OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Outreach and Engagement Measurement Instrument
FY 2010 Administration
Report
February 2010
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 1 of 43
Contents
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Methodology and Sample ............................................................................................................................. 5
Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
Area of Concern ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Form of Outreach and Engagement........................................................................................................ 11
Funding ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Non-TTU Participants and Partners ........................................................................................................ 16
Project Service Area ................................................................................................................................ 20
Comparison with FY 2009 OEMI Results ..................................................................................................... 23
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 29
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix A: Copy of Instrument............................................................................................................. 31
Appendix B: Impact by Geographic Regions ........................................................................................... 40
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 2 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Executive Summary
<short summary of introduction>
2,323 TTU faculty and staff members were invited to participate in the survey. 377 TTU faculty and staff
members (16.2% of those invited to participate) responded to the survey. 226 of the respondents
(59.9%) report that they did participate in outreach and engagement projects or activities for the period
from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010. The sample includes TTU faculty and staff from each
college and several other academic units.
The respondents report a total number of 5,661 outreach and engagement projects or activities and a
median number of four projects or activities per respondent. The most commonly addressed areas of
concern are “Education, Pre-kindergarten through 12th Grade”; “Children, Youth, and Family”; and
“Public Understanding and Adult Learning”. The most commonly reported forms of outreach and
engagement are “Service on Boards, Committees, and Commissions”, “Technical or Expert Assistance”;
”Engaged Research and Creative Activity”; and “Engaged Instruction: Public Events and Understanding”.
The most commonly reported sources of funding are “Internal University” and “Non-Profit Organizations
(if not reflected by other categories)”. 46.4% of the respondents report an overall dollar amount of
funding generated by their outreach and engagement projects or activities. These respondents report a
total of $39,265,179 in overall funding and a median of $21,000 in overall funding per respondent.
37.2% of the respondents report a dollar amount of funding for TTU generated by their outreach and
engagement projects or activities. These respondents report a total of $24,126,595 in funding for TTU
and a median of $24,000 in funding for TTU per respondent.
60.6% of the respondents report that K-12 student and teacher participants were involved in their
outreach and engagement projects or activities. These respondents report a total of 194,905 K-12
participants and a median of 100 K-12 participants per respondent. 80.5% of the respondents report
that non-TTU participants were involved in their outreach and engagement projects or activities. These
respondents report a total of 245,805 non-TTU participants and a median of 125 non-TTU participants
per respondent. The most commonly reported partnerships for the respondents’ outreach and
engagement are “Non-profit organizations” and “K-12 Schools”.
Respondents report outreach and engagement that has had or will have an impact on all 254 counties in
Texas, all 50 U.S. States, and several countries across the world. Most of the outreach and engagement
in Texas impacts Lubbock and its surrounding counties. Most of the outreach and engagement in the
United States impacts the southwest region of the country.
Differences in the FY 2009 long version of the OEMI and the FY 2010 short version of the OEMI make it
difficult to make any conclusions about comparisons in the data. Differences between responses for FY
2009 and FY 2010 may suggest an increase in funding from “Federal Agencies”, “Local Agencies”, and
“Non-Profit Organizations”; a decrease in funding for TTU; an increase in the number of K-12
participants; and an increase in the number of all non-TTU participants. These differences should be
interpreted cautiously and are likely due in large part to differences between the surveys and
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 3 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
differences between the samples that selected to respond to each survey. Future administrations of
the long version of the OEMI could include some questions regarding participants’ overall outreach and
engagement that could then be compared to administrations of the FY 2010 short version of the OEMI.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 4 of 43
Introduction
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
The Outreach and Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI) is an online survey developed by
Michigan State University (MSU). It captures both quantitative and qualitative data about outreach and
engagement activities, defined as “professional activities conducted for the direct benefits of audiences
external to [the respondent’s] institution” (OEMI Instrument). The OEMI was first used at MSU in 2004
and has been administered there every year since. Other universities that have used or adapted the
instrument are the Tennessee System, the University of Kentucky, the American Association of Colleges
of Pharmacy, and Kansas State University. Under the leadership of Valerie Paton, Vice Provost for
Planning and Assessment, the Office of Planning and Assessment at Texas Tech University administered
the OEMI to faculty and staff of the TTU System in November and December 2009. Faculty and staff
members from Texas Tech University (TTU), Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC), and
Angelo State University (ASU) received an online invitation from TTU Provost, Robert Smith, and
multiple reminders until the survey was closed early in 2010. This report summarizes data aggregated
from TTU respondents. It does not consider any data received from TTUHSC and ASU respondents.
Methodology and Sample
In November 2009 a letter by TTU Provost, Robert Smith, was sent out via e-mail to a total of 1,782 TTU
faculty and staff members asking for their participation in the OEMI online survey. The letter sought
input from individuals regardless of whether they were currently actively involved in outreach and
engagement efforts or not. The letter provided a link to the online survey instrument. Additional
reminders about the survey went out in December 2009. A copy of the invitation and survey can be
found in the Appendix. The online survey instrument was closed in January 2009. Data received from
TTU respondents were aggregated and analyzed during the months of February and March while data
received from TTUHSC and ASU respondents were provided to those respective institutions for separate
tabulation and analysis.
2,323 TTU faculty and staff members were invited to participate in the survey. 377 TTU faculty and staff
members (16.2% of those invited to participate) responded to the survey. These respondents were first
asked if they participated in any outreach and engagement projects or activities for the period from
September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010. The following graph shows a summary of responses to this
question.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 5 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Figure 1: Did you participate in any outreach and engagement projects or activities?
151
(40.1%)
Yes
226
(59.9%)
No
226 of the respondents (59.9% of all respondents) report that they did participate in outreach and
engagement projects or activities for the period from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010. The rest of
this report will only include this sample of 226 respondents that report participation in outreach and
engagement projects or activities. The following table and graph show a summary of this sample and
provide a comparison to the population of all TTU staff and faculty that were invited to participate by
college or school.
