input seriously.
Mohney says to be mindful of other key players in the department too, such as the business manager. Anyone who might provide valu- able information about your depart- ment’s status or priorities should be part of the conversation. “It’s certainly a collaborative process in the sense that with the central office and the coaching staff,
you try to determine the depart- ment’s needs,” Mohney says. “I so- licit feedback from those parties on the items where adjustments could be made on budget line items.” Meetings with coaches are one of the most important steps in develop- ing a thorough and accurate finan- cial projection, regardless of which budgetary approach you take. Ath- letic directors working with a zero-
based budget must take the time to identify each program’s pressing needs while those rolling over last year’s budget must eliminate ex- penses that are no longer necessary. Conversations with those deeply in- volved in each program help bring those to light.
Quatromoni continues to have these discussions, but he admits that requests from various pro-
Creating an accurate athletics budget largely depends on the type of budgeting strategy used by the sports department. Ken Mohney, director of student activities with the Mattawan Consolidated School District in Michigan, outlined four popular budgeting styles during a pre- sentation at the 2013 National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association conference in Nashville, Tenn. There are advantages and disadvantages with each style, but ultimately the athletic director must choose what best accommodates their situation and the people involved. • Top-Down Budget: This is a budgeting approach where cost projections are generated by the man- agement team, which then imposes a budget on the lower departments. Management forecasts revenue and expenses while considering the previous year’s budget in determining what’s appropriate for the upcoming school year. Pros: Reduces time by limiting communication with lower departments. It also provides valuable experience for the management team in creat- ing an overall budget and familiarizing itself with individual departments. The absence of communication means less time is wasted on coordination.
Cons: Leaders in the lower departments gain no bud- geting experience. The Top-Down Budget also may create a feeling of imposition as manage- ment dictates the needs and financial alloca- tions of individual departments.
• Bottom-Up Budget: The opposite of the Top-Down Budget, allowing the lower departments to create a budget and submit it to management for approval. The management team can send the request back down to the lower departments for modifications if necessary. Pros: It’s a collaborative effort that’s motivating for individual departments that now have a bigger role in the process. It also includes those who
26 March/April 2013
USE A BUDGET STRATEGY THAT’S RIGHT FOR YOU are most familiar with their department’s needs.
Cons: It’s more time consuming than the Top-Down Budget and smaller departments may not have experience in creating budgets. It also may open the door for “budget fudge”—a use-it- or-lose-it mentality that causes departments to request money for something they may not need at that time.
• Zero-Based Budget: A program’s budget starts at zero and the coach must have justification for each item included in their request for funding. Those items are then analyzed by the management team to deter- mine whether funding is appropriate. Pros: This prevents waste by requiring each depart- ment to prove their needs. The Zero-Based Budget also is more adaptable to change than other budgets.
Cons: This can be very time consuming, as all depart- ment leaders must itemize their needs on an an- nual basis while the management team spends considerable time analyzing their requests. It often results in difficult decisions when the man- agement team must prioritize one department’s needs over another.
• Incremental Budget: The athletic department’s budget is based on the prior year’s actual results or budgeted results. Only slight modifications are made before it’s considered for approval. Pros: The process is quick and easy because figures are carried over from the previous year. This also provides good stability for individual programs because they have a dependable budget with very few changes from year to year.
Cons: Encourages “fudge” as department leaders worry that if they lose funding for one year it can be lost for multiple years. There also is the risk of resource misallocations. Money for one year might again be available the next year even though the need is no longer there.
coachad.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54