APPENDIX C
Animal Resources Survey-1999 and Survey Tables

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains the questionnaire that was sent to 130 animal care and use programs throughout the United States. The Committee on Cost of and Payment for Animal Research reviewed the questionnaire and suggested some enhancements that were incorporated into the survey by Yale Section of Comparative Medicine personnel before it was distributed. There were 63 responses for a nearly 50% response rate. The focus of the Cost Committee was to suggest methods for cost containment in traditional biomedical animal research facilities. Judging from the numbers and types of species used, some of the respondents to the survey appeared to be primarily in agricultural research or aquaculture. Therefore, the decision was made to restrict analysis to the 53 institutions that had an average daily mouse census of 1,000 or more. The 53 institutions were divided into three groups according to average daily mouse census: group 1 (n = 23) 1,000-9,999, group 2 (n = 16) 10,000-29,999, and group 3 (n = 14) > 29,999.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES APPENDIX C Animal Resources Survey-1999 and Survey Tables INTRODUCTION This appendix contains the questionnaire that was sent to 130 animal care and use programs throughout the United States. The Committee on Cost of and Payment for Animal Research reviewed the questionnaire and suggested some enhancements that were incorporated into the survey by Yale Section of Comparative Medicine personnel before it was distributed. There were 63 responses for a nearly 50% response rate. The focus of the Cost Committee was to suggest methods for cost containment in traditional biomedical animal research facilities. Judging from the numbers and types of species used, some of the respondents to the survey appeared to be primarily in agricultural research or aquaculture. Therefore, the decision was made to restrict analysis to the 53 institutions that had an average daily mouse census of 1,000 or more. The 53 institutions were divided into three groups according to average daily mouse census: group 1 (n = 23) 1,000-9,999, group 2 (n = 16) 10,000-29,999, and group 3 (n = 14) > 29,999.

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES Group Mouse average daily census Institution ID numbers No. institutions 1 1,000-9,999 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 28, 29, 34, 37, 39, 45, 46, 49, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59 23 2 10,000-29,999 11, 14, 19, 23, 25, 27, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 54, 55, 60, 62 16 3 > 29,999 1, 3, 7, 10, 16, 21, 31, 35, 40, 48, 51, 52, 61, 63 14 The responses to the questionnaire are summarized in the ensuing tables. Nearly all tables have 1 row for each group and a final row for all 53 institutions. Where necessary, a description (in parentheses) of what the numbers in the table represent (mean number of institutions, mean percentage of the group or of all 53 institutions, and so on) is provided.

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES Animal Resources Survey – 1999 Table of Contents Page Identification page .................................................................................................1 I Physical plant ................................................................................................................2 II Staffing ..........................................................................................................................6 III Animal procurement and census ..........................................................................12 IV Services..........................................................................................................................13 V Prevalence of infectious agents ..............................................................................18 VI Finances .....................................................................................................................19 VII Regulatory issues ....................................................................................................27 VII Regulatory issues ....................................................................................................27 VIII Resource–client relationships .............................................................................28 IX Future directions .......................................................................................................29 General Instructions Please use black ink. Please write legibly. Please answer all questions. Please do not add explanatory notes to your answers unless they are requested. If you are unsure about the accuracy of a proposed answer (eg, institutional financial data), please ask an appropriate colleague at your institution for help. If you are unsure about the intent of a question or how to answer a question, send your query by e–mail to: valeria.krizsan@yale.edu . We will try to help. Please do not separate questionnaire pages. If you must do so, please restaple them securely before you return the questionnaire. Please remember to enclose with the completed questionnaire your: organizational chart list of per diem rates financial contribution Please return the completed questionnaire by MARCH 15, 1999.

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES 1. Physical Plant: A. Configuration: Which configuration describes most accurately the layout of your resource: 1. Fully centralized: (all sites contiguous (under “one roof”)) ___ 2. Partially centralized: (one dominant site and one or more regional sites) ___ 3. De–centralized: (multiple regional sites of approximately equal size) ___ 4. Total number of sites ___ Is your institution pursuing centralization or consolidation of animal resources to improve operating efficiency? (Circle one) Y N B. Space allocation for full physical plant: No. Ft2 1. Animal rooms ____ ____ 2. Procedure rooms ____ ____ 3. Washing centers (including autoclaves, etc) ____ ____ 4. Food and bedding storage rooms ____ ____ 5. Laboratory animal medicine exam/treatment rooms ____ ____ 6. Operating rooms ____ ____ 7. Diagnostic laboratory rooms (path + micro + etc) ____ ____ 8. Administrative and faculty offices, library, etc ____ ____ 9. All other rooms ____ ____ 10. Corridors ****** ____ TOTALS ____ ____

