RESPONSIBILITY CENTERED MANAGEMENT AT
INDIANA UNIVERSITY BLOOMINGTON
1990-2000
May, 2000
RCM REVIEW COMMITTEE, 1999-2000
Name Department
Dan Amonett GSO Coordinator
John Bingham IUSA
Ann Bristow Libraries
Jerry Dorsey Dean of the Faculties
Sheryl Fisher Education
Kirsten Gronbjerg SPEA
Gary Hieftje Chemistry
Michael McGerr History; LAMP
Michael Metzger Business
Tony Mobley HPER
Charles Nelms Academic Support & Diversity
Eugene O'Brien Music
Judith Palmer Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
Lauren Robel Law
Al Ruesink Biology
Neil Theobald Co-Chair, Education
Maynard Thompson Co-Chair, Budgetary Administration &
Planning
David Zaret Sociology/COAS
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
1. The Historical Context 1
Policies and Procedures Used Before RCM: Pre-1990 1
Design and Implementation: 1990-1996 1
The 1996 Review and Implementation of Recommendations 3
2. Methods of the 1999-2000 Review 6
3. Findings of the Review 7
Positive Comments 7
Negative Comments 8
4. Recommendations 15
Proposed Modifications 15
5. Concluding Comments 20
Attachments
1. Appointment letter A - 2
2. RCM Review Committee A - 3
3. Announcement of review A - 4
4. Individuals and groups interviewed A - 5
5. Interview protocol A - 7
6. Total operating state appropriation FY76 through FY00 A-12
7. Student headcount by school and student level Fall 95 through Fall 99 A-13
8. Student credit hours by school and student level FY96 through FY00 A-14
9. Undergraduate credit hours by school (graph) A-15
10. Graduate and professional credit hours by school (graph) A-16
11. Expenditure budgets and credit hours by school FY96 through FY00 A-17
12. Budgeted expenditures per actual credit hour (graph) A-18
13. Academic FTE credit hours by school FY96 through FY00 A-19
14. Credit hours per academic FTE by school (graph) A-20
15. Professional and biweekly staff FTE Fall 95 through Fall 99 A-21
16. Increases to school and support RC budgets FY95 through FY00 A-22
Appendix
Assessment allocations, algorithms and parameters FY00
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
i
Executive Summary
Report of the RCM Review Committee
Indiana University Bloomington
May, 2000
In the fall of 1999 a Committee was appointed by Vice President and Chancellor
Kenneth Gros Louis to review the policies and procedures of the financial planning,
budgeting, and financial administration system known as Responsibility Centered
Management. The Committee investigated the perceptions of RCM by soliciting
comments from faculty and others and by interviewing those individuals and
constituencies whose views were broadly representative of campus opinions and who had
insights and experience regarding RCM. The Committee also collected information and
data to help in determining the impact of the implementation.
The Committee heard many positive and some negative comments. In many
cases it was clear that comments on the general financial health of IUB were mixed with
comments on RCM.
The dominant findings of the Review are:
Units with rapidly growing student enrollments do not have the resources to
meet instruction needs because of the lag in fee income distribution.
The IUB version of RCM as a budgeting/management system works well.
RCM provides incentives for units to monitor their performance with a goal of
increasing efficiency and effectiveness.
RCM makes units aware of student interests and needs and students have
benefited from improved course availability.
The transparency of the budgeting process under RCM has enabled good use
of scarce financial resources.
RCM creates a tension between the desire to uphold quality and to maintain
student enrollments.
The Chancellor does not have adequate resources to sustain and enhance
quality and to fund the campus ‘common good.’
The flexibility of RCM has provided an environment in which units can get
deeply into financial trouble before remedial action is taken.
There is concern that the system may be one factor causing an erosion of the
spirit of collegiality and cooperation that has been such a valuable aspect of
academic life at IUB.
There are many misperceptions and much misinformation about RCM.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
ii
Based on its findings, the Committee made a number of recommendations
including the following:
The current version of RCM be maintained with modifications.
The resources available to the Chancellor for support of initiatives to sustain
and enhance quality and to support the campus ‘common good’ be increased
over three years from 1.5 percent of state appropriation to 2.5 percent.
Instructional fee income attribution be modified to provide more timely
support to rapidly growing units and to support courses taken by students not
included in the official first week census data.
The Chancellor's fund has a specific priority to foster inter-unit cooperation.
The Campus Budget Office should monitor unit financial performance and
work with the unit administration to achieve financial goals. If financial
problems emerge, there should be timely intervention to identify and resolve
those problems.
Finally, it is recommended that the Office of Budgetary Administration
and Planning continue to monitor the RCM process and consult with the Deans
Advisory Committee and the Budgetary Affairs Committee regarding additional
modifications. There should be another comprehensive review not later than the
2004-05 academic year.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
1
Responsibility Centered Management at
Indiana University Bloomington
Report of the RCM Review Committee
May, 2000
1. The Historical Context
In September, 1999, Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis, Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Bloomington Chancellor, appointed a Committee to review the Bloomington
Campus version of Responsibility Centered Management (RCM). The Chancellor's
Charge to the Committee is appended as Attachment 1. When RCM was introduced in
1990, it was anticipated that the system would evolve through modification, and that has
been the case. During the 1995-96 academic year, a previous RCM Review Committee
analyzed the system and made a number of recommendations that were implemented
beginning in 1997. The Bloomington Campus now has the experiences of nine full fiscal
years, and it is appropriate again to evaluate the policies and procedures that underlie our
financial planning and management. This report identifies and clarifies the strengths and
weaknesses of the present version of RCM and suggests possible modifications.
Policies and Procedures Used Before RCM: Pre-1990
Prior to 1990, Indiana University Bloomington used a traditional centralized fiscal
management system that attributed all state appropriations, student fees, and other
income to campus-level accounts. Each year, the campus held a series of budget
conferences with each instructional unit and the major academic and administrative
support units. During these conferences, each dean or director presented a plan for the
next year, and requested funds from campus-level accounts to support these initiatives.
In response, the campus allocated resources to each unit for salary adjustments, financial
aid, general supplies and expenses, travel, equipment, and so on. These allocations were
guided by the operating budget approved by the Legislature, especially in the areas of
compensation and special initiatives, and by the advice of the Budgetary Affairs
Committee and the Chancellor's staff. Units were required to use the resources for the
specified purpose; reallocation of funds within units required approval from campus-level
budget officers. Thus, the Chancellor’s Office exercised control over both the total
resources available to each unit and the way these resources were used.
Design and Implementation: 1990-1996
In 1987, President Thomas Ehrlich initiated discussions to decentralize the
budgeting system for IU. The system that was developed was initially called
Responsibility Center Budgeting and later changed to Responsibility Centered
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
2
Management. President Ehrlich's goal was to develop a system guided by three basic
principles:
all costs and income attributable to each school and other academic unit
should be assigned to that unit;
appropriate incentives should exist for each academic unit to increase income
and reduce costs to further a clear set of academic priorities; and
all costs of other units should be allocated to the academic units.
The system was developed with the active participation of faculty, the Budgetary
Affairs Committee, deans, campus level administrators, and system level administrators.
Dr. Edward Whalen, Director of the University Budget Office, provided general
leadership in the process. Preliminary drafts of policies and procedures were widely
discussed during spring of 1988 and the 1988-89 academic year. Until implementation of
RCM, budgets continued to be constructed in the traditional manner; however, costs and
income were attributed in shadow budgets in RCM format in 1988-89. The original
intention was for both IUPUI and IUB to shift to the new budgeting system on July 1,
1989. However, in the fall of 1988 a review of progress toward implementation indicated
that there were compelling reasons to defer implementation at IUB until July 1, 1990.
IUPUI proceeded with implementation on July 1, 1989.
In the spring of 1990, budget construction for 1990-91 proceeded as usual with
the construction of expenditure budgets for all units using all anticipated resources.
Then, anticipated student fee was attributed to instructional units and other income was
attributed to the units generating that income. The costs of non-instructional units were
allocated to the instructional units using the algorithms developed over the preceding two
years, and state appropriation was allocated to instructional units to provide balanced
budgets for each unit. Two aspects of the implementation are especially important and
deserve repeating for emphasis.
First, the original allocation of state appropriation was set by the difference
between each unit’s income and expenditures. Therefore, units with higher instructional
costs relative to income (e.g., Law, Music, Optometry, SLIS) received a larger share of
the state apportionment to account for these differential costs. This practice continues
with these four units receiving significantly more funding per credit hour produced than
do other units. (Attachments 11 and 12). Second, at the time of transition, resources were
provided to instructional units to cover all assessment costs.
Accompanying the introduction of RCM, there was a shift in emphasis from
planning for the next year only to a multi-year planning horizon. For the last decade,
units have been expected to develop budget plans for one year in some detail and for two
or three years in greater generality. In particular, units may, and frequently do,
accumulate unexpended funds and unbudgeted income in a reserve account at year end
(June 30), and expend these reserves over a period of several years. These plans are
discussed with the deans regularly to determine progress and revisions, and they provide
the setting for the annual budget conferences each winter.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
3
At the time of implementation it was anticipated that the system would be a
dynamic one in which the campus would discover better ways of handling some things
and not all of the results would be quite as intended. That was the case, and the campus
made a number of changes in the early 1990s. For instance, at implementation the
campus attributed undergraduate fee income by student residence classification; in the
second year the campus shifted to an allocation process in which undergraduate fee
income is pooled and allocated to the instructional units by the fraction of credit hours
taught without regard to residency status. The expectation has always been that RCM at
Bloomington is a dynamic system that will continue to evolve.
The financial environment in which the campus operated in the early 1990s
presented a serious challenge to the implementation of RCM at Bloomington. In the five
years prior to implementing RCM, state appropriations (excluding fee replacement)
increased from $101 million to $141 million, an inflation-adjusted increase of over 17%.
During this time FTE enrollments increased by 6%, from 28,277 in the fall of 1984 to
30,084 in the fall of 1989. Thus, the state appropriation per FTE grew by over 10%
(inflation adjusted) in the five years prior to the implementation of RCM.
In the first five years after implementing RCM, state appropriations for higher
education in Indiana—mirroring a pattern throughout the U.S.—remained essentially flat
in nominal terms and dipped sharply in inflation adjusted terms (see Attachment 6).
During these five years, state appropriations (excluding fee replacement) increased by 1.1
percent in nominal terms. During this period prices inflated by 14.7 percent and
consequently, state appropriation actually fell by over 13% in inflation-adjusted dollars.
During this time FTE enrollments continued to climb, reaching 31,158 in the fall of 1995.
As a result, the state appropriation per FTE dropped by almost 17% in the initial five
years of RCM.
Although the increase in enrollments and increases in instructional fees provided
additional resources, the financial constraints created by the large decline in the
purchasing power of state appropriation created widespread apprehension across campus.
In addition, as a part of the policy of President Ehrlich there were significant
reallocations from non-instructional units to instructional units. RCM became the
‘lightning rod’ for much of the discontent about the financial difficulties facing the
campus and its largest RC, the College of Arts and Sciences. Apprehension spread that
this new budgeting approach was transferring resources from non-instructional units to
instructional RCs and mechanically reallocating scarce resources among instructional
RCs on the basis of student enrollment patterns while not providing a sufficient role for
academic judgements about the quality of these courses.
In the fall of 1995, a committee was appointed by Vice President Gros Louis to
review RCM and formulate recommendations for modifications to the system.
The 1996 Review and Implementation of Recommendations
The report produced by the 1996 Review Committee strongly endorsed the
continued use of RCM. While it admitted that “the Review Committee encountered
diverse views about RCM”, it found that “RCM is a planning/budgeting/management
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
4
system that is working reasonably well, that most of the elements should be kept, and that
what is needed are some modifications to make it work even better.”
The 1996 Review Committee made three major recommendations and several
other recommendations to improve RCM. The major recommendations were:
establish a Chancellor's Discretionary Fund by allocating up to 1.5% of the
state appropriation to the Chancellor to preserve and enhance quality and
leverage campus priorities,
institute a two-year weighted average lag between enrollments and fee income
distribution to "smooth income flows," and
introduce incentives for recruiting non-resident undergraduates.
Chancellor’s Discretionary Fund
Among the negative perceptions of RCM that were received most often by the
1996 Committee was that “less discretionary money now exists at the campus level for
meeting the ‘common good’ needs of all.” Prior to the implementation of RCM, each
year the Chancellor allocated a portion of the incremental resources to achieve campus
goals that involved several units or the entire campus. Under the initial version of RCM,
though, the Chancellor did not have access to such discretionary resources.
The Committee viewed this “as a shortcoming” and recommended that “each year
the Chancellor have resources that can be allocated to leverage campus priorities to
achieve campus-wide goals.” These resources should be generated by “allocating 1-1.5%
of state appropriation to [this purpose].” According to the report, “the campus chancellor
has a major role to play in leading the campus and promoting a shared vision.” To
address this problem, the Chancellor’s Discretionary Fund was proposed as a way to
provide resources for the Chancellor to “nurture and reward quality undertakings” and
“leverage campus priorities.” According to the report, “units receiving resources from
this fund would have special accountability responsibilities since it is essential that the
resources be used to enhance quality and not circumvent the usual incentive structure of
RCM.”
Since 1997, the Chancellor’s Discretionary Fund has been used each year in three
primary ways: (a) to enhance or maintain quality, (b) to provide units with additional
academic investment funds, and (c) to stimulate inter-unit cooperative ventures and
initiatives. Although each year the initial allocation to the CDF was 1.5 percent of state
appropriation, a portion of that has been allocated to the College and schools on a
proportional basis as general support for the academic mission. In addition, a portion of
the CDF has been used to fund campus priorities such as the Library and research
initiatives. The fund has intentionally not been used to address budget difficulties that
have resulted primarily from the actions or inactions of a particular school. In making
these allocations, the Chancellor has sought the advice of his usual advisory groups.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
5
Two-Year Lag in Attributing Tuition Income
Initially, tuition income under RCM was allocated according to the distribution of
credit hours in the current year. Thus, deans had to budget and hire faculty based upon
enrollment projections. When enrollments fell short of expectations, deans found it was
too late to alter hiring plans and when enrollments exceeded projections, RCs found
themselves scrambling to find instructors for extra sections. Thus, in 1991 the campus
moved to moderate this situation by distributing the current year's income based on the
previous year's enrollments by RC. In essence this removed one part of the uncertainty
for the deans. Previously, there had been uncertainty about both the amount and
distribution of instructional fee income. With the revision, the distribution was known
and only the amount remained unknown prior to the beginning of the fall semester.
The 1996 Review Committee received many comments that “even this one-year
lag does not provide units with enough latitude to alter teaching plans.” In response, the
Committee concluded “that enrollment shifts should be moderated” and recommended
that the tuition distribution be based on the averaged student course enrollment numbers
of the prior two years. The Committee argued that a two-year lag
provides more opportunity than at present for a unit to make teaching plans with a
realistic budget estimate, yet it does not isolate a unit too much from the urgency
to reduce costs by cutting sections when student numbers fall, nor does it ask a
unit with increasing student enrollments to wait too long before receiving the
appropriate increases in resources.
Since 1997, undergraduate instructional fee income has been distributed
according to the fraction of undergraduate credit hours taught in the preceding two years.
At the same time, assessments that depend upon undergraduate credit hours were
adjusted in the same way (i.e., units experiencing enrollment shifts have their
assessments adjusted at the same time the income change is recognized).
Distributing Incremental Non-Residential Instructional Fees
Initially under RCM, instructional RCs received the higher tuition paid by the
non-resident students they enrolled. In 1992, this original configuration was changed so
that all resident and non-resident undergraduate tuition went into a common pool and was
distributed according to the total student credit hour numbers in each unit. The
adjustment to remove the fee attribution differentiation between resident and non-resident
students was accompanied by a shift in state appropriation so that each unit was “revenue
neutral.” The reasoning behind this change was that teaching non-resident students
"costs" a unit the same amount as teaching the same number of resident students.
At the urging of President Brand, the 1996 Review Committee sought a
compromise position that would provide “appropriate incentives” for units to attract non-
resident students. These non-resident students, it was argued, “frequently select a
university largely on the basis of quality of a specific academic program.” As a result
since 1997, in the event that the campus has incremental fee income resulting from
additional non-resident students, those instructional responsibility centers that have
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
6
increased their proportion of non-resident students share in that incremental income. All
other undergraduate fee income continues to be pooled. Thus, additional funds have
gone to those units whose percentage of non-resident student numbers increased.
Other Recommendations
Several other recommendations involved assessments in general and the
assessments for specific non-instructional units. The report endorsed the general
assessment methodology, but recommended changes in several cases. The recommended
changes have been implemented.
Among the negative perceptions of RCM that the 1996 Committee reported
receiving most often was “units paying the bills [instructional units] don’t have enough
control over the way the non-instructional units are managing their operations.” As a
result, the Committee concluded, “Although the general philosophy of using assessments
to support non-instructional units should be maintained, there may be areas in which fee-
for-service arrangements are appropriate.” This proposal has been discussed, but
implementation is complex. Issues such as the loss of economies of scale in essential
services and the lack of genuine alternatives for the user have constrained progress. Also,
there have been two university wide initiatives focused on assessing the costs of
administrative and other non-academic services. The first, a Task Force on Efficiency
and Cost Reduction led by vice presidents Gerald Bepko and Terry Clapacs and Vice
Chancellor Trudy Banta, submitted its report in the fall of 1998. In a cover letter to the
Trustees President Brand commented that “we can be reasonably satisfied that the cost of
operations at Indiana University is well within the range of costs that are typical at
American Universities.” The second is the initiative launched early this year: a Review
of Nonacademic Administrative Services. In his charge to the Task Force, chaired by
vice president Judy Palmer, President Brand described the goals of the review as: “The
primary purpose of this review is to recommend the means by which these
[administrative] services can be provided more cost effectively and without loss of
quality – or even better, with increased quality.”
2. Methods of the 1999-2000 Review
This report is based on data covering enrollments, financial resources, allocations
of state appropriation, and assessments. These data are collected and described in the
attachments.
In addition, the report is informed by committee discussions of the issues raised in
33 interviews conducted with deans, directors, members of advisory and policy
committees, and others who play an active role in administration and in formulating
policy at IUB. These discussions focused on what these individuals believed the campus'
financial management system should try to achieve and the success of RCM in meeting
these goals. The protocol for these interviews is contained in Attachment 5. Committee
members also interviewed administrators and faculty representatives from four other Big
Ten universities that implemented, or considered implementing, RCM type systems. A
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
7
list of individuals whose comments helped inform the Committee is appended as
Attachment 4. In addition, the review committee widely distributed a notice of the
review (included as Attachment 3) and held a public meeting to solicit comments and
suggestions from faculty, staff, and students. Written reports of each interview and of the
public meeting were circulated to the Committee.
3. Findings of the Review
Considering the level of contentiousness exhibited in some campus discussions of
RCM, the committee finds the breadth of consensus expressed about the success of RCM
to be striking. Clearly, significant differences remain in the perceptions of the impact of
RCM, with individuals speaking at the public meeting being particularly critical.
However, when individuals who work most closely with RCM were asked whether RCM
has facilitated or impeded them from meeting their goals, there was nearly universal
agreement that RCM has succeeded well, but that modifications are needed to make it
work even better. The primary areas in which modifications were sought were:
Strengthening the role of the Chancellor's Discretionary Fund in sustaining
and enhancing quality and in supporting the campus ‘common good,’
Refining the rationale used to attribute instructional fee income among
responsibility centers,
Simplifying the assessment system used to fund non-instructional units, and
Responding to budgetary problems in responsibility centers.
Positive Comments
The following features were mentioned most often in interviews and letters as
being beneficial results of the RCM system:
The Chancellor's Discretionary Fund
The Chancellor's Discretionary Fund has provided the opportunity to allocate
base funds over time to sustain and enhance quality.
RCM encourages more attention to mutually advantageous partnering
opportunities.
Attribution of Undergraduate Instructional Fee Income
The percentage of out-of-state students has edged up in recent years because
of increased academic quality and growing scholarship funds—both in part a
product of the RCM environment.
RCM encourages units to review inefficient or outdated programs, including a
consideration of reduction or elimination, and when possible reallocate
resources to higher priorities.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
8
Assessment System
The assessment system has helped non-instructional units strengthen their
administrative structure to create the best services for the best price. It also
allows non-instructional units to discuss and to determine more effectively
what they should be doing and for whom.
The assessment system encourages responsible (i.e., not uncontrolled) growth.
When a unit increases enrollments and faculty relative to other units, it is
charged higher assessments.
Other Issues
RCM leads to greater transparencies in budgets. This has allowed the campus
to better allocate its scarce resources in a time when the state appropriation
plays a declining role in the resource base. It is the "size of the pie" that is the
problem; RCM simply "slices up this pie."
Under the previous system, deans and directors typically spent all funds
allocated during a year even if those expenditures might not be the highest
priority for the unit in the long run; budget conferences were totally focused
on expenditures with the various units requesting funds to support projects,
positions, and other activities. Under RCM, there is much more focus on
planning, income generation, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
RCM provides incentives for schools to monitor their performance with an
eye toward increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of their operations.
RCM makes units aware of student enrollments and the importance of
meeting student needs.
Negative Comments
Arguments commonly made by critics of the RCM system include:
The Chancellor's Discretionary Fund
The Chancellor does not have adequate resources to fund quality improvement
initiatives.
RCM rewards the strong and creates the need for special attention to units that
have limited revenue potential but are important to the mission of the campus.
The autonomy of individual units raises the question of whether the sum of
the individual parts creates a strong university. The RCM system appears to
demand accountability only to the bottom line for each unit, not to the campus
or university. A more effective mechanism is needed to insure that the
priorities and agendas of individual units support the campus plan and goals.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
9
Attribution of Undergraduate Instructional Fee Income
Instructional fee income smoothing, while providing planning time for units
with declining enrollments, creates difficulties for rapidly growing Schools.
RCM presupposes a linear relationship between student enrollments and
instructional expenditures that does not exist. In addition, RCM does not
sufficiently account for the tremendous disparity in the cost of instruction per
student credit hour across disciplines.
Assessment System
The mechanics of assessments need to be simplified and better targeted to
actual service usage.
Non-instructional units are insufficiently accountable for the use for their
income—those who are subject to market discipline are not sympathetic to
those who are not.
Units with Financial Problems
The flexibility provided by RCM allows units to “get into financial trouble
earlier and [into] more serious trouble” than under a traditional budgeting
system. There is a need for stronger fiscal oversight so that the campus
becomes involved more quickly in identifying and resolving financial
problems.
Other Issues
RCM creates a tension between the desire of both faculty and administrators
to uphold quality and to maintain student enrollments. There is not
necessarily a direct relationship between academic quality and student
enrollments.
Units that perceive they have benefited from RCM are its supporters; those
who have been hurt oppose it.
The Chancellor's Discretionary Fund
The establishment of the Chancellor’s Discretionary Fund after the last review
was universally supported in the interviews. It "has been great" and is described as "a
good and necessary idea." The Chancellor’s Discretionary Fund is the campus' most
potent safeguard against a "Balkanized" campus. Yet, many worry that "the greater good
of the campus is probably not central enough, even with the Chancellor’s Discretionary
Fund." These informants believe that "there needs to be more funding available for the
fund." Interviews with financial officers and faculty from other Big Ten universities
operating in an RCM environment indicate that it is common for universities to hold a
larger percentage of funds for central allocation than has been done here.
A concern expressed about an increase in this fund was the impact such an
allocation would have on already strained unit budgets. When RCM was implemented, it
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
10
was assumed that annual increases in state funding would provide sufficient new revenue
each year to permit both reasonable increases to the units and reasonable amounts for the
Chancellor’s use. However, state funding has not increased as anticipated. After
significant declines in inflation adjusted state appropriation per FTE during the initial five
years of RCM, state appropriations (excluding fee replacement) have stabilized in the last
five years and are up slightly in inflation adjusted terms. This small increase, though,
has not been sufficient to relieve an extremely tight budget squeeze facing many
instructional units.
While there may be occasions when it is appropriate to use these resources for a
broader set of purposes, the committee endorses the basic principle that the CDF should
be used to reward quality and to leverage campus priorities. Thus, the committee is
concerned that in two of the four years that the Chancellor’s Discretionary Fund has
existed, significant proportions of the Fund has been used to make across-the-board
allocations to help units offset the budgetary constraints they face. The use of these one-
time funds to cover base costs is weakening the CDF's ability to serve campus-wide
initiatives for the “common good.”
Attribution of Undergraduate Instructional Fee Income
In the late 1990s, the Bloomington campus experienced large shifts in
undergraduate enrollments among units and significant growth overall. Interviews with
deans of units with declining or stable student enrollments suggest that the practice of
"enrollment smoothing" has succeeded in providing their units with the opportunity to
accommodate these shifts to a reasonable extent.
Enrollment smoothing, though, has created serious financial difficulties for units
with sustained growth in student enrollments. The dean of a unit that had experienced
"explosive enrollment growth" explained, "the lagging of revenue increases means that
the unit must educate many more students without sufficient money to pay for new
classes." These units bear the cost of providing instruction for additional students in the
present year but must wait two years before fully receiving the increases in resources.
For units with long-term enrollment increases, this is a particularly difficult situation
since they continually face the higher costs of staffing more sections.
Currently, units with rapidly growing enrollments can access several one-time
funding sources to meet these costs. These sources range from tapping their own reserve
funds to negotiating a short-term loan from the campus to requesting additional funding
from the Chancellor’s Discretionary Fund. Each of these steps, though, only moderates
the impact of large, long-term enrollment increases. The consensus of individuals
interviewed for this review is that IUB should provide more timely adjustments in the
income generated by changing undergraduate enrollments.
A narrower issue that emerged from the interviews was the current status of
second-eight-week courses for undergraduates. The current income attribution formula
uses official credit hour counts from the end of the first week of classes to determine the
distribution of credit hours taught, which in turn determines the distribution of
instructional fee income. The majority of students in second-eight-week courses register
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
11
after the first week and, thus: (a) are not included in the official credit hour data, and (b)
generate no revenue for the responsibility center providing the instruction. Second -
eight-week courses impose costs, though, on the units providing this instruction.
Since most late registrants for second-eight-week courses are paying a flat fee,
their presence in these courses does not generate additional revenue for the campus to
share with these units. However, there is evidence that the availability of second-eight-
week courses provides real benefits to students and to the campus as a whole by
permitting students who have dropped other courses during the semester to maintain a
course load that allows them to qualify for financial aid and to make progress toward
their degrees. These are important considerations in student retention.
Based on recommendations of the 1996 Review Committee, the campus has
provided incentives for units to attract non-resident students. The current committee
endorses the continuation of incentives for recruiting non-resident undergraduates since
the attractiveness of a unit to non-resident students may be seen as an indication of the
program’s quality.
Assessment System
Under the model of RCM established in Bloomington, non-instructional units
receive most of their operating budgets from instructional units via assessments.
Interviews uncovered four concerns with this assessment system. First, the assessment
algorithm was almost universally viewed as "cumbersome and very difficult to
understand on the part of the average person dealing with budgets." Second, deans of
instructional units complained that the assessment levels generated by this algorithm have
increased dramatically in recent years. Third, several informants question if assessments
are the proper funding mechanism for all non-instructional units. Fourth, related to the
assessment levels is the issue of how much accountability non-instructional units should
provide to instructional units for the funds received.
During the last nine years, the assessment mechanism has been adjusted
frequently in an attempt to make the fluctuations in assessments seen by the instructional
units represent reasonable changes in response to actions that they have taken (e.g.,
increasing faculty, decreasing credit hours). Possibly as a result, there is often a sense of
mystery about why assessments have changed from year to year. One dean states,
"RCM's weakness is a lack of transparency in assessments," while another reports, "the
bottom line (is that) the budget office must be fully trusted since there is a lack of
understanding on the assessment calculations."
The difficulty in understanding assessments and their impact on the ability of
academic deans to accomplish their goals is exacerbated by the fact that some of the
expenditures in non-instructional units directly benefit academic responsibility centers.
For instance, financial aid, library acquisitions, and academic equipment expenditures
may be made through non-instructional units, but they are directly related either to
income generation or the academic mission of the instructional units.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
12
As Attachment 16 shows, once adjustments for these expenditures are made, the
increases in support unit costs can be better understood. In 1999-00 (FY2000), the
budgets of non-instructional units increased by $19.7 million or 9.4%. Over one-half of
this increase is created by: a $3.5 million increase in the system service charge, a $3.4
million increase in undergraduate financial aid and a $3.0 million increase in debt
service. Included in the system service charge increase is (a) $1.9 million in technology
funding that included state revenue to pay for it (i.e., it was revenue-neutral), and (b) a
fee courtesy arrangement cost of $690,000 that was simply an accounting change that
shifted costs from the RCs to the university; no new costs were incurred. When you
adjust the system service charge for these two exceptions, the increase falls to $900,000
or 4.3%.
Undergraduate financial aid is an investment made by IUB to generate additional
tuition revenue that the campus would not receive in the absence of this investment.
Thus, in a very real sense, the $3.4 million increase in undergraduate financial aid is less
an increase in “non-instructional unit expenditure” than it is a “cost of doing business”
for instructional units. Once adjustments are made for uncontrollable increases (e.g., debt
service, utilities) and activities that are related to the academic mission of the
instructional units, the budget increase for non-instructional units increase in 1999-00
(FY2000) falls to $6.5 million or 5.9%.
This increase in non-instructional unit budgets is still nearly triple the inflation
rate (as measured by the CPI) for the fiscal year. Informants contend that growing
assessment levels, over which the schools have little or no control (e.g., 18-20 benefit
contingency, reserve replenishment, university tax), have weakened RCM. In addition, a
sense exists that "tough choices that need to be made [about "whether some of these
things should be funded at all"] . . . may be delayed or avoided through the device of
continually increasing assessments."
A third concern expressed was whether assessments are the proper funding
mechanism for all non-instructional units. Several informants believe that RCM should
be changed to "fund the operation of certain campus-wide services (the Library for
example) by taking funds costs "off the top" and distribute to schools only those dollars
over which the Dean has a reasonable degree of control." The problem with having these
resources flowing through the Schools’ budgets, according to this view, is that this
system creates the illusion that these operations are taking money away from the schools.
The committee developed and reviewed a variety of different assessment
approaches. Following a meeting with individuals from the Provost’s Office at the
University of Michigan, which uses a ‘flat tax’ to fund non-instructional units, the
committee discussed the desirability of using a similarly simplified system at IUB. The
committee also reviewed steps other Big Ten universities have taken to fund some
activities (e.g., Libraries) ‘off-the-top.’ The view of the committee remains that the
current assessment mechanism, while complex, allows RCs to track the financial support
they are providing to non-instructional units and tie the level of support to their faculty
size or enrollments.
An additional concern is the issue of how much control the instructional units
should be able to exert over non-instructional units to which they pay their assessments.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
13
Some instructional units believe "there is no mechanism by which academic RC units,
which generate income for the campus, can exert pressure for accountability on units
supported by assessments." Directors of non-instructional units sometimes feel that RCM
limits the strength and quality of non-academic units that rely on assessments.
At a broader level, some observers charge that the current assessment system
creates tensions across campus since it "encourages attention to costs and performance in
the RCM units, but not necessarily in those units supported by assessments. . . .While
some of these units have developed strong measures of accountability, others have not,
with some evidence of sluggishness, inefficiency, and an institutional culture that is not
receptive to incentive structures."
Units with Financial Problems
The interviews indicate a concern that the campus has not moved quickly and
strongly enough to require units with financial problems to address them. In a
particularly visible case, a dean questioned, “whether RCM was only for some and not
for others.” The sense is that the current system depends too much on actions of Deans to
take the initiative to address financial problems or to respond to campus suggestions and
recommendations. Some believe the campus needs to be more intrusive when problems
emerge.
Other Issues
The committee actively sought, and thoughtfully considered, criticisms of RCM.
The overriding message of critics, as perceived by the committee, is that IUB is not as
fiscally sound under RCM as it was previously. One task the committee faced, therefore,
was determining if, and how, the implementation of RCM has contributed to a decline in
campus welfare.
The perception of a large majority within the committee is that RCM was not the
catalyst for many of the problems for which it is blamed. Rather, both RCM and what is
perceived as a decline in campus welfare result from the same social and economic
trends. The campus’ implementation of RCM was driven by a desire for greater
flexibility that would allow schools to more rapidly respond to a changing higher
education environment. This environment included historic economic changes and much
greater subject specialization than had prevailed in previous decades. Changing
enrollment patterns, such as a dramatic shift in majors from liberal arts to professional
schools, are nationwide phenomena that are driven by similar economic and subject area
changes. As one respondent commented, “changing enrollment patterns, and resulting
loss of collegiality, are driven by parents and students not RCM.”
Clearly, the debate around RCM has sapped the morale of a sizable segment of
the faculty. According to one critic, “the students want degrees, not quality;
administrators say that student credit hours are what counts. This rhetoric creates the
perception that we've lost our integrity." Interview comments from those informants who
are most knowledgeable about RCM reflect a view that strongly diverges from the
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
14
perception that RCM provides incentives for diluting the academic quality of courses.
These individuals emphasize that the difference with RCM is not that it is enrollment-
driven—“the university budgeting system has always been enrollment-driven”—the
difference is that authority for fiscal decisions has been decentralized. This
decentralization has made the same budgetary decisions “more transparent.”
Another critic called for the committee to provide “a concrete sense of what RCM
means and what it has done. What are its benefits? How has the better planning that it
supposedly provides improved the quality of the campus?” One of the most difficult
tasks this committee faced was uncoupling the impact of RCM from the impact of
sharply reduced (in inflation adjusted terms) state support and huge shifts in enrollment.
A large majority within the committee concludes that RCM facilitated the ability of the
campus to navigate through a decade that would have been even more difficult otherwise.
RCM means that schools are responsible for their own budgets. Thus, it has changed the
focus of deans from accounting for a fixed amount of revenue that had to be spent in
ways decided at the campus level to planning for how they would finance programs
managed at the school-level. In an era of diminished state support and rapidly shifting
enrollments, a large majority within the committee believes the campus benefited from
placing financial authority in the hands of those administrators who are closest to the
action. RCM ‘improved the quality of the campus’ by allowing those who can best
assess the threats and opportunities facing a school to develop the school budget. This
encourages more risk-taking by individual units, more customer awareness, and more
attention to partnering opportunities that can be to mutual advantage.
Another issue that the committee wrestled with at length was a widely-held view
that an unlevel playing field exists for COAS because they have not extended the RCM
principles down to the departments. According to this view, COAS effectively operates
under the old budgetary system while other schools have been able to respond to student
needs in a more efficient way. While there is evidence that, at least in some cases, units
which extend the incentive structure of RCM into sub-units, benefit from that decision,
the committee believes that each unit needs to determine its own ‘best way.’ Specific
difficulties the committee perceives in ‘driving RCM down to the department level’ are
greater variability in enrollments, the lack of personnel in departments to provide
financial management services, greatly differing costs of instruction, and a lack of
department visibility. However, there is value in deans continually reassessing the
internal financial management structures of their schools and adjusting to changes in the
environment when appropriate.
While the committee concurs with observers who highlighted the downside of the
high profile RCM has on campus, we do not believe the system should be renamed in
order to "eliminate the target, which will eliminate the problem." The next section
outlines a series of recommendations that we believe will improve the ability of RCM to
better distribute resources to facilitate campus goals. Changing the name of the
budgeting system might lessen its role as ‘lightning rod’ but would create other public
relations problems that the committee believes the campus should avoid.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
15
4. Recommendations
Finding 1: RCM as a budgeting/management system works well.
Recommendation 1: A large majority of the Committee recommends that the current
version of RCM be maintained, although with modifications.
Rationale 1: The Committee found a broad consensus among policy makers that RCM
provides incentives for units to monitor their performance with a goal of increasing
efficiency and effectiveness. It makes units aware of student interests and needs and
students have benefited from improved course availability. In addition, the transparency
of the budgeting process under RCM has enabled good use of scarce financial resources.
However, the Committee also found a perception among some faculty and staff that RCM
creates a tension between the desire to uphold quality and the incentive to maintain
student enrollments. This perception is a basis for concern that the system may be one
factor causing an erosion of the spirit of collegiality and cooperation that has been such a
valuable aspect of academic life at IUB.
Proposed Modifications
The Chancellor's Discretionary Fund
Finding 2: The Chancellor's Discretionary Fund is an important source of support for
quality enhancements and the primary mechanism for maintaining a proper balance
between School autonomy and the common good. However, the funds currently
available for academic investment are inadequate to achieve its goals. To address this
problem, the share of the state appropriation allocated to the Chancellor’s Fund should be
increased. This task is difficult, though, in view of the budgetary reality of identifying a
source of these additional funds that does not have an unacceptable impact on the
instructional units.
Recommendation 2a: The Fund should be continued and renamed the Chancellor's Fund
(CF).
Rationale 2a: The term ‘discretionary’ implies that the distribution of this fund operates
outside the normal budgeting process. Both the Budgetary Affairs Committee and the
Dean’s Advisory Committee advise the Chancellor on how these funds should be
allocated. Since this fund is the primary vehicle for supporting new investments and
campus-wide priorities, the committee believes the campus should highlight its
importance by using the term Chancellor’s Fund.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
16
Recommendation 2b: The impending drop in the temporary rate of increase in the
University Tax used to fund the hospital merger provides an opportunity to increase the
Chancellor's Fund. The 7 percent increases in this charge are planned to end in 2001-02,
and although no funds will be released, this should be viewed as an opportunity to
increase the CF. Specifically, the percentage of state appropriation allocated to the
Chancellor's Fund should be increased on the following schedule:
2001-02 1.8%
2002-03 2.1%
2003-04 2.5%
Rationale 2b: The autonomy provided to instructional units by RCM raises the
possibility that what the deans view as best for their individual units will be mistaken for
what is best for the campus. The Chancellor’s Office has a vital role to play in taking a
broader view of the situation than is available to individual deans and pursuing the larger
interest of IUB. The committee is concerned that the present CDF funding level of 1.5%
of state appropriation, which is the lowest percentage ‘held back’ among Big Ten
universities operating with an RCM financial model, limits the ability of the Chancellor’s
Office to appropriately undertake campus-wide initiatives or pursue a central agenda. In
addition, individual units lack access to adequate investment funds for important
initiatives that may pay for themselves in the long run, but require up-front financing.
