Institutional support services provide the administrative infrastructure for the University’s operations. Grouped into five broad categories, institutional support activities include:
Executive Management — offices of the president, vice
presidents, chancellors, vice chancellors, Regents’ officers, the Academic Senate, and planning and budget;
Fiscal Operations — accounting, audit, contract and
grant administration, and insurance management;
General Administrative Services — information
technology, human resources, and environmental health and safety;
Logistical Services — purchasing, mail distribution,
police, construction management, and transportation services; and
Community Relations — alumni and government
relations, development, and publications.
State funding for institutional support has failed to keep pace with enrollment and other program growth and general inflation. Moreover, the University faces a growing body of unfunded mandates affecting institutional support, including new accounting standards, growing accountability requirements, and increased compliance reporting in areas ranging from environmental health and safety to fair employment practices and compensation issues. To address these unfunded mandates, the University has absorbed increased costs of new data collection processes, changes to existing information and reporting systems, and analytical staff.
Despite these added expenses, institutional support expenditures as a proportion of total University expenditures have actually decreased over the last 30 years. Institutional support budgets are often one of the first areas of the budget to be reduced in difficult economic times. In response to budget cuts, UC administrative units have implemented new processes, improved use of technology, and consolidated operations to increase productivity in order to meet increasing workload demands under constrained budget situations.
Display XIII-1: 2012-13 Institutional Support Expenditures by Fund Source
Core funds provide 64% of institutional support funding. Significant other sources include private funds, endowment earnings, and indirect cost recovery for contract and grant administration.
Display XIII-2: 2012-13 Institutional Support Expenditures by Category
Logistical services, fiscal operations, and general
administrative services comprise half of institutional support expenditures.
Since the early 1990s, institutional support budgets have been significantly reduced as a result of the State’s fiscal problems. Due to legislative intent language and the shared desire of the University and the State to protect core academic programs, institutional support has often been targeted for additional cuts over the years:
Between 1995-96 and 1998-99, budget reductions
totaled $40 million, consistent with productivity
improvements mandated under a four-year Compact with then-Governor Wilson. Other Funds 31% Federal Contracts and Grants 5% Student Fees 22% State and UC General Funds 42% Fiscal Operations 17% Logistical Services 16% General Administrative Services 17% Executive Management 28% Community Relations 22%
Institutional Support
Display XIII-3: Institutional Support as a Percentage of University Spending
Since 1988, spending on institutional support as a
percentage of total UC expenditures has dropped from over 11% in 1988-89 to about 9% in 2012-13. The small increase in 2012-13 is related to insurance and worker’s compensation increases.
In 2003-04 and 2004-05, institutional support and
academic support budgets were reduced by a total of $81.9 million.
For 2008-09, the State directed that $32.3 million be
reduced from institutional support.
In addition to these base budget cuts, unavoidable cost increases related to faculty merits, employee health benefits, purchased utilities, and maintenance of new space have often been funded by redirecting resources from institutional support. Reduced funding of institutional support limits essential investment in UC’s technology infrastructure and constrains fundraising and development activities at a time when such activities are more critical than ever to sustaining the institution.
To address the $32.3 million reduction required in 2008-09, as well as in accordance with the University’s own desire and efforts to streamline and improve the effectiveness of administrative services, savings were generated through the restructuring of the UC Office of the President (UCOP). Additional savings were realized through campus
administrative efficiencies as campuses have downsized in response to budget cuts. The Historical Perspective chapter of this document includes a discussion of systemwide efforts to reduce costs.
UCOP BUDGET
In order to simplify University financial activity, improve transparency, and incentivize campuses to maximize revenue, beginning in 2011-12, the University adopted the
Funding Streams Initiative, whereby all funds generated on a campus stay on the campus and are no longer
redistributed across the system by UCOP. At the same time, all campus-generated funds supporting the Office of the President were returned to the source campus. In order to support central operations, the University established a broad-based flat assessment on campus funds to support these central operations. The assessment replaces the funding for central operations previously provided by General Funds, Opportunity Funds, Off-the- Top Funds, Educational Funds, and the Common Fund taxes on medical center, health sciences compensation plan, and auxiliary enterprise expenditures. The
assessment does not replace funding for central operations and programs derived from State Special Funds, contracts and grants, and systemwide endowments.
Display XIII-4: 2013-14 UCOP Budget by Category
The total UCOP budget for 2013-14 is $587.2 million, $324.2 million of which is unrestricted.
Central operations consists of UCOP administration and central services, UCOP-managed academic programs, systemwide initiatives and ongoing commitments, multi- campus research programs and initiatives, and the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Cooperative
Extension. The 2013-14 budget approved for UCOP1
reflects the new funding model and a clarified vision of the appropriate role of central administration in support of the 10 campuses. In this new vision, UCOP performs three distinct and separate functions:
General administration, which includes those
responsibilities that UCOP performs on behalf of the entire University of California system, including the campuses,
1Available at http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/aar/julf.pdf. 0% 4% 8% 12% 1988-89 2000-01 2012-13 Central Services (Academic Programming) 9% Systemwide Initiatives 37% Central Services (Administration) 27% General Administration 27%
Institutional Support
the medical centers, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. These responsibilities include governance, as performed by the direct reports of the Board of the Regents (the Secretary and Chief of Staff, the Chief Compliance and Audit Officer, the Treasurer, and the General Counsel of the Regents) and the Academic Senate.
Central services, which UCOP provides to the entire system to avoid redundancy of functions at each campus. These services include:
Administrative functions, such as systemwide budget management and external relations, management of the retirement and benefit systems, and the financial management of the University, including banking services, cash management, corporate accounting, risk services, and strategic sourcing; and
Academic programs, including central administration of a single digital library system, and UC Press.
Systemwide initiatives, which are administered at and/or funded from the center to the benefit of the entire UC system. These initiatives include critical academic and research programs, such as the UC Observatories and the California Institutes for Science and Innovation; external relations, advocacy and public service activities conducted on behalf of the system; the statewide cooperative extension program administered by Agriculture and Natural Resources; and the administration of non-campus-based facilities, such as the UC Washington Center.
As shown in Display XIII-4, most of the UCOP budget supports central services provided for the benefit of the campuses, both administrative and academic, and systemwide initiatives. General administration, including the Academic Senate and Regents’ Officers, is only 27% of total operations.
In 2013-14, the total UCOP budget increased slightly, by about 5%, from 2012-13, due in part to UCOP’s central role in the development of new systemwide financial and personnel data systems. The total UCOP budget
represents about 2.4% of the overall University of California budget, with less than one-fourth of the budget supporting core administrative functions. This level of support
compares favorably to other public university systems, most of which have central administrations that do not have responsibility for such functions as systemwide retirement and benefits programs, labor relations, centralized
undergraduate admissions, and administration of Department of Energy national laboratories.
With internal efficiencies in mind, in her first month in office, President Janet Napolitano directed the launch of an Efficiency Review at UCOP. Its objective is to identify areas where the central administration can reduce costs, increase transparency, streamline processes, eliminate duplication and improve the quality of service both for UCOP staff and its campus customers. Over the last five years, the organization has explored, with some notable successes, other efficiency measures. But President Napolitano cited continuing budget pressures as the imperative for further review of how UCOP can provide the highest quality service at the lowest possible cost to the campuses and its other stakeholders. Among the early focus areas for review are how to drive down information technology costs through data center consolidation and broader adoption of “thin” client technologies that reduce computer hardware investments; further business process improvements that both simplify functions and bring greater “common sense” to the central processes; smarter real estate strategies that reduce lease and ownership costs; further consolidating UCOP business units, perhaps by adopting new approaches to “shared service” models; further aligning UCOP procurement to current systemwide initiatives; and eliminating redundancies, inefficiencies, and outdated functions throughout the organization.
UCOP remains critical to the success of the UC system. A well-operated central administration reduces redundancy across the system and helps strategically position the campuses to excel.
GROWTH IN NON-ACADEMIC PERSONNEL
The growth in academic versus non-academic personnel is a topic that reemerges periodically, particularly during times of budgetary shortfalls and during salary negotiations for specific employee groups. The recent budget crisis has rekindled concerns that growth in administration is outpacing growth in student enrollments, and has come at the expense of growth in faculty and the University’s instructional program. An analysis of financial and payroll data from fiscal years 1997-98 and 2011-12 helps to clarify
Institutional Support
where personnel growth has occurred and identifies primary factors driving such growth.
During this time, the University has undergone structural changes that have created new entities to manage various elements of UC’s operations, driving increases in
personnel. These include the addition of a new campus (UC Merced), the reintegration of UCSF’s Medical Center from the UC San Francisco/Stanford Merger (the UCSF campus, but not the medical center, is included in the 1997–98 data), increased investment in major outreach efforts to improve access for low-income and
underrepresented students, a series of State-funded research initiatives that have started institutes at all but one campus, and campus decisions to directly hire custodial, grounds and food service workers in lieu of contracting with outside vendors. Almost three-quarters of the 141,681 full- time equivalent (FTE) personnel at the University in 2012-13 were employed in non-academic personnel categories – Professional Support Staff (PSS), Managers and Senior Professionals (MSP), and the Senior
Management Group (SMG). This proportion has been stable since 1997-98.
