Date post: | 18-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | gabriel-higgins |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 1 times |
NATIONAL COMPARISON: GRANTS FUNDED
SIUC
Penn
NYU
Prince
ton
UCB-TGIF MIT
GMC
UCIrvine
UCB-CACSW
WC
UHManoa
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
26
18 18
15
11
7 6 64 4
1
26
18
53
3033
20
30
6
3134
1
Numberof GrantsFunded
Average Number of Grants Funded Per Year
Total Grants Funded
Num
ber o
f Gra
nts
NATIONAL COMPARISON: INTEREST
NYU SIUC
UCB-TGIF
Penn
UCIrvine
GMC
UHManoa
WW
C0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
5447
33
2114
7 5 5
163
47
100
2114
35
5
43
Quantity of Proposals Submitted
Average Number of Proposals Submitted YearlyTotal Number of Proposals Submitted
Prop
osal
s Sub
mitt
ed
WW
CGMC
NYU SIUC
UCB-TGIF
UHManoa
UCIrvine
Penn
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
4.30% 4.27%
0.26% 0.21% 0.17% 0.10% 0.05% 0.05%
Percent of Elgible Campus Members who Submitted Applications
Num
ber o
f Pro
posa
ls S
ubm
itted
/ E
lgib
ale
Popu
latio
n Po
ol
INTERNAL ANALYSIS: GRANT BUDGET SIZE
$0-$1,500 $1,501-$5,000 $5,001-$999 $10,000+0
5
10
15
20
25
Green Grants by Original Budget
OverallLast Cycle
Original Budget of Grant
Num
ber
of P
roje
cts
INTERNAL ANALYSIS: RECIPIENT TYPE
Undergrad-uate
Staff Faculty Graduate0
5
10
15
20
25
Grant Recipients by Project Leader Type
OverallLast Cycle
Num
ber
of P
roje
cts
INTERNAL ANALYSIS: GRANT TYPE
Operations
Enga
gemen
t
Operations &
Enga
gemen
t
Researc
h
Researc
h & En
gage
ment
Operations, R
esearc
h & En
gage
ment
02468
1012141618
Green Grants by Project Type
OverallLast Cycle
Num
ber
of P
roje
cts
INTERNAL ANALYSIS: COMPLETION RATE
Completed
Completed, awaiti
ng docu
mentation
Defunct
In Progre
ss0
5
10
15
20
25
Completion Rate
Num
ber
of P
roje
cts
INTERNAL ANALYSIS: REASONS FOR FAILURE
Top three reasons projects become defunct:1)Personnel leave NYU2)Project leader abandoned
project3)Project leader decided to pursue
project outside of Green Grant Support
INTERNAL ANALYSIS: PI TYPE VS. SUCCESS
Undergraduates Graduate Students Faculty Staff0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Completed Project Leader Type by Success Rate
SuccessfulIncompleteDefunct
Num
ber
of P
roje
cts
Successful: 73% 71% 71% 50% Defunct: 27% 29% 29% 50%
INTERNAL ANALYSIS: GROUP TYPE VS. SUCCESS
Collaboration Solo0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Completed Project Group Type by Success Rate
SuccessfulIncompleteDefunct
Num
ber
of P
roje
cts
INTERNAL ANALYSIS: STAFFING
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Green Grants Assistant Position: Contribu-tion to Completion Rate
DefunctCurrent Anticipated Completion RateAnticipated Completion Rate before Position
Proj
ect C
ompl
etion
Rat
e
INTERNAL ANALYSIS: STAFFINGGreen Grants Assistant: Ratio of Time Spent on Major Tasks
Payments34%
Planning &Execution
28%
Outreach &Communications
21%
Institutionalization17%
NATIONAL COMPARISON: SELECTIVITY
UHManoaNYU
UCB-TGIF
UCIrvine
SIUC
WW
CGMC
Penn0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage of Proposals Funded
FundedRejected
Perc
enta
ge o
f Sub
mitt
ed P
ropo
sals
WW
CNYU
Prince
tonNAU
UCB-TGIFSIU
CMIT
UHManoaPenn
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%100%
40% 40%
33%28%
20%17% 16%
11%
Percent of Selection Committee Members who are Experts
Perc
ent o
f mem
bers
who
ar e
xper
ts