Binghamton University’s

Strategic Plan: Round Three Funding

Round Three Funding - 2016/17

July 6,2015

With $1.7 million in base funding and $2 million in one-time Road Map funding to allocate for the 2016-2017 academic year, the Road Map Steering Committee met recently, making final decisions on which proposals to fund. Of the 93 original proposals, 27 remained under consideration at the June 22 decision-making meeting. Of those, 14 will be funded at some level.

The following 14 proposals, which President Harvey Stenger said “will help us achieve the Road Map’s strategic priorities” will receive the noted level of funding:

  • Stipend increase for new doctoral students
    • Base: $540,000
    • One-time: $0
  • Matched funding for doctoral students
    • Base: $340,000
    • One-time: $0
  • NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Supplements
    • Base: $40,000
    • One-time: $0
  • Support for new faculty start-up
    • Base: $232,000
    • One-time: $1,075,000
  • Retaining students in academic difficulty,increasing advising support
    • Base: $185,000
    • One-time: $0
  • Additional needed frontline fundraiser: director of development
    • Base: $79,000
    • One-time: $0
  • ISSS associate director/crisis manager
    • Base: $34,000
    • One-time: $0
  • High performance and data intensive computing facility
    • Base: $0
    • One-time: $265,000
  • Case management funding
    • Base: $100,000
    • One-time: $0
  • Classroom upgrades
    • Base: $0
    • One-time: $283,000
  • Binghamton University career and professional development
    • Base: $150,000
    • One-time: $0
  • Health sciences core facility instrumentation
    • Base: $0
    • One-time: $100,000
  • Budget request ITC hazardous waste – Option 2
    • Base: $0
    • One-time: $75,000
  • MRC interpretation and translation program
    • Base: $35,000
    • One-time: $0

Prior to the June 22 meeting, all members of the steering committee as well as the Faculty Senate Budget Review Committee (FSBRC) had voted on the proposals under consideration. “There was quite high correlation between votes cast by the steering committee and those cast by the Faculty Senate Budget Review Committee,” Stenger said.

The FSBRC was involved in the proposal evaluation process from the beginning, said Wayne Jones, FSBRC chair and professor of chemistry. “We appreciated not only the chance to participate, but also the availability of the president and his senior staff for more detailed discussions during the process.”

After its initial review of the 93 original proposals in January, the FSBRC met with each of the vice presidents or senior directors to discuss their budget priorities. “This was the basis for our initial recommendations which were then reviewed by the Road Map Steering Committee,” Jones said.

In May, the FSBRC received a revised set of the 27 top proposals to rank and provided its ranking to the president in advance of the June steering committee meeting. 

At the decision-making meeting, the steering committee broke into five groups to again rank the proposals and allocate the available base and one-time funds to those proposals they ranked highest. The five groups’ allocations were then averaged to help determine which proposals would be funded, and at what level.

“In most cases, the decisions reflect the average of the amount suggested by the five groups,” said Stenger, who thanked all members of the steering committee and the FSBRC for their insights and guidance, which were “invaluable in helping us make difficult decisions that will allow us to achieve our ambitious goals.”

Conversations were lively at the tables – some groups started with the proposals ranked highest by steering committee members and the FSBRC; others advocated for needs holistically, based on overall University priorities; other advocated for specific areas.

Stenger tallied the groups’ decisions and led the final discussion. “It was helpful to hear people from different areas describe their issues and needs as they tried to convince others how important certain proposals would be to the overall success of the University,” he added. “We’re changing behavior with people from such different backgrounds who can come to consensus. It’s important for the University and what gets funded, but the concept of understanding the role that everyone plays is key.

“The process of allocating these funds not only puts valuable resources where they are most needed, but it also informs deans, faculty, staff and senior administrators of the role of the Road Map in stewarding our entire University budget.”