Grants and Contracts FY 2005 - Highlights UM received $288 million in grants and contracts in FY 2005. This is approximately 25 percent of the total operating budget of College Park. The FY 2005 amount was less than the amount received in FY 2004 by roughly $15 million. Sponsors - Federal For grants and contracts, UM is highly dependant on federal sponsorship with 76 percent of its total grants and contract amount (about $218 million) coming from the federal government. The amount contributed to UM from federal sources grew from FY 2004 to FY 2005 by about $10 million. Almost half of all UM federal money is targeted at defense, science and engineeringrelated projects. Another 10 percent of funds come from Education- related spending and Health and Human Services Agriculture provides about three percent of UM grants and contracts ($8 million). EPA is a small contributor of UM federal grants and contracts – less than $1 million. The Department of Justice provided about half as much ($600,000) in FY 2005. Sponsors – Non-Federal Non-federal sponsors contributed approximately $70 million in FY 2005. This amount was reduced from FY 2004 by $22 million The largest non-federal sponsor of UM grants and contracts is the State of Maryland ($23 million), comprising nearly a third of all the non-federal dollars. Other universities also provide a hefty share of non-federal support ($15 million). Foundations provide a surprisingly small share ($4 million). Among State of Maryland sources in FY 2005 were the State Highway Administration ($2 million), the State Department of Human Resources ($1 million) and the Governor’s Office of Crime ($1 million), and the Department of Agriculture ($1 million) The State Department of Economic and Employment Development gave slightly less ($900,000). The Departments of the Environment and Natural resources together contributed around $600,000. Local governments contributed a little more than $1 million to the University. This amount was greater than that report in FY 2004 by more than $400,000. The bulk of the FY 2005 contribution came from Montgomery County ($600,000) and Prince’s George’s County ($270,000). All other local governments contributed a total of $473,000 approximately. The data doesn’t identify what the “other” local governments were.
The foundation contributing the most funds to UM in FY 2004 and FY 2005 was the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ($450,000 in FY 2005). No other foundation rivaled it. Recipients – Schools The School of Computer, Math and Physical Sciences and the School of Engineering are the largest recipients of UM grants and contracts, together receiving almost $150 million (51 percent of the UM total). The School of Behavior and Social Sciences was a surprisingly large recipient (almost $50 million). Recipients – Departments The three largest departmental recipients were the Institute for Computer Studies ($22 million), Public Safety Training and Assistance ($15 million), and the Department of Physics ($15 million). The Center for Advanced Language Training received $13 million, while the Departments of Aerospace, Astronomy, and Electrical Engineering each received $12 million. Other recipients of interest: IGS - $300,000; BGR - $3 million; Center for Smart Growth - $300,000; Urban Studies - $200,000; Center for Executive Education - $122,000. Conclusions Given the imbalance of federal vs. non-federal sponsors, UM probably would like to diversify its funding sources by attracting more non-federal dollars to the university. On the other hand, UM probably feels it must aggressively court federal sponsorship. It has to ensure the present level of funding isn’t reduced while aiming to enlarge federal contributions to whatever extent possible. IGS and EFC will find it difficult to attract funding from UM’s big federal sponsors. Science, engineering, defense-related projects, health issues, and education are outside our subject expertise. Among the larger federal UM sponsors, USDA probably is the best fit for IGS and EFC. EFC already is making in-roads with USDA. IGS in the past has worked on rural development issues that have been funded by USDA. Right now, AGNR is receiving all of the USDA money. Perhaps IGS and EFC can partner with AGNR in the future to attract more federal funding opportunities. Small federal UM contributors like EPA and the Department of Justice remain viable sources of IGS and EFC funds. Among non-federal sources, the State of Maryland should be pursued more aggressively. The state departments that have sponsored IGS in the past, however, are not big UM contributors (at least in FY 2004 and FY 2005). Of those departments that are big
contributors – Agriculture, Office of Crime, SHA, and Human Resources, only Human Resources lends itself of IGS work. Agriculture lends itself to EFC work. Funding from DEED also needs to be examined. The Robert Woods Johnson Foundation needs to be examined to see if IGS and/or EFC can become one of its fund recipients.