Report of the Provost s Committee on Entrepreneurial Programs

2011 Report of the Provost s Committee on Entrepreneurial Programs Committee on Entrepreneurial Programs University of Connecticut 1/25/2011

University of Connecticut Report of the Provost s Committee on Entrepreneurial Programs Introduction January 25, 2011 As a complement to its core academic and research missions, the University of Connecticut recognizes the additional value of the entrepreneurial activities of its schools and colleges as a source of both innovation and financial diversification. Specifically, UConn is interested in encouraging targeted academic programs funded by external sources. While such an entrepreneurial approach to program support is appealing in its own right to encourage innovation, it may become increasingly important given the constrained fiscal environment the University currently faces. An entrepreneurial orientation is also consistent with the University s Academic Plan, which articulates a strategy to Pursue new revenue streams while refining existing budget processes to support the goals of the Academic Plan. Likewise, a guiding principle of the University s Costs, Operations & Revenue Efficiencies (CORE) Task Force, which operated from Fall 2008 through Fall 2010 to identify cost savings and revenue-raising opportunities for the University, was to consider the income generating potential of academic programs. The reputation of the University provides an immediate benefit in providing visibility, establishing the credibility and quality of a program offered, as well as a well-developed infrastructure to build on. All departments and programs have the opportunity to access specialized markets where business, governmental entities, or individuals, may be willing to pay for particular educational opportunities due to the UConn brand. From an entrepreneurial perspective, UConn has the potential to access these markets, compete for these students against existing providers, and generate revenues to support their core missions. At the same time, while entrepreneurial programs may generate revenues, they do not do so without cost, as they require resources from the units within the University that house them and from the central administrative offices that support them. In light of these circumstances, Vice Provost Suman Singha convened a committee to review the University's practices regarding fees and revenue generated by entrepreneurial programs in 2006. That committee collected data about programs and revenue structures across the University, and produced a draft report in August 2008. In August 2010, Provost Peter Nicholls reconstituted the committee and charged it to review and revise the draft findings with a view toward proposing a viable revenue-sharing structure that would permit entrepreneurial programs to thrive, cover the direct and indirect costs of offering these programs, and provide a return to the University. The central goal of the Provost s committee on entrepreneurial programs was to examine current University practice with regard to these programs and to propose a rational, consistent, and transparent approach to their management. This report documents our findings and provides 2

recommendations. The report proceeds as follows. First we present the committee s charge and approach. We then describe current practices with regard to entrepreneurial programs, and specifically identify opportunities and challenges associated with such programs. We draw some broader conclusions and make recommendations about how to improve the decision-making processes associated with entrepreneurial programs. Finally, we propose a revenue sharing rate structure to support cost recovery while maintaining the incentives of departments and schools to actively pursue these opportunities. Members The task force included eleven members that have a particular interest in, expertise about, or responsibility for entrepreneurial programs at UConn: Patricia Butler Lofman, Business Manager, Center for Continuing Studies Jeffrey Crouse, Finance Director, Neag School of Education Amy Donahue, Department Head, Department of Public Policy, CLAS Lori-Anne Hansen-Roy, Manager, Office of Cost Analysis Jean Main, Director, Financial Aid Office Susan Nesbitt, Director, Center for Continuing Studies Glen O'Keefe, Bursar, Office of the Controller George Plesko, Associate Dean, School of Business Roxanne Roy, Senior Financial Planner/Advisor, Office of the Chief Financial Officer (Chair) Suman Singha, Senior Vice Provost and Vice President for Research Jeff von Munkwitz-Smith, University Registrar & Director of Summer Programs Charge The Provost asked the Committee to examine practices regarding externally funded entrepreneurial programs. In particular, the committee was to: 1. Review current University practices regarding revenue generated by entrepreneurial programs at the University. 2. Recommend fair and appropriate rates for the return of revenue to the central administration to recover the costs of entrepreneurial programs that are borne centrally and to share the benefits. Methodology Once convened, the Committee met at least weekly to review requested information, deliberate and reach a consensus on an appropriate structure for centralized cost recovery from entrepreneurial programs. The Committee began with a review of the 2008 draft report and the materials that had been gathered to support that analysis. These materials included, but were not limited to, a history of centralized cost recovery employed at UConn to recover costs centrally from programs that raise revenues, information about cost recovery methods employed by peer institutions, the results of a survey of schools and colleges at UConn about the entrepreneurial 3

