Task Force Summary
Institutional Research and Accreditation Council
2002 – 03
Name
of Task Force: Incentives and
Funding
Chair of Task Force: James C. Scott
Members:
Arthur Goven, Cassandra Berry, David Kesterson, Dennis Fisher, Jeffrey
Oxford, Neal Tate, Phil Diebel, Nancy McCray
Topics/critical
issues identified and investigated by your UPC task force group:
1.
Sources of incentive funding and specific aspects of formula
funding
2.
Performance targets and current relationship to related goals
Unfortunately,
we learned from Phil Diebel that all three current incentives (the funding
formula, House Bill 1839, and the Teaching Experience bonus) are subject to
possible elimination or significant change.
This information confounds the entire primary purpose of our task force.
Our group, realizing that the Teaching Experience incentive was in direct
and unavoidable conflict with formula-based incentives, focused its interest
more intensely on the opportunities for increased formula funding deriving from
properly credited, larger graduate enrollments.
Even if there will be some compression of the huge disparity between
lower division liberal arts funding and various doctoral programs, it still
seems advantageous to work on growing our graduate programs.
It
is likely that the viability of such an increase will depend on a related
increase in the number of assistantships/fellowships available and their value
relative to that offered by competing institutions.
A proposal has been made for consideration of using Federal College Work
Study allocations as a component (up to 60%) of the funding of assistantships
when students are eligible. The
most current analyses, though tentative, suggest that if these assistantships
are really used only to generate new levels of enrollment, there will be a
funding formula return sufficient to replace wages funds removed from
undergraduates and also to have a worthwhile amount left over.
This analysis does not even address the increased teaching capacity that
could be associated with more teaching fellowships, and the resulting formula
funding dollars.
Given
all these uncertainties surrounding current incentives, it may not be
constructive to spend time and effort revising our current internal
incentives, which divide a pool of $250,000 according to improvements in the
“Teaching Experience” category and to increases in graduate enrollments.
The current system, in the context of current state incentives, offers
opportunities in one category or another to all units, regardless of their
number of graduate or undergraduate programs.
It should not be expected, however, that units will show
improvements in all areas, since, as mentioned above, the incentives are in
mutual opposition.
A
similar opposition exists relative to the performance targets.
In general, UNT has done well, and provided cogent justifications in
areas in which percentages are more than several points off target.
The relationship between admissions policy (and practice) and
retention, however, deserves more analysis and commentary. It is easy to assume that a significant portion of
non-retention is related to the failure of marginally admissible students.
The task force does not have and is not aware of analyses that would
either support or refute such an assumption.
If the assumption is correct, a decision weighing access against
retention is in order. If not,
other studies involving exit interviews or questionnaires for non-returning
students should be undertaken.
Recommendations:
1.
Beyond current incentives for graduate program growth, seek to provide a
larger number of graduate assistantship/fellowship positions and to make the
terms of the awards more competitive. The
Work Study funding model should be pursued, with an investment of funds to cover
the time lag between removing current wage-based FCWS positions and receiving
formula funding benefits.
2.
Continue the current internal incentive program until the state-based
uncertainties are resolved. At such
time, a review based on revised parameters should be undertaken.
Role
of the UPC:
Responsibility
for implementing the recommendations above would be widely distributed.
If they are accepted by the UPC, the Council should determine persons
responsible for each, commission the work involved, and establish a time line
for reporting back. This procedure
would apply to Recommendations #1 and #4; #2 speaks to maintenance of current
practice for now, and Recommendation #3 represents more of an institutional
posture rather than an action plan. It,
like all our recommendations, remains essentially in the domain of advice to the
President.