Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation,
and Institutional Renewal
An institution conducts
ongoing planning and resource allocation based on its mission and goals,
develops objectives to achieve them, and utilizes the results of its assessment
activities for institutional renewal.
Implementation and subsequent evaluation of the success of the strategic
plan and resource allocation support the development and change necessary to
improve and to maintain institutional quality.
Because Rutgers is a public research institution, and
Contributing to this uncertain environment has been the
continued discussions about the restructuring of the research sector of higher
education in the state. An original
proposal to restructure this sector, Report of the New Jersey Commission on Health
Science, Education, and Training, was considered too expensive to
implement and was subsequently shelved. However, continued concern over the health of medical education
in the state and the recent financial and management problems associated with
the
It is within this larger context
that the university undertakes its strategic planning process. Over the last few years, strategic planning
by the university has been tied to the broader systemwide efforts of the Commission
on Higher Education (CHE),
Relative to this standard, an accredited institution is expected to possess or
demonstrate the following attributes or activities:
Goals and objectives of the
university and its constituent units devolve from
Broad direction for planning and improvement processes come from the President’s annual areas of emphasis for university strategic goals. (See standard 1, element 1)
The state’s Long Range Plan, A Blueprint for Excellence - New Jersey’s Long-Range Plan for Higher Education Update 2005, provides the broader context through which the university pursues its planning and improvement processes.
A significant and unique strategic
planning process recently engulfed the university with the issuance of the Report of the
New Jersey Commission on Health Science, Education, and Training (sometimes
referred to as the Vagelos Report, named after the lead author) in fall
2002. The Commission, a specially
appointed task force by then Governor James McGreevy, recommended establishing
a single research university system encompassing three largely autonomous
universities based in
· a universitywide discussion and deliberation of the effect of the merger proposal. The following articles provides an overview of what took place during this time:
o
Status
Report on Proposal to Restructure Higher Education in New Jersey - April 1, 2003
o
Status
Report #2 on Proposal to Restructure Higher Education in New Jersey - June 5,
2003
o
Status
Report #3 on Proposal to Restructure Higher Education in New Jersey - October 31, 2003
·
studies
by statewide planning committees that
included
· studies by the Pappas Group, an external higher education consulting firm
While the restructuring proposal
was taken off the table in December 2003, largely because of cost and
governance concerns, the benefits that emerged from such an intense and broad
strategic planning process have helped guide the university’s planning and
resource allocation processes through the current difficult financial period,
which was brought about by the state’s dire fiscal situation.
Though the merger of
All planning and resource allocation
processes necessarily begin with the state budget. Each year the university develops an asking
budget that is shared with the Governor’s office. In addition, the New Jersey Presidents’
Council, which consists of all presidents of colleges and universities in
An appropriations bill is subsequently passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, who has line item veto authority, provides the basis for the university to set institutional priorities within the context of stated institutional goals and available resources. The above annual budget process usually begins in October and ends in June or July.
To better deal with the unstable long term
funding support from the state and the vagaries of the annual budget process
steep in political uncertainties,
The Committee on Academic Planning and Review
(CAPR) has been an integral component of planning, resource allocation
and institutional renewal at
Another large scale planning
process that has been occurring and which carries broad resource allocation and
institutional renewal implications for the university is the effort being
invested in
Other planning and improvement processes at
· The Committee on Efficiency and Entrepreneurship Initiative - a long-term effort that seeks to optimize the use of university resources and cultivate a proactive approach to expanding revenues
·
The Academic
Excellence Fund – an ongoing process of providing seed money for
forward-thinking interdisciplinary proposals that enhance
·
The
·
The Faculty Diversity Initiative - a continuing effort to assist unit deans
with limited financial resources in the recruitment of a diversified faculty
·
The Promote Women in
Science and Engineering Initiative - an evaluative program that seeks
to understand and improve the status of women in STEM disciplines at
·
The Student Services
Initiative - an ongoing endeavor to improve student services at
Individual units
of the university have also engaged in very specific, clearly communicated,
well-participated, and assessment-driven improvement processes through
strategic planning efforts. At the
academic level, examples of unit strategic planning are found on all three
· The Transforming Undergraduate Education (TUE) Initiative that began with a two year planning phase that included a campus-wide study by a New Brunswick-wide task force of faculty, staff, students and alumni, a set of recommendations by the President to the Board of Governors, and the subsequent acceptance by the Board of Governors of the President’s goals for implementing the transformation. The present phase involves a multi-year implementation effort of planning and resource allocation. It involves a steering committee [pdf] and various subcommittees [pdf] to deal with the vast range of questions and issues involved in the transformation of undergraduate education at the New Brunswick campus.
·
Strategic Planning for Cook College
and the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station – 2001
· Planning by the Graduate School-NB for increasing student support with the involvement of the Committee for Academic Planning and Review.
·
On the
·
On the
Other units of the university have also been actively engaged in the strategic planning process. Examples include:
· The Rutgers University Libraries began a strategic planning process in 2006 that will last through 2011. The Rutgers University Libraries Strategic Plan, 2006-2011 describes five strategic goals, modeled after university goals and objectives developed after substantial information gathered from the university community. During this period, the Rutgers University Libraries will seek to establish “a physical and virtual library environment that enriches the academic life of the university for student learning, that advances faculty and graduate student research, and that supports the university’s mission of service and outreach.”