Table 1: Sample and Population by College or School
Sample and Population by College or School
College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources (AG)
College of Architecture (AR)
College of Arts and Sciences (AS)
College of Education (ED)
College of Engineering (EN)
College of Human Sciences (HS)
College of Mass Communications (MC)
College of Visual and Performing Arts (VP)
Graduate School (GS)
Honors College (HC)
Rawls College of Business (BA)
School of Law (LW)
University College (UC)
Total
Sample
#
19
6
44
12
11
15
6
16
1
0
12
8
6
156
Population
#
149
43
524
118
192
130
37
115
17
15
132
73
36
1,581
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 6 of 43
Sample
%
12.2%
3.8%
28.2%
7.7%
7.1%
9.6%
3.8%
10.3%
0.6%
0.0%
7.7%
5.1%
3.8%
100.0%
Population
%
9.4%
2.7%
33.1%
7.5%
12.1%
8.2%
2.3%
7.3%
1.1%
0.9%
8.3%
4.6%
2.3%
100.0%
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Figure 2: Sample and Population by College or School
Sample and Population by College or School
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
Sample
15.0%
Population
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
AG
AR
AS
ED
EN
HS
MC
VP
GS
HC
BA
LW
UC
Compared to the population of all invitees, it appears that the College of Arts and Sciences (28.2% of
sample, 33.1% of population) and the College of Engineering (7.1% of sample, 12.1% of population)
report less outreach and engagement participation than would be expected. It appears that the College
of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources (12.2% of sample, 9.4% of population) and the College of
Visual and Performing Arts (10.3% of sample, 7.3% of population) report more outreach and
engagement participation than would be expected. These discrepancies might suggest differences in
colleges’ involvement in outreach and engagement projects or activities, or it might represent
differences in colleges’ participation in the survey.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 7 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Other responses came from administrative and resource sectors of the university, including the Office of
the Provost/Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs (9.7%), International Affairs (5.3%), and the
Museum and Heritage Consortium (4.4%). The following table gives a summary of the sample and
population by College, School, or Administrative Unit.
Table 2: Sample and Population by College, School, or Administrative Unit
College, School, or Administrative Unit
Colleges and Schools
Provost and Senior VP Academic Affairs, Academic Affairs
International Affairs
Museum and Heritage Consortium
Associate VP Student Affairs
Enrollment Management and Student Affairs
Economic Development
Multidisciplinary Resource Centers and Institutes
Office of Institutional Diversity
Information Technology and Chief Information Officer
Senior Associate VP Enrollment Management
Human Resources
Research
Total
Sample Population Sample Population
#
#
%
%
156
1,581
69.0%
67.4%
22
174
9.7%
7.6%
12
32
5.3%
1.4%
10
38
4.4%
1.7%
6
44
2.7%
1.9%
4
89
1.8%
3.9%
4
19
1.8%
0.8%
4
13
1.8%
0.6%
3
20
1.3%
0.9%
2
28
0.9%
1.2%
1
54
0.4%
2.4%
1
7
0.4%
0.3%
1
11
0.4%
0.5%
226
2282
100.0%
100.0%
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 8 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Results
The sample was first asked to report the total number of outreach and engagment projects or activities
that they were involved in. The following table gives a summary of participants’ responses.
Table 3: Summary Statistics for Total Number of Projects or Activities
Number of Projects or Activities
#
226
Sum
5,661
Mean
25.0
Standard Deviation
121.5
Minimum
1
1st Quartile
2
Median
4
3rd Quartile
11
Maximum
1,500
The 226 participants report an average total number of 25 outreach and engagement projects or
activities. The large standard deviation and maximum reported value suggest that this average is
impacted by a few very high values. This might mean that the median of four projects or activities is a
better measure of central tendency. The following graph shows a histogram of participants’ reported
total number of outreach and engagement projects or activities. Note the uneven intervals on the
horizontal axis.
Figure 3: Histogram for Number of Projects or Activities.
80
75
70
Frequency
60
50
42
40
30
23
20
16
13
10
11
13
4
6
8
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
15
20
25
30
40
7
4
2
1
50 100 500 1000 1500
Total Number of Projects or Activities
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 9 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
This histogram shows that the largest group of participants report participation in one or two projects or
activities, with a large majority (169 participants, 74.8%) reporting participation in ten projects or or
less.
Area of Concern
Participants were also asked to report which areas of concern their outreach and engagment projects or
activities addressed. The following table and graph show a summary of responses to this question. The
areas of concern are ranked by the number of participants selecting each of the listed areas. Note that
the percentages represent the number of participants selecting that area of concern out of the 226
participants that report any outreach and engagement participation. Also note that the percentages do
not add up to 100% because participants were instructed to select all that apply. On average, the
participants selected 3.4 different areas of concern for their outreach and engagment projects or
activites.
