Enhancing Participation & Success in Major Research Funding Competitions

APPENDIX 71 UNI V E RSI T Y O F T O R O N T O R ESE A R C H F UNDIN G PE R F O R M A N C E R EPO R T: Enhancing Participation & Success in Major Research Funding Competitions Research Services Office of the Vice-President Research University of Toronto June 2010 Page 1

1) IN T R O DU C T I O N The purpose of this document is to provide a high-level, evidenced-based snapshot of our performance in certain federal and provincial research funding programs. By monitoring trends in our longitudinal and comparative performance, we can identify areas for strategic investment of resources centrally and divisionally that will raise our level of success in increasingly competitive research funding environments, federally and provincially. We recognize that funding is an input to research and is not, of itself, a true measure of the strength or impact of the enormous breadth and depth of UofT s research activities. However, because the programs of focus in this document are peer-reviewed, maintenance of a leadership position or an upward trajectory of success does speak to the quality of the research described in the thousands of research proposals that are submitted by our faculty members every year. UofT is a complex system of research hubs that collectively spends in excess of $3M/day expanding the boundaries of knowledge. A strong, steady flow of research funding is essential to the attraction of excellent researchers and for the support of groundbreaking research. This report places a particular emphasis on our market share of funding from the three federal granting councils. Historically, tri-council funding has been a sort of proxy for research intensity. In recent years, it takes on additional importance as the primary driver for other research investments, including Canada Research Chairs (CRCs) and Federal Indirect Costs (FIDCs) and, as part of our total sponsored research, certain Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) allocations. Program-based, competitive funding opportunities are not the only valuable source of research support for the University. The tri-councils, at approximately one-third of our total sponsored research, are not the only important source of competitively awarded research funds. However, they do present a relatively consistent mechanism for measuring our performance. They also bring related benefits: the greater our meaningful participation in tricouncil programs, the greater our success in terms of research support, profile, collaborative and training opportunities, and a number of formula based institutional research support allocations. Note: In presenting research funding statistics, we rely on data provided by our research sponsors and affiliated hospitals to confirm and contextualize our calculations. Collecting this external data results in a one-year lag in the information presented in our tables. For the purposes of this report, we have been able to confirm data from these other sources up to and including the 2008-09 year. Knowledge of our individual institutional performance to-date in 2009-10 informs our analysis of emerging trends. Page 2

2) O V E R V I E W R ESE A R C H F UNDING SO UR C ES & T R E NDS Not-For-Profit 15% Inter- Institutional Collaboration 9% Federal Granting Councils 38% International 3% Corporations 7% Other Government 1% Ontario Provincial 16% Other Federal 11% Figure 1: Research Funds Awarded by Sector, 2008-09 (U T & Partner Hospitals) Total: $889M 1 for Direct and Indirect Costs Federal Granting Councils include funding for the CRCs and Indirect Costs Program The University of Toronto s research funding continued to increase in 2008-09, approaching $889M. A particular influence in the growth of funding over the past 10 years has been the research infrastructure funding programs of the federal and provincial governments. Funding from Canada s tri-councils (CIHR, SSHRC and NSERC) totaled just under $340M in 2008-09, representing 38% of the University s total research funding, as noted in Figure 1, above. In an increasingly competitive environment, the University of Toronto and our partner hospitals have continued an upward trajectory of success (see Figure 2, below) based on the calibre of our researchers and the scientific and scholarly merit of their research. However, growth in our overall research revenue appears to be leveling-off. Accordingly, a new level of strategic planning has been introduced for selected programs where our previous participation and/or success did not reflect our full potential. These approaches have begun to bear fruit, as is evidenced by two new NSERC Strategic Network Grants and by the very impressive results of the most recent CFI national competition. 1 In-kind contributions which come, primarily, from private sector partners, often in the context of matching funding opportunities, are not booked in the University s financial system and therefore do not appear in this research revenue total. Page 3

CIHR NSERC SSHRC All Funding $1,000 $900 $800 $700 $ Million $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Figure 2: Research Funds Awarded 1998-99 to 2008-09 (U T & Partner Hospitals) CIHR NSERC SSHRC includes funding for the CRCs and Indirect Costs Program Maintenance of market share in tri-council funding is enormously important, not only for the research operating support that it provides to our research community, but also because of its direct relationship to allocations under the Canada Research Chairs and the Federal Indirect Cost programs. Those two programs base their allocations on a three-year rolling average of each institution s share of tri-council funding. Hence, an institution s upward or downward trend in any year has a lingering effect in the annual allocations of federal indirect costs and the bi-annual recalculation of Canada Research Chairs. Page 4