·
The Rutgers Information Technology Strategic
Plan, developed by a universitywide team of faculty and staff through
an extensive fact finding effort, outlines a series of goals that identifies
the direction that
·
The Rutgers Communications Plan, developed
by the communications firm Lipman Hearne, through a series of focus groups with
faculty, students, staff, alumni, employers and the public, has led to the
redesign of the university’s identity system
as outlined in the Rutgers Visual Identity Manual and the development of a “brand book”
that will provide the basis for a universitywide strategy for improving
internal and external communications. A
previous study of
·
The Rutgers Physical Master Plan is
the result of an intensive three-year planning process that systematically
assessed the university’s physical development and facility needs in the
context of its academic mission. The
plan provides a comprehensive guide for the use of the university’s limited
resources to meet its academic, research, and service commitments to the
citizens of
· Rutgers Environmental, Health and Safety Planning
·
Rutgers University Alumni
Federation Long Range Plan of 2005
3. well defined
decision-making processes and authority that facilitates planning and renewal;
Rutgers authority to pursue
planning and renewal policies are also evident in the 1994 Higher Education
Restructuring Act of
The authority to plan, allocate resources and work for institutional renewal emanate from the New Jersey legislative act of 1956 that made Rutgers an instrumentality of the state.
The governing boards of the university include the Board of Governors and the Board of Trustees. The Board of Governors has general supervision over the conduct of the university and is responsible for determining the programs and degree levels to be offered by the university, but final administrative decisions over new academic programs that go beyond the university’s programmatic mission ultimately rests with the state’s oversight coordinating agency, the Commission on Higher Education. The Board of Trustees of the university is designated under Rutgers Law to serve in an overall advisory capacity to the Board of Governors and the university.
Within the Board of Governors are three standing committees that closely oversee the planning and resource allocation processes of the university. These include the Committees on Budget and Finance, Buildings and Grounds, and Educational Planning and Policy. Their responsibilities are set out in the Bylaws of the Board of Governors (at p. 5).
The university President reports directly to the Board of Governors, which annually reviews his performance.
The President’s Cabinet, which
is a universitywide body of the President’s senior level advisors, meets
regularly with the university President throughout the year and is an important
component of the decision-making process at
The Rutgers University Senate provides
an advisory role to the university President on a broad range of educational
policy and considers all matters related to the university mission. Members of the senate consist of
representatives of
Campuswide faculty councils also provide an advisory role to the President and the senior administration of the university. (see standard 4, element 1)
4. the assignment
of responsibility for improvements and assurance of accountability;
The university officers overseeing the main administrative areas of the university have the authority over and are responsible for all activities in their administrative domain. Reflecting the university’s complex yet decentralized structure, each of these administrative areas has both unique and shared responsibility for the many and varied planning and resource allocation processes at the university. A brief synopsis of each area follows:
·
Executive Vice President for Academic
Affairs is the chief academic and budget officer for the
university. The EVPAA is responsible for
academic programs and policies across the university, including degree program
development, faculty appointments and promotions, and academic program
review. He has particular responsibility
for the
·
Camden Provost is the principal university officer for the
·
Newark
Provost is the principal university
officer for the
·
Senior Vice President for
Administrative Affairs is the university’s Chief Financial Officer and
oversees a broad range of university areas including business services, public
safety, parking and transportation, facilities and capital planning, human
resources, and information technology.
This officer also is responsible for oversight of the financial and
treasury operations, risk management and insurance, and internal audit.
· Vice President for University Relations supports and promotes the image and mission of university and oversees the functional areas that provide services and programs for the university community, the news media, and the public.
5. a record of
institutional and unit improvement efforts and their results;
The following documents provide
broad reviews of recent improvement efforts for both the institutional and unit
levels.
·
Annual
presidential reports to the university
community, delivered at the University Senate’s first meeting of the academic
year, include overviews of significant major accomplishments of institutional
renewal as set out by the President’s previous year’s areas of emphasis in the
pursuit of the university’s strategic goals.
·
Annual
campus/provostial reports
·
A sampling of unit
annual or periodic reports
o
Office of Research and Sponsored Programs
and Appendix
o NJAES Annual Reports 2004-2005 and 2003-2004
o
Waksman Institute of Microbiology Annual Report
o
DIMACS Annual Special Focus Reports
o
The Department of Health Education (DHE)
–Annual Report
o
EPA Self-Disclosure
Audit submitted by Rutgers Environmental Health and Safety
o
Center for Advanced Biotechnology and
Medicine
o
Office of Corporate Liaison and
Technology Transfer, FY 2005 Annual Report
o
Graduate
School of Education Annual Report, 2005-2006
·
Additional accounts of
institutional improvement efforts and their results include
o
Student
Services Initiative has produced
improvements in the area of student services
o
Campus Computing Services Reports – New Brunswick and Newark
6. periodic
assessment of the effectiveness of planning, resource allocation, and
institutional renewal processes.
The state of
As noted in element 1, each year the success of the university’s effort in achieving its strategic goals is evaluated and reported on by the President: Report on Progress Toward 2006-2007 Strategic Goals; Report on Progress Toward 2005–06 Strategic Goals; Report on Progress Toward 2004–05 Strategic Goals. This assessment is reinforced by ongoing review by the Board of Governors through its standing committees on policy and planning, finances and facilities review.
The all fund budgeting process requires the annual assessment of each academic unit’s performance in reaching its goals.
The annual collection and evaluation of benchmark data such as the peer comparisons published in the Rutgers Fact Book, dashboard indicators, and assorted AAUDE data and reports provide a critical comparative context for gauging how the university is doing in its planning, resource allocation and institutional renewal efforts.
The University Relations
Constituency Study has yielded important insights about what
The President’s
Student Services Initiative involves the assessment of student services
targeted at improving the student experience at