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES Percent of total space available for animal housing (Animal room ft2 divided by total ft2) ____ C. Security: C1. Physical Security: Number of sites from A4 protected by: electronics (eg card reader) ____ keys ____ electronics and keys ____ C2. Environmental security: Number of animal rooms from B1 protected by: automated environmental monitoring or controls ____ emergency power ____ D. Characteristics of individual sites: The size ranges in the following table are given in gross square feet (gsf). Your responses should indicate the total number of sites, rooms and machines per size range. Example: 3 sites at 5,000 gsf x 20 animal rooms/site = enter 3 under No. sites and 60 under No. animal rooms. Size of site (gsf) 0–5,000 5,001–10,000 10,001–20,000 > 20,000 Total No. sites No. animal rooms No. washing centers No. tunnel washers No. rack washers No. autoclaves No. procedure rooms

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES F. Housing for MICE: F1. Current housing conditions Data in the following table represent conditions for the following period: Month____Yr____ Housing or husbandry condition No. cages (avg daily census) No. mice (avg daily census) Conventional cages (no bonnets) with water bottles Conventional cages with autowater Microisolation cages with water bottles Microisolation cages with autowater Individually ventilated cages with water bottles Individually ventilated cages with autowater Total mouse cages *********** Total mice *************** Total ft2 assigned to housing of mice_______ Mice/ft2 of mouse housing space_______ E2. Recent or planned additions to housing for MICE Status Completed since 1993 Under discussion Designed Under construction Completion due (year) Census capacity Gross ft2 Use of individually ventilated racks (1 = high, 2 = moderate, 3 = low, 4 = none) Washing center? (Y or N)

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES F. Facilities for animal health services: (If some rooms identified in the following table are multi–purpose (eg bacteriology and serology) please enter the combination of uses and relevant square footage in the space provided under “Combined use”). Function No. of rooms Total ft2 Examinations/ minor procedures Surgery (sterile) Post–operative recovery Diagnostic imaging Intensive care Pharmacy Necropsy Histotechnology Bacteriology/parasitology Serology Virology Clinical chemistry Combined use: (Should equal totals obtained by summating I.B.6–8) Totals Section II, beginning on the next page, focuses on staffing. In addition to your responses, please enclose an organizational chart that includes the institutional official(s) to whom the resource director reports.

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES II. Staffing The position titles used in Section II may not correspond exactly to those used by your resource. Generic terminology has been used in this survey to help you make comparable choices. A. Administrative staff: Full–time equivalents is abbreviated in this and all subsequent queries as FTEs. Example: If you have two assistant directors and each devotes 50% effort, enter 2 in the “number of persons” column and 1.0 in the “FTEs” column). Position Number of persons FTEs Degree(s) of current occupants DVM PhD MBA Other 1. Director 2. Assoc/assist director 3. Business manager 4. Informatics specialist 5. Purchasing agent 6. Regulatory compliance officer Total managerial staff (1–6) **************************** **************************** Total clerical staff **************************** B. Animal care staff: B1. Composition of animal care staff Position Number of persons FTEs Number with AALAS certification – (specify levels) 1. Senior manager for animal care 2. Assistant manager for animal care

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES 3. Regional supervisor for animal care 4. Training coordinator Total manager/supervisor staff (1–4) *********************** *********************** 5. Animal technologist 6. Animal technician 7. Assistant animal technician Total technical staff (5–7) *********************** B2. Configuration of animal care staff Enter the number which most closely indicates the configuration of your staff. 1 = all 2 = majority 3 = minority 4 = none Internal (institutional employees) ___ External (eg outsourced to a commercial firm) ___ Unionized (technicians) ___ Centralized (technicians report directly to senior supervisor/manager(s)) ___ Regional (regional staffs are led by supervisor who reports to a senior supervisor/manager). ___ Other configuration ______________________________________________________________________ B3. Criteria for determining animal care staffing levels Quantified time–effort reporting ___ Qualitative assessments by animal care supervisors ___ Other______________________________________________________________________ ___