2.1 Canada Research Chairs (C R Cs) The Canada Research Chairs program was established in 2000 by the federal government to create 2,000 research professorships in universities across Canada. Of those, 1,880 were allocated on the basis of funding share in each of the three federal granting councils as well as the Networks of Centres of Excellence. The remaining 120 CRCs formed a special allocation that allowed universities not meeting the funding share thresholds to earn at least one Chair. CRCs are allocated to universities in proportion to the amount of research grant funding they have received from the each of three federal granting agencies: NSERC, CIHR, and SSHRC. These allocations are re-calculated every two years on the basis of a rolling average for the three years prior to the year of the allocation. For example, the 2009 recalculation was based on the research grant funding received and the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) funds spent 2 in fiscal years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. All programs funded by the granting agencies are included in the calculation, with some exclusions, mostly student training programs and infrastructure programs. See the CRC website: http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/programprogramme/research_funding-financement_recherche-eng.aspx NSERC CIHR SSHRC TORONTO 249 / 13.3% British Columbia McGill Montréal Alberta Laval Calgary Ottaw a McMaster Western Waterloo Queen's Dalhousie 168 / 8.9% 153 / 8.1% 136 / 7.2% 110 / 5.9% 88 / 4.7% 73 / 3.9% 71 / 3.8% 68 / 3.6% 65 / 3.5% 58 / 3.1% 54 / 2.9% 47 / 2.5% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Figure 3: Market Share Comparison of Canadian G13 Universities C R C Allocations Data sources: CRC website updated January 2009 2 Data on NCE research grant funding received are not available. Data on funds spent are used instead. Page 5

Although UofT s current CRC allocation of 249 puts us well ahead of even our closest competitor, the gap is closing. Our initial allocation was 271 Chairs and projections indicate that we may lose as many as six or seven more Chairs at the next biannual recalculation in early 2011 as a result of our declining market share in tri-council funding. This is a troubling prospect for many reasons, not the least of which is the very negative effect of having to unseat Chairholders who, through no fault of their own, must relinquish an honorary title and funding that was bestowed upon them as means of attracting or retaining them at the UofT. Vice-President Young has set an allocation of 250 CRCs as an appropriate and attainable goal for the University. Our calculations indicate that, in order to reach this goal by the following national recalculation in 2013, our tri-council market share will have to increase by a quarter percent each year for the next three years, as outlined in Table 1 above 3. These calculations are, of course, subject to a changing environment including evolving tri-council budgets and the relative performance of other institutions. However, the main message is that we have to pull up our socks. To do that, we need to understand in which programs we could achieve the most improvement and how to effect that improvement. Table 1 Market share increase of 1/4% per annum Maintain market share Council For 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 CIHR U of T $146,821,539 $148,594,547 $150,367,554 $152,140,562 $152,140,562 $152,140,562 $152,140,562 CIHR National $709,202,992 $709,202,992 $709,202,992 $709,202,992 $709,202,992 $709,202,992 $709,202,992 NSERC U of T $48,763,869 $50,227,067 $51,690,265 $53,153,463 $53,153,463 $53,153,463 $53,153,463 NSERC National $585,279,207 $585,279,207 $585,279,207 $585,279,207 $585,279,207 $585,279,207 $585,279,207 SSHRC U of T $12,638,521 $12,978,383 $13,318,245 $13,658,107 $13,658,107 $13,658,107 $13,658,107 SSHRC National $135,944,845 $135,944,845 $135,944,845 $135,944,845 $135,944,845 $135,944,845 $135,944,845 Tri-Councils U of T $208,223,930 $211,799,997 $215,376,065 $218,952,133 $218,952,133 $218,952,133 $218,952,133 Tri-Councils National $1,430,427,044 $1,430,427,044 $1,430,427,044 $1,430,427,044 $1,430,427,044 $1,430,427,044 $1,430,427,044 Share by funding year Council 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 CIHR 20.7% 21.0% 21.2% 21.5% 21.5% 21.5% 21.5% NSERC 8.3% 8.6% 8.8% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% SSHRC 9.3% 9.5% 9.8% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Tri-Council 14.6% 14.8% 15.1% 15.3% 15.3% 15.3% 15.3% CRCs Council 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 CIHR 134.5 133.1 134.8 137.9 139.5 140.6 141.2 NSERC 76.4 74.2 72.4 72.6 74.7 76.1 76.8 SSHRC 36.7 33.8 33.8 35.9 36.8 37.5 37.8 Tri-Council 247.6 241.1 241.0 246.4 251.1 254.2 255.8 3 A market share ramp-up to achieve 250 chairs by 2013 results in a higher number of chairs in subsequent years due to the effect of the three-year rolling average used in the CRC national distribution formula. Page 6

The calculation that underlies the CRC distribution formula is quite detailed and complex and not usefully included in a report of this kind. A key facet of that formula that is important to note, however, is that active participation in Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCEs) plays an important role in our CRC allocation. UofT can and should take a more proactive stance in NCE opportunities, taking a leadership role whenever possible or, at least, participating as a founding member. Such proactivity will emphasize that the University of Toronto is open to partnerships, more firmly establish our leadership presence on the national stage and will inevitably attract more NCE funding to UofT researchers with the follow-on benefits that this funding provides. Page 7

