As time passes, one can see the impact of SCH (the “activity” part of ABB) on the allocations of revenue. In FY19, the College of Arts & Humanities (CAH) made an investment in faculty to open up more sections of English and Philosophy. This decision helped to alleviate a backlog of course requirements for many students and, of course, generated significantly more SCH—driving more revenues to CAH in FY20, per the model. The College of Business (CB) has seen declines in SCH over the past three years and you can see the impact on their revenue allocations. However investments in generating new SCH already have been made in Business, which should bring additional revenue allocations in the future. Governance Over New Funding One of the objectives of moving to RCM/ABB was to more intentionally direct resources toward mission fulfillment, particularly teaching and learning, most of which (but certainly not all) happens in the Division of Academic & Student Life (ASL). Just as important is creating transparency in how those resources are allocated, and how decisions are made to increase or decrease resources during the budget development process each year. To achieve these objectives, a new budget committee was created to serve as the campus forum for budget-related topics: the President’s Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC). PBAC created a Budget Allocations sub-committee (BASC) to help manage the process of reviewing new funding requests for the support (non-college) units. Any new funding added to support units would, by model design, be allocated to the colleges (as a cost) and would reduce their available funding. Starting with the development of the FY19 budget, an extensive process took place to enhance transparency and invite university-wide conversation about the merits of new funding proposals. Ultimately, the president still makes the decisions, but now makes them within the framework of the new shared governance structure. The president also has the benefit of the vetting and information provided by this process. This has had a dramatic effect in reducing the level of funding additions to support units, particularly when compared to the years preceding the new budget model. The next chart goes back to FY13 and isolates new discretionary funding decisions among the institutional support areas (Divisions of the President, Operations, Enrollment Management, and Business & Financial Affairs); the academic support areas (Provost & Associate Provost, OISP, Graduate Studies, Library and Student Success); and the four colleges. Again, this is only new discretionary funding, and does not include across-the- board wage and benefit increases, state-mandated funding, or budget cuts. As you can see, there were a couple of years where we increased funding for institutional priorities and also cut budgets, but only the new discretionary funding is shown.
7 | P a g e
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker