Performance-Based Budgeting Steering Committee January 28 th , 2013
Jan 26, 2016
Performance-Based Budgeting
Steering CommitteeJanuary 28th, 2013
AgendaIntroductions
Where we left off (20 min.)
PBB working group report –revenue and cost attribution tool (40 min).
Revenue Costs (Direct and Indirect)
Committee discussion of strengths and weaknesses of using the revenue and cost attribution tool to inform a budget model (60 min)
Where we left off 2011-2012 Built a Revenue and Cost Attribution
tool – prelude to PBB Essential for understanding our budgetary
environment (long term: revenue = expenses) Attribution tool is not the budget model The attribution tool is not an SCH model. It
examines the source of all revenue and attributes it accordingly . It will adjust to future changes (State Allocation based on degrees granted, credit for prior learning versus SCH)
Cross subsidies are acceptable, but must be understood and have an upper limit.
What is in a name A common language
Attribution tool (AT) Budget Attribution Tool (BAT) Revenue and Cost Attribution Tool
(RCAT)
PBB Working GroupThe Revenue and Cost Attribution ToolSEE HANDOUT
Built using 2012-2013 budgets and current enrollment.
REVENUE Tuition (Undergrad and Grad) Actual versus
theoretical tuition collected, residency, differential, UNST classes, SCH redistributions, includes tuition from summer and Salem Center
Remissions IDC (predicted, can be updated) Targeted revenue State Share of research funding State Share of Instruction
RCAT
EXPENDITURES
Direct Expenses Summer Session and Salem Center
Adjustments (1 year only) NACUBO Categories- (expenditure
classification by function)
RCAT
INDIRECT EXPENDITURES
NACUBO CategoriesDrivers per steering group recommendations
Cost DriversAlternatives
Research – fixed per steering committee instructions (FEA- faculty FTE, research support- sponsored research $)
2-Close Calls Institutional support and Indirect Component of O and M
Summary of effect of changing these drivers Vote whether group wishes to change these 2
drivers
Effect of Different DriversINSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
Cost Driver UGE CLAS SSW SBA GSE MCECS FPA CUPA Total
Student, Faculty & Staff Headcount 50,544$ 11,124,858$ 1,031,982$ 3,115,147$ 1,449,575$ 2,645,555$ 2,451,158$ 2,896,750$ 24,765,570$ Student, Faculty & Staff FTE 1,674,998$ 12,529,519$ 782,350$ 2,339,343$ 1,773,164$ 1,457,363$ 1,837,261$ 2,371,572$ 24,765,570$ Net Effect of Change in Driver (1,624,454)$ (1,404,661)$ 249,633$ 775,804$ (323,589)$ 1,188,191$ 613,897$ 525,178$ -$
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCECost Driver UGE CLAS SSW SBA GSE MCECS FPA CUPA Total
Student, Faculty & Staff FTE 1,442,630$ 13,119,151$ 1,126,328$ 2,098,800$ 1,675,063$ 3,225,190$ 3,304,710$ 2,952,702$ 28,944,574$ Student, Faculty & Staff Headcount 310,474$ 12,140,179$ 1,300,308$ 2,639,493$ 1,449,539$ 4,053,295$ 3,732,563$ 3,318,723$ 28,944,574$ Net Effect of Change in Driver 1,132,156$ 978,972$ (173,980)$ (540,693)$ 225,524$ (828,105)$ (427,853)$ (366,021)$ -$
56%19%25 % ?
57%37%
vote
Performance Based-Budgeting: strengths and weaknesses of using the RCAT to inform a budget model
Objectives
Get input from the group on the RCATAt the end of today’s session we will have a better sense of:
It’s effectiveness for budget modeling What modifications might be needed to the
RCAT
Questions for the Team
1) What is in the RCAT that might make it an effective tool to inform a budget model?
2) What is missing from the RCAT that prevents it from being an effective tool to inform a budget model?
a) which ones could be incorporated into the RCAT
b) which ones cannot be incorporated into the RCAT
Work Session Every member of the Steering committee uses as
many post-it notes possible to provide responses to each of the questions (put your initials in the lower right corner)
Stick post-its randomly on the white board with the appropriate question number
Break up into assigned groups and categorize individual responses
Label the categories
Group Conversation
Have a group conversation about the categories Do they feel right? What is missing?
PBB- next steps…..