Workgroup Members
- Ingrid Fulmer, Office of the Provost, Chair
- Bill Bernhard, Office of the Provost
- Mark Cohen, Carle Illinois College of Medicine
- Brooke Elliott, Gies College of Business
- Steven Maren, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science & Technology*
- Chrystalla Mouza, College of Education
- Venetria Patton, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences
- Jake Pinholster, College of Fine & Applied Arts
Charge Letter
Dear Colleagues,
After the state fiscal crisis of 2015, campus leaders decided to reduce reliance on state funding and build a reserve fund to protect the University against sudden cuts in state allocations. During years of stable state funding, leaders agreed to reallocate those funds to colleges and institutes through the Investment for Growth (IFG) program.
As originally conceived, IFG was an annual competition that provided campus funding for proposals from colleges and institutes aimed at increasing revenues. The underlying concept was that IFG funds would support projects requiring resources that units could not generate on their own.
The Office of the Provost has conducted six competitions since 2018, pausing during the pandemic. Notable IFG success stories include advancing the University’s missions in teaching, research, and outreach through the creation of programs such as the iMBA and online CS degrees; the SynFoNI food and nutrition biology program, which recently received $25M in grant funding; and the Illini Science Policy Program, which is cultivating relationships with external partners and placing scholars in agencies throughout the state. Other notable funded proposals include Training in Digital Methods for Humanists, the Humanities Professional Resource Center, Designing for Social Impact, Game Studies, and the new ACES Learning & Innovation Lab & Online Learning Innovation Grant Program.
We are at a good point in the program’s evolution to assess its focus and operation. I imagine that most, if not all, of us have heard concerns about the program, while also hearing appreciation from many quarters about what program investments have made possible. Thank you for offering to participate in this workgroup. Thank you also to Ingrid Fulmer for agreeing to chair the workgroup.
Some on campus may believe that our best course is to simply eliminate this program. My starting assumption is that a better approach is to consider how we can build on what has worked well while considering areas for improvement, ensuring that resources continue to be allocated to colleges and institutes for activities that align with campus priorities, particularly those that merit support across units and are consistent with the programmatic objectives of the Chancellor and Provost. The campus has a history of investment from the center, which enables us to undertake initiatives that can sometimes be challenging to accomplish in RCM budget environments.
I request that the workgroup evaluate the following considerations:
Topic: The IFG program has concentrated on developing new programmatic initiatives for revenue generation. However, over the years, the Provost has identified various objectives for the competition, including promoting cross-disciplinary research and teaching collaborations; improving efficiencies in line with the Operational Excellence initiative; supporting student access, success, and retention; and exploring other transformative opportunities. Should the program be expanded to encompass additional topics, such as support for deferred maintenance and building renovations, to name but one? Should there be greater specificity regarding the topic from year to year? For example, one might envision a rotation of topics spanning 3-4 years that then repeats, adding focus to each year’s competition (and review process) and predictability that facilitates planning ahead.
Criteria: The IFG program originally focused on revenue generation as the primary consideration. Which criteria should be used to evaluate potential projects? How should these criteria be established? How best to weigh the proposal in the context of the unit’s overall strategic priorities?
Process: The IFG program has included a review process featuring Deans, Directors, and members of the Campus Budget Oversight Committee, who provided both quantitative and qualitative feedback. This process has the advantage of ensuring transparency and broad engagement. However, concerns have been raised regarding the significant time investment required to rate the proposals; rating proposals of such diverse focus; whether proposals have been fully fleshed out prior to the review process; and the variability of the grading scale across reviewers. Are there improvements that can be made to the process? What information would be useful in assessing proposals?
Scale and scope: How large should the program be? Should competitions occur annually or on a different schedule? Are “competitions” the best approach? For example, a recurring line of discretionary resources could be allocated to the Chancellor and Provost for investment, while reducing the overall program and eliminating competition. Should a portion of the funds be set aside annually and predictably for non-competitive discretionary deployment by the Chancellor and Provost (for example, allocating $N to support initiatives that transform classroom spaces). Should the program in some manner provide an incentive to “stop doing” or consolidate in some area(s) while encouraging new innovations? Should the focus be on investment for “growth” or on other aspirations? Should the focus not only be on multi-year programs but also on one-time cost-prohibitive investments that would improve the educational experiences of our students and the research/teaching/engagement programs of our faculty?
The questions above should not be seen as limitations on your inquiry and deliberations. I welcome your creative thinking and imagination on what might best serve our campus. I leave it to the workgroup to determine what process would best provide stakeholder input into your study and analysis of these many issues.
Originally, we envisioned the workgroup would conduct its work over the summer to prepare us for the next IFG cycle. As you know, however, for fiscal year 2026 the campus is refunding collegiate contributions to the IFG program, and we will pause the competition for the upcoming year. These changes provide more flexibility for our schedule. I look forward to receiving your recommendations by November 1, 2025. Do let me know if you require more time.
Jean Hanks, who will be supporting the committee, will be in touch in the coming days to schedule the charge meeting.
Thank you for your participation on this workgroup.
Sincerely,
John Coleman
Provost