Breaking Free from the Status Quo: Why Incremental Budgeting Falls Short
Listen to an AI generated podcast developed from the resources used to organize this Unicus Quick Tip
The landscape of higher education is undergoing a period of significant change, presenting both challenges and opportunities for institutions of all sizes. Several trends, in particular, are putting pressure on traditional budgeting models, especially the widely used incremental budgeting model:
Rising Costs: The cost of providing higher education has been increasing at a rate far exceeding general inflation for several decades. This trend is driven by a number of factors, including increased demand for services and amenities, rising labor costs, and reductions in state funding.
Declining Enrollments: Many institutions are facing declining enrollments, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and changing demographics. This decline in students directly impacts revenue, particularly for institutions that rely heavily on tuition and fees.
Increased Competition: The higher education landscape is becoming increasingly competitive, with institutions vying for a shrinking pool of students. This competition often necessitates additional spending on marketing, financial aid, and new programs, further straining institutional budgets.
Changing Student Demands: Students are demanding more from their college experience, including flexible learning options, career-focused programs, and personalized support services. Meeting these expectations often requires additional investment and innovation, forcing institutions to reassess how they allocate resources.
Incremental budgeting, a traditional method that bases budget allocations on the previous year's figures with marginal adjustments, is ill-equipped to address these evolving challenges. This approach often leads to a "lattice and ratchet" effect, where new programs and expenses are easily added during times of plenty, but become difficult to remove when financial pressures arise. As a result, institutions using this model may find themselves locked into outdated spending patterns, unable to adapt to changing circumstances or strategically invest in initiatives that could enhance their long-term sustainability.
Summary of Budget Models
There are multiple budgeting models used in higher education, each with its advantages and disadvantages as described further:
Centralized Budgeting:
Pros: Provides upper-level administrators greater control over resource allocation and can simplify the budget process. This model is generally perceived as being more effective at managing known costs.
Cons: Can stifle innovation and discourage departments from proactively stewarding available resources as decisions are made in isolation from the academic units with minimal opportunities for feedback.
Performance-Based Budgeting (PBB):
Pros: Promotes accountability and transparency by linking funding to specific performance goals and objectives. Ideally, this approach serves to incentivize units to work towards institutional strategic initiatives.
Cons: Implementing PBB can be complex and time-consuming, requiring careful development of performance metrics and ongoing monitoring. It can also incentivize a narrow focus on quantifiable outcomes, potentially hindering broader educational goals.
Incremental Budgeting:
Pros: Offers stability and simplicity, making it easy to implement and understand. It can also facilitate long-term planning by providing a predictable budget framework.
Cons: This model lacks flexibility and responsiveness to changing circumstances, and can obscure the true drivers of costs and their contribution to revenue.
Zero-Based Budgeting:
Pros: Provides a comprehensive review of all expenses, eliminating unnecessary or outdated programs. This model can be effective at controlling costs and ensuring that resources are aligned with current priorities.
Cons: Zero-based budgeting is extremely time-consuming and can be disruptive to operations. It may also lead to short-sighted decision-making, as departments may prioritize short-term savings over long-term investments.
Activity-Based Budgeting (ABB):
Pros: Aims to improve efficiency and transparency by connecting resources to specific activities and their associated costs. This model can facilitate strategic resource allocation by highlighting the true cost of academic and administrative programs and services.
Cons: Implementing ABB can be resource-intensive, requiring significant time, data collection, and input from various stakeholders. It can also be challenging to allocate indirect costs accurately.
Incentive-Based Budgeting (IBB):
Pros: Promotes greater autonomy and accountability at the department or unit level by providing them with greater control over their own budgets and rewarding them for achieving performance goals. This model can incentivize innovation and revenue generation.
Cons: IBM requires a high level of trust and communication between central administration and academic units to succeed. It can also lead to increased competition between departments and may result in the duplication of services, potentially undermining institutional cohesion and collaboration.
Ineffectiveness of Incremental Budgeting and the Value of Incentive-Based Budgets
Incremental budgeting, while offering a sense of stability, is no longer a best practice for many higher education institutions. This approach, based on minor adjustments to the previous year's budget, perpetuates a cycle of accepting the status quo and fails to respond to the significant changes impacting the higher education landscape. This is particularly problematic for small and medium-sized institutions that may lack the financial reserves to withstand prolonged enrollment declines or unexpected expenses. In contrast, incentive-based budgeting models offer a more dynamic and adaptable approach. This model, which empowers individual departments or units to manage their own revenues and expenses, can foster a greater sense of ownership and accountability. By incentivizing innovation and revenue generation, IBB can help institutions diversify their funding streams and reduce their reliance on traditional sources like tuition or state appropriations. The autonomy provided by IBB can lead to more agile decision-making processes and facilitate strategic investments in programs and initiatives that align with the needs of students and the demands of the service community.
