169CHAPTER 8

Financial Support and Budget planning for Curriculum Development or Revision

Sarah B. Keating

OBJECTIVES

Upon completion of Chapter 8, the reader will be able to:

OVERVIEW

Activities associated with curriculum development for new programs or revision of existing ones require financial support for the time spent by personnel on the project and its associated costs. The costs may be minor or major depending upon the extent of the changes or new program development. For example, if it is a revision, it may not call for additional faculty, but perhaps renovation of the physical facilities and other instructional support needs are indicated. These costs apply to new programs but also could indicate the need for additional faculty and staff. New programs usually require start-up costs associated with their initiation such as the time spent on developing the program prior to student admission, approval from accreditation agencies and regulating bodies, and increased recruitment activities for students and new faculty. Chapter 8 discusses the types of costs that occur; their impact on the proposed program or revision, budget planning, and management; and possible resources for funding. The roles of administrators, faculty, and staff are described.

170FINANCIAL COSTS AND BUDGETARY PLANNING

Financial Costs

The process for evaluating an existing program for possible revision and conducting a needs assessment for possible changes or creating a new program involves administrative, faculty, and staff. Depending upon the extent of the change or development, the time spent may be part of the usual role of these personnel. For example, faculty curriculum committee members review recommendations for change in the curriculum as part of committee activities, which in turn are part of the service role expectations for faculty. Another example is when planning and managing the budget, the administrator may find that one of the tracks in the overall program is losing money owing to low student enrollments, while another track is turning away applicants. Analyzing the problem and bringing it to the attention of the faculty is the next step to address the problem and is considered a usual administrative responsibility.

Although activities associated with program changes normally take place in faculty curriculum committees and the time spent on these activities is considered a part of the faculty service role, faculty time over and above the usual service activities may be necessary. The costs associated with the additional time occur in the form of released time or a stipend for individual faculty members, or a consultant may be hired to coordinate the project. Staff support for the activities such as taking and recording minutes for meetings held, coordination of participants’ schedules for meeting times, collecting data for assessment, and so on must be included in the costs.

When calculating the costs associated with curriculum development, both direct and indirect costs must be considered. Direct costs are those that can be attributed to new costs and includes additional personnel; physical facilities such as offices, labs, classrooms, and furnishings; staff and instructional support equipment; computers and their hardware and software; office supplies, and so on. Indirect costs are those associated with the use of existing staff, physical facilities such as offices and meeting rooms, utilities, furnishings, and supplies that the institution provides from its resources. These indirect costs are usually estimated on a percentage basis of the total and can range from approximately 3% to 40% of the total costs. Personnel costs represent the largest expenditure for supporting curriculum change or development. However, there are a few other associated direct costs such as fees associated with data collection when conducting a needs assessment, office supplies, new computer hardware and software, and travel for data collection or consultation purposes.

Costs of Nursing Programs in Academe

Although the literature on the costs of program development is sparse, two articles were identified that related to the cost of nursing programs in comparison to other disciplines and how to estimate the costs and benefits for a new program. The reader may find them useful when involved in curriculum development and planning. A summary of the articles follows.

171Nursing programs must often defend themselves from other disciplines that assume that nursing education is an expensive proposition. Certainly, the nursing faculty to student ratio required for clinical supervision in health care agencies is costly. However, large theory classes where lecture prevails as the modality for entry-level programs and the use of simulation help to counterbalance the expense. Also, clinical instructors are often part time or serve as adjunct faculty who cost less than tenured or tenure-track faculty who are full time. Booker and Hilgenberg (2010) conducted a study in a small private university and developed a model for comparing the costs of nursing in comparison to other academic programs The model examined the quality (Q), potential (P), and cost (C) (QPC) of programs to compare disciplines from a cost-benefit perspective. In using the model, the authors demonstrated that while nursing fell into the costly category, it also rated as a high-quality discipline with a moderate potential index, especially for the RN to bachelor of science in nursing (BSN) program. Based on the results from the use of the model, and the decrease in applications to the basic program, the decision was made to increase enrollments for the RN to BSN program and modestly cut back on enrollments in the baccalaureate program. The QPC model described in the article provides details for measuring the quality, potential, and cost of an educational program that can be useful to other programs in the process of curriculum development or revision. It provides details for analyzing the costs and the potential benefits from a program and contributes to the decision-making process within a sound financial environment.

