La moda en la actualidad

The parent institution demonstrates ongoing commitment and support for the nursing program. The institution makes available resources to enable the program to achieve its mission, goals, and

expected aggregate student and faculty outcomes. The faculty, as a resource of the program, enables the achievement of the mission, goals, and expected aggregate student outcomes.

II-A. Fiscal and physical resources are sufficient to enable the program to fulfill its mission, goals, and expected outcomes. Adequacy of resources is reviewed periodically and resources are modified as needed.

Elaboration: The budget enables achievement of the program’s mission, goals, and expected student and faculty outcomes. The budget also supports the development, implementation, and evaluation of the program. Compensation of nursing unit personnel supports recruitment and retention of qualified faculty and staff. Physical space is sufficient and configured in ways that enable the program to achieve its mission, goals, and expected student and faculty outcomes. Equipment and supplies (e.g., computing, laboratory, and teaching-learning) are sufficient to achieve the mission, goals, and expected student and faculty outcomes. There is a defined process for regular review of the adequacy of the program’s fiscal and physical resources. Review of fiscal and physical resources occurs and improvements are made as

appropriate.

PROGRAM RESPONSE

Adequacy of funding. Funding allocated to the School is sufficient for the achievement of the program’s missions, goals, and expected student and faculty outcomes. The budget allows regular evaluation and timely revision of the educational programs as detailed in Standard III. Over the last decade, the School has increased undergraduate pre-licensure enrollment (144/yr to 204/yr), revised the Adult PMH CNS option to include a Family- or Adult-focused PMH NP/Adult CNS option, developed the HCS CNL option and added elective oncology courses for NP students prepared to work with adult populations. The School’s state-appropriated budget has received enrollment increase dollars and/or special budget request dollars to fund these initiatives. Although NC has experienced budget shortfalls in the past three years and

recurring/non-recurring cuts have been made to the state allocations that total 24.8% (5% non-recurring in FY 2008-09; 5% recurring in FY 2009-10; 3.6% recurring and 1.4% non-recurring in FY 2010-11, and 9.8% recurring in FY 2011-12), the School has been able to adjust and maintain quality of the academic programs. Some budget reductions have been offset by enrollment increase dollars or special projects funding. During 2008-2010 budget reductions, the School reduced non-personnel costs and staffing positions but only made minor adjustments to faculty positions or support services. In spring 2011, the Provost directed all University units to reduce recurring state appropriated funds by 5% effective July 1,

2011, with additional budget reductions pending legislative approval. Although some communities of interest (potential students in particular) felt that the School should simply do more with less, the Dean and a specially convened Budget Committee composed of the FC, tenured/tenure track/fixed term faculty, staff and administrators elected to achieve the required 5% budget cut by reducing undergraduate enrollment by 25% (from 204/yr to 152/yr), realigning cohort scheduling, suspending enrollments in the WHNP option which had historically low enrollments, and suspending admissions to the RN-BSN program while maintaining admissions to the RN-MSN program. Therefore, the spring 5% budget reductions will not affect our student academic support, student to faculty overall ratios or faculty development activities. In July, the legislature passed a budget that resulted in an 18% state budget reduction for the University campus; however, the Provost notified the Dean that the total School budget reduction for 2011-12 would total 9.8% (4.8% more than originally planned). The School initiated a School Based Tuition for master’s students with the beginning of fall semester, has access to some discretionary funds, and planned for carry forward in some areas. The School plans to absorb the additional 4.8% reduction over the academic year. Table II.1 below shows the overview of the School’s state allocation for the most recent years.

Table II.1: School State Allocations

FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 $9,579,700 $9,640,994 $9,668, 146 $8,724,381

In addition to state allocations, funding is available from grants, NC Area Health Education Center, school receipts, overhead, faculty practice and trust funding. State funds provide 82% of the School’s operating costs. The School’s expenditures by source for the last three years are located in Table II.2.

Table II.2: School Expenditures by Source

Expenditures FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11

State $9,214,636 $9,606,787 $9,664,242

AHEC $482,824 $450,612 $469,036

Special Projects, target hires, etc.

