1 / 23

UCEDD Funding Issues

UCEDD Funding Issues. Summary of Survey Responses Presented May 12, 2006. UCEDD Network Funding Sources 2005. Total Funding for 2005 = $334,411,561. UCEDD Federal Funding - 2005. UCEDD State Funding - 2005. UCEDD Local Funding - 2005. UCEDD Other Funding - 2005.

rodriguezelizabeth
Download Presentation

UCEDD Funding Issues

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. UCEDD Funding Issues Summary of Survey Responses Presented May 12, 2006

  2. UCEDD Network Funding Sources 2005 Total Funding for 2005 = $334,411,561

  3. UCEDD Federal Funding - 2005

  4. UCEDD State Funding - 2005

  5. UCEDD Local Funding - 2005

  6. UCEDD Other Funding - 2005

  7. UCEDD Network Funding Sources 2005 Total Funding for 2005 = $334,411,561

  8. Survey of UCEDD Directors • The survey was divided into Four sections addressing: • Development Resources • Fundraising Efforts • Internal Supports • External Supports • 46 surveys were completed by UCEDDS

  9. Development Resources • 63% of respondents indicated they do NOT have a development person on staff • Of the 38% who DO have development staff: • Six work at 100% FTE • Three work at 50%-80% FTE • Eight work at 40% or less FTE • 96% of respondents do NOT cost share a development staff person with the university’s development office.

  10. Comments Regarding Development • Eight respondents said that development responsibilities are externalto the UCEDD • Seven said that development is a professional staff responsibility at the UCEDD • Three individuals said that their UCEDD has had difficulty justifying dedicated development staff • One commented on the constant challenge of building a relationship with staff at the university’s development office.

  11. Fundraising Efforts • 35% of respondents said they HAD engaged their internal boards or committees in fundraising • Some of the internal partners identified: • CACs (7) • Other UCEDD boards or councils (7) • Individual donations (1) • Of those who engaged internal boards, nine commented on the effectiveness of those partnerships • Partnership was not effective (2) • Limited success (4) • Successful engagement (3)

  12. Fundraising Efforts • 46% of respondents said they HAD engaged external groups (human service, disability, or university-based groups). • Some of the external partners identified: • University groups: development, foundations, charitable trusts (9) • Community or state-based partners (7) • Of those who engaged external organizations, nine commented on the effectiveness of those partnerships • Mild success (6) • Moderate success (2) • Very successful (1 reported $450, 000 raised in a 3-year period)

  13. Comments Regarding Fundraising • Seven respondents reported successful fundraising efforts for capital campaigns, scholarships, and specific services • Six said they were dissatisfied with their fundraising efforts to date (amt. of time required and coordinating with university’s development office)

  14. Internal Supports: Indirect Rates • Respondents identified 7 distinct categories and several ranges of Indirect Rates:

  15. Internal Supports: Indirect Rates • The majority of respondentsindicated someability to negotiate indirect rates

  16. Internal Supports: Research Incentive • The majority of respondents also said that some of the indirect was returned in the form of research incentive

  17. Internal Supports: Research Incentive • Percentages of indirect returned varied greatly.

  18. Comments Regarding Internal Supports • Five respondents expressed concern about their university’s willingness to accept the indirect rate associated with their ADD core funding • Four individuals commented on issues associated with variable indirect rates at their universities.

  19. External Supports • 87% of respondents indicated they had a discretionary account at their disposal. • Several discretionary revenue sources were identified (see chart) • “Other” resources included an academic affairs account, university funds, release time account, etc.

  20. External Supports: Unique Funding Sources • Anonymous Giving Circle • Partnership with direct service provider that created a private non-profit institute • Race track commission • University Extension Program • Scholarship that was transferred to the UCEDD because the donor was angry with another unit

  21. External Supports: Most Promising Funding Sources • 31 respondents described their most promising funding sources (see chart) • “Other” sources included tribes, collaborations, income accounts, casinos, and residual from additional fixed-price contracts

  22. Least Promising Funding Source • 27 respondents identified what has become their least promising or most disappointing source of funding (see chart) • Ironically, most of these were also identified as the most promising sources by other UCEDDS

  23. Comments Regarding External Supports • Diversity of funding • More barriers to procure outside funds • Takes a lot of time and effort • Need legislative set-aside • Need a clear vision

More Related