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES B4. Wages and benefits for animal care staff Standard work week (hours) ___ Starting hourly wage for an entry level technician (animal care/sanitation) ___ Current average annual salary for the animal technician staff ___ Current fringe benefit rate (in %) for an animal care technician's salary ___ Annual benefit days for a technician with 5 years of service: Vacation days ___ Sick days ___ Paid holidays ___ Other recess days ___ Personal days ___ Total annual benefit days __ B5. Recruitment of animal care staff Rank the following factors for their impact on limiting your resource's ability to recruit (Table A) and retain (Table B) new staff: (1 = high, 2 = moderate, 3 = low, 4 = none) TABLE A Recruitment factor Manager/ Supervisor Technician Starting salary Earning potential Benefits Training and experience Job responsibilities Career opportunities

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES Please enclose a copy of your institution's per diem rates for FY98–99 (Tables 20c – d) Table 20c. Finances: Formulation of per diem rates: Current per diem rates ($)   Mouse Mouse basic Mouse full Rat Rat basic Rat full   Per mouse Per cage Per mouse Per cage Per mouse Per cage Per rat Per cage Per rat Per cage Per rat Per cage Group 1 0.20 0.55 0.16 0.46 0.31 0.91 0.46 0.94 0.33 0.69 0.77 1.50 Group 2 023 0.53 0.55 0.54 1.48 0.88 0.38 0.98 0.77 0.80 0.93 1.27 Group 3 0.29 0.42 0.46 0.67 0.62 1.07 0.89 1.25 0.81 All 0.22 0.50 0.24 0.50 0.55 0.81 0.49 0.98 0.51 0.81 0.99 1.25 Table 20d. Finances: Formulation of per diem rates: Current per diem rates ($)(continued)   Hamster G Pig Rabbit Ferret Cat Dog Primate Primate small Primate large Sheep Pig Frog   Per animal Per cage Per animal Per cage                     Group 1 0.50 0.85 1.10 1.67 2.40 2.97 4.39 9.89 7.18 5.00 9.63 11.10 11.11 1.88 Group 2 0.38 0.98 0.96 1.44 1.86 2.58 4.93 7.30 6.19 3.55 8.69 11.02 9.79 0.89 Group 3 0.46 1.20 0.99 1.38 1.89 2.85 4.50 8.45 7.89 4.88 8.34 9.09 8.86 0.97 All 0.46 1.01 1.03 1.52 2.11 2.83 4.57 8.82 6.97 4.63 8.65 10.31 10.16 1.31 Survey Tables – Page 33

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES VI. D. Extramural funding Please indicate the total current extramural funding for biomedical research and training for the components of your institution. Table 21a. Finances: Extramural funding; All types of research and training (in millions of dollars, mean)   Direct Indirect   NIH Other federal All other Subtotal NIH Other federal All other Subtotal Total Group 1 39.4 17.8 28.7 82.1 11.2 1.9 2.9 18.6 100.3 Group 2 86.9 29.2 40.6 152.4 39.6 5.5 6.9 50.2 196.3 Group 3 97.2 23.3 46.8 150.2 48.2 8.3 15.6 69.7 213.6 All 70.5 23.3 37.0 123.7 30.9 4.8 7.5 42.4 160.8 Table 21b. Finances: Extramural funding: Animal–related research and training (in millions of dollars, mean)   Direct Indirect   NIH Other federal All other Subtotal NIH Other federal All other Subtotal Total Group 1 12.6 3.9 5.1 20.5 4.9 0.7 0.5 7.6 33.7 Group 2 41.4 4.5 6.3 54.0 19.7 0.5 1.0 20.9 72.1 Group 3 48.6 4.9 9.4 60.2 22.4 1.8 1.8 25.6 81.2 All 33.1 4.4 6.7 43.4 14.9 0.9 1.0 17.2 59.9 Survey Tables – Page 34

