Evaluation of Fiscal Resources In Nursing Education

Evaluation of Fiscal Resources in Nursing Education

Evaluation of Fiscal Resources in Nursing Education

Evaluation of Fiscal Resources In Nursing Education

Program effectiveness depends on the availability of adequate fiscal resources. The budget of the nursing unit (school or department) should be reviewed in relation to personnel, equipment and supplies, travel, and infrastructure. As a starting point, personnel salaries are reviewed in terms of supply and demand and against guidelines for faculty and staff salaries at the university and also regionally and nationally.

For example, one may have indicated a desired mix of faculty to meet the mission and goals, but that mix depends on the fiscal ability to recruit and attract faculty to meet the mix outcome expectation. If a large percentage of the personnel budget is targeted for part-time faculty, it may be difficult to convert to full time positions at a desired level to meet broad educational goals in terms of teaching, scholarship, and service.

The data gathered in the comparative analysis of salaries noted previously will also have implications for the budget review. If salaries need to be upgraded or compression issues exist, there will be a need for a review of alternatives available to meet competing needs for fiscal support.

As technology advances, it becomes increasingly important to identify fiscal support for its use beyond the usual physical environment considerations noted in the physical space section. Although internal and external sources may be found for the acquisition of such technology, funding for maintenance and upgrading is an issue that requires attention.

Many programs have received grants for technology hardware only to find that the monies for software, upkeep, and upgrading are not available in the budget. Careful record keeping provides a database for projecting future needs in this area, as well as the cost–benefit evaluation of technology. Decisions must be made regarding the technology that will provide the greatest return for the investment involved.

These data also provide supportive evidence when one goes in search of additional funding. Solid data makes a stronger case than a wish list. Future acquisitions may depend in part on the data available about the effective use of existing technology. This is a multiple stakeholder issue. Maintenance and extension of infrastructure needs careful documentation as well.

Records of such basic issues as heating, lighting, and telephone service provide trend data for projecting future needs. The need for building maintenance and expansion for new programs must be documented; requesting funds without data will ultimately result in the need to make choices that may not be well grounded. Funding for faculty development is important to faculty growth.

Input from administration and faculty is needed to target the funds based on the mission and goals of the school and department. For example, if increased scholarship productivity is a goal, a percentage of this budget might be targeted for attending research conferences and giving presentations. A percentage might be targeted for conferences and presentations related to teaching and learning to advance excellence in teaching.

Some schools designate some funds to enable students to participate in scholarly conferences or to present papers based on their student research efforts. Evaluation requires a review of the use of the monies for the designated purposes and follow-up in some cases to determine what benefit accrued to the school from the individual’s activities funded by the school.

Some schools indicate the amount any one person can receive in a specified period and monitor this as an evaluation measure to foster equity. Fiscal resources may also depend on the ability of the nursing school to seek and secure external funding. The size and nature of the parent institution and the school or division will guide outcome expectations in this area.

Increasingly, schools are pressed to obtain external funding for programs and scholarship efforts. The sources of stable funding also influence this area. State schools have, in the past, assumed that they would receive their funding in thirds from the state, from tuition, and from external funding. State appropriations are decreasing in most states, and efforts are being made to control increases in tuition and fees to offset this loss.

As a result there is a greater need to establish clear goals for external funding and to measure progress in this area. Stated goals may be somewhat broad or very specific. For example, some schools may simply indicate that there will be evidence of increased external funding reviewed on an annual basis. In this scenario, any increase is evidence of success.

Other schools may set specific goals such as indicating the percentage of increase expected every 1 or 2 years or a 5-year goal of an increase at a stated level with annual targets to achieve the long-term goal. Others indicate specifically where the increases should occur. For example, some schools indicate a desire to increase funding from specific sources such as the National Institutes of Health.

These measures provide specific evaluation targets. Trend data over 5- and 10-year periods are useful for analysis of progress over time and as a database for future goals. Another issue related to fiscal resources is development monies. Often resources must be provided to establish a fundraising program from which returns are expected. For example, many schools support a “friends of (discipline)” advisory group gathered to enable fundraising campaigns.