Fagerlund and Germano (2009) describe a cost and benefit analysis model for development of a nurse-midwifery educational program that is useful in identifying not only the costs for starting a program but also the potential benefits to the public, home institution, the health care system, clinical sites, and students. Costs that apply to an academic institution fall into three categories: (1) direct costs, such as faculty and staff salary and benefits; (2) indirect costs, such as library and student services; and (3) capital costs, such as building additions, improvement, or replacement. Universities tend to have complex financial and accounting structures and, while it is possible to list each indirect cost, for the purposes of the cost-benefit model described by the authors, indirect costs were allocated on a percentage basis. For this study, a 40% indirect cost rate was applied. The 40% indirect cost rate was used because, according to the authors, it is a typical rate used by academic institutions for estimating indirect costs for federal grants. The prototype used in this model provides a persuasive argument for the establishment of a program and is a useful model for other institutions planning new programs.

Budgetary Planning and Management

The chief nursing officer (CNO; dean, director, or chair) of the educational program is responsible for managing the budget. Administrative support staff assists in the management of the budget allocation, although in some smaller nursing programs, these responsibilities may be included in the expectations for the CNO. Planning for the future, both annually and long term, is part of the CNO role. Schools of nursing and their parent institutions have strategic goals and plans for 172the future, usually within a 5-year framework. In addition, most schools have a master plan of evaluation. These plans, with their goals and objectives, provide guidelines for projected curriculum revisions, new program proposals, and program and accreditation activities. Thus, a section in the budget for curriculum development and evaluation should be part of the planning process. When planning annual budgets in association with the development of short- and long-term goals, administrators should involve faculty and staff to assist in the identification of current and potential needs for curriculum revision and the development of new programs and their related costs.

Specific items in budgets that relate to curriculum planning include faculty released time to identify possible revisions or new programs; released time for conducting a needs assessment; consultant fees if indicated for major revisions or new program development; and additional staff support, office supplies, and communications and technology support. According to the program’s long-range goals or strategic plan, these costs may be for 1 year or several depending upon the extent of the changes. As the planning process develops, indications for change or new programs require further planning for the future based on the costs for developing new programs and, perhaps, discontinuing programs that no longer meet the goals of the program. Table 8.1 lists the elements to consider in planning annual budgets as they apply to curriculum revision or development of new programs.

Costello (2011) discusses a planning process for annual budgeting that ties program costs, including maintenance of the program and anticipated needs, to the overall program goals. He offers a budget balanced scorecard model that lists items and their costs and assigns values to them and their contribution to the program goals. He recommends limiting the number of items so that they are achieved within the year rather than having numerous unachieved goals. Costello describes the process of planning as “gathering correct information, having clear goals, understanding the risk, and outlining an approach that’s more like a path than a tightrope” (p. 64).

A description for building a business plan for a small grant and its management serves as a model for planning budgets (Sakraida, D’Amico, & Thibault, 2010). The authors expand on Sahlman’s (1997) formula for critical factors to consider when budget planning (people, opportunity, context, risks, and rewards). Included in their expanded considerations are the personnel involved and their tasks, communication systems, and the establishment of networks of key people for support. They recommend that people who manage the grant have training in preparing budgets, working with administrators who oversee the project, knowledge of institutional policies, conducting monthly reviews of expenses according to allowable costs, and ensuring that expenditures tie to the goals of the project.

Several articles from the literature discuss the financial aspects for new program planning. Stuart, Erkel, and Shull (2010) report on the planning process in a school of nursing that considered the development of a new doctoral program that would not add to the costs of the existing nursing program. The authors present a model for analysis of the costs for existing tracks in a program that lead to decisions for cutting programs that are no longer financially viable. Items for analysis 173of costs and revenues for each track included faculty resources, faculty to student ratios, student enrollments, faculty salaries and benefits, and revenues from tuition and fees. While not addressing the costs of the time spent on the analysis and for planning a new program, the model provides ideas for managing nursing education budgets and planning for change.

