David K. Scott was Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, 1993-2001.
This is an archive of the Chancellor's Web site during his tenure.
UMass Office of the Chancellor
  


V. Components of the Multi-Year Plan
     C. Reallocation $10.0M

Every dynamic institution must be involved in reallocation on a continuous basis. The internal churning of the budget allows units to respond to new opportunities, to discontinue or de-emphasize less viable activities and to redirect priorities. A complex institution such as the University of Massachusetts at Amherst will be moving forwards or backwards, but it will never stand still. Reallocation, whether in times of increasing, level or declining budgets, is one component of maintaining forward momentum.

We are committed to a reallocation level of 1% per year for each of the five years of Strategic Action, in each Vice Chancellors and Deputy Chancellors areas. This will amount to a reallocation of $10M for FY97-2001, keeping in mind that over the last five years or so the institution has already reallocated approximately $29M, as shown in Figure 11. From FY89-94 the operating budget grew at an average of 2.6% per year (see also Figure2). The University was unable to live with such growth, even though inflation was running at a modest 3% or lower throughout the period. In its current culture, a University will tend to grow--on the average--at some 1 or 2 percentage points above the CPI, a rate characteristic of HEPI, the higher education price index. This index increases more rapidly than CPI because of factors determining cost increases in a University--e.g., library books, periodicals, equipment, all of which typically increase in excess of 10% per year.

The University compensated for the low growth by reallocating funds. In fact the actual growth of 2.6% or $21.7M was almost totally consumed by mandated increases of cost of living, merit increases, non-discretionary costs (e.g., fringe benefits, federal mandates such as ADA, etc.) and deferred maintenance. All other discretionary increases were essentially covered through reallocations making the effective growth close to 6% (the combination of $21.7M and $28.8M). In the environment ahead there will be a similar need for reallocation, allowing the institution to grow by substitution rather than accretion. This Strategic Action will occur in the continued reallocation and restructuring of the budget over the next five years. Combined with the reallocation of FY95 and 96, the period FY95-2001 will see a total reallocation of $24M (comprised of the $11M of restructuring, $10M of reallocation in this plan and $3M in FY95), or roughly 15% of the reducible base. The anticipated growth of the State Budget during this period is $40M, which will almost entirely be consumed by salaries and other mandated increases, such as utilities and infrastructure. Therefore, as in the 1989-94 period, essentially all programmatic initiatives are funded through restructuring and reallocation of $24M.

In the academic area the first phase of new reallocation began this year with the Academic Program Review. Multidimensional profiles were developed for each academic unit, based on four criteria: cost, demand, quality and centrality. An example for one department is given in Appendix 1. For future cycles of strategic planning, these profiles will constitute an excellent management tool. All academic areas will be able to use this tool in a thoughtful and reflective manner as they reconfigure Schools and Colleges according to the emerging priorities and scholarly directions of the area. The effort this year was more centrally driven.

The result of the first cycle for the academic area is summarized in the following 19 actions. Some of these actions result from improved effectiveness and efficiency, reconfiguration to be consistent with demand, merging of areas that are closely related, and restructuring to be compatible with the major areas of knowledge such as Life Sciences and Biotechnology. These actions will form a component of the 1% reallocation in the academic areas for FY97.

