Frequently Asked Questions

University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES)

What is a Wild Card?

The wild card module allows each campus to specify a customized set of important topical items of interest to campus constituents. At Berkeley, recent topics include students' RRR week and final exam experiences (2011), undergraduates' connection to UC Berkeley through graduation and beyond (2009), advising and mentoring (2008), diversity (2007), and technology (2006).

Who runs UCUES?

UCUES is a collaborative effort overseen by representatives of nine UC undergraduate campuses and the UC Office of the President.

Who oversees the data collection, storage, and use?

UCUES is governed by a research protocol approved by UC Berkeley's Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects. Each of the other UC campuses submits this protocol to its respective institutional review board with an intent to rely on CPHS's approval.

How do I propose items or topics for inclusion on an upcoming administration?

From time to time new survey topics of interest are included in UCUES as part of the special topics, Wild Card, module. UC Berkeley affiliates may contact Sereeta Alexander(link is external) at the Office of Planning and Analysis at Berkeley to propose additional items or topics for inclusion. Affiliates of other UC campuses may contact their respective campus representatives.

I'm an undergraduate and I'm busy. Why should I take this survey?

There are many good reasons to participate in this research project. To list a few:

  1. Make a difference. UCUES is your chance to influence policy in your major, your college, throughout campus, and across the UC system. It is the only effort of its kind to systematically collect feedback from all undergraduates about what is working well, what is not working well, and what is important to you. Your responses will be used by faculty and staff in a variety of ways to help evaluate and improve the experience of current and future undergraduates.
  2. Be counted. As with voting, your opinions do not count unless you participate. Administrators need to hear from a broad array of students to obtain an accurate and well-rounded perspective.
  3. It's easy. It only takes about twenty minutes to complete. You don't even have to leave your computer.
  4. Win great prizes. Each year we give out thousands of dollars' worth of prizes, from iPods to cash prizes to bookstore gift cards, to a lucky group of randomly selected participants. The earlier you complete the survey, the more chances you have. But you have to participate to win.

Can items from one module be correlated with items from a different module?

No, not directly, since a completely different and non-overlapping subset of students is assigned to each module. Items from modules can only be directly correlated with the items from the core.

Is UCUES an anonymous survey?

No. UCUES responses are confidential but not anonymous, which means individual student identifiers are collected along with each set of responses, but the responses are never reported in such a way that would allow identification of individual respondents. Non-anonymous data collection also allows survey responses to be matched to individual-level institutional data from university records and across survey administrations to create multi-year panels.

How are UCUES results used at Berkeley?

  1. Systematic administrative uses
    • UCUES responses about the academic experience in the major are reported each year to each department for its majors. The results are also analyzed in detail by the Financial Policy and Institutional Research Team for academic program review, the periodic in-depth evaluation of every instructional program. Students are asked to rate how satisfied they are with such aspects of their major as instruction by faculty and graduate student teaching assistants, advising, equitable treatment by faculty, and the availability and quality of courses. These responses are also compared to other majors and to prior years' data to examine trends over time. UCUES data have helped shift academic program review from a predominant focus on faculty and graduate students to one of increasing attention to the undergraduate experience.
    • UCUES results regularly inform the decisions of administrators in everyday situations, from answering specific questions (for example, what percentage of students are employed off campus or how many hours undergraduates study per week) to providing a more complete and nuanced picture of the everyday experience of a diverse population of undergraduates.
    • UCUES responses are a key component of the UC system's public accountability initiative, which is akin to the Voluntary System of Accountability template proposed by AASCU and APLU (formerly NASULGC).
  2. Non-routine administrative uses
  3. Scholarly research
  4. Instruction
    • Sociology 105, Introduction to Sociological Methods (uses subset of UCUES data for computer data analysis-intensive course)
    • Undergraduate Research Apprenticeship Program (undergraduates conduct original empirical research using UCUES data)

Can UCUES responses be calculated over time to document trends in the undergraduate experience?

It depends on the items and the time period. Although early versions of UCUES date back to 1996, the core set of items has remained relatively fixed only since 2006. Some items go back before that time, while others do not. It has been long established that responses to survey items are highly sensitive to even small changes in the question wording or response options. As a result, tracking non-identical UCUES items across years is unlikely to lead to valid comparisons and is not recommended.

Currently there is no comprehensive database of which items appear in which administrations of UCUES, but the complete set of questionnaires to date is available at the UCUES main page.

