How many times have you heard that “charities don’t pay overheads”? And the version of this that goes …”My university won’t let me apply for charity research funding” ?
Let’s look at the data
The UK Research Councils’ policy is to contribute up to 80% fEC – full economic cost of a research project or programme. The TRAC data (latest available are for FY 2022/23) on which the calculation of full economic cost in UK universities is based, show that, on average across the UK, the percentage overhead recovery for Research Council grants for that year was 68.9%. And while the same data table shows the cost recovery for UK charity-funded research being 57.5%, the latter doesn’t take account of the contribution made by the Charity Research Support Fund. Adding in the contribution from this important funding stream, the average overhead recovery for charity-funded research across UK institutions in FY 2022/23 was more like 68.6%.
So what is this Charity Research Support Fund of which you speak, I hear you cry?
The Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF), and its equivalents in the devolved nations, is allocated to universities via the relevant devolved nation’s funding body[1] as part of the Quality-Related element of the block grant on an annual basis. It supports research in universities which has been funded by UK-based charitable organisations on an open, competitive basis and contributes to the indirect costs of research that charities, in general, do not cover. It has its origins in an agreement made with government back in 2004, with the Fund being set up in 2006. The government recognized the essential role of charities in supporting research in universities and agreed to partner with the charity sector and its donors in this way. A calculation is made based on universities’ submission of their financial data to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). In England, for example, to smooth out the variability, it averages the last four years’ worth of research funding obtained from UK charities on an open, competitive basis (most grants from an Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) member will qualify) and then awards a proportion of the agreed Fund to the university based on that university’s share of the total charity funding across all universities.
It is true to say that the fund has not kept pace with inflation and the AMRC has been campaigning for an increase. You can read more about the Fund and charities’ stance on overheads on the AMRC’s website.
It is also true to say that the average cost recovery in individual universities can vary quite a lot. The average recovery rate reported in the TRAC data for a TRAC group Peer Group[2] A institution was reported as 59% before taking into account the CRSF, for example, while for a Group B institution, it was 42.2%. When the CRSF is added in, the recovery rate improves to c.70% for a Group A institution and c.52% for a Group B institution. The figures for Research Council recovery rates were 70.4% and 64.2% respectively.
But there are other considerations, beyond the Fund’s contribution, that we’d ask you to take into account. Many charitable funders provide, free of charge, training and career development support for early career researchers, or make contributions to the development of research infrastructure and culture. They can be much more nimble than public funders in responding to emerging need and often fund high risk, early stage research and so de-risk ambitious projects for future investors, and pave the way for other funders. They provide access to patient groups and perform an important “connecting” role, bringing together university researchers, funders, SMEs, regulators, patients and others in areas of unmet need. And importantly, their public benefit requirement, by definition, means that they work they fund has to have real-world impact and so provide support with dissemination, communication and translational activity. This, of course, can help bring further financial benefit given the importance of impact to the Research Excellence Framework.
Here at the Dunhill Medical Trust, we encourage you to apply for funding to support career development, team-building and to support patient and public involvement in research as part of your project grant application. We also convene the Academy which provides access is a community of researchers, clinicians and community innovators with a common interest in ageing. Members also receive access to member-only funding streams such as the Annual Excellence Awards and Ignition Fund. Both are flexible pots of funding which you can use to support career development, travel, access to datasets, seed funding etc etc.
We are able to do this as an independently endowed charitable foundation with an interest in contributing to sustaining positive research culture.
So, please. If someone tells you that you the “charities don’t contribute to overheads”, we urge you to explore that a little further. Individual charitable organisations might have different policies which allow them to contribute in line with their charitable objects. While it’s true that you don’t receive your overhead contribution in the same way as from the Research Councils, you DO receive a contribution, and much more besides.
[1] Wales: Commission for Tertiary Education and Research (MEDR)
Scotland: Scottish Funding Council
Northern Ireland: Department for the Economy (HE Division)
England: Research England
[2] Peer group A: Institutions with a medical school and research income* of 20% or more of total income
Peer group B: All other institutions with research income* of 15% or more of total income
Peer group C: Institutions with a research income* of between 5% and 15% of total income
Peer group D: Institutions with a research income* less than 5% of total income and total income greater than £150M
Peer group E: Institutions with a research income* less than 5% of total income and total income less than or equal to £150M
Peer group F: Specialist music/arts teaching institutions