Revenue Generation Plan - MU Extensionextension.missouri.edu/staff/development/documents/rev_generation… · Revenue Generation Plan Executive Summary Revised Oct. 8, 2002 8 Cost

Revenue

Generation

Plan

Presented to Dr. Ron Turner Executive Vice President

& Director of Cooperative Extension

Submitted by Revenue Generation Committee

September 16, 2002 Revised October 8, 2002

Revenue Generation Plan Executive Summary Revised Oct. 8, 2002

2

Revenue Generation Committee Julie Middleton, Chair John Amos Van Ayers David Baker Al Black Bob Broz Nina Chen Tony DeLong Charlotte George Tammy Gillespie Rhonda Gibler Wendy Harrington Tom Henderson Sandra Hodge Bud Reber Tony Rickard Rebecca Travnichek Jo Turner Ex-Officio Members Jim Ollar Pat Sobrero Additional Contributors Marsha Alexander Jo Britt-Rankin Phil Campbell Don Day Glen Easter Bob Miller


3

Introduction It is the mission of University Outreach and Extension to improve Missourian’s lives by addressing their highest priorities through the application of research-based knowledge and resources. It is our vision that we can improve people’s lives through relevant, lifelong learning. It is our challenge to carry out our mission and achieve our vision within a climate of shrinking resources. Even within this climate, we must be poised to provide a level of excellence in programming that is recognized in Missouri and across the nation. As we focus on our three priority program areas of enhancing economic viability, building strong individuals, families and communities, and creating healthy environments, we must insure that we have the tools necessary for success. This is possible only if we have adequate funds. Funds are required to attract, retain and maintain high-performing faculty and staff and to support continuous improvement in our five critical success factors of learning and achievement, access and quality, innovation, human resources and stewardship of resources. However, the University of Missouri System FY02 budget was reduced by $80 million. State funding for UM’s core budget for FY03 was cut by 10 percent. While campuses have the option of raising fees and managing enrollment, University Outreach and Extension must seek other alternatives. With this is mind, on July 18, 2002, Dr. Ron Turner, Executive Vice President and Director of Cooperative Extension appointed the Revenue Generation Committee to recommend methods for generating additional revenue to achieve our mission. The committee was asked to submit a report of concrete actions to be taken to generate revenue and enhance cost recovery by Sept 16, 2002. The committee has completed its work. The ideas that have been generated are bold and require a paradigm shift in thinking about whose responsibility it is to generate revenue. These ideas will require shifts in policies and procedures and in professional development to build the capacity of our workforce to generate revenue. This report outlines the process undertaken by the committee; the principles that guided its work; and the ideas generated in the areas of gifts and endowments, grants and contract acquisition, cost recovery and strategic partnerships.

Process Undertaken The Revenue Generation Committee engaged in a six-week process that included expansive research and strategic thinking to develop a set of recommendations that would chart our future and insure success in the 21st century. At all times, the committee was guided by the mission of UO/E and its Strategic Direction document, developing and adopting the set of principles below to serve as philosophical underpinnings to guide the work and to insure that it remained true to the UO/E mission and to the fundamental principles of our organization. The committee functioned as a learning organization, with each member continuing to learn from the group. Technology was used to meet and to learn from other states. The entire committee met weekly, with subcommittees meeting additional times within each week under the leadership of a chair.


4

Revenue Generation Committee Guiding Principles

Following are fundamental values that guided the Revenue Generation Committee’s

deliberations:

• Mission-driven programs Any resource acquired will advance the mission. The issue to be supported must be identified as a priority for the system/state/county, and the program to be delivered must be research-based.

• Appropriate sources Funds generated will be ethically and legally derived and not compromise the integrity of the organization. Alternative revenue sources should be identified and assessed as to their appropriateness.

• Appropriate uses

Alternative revenue will be used to sustain, enhance or expand educational outreach and extension programs.

• Public good versus individual advancement Funds will promote program activities that have positive societal outcomes.

• Responsibility of all personnel and stakeholders Resource identification and acquisition to support priority programs is the responsibility of all personnel, stakeholders and volunteers in the outreach and extension system.

• Efficiency and effectiveness

Attention must be paid to the cost/benefit ratio of programs.

• Accountability All personnel and stakeholders will receive education and support for acquiring and managing resources. This includes ongoing, active administrative support, in addition to training.

• Teamwork versus entrepreneurial success

Entrepreneurial success must continue to improve teamwork and interdisciplinary efforts to cause ever-increasing program impact.

• Fairness in performance appraisal

UO/E will acknowledge that opportunities to acquire additional resources vary. • Incentives

Incentives will encourage attempts to secure external funding that supports continued teamwork. Incentives must be appropriate, equitable and consistent with UO/E policies.

• Access

UO/E programs are open to all regardless of ability to pay. UO/E personnel and stakeholders will make reasonable efforts to ensure access to all.


5

Subcommittees

Using a workshop method designed to establish priorities, the following subcommittees were identified:

1. Strategic Partnerships 2. Endowments and Gifts

3. Cost Recovery/Fee-Based Programs

4. Grants and Contracts

Executive Summary This section provides a brief synopsis of the recommendations suggested by each of the four subcommittees of the Revenue Generation Committee. Each recommendation is accompanied by a projection of the funds to be generated and anticipated costs for implementing that recommendation. A succinct list of action steps provides an overview of what must be done to ensure success of that idea. A more detailed summary of these recommendations is found in the “Summary Chart of Recommendations with Action Steps and Timelines.” This chart is followed by complete reports from the subcommittees. The table below provides a summary of total funds to be generated and total associated costs over a six-year period.

Total Amount To Be Generated

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 Cumulative TOTAL $560,000 $2,120,000 $22,370,000 $26,120,000 $29,870,000 $33,370,000 $114,410,000

Total Costs For Implementation

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 Cumulative TOTAL $308,100 $308,798 $322,694 $337,215 $352,389 $368,247 $1,997,441


6

Individual Subcommittee Recommendations

Strategic Partnerships Recommendation 1: Identify a person to take leadership in creating a

strategic partnerships working group. The group is to scan the environment and assist in identifying opportunities for UO/E faculty and administrators to forge new partnerships that generate fees through grants and contracts, gifts and endowments, and fee-based programs.

Projected Amount to be Generated: $0 Anticipated Cost of Recommendation: $0 Action Steps:

a. Identify a leadership position and create a strategic partnership(s) working group to:

(1) scan the environment, (2) assist in identifying partnership opportunities and (3) suggest opportunities to UO/E faculty and administration for new partnerships that will generate fees, grants and contracts, and resource development in gifts and endowments. It is suggested that this person be a current employee.

b. Review, update and/or renew existing statewide memorandums of agreement and understanding with organizations and agencies with an eye toward strengthening and developing additional partnership opportunities.

c. Identify lead contact(s) within UO/E to proactively nurture existing and new strategic partnerships with 16 executive departments of Missouri state government. Extend statewide contacts to regional basis as appropriate.

d. Where appropriate, identify lead contact(s) from within UO/E campus and off-campus faculty to proactively nurture partnerships with the 14 cabinet-level departments and agencies and 63 independent agencies and government corporations within the federal government.

e. Identify specific corporate, trade/commodity organizations and foundations for partnership. Lead UO/E contacts would work with those partners to develop potential revenue generation opportunities.

Task of UO/E Leader: Based on a review of common program interests and outcomes and in keeping with UO/E’s guiding principles, (a) contact, (b) develop a rapport and (c) subsequently partner with a specific set of partners through submission of concept papers and/or pre-proposals for their consideration. Identify those statewide and local foundations that meet the aforementioned criteria, and initiate written and/or oral contact with them in search of additional appropriate funds. Those establishing partnerships would work closely with those leading other areas of effort so that strategic partnerships eventually result in revenue.


7

Gifts and Endowments Recommendation 2: Establish a UO/E Office of Endowments and Gifts. Projected Amount to be Generated: $100 million over the next 6 years

Year 1 ? 0 Year 2 ? 0 Year 3 ? $750,000 corpus by 2005 Year 6 ? $100 million corpus by 2008

Anticipated Cost of Recommendation: $220,000 Action Steps:

a. Hire a director and support staff, and appoint an advisory council. b. Develop and implement a statewide fund-raising program to provide a

dependable, long-range base of private financial support for continuing enrichment of UO/E programs.

c. Hire consultants to conduct a case statement and feasibility study. d. Set appropriate targets for fund raising ($20 million per year) that would assure

UO/E programs the flexibility and capability to meet the wants and needs of Missourians.

e. Clearly identify major gift and Named Program giving opportunities. f. Design and use marketing tools. g. Involve all faculty and staff in the program, clearly identifying major gift

prospects.


8

Cost Recovery Recommendation 3: Ask all UO/E programmatic and administrative units to

develop a collaborative fee-generation plan to generate funds equivalent to 2 percent of the annual salary costs for the unit.

Projected Amount to be Generated: Minimum of $620,000 per fiscal year

FY03 $310,000 by June 30, 2003 FY04+ $620,000 per year (one-half

remitted in December, one-half remitted in June)

Anticipated Cost of Recommendation: $12,600 Action Steps:

a. Establish an appropriate standard fee or per-participant-charge for each Named Program (duty of Cost Recovery Implementation Committee and Program Leaders). Revenue generated above actual costs (standard fee/per-participant fee to be paid to UO/E, as well as personnel time, as part of actual costs — See Program Costs and Revenue Generation Worksheet, Appendix 3-B of Final Report) on Named Programs to be shared based upon a pro rata distribution of contributions to the program. For example: 60 percent host unit; 20 percent county, region or campus; 10 percent state program area (CAFNR, HES, 4-H/Youth, CD, B&I, Other); and 10 percent UO/E. The set fee and the appropriate percent of profit from Named Programs to be remitted to UO/E Administrative Management. UO/E Administrative Management to distribute funds to correct entity — region or campus, program area and UO/E system. Revenue generated in this fashion is to be used for salaries and programming efforts.

b. For non-Named Programs, faculty use program/service categories as guidelines and emphasize team programmatic efforts to generate revenue. Using the Cost Recovery Planning Guide and the Program Costs/Revenue Generation Worksheet (see appendices), faculty determine a solid breakeven point on all programming efforts. Personnel time costs to be included as part of actual costs and returned to UO/E Administrative Management Office at least semiannually for supporting salaries.

c. Encourage use of continuing educations units (CEUs) in all programming efforts. Set a standard fee of $15 per CEU. Sharing of revenue to occur as follows: $5 originating unit, $5 host unit (county) and $5 UO/E. Revenue generated is to be used for salaries and building programming efforts.

d. Charge a $10 test administration/proctoring fee for individuals taking independent study exams through the MU Center for Distance and Independent Study or similar exams from other universities. Sharing of fee to be $5 to host unit (county) and $5 returned to UO/E.

e. Charge county outreach and extension centers for materials produced by MU


9

Extension Publications and/or increase the cost of publications (i.e., set fee per number of pages) to the county. Revenue collected to be used to update and design new publications that will be obtained from the web (not in paper format). These funds to be collected directly from county extension offices through billing.

f. Sell various professional development opportunities, trainings and curricula to organizations and agencies within Missouri and across the nation. For example, Community Development Academy, facilitator training, small business development training, Focus on Kids and Money Action Plan. Mass marketing of these opportunities would be a necessity.

Grants and Contracts Recommendation 4: Develop an Infrastructure for Obtaining Grants and

Contracts

Projected Amount to be Generated: $11,000,000 with $2,036,000 in indirect

Year 1 ? $500,000 ($92,500 in indirect) Year 2 ? $1,250,000 ($231,250 in indirect) Year 3 ? $2,250,000 ($416,250 in indirect) Year 4 ? $3,000,000 ($555,000 in indirect) Year 5 ? $4,000,000 ($740,000 in indirect)

Anticipated Cost of Recommendation: $75,500 per year Action Steps:

a. Establish an infrastructure to include staff, policies and procedures, a web-based information system, professional development plan and incentives for grant generation and efforts. Create a network of interested faculty and staff to pursue grant opportunities. Establish 10 grants and contracts counselors with a clear description of duties, performance expectations and rewards to oversee the preparation of numerous proposals per year.

b. Expand the administrative support and tracking of grants and contracts through an expanded position within the Administrative Management Team (AMT) with specific responsibility for researching grant opportunities.

c. Appoint a committee to develop a comprehensive website regarding grant opportunities, grant policies and procedures, and current proposals and awards.

d. Establish a set of training and professional development opportunities to improve human capital relative to grants and contracts.

e. Establish an implementation committee to define and strengthen the relationship among campuses, the system and counties as they pursue grants, establishing clear policies for these efforts.


10

f. Establish incentives associated with grant activities: Set aside 5 percent of the recovered facilities and administration (F&A), and establish an application process for disseminating the pool for faculty incentives, such as funding professional development or promoting other grant opportunities.

Rev

enue

Gen

erat

ion

Pla

n E

xecu

tive

Sum

mar

y

Rev

ised

Oct

. 8, 2

002

11

Pro

ject

ed R

even

ue

An

d A

nti

cip

ated

Co

sts

Dol

lars

rais

ed

FY03

T

ota

l FY

04 T

otal

FY

05 T

otal

FY

06 T

otal

FY

07 T

otal

FY

08 T

otal

C

umul

ativ

e T

ota

l

Str

ateg

ic P

artn

ersh

ips

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Gift

s &

End

owm

ents

$0

$7

50,0

00

$20,

250,

000

$23,

500,

000

$26,

500,

000

$29,

000,

000

$100

,000

,000

Cos

t Rec

over

y

Fee-

Bas

ed P

rogr

ams

$310

,000

$6

20,0

00

$620

,000

$6

20,0

00

$620

,000

$6

20,0

00

$3,4

10,0

00.

Gra

nts

& C

ontr

acts

$2

50,0

00

$750

,000

$1

,500

,000

$2

,000

,000

$2

,750

,000

$3

,750

,000

$1

1,00

0,00

0

To

tal

$560

,000

$2,

120,

000

$22,

370,

000

$26,

120,

000

$29,

870,

000

$33,

370,

000

$114

,410

,000

Dol

lars

ava

ilabl

e to

su

ppor

t UO

/E c

ore

fund

ing

FY03

T

ota

l FY

04 T

otal

FY

05 T

otal

FY

06 T

otal

FY

07 T

otal

FY

08 T

otal

C

umul

ativ

e T

ota

l

Str

ateg

ic P

artn

ersh

ips

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Gift

s &

End

owm

ents

$0

$0

$3

7,50

0 $1

,050

,000

$2

,225

,000

$3

,550

,000

$6

,862

,500

C

ost R

ecov

ery

Fee

-B

ased

Pro

gram

$3

10,0

00

$620

,000

$6

20,0

00

$620

,000

$6

20,0

00

$620

,000

$3

,410

,000

Gra

nts

& C

ontr

acts

$1

25,0

00

$375

,000

$7

50,0

00

$1,0

00,0

00

$1,3

75,0

00

$1,8

75,0

00

$5,5

00,0

00

To

tal

$435

,000

$9

95,0

00

$1,4

07,5

00

$2,6

70,0

00

$4,2

20,0

00

$6,0

45,0

00

$15,

772,

500

Cos

t of I

mpl

emen

tatio

n

FY03

T

ota

l FY

04 T

otal

FY

05 T

otal

FY

06 T

otal

FY

07 T

otal

FY

08 T

otal

C

umul

ativ

e T

ota

l

Str

ateg

ic P

artn

ersh

ips

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Gift

s &

End

owm

ents

$2

20,0

00

$229

,900

$2

40,2

46

$251

,057

$2

62,3

54

$274

,160

$1

,477

,716

C

ost R

ecov

ery

Fe

e-B

ased

Pro

gram

$1

2,60

0 $0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$1

2,60

0

Gra

nts

& C

ontr

acts

$7

5,50

0 $7

8,89

8 $8

2,44

8 $8

6,15

8 $9

0,03

5 $9

4,08

7 $5

07,1

25

To

tal

$308

,100

$3

08,7

98

$322

,694

$3

37,2

15

$352

,389

$3

68,2

47

$1,9

97,4

41

Revenue Generation Plan Revised Oct. 8, 2002

12

Summary Charts Of Recommendations With Action Steps And Timelines

Recommendation 1 Identify an internal person to take leadership in creating

a strategic partnerships working group that will scan the environment and assist in identifying opportunities for UO/E faculty and administrators to forge new partnerships that generate fees through grants and contracts, gifts and endowments, and fee-based programs.

Projected Amount to be Generated Short-term (by June 30, 2004) cannot be computed Long-term cannot be computed Anticipated Costs $0

Action Steps By Whom Timeline Approve/Reject/Amend Subcommittee.

Executive Vice President

?

Name Leadership and Members of Working Group.

Office of Executive Vice President

Within 60 Days of Step 1

Review, update and/or renew existing statewide Memorandums of Agreement and Understanding with organizations and agencies with an eye toward developing additional partnership opportunities

Working Group No Later than March 1, 2003

Appoint lead contact(s) within UO/E, as listed in Appendix A, to proactively nurture existing and new strategic partnerships with 16 executive departments of Missouri state government. Extend statewide contacts to regional basis as appropriate.

Working Group March 1, 2003


13

Action Steps By Whom Timeline

Where appropriate, identify lead contact(s) from within UO/E campus and off-campus faculty to proactively nurture partnerships with Federal cabinet level departments, agencies and government corporations. See Appendix B.


Identify specific corporate, trade/commodity organizations and develop partnerships.


Develop a rapport, and (C) subsequently partner with a specific set of national private foundations through submission of concept papers and/or pre-proposals for their consideration. Identify those statewide and local foundations that meet the aforementioned criteria, and initiate written and/or oral contact with them in search of additional appropriate partnerships.


Semiannual Review of Action Plan

Working Group Sept. 1, 2003

Semiannual Review of Action Plan

Working Group Sept. 1, 2003


14

Recommendation 2 Establish a UO/E Endowment and Gifts Program to

raise $100 million during the next five years. Projected Amount to be Generated

Short-term (by June 30, 2004) $750,000 Long-term $100,000,000

Anticipated Costs $220,000

Action Steps By Whom Timeline Visit with Phil Campbell, UMR and other campus endowment directors.

Dr. Turner and appropriate staff

September 2002

Visit with one or more of the following consultants: Marts & Lundy, Grenzebach & Glier, Ketchum, Inc.

Dr. Turner and designated staff

To be determined by Dr. Turner

Make decision to establish an Endowment and Gifts Program.

Dr. Turner To be determined by Dr. Turner

Appropriate funds to open a UO/E Endowment Office.

Dr. Turner October 2002

Appoint a search committee. Identify and hire director.

Director of HR and Dr. Turner

November and December 2002

Appoint Advisory Council. Director of UO/E Endowments and Gifts and Dr. Turner

Nov. 1, 2002

Hire necessary staff to operate office.

Director of UO/E Endowment and Gifts

2003 as needed


15

Action Steps By Whom Timeline

Interview consultants, develop a work plan and contract with a consultant to develop the case statement and perform the feasibility study.

Dr. Turner Jan. 1, 2003

Open UO/E Endowment and Gifts Office.

Director of UO/E Endowments and Gifts and Dr. Turner

Feb. 1, 2003

Develop case statement, complete feasibility study and marketing tools.

Director of UO/E Endowment and Gifts

May 2003

Activate Giving Program. Director of UO/E Endowment and Gifts and Advisory Council

July 2003

Implement communication plan.

Director of UO/E Endowment and Gifts and Advisory Council

August 2003

Collect names of potential donors.

Director of UO/E Endowment and Gifts and all paid employees

September 2003 and ongoing

Raise $750,000 for the corpus.

UO/E Endowment and Gifts Office and all employees

April 2004

Raise $100 million. UO/E Endowment and Gifts Office and all employees

April 2008


16

Recommendation 3 Ask all UO/E programmatic and administrative units to develop a collaborative fee-generation plan to generate funds equivalent to 2 percent of the annual salary costs for the unit.

Specific Strategies for Generating Revenue

The Cost Recovery Implementation Committee would work with Program Leaders to establish an appropriate standard fee or per-participant-charge for each Named Program. Revenue generated above actual costs (standard fee/per-participant fee would be paid to UO/E, as well as personnel time, as part of actual costs — See Program Costs and Revenue Generation Worksheet, Appendix 3-B of Final Report) for Named Programs would be shared based upon a pro rata distribution of contributions to the program. For example: 60 percent host unit (county); 20 percent county, region or campus; 10 percent state program area (CAFNR, HES, 4-H/Youth, CD, B&I, Other); and 10 percent UO/E. The set fee and the appropriate percent of profit from Named Programs would be remitted to UO/E Administrative Management Office. Administrative Management would distribute funds to correct entity — region or campus, program area and UO/E system. Revenue generated would be used for salary dollars and building programming efforts. For determining costs of non-named programs, faculty would use program/service categories as guidelines and emphasize team programmatic efforts to generate revenue. Using the Cost Recovery Planning Guide and the Program Costs/Revenue Generation Worksheet, faculty would determine a solid breakeven point on all programming efforts. Personnel time costs would be included as part of actual costs and would be used to support salaries. Encourage use of Continuing Educations Units (CEUs) in all programming efforts. Set a standard fee of $15 per CEU. Sharing of revenue to occur as follows: $5 originating unit (ETCS handles paperwork), $5 host unit (county), and $5 UO/E. Revenue generated would be used to support salaries and programming efforts. Charge a $10 test administration/proctoring fee for individuals taking exams through independent study at the MU Center for Distance and Independent Study or similar exams from other universities. Sharing of fee would be $5 to host unit (county) and $5 returned to UO/E. Charge county extension centers for materials produced by MU Publications Office and/or increase the cost of publications (i.e., set fee per number of pages) to the county. Revenue collected by the publications office to be used to update and design new publications that would be obtained from the web (not in paper format). These funds would be collected directly from county extension offices through billing. Sell various professional development opportunities, trainings and curricula to organizations and agencies within Missouri and across the nation. Examples include


17

Community Development Academy, facilitator training, small business development training, Focus on Kids and Money Action Plan. Mass marketing of these opportunities would be a necessity.

Projected Amount to be Generated Minimum of $620,000 per fiscal year FY03 $310,000 by June 30, 2003

FY04+ $620,000 per year (one-half remitted in December, one-half remitted in June)

Anticipated Cost: $12,500

Action Steps By Whom Timeline Provide feedback on recommendations.

Dr. Turner

Oct. 1, 2002

Appoint four individuals to the Cost Recovery Implementation Committee; select a committee chair.

Dr. Turner

Oct. 1, 2002

Discuss revenue generation strategies at program issues meetings via ITV with campus and field faculty, as well as administration.

Revenue Generation Task Force Cost Recovery Implementation Committee Dr. Turner

Oct. 15, 2002

Finalize revenue generation calculation worksheets and remittance form.

Cost Recovery Implementation Committee Program Leaders Eileen Bennett & Sandy Stegall UO/E Administrative Management

Nov. 1, 2002

Prepare the calculation worksheets, etc. for online capabilities; begin designing the website for tracking and reporting remitted revenue.

Cost Recovery Implementation Committee UO/E Administrative Management Kate Akers

Nov. 15, 2002


18

Action Steps By Whom Timeline Develop a hands-on training for using planning guide, calculation worksheets, and remittance form in electronic and hard copy format.

Cost Recovery Implementation Committee RITs ETCS

Nov. 30, 2002

Hold regional and campus training sessions on using planning guide, calculation worksheets and remittance form.

Cost Recovery Implementation Committee Program Leaders RITS

Dec. 17, 2002

Begin using all worksheets for Revenue Generation. Remit funds.

UO/E Faculty Regional Directors Department Chairs Program Leaders

1-1-03

Complete design of Revenue Generation website for tracking and reporting remitted dollars, viewable from Staff Resources link on http://outreach.missouri.edu.

UO/E Administrative Management Kate Akers

June 1, 2003

Appoint committee to investigate promotion and marketing of UO/E professional development opportunities, curricula and conferences to Missouri organizations and agencies, as well as nationwide.

Dr. Turner Dr. Julie Middleton

July 1, 2003


19

Recommendation 4 Form a Budget Advisory Committee (separate from the Revenue Generation Task Force) to serve as a “reality check” for Administrative Management. The group would be comprised of field faculty (one per region), MECCLC and campus representatives. The group would check accuracy and understanding of UO/E budget information (campus, field, system) and communicate with UO/E faculty and staff, extension councils and stakeholders the importance of revenue generation.

Projected Amount to be Generated $0 Anticipated Costs $8,000

Action Steps By Whom Date Submit revenue generation report to Dr. Turner

RG Task Force

Sept. 16, 2002

Provide feedback on recommendations.

Dr. Turner

Oct. 1, 2002

Select Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) and acting committee chair.

Dr. Turner

Oct. 1, 2002

Develop communication plan for regional, campus, council and stakeholder meetings.

BAC Chair UO/E Administrative Management

Oct. 1, 2002

Complete communication plan; begin dialogue across state. Use ITV to inform faculty and staff on regularly scheduled faculty meetings with BAC members available at ITV sites to answer questions and note concerns.

BAC UO/E Administrative Management

Nov. 1, 2002


20

Action Steps By Whom Date

Use major marketing/media techniques to communicate to stakeholders.

BAC UO/E Administrative Management UO/E Extension Communications

Jan. 1, 2003

Recommendation 5 Expand the current pre-award position within UO/E

administrative management to add responsibility for tracking potential funding opportunities and alerting program leaders to those opportunities. Maintain a database of faculty interests and activities in project work, and maintain the UO/E grants website.

Project Amount to be Generated

Short-term (first year) $200,000 Long-term (by fifth year) $3,250,000


Action Steps By Whom Timeline Write a job description to reflect the change in role for the pre-award position.

Assistant Director of Administrative Management

30 days from approval

Adjust job description of currently vacant administrative assistant position to include non-grant duties currently performed in the pre-award area.



Evaluate abilities and desire to alter duties of current staff member in pre-award position to carry out the tasks required of the redefined position.



Post whichever position will need to be filled by an outside candidate.



Hire new staff member. Assistant Director of Administrative Management



21

Recommendation 6 Set aside 5 percent of additional recovered facilities and administration (F&A) beyond FY02 baseline to provide a pool of funds to be used for incentives for faculty. These funds would support additional professional development opportunities for staff and promote further work toward other grants and contracts. Individuals eligible to apply for these funds would have been involved in grant activities in the prior year. A maximum of $1,000 would be available per person per year for professional development activities and $5,000 per proposal for seed money toward other grant opportunities.

Projected Amount to be Generated

Short-term (first year) $0 Long-term (five years) $1,500,000

Anticipated Costs

Short-term Year One $32,500 (in lost use of F&A for general operations) year one

Long-term Years two, three, four and five - $220,000, potentially

Action Steps By Whom Timeline Establish an advisory committee to distribute incentive funds.

EVP’s office Within 30 days of approval of recommendation.

Establish policies and procedures to govern use of funds.

Grant incentive committee Within 3 months of committee’s establishment.

Accept first applications for use of funds.

Grant incentive committee – staff members

April 2003


22

Recommendation 7 Evaluate UO/E’s current capacity for training faculty and staff on specific areas related to grants and contracts. Develop modular training so that individuals at all levels of understanding could take advantage of content specific training (e.g. finding grants, managing grants). Develop BlackBoard courses to allow for web-based training. Provide 24:7, “just-in-time” training to best serve UO/E faculty in pursuit of grants.


Short-term (first year) $0 Long-term (by the fifth year) $1,500,000 Anticipated Costs $5,000

Action Steps By Whom Timeline Establish team to develop training modules.

UO/E Professional Development Office.


Suggest trainings that should be developed in BlackBoard format and trainings that should be made available in the professional development schedule for face-to-face or ITV presentation.

Grants training team. 60 days from formation of team.

Develop training modules. Grants training team. 6 months from approval of particular modules by Professional Development Office.


23

Recommendation 8 Develop a comprehensive website regarding grant opportunities, grant policy and procedures, current proposals and awards, and training opportunities. Ask an implementation committee to work on site content.


Short-term (in first year) $100,000 Long-term (first five years) $1,500,000


Action Steps By Whom Timeline Appoint committee members (including variety of campus and field faculty) to determine base content for website.

EVP’s office – secretary to committee will be pre-award staff from AMT.

Within 30 days of approval of recommendation

Examine example websites and outline the basic content needed for the site.

Grants website committee Work completed within 90 days.

Develop policies and procedures.

AMT staff members – depending on the content of the policy.

Each policy and procedure to be completed within 30 days of the committee’s request for the policy.

Maintain website on an ongoing basis with recommendations for improvements accepted from any user of the site.

Pre-award AMT staff member with assistance from UO/E Communications and MIS staff.

Ongoing


24

Recommendation 9 Strengthen and define the relationship among campus, system and county grant-writing activities. Set policies to clarify when grants should be filed through campus, system or county.


May not cause a direct increase in revenue but will save time spent by faculty and staff in determining which processes they should use. Clearer processes may result in more proposals completed.

Anticipated Costs $0

Action Steps By Whom Timeline Review current campus/system relationship with regard to pursuing grant opportunities.

Administrative officers at the system and campus levels of UO/E.

Immediately

Set clear policies and practices on how funding for staff effort can be collected at the county level.

UO/E Administrative Management with input from staff at the campus and county levels.

Within 90 days

Inform faculty and staff of grant policies.

UO/E Administrative Management Team.

Within 120 days


25

Recommendation 10 Designate a network of faculty with responsibility for pursuing grant opportunities in relevant subject areas. Designate a minimum of 10 individuals as Grants and Contracts Counselors (GCC) with a clear description of duties and performance expectations. Designate the number of proposals GCCs are to pursue each year, and relieve them of other facets of their positions. Current specialists could apply for this role as a percentage of their appointment with approval of the Regional Director and county council and communication with appropriate Program Leader. As incentive, GCCs could receive up to a designated maximum stipend a year, dependent on their successful generation of grant funds.


Short-term (first year) $200,000 Long-term (by fifth year) $3,250,000

Anticipated Costs $0

Action Steps By Whom Timeline Establish a working group (including several field and campus faculty, an RD and a program leader).to determine the best methods for determining GCC designations.

EVP’s Office 30 days from approval

Determine duties and incentives for GCCs.

Grants network working group.

Within 60 days of formation of group.

Request GCC applications.


Within 60 days of formation of group.

Provide orientation and training as appropriate.


Within 60 days of selection.

Documents

Revenue Generation Plan - MU Extensionextension.missouri.edu/staff/development/documents/rev_generation… · Revenue Generation Plan Executive Summary Revised Oct. 8, 2002 8 Cost