How do the modules work?

ll undergraduates are asked a common core of questions about time use, student development, academic engagement, experience with their major (for upper division students), campus climate, and background characteristics (demographics).Module Work Flow

Following the core, each student is asked a set of questions from one of several topical modules, determined by random assignment, on a subject such as

  • academic engagement,
  • civic engagement (politics and community service),
  • student development (moral and psychological),
  • student programs and services,
  • globalization, or
  • a "wild card" group of items unique to each campus.

The form of each module, except the wild card, is identical across all campuses in a given year. This arrangement allows greater breadth of topics and more discretion over content without increasing the length of the survey.

What distinguishes UCUES from other national surveys of college students?

It is administered to the entire population (census) of students, rather than a sample.

It integrates institutional data from university records to provide basic demographic and educational variables such as ethnicity, age, and grade point averages.

The modular format magnifies the scope of the survey without increasing completion time and jeopardizing response rates. Each student is asked a common core of items about academic engagement and demographics followed by a randomly assigned topical module. Consequently, administrators and researchers have a broader view of the student experience covering not just academics but also civic engagement, moral and psychological development, and experience with campus programs and services.

The wild card module allows each campus to specify a customized set of important topical items of interest to campus constituents. At Berkeley, recent topics include students' RRR week and final exam experiences (2011), undergraduates' connection to UC Berkeley through graduation and beyond (2009), advising and mentoring (2008), diversity (2007), and technology (2006).

It contains costs, very effectively, by employing a strictly web-based survey tool and relying on email as the primary form of contacting students.

Why use a census administration instead of a sample?

It allows analysis at the level of small groups such as majors and specific demographic groups (such as sophomores, student athletes, or student parents). This feature is critical for incorporating UCUES results into periodic assessments of academic departments (particularly academic program review).

It enables a modular structure to ask a greater number of items about a broader array of topics.

It yields sufficient numbers of repeated observations of the same students to create multi-year panels with repeated observations for the same individuals.

All students have chance to participate, promoting a sense of involvement (every voice is heard) and making recruiting and participation a campuswide effort.

Who is eligible to participate?

All regularly enrolled undergraduate students eighteen years or older on April 1 of the year of the survey are invited to participate. A very small number of limited enrollment/2nd degree students and minors are excluded from the eligible population. (The excluded group constitutes less than one percent of the total undergraduate population.)

How often is UCUES administered?

Since 2004, UCUES has been administered annually at Berkeley and every other year (even numbered years) at the other UC undergraduate campuses. Earlier versions of UCUES date back to 1996.

What is the response rate? How is it calculated? Is it "good?"

The precise figure varies from year to year and by campus, but at Berkeley it has been:

  • 2011: 30% (6,982 out of 23,656)
  • 2010: 45% (11,203 out of 24,967)
  • 2009: 37% (9,016 out of 24,379)
  • 2008: 50% (11,833 out of 23,904)
  • 2007: 51% (11,957 out of 23,278)
  • 2006: 48% (10,717 out of 22,430)
  • 2005: 52% (11,673 out of 22,450)
  • 2006: 48% (10,717 out of 22,430)
  • 2007: 51% (11,957 out of 23,278)
  • 2008: 50% (11,833 out of 23,904)
  • 2009: 37% (9,016 out of 24,379)
  • 2010: 45% (11,203 out of 24,967)
  • 2011: 33% (7,750 out of 23,656)
  • 2012: 39% (9,732 out of 25,203)
  • 2013: Survey not administered

The numerator is the number of undergraduate students who logged into the survey system and submitted their responses. The denominator is the population of eligible undergraduates.

Not every student answers every item presented, and in general some items (such as parental income and open-ended items that require a typed response) are more likely to be skipped than others. One departure from common practice in reporting web survey response rates is that the denominator includes students with inactive email addresses on the assumption that they may have been contacted about the survey through other means such as advertising, direct communications from academic departments and other units, or word of mouth.

Opinions vary greatly as to what makes a "good," "high," or "adequate" response rate and what relationship, if any, there is between response rate and the accuracy of the results. While conventional wisdom holds that low response rates yield biased results and that increasing response rates tends to reduce bias, recent research suggests that neither of these claims is necessarily the case. See, for example:

Groves, Robert M. 2006. "Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly 70:646-675. [Also see other articles from the same special issue.]

Keeter, Scott, Carolyn Miller, Andrew Kohut, Robert M. Groves, and Stanley Presser. 2000. "Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a large national telephone survey." Public Opinion Quarterly 64:125–48.

