1. FY14 Sponsored Programs Expenditure Report Prepared by the Office of the Associate Vice President for Research and Federal Relations (Internal Report)

2. Types of Research Expenditures in this Report  Total Sponsored Programs Expenditures-Expenditures from awards made from external entities and support instruction, public service and research functions. In this report, indirect costs are included. Total Sponsored Programs expenditures are not reported to the THECB.  Restricted Research Expenditures-Expenditures from funds awarded by an external entity and which are restricted for support of defined research functions. May include grants, contracts or gifts from Federal, State and Private funding sources. Indirect costs are not included in THECB report.  Total R&D Expenditures-The sum of expenditures from a combination of internal and external funds used to support only research functions. These expenditures reflect the entire research enterprise of the institution and are reported annually to the THECB.

3. National Research University Funding Eligibility

4. Research Component of Total Sponsored Programs Expenditures 62% 61% 68% 66% 76% The percentage of sponsored programs expenditures attributed to Research increased to it highest level. % Research

5. FY13-14 Variance Analysis Total Sponsored Programs expenditures are comprised of awards classified as Instructional/Public Service and Research. Grants expire, commence or carry forward to next fiscal year (due to multi-year awards and/or from no cost extensions). Research expenditures were essentially unaffected so the net reduction in expenditures occurred in Instructional/Public Service. FY13 had 118 active Instructional/Public Service awards with $12M in expenditures. 61 FY13 awards carried forward into FY14 while 57 terminated. FY14 had 27 few accounts with 91 active awards (61 from FY13 and 30 new accounts) with $8M in expenditures. The expenditures from 30 new FY14 accounts ($3.1M) offset the loss in expenditures from 57 FY13 accounts that completely expired. With 27 fewer accounts there was less opportunity to offset reductions. The net change in total sponsored programs expenditures resulted from 61 FY13 awards ($8M) that carried forward to FY14 ($4M) or a difference of $4M. Based on the award periods the most likely reason for the decline was non-availability of funding to spend.

6. Submitted Proposals

7. FY13-14 Variance Analysis Summary: Approximately 83% ($3.3M) of the $4M difference in instruction/Public Service expenditures occurred in the following 9 awards shown below. ASSUMPTION: Most were short-term or scheduled to expire completely within FY13, but no-cost extensions were granted to carry forward residual available funding into FY14. Nursing Program State Appropriation-4yr (9/1/11-8/31/15) $877 award had $624K in expenditures during FY13 that dropped to $9K in FY14 (  $615K). Migrant Education Program-Federal Funding, 5yr award (9/3/08-9/30/13) $4M award had $685K in expenditures during FY13 that dropped to $29K in FY14 (  = $656K). TXSSC-State Funding, 1yr 9/1/12-8/31/13, $828K in expenditures during FY13 that dropped to $12K in FY14 (  = $816K) College Access Challenge, 1 Yr, 8/12-7/13, $277K dropped to $880 (  = $276K) CAMINOS-Private funding $148K dropped to $5K (  = $143K) 2XSBDC-State Funding, 1 Yr 9/1-8/31/13 $457K dropped to $13K (  = $444K) Crimestoppers-State Funding, 1Yr 9/1/12-8/31/13 $248K dropped to $2K (  = $246K) ALERRT- State funding 2 yr. (2/1/12-9/30/14) $198K award had $149K in expenditures during FY13 that dropped to $1K in FY14 (  = $148K).

8. 5 Year Trend in Sponsored Program Expenditures By Unit UnitFY10FY11FY12FY13FY14 Applied Arts$7,796863$7,819,466$7,958,930$7,204,380$7,784,326 Business$722,883$820,638$1,036,386$907,782$845,219 Education$5,264,679$5,469,048$3,980,515$3,311,781$1,541,627 Fine Arts & Communication $8,797$15,702$48,179$22,084$119,201 Health Professions $1,462,902$2,382,483$3,068,693$3,337,989$697,141 Liberal Arts$2,242,771$2,211,240$1,887,372$1,426,837$1,959,702 Science & Engineering $6,123,251$7,041,523$9,400,556$9,504,772$7,714,262 University Centers$7,182,873$7,680,241$7,634,793$7,803,215$8,431,014 University College$572,152$999,931 VPSA$1,272,798$1,340,721$2,488,687$1,494,225$1,542,432

9. Restricted Research Expenditures Approximately 60% of research expenditures emanate from Federal Sources, 20% from State sources and 20% from Private sources. Over the last two fiscal years the 4 th quarter has underperformed By 27% compared to previous years.

