85 



SUPPLEMENT 2 / 61 



Other Nonprofits \ ""ederal Intramural 



CO/ , --'-\ ^^^^ Laboratones 



Universities/colleges 

 17"?'c 



FIGURE n.6 Allocation of federal R&D hinds among categories of performers. Fiscal Year 



1994. 



SOURCE: Data calculated from Tabic C-H. National Science Foundation, ferferfl/ Fimds for Research 



(iiul Derelopiiiciit: Fisail Years 1992. I99.i. ami / 99-^ (Arlington, Va.: NSF/Division of Science 



Re.sourcc^ Studio, 199^). 



Other 



1% 

 Nonprofits 



Federal Intrannural 



Laboratories 



29% 



Universities/colleges 

 31° 



FIGURE II." Allocation of FS&T funds among categories of performers. Fiscal Year 1994. 



SOIRCE; Derived as tollows; ( I ) R&D obligations by performer (for all federal agencies except 

 DOD. DOE. and NASA) were taken from Table C-H, 'SSF. Federal Funds for Research and Develop- 

 ment: Fiscal Years 199.1 I99~i. and 1995. fonhcoming. (2) DOD, DOE, and NASA obligations for 

 research, by jiertormcr were taken from the same source. (3) Obligations for 6.3A by DOD were 

 allocated among pertornKrs in the same proportions as reponed in AppendLx A, DOD. DOD ^f- 

 s/xni.w to \STC/PRD =/. Presidential Ret'iew Directire on an hiteragency Review of Federal 

 Laboratories (Februarx 2^. 199S). (-») Obligations for the equivalent to 6.3A by DOE in F\' 1994 

 (S 1 .S billion), as estimated b\ the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (sec 

 Box 11. 3, lootnote -4). were allocated among performers in the same proportions as DOE obligations 

 for all development in P» 1943. as reponed in Table 09, NSE Federal Funds for Research and 

 Development: FY 1992. 199.1 and 199-1. 199S (S)The same approach used in 4 above was also 

 used to allocate (>.3A-eciuivalent obligations by NASA in ¥\ 1993 (Si. 4 billion) among performers. 

 (6) The funding b\ r\ pe ot pcrtormer in lo was summed and the overall percentages determined. 