Table 4: Number and Percentage of Participants Reporting Outreach for Each Area of Concern
Area of Concern
Education, Pre-Kindergarten through 12th Grade (ED)
Children, Youth, and Family (CY)
Public Understanding and Adult Learning (PU)
Cultural Institutions and Programs (CI)
Science and Technology (ST)
Business and Economic Development (BD)
Community Development (CD)
Governance and Public Policy (GP)
Natural Resources, Land Use, and Environment (NR)
Health and Health Care (HH)
Food, Fiber Production, and Safety (FF)
Public Safety, Security, and Corrections (PS)
Labor Relations, Training, and Workplace Safety (LR)
#
102
84
77
65
56
52
46
32
24
22
15
8
6
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 10 of 43
%
45.1%
37.2%
34.1%
28.8%
24.8%
23.0%
20.4%
14.2%
10.6%
9.7%
6.6%
3.5%
2.7%
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Figure 4: Percentage of Participants Reporting Outreach For Each Area of Concern
50.0%
45.1%
37.2%
40.0%
34.1%
30.0%
28.8%
24.8% 23.0%
20.0%
20.4%
14.2%
10.0%
10.6% 9.7%
6.6%
3.5%
2.7%
PS
LR
0.0%
ED
CY
PU
CI
ST
BD
CD
GP
NR
HH
FF
Area of Concern
“Education, Pre-kindergarten through 12th grade” (45.1%); “Children, Youth, and Family” (37.2%); and
“Public Understanding and Adult Learning” (34.1%) are the most commonly addressed areas of concern
by the reported outreach and engagement. “Food, Fiber Production, and Safety” (6.6%); “Public Safety,
Security, and Corrections” (3.5%); and “Labor Relations, Training, and Workplace Safety” (2.7%) are the
least commonly addressed areas of concern by the reported outreach and engagement.
Form of Outreach and Engagement
Participants were also asked to report which forms ouf outreach and engagment projects or activities
they participated in. The following table and graph show a summary of responses to this question. The
forms of outreach and engagment are ranked by the number of participants selecting each of the listed
forms. Note that the percentages represent the number of participants selecting that form of outreach
and engagment out of the 226 participants that report any outreach and engagement participation.
Also note that the percentages do not add up to 100% because participants were instructed to select all
that apply. On average, the participants selected 1.5 different forms of outreach and engagment.
Table 5: Number and Percentage of Participants Reporting Each Form of Outreach and Engagement
Form of Outreach
Service on Boards, Committees, and Commissions (BC)
Technical or Expert Assistance (TE)
Engaged Research and Creative Activity (ER)
Engaged Instruction: Public Events and Understanding (PE)
Engaged Instruction: Non-credit Classes and Programs (NC)
Service Learning (SL)
Engaged Instruction: Credit Courses and Programs (CC)
Clinical Service (CS)
#
91
89
88
87
76
47
29
11
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 11 of 43
%
40.3%
39.4%
38.9%
38.5%
33.6%
20.8%
12.8%
4.9%
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Figure 5: Percentage of Participants Reporting Each Form of Outreach and Engagement
50.0%
40.0%
40.3%
39.4%
38.9%
38.5%
33.6%
30.0%
20.8%
20.0%
12.8%
10.0%
4.9%
0.0%
BC
TE
ER
PE
NC
SL
CC
CS
Form of Outreach and Engagement
“Service on Boards, Committees, and Commissions” (40.3%); “Technical or Expert Advice” (39.4%);
“Engaged Research and Creative Activity” (38.9%); and “Engaged Instruction: Public Events and
Understanding” (38.5%) are the most commonly reported forms of outreach and engagement. “Service
Learning” (20.8%); “Engaged Instruction: Credit Courses and Pprograms” (12.8%); and “Clinical Service”
(4.9%) are the least commonly reported forms of oureach and engagement.
Funding
Regarding funding, participants were first asked to report all of the listed sources of funding that apply
for any of their outreach and engagement projects or activities. The following table and graph shows a
summary of responses to this question. The sources of funding are ranked by the number of
participants selecting each of the listed sources. Note that the percentages represent the number of
participants selecting that source of funding out of the 226 participants that report any outreach and
engagement participation. Also note that the percentages do not add up to 100% because participants
were instructed to select all that apply. On average, the participants selected 1.6 different sources of
funding for their outreach and engagment.
Table 6: Number and Percentage of Participants Reporting Each Source of Funding
Source of Funding
Internal University (IU)
Non-Profit Organizations (if not reflected by other categories) (NP)
State Agencies (SA)
Event/Activity Fee (EF)
Private Foundations (PF)
Federal Agencies (FA)
Private Business & Industry (PB)
Local Agencies (LA)
Not Applicable (NA)
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 12 of 43
#
63
59
45
45
43
38
34
30
68
%
27.9%
26.1%
19.9%
19.9%
19.0%
16.8%
15.0%
13.3%
30.1%
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Figure 6: Percentage of Participants Reporting Each Source of Funding
30.0%
27.9%
26.1%
25.0%
19.9%
20.0%
19.9%
19.0%
16.8%
15.0%
15.0%
13.3%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
IU
NP
SA
EF
PF
FA
PB
LA
Source of Funding
The most common response to this question is “not applicable” (30.1%), suggesting that the
participants’ outreach and engagement projects or activities do not involve funding. Internal university
(27.9%) and non-profit organizations (26.1%) are the most commonly reported sources of funding.
Federal agencies (16.8%), private business and industry (15.0%), and local agencies (13.3%) are the least
commonly reported sources of funding.
Participants were asked to report the overall dollar amount of funding generated by their outreach and
engagement projects or activities. Of the 226 participants that report participation in outreach and
engagement, 121 (53.5%) do not report an overall dollar amount of generated funding. For the
participants that do report a dollar amount, the following table gives a summary of responses.
Table 7: Summary Statistics of Overall Funding
Overall Funding
#
Sum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Minimum
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Maximum
105
$39,265,179
$373,954
$1,363,808
$45
$5,000
$21,000
$150,000
$12,000,000
The 105 participants that report any funding, report an average dollar amount of $373,954 generated by
their outreach and engagement projects or activities. The large standard deviation and maximum
reported value suggest that this average is significantly impacted by a few extreme values. This might
mean that the median of $21,000 is a better measure of central tendency. The following graph shows a
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 13 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
histogram of participants’ reported dollar amounts of funding generated by outreach and engagement
projects or activities.