For small and medium-sized institutions, the benefits of IBB can be particularly impactful:
Increased Agility and Responsiveness: Allows institutions to adapt quickly to changing market conditions and student demands.
Focus on Revenue Generation: Encourages departments to identify new funding sources, reducing reliance on tuition increases.
Streamlined Decision-Making: Empowers departments to make decisions that directly impact their success.
Enhanced Accountability: Provides clearer lines of responsibility for financial performance.
Improved Transparency: Makes it easier to track the financial performance of individual departments and programs.
However, institutions must carefully consider the potential challenges of implementing IBB:
Need for a Culture of Transparency and Trust: Requires open communication and collaboration between central administration and academic units.
Potential for Increased Competition: Institutions must implement safeguards to ensure that competition between academic units doesn't undermine collaboration or lead to duplication of efforts.
Need for Clear Performance Metrics and Accountability Measures: Establishing transparent productivity metrics is essential to track progress, allocate incentives fairly, and ensure that units are working towards shared institutional goals.
Opportunities and Challenges of Including Faculty in the Budget Process
Popular budget planning resources highlight a common point of contention in higher education: the disconnect between faculty and administration, particularly regarding financial matters. Often, faculty members perceive a lack of transparency in the budget process and feel excluded from key decisions that impact their work. This lack of involvement can lead to misunderstandings, distrust, and resistance to necessary changes. To address this, we offer the following opportunities and challenges to consider:
Opportunities:
Enhanced Transparency and Trust: Involving faculty in the budget process can foster a greater understanding of the institution's financial realities and the rationale behind resource allocation decisions.
Improved Decision-Making: Faculty possess valuable insights into the needs of their respective disciplines, students, and the curriculum. Engaging them in budget discussions can lead to more informed and effective resource allocation, ensuring that funding is directed to areas that have the most impact on student learning and success.
Increased Ownership and Accountability: Faculty members are more likely to support and advocate for initiatives when they have been involved in the decision-making process.
Fostering a Culture of Shared Governance: Actively engaging faculty in budget discussions and decisions reinforces the principles of shared governance, promoting a sense of community and collaboration.
Challenges:
Time Constraints: Faculty members have demanding schedules, often juggling teaching, scholarly activity, and service commitments. Finding time for meaningful participation in budget processes can be challenging.
Training and Development: Faculty members may not have prior experience or training in financial management. Institutions should provide professional development opportunities to enhance their understanding of budget processes and financial literacy.
Managing Conflicting Priorities: Different departments and disciplines may have competing needs and priorities. Institutions must establish clear mechanisms for prioritizing requests, resolving conflicts, and making transparent decisions that align with the institution's mission and strategic goals.
The Need for Intentional and Strategic Budget Model Selection
Institutions must be more intentional and strategic when selecting a budget model. The traditional, incremental approach is no longer sufficient in an era of increasing financial pressures, evolving student demographics, and heightened competition. In addition, a "one-size-fits-all" approach to budgeting is no longer viable. Institutions must carefully consider their individual mission, strategic goals, and community needs when choosing a budget model. Factors to consider include:
Strategic Priorities: The budget model should align with and actively support the institution's strategic plan. For example, an institution focusing on expanding online offerings would need a budget model that allows for flexible allocation of resources to support technology infrastructure, faculty development in online teaching, and marketing efforts for online programs.
Resource Availability: Institutions should select a model that aligns with their existing resource base and potential for generating new revenue streams. An institution heavily reliant on state appropriations may require a different budgeting model than one with a large endowment or a strong history of fundraising success.
Institutional Culture: The model should be compatible with the institution's culture and decision-making processes. If an institution values shared governance and faculty involvement in decision-making, a decentralized budgeting model like IBB, which empowers departments and faculty to have a greater say in budget allocations, might be more suitable.
Data Analytics Capabilities: The chosen model should be supported by the institution's ability to collect, analyze, and utilize data for informed decision-making. A data-informed budget model, such as performance-based budgeting, would require robust data collection and analysis capabilities to track progress toward goals and measure outcomes effectively.
Flexibility and Adaptability: The ideal model should be flexible enough to respond to unexpected challenges and opportunities, such as fluctuations in enrollment, changes in government funding, or emerging trends in higher education.
By carefully considering these factors, higher education institutions can select a budgeting model that not only ensures their short-term financial stability but also positions them for long-term success. A well-chosen model, implemented effectively and supported by a culture of transparency, accountability, and data-informed decision-making, will be essential for institutions to thrive in the dynamic and evolving higher education landscape.
