Market pressures and external demands to sustain access, improve cost management and accountability, and increase productivity continue to persist in departments and schools of kinesiology. Confidence in the sustainability of an institution’s business model is eroding. To address these challenges, one possible approach for enhancing institutional performance, accountability, and stability is to revise an institution’s management process or budgeting model. Indicators suggest that many institutions are changing budget models to an incentive-based budgeting (IBB) system (i.e., responsibility-centered management [RCM]). The management strategies reviewed in this article are important for higher education budget administrators that implement, or are considering implementing, an IBB system as a means for assessing outcomes or institutional decision-making.
Michael S. Willett, Damon P.S. Andrew, and Mary E. Rudisill
Jason R. Carter, Penny McCullagh, and Rick Kreider
Over the past decade, institutions of higher education have been forced to become more innovative and entrepreneurial, seeking creative solutions to budget challenges. This has been particularly important within kinesiology programs, which represent one of the largest growing sectors of higher education over the past 10–15 years. In preparation for the 2016 American Kinesiology Association (AKA) Leadership Workshop, a survey was administered by the AKA to capture key institutional classifications (i.e., Carnegie classification, institutional size, public vs. private designation) and department chair or designated administrator perceptions on entrepreneurial issues relevant to their unit. Sixty-eight of 881 units surveyed responded, yielding a response rate of 7.7%. The majority of respondents (67%) indicated a unit funding model that was based on the previous year’s level (i.e., historical budget model). While the majority of respondents reported that their unit is provided with “adequate to plentiful” resources (59%), this varied widely based on institutional classification. Specifically, baccalaureate institutions (Chi-square 18.054, p < .001) and institutions with < 5,000 students (Chi-square 10.433, p & .015) had the least favorable perceptions of unit resource allocation. For the majority of entrepreneurial activities and partnerships (5 of 8 targeted questions), ≥ 50% of the respondents reported “no involvement.” There was a significant mismatch between actual vs. expected time spent by the department chair on fundraising activities (Chi-square 4.627, p = .031), with higher expectations than actual time spent on fundraising. In summary, the AKA survey suggests that there is tremendous heterogeneity in perceptions of and participation in entrepreneurial activities within kinesiology, and that there remains strategic areas of opportunity within the field.
David R. Bassett, Jeffrey T. Fairbrother, Lynn B. Panton, Philip E. Martin, and Ann M. Swartz
undergraduate enrollment, which has created several challenges for maintaining quality of teaching. The purpose of this 2018 AKA panel discussion was to explore undergraduate student enrollment trends, faculty resources, budget models for funding departments, and strategies for maintaining and improving
David D. Pascoe and Timothy E. Moore
The decline in federal research grant funding and incentive-based budget models to support a university’s mission has necessitated a paradigm shift in the pursuit of available sources of funding. Programs built around federal funding are once again pursuing funding opportunities from industry. Universities are reevaluating their research funding models and career expectations (tenure, promotion) that support a researcher, laboratories, and a defined research agenda. Kinesiology departments are in a strong position to pursue industry funding for fitness, sports, and performance-related research. While grant funding focuses on empirical data-driven research, industry looks for product exposure, validation (empirical data to support claims), and commercialization. Industry partnerships can provide funding in supporting research, developing sponsor-named facilities that benefit both parties. With these cooperative efforts come some unique challenges (financial, proprietary, data interpretation, etc.) that must be addressed.
Sheri J. Brock, Christina Beaudoin, Mark G. Urtel, Lisa L. Hicks, and Jared A. Russell
Responsibility Centered Management budget model. Auburn University’s Physical Activity and Wellness Program (PAWP) is elective, grade-based, and housed within the School of Kinesiology, which offered 265 one- and two-credit hour course sections with an enrollment of 8,515 students in 2019–2020. A full
Mark Urtel, Sara F. Michaliszyn, and Craig Stiemsma
few. These different academic locations may further influence a curriculum, as well as the overall and individual internship requirements by way of, for example, college/school-specific budget models, faculty workload policies, and curriculum guidelines. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
Philip E. Martin, Mary E. Rudisill, Bradley D. Hatfield, Jared Russell, and T. Gilmour Reeve
to modify evaluation procedures. Universities have a responsibility to evaluate faculty fairly and effectively and in a way that motivates faculty to contribute to the institution’s strategic goals and mission. For a number of universities, new budget models are being implemented, resulting in a
Sheri J. Brock, Jared A. Russell, Brenna Cosgrove, and Jessica Richards
and online learning modules ( Brock, Wadsworth, Hollett, & Rudisill, 2016 ). This course is in high demand—enrollment in this course alone has increased from 185 students in 2012–13 to 1,792 students in 2016–17. Second, in 2016 Auburn University transitioned from a historically based budget model to
Paul Carpenter, Karen Stylianides, Rebecca Weiler-Timmins, Andrea Randolph-Krisova, Kelly Sprinkle, and Rosa Angulo-Barrosso
all campuses, and one cost center budget model. For example, course content and delivery are governed by the central University Faculty Senate, requiring that faculty deliver courses within at least 80% of the approved course proposal and allowing for 20% of academic freedom for faculty creativity