programs they operate, and an inventory of certificate programs at UConn. Based on this input and its own experience and expertise, the committee deliberated at length about the criteria by which a rate for centralized cost recovery should be set. To help determine reasonable and appropriate rates, the committee examined data on existing rates at UConn; data about administrative, facilities-related, library and student services costs at UConn; and insights about the burdens borne by central administrative offices to support entrepreneurial programs. Findings This section first describes University funding mechanisms in general. It then articulates findings relevant to the design, development, and implementation of entrepreneurial programs, and offers specific recommendations. The next section offers a rationale for structuring centralized cost recovery and proposes a rubric. Overview of University funding structures 1 Revenues related to instructional activities are generated from a variety of sources including graduate and undergraduate tuition, a variety of fees, grants, and contracts. Tuition revenue as accrued by program, degree, unit or college is recorded centrally. Tuition rates are set centrally by senior University management and must be approved by the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors for Higher Education by law (General Statutes of Connecticut Title 10a Chapter 185 Sec. 10a-15). Budget allocations from tuition revenues (and other sources, such as state support) to the schools and colleges are made at the discretion of the President based on budget negotiations with the Provost and Deans. The bulk of each school or college s funding is ultimately allocated to its tuition account. These allocations are not tied in any formulaic manner to enrollments in that school or college s courses or to the tuition revenue generated by that school or college. In rare cases, a portion of the tuition paid to the University is returned to the unit offering the program in which they are enrolled such as for the Professional Science Master s degree. For this degree program tuition returns are not transferred automatically through an accounting mechanism that identifies and distributes funds. Instead, the returns are calculated postenrollment querying the PeopleSoft system and a transfer to the unit is subsequently made. In some cases where a new graduate academic program has been able to charge its students differential tuition rates, increased budget allocations have been provided to the school or college. The increased funding was directly related to the additional tuition revenue generated and it was needed to fund the extra delivery costs. Two such programs are PharmD and the Doctorate in Physical Therapy. Similarly, the School of Education was provided an increased budget allocation when it launched the Teachers Certificate Program for College Graduates (TCPCG). Although TCPCG is not charging its students a differential graduate tuition rate it is a year-long four-semester (summer I, summer II, fall, spring) Master s Degree program charging 1 Here a brief synopsis is presented, for a more detailed discussion; see University of Connecticut College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Report of the Dean s Task Force on Revenue Generation. November 28, 2008. 4

students tuition. Additional budget allocations have been provided as these programs have grown or expanded to other campuses. With the exception of certain programs (such as BGS, MPS, MEng, PMBA, EMBA, L.LM etc.), most matriculated students pay tuition. In addition, students who are not matriculated into a degree program generally pay course fees through the Center for Continuing Studies (CCS), though there are exceptions such as non-degree MBA and MEng. In some cases fees collected by CCS are returned to the programs entirely, sometimes they are shared between the programs and CCS, and sometimes CCS retains them. Fee rates for summer, intersession, BGS, MPS and non-degree courses through CCS follow the Board approved tuition rates. Fee rates for some credit bearing self-supporting programs such as MEng, PMBA, EMBA, L.LM are set by the units that charge them in consultation with senior management, and must be approved by the Board of Trustees, and the DHE. Currently a surcharge or administrative tax is collected centrally on most fee based programs. The precise amount and arrangement of these surcharges varies considerably by program based on a number of historical factors. Approval procedures The Provost s Office outlines the steps in the process for approval of academic programs, 2 though many units may not be aware of the process. Likewise, the process for obtaining approval for tuition and fees is delineated, though again, many units may not be informed about this procedure. The process for obtaining approval for fees also takes a long time, which inhibits the ability of the University to take advantage of opportunities to respond to market demands by expeditiously offering entrepreneurial programs. Central revenue recovery arrangements are currently ad hoc, and do not arise from a standard set of rules and procedures. New programs can gain access to these alternate funding models as they have traditionally been negotiated at the time the programs are approved. It may also be possible for an existing program to obtain approval to shift away from general fund allocations to an alternative funding model by special arrangement. There are several existing programs that are not currently, but could be, funded under alternative arrangements. The process for gaining approval for a new program to be structured as an entrepreneurial program, or for an established program to recover fees or tuition, is not delineated or documented. Our first set of recommendations is driven by the Committee s concern that this lack of standardization can inhibit the development of new programs: Recommendation #1: The revenue recovery arrangements from entrepreneurial programs to central administration should be transparent, standardized, and consistent. 2 See http://provost.uconn.edu/program_approval/ 5

