinary action only as the FIC [Formal Investigation Committee] finds." We believe the adjudicator should not be bound or limited by the FIC's findings, but, instead, should independently, after carefully reviewing and considering the FIC's findings, make the final determination. Further, the University's "Procedure" provides no guidelines as to the possible sanctions that the FIC might recommend or the adjudicator might impose if misconduct in science is found to have occurred. We believe the University's "Procedure" should contain a clear statement as to the range of sanctions available. This statement would provide guidance to the FIC and clarify to the community the University's position on the seriousness of misconduct. Standard of Proof. The University's "Procedure" does not specify a standard of proof (for example, preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, etc.) that must be met for the FIC to find "professional misconduct." A clearly stated standard of proof would guide the FIC in its assessment of whether there is sufficient evidence to find misconduct. It would also prevent each FIC member from applying a different criterion and provide consistency from one investigation to another. Further, for NSF to consider using the University's FIC report in lieu of its own, we need an assessment of the evidence using NSF's standard of proof-a preponderance of the evidence. We believe the University should specify a standard of proof that must be met to find misconduct. Notification of Funding Agencies. We noted that the University's "Procedure" allows for the notification of funding agencies "[i]f the allegation involves misuse of research funds supported by a federal, state, or private granting agency. . . ." It is not clear what would happen if an allegation arose against someone supported by NSF for a nonresearch activity, such as an education initiative. We believe the University's "Procedure" should make it clear that all NSF-funded activities are included. Anonymous or Oral Allegations. We are concerned that the University's "Procedure" does not allow for the acceptance of an anonymous or oral allegation from a complainant. The Interim Vice President for Research and Public Service discussed, as an example, how his office would carefully handle any anonymous allegation it received. However, we believe the University's policy should clarify that anonymous allegations, whether oral or written, are acceptable. We occasionally receive anonymous allegations from complainants that, because they believe they may be retaliated against, wish to remain anonymous. We also receive oral allegations from complainants who wish to inform us of their concerns but do not wish to prepare written documentation. We do not think the form in which an allegation is received should, in any way, preclude the University's handling of the matter. Faculty and Student Awareness of the "Procedure." The Interim Vice President for Research and Public Service was unsure of how aware faculty members and students were about the University's "Procedure." Most of the faculty members we talked with were aware the University had a policy, but they were unaware of its contents. The University's "Procedure," which was approved in 1989, is not published in any of the documentation we reviewed including the "Faculty Handbook" (last published in 1984); the "Professional, Administrative and Technical Handbook; the Personnel Policies as of January 1995;" and the "Commonplace Book," "A Faculty Guide to the University and Community Resources." We believe faculty members and students need to have ready access to the University's "Procedure" so that, if questions about the University's "Procedure" arise, they will know where to find it. The faculty members we interviewed described several different approaches they would follow if they suspected misconduct in science or received an allegation from another source about misconduct in science. These approaches ranged from dealing with the problem directly to taking the problem to a group leader, a student's faculty advisor, the chairperson, or the Vice President of Research and Public Service. All of the faculty members believed that an allegation against a student would be handled fairly. We were told that no allegations of misconduct in science had been brought to the Interim Vice President for Research and Public Service's attention since his appointment at the beginning of the 1994-1995 academic year. The faculty members we interviewed were not aware of any University initiative to assist faculty members or students with issues related to the ethics of science and engineering practices. Most of the faculty members we talked with explained that this information was provided through one-on-one experiences between themselves and their students. We were told the Engineering Department offers a two-course sequence for undergraduates that covers the ethics of engineering, and the Earth Sciences Department provides a handout that guides students in paper preparation. We were also told the seminar the Institute offers its graduate students discusses ethical issues at times. We are concerned that there is no obvious University initiative that encourages the community to discuss and learn about the ethical issues in science and engineering. NSF-supported students were unaware of the University's "Procedure" for dealing with misconduct in science. Most students said they would feel comfortable bringing a troubling situation to their advisor or department chairperson's attention. Drug-Free Workplace Requirements Our limited review indicated that the University is making a good faith effort to provide a drug-free workplace and campus. The "Information about Campus Safety, Alcohol, & Illegal Drugs" brochure addresses the University's policy regarding the use of alcohol and illegal drugs, federal drug laws, health risks associated with illegal drug use and alcohol abuse, and information on assistance services. We were told that this brochure is mailed annually to all faculty, staff, and students. A separate booklet is mailed annually to faculty and staff members that summarizes the Drug-Free Workplace Act, the University's policy regarding the use of alcohol and controlled substances in the workplace, available assistance services, health risks of drug use, federal penalties for trafficking and possessing illicit drugs, and state laws about trafficking and possessing alcohol and illicit drugs as well as driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The University's Drug Advisory Committee (DAC) examines alcohol- and drug-related problems within the University community and makes recommendations to the University President in the areas of policy, education, and assistance services relating to alcohol and drugs. Since its inception in 1978, DAC's accomplishments have included supporting the implementation of the University's Employee Assistance Program, developing and implementing the University's Alcohol/Drug Awareness Weeks, and creating a Health Educator position to implement alcohol education programs. The University's Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Education Program and Assistance Service (Program), which was established in 1982, is supervised by the Associate Director of Health Services, coordinated by a Health Educator, and staffed by trained student interns. The Health Educator works closely with the University's Health Education and Promotion Office to provide the University community with educational programs, assistance services, and a resource library regarding alcohol and drug abuse. The Program is funded primarily through the mandatory