1 / 54

Highlights of Membership and Process/Outcome Data FY 2009-2010 IUCRC Evaluator’s Meeting June 10, 2011

Highlights of Membership and Process/Outcome Data FY 2009-2010 IUCRC Evaluator’s Meeting June 10, 2011 . Denis Gray, Lindsey McGowen , Sarah DeYoung & Landon LaPorte North Carolina State University. MEMBERSHIP REPORT DATA. Take Home Message.

crete
Download Presentation

Highlights of Membership and Process/Outcome Data FY 2009-2010 IUCRC Evaluator’s Meeting June 10, 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Highlights of Membership and Process/Outcome DataFY 2009-2010IUCRC Evaluator’s MeetingJune 10, 2011 Denis Gray, Lindsey McGowen, Sarah DeYoung & Landon LaPorte North Carolina State University

  2. MEMBERSHIP REPORT DATA

  3. Take Home Message • Tracking “membership” is important because it may be the most important measure of success for centers and the IUCRC program • But… • We need to be very careful in interpreting changes in membership overtime

  4. Interpreting Membership Changes Over Time • Changes in membership numbers over time are influenced by changes at different levels: • Members: Individual members will leave a center and new members will be added. • Centers: mature centers will graduate (and their members will be dropped) and new centers will be created (and their members added). • Recently, graduated centers have re-emerged as Phase 3 centers • Sites: Generally speaking, new sites are added to existing centers but not always • Changes in program total and average can be due to any combination of these factors. • Totals are particularly unstable • DIMS database may allow this to be completely disaggregated

  5. INDUSTRIAL MEMBERSHIPS BY YEAR AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEMBERS PER CENTER TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS TOT. MEMBERS UP; NUMBER OF CENTERS UP DECLINE IN AVERAGE MEMBERS: GRADUATION OF LARGE ADDITION OF SMALL NEW?

  6. AVERAGE MEMBERSHIP TURNOVER COUNTERINTUITIVE BUT THIS ONLY INCLUDES CONTINUING CENTERS

  7. What about the composition of IUCRC membership?

  8. Center Director Membership Summary

  9. Member Composition 2006-2010 ^ Categories comprising Others include: non-profit, non-US government, and other organization

  10. Member Composition 2006-2010 (without outlier) * Years with Advanced Forestry excluded as a small business outlier: ‘08 Small = 36, ‘09 Small = 49, ‘10 Small = 57 ^ Categories comprising Others include: non-profit, non-US gov’t, and other org

  11. Membership: Organizations with the Most Memberships

  12. Membership: Organizations with the Most Memberships Over Time Increased defense/contractor

  13. Air Force Research Laboratory Arkansas Public Service Commission Army Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District Office California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) Center for Advance Technology in Telecom CERDEC City of Columbus City of Glendale City of Peoria City of Peoria City of Phoenix City of San Pedro (Coahuila, Mexico) City of Scottsdale City of Tucson County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles DHS DoD DoE Ector County Medical Center Federal Aviation Administration Federal Bureau of Investigation Florida Space Grant Consortium ICTAS Idaho Department of Lands Industrial Technology Research Institute King County - Northwest Biosolids Management Assoc Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation NASA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Reconnaissance Office National Security Agency Navy Ohio Department of Job and Family Service (ODJFS) Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center Oklahoma Department of Transportation Orange County Sanitation District Oregon Department of Forestry PA Department of Community and Economic Development Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Port of Guaymas/State of Sonora SENAI-CETA Space Engineering Institute Space Florida State of Hawaii Strategic Industries Division Town of Brookhaven United States Bureau of Reclamation USDA Forest Service Research Government Members134 memberships, 54 organizations (17.5% of all memberships; see slide 8)