Krosnick, Jon A. 1999. "Survey research." Annual Review of Psychology 50:537-67.

Visser, Penny S., Jon A. Krosnick, Jesse Marquette, and Michael Curtin. 1996. "Mail surveys for election forecasting? An evaluation of the Columbus Dispatch poll."Public Opinion Quarterly 60: 181-227.

Why doesn't the questionnaire ask about demographic information such as ethnicity? What other data are available as part of the UCUES dataset?

Institutional data, the administrative and transactional data collected by the university, are already collected and maintained at the individual level in application, registration, and degree databases and matched to the survey results.

Among the most important institutional variables are:

  • ethnicity
  • age
  • admission status (transfer admit or new-from-high school freshman admit)
  • term and year of admission (used to calculate year in school or unofficial class level)
  • units earned (used to calculate official class level)
  • date and title of degrees earned (for students who have graduated)
  • UC grade point average
  • major(s) (e.g. Integrative Biology) and college(s) (e.g. College of Letters & Science)
  • location of permanent address
  • international student status
  • high school grade point average and SAT scores
  • high school's Academic Performance Index ranking
  • participation in selected university-sponsored pre-college outreach and preparation programs

A few items already available in institutional data, such as gender, parental income, and parental education, are repeated in the survey to achieve greater completeness and detail. Summary financial aid data are likely to be included in future releases of UCUES data.

For administrative uses, any institutional data that identify individual students by student ID number can be linked to the UCUES data, from a roster of an intramural soccer team to a list of students who graduated from a particular high school or community college to a list of scholarship winners.

What is UCUES?

UCUES, the University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey, is an omnibus survey of the experience of undergraduate students enrolled at the nine University of California undergraduate campuses.

Survey results are matched with institutional data from campus records to provide a detailed portrait of students' backgrounds, academic and co-curricular activities, goals and aspirations, experience with academic and administrative units, self-assessments of gains in academic and social skills, interactions with other students, engagement in community service and civic activities, perceived obstacles to academic success, and many other topics.

The results are used both for administrative purposes – to evaluate and improve programs and policies affecting undergraduates – as well as for scholarly research. For example, Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) conferences and publications, as a program of the Center for Studies in Higher Education.


Can a recharge activity purchase an item with current reserves and collect money over the useful life of the equipment to repurchase the item at the end of the useful life?

Yes. The assignment of a depreciation charge during the useful life will permit the recharge center to have sufficient funds at the end of the useful life for purchase of a replacement piece of equipment.

What determines whether or not an item can be assigned as equipment with depreciation allocated to a recharge account?

The University definition for equipment must be met. Presently the item must have a purchase price of at least $5,000 and a useful life of more than a year. The item must be used in the recharge activity to have its charges assigned to the respective fund.

Can a recharge unit assign a piece of existing equipment, purchased with federal funds, to the recharge activity and depreciate the value of the equipment over the useful life of the equipment?

No. If the equipment was originally bought on federal funds, the recharge unit cannot depreciate the value of equipment and assign the respective costs to the recharge fund.

Can a recharge activity lease a piece of equipment and charge the lease payments to the recharge operating fund?

For capital leases, lease payments can be allocated to the recharge operating fund provided that the amount of the lease payments is roughly equal to the amount of depreciation that could have been charged for the same period and the University has title to the asset. For operational leases, the lease payments should be allocated to the recharge operating fund.

Where can I find information regarding the useful life of a piece of equipment?

The useful life tables are prepared by the Office of the President and can be found at the Useful Live Indices for Equipment Depreciation page. Useful lives can also be found in the campus equipment inventory tracking system, BETS. To request a new classification of equipment with new useful lives, complete the Equipment Useful Life Update Form (Word) and submit to

Can you elect to expense a piece of equipment in the year of purchase?

No. The equipment purchased for use in a recharge activity must be charged out to that activity through annual depreciation charges over the useful life of the equipment or financed through a capital lease.

Can a recharge unit assign a piece of existing equipment, purchased with non-federal funds, to the recharge activity and depreciate the value of the equipment over the useful life of the equipment?

If the equipment was originally bought on non-federal funds, you can make the assignment and the subsequent depreciation. If the equipment is used only part of the time for recharge activities and the remainder of the time for non-recharge activities, only that percentage of the equipment time on the recharge activity should be assigned to the recharge unit.

