Central Washington University

1. Central Washington University Overview of RCM Models Preliminary Thoughts Faculty Senate ADCO

2. Scenarios Considered • Scenario 1 – Share current revenue with colleges based on scheduled credit hours (SCH) and majors/minors. Reallocate entire FY 2013 budget based on FY 2012 actual SCH and majors/minors. Similar with subsequent years. • Scenario 2 – Share incremental revenue with colleges based on changes in SCH and majors/minors. • Scenario 3 – Review impacts of general education classes. Pull and pool general education courses.

3. Known metrics governing budgetary distributions. Budgetary changes can quickly reflect student interests. Budgetary change mechanisms can be assessed within Colleges. Incentive to improve quality to attract students. Pros and Cons for All Models Pro Con Tendency to de-emphasize cooperation and collaboration. Tendency to de-emphasize service activities. Incentive to hire less established faculty teaching large enrollment courses. Pressure to offer more courses (possibly outside of one’s expertise or at a lower standard). Less discretionary money for meeting the common needs of all.

4. Questions for All Models (1 of 5) • All models base allocation primarily on SCH production. How are scholarly and service activities factored in? Are there qualitative aspects we should consider for these models? • Grants, Contracts, and other funding sources: How will the RCM model apply when a unit has access to other revenue streams? • While the Provost is the chief academic officer, many of the academic decisions will be made at the Dean’s level. Is this a model administrators are comfortable with? • Will there be discretionary fund pools? If so, at what level? What will be done to ensure transparency and equity? • Would budget decreases follow the same model?

5. Questions for All Models (2 of 5) • Are costs of instruction (personnel, instrumentation, etc.) accurately reflected in any of these models? • What happens when CWU marketing conflicts with College marketing? i.e. Will CWU still market itself as a school offering small class sizes? • How will state vs non-state SCH be factored into these models (i.e. Cornerstone courses)? What about courses for interdisciplinary programs such as DHC? What about UNIV and other non-department courses? • How will summer courses be considered? • How are state support funds used in these models?

6. Questions for All Models (3 of 5) • Will other metrics (such as graduation rates, retention, fundraising) be part of the allocation scheme? • How are costs associated with graduate and undergraduate education factored in? • How will self-support and academic support units be incorporated into the chosen model? Since the focus is on SCH production, will they be at a financial disadvantage? • Similarly how will new or innovative units that lack cash be funded (at least in their first year)? The model forces programs to always operate at a deficit, only gaining additional faculty AFTER SCH is documented.

7. Questions for All Models (4 of 5) • No overhead is applied to these models. How will administrative services and subventionbe funded? • Given past experiences, how will the campus be confident the data they are being provided is accurate? (i.e. APTF) • How are resources quickly reallocated if tenure-track lines are used? • Will in-state vs. out-of-state tuition, tuition waivers, etc. be considered? If so, how? • Does CWU have an infrastructure to support RCM models? • How is faculty and staff salary (including compression and equity) factored into RCM models?

8. Questions for All Models (5 of 5) • How will undeclared students be incorporated? • Require all students to declare upon admission to CWU. If so, the need for retention numbers seem important. (Not popular with some faculty/departments.) • Require undecided students to declare an interest in a Department, College, or Colleges. (Not popular with some faculty/departments.) • Pool revenue from students and split evenly/proportionally with the Colleges.

9. Scenario 1 - Similar to Kent State Univ. Share current revenue with colleges based on SCH and majors/minors. Reallocate entire FY 2013 budget based on FY 2012 actual SCH and majors/minors. Similar with subsequent years.

10. Scenario 1 - Impacts (by College)

11. Scenario 1 - Reallocation based on SCH and Major/Minor Pro Con Large changes in budgetary allocation. Compensates SCH production without considering the cost it takes to offer that SCH. The unit sizes might result in unequal abilities to effectively compete for funding. Problem for high cost programs. Reflects one set of metrics (i.e. time to degree, retention are not included). • Metrics reflect student enrollments. • Flexibility with adjusting ratios for CWU with data available for assessing the appropriate ratios.

