College of Public Health and Health Professions Faculty Incentive Plan

1. College of Public Health and Health ProfessionsFaculty Incentive Plan Proposal Presentation PHHP Faculty Meeting May 22, 2008

2. Committee Members Nabih Asal, E&B Rus Bauer, CHP (Chair) Andrea Burne, PHHP DO Paul Duncan, HSRMP Dave Fuller, PT Emily McClain, CD Kimberly Shaw, CHP Orit Shectman, OT

3. Goals of Plan Promote and support activity in research, teaching, and clinical service Provide faculty with opportunity to earn incentive award based on performance incentive is “any factor (financial or non-financial) that provides a motive for a particular course of action, or counts as a reason for preferring one choice to the alternatives”

5. Three Separate Algorithms Extramural Funding Incentive IDC’s Total Awards Teaching Incentive Contact hours (quantity) Student/peer evaluations (quality) Clinical Service Incentive Net positive revenue

6. Extramural Funding Incentive Algorithm Research, Training, and Service programs that include indirect costs (IDC’s) Junior and senior faculty separately ranked Two Parts Part A: percentile score on IDC distribution Part B: percentile score on Index that equally weighs Total awards for research and training Awards that provide tuition and assistantships for students and fellows Performance on Part A and Part B is summed Incentive award based on faculty member’s percentile ranking on summed distribution Total incentive award capped at $5,000

7. Extramural Funding Incentive Example Dr. Smith, a junior faculty member, has a research grant, which in the past year generated $200,000 in direct costs and $90,000 in IDC's. Dr. Smith is in the 81st percentile in the junior faculty distribution for Part A, and in the 90th percentile for Part B. Part A score: $90,000 in IDC's: Percentile score is 81. Part B score: Total award and student support: Percentile score is 90. Total Research Incentive: Dr. Smith's total raw score of 171 (81+90) is at the 83rd percentile of the overall research incentive score distribution. The total research incentive received by Dr. Smith is that dollar amount associated with a percentile score of 83. Approximately 35-40 awards

8. Teaching Incentive Algorithm All faculty in single distribution Two Parts Part A - a score corresponding to the contact hours generated by the faculty member's teaching activity Summed instruction in undergraduate and graduate coursework Credited only for courses earning “Instructor Overall” ratings at or above the College mean for the year Faculty is ranked; Part A score is the percentile rank in this distribution (1-100) Part B - a weighted average of evaluations of teaching quality derived from student and peer evaluations IQI = 70% Student Evaluation (Item 10), 30% Peer Evaluation [i.e., .7(SEI) + .3 (PEI)] All coursework for the year contributes Faculty is ranked, Part B score is the faculty member's percentile score in the resulting IQI distribution (1-100) Teaching Incentive Performance on Part A and Part B is summed Incentive award based on faculty member’s percentile ranking on summed distribution (1-100) Total incentive award capped at $5,000

9. Teaching Incentive Example Professor Jones generates 67 contact hours for the year, which is at the 85th percentile of her peer group. Her instruction earns an IQI of 4.71, at the 93rd percentile of peer group. PartA score: 67 contact hours: Percentile score is 85. Part B score: IQI of 4.71: Percentile score is 93. Total Teaching Incentive: Dr. Jones' total raw score of 178 (85+93) is at the 91st percentile of the overall teaching incentive score distribution. The total teaching incentive received by Dr. Jones is that dollar amount associated with a percentile score of 91. Approximately 35-40 awards

10. Clinical Service Incentive Algorithm Eligible faculty: Those with positive net clinical income (i.e., revenue exceeding costs) as determined by percent assignment to clinical services home department's financial algorithm and cost model Algorithms published and transparent at the start of the year Eligible faculty will be ranked within discipline Clinical service incentive will be determined by the percentile score on the distribution for their discipline (1-100) Three levels of incentive will be established Top third (percentile ranks 67-100) Middle third (percentile ranks 34-66) Bottom third (percentile ranks 1-33) Total Incentive capped at $5,000

11. Clinical Service Incentive Example Professor Brown, a clinical faculty member in Communicative Disorders whose total salary and benefits is $100,000, is assigned 0.5FTE to clinical service (reflected in the UF effort tracking system), and collects $58,000 in clinical revenue. Thus, Professor Brown generates a net of $8,000 [58,000 - ($100,000 x .50) = $8,000] and is eligible for an award This net amount is in the low third of the clinical faculty distribution for his discipline Total Clinical Service Incentive: Professor Brown receives that dollar amount associated with performance in the lower third of the distribution of peer faculty with positive net income Approximately 15 awards