Thus, the committee recommends that the campus increase the CDF from 1.5% of state
appropriation to 2.5% to enable the Chancellor’s Office to pursue a broader campus
mission and more adequately fund quality improvement initiatives.
Finding 3: While RCM has been cited as a barrier to creating and sustaining cross-
disciplinary, integrated programs across Schools, the Committee finds the reality to be
very different. By making costs and benefits much easier to quantify, RCM fosters cross-
disciplinary, integrated projects across Schools..
Recommendation 3: Given the importance of cross-disciplinary work, the Chancellor’s
Fund should adopt as one of its specific priorities the provision of incentives to further
foster cooperation across units .
Rationale 3: In the current academic environment, where much interesting and
important work is being done in areas that are at the boundaries of traditional disciplines,
the campus must continue to pay close attention to stimulating partnering opportunities
across Schools. The Chancellor’s Office is in a unique position to see across disciplinary
boundaries in ways that units may not. Thus, resources from the Chancellor’s Fund
should be used to foster cooperative ventures across units that can advantage both the
units and the campus.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
17
Attribution of Undergraduate Instructional Fee Income
Finding 4: The RCM instructional fee income attribution methodology should provide
timely access to income generated by changing undergraduate enrollments.
Recommendation 4: Undergraduate instructional fee income should be distributed on
the basis of the distribution of credit hours taught in the previous year.
Rationale 4: The 1996 RCM Review Committee sought to limit the effects of shifts in
student enrollments by using an average of the last two years’ enrollments to allocate
undergraduate tuition. While this practice of "enrollment smoothing" has succeeded in
providing units with more stable budgets, it has created serious financial difficulties for
units with sustained growth in student enrollments. These units bear the cost of
providing instruction for additional students in the present year but must wait two years
before fully receiving the appropriate increases in resources. Based on the advice of the
Dean’s Advisory Committee, the Review Committee recommends returning to a one-year
lag in attributing revenue. The goal of this change is to provide more timely adjustments
in the income generated by changing undergraduate enrollments.
Finding 5: The availability of second-eight-week courses provides significant benefits to
students.
Recommendation 5: Late registrations for second-eight-week courses should be
included in attributing undergraduate instructional fee income. The shift should be
phased-in with second-eight-week credit hours weighted 0.3 in 2001-02 (FY02), 0.5 in
FY03, and 0.75 in FY04.
Rationale 5: While late registrants (after the first week of the semester) to second-eight-
week courses frequently generate no revenue, they impose costs on the units providing
this instruction. Because the availability of second-eight-week courses permits students
who have dropped other courses during the semester to maintain a course load that allows
them to qualify for financial aid and to make progress toward their degrees, the
availability of these courses is an important consideration in student retention. As such,
these courses should be included in attributing undergraduate instructional fee income.
Assessment System
Finding 6: The assessment system is perceived as excessively complex.
Recommendation 6a: The current method of indirect assessments should be continued.
Recommendation 6b: Assessment data provided to campus policy makers should
include a clear explanation of how the assessments are determined and how the funds are
used. Significant changes in non-instructional unit expenditure levels should be
explained.
Rationale 6: Much of the complexity of the current assessment system is caused by
indirect assessments. In order to fully account for the cost of non-instructional units,
other non-instructional units are assessed to pay for their services. For example, the
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
18
Library is charged an assessment to pay a portion of the costs of UITS. However, all
costs of the Library, including such assessments, are included in the Library assessment
charged to instructional units. The committee believes that the value of more
comprehensive data available to instructional units by the indirect assessment process
outweighs the disadvantages created by its complexity.
Non-instructional units currently provide these explanations in their annual budget
conferences. This information should be shared widely with campus policy makers.
Finding 7: Health insurance for Student Academic Appointees (SAAs) is appropriate for
direct charge.
Recommendation 7: Graduate student (SAA) health insurance should be supported as a
direct charge (funded outside the assessment system). The charge should be assessed as a
benefit charge on graduate student stipends. The change should be implemented in a
revenue neutral manner.
Rationale 7: Graduate student health insurance is a cost of doing business for
instructional units and is more appropriately included in their benefit charges.
Finding 8: The current Library assessment mechanism does not allow independent
verification of how the assessment is determined.
Recommendation 8: The Library assessment should be distributed on the basis of total
budgeted expenditures. The transition should be made revenue neutral by assigning
different weights to each unit so that the final result is identical to what units would have
paid without a change in the Library assessment. In subsequent years, these new weights
should be used to distribute the Library assessment among RCs.
Rationale 8: The current Library assessment mechanism is based on “assigned”
personnel, materials, and space costs. This recommendation allows instructional units to
better understand the basis for their Library assessment.
Units with Financial Problems
Finding 9: Since the last review, there have been several instances in which units
encountered financial problems. The reasons varied, and - while in any individual case
were not directly attributable to RCM - may have been exacerbated by the environment
of distributed decision making inherent in RCM. The campus should become involved
more quickly in identifying and resolving such problems.
Recommendation 9: The Campus Budget Office should be proactive and intervene
quickly when budgetary problems are identified. The campus should work with deans to
identify and address problems in a timely manner, and verify compliance with the
planned responses. In the most extreme cases, this will involve constraints on the
school’s freedom to make financial decisions.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
19
Rationale 9: The units experiencing financial problems would have experienced
budgetary difficulties under the previous budgetary system. However, under the previous
system, the Campus Budget Office would have become involved much earlier and to a
much greater extent. RCM is intended to create autonomy for deans. While greater
autonomy creates greater risk, it does not alter the campus’ responsibility to provide
fiscal oversight. A large majority within the Committee applauds the autonomy provided
by RCM; it recognizes the risks, though, and urges the Campus Budget Office to become
involved more quickly, and more intrusively when necessary, in identifying and resolving
financial problems.
Finding 10: As the leadership of responsibility centers changes, individuals who have
not had experience with RCM may find challenges in planning and implementing
financial decisions in this system.
Recommendation 10: The Campus Budget Office should continue and enhance RCM
mentoring for all incoming deans. It should also continue and augment in-service
workshops to upgrade the skills of school-level budget officers and other appropriate
administrators. Among other topics, these workshops should (1) build the capacity for
program budgeting and reporting, and (2) focus on campus income distribution policies
so that (a) schools can appropriately incorporate these policies in their planning, and (b)
the policies generate the incentive effects the campus intends.
Rationale 10: Autonomy presupposes financial sophistication. The Campus Budget
Office must ensure that appropriate financial sophistication exists in all RCs.
Other Issues
Finding 11: The successive decisions to keep the impact of accounting changes “revenue
neutral” by creating unit specific weights, but not equalizing them over time, also means
that whatever inequities were built into any previous accounting system are not
addressed, at least not in any systematic fashion.
Recommendation 11: The committee endorses the reactivation of the RCM Oversight
Committee, with the initial task of reviewing all “revenue neutral” changes.
Rationale 11: Units that had external funding to cover operating costs or very low
student faculty ratios before RCM had these features built into their share of state
appropriations (negatively in the former case, positively in the latter). A similar situation
may be created in library assessments by Recommendation 8.
Finding 12: RCM continues to be misunderstood by a broad segment of faculty and staff.
This lack of information leads to problems because people tend to distrust what they
don’t understand.
Recommendation 12: The Campus Budget Office and the Budgetary Affairs Committee
should meet with faculty and others to increase understanding of what RCM means, how
it compares with the previous system, its ramifications, its positive and negative aspects,
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
20
and how the campus has attempted to keep the positive aspects while correcting the
negative aspects.
Rationale 12: The committee experienced the same disjuncture as the 1996 RCM
Review Committee. Those who are most knowledgeable about RCM generally believe
that it works reasonably well. Those who are operating with less complete information
are much more critical. If IUB is to build broader support for its modified form of RCM
and address the on-going unease about its merits, more must be done to increase and
broaden understanding of the system and how it enables the achievement of the academic
values of the campus.
5. Concluding Comments
In 1996, when the previous review was conducted, IUB was the only university in
the Big Ten using Responsibility Centered Management. In 2000, the Universities of
Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota also budget using their versions of RCM, and several
other large state universities are in various stages of planning and implementation.
Decentralized planning and decision making are now widely recognized as offering great
benefits in higher education.
Primary among these benefits is the ability to address budgetary problems at the
level closest to the action, where the information needed to respond to opportunities and
cope with problems is most complete. An example cited repeatedly in our interviews is
the reaction of deans to the inevitable mismatch between class sections scheduled and
student enrollments. Only a school or college dean has the information to fully assess the
implications of adding or deleting a section. The dean understands the costs and benefits
from both academic and financial perspectives.
The RCM process also makes the budget more transparent to all involved and
offers an opportunity for responsiveness to the needs of students and faculty. Information
available to the deans, and through them to the school and college policy committees, and
the Budgetary Affairs Committee gives a full picture of resources and needs. Each unit
has the responsibility of weighing the alternatives and making an informed decision on
which of the unit priorities are most important.