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES VI. E. Operating budget VI. E. 1. Expense categories Indicate which of the following categories of expense are typically included in the DIRECT operating budget for your animal resources, irrespedctive of the source(s) of off-setting revenues (Tables 22a – c) Table 22a. Finances: Operating budget: Expense categories in DIRECT operating budget (number of institutions)* Animal purchases Salaries: director, managers/ supervisors Salaries: veterinarians & related Wages: technical staff Animal care supplies Personnel supplies Safety supplies, equipment Rodent caging Rating 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Group 1 16 2 5 9 11 3 10 10 3 17 4 2 21 1 1 21 1 1 19 3 1 20 2 1 Group 2 8 1 5 12 4 0 12 4 0 15 1 0 16 0 0 15 0 0 16 0 0 15 1 0 Group 3 10 2 2 6 8 0 8 6 0 13 1 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 13 1 0 All 34 5 12 27 23 3 30 20 3 45 6 2 51 1 1 50 1 1 49 3 1 48 4 1 * 1 = fully included; 2 = partially included; 3 = not included. Table 22b. Finances: Operating budget: Expense categories in DIRECT operating budget (continued) (number of institutions)* Water bottles NHP caging Transportation services Informatics services/supplies Computer purchases Capital equipment Fixed equipment contracts Movable equipment contracts Rating 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Group 1 21 1 1 10 2 7 16 4 2 14 6 3 16 5 2 9 8 6 15 6 2 15 6 2 Group 2 16 0 0 9 2 1 14 0 1 15 1 0 14 2 0 7 3 5 15 0 1 16 0 0 Group 3 13 1 0 6 4 2 12 1 1 9 5 0 9 5 0 2 11 1 12 1 1 12 2 0 All 50 2 1 25 8 10 42 5 4 38 12 3 39 12 2 18 22 12 42 7 4 43 8 2 * 1 = fully included; 2 = partially included; 3 = not included. Table 22c. Finances: Operating budget: Expense categories in DIRECT operating budget (continued) (number of institutions)* Pharmaceuticals Serological/ microbiological monitoring Staff training Travel Facilities maintenance Energy costs Regulatory license accreditation IACUC costs Rating 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Group 1 19 4 0 21 1 1 19 4 0 17 3 3 6 13 4 4 1 18 14 5 4 3 5 15 Group 2 14 0 1 14 2 0 14 2 0 14 2 0 9 4 2 1 1 13 13 2 1 3 4 9 Group 3 13 1 0 11 3 0 10 4 0 10 4 0 2 9 3 0 0 14 9 2 3 3 2 9 All 46 5 1 46 6 1 43 10 0 41 9 3 17 26 9 5 1 45 36 9 8 9 11 33 * 1 = fully included; 2 = partially included; 3 = not included. Survey Tables – Page 35

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES VI. E. 2. Salary sources Please indicate the current salary sources (as percent) for staff for each of the categories listed. If a staff position has more than one member, indicate the total percent under each column for all individuals in the position (Tables 23a – g) Table 23a. Finances: Operating budget: Salary sources (%)   Director Associate/assistant director   Per diem revenue Inst. funds Fees for service Research funds Per diem revenue Inst. funds Fees for service Research funds Group 1 18 78 2 2 24 69 0 6 Group 2 31 62 0 7 53 40 0 7 Group 3 36 54 0 9 48 44 3 5 All 27 67 1 5 40 53 1 6 Table 23b. Finances: Operating budget: Salary sources (%)(continued) Clinical veterinarian Pathologist   Per diem revenue Inst. funds Fees for service Research funds Per diem revenue Inst. funds Fees for service Research funds Group 1 27 72 1 0 16 72 3 9 Group 2 56 39 3 2 25 54 0 21 Group 3 60 32 3 4 39 42 1 18 All 46 50 2 2 28 55 1 16 Table 23c. Finances: Operating budget: Salary sources (%)(continued) Microbiologist Virologist   Per diem revenue Inst. funds Fees for service Research funds Per diem revenue Inst. funds Fees for service Research funds Group 1 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 Group 2 17 27 17 40 — — — — Group 3 68 3 2 27 8 64 12 16 All 32 36 7 25 8 64 12 16 Survey Tables – Page 36