student health fee, which is collected from undergraduate and graduate students as well as full-time, nondegree students every academic year ($302 per student for 1994-1995). Since March 1992, the Employee Assistance Program has been available to University employees and provides up to six free visits. Additionally, the University's Office of Environmental Health and Safety (OEHS) conducts an employee safety orientation that all new University employees are required to attend once. The Director of OEHS told us that these orientations are held weekly at the beginning of every fall semester and several times a month thereafter for the rest of the school year. Lobbying Restrictions The Byrd Amendment on Lobbying Reform (31 U.S.C. -1352) generally prohibits recipients of federal contracts, loans, or grant awards from using appropriated funds for lobbying in connection with these awards. The law requires certification with each proposal that federal funds have not been used for lobbying and disclosure of some information if nonappropriated funds have been used for lobbying. The University had submitted the required certifications to NSF for the eight awards we reviewed. University officials stated that the University does not participate in lobbying efforts of any kind. Our limited review did not identify any concerns in this area. Nondiscrimination and Affirmative Action The University's six "Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Statements (EEO Statements)" cover Equal Employment Opportunity, Affirmative Action, Equal Education Opportunity, Employment of the Disabled, Employment of Veterans, and Sex Discrimination Guidelines. These statements are widely disseminated in various University publications including catalogs, handbooks, manuals, and job advertisements. The "University's Affirmative Action Plan for Minorities and Women (Plan)" states that USNH's Board of Trustees (Trustees) is ultimately responsible for equal employment opportunity and its achievement through the "Plan." The Trustees delegate the responsibility for compliance with the laws and regulations to the Chancellor, who, in turn, delegates the responsibility for the overall planning, coordination, and reporting of the "Plan" to the USNH Director of Human Resources (Director). The Director works with the Affirmative Action Offices at every institution that is included in USNH to ensure compliance with federal and state regulations concerning nondiscrimination. The "Plan" further states that every Vice President, Dean, Director, and/or Department Head is responsible for the implementation of the plan at his/her institution. The University President's Commission on the Status of Women (Commission) was established in 1972 to explore conditions relating to the mobility and equality of women at the University and UNHM and to encourage the full participation of women at all levels: undergraduate and graduate students; part- and full-time faculty members; operating staff (skilled craftswomen, clerical, service/maintenance, and technical); and professional, administrative, and technical, staff. The Commission's February 1996 "Draft Report on the Status of Women (Draft Report)" for academic year 1993-1994 states that the "chilly climate" for women at the University has not substantially improved over the last 5 years. The Commission advised the University to hire additional women at the full professor level, rather than waiting for women "to work their way up through the ranks." According to figures provided by the University for full-time faculty members, the number of female tenure and tenure-track faculty members was the same in 1995-1996 as it was in 1993-1994, and the number of minority female tenure and tenure-track faculty members has decreased from 8 to 6. Full-Time Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty Members Number (Percent) of Number (Percent) of Total Faculty Female Faculty Minority Female Year Members Members Faculty Members 1993-1994 620 176 (28.4) 8 (1.3) 1994-1995 614 177 (28.8) 7 (1.1) 1995-1996 608 176 (28.9) 6 (1.0) University figures for full-time, tenure and tenure-track faculty members show that in 1993-1994, 21 (10.2 percent) of the 206 full professors were female, and 88 (32.4 percent) of the 272 associate professors were female. Comparable figures for 1995- 1996 show that the numbers have increased slightly: 29 (13 percent) of the 224 full professors were female, and 95 (35 percent) of the 272 associate professors were female. According to fall 1995 figures provided by the University for full- and part-time students, women constitute 57 percent of undergraduate population (6,034 of 10,620) and 57 percent of the graduate student population (1,021 of 1,794). Most of the undergraduate and graduate students are white, 90.9 percent and 82.2 percent, respectively. Demographics [2] reveal that 98 percent of New Hampshire's residents are white, and figures provided by the University show that about 60 percent of its under-graduate and graduate students are New Hampshire residents. Minority enrollment of undergraduate students consists of 194 Asian Americans (108 females, 86 males), 80 African Americans (25 females and 55 males), 128 Hispanic Americans (71 females and 57 males), and 20 Native Americans (10 females and 10 males). The 1994 University report, "Building a New University Community: Minority Student and Faculty Recruitment and Retention at the University," states that although minorities represented 2.8 percent of the undergraduate population in the fall of 1994, the University's goal is to have a range of 7.5 percent by 2005, with intermediate checkpoints of 3 percent by the fall of 1995 and 5 percent by the fall of 2000. The University has achieved the fall 1995 goal with a minority undergraduate representation of 3.5 percent. NSF has a continuing commitment to increasing the participation of women and minorities in science and engineering. In addition to reviewing compliance with nondiscrimination regulations, we seek to learn about any initiatives, mechanisms, or programs that have increased or may contribute to increasing the presence of women, racial minorities, and other underrepresented groups in science and engineering and that may be successfully modeled at other institutions. Several University officials and faculty members told us that much of the outreach to women and minorities in science and engineering was often informal and/or by an individual faculty member's initiative. For example, one University official told us about his outreach efforts to minority high school students. Over the past several years, this official has visited with students at science and math high schools in the Boston and New York areas who indicated an interest in the University. He spoke with the students about the role of education in their future, and he hoped to stimulate the students into thinking about and preparing for college. Interested students were invited to visit the University for a tour of the facilities and the chance to meet University professors, students, and other personnel. Unfortunately, these informal outreach activities were not formally documented, and involved students were not tracked, so the success and value of these initiatives is unknown. While this outreach is commendable, we encourage the University to support these efforts by keeping records that will provide a more thorough evaluation of the activities. Also, formalizing the process might provide more visibility and thus increase participation in, and support of, the activities. During our inspection, we interviewed several other individuals who informed us about some established programs