Free online courses through
Mpowering the State

Resource Allocation and Administrative Efficiency

View the full Resource Allocation and Administrative Efficiency Section of the Plan.
View Year One Implementation Progress for Resource Allocation and Administrative Efficiency.

Goal 1: The Provost, working with the vice presidents and deans, will develop well-thought-out measures of mission and achievement for each unit and use these measures to introduce a full-scale dynamic resource allocation process. This allocation model should result in a close balance of each unit's available resources with its mission expectations, impact on its field, and overall reputation.

View the Goal 1 strategies for the Resource Allocation and Administrative Efficiency Section of the Plan.

GOAL 1 AREAS OF PROGRESS

Resource Allocation Planning and Implementation: The President, vice presidents and deans engage in comprehensive planning to advance the long-term goals of the Strategic Plan and assure that resources will be efficiently used. Planning considers assessment of activities in progress as well as new initiatives. A retreat in August, 2009 focused on major priorities and initiatives for FY2010 and subsequent years, as well as specific responsibilities for each division. Specific decisions on budgets and responsibilities for administrative leaders within each division are made by each Vice President. All divisions participate in the 2% resource reallocation mandated by the Strategic Plan.

The Budget Challenge in FY2010: The University's State supported budget was reduced $48.2 million in FY2010, including $10.2 million in furloughs for faculty and staff; base budget reductions of $11.2 million, and one-time reductions of $26.8 million. These reductions, most of which were announced in July, were especially difficult following FY2009 reductions of $29.2 million in FY2009, which included $7.9 million in base budget and $14.5 million in one-time reductions.

The President, vice presidents and the deans reaffirmed the University's commitment to the goals of the Strategic Plan as the foundation for how the University would address budget challenges. Notwithstanding budget reductions, some investment would continue to be made in selected new initiatives. The University Strategic Plan, the plans of all divisions and colleges, and the priorities agreed upon for Year Two of the Plan's implementation were the point of reference for budget decisions at all administrative levels.

Budget Reductions in Academic Affairs and Other Divisions: Academic Affairs' share of the budget reduction was $28.8 million ($8.6 million in permanent base budget, $13.1 million in one-time reductions; and $7.1 million in furlough actions.) The Provost asked the deans for budget proposals which protected activities that were central to the University's mission, minimized the number of layoffs, and resulted in the least reductions to graduate assistant budgets. All proposed reductions were to be rank-ordered by the severity of their adverse impact. While reductions were not costless, the approach to identifying reductions provided a means for both the deans and the Provost to carefully assess consequences. The Provost sought the advice of APAC on reductions. Budget principles were discussed with the Campus Senate in October, and detailed budget reduction decisions were posted on a Provost budget-website in December, 2009. A similar process was followed in other divisions, with vice presidents weighing choices given planned goals and priorities.

Resource Reallocation in FY2010: A second year of 2% resource reallocation was conducted in Spring, 2010. Within Academic Affairs, budget reductions required of the colleges/schools to return funds centrally were not to be across-the-board. Proposals to receive reallocation funds were to advance specific goals of the Strategic Plan, with a focus on centrality of mission and promoting excellence and the quality of programs. Evaluation of proposals would also consider quality of leadership, the efficiency in use of resources, and the success that the college/school had in utilizing resources provided in the FY2009 resource reallocation. As in the previous year, the Provost sought the advice of APAC and a small committee of distinguished faculty. Reallocation funding in FY2011 was directed to faculty hiring, support for graduate students, undergraduate teaching and support for the new General Education program, and infrastructure for teaching and research activities. See the full Reallocation Report for details of these decision.

Reallocation funding in other divisions supported initiatives that provide infrastructure and services throughout the University and beyond. Examples of initiatives that represented significant investments include facility renewal projects; expanded information technology services and associated security requirements; and investments in residence halls that promote sustainability goals. See the full Reallocation Report for details of reallocation decisions made in all divisions.

Success of FY2009 Reallocation Decisions: The FY2009 reallocation provided funds for a significant increase of faculty hiring, as described in the Faculty and Staff section of this Implementation Report and in the paragraph just below. It also provided significant resources for the new Honors College and enhancements to College Park Scholars, described in the Undergraduate Education section.

Creation of the Maryland Center for Health Equity: The School of Public Health recruited a team of five faculty who previously had established a nationally-recognized program at the University of Pittsburgh. These faculty members will open a new Maryland Center for Health Equity to support extensive community-level research and outreach focused on reducing health disparities in Maryland. They will create action programs to improve primary care and expand public health outreach, so as to reduce the high rates of chronic disease in Maryland's medically underserved communities. The Center will have collaborations with local communities, with other USM institutions, and with established national partners, and with experts in other disciplines throughout the University.

Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research: The University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute ceases to exist as an independent institution on July 1, 2010. The University and UMB will assume joint oversight of the Center for Biosystems Research (CBR), located on campus in the Plant Science Building, and the Center for Advanced Research in Biotechnology (CARB), located at Shady Grove. Faculty currently in these centers will have half-time appointments in a new Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research (IBBR), and half time appointments in a department at UMB or at the University. All nineteen faculty affected have chosen appointments at College Park and have reached agreements with their respective academic departments. Attracting this large group of excellent faculty represents an enormous contribution to the University's programs in bioscience and biotechnology. In collaboration with strong programs and infrastructure at College Park, and bolstered by a partnership with NIST, the IBBR is expected to create world-class research and economic development enterprises in three complementary areas: Nanobiotechnology; Pathobiology; and Structural biology, protein design, and drug discovery.