$66,800 $365,071 $332,689 Fringe $2,052,221 $2,194,206 $2,227,522 Receipts $1,215,810 $1,029,698 $1,078,811 Overhead F&A) $917,373 $409,614 $608,863 Faculty Practice $127,926 $135,104 $135,320 Grants $9,714,892 $7,263,538 $6,556,608 Trust $1,104,749 $1,182,444 $1,240,424 TOTAL $24,897,231 $22,637,074 $22,313,515

The School is ranked eighteenth among all Schools of Nursing in National Institutes of Health research funding, receiving extramural research funding in excess of $2.62 million in fiscal year 2009-10. Overhead funds derived from grant funding are used to encourage research activities, provide a staff infrastructure for the management of research grants and enhance the School’s research facilities.

18

The School supports its service mission with faculty receiving workload credit for mentoring students who volunteer for Student Health Action Coalition (SHAC-an interdisciplinary student organization which provides free health services to local underserved individuals and communities). Faculty receive workload credit for leading service trips and taking leadership roles or participation in special projects. The School supports faculty who wish to have a practice arrangement as part of their workload and has recently developed a Practice Plan that outlines financial arrangements (available in Resource Room).

As of June 30, 2011, the School has access to over $24.1 million (market value) in private donor funding. Many foundation funds are designated for student scholarships but specific accounts are designated to support faculty professional travel, sabbaticals for scholarly pursuits and distinguished professorships. The Dean’s discretionary fund is used for faculty retreats or special needs of the School. Policies, application guidelines and process for awarding travel funds and paid leaves will be accessible in the Resource Room.

Faculty and staff funding. The School’s AY 2010-11 state supported budget included 74.86 faculty full- time equivalent (FTE) positions with an average salary of $72,390 per nine month FTE (all ranks/ all tracks). With AY 2010-11 student enrollment of 690 (including BSN, MSN and PHD), this creates a state- supported ratio of 9.2 students for each faculty FTE, a ratio adequate to support the needs of students. State-appropriated funds support 38.36 staff FTE positions. This creates a state-supported ratio of 1.95 faculty FTEs for each staff FTE, a ratio adequate to meet faculty needs. Additional faculty and staff FTEs are supported by grants, overhead, student fees and foundation funds. The total 2010-11 personnel budget included 41 tenured/tenure line and 98 fixed term faculty (total 122 FTE) as well as 67 non-faculty staff and administrative employees.

Although the School has been successful in recruiting and retaining faculty, our salaries lag behind several peer schools, especially at the lower ranks. Primary reasons faculty have left the School in the last five years are: retirement, relocation with family or School non-renewal of fixed term contracts. Although faculty could receive higher compensation at other peer schools, the school’s climate, emphasis on excellence, willingness to innovate and campus/area resources continue to make employment at the School attractive. In the last three years (2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11), the School has successfully recruited nine tenure/tenure track faculty. The impact of the most recent budget reductions and the lack of faculty raises for three years will be assessed over the next two years.

The School uses the 75th percentile of American Association of Collegiate Nursing (AACN) salaries and salaries at six peer institutions as the benchmark for faculty compensation. Table II.3 shows the comparison of SON and peer institutions’ benchmark data for faculty salaries.

Table II.3: Academic Year/Full-Time Nurse Faculty Salaries: School & Peer Comparison Group, 2010-2011

Mean Salary by Rank/Tenure Status Rank/Tenure Status School (N=93) UC-SF (N = 42) UIC (N = 56) U-MI (N = 31) U-PA (N = 71) U-VA (N = 50) U-WA (N = 98) *Peer Mean Professor (N = 16) (N = 25) (N = 12) (N = 12) (N = 19) (N = 11) (N = 36) Ten’d/Ten. Track $117,686 $117,882 $127,339 $139,938 $163,130 $115,075 $112,742 $129,328 Non-Ten. Track NA NA NA NA $124,912 NA NA Associate Prof. (N= 24) (N = 9) (N = 9) (N = 8) (N = 21) (N = 8) (N = 39) Ten’d/Ten. Track $86,673 $94,479 $81,772 $108,378 $94,473 $94,964 $86,104 $93,353 Non-Ten. Track $76,031 NA NA NA NA NA $79,724 Assistant Prof. (N = 40) (N = 8) (N = 10) (N = 11) (N = 14) (N = 27) (N = 16) Ten’d/Ten. Track $70,666 $76,690 $75,484 $82,067 $80,593 $68,033 $76,897 $76,624 Non-Ten. Track $59,302 NA NA NA NA $69,505 NA Instructor (N = 13) NA (N = 25) NA (N = 17) (N = 4) (N = 7) Ten’d/Ten. Track NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Non-Ten. Track $50,773 NA $58,803 NA $70,279 NA $59,885 NOTE: No statistics are shown where there are less than 5 cases in a cell. AACN Research and Data Services © 2011