2.2 Federal Indirect Costs (F ID Cs) The FIDC program began as a one-time federal indirect costs payment of $200M made to 79 institutions in 2001-02. The current annual budget of $322M is distributed to 125 institutions. Grants are renewed each year through a re-application process. They cover a portion of the indirect costs of research incurred by eligible institutions. Grants are based on tri-council funding received and NCE dollars spent in the three years prior to the year of the calculation (e.g. the 2008-09 calculation was based on 2004-05, 05-06 and 06-07 data). Declines in tricouncil market share in any given year will begin to be reflected in the size of FIDC grants two years later and will remain in the calculations for an additional two years. In the national distribution formula, credit for multi-institutional grants is divided equally among eligible participating institutions based on the number of co-applicants from each. Researchers who join a team after the initial award is made are not taken into consideration. As noted earlier with respect to the effect of NCE leadership on our CRC allocation, by getting out in front as a leader or founding member of a multi-institutional initiative, UofT reaps benefits on many levels. The value of each institution s grant is calculated according to the following formula, which provides higher rates for the institutions that receive the least amount of council funding: Average revenues from NSE R C, SSH R C or C I H R research grants Rate for indirect costs First $100,000 80% Next $900,000 50% Next $6 million 40% Balance Percentage calculated annually, based on the total amount available; approximately 20%. The result of applying this formula is that the UofT, the leading recipient of competitive awarded funding from the federal granting councils, has the lowest percentage return of federal indirect cost support (see Table 3). The most recent analysis suggests that, on average, central institutional costs of research amount to fifty-two cents on the dollar. Federal indirect cost recovery at less than eighteen cents on the dollar leaves us with thirty-four cents on the dollar as an unmet cost. On a base of over $200M of tri-council funding this amounts to over $70M. Page 8

Table 2: U of T s Indirect Costs Rate and Share Indirect Costs Program Canada University of Toronto Distribution Year Envelope IC-Eligible Funding* Indirect Costs Grant Rate Share of Envelope 2001-02 $200 $105 $22.3 21.3% 11.1% 2003-04 $225 $122 $26.6 21.7% 11.8% 2004-05 $245 $141 $29.3 20.9% 12.0% 2005-06 $260 $160 $32.1 20.1% 12.4% 2006-07 $300 $172 $38.0 22.1% 12.7% 2007-08 $315 $183 $39.2 21.4% 12.4% 2008-09 $330 $193 $40.5 21.1% 12.3% 2009-10 $325 $202 $38.8 19.2% 11.9% 2010-11 $322 $209 $37.0 17.7% 11.5% Data source: Indirect Costs Program * the university s three year rolling average of total FIDC-eligible tri-council funding Note that the 2010-11envelope is expected to increase to $330M by December 2010 (Federal Budget 2010 announcement) with UofT s grant expected to increase to $38.3M for a 18.3% rate. Page 9

2.3 T ri-council Funding $800 $700 $600 $500 $ Million $400 $300 CIHR NSERC SSHRC $200 $100 $0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Figure 4: C R C-Eligible T ri-council Funding Budgets Limited to Canadian universities and colleges and their affiliates. Excludes funding for the NC Es. Data sources: Expenditures by university and CIHR Program, CIHR awards search engine, NSERC Facts and Figures, NSERC awards search engine, SSHRC program expenditures tables and SSHRC awards search engine. Tri-council programs that are included in the calculation for Canada Research Chairs and federal indirect costs include all of the operating, and most of the salary support programs (with the exception of the Canada Research Chairs program itself). Programs designed for the direct support of trainees, such as students (graduate and undergraduate) and postdoctoral fellows, are excluded as are programs supporting research facilities, public outreach, international scientific exchange and intellectual property management. Page 10

18% Share of Canadian Colleges & Universities 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% U Toronto McGill UBC U de Montréal U Alberta 4% 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Figure 5: Market Share Comparison of Top 5 Canadian Universities C R C-Eligible Tri-Council Funding Limited to Canadian universities and colleges and their affiliates. Excludes funding from the NCEs. Adjusted for Enzyme Replacement Therapy for Fabry Disease program (administered at UHN re-distributed to participating universities in accordance with their CRC credits). Data sources: Expenditures by university and CIHR Program, CIHR awards search engine, NSERC Facts and Figures, NSERC awards search engine, SSHRC program expenditures table, SSHRC awards search engine. The University of Toronto and our partner hospitals continued to rank first in Canada in total CRC-eligible tri-council funding received, with an encouraging upswing in 2008-9, representing 14.6% of the national market share. Our next closest competitor, UBC, while still several percentage points behind, has made some impressive gains, particularly in NSERC as will be seen later in this report. As the Councils pursue their respective program architecture renewal activities, the UofT community needs to participate in consultation opportunities to help shape the new programs and to be alert to the new mechanisms in order to increase the chances of early success. Page 11

