I find this situation demoralizing, especially in light of the relationship research has to promotion within the university. But academic cluster differences were far greater than campus differences. Of course, the higher personal expenditures by arts and humanities and social science faculties on all campuses is the result of their lack of access to extramural resources. Intramural funding is spread more evenly than extramural funding, but still some interesting differences exist. A small part of the extramural disparities are reduced by intramural funding.
Campuses vary somewhat in how broadly intramural funding has been distributed.
Intramural sources have been funding junior faculty at a higher rate than than senior faculty, as has generally been intended. At Los Angeles, the proportion of faculty receiving intramural funding was about the same regardless of rank and step. At most campuses, associate and full professors were about equally likely to receive intramural funds for their research. In contrast, in the area of leveraging funds for future extramural grant-getting, chairs and deans and ORU's each played a role roughly equal to campus faculty committees. Intramural support for conference travel was received least often by faculty in the medical and health areas and most often by those in the arts and humanities and social sciences.