University of New Hampshire RCM 5 Year Review

1
University of New HampshireRCM 5 Year Review

• Presentation of Initial Recommendations
• December 7, 2005

2
Schedule

• Subcommittees have met since September and have
  submitted recommendations
• Steering Committee deliberating on
  recommendations
• Meeting with all subcommittee members on initial
  recommendations 12/7
• Open forums to present and discuss initial
  recommendations 12/13 and 12/15
• Steering Committee to refine and finalize
  recommendations for submission to Central Budget
  Committee (CBC) in January, 2006
• CBC to deliberate and present final
  recommendations to President in February, 2006
• President reviews and makes final decision in
  February, 2006
• Model changes implemented in FY07 budget

3
General Comments

• RCM is a tool to help us make informed financial
  decisions about activities to support the goals
  outlined in the Universitys academic plan
• To achieve this, the tool must have the following
  qualities
• It must provide financial incentives at the local
  level
• It must be fairly applied to all units
• It must be as simple as possible to administer
  and to understand
• There must exist credible governance mechanisms
• There is campus-wide support for decentralized
  budgeting

4
Significant Model RecommendationsBy Subcommittee

• Note The Steering Committee has not yet
  endorsed all of these recommendations. The
  recommendations below are still under discussion.
  
• State Appropriations
• Allocate based on all faculty salaries (including
  extension, research, and clinical faculty) and
  graduate stipends. Post Docs excluded.
• Weight research and clinical faculty at .5. All
  others at 1.0
• Indirect Cost Recovery/Research
• Keep VPRPS, Library and Unit IDC shares at
  current levels
• Consider allocating a portion of the PI share (up
  to 3 percentage points) to departments to use for
  specified research related activities and/or
  graduate fellowships managed by the Graduate
  School
• Ensure level playing field for colleges and
  research centers - academic affairs assessment
  should not be charged based on grant activity
• Reduce perceived or real disincentives for low
  indirect cost recovery grants

5
Significant Model RecommendationsBy Subcommittee

• Graduate Net Tuition
• Keep real time distribution methodology to home
  unit
• Allocate summer graduate tuition to instructional
  unit no weighting
• Undergraduate Net Tuition
• Keep existing credit hour weightings and two year
  averaging
• Keep all tuition revenue flows to instructional
  unit
• Allocate all INCO net tuition to unit of
  instruction vs. Academic Affairs
• Conduct Zero based review of program scope of
  auxiliary operations to assist with fee impact on
  financial aid budget
• Assessments
• Combine Academic Affairs and General Assessments
  into single assessment and apply to all units
• Keep personnel and adjusted revenue as the basis
  for assessments
• Exempt graduate stipends and financial aid from
  assessments

6
Significant Model RecommendationsBy Subcommittee

• Facilities
• Keep existing NSF and Business Affairs allocation
  methodologies
• Reallocate 10 of institutional Repair and
  Renovation (RR) budget to all units including
  auxiliaries and NHPTV for campus greater good
  projects

7
Significant Model RecommendationsBy Subcommittee

• Quality and Governance
• Qualitative and quantitative data suggest that
  the RCM model has not affected academic quality,
  despite widespread perceptions around the
  University to the contrary.
• There is concern and some evidence that the model
  provides insufficient financial incentives for
  outreach and engagement activities. Few
  mechanisms in place to gather data/facts.
  Warrants further exploration and attention.
• RCM is perceived as having negatively impacted
  interdisciplinary collaboration by creating
  disincentives for faculty and units to foster
  interdisciplinary teaching and research. Few
  mechanisms in place to gather data/facts.
  Warrants further exploration and attention.
• Central Budget Committee is viewed as effective
• UCAPC should be more visible and active in its
  role
• Sufficient unit input exists to central
  administration for central decisions
• The treatment of UNHM in the RCM model is
  appropriate pending more detailed review of
  assessments
• Communications need to be enhanced specifically
  CBC and UCAPC activities as well as financial
  information

8
Open Issues

• All recommendations have been reviewed by the RCM
  Steering Committee.
• There are a few major issues that are still being
  being discussed
• Assessment methodology various models are being
  considered
• Library funding assessments vs. direct revenues
• Strategic funds for Central Budget Committee
• Application of Hold Harmless principle
• Responses to specific subcommittee
  recommendations regarding improved communication,
  governance and non-RCM policies
• Assignment of non-RCM issues raised to
  appropriate responsible areas
• Recommendations will be made by the end of January