Figure 7: Histogram of Overall Funding
more than $1,000,000
7 (6.7%)
$500,001 - $1,000,000
9 (8.6%)
$400,001 - $500,000
0 (0.0%)
$300,001 - $400,000
0 (0.0%)
Overall Funding
$200,001 - $300,000
5 (4.8%)
$100,001 - $200,000
10 (9.5%)
$50,001 - $100,000
6 (5.7%)
$40,001 - $50,000
4 (3.8%)
$30,001 - $40,000
4 (3.8%)
$20,001 - $30,000
8 (7.6%)
$10,001 - $20,000
8 (7.6%)
$5,001 - $10,000
12 (11.4%)
$1,001 - $5,000
19 (18.1%)
$1 - $1,000
13 (12.1%)
0
5
10
15
20
Number of Responses (Percent of Responses)
The histogram shows that the most common response is between $1,001 and $5,000 in overall funding.
A large majority of the responses (74 participants, 70.4%) report overall funding of $100,000 or less.
Participants were also asked to report the total dollar amount of funding for TTU generated by their
outreach and engagement projects or activities. The difference between this question and the previous
question is that this question does not include funding that went to outside partners; it only includes
funds that remained with TTU. Of the 226 participants that report participation in outreach and
engagement, 142 (62.8%) do not report a total dollar amount of funding for TTU. For the participants
that do report a dollar amount, the following table gives a summary of participants’ responses.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 14 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Table 8: Summary Statistics of Funding for TTU
Funding for TTU
#
Sum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Minimum
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Maximum
84
$24,126,595
$287,221
$1,335,656
$1
$5,000
$24,000
$110,127
$12,000,000
The 84 participants that report any funding for TTU, report an average dollar amount of $287,221
generated for TTU by their outreach and engagement projects or activities. This data also appears to be
significantly impacted by a few extreme values and the median of $24,000 might be a better measure of
central tendency. The following graph shows a histogram of participants’ reported dollar amounts of
funding generated for TTU by outreach and engagement projects or activities
Figure 8: Histogram of Funding for TTU
more than $1,000,000
3 (3.6%)
$500,001 - $1,000,000
7 (8.3%)
$400,001 - $500,000
3 (3.6%)
$300,001 - $400,000
0 (0.0%)
Funding for TTU
$200,001 - $300,000
3 (3.6%)
$100,001 - $200,000
6 (7.1%)
$50,001 - $100,000
11 (13.1%)
$40,001 - $50,000
1 (1.2%)
$30,001 - $40,000
1 (1.2%)
$20,001 - $30,000
8 (9.5%)
$10,001 - $20,000
5 (6.0%)
$5,001 - $10,000
10 (11.9%)
$1,001 - $5,000
18 (21.4%)
$1 - $1,000
8 (9.5%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Number of Responses (Percent of Responses)
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 15 of 43
18
20
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
The patterns in this histogram seem to be similar to those found in the histogram for overall funding
generated. The most common response is between $1,001 and $5,000 in funding for TTU, with a large
majority of the responses (62 participants, 73.8%) reporting $100,000 or less in funding for TTU.
Comparing responses regarding overall funding and funding for TTU, 61.4% of the total reported overall
funding ($39,265,179) represents funding for TTU and not for other partners ($24,126,595). The median
of $21,000 in overall funding per participant is slightly lower than the median of $24,000 in funding for
TTU per participant. This difference in medians might seem inconsistent because a participant’s report
of funding for TTU should necessarily be less than or equal to their report of overall funding, but note
that these medians are computed using only those participants that report a dollar amount for each
question respectively. Fewer participants reported funding for TTU than those who reported overall
funding, and the participants who reported funding for TTU were more likely to report a slightly larger
amount of funding than those participants who reported overall funding and no funding for TTU. There
are 14 participants who reported more funding for TTU than overall funding. It seems that these
participants did not understand the intended difference between the two questions.
Non-TTU Participants and Partners
Regarding non-TTU participants and partners in outreach and engagement, the survey participants were
first asked to report the estimated number of K-12 students and teacher participants. Of the 226
participants that report any outreach and engagement, 89 (39.4%) do not report an estimated number
of K-12 student and teacher participants. For those participants that do report an estimated number of
K-12 student and teacher participants, the following table gives a summary of the responses.
Table 9: Summary Statistics of K-12 Student and Teacher Participants
K-12 Participants
#
Sum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Minimum
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Maximum
137
194,905
1,423
6,375
1
25
100
400
70,972
The 137 participants reporting any K-12 participants report an average of 1,423 K-12 participants for
their outreach and engagement projects or activities. This average appears to be impacted by a few
extreme values and the median of 100 K-12 student and teacher participants might be a better measure
of central tendency. The following graph shows a histogram of participants’ reported number of K-12
student and teacher participants. Note the uneven intervals on the horizontal axis.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 16 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Figure 9: Histogram of K-12 Student and Teacher Participants
25
Frequency
20
23
17
22
16
15
10
5
11
6
4
5
5
6
6
9
5
1
1
0
Number of K-12 Student and Teacher Participants
There appears to be a good spread of responses with several participants reporting more than 100 K-12
student and teacher participants for their outreach and engagement projects or activities.
Participants were also asked to report the total estimated number of all non-TTU participants, including
K-12 student and teacher participants, for their outreach and engagement projects or activities. Of the
226 participants reporting any outreach and engagement, only 44 did not report a total estimated
number of all non-TTU participants. For those participants that did report a number of non-TTU
participants, the following table gives a summary of the responses.
Table 10: Summary Statistics of All Non-TTU Participants
All Non-TTU Participants
#
Sum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Minimum
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Maximum
182
245,805
1,351
5,666
1
40
125
500
70,972
The 182 participants reporting any non-TTU participants, report an average of 1,351 non-TTU
participants for their outreach and engagement projects or activities. This average also appears to be
impacted by a few extreme values and the median of 125 non-TTU participants might be a better
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 17 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
measure of central tendency. The following graph shows a histogram of participants’ reported number
of non-TTU participants. Note the uneven intervals on the horizontal axis.