that are geared to women and underrepresented minorities in science and engineering. Brief descriptions of some of these programs follow. McNair Graduate Opportunity Program (McNair Program). Funded by the Department of Education since 1992, the purpose of the McNair Program is to prepare eligible undergraduate students to pursue doctoral degrees. Eligible applicants must either be (1) a low-income and first-generation college student or (2) an underrepresented minority student (African American, Alaskan Native, American Indian, Hawaiian Native, or Hispanic). Also, the applicants must demonstrate academic ability and achieve junior or senior standing (but not graduated), plan to apply to graduate school with the intent of pursuing a doctorate, and be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States. Students selected as McNair Fellows participate in a 10-week instructional/research experience at the University that includes a $2,400 stipend, workshops and seminars on preparing for graduate school, research and writing skills, and mentoring throughout the Program from University faculty members. McNair Fellows must complete a research project and a written report over the 10-week course and present the project's results at a research symposium. About 15 students per year have participated in the McNair Program since its inception at the University. The Department of Education provided $192,255 for the McNair Program for academic year 1994-1995. Of the 20 (16 females and 4 males) McNair Fellows in 1995, there were: 1 American Indian/Alaskan Native, 4 African Americans, and 3 Hispanic students. Society of Women Engineers (SWE). The University's SWE chapter is open to female undergraduate students in the University's CEPS and COLSA and to female graduate students studying science and engineering at the University. Most of the University's SWE chapter members (about 25 in spring 1996) are undergraduate female students from CEPS. The University's SWE chapter officers are student members, and there is a faculty advisor who oversees the chapter and a professional advisor who is available to offer career advice. Senior students (Big Sisters) are paired with younger students (Little Sisters) for mentoring. The University's SWE chapter meets biweekly, and annual dues are $15 ($12 goes to SWE and $3 goes to the University's SWE chapter). The members also sell sweatshirts and T- shirts to cover special trips to SWE conferences or special events. The President of the University's SWE chapter told us she regularly contacts industry representatives to address the members about their career experiences. Also, every semester, the University's SWE chapter works with high school guidance counselors throughout the state to coordinate Shadow Day. Interested junior and senior female high school students are required to write an essay explaining their interest in Shadow Day, where they have the opportunity to follow a University SWE chapter member through a typical college day. About 20 high school students participated in the spring 1996 Shadow Day. CEPS contributes about $150 toward Shadow Day expenses, which include lunch, postage, and photocopying. The Association for Women in Science (AWIS). The University's AWIS chapter started in 1988 and is available to female faculty members and graduate students (there are roughly 20 members). We were told that the University's AWIS chapter meets informally every week and that there is a potluck dinner for members once every semester. One female faculty member told us that she finds the University's AWIS chapter very supportive and that she learned the tenure process better through informal discussion at the weekly meetings than through the University's written procedures provided. The University's AWIS chapter has cosponsored a variety of programs on campus, including a workshop entitled, "Graduate Students in the Sciences Funding Workshop," and science and engineering seminars with guest speakers from other universities. Additionally, the University's AWIS chapter is a cosponsor for the Women in Science Poster Session that is held during Women's History Month at the University. Female researchers have the opportunity at the Poster Session to describe and present their work in the form of a poster that is displayed on campus. Financial Disclosure We assessed the University's policy and procedures for PIs regarding conflicts of interest, as described in the "University's Policy on Financial Conflict of Interest in Research (University Policy),"[3] to determine whether it met the minimum requirements of NSF's "Investigator Financial Disclosure Policy (NSF's Policy)," which became effective on October 1, 1995. University officials told us that the "University Policy" was drafted and subsequently approved by multiple facets of the University community, in response to NSF's previous notice [4] on investigator financial disclosure. The "University Policy" meets the minimum requirements of "NSF's Policy;" however, there are some relatively minor areas that would benefit from clarification. In the fall of 1995, the University revised its "Policy" for two reasons: to change the University's disclosure process and to address the requirements in "NSF's Policy." During this revision process, the University has also clarified requirements and procedures in the "University Policy." These clarifications make it easier for PIs to understand their responsibilities and the processes involved in disclosing and managing conflicts of interest. University officials told us they expect the revised "University Policy" to be approved and disseminated by the end of the 1995-1996 spring semester. The University is following certain procedures in both the "University Policy" and the revised "University Policy." In light of this, we reviewed both of the University's policies and procedures regarding financial conflicts of interest. The University briefed full-time faculty members about the "University's Policy" and its implementation through the Office of Sponsored Research's (OSR's) "Funding Information Newsletter (Newsletter)," which is usually issued biweekly. The "Newsletter" is also listed on an electronic page in UNHINFO, the University's campus-wide information system, which is accessible to everyone on campus. Copies of the "University Policy" are available in Deans' and departmental offices throughout the campus, in OSR, and in the Office of the Vice President for Research and Public Service. Although it is not publicly available yet, University officials told us they intend to broadly disseminate the revised "University Policy" after it is approved. The "University Policy" requires that PIs "reveal all current significant financial interests that relate to the research" for themselves and their immediate family through a Financial Disclosure Statement (Disclosure Statement) before beginning any work on the project. This original Disclosure Statement, which has not been used, was intended to serve as a screening document by asking several targeted questions relating to the existence of relevant financial interests. If the PI had indicated that any relevant financial interests existed, a complete description of those interests would have been required. The original Disclosure Statement also required that the PI certify that he/she read and understood the "University Policy," made all the required financial disclosures, and will comply with any conditions or restrictions imposed by the University to manage any identified conflict of interest. The "University Policy" requires that Disclosure Statements and any accompanying documentation be sealed in a confidential envelope