Tuition Revenue Sharing Agreement for Academic Entrepreneurial Programs: The University has provided academic entrepreneurial programs for many years, providing valuable educational training and skill development to the work force in the State and beyond. Programs generate revenues that help to support teaching and research at College Park. Cost and revenue sharing arrangements developed over time are often complex and vary across programs. With the advice of a campus committee reviewing entrepreneurial programs, the Provost has established a tuition revenue sharing agreement that defines "entrepreneurial" programs, establishes tuition revenue sharing rules for on- and off-campus programs, and assigns responsibilities for covering costs. This new policy simplifies planning and accountability and is expected to encourage further activity.

UM Budget Central Website Created: The University launched Budget Central, the University's budget website, in January 2010. Located on UM's homepage, the site features the FY2010 budget, a budget primer, budget flowcharts, a suggestion box, successful cost-saving and revenue generating strategies, and videos in which the President answers budget-related questions posed by the University community. The President has made many presentations to the campus on budget issues. The President's forums, breakfasts with the Senate Executive Committee and his meetings with various constituents have addressed budget challenges, including detailed discussions of the issues associated with furloughs.


Goal 2: To elevate the quality of education and research programs, the Provost and deans will develop a schedule to modestly decrease total undergraduate and graduate enrollment. In addition, the planned redistributions of faculty and other resources will begin to redress current imbalances.

View the Goal 2 strategies for the Resource Allocation and Administrative Efficiency Section of the Plan.

GOAL 2 AREAS OF PROGRESS

Enrollment Planning and Resource Allocation: Enrollment planning is led by the Provost. The Office of Undergraduate Admissions has been very effective in meeting enrollment targets. Decisions by the Enrollment Management Team have successfully addressed imbalances in student demands and teaching resources in a number of programs. At the graduate level, recently established targets for doctoral enrollment represent a major step in establishing the size of doctoral programs consistent with current and expected future resources. .

Supporting Undergraduate Teaching: While most teaching resources are part of college base budgets, the Provost provides resources that meet critical short term needs through Planning Cycle funding (the allocation of one-time funds annually from the provost to assist programs with excess student demand). A much simplified approach to Planning Cycle funding was introduced in FY2010. The new approach allocates budgets based on overall seat targets in broad categories, with relatively few restrictions on seats offered in particular course. This decentralized and simplified approach was well received by the colleges.

The Provost provides central funds to support (or to cost-share) development of new instructional initiatives, which is often a first step toward permanent budgeting within colleges/schools. Startup funds were used to support new Honors College and College Park Scholars programs. Support for creation of the 'I-series' courses included funds for faculty to develop new courses and TA support for courses taught in Spring 2010. It is expected that support of special kinds of instruction will be an important part of resource allocation planning in the immediate future as the General Education program is phased in and as the campus expands special offerings that promote study abroad, minor/certificate programs, and internships and other special programs.


Goal 3: Under the oversight of the Provost and Vice Presidents, we will conduct thorough reviews of all academic and administrative processes in all major units and take action as warranted to increase efficiency across the institution, simplify the work of the University, and facilitate innovation.

View the Goal 3 strategies for the Resource Allocation and Administrative Efficiency Section of the Plan.

GOAL 3 AREAS OF PROGRESS

Year One Reviews Of Major Support Units Lead To Significant Changes: During FY09, the University convened internal and external teams to review the Libraries. Informed by these reviews, a national search resulted in the appointment of a new Dean of Libraries, Patricia Steele, whose term began in Fall, 2009. During FY10 the Libraries have made important advances, some of which are described under Goal 5 Progress within the Infrastructure and Academic Support section of this implementation report. The Libraries have also developed a draft of a new strategic plan, laying out the principles for future progress. Both the plan and actions to date follow closely the recommendations of the two review reports.

During FY09 the University convened a Committee on Living-Learning Programs to examine how these and similar programs serve to enhance student's educational programs. Based on the report of this committee and with the further input of the advisory committee set up as a result of this report, the University this year implemented significant changes in Honors and in College Park Scholars, as reported in the Undergraduate Education section of this implementation report.

As specified in the Plan, and as described in the Provost's announcement of September, 2009, the University convened a committee to review the Office of International Programs. Very significant structural and organizational changes were put into place for this unit during FY10, as described in the Maryland in the World-Engaging the Global Community section of this implementation report.

Year Two Reviews Of Major Support Units Have Been, or Soon Will Be Completed: Within the Division of Academic Affairs, a review of the Office of Information Technology is in its final stages. In addition, a high level Task Force has been studying the overall support environment for undergraduate students, with the aim of finding ways to further improve our retention and graduation rates. Within the Research Division, the Office of Research Administration and Advancement (ORAA) received thorough internal and external reviews. The external team praised ORAA's success but made a number of recommendations for changes to improve its efficiency and effectiveness, especially in the face of the rapidly expanding size, scope, and complexity of the University's research enterprise. The University Research Council generally concurred with these recommendations. Within the Division of Student Affairs, The Stamp Student Union - Center for Campus Life completed an 18-month departmental review that consisted of an extensive self study followed by a review by a team of external consultants. While most programs and services were viewed as being well-managed and appropriately focused to address campus needs, areas of development related to internal management systems were identified. The department is undertaking a strategic approach to address the areas of concern. Furthermore, Campus Recreation Services and the Department of Student Conduct will begin their comprehensive departmental reviews in FY11.