The high percentage of non-academic staff reflects the complexity of the institution; the extraordinary array of functions that support its tripartite mission of teaching, research, and public service; and in part the way that personnel are classified. In particular, non-academic personnel include thousands of employees at UC’s medical centers and at the campuses, who provide direct services to students, faculty, and the public. These non-academic staff include the following:
health care and allied service professionals at medical centers and campus health centers;
food service workers in UC dining halls and restaurants; UC police forces;
gardeners, janitors, and others who tend to UC’s grounds and buildings;
student mental health advisors;
student services and activities coordinators and advisors; athletic coaches and recreational staff;
accountants, budget analysts, and other fiscal services professionals;
compliance and audit analysts; architects and engineers;
community relations, alumni outreach, and development staff;
laboratory supervisors and support personnel; and clerical employees throughout University operations. As shown in Display XIII-5, non-academic personnel are distributed broadly across the University. Over one-third are employed at the teaching hospitals; another third are employed in research, support faculty and instructional activities in the academic departments, or work in UC’s libraries, museums and galleries, IT support, and other ancillary support activities; about 7% of UC’s non-academic staff work in auxiliary enterprises, such as housing and dining services; and 10% are employed in areas covered by institutional support. The remaining 13% of non-academic
Display XIII-5: All Non-Academic FTE Employees by Function, 2011-12
Teaching hospitals employ over one-third of UC’s non- academic staff, with the rest of staff positions distributed more or less equally across other functional areas of the institution.
Display XIII-6: Distribution of Growth in All Non-Academic FTE Employees by Function, 1997-98 to 2011-12
Over half the growth in UC’s non-academic FTE since 1997-98 has occurred at the teaching hospitals.
staff are involved in student services, maintenance and operation of campus facilities, and public service.
Teaching Hospitals 38% Academic Support 10% Instruction 11% Research 11% Institutional Support 10% Other 13% Auxiliary Enterprises 7% Other 11% Teaching Hospitals 59% Institutional Support 4% Auxiliary Enterprises 9% Academic Support 5% Research 7% Instruction 5%
Institutional Support
While increases in student enrollment have played a role in employment growth across the University, increases in personnel have been driven primarily by expansion of the teaching hospitals and research (as shown in Display XIII- 6), areas largely supported from fund sources other than State General Funds and student tuition and fees. Combined, other sources support 76% of all UC FTE, an increase from 68% in 1997-98. This reflects, as well, the decline in State support that was not offset by tuition revenue over this period.
Academic appointees continue to make up the same relative percentage (27%) of total FTE employees as they did in 1997-98. This reflects growth in instruction in combination with the expanding research enterprise. Academic employees include instructional faculty, professional researchers, librarians, and postdoctoral scholars. Growth in faculty FTE (39%), including ladder- rank, non-ladder rank faculty, and lecturers, kept pace with growth in student enrollments (39%).
Although non-academic staff have remained relatively constant as a percentage of all UC personnel, an increasingly complex University system requires greater professionalization of its staff, who must meet higher technical and competency standards. This transformation is consistent with current national trends. Increasing staff professionalization is reflected in a decrease in FTE employees in entry-level titles and an increase in more advanced PSS titles. Staff in the higher-level Assistant III
titles in the basic clerical/administrative series of the PSS personnel program increased 74%, while staff in the mid- range Assistant II titles fell 46%; in addition, Assistant I titles, populated with entry-level positions, declined by 81% between 1997-98 and 2011-12. There has also been a modest shift in the distribution of employees from the PSS to the MSP category, with MSP titles growing from 3% to 6% of all FTE personnel and PSS titles experiencing a corresponding decline from 70% to 67%. The MSP category includes not only managers but a wide variety of other professional occupations – among them computer programmers and analysts, physicians and dentists, engineers, and administrative budget/personnel analysts. While still comprising over half of the personnel in the MSP category, manager positions have declined slightly from 58% in 1997-98 to 54% in 2011-12, while computer programmer and analyst positions have increased from 13% to 17%. There have also been small increases in the relative proportion of MSP FTE employees in nursing services, school relations services, and architecture and planning.
The number of executive leadership personnel (SMG) declined during this period from 315 to 191 FTE. This decline reflects in large part a realignment of about 100 academic deans and other faculty administrator titles from the SMG personnel category to the academic personnel program. The SMG category continues to represent well below 1% of total FTE employees.