addressed to the Executive Director of OSR. According to the "University Policy," Disclosure Statements indicating the existence of relevant financial interests will be reviewed by a University Disclosure Review Committee (Review Committee) that consists of the Vice President for Research and Public Service, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and three faculty members appointed by the University President. The Review Committee will determine whether a conflict of interest exists and, if so, may solicit recommendations from PIs for conflict-of-interest management plans. According to the "University Policy," all Disclosure Statements and associated documents will be secured in the Office of the Vice President for Research and Public Service. The "University Policy" requires that PIs update their records of significant financial interests within 15 days of a change in those circumstances either during the project's activities or while the proposal is pending. University officials told us that, after the "University Policy" was approved, it did not appear feasible to collect and track all of these Disclosure Statements for each external funding proposal. As a result, the University revised the "University Policy" by making several changes to the disclosure process. Although the University has been following these new procedures since October 1, 1995, the revised "University Policy" has not been disseminated to PIs because it is pending approval. The first of these changes was the addition of a specific PI certification in the "Request for Internal Approval of Grant or Contract Application to External Sponsor," an internal document that PIs must complete for every proposal submitted for external funding. The certification states: I certify that I have read and understand UNH's policy on Financial Conflict of Interest in Research; have made all required financial disclosures; as project leader, have made every effort to ensure that all responsible for the design, conduct, or reporting of the research have submitted the required disclosures; and prior to the expenditure of award funds will have reached an agreement with UNH which provides for conditions or restrictions necessary to manage, reduce, or eliminate any conflicts of interest under UNH policy. If disclosure is necessary, the PI is expected to request a Disclosure Statement, copies of which are available in OSR. If neither the PI nor his/her immediate family has any significant financial interests to disclose, no action is taken. At the time of our visit, University officials told us that no PIs have requested a Disclosure Statement; therefore, there are no PI disclosures on file. A second change to the disclosure process includes a revision of the Disclosure Statement itself. Since the revised Disclosure Statement needs to be completed only if the PI has significant financial interests to disclose, the targeted questions were removed and replaced by a listing of various kinds of financial interests. The PI is required to check off those financial interests that relate to the research and attach a written description identifying the business entity, the amount of the interest, and the nature of the relationship. The revised Disclosure Statement (and the revised "University Policy") requires that PIs complete a proposed conflict-of-interest management plan if they, or their immediate family, hold significant financial interests that may be affected by the research. According to the revised "University Policy," the Committee will review the PI's Disclosure Statement, accompanying description, and conflict management plan to determine whether a conflict exists. It is of interest to note that, in the revised "University Policy," the University expects PIs to complete a proposed conflict management plan before the Committee formally identifies a conflict. In the third change to the disclosure process, the revised "University Policy" will require that the PI return the Disclosure Statement, supporting documentation, and the proposed conflict-of-interest management plan in a confidential envelope addressed to the Vice President for Research and Public Service rather than to the Executive Director of OSR. Under the revised "University Policy," the Vice President for Research and Public Service will notify the Executive Director of OSR that a Disclosure Statement has been received and will keep that person informed about the status of conflicts of interest so that funds are not spent in the event the conflict of interest has not been managed. We believe the "University Policy" meets the minimum requirements of "NSF's Policy" to identify, manage, and resolve conflicts of interest, although the revised "University Policy" is much more simplified and explicit. Also, since some of the procedures detailed in the "University Policy" are not being practiced as such, this can present confusion for PIs, particularly those who have significant financial interests to disclose. Once endorsed and implemented, the revised "University Policy" will more clearly and consistently correspond with "NSF's Policy." C. PROGRAM AND RESEARCH REVIEW Background The objectives of this portion of the inspection were to (1) assess the scientific aspects of the projects funded under the grant awards reviewed, (2) evaluate the adequacy of the facilities and other institutional support for these efforts, (3) determine the PIs' views on issues related to the research awards covered by the inspection, and (4) develop an understanding of the PIs' impressions of the quality and adequacy of NSF's proposal review and award processes, including NSF program officials' interactions with PIs. The information, observations, and conclusions presented in this section of the report were gathered through reviews of relevant documentation and interviews with University and NSF personnel. We also reviewed documentation University officials sent to us before our inspection and information we requested during our inspection, as well as a June 1995 Committee of Visitors report on the Geosciences Directorate, Division of Atmospheric Science (ATM) for the Lower Atmospheric Research Section. Our review focused on NSF's Directorate of Geosciences and the University's Institute. The Institute housed interdisciplinary research groups that interacted on projects related to earth, oceans, and space sciences. We reviewed eight awards made by NSF's ATM to the University. We interviewed the six ATM program officers who are responsible for one or more of the awards. We interviewed 10 CEPS PIs and co-PIs supported under the awards, 8 of whom were affiliated with the Institute. One of the PIs had recently left the University to begin a new job, so we conducted our interview with him by telephone. The eight awards represented research on the earth's past climate and upper atmosphere. For example, one award supported research that collected and analyzed ice cores from high mountain glaciers in Nepal to learn about changes in the earth's atmosphere over the last 1,000 years. Knowledge gained from this work will add to our understanding of the causes and effects of climatic change on earth. Other awards supported research on the earth's upper atmosphere and the solar wind that interacts with it. Our understanding of "space weather," which encompasses the conditions and variations of the earth's upper atmosphere, the sun and the solar wind, is important because it can influence the operations and useful life of space facilities and it can endanger humans. As a part of our inspection, we interviewed one undergraduate and eight graduate students as well as four professional staff members who