TABLE 8.1 BUDGET ELEMENTS FOR CURRICULUM ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING

If a program decides to offer a new program based on the findings from a needs assessment, planning for a budget to start the program and maintain it is a crucial step. Costs to develop the curriculum, recruit students, and add faculty, staff, and physical facilities and supplies must be part of the cost side of the budget, along with the revenue side of the budget for its source of financial support. See Table 8.2 for a listing of the items to include in a budget when planning for a new program.

SOURCES FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT

There are three major sources of funding for curriculum development and planning other than the home institution’s support in its regular budget. Depending on the nature of the home institution, the majority of funds for the budget come from the general funds (if state-supported), tuition and fees, endowments, grants, and donations. When considering funds for curriculum development, the three major resources for funds are grants (private and public), philanthropy (donations and endowments), and partnerships with the community. Each of these sources is discussed with ideas from the literature for procurement of funds.

Grants

The major resource for program development and student and faculty support at the federal level comes from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Division of Nursing (2014). Included in the program of grants are traineeships for advanced practice students, faculty loans, support for nurse managed health care services, and program development. The program development funds, for the most part, focus on starting up new programs and a large part of the funds support curriculum development. It is not permanent funding and is intended as an incentive to increase the advanced practice nursing workforce and to support other types of advanced nursing education programs, for example, education and public health. For detailed information on this major resource, go to the HRSA website (http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/nursing/index.html).

In addition to federal grants, there are major private foundations and organizations interested in supporting nursing education programs. They include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2014), Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2014), the W. K. Kellogg Foundation (2014), the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation (2014), the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (2014), and many others. A listing of other private resources can be found at the UCLA Office of Contract and Grant Administration (2014; www.research.ucla.edu/ocga/sr2/Private.htm).

175TABLE 8.2 ELEMENTS FOR BUDGET PLANNING FOR NEW PROGRAMS

176Many universities and colleges offer courses in grant writing and there are a few that are online. One online site from the General Services Administration (2014) offers ideas for Developing and Writing Grant Proposals (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/trade/howtodogrants.htm).

Partnerships

There is a long history of partnerships between nursing education programs and health care agencies. The purpose for these partnerships is not only to provide clinical experiences for students, but also to support schools of nursing in preparing professionals for the workforce. These partnerships take many forms, including work–study or internship experiences for students who may earn a modest salary and at the same time earn academic credits, contribution of nursing clinicians to the school as instructors, use of facilities for laboratory and simulation experiences, continuing education and research opportunities for both faculty and staff, and scholarship or loan programs for students in exchange for contracts to work for the agency upon graduation. The numbers and amount of financial support available from agencies seem to ebb and flow according to nursing workforce demands and the financial climate at the time.

A model for partnerships between health care systems and educational institutions is the Veterans Affairs (VA) Nursing Academy project, which supplied $60 million to establish partnerships with the VA and baccalaureate schools of nursing. It funds faculty positions using expert clinicians from the VA system (or the community if there is a lack), provides clinical practice experiences for students, and recruits new graduates into the VA system. There are four established regions including the western, midwest, south, and northeast regions of the United States. Benefits for the schools and the VA include current updates on clinical practice and an increase in the faculty workforce as well as the nursing workforce. This model serves as an example for other health care systems wishing to increase the 177nursing workforce and, at the same time, participate in updating nursing curricula and addressing the nursing faculty shortage (Bowman et al., 2011).

Bentley and Seaback (2011) describe a collaborative program among 12 nursing programs and two clinical agency partners to provide faculty development workshops on clinical simulation strategies. Its purpose was to increase student enrollments and enhance their clinical experiences and skills. It was funded by a grant from the Texas Team and the Texas Workforce Commission. Thirty percent of the nursing programs were able to increase enrollments owing to faculty’s increased use of simulation in place of clinical experiences.