10. Restricted Research Expenditures by Quarter FY 2012PRIOR YEAR FY 2013 CURRENT YEAR FY 2014 Quarter Variance % Quarter Variance $ Cumulative Variance % Cumulative Variance $ 1st Qtr 3,623,922.90 4,149,947.92 4,687,032.5812.94% 537,084.6612.94% 537,084.66 2nd Qtr 4,980,574.42 5,662,676.15 4,722,085.91-16.61% (940,590.24 )-4.11% (403,505.58) 3rd Qtr 5,213,146.74 5,325,790.50 5,791,738.868.75% 465,948.360.41% 62,442.78 4th Qtr 7,943,931.43 5,806,337.55 5,756,325.26-0.86% (50,012.29)0.06% 12,430.49 Total 21,761,575.49 20,944,752.12 20,957,182.61

11. All Emerging Research Universities’ Restricted Research Expenditures UniversityFY 2014FY 2013FY 2012FY 2011FY 2010 Univ. of Houston $62,194,303$61,151,281$51,663,426$53,100,109$56,564,687 Texas Tech $46,853,386$40,735,021$46,106,813$50,205,458$50,071,546 UT at Dallas $44,204,399$43,944,356$45,573,771$43,659,514$40,906,393 UT at El Paso $38,979,843$44,057,028$43,156,720$40,179,653$37,813,868 UT at Arlington $30,168,446$32,082,256$32,284,249$29,869,344$32,288,186 UT at San Antonio $23,640,919$29,163,969$32,356,827$30,429,992$28,084,442 Texas State University $20,957,181$20,944,752$21,761,575$19,078,112$17,778,634 University of North Texas $17,524,364$17,748,903$16,557,183$14,476,509$13,293,480

12. Total Research and Development Expenditures

13. Total R&D Expenditures by Quarter FY 2012 PRIOR YEAR FY 2013 CURRENT YEAR FY 2014 Quarter Variance % Quarter Variance $ Cumulative Variance % Cumulative Variance $ 1st Qtr 6,706,259.17 7,623,584.74 9,219,378.0520.93% 1,595,793.3120.93% 1,595,793.31 2nd Qtr 8,272,776.46 9,502,183.11 8,343,251.33-12.20% (1,158,931.78)2.55% 436,861.53 3rd Qtr 8,683,740.39 8,687,681.28 10,704,845.8323.22% 2,017,164.559.51% 2,454,026.08 4th Qtr 13,000,887.51 11,239,741.58 10,997,316.14-2.16% (242,425.44)5.97% 2,211,600.64 Total 36,663,663.53 37,053,190.71 39,264,791.35

14. All ERU Total R&D Expenditures (FY 2009)(FY 2010)(FY 2011)(FY 2012)(FY 2013) % internal Funding of FY13 Exp. University of North Texas $22,557,512$24,715,921$25,422,991$29,890,743$32,463,04845 Texas State University $24,494,208$30,560,431$33,486,998$36,663,663$37,053,19143 Texas Tech University $85,901,979$125,817,503$142,762,792$132,542,194$137,563,72770 University of Houston $87,401,266$95,929,703$93,756,014$92,779,251$107,201,99743 The University of Texas at Arlington $55,621,050$63,589,995$65,959,123$71,381,648$77,651,82859 The University of Texas at El Paso $56,020,039$66,037,604$69,480,347$71,956,741$76,740,36843 The University of Texas at Dallas $65,804,534$82,043,502$93,230,313$90,700,157$98,842,52556 The University of Texas at San Antonio $46,521,487$48,651,962$56,833,861$54,395,160$51,417,89243

15. Proposals Submitted by Unit

16. Barriers to Writing Proposals  Lack of incentive in Faculty Reward System.  No expectations for leveraging REP.  Can do research without funding.  Workload Issues-No time to write proposals.  First year faculty may not have adequate publications to successfully compete for funding.  “Don’t know where to look for funding for my research.”  Internal process is too complicated.  Sr. level mentors that have successful funding track records aren’t available or willing to help me.  Don’t know how to write proposals.  Not familiar with agency missions.  Don’t have anyone to help me develop my research agenda and review my proposal.  No recognition for proposal submission.  Difficulty navigating all of the required forms and certifications required for submission.  Grants are too hard to manage and no departmental support.  Don’t know how to find collaborators.  Need a graduate assistant to help me with the data collection.  Need preliminary data  Don’t have needed cost share. The items above are the result of internal discussions, NORDP and other literature and survey results.

17. Strategies to Increase Proposal Submissions Faculty evaluation criteria should encourage proposal submission. Add points to REP proposals that outline plan for securing external funding. Encourage faculty to use PIVOT, Foundation Center, Grants.gov, etc. Encourage faculty to contact their ADR and/or RC. Promote MIRG as an avenue for building teams that can compete for large external proposals. AVPR should develop a more user friendly website so that faculty can more easily find resources. Promote Research Profile System as a means to elevate University profile to external entities. Develop a formal mentoring program for Junior Faculty. Launch a process (or social media campaign) recognizing proposal submissions and awards. Provide institutional data and narrative context. Host faculty appreciation lunch/dinner to recognize proposal submissions. Perform funding searches for faculty. Assist faculty with outlining all requirements prior to referring to OSP. Showcase funding Success Stories via press release.