By Dr. Calli Theisen Sanders

Calli Theisen Sanders, EdD, is Senior Associate Director of Athletics at Iowa State University, where she oversees 15 teams. She has also been an Associate Athletics Director at the University of Alabama-Birmingham and Montana State University, and Associate Dean of Students at the University of Maine. She has served on many national committees, including the NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Committee. She can be reached at: csanders@iastate.edu.

Regardless of the level our school competes at, we all spend the work day trying to make our athletics programs more successful. Part of that process is ensuring that teams have the resources they need to be competitive.

Regardless of our level, this year, we are also spending time trying to cut expenses. Except for the fortunate few, athletic departments nationwide have been told to reduce budgets in the next fiscal year.

How do we do both? Is it possible to continue to cut back financially and push forward with plans for competitive success? How do we ensure that efforts to make our programs stronger aren't lost because of the weak economy?

As we head into the budgeting process for 2010-11, that is the challenge most of us face. We trimmed budgets as far as we thought we could a year ago--a difficult task. But now we are being asked to cut more, and that might mean no longer doing things the way we always have.

Planning for additional budget cuts is a daunting task, which must be approached with a delicate balance of candor and optimism. It entails educating staff about the reality of the economic situation, yet making sure they also feel positive about their jobs and the entire program. It also requires thinking about budgeting in new and creative ways.

PHILOSOPHY FIRST
Over time, athletics departments should have developed philosophies that guide decision makers in their day-to-day administrative duties. These might be in the form of a mission statement, a vision statement, documented principles, or perhaps beliefs that have been reinforced and communicated verbally by the department's leadership. The first step to take during the budgeting process is to reflect on these guiding principles.

When "non-essential" items have already been trimmed from the budget, the next round of cuts will undoubtedly affect items that we view as "essential." Guiding principles help ensure there is minimal impact on the things that we view as most important.

Here at Iowa State, when contemplating the first round of budget cuts last year, we relied on our department's guiding principles regularly during the fiscal decision-making process. First and foremost, we value our student-athletes. We recognize their significance and that they are the keys to our success. Our mission is to provide a competitive opportunity for these young women and men while supporting their educational endeavors.

With that in mind, we developed guiding principles specific to budget cuts. One was to limit the direct impact on student-athletes. The second was to limit the indirect impact on student-athletes by avoiding staff layoffs. The third goal was to not eliminate programs, if possible.

We were able to keep true to these principles in the first round of cuts by focusing on the following areas:

Media Guides: Even though media guides have been part of the athletics culture for many years, we were able to save significant funds by no longer printing hard copies. Because technology has changed the way we communicate with the media and prospective student-athletes, we felt this was an item that could be eliminated and not directly impact our student-athletes or staff.

Travel: Some of our teams travel by plane to destinations that we feel can be reasonably accessed by bus. If the competitiveness of the program was not adversely affected and the change did not result in additional missed-class time, then this was an area that we reduced without affecting our student-athletes.

Professional Development: We asked coaches and staff to consider taking a year off from attending their professional organization's annual meeting or convention. While we value professional development, we felt that a suspension of these activities (unless certification or other significant events are held in conjunction with that meeting) would not be felt by student-athletes.

Percentage Cuts: A final decision was to implement a modest across-the-board percentage cut for all sports and departmental units, giving the head coach or unit head discretion to make reductions that did not negatively impact the student-athlete experience. Given this freedom, some coaches elected to eliminate a contest from their schedule or reduce the distance traveled for non-conference games. Others solicited additional donations or corporate sponsorships for equipment or facility needs.

As administrators, we worked closely with coaches to be sure that our guiding principles were met despite the changes. For example, we disallowed any cuts to scholarships and recruiting funds since these are key to keeping a program competitive. We also reviewed proposed cuts to make sure they did not violate conference policies, NCAA rules, or Title IX.

As we approach the budget process for 2010-11, we will use the same overall approach. However, now that cuts must go deeper, it becomes more difficult to deflect the impact away from the students we serve. The non-essential items have been eliminated, so it is inevitable that the next round of budget cuts will involve essential items.

The latest cuts really challenge the philosophies that guided the department in the early budget-cutting process. While those philosophies are still relevant, there comes a point when you can't adhere to all of them. The significant question we find ourselves asking is this: Do we cut every area just a little and risk watering down our programs, or do we target certain programs for bigger cuts so that the remaining units stay healthy?

We are working to answer that by taking several steps. First, we are more closely examining the culture of the department and university as they relate to those two options. Second, we are starting extensive communication with key constituencies to truly understand the impact of those options on everyone we reach.

COMMUNICATION IS KEY
Communicating with others has been part of our budget-cutting process from the start. From the first moment budget cuts were on the horizon last year, we met with coaches and staff to discuss how the economic conditions might affect our department as well as peer departments across the country. We even presented a list of cuts at peer institutions, which helped put our situation in perspective.

We communicated again when the exact amount of budget cuts was determined. First, senior staff members developed a list of probable reductions utilizing our guiding principles. These principles, along with a list of projected cuts, were then shared with department heads, coaches, and staff. We asked them to tell us if and how such cuts would specifically impact their programs.

There was not always consensus about what cuts were needed. But we found that if staff receives timely communication and an opportunity for dialog, there will more likely be some level of understanding.

From that point, budget information continued to be the primary item on the agenda at our regularly scheduled staff meetings. Administrators provided updates on our financial condition, university-wide fiscal issues, and short- and long-term plans for continuing to address the budget shortfall.

By communicating at the first sign of difficulty, we took a very proactive approach rather than a reactive one. In a meeting with administrators from other institutions several months into the economic crisis, we learned that many folks had not yet discussed the issue with their staff. By that time, we had already alerted our staff so they knew that changes were coming.