were supported by NSF grants. In addition, we interviewed the Interim Vice President for Research and Public Service; the Executive Director of the Office of Sponsored Research; the Dean of CEPS; the Director and Associate Director of the Institute; the chairpersons of the Earth Sciences, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Physics departments; the Director of OEHS; the Regulatory Compliance Officer; and the chairpersons of the Radiation Safety Subcommittee, the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research, and the Animal Care and Use Committee. Finally, we met briefly with several faculty members who were not PIs on the grants under review, but who expressed a desire to talk to us. We toured some of the Institute laboratory, computer, and storage facilities contained in Morse Hall, the building in which the Institute faculty worked. Observations and Conclusions The Institute brings together faculty members with different backgrounds and department affiliations to encourage the development of collaborative and interdisciplinary research efforts. At the time of our inspection, the Institute was composed of five major research groups: a Biogeochemical Systems Center, a Complex Systems Research Center, a Glacier Research Group, an Ocean Processes Analysis Laboratory, and a Space Science Center. Financial support for the Institute is provided by the University and is determined annually to be half of the total indirect costs from Institute faculty members' awards for the previous fiscal year. The Institute is organized so that the traditional University departmental structure is maintained. Each of the Institute's 37 faculty members is affiliated with a University department, and it is through the department that admission and degree requirements for graduate students who work with the Institute faculty are determined. There are three different types of Institute faculty appointments. First, six Institute faculty members, each of whom is tenured, are supported equally by funds from the department and Institute. The Institute Director and the CEPS Dean, with assistance from the department chairperson, determine the teaching workloads for these faculty members. Second, 21 Institute faculty members, each of whom is a nontenure- track researcher, are supported entirely by funds from the Institute. The Dean of CEPS arranges these research faculty members' teaching responsibilities. Finally, eight faculty members, each of whom are either tenure-track or tenured, are supported entirely by funds from their respective departments. The Dean of CEPS works with department chairpersons to determine these faculty members' teaching responsibilities. All Institute faculty members are provided space in Morse Hall. At the time of our inspection, the Institute included one retired and one visiting faculty member. The Institute offers courses and certain degree programs in cooperation with the departments. Courses and programs are interdisciplinary and tend to complement and enhance courses and programs offered by departments. Graduate students who elect to work with the Institute are required to participate in an Institute-sponsored interdisciplinary seminar that focuses on scientific presentations, proposal writing, and manuscript preparation. At the time of our inspection, we were told that about 75 graduate students, 6 postdoctoral researchers, and approximately 100 undergraduate students were involved in courses or research activities with the Institute. For the most part, faculty members we talked with viewed the Institute as a tremendous asset for the University. They described its strengths in terms of the interdisciplinary collaborations it fostered and of the additional courses provided by the Institute research faculty. During our interviews, two faculty members commented on the reduced support for departments that began with the advent of the Institute or about the possible perception that the Institute was a better place for students to do research than the departments. Most of the Institute faculty members we interviewed had developed extensive collaborative relationships within the Institute as well as with scientists from other U.S. and foreign institutions. The Institute receives some industrial support as well; a large portion of the support goes to the Complex Systems Research Center, a computer-based global environmental research group. Generally, Institute faculty members were satisfied with their facilities. A concern that was commonly expressed was about the future limited availability of research space in Morse Hall. Efforts were made to maintain a collegial atmosphere between all CEPS faculty members and students, including those affiliated with the Institute. For example, we observed signs in several buildings inviting people to attend a regularly scheduled "Wednesday Afternoon Tea," at the Institute. We were told the "Tea" generally involved poster presentations by students in addition to refreshments. Many of the faculty members we interviewed also received support from other federal agencies, chiefly from NASA. We were told that NASA accounts for about 70 percent of the Institute's support, while NSF accounts for the second largest portion at about 15 percent. In comparison, we were told that NSF support of the three CEPS departments, to which most of the faculty members we interviewed were affiliated, ranged from as much as 50 percent to as little as 1 percent. The students we interviewed described faculty members as supportive and available, and the laboratory and equipment facilities as more than adequate. The students said they received fair and proper recognition for their research efforts. We saw no evidence of any serious interpersonal conflicts. Generally, we heard little concern about gender discrimination, although we should note that no female faculty members were associated with any of the grants selected for this inspection. Department chairpersons we interviewed appeared to be supportive of the young faculty members in their departments. Chairpersons, as well as the Dean of CEPS, indicated that young faculty members were generally permitted reduced teaching loads to permit them time to develop research programs. In one case, a chairperson described a situation of a first-year faculty member who was teaching an advanced undergraduate course. He explained that the new faculty member had agreed to do this because it provided her with the opportunity to "jump start" her research program with students by meeting prospective seniors, some of whom she could advise on senior projects the next year. Data Collection and Retention The University provided us with a February 1994 draft copy of a data retention policy, the "University of New Hampshire Policy Statement," "The Ownership and Retention of Research Data (Draft Policy)." However, at the time of the inspection, the University had not officially adopted the "Draft Policy." The Interim Vice President for Research and Public Service told us that he became aware of the "Draft Policy" as a result of our inspection. He indicated he would ensure the "Draft Policy" was properly administered to receive official approval. We are particularly concerned about this situation because, in 1992, we deferred our inquiry of an allegation of misconduct in science to the University. Part of the inquiry required that the inquiry committee review data collected by a scientist at the University. However, the acquisition of these data was complicated by the fact that the University had no official data collection or retention policy, and the necessary data were not readily available. As a result of this