Where do I find funding to purchase equipment for assignment to a recharge activity?

The University operating policies require the department to purchase the initial equipment for the newly established recharge activity. If it is an ongoing recharge activity and the amount of the equipment purchase is small, you can finance the purchase from amounts in the recharge accounts current reserves. If it is an ongoing recharge activity and the amount of the equipment purchase is substantial, you should finance the purchase through a capital lease or seek outside seed money from other sources.

FY2017-18 Budget Process

How were divisional budget allocation decisions made and what are those decisions?

Are there now more decisions to come from the leadership of the various schools, colleges, and administrative divisions? If so, when will they be made and how will they be communicated?

Divisions have been informed of their FY2017-18 budget improvement targets and each division will now consider how to implement their targets within their respective division.  

An iterative budget process has been underway since December 2016. At a retreat in February, the Deans and Chairs discussed the budget process, opportunities, and challenges. Since then, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) has discussed budget issues regularly with the Council of Deans, deans in small groups, Vice Chancellors, Chief Administrative Officers, Divisional Finance Leaders, the Board of Visitors, the Berkeley Foundation, Academic Senate leadership, and student and staff committees. We have tried to conduct our work with transparency and the greatest degree of participation possible.

The goal of this year’s budget process was to learn and better understand the needs and objectives of each division so we could complete the hard work of meeting our deficit reduction target of $54 million in a thoughtful, strategic, and collaborative manner. We should note that the budgetary targets within the multi-year plan were established in concert with the Office of the President; the targets within the plan are non-negotiable.

The OCFO established a Target Setting Working Group composed of nine Divisional Finance Leaders  (from seven academic divisions, Intercollegiate Athletics, and Real Estate) to recommend a methodology for budget target-setting. We tasked the working group with providing exclusions and establishing a baseline from which to set budget improvement targets. Exclusions represent the campus’ highest priorities and were exempted from the budget target calculations. The budget improvement target is the amount by which a division must improve its net operating budget between FY2016-17 and FY2017-18.  

After constructive debate and discussion, the working group delivered recommendations that guided the exclusions to the base (FY2016-17 operating expense budget). Here are the items we agreed to exclude:

  • Contracts & Grants: all expenses included under the fund category “Contracts & Grants” which includes federal, state, and private funding for things like research, training, and fellowships
  • Academic Salaries & Benefits, including teaching activity: includes Ladder Faculty (fully and partially funded), as well as Other Academic positions and temporary academic support (TAS); does not include summer salaries
  • Scholarships & Fellowships: all expenses included in the account category “Scholarships and Fellowships,” which includes fee remission and financial aid
  • Activities funded with Student Services Fees: charged to all registered students and funds services that are necessary to students, but that are not part of the university’s programs of instruction, research, or public service
  • Faculty Research on non-Contracts & Grants dollars: all faculty-managed funds including start-up, retention, and BEAR Grants
  • Purchased Utilities
  • Student Health Insurance Program funding: financial obligations of claims paid on behalf of student premiums
  • Sexual Harassment Prevention Program

We shared the target methodology with the Council of Deans, Academic Senate leadership, CAPRA, Vice Chancellors, Chief Administrative Officers, and Divisional Finance Leaders in full transparency. Divisions were advised that they could meet their targets with either incremental net revenue or cost savings, and adjustments to targets were made after individual meetings with divisional leadership. The adjustments reflect academic priorities such as managing the impact of enrollment growth, anomalies in target methodology such as School of Optometry clinical operations, operational needs such as uninterrupted facility services, and investments in philanthropy. A full listing of division budget decisions will be posted on

The targets that divisions have been assigned are highly differentiated because of the way in which we have calculated the base (as described above) to which the targets were applied. Budget improvement targets for instructional divisions are about 1% of FY2016-17 budgeted total expenses; those for administrative, research, and service divisions are between 4% and 6%. We should note that many instructional divisions are meeting their targets almost entirely from increased revenues, while non-academic divisions are meeting their targets primarily through staffing and service-level adjustments.  

The budget process concluded on Friday, June 23 with allocation letters being distributed by the Chancellor-designate with all final decisions on performance targets and annual allocations. The OCFO prepared the letters on her behalf and they were sent out to divisions (Deans of Schools and Colleges, Vice Chancellors, Vice Provosts, Head Librarian, etc.). Campus-level budget decisions are now final. Each division will communicate directly with their faculty and staff to explain how these decisions will be distributed throughout the division and how strategic plans will be implemented. As divisional decisions are made, we plan to have a coordinated communication plan about any adjustments to service levels that will impact faculty, staff, or students across campus.