Figure 10: Histogram of All Non-TTU Participants
25
Frequency
20
22
17
18
20
20
20
16
15
10
11
10
8
5
8
5
4
2
1
0
Number of All non-TTU Participants
There appears to be a good spread of responses with several participants reporting more than 100 nonTTU participants for their outreach and engagement projects or activities.
Table 11: Summary of Participants
#
K-12 Student and
Teacher Participants
All Non-TTU
Participants
Sum
Mean
Standard
Minimum Median Maximum
Deviation
137 194,905
1,423
6,375
1
100
70,972
182 245,805
1,351
5,666
1
125
70,972
K-12 student and teacher participants represent a large majority (79.3%) of the total reported number
of all non-TTU participants. Most (75.3%) of the participants that report any non-TTU participants also
report the involvement of K-12 participants.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 18 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Participants were also asked to report all of the listed types of partnerships that were involved in any of
their outreach and engagement projects or activities. The following table and graph shows a summary
of responses to this question. The types of partnerships are ranked by the number of participants
selecting each of the listed partnerships. Note that the percentages represent the number of
participants selecting that type of partnership out of the 226 participants that report any outreach and
engagement participation. Also note that the percentages do not add up to 100% because participants
were instructed to select all that apply. On average, the participants selected 2.5 different types of
partnerships.
Table 12: Number and Percentage of Participants Reporting Each Type of Partnership
Partnerships
Non-Profit Organizations (NP)
K-12 Schools (K12)
Professional Associations (PA)
Business and Industry (BI)
Other Universities (OU)
Government Agencies (GA)
Other TTU System Institutions (TTUHSC, ASU) (TT)
Community Colleges/Technical Schools (CC)
Other (OT)
Not Applicable (NA)
#
110
101
77
73
61
54
33
33
22
9
%
48.7%
44.7%
34.1%
32.3%
27.0%
23.9%
14.6%
14.6%
9.7%
4.0%
Figure 11: Percentage of Participants Reporting Each Type of Partnership
60.0%
50.0%
48.7%
44.7%
40.0%
34.1% 32.3%
30.0%
27.0%
23.9%
20.0%
14.6% 14.6%
10.0%
9.7%
4.0%
0.0%
NP
K12
PA
BI
OU
GA
TT
CC
OT
NA
Partnership
Non-profit organizations (48.7%) and K-12 schools (44.7%) are the most commonly reported
partnerships. Other TTU system institutions (14.6%) and community colleges or technical schools
(14.6%) are the least commonly reported partnerships.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 19 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Project Service Area
Three questions asked participants to identify the Texas counties, U.S. States other than Texas, and/or
countries other than the United States that have been or will be impacted by their outreach and
engagement projects or activities. The following maps show the number of participants that selected
each geographic region (see Appendix B for table summaries of participants’ responses).
Figure 12: Number of Participants Reporting an Impact for Each Texas County
The map shows that all 254 counties of Texas are involved in the participants’ reported outreach and
engagement activity. As expected, Lubbock is the most commonly selected county with 186
respondents (82.3% of those reporting any outreach and engagement activity) reporting outreach and
engagement activity in Lubbock County. Most of the other commonly selected counties are on the
South Plains and Panhandle Regions. There also appears to be more outreach and engagement in the
larger metropolitan areas (e.g., Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio). Every county in Texas is
affected by at least six TTU projects based on this sample.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 20 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Figure 13: Number of Participants Reporting an Impact for Each U.S. State other than Texas
The map shows that all 50 States are involved in the participants’ reported outreach and engagement
activity (note that Alaska and Hawaii are not included on the map, but are included in the table in
Appendix B). States in the southwest region (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Oklahoma)
are each impacted by more than 20 projects. No U.S. State is impacted by less than nine projects.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 21 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Figure 14: Number of Participants Reporting an Impact for Countries other than the United States
The map shows that participants select several countries across the world that have been or will be
impacted by their outreach and engagement activity. Some of the more commonly selected countries
include Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Mexico, United Kingdom, and Vietnam.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 22 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Comparison with FY 2009 OEMI Results
In the FY 2009 administration of the OEMI, participants were asked to give details for each individual
outreach and engagement project or activity that they reported. In the FY 2010 OEMI, participants were
asked about their outreach and engagement activities as a whole. To compare the two administrations,
the FY 2009 OEMI results were combined to show us overall outreach and engagement by participant.
In comparing the FY 2009 and FY 2010 administration, it is important to note that the FY 2009 OEMI was
longer and required participants to report more details for each project, which likely led them to report
on fewer outreach and engagement projects or activities. The following tables compare the results of
questions that asked participants for similar information from the FY 2009 and FY 2010 administrations
of the OEMI.