deferral and the subsequent complications, in March 1994, our office received the assurances that a February 1994 "Draft Policy" was in its "final stages of formal acceptance." We were told at that time that the comment period for the "Draft Policy" ended on "March 15, 1994, and then the policy statement [would] be published." However, at the time of our inspection, the "Draft Policy" still had not been officially adopted and published, and the University had no formal data collection and retention policy. We are concerned that, without a formal policy, the University will not be able to adequately pursue an allegation of misconduct in science that questions the integrity of data collected by a subject. Such research results might not be available if the University finds it necessary to obtain or confiscate them from the subject. Consequently, we are not sure we would defer an allegation of misconduct in science that questioned the integrity of data collected under NSF-supported grants until the University adopts a formal policy. We are also concerned that research results generated under NSF- supported grants might not be available if it became necessary to conduct a performance audit of the grant. Most of the faculty members we talked with were unaware of any NSF or institutional policy concerning data retention, and most said they would take their data with them if they left the institution. However, because much of the data generated from several of the awards we reviewed in this inspection were submitted to national or international databases, this was not a significant concern. All of the faculty members we interviewed indicated that data and records collected by students would remain at the University. Most of the data collected by faculty members working under the NSF awards reviewed in this inspection were maintained in computer files that were backed up in at least two other locations. Several faculty members indicated that they kept additional back-up files at home. Few faculty members used the traditional notebook to record data. Those who did, used them to record either experimental conditions associated with data collection or field observations. We were told that most information associated with experimental conditions recorded in notebooks was transferred to computer databases with the relevant data. We were told that field notebooks were duplicated as soon as possible after the field work was completed, and, when significant travel was involved, the duplicate copy was shipped separately from the original. The faculty members we interviewed told us they never threw any data away. Faculty members who did not generate their own data sets but used data sets generated by others in the development of models and theories did not keep all their work papers. These researchers maintained separate project paper files of their work, and they believed each file contained sufficient record of their work. However, these files were not duplicated. They explained that, in their fields, the published paper became the permanent record. We were concerned that, in case of a mishap, such as a fire, some relevant information related to the individual faculty member's effort, might be lost. Such a loss might negatively affect an ongoing project or an old project review. We recommend that faculty members who maintain paper files periodically evaluate and duplicate relevant progress and consider storing duplicate files in a separate location. This effort would guarantee that, in case of a disaster or an audit of their research efforts, records would be available. For the most part, tampering with data was not a concern because faculty members who generated raw data maintained multiple back- up files in different locations. Safety Issues OEHS was formed in 1990 to oversee all health and safety issues at the University. The Director of OEHS explained that OEHS acted in conjunction with the various safety committees at the University, which resulted in a more efficient overall monitoring of safety issues. OEHS conducts annual laboratory safety inspections. The Director told us that OEHS reports the results of these inspections to department chairpersons. Department chairpersons told us that laboratory safety inspections were regularly performed, but not all of the chairpersons were aware that these reports were issued to them after each laboratory inspection. All staff members are required to have formal safety training, and the training is available for any interested faculty members and students. We were told that most faculty members and students do not take advantage of the training. Faculty members indicated that, when laboratory safety is an issue, either they or a full-time staff laboratory manager handles the training. Students thought there were few significant safety issues associated with their work and relied on laboratory personnel or faculty members for training. We were told that the University has no formal safety manual. The Director of OEHS explained that he thought a general safety manual would not be effective because it would not address the wide variety of safety concerns associated with the many different activities at the University. Instead, he indicated that user responsibility is emphasized with an informed OEHS to respond to questions and provide assistance. The Director of OEHS said that, although faculty members and students generally do not attend the formal safety meetings, in his experience, activities or situations that are high safety risks or novel generate an interest in safety and more frequent contact with OEHS. The laboratories we visited were generally clean and well- organized. We were told that no significant accidents had been reported. One safety issue of interest involved field work proposed as part of one of the grants selected for this inspection. The field work was performed in high mountain terrain in another country by a faculty member, a graduate student, and host country workers. The field group was trapped when a sudden change in the weather during the first field season resulted in 5 feet of snow over a short period of time. Fortunately, the faculty member was well- prepared, and the entire team was eventually evacuated. From what we could determine, the University was not fully aware of the potential safety issues associated with this field work. However, the NSF review process correctly identified the potential problems associated with the proposed field work and adequately addressed the participants' experience and training for such an expedition. The program officer was also aware of the safety issues and, with the reviewers assurances, was confident that the participants were properly trained to safely accomplish the proposed field work. During an interview, the faculty member who led the field expedition told us that he was well-prepared and that his major concern when the storm came was his team's safety. We believe it is advisable that the Director of OEHS be informed of unusual safety issues associated with off- campus grant activities, especially when graduate students are involved. We interviewed the chairpersons for some of the safety committees at the institution. Our impression was that the committees functioned as they were intended. Relations With NSF Faculty members told us about OSR's "Newsletter," which contains information about funding sources and programs. Several faculty members said they also received information about programs as well as NSF's GC-1 from OSR or NSF. Most of the faculty members were aware of many of the targeted programs at NSF. However, two of our interviewees, who were in a position to possibly