Another reason we focused on communicating with staff was to be honest with them, which builds trust. People are obviously aware of the state of the economy, so trying to hide our fiscal realities from them would be foolish. Instead, outlining a realistic approach helps reassure them that administrators are looking out for their best interests and are educated about how change will impact their programs.

At the same time, it was also important to remain optimistic. By reassuring staff and coaches of our dedication to be competitive at the very highest level, to fund the things that we know are critical to continued success, and to trust individual units to manage their budgets responsibly, we reinforced a commitment to emerge leaner and stronger.

Similar discussions were held with Athletics Council members so they could offer their input and be prepared to respond to questions from their constituencies. The Council is primarily made up of faculty members and provides a university-wide perspective, giving a broader view of how our budget conclusions might be received by other campus groups. In this way, advisory groups provide tremendous credibility to the process.

Now, heading into further budget cutbacks, we will continue these discussions. We will undertake a thorough analysis of our guiding principles and test a variety of options against them. We will continue to use our Athletics Council and key athletics personnel in this process to come up with the best solutions.

Up to this point in the process, we have relied on our coaching staff to represent the interests of their programs and student-athletes. But if significant changes become necessary, then our communication could be expanded to include student-athletes and donors. Both of these groups have important perspectives that may be needed as we work through our plans for the next fiscal year and beyond.

CUTTING SPORTS
One option that comes under consideration in times of economic crisis is whether to save money by eliminating an entire sports team. As with any budget cut, the first step is to look at your department's guiding principals. It's also important to examine NCAA and conference minimum requirements as well as Title IX compliance.

Developing a set of evaluative criteria for sponsoring sports is essential in these deliberations. If economics force the elimination of a sport, those criteria can be used to analyze the pros and cons of cutting the team. Some standards to use in the sports-sponsorship assessment include:

• Impact on Title IX
• NCAA and conference minimum requirements
• The sport's potential for revenue
• The number of schools sponsoring the sport (conference-wide and nationwide)
• The popularity of the sport in the geographic region
• The number of high schools in the state or region that sponsor the sport
• Current trends in the sport's popularity
• The sport's compatibility with the academic expectations of the institution
• Competitive success in that sport
• The ability of the team's competitiveness to be maintained or improved with its current infrastructure.

Another step is analyzing the actual savings involved. It's important to realize that cutting a sport usually will not provide immediate budget relief because of ongoing costs incurred after the sport is discontinued. Coaches' contracts and scholarship commitments mean that the savings are gradual and are not fully realized until those obligations are met. The combination of scholarships and salaries comprise roughly half of the department's overall budget.

When contemplating the sports that you sponsor, it is helpful to try to assign a value to that sport's contribution to the institution. For example, how might the elimination of a program impact donations, television revenue, season ticket sales, or game guarantees? What about the other students who support the athletics program by their participation in the band or cheer squad? Would dropping a program cause these tuition-paying students to matriculate somewhere else?

For sports primarily comprised of walk-on or partial scholarship athletes, there are other criteria to examine. In these cases, the athletes (or their parents) are contributing to the institution through partial or complete tuition, fees, room, board, and books. How much would the institution suffer by eliminating opportunities to recruit and retain students who are paying their own way?

It is also helpful to engage a group of institutional staff members outside the athletics department such as an Athletics Council or other similar group. Hearing the ideas of unbiased individuals experienced in fiscal matters and Title IX can help guide a department through a very difficult, emotional decision-making process. Because these people have a different perspective than ours, they may have additional guiding principles to consider beyond those of the athletics department, or thoughts on how these critical decisions might impact the overall financial condition and reputation of the university.

Athletics programs are in uncharted waters, so it is difficult to predict what our industry will look like in the future. Undoubtedly, the cuts that are made will shape a department's image for years to come, so it is essential that the strategies implemented ensure long-term health.

Meanwhile, we can make the best of this situation by bringing coaches and staff together for a common cause. Given the competitive nature of our personnel, the best approach is to view the challenges ahead as a battle that we will win with a good game plan, an effective strategy, and most importantly, teamwork.

Sidebar: TIME OFF
According to the NCAA's Dashboard Indicators, approximately one-third of costs in our industry are salaries. Therefore, cutting jobs may seem like a perfect place to save money. However, eliminating staff can mean diminishing the support we provide students, which no one wants to do.

One compromise strategy used by many universities this past year was the furlough or temporary layoff. This is a reasonably fair way to spread the impact campus-wide in order to prevent layoffs or other draconian budget-saving measures.

But implementing furloughs in an athletic department is not as easy as doing so in an academic department, given coaches' contracts and the work ethic of most staff members. What are some ideas to make it work?

The first thing to do is keep coaches and staff apprised of the reasons to use furloughs. If the staff feels that the school has exhausted all other options and that they have been given an opportunity to plan for a salary reduction, they are more likely to be on board. If they realize that the furlough is the only alternative to layoffs, then a cohesive department will generally weather the storm.

Second is to advocate to upper-level campus administrators for flexibility in the timing of the furloughs. Often, a university will dictate that employees must not work on a declared furlough day, which can be very problematic for coaches in the middle of their season. If there are options for when furlough days can be taken, coaches and staff will not feel pressured to work on their furlough days. For example, it is not realistic to expect a basketball coach to take a furlough during the month of February, but it might be manageable for a fall sport coach to do so.

In our situation, coaches and staff members were somewhat relieved at the furlough as a solution to our budget problems. They preferred a hit to their paycheck rather than see student-athletes affected by a further reduction of their sport's budget.