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES Table 23d. Finances: Operating budget: Salary sources (%)(continued)   Veterinary assistant/tech Diagnostic laboratory tech   Per diem revenue Inst. funds Fees for service Research funds Per diem revenue Inst. funds Fees for service Research funds Group 1 67 31 2 0 42 26 8 23 Group 2 58 20 18 4 46 20 16 18 Group 3 66 10 24 0 60 24 11 4 All 63 21 14 1 51 24 12 13 Table 23e. Finances: Operating budget: Salary sources (%)(continued)   Business manager Senior animal care manager   Per diem revenue Inst. funds Fees for service Research funds Per diem revenue Inst. funds Fees for service Research funds Group 1 40 59 2 0 48 52 0 0 Group 2 61 39 0 0 69 25 0 5 Group 3 71 29 0 0 85 7 4 4 All 54 45 1 0 66 30 1 3 Table 23f. Finances: Operating budget: Salary sources (%)(continued)   Animal care supervisor Animal care techs   Per diem revenue Inst. funds Fees for service Research funds Per diem revenue Inst. funds Fees for service Research funds Group 1 55 43 0 2 76 24 0 1 Group 2 82 14 0 4 84 14 0 2 Group 3 88 6 1 5 90 7 1 2 All 74 22 0 3 82 16 0 1 Table 23g. Finances: Operating budget: Salary sources (%)(continued)   Regulatory personnel   Per diem revenue Inst. funds Fees for service Research funds Group 1 25 69 3 3 Group 2 34 66 0 0 Group 3 31 69 0 0 All 30 68 1 1 Survey Tables – Page 37

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES VI. E. 3. Deficit coverage Institutional policy for handling year–end deficits in the animal resource operating budget includes: Table 24. Finances: Operating budget: Operating budget deficit (number of institutions)   Carried forward Covered by the institution Either mechanism may be used Group 1 8 11 3 Group 2 8 8 0 Group 3 6 5 3 All 22 24 6 VI. F. Institutional subsidy Please indicate all that apply to the institutional subsidy for your resource. Table 25. Finances: Institutional subsidy: Overview (number of institutions) * Received Negotiated annually Applied to targeted expenses Used as discretionary account Offsets costs for specific species Cover year–end deficits Response N U Y N U Y N U Y N U Y N U Y N U Y Group 1 0 1 21 12 1 9 11 1 10 16 2 4 20 1 1 10 3 8 Group 2 1 0 14 10 0 6 9 0 6 9 2 4 13 0 2 6 0 8 Group 3 1 0 13 6 1 7 4 1 8 12 0 2 13 0 0 7 1 4 All 2 1 48 28 2 22 24 2 24 37 4 10 46 1 3 23 4 20 * Y = Yes; N = No; U – Uncertain Survey Tables – Page 38

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES Operating costs to which the subsidy is typically applied are: (Tables 26a – b) Table 26a. Finances: Institutional subsidy: Application to operating costs (number of institutions)* Director's salary Professional staff/ faculty salaries Fixed equipment Movable equipment Supplies Renovations (<$50,000) Renovations (>$50,000) Facility maintenance Diagnostic labs Response N U Y N U Y N U Y N U Y N U Y N U Y N U Y N U Y N U Y Group 1 4 1 17 2 1 18 12 2 8 12 1 9 12 1 9 8 2 12 11 1 10 11 2 9 12 2 8 Group 2 2 0 13 5 0 11 7 0 9 8 0 7 9 0 6 6 0 9 10 0 6 10 0 6 8 0 8 Group 3 4 0 8 4 0 10 8 0 6 7 0 7 8 0 6 8 0 6 8 0 6 4 0 10 9 0 5 All 10 1 38 11 1 39 27 2 23 27 1 23 29 1 21 22 2 27 29 1 22 25 2 25 29 2 21 * Y = Yes; N = No; U – Uncertain Table 26b. Finances: Institutional subsidy: Application to operating costs (continued) (number of institutions)* Program development IACUC operations Regulatory services from veterinarians Hazardous–waste disposal AAALAC accreditation Occupational health Response N U Y N U Y N U Y N U Y N U Y N U Y Group 1 12 2 8 12 1 9 7 1 14 12 1 9 12 2 8 12 2 8 Group 2 9 1 6 8 0 8 5 0 11 11 0 5 8 0 8 9 1 6 Group 3 10 0 4 3 0 10 5 0 9 5 0 9 7 0 7 3 0 1 All 31 3 18 23 1 27 17 1 34 28 1 23 27 2 23 24 3 25 * Y = Yes; N = No; U – Uncertain Please indicate the subsidy for the fiscal year reported in the survey for: Table 27. Finances: Institutional subsidy: Subsidy for fiscal year reported (mean in thousands of dollars)   For direct operating budget For regulatory activities For renovations & equipment For all other categories Total subsidy Subsidy as % of direct operating expense Group 1 471 20 48 23 616 45 Group 2 306 39 25 306 804 28 Group 3 318 59 121 51 841 20 All 381 36 61 116 727 33 Survey Tables – Page 39

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES VI. G. Indirect cost recovery The current federally negotiated indirect cost rate for your institution and your animal resource (if different) is: The status of implementation of OMB Circular A–21 at your institution: Institutional strategies for complying with A–21 include: Table 28a. Finances: Indirect cost recovery (%)*     Status of OMB circular A– 21 implementation Institutional strategies for complying with A–21   Federal indirect cost rate for institution No current plans for implementation Increase animal user fees Designate animal resource space as organized research space Subsidize resource with institutional funds Group 1 50 22 43 22 48 Group 2 56 25 56 48 50 Group 3 57 21 43 43 43 All 54 23 47 32 47 *Only 1 institution in group 1 and 2 in group 3 had a different ICR for the animal resource The estimated increase in per diem rates for mice if the full cost is absorbed by recharges: The actual increase in per diem rates for mice after institutional strategies (indicated above) were activated was: The impact of A–21 implementation on animal census was: Table 28b. Finances: Indirect cost recovery (continued) (%)       Impact of A–21 implementation on animal census   Estimated increase in per diem rates for MICE if full cost is absorbed by recharges Actual increase in per diem rates for MICE after compensatory institutional strategies were activated Permanent census decrease Transient census decrease Too early to tell Group 1 72 9 2 3 10 Group 2 59 20 0 2 6 Group 3 54 16 1 1 4 All 64 13 3 6 20 Survey Tables – Page 40

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES VII. Regulatory Program Issues Table 29. Regulatory program: Overview*   Resource AAALAC accredited (number of institutions) Number of active animal use protocols Number of full protocols reviewed annually by IACUC Number of members serving on IACUC Staff FTEs employed by IACUC Annual budget for IACUC ($) Program for monitoring animal experimentation apart from semi– annual IACUC inspections?   No Yes           No Yes Group 1 2 21 660 206 14 1.1 62,728 7 16 Group 2 1 15 425 400 16 1.9 85,928 4 12 Group 3 0 14 608 380 21 2.5 164,295 1 12 All 3 50 575 310 16 1.8 97,810 12 40 *AAALAC: Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care; IACUC: institutional animal care and use committee Please indicate the compliance roles played by the staff/faculty veterinarians. Primary responsibility for: How many FTEs are designated for meeting regulatory requirements for training and monitoring of animal use? Table 30. Regulatory program: Staff duties and responsibilities   Initial review of every protocol Initial review of selected protocols Advise investigators on protocol preparation Train animal users FTEs for training & monitoring animal use           Veterinarians Other staff Group 1 18 5 23 22 1.0 0.9 Group 2 14 5 15 13 1.0 3.6 Group 3 12 6 12 13 0.9 2.1 All 44 16 50 48 0.9 1.9 Survey Tables – Page 41

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES VIII. Resource–client Relationships Please rank the following potential concerns among animal users at your institution. Table 31. Resource–client relationships (number of institutions)*   Animal user concerns Ranking based on   Per diem rates Animal procurement fees Animal housing space Quality/ reliability of physical plant Quality of animal care services Quality of lab animal medicine services Regulatory programs Training for animal users Institutional support for resource Informal survey Formal survey Rating 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Group 1 1 12 7 3 9 13 0 0 6 11 4 2 7 10 4 2 12 10 1 0 17 6 0 0 5 14 4 0 9 13 1 0 5 12 6 0 19 5 Group 2 1 7 4 4 3 7 2 0 4 6 4 2 7 7 2 0 9 7 0 0 13 2 1 0 2 9 4 1 7 7 2 0 3 8 2 2 14 3 Group 3 2 10 0 2 5 5 2 1 4 6 1 3 4 10 0 0 6 6 2 0 9 4 1 6 2 8 4 0 5 8 1 0 3 8 1 2 12 3 All 4 29 11 9 17 25 4 1 14 23 9 7 18 27 6 2 27 23 3 0 39 12 2 6 9 31 12 1 21 28 4 0 11 28 9 4 45 11 * 1 = high; 2 = moderate; 3 = fair; 4 = poor Survey Tables – Page 42

OCR for page 67
STRATEGIES THAT INFLUENCE COST CONTAINMENT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH FACILITIES This page in the original is blank.