While other Big Ten universities have moved to embrace various versions of
RCM, it has continued to be controversial within the faculty at IUB. There continue to be
concerns about the apparent focus on the “bottom line,” an emphasis on “quantity” over
quality, and a tendency to balkanize the campus. In addition to these concerns, which
were expressed in 1996 as well, a number of those interviewed for this review expressed
a concern that RCM has led to the financial squeeze facing the College and the School of
Music. Each of these events was complex and resulted from a variety of decisions and
the RCM environment may have delayed campus awareness of problems. Also, unit
responsibility for generating the income assumed in budget construction, especially
graduate fee income, contributed. However, to a large extent, problems with
expenditures could have occurred in any budgeting system.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
21
Independent of what budgeting system is used, IUB faces a number of major
financial challenges. Several of the individuals interviewed pointed to the declining role
of state appropriations as a major problem for the university. In the last decade, the total
operating state appropriation per FTE has fallen from $6,300 to $5,300 (in 1999 dollars).
At the same time, as noted earlier, the costs of operation, including assessments, have
grown markedly. The campus faces an enormous challenge in raising faculty salaries to
competitive levels and funding benefit costs, including the cost of the 18-20 program.
While the state appropriation and 18-20 costs are not aspects of the RCM system, the
Committee believes it is important to acknowledge them as major structural factors that
every unit will have to manage.
RESPONSIBILITY CENTERED MANAGEMENT AT
INDIANA UNIVERSITY BLOOMINGTON
1990-2000
ATTACHMENTS
May, 2000
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-1
Table of Contents
1. Appointment letter A - 2
2. RCM Review Committee A - 3
3. Announcement of review A - 4
4. Individuals and groups interviewed A - 5
5. Interview protocol A - 7
6. Total operating state appropriation FY76 through FY00 A-12
7. Student headcount by school and student level Fall 95 through Fall 99 A-13
8. Student credit hours by school and student level FY96 through FY00 A-14
9. Undergraduate credit hours by school (graph) A-15
10. Graduate and professional credit hours by school (graph) A-16
11. Expenditure budgets and credit hours by school FY96 through FY00 A-17
12. Budgeted expenditures per actual credit hour (graph) A-18
13. Academic FTE credit hours by school FY96 through FY00 A-19
14. Credit hours per academic FTE by school (graph) A-20
15. Professional and biweekly staff FTE Fall 95 through Fall 99 A-21
16. Increases to school and support RC budgets FY95 through FY00 A-22
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-2
Attachment 1
Appointment Letter
To: Neil Theobald and Maynard Thompson
From: Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis
Subject: RCM Review
Date: September 13, 1999
This memo will confirm your appointments as co-chairs of a Committee to review the
Bloomington Campus version of RCM. In a time when there are expanding goals and
expectations for IUB and constrained resources, it is crucial that we have a financial
management system which provides appropriate incentives and which stimulates the
effective use of resources. We adopted RCM with this in mind.
When RCM was introduced, it was anticipated that the system would evolve through
modification, and that has been the case. A few modifications were made soon after
implementation, others in response to recommendations of the Deans Advisory
Committee and the Budgetary Affairs Committee, and several in response to
recommendations of the 1995-96 review. It has been four years since that review and
about three years since the implementation of recommendations coming from the
review. It is appropriate to again evaluate the system that underlies our financial
planning and management.
There are many matters to be considered, and the Committee should determine how best
to proceed to achieve the general objectives. The following topics may serve as a useful
starting point for the discussion:
the goals of the IUB version of RCM and the system designed to achieve
those goals,
$ impact of RCM on campus culture and the support of Acommon good,@
$ possible implications of RCM over the long term,
$ opportunities to enhance the likelihood that IUB is more than Athe sum of
its parts,@
$ results of the 1995-96 review and the changes introduced in response to
the recommendations of that committee,
$ experiences at other universities which considered RCM type systems,
why various decisions were made and the results,
$ appropriate modifications.
By copy of this memo I am asking those on the attached list of Committee members to
conduct the review. The Committee has my full support, and if there are ways I can
assist your work, please let me know. Many thanks.
Attachment
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-3
Attachment 2
RCM Review Committee
Name Department
Dan Amonett GSO Coordinator
John Bingham IUSA
Ann Bristow Libraries
Sheryl Fisher Education
Kirsten Gronbjerg SPEA
Gary Hieftje Chemistry
Michael McGerr History; LAMP
Michael Metzger Business
Tony Mobley HPER
Charles Nelms Academic Support & Diversity
Eugene O'Brien Music
Lauren Robel Law
Al Ruesink Biology
Neil Theobald Co-Chair, Education
Maynard Thompson Co-Chair, Budgetary Administration &
Planning
David Zaret Sociology/COAS
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-4
Attachment 3
Announcement of Review
To: Faculty and Staff
From: RCM Review Committee
Subject: Review of RCM
Date: September 27, 1999
Vice President Gros Louis has appointed a committee to review the Bloomington
Campus version of Responsibility Centered Management (RCM). When RCM was
introduced in 1990, it was anticipated that the system would evolve through
modification, and that has been the case. During the 1995-96 academic year, a previous
RCM Review Committee analyzed this system and made a number of recommendations
that were implemented beginning in 1997. We now have the experiences of nine full
fiscal years, and it is appropriate again to evaluate the system that underlies our financial
planning and management. This review will seek to identify and clarify the strengths
and weaknesses of the present version of RCM and suggest possible improvements.
As part of its work, the Review Committee will interview deans, directors,
members of advisory and policy committees, and others who play an active role in
administration and in formulating policy. In addition, we are interested in comments
and suggestions from other faculty and staff. You are welcome to write, e-mail (please
include RCM in the subject line of your message), or call any member of the Committee
by December 15, 1999. To make an appointment, please call Twanette Newton in the
Budgetary Administration and Planning Office, 855-3565, e-mail: tnewton, or contact
either of the co-chairs of the Committee. Members of the Committee are:
Name Department e-mail phone
Dan Amonett GSO Coordinator [email protected] 5-8747
John Bingham IUSA [email protected] 5-4872
Ann Bristow Libraries [email protected] 5-8028
Sherrie Fisher Education [email protected] 6-8011
Kirsten Gronbjerg SPEA [email protected] 5-5058
Gary Hieftje Chemistry [email protected] 5-2189
Michael McGerr History; LAMP [email protected] 6-4671
Michael Metzger Business [email protected] 5-9308
Tony Mobley HPER [email protected] 5-1561
Charles Nelms Acad. Support &
Diversity [email protected] 6-5700
Eugene O'Brien Music [email protected] 5-5541
Lauren Robel Law [email protected] 5-4140
Al Ruesink Biology [email protected] 5-5555
Neil Theobald Co-Chair, Education [email protected] 6-8397
Maynard Thompson Co-Chair, Budgetary [email protected] 5-3565
Administration &
Planning
David Zaret Sociology/COAS [email protected] 5-2761
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-5
Attachment 4
Individuals and Groups Interviewed
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
College of Arts and Sciences Policy Committee
Dean, School of Business
School of Business Budgetary Affairs Representatives
Dean, School of Education
School of Education Budgetary Advisory Committee
Dean, School of HPER
School of HPER Budgetary Affairs Committee
Dean, School of Journalism
School of Journalism Policy Council
Dean, School of Law
School of Law Policy Council
Dean, SLIS
Dean, School of Music
School of Music Policy Committee
Dean, School of Optometry
School of Optometry Policy Committee
Dean, School of SPEA
School of SPEA Policy Committee
Dean of University Libraries
Bloomington Library Faculty Council
President Myles Brand
President, IU Foundation
Vice President, RUGS
Vice President, UITS
Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Academic Services
Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Services
Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
Dean of Faculties
Dean, School of Continuing Studies
Director, Medical Sciences Program
Director, School of Infomatics
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-6
Director, University Budget Officer
Director, Physical Plant
Alliance of Distinguished Ranks Professors
Budget Officers
President, Indiana University Student Association
Group interview: Bursar and Registrar
Group interview: Women's Affairs, Affirmative Action
Group interview: Business Affairs, IUPD, Space Management,
Telecommunications, Radio & TV
Budgetary Personnel at the Universities of Illinois, Michigan, and
Minnesota and The Ohio State University
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-7
Attachment 5
Interview Protocol
1. How familiar are you with RCM? How have you come into contact with it?
2. What is your understanding of the incentives provided by RCM?
3. What do you perceive to be the strengths of RCM as a mechanism for distributing
resources?
Strengths Priority
4. What do you perceive to be the weaknesses or flaws in RCM?
Weaknesses/Flaws Priority
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-8
5. What are your unit's 2 or 3 major goals? For each goal, does RCM facilitate or
impede you in meeting this goal? If RCM facilitates meeting this goal, how? If RCM
impedes your unit, what could be done to improve it? Could you provide an
example?
Units Goals
Where appropriate, please consider excellence in:
Instruction Research and
scholarly activities
Service
For each goal, does RCM
facilitate or impede you in
meeting this goal?
If RCM facilitates meeting
this goal, how?
If RCM impedes your unit,
what could be done to
improve it?
Could you provide an
example?
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-9
5 (continued)
Other Unit Goals
For each goal, does RCM
facilitate or impede you in
meeting this goal?
If RCM facilitates meeting
this goal, how?
If RCM impedes your unit,
what could be done to
improve it?
Could you provide an
example?
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-10
6. In addition to your unit's goals, are there campus-level or system-wide goals that this
review should take into consideration? For each goal, does RCM facilitate or impede
the campus or system in meeting this goal? If RCM facilitates meeting this goal,
how? If RCM impedes the campus or system, what could be done to improve it?
Could you provide an example?
Campus/System Goals
For each goal, does RCM
facilitate or impede you in
meeting this goal?
If RCM facilitates meeting
this goal, how?
If RCM impedes your unit,
what could be done to
improve it?
