Central Washington University
Overview of RCM Models
Preliminary Thoughts
Faculty Senate
ADCO
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.
2
Pros and Cons for All Models
Pro
Con
• 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.
• 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.
3
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?
4
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?
5
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.
6
Questions for All Models (4 of 5)
• No overhead is applied to these models. How will
administrative services and subvention be 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?
7
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.
8
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.
9
Scenario 1 - Impacts (by College)
SCH Hours Allocation Model
College
Budget (FY 2013) SCH Bud
Diff
CAH
11,005,200 11,357,481
352,281
CEPS
13,403,400 12,673,761
(729,639)
COB
7,552,300
5,216,716 (2,335,584)
COTS
16,718,100 19,276,069
2,557,969
OISP
671,300
826,273
154,973
Grand Total
49,350,300 49,350,300
80/20% model based on SCH and Majors/Minors
College
Budget (FY 2013) Mixed Bud Diff
CAH
11,005,200 10,949,012
(56,188)
CEPS
13,403,400 13,346,186
(57,214)
COB
7,552,300
5,436,892 (2,115,408)
COTS
16,718,100 18,943,912
2,225,812
OISP
671,300
674,299
2,999
Grand Total
49,350,300 49,350,300
-
10
Scenario 1 - Reallocation based on SCH
and Major/Minor
Pro
• Metrics reflect
student enrollments.
• Flexibility with
adjusting ratios for
CWU with data
available for assessing
the appropriate ratios.
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).
11
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?
12
Scenario 2 - Similar to UW, Indiana Univ.
Share incremental revenue with colleges based on
SCH and majors/minors.
13
Scenario 2 - Model Impacts with only
incremental budget increases
FY 13 to FY 12 Budget Increase Recalculated based on SCH and Major/Minor RCM Metrics
Budget
Increase on
Increase on
College
FY 12 Budget FY 13 Budget Increase
SCH
Maj/Min
CAH
10,871,788 11,005,200
133,412
526,512
431,833
CEPS
12,955,387 13,403,400
448,013
587,532
743,394
COB
7,128,988
7,552,300
423,312
241,837
292,872
COTS
15,739,940 16,718,100
978,160
893,603
816,612
OISP
366,407
671,300
304,893
38,305
3,078
Grand Total
47,062,510 49,350,300
2,287,790
2,287,790
2,287,790
Adjusted
Increase
507,576
618,705
252,044
878,205
31,259
2,287,790
Adjusted
FY13 Bud
11,379,364
13,574,092
7,381,032
16,618,145
397,666
49,350,300
Diff
374,164
170,692
(171,268)
(99,955)
(273,634)
-
Adjusted Increase calculated by taking the total budget increase from FY12 to FY13
and prorating it based 80% on SCH and 20% on Majors and Minors
14
Scenario 2 - Incremental Budget
Increases
Pro
Con
• Minor differences in overall
budget scenarios for many
units.
• Can make a lousy situation
worse since it assume the
current level of support is
sufficient.
• Can only acquire new
resources if you can outperform prior year. (Once
again this forces units or
departments to operate at a
deficit.)
15
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?
16
Scenario 3 - Removing GE production
Review impacts of general education classes. Pull and pool
Instruction Cost (based on custom Instructor Workload data)
general
Term
College
1119
1121
1123
Grand Total
education
Non Gen Ed
CAH
1,717,837
1,739,601 1,982,672
5,440,110
CB
1,174,787
1,167,106 1,278,649
3,620,542
courses.
CEPS
COTS
IDST
INTL
Non Gen Ed Total
Gen Ed
Gen Ed Total
Grand Total
CAH
CB
CEPS
COTS
IDST
2,726,629
2,514,249
171,874
8,305,377
652,300
70,182
118,187
1,017,202
28,448
1,886,320
10,191,696
2,885,745 2,791,641
2,723,660 4,813,854
190,742
132,018
56,522
8,763,375 10,998,834
699,088
600,778
59,582
45,909
92,070
97,867
690,982
662,814
14,973
13,830
1,556,695 1,421,198
10,320,070 12,420,032
8,404,016
10,051,763
494,634
56,522
28,067,586
1,952,167
175,673
308,124
2,370,998
57,251
4,864,213
32,931,799
17
Scenario 3 - Impacts by College
SCH Hours Allocation Model (Reallocating Gen Ed to separate College)
College
Budget (FY 2013)
SCH Bud
Diff
CAH
9,053,033
2,807,529
(6,245,505)
CEPS
13,095,276
10,555,491
(2,539,786)
COB
7,376,627
4,657,075
(2,719,551)
COTS
14,347,102
6,094,450
(8,252,651)
OISP
614,049
826,273
212,224
GEN ED
4,864,213
24,409,482
19,545,269
Grand Total
49,350,300
49,350,300
Tuition Generated Allocation Model (Reallocating Gen Ed to separate College)
College
Budget (FY 2013)
Tui Revenue
Diff
CAH
9,053,033
4,555,415
(4,497,618)
CEPS
13,095,276
14,435,539
1,340,263
COB
7,376,627
7,207,161
(169,466)
COTS
14,347,102
9,743,535
(4,603,567)
OISP
614,049
464,121
(149,928)
GEN ED
4,864,213
26,394,228
21,530,015
Grand Total
49,350,300
62,799,999
13,449,699
Tui Bud
Diff
3,579,795
(5,473,238)
11,343,920
(1,751,356)
5,663,623
(1,713,003)
7,656,789
(6,690,312)
364,721
(249,328)
20,741,451
15,877,238
49,350,300
-
80/20% model based on SCH and Majors/Minors (Reallocating Gen Ed to separate College)
College
Budget (FY 2013)
Mixed Bud
Diff
CAH
9,053,033
3,722,759
(5,330,274)
CEPS
13,095,276
10,986,492
(2,108,784)
COB
7,376,627
5,651,529
(1,725,097)
COTS
14,347,102
7,665,221
(6,681,881)
OISP
614,049
672,481
58,432
GEN ED
4,864,213
21,583,233
16,719,020
Grand Total
49,350,300
49,350,300
-
18
Scenario 3 - Non-Gen Ed and Gen Ed
Classes
Pro
Con
• Removing funding link to
General Education may
eliminate “turf wars”,
possibly leading to a
meaningful revision to the
General Education program.
• 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?
19
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?
20
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.
21
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.
22
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?
23
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/
24