2.3.1 Focus on C I H R 25% Share of Canadian Colleges & Universities 20% 15% 10% 5% U Toronto McGill UBC U de Montréal U Alberta 0% 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Figure 6: Market Share Comparison of Top 5 Canadian Universities C R C-Eligible CI H R Funding Limited to Canadian universities and colleges and their affiliates. Excludes funding from the NCE. Adjusted for Enzyme Replacement Therapy for Fabry Disease program (funding administered at UHN re-distributed to participating universities in accordance with their CRC credits). Data sources: Expenditures by university and CIHR Program and CIHR awards search engine. As Figure 6 demonstrates, our market share of CRC-eligible CIHR funding has remained at or above 20 percent consistently (with a minor drop to 19.8% in 2007-08). However, our overall trend is downward from 23% in 2000-01 to 21% in 2008-09. Table 2a shows how sensitive the CRC calculations are to such changes. In comparison, UBC has experienced nearsteady growth in market share since 2001. The Operating Grants program is a particular area of strength for UofT, representing 56% of our CRC-eligible CIHR funding in 2008-09. Both hospital- and campus-based researchers perform consistently well, as noted below. Page 12

23% Share of Canadian Colleges & Universities 21% 19% 17% 15% 13% 11% 9% 7% U Toronto McGill U de Montréal UBC U Alberta 5% 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Figure 7: Market Share Comparison of Top 5 Canadian Universities C I H R Open Operating G rant Limited to Canadian universities and colleges and their affiliates. Data based on annual funding received. Data source: CIHR awards search engine. 25% Share of Canadian Colleges & Universities 20% 15% 10% 5% U Toronto Total Partner Hospitals U Toronto Campuses 0% 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Figure 8: Market Share Comparison UofT Campuses vs Partner Hospitals C I H R Open Operating G rant Data based on annual funding received by location of research. Data source: CIHR awards search engine. Page 13

30% Share of Applications Share of Awards Share of Funding Linear (Share of Applications) Linear (Share of Awards) Linear (Share of Funding) Funding Share by Competition 25% 20% 15% 10% 09-99 03-00 09-00 03-01 09-01 03-02 09-02 03-03 09-03 03-04 09-04 03-05 09-05 03-06 Competition Date 09-06 03-07 09-07 03-08 09-08 03-09 09-09* Figure 9: C I H R Operating G rant Performance for U of T and Hospitals Share of Applications submitted nationally, Share of National Awards Made and Share of National Funding Data source: CIHR program statistics The above figures suggest that we are doing very well in the Operating Grant program and other non-nce CIHR programs. At some point, we bump up against an impenetrable boundary associated with having qualified competitors across the country. The earlier Table 2 suggests, however, that to maintain and enhance our market share at CIHR, we need to focus on CIHR-funded NCEs. Page 14

2.3.2 Focus on NSE R C The University continues to boast the highest level of total NSERC funding of any institution in the country. However, we fell into second place in CRC-eligible NSERC funding received for the very first time in 2008-09. Share of Canadian Colleges & Universities 11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% Support for CITA and Fields Institute ($2M annually) becomes CRCineligible 4% 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 U Toronto UBC U Alberta U de Montréal McGill Figure 10: Market Share Comparison of the Top 5 Canadian Universities C R C-Eligible NSE R C Funding Limited to Canadian universities and colleges and their affiliates. Data based on annual funding received. Data sources: NSERC Facts and Figures and NSERC awards search engine. Figure 11 indicates that we continue to dominate in funds awarded through the Discovery Grant program, although the size of our lead is decreasing. Examining our Discovery Grant performance further, figure 12 shows that our share of applications has declined, and so too has our share of funding. However, the fact that our share of the number of awards made has not declined at the same rate suggests that these trends can be turned around through greater participation. Page 15

Share of Canadian Colleges & Universities 11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% Support for CITA and Fields Institute ($2M annually funded by Discovery Grant Program) becomes CRC-ineligible U Toronto UBC U Alberta McGill U de Montréal 4% 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Figure 11: Market Share Comparison of Top 5 Canadian Universities - NSERC Discovery G rant Limited to Canadian universities and colleges and their affiliates. Data based on annual funding received Data source: NSERC Facts and Figures. 14% Share of Applications Share of Aw ards Share of Funding Linear (Share of Applications) Linear (Share of Aw ards) Linear (Share of Funding) Funding Share by Competition 13% 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010* Grant Start Year Figure 12: NSE R C Discovery G rants (including Sub-Atomic Physics) Share of Applications submitted nationally, Share of National Awards Made, and Share of National Funding Data source: NSERC program statistics. Page 16