The goals of the fundraising should be specified. Some believe that giving is more likely to occur when a specific project that is valued by potential donors is identified. Certainly, a percentage of monies should be designated to be used at the discretion of the school to advance goals, but targeted funding is also critical to success. Evaluation includes measuring the cost of the fundraising effort against resulting gains.

Trend data is critical to this area. It is important to know not only the amount of giving but also the sources of those gifts and the relationship of those sources to marketing efforts. Many schools have targeted financial incentive projects to encourage donors to engage in the educational mission.

Examples include endowed chairs, centers of excellence, technology initiatives, faculty and student recognition programs, library enhancement, and programs for curricular innovations. Evaluation of the success of these initiatives reaches beyond the mere counting of dollars received.

It should include the congruence of the initiative to the stated mission and goals, trend data with indicators of performance outcomes for the investment, comparisons with peer institutions, and analysis of the worth of the initiative in meeting the stated goals for that initiative. The sources of funding are important for review as indicators for future efforts as well.

Some schools have relied exclusively on alumni as a source for development monies. Others reach out to corporations and special interest groups. In nursing, for example, hospitals have often provided funding for initiatives of interest to future human resources. They are more likely to continue their interest if evaluation reports are created indicating the efficient and effective use of the monies provided.

One of the elements of evaluation often overlooked in this area is the mechanism to inform donors of the outcomes achieved as a result of their generosity. This alone may affect future giving. Another source of data for analysis and decision making is a review of the goals of funding groups and state initiatives that may have attached funding.

When the goals and initiatives of external agencies are congruent with the mission and goals of the school, this may provide opportunities to apply for funds that will contribute to the desired outcome of increased external funding. These data are usually available through the parent institution, library searches, professional organizations, the office of research and development, or direct contact with the funding group.

Regardless of the sources of funding, nursing programs, like others in higher education, are facing greater expectations to be cost effective. As colleges and universities face the need to increase quality and strengthen academic reputation, they also face state and national calls for financial accountability.

Because academic programs are the primary driver of costs, it is logical that institutions of higher education examine the cost-effectiveness of academic programs. Dickeson (2010) proposed a process to prioritize academic programs by conducting a simultaneous review of programs using a common set of criteria to determine which programs are most effective, efficient, and central to the mission.

The outcome of program prioritization is the strategic allocation of resources and may involve closure of less productive programs to move resources to more productive programs. Nursing schools may find themselves participating in institutional program priority projects in the near future.

Large nursing schools with multiple nursing programs may need to conduct a school-based prioritization project to determine resource allocation among nursing programs. An adequate number of qualified staff and professional personnel is necessary to support program effectiveness. For faculty to meet the expectations of teaching, scholarship, and service, the support personnel available to them is critical.

The nature of the institution and the mission and goals also influence the standards set in this area. Nursing schools with graduate programs, for example, consider the number of graduate assistants and research assistants to be an issue of importance, and in some cases computer programmers and statisticians may be important to goal achievement.

The level of clerical and professional staff is important to all program levels. Faculty-to-staff ratios and satisfaction surveys to elicit administration, faculty, and staff perceptions about the quality of this support provide baseline data for this review.

The analysis of these data may suggest the need for further data to complete a full analysis. Many institutions of higher education have central evaluation tools and processes for the evaluation of professional and clerical staff.

Others rely on school or departmental evaluation. Still others supplement the central evaluation process with unit-specific efforts. The scope of staff under review will vary widely according to the size and complexity of the school. In any event, the evaluation should focus on the job descriptions and expectations of the individuals under review and the extent to which the job responsibilities are met in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.

As with all other areas of evaluation, the process should include feedback on strengths and areas for growth; the establishment of goals for growth should be appropriate to the evaluation findings. All subsequent evaluations include a review of progress towards the stated goals.

A common problem encountered in staff evaluation is the finding that the role of the staff member has drifted, because of changing circumstances, from the job description. This may create tensions that negatively affect evaluation.

It is therefore necessary to include a periodic review of the job description to congruence with ongoing expectations. Revisions should occur as needed and as a collaborative effort between the staff member and the appropriate supervisor.

Leave a Comment