Tables 13 & 14: Summary Statistics for Total Number of Projects Reported in FY 2009 (including
duplicates) and FY 2010
Summary Statistics for Total
Number of Projects Reported
(FY 2009 OEMI)
n
446
Sum
994
Mean
2.2
Standard Deviation
3.1
Minimum
1
1st Quartile
1
Median
1
3rd Quartile
2
Maximum
38
Summary Statistics for Total
Number of Projects Reported
(FY 2010 OEMI)
n
226
Sum
5,661
Mean
25.0
Standard Deviation
121.5
Minimum
1
1st Quartile
2
Median
4
3rd Quartile
11
Maximum
1,500
In looking at these two tables, note that the total number of projects reported in FY 2009 may have
been limited by the number of projects that participants chose to report specific details for. Also note
the much smaller sample size for FY 2010. There is a much larger number of total projects reported in
FY 2010, but this includes some participants reporting as many projects or activities as the maximum
value of 1,500. This might suggest either a different understanding of what constitutes an outreach and
engagement project for the FY 2010 survey compared to the FY 2009 survey or it might suggest an
increased willingness by FY 2010 participants to report each separate outreach and engagement project
they were involved in. It is not likely that a participant would have reported on 1,500 projects on the FY
2009 longer form of the OEMI due to the time and effort involved. These differences in the surveys may
also explain the differences in the mean and median number of projects reported for each year.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 23 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Tables 15 & 16: Summary Statistics for Total Funding Reported in FY 2009 (including duplicates) and FY
2010
Summary Statistics for Total
Funding Reported
(FY 2009 OEMI)
n
178
Sum
$73,249,379
Mean
$411,513
Standard Deviation
$1,298,025
Minimum
$12
1st Quartile
$2,500
Median
$24,500
3rd Quartile
$136,250
Maximum
$10,001,700
Summary Statistics for Total
Funding Reported
(FY 2010 OEMI)
n
105
Sum
$39,265,179
Mean
$373,954
Standard Deviation
$1,363,808
Minimum
$45
1st Quartile
$5,000
Median
$21,000
3rd Quartile
$150,000
Maximum
$12,000,000
In looking at these two tables, note that the total funding reported in FY 2009 is limited by the number
of projects that participants chose to report specific details for. Also note the much smaller sample size
for FY 2010. The total overall funding reported in FY 2010 is 53.6% of the total overall funding reported
in FY 2009. This is not surprising considering that the sample size of participants reporting overall
funding in FY 2010 is 59.0% of the sample size of participants reporting overall funding in FY 2009. The
slightly lower mean and median in FY 2010 might suggest less outreach and engagement funding or it
might reflect differences in the surveys or in the samples that selected to respond to the surveys.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 24 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Tables 17 & 18: Number and Percent of Participants Reporting Each Funding Source in FY 2009
(including duplicates) and FY 2010
Number and Percent of Participants Reporting
Each Source of Funding
(FY 2009 OEMI)
Source of Funding
n
%
Event/Activity Fee
73
15.1%
Federal Agencies
46
7.1%
Internal University
138
22.8%
Local Agencies
15
3.2%
Non-Profit Organizations
50
11.0%
Private Business & Industry
46
11.4%
Private Foundations
61
17.1%
State Agencies
55
18.6%
Not Applicable
241
59.8%
Number and Percent of Participants
Reporting Each Source of Funding
(FY 2010 OEMI)
Source of Funding
n
%
Event/Activity Fee
45
19.9%
Federal Agencies
38
16.8%
Internal University
63
27.9%
Local Agencies
30
13.3%
Non-Profit Organizations
59
26.1%
Private Business & Industry
34
15.0%
Private Foundations
43
19.0%
State Agencies
45
19.9%
Not Applicable
68
30.1%
In looking at these two tables, note that participants could select more than one source of funding. Also
note that the sources of funding reported in FY 2009 are limited by the number of projects that
participants chose to report specific details for. The percent of participants selecting each source of
funding is higher in FY 2010 than in FY 2009. This is expected given the differences between the two
surveys. Note, though, that the increase in percentage of participants reporting each source of funding
between FY 2009 and FY 2010 seems to be larger for “Federal Agencies”, “Local Agencies”, and “NonProfit Organizations”. This might suggest an actual increase in funding from these sources.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 25 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Tables 19 & 20: Summary Statistics for Total Funding for TTU Reported in FY 2009 (including
duplicates) and FY 2010
Summary Statistics for Total
Funding for TTU Reported
(FY 2009 OEMI)
n
Sum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Minimum
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Maximum
93
$45,042,357
$484,326
$1,342,775
$100
$5,250
$35,000
$186,000
$8,460,000
Summary Statistics for Total
Funding for TTU Reported
(FY 2010 OEMI)
n
Sum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Minimum
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Maximum
84
$24,126,595
$287,221
$1,335,656
$1
$5,000
$24,000
$110,127
$12,000,000
In looking at these two tables, note that the total funding for TTU reported in FY 2009 is limited by the
number of projects that participants chose to report specific details for. The total funding for TTU
reported in FY 2010 is only 53.5% of the total funding for TTU reported in FY 2009. This change might
reflect differences in the surveys, differences in the samples, or an actual decrease in funding for TTU.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 26 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Tables 21 & 22: Summary Statistics for Number of K-12 Participants Reported in FY 2009 (including
duplicates) and FY 2010
Summary Statistics for Number
of K-12 Student and Teacher
Participants Reported
(FY 2009 OEMI)
n
127
Sum
120,274
Mean
947
Standard Deviation
2,059
Minimum
1
1st Quartile
31
Median
140
3rd Quartile
637
Maximum
12,086
Summary Statistics for Number
of K-12 Student and Teacher
Participants Reported
(FY 2010 OEMI)
n
137
Sum
194,905
Mean
1,423
Standard Deviation
6,375
Minimum
1
1st Quartile
25
Median
100
3rd Quartile
400
Maximum
70,972
In looking at these two tables, note that the number of K-12 students reported in FY 2009 is limited by
the number of projects that participants chose to report specific details for. The total number of K-12
participants reported in FY 2009 is 61.7% of the total number of K-12 participants reported in FY 2010,
but the median number of K-12 participants is higher for FY 2009. It appears that the increase in
reported K-12 participants is largely due to a few very large numbers reported by participants in FY 2010
(e.g., one respondent reported the maximum value of 70,972 K-12 participants).