  14. Single vs. Multi-Site Members

  15. Conclusion and a caution … • Membership looks improved, losses have stopped, big increase in new centers, but… • All our analyses of membership changes over time need to be interpreted cautiously because • There is a six-month lag in data, so we are not sure about current snapshot • Because membership is affected by factors operating at multiple levels of analysis • NCSU group attempted to change the data collection method starting this year in order to accurately capture all these change mechanisms. • We asked centers to report members by site, but this option was not widely used… • When operational, DIMS system will provide a more fine-grained view of sources of member ebb and flow • Stay tuned

  16. PROCESS – OUTCOME DATA

  17. Process/Outcome2009-2010 Response Rates

  18. Industry Response Rate Note: 2000-2001 & 2002-2003 data not included

  19. Industry Questionnaire Select Results

  20. What percentage of Center research projects do you take an active interest in? 90% 70% 50% 30% 10% 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 *percentage values on y-axis represent midpoint of response range

  21. What percentage of Center research projects do you take an active interest in?

  22. During the past year, how satisfied were you with the capabilities of the researchers and quality of the research program?* * Prior to 2006-2007, this question asked about capabilities of faculty and graduate students

  23. During the past year, how satisfied were you with the Center’s breadth of research topics covered?

  24. During the past year, how satisfied were you with the Center’s focus of the research?

  25. During the past year, how satisfied were you with relevance of the research to my organizations needs?* * Prior to 2006-2007, respondents reported on both long and short term needs.

  26. During the past year, to what extent has participation in the Center contributed to the following benefits for your organization?

  27. During the past year, to what extent has participation in the Center contributed to the following benefits for your organization?

  28. During the past year, to what extent has participation in the Center contributed to the following benefits for your organization?

  29. During the past year, how satisfied were you with center administrative operations?

  30. Outcomes: Value of Center-Stimulated Projects

  31. 15 Year Trend – New Research Projects (reported median) 2009-2010Total Sample, M = 2.071+ Projects, M = 2.64 Note: 2002-2003 data not included

  32. 15 Year Trend - Total Dollar Value of Projects(reported median) Note: 2002-2003 data not included

  33. 5 Year Trend - Total Dollar Value of Projects(reported mean) * Data collected by forced choice format beginning 2006-7

  34. Value of Center-Stimulated Projects:FY 2009-2010

  35. Estimating IUCRC-Wide Center-Stimulated Funding • Program-wide center-stimulated funding for 09-10 is $86.8 million • There is a fundamental problem estimating both center and program-wide value of center stimulated projects • Response rate is running at ~41% of total population • Our reported value is a VERY conservative estimate • Assumes none of the 59% non-responders invested in center stimulated projects • Need to find a defensible approach to estimating • Non-responders • mean • median • 50% of median

  36. Estimating IUCRC-Wide Follow-on Funding

  37. Students Hired

  38. During the past year, how many students trained in the Center projects were hired by your organization? Note: 2002-2003 data based on subset of Centers

  39. Will your organization renew its membership?

  40. Industry Summary • Satisfaction and benefits appear relatively stable with some signs of improvement • Percent of projects interested in; impact on R&D; commercialization; student hires; renewal • Follow-on projects and funding continues to be very volatile • Investments still being made • Median # of projects reported & Median investments are up • Mean declines are likely based on outlier from 2008-2009 ($50M) • Student hiring showing strong rebound • Will see increased emphasis on questions that get at economic impact: cost avoidance, cost savings, etc.

  41. Faculty Questionnaire Select Results

  42. Faculty Long and Short Forms

  43. Compared to the research projects that you typically conduct outside the Center, would you describe your Center-funded research as:

  44. During the past year, how satisfied were you with the quality of center-supported research program?

  45. During the past year, how satisfied were you with the relevance of the Center’s research program to my professional goals?

  46. During the past year, what impact has participation in the Center had for YOU in the following areas?

  47. During the past year, what impact has participation in the Center had for YOU in the following areas?

  48. During the past year, what impact has participation in the Center had for YOU in the following areas?

  49. During the past year, what impact has participation in the Center had for YOU in the following areas?

  50. During the past year, what impact has participation in the Center had for YOU in the following areas?

More Related