influence other faculty members, were unfamiliar with several of NSF's targeted programs. Most of the faculty members we talked with were unfamiliar with the Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) program. A few of these expressed an interest in the SGER after we described its purpose and requirements. Faculty members were supportive of the review process, and most thought that the number of proposals they were asked to review was fair. Two faculty members mentioned that each received from NSF and NASA combined over 15 proposals a year to review. Each expressed concern that he was approaching his personal limit given the time it took to do a good review. For the most part, the faculty members we interviewed who reviewed NSF proposals respected the confidentiality of the review process. However, one faculty member indicated that he sometimes called other researchers in his field and discovered they were reviewing the same proposals, although he said he did not discuss the ideas contained in the proposals. Another faculty member said he shared some of the NSF proposals he received for review with his graduate students to provide them with the opportunity to learn how to review proposals. He also told us he did not ask the program officer for permission to do this. Sharing NSF proposals received for confidential review with other individuals, including graduate students, without the program officer's permission, is a violation of the confidentiality of peer review. In general, faculty members we interviewed had positive comments about NSF program officers. Specifically, faculty members described ATM program officers as supportive and accessible. Several faculty members commented on the importance to them that NSF program officers attend national meetings. They viewed these meetings as their single most important conduit for information exchange with NSF. One faculty member believed that his interactions with NSF program officers at meetings strongly influenced his future funding because it was at these meetings he was able to show program officers what he had accomplished with his awards. Several faculty members discussed the 8 or 9 months it typically took to have proposals processed. One faculty member told us he had been informed by an NSF program officer that, as a result of the government shutdown,[5] proposal processing could take almost 1 year. Several faculty members discussed the indecision that resulted from the proposal processing delays. For example, one faculty member described the uncertainty and confusion experienced by graduate students who needed support for the summer and who applied for jobs in case NSF support from grants would not be available. However, as a result of delays associated with NSF proposal processing, combined with the additional delays caused by the government shutdown, students were forced to accept or reject job offers without knowing whether NSF support would be available. Generally, the review process at NSF was viewed positively. Many faculty members expressed a possible concern, which none of them had encountered personally, that a single bad review might prevent funding a proposal. However, none of the faculty members could think of a better approach for proposal review and believed that, for the most part, the system supported the best ideas in science. Most indicated that they had very little concern about putting their best ideas in proposals. Several faculty members expressed their strong support for ATM program officers who permitted them to respond to reviewers' comments before final decisions were made about funding. They appreciated the opportunity and found this interaction more constructive and less frustrating than merely receiving reviews after the fact. Two faculty members acknowledged that this interactive approach probably took more time and, if this were the case, they accepted the delays. ATM program officers we interviewed, who used this approach, told us that PIs were very supportive of the opportunity to respond to reviewers' comments prior to a final decision on a proposal. Program officers thought the extra time associated with this interaction was important because it often helped to strengthen the proposed work and it permitted the program officers the opportunity to provide some guidance at the outset. We found that one PI had purchased equipment under an award for which no equipment funds were budgeted. The faculty member told us that he contacted the NSF program officer to make sure the purchase was appropriate. However, the award jacket contained no indication that the faculty member had contacted the program officer. The program officer reviewed an old telephone log and confirmed that the faculty member had called about this request and it was considered to be a reasonable use of funds. The faculty member received University approval for the change. At our request, the program officer placed a diary note in the award jacket explaining these events. Several faculty members and NSF program officers expressed an ethical dilemma associated with supporting graduate students in areas of science where future employment and research opportunities seemed bleak. On the one hand, they were aware of their responsibilities to develop new, young scientists to continue research efforts in these fields. On the other hand, they were concerned that, with the reality of future limited employment and research opportunities, many of these young scientists would probably be unable to sustain careers in their chosen fields. NSF program officers thought this was a subject that should receive serious discussion. In general, faculty members strongly supported the rotator system at NSF. They thought rotators brought new ideas to programs. Several faculty members expressed their opinion that if a program officer, who comes to NSF as a rotator and, before the end of the 2-year period, expresses a desire to stay longer, should be provided with the opportunity to remain. OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED One function of an inspection is to serve as an unbiased conduit of information. During our interviews, we asked individuals if they have comments (positive or negative) or concerns that they wished to convey to NSF. This part of our report conveys such comments without OIG assessment. One University official told us that the University has been experiencing severe budget constraints, and, as a result, some PIs have said they wouldn't bother submitting proposals that require cost sharing. Another University official stated that it would be helpful if the University could defer the commitment of cost sharing until an award is made. The official suggested that it would be easier to find the cost-sharing dollars at the University for proposals that are awarded. A University official stated that a single, clear definition of every NSF deadline related to proposals and awards, such as target and postmark dates, would be helpful because the various dates have different meanings to different NSF program officers. One University official stated that it would be useful if NSF award letters included e-mail addresses and fax numbers for NSF contacts listed in the letters and if NSF's Telephone Directory included fax numbers. Several faculty members commented on their concerns about the delays in funding decisions caused by the government shutdown with respect to their projects and their graduate students. One administrator commented on the seriousness of the second government shutdown. He explained that it resulted in the development of a plan to reduce or cut University programs, which would have been implemented if