12. Sources of Revenue Incentive plan funded by AEF, some of which is also normally used to support research 2% tax on clinical and contract revenues College-wide tax on IDC’s increases the residual IDC’s in the College IDC account <3% on PI (PI share goes from 10% to 7%) <2% on Centers (Center share goes from 7.5% to 5.5%) College matches amount from PI tax

13. Issues Plan will evolve and change as we assess its performance yearly Other domains of valued activity could be included in future versions (e.g., University service, unusual, high-quality contribution) Additional incentive for “triple threat” faculty Award vs. Incentive program

14. Comments Extramural funding plan seems biased toward senior investigators who are more likely to compete for federal grants with larger IDCs. Foundations, gifts, and corporate grants produce a lower rate of idc but are still important to the research mission..if we all waited to get our funding from the nih...many investigators might have to close their labs...perhaps the committee/college could develop an algorithm that includes total research funding from all sources and idc in a combined score?? ANSWER: THIS IS AN EMPIRICAL QUESTION THAT COULD BE MODELED IN THE YEAR LEADING UP TO IMPLEMENTATION USING THE PREVIOUS YEAR’S DATA

15. Comments Clinical service incentive may be problematic for departments who have a poorer collection rate but in which faculty 'bill' a significant amount...these folks would be penalized due to the existing business model of their department. Also, in some departments, the ‘target' amount includes an overhead to cover infrastructure...it would seem this is not included in the incentive plan, and it should not be...but it will be important to be certain of the amount of revenue comprising the 'target' amount and the factors that influence that amount... ANSWER: FACULTY WILL BE SUBJECT TO THEIR DEPARTMENT’S COST MODEL; INCENTIVES WILL BE DETERMINED BY RANKING WITHIN DISCIPLINE

16. Comments Is there a caveat in place within the plan that incorporates the financial status of individual departments within the college, such that faculty members in a department experiencing financial challenges may not be able to participate in the plan during a given time period - until such time that the department is financially stable?  The essence of this question is whether the college (aka dean's office) is the funding controller for the plan, or does each department bear ultimate financial responsibility?  Is the plan operative for all departments or none, depending upon the collective financial health of the college? ANSWER: THIS IS A COLLEGE-WIDE PLAN. ALL DEPARTMENTS AND ELIGIBLE FACULTY WILL PARTICIPATE

17. Comments The second question falls from the first - especially if some departments participate and others do not. As we have seen with the 'cost center' model of intra-departmental budgetary accounting, the fact of a college-wide incentive plan may pit departments against each other in a competitive manner as news of potentially differential faculty incentives circulates.  There may exist the danger of reducing cooperative inter-departmental relationships within the college if such differential examples of financial success begin to develop. As with any worthy collective benefit plan, there must be safeguards within this plan to ensure that participants share both the rewards and responsibilities equally. ANSWER: THIS IS A COLLEGE-WIDE PLAN; ALL DEPARTMENTS AND ELIGIBLE FACULTY WILL PARTICIPATE.

18. Comments I appreciate the thought and effort into developing a plan- given the lack of raises, avenues to increase take home pay are appreciated.     The research plan is very complicated when compared with the Vet Med plan.   Questions:   1.   What is the source of the funds for the incentive plans: IDCs, AEF or state money? ANSWER: AEF   2.  How will percentile scores be converted to a specific amount for bonuses? ANSWER: AMOUNTS FOR INDIVIDUAL PLANS WILL BE DETERMINED YEARLY; DOLLAR AMOUNTS DETERMINED FOR HIGH SCORES BASED ON AMOUNTS AVAILABLE. THE DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE START OF EACH YEAR.

19. Comments So let me get this straight – the only research activities that will be rewarded are those that bring in dollars?  I am…often concerned with dollars, but I also am an academic, and my definition of research includes other types of scholarly activities.  In particular, what about publications in high-quality, peer-reviewed journals? Suppose you had a first-authored article in the New England Journal of Medicine or in JAMA or (more in our area) in Health Affairs?  This plan would not reward you for that. I think this plan is flawed.  Scholarship is more than bringing in research dollars, and excellent scholarship should be rewarded. ANS: THE COMMITTEE AGREES, AND WISHES TO EVOLVE A PLAN TO INCORPORATE THIS KIND OF CONTRIBUTION IN THE FUTURE.

20. Comments Points for faculty who are not full-time should be pro-rated in accordance with their % effort if they are to participate equally in the incentive plan.  Of course, this means their incentives should be prorated as well. ANSWER: AGREED, PROVIDED THAT THE FACULTY IS AT LEAST “0.5 FTE PERMANENT.”