Environmental Scan on Alternative Funding:

Grants and sponsored research, fund-raising, auxiliary enterprises

 

Committee members:          Betsey Corby

Memo Diriker

Alan Selser

Gains Hawkins

Al Mollica

 

I.                    Grants/Sponsored Research

 

Areas for consideration:

 

1.      Demographics: state, region, lower shore counties, community based organizations, students and faculty.

2.      Economic: federal and state funding, university support, industry partnerships.

3.      Education: University curricular needs – pedagogy, faculty research preparation, professional/faculty development, student education opportunities, technology.

4.      Governmental issues: federal legislation and priority funding, MD state legislation and funding priorities, federal regulations and compliance, federal financial assistance management improvement act of 1999, OMB regulations: A-21, A-110, A-133 (Cost share/facilities and administration (indirect cost rate), Board of Regents policies, USM.

5.      SU history of research administration, projections for future grant activity.

 

Issues and trends:

 

·         Federal and state funding priorities

·         Federal regulations and compliance issues

·         University resources/administrative infrastructure/faculty workload

·         University vision (not mission)

 

II.                  Fund-Raising

 

Areas for consideration:

 

1.      Economic picture at the state and national levels.

·                                       Corporate downturns and loss of endowment funds at Foundations

·                                       Lack of history at SU vis a vis “capital” campaigning

·                                       Focus on other national issues, e.g., war with Iraq

 

2.      Coordination of fund-raising activities.

·   As the effort to secure private sector funds becomes more essential, the need to coordinate “university” appeals becomes more important

·   Completion of the new strategic plan and facilities master plan are crucial to the effort to have all institution personnel and entities speak with one voice

·   Incorporate PeopleSoft into the day-to-day operations of the Advancement division and university-wide.

 

3.      Competition with USM (?) - “Maintaining the Momentum” campaign

·   How will this system-wide effort impact staff and financial resources within division and the university as a whole?

·   Developing a strategy that incorporates the priorities of the “Maintaining the Momentum” campaign into the plan of action for the Advancement division.

·   Coordinating with the President’s office in communicating with constituencies regarding governmental relations matters.

 

4.      Need to provide greater private sector support to the University with little or no increase in budget support.

·   Careful attention to detail from all budget managers in an effort to save money or eliminate costs.

·   Set up evaluation systems in order to quantify all advancement-related programs, e.g., phonathon, publications, special event.

·   Expand involvement by volunteers in fund raising.

 

5.      Expanding “network” beyond state and region; budget implications.

·   Develop fully functional alumni chapters outside the eastern shore: western shore, Delaware, New York, Florida.

·   Continue to identify donors and Foundation board prospects from outside the immediate Salisbury area.

·   Implement these and other expansion efforts within the budget framework existing; may require elimination or cannibalizing existing programs.

 

6.      The role of the SU Foundation Board.

·   Develop volunteer force and mindset that the SU Foundation Board is the foundation upon which all fund raising is established.

·   Integrate into the strategic planning process of the University.

·   Continue to identify individuals who can serve on the Board who have the capacity to give and/or get substantial financial support.

 

7.      Increased reputation of the University, e.g., U.S. News ranking.

·   Build on the reputation and popularity of SU as a “top tier” institution to increase enrollment and financial support.

·   How do we achieve the next level, i.e., top ten ranking, center(s) of excellence, controlled expansion.

·   Develop and publicize a clear and compelling mission, and speak with one voice to our various constituencies – here’s what we are, here’s what we hope to be, here’s how we plan to get there.

 

Issues and trends:

 

·                                       Corporation/Foundation giving focus shifting away from higher education

·         Stock market performance impacting gifts of appreciated property

·         Giving to “charities” continues to be generally unaffected by downturns in the economy.

·         Creation of new strategic and facilities master plans by June 2003.

 

 

III.                Auxiliary Enterprises

 

               I.      Auxiliaries

 

a.      Issues and Trends (from College & University Outsourcing Survey [NACUBO 2002])

                                                               i.      In FY 2002 91% of respondent institutions outsourced some function.  Up from 82% in FY 2000.

1.      65% outsource 2-5 services (up from 54% in FY 2000)

2.      13% outsource more than 5 services

3.      13% outsource one service

                                                             ii.      Most frequently outsourced services

1.      Food Service 61%

2.      Bookstore 52%

3.      Endowment Fund 41%

4.      Legal Services 28%

5.      Housekeeping/Janitorial 25%

6.      Laundry 20%

7.      Copy Center 17%

8.      Security 17%

9.      Debit Card 16%

10.  Payroll 15%

11.  Mailroom 3%

12.  Facilities Management 2%

                                                            iii.      Services not considered for outsourcing

1.      Payroll 28%

2.      Mailroom 24%

3.      Facilities Management 23%

4.      Security 23%

5.      Legal Services 22%

6.      Housekeeping/Janitorial 16%

7.      Copy Center 13%

8.      Debit Card 12%

9.      Endowment Fund 11%

10.  Bookstore 11%

11.  Laundry 8%

12.  Food Service 6%

                                                           iv.      Outsourcing Criteria Importance

1.      Improve Quality

a.      58% Very Important

b.      35% Somewhat Important

2.      Reduce Cost

a.      53% Very Important

b.      30% Somewhat Important

3.      Focus on Core

a.      48% Very Important

b.      35% Somewhat Important

4.      Reduce Administrative Time

a.      22% Very Important

b.      46% Somewhat Important

c.      24% Neutral

5.      Lack of Resources

a.      21% Very Important

b.      38% Somewhat Important

c.      24% Neutral

6.      Technology

a.      21% Very Important

b.      48% Somewhat Important

b.      Threats

                                                               i.      Competition factors

1.      Community sees SU with unfair advantage of using state funds to provide similar services

a.      Catering

b.      Tennis Courts

c.      Conferences/Weddings

                                                             ii.      UBIT (Unrelated Business Income Tax)

1.      If a profit motive is in place an the profit center is not tied to the educational mission of the University and/or for the convenience of the students, faculty or staff, then the University will be taxed on the net income for that activity

2.      IRS is about to review USM and the its institutions compliance with UBIT regulations