Recommendation #2: The process for establishing the revenue structure for new programs should be delineated in University policy. Recommendation #3: User-friendly flow-charts that guide units through the process of program approval, fee structure approval, and fee implementation should be developed and disseminated. Recommendation #4: Flexibility from the Board of Trustees to set appropriate fees for new entrepreneurial programs within specified bounds consistent with existing fees should be requested. Advantages to entrepreneurship Entrepreneurial programs are activities that, through their innovative approach or content and by virtue of the special market of students they reach, are able to independently generate revenues. Some entrepreneurial programs are pure in that they cover all of their costs and are therefore fully self-sustaining and may generate a profit. Many, however, can be considered hybrid programs in that they depend on University resources (such as faculty or facilities) for which they do not fully pay, but they also bring in revenues that the University may not otherwise realize. In these cases, entrepreneurial structures create additional financial support to existing academic operations. Beyond the financial advantages both pure and hybrid entrepreneurial programs realize for the school or college, these programs can benefit the University by sharing profits centrally. Programs can also create additional benefits by providing funding to build staff, laboratory, technological, or clinical capacity that benefits the University beyond simple delivery of the program. Additionally, entrepreneurial programs offer advantages such as revenue returns that can improve the quality of academic programs by allowing departments to hire adjunct instructors in unique fields, offer a greater variety of courses, or expand specialized offerings. Entrepreneurial activities may also allow departments, schools, and colleges to more fully employ existing resources. For example, these programs often take advantage of open seats, enrolling students in valuable specialized courses that might not otherwise be offered because enrollments would be too low. All of these advantages increase the value of the UConn brand. At the same time, entrepreneurial programs benefit from the existing value of the UConn brand, which has developed from the State's investment in the University s physical plant and its various programs, as well as the University s research and academic reputation, and thus profit-sharing with the wider University is warranted. In addition, the increased autonomy and flexibility created by entrepreneurial programs are valued in their own right. Flexibility allows programs to innovate, develop depth in areas of specialty, and respond quickly to changing market demands, all of which engage the interests of faculty and students alike. 6

Finally, entrepreneurial structures can improve accountability. A truly self-supporting program receives only revenues that it raises and purchases only what they can afford based on enrollment. This requires sound management on the part of the unit. Greater transparency regarding how successful programs generate revenue supports decision-making about which programs to cut and which to keep by providing clear signals about the value of and demand for programs. It is important to note that there are many revenue-generating activities at the University that are not considered in this discussion and analysis (e.g., ice cream sales, flower sales, clinics, study abroad). The scope of this Committee's analysis applies only to entrepreneurial instructional programs for credit. These other activities also generate revenues and the University could benefit from extending a standard structure to them as well. Recommendation #5: A review of revenue-generating activities at the University other than instructional programs for credit should be conducted. Challenges of entrepreneurial programs Entrepreneurial structures offer several advantages, but also create challenges for the institution. Most importantly, offering an entrepreneurial program is not costless, and may involve costs that are not known or considered by the program designer. Programs have both start-up and ongoing costs, both direct and indirect costs, and both monetary and nonmonetary costs. Some of these costs are borne by the units that offer these programs, while others are distributed across the University more broadly. For most administrative and facilities functions the marginal cost associated with each additional student in these programs is very small for example, the additional demand for things like grounds maintenance, security, or custodial support brought on by an entrepreneurial program is almost imperceptible. The additional costs associated with some functions, such as operation of the COGEN power plant, are arguably zero. On the other hand, a few offices bear a noticeable (if not precisely measurable) burden as a result of entrepreneurial programs. Most notably, staff in the bursar s office, registrar s office, financial aid office, and University finance office spend considerable effort setting up and administering systems tailored to the special needs of each entrepreneurial program. Entrepreneurial programs rely on the specialized expertise of the staff in these offices to guide them through University procedures and assure their students are managed and serviced properly. While published, standardized procedures can alleviate some of this burden, entrepreneurial programs will nonetheless require specialized support. Sometimes the advantages of entrepreneurial programs cannot be realized. While specialized programs may seem innately valuable or interesting, they may not be able to reach a market of students to support them. In addition, programs may not be able to take advantage of slack resources. Excess instructional capacity may not exist classes are full, and adding more students would degrade the quality of existing programs. In addition, departments may be driven toward offering only large, high-enrolling programs in order to cover their costs. This makes smaller programs harder to offer, even where they are educationally valuable. In addition, programs are 7