The Discovery Grants program is only one aspect of the University s performance in NSERC. The following table provides additional insight into our new second place status. Table 3: Comparison by Program Cluster or Program, NSE R C 2008-09 University of Toronto and University of British Columbia Program Cluster or Program CC&U* U of T UBC Variance Discovery $331,068,005 $29,860,786 $25,459,236 $4,401,550 Strategic Grants (Excl. Networks) $74,024,841 $5,376,339 $8,199,416 ($2,823,077) Collaborative Research & Development (CRD) $50,189,111 $3,471,168 $5,015,002 ($1,543,834) Research Tools & Instruments $32,874,664 $2,018,750 $3,503,176 ($1,484,426) Research Networks $22,594,184 $1,490,797 $1,351,387 $139,410 Industrial Research Chairs $22,004,338 $605,015 $1,263,010 ($657,995) Special Research Opportunities $9,477,001 $2,441,245 $819,860 $1,621,385 International Polar Year Program $11,865,141 $1,382,564 $2,840,659 ($1,458,095) Other CRC-Eligible $31,181,922 $2,117,205 $2,423,315 ($306,110) Subtotal CRC-Eligible $585,279,207 $48,763,869 $50,875,061 ($2,111,192) Postgraduate Scholarships $92,920,481 $13,072,771 $8,897,918 $4,174,853 Major Resources Support Grant $35,418,755 $2,958,714 $1,915,640 $1,043,074 Undergraduate Student Research Award $20,600,149 $1,801,624 $1,285,610 $516,014 Fellowships (Postdoctoral) $11,006,720 $1,000,326 $1,409,742 ($409,416) Other CRC-Ineligible $13,788,771 $170,625 $282,767 ($112,142) Subtotal CRC-Ineligible $159,946,104 $18,833,434 $13,508,910 $5,324,524 Total*** $759,014,082 $67,767,929 $64,666,738 $3,101,191 Data represent annual funding received. Data sources: NSERC Facts and Figure, and awards search engine. * CC &U: Canadian colleges and universities *** Excludes Canada Research Chairs, Networks of Centres of Excellence and Indirect Costs The Strategic Programs are NSERC s second largest funding envelope. These programs are dedicated to proposals that address the Federal Government s Science and Technology agenda through the sub-priorities identified by the Science, Technology and Innovation Council: environmental science and technologies, natural resources and energy, and information and communication technologies. These programs also permit co-applicants from outside of the natural sciences and engineering which represents internal possibilities for interdisciplinary collaboration. Turning our NSERC strategic program profile around and gaining back lost ground that will restore our standing and market share in CRC-eligible NSERC programs will take some effort to achieve and to sustain, particularly in a jurisdiction like Ontario where there are several other strong universities competing in the same market. This effort is already underway in the Strategic Project Grant program and must extend to other partnership programs. For example, UofT has only 4 of 140 active IRCs compared with 18 for the national leader (Alberta) in this program. Montréal, when counting Ecole Polytechnique, has 13; Waterloo has 12; Sherbrooke has 10; and UBC has 9. Page 17

13% 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Share of Canadian Colleges & Universities UBC U Toronto U de Montréal U Laval McGill Figure 13: Market Share Comparison of the Top 5 Canadian Universities NSE R C Strategic G rant (Excluding Research Networks) Limited to Canadian universities and colleges and their affiliates. Data based on annual funding received. Data source: NSERC Facts and Figures.. UofT results of the Strategic Project Grants program released in October 2009 were encouraging: With 40 applications submitted, this competition represents the highest participation rate we have had at UofT in the Strategic Project program since our data tracking began (in the year 2000) Total request to NSERC: $17.8M, the highest request ever. (Our highest amount requested until this competition, was last year, at $9.19M) 18 proposals were funded, totaling $7.8M for UofT, representing a 43.6% funding rate In the national context, we won 15% of the total number of awards, representing 14.3% of the funding envelope Through concerted effort, encouragement and support, UofT increased its participation rate and its success rate. This is an important step in diversifying our NSERC funding sources, reducing our reliance on the Discovery Grant program. Page 18

Moving beyond our focus on the comparison between UBC and UofT, and examining our market share for the Research Network Grants programs (which include Strategic Network grants) from the period 2000-01 to 2008-09, we see that UofT lags in market share. There is opportunity here for us to grow our participation in the Strategic Network Grants program. 35% Share of Canadian Colleges & Universities 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% U Laval U de Montréal McGill UQAM McMaster U Guelph U Toronto 0% 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Figure 14: Market Share Comparison of Top 5 Canadian Universities NSE R C Research Network G rant Limited to Canadian universities and colleges and their affiliates. Data based on annual funding received. Data source: NSERC awards search engine. In fact, this improvement is already happening. In 2009 the University had a significant turnaround in our Strategic Network Grant performance with the success of two Networks: Professor Gilbert Walker, Network for Bioplasmonic Systems (BIOPSYS) Professor Renée Miller, Business Intelligence Network (BIN) Both Networks were awarded $5M each, for a total 5 year funding commitment from NSERC of $10M (not including industrial partner contributions of cash or in-kind commitments.) Our previous experience as a leading institution had been less positive: in 2006, UofT submitted 8 Letters of Intent, with one invited the Full Proposal stage, but ultimately not funded. With the Vice-President s emphasis on industrial partnerships, our ability to participate and succeed in key programs (research networks, CRDs, IRCs) will be enhanced. Page 19

