43.crazy new world of federal...

NCURARegionIsupportingresearch…together

CrazyNewWorldofFederalFundingSpring2014Michelle D. Christy – Massachusetts Institute of Technology Catherine Breen – Harvard UniversityMichael Glasgow – University of Connecticut

NCURARegionI

Agenda

4/16/2014

Crazy New World of Federal Funding2

• Federal Funding Landscape• Non‐Federal Opportunities and Challenges• Strategies for non‐Federal Funding

NCURARegionI

FederalR&D‐‐ 1

3

Funding outlook looks better for most agencies, but….

4/16/2014

Crazy New World of Federal Funding

NCURARegionI

FederalR&DFunding‐‐ 2

4

We’ve lost a lot of ground.

4/16/2014


NCURARegionI

FederalR&D‐‐ 3

5

No matter how you measure it …

4/16/2014


NCURARegionI

FederalSuccessRates– TougherCompetition!

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

% of P

ropo

sal Selected from

Sub

missions

Published Agency Success Rates 2004 thru 2013

NSF

NIH

NASA

Linear (NSF)

Linear (NIH)

Linear (NASA)

Sources: NIH IMPAC, Success Rate Filehttp://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant‐stats/http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/awdfr3/default.asp

Large number of NASA submissions pending

decision

4/16/2014


NCURARegionI

FundingofHigherEducationR&DwasGrowing

7

($B)

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Higher Education Research and Development Survey.

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

ARRA:

20122010200820062004200220001998199619941992

Institutional funds:

Non‐federal

Federalex. ARRA

federal stimulus funding for scientific research under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

university financedresearch expenditures and unrecovered indirect costs

Including the impact of ARRA funding, the federal government’s share of total R&D funding at universities has grown

from 59% in FY92 to 63% in FY12

Funding for university R&D increased by 6% annually over the 20 years through 2012, driven largely by growth in federal funding including ARRA

4/16/2014


NCURARegionI

Non‐FederalFundingisTrendingUp

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012All R&D 43.9 46.3 47.5 48.0 48.5 49.7 51.9 55.0 57.4 56.8Federallyfunded 26.8 29.2 30.0 29.9 29.3 29.5 30.3 33.6 35.8 34.6

Nonfederally funded 17.1 17.1 17.6 18.1 19.1 20.2 21.6 21.3 21.5 22.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Billion

sHigher Education R&D Expenditures by Source of Funds

FY30 thru FY12(Billions of constant 2005 dollars)

NOTES: Because of rounding, detail may not add to total. Beginning in FY 2012, institutions reporting less than $1 million in total R&D expenditures were asked to complete a shorter version of the survey questionnaire. These institutions reported $145 million in total R&D expenditures and are not included above.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Higher Education Research and Development Survey.

4/16/2014


NCURARegionI

RelyingMoreonNon‐Federal

Foundation

Industry

State

Foreign sponsors

Crowd Funding

Others?

4/16/2014


NCURARegionI

Non‐federalSponsorConsiderations

Not for Profit Sponsors• Lower F&A rates‐ greater institutional cost

• Royalty sharing provisions

Corporate Sponsors• Are corporate sponsors

interested in funding basic research?

• Often complex agreementso Intellectual propertyo Proprietary concernso May need help from your

general counsel’s office• Institutional Mission

o Public Service?o Economic Development?

4/16/2014


NCURARegionI

OtherChallengesRelatedtoNon‐FederalSponsors

Scale and volume – less $$ available

Terms & Type

• Varying degrees of restrictions• New terms and requirements• Often shorter time period• Smaller $$ amounts• more focused• Often urgency to get agreement in place

New sponsors‐may be time consuming

4/16/2014


NCURARegionI

Crowdfunding

Crowdfunding refers to the practice of funding a project or campaign by soliciting relatively small donations of money from a large number of people, typically via the Internet.

• Indiegogo, Kickstarter, RocketHub… etc..

• Over 2.7 billion in 2012

• Over 5.1 billion in 2013 (projection)

• Has the topic come up at your campus?o Development?o Sponsored Program Activity?o Tax issues?o Review of incentives?

4/16/2014


NCURARegionI

Cannon‐federalfundingfillthegap?

Non‐profit Organizatio

ns42%

Non‐federal Governmen

ts31%

Businesses27%

~$11B in annual funding is

provided to universities through

contracts, grants and gifts from non‐federal sources

Funding comes from a combination of:

~$285B in total annual

business R&D expenditures

• Non‐federal sponsors are generally less willing to pay a large share of the indirect expensesrelated to sponsored research, which forces universities to subsidize non‐federal sponsored funding to a greater degree

‒ The exception is industrial sponsored research, where businesses will normally reimburse universities for indirect costs at the same rate as the federal government

Only ~$3B goes to

universities annually

4/16/2014


NCURARegionI

WhattoDo?PossibleNextSteps

• Create policy for IDC recovery from non‐fed sponsors

Policies

• Enhance corporate and foundation relations function

Relationships

• Make announcements available to faculty more broadly and proactively assist with funding opportunities

Communications

• Track trends for both fed and non‐fed sources

Data

4/16/2014


NCURARegionI

Keysponsoredmetricshelpmanagementtoevaluatethefuturetrajectoryofresearchfunding

15

Proposals Awards

Expenditures Balances

• Definition: Requests for funding from federal and non‐federal sponsors

• Key indicators:‒ Dollar volume and number of proposal submissions‒ Average dollar amount of proposal submissions‒ Number of faculty members submitting proposals

• Definition: Provision of funds by a federal or non‐federal sponsor to carry out a project

• Key indicators:‒ Dollar volume and number of awards‒ Average time from proposal to award‒ Success rate on proposals‒ Percentage of total proposed amount that is awarded (“discount rate”)

‒ Number of faculty members receiving awards

• Definition: All actual expenditures on federal and non‐federal projects

• Key indicators:‒ Change in total spending year‐over‐year‒ Change in the indirect cost recovery rate ‒ Proportion of spending on subcontracts vs. primary research

‒ Number of faculty members actively spending on projects

• Definition: The unexpended portion of all active awards received to date

• Key indicators:‒ Change in balances from one year to the next‒ “Burn rate” of balances (i.e., how many years of spending do the balances represent)

‒ Concentration of balances (e.g., by sponsor or project)

4/16/2014


NCURARegionI

Discussion

4/16/2014


What are you seeing at your institutions?

43.crazy new world of federal...

Documents