Peer Schools: University of California, San Francisco; University of Illinois, Chicago; University of Michigan; University of Pennsylvania; University of Virginia; University of Washington

* Mean of peers without UNC-CH salaries

Review of Fiscal Resources. The UNC System budget is approved by the NC Legislature; the UNC System President then determines funding for each of the 17 member institutions. At the University level, the Provost has responsibility for allocating and monitoring University funds. The Provost initiates the budget review process each year with each School/College Dean or Center Director presenting a proposed budget to the campus budget committee. In addition to funding allocations based on student enrollment

projections, each Dean may request funding for special initiatives or needs. This annual review promotes self-assessment by the administrative team and provides an incentive to consider opportunities for

continuous improvement in the management of financial resources. The School’s budget is reviewed in the same manner as the other schools and departments on campus.

Physical Resources. The School occupies Carrington West (CW), which was built in 1969, and Carrington East (CE), an addition completed in 2005. The two buildings combine for 141,790 square feet and are located in close proximity to the other Health Affairs schools, the UNC Hospitals, and the Health Sciences Library (HSL). Detailed floor plans are located in Appendix II.1. The School’s administrative offices, faculty offices, conference rooms, computer labs and classrooms are located throughout both buildings. All full-time faculty have private offices, and all part-time faculty have private work spaces within shared offices (generally two part-time faculty per shared office). Faculty have computers, printers, and phones in

20

their workspaces. Staff have private or shared offices with computers, phones, and other appropriate office equipment. Division workrooms are located on the 4th and 5th Floors where faculty offices are located. Lounges are provided for faculty and staff (3rd and 5th Floors of CE), undergraduates (Ground Floor of CE and CW) and graduate students (3rd Floor of CW). Research offices and project space is located on the 2nd and 3rd Floors of CE and 2nd and Ground Floors of CW. Classes and seminars are scheduled in well- equipped classrooms and/or conference rooms. Teaching space includes:

 Eleven small conference or seminar rooms are located throughout the buildings,

 Three small (Seats=40) and one medium classroom (Seats=70) are located on the 2nd Floor of CW,  Three auditoriums (Seats = 240, 144, and 144) are located on the Ground Floor of CW,

 One auditorium (Seats = 163), video conferencing equipped, is located on the Lower Level CE,  One classroom (Seats=35), video conferencing equipped, is located on the 1st Floor of CE,  Two student computer labs are located on the 1st Floor of CE (undergraduate) and the 5th Floor of

CW (graduate)

 The Education Innovation Simulation Learning Environment (EISLE) labs are located on the Ground and 2nd Floors of CW, and the Ground and 1st Floors of CE. The EISLE space (total = 6077 sq. ft.) includes: eight rooms used to teach kills; three simulation rooms; storage space; offices for the Director, staff and graduate teaching assistants.

Physical Resources-Review for Adequacy. The Facilities Planning Committee (FPC) is responsible for space allocation, office assignments and reviewing the adequacy of space. FPC meets monthly during the academic year, reviews adequacy of space at least every other year or more frequently if needed, and makes recommendations for improvements in facilities. The FPC is chaired by the Associate Dean, Administrative Services and has representation from the faculty divisions, research division, academic affairs, student affairs, staff and the FC. Minutes of FPC will be available in the Resource Room.

II-B. Academic support services are sufficient to ensure quality and are evaluated on a regular basis to meet program and student needs.

Elaboration: Academic support services (e.g., library, technology, distance education support, research support, admission, and advising services) are adequate for students and faculty to meet program requirements and to achieve the mission, goals, and expected student and faculty outcomes. There is a defined process for regular review of the adequacy of the program’s academic support services. Review of academic support services occurs and improvements are made as appropriate.

PROGRAM RESPONSE

The University and the School have excellent support services that assist students and faculty to meet program requirements and to achieve the mission, goals and expected outcomes. Brief overviews are provided below and additional information can be found at the URL-s provided.