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 27 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Tables 23 & 24: Summary Statistics for Number of Non-TTU Participants Reported in FY 2009
(including duplicates) and FY 2010
Summary Statistics for Number of
Non-TTU Participants Reported
(FY 2009 OEMI)
n
272
Sum
209,595
Mean
771
Standard Deviation
2,161
Minimum
1
1st Quartile
18
Median
80
3rd Quartile
429
Maximum
20,006
Summary Statistics for Number of
Non-TTU Participants Reported
(FY 2010 OEMI)
n
182
Sum
245,805
Mean
1,351
Standard Deviation
5,666
Minimum
1
1st Quartile
40
Median
125
3rd Quartile
500
Maximum
70,972
In looking at these two tables, note that the number of non-TTU participants reported in FY 2009 is
limited by the number of projects that participants chose to report specific details for. Also note the
smaller sample size for FY 2010. The total number of non-TTU participants reported in FY 2009 is 85.3%
of the total number of non-TTU participants reported in FY 2010. Similar to the differences in reported
number of K-12 participants, it appears that the differences in total number of non-TTU participants
reported is largely influenced by a few very large values.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 28 of 43
Conclusion
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Most of the respondents (59.9%) report that they did participate in outreach and engagement projects
or activities for the period from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010. These respondents report a
total number of 5,661 outreach and engagement projects or activities and a median of four projects per
respondent. The median number of four reported outreach and engagement projects or activities is a
good estimate for what might be expected for the average TTU faculty or staff member who is involved
in outreach and engagement. The most commonly addressed areas of concern are: 1) Education, Prekindergarten through 12th Grade; 2) Children, Youth, and Family; and 3) Public Understanding and Adult
Learning. The most commonly reported forms of outreach and engagement are: 1) Service on Boards,
Committees, and Commissions; 2) Technical or Expert Assistance; 3) Engaged Research and Creative
Activity; and 4) Engaged Instruction: Public Events and Understanding.
The most commonly reported sources of funding are: 1) Internal University and 2) Non-Profit
Organizations (if not reflected by other categories). 46.4% of the respondents report a total dollar
amount of funding generated overall by their outreach and engagement projects or activities. These
respondents report a total of $39,265,179 in overall funding and a median of $21,000 in overall funding
per respondent. The median dollar amount of $21,000 in overall funding reported is a better estimate
than the mean for what might be expected for the average TTU faculty or staff member who is involved
in any outreach and engagement with funding. 37.2% of the respondents also report a dollar amount of
funding generated for TTU by their outreach and engagement projects or activities. These respondents
report a total of $24,126,595 in funding for TTU and a median of $24,000 in funding for TTU per
respondent. The median dollar amount of $24,000 in funding for TTU is a better estimate than the
mean for what might be expected for the average TTU faculty or staff member who is involved in any
outreach and engagement with funding for TTU.
60.6% of the respondents report that K-12 student and teacher participants were involved in their
outreach and engagement projects or activities. These respondents report a total of 194,905 K-12
participants and a median of 100 K-12 participants per respondent. The median number of 100 K-12
participants is a better estimate than the mean for what might be expected for the average TTU faculty
or staff member who is involved in outreach and engagement with K-12 participants. 80.5% of the
respondents report that non-TTU participants were involved in their outreach and engagement projects
or activities. These respondents report a total of 245,805 non-TTU participants and a median of 125
non-TTU participants per respondent. The median number of 125 non-TTU participants is a better
estimate than the mean for what might be expected for the average TTU faculty or staff member who is
involved in outreach and engagement with non-TTU participants. The most commonly reported
partnerships for the respondents’ outreach and engagement are “Non-profit organizations” and “K-12
Schools”.
Participants report outreach and engagement that has had or will have an impact on all 254 counties in
Texas, all 50 U.S. States, and several countries across the world. Most of the outreach and engagement
in Texas impacts Lubbock and its surrounding counties. There is also more outreach and engagement
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 29 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
that impacts the larger metropolitan areas of Texas (e.g., Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio).
Most of the outreach and engagement in the United States impacts the southwest region of the country.
Differences in the format (including types and number of questions) of the FY 2009 long version of the
OEMI and the FY 2010 short version of the OEMI make it difficult to draw specific conclusions from the
data comparisons. Differences between responses for FY 2009 and FY 2010 may suggest an increase in
funding from “Federal Agencies”, “Local Agencies”, and “Non-Profit Organizations” from FY 2009 to FY
2010; a decrease in funding for TTU compared to the overall funding that a specific project or activity
received from FY 2009 to FY 2010; an increase in the number of K-12 participants from FY 2009 to FY
2010; and an increase in the number of all non-TTU participants from FY 2009 to FY 2010. These
differences should be interpreted cautiously and are likely due in large part to differences between the
surveys and differences between the numbers of participants that elected to respond to each survey. A
larger and more consistent sample of TTU faculty and staff populations in the future would, most likely,
increase the reliability and validity of the data obtained and more closely reflect the actual amount of
outreach and engagement projects and activities being conducted at TTU during a given fiscal year.
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 30 of 43
Appendix
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Appendix A: Copy of Instrument
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 31 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 32 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 33 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 34 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 35 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 36 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 37 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 38 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 39 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Appendix B: Impact by Geographic Regions
Number of Participants Reporting an Impact for Each Texas County
Which Counties in the State of Texas have been or will be impacted by your outreach and
engagement projects or activities that will be conducted in FY ’10?