2.3.3 Focus on SSH R C The University has been a market share leader in SSHRC programs throughout the decade, although we came close to falling into second place in 2007-08. We regained ground in 2008-09; however, our overall market share trend has been downward, driven in part by lower average grant values in the latest competitions, and a lower participation rate (and therefore, success in) SSHRC s large scale funding program, the Major Collaborative Research Initiative (MCRI.) 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Share of Canadian Colleges & Universities U Toronto U de Montréal UBC McGill UQAM Figure 15: Market Share Comparison of Top 5 Canadian Universities - SSH RC Limited to Canadian universities and colleges and their affiliates. Limited to funding eligible for CRC credits. Data based on annual funding received. Data sources: SSHRC program expenditures tables and awards search engine. The positive influence of SSHRC s now-completed Initiative on the New Economy (INE) program suite on the University s market share should be noted. Introduced by SSHRC in 2001-02 as a focus on the new information and knowledge-based economy, these programs helped keep UofT s total share at or about 12% until 2004. By 2003-04, INE funding accounted for 14% of the University s total SSHRC research revenue. In 2005-06, UofT held 21% of the total INE funding nationwide, far above our normal 12% market share of SSHRC revenue during the early days of the INE program. The INE program is now ended and that contributes to the decline in our SSHRC market share. Page 20

14% Share of Canadian Colleges & Universities 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% U Toronto UBC U de Montréal McGill UQAM 2% 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Figure 16: Market Share Comparison of Top 5 Canadian Universities SSH R C Standard Research G rant (SR G) Limited to Canadian universities and colleges and their affiliates. Data based on annual funding received. Data source: SSHRC awards search engine. Nationally, the Standard Research Grant program envelope makes up 55% (average since 2000-01) of all CRC-eligible funding to Canadian colleges and universities, by far the largest share of any CRC-eligible program. A trial adjudication process by SSHRC in the Standard Research Grant competition for 2005-06 had detrimental impact on our success rate. The adjudication process in question was abandoned the following year by SSHRC, citing escalation in large degree in their category of Recommended, but not funded outcomes. 2008-09 saw a rebound in our market share of SRG funding, stopping a significant decline in the previous two competitions. UofT relies heavily on the SRG program. It accounts for 61% of our total funding from SSHRC. As a result, our SSHRC market share is highly influenced by our faculty s participation in that program. As displayed in Figure 17, our share of applications is steadily declining. Despite that fact, our share of awards and share of funding has been holding steady. Given the relatively modest funding of SSHRC, small variations in market share have larger implications for CRC allocations. Greater participation will help turn the tide in our loss of SSHRC CRCs. Page 21

15% Share of Applications Share of Aw ards Share of Funding Linear (Share of Applications) Linear (Share of Aw ards) Linear (Share of Funding) 14% Funding Share by Competition 13% 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grant Start Year Figure 17: SSH R C Standard Research G rant Performance Share of Applications submitted nationally, Share of National Awards Made and Share of National Funding Data source: SSHRC program statistics. After the SRG program, SSHRC s largest annual expenditure is through Major Collaborative Research Initiatives, making up 8% of CRC-eligible funding on average since 2000-01 (actually sliding from about 10.5% in the early years of the decade to 6.4% more recently but still the #2 CRC-eligible program in terms of funding envelope). Each year, up to four awards are made by SSHRC, each worth up to $2.5M over 7 years. UofT, as Figure 18 demonstrates, lags in national MCRI funding. When looking at our internal mix of SSHRC funding (CRC-eligible), the MCRI program makes up only 5.8% (the average since the beginning of decade), significantly lower than the national average of 8%. This is another SSHRC program where greater participation could mean more opportunity for success. Page 22

25% Share of Canadian Colleges & Universities 20% 15% 10% 5% U de Montréal UBC U Alberta UQAM U Toronto 0% 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Figure 18: Market Share Comparison of Top 5 Canadian Universities - SSH RC Major Collaborative Research G rant Limited to Canadian universities and colleges and their affiliates. Data based on annual funding received. Data source: SSHRC awards search engine. 2.4 Other Federal and Provincial Research Funding Programs RSO coordinates and administers several other major external research funding programs. While these programs are not included in the calculation of our CRC and Indirect Cost allocations, they both affect and are affected by our success in tri-council funding. Our performance in these programs provides another means of monitoring our performance as a research institution. 2.4.1 Canada Foundation for Innovation (C F I) The CFI has two main programs through which it delivers funding in support of research infrastructure. The Leaders Opportunity Fund (formerly the New Opportunities Fund) is allocated to eligible Canadian institutions based on a three year rolling average of total sponsored research. Institutions spend down their allocations through the submission of individual applications (three times a year) that are peer adjudicated. Naturally, the UofT s cumulative New Opps/LOF allocation is the largest in the country at over $85M to date. Page 23

The other flagship CFI program is the New Initiatives Fund (NIF)/Leading Edge Fund (LEF), formerly the Innovation Fund (IF). While UofT enjoyed particular success in the first round of IF, which included $30.8M awarded in support of the then proposed Centre for Cellular & Biomolecular Research, our performance in subsequent competitions left much to be desired. Vice-President, Research, Paul Young advanced a new excellence based approach to the internal selection of projects to move forward to the national competition. In addition, he implemented other new ideas including sectoral analyses to support and inform the case for each project going forward, international peer review of draft proposals and an internal College of Reviewers. The result was stunning. UofT campus-led proposals were awarded the largest level of funding to date, $58.9M. When combined with awards to our partner hospitals, the total rose to $103.7M, 20% of awards nationally. With matching from the Ministry of Research & Innovation and associated infrastructure operating funds are included, the total becomes one third of a billion dollars. U of T Campus Hospitals $120 $100 104 $ Millions $80 $60 $40 71 29 66 66 46 $20 $0 1998 IF 2000 IF 2001 IF 2003 IF 2005 LEF/NIF 2008 LEF/NIF Figure 19: Funding Awarded to Uof T per Competition C F I Innovation Fund, Leading Edge Fund and New Initiatives Fund Page 24

