COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANACHAMPAIGN

1
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT
URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

• BUDGET REFORM

2
Implementation

• Decision to move to Budget Reform was made in
  1997. FY98 became the base year. The budget
  was allocated under the existing budget process
  and then restated in Budget Reform terms in such
  a way that the budget for each unit remained the
  same under Budget Reform as under the old system.
• For Academic units, budget allocations from this
  point on were dependent upon growth in workload
  factors from the FY98 level and successful
  requests for new program funds.
• For Administrative units, budget allocations were
  dependent upon requests for new program funds.
• Budget Reform was a modified version of RCB.
• Budgeting at UIUC impacts the recurring state
  budget and ICR.

3
Budget Reform FY99-FY04

• 50 Share of Tuition
• Undergraduate Tuition
• 50 Share of U/G IUs
• Graduate Tuition 100 Net Return to the
  College
• Tuition Surcharge 100 To the College
• Based on Faculty FTE
• 15 Based on GC Expends
• General Revenue Funds Based on Graduate IUs
• 85
• Provosts Allocation
• Administrative Assessment Share of Services
• ICR 30 of total Earnings 62 of Growth

4
Budget Reform FY05 and On

• Undergraduate Tuition 50 Share of Tuition/
  50 Share of U/G IUs
• Graduate Tuition 100 Net Tuition Collected
• Tuition Surcharge 100 To the College
• General Revenue Funds 100 Provosts Allocation
• Administrative Assessment None
• ICR 30 of Total Earnings 52 of Growth
• Taxes/Campus Reserves Provost with Committee
  Review
• Annual Reviews Committee Review
• Balances/Deficits Carried Forward at the Unit
  Level

5
GOALS

• Manage resources to enhance our ability to
  fulfill the campus missions, to maintain and
  improve our quality and to preserve and
  strengthen our academic and institutional values
• Rationalize the budget allocation process to
  build academic unit budgets in a way that
  recognizes what units do rather than simply their
  historical size
• Promote entrepreneurship to foster growth
• Decentralize responsibility for programmatic
  financial decisions

6
WHY BUDGET REFORM OUR WAY?

• Unit concerns
• Transfer of administrative costs and functions to
  units
• Shift focus from scholarship to bottom line
• Technical limitations

7
WHAT WORKED

• U/G Enrollment increased by 9
• Graduate Enrollment increased by 17
• Faculty FTE increased by 5
• Research Expenditures increased by 50
• Increased awareness of workload factors and
  strategic planning for units
• Increased transparency for the budget allocation
  process

8
What Didnt Work

• Formulas were too complex, especially related to
  Administrative Assessments
• Did not leave enough flexibility at the Provosts
  level
• Uneven playing field made growth too expensive
  for some units

9
If I Could Turn Back Time

• Provost--simplicity and adequate flexibility at
  the central level
• Academic Units--level the playing field