incentivized to accept any student who is willing to pay, rather than only top students, which may erode the quality of programs. In effect, programs may succumb to financial pressures instead of upholding high academic standards. Naive or narrow reactions to such pressure may threaten the value of the UConn brand by undermining its core educational mission. Under these circumstances, it may not be worthwhile to offer an entrepreneurial program. The University should have mechanisms for assessing the benefits and costs of entrepreneurial programs both before they are approved and over their life. Recommendation #6: Wherever possible, grant funds should be identified to defray start-up expenses. Departments seeking to develop new programs should explore these opportunities. Recommendation #7: In cases where external start-up funds are not available, the program must quantify these requirements, and the Dean of the school or college or Provost s Office must explicitly commit to supporting them. Recommendation #8: Proposals for all entrepreneurial programs should include a fully-developed business case that identifies the monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits of the program, specifies the stream of costs and revenues that will be associated with the program over time, identifies the point at which the program will break even, and articulates the process by which the program will be evaluated. Recommendation #9: Proposals for all entrepreneurial programs should be accompanied by a market study that demonstrates adequate demand for the proposed program. Recommendation #10: From a financial standpoint, all entrepreneurial programs should be tracked and regularly reviewed to determine whether they are meeting their revenue goals, to implement corrective action if they are not, and to close them if they cannot sustain themselves adequately. Recommendation #11: From an academic standpoint they should also be evaluated periodically to ensure that they are not competing with other programs. Recommendation #12: Entrepreneurial programs should return funds to central administration to recover the costs they impose. The rates at which programs return funds should be standardized and based on a transparent rationale. Recommended Recovery Structure The Committee developed its rationale for centralized cost recoveries based on an explicit set of guiding principles and information about current costs and practices. These are derived from the findings and recommendations articulated above. Guiding principles All programs and departments enjoy an explicit benefit from their association with the University. The financial investment of the State, coupled with the substantial investment of talent and time 8

of the faculty and other personnel in every part of the University, have created an institutional reputation that benefits everyone associated with UConn. The value of an entrepreneurial program is enhanced by association with the University. All entrepreneurial programs offered at the University cost something to operate. Central cost recovery from entrepreneurial programs that otherwise retain the revenue they generate is warranted to cover the costs imposed on central administrative offices. The rate structure for the centralized cost recovery should be based on the costs, direct and indirect, that entrepreneurial programs impose. Entrepreneurial programs are an endeavor that the University values, encourages, and supports. The University at large should benefit from entrepreneurial activities. Entrepreneurial programs are inherently more risky to manage than tuition-funded programs. To improve predictability, the centralized cost recovery rates that entrepreneurial programs pay should be transparent, set as part of the approval process for the program, and remain stable over time. Rates should be standard across like programs rather than idiosyncratic circumstances and special arrangements. Though in rare cases exceptions may be warranted, the rationale for any exception should be clear, compelling, well-documented, and transparent. The centralized cost recovery returned to central administration should account for variation in an entrepreneurial program s level of activity in other words, the transfer should be lower when the program brings in less money and higher when the program brings in more money. For entrepreneurial programs, the costs imposed on central administrative offices are primarily driven by enrollments, just as revenues are. This suggests that the centralized cost recovery should be tied to a program s revenue, rather than its costs. Such an approach also places the greatest responsibility for managing the financial aspects of a program to the unit offering it, since cost savings will directly benefit the unit. Approach To determine a reasonable and appropriate centralized cost recovery structure, the Committee considered three perspectives: 1. The Committee looked at rates currently being charged for revenue return to central administration. These vary considerably across programs as a result of the various purposes for which they were assessed and rates were set in the past. In general, at the unit level, rates vary from a low of 3.5% to a high of 13%. 2. The Committee looked at costs for facilities and administration that may be allocable to programs depending on where and how they are offered. Specifically, we considered whether programs were offered on-campus (i.e. on the main or regional campuses) or off-campus (i.e. on-line, at some location other than the main or regional campuses, or by CCS), and whether they were offered to degree, non-degree, and not-for-credit students. These data are not configured to provide a clear view of the costs actually associated with entrepreneurial programs, but they did 9