CFI LEF, NIF & IF Toronto* Montréal* UBC* McGill* Alberta* Western* Laval* McMaster* Calgary* Saskatchewan Queen's* Guelph Waterloo* Ottawa* Victoria Manitoba Sherbrooke BC Cancer Agency Université du Québec INRS Memorial University Dalhousie* $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $ Millions Figure 20: Funding Since Inception for Top Universities C F I Innovation Fund, Leading Edge Fund and New Initiatives Fund * Denotes a G13 University. All universities shown with affiliates. Data source: C FI website. Page 25

2.4.2 Ontario Research F und Research Excellence In Rounds 3 and 4, which occurred in 2008 and 2009 respectively, OVPR staff sought to strengthen the UofT campus-based submissions by providing editorial and administrative review, targeted support on the commercialization sections, as well as extensive assistance with budget development. Our strategy was a success: 4 of the 8 that were submitted in 2008 and 3 of the 6 submitted in 2009 were successful. These wins are augmented by success in other projects where UofT is a partner. Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 U Toronto U Waterloo Queen's UWO McMaster Sunnybrook U Guelph UHN U Ottawa Mt. Sinai HSC Laurentian Thunder Bay RRI TRI OHIR York Trent UOIT George Brown U Ottawa & Partner Hosp U Toronto & Partner Hosp 1.7% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 2.5% 2.2% 5.0% 4.2% 4.1% 6.6% 5.3% 8.5% 8.3% 8.1% 11.9% 13.5% 18.7% 39.7% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Millions $ Figure 21: Funding Since Inception Ontario Research Fund - Research Excellence UofT campus and affiliated hospitals shown separately. Data source: MRI website Page 26

In Round 4, the Ministry of Research & Innovation awarded $69.5 million across 21 projects and more than 214 researchers in seven cities. UofT campus-led projects were awarded $24.9M (12%). Together, UofT and affiliated hospitals were awarded $23.3M (34%). 30% 28% 25% 20% 20% 15% 10% 15% 12% 5% 0% Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4* Figure 22: UofT s Funding Share per Competition Ontario Research Fund - Research Excellence Data source: MRI website *The reduced market share in this round is partially the result of lower UofT participation, due to a new, concurrent funding opportunity, Global Leadership Round in Genomics & Life Sciences (GL2), discussed below. 2.4.3 Global Leadership Round in Genomics & Life Sciences (GL2) In 2009, the Ministry of Research and Innovation held a one-time-only Global Leadership Round in Genomics & Life Sciences (GL2). This program is designed to support large-scale, collaborative projects across Ontario that aim to discover new therapies and technologies that will improve quality of life, as well as protect the environment and biodiversity. The University of Toronto submitted 9 applications, 5 of which were successful resulting in $24.9M to the University (22% of the $114.6M awarded across Ontario). In addition, UofT is participating in eight successful proposals led by other institutions, the dollar value of which has yet to be confirmed. Our partner hospitals were also successful with $8.9M awarded to the Hospital for Sick Children, $22.1M to Mt. Sinai Hospital and $30.7M to the University Health Network. Uoft campus- and affiliated hospital-led proposals represent 76% of the total funds awarded in this competition. Page 27

3) A C T I O N PL A N 1. Establish incentives for academic divisions to participate and succeed in CRC-eligible tri-council programs by using tri-council performance as the basis for internal allocations of CRCs, SSHRC Institutional Grant funds, FIDCs, Ministry of Research & Innovation Post-doctoral Fellows, University of Toronto Excellence Awards, etc. (See Appendix 1). 2. Work with divisional leaders to establish participation objectives for CIHR Operating Grants, NSERC Discovery Grants and SSHRC Standard Research Grants competitions, based on the identification of faculty members eligible to apply. (See Appendix 2). 3. Work with divisional leaders on maximizing the quality of standard grant submissions, with particular focus on applicants who have not previously held tricouncil funding. 4. Identify large, strategic program deadlines with appropriate internal deadlines. Work with divisional leaders to identify potential applicants and to implement specific proposal development strategies. Provide guidance on large project management. 5. Increase institutional nimbleness, flexibility and timeliness in responding to targeted research calls by maintaining an up-to-date catalogue of research strengths across divisions. 6. Mitigate limitations due to RSO staff resource constraints through automation of processes and enhanced use of the website to provide strategic and timely information and support to faculty applicants. 7. Leverage capacity of other RSO units (Honours & Awards, Information Analysis), other VPR offices (Innovations & Partnerships, Research Oversight and Compliance), other central service offices, divisional offices, and other institutions to advance the research objectives of the UofT research community. Page 28

