University leaders often falsely assume that core facilities are self-sustaining. While core facilities can collect user fees, these rarely cover their full operating budgets. In a recent survey of core administrators, nearly 80% of respondents said their core was partially subsidized (recovering some costs from user fees), while less than 5% of respondents reported their core needed no subsidies (recovering all costs from user fees), and less than 10% said their core was fully subsidized (charging no user fees). On average, user fees account for just over 50% of core facilities income, which leaves leaders to fill the gaps with alternative sources.
By convening a committee of faculty and administrators, university leaders can increase transparency and garner stakeholder buy-in for a central core facilities program. There are three components to setting up a successful committee:
- Recruit a diverse range of stakeholders, including core managers and users
- Provide a clear directive that includes questions to answer and final resources to produce
- Signal leadership support through a memo or formal statement
In 2011, Harris Lewin—Vice Chancellor for Research at University of California, Davis—convened a core facilities committee and charged members with two tasks. First, he asked the committee to gather information about the equipment and recharge activities for each campus core. Their survey included questions like, “What scientific efforts does the core support, and are these efforts intrinsically linked to strategic campus priorities?” and “What is the user base for the core?”
Second, he asked the committee to recommend definitions and criteria for core facilities, as well as financial models and potential technology solutions. Ultimately, the committee’s recommendations led to the creation of the Research Core Facility Program (RCFP).
For another example, see how the University of Minnesota’s president supported the core research facilities workgroup.
Campus stakeholders often disagree about what constitutes a core facility. This lack of consensus confuses users and makes it difficult to standardize policies. By establishing a clear definition, institutions can more easily identify facilities and decide what equipment to support. Leaders should also define other related terms, liked shared resources or recharge centers.
Northwestern University utilizes a campus-wide definition for core facilities that can be broken down into three subcategories.
Core facilities grow organically as academic units and faculty independently acquire new equipment. Most institutions are therefore unaware of the volume and variety of equipment across campus. Leaders should identify all existing core facilities and collect usage data for each.
Most institutions conduct a room-by-room audit, but this requires significant time and dedicated manpower. Some institutions use accounting data on equipment purchases to identify potential cores. Institutions that combine these two approaches typically produce the most comprehensive and accurate inventories. Read about the University of Minnesota’s two-pronged inventory approach.
With limited resources, university leaders should establish a central core facilities program that supports the cores best aligned with researcher needs and institutional goals. When developing the program, institutions must answer three questions:
By increasing the visibility of core facilities, institutions can help researchers find equipment and boost income through user fees, thereby reducing needed internal subsidies. Leaders should use information collected during the inventory process to publicize facilities on their website, in printed materials, and at in-person events.
Use our checklist to assess current core visibility.
This resource requires EAB partnership access to view.
Access the roadmap
Learn how you can get access to this resource as well as hands-on support from our experts through Strategic Advisory Services.
Learn More