Anderson
9 Donley
15 Kaufman
11 Real
Andrews
25 Duval
7 Kendall
11 Red River
Angelina
9 Eastland
15 Kenedy
7 Reeves
Aransas
8 Ector
22 Kent
18 Refugio
Archer
12 Edwards
10 Kerr
11 Roberts
Armstrong
17 El Paso
22 Kimble
11 Robertson
Atascosa
10 Ellis
11 King
18 Rockwall
Austin
15 Erath
15 Kinney
10 Runnels
Bailey
27 Falls
8 Kleberg
10 Rusk
Bandera
14 Fannin
11 Knox
12 Sabine
Bastrop
11 Fayette
10 La Salle
7 San Augustine
Baylor
10 Fisher
11 Lamar
10 San Jacinto
Bee
9 Floyd
38 Lamb
34 San Patricio
Bell
12 Foard
11 Lampasas
9 San Saba
Bexar
28 Fort Bend
11 Lavaca
9 Schleicher
Blanco
12 Franklin
8 Lee
10 Scurry
Borden
21 Freestone
8 Leon
7 Shackelford
Bosque
10 Frio
9 Liberty
7 Shelby
Bowie
9 Gaines
23 Limestone
7 Sherman
Brazoria
10 Galveston
12 Lipscomb
17 Smith
Brazos
13 Garza
39 Live Oak
10 Somervell
Brewster
12 Gillespie
14 Llano
12 Starr
Briscoe
19 Glasscock
11 Loving
9 Stephens
Brooks
7 Goliad
8 Lubbock
186 Sterling
Brown
9 Gonzales
9 Lynn
40 Stonewall
Burleson
8 Gray
14 Madison
8 Sutton
Burnet
12 Grayson
8 Marion
7 Swisher
Caldwell
12 Gregg
9 Martin
11 Tarrant
Calhoun
9 Grimes
7 Mason
9 Taylor
Callahan
11 Guadalupe
11 Matagorda
8 Terrell
Cameron
9 Hale
46 Maverick
9 Terry
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 40 of 43
9
7
10
8
13
10
11
14
9
9
7
8
9
11
10
24
14
9
12
10
10
7
11
14
13
9
24
23
17
10
34
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Which Counties in the State of Texas have been or will be impacted by your outreach and
engagement projects or activities that will be conducted in FY ’10?
Camp
8 Hall
15 McCulloch
12 Throckmorton
Carson
16 Hamilton
7 McLennan
10 Titus
Cass
8 Hansford
13 McMullen
8 tom Green
Castro
21 Hardeman
11 Medina
10 Travis
Chambers
8 Hardin
8 Menard
12 Trinity
Cherokee
9 Harris
26 Midland
27 Tyler
Childress
15 Harrison
7 Milam
8 Upshur
Clay
9 Hartley
14 Mills
8 Upton
Cochran
25 Haskell
16 Mitchell
11 Uvalde
Coke
11 Hays
13 Montague
11 Val Verde
Coleman
15 Hemphill
17 Montgomery
11 Van Zandt
Collin
14 Henderson
11 Moore
14 Victoria
Collingsworth
11 Hidalgo
13 Morris
9 Walker
Colorado
8 Hill
10 Motley
22 Waller
Comal
13 Hockley
39 Nacogdoches
7 Ward
Comanche
10 Hood
10 Navarro
8 Washington
Concho
12 Hopkins
8 Newton
6 Webb
Cooke
10 Houston
16 Nolan
11 Wharton
Coryell
10 Howard
15 Nueces
9 Wheeler
Cottle
16 Hudspeth
11 Ochiltree
15 Wichita
Crane
10 Hunt
10 Oldham
17 Wilbarger
Crockett
9 Hutchinson
14 Orange
8 Willacy
Crosby
42 Irion
10 Palo Pinto
10 Williamson
Culberson
8 Jack
9 Panola
7 Wilson
Dallam
14 Jackson
8 Parker
9 Winkler
Dallas
33 Jasper
9 Parmer
14 Wise
Dawson
25 Jeff Davis
12 Pecos
13 Wood
De Witt
7 Jefferson
10 Polk
7 Yoakum
Deaf Smith
20 Jim Hogg
7 Potter
21 Young
Delta
7 Jim Wells
9 Presidio
10 Zapata
Denton
21 Johnson
8 Rains
7 Zavala
Dickens
31 Jones
12 Randall
21 Not Applicable
Dimmit
10 Karnes
8 Reagan
9
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 41 of 43
13
7
17
22
9
10
7
8
12
10
10
11
8
9
8
8
11
8
12
18
13
8
15
10
12
10
8
27
10
7
9
26
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Number of Participants Reporting an Impact for Each U.S. State other than Texas
Which U.S. States other than Texas have been or will be impacted by your outreach and engagement
projects or activities that will be conducted in FY ’10?
Alabama
17 Illinois
18 Montana
14 Rhode Island
11
Alaska
14 Indiana
16 Nebraska
13 South Carolina
13
Arizona
26 Iowa
14 Nevada
15 South Dakota
12
Arkansas
17 Kansas
20 New Hampshire
12 Tennessee
16
California
34 Kentucky
14 New Jersey
12 Utah
14
Colorado
25 Louisiana
19 New Mexico
38 Vermont
9
Connecticut
16 Maine
11 New York
18 Virginia
17
Delaware
11 Maryland
13 North Carolina
22 Washington
16
District of Columbia
17 Massachusetts
18 North Dakota
10 West Virginia
9
Florida
19 Michigan
17 Ohio
13 Wisconsin
14
Georgia
19 Minnesota
16 Oklahoma
24 Wyoming
15
Hawaii
13 Mississippi
15 Oregon
14 Not Applicable
141
Idaho
15 Missouri
19 Pennsylvania
17
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 42 of 43
OEMI Report: 2010 Administration
Number of Participants Reporting an Impact for Countries other than the United States
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
American Samoa
Antarctica
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
1
1
1
1
1
2
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
3
1
15
1
4
8
3
Costa Rica
Cuba
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Greenland
Guam
Honduras
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Jordan
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
8
1
7
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
4
5
3
2
Kenya
Korea, South
Kuwait
Laos
Lebanon
Macau
Malaysia
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Puerto Rico
Qatar
3
5
1
3
1
1
3
1
10
1
1
1
1
3
5
1
1
1
2
1
2
4
1
1
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Thailand
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Vietnam
Virgin Islands
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Other
Not Applicable
Office of Planning and Assessment, February 2011
Page 43 of 43
2
3
1
1
3
3
5
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
12
1
9
1
1
1
2
169