Why is the target for this year so large if we have five years to bring our budget into balance?

The annual budget target for FY2017-18 is part of a larger five-year plan. Our reduction target for FY2016-17 was $40 million, which was primarily achieved through cost reductions. We will be able to make more progress against our deficit in FY2017-18 because of a concerted effort toward revenue generation programs; the reduction target for FY2017-18 is $54 million and will be achieved through an equal balance of revenue generation (52%) and budget reductions.

What are the sources of revenue growth in the FY2017-18 budget?

We had hoped to meet a significant amount of this year’s deficit reduction budget improvement target with increased revenues and we exceeded our initial goal. Based on the budgets submitted by the divisions, 52% of the targeted $54 million in deficit reduction will come from increased revenues including private gifts. This is excellent news because it means that every dollar we make in revenue generation is one less dollar we’ll have to reduce in expenses. We will continue to seek ways to increase revenues to offset the need to make cuts. In addition to over $8 million in private gifts, FY2017-18 revenue plans include new or expanded academic programming in University Extension, Summer Sessions, Concurrent Enrollment, Self Supporting Graduate Professional Degree Programs, and via Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition.

How will campus leadership ensure the divisions meet their targets?

Divisional leadership will be accountable for their budgetary performance throughout the fiscal year so any needed strategic and corrective actions can be taken in a timely and effective manner. To achieve that goal, we distributed quarterly financial reports in FY2016-17 to help ready the campus for this new environment. We will continue to use our quarterly review process to assess and manage every division’s financial performance against the established targets and expectations. The quarterly review process helps campus leadership accurately assess if we're on track to meet our financial goals. These quarterly reports enable leadership to identify performance opportunities and challenges and make any needed material modifications to existing plans.  

In addition to financial performance monitoring, we will track the specific performance of each revenue generation program. To support the campus in these new activities, a new department - New Academic Ventures at Berkeley (NAV-B) - is being established to vet agreements, develop and maintain an inventory of best practices, review and execute requests for consulting and other services, and develop analysts who can quickly construct data-driven market/demand assessments.

Will there still be merit and market increases for staff this year? Will senior leadership also be getting raises?

As in years past, merit, internal equity, and market-based adjustments will continue for non-represented staff or in accordance with represented staff collective bargaining agreements. Also, with the approval of the Office of the President, the senior leadership of the campus has agreed to forgo any salary increases. The categories of senior staff who will not be eligible for compensation increases this year include: Senior Management Group members, Vice Provosts, Deans, and employees classified at the Manager 4 level.

In addition, this year rather than having a separate 1% equity program and 2% merit program, we will have a simpler-to-manage 3% salary program pool that will be based on merit, equity, and market factors:

  • Merit: a pay for performance approach based on the employee’s performance rating

  • Internal equity: the employee’s salary relative to the campus-wide average salary for the employee’s job title

  • External market: the employee’s salary relative to the midpoint of the salary range for their grade (which is based on market data)

Division leadership will provide further information regarding their division’s procedures for administering this year’s salary program. The guidelines provide additional information, including eligibility criteria for salary increases, as well as important deadlines. In the meantime, FAQs are available online. Additional questions may be sent to or handled by your HR Partner.

If budget reductions were limited in areas related to our instructional mission, revenue generating activities, and facilities maintenance, then where were reductions centered?

What do you think will be the most visible impacts of these new cuts? What will our students notice and how will they be affected?

We are anticipating campus service adjustments and there will be further, detailed communications once divisions have decided which services will be impacted and how. A common focus in planning across non-academic units was to prioritize services or systems that support life safety, enable teaching and research, or are required to operate the university.

For example, facility maintenance will ensure that fire alarm and sprinkler systems are operational, that fume hoods and building HVAC function properly, and that electrical systems and basic building systems are working. IST will prioritize campus network services, protect network and data security, maintain campus systems such as the financial and payroll systems, and provide campus email service. CSS priorities are fundamental HR, payroll and research administration services. For students, there may be an increase in response and/or wait time for a variety of student services.

How will faculty recruitment and retention be impacted?

Faculty recruitment and retention remains one of the campus’ highest priorities and we will continue to invest in this.

The letter from Chancellor-Designate Christ refers to painful reductions; does that mean a new round of layoffs is pending?