Could you provide an
example?
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-11
7. On the basis of recommendations from the 1996 RCM Review Committee, the
Bloomington campus (a) established a Chancellor's Discretionary Fund by diverting
up to 1.5% of the state appropriation to the Chancellor to reward quality and
leverage campus priorities, and (b) instituted a two-year weighted average lag
between enrollments and distributions to "smooth income flows" and implemented
differential distributions based on non-resident students. In addition, the 1996
Review Committee proposed the concepts of shifting the funding of non-
instructional units from assessments to fee-for-service (e.g., paying BEST for
assessment forms). Are you aware of these changes? How successful have each of
these changes been? Should these initiatives be changed in any way?
Recommendation Assessment Suggestions for changes
Chancellor's Discretionary Fund
Distribution of undergraduate
fees
Shift to fee-for-service
8. If RCM is to be retained, what should be the local unit of financial decision-making
(i.e., campus, school, department, individual faculty)?
9. Are you familiar with the pre-RCM financial management system? If so, what are
your perspectives on its value relative to RCM?
10. Are you aware of successful alternatives to RCM? If so, please describe.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-12
Attachment 6
Total Operating State Appropriation
(Excludes Fee Replacement)
Fiscal Year Operating Appropriations
Change
1975-76 $59,719,774
1976-77 $61,943,266 3.72%
1977-78 $63,771,906 2.95%
1978-79 $69,021,152 8.23%
1979-80 $74,420,277 7.82%
1980-81 $82,792,569 11.25%
1981-82 $82,719,941 -0.09%
1982-83 $81,601,544 -1.35%
1983-84 $93,638,633 14.75%
1984-85 $100,600,215 7.43%
1985-86 $108,397,681 7.75%
1986-87 $116,387,502 7.37%
1987-88 $122,280,462 5.06%
1988-89 $132,124,068 8.05%
1989-90 $140,971,645 6.70%
RCM Implemented
1990-91 $150,365,734 6.66%
1991-92 $149,939,859 -0.28%
1992-93 $146,717,910 -2.15%
1993-94 $147,539,362 0.56%
1994-95 $146,897,274 * -0.44%
1995-96 $152,016,003 3.48%
1996-97 $159,005,903 4.60%
1997-98 $165,496,107 4.08%
1998-99 $170,812,639 3.21%
1999-00 $174,423,616 ** 2.11%
Operating appropriations include any supplemental appropriations and new degree program start-up funds, and exclude Knox County match. *Includes $35,300 which was added after July 1. **Excludes special state appropriation for technology.
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-13
Attachment 7
Student Headcount by School and Student Level
Fall 95 Fall 96 Fall 97 Fall 98 Fall 99
Undergraduate Headcount (includes Non-degree)
A&S/Grad 6,121 5,496 6,198 6,151 6,184
Bus 2,867 3,071 3,372 3,696 3,890
Educ 1,951 1,957 1,950 1,988 2,028
HPER 1,022 1,096 1,096 1,054 1,003
Jour 537 534 510 503 544
Law - - - - -
SLIS - - - - -
Music 900 907 1,026 1,029 937
Opt 31 21 10 19 11
SPEA 660 543 547 556 644
MedSci - - - - -
Univ Div 11,874 11,968 11,320 11,809 12,239
Other 1,414 1,391 1,306 1,288 1,284
Campus 27,377 26,984 27,335 28,093 28,764
Graduate/Professional Headcount
A&S/Grad 4,171 4,111 3,967 3,837 3,779
Bus 565 593 588 630 643
Educ 536 540 532 527 538
HPER 281 256 228 203 202
Jour - - - - -
Law 616 669 670 665 659
SLIS 233 222 263 304 291
Music 687 738 736 711 704
Opt 280 284 290 296 303
SPEA 311 301 325 333 318
MedSci 2 2 1 - -
Univ Div - - - - -
Other - - 2 1 -
Campus 7,682 7,716 7,602 7,507 7,437
Total Headcount
A&S/Grad 10,292 9,607 10,165 9,988 9,963
Bus 3,432 3,664 3,960 4,326 4,533
Educ 2,487 2,497 2,482 2,515 2,566
HPER 1,303 1,352 1,324 1,257 1,205
Jour 537 534 510 503 544
Law 616 669 670 665 659
SLIS 233 222 263 304 291
Music 1,587 1,645 1,762 1,740 1,641
Opt 311 305 300 315 314
SPEA 971 844 872 889 962
MedSci 2 2 1 - -
Univ Div 11,874 11,968 11,320 11,809 12,239
Other 1,414 1,391 1,308 1,289 1,284
Campus 35,059 34,700 34,937 35,600 36,201
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-14
Attachment 8
Student Credit Hours by School and Student Level
FY95-96 FY96-97 FY97-98 FY98-99 FY99-00
Undergraduate Credit Hours
A&S 511,226 493,823 485,036 498,849 510,877
Bus 94,557 108,703 121,877 127,979 128,874
Educ 44,850 44,704 45,205 46,538 47,065
HPER 55,220 53,045 53,425 56,356 55,887
Jour 9,357 9,095 8,848 9,070 8,977
Law - - - - -
SLIS 535 849 805 786 844
Music 37,549 39,987 41,608 41,911 41,523
Opt 1,174 935 920 960 663
SPEA 22,983 20,245 19,041 21,212 25,649
MedSci 8,478 7,886 8,233 7,685 7,018
Group Total 785,929 779,272 784,998 811,345 827,377
Graduate/Professional Credit Hours (includes G901)
A&S 51,281 49,590 47,571 45,728 45,723
Bus 18,729 19,199 19,140 20,944 20,809
Educ 19,777 20,164 20,332 19,847 20,735
HPER 7,049 6,237 6,021 5,436 5,549
Jour 1,048 1,138 1,070 1,066 1,237
Law 17,872 19,246 19,644 18,706 18,497
SLIS 5,068 4,774 5,553 5,972 5,426
Music 12,323 12,377 12,286 12,087 11,355
Opt 11,549 11,823 12,132 12,350 12,517
SPEA 7,589 7,993 8,366 8,399 8,104
MedSci 378 237 302 343 369
Group Total 152,663 152,777 152,416 150,876 150,321
Total Credit Hours
A&S 562,507 543,413 532,607 544,576 556,600
Bus 113,286 127,902 141,017 148,922 149,683
Educ 64,627 64,868 65,537 66,385 67,800
HPER 62,269 59,282 59,446 61,792 61,436
Jour 10,405 10,233 9,918 10,136 10,214
Law 17,872 19,246 19,644 18,706 18,497
SLIS 5,603 5,623 6,358 6,758 6,270
Music 49,872 52,364 53,894 53,998 52,878
Opt 12,723 12,758 13,052 13,310 13,180
SPEA 30,572 28,238 27,407 29,611 33,753
MedSci 8,856 8,123 8,535 8,028 7,387
Group Total 938,592 932,049 937,413 962,221 977,697
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-15
Attachment 9
Undergraduate Credit Hours
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
FY95-96 FY96-97 FY97-98 FY98-99 FY99-00
-
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
175,000
200,000
225,000
250,000
275,000
300,000
325,000
350,000
375,000
400,000
425,000
450,000
475,000
500,000
525,000
550,000
A&S
Business
HPER
Education
Music Jour SPEA
MedSci
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-16
Attachment 10
Graduate & Professional Credit Hours
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
FY95-96 FY96-97 FY97-98 FY98-99 FY99-00
Arts & Sciences
Business
Education
Law
Optometry
Music
SPEA
SLIS
HPER
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-17
Attachment 11
Expenditure Budgets and Credit Hours by School
FY95-96 FY96-97 FY97-98 FY98-99 FY99-00
Expenditure Budgets
Law w. Library 8,678,297$ 8,810,794$ 9,281,839$ 9,656,467$ 10,063,054$
Law Library 2,136,862$ 2,204,154$ 2,310,947$ 2,404,228$ 2,459,980$
Opt w. Clinic 5,308,726$ 5,566,584$ 5,775,182$ 6,467,572$ 6,818,586$
Opt Clinic 1,211,448$ 1,211,448$ 1,212,534$ 1,284,680$ 1,349,043$
A&S 107,718,524$ 109,815,256$ 111,916,732$ 115,902,797$ 121,364,452$
Bus 24,934,364$ 27,244,837$ 30,220,593$ 33,029,719$ 37,754,431$
Educ 14,435,958$ 14,964,123$ 15,454,078$ 16,436,955$ 17,547,846$
HPER 10,446,560$ 10,664,202$ 10,571,156$ 10,764,540$ 11,575,469$
Jour 2,600,133$ 2,706,616$ 2,768,082$ 2,774,277$ 3,100,539$
Law w/o Library 6,541,435$ 6,606,640$ 6,970,892$ 7,252,239$ 7,603,074$
SLIS 1,984,342$ 2,145,707$ 2,165,793$ 2,443,134$ 2,556,512$
