1 / 24

The Tale of a New Budget Model in 16 Months

The Tale of a New Budget Model in 16 Months. Kelly M. Ratliff University of California, Davis. UC Davis – Campus Facts. Founded in 1905 Students as of fall 2012: 33,000 4 colleges, 6 professional schools 23 intercollegiate sports (NCAA Division I)

braima
Download Presentation

The Tale of a New Budget Model in 16 Months

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Tale of a New Budget Model in 16 Months Kelly M. RatliffUniversity of California, Davis

  2. UC Davis – Campus Facts Founded in 1905 Students as of fall 2012: 33,000 4 colleges, 6 professional schools 23 intercollegiate sports (NCAA Division I) 21,700 employees (4,000 faculty & 17,700staff) 101 undergraduate majors90 graduate programs Davis • 8thranked public university by U.S. News & World Report • Member of the Association of American Universities • 1stin Sierra Magazine2012 “Cool Schools” Survey • Research funding: • 15thamong U.S. ranked public universities • 22ndamong public and private universities

  3. Responsibility Center Budgeting • Attribute revenue to generating unit • Units more responsible for funding activities • Create incentives • Improve student experience • Identify and pursue new revenue • Manage resources with eye to long-term returns • Adoption • Common with major private universities • Relatively few public universities adopted before late 2000’s • Pace by publics increased since financial crisis

  4. Primary Elements • Revenue • Tuition • Indirect cost recovery • State appropriation • Support for common goods • Cost allocation • Role of center and units in funding in future • Cultural and organizational issues

  5. State Revenue vs. Student Fees

  6. Before Funding Streams UC Office of the President Revenue Allocations Tuition & ICR 10 UC Campuses

  7. After Funding Streams UC Office of the President Expenditure Assessment Tuition & ICR 10 UC Campuses

  8. Response to Fiscal Crisis “We can either accept that permanent reductions in state support will define a new status quo for UC Davis,… or we can take control of our destiny by developing new strategies and adopting new budget models that will move the campus forward in the coming years.” Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi July 22, 2011

  9. Response to Fiscal Crisis Letter to the Council of Deans and Vice Chancellors “During the 2011-12 academic year, I will continue to work closely with you on the new budget process and model that wewill begin implementing for the 2012-13 academic year.” Provost Ralph J. Hexter July 29, 2011

  10. Fact-finding Trips May 2011: University of Michigan Most important takeaway: Do you want a revenue distribution model or a cost allocation model? October 2011: University of Washington Solidified our decision to focus on revenue distribution

  11. UC Davis Revenue: $3.4 billion 2012-13 Estimates Includes Medical Center

  12. UC Davis Revenue: $2.1 billion 2012-13 Estimates Excludes Medical Center

  13. Relied on Existing Stakeholder Groups No formal steering committee. To develop the model, we relied on: • Regular working sessions with the Provost • Council of Deans and Vice Chancellors • Assistant Deans and Chief Operating Officers • Academic Senate, especially the Committee for Planning and Budget • Department Chairs • Anyone or any group that invited us to present

  14. Enter the White Paper • Key communication tool for developing the model • One paper per topic • Main modules: UG tuition, indirect cost recovery and provost allocation • Related projects: systemwide assessment, benefits decentralization • No blank slate discussions • Assumed a range of practical options • Starting place for discussion was version 1 • Consulted and issued revised versions • Used common data sources and known metrics

  15. Role of the Budget Office • Data and modeling expertise resides in budget office • Formulas more about gaining buy-in than actual technical work • Groups can get distracted by technical dimensions • Putting technical burden on budget office allows larger campus conversation • Focus on new implications for management, decision-making, authority, and accountability

  16. Major Elements of New Model • Phase I for 2012-13 • Undergraduate tuition revenue • Indirect cost recovery • Provost allocation – setting the baseline and deciding future funding levels • Related projects: • Benefit decentralization • Application of Funding Streams assessment • Bridging strategies • Revitalized annual budget meetings

  17. Major Elements of New Model • Phase I details • Undergraduate tuition revenue • After return-to-aid, 70% to units & 30% to Provost • Portion to units • 60% student credit hours • 30% degree majors • 10% degrees awarded • Indirect cost recovery • 2012-13: 34% to units & 66% to Provost • Goal of a 40%-60% split

  18. Major Elements of New Model • Future phases • Faculty resources • Graduate tuition revenue • Revisit allocation of professional tuition • Self-supporting degree fees • Summer session • Capital and space resources

  19. Initial Model • Step 1: Existing baseline budget of general funds (GF), support from central benefits pool (CBP) and indirect cost recovery (ICR) • Step 2: Baseline budget recolored per new model; undergraduate tuition revenue (UGTR) and provost allocation (PA&GT) • Step 3: Estimates for 2012-13 Note: Provost allocation includes graduate tuition – will disaggregate in future phase

  20. Key Success Factors • Support of campus leadership and enlistment of external expertise • Relied on existing committees and stakeholders • Revenue distribution instead of cost allocation • Use of transition and bridging strategies • Previous initiatives to increase unit autonomy • Use of common and easily available data sources • Awareness that budget changes are as much cultural as technical

  21. Some Parts Already in Place • Most institutions will already have elements in place, such as: • Professional programs • Self-supporting degrees • Existing ICR distribution programs • Rules about unused balances • Pathways to a new model may not be so far • These models do not remove Provost from budget allocation decisions - may refocus the process

  22. Issues and Concerns • Do we understand the implications of these changes? • Not everyone feels there was enough consultation • Some worried about too much change, others worried that change was too incremental • Unrelated concerns may get associated with the new model • Dean’s office relative to departments

  23. How’d We Do? • Advancing Chancellor’s Goals • Conversations shifting from focus on state funds • Student-centric university • Activities are linked with revenue flow • Having new conversations with deans • They are doing the math – comparing revenue to cost • Managing their portfolio of programs • Budget information available sooner, better budget modeling tools

  24. Resources • Budget and Institutional Analysis • budget.ucdavis.edu • Incentive-Based Budget Model • budget.ucdavis.edu/budget-model

More Related