Berkeley will continue to reshape our workforce in a way that best aligns with our needs, values, and available resources. To the extent that divisions are not able to meet budget targets for coming years, one way to lower costs is headcount reduction through attrition or, when necessary, through layoffs. Workforce decisions are made by divisional leadership.

How has our budgetary situation been impacted by the Governor’s decision to withhold funding?

Following the recent release of the State Audit of the Office of the President, the Governor has withheld $50 million of funding appropriated to the university in the 2017-18 Budget Act. This funding will be released to the university once it meets certain specified conditions. At this point, it is unclear how, if at all, the Governor’s decision will impact the Berkeley campus budget. The Office of the President is making every effort to meet the conditions set by the Governor to release the funding. It is also not clear how the Office of the President would decide to allocate the $50 million to Berkeley and the other UC campuses should the Governor decide that the university has not met all of its conditions.

There has been talk of rolling back the recently approved tuition increase. How does the campus plan for significant shifts in external funding?

Berkeley maintains a scenario-based financial model to anticipate changing political conditions. As each condition changes, the model is updated for decision making. Our current projections indicate that we can reach a balanced budget by FY2019-20. We have assumed that in-state tuition will grow at 2.5% each year and that nonresident supplemental tuition will grow at up to 5.0%. State support is projected to increase by 4.0% in FY2017-18 and FY2018-19 and 3.0% to 3.5% thereafter. We have also assumed that nonresident enrollment will remain capped at 24%. Salaries are assumed to grow at 2.0% and gradually increases over time to reflect enrollment growth projections. The model also assumes interest expense increases in 2021 as capital loans repayments start and debt deferral ends.

How are divisions in deficit, such as Athletics, accounted for in the aggregated campus budget and what actions are being taken to improve financial performance?

Our budget is comprehensive and includes academic, administrative, auxiliary operations (such as student housing and Cal Performances), and intercollegiate athletics programs, including all divisions reporting deficits. For FY2017-18, divisions were able to meet their budget targets either through revenue generating programs or cost saving activities. For example, Athletics was directed to improve its financial performance by $4.6 million over FY2016-17. We will continue to partner with divisions in deficit positions to make improvements to their net operating results throughout FY2017-18 and beyond.

Each division has a different capacity to generate revenues. Some revenues, like those generated by Self Supporting Graduate Professional Degree Programs, accrue directly to divisions. Others, like undergraduate and graduate tuition, accrue to the center and are divided among the many competing needs of the university. All divisions contribute to the generation of revenues either directly or indirectly. For example, while there is less of a market for Arts and Humanities Self Supporting Graduate Professional Programs, they - and Social Sciences - are among the largest contributors of teaching across campus and generate a significant share of the campus’ tuition revenues.

FY2018-19 Budget Process

How do we address issues where ongoing campus commitments aren't reflected in the template in FY20 and FY21; should we plan for related transfers and/or expenses?

Please contact the DFL concierge at with a subject line of multi-year planning process and identify the commitment not captured in the multi-year template

Who reviews the private gifts tab of the Revenue Generation Template?

Non-Academic revenue generation plans will be reviewed by the applicable Vice Chancellor/Associate Vice Chancellor, VC Finance, and NAV-B, then approved as part of the budget review process. Philanthropy programs will be vetted by University Development and Alumni Relations.

Academic revenue generation plans will be reviewed by VC Finance and NAV-B and approved as part of the budget review process. Philanthropy programs will be vetted by University Development and Alumni Relations.


Who in UDAR can help me with my Revenue Generation Template private gifts tab?

Michelle McClellan, AVC of Constituent Programs at University Development and Alumni Relations (, is a resource to divisions for their philanthropic planning and in managing their fundraising leads.

What is the Budget Improvement Target base?

The BIT represents the amount by which each Division will need to increase their planned Current Year Operating Budget Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) amount as compared to their planned Prior Year Operating Budget Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) Goal.

How do non-academic units submit their revenue generation plans?

DFLs of non-academic units: Submit templates to the DFL Concierge at and Scott Shireman, Chief Operating Officer of University Extension and Director of New Academic Ventures at Berkeley (NAV-B) at, and their respective Vice Chancellor or Associate Vice Chancellor. Non-Academic revenue generation plans will be reviewed by the applicable Vice Chancellor/Associate Vice Chancellor, VC Finance, and NAV-B, then approved as part of the budget review process. Philanthropy programs will be vetted by University Development and Alumni Relations.