the shutdown had continued much longer. One faculty member mentioned that, if a program officer (rotator) were changed at the wrong time in the budget cycle, it could cause delays and make things difficult. Two faculty members praised NSF's Home Page on the Internet because it provided them with current and useful information. RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES A. FINANCIAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW A.1. We recommend that the University have the actual employee; the Principal Investigator; or someone who is familiar with, and involved in, the research project sign the Personnel Activity Reports. University Response The University stated that it requires that the individual who signs the PAR be knowledgeable about the effort of the person compensated. In some cases, PIs have delegated their signature authority to individuals (typically the business manager) intimately familiar with their research projects and effort expended on those projects. The PI meets with the business manager before the project is initiated to determine planned effort and during the project period to review actual effort. Thus, the PI is the one responsible for the correct statement on the PAR. It is a technicality that in some cases the business manager signs on behalf of the PI. Because grant periods do not coincide with PAR reporting cycles, PIs may not always be available to sign PARs in a timely manner. A.2. We recommend that the University inform Principal Investigators that they must allocate grant costs based on the proportional benefit that each grant received. The method of allocation should be clearly stated on the source document. University Response The University agreed that PIs must allocate grant costs based on the proportional benefit that each grant receives. The PIs involved in the NSF inspection have been advised of our concern. The University will reinform all PIs about appropriate allocation methods. B. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE REVIEW B.1. We recommend that the University revise its definition of professional misconduct so that it is consistent with NSF's definition. B.2. We concluded that the deficiencies in the "University's Procedures For Handling Allegations of Professional Misconduct Including Research Misconduct" were so numerous that, in contrast to our usual practice, we would be unable to defer the inquiry or investigation into allegations against an NSF-supported faculty member or student to the University. If the University wishes to accept deferrals under NSF's Misconduct in Science and Engineering regulation, we recommend that the University immediately review its outdated (1989) procedures and revise them to conform with NSF's regulation. However, if the University elects to retain its present procedures, we recommend that the procedures be revised to: (a) define inquiry and investigation so that, if the "Peer Committee" is still considered to be an inquiry that follows the "administrative review," NSF is notified at the beginning of that inquiry; (b) ensure that NSF is notified if an allegation brought against a student supported by an NSF grant is determined to be substantive; (c) ensure that, if the "Peer Committee's" inquiry determines that an allegation has substance, but if the situation is adjudicated without an investigation, NSF is provided with sufficient information to evaluate the proceedings including any sanctions that may have been imposed; (d) clarify that any activity funded by NSF is covered; (e) specify a standard of proof to be used during the investigation; and (f) specify some protection against retaliation against a complainant who has, in good faith, brought an allegation of misconduct to the University's attention. University Response to B.1. and B.2. The University replied that it is concerned about NSF not being able to defer to the University inquiries or investigations into allegations against an NSF-supported faculty member or student because of the deficiencies NSF found in the University's misconduct procedures. The University intends to draft a separate, new policy that will conform to the aforementioned recommendations and to NSF's regulations. The University acknowledged that it will seek input and, where necessary, endorsement by the various constituent groups and that, although this process will take time and effort, it is committed to completing a new policy. B.3 We recommend that the University take the lead in increasing faculty and student awareness of ethical issues in science. University Response The University stated that, since this inspection, it has recognized nine courses, ranging from first year to upper level, that are designed to heighten student awareness of ethical issues in science. The University explained that, because many of the nine courses are general education courses, they are required for undergraduate degree programs and hence, undergraduate students enroll in them from all colleges and schools within the University. The College of Life Sciences and Agriculture also offers several graduate seminars that address ethics and social issues in science, with an emphasis in the natural and biological sciences. The University stated that it recognizes the importance of ethics education and it will continue efforts to increase this awareness among both students and faculty members. B.4. We recommend that, when the University has completed its revised procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in science and engineering, the revised policy be made available to the members of the University community in publications that each will receive on a regular basis. University Response The University responded that the new misconduct policy will be widely distributed to the University community after it is approved by the University president. C. PROGRAM AND RESEARCH REVIEW C.1. We recommend that the University officially adopt its present draft policy on "The Ownership and Retention of Research Data," and that the adopted policy be made available to the University community. University Response The University stated that it will continue final discussions on its draft policy and will distribute the final policy widely and frequently. [1] NSF describes "accusers" as "complainants," and the "accused" as "subjects" because we believe to identify someone as an "accused" or an "accuser" conveys a negative connotation that might affect the proceedings from the outset. [2] The "Chronicle of Higher Education," Vol. XLII, No. 1,p.74, 1 September 1995. [3] "Federal Register," Vol. 60, No. 132, pp.35820-35823, 11 July 1995. [4] Announced in the "Federal Register," Vol. 59, No. 132, pp.33308-33312,28 June 1994. This policy, with an effective date scheduled for June 28, 1995, did not become operative, as anticipated by the University. [5] The first government shutdown began on November 14, 1995, when federal employees, upon arrival at work, were told that they were furloughed. Employees returned to work on November 20, 1995. The second government shutdown began on December 18, 1995, when federal employees, upon arrival at work, were told that they were furloughed. The furlough officially ended on January 8, 1996. On January 7, 1996, a blizzard in the Washington, D.C., area resulted in the government closure from January 8 through January 10, 1996. On January 11, 1996, the government opened. However, a blizzard in the Washington, D.C., area in the early morning of January 12, 1996, resulted in the government closure on January 12, 1996. The government opened on January 16, 1996, after the federal holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.