offer a worst case perspective on overhead burdens. At most, entrepreneurial programs would be expected to cover the full complement of administrative and facilities costs associated with these programs. 3. The Committee discussed non-monetary costs associated with entrepreneurial programs, especially demands on staff in the bursar s, registrar s, financial aid, and University finance offices who devote substantial attention to the special needs of each entrepreneurial program. At a minimum, entrepreneurial programs should be expected to offset the staff costs in these central offices associated with these programs. 3 Structure The Committee proposes that the University maintain a charge based on gross revenues to recover the indirect costs the program imposes on the University's resources, as well as to recognize the implicit benefits of the University affiliation. Recognizing that on-campus programs consume more University resources than off-campus programs, and that off-campus programs are directly responsible for additional program costs, the Committee further proposes a twotiered rate structure to account for variations in the costs and burdens imposed by the program depending on where the program is offered. 4 To determine an appropriate rate structure, the Committee examined current revenue and recovery levels. For FY11, we find that the total for-credit course fee revenue budgeted at the University is approximately $39,330,000. Under current arrangements, rates charged vary from 3.5% to 13%, and the average rate charged across all programs is 7.05%. These charges are budgeted to return $2,770,900 centrally. Using FY11 budgeted figures, we then estimated the amount of the assessment under various alternatives involving mixed off-campus/on-campus rates. As shown in the table below, a mixed rate of 6%/9% would yield slightly more revenue recovered (about $2.87 million, a gain of $96,209 over current levels), while a mixed rate of and a rate of 12%/15% would almost double returns over the current system (about $5.23 million, a gain of about $2.5 million). 5 Based on these figures, the committee proposes a universal mixed rate structure whereby off-campus entrepreneurial programs are charged 9% of their gross revenues, and on-campus entrepreneurial programs are charged 12% of their gross revenues. 3 Appendix A provides a list of the various types of activities within the University that are potentially affected by entrepreneurial programs. While the Committee analyzed the costs of each, both in total and how they change with enrollment, it was eventually decided that such a disaggregated analysis to identify and assign costs for each function would not be practical. 4 The Committee also reviewed the rate structures at other universities. While it is difficult to directly compare rates without a full understanding of each institution's cost structure, knowing the range of rates is important since programs being developed at UConn may compete against programs at these other institutions. Appendix B provides a summary of this survey. 5 Quantifying the differential costs imposed by on-campus versus off-campus programs is very difficult, and may vary by the type of program. The exact amount of the rate differential between on and off-campus programs is at some level arbitrary, however the Committee did examine the types of services outlined in Appendix C to reach the conclusion that two rates are justified since off-campus programs need to directly cover the cost of certain expenses that are otherwise shared on a UConn campus. The Committee also concluded that the benefit of the UConn affiliation is itself substantial, and that any differential should be less than 5 percent. 10

This proposed rate structure has three advantages over the current system. First, as a universal, standardized structure based solely on revenues, it is much simpler, more transparent, and more equitable than the complex array of historical arrangements. Second, such a streamlined structure is easier to administer, and leaves the ultimate financial success of entrepreneurial activities in the hands of the program administrators who have an incentive to operate their programs as efficiently as possible. Third, the proposed rate structure lowers the maximum rate that any programs would pay, but increases the overall revenue returned to the provost to both offset the indirect costs of entrepreneurial programs and to support other University activities. Revenue recovered centrally under alternative mixed rate structures. Off-campus rate On-campus rate 6% 9% 12% 9% $ 2,867,109 [$96,209] N/A N/A 12% $ 3,374,418 [$603,518] $ 4,047,009 [$1,276,109] N/A 15% $ 3,881,727 [$1,110,827] $ 4,554,318 [$1,783,418] $ 5,226,909 [$2,456,009] The table presents revenue recovered centrally under alternative on-campus/off-campus mixed rate structures. The gain in revenue recovered centrally over current practice for each alternative is shown in brackets. Rates where on-campus rate is the same as or less than the off-campus rate are noted as not applicable, since these do not recognize the fact that on-campus programs impose a greater burden than off-campus programs do. The Committee s recommended structure is in bold. Recommendation #13: The University should adopt and implement a structure where off-campus entrepreneurial programs are charged 9% of their gross revenues and on-campus entrepreneurial programs are charged 12% of their gross revenues. Upon implementation, the new rate structure should apply universally and supersede all existing tax and payment arrangements. It is important to note that the estimated assessment amounts presented here overstate the amount of revenue that would be generated. In particular, the summer session shares revenues with both the schools/departments offering courses as well as with the regional campuses and the Provost. An increase in the centralized cost recovery will reduce the amount of revenue 11