12. Scenario 1 - Reallocation based on SCH and Major/Minor Questions • What is the appropriate set of metrics that should be used? SCH to Major/Minor ratio, should Major/Minor be weighed equally, are there any other parameters to include (time to degree, retention, total credit hours, tenure/tenure track FTE, other academic and staff FTE, assignable square footage, participation at the Centers). • When will the baseline be taken? The use of a single academic year seems inappropriate. • How are sudden changes in enrollments handled?

13. Scenario 2 - Similar to UW, Indiana Univ. Share incremental revenue with colleges based on SCH and majors/minors.

14. Scenario 2 - Model Impacts with only incremental budget increases

15. Scenario 2 - Incremental Budget Increases Pro Con Can make a lousy situation worse since it assume the current level of support is sufficient. Can only acquire new resources if you can out-perform prior year. (Once again this forces units or departments to operate at a deficit.) • Minor differences in overall budget scenarios for many units.

16. Scenario 2 - Incremental Budget Increases Questions • When will the baseline set of numbers be taken? Given the drastic changes in enrollments during the past several years, the use of a single academic year is inappropriate. • How will sudden changes in enrollments be handled?

17. Scenario 3 - Removing GE production Review impacts of general education classes. Pull and pool general education courses.

18. Scenario 3 - Impacts by College

19. Scenario 3 - Non-Gen Ed and Gen Ed Classes Pro Con General Education courses are also Service Courses. Will these components be differentiated? What is the incentive for departments to participate in the General Education program? • Removing funding link to General Education may eliminate “turf wars”, possibly leading to a meaningful revision to the General Education program.

20. Scenario 3 - Non-Gen Ed and Gen Ed Classes Questions • How to distinguish General Education and Service Courses? • At what rate (TT or NTT costs?) are departments reimbursed for providing their faculty resources and expertise to the General Education program?

21. Other issues for discussion • Option: None of the RCM models be officially adopted. Rather the administration uses them as one of several guiding factors in making decisions. • What type of training will Administrators, Chairs, and Academic Support units receive in overseeing any of these models? • Large course enrollments drive SCH production • How will we deal with accreditation requirements that dictate class sizes (or faculty/student ratios)? • These models drive the offering of large general education courses to maximize SCH revenue. • Departments capable of offering large enrollment classes can have revenue privilege.

22. Other issues for discussion (2) • CWU is “known” for its small class size, low student-to-faculty ratio, and “knowing our students by name”. RCM appears to discourage this practice. • What is the correlation between large GE classes and retention? Are the best instructors used to teach GE classes or major classes? • Higher retention rates = more SCH generated by upper division courses. Smaller class sizes = higher retention rates but lower SCH! • Other schools have used differential tuition to implement RCM models. However, even if such a model could be implemented at CWU, can these higher cost programs recruit eligible students in sufficient numbers? • Other states use academic fees (rather than differential tuition) for select disciplines. Although it is another revenue source it is not a transparent budgetary model.

23. Other issues for discussion (3) • Will RCM apply in FY 2014 after salary and benefits? • FY 2013 provided incremental revenue for sharing • FY 2014 headroom will most likely be consumed by salary, equity and benefit costs • A clear rationale for changing CWU’s budgetary model should be developed and presented to the university. • Next Steps • White paper with pros/cons of each model for President Gaudino. • Michael Jackson/Melody Madlem/Kirk Johnson/Lori Braunstein key contributors • Target date; April 15, 2013?

24. References • Information on Kent State University’s RCM model can be found at (retrieved March 6, 2013): http://www.kent.edu/about/administration/business/rcm/links.cfm • Information on Indiana University’s RCM model can be found at (retrieved March 6, 2013): http://www.indiana.edu/~vpcfo/RCM/index.shtml • M. J. Bugeja, Stamping out rubber-stamp collegiality, The Chronicle of Higher Education. Can be found at (retrieved March 18, 2013): http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/131946/