Academic Program Review

  1. Consolidation of statistics course offerings through the USTAT proposal.
  2. Suspension of HECC Stage Two request for a Ph.D. in Hotel, Restaurant and Travel Administration.
  3. Development of stronger relationships between the Labor Studies program and other academic departments, especially within the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences.
  4. Gradual and selective reductions in the number of faculty in Plant and Soil Sciences.
  5. Gradual and selective reductions in the number of faculty in Marketing.
  6. Suggested consideration of joint 5-College or five campus major in Asian Languages and Literatures.
  7. Suggested consideration of merger of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology with Biology or Chemistry.
  8. Judaic and Near Eastern Studies. The original APR recommendation called for consideration of combining Judaic Studies with the History Department. However, continued department status--as opposed to a specialization within History--is seen by many on- and off-campus constituencies as essential to the viability of Judaic Studies. It also appears to be the case that some development efforts over the past decade were predicated on the continued existence of Judaic Studies. Given these considerations, and the view of the chair that the direction of world events argues for a strong connection between Judaic Studies and Middle East Studies, continuation of Judaic and Near Eastern Studies as a small department is therefore appropriate.
  9. Suspend admissions to the undergraduate major in Food Science unless enrollment increases. This recommendation is conditional, and would not take effect until the 1999-2000 academic year. Governance review should therefore be deferred.
  10. Consolidate Art History with Art.
  11. Rely on the fund raising to address facilities needs in Art.
  12. Transfer Microbiology to the College of Food and Natural Resources.
  13. Merge Industrial Engineering and Operations Research with Mechanical Engineering. The ongoing governance review of the earlier proposal to merge these departments should be completed by the end of the semester.
  14. Suspend admissions to the undergraduate major in Entomology and consider consolidation with another department. The original APR recommendation still seems appropriate.
  15. Consolidate Plant Pathology with Microbiology and suspend admissions to all Plant Pathology programs. We support efforts to continue graduate study in the area of plant pathology, perhaps through a new emphasis in plant biotechnology, and to preserve opportunities for undergraduate study as a track within the merged department.
  16. Eliminate the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures and suspend admissions to all programs. Extensive consultation with faculty, the department head and the dean have resulted in an understanding that opportunities for students to study and faculty to teach will continue through the existing program in Soviet and East European Studies.
  17. Suspend admissions to the Ph.D. program in Nutrition effective with the class entering in fall 1997; consider a merger with Exercise Science. Response from faculty and from graduates of the program suggests that the M.S. in Nutrition contributes importantly to many professional needs in the Commonwealth. The M.S. program is therefore no longer suggested for suspension of admissions. With respect to the doctoral program we are aware of the work of the Department in proposing an interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Nutritional Sciences in 1991. While that proposal is seriously out of date, it is possible that a proposal more closely matching the Universitys current needs could be developed, and we would be willing to explore the development of such a program with the Department and the Dean. If this approach proves successful, doctoral study in the area of nutrition would be possible within that new program. While exploration of a merger with Exercise Science should continue, we concur with the APC that the timing should respect the judgment of the appropriate faculty and deans.
  18. Suspend admissions to the graduate program in Consumer Studies, effective with the class entering in fall 1997. Since the Provost released her original recommendations considerable discussion has taken place with the dean and department head. The Chancellors decision to allow graduate admissions to Consumer Studies for the 1996-97 academic year allows time for the Department to work on the development of an interdisciplinary graduate program; it will also allow the Department to accept a major research grant from the Department of Health and Human Services addressing issues related to work and family among working- class women. If the new interdisciplinary approach proves successful, then graduate study in areas centrally related to Consumer Studies would be possible within that new program.
  19. Suspend admissions to the Ph.D. program in French, effective with the class entering in fall 1997. Since the release of the original recommendation considerable discussion has occurred within Humanities and Fine Arts concerning new ways to approach doctoral work in the Romance Languages. The Dean has organized a committee to explore a new model for doctoral work in this area. The Chancellors decision to allow graduate admissions to the doctoral program in French for the 1996-97 academic year allows time for faculty to work with the Deans committee, and we will support their work. If the new approach proves successful, then doctoral study in French would be possible within that new program.

The same level of reallocation of 1% per year is called for in all the other Vice Chancellors' areas and the Deputy Chancellors area. The criteria to be used will be those proposed in Strategic Thinking:

Academic Support Program Retention

  • Are the activities of this program central to the continuing operations of any University?
  • Are the activities of this program less essential but nevertheless important to the kind of university we want UMass to be?
  • Do the activities of this program contribute to the overall quality of the academic, social or work environment of the campus, but are not necessarily essential to the campus?
  • Are the activities of this program unrelated to the universitys mission?

Determining the Size of Academic Support Programs

  • Can efficiencies/economies be achieved through reorganization and consolidation?
  • Although developing comparisons may be difficult, can the size and cost of programs outside of academic departments be assessed by comparing the cost per individual served on our campus with the cost at peer institutions? For example, compared to UConn, Rutgers or other research universities of comparable size, is our Registrars Office more or less expensive per FTE student? Do we provide any non-essential services they dont? Similar questions might be asked of Human Resources and other offices concerning cost per unit served.
  • Are there investments in new technology that can achieve economies? For example, the telephone registration system has saved countless staff hours on campus. Can such savings be captured? If so, can such savings be produced in other activities?

Table of Contents
Next | Building a Distinctive Land Grant-AAU Institution

Welcome
Campus Updates
About the Chancellor
Papers
PowerPoint Presentations
Chancellor's Report
Strategic Action
Campaign UMass
excellence within your reach