available for sharing with schools, departments, regional campuses, and the Provost. Our estimates do not consider this offset. As we have explained, the purpose of the centralized cost recovery from entrepreneurial programs is to defray the costs these programs impose on central administrative offices. While the Committee discussed possible approaches to direct funds to affected administrative offices, it was ultimately agreed that such decisions need to be determined at the Provost's level as part of a broader allocation of resources. However, in order for these administrative offices to be compensated for their resource demands, especially when staffing is tight, an allocation arrangement and procedure should be defined. Recommendation #14: Specify the arrangement and process by which revenues returned centrally will be allocated to the offices that support entrepreneurial programs. Transition The Committee believes that the new centralized cost recovery structure should apply to all relevant programs at the University. Furthermore, no program should be grandfathered. In other words, all programs must ultimately transition to the new structure. That said, it is important to proceed in a deliberate manner to the new structure to minimize disruption to programs that will see an appreciable increase in the charges they face. The Committee recommends that the new centralized cost recovery be implemented over the course of a year. After three years, this structure should be reassessed to assure that it returns adequate funds to cover costs incurred centrally, while allowing programs to retain sufficient funds to succeed as entrepreneurial programs. Summer Programs and the Center for Continuing Studies currently do significant revenue sharing with the Provost and the academic units. Imposition of a higher rate will decrease the annual return to the Provost and to the academic units delivering the courses. There is a real danger that this will discourage the academic units from offering courses during the summer and intersession and entrepreneurial programs through the Center for Continuing Studies. Summer Programs and the Center for Continuing Studies should be encouraged to adjust their current revenue sharing formulas to hold the academic units harmless from the effects of the higher rate. Other Issues The Committee discussed a number of issues which complicate the implementation of any new system of charges as well as other design options. At this point, we do not feel there is sufficient information to determine whether, and how, to incorporate these into the proposed structure. Indeed, it may only be through the initial implementation of a new structure that information becomes available to determine their likely importance. Nonetheless, we note a few of the issues here for future consideration. Additional surcharge. The Committee discussed the possibility of a third rate, or surcharge, to be levied on highly successful programs, but does not recommend such at this time. The difficulty in 12

doing so is two-fold: defining "highly successful" programs, which might be based on revenue in excess of a certain level (with the surcharge applying only to revenues in excess of that amount), and determining the appropriate surcharge rate. We recommend that this issue be examined when the rate structure is reviewed. Tuition Waivers. Not all participants in external programs generate revenues to that program, even though they impose costs. Full-time students or graduate students on assistantships may wish to take classes offered in other units but would not be charged tuition to do so. In these cases, the revenue of the paying students is assessed the centralized cost, but no consideration is made for the costs of students who are not required to pay. At the same time, there is an important benefit to making these programs available to full-time students and graduate assistants, and they should not be excluded from these programs simply because they do not generate additional revenue. This issue is beyond the scope of the Committee, but should be examined. CONCLUSION The University values entrepreneurial programs because they encourage innovation and provide opportunities to earn additional revenue. Entrepreneurial programs are a logical arrangement for central programs at the University that have the potential to tap markets of students willing to pay for a program specially configured to meet their needs. These programs are valuable supplements to units that also receive general tuition support and have the potential to expand specialized offerings without placing additional financial burdens on departments by utilizing slack resources. At the same time, entrepreneurial programs are unlikely to ever produce sufficient revenues to be a large part of the budget solution for the University. In addition, not all programs can be profitable or even break even; there may be programs which provide important benefits to the community, or address a strategic need, that cannot cover their costs, but should nonetheless be operated. In such cases it is critical to consider the variables that affect each program s operations and outcomes when determining whether an entrepreneurial funding model is appropriate. In sum, for the University to facilitate the development and success of new programs, the University must provide appropriate guidance along with the administrative and facilities functions necessary to support them, and the oversight to validate their success. 13

REFERENCES Connecticut Academic Plan 2009 2014. http://academicplan.uconn.edu/files/uconnacademicplan.pdf. University of Connecticut, Draft Report of the Committee on External/Entrepreneurial Programs. August 21, 2008. University of Connecticut College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Report of the Dean s Task Force on Revenue Generation. November 28, 2008. 14