1

Academic Business Officers Group44th Annual Conference

Break Out Session

Budget Planning & Management Challenges

Lisa Daniels, Assistant DeanDivision of Humanities and Fine Arts

UC Santa Barbara

2

Campus Budget Cut Process

Chancellor established Coordinating Committee on Budget Strategy in February 2003

Committee charged with developing set of principles and priorities to guide the budget reduction process

No across the board cuts -- budget reduction percentages varied across campus according to committee principles and priorities

3

College Budget Cut Process

Divisional Deans have autonomy to determine how to meet their assigned budget reduction target

Each division analyzed various models for assessing budget reductions to departments

Some years, reductions taken at the divisional level; other years, reduction targets given to departments

4

Permanent Sub0, (64%)Temp Sub0

(Lecturers/TAs), (20%)

Permanent Sub1, (13%)

Permanent Support (sub3-8), (3%)

Divisional Permanent Budget

Divisional Budget Cut Process

5

Divisional Budget Cut Process

03/04 Perm Cut

04/05 Perm Cut

05/06 Perm Cut

06/07 Perm Cut

08/09 Perm Cut

Total Cuts

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

95% 40% 100% 72% 80% 80%

5% 60% 28% 20% 20%

Sub 1 and Support FundsSub 0 Funds

6

Divisional Budget Cut ProcessTemporary Cut Options

Carry-forwardSavingsSupport budget fundsWork-study savings Temporary sub 0 allocation (with permission)

7

Divisional Budget Cut ProcessPermanent Cut Options

$1,000,000 = ~30.00 TA FTE = 60 full-year 50% TAships

$1,000,000:$600,000 = ~18.00 TA FTE = 36 full-year 50%

TAship$400,000 = 7.00-8.00 Staff FTE

$1,000,000:$100,000 = ~2.00 Lecturer FTE$500,000 = ~15.00 TA FTE = 30 full-year 50%

TAship$400,000 = 7.00-8.00 Staff FTE

$1,000,000:$100,000 = ~2.00 Lecturer FTE$400,000 = ~12.00 TA FTE = 24 full-year 50%

TAship$400,000 = 7.00-8.00 Staff FTE

$100,000 = Support Budget Funds

8

Divisional Budget Cut ProcessHFA Departments

22 departments/programs in HFA Division

25% of departments had less than 3 staff FTE

40% of departments had less than 4 staff FTE

60% of departments had less than 5 staff FTE

Wide variance in staff/faculty ratios

9

Administrative Support ModelsIndividual Departments

Pros: Common cultureTraditionStaff close to faculty and studentsFamily/Town Square

Cons: Small departments below critical massInequities across departmentsPart-time, fractions, multiple responsibilities

Increasing burdens on individual staffReduction of servicesNothing left to cut

10

Administrative Support ModelsService Centers

Pros: Specialized servicesExpertiseEfficiency

Cons: Staff removed from faculty and studentsProblem of seasonal laborInefficiency

11

Administrative Support ModelsShared Staffing

Pros: Specialized staffEfficiencyLeveraging of resourcesLocal presence

Cons: Staff present only part-timeLess responsive to facultyUnpredictable needs and workloadStaff pulled in different directions Where do we scale back?

12

Administrative Support ModelsAdministrative Support Centers

Pros: More equitable distribution of resources and workload

Greater efficiencyLocal presence if building-based clustersSpecialized expertiseBetter support for facultyMore professional opportunities within ASCs

Use of VSO and open provisions will reduce lay-offs

Note: Not a merger of departments or programs; Individual chairs, faculties, degrees, meetings, programmatic identities remain

New common space for faculty and graduate students could foster interdisciplinary culture

13

Budget Cut Alternatives

Take cuts entirely from Sub 0 (TA FTE, Associates, Lecturers)

Eliminate more faculty FTE

Eliminate departments or programs within departments

Reduce staff of some departments below critical mass

Mergers, increased sharing after reductions

Note: While this discussion focuses on clustered departments within the division, non-clustered departments had permanent cuts to staff FTE and temporary instruction FTE.

14

Administrative Support CentersStaffing Model

Lead Manager (Director)

Academic Services Manager

Academic Personnel Analysts/

Chair Assistants Financial Analysts

Student Services Manager

Student Affairs Officers

GraduateUndergraduate

Note: Some staff would continue to focus on single programs, some would work across programs

15

Administrative Support Center Implementation Process

Coordination with HR

Detailed discussions with individual Chairs and Managers

Discussions with faculty and staff

Recruitment of Lead Managers (Directors); only current managers in clustered departments eligible to apply

Lead Managers (Directors) and Chairs design positions, configurations, re-assignments within HR policy

16

Administrative Support Centers Implementation Process (cont.)

Restructuring would involve transfer to new positions rather than lay-offs and new hires

Reclassification of some positions to recognize management responsibilities

Positions defined by areas of specialization

Reconfiguration of administrative offices

17

Administrative Support Center Implementation Process (cont.)

Department permanent support budget funds returned to Division

Annual support budget allocations provided to departments and Administrative Support Centers (Funding sources both permanent and temporary)

Permanent staffing actions coordinated through Division, since cluster departments and ASCs have no permanent support funds

Ongoing meetings with cognate staff to identify ways to streamline job duties

18

Administrative Support Center Results and Follow-Up

Flexibility for final staffing implementation led to 4 similar yet different versions of the model

We have experienced successes and problems

Regular meetings between Directors and divisional staff

Ongoing meetings with cognate staff to identify ways to streamline job duties

19

Planning for Future Cuts

???