Appendix 1 C I H R Market Share by Faculty Medicine Share of National Funding 20.0% 19.0% 18.0% 17.0% 16.0% 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Arts & Science Dentistry Pharmacy Nursing Applied Sci & Eng All Others 0.7% 0.6% Share of National Funding 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Figure 23: National Market Share by U of T Faculty C R C-Eligible CI H R Funding Excludes funding from the NCEs. Data based on annual funding received. Data sources: Expenditures by university and CIHR Program, CIHR awards search engine and U of T Research Information System. All Others: mostly at UTM and Social Work, with minor amounts at UTSC, OISE-UT, Law, PEH and Management. Page 29

Appendix 1 NSE R C Market Share by Faculty Arts & Science Applied Sci & Eng Medicine UTM UTSC All Others 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% Share of National Funding 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Figure 24: National Market Share by U of T Faculty C R C-Eligible NSE R C Funding Excludes funding from the NCEs. Data based on annual funding received.data sources: NSERC Facts and Figures, awards search engine and U of T Research Information System. All Others: mostly at Fac. Of Information, Forestry and Pharmacy, with minor amounts at Dentistry, Management, Nursing, OISE-UT, PEH and Architecture, Landscape & Design. Page 30

Appendix 1 SSH RC Market Share by Faculty 4.0% Arts & Science OISE/UT UTM Medicine Management UTSC All Others 3.5% 3.0% Share of National Funding 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Figure 25: National Market Share by U of T Faculty C R C-Eligible SSH R C Funding Excludes funding from the NCEs. Data based on annual funding received. Data sources: SSHRC program expenditures tables, awards search engine and U of T Research Information System. All Others: mostly at Social Work, Law, Architecture, Landscape & Design, and Fac. Of Information, with minor amounts at PEH, Music, Forestry, Nursing, Applied Sciences & Engineering, and Pharmacy. Page 31

Appendix 2 Table 4: Participation in T ri-council C R C-Eligible Programs SGS Division and Faculty 2006-07 to 2008-09 SGS Division Humanities Faculty 06-07 Eligible Participating Percent Participating 07-08- 06-07- 08-08 09 07 08 09 06-07 07-08 08-09 A&S 272 278 291 107 115 107 39% 41% 37% UTM 48 55 60 29 36 39 60% 65% 65% UTSC 46 45 42 17 19 21 37% 42% 50% MUSIC 27 26 29 8 7 * 30% 27% 7% SGS * * * * * * 0% 0% 33% ALL FACULTIES 396 407 425 161 177 170 41% 43% 40% Social Sci A&S 140 150 156 71 86 83 51% 57% 53% UTM 75 79 77 45 46 49 60% 58% 64% UTSC 46 53 57 10 24 26 22% 45% 46% ARCH 14 14 16 * * * 7% 14% 13% FIS 12 17 15 8 8 9 67% 47% 60% LAW 48 49 50 19 26 21 40% 53% 42% MANAGEMENT 71 75 84 26 31 38 37% 41% 45% OISE/UT 133 135 137 74 79 85 56% 59% 62% SGS 7 7 7 5 * 6 71% 29% 86% SOCIAL WORK 22 19 21 15 13 18 68% 68% 86% TYP * * * * * * 33% 50% 50% ALL FACULTIES 571 600 622 275 318 338 48% 53% 54% Life Sci A&S 68 77 76 62 66 66 91% 86% 87% UTM 40 39 38 33 31 29 83% 79% 76% UTSC 33 33 35 30 31 33 91% 94% 94% DENTISTRY 39 45 44 14 12 13 36% 27% 30% FORESTRY 14 13 13 10 10 9 71% 77% 69% MEDICINE 180 187 193 121 125 133 67% 67% 69% NURSING 20 21 21 14 14 14 70% 67% 67% PEH 13 13 14 8 7 5 62% 54% 36% PHARMACY 26 25 31 18 20 25 69% 80% 81% TYP * * * * * * 0% 0% 0% ALL FACULTIES 433 453 466 310 316 327 72% 70% 70% Physical Sci A&S 169 178 178 153 163 162 91% 92% 91% UTM 31 31 33 27 28 28 87% 90% 85% UTSC 31 32 32 28 29 26 90% 91% 81% APSE 193 193 195 185 186 188 96% 96% 96% MEDICINE * * * * * * 100% 100% 100% SGS 7 7 6 6 6 5 86% 86% 83% ALL FACULTIES 433 444 447 401 415 412 93% 93% 92% ALL DIVISIONS ALL FACULTIES 1,833 1,904 1,960 1,147 1,226 1,247 63% 64% 64% Limited to tenure/ tenure-stream professorial ranks paid by U of T. Data sources: Fall 2005, 2006 & 2007 academic databases (VP-FAL) for eligible faculty, and Research Information System for participating faculty [for 2006-07: held (2006-07) or applied for (June 2005 to December 2006) a grant in a tri-council CRC-eligible program; other years defined similarly. * Denotes counts of 3 or lower. Page 32