Budgeting schemata for forging partnerships between health care agencies and nursing education programs are discussed by De Geest et al. (2010). The University of Pennsylvania and the University of Bezel in Switzerland developed academic and service partnership models that provide guidelines for developing partnerships between health care agencies and nursing education programs. The models are useful tools on how to balance agreements between the two institutions and include specific budgetary items for planning and management of the financial support system. Of special interest is the appointment of a full-time coordinator to manage the agreement when the arrangements become complex and involve many personnel, students, and resources from both institutions.

Philanthropy

Philanthropic funds come from donations to the nursing programs. A large majority of these donations are earmarked for scholarships for students. However, there are times when programs receive donations for program development. For example, Andrews et al. (2011) describe a partnership established between several schools of nursing and the Transcultural Nursing Society to prepare nursing faculty and students in cultural competence. The project was funded by a federal grant; however, the society had a major role in helping to develop the program and serves as an example of how professional organizations can contribute to nursing curricula development.

Peeples (2010) presents recommendations for universities and colleges, especially Historically Black Colleges and Universities, which apply to nursing educators for securing funding for curriculum development. She recommends three major strategies to obtain donations from philanthropic individuals and organizations. These are (1) identify funders who connect to your institutional mission and vision (p. 258), (2) infuse creativity and collaboration into your strategy (p. 256), and (3) engage alumni in giving (p. 259).

Alumni organizations are a good resource for nursing programs and schools should encourage the support of alumni organizations through special functions such as reunions at the time of graduation, research events, and guest lecturers. Fostering alumni participation can begin early in the professional socialization process through the nursing student association with faculty mentoring and support. An editorial describing the importance of alumni building contains useful material for schools of nursing to gain support from alumni associations (Cleary, Jackson, Vehviläinen-Julkunen, Lim, & Chan, 2012).

178ROLE OF ADMINISTRATORS, STAFF, AND FACULTY IN FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

Administrators and Staff

When a curriculum revision is indicated or a new program is in the offing, additional administrator and faculty time is expected and usually it is over and above the normal job expectations. Therefore, released time and related costs are expected and must be planned for in the budget. Administrators, with faculty input, should include a line item for program planning in the budget to cover these anticipated costs. While indirect funds from a grant can provide for the released time spent on program planning, they usually are not available until after the fact, that is, the grant is approved and funded after initial activities took place. Depending on the institution’s policies regarding indirect funds, administrators may have the discretion to use funds for program development generated from other grants. Otherwise, funds for program planning should be part of the regular budgeting process.

If administrative staff has responsibility for the management of the school budget, records of expenditures for curriculum revision or new program development should be kept. They are especially useful to illustrate the purpose for the funding and its tie to the grant/project goals. If the administrator manages the budget, the same processes apply and provide documentation for accounting purposes. Each year, during the budget review and projections for the future, administrators, staff, and faculty should identify continuing funding needs for program development. Needs vary according to the amount of curricular revision or new program development indicated. A discussion on the costs of program review, evaluation, and accreditation can be found in Section V, “Program Evaluation and Accreditation.”

Faculty

Curriculum development and evaluation is an ongoing process built into the educational program activities. Nurse educators in the process of delivering the curriculum through instructional activities such as classroom lectures, seminars, conferences, laboratory practice, simulation activities, and clinical supervision gather information on how well the curriculum is delivered. This ongoing assessment of teaching effectiveness and student learning outcomes is part of the role of teaching. It is a job expectation and, therefore, as part of the usual responsibilities, is supported through faculty salaries. Yet another aspect of faculty work is the participation in work groups such as course and level and curriculum committee meetings. These activities are considered part of the service role for faculty and from a budgetary point of view are a part of the salary paid to faculty and the expected responsibilities of the role. If major curriculum revisions or a new program are indicated, conducting a needs assessment and developing the curriculum can require faculty time over and above the usual expectations. In that case, the administrator and faculty in the program need to identify sources of funds to support the released time for these activities and to plan for them in the budget.

---

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Related posts:

1. The Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP)
2. Planning for Accreditation: Evaluating the Curriculum
3. Program Evaluation
4. The Components of the Curriculum

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Join