We have been working on this type of 'income led resource allocation model' for the last 18 months and have now implemented it for 2001-02 budget allocation.
I don't agree with David that the effect will be to produce a crude 'fte grab'.
Our system is part of a wider perspective of making our resource allocation model more income led and encouraging our faculties to become more income responsive. It also has greater transparency and each faculty and department know exactly how much they 'earn'. Old arguments about 'Faculty X are subsidised by us hard workers in Faculty Y' begin to disappear. In the longer term we expect Faculties to become more effective at business planning and more enterprising at earning extra income over the core funding we receive.
The system we use is conceptually fairly straightforward. We have a University wide modular scheme. Each module is assigned to a department and HEFCE price group. (There is comparatively little by way of cross teaching within modules but students can and do move extensively between modules from different departments. ).
Each taught module registration is assigned a price based on the bare bones of the HEFCE model weightings (price group x 3, mode x 2 and level x 2). We apportion the HEFCE grant across each department according to the price matrix and the module registration. We also do a similar calculation for tuition fees, allowing the department that 'owns' the programme an 'allowance' before we allocate income according to module/teaching load. We do things slightly differently for Sandwich year out and research students but the principle is the same. The HEFCE 'premiums' are trickier but there's a balance in favour of simplicity and transparency at the moment and we don't take account of every machination of the HEFCE model.
Once the income has been allocated to each department and faculty, we calculate a 'contribution rate' to central overheads and indirect costs. This is based on calculating the contribution rate for the current year's budget allocation and beginning the process of moving each faculty towards a common contribution rate. Each faculty gets a one line budget based on an estimated student recruitment and module registration calculation. During the budget year we will check they have delivered and adjust accordingly (the base data is the same as that used for HESES).
Our 6 faculties know how much each department earns, but they don't have to allocate funds accordingly if they don't wish to. There are institutional principles such as widening access and overall spend on staffing that have to be followed and are monitored, but we are giving academic units considerably more freedom.
Similar principles apply to our partner FE colleges.
While the overall principles are relatively simple, the detail is extensive - we have over 20,000 students and nearly 100,000 module registrations in any one year. It takes the best part of one very able full time member of planning staff to manipulate this and considerable input from the finance section.
This is a very brief summary - and I could easily write 100 pages and talk for hours on it! (Next year's AUA seems a good place to do it).
You have to be careful not to upset the apple cart, but in any change process that leads to improvement there are downsides and elements of risk.
I would argue there are strong reasons why you should do it and no technical reasons why it can't be done.
Mike Milne-Picken
Head of Planning & Performance Review
University of Central Lancashire
PRESTON
PR1 2HE
Tel: +44 (0)1772 892391
Fax: +44 (0)1722 892943
[log in to unmask]
www.uclan.ac.uk/planning
>>> [log in to unmask] 12 June 2001 15:11:34 >>>
Don't do it. You get into a situation where the "fte grab" is the primary
policy of virtually all academic departments. Short termism dominates.
People focus on minute detail and take their eyes off any sort of coherent
policy led thinking.
I could give you forty pages of closely reasoned argument about why this is
a very bad idea. Don't have time at the moment, but am prepared to expand
on it early July (not the full forty pages though - unless a large fee is
involved).
______________________________
David George
Acting Secretary
University of Dundee
Tel +1382 344018
Fax +1382 201604
e-mail [log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "A.M.Grey" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 2:19 PM
Subject: Resource allocation at module level
> Dear all,the university is currently reviewing the way in which
> HEFCE income is distributed to departments. The current
> proposal is to move to a system where money follows
> students, that is departments get money on based on the
> number of students on modules, rather than programmes.
> Does any one have any words of wisdom that they like to
> share with me, before we start? In particular are there
> any pitfalls we should be aware of? Also if you currently
> running a modular based system and have chosen to abandon
> it, could you say why?
>
> It makes sense logically and provided the student data is
> accurate should be relatively straight forward, but I just
> have a feeling that I'm missing something really obvious.
> I realise that we do need to make some policy decision
> first, such as do we give the 'home' department an
> allowance for the work involved in recruitment/student
> support and also when should the extract of data be taken.
> But anything else I've missed?
>
> Many thanks in anticipation.
>
> Anna
>
> ----------------------
> A.M.Grey
> Assistant Registrar (Planning)
> Planning and Quality Office
> (Tel)01482 466867
> (e-mail) [log in to unmask]
>
> **Please note change of address**
|