Music 17,117,843$ 17,829,216$ 18,628,824$ 19,698,476$ 20,605,902$
Opt w/o Clinic 4,097,278$ 4,355,136$ 4,562,648$ 5,182,892$ 5,469,543$
SPEA 7,790,706$ 8,121,883$ 8,290,646$ 8,822,112$ 9,273,665$
MedSci 1,498,617$ 1,469,218$ 1,471,228$ 1,655,801$ 1,469,260$
Group Total 199,165,760$ 205,922,834$ 213,020,672$ 223,962,942$ 238,320,693$
FY Actual Credit Hours (including G901)
A&S 562,507 543,413 532,607 544,576 556,600
Bus 113,286 127,902 141,017 148,922 149,683
Educ 64,627 64,868 65,537 66,385 67,800
HPER 62,269 59,282 59,446 61,792 61,436
Jour 10,405 10,233 9,918 10,136 10,214
Law 17,872 19,246 19,644 18,706 18,497
SLIS 5,603 5,623 6,358 6,758 6,270
Music 49,872 52,364 53,894 53,998 52,878
Opt 12,723 12,758 13,052 13,310 13,180
SPEA 30,572 28,238 27,407 29,611 33,753
MedSci 8,856 8,123 8,535 8,028 7,387
Group Total 938,592 932,049 937,413 962,221 977,697
Expenditure Budget per Credit Hour
A&S 191$ 202$ 210$ 213$ 218$
Bus 220$ 213$ 214$ 222$ 252$
Educ 223$ 231$ 236$ 248$ 259$
HPER 168$ 180$ 178$ 174$ 188$
Jour 250$ 264$ 279$ 274$ 304$
Law 366$ 343$ 355$ 388$ 411$
SLIS 354$ 382$ 341$ 362$ 408$
Music 343$ 340$ 346$ 365$ 390$
Opt 322$ 341$ 350$ 389$ 415$
SPEA 255$ 288$ 303$ 298$ 275$
MedSci 169$ 181$ 172$ 206$ 199$
Group Total 212$ 221$ 227$ 233$ 244$
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-18
Attachment 12
Budgeted Expenditures per Actual Credit Hour
$150
$175
$200
$225
$250
$275
$300
$325
$350
$375
$400
$425
FY95-96 FY96-97 FY97-98 FY98-99 FY99-00
Ex
pe
nd
itu
re p
er
Cre
dit
Ho
ur
Optometry
Law
Music
SLIS
Journalism
SPEA
Education
Business
A&S
Med Sci
HPER
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-19
Attachment 13
Academic FTE and Credit Hours by School
Full-Time Faculty and Lecturers**
Fall 1995 Fall 1996 Fall 1997 Fall 1998 Fall 1999
A&S 840.5 838.5 824.2 802.2 776.2
Bus 122.5 132.5 143.0 144.0 153.0
Educ 107.0 106.0 106.0 105.0 104.0
HPER 56.5 60.0 57.0 59.0 54.0
Jour 22.0 22.0 23.0 23.0 21.0
Law 39.0 40.0 40.0 42.0 42.0
SLIS 18.0 19.0 18.0 17.0 15.0
Music 120.0 119.0 123.0 127.0 132.0
Opt 21.0 19.0 19.0 21.0 21.0
SPEA 46.5 47.5 50.0 50.0 47.5
MedSci 12.0 12.0 11.0 14.0 14.5
Group Total 1,405.0 1,415.5 1,414.2 1,404.2 1,380.2
Actual Credit Hours
FY95-96 FY96-97 FY97-98 FY98-99 FY99-00
A&S 562,507 543,413 532,607 544,576 556,600
Bus 113,286 127,902 141,017 148,922 149,683
Educ 64,627 64,868 65,537 66,385 67,800
HPER 62,269 59,282 59,446 61,792 61,436
Jour 10,405 10,233 9,918 10,136 10,214
Law 17,872 19,246 19,644 18,706 18,497
SLIS 5,603 5,623 6,358 6,758 6,270
Music 49,872 52,364 53,894 53,998 52,878
Opt 12,723 12,758 13,052 13,310 13,180
SPEA 30,572 28,238 27,407 29,611 33,753
MedSci 8,856 8,123 8,535 8,028 7,387
Group Total 938,592 932,049 937,413 962,221 977,697
Credit Hours per Faculty FTE
FY95-96 FY96-97 FY97-98 FY98-99 FY99-00
A&S 669 648 646 679 717
Bus 925 965 986 1,034 978
Educ 604 612 618 632 652
HPER 1,102 988 1,043 1,047 1,138
Jour 473 465 431 441 486
Law 458 481 491 445 440
SLIS 311 296 353 398 418
Music 416 440 438 425 401
Opt 606 671 687 634 628
SPEA 657 594 548 592 711
MedSci 738 677 776 573 509
Group Total 668 658 663 685 708
**Full-Time Faculty and Lecturers include all tenure-related appointments to faculty and
lecturer status: tenured, tenure-track, and convertible to tenure-track. Included are those
appointees to whom we have a full-time commitment, whether on leave without pay or a
partial leave. [Source: Dean of the Faculties]
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-20
Attachment 14
Credit Hours per Academic FTE
250
350
450
550
650
750
850
950
1,050
1,150
FY95-96 FY96-97 FY97-98 FY98-99 FY99-00
Cre
dit
Ho
urs
HPER
Business
A&S
SPEA
Educ
Opt
Med Sci
Jour
Law
SLIS
Music
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-21
Attachment 15
Professional and Biweekly Staff FTE
Fall 95 Fall 96 Fall 97 Fall 98 Fall 99
Professional Staff FTE
A&S 170.14 170.84 180.03 175.40 173.78
Bus 51.76 54.85 59.61 64.00 74.50
Educ 30.83 29.95 28.95 29.40 29.95
HPER 17.74 18.09 22.40 23.70 23.86
Jour 5.67 7.23 7.12 7.30 7.57
Law 8.87 10.87 11.87 10.90 11.87
SLIS 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Music 15.00 14.00 17.71 20.70 23.97
Opt 6.13 6.13 7.13 7.10 7.13
SPEA 19.25 19.25 19.95 20.20 20.00
MedSci 2.56 2.56 3.00 2.00 2.00
Group Total 330.95 336.77 359.77 362.70 376.63
Biweekly Staff FTE
A&S 244.35 235.52 230.26 224.20 220.02
Bus 67.14 69.75 76.75 78.80 80.50
Educ 43.89 45.14 40.84 40.90 41.58
HPER 32.05 32.55 30.00 31.10 31.10
Jour 4.75 3.75 4.31 4.50 4.50
Law 30.75 28.75 29.75 30.80 31.25
SLIS 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Music 46.50 49.50 50.50 51.50 53.00
Opt 36.30 35.80 36.80 35.80 40.00
SPEA 30.27 30.02 30.12 28.50 29.37
MedSci 3.70 3.70 3.00 2.00 2.00
Group Total 542.70 537.48 535.33 531.10 536.32
RCM REVIEW 1990-2000
A-22
Attachment 16
Increases to School and Support RC Budgets
Budgets July 1994 July 1995 July 1996 July 1997 July 1998 July 1999
Schools 196,592,380 5.6% 207,653,654 4.0% 215,995,643 3.7% 223,986,754 2.9% 230,429,419 6.6% 245,537,589
Support RCs 167,784,694 4.6% 175,491,231 5.1% 184,441,371 7.2% 197,713,838 5.8% 209,086,047 9.4% 228,822,157
Campus Total 364,377,074 5.2% 383,144,885 4.5% 400,437,014 5.3% 421,700,592 4.2% 439,515,466 7.9% 474,359,746
Schools 196,592,380 5.6% 207,653,654 4.0% 215,995,643 3.7% 223,986,754 2.9% 230,429,419 6.6% 245,537,589
Supports Adj. 99,512,863 2.6% 102,141,305 3.6% 105,865,368 2.6% 108,621,746 2.8% 111,614,039 5.9% 118,161,408
Adjustments** 68,271,831 7.4% 73,349,926 7.1% 78,576,003 13.4% 89,092,092 9.4% 97,472,008 13.5% 110,660,749
Campus Total 364,377,074 5.2% 383,144,885 4.5% 400,437,014 5.3% 421,700,592 4.2% 439,515,466 7.9% 474,359,746
**Adjustments:
UG Financial Aid 6,996,846 5.9% 7,410,731 12.8% 8,357,241 39.5% 11,658,090 14.8% 13,380,551 25.4% 16,776,164
Library Acquisitions 5,082,844 5.5% 5,361,985 5.0% 5,630,085 5.0% 5,911,085 3.1% 6,096,085 10.1% 6,711,785
RUGS Acd Eq & RFF 3,681,388 7.0% 3,940,460 3.5% 4,079,389 3.2% 4,209,187 7.1% 4,509,187 15.5% 5,209,187
CDF - - - - 1,849,015 63.6% 3,024,087
Reserve Replenishmt - - - - 2,000,000 10.0% 2,200,000
Strategic Directions - 1,704,981 49.6% 2,550,981 0.0% 2,550,981 12.7% 2,875,981 0.0% 2,875,981
Student Tech Fee 4,423,280 9.6% 4,846,715 18.8% 5,760,000 0.0% 5,759,620 2.0% 5,874,752 3.3% 6,068,420
IU Foundation Fee 914,519 11.2% 1,017,291 4.0% 1,057,983 69.2% 1,790,257 3.0% 1,843,965 3.5% 1,908,504
Sys Serv Charge 13,344,371 10.4% 14,734,879 11.9% 16,486,208 24.1% 20,457,718 6.4% 21,774,226 16.2% 25,297,223
Fuel & Utilities 14,314,226 3.0% 14,745,379 5.1% 15,499,787 4.6% 16,219,716 3.1% 16,719,716 2.0% 17,050,716
Debt Service 19,514,357 0.4% 19,587,505 -2.2% 19,154,329 7.2% 20,535,438 0.1% 20,548,530 14.6% 23,538,682
Total Adjustments 68,271,831 7.4% 73,349,926 7.1% 78,576,003 13.4% 89,092,092 9.4% 97,472,008 13.5% 110,660,749
a $1.9M related to Pooled Benefits; $1.4M in Univ Initiatives funded through special state appropriation. With adjustments, increase is 4.07%.
b $690K related to Fee Courtesy; $1.9M for Tech